MCP ALT setting for visual approach in USA

[ricfly777]

More often we are seeing ATIS infos in US airports informing only Visual approaches available. In theory, there is no ILS or RVAV backup or reference. We can certainly use the ILS overlay and references, however for ATC and regulatory purposes, is a VISUAL app only and not based in anything else.

In case of missed approach, ATC should inform immediately an ALT and HDG, however, we must have a preset ALT on the MCP. What to set ?

1. 1500’ above field elevation

2. Published missed a app ALT of a chart you choose

3. MSA

will the other pilot simply agree with any of the above? Ok we can brief, and talk and agree, but this adds more to it.

Does your company have any guideline on this ?

I have asked pilots who operate in the US and the answers are, so far, that no one really cares as ATC will issue instructions, so anything is acceptable on the MCP. I would prefer to have a standard, agreed by all MCP ALT setting.

one day, ATC or Communication problem will delay the instruction, and our ALT preset will be important.

Is there any common understanding or guidance in your operating procedures?

[LOWI]

You have your approach chart and instructions, if you need to perform a missed approach you follow the approach plate instructions, reach for VOR/DME, hold and wait for ATC to ive you new vectors. I don't see what the issue is.

Agreed.

Jep chart will state missed approach instructions including altitude. This is what is preset. Most of the time missed approach instructions will be "rwy hdg climb x thousand" anyways. Rarely ever fly the standard missed.

[Amadis of Gaul]

You have your approach chart and instructions, if you need to perform a missed approach you follow the approach plate instructions, reach for VOR/DME, hold and wait for ATC to ive you new vectors. I don't see what the issue is.
Read his question. Carefully. Then read it again.

[Amadis of Gaul]

More often we are seeing ATIS infos in US airports informing only Visual approaches available. In theory, there is no ILS or RVAV backup or reference. We can certainly use the ILS overlay and references, however for ATC and regulatory purposes, is a VISUAL app only and not based in anything else.

In case of missed approach, ATC should inform immediately an ALT and HDG, however, we must have a preset ALT on the MCP. What to set ?

1. 1500’ above field elevation

2. Published missed a app ALT of a chart you choose

3. MSA

will the other pilot simply agree with any of the above? Ok we can brief, and talk and agree, but this adds more to it.

Does your company have any guideline on this ?

I have asked pilots who operate in the US and the answers are, so far, that no one really cares as ATC will issue instructions, so anything is acceptable on the MCP. I would prefer to have a standard, agreed by all MCP ALT setting.

one day, ATC or Communication problem will delay the instruction, and our ALT preset will be important.

Is there any common understanding or guidance in your operating procedures?

Our policy is to set 1,500 ATDZE unless there are other factors to consider like terrain and such, e.g. LAS.

[ricfly777]

Our policy is to set 1,500 ATDZE unless there are other factors to consider like terrain and such, e.g. LAS.

thanks for really reading and understanding my question….

and for the reply.

[B2N2]

From the mouth of the (paper) tiger

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap7_section_4.html

ATC is responsible to provide instructions to the pilot to facilitate a climb to the minimum altitude for instrument operations. ATC must provide approved separation or visual separation from other IFR aircraft.

​​​​​​​So MSA it is….

[Check Airman]

You’ll be backing up the visual with an IAP. With the exception of a few months of stupidity at one carrier, every operator has set the missed approach altitude for the IAP. 9/10 times, that’s the altitude ATC will give you on the missed.

You do NOT fly the “published missed” for the backup approach.

———

*The few months of stupidity came from a desk pilot who thought setting 1500ft was smart. Theoretically correct, but practically stupid. If you go around in Boston, you won’t be told to join the pattern and report on base.

[LOWI]

Apologies but the question could have been worded better. I am certain many of our colleagues could agree with that(!)

Regarding the answer, 1500ft above airfield elevation (rounded up of course).

You state you wish to prevent a problem arising in the future. However, nothing is ever safe and preventative in this matter.

Let's say you have preset 5000ft MCP ALT.
ATC instructs go around, runway hdg and 3000ft.
In the quick and busy reality of a go around in IMC, you forget to set 3000ft and keep the 5000ft instead.
Guess who's busting an altitude clearance?
Did your procedure save you?

[Vessbot]

Is there any common understanding or guidance in your operating procedures?

I've been at companies where the SOP was to do all 3 of the things you said.

So far as an FAA-wide "common understanding," no.

[Vessbot]

You have your approach chart and instructions,

No you don't. There are no visual approach charts for 99% of visual approaches in the US. And for the small remaining handful that exist, they don't have missed approach instructions.

[galaxy flyer]

A visual approach does NOT have a missed approach procedure. At busy airports, likely the tower will give an altitude, heading and frequency. Pilot judgement on what MCP setting. Small, non busy airport, say KBDL, 1800 pattern altitude would work. JFK maybe 3,000 is better, LAS might be higher

[West Coast]

1500 above for us on a visual approach.

[ImbracableCrunk]

It's whatever ATC tells you. That's it.

[Locked door]

This is a massive potential accident in waiting as far as I can tell. ATC have no idea how high an aircraft will climb, aircraft have no idea about potential conflicting traffic.

It’s another example of relying on the final layer of defence to avoid a mid air collision. If the FAA had any sense it would legislate an SOP that everyone adheres to so all parties know what will happen in the event of blocked comms during a missed approach following a visual approach.

LD

[A320 Glider]

This is a massive potential accident in waiting as far as I can tell. ATC have no idea how high an aircraft will climb, aircraft have no idea about potential conflicting traffic.

It’s another example of relying on the final layer of defence to avoid a mid air collision. If the FAA had any sense it would legislate an SOP that everyone adheres to so all parties know what will happen in the event of blocked comms during a missed approach following a visual approach.

LD

Unfortunately the US has a bigger problem right now with aviation (not General Aviation, which is a sinking ship of accidents left, right and center).
That very problem is runway incursions!

[EXDAC]

KPHX has at least 2 published visual approaches and neither has any missed approach procedure. However, all the arrival routes have a lost comms procedure, typically hold at PXR VORTAC at 9,000 ft. Wouldn't ATC expect a lost coms aircraft executing a missed from a visual to follow the lost coms procedure for the arrival route?

https://www.fly.faa.gov/Information/west/zab/phx/atcCharts/PHX_CVFP_00322POWERPLANT_VIS25R.pdf
https://www.fly.faa.gov/Information/west/zab/phx/atcCharts/PHX_CVFP_00322RIVER_VIS25L.pdf

[Locked door]

We’re not really talking about lost comms, more a saturated frequency where ATC are unable to issue missed approach instructions although I do get your point. How many crews pre brief the lost comms procedure, and what are the chances of finding it and executing it during a go around?

[Check Airman]

It's whatever ATC tells you. That's it.

Why does this forum not have a “like” button?

That’s really all there is to it folks. Especially if you’re based in Europe, you’re not going anywhere in the US where you’ll get anything other than a heading and altitude to fly.

You won’t ever be flying the published missed approach anyway, so no need to overthink it.

[Amadis of Gaul]

It's whatever ATC tells you. That's it.

Indeed. To that end, it doesn't hurt to ask in advance, especially if the spacing is starting to look tight. Something like "if we have to go around, what would you like us to do?"

[Fursty Ferret]

Indeed. To that end, it doesn't hurt to ask in advance, especially if the spacing is starting to look tight. Something like "if we have to go around, what would you like us to do?"

^^ same here. In the event we went around very unexpectedly off a visual approach and couldn't get a straight answer out of ATC, we'd very likely follow the standard missed approach for the ILS or something, as it will keep us clear of terrain and other airspace.

[Vessbot]

It's whatever ATC tells you. That's it.
Obviously once going missed, you would do whatever ATC tells you. That's not the question. The question is what altitude to set before the approach; and I've never once had ATC tell me that.

[Check Airman]

I think some people are overthinking it. Set an altitude that you think is reasonable. If they give you something else, set that altitude. If your guess is wrong, you don’t lose any points.

[Locked door]

I think some people are overthinking it. Set an altitude that you think is reasonable. If they give you something else, set that altitude. If your guess is wrong, you don’t lose any points.

Unless there’s traffic already at the altitude you guessed, then it’s a TCAS or mid air as pilots in the USA are very fond of switching to TA only in the terminal area.

[B2N2]

Why is this still going on?
FAA answer plus reference has been provided.

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/657984-mcp-alt-setting-visual-approach-usa.html#post11609836

[biigD]

as pilots in the USA are very fond of switching to TA only in the terminal area.

What? I've been flying professionally in the US for 20 years and the only time I've seen it done was for visuals into Denver, and I think that's been resolved a long time ago (it's been awhile since I've been there). We do it for single engine ops too, but fortunately I haven't had to see anything like that other than in the simulator. ;)

[biigD]

I think some people are overthinking it. Set an altitude that you think is reasonable. If they give you something else, set that altitude. If your guess is wrong, you don’t lose any points.

The only time we had an issue with this was going into PHX, where the published miss had you going to 5000', while ATC would actually only climb you to 3000'. Guys with the local knowledge always set the alerter to 3000', but it eventually ended up in our company notes because so many were getting burned by setting it to the missed approach altitude and blowing through 3000' during the ensuing helmet fire.

[EXDAC]

The only time we had an issue with this was going into PHX, where the published miss had you going to 5000', while ATC would actually only climb you to 3000'.

Where did you find a published missed for a visual approach at KPHX? Please provide a link to the procedure if you have one.

[biigD]

Where did you find a published missed for a visual approach at KPHX? Please provide a link to the procedure if you have one.

I'm sorry, I'm wasn't being clear. The published miss for whatever procedure (generally an ILS - don't think I've ever landed on 25R) we used to back up the visual.

[LOWI]

What about using MSA? At least that should stop you from CFIT on the go!

[Check Airman]

I think it may be worthwhile to see what the FAA AIM says about this in 7-4-1


At airports with an operating control tower, aircraft executing a go-around may be directed to:
1. Enter the traffic pattern for landing. An altitude assignment is not required. The pilot is expected to climb to pattern altitude and is responsible to maintain terrain and obstruction avoidance. ATC must provide approved separation or visual separation from other IFR aircraft, or
2. Proceed as otherwise instructed by ATC. The pilot is expected to comply with assigned instructions, and responsible to maintain terrain and obstruction avoidance until reaching an ATC assigned altitude. ATC is responsible to provide instructions to the pilot to facilitate a climb to the minimum altitude for instrument operations. ATC must provide approved separation or visual separation from other IFR aircraft.


If you’re flying a Boeing or Airbus, you’re not going to an airport where you’ll be told to enter the pattern, so we can ignore that part. That second part is what we’re really going to be concerned with. It simply says “proceed as otherwise instructed”. You’ll get an altitude and heading to fly.

The published missed approach procedure on an IAP doesn’t mean much to ATC either (as I understand it) because they’ll just give you what they need anyway.

[Check Airman]

Unless there’s traffic already at the altitude you guessed, then it’s a TCAS or mid air as pilots in the USA are very fond of switching to TA only in the terminal area.
There's always going to be traffic at the altitude you set, near a busy airport. As someone mentioned, the only airport where I've ever gone to TA only is Denver, and that note has since been removed from our company pages.

In short, set any altitude you want. There are no wrong answers. I'm yet to come across the situation where it's something other than a whole multiple of 1000, at at least 2000 AGL.

You can set 10,000 for the missed going into ORD, they'll still give you 4000 :)

[galaxy flyer]

What about using MSA? At least that should stop you from CFIT on the go!

It’s a Visual approach, I trust you can look out the windows.

[B2N2]

It’s a Visual approach, I trust you can look out the windows.

Doesn’t mean it’s clear and a million,

[605carsten]

Ignore us europeans, we are not trained or allowed to fly anything outside of a magenta line dragging us around by the nose..

(Lights the fuse, steps back to watch fireworks ensue ;)


besides, which Missed will you fly? The one that turns right or left? As opposed to the one ATC wants you to fly?..

[LOWI]

It’s a Visual approach, I trust you can look out the windows.

Let's go!
I'm glad you can measure the height of the terrain with your eyesight alone.

Visual approach RVR no less than 1/2 mile.
Some Southwest guys (and gals) like to shoot a visual on 2/3 mile RVR alone.

[Check Airman]

Visual approaches in the US require 3sm visibility. 1/2 sm would be considered low IFR.

[LOWI]

Visual approaches in the US require 3sm visibility. 1/2 sm would be considered low IFR.

Are you sure about that buddy?
Still, a viz of 3nm isn't enough for measuring terrain by eyesight.

[Check Airman]

Are you sure about that buddy?
Still, a viz of 3nm isn't enough for measuring terrain by eyesight.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap5_section_4.html#$paragraph5-4-23

A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater.

[galaxy flyer]

Are you sure about that buddy?
Still, a viz of 3nm isn't enough for measuring terrain by eyesight.

You can’t fly visual pattern in legal VFR? Probably 2/3 rds of landings in the US are visual approaches and this question often comes up, but I’ve never, ever heard it in the US in 45 years, civil and military. Identify the runway, confirm it, land on it.

[hans brinker]

I think it may be worthwhile to see what the FAA AIM says about this in 7-4-1
If you’re flying a Boeing or Airbus, you’re not going to an airport where you’ll be told to enter the pattern, so we can ignore that part. That second part is what we’re really going to be concerned with. It simply says “proceed as otherwise instructed”. You’ll get an altitude and heading to fly.

The published missed approach procedure on an IAP doesn’t mean much to ATC either (as I understand it) because they’ll just give you what they need anyway.

I totally agree, and with all your other posts on this thread.

However, it would be nice if there was a published standard heading/altitude for those times that ATC does not "otherwise instruct". I have been in the US for the last 20 years, and this is still a point of discussion, and it really should not be. ATIS advertises visual for a specific runway, and there is no NOTAM that the ILS for that rwy is not available. SOP is to back up the visual with that ILS, and set pattern altitude for the GA.
Was told to GA in BWI due to being too close to preceding traffic. Initially no other instructions were given by tower. Asked 4 times for an altitude, never got an assignment, finally was told to turn south (towards the 1100' towers, 2600' MSA) and contact approach. Approach was very busy, so FO and I agreed we would climb to 2000' before we were able to talk to them. Traffic overhead at 3000'. Obviously there was no plan in place to handle a GA in VMC, and that is not acceptable.
Like you said, ATC is not going to expect us to join the downwind at 1500', so pattern altitude does not apply, and ATC is responsible for providing a safe IFR altitude. So why not publish one?

[hans brinker]

Are you sure about that buddy?

LOL, you might want to check some of that attitude.

[B2N2]

Can we finally agree? You set the lower of the published Missed Approach Altitude or MSA then await ATC instructions for your altitude assignment?
Which is at least MSA as per the
regs?

[galaxy flyer]

Well, it won’t be MSA, but min vectoring altitude. Search the charts for that number.

[hans brinker]

Well, it won’t be MSA, but min vectoring altitude. Search the charts for that number.

We are talking about what you should use as a pilot before ATC assigns something. MVA is the minimum altitude ATC will assign, depending on where you are. It is not an altitude that pilots should use for terrain clearance. Depending on radar coverage, the MSA could be a lot lower.

[galaxy flyer]

Which is why setting MSA is semi-useless, you won’t climb that high even in places like Denver. Set whatever you want, you don’t have a cleared altitude, so it’s not an issue. When you get a clearance, set that altitude.

[hans brinker]

Which is why setting MSA is semi-useless, you won’t climb that high even in places like Denver. Set whatever you want, you don’t have a cleared altitude, so it’s not an issue. When you get a clearance, set that altitude.

But I think that is the entire problem with this discussion. It should never be a question what I will do if I can't talk to ATC. We have had plenty of unstable approaches, leading to GAs in visual conditions. And with ATC too busy to notice/give instructions, that has led to two near misses for just my airline in the last year that I was told about in recurrent, so who knows how many went unreported. Every visual should have a safe way out that is known in advance by both the pilots and ATC.

[Locked door]

In almost every other part of the world you would fly the published instrument missed approach in the event of a go around after a visual approach to a runway. It is also specified that if you fly an instrument approach and then circle visually for a different runway, in the event of a go around you turn the shortest way to join the missed approach of the instrument approach you originally flew.

This means you are guaranteed to avoid terrain and other traffic, and there is no need to talk as ATC know exactly what you will do and will speak to you when they can.

In the USA there is no consensus as demonstrated by this thread. You just point the aircraft at the sky to an arbitrary altitude and hope you don’t hit anything or anyone before you manage to talk to ATC. You can see why some see this as having potential for an accident.

LD

[EXDAC]

In almost every other part of the world you would fly the published instrument missed approach in the event of a go around after a visual approach to a runway. It is also specified that if you fly an instrument approach and then circle visually for a different runway, in the event of a go around you turn the shortest way to join the missed approach of the instrument approach you originally flew.

This means you are guaranteed to avoid terrain and other traffic, and there is no need to talk as ATC know exactly what you will do and will speak to you when they can.



How does flying a published missed approach procedure guarantee avoidance of other traffic? That may be true in Class B airspace but there may be no guarantee if only class D at the airport and the missed takes you out of the D and under the class B floor.

E.g. KSDL RNAV RWY 21 missed takes you to a hold at AVENT at 5,000 ft where anyone can be without talking to ATC. Floor of B at AVENT is 6,000 ft.

Now let's say there is a broken layer with bases at 4,500 ft MSL. You were cleared for the visual 21 and received no further clearance after going missed. Can you fly the hold at 5,000 ft in IMC or does clearance for a visual approach require you to stay clear of clouds until receiving a new clearance? MSA is 8,800 ft.

[Check Airman]

In the USA there is no consensus as demonstrated by this thread. You just point the aircraft at the sky to an arbitrary altitude and hope you don’t hit anything or anyone before you manage to talk to ATC. You can see why some see this as having potential for an accident.

LD

There is consensus. The non-US pilots just don’t accept it.

Set the missed approach altitude from the IAP you’re using as a backup. Really not that hard, and it takes away 90% of the guesswork of hypothesising about theoretical problems IF you go missed.

There are other things that generate emails from our safety department regarding visuals.

[Check Airman]

I totally agree, and with all your other posts on this thread.

However, it would be nice if there was a published standard heading/altitude for those times that ATC does not "otherwise instruct". I have been in the US for the last 20 years, and this is still a point of discussion, and it really should not be. ATIS advertises visual for a specific runway, and there is no NOTAM that the ILS for that rwy is not available. SOP is to back up the visual with that ILS, and set pattern altitude for the GA.
Was told to GA in BWI due to being too close to preceding traffic. Initially no other instructions were given by tower. Asked 4 times for an altitude, never got an assignment, finally was told to turn south (towards the 1100' towers, 2600' MSA) and contact approach. Approach was very busy, so FO and I agreed we would climb to 2000' before we were able to talk to them. Traffic overhead at 3000'. Obviously there was no plan in place to handle a GA in VMC, and that is not acceptable.
Like you said, ATC is not going to expect us to join the downwind at 1500', so pattern altitude does not apply, and ATC is responsible for providing a safe IFR altitude. So why not publish one?

I agree with your idea. It’d be nice for them to publish a “visual missed” altitude to expect.

I’d bring it up with my safety department for them to run up the chain, but I fear I’d be asked if it’s a solution in search of a problem.

[galaxy flyer]

There’s no expectation on ATC’s part that a go-around from a visual is flying the missed approach for some uncleared IAP. Doing so will just make things more confusing. Tower will coordinate a hand-off back to approach, but first they have coord on it. If there’s no traffic conflict just ask for pattern. It’s always amazing how many airline pilots are scared of flying visually without someone holding their hand. Look outside, monitor the TCAS, fly the plane until ATC gives what will be a simple instruction, most likely, “fly runway heading, climb to x,000’, approach 126.x.

[Capn Bloggs]

it would be nice if there was a published standard heading/altitude for those times that ATC does not "otherwise instruct".

Not the USA but our AIP says this:
​​​​​​​2.14 Go Around and Missed Approach Procedure in VMC
2.14.1 Except as specified in ERSA for specific locations, an aircraft that is required to go around from a visual approach in VMC must initially climb on runway track, remain visual and await instructions from ATC. If the aircraft can not clear obstacles on runway track, the aircraft may turn.

2.14.2 In the event that an aircraft is unable, or does not wish, to land from an instrument approach in VMC, the aircraft must carry out the published instrument missed approach procedure for the instrument approach being flown, unless ATC directs otherwise.
At least the lateral bit's taken-care of. :ok: On our own initiative, we would also set the ILS Missed Approach altitude.

[Vessbot]

There is consensus. The non-US pilots just don’t accept it.

Set the missed approach altitude from the IAP you’re using as a backup.

There is no such consensus, nor is there a published reference in the regulations or AIM to do this.

[Gin Jockey]

31 JFK , 100% setting 1500ft. Long upwind. Right traffic. Quick PA pointing out sullys “hole in the water” in the hudson. “Look thats where he took off from!”, overfly La Guardia, wide pattern to fly over connecticut, because you can! Slow and early descent to annoy some rich folk on long island. Tell ground ramp don't care where you park.

[rudestuff]

31 JFK , 100% setting 1500ft. Long upwind. Right traffic. Quick PA pointing out sullys “hole in the water” in the hudson. “Look thats where he took off from!”, overfly La Guardia, wide pattern to fly over connecticut, because you can! Slow and early descent to annoy some rich folk on long island. Tell ground ramp don't care where you park.This. Why waste an opportunity?

[Check Airman]

This. Why waste an opportunity?

If you missed the chance to do it ~4 years ago, I pray for all our sakes that you never have the chance again.

https://youtu.be/LgppNdSEAag?si=DCDZciPM1eDvcC1w

This guy seized the moment though :)

[Checkboard]

If you’re flying a Boeing or Airbus, you’re not going to an airport where you’ll be told to enter the pattern, so we can ignore that part.

What FAA reference is there to exclude Boeing and Airbus pilots from the regs? Seems pretty clear to me - in the absence of instructions, joining the circuit is the standard for visual missed approaches. What would you do at a no-tower airport? (Most of my flying in Australia in airliners was to no-tower airports) - you'd join the circuit and execute a second visual approach.

[Check Airman]

Those of us who fly visuals every day have told you how US ATC handles it. Plan your 1500ft pattern or the published missed if you wish.

[Check Airman]

You’ll be backing up the visual with an IAP. With the exception of a few months of stupidity at one carrier, every operator has set the missed approach altitude for the IAP. 9/10 times, that’s the altitude ATC will give you on the missed.

You do NOT fly the “published missed” for the backup approach.

———

*The few months of stupidity came from a desk pilot who thought setting 1500ft was smart. Theoretically correct, but practically stupid. If you go around in Boston, you won’t be told to join the pattern and report on base.

As an aside, does anyone know why PPRUNE removes the apostrophes from some posts? When I go to quote my original post, it shows apostrophes, but not in the original post.

[EXDAC]

Those of us who fly visuals every day have told you how US ATC handles it.

Would you please tell us (or at least me) again. I scanned back through some of your earlier posts but I seem to have missed the authoritative answer.

Since I fly near KSDL quite often, and do my best to stay out of the way of all the biz jets, I'd like to know what they will do on a missed visual to 21.

[neilki]

Why does this forum not have a “like” button?

That’s really all there is to it folks. Especially if you’re based in Europe, you’re not going anywhere in the US where you’ll get anything other than a heading and altitude to fly.

You won’t ever be flying the published missed approach anyway, so no need to overthink it.
therein lies:- just because you ‘won’t ever be flying it’ does not mean you won’t have to make a defensible decision if something goes wrong. I agree it’s very poorly defined right now; as are a few other procedures.
I’ve been given the published miss a number of times in VMC after being cleared for a visual; and now (3/24) ATC are issuing ‘Cleared for Approach’ instead of defining a specific approach ….

[Check Airman]

Would you please tell us (or at least me) again. I scanned back through some of your earlier posts but I seem to have missed the authoritative answer.

Since I fly near KSDL quite often, and do my best to stay out of the way of all the biz jets, I'd like to know what they will do on a missed visual to 21.
I'm not sure how "authoritative" my answer is, but in post 7, I mentions how almost everyone based in the US does it.

[Check Airman]

therein lies:- just because you ‘won’t ever be flying it’ does not mean you won’t have to make a defensible decision if something goes wrong. I agree it’s very poorly defined right now; as are a few other procedures.
I’ve been given the published miss a number of times in VMC after being cleared for a visual; and now (3/24) ATC are issuing ‘Cleared for Approach’ instead of defining a specific approach ….

I'll start off by agreeing that a published procedure or altitude would be helpful. For whatever reason, they've decided against doing so. I think I can easily defend whatever reasonable decision I make because a visual approach does not have a missed approach segment. The next time ATC gives you the published missed from a visual approach, I'd call the facility on the ground and request clarification and explain that that RT is confusing from a pilot's point of view. At which airport was this clearance issued?

Regarding "cleared for approach" phraseology, section 4-8-1 of the 7110.65 has this to say:

CLEARED APPROACH.
(To authorize a pilot to execute his/her choice of instrument approach)

The only times I've been told to fly the published missed would have been at smaller training airports, where controllers know which planes are doing IFR training, and will be given that instruction if requested by the instructor. Otherwise, even in a 172, it's "fly heading 270, maintain 2000ft, contact approach". The only exception to that I can envision is a non-radar environment, and as I alluded to earlier, you're probably not going there in a Boeing or Airbus.