Pilots discretion approaches

[Sturmvogel]

I posted something last week re: aircraft approaching Stansted, as there is sometimes quite a lot of passing activity over Ware, where(!) I live, and as I'm a private pilot who flies in the area am interested in ATC issues but don't have much knowledge of 'heavy' ops for the airlines.
My query I hope a commercial pilot or ATC expert can help answer is -What discretion does a pilot have as to his approach path and height within EGSS runway 05 approach markers-is his/her exact height and approach path determined by himself/herself or dictated by NATS?
Anyone able to help-sorry if a dumb question but I only fly a non radio ragwing!

[BOBBLEHAT]

I think I posted a long and boring reply to this already but in simple terms, it is all strictly controlled and dominated by (very busy) surrounding airspace and relative location of other airports and their SIDS and STARS.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Not sure what you mean by "markers"..?? If you mean Outer, Middle and Inner... they were withdrawn from use many, many moons ago. Runway 05 at Stansted is equipped with ILS so commercial aircraft would expect to fly ILS approaches following vectoring by radar. Heights, headings and speeds in the intermediate approach are all strictly controlled, as is the speed once the aircraft is established. There are stringent noise restrictions around most major airports too so traffic would have to abide by these rules. In very basic terms, expect a commercial jet to be established on the ILS by about 8 miles from touchdown and then accurately fly the ILS to touchdown.

With absolutely no disrespect intended, after a lifteime in ATC, both at major aerodromes and those serving light aircraft I never cease to be amazed at the ignorance of some PPLs. In mean to say... do you never think to read a book or search the internet? First thing I did on reading your question was to bring up the instrument approach chart for runway 05 on the Internet! The whole of the UK AIP is available for free, as are many other relevant publications - ANO, Rules of the Air, etc.

Hope I've helped a bit.. and DO please make sure you're thoroughly conversant with procedures at Stansted. I used to work very close to the Stansted radar controllers and they spend all their lives filling out reports on clockwork mice which infringe their airspace.

[effortless]

With absolutely no disrespect intended,http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/abovelol.sml.gif

[Sturmvogel]

Yes, Bobblehat, your explanation was excellent-and Heathrow Director I take on board your view about PPL types; I try and keep up to scratch but as you can imagine a non-radio aircraft only flown where airspace permits, is a world away from Commercial pilotage. Aviation in a congested place like SE UK is a rather uncomfortable mix and its up to us PPL's to continually sharpen our knowledge. Anyway, thanks for the advice.

[effortless]

Heathrow, I think that maybe you were a bit harsh. The question was about the discretion that the heavies had. Sturmvogel is expected to know what he is supposed to know not necesarily what a CPL is supposed to know.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

effortless... Then I gladly extend my apologies to Sturmvogel. I was not expecting him to know everything an airline pilot needs to know but as I suggested earlier.. it amazes me that somebody with a keen interest in flying can be so ignorant of fairly basic procedures at an airfield close to where he lives. I'm not getting at him personally, but nearly 40 years in ATC taught me a lot about what PPLs know and don't know.

Again, I'm sorry..

[Sturmvogel]

Apology accepted-but no need to apologise as I accept the comments-in fact PPL's even worry me at times! I value my neck as much as anyone elses. Having said that I will defend GA-PPL activity to the last-I'd hate to see Commercial activity cause all uncontrolled airspace areas to vanish.

[PPRuNe Radar]

HD

It is balanced a little by the fact that some ATCOs know nothing about aircraft performance, flight deck ops, and aircraft and pilot capabilities. Something which seems to be getting worse as the amount of knowledge taught becomes less and less at the licencing stage. :(

[discountinvestigator]

Well, the pilot would be allowed to operate within the limits of the approach being carried out. For example, if a non-precision approach was being made, and a non JAR OPS 1 carrier was given the clearance, then after the final approach fix/point, the aircraft can descend to Minimum Descent Altitude. The practicalities of this are covered by the STN zone anyway so do not worry about low flying 747s.

What was interesting in terms of GA risk exposure is the way that minimum altitude/FL is set for controlled airspace in the UK. There is the strange 500 feet IFR/VFR separation rule. So, if the base of the London TMA is say, 2500 feet, then the IFRs above can use 3000 feet. However, this does not take account of wake vortex separation requirements. This risk is owned by the Directorate of Airspace Policy. So, if your aircraft crashes after you encounter a wake at 2500 feet, tell your loved ones who to sue.

Now, even worse, is the strange ruling in the UK in relation to the 380. Firstly, the UK guidance is not in accordance with EU Single Sky Directives, naughty SRG there! Secondly, if you were to provide 2000 feet separation vertically, you would also have to increase the minimum altitude for the 380 in the London area where it could leave vortices for the PPLs and the Senecas to encounter.

As for TCAS resolutions at the 3000 feet level requiring you to descend 500 feet so you are outside controlled airspace and in with the Pipers....