CAA extend GPS Trial

[Sir George Cayley]

Just seen this press release-

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=14&pagetype=65&applicationid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1344

I really must get round to doing one!

Sir George Cayley

[IO540]

"Over 1,700 pilots could fly the approaches "

Where did they get that figure from? That must be the total number of holders of the IMCR or the IR, whose rating has not yet lapsed.

The number of those who have access to a TSO129 GPS equipped plane is much much less.

The trial should have been opened to N-reg too. They would have had a much better response.

[glazer]

Once again CAA shows just how out of touch with GA reality they are. There is no way that in the UK there are 1700 pilots able to do this approach under the rules enforced by the CAA. If they really want to get experience they need to allow N Reg aircraft too:ugh:

[IO540]

It makes clear sense that the CAA are only permitting G-reg aircraft in this trial. They (the CAA) have full control over these aircraft but have absolutely no controls over the FAA registered N-reg aircraft or the equipment carried therein or the certification of the pilots flying those aircraft.

That's complete nonsense.

An FAA pilot is required to be properly licensed and rated for the flight rules, airspace, etc, etc, just as the CAA pilot is.

In UK airspace the CAA has no more and no less control over a G-reg than they have over an N-reg. They can raid the plane and turn over the pilot in both cases, any time they feel like it.

The equipment carried has to comply with the requirements of the flight rules, the airspace, etc, and this is true for all aircraft registries and for all airspace.

All this stuff is international, and the national aviation authority (the CAA, in the UK) has inspection powers over planes and pilots that land there.

If somebody wants to be illegal, it's just as easy to be illegal in a G-reg as in an N-reg. Just stick some numbers on the side of the plane, and fly somewhere. You don't need a license. Same with cars - until something happens, or somebody spills the beans on you, nobody is likely to find out. And there are at least as many dodgy G-reg planes flying as there are N-reg ones; most N-reg ones are pilot owned and thus much better looked after. The bulk of the UK certified G-reg fleet is used for flight training and is maintained to what I would call minimal VFR standards. This, together with there being so few JAA IR holders, is why there are so few G-reg planes with TSO129 GPS installations; an IMCR holder doesn't need TSO129 for anything as any old handheld GPS will be 100% legal anywhere that he can legally go IFR. In fact it's far easier to be illegal in a G-reg because the moment you land your N-reg in France it is liable to be turned inside out, documents and licenses checked, etc, whereas the EU treaty prevents the French doing that with G-reg.

Use of N-reg aircraft in a trial outside the US would require FAA involvement.

Do you have a reference for that? I cannot see why. This is just some basic VMC flying, with a safety pilot to boot. The PIC has to be legal to be PIC in the relevant airspace (Class G in most or all current locations in question) which is a non-issue. For an N-reg in UK Class G you just need any ICAO PPL, and for the trial requirement an FAA IR would do fine.

I can fully understand why the CAA did this, but it's pure politics.

[Fuji Abound]

It has all been done here before with plenty of comment and speculation about why the trials were limited.

What ever your view, I very much doubt any of the N reg guys are really complaining about the restrictions effecting them - after all presumably it is the CAA who hopes to benefit from the trials rather than the pilots, and in particular the N reg pilots who have probably flown plenty of GPS approaches already.

Seems to me it is in fact the CAA who are complaining about how few pilots have participated in their trial.

Incidentally I am not certain how the CAA know how many pilots could participate because aside from the comment about whether they fly and aircraft that would comply, the CAA presumably only know how many pilots their are with a current medical and instrument rating, but they dont know how many of those instrument ratings have lapsed - so presumably the number is speculation or reflects the theoretical absolute number of qualified pilots.

[IO540]

The fact remains that a number of you folks fly N -reg aircraft within the UK airspace for convenience.

You need to understand a lot more about the European certification and flight crew licensing regime, and then you would have offered a more reserved comment.

The CAA have been asked, in a real live meeting I went to, and the reply was more or less the line already written here, something to do with control and liability. But the speaker would not give details.

FAA IR holders will generally have more experience of GPS approaches because most of them have done their IR in the USA and will have done some over there. Also (generally) the point of an FAA IR (plus N-reg plane) is to be able to fly IFR around Europe, not just the UK, and elsewhere in Europe there are some GPS approaches which are not limited to VMC. You can look up LKPR for example.

An awful lot of planes have an IFR GPS, usually a GNS430, which has just been screwed in and is not connected to a CDI/HSI. That's no good. A lot of these don't have a current database; it costs US$280 or so p.a. to get a year's worth of updates for mine (KLN94). To fly the approach you have to have the latest database to get the approach in the GPS at all, but anybody not flying European airways has no legal need for a current database. Etc etc etc.

Fuji - I am sure the CAA know how many IMCR and IR holders are valid. AIUI, the IMCR 25-month renewal goes off to the CAA, and the IR 12-month checkride also goes to the CAA (it's done by a CAA examiner, I think). So they know the approx # of legal pilots. The only thing they don't know is how many are medically self-disqualified (e.g. broke a leg, stopped flying, but didn't advise the CAA).

What the CAA doesn't know is how many IMCR or IR holders have access to a plane with a TSO-129 GPS installation, not to mention one with a current database ;) My guess is that the number will be very low indeed (a few dozen in the UK) and I told the CAA that. I was probably right.

The CAA is rather more selective in the FCL data on their website, and my guess is that they do that to prevent people seeing just how many new PPLs chuck in flying after 1 year, 2 years, etc (most of them, apparently).

[glazer]

[It makes clear sense that the CAA are only permitting G-reg aircraft in this trial. They (the CAA) have full control over these aircraft but have absolutely no controls over the FAA registered N-reg aircraft or the equipment carried therein or the certification of the pilots flying those aircraft.]

Actually it is not clear at all. My understanding is that the CAA wants to gain experience of GPS approaches. They are simply not going to get much by their current restrictions -- there are not enough G reg aircraft properly equipped, a legacy of all the years of Euoropean and UK legislation making it difficult to obtain an IR, unlike in the USA. The only way that the CAA is going to be able to obtain what they say they want is to open up the trials to aircraft that are properly equipped, and that simply means N-reg aircraft and other European registered aircraft.

By the way, one could also question what on earth the CAA hopes to learn about GPS approaches by this solely UK based trial that is not already known perfectly well through 1000's of GPS approaches in the USA. They only have to hop on a flight to the USA to see how it is done.
:ugh:

[rustle]

...the IR 12-month checkride also goes to the CAA (it's done by a CAA examiner, I think).

Paperwork goes to the CAA.

IR renewal flown with a CAA approved examiner, but not (necessarily) with a CAAFU examiner - I guess it could be if you wanted to go through that again ;)

[rustle]

They only have to hop on a flight to the USA to see how it is done.
:ugh:

Indeed. They could have shipped all the trial controllers over on a jolly as well. Shame about the lack of controllers at the 6 UK airports while that's going on, but hey, WGAF.

Have you actually read the information about what the trials are hoping to achieve? About who they are requiring feedback from? (It isn't just pilots and crew)

[IO540]

Actually I have no problems with running a trial; I can see that ATC staff need some practice too. This stuff is going to be totally alien to just about all of them.

It's a good idea for pilots too (those few that are flying TSO129 equipped planes).

What I don't see is the G-reg restriction. I don't see any practical or legal reason for that whatsoever, and have never heard anybody come up with anything remotely resembling a reference. It's particularly daft given that once the IAP goes official they will get plenty of N-reg pilots flying it; most of them do have a BRNAV GPS and a current database (if they don't then why the hell did they do an FAA IR and go N-reg?)

One of the justifications given by the CAA for the trial is to find out if the style of a GPS approach, specifically the way the distance shown on the GPS is to the next fix and not to the MAP, is going to be confusing to pilots. They have made much of this. BUT there are plenty of non-precision VOR/DME approaches around the world where the DME doesn't read zero at the MAP; often nothing like zero. Have a look at LIPU for one of countless examples; I recall (not having JV3 handy) it reads something like 21D at the MAP. The pilot does have to read the approach plate! The CAA is assuming he is an idiot who can't read.

[englishal]

Where can you get the GPS approach plates from?

Ta


Edited: Just found them thanks..........

[IO540]

Having read the original article again, I am staggered at the low numbers participating. 47 flew the approaches; 26 filled in the feedback form.

I also gather that some individuals have flown multiple approaches, so the # of pilots involved is substantially smaller than the above numbers.

Why so few?

It's been apparent for some time (I started flying 5-6 years ago, under JAA) that the number of JAA IRs issued in the UK to genuine non-commercial pilots has been running in single figures per year. This is seen on the CAA license issue website.

However, there is a significant group, comprising mostly of older pilots (I am c. 50 and I am talking people mostly older than myself) which goes back some decades to when the IR was a bit easier. Some have also flown commercially. As a very rough guess, I would put their numbers at about 50-100 in the UK.

So what has happened to all these CAA/JAA IR holders?

Are they really going to the trouble of renewing their IR every year, but not actually flying? If so, how do they pass their checkrides, with zero currency??? You would never pass an FAA IPC if you did that.

Maybe it's because most of them don't read pilot forums on the internet. This is very likely. We also know that most experienced pilots don't hang around any flying school/club. If they fly, they fly alone, outside the system. I don't know how many of them read the UK aviation mags but I don't read them myself; they contain little of relevance to anybody past the basic PPL stage and even less of relevance to owners of something more advanced than a PA28.

Did the CAA promote the GPS trial by mailing known IMCR/IR holders? I bet not.

[owenlars]

IO:
You hit the nail on the head in your penultimate post, I suspect a lot of IR's don't have suitably equipped aircraft to fly the GPS approach. I have a PA32 which I use in airways but does not meet the requirements for the trials. At this year's PPLIR AGM (which I suspect you were at) where a presentation on the trials was made I got the impression that there were quite a lot of us in the same boat, (or aeroplane!)

[glazer]

[Having read the original article again, I am staggered at the low numbers participating. 47 flew the approaches; 26 filled in the feedback form.]


I am not. As already pointed out, the number of G-reg aircraft suitably equipped for the stringent conditions being imposed must be small. I actually do not personally know of any G-reg aircraft (apart from some recent Cirrus conversions) that would allow the procedures to be carried out. Then take a look at the questionnaires. Overcomplicated and bureaucratic , so it is not surprising that only 26 filled them in out of 47 approaches.

Of course it could all be an evil ploy by the CAA to demonstrate that GA is not interested in GPS approaches???

[Sir George Cayley]

Looking at the press release again the second paragraph says
Following the end of the trial the data will be analysed by researchers and the CAA hopes to be in a position to approve the use of GPS for non-precision approaches in the summer of 2007.


Hardly the words of an organisation evily ploying:)

Sir George Cayley

[IO540]

GPS approaches will be of little use in the UK unless the requirement for full ATC is removed.

What might help is if the MDH was a lot less than the existing NP approaches at the airfields in question, but there is no indication we are going to get that.

How many UK airfields are there with full ATC but no existing IAP?

[Fuji Abound]

"Hardly the words of an organisation evily ploying"

So with 26 survey replies to review and nine months in which to do it .. .. ..