gCAP IAPs

[yippipie]

Hi,

Are these plates genuinely acceptable to CAA for use in an initial IR, and single pilot ops?

AIP IAPs are the wrong format (A4) for cockpit use, and lack the crucial state A/D minima figures. Incidentally, where (if anywhere) are those state minima figures on the AIS site? Aerads I like but are probably too cluttered and expensive. Jepps, still expensive by comparison and apparently common issues arise with missing postal updates.

I like the uncluttered Cat A only concept of these gCAP plates, and the price, but I wonder if they are a little bit too pared down? No high ground info, is a bit worrying in a twin at night!

Experiences, comments...

Pip.

[IO540]

Not a lot of replies so far :)

I think this one came up before, here or somewhere, and the consensus was that these cut-down plates are a waste of time.

Anything cut-down is of no use for an IR because an IR has worldwide privileges, so eventually he will have to learn to read a real plate (which isn't exactly hard).

The marketing aim was probably the IMC Rating, but it isn't that hard to read the real plates (Jepp or Aerad). I know that adult literacy appears to be going downhill but an IMCR pilot should still be able to read and fly any plate placed under his nose; after all, those are his legal privileges.

It's very true that Jepp or Aerad are very expensive, and I suspect that most IMCR holders (and quite a few IR holders) make do with the free plates from Eurocontrol - even though they are not really usable under A4 size.

[S-Works]

Those pared down plates are aimed at the get you home IMC flyer who does not fly IMC on a regular basis and wants a cheap set of plates to keep in the flight bag.

If you are going to the effort of getting an IR one would assume you are going to use it (unless it is a tick in the box for hopefull airline job) and as such to safely fly IFR you will need the tools for the job. There is no such thing as cheap IFR flight.

I used to get the Aerad subscription but hours spent doing the paperwork updates was sooooo dull and time consuming. I even tried to get my PA to do them!

So I went for the Jeppview scubscription. I get the paper charts as they come out and the plates are all on CD updated every 2 weeks all part of the subscription. I just print out onto A5 paper the plates I need for a trip, put them in A5 plastic pockets and they go onto my A4 kneeboard.

The Jepp data is clear and easy to understand and the CD service makes updates a 30 second job. All of the text pages are also updated on the CD so preferential routing etc is all done electronically. I have a few different laptops, varying in size that I take with me and a battery powered printer so if I am on a long trip I can even print out more charts.

[drauk]

I used to have an Aerad subscription, but I too found the updates an absolute pain in the backside.

These days I just use the free ones. I just print them A5 size for a trip as required and find them perfectly usable at that size - and I have pretty crappy eyesight. I also keep a copy of all the UK plates in an A4 binder (2 to a side - 4 to a page) for emergency use.

[yippipie]

The gCAP website claims the plates are acceptable for initial IRs. I hadn't heard of them before, hence my question.

Interesting views, thanks. I'm leaning towards the AIS
plates (printed out at 80% seems the best ~A5 fit), if
only I could find those essential aerodrome minima!

Anyone know where they are please?

Pip.

[Fuji Abound]

"Incidentally, where (if anywhere) are those state minima figures on the AIS site?"

They were in the aerodrome data but no longer.

[S-Works]

The gCAP website claims the plates are acceptable for initial IRs. I hadn't heard of them before, hence my question.

Interesting views, thanks. I'm leaning towards the AIS
plates (printed out at 80% seems the best ~A5 fit), if
only I could find those essential aerodrome minima!

Anyone know where they are please?

Pip.

they would claim they are suitablem, they are trying to flog them to you!!! but you have already found that they don't make the grade. So you are left with the AIS site free of charge but not providing all the info you require or going for the commercial offerings. When you are doing your IR you need as much information as possible to hand in an easy to read format. You are about to enter the period of highest workload in your flying career.

[bookworm]

I like the uncluttered Cat A only concept of these gCAP plates, and the price, but I wonder if they are a little bit too pared down? No high ground info, is a bit worrying in a twin at night!

They have SSAs. Do you really look at anything other than the SSA and the platform heights while flying the approach?

What do you see as the issues with them?

[yippipie]

So much for the AIS promoting an open safety culture then. I wonder just what the point of their plates are, with incomplete information.

I suppose buying the gCAPs just for the minima (if they are comprehensive), could be a solution, but rather a fiddle.

I have heard about RAF based plates, but assume they too are expensive as they are based on Aerads.

On the little I can glean from the site, bookworm, my main issue is lack of topo' info'. SSAs are all well and good... if you get there before hitting the hill you didn't know about, whilst barely climbing at MTOW and high workload--or worse.

Do I assume correctly, that the EAD plates are devoid of the A/D minima too (I can't get past their java console for some reason)?

[IO540]

The EAD plates that I have seen were all devoid of minima, yes. There is a way of calculating it, but I don't know what it is.

For me, the choice of approach plate style comes down to the future. I fly into Europe so I want uniform coverage in the same style.

Jepp and Aerad both give you that, but Aerad is a dead end product because they do only approach plates and enroute charts, no georeferenced (suitable for a GPS moving map) electronic data. Their enroute charts are also cluttered (even more cluttered than Jepp) because they combine low and high airways in one.

So I use Jepp, for the same reason that most of the world uses Jepp.

The price is ridiculous, but it can be reduced if a group of people flying the same aircraft buy the package, etc ;)

I still have a sub to the paper version (UK only) but will stop this at the next renewal because it's easy enough to carry a laptop and a miniature printer and print off the plates actually required.

[tmmorris]

I'm afraid the RAF ones are NBG any more, anyway - see http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248732

Tim

[bookworm]

On the little I can glean from the site, bookworm, my main issue is lack of topo' info'. SSAs are all well and good... if you get there before hitting the hill you didn't know about, whilst barely climbing at MTOW and high workload--or worse.

If you conform to the procedures you won't hit the hill. While I agree that topo info is a useful adjunct from a situational awareness point of view, you can get most of what you need for that from a glance at a half-mil topo. Unambiguous depiction of the procedure is, IMHO, more important.

[bookworm]

The EAD plates that I have seen were all devoid of minima, yes. There is a way of calculating it, but I don't know what it is.

All AIP charts must have OCH/OCA information on.

French, Belgian (mostly), Netherlands charts also have minimum RVR/vis info. UK, German and Swiss AIP charts do not, though Switzerland puts the JAA minima in the text of the AIP.

Calculating minima is not exactly rocket-science. EG AD 1.1.2 gives all the appropriate tables. While I'm not 100% sure, I believe there are no legal RVR/vis absolute minima for IAPs in Germany, so it's only the UK where the calculation becomes a legal issue.

AOCs need to think through their minima for every approach -- doesn't seem like a bad policy for private operators too.

[yippipie]

If you conform to the procedures you won't hit the hill.

My point was, if you can (conform).

Obviously, if all goes according to the script, you will (conform). But, Murphy's Law may well have something to say about that, and I for one, want to know exactly which way to point it, if things really fall apart.

IMO the gCAP plates would become much more viable, with some basic black & white contours, shading and spot height info'. Maybe the boss will read this, and do just that... If he does, he'll have at least one more sale.;)

I believe that not so many years ago, plates had just such an alternative 'last resort' route on the chart.

Pip.

[yippipie]

Thanks for all your interesting replies.

Just to clarify the position, are these gCAP plates actually legal for the purposes of a JAA Initial Instrument Rating?

Pip.

[IO540]

I've never seen any regulation which specifies what type of chart needs to be carried, or used, in any private flying situation. There is not even a requirement (CAA or FAA) to carry any kind of printed chart whatsoever.

You need to possess sufficient information to do the flying, that's all.

No reason why a sketch of the IAP would not be legal.

If there is an incident then you might get done under the general clause of endangering the aircraft (can't remember the ANO #) but that would be the case only if your sketch was actually wrong.

Transport flights, under an AOC, are done under written procedures and these could specify Jepp, Aerad, or whatever.

There could be a problem in a different airspace where the regs might specify e.g. nationally published or ICAO compliant plates.

[FlyingForFun]

Just to clarify the position, are these gCAP plates actually legal for the purposes of a JAA Initial Instrument Rating?

Yippipie,

IO540's reply explains the situation, as I understand it, for a private flight. Since you specifically ask about using for an initial IR, though, I'm not sure it's the whole story.

The CAA are currently quite keen to promote the idea that all CPL/IR training should be done as per a commercial operation. This goes right down to getting the school I work for to create a "standard" plog, and insisting on students using this in flight (as oposed to the previous situation where we had a range of plogs, or students could choose to use their own). The reason behind this is that this is what would happen in a commercial operation - you would be given a plog by your company (probably already filled in, depending on the type of operation) and you would have to use it.

Following on from this, for initial IR training you will be expected to use whatever plates the school uses as standard. So the answer to your question is almost certainly No.

Having said that, I don't believe this is written down anywhere, so if you were doing a PPL/IR (with no intention of getting a CPL), then they may be prepared to accomodate you. After all, the reasoning behind the No doesn't apply to you. I think it would be something you would have to discuss with your school, and they would probably have to discuss with their local CAA examination centre.

That's my opinion - I don't know of any rules relating to this, but there might be something written somewhere which contradicts my opinion which I'm not aware of.

FFF
---------------

[bookworm]

Having said that, I don't believe this is written down anywhere, so if you were doing a PPL/IR (with no intention of getting a CPL), then they may be prepared to accomodate you.

This is a key issue in training that seesm to get glossed over.

For commercial flying the philosophy is that some good chap in the flight ops department has done the risk assessment and management for you and come up with a procedure. Training trains you to follow the procedure. The exam should test your ability to follow the procedure.

For private flying, it's different. Situations and more varied, and less regularly encountered, and there's no flight ops department. Training should train you to think through the risk management issues carefully. The exam should test your ability to manage risk.

Generally speaking, the training infrastructure serves private flying poorly in this regard.

[yippipie]

My situation is slightly non-standard. I hold a CPL already, and this isn't my initial IR, though the test will be an initial IR format.

Having decided that I will purchase the relevant Aerad booklets, I now find the original training plog format I previously used, may not now be 'standard' :ouch:. I appreciate the 'heads-up' FFF. Any idea where I could obtain a copy of one please?

In due course, I'd better double check all my plans with CAA.

Pip.

[FlyingForFun]

the original training plog format I previously used, may not now be 'standard'... Any idea where I could obtain a copy of one please?
From the school which will be putting you forward for the IR. Every school will have its own standard plog, which may be quite different from each other (in the same way as different companies have different plogs). The CAA don't actually care what you use, so long as it follows the school's standards.

Hope that helps, but if you need more info I might need more details of your situation. Also, I'm not an expert - I'm happy to give my opinion, but you would be better off talking to a good IR school, and liaising, via the school, with the CAA, especially for a non-standard situation.

FFF
-------------

[rustle]

My situation is slightly non-standard. I hold a CPL already, and this isn't my initial IR, though the test will be an initial IR format.

Having decided that I will purchase the relevant Aerad booklets, I now find the original training plog format I previously used, may not now be 'standard' :ouch:. I appreciate the 'heads-up' FFF. Any idea where I could obtain a copy of one please?

In due course, I'd better double check all my plans with CAA.

Pip.

If you're flying an IRT with CAAFU you will need to have flown a 170A.

Whoever you fly your 170A with should be able to provide you with suitable plogs and/or charts for the CAAFU flight as the 170A flight has to be done with someone from an approved FTO...

[S-Works]

From the school which will be putting you forward for the IR. Every school will have its own standard plog, which may be quite different from each other (in the same way as different companies have different plogs). The CAA don't actually care what you use, so long as it follows the school's standards.
Hope that helps, but if you need more info I might need more details of your situation. Also, I'm not an expert - I'm happy to give my opinion, but you would be better off talking to a good IR school, and liaising, via the school, with the CAA, especially for a non-standard situation.
FFF
-------------

Er! excuse my ignorance but how does this become a standard PLOG? When I did my IR i did not use a PLOG I wrote everything on the map as I already do and the CAA examniner had no problem with that at all. In fact was not even interested in looking at my planning. and my examiner is very highly respected and renowned for being hard nosed.

[FlyingForFun]

Bose,

The examiners seem to have a "flavour of the month" which they specifically look for. Right now, the flavour of the month is the pre-flight planning - including Plogs, W+B, performance, etc, etc. At least, that's the case for the examiners at Bournemouth - I don't know how closely the exam centres liase with each other.

It is only within the last month or two that the CAA have asked us to create standard Plogs. Probably before too long they will have completely forgotten, and they'll have another "flavour of the month". However, this isn't the first time the subject has come up. Have a read of my CPL Diary in the Wannabes forum, and you'll see that I had to use my school's standard Plog when I did my CPL a few years ago.

As I said, if you were to join a company, you would be using the company plogs, and would not have the option of being able to write your flight planning on your map. So this seems entirely reasonable for an aspiring commercial pilot, even though it doesn't make sense for a PPL/IR.

FFF
-------------

[gribbs]

An interesting discussion, and if you'll permit me to comment:

1. There is no legal requirement for an Instrument Approach Plate to conform to any particular standard, so pilots are allowed to use Jeppeson, Aerad, AIDU, gCAP or any other, even if it's drawn on the back of a fag packet. I used one of the big two for many years and became so frustrated with the format that I designed my own, and this grew into gCAP. For example, Aerad underline every altitude/ht, even where the AIP has no underlining. They also show the outbound tracks on base turns, for example, for Cat C/D and you have to look in the notes for the Cat A/B track. Things like this make an approach far harder than necessary to fly. The plates in the AIP are the only formally-recognised ones, but as has been pointed out, they're very difficult to use when airborne and I don't know more than a couple of people who do so. Of interest, even the AIP plates don't fully conform with the ICAO requirement, and you'll find the filed differences listed in the AIP.

2. I was a CAA examiner for several years and have seen all manner of failures of IRTs simply because pilots misread the data on the plate; for what it's worth I've now qualified as an instrument approach procedure designer, so I know a fair bit about instrument flying. gCAP plates are cut down only as much as it takes to present the required information concisely and accurately; you'll not find anything missing from our plates which is required for the approach. Our ethos is that an approach plate is just a pattern in the sky which you have to follow in order to land safely. Your situational awareness should have come in pre-flight planning and from the map you carry. In any case, printing contours and obstacles on a plate is unnecessary because if you follow the designated pattern you'll be safe, and in any case most plates aren't drawn properly to scale so you have no way of knowing where the obstacles/high ground actually are; not accurately anyway, and inaccurate information is worse than dangerous. If you deviate from the pattern you must go around, climb to MSA, and talk to someone.

3. PANS-OPS 8168 (the instrument approach procedure designer's bible) states that the procedures are for normal operations; they make no allowance for underperforming aircraft or those with an emergency. It is an operator's responsibility to design procedures for such contingencies. I don't believe that this is widely known.

4. To say that gCAP are not 'proper' plates is incorrect and unjustifiable. Yes, we only have a small database at present but it's expanding. We started only three years ago and are still only a small company and there are a lot of airfields out there so most of our customers fly in the UK only, but there's a lot of this traffic and we have a lot of customers. We're used by IR schools, Public Transport operators and IMC rating holders, and almost everyone who's used our plates says how clear and easy to use they are. It takes only £10 to find out whether you like them or not; for that you get 20 plates. If you have any comments to make specifically I'd be very pleased to hear them, and if I think that the gCAP plates could be improved upon I'll gladly make changes.

I hope this clears up some of the questions. Please email me if you want to know more.

Nick Gribble