Microlights on approach

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Flying the Cambridge ILS on Friday afternoon, foggles on, ATC tells us he can see (out of the window, not on the radar, we're on Tower by now and they don't have radar) four microlights crossing our path at about our height. Instructor then spotted them, decided we were going to miss safely, I continued the approach.

Yes, we all know that they were legally entitled to fly through the instrument approach in VMC in class G without bothering to talk to Cambridge.

After landing the instructor asked me "did you read about the Coventry incident?"

[magpienja]

Good job somebody was doing there job then and looking out of the window when flying,

I wonder if they saw you and thought the same as your instructor yes we will pass clear,

Perhaps they were non radio,

What was it you were saying about Coventry.

Nick.

[xrayalpha]

OK,
I will take the bait.
Apart from being scum of the earth, what was it that the microlights were doing wrong?
They were not on a collision course with you, since your instructor decided you could continue.
They may - or may not - have spotted you, and that was why they were not on a collision course with you.
They may have been on a en route frequency - such as the microlight version - so they could spot traffic in Class G and let each other know. Four pairs of eys better than one.
The tower spotted the traffic before your instructor did.
So - perhaps a better lookout by your instructor might help?
As for Coventry. It was a mid-air. Didn't involve a microlight. And is the subject of an AAIB investigation.
Very best,
XA
ps was flying in a group of aircraft - all open cockpit - from Perth to Strathaven last winter. Were were on an en route frequency and I was the only one with a matchstick sewn into a glove finger so I could work the other radio frequencies.
So I called Glasgow to say we were flying clear of their Class D and then that I was changing back to en route.
Glasgow wondered why only me talking and why I went back to en route? I replied, any idea how cold it is out here and that no-one else wants to take gloves off in this to talk to you! And I had to talk to the other aircraft.
The point was taken by ATC, as confirmed in a later club visit to the tower.
So they knew where we were, knew who we were and what we were doing. They just couldn't contact us.
Of course, we could have just not even called them at all.
So who knows what was happening here, or why.
Perhaps, like the US, we should have fewer towers and more Unicom frequencies where pilots just get on with it.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

what was it that the microlights were doing wrong?
They weren't doing anything legally wrong, I said that. It might have been conisdered "better airmanship" had they chosen to speak to the airfield whose approach they were flying through, if they had radios, but as we know

(1) they were perfectly within their rights not to do so
(2) doing so would not have guaranteed separation.

(As I didn't take the foggles off or peek I don't actually know how close we came, and of course I haven't a clue whether they saw us or not.)

If they didn't have radios it might have been considered "better airmanship" for them to have chosen to be higher or lower than the normal instrument approach path...

... however ...

... it wasn't until I started instrument training that I began to learn at what heights aircraft would be at what range on the instrument approach, and as well as not having a radio tuned in to Cambridge they might not have had a DME tuned in to Cambridge, so actually I'm at a loss to understand how it is reasonable to expect a VFR pilot (in any type of aircraf) to know at what height to avoid crossing the instrument approach, and it seems unreasonable to expect them to avoid an entire ten-mile wide chunk of countryside.

Should PPL (and microlight and glider ect ect) training include teaching people "if you're x DME from the threshold don't cross the instrument approach between y00' and z00'"? - I'm sure it doesn't for most people at present, certainly I was never taught that.

[Of course it is possible that they didn't know they were crossing an instrument approach path because they didn't have maps or didn't look at them, in which case they would have been doing something wrong, but I've no reason to suppose that this was the case.]

[xrayalpha]

GTW wrote:
... it wasn't until I started instrument training that I began to learn at what heights aircraft would be at what range on the instrument approach,....
Should PPL (and microlight and glider ect ect) training include teaching people "if you're x DME from the threshold don't cross the instrument approach between y00' and z00'"? - I'm sure it doesn't for most people at present, certainly I was never taught that.

You are absolutely right.

I think there are many barriers to understanding in aviation, many created by ourselves.

I have always been keen on microlight pilots having a flight in light aircraft, and vice versa. And then we have balloonists. And then gliders.

If we actually have a flight, then we can understand more those aviatior's blind spots - literally and metaphorically!

I now add Instrument Approaches to that. I should have added it earlier, since when I flew at Cumbernauld, I remember someone simulating IMC and flying "the procedure" for a VFR letdown - or some such phrase, but it is not a proper full IFR thingy - and I had no idea where in the sky they were meant to be and so where to look for them. And had no idea of which bit of the sky they were heading for next!

Not the same as being in the circuit!

Perhaps instead of doing One Hour every two years in one's own type of aircraft, we should be doing an hour in a different type of aircraft?

Very best,

XA

[betterfromabove]

Can a PPL/microlighter/pilot of anything whose blathers through an instrument approach within 5-10 miles at a height he/she might think intersects that approach path ...without speaking to ATC at the airfield....please explain what makes you feel you have the right to do this??

There are many complicated things in aviation, but some things are just plain simple....

Fly safe.

BFA

[chevvron]

If it's class G airspace and outside the ATZ it's perfectly legal - stupid but legal. At some airfields with ILS you could conceivably find yourself sharing the same bit of airspace with anything up to '747 size (Manston for instance) with the accompanying wake turbulence. Remember ATC at these airfields might not have radar to warn the '747 of your presence, while some might have radar but are unable to use it for some reason.

[dublinpilot]

What makes you think that a microlight pilot will know what altitude an IFR arrival will be at, on an ILS at 10 miles? I suspect most would assume that an IFR arrival at 5-10 miles would be a lot higher than it actually would be.

[Lurking123]

I always take the view that if something is marked on my chart, it is there for a reason. I do believe instrument approaches outside CAS are marked on the VFR half mil charts. That said, I've had a discussion with an instructor (I was P u/t) about the merits of flying over the Cranfield FAF (CIT) at 1500ft; he was of the view that it was Class G so crack on.:ugh:

PS. Newton's Laws don't give two hoots whether you are flying a microlight, SEP , MEP or something far more exotic.

[tonyhs56]

I am a bit surprised here, how can an airfield have an ILS without a radar? That seems to be the hight of incompetance to me as by the very nature of ILS, the pilot flying it must be looking inside the cockpit not outside of it. There is no way an ILS should be allowed in class G unless there is radar coverage to back it up! :ugh:

[englishal]

Should PPL (and microlight and glider ect ect) training include teaching people "if you're x DME from the threshold don't cross the instrument approach between y00' and z00'"? - I'm sure it doesn't for most people at present, certainly I was never taught that.
This is my take on it....

IAPs vary in design, and one airfield may have a GPS, NDB, VOR, ILS, LOC, etc...approach designed for it, and many of these have different descent profiles or approach paths (3 degree, dive and drive, 30 deg off runway heading etc...). They also may / will have outbound procedure turns to add to the mix. I think it would be good to give PPL students an "appreciation" of IAPs and where you could expect to see traffic arriving from.

However, in this instance I don't think the microlights showed a lack of airmanship. They were crossing a IAP path in VMC, outside CAS, and as you know from your training, and as your instructer showed, during an IAP in VMC then the commander has an obligation to see and avoid, as per normal VFR, despite possibly being on an IFR flight plan (which is the reason you cannot practice IAPs solo). The micro's could reasonably expect in this case then that you WOULD be looking out of the window as they should have been. It would have been bad airmanship to be doing the same just below a cloud base of course, with the chance of an aircraft on the IAP popping out with no time to see and avoid.

My own view is that the safest place to cross an airport is overhead, above any circuit height and above any "overhead join" height if possible. I'll even plan cross countries to use airfields as waypoints but make sure I am well above them. It serves two purposes, they are easy to spot and IF something goes wrong, it is very easy to divert....

[vanHorck]

my 2 pence

Any plane flying near a field with a published approach , even when crossing overhead at 90 degrees should be on frequency with the tower/radio, simply because 90 degrees means nothing. A plane going around could wekk cross you path at between 300 and 1000 feet.

Not being on the frequency is plain dangerous

[hollo]

I am a microlight pilot, and have crossed the Cambridge ILS in the past (non-radio), so thought I would comment on this thread.

What makes you think that a microlight pilot will know what altitude an IFR arrival will be at, on an ILS at 10 miles? I suspect most would assume that an IFR arrival at 5-10 miles would be a lot higher than it actually would be.I definitely had an ILS pointed out to me on a chart by my instructor during my training, and was told to make sure I stayed well above/below one if crossing it. I was taught to calculate the height of the glideslope at the point of crossing it (c.300ft x distance from runway in nm - I don't remember the exact figure, but would look it up if I needed), and pass well above/below.

From memory on the couple of occasions I have crossed the Cambridge ILS I think I was about 7nm away, and either at 4500ft to be a couple of 1000 ft above, or at 1000ft and keeping a very good lookout for anything big above me that might cause me wake turbulence problems.

This is what I've been taught, and I would expect other microlight pilots also know what the ILS markings mean and where they are. They are extremely obvious on the 1/4 mil charts most of us use.

If it's class G airspace and outside the ATZ it's perfectly legal - stupid but legal.Would those of you with experience of flying instrument approaches apply "stupid but legal" to any crossing of an ILS, or just one at the approach height? eg. are there break-off or go-around procedures that put traffic crossing one at significant extra risk of confliction regardless of the height?

[dublinpilot]

Any plane flying near a field with a published approach , even when crossing overhead at 90 degrees should be on frequency with the tower/radio, simply because 90 degrees means nothing. A plane going around could wekk cross you path at between 300 and 1000 feet.

Not being on the frequency is plain dangerous

Not necessarly. Especially so if there is no radar, and a radar service is available elsewhere.

I would always choose a radar service over a non-radar service.

dp

[Cusco]

Just a quick question to help me understand this thread:

What proportion of microlights have radio?

Is it half of them, a tenth, three quarters?

I've pounded the Cambridge ILS many a time and I wouldn't get too fazed by the presence of microlights if I could hear them talking to Cambridge.

The thought of them in my vicinity with no radio however gives me the willies:

I s'pose in real IMC they wouldn't be about: it's the ILS in VMC under the hood during training/revalidation that's the problem: Which is why in these conditions the carriage of an observer (qualified pilot) in necessary to avoid a nasty coming-together.

Cusco.

[xrayalpha]

Cusco,

I don't know if there is any valid data on the number of microlight pilots that are non-radio.

It is true that many weightshift microlight radio installations are of a permanently powered hand-held (ie Icom) type, and that the hassle in getting a radio installation licence means that many may well be flying with un-registered radios.

So they will show up as non-radio when they are not.

(if you rent off a flying club, you've probably never seen the paperwork you have to fill in as an owner!)

It is also true that you do not need to hold a FRTOL to get a NPPL (Microlights) - and possibly not even for an NPPL (SSEA).

So - unlike the US where anyone can use a radio without passing a test - some microlighters may be banned from transmitting on their radios, even if they own them just for listening out.

Use the Freedom of Info act to ask the CAA the number of new microlight licences issued to non FRTOL holders.

And then there are some people - microlights and light aicraft - who have a radio problem but still want to go flying on a CAVOK day.

And there are some commercial pilots - I know of one Islander operator - who likes a bit of piece and quiet and choosing his own routes without ATC when at all possible.

So, what percentage of pilots - microlighters and others - are non-radio?

Very best,

XA

[xrayalpha]

Cusco,

You asked, what is the point of this thread.

I think it is: in VMC in Class G, keep a very good lookout.

In IMC on an IFR approach, you should be getting a good service from the tower.

BUT:

when practising IFR approaches in VMC, remember that you and everyone else is actually VFR.

Don't assume other VFR traffic knows what one is doing. One is just another aeroplane in the sky.

It is still Class G, regardless of what one is pretending (for one's training purposes) it is.

And come here and fly in Class E for a laugh - controlled in IMC, uncontrolled in VMC (and yet it can be 25 miles away from the tower that the controllers are in, so who knows when the viz locally - such as over Strathaven - slips from 3000m to 2999?)

Very best,

XA

[Rod1]

About 50% of the LAA fleet has radio (20% of which are micros). I would guess less than 50% of micros, but only a guess.

In this case see and avoid worked well and all appears to be normal. We know the micros were at the right height because the ILS was not interrupted.

Rod1

[LH2]

After landing the instructor asked me "did you read about the Coventry incident?"

Wasn't your instructor in any way ashamed by the fact that tower spotted the other guys before he did, wasn't he? From your posting here and the above comment, looks like there might have been a bit of "blame shifting" going on? :p

In any event, perfectly legal and acceptably safe. Incidentally, I would hazard microlight pilots as a group probably have more experience and recency than GA pilots as a group, given that their machines are cheaper to operate and ownership is far more common. Also, less instruments should mean more stick and rudder skills.

[Rightbase]

Lurking writes:
I do believe instrument approaches outside CAS are marked on the VFR half mil charts.
For the avoidance of doubt, and for the avoidance of air-to-air contact, remember that it is only the presence of ILS approach(es) that is marked. Where there is more than one ILS approach, only one may be marked, and a different one may be in use ...

Even though the law requires us to fly safely (a catch-all requirement) legal and safe are not the same thing. You don't have to break the law to have an accident.

[magpienja]

LH2 must admit the same thought crossed my mind re the tower pointing the microlights out,

I wonder if this head down in the cockpit on the ILS syndrome is common,

Very worrying if it is.

Nick.

[Islander2]

Quote:
I do believe instrument approaches outside CAS are marked on the VFR half mil charts.For the avoidance of doubt, and for the avoidance of air-to-air contact, remember that it is only the presence of ILS approach(es) that is marked.Not so, Rightbase, non-precision approach FAT's are similarly marked!

[dublinpilot]

Islander, I think Rightbases point was that only one approach is marked on the charts, while there maybe more than one approach to the field.

Eg, just because there is an approach marked to runway 09 on the chart, does not mean that there is no approach to runway 27, runway 18, runway 36 runway 15 etc. Only one will get marked, not all of them.

dp

[Pace]

having read the above comments a few thoughts. While there are some very competant pilots around Microlights or otherwise there are also some complete idiots who have very little experience or ability.

Vmc with practice Ils and two pilots there should not be a problem, but change that to minimal VMC or Lowish cloud and a genuine ILS approach where the pilot of the one aircraft is glued visually to his instruments and you have a problem.

Mix in a dolop of Idiot pilot who doesnt really have a clue where he is and there are plenty about and you have a high collision risk.

But people will fly within the regulations they are given and exploit those regulations to the utmost.
So dont blame the pilots blame the regulators.

This thread like the one on gliders flying in IMC conditions without transponders shows a hightened potential risk for a collision.

In my opinion any ILS should carry a hub of NO GO airspace without radio permission. Infringe it and get the book thrown at you. But its the regulators at fault not the pilots whether they be microlights or otherwise.

Pace

[Red Four]

Not quite right yet about IAPs on charts. The current practise is for IAPs to be marked on the main runway only; where there are IAPs on both ends of the main, they will be marked on both ends when in Class G.
If there is only an IAP on one end (ie: EGKB) it is only marked on the one end.
If IAPs to subsidiary runways, these are not marked (for chart clarity).

Also not marked on charts are:
1) Instrument Holding patterns for the airport if in the overhead or what could be considered a 'normal' IAP area associated with the airport
2) Instrument Departure routes
3) Instrument Missed Approach Procedures
4) Visual Manoeuvring (Circling) areas

As someone else mentioned, ATC often authorise IAPs to a runway that might be against the expectation predicated by the wind conditions (for expedition, or training - particularly where a particular type of IAP is available to only one runway end.

All of the above are good reasons for putting in a call to ATC when in the vicinity; if you can't, then they could be good reasons for giving a wide berth.
Also note that quite a lot of flights may not be conforming to the ideal vertical profile of an IAP, especially if being radar vectored. Don't assume anything!

[cpl4hire]

Xrayalpha

"When practising IFR approaches in VMC, remember that you and everyone else is actually VFR"

That was my understanding, but after a conflict involving me in VFR cct on base leg and an aircraft flying a practice ILS, the FISO said that the ILS aircraft on long final had priority over VFR traffic which is why I was asked to fly an orbit on the base leg instead of requesting Mr ILS to "go missed".

[Rod1]

“In my opinion any ILS should carry a hub of NO GO airspace without radio permission. Infringe it and get the book thrown at you. But its the regulators at fault not the pilots whether they be microlights or otherwise.”

This is a great solution for you but can have very unpleasant side effects. There are an increasing number of corridors between CAS which contain considerable VFR traffic. If you narrow the corridor by another ten miles as suggested then you will be forcing large amounts of non radio traffic to transit in a very confined space. Non of this is a problem for an ILS in IMC, as the VFR traffic will be VFR, but on a good day doing a practice ILS in class G, you have to operate see and avoid.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

Xrayalpha



That was my understanding, but after a conflict involving me in VFR cct on base leg and an aircraft flying a practice ILS, the FISO said that the ILS aircraft on long final had priority over VFR traffic which is why I was asked to fly an orbit on the base leg instead of requesting Mr ILS to "go missed".


I suppose the controller was just trying to help keep people apart with the minimum total agro. Arguably one orbit for you was much less inconvenience than a go-around for him, regardless of the strict legalities.

G

[JohnHarris]

Thorny issue of microlights mixing with other stuff on finals.
Biggest problem is that us microlights now have to hold back to let the slower spam cans in :E. Ohhh how things change.

[Spitoon]

I suppose the controller was just trying to help keep people apart with the minimum total agro. Arguably one orbit for you was much less inconvenience than a go-around for him, regardless of the strict legalities.Like, for example, that a FISO shouldn't be getting involved in sequencing in this way.

And if it really was a FIS, the pilot is not permitted to make a practice instrument approach.

[cpl4hire]

Ghengis & Spitoon

I know we maybe going off the thread a bit here with my FIS/ILS incident but,,, a couple of points.

1. I hate being asked to orbit on any leg of the circuit. Its inherently dangerous, pilots fly circuits at different distances from the Runway due to aircraft speed, preferances etc and there is a chance that as you complete the first 180 you could go head to head with someone.

2. With (1) in mind I would prefer to be climbed back to, or slightly above circuit height and fly round the dead side for a rejoin/2nd attempt.

3. Mr practice ILS is on long final, I am in the Circuit I would normally expect him to give way to me but If standard practice in this situation is vice versa then it would have been nice to warn me that I would be expected to give way to a prctice ILS. (I was aware a "procedure" was being flown so I knew he was either repositioning for long final or starting long final, I just didnt know where). Yes, with hindsight, I should have asked, before somebody states the obvious.

cpl4hire

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm no fan of being asked to orbit either, but I've been asked on a fair number of occasions at both civil and military airfields. Inside class D, where the controller should know were everything is, it shouldn't be inherently dangerous - but on the other hand the recent C150 fatality at Southend shows that it can be.

I can think of an occasion where I was asked to orbit, for example, for an aircraft on the ILS WITH A FUEL EMERGENCY, but then it was much larger than me so I declined a subsequent instruction to stop orbiting and rejoin base - because I'd not have adequate safe separation. My point here is that any ATC instruction has to be accepted - within the rules of the air of course. If you are asked to do something that you consider dangerous, then decline it and say why.

Incidentally, can you offer a little more detail about your particular incident. What class of airspace? What level of service?

G

[cpl4hire]

Genghis

Correction to my original post, It wasnt a FIS, I was talking to the Approach Controller within the Airfields ATZ (not Class D). The procedure being flown was non-precision Approach, NDB (with or without DME). The Airfield does not have Radar so position reporting is key. I am just curious to know if the plane on the Procedure did have right of way as the Controller later said.

cpl4hire

[flexy]

Go past Cambridge all the time in both microlights and spamcans. Always listen out so I know whats going on and then get a FI service if required. I dont know if it was flexwings or 3 axis guys that you saw but with flexwing they would definately have seen you as the viz is so good and would probably have been listening to Cambridge too.

I really wouldnt worry about their standard of airmanship as I am sure they would have been in their element whereas you were deprived of your sight out of the window which would make any VFR pilot jumpy. I am sure that we can all exist together if we fly constructively and understand everyone else.

I feel much happer in a jolly old flexwing cos we always see the GA guys before they see us!!!!!

[Fuji Abound]

A couple of comments.

Firstly, if you cross an approach how do you know other aircraft on the approach are on the IAP?

Secondly, even if they are on the IA, how do you know they are on the G/S?

Thirdly, if you insist on crossing the approach, why not announce that you are doing so and you are visual with any relevant traffic (assuming you have a radio).