IFR approach protocol in the UK

[piperboy84]

Scenario: Flying VFR in uncontrolled airspace without a service, you're approaching your destination airfield (non radar equipped but under a LARS overlay with MATZ bordering the field) which has a published instrument procedure with a manned tower and is currently under IFR conditions.

Who would you talk too to start the ball rolling on a clearance to shoot the approach? Control, Information, LARS or direct to the field tower.

[GipsyMagpie]

Look at the instrument plate. First frequency. Or look at the en route supplement. It will tell you in there.

Now if you are flying without either.....

[piperboy84]

Look at the instrument plate

It lists the tower frequency, but it seems like you would be kind of springing it on them at the last minute, I would have thought the tower would prefer getting a hand off from a overlayed control service.

[mad_jock]

The approach control will be defined in the airport text at the start of the plates.

You know the bits of the plates nobody ever reads.

[piperboy84]

Classic case of RTFM

[chevvron]

So let me get this straight. Other pilots are likely to be inbound to the same airfield and intending to carry out the same iap, probably initially working the LARS frequency until clear of conflicting traffic; you've not called the LARS frequency or your destination to ascertain if they are aware of any other traffic and to pre - warn them you'll be doing an iap, right?

[piperboy84]

So let me get this straight. Other pilots are likely to be inbound to the same airfield and intending to carry out the same iap, probably initially working the LARS frequency until clear of conflicting traffic; you've not called your destination to ascertain if they are aware of any other traffic and to pre - warn them you'll be doing an iap, right?

Basically yes but as the AIP says the initial contact will be with the field tower so i guess they are getting "pre warned" and most likely in the scenario i describe one would be coming from the opposite side of the MATZ and not talking to the LARS

The example I use is approaching Dundee from the north west perhaps from the direction of Coupar Angus

[NorthSouth]

I don't think talking to Leuchars in that scenario would help you at all. They'd phone Dundee and Dundee would tell them to tell you to contact them and, most probably, to remain in VMC.

Dundee's attitude to someone calling up unannounced who's flying VFR but expects to have to fly the IAP will depend crucially on whether they have other IFR traffic. And if they do, the controller will have to work out what to do with you. If you're chugging along at 2000ft and 90kts under the cloudbase, and he has a Do328 expected from the south in half an hour, and (likely in your scenario) the weather's unlikely to allow Leuchars to give the 328 a 'radar to visual', then the controller's focus will be getting the 328 to the NDB at 3000ft to commence the procedure. He would then have to work out if he could get you up to 4000ft en route to the NDB to hold, in time to achieve separation from the 328. Chances are he'd just say remain VMC and remain north of the 09 approach.

NS

[mad_jock]

If you're chugging along at 2000ft and 90kts under the cloudbase, and he has a Do328 expected from the south in half an hour,

Well obviously they would try and get everyone from the North to stay north of Montrose. Everyone from the south to the south of Fife.

And west, west of Perth

Wait until its engines have shut down and tell everyone to report at the Castle.

like they always have.

And if you wanted to get in you would be stupid to admit that you were VFR. Just tell them you at MSA and request a procedural service. They have no option but to clear you to the beacon/IAF its the only thing they can do when your 15 miles out when you speak to them.

[dont overfil]

(Quote MJ) And if you wanted to get in you would be stupid to admit that you were VFR. Just tell them you at MSA and request a procedural service. They have no option but to clear you to the beacon/IAF its the only thing they can do when your 15 miles out when you speak to them.

MJ has it spot on. Leuchars will not give you any useful radar service due to poor radar performance especially to the north.

If you want to practise the procedure Dundee do not charge. Book first over the phone.

D.O.

[mad_jock]

They can't even clear you to the beacon to be honest. Only request that you report it.

If your just going there for training its out of order doing what I have suggested. But if your going there to land crack on.

[150 Driver]

Strikes me if you've got a LARS overlay then why wouldn't you be getting a service from that anyway, even if VFR OCAS ? I know you can and are legal to do so, but personally I always prefer the extra pair of eyes that a service gives you.

[glendalegoon]

when you really don't know...

call on the first frequency, or any frequency associated with the airfield...assuming they are not rat bast#$TY, they will tell you the right frequency to use.

so glad I don't fly in the UK

[flyme273]

in my opinion, call Dundee Tower and request IFR procedure approach due to adverse weather conditions.

I would expect, "climb xxxx thousand feet, report when level, report at the beacon to hold at xxx thousand feet."

Once in the hold, ATC knows where you are. Then onward clearance for the procedure.

Any traffic would be given alternative height separation.

Dundee also has DME to assist with traffic separation.

Flyme

[maxred]

I would expect, "climb xxxx thousand feet, report when level, report at the beacon to hold at xxx thousand feet."
Once in the hold, ATC knows where you are. Then onward clearance for the procedure.

That is exactly what I would expect. At Glasgow, say arriving VFR, ask for an IFR clearance from approach. Nine times out of ten, no issues, climb to say 5000, go to hold, or vectored out for the approach you require, either VOR, ILS, or NDB/DME.

In my experience, most ATC units are pretty accommodating of these requests.

[NorthSouth]

But the difference is that Dundee isn't radar-equipped and while the essential first step is to get you up to the holding altitude, if they have other inbound IFR traffic that has priority, they need to get it below you/you above it long before lateral separation becomes an issue. When they can only do Procedural Service that's difficult

[mad_jock]

They can't move traffic to give priority on a procedural service they are NOT a control service.

In fact you could go in on a basic and all the could do is inform you where the other traffic is.

If they tried to climb me to let that plastic heap in all they would get would be negative due icing.

[flyme273]

But the difference is that Dundee isn't radar-equipped and while the essential first step is to get you up to the holding altitude, if they have other inbound IFR traffic that has priority, they need to get it below you/you above it long before lateral separation becomes an issue. When they can only do Procedural Service that's difficult.

Procedure separation was and continues to be used and long pre-dates radar.

The commercial IFR would not normally use the hold; direct to D4 Garmin approach.
Once the location of the intruder is known (e.g. at the hold), no problem for the commercial traffic to stay clear.

flyme.

[NorthSouth]

direct to D4 Garmin approachInteresting. Can you tell me where that procedure is published? Because if it isn't published it's not legal. Joining final at D4 would mean being at 1300ft as you turn on to the ILS. But up to that point you'd be subject to the 10nm MSA which is 2300ft.

Vectors from Leuchars to base leg at MSA in the expectation of going visual, yes, but self-positioning to D4 below MSA? I'd like to see the evidence.

NS

[mad_jock]

But the difference is that Dundee isn't radar-equipped and while the essential first step is to get you up to the holding altitude, if they have other inbound IFR traffic that has priority, they need to get it below you/you above it long before lateral separation becomes an issue. When they can only do Procedural Service that's difficult.

Procedure separation was and continues to be used and long pre-dates radar.

The commercial IFR would not normally use the hold; direct to D4 Garmin approach.
Once the location of the intruder is known (e.g. at the hold), no problem for the commercial traffic to stay clear.

flyme.



Its completely Illegal, you have to go to the IAF as per EU-OPS and PAN-OPS.

1300 from the south and your playing with a 935 spot height the other side of the river.

Sounds not only a particularly gash thing to do but also stupidly dangerous.

And the other traffic isn't an intruder its got as much right to be in class G as any other aircraft.

So it sounds like your CAT is not only getting in with no known procedural separation but also completely without any terrain separation as anyone knows it.

[chrisbl]

I take it when you say "manned tower and is currently under IFR conditions" you mean that the airfield is in IMC.


No such thing really as "IFR conditions". IFR is just different flight rules to VFR and different licence privileges. After all most IFR trips I've done have been in VMC. To fly the procedural approach it will done under IFR whatever the weather conditions.


IFR conditions is an American term.

[LookingForAJob]

I take it when you say "manned tower and is currently under IFR conditions" you mean that the airfield is in IMC.I think you might be more correct to say that the conditions at the airfield would not permit VFR flight. An airfield is an airfield and meteorological conditions are what will determine whether the pilot is able to fly VFR. ISTR that in the UK rules, where there is a CTZ, the wx report at the aerodrome shall determine the flight rules that a pilot may fly in accordance with within the CTZ - this may change with the implementation of SERA.

[piperboy84]

I meant pea soupy, cannae see oo’t the windae, hounds of the Baskervilles type weather :rolleyes:

[On Track]

Glendalegoon, have to agree with you.

[piperboy84]

What is the D4 garmin approach ?

Oh and while I am at it, another IFR approach question, I was under the hood with an instructor in perfect VFR conditions and was cleared by approach for the ILS wry 16R at KVNY (van nuys) the wind favored 34, I was instructed that I would need to circle , upon reaching UMBER I self briefed the approach out loud so the instructor could gauge my work, looking at the plate for the DH I noticed there were no circling minimums listed. I asked the instructor what minimums I should use and he said he was unsure but it did not matter as we were going visual soon anyway. My question, is the circling minimums not being listed for that approach a moot point as if the airfield was under IFR conditions with the wind favoring 34 we would not have been given the ILS16 anyway ?

[mad_jock]

Its a made up illegal gps procedure. Which throws all known safety standards for terrian seperation out the window.

There will be a circling min somewhere. If there isn't one technically you can descend to MSA and thats as low as you can go.

[piperboy84]

Its a made up illegal gps procedure.

Made up by who? The GPS manufacturer, hence the title garmin, or by some individual pilot who creates his own "GPS" approach in a non certified gps approach database ? Or am I being thick and calling it the D4 garmin is a jokey way of implying one would make up there own approach

[ChickenHouse]

Is this an UK special question?

As I remember from flying under EU rules on continental Europe, you had to declare some kind of urgency to ATC to be allowed to pick up IFR in flight without prior flight plan. In many cases I heard them say, "land at the nearest airport, file a flight plan for IFR and take off again with it" - same with this night VFR flying. Am I correct, that this AFIL for VFR is now coming with this SERA thingies and that currently the question is only raising in the UK?

[mad_jock]

Made up by the pilots usually with no sanction by the company.

There is no EU rule stopping you flying IFR without a plan.

Over 7500kg you have to have a flight plan anyway be it VFR or IFR.

Some country's though may get ****ty with you or have differences files. As such ATC services are not under a common EASA set of rules yet and there are quite large differences between country's.

And UK has the most differences I might add away from ICAO.

[NorthSouth]

Made up by the pilots usually with no sanction by the companyIndeed. But we don't know whether flyme273 suggested this procedure because he's flown it, or just because he reckons made-up GPS approaches are a useful thing generically. If it's the former, I'd wager that he's only ever done it when they got VMC at 3000ft (the lowest they'd be cleared to by Dundee on a Procedural Service). Because if any operators were using made-up approaches at less than MSA in IMC to get into Dundee, not only would that operator be in serious danger of being up before the beak (never mind hitting terrain); the controllers at Dundee would also be in the frame. And there's no way they'd be doing that.
NS

[mad_jock]

that's not the way I read it.

I read it that it was a way of getting under the traffic in the hold so they could get in first.

And if the cloud base was more than 3k the SEP wouldn't be IFR either.

And I agree if anyone hears it being done a phone call to the AAIB and the aircraft will be impounded until the CVR and FDR is pulled.

[flyme273]

mad jock you're being a bit obstructional. This was all started by your post #14 when you refused to climb.

A more reasonable pilot would oblige ATC and accept an extra 1,000 ft. Temperature drop (in cloud) would be 1.5 degrees less. Icing was never part of the example.

In any event once the intruder's position is known (e.g. at the hold), ATC can safety pass a vector (e.g. fly to the east) to keep lateral separation from the commercial inbound.

From a higher altitude the commercial can expedite descent i.e. use speed brakes, on the outbound heading to be level per procedure at the turn.

If this became a sticky situation ATC would give the intruder priority.

I never suggested flying below MSA.


flyme.

[mad_jock]

Its class g there is no priority and as such there is no such thing as an intruder.

Just traffic.

Procedural controllers in class G cannot force any aircraft to do anything.

Are you really a pilot flying CAT?

A procedural controller issuing vectors your in cloud cuckoo land. Again if anyone hears that report them.

The only thing they can do is send you to the intial approach fix and when there is no traffic that they know about tell you that to start the procedure.

BTW I am Atpl holder with a reasonable amount of experence flying into all the procedural airports in scotland. Everything you have suggested is completely against pan-ops and illegal.

I hope to hell your a FO

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Procedural controllers in class G cannot force any aircraft to do anything.
They must, at least, be able to terminate procedural service to any aircraft with whom they cannot reach an agreement? Eg if you're cleared to the hold (OCAS) at 4,000' you can't say "sorry mate, it's class G, I'm taking 2,000'".

[mad_jock]

Under the ATSOCA crap thats exactly what the pilot can do. The controller can then drop them to a basic service if they so wish.

But as such they can't clear you for anything. Its a procedural service for participating traffic.

Which is a common miss conception to alot of CAT pilots they have zero protection just because they are talking to a procedural service or for that matter while flying a procedure in class G. Anything can be flying through the procedure airspace and hold with out talking to the service.

Personally I think CAT pilots should have procedural class G airspace rating. The knowledge level of most is utterly appalling as shown by flyme

[Level Attitude]

From 2014 Airspace & Safety Initiative (ASI). so may not necessarily be authoritative:
A Procedural Service is a non surveillance service in which deconfliction advice is provided against other aircraft in receipt of a Procedural Service from the same controller. The avoidance of other aircraft is the pilot’s responsibility.It would seem that mad_jock is correct but, for me, that then raises another question:

Why do Controllers use the phrases: "Cleared to enter the Hold", "Cleared for the ILS procedure", etc?

[mad_jock]

unless your in controlled airspace they shouldn't.

"nothing know to effect taking up the hold FLxxx"

"nothing known to effect the NDB/DME/ILS runway xx report beacon outbound"

etc should be what your getting in Class G.

[Wrong Stuff]

unless your in controlled airspace they shouldn't.

"nothing know to effect taking up the hold FLxxx"

"nothing known to effect the NDB/DME/ILS runway xx report beacon outbound"

etc should be what your getting in Class G.

I think you should inform the authors of section 1.9.1 of CAP 413.

An example of a typical NDB(L) instrument approach procedure to an aerodrome outside controlled airspace follows;
[...]
G-CD, cleared to BTN at FL80, expect NDB/DME approach RW 34, expected approach time 58
[...]
G-CD, cleared NDB/DME approach runway 34, report beacon outbound


Certainly those are exactly the sort of clearances you hear on a procedural service at places like Cranfield.

[Level Attitude]

It was the word "advice" (that I underlined) in my original comment that caused me to ask my question. However I now note that "advice" only applies for deconfliction purposes.

Is the ATC unit not the 'Controlling Authority' for their Procedure and therefore perfectly able to give Clearances to those aircraft that have requested to participate in their Procedural Service?

They would certainly (as Gertrude suggests) be entitled to say "Procedural Service Terminated - Advise us of your intentions" to those aircraft that refuse to abide by their terms.

[NorthSouth]

MJ: I hope to hell your a FOI was rather hoping he might be a spotter
NS

[mad_jock]

The only thing they control is their ATZ if in class G.

As long as you don't go inside that there is nothing they can do about you. If they even know your there.

[NorthSouth]

flyme273:A more reasonable pilot would oblige ATC and accept an extra 1,000 ft

Yes, lots of pilots would - including piperboy, who asked the question in the first place. But the point is, can ATC give that clearance to climb? You have (in piperboy's example) two aircraft on reciprocal headings heading for the same NDB, one climbing from 2000 to 4000, the other descending from FL250 or some such to 3000ft, and with a closing speed of perhaps 6 miles a minute. MATS Part 1 says that the lateral separation standard between aircraft on reciprocal tracks is 40nm, and also that "separation based on DME is not to be used when aircraft are within 15 miles of the overhead of the facility". That means that the vertical separation (light aircraft level at 4000, inbound CAT level at 3000) must be achieved, at the very least, before either aircraft gets within 20nm of Dundee.

From a higher altitude the commercial can expedite descent i.e. use speed brakes, on the outbound heading to be level per procedure at the turn.

You seem to be suggesting that the CAT inbound can descend below the level of something in the hold while descending outbound. SCAREEEEE!

If this became a sticky situation ATC would give the intruder priority.

Well, no actually. Other way round. If the controller had any doubt about the "intruder"'s ability to get to 4000 in time to achieve vertical separation from the CAT inbound, he would tell the "intruder" to remain VMC, give him a Basic Service and tell him to remain clear of the approach and report at a specified point. Otherwise he'd have to limit the intruder to 3000ft and the CAT inbound to 4000ft in the hold, and the CAT would be going round and round there till the light aircraft was on short final to land.

I never suggested flying below MSA.

So what was that "direct to D4 Garmin approach" thing then?

NS

[mad_jock]

As I said NS I personally think there should be a separate rating for working in a procedural environment in Class G.

We know what the ATCO needs to do to get separation and its relatively easy to either block there cunning plan if they are going to shaft you or facilitate things to move traffic.

But you need to know the procedural rules for separation and air law. You also need to know that you have absolutely zero protection apart from your ears and what ever toys you have fitted to your machine such as TCAS.

[piperboy84]

What does the CAT coming from the south comms look like inbound. I'd imagine they would be taking to Scottish Control at their cruise level, upon descent who is he switching to and at what altitude ?

[mad_jock]

Taysector Scottish area. Then onto Leuchars then transfer to Dundee tower.

I think was the way it went last time I did that during the week.

At the weekend its straight to tower from Area I think its been ages since I have had to do it.

The last time I was doing a golf charter so we descended early and cancelled IFR with EDI and flew along the coast because they wanted to see St Andrews old course from the air, paid extra for it to boot.

That really put a spanner in the works.

[NorthSouth]

Leuchars LARS was and still is H24 (though probably not for much longer) so the inbound CATs should be talking to Leuchars at weekends too.

We used to regularly get asked by Leuchars for co-ordination against Dundee CAT inbounds while operating instructional flights over Fife (along the lines of 'can you accept not above 2000ft VFR till advised?')

NS

[NorthSouth]

MJ, I like your idea of giving pilots training on ATC rules etc. So much of it is unspoken, and the uninitiated can be sitting there in the cockpit thinking "what the hell's he asking me to do that for?".

On the other hand, second-guessing ATCOs can be quite good fun too!

NS

[mad_jock]

On the other hand, second-guessing ATCOs can be quite good fun too!

Second guessing and making a move to scupper their cunning plan to shaft you. And sometimes out positioning others too.

And if its your own company aircraft with the chief pilot on board even better. Even if you have to put up with his bitching and false accusations that you pulled the overspeed CB.

[flyme273]

The way I read the example is that scheduled flight A operating under IFR rules is shortly due to land at Dundee. A second flight B is a VFR Cessna/ Piper also inbound for Dundee.
Flight B encounters unexpected IMC conditions and with limited equipment and training requests an IFR approach from the Dundee Controller. Dundee is experiencing IMC. Dundee is equipped with an NDB and DMEand has a published approach to RW09.

The question is how does ATC ensure separation and a safe ending to both flights? (which I would suggest is more important than any legal issues of class G airspace). MSA 25nm is 4,500ft. MSA 10nm is 2,900ft.

It seems the suggestions I’ve made so far do not receive the approval of ALTP Mad Jock.
I don’t think anyone has made “an approved” suggestion.
-------
Can ATC give aclearance to climb? I would hope that ATC can at least make a recommendation to assist flight A and avoid a conflict either with high ground or flight B.
From the beacon the hold is to the east, i.e. aircraft A at3,000ft. The approach procedure is to the west, aircraft B at 4,000ft. both aircraft departing the beacon in opposite directions and with vertical separation. Nothing scary.

D4 Garmin, I’ve now checked the plate, flight B, the inbound turn is made at D8, 2,200ft (MSA at that part is 2,300ft).FAF is D6.7 when further decent is made.

I’m not familiar with operations at EGPN, does all IFR traffic actually take the hold and performs a full procedure with descend within the hold?
---------
Many years ago I departed Aberdeen in clear blue skies for across country to Perth, Dundee and return to Aberdeen in a Cessna 150. Dundee ATC was in those days a garden hut on the little used grass strip and normally unmanned.

Returning to Aberdeen by Montrose I was creeping up the coast at 800ft under a complete cloud cover (where had that sprung from?). I found the lighthouse and turned up the river and continued creeping up to Aberdeen at by now 600ft to make a passable landing.

The CFI was greatly relieved to see me. He had authorised the flight by first calling the Met office. Unknown to myself the Met office had called back during my flight to warn of the sudden unexpected weather change.

It was my first solo qualifying cross country (I passed). The CFI was still shaking 5 Glenmorangies later.

flyme.

[mad_jock]

Yes we have the light aircraft goes the intial approach fix and starts the procedure. The CAT goes towards the hold and takes up the hold. When the light aircraft is on the ground the CAT starts the procedure.

What you suggest is in breech of procedural seperation rules.

Basically inside 15 miles circle to the IAF the lowest always has to go first in the procedure unless there is a direct arrival via an arc. This goes out to 20 miles if they are pointing at each other.

The traffic gets to the IAF if number one and looses the height in the out bound. Number two will get cleared down when number one reports beacon outbound unless the GA procedure conflicts with that level with certain wx conditions.

If B is already at MSA and at 15miles and is stupid enough to say they are vfr they are deemed seperated and aircraft A can be at there level and cross it. If they just ask for procedural service they have to be seperated as per that service.

The real screw up is when the clueless turn up on a basic service then you end up with one aircraft only getting traffic information and the other being seperated from it when it reports what its doing.

Then real bum clentcher is when two turn up on a basic service and there is only traffic info given. Then its not unkown for two planes to be on the procedure at the same time.


Nice as your story is, my only thought is thank the lord your not flying into these airports as you don't have a clue what you are doing in a procedural enviroment.

And speaking as an ex SEP instructor and CAT Captain to be perfectly honest I don't understand why if its a single in crap WX there is such a fuss to get us in first. Being told there is a light single inside 15 miles when we are at 40 is no great issue we just bring the speed back to 170 knts from 250knts and we are much better set up multi crew with de-icing kit than some poor sod in a SEP trying to get on the ground. Poor sod bouncing around in the hold possibly weeks since they last did a instrument approach. Where as we will have more than likely done 10-20 in the last 7 days. Get the poor bugger on the ground with minimal work load.

[NorthSouth]

Get the poor bugger on the ground with minimal work loadVery accommodating of you! But as you have pointed out the people making the decisions are in the tower at EGPN. And you know what they'll do!

Adding to your scenarios at Dundee, I recall one incident a few years back when we were just about to call taking up the DND hold at 3000ft when we heard a roar and fleetingly saw a pair of F-16s scream over the top of us. Just as I was about to key the mike to call Dundee, they called me and said "traffic information for you....". Unfortunately a phone call from Leuchars to Dundee followed by an RT call from Dundee is slower than the speed of an F16. The F16 crews seemingly thought it was perfectly acceptable to fly right through a published hold in intermittent IMC without speaking to the controlling authority.

Another scenario (from a pal) during the brief period when that Polish airline was flying into Dundee (White Knight? White Elephant? White Knuckles?). Again, taking up the DND hold when an ATR 42 appeared out of nowhere crossing right across him. Turned out the guy was inbound to the hold, saw a gap in the clouds and decided he would take a 'more efficient' route to final. They lasted 7 months - luckily without serious mishap.

NS

[mad_jock]

And you know what they'll do!

Which is why for my own safety in a crappy SEP with a crappy RBI I would use every bit of knowledge I had to tactically shaft their cunning plan and not give them a mm.