Approach Services

[Fuji Abound]

When is an approach service not an approach service?

XXXX refers to themselves most of the time as XXXX approach. Informally they have been happy to provide an approach without pre booking in all conditions. They now consider an approach flown in VMC must be a training mission and therefore prebooked. Now I can understand the need to book a slot time at a busy commercial airport which XXXX is not; I can also just about, but only just about, understand the same commercial airport charging a premium for providing an approach service. However I struggle to understand how an airport can "advertise" itself as XXXX approach and then ask have you booked the service. I would add that in this instance the pilot is already instrument rated and whilst therefore the approach was flown to retain currency rather than out of necessity it was not for training in the usual sense.

I would hasten to add, incase any one guesses the airport concerned, the lads and lasses in ATC are great and I have no problem with them implementing a change in policy. The change however just got me thinking on the legality of the policy, aside from the ever creeping threat of commercialism.

[Spitoon]

Fuji, this is not as straight forward as it might seem. An Approach Control service can provide many elements of that service. The easy ones are the alerting service and flight information service. In practice this is the basic level of service that many approach control units will provide to a VFR flight.

If you're IFR it gets a bit more complicated and depends whether you're inside controlled airspace (CAS) or not and whether the service is provided with or without radar.

I'll deal with the non-radar service first because it sounds like that's what you're talking about. Inside CAS you will be provided with standard separation from other IFR flights that are also inside the controlled airspace. Outside CAS you'll be provided with standard separation from other participating IFR traffic, that is to say, from other IFR aircraft that have asked for a service from the Approach Control Unit and which ATC have agreed to give a service to. This last bit is important because providing a service outside CAS is subject to workload and if you're known to be a training flight they may choose not to provide a service. It's not ideal but in these circumstances airmanship becomes important to ensure that you stay away from the aerodrome by a safe, but undefined, distance. The only thing that I can think of that's laid down is that you cannot enter the aerodrome traffic zone.

If the ATC service is being provided with the aid of radar and outside CAS you have the option of asking for a Radar Advisory Service. This gets to be a very grey area and I don't think that there are easy generic answers.

The standard rules that controllers apply are in the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493_A55Part1.pdf) Section 1 Chapter 5 which may be of interest.

[englishal]

I had the same thing at a Southern UK airfield. Asked for vectors for a practice ILS, and was asked if I had 'pre-booked'. When I said no, they refused....

Cheers
EA;)

[rustle]

EA

What is a "practice" ILS?

Either you fly the ILS or you don't.

Did you want a RV-ILS for a go-around or a landing?

[Fuji Abound]

To clarrify the circumstances the ATZ is not within CAS and cannot provide a radar service. What constitutes a training flight still puzzles me. In this instance the definition would appear to be that any pilot who requests a procedural approach in VMC has become a training flight.

By approach in this instance what I meant was a published procedural approach to land at the airport concerned.

Spitoon - thanks for your comments - Section 1 Chapter 5 doesnt seem to appear in the downloadable version. I would be interested in what is said.

[englishal]

What is a "practice" ILS?
Yea yea....A practice ILS is what I call flying an approach in VFR conditions, under the hood, by sole reference to the instruments. Therefore its a Practice ILS, becasue if I mess it up, I take the hood off and fly a visual approach.

In this case I was rejoining for landing, and requested the ILS instead of the VFR join.

Rgds
EA:)

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

They now consider an approach flown in VMC must be a training mission and therefore prebooked.

Now that's a most interesting interpretation of the regulations!! I always though that the key factor was Flight Rules (IFR/VFR) and not flight conditions (IMC/VMC). Anyway, how do they know your flight conditions?

[rustle]

EA

Sounds like a real ILS to me :p Only difference being if you "mess it up" you go visual rather than around. :D

Is there a rule that says you can't name airfields when posting?

So many answers would be much easier if we knew where we were talking about... (Not just this thread)

FTR, I have never been refused RV for an instrument approach when VFR inbound.

Bournemouth even gave me RV for an SRA when both the ILS and NDB were offline in June - VFR inbound.

[Flyin'Dutch']

FF

I fail to see what the problem is?

You want to bimble down XXXX's (EGTC?) ILS. They will only accept that for training purposes after you have prearranged it or if you do it for real and land at the place?

Well for starters it is their ILS and their controllers paid for by XXXX.

Besides the slot issue, pre arranging also means giving your details to them and entering into an agreement that you are going to cough up for the services provided by XXXX.

If you use the ILS for real and land at XXXX they can be pretty sure that you will part with some readies.

I have no difficulties with that concept. Do you?

FD

[Fuji Abound]

Well, firstly there is no real mystery, but I guess this might be one of a number of airports.

In fact it is Shoreham.

The best procedural approach available is an NDB / DME.

The aircraft is home based so there is no issue with reneging on the landing fee, even if the approach ends in a missed. The charge for a procedural approach is the same as a regular landing.

Whipping Boy - that is what I thought, partly hence the question.

Now to be fair, I dont beleive for a moment ATC would refuse a non pre booked procedural approach in poor VMC and certainly not in IMC. However it is their interpretation that an approach in VMC even though you maybe operating IFR must by definition be a training flight and despite the ATIS announcing XXXX approach in fact it is really "XXXX possibly with an approach service or possibly just tower - have you pre-booked"

Flyin'Dutch' - OK point taken, it is their approach and their airport and they have to manage the traffic. However I was interested in peoples views on whether it makes sense to offer something for "sale" (which it seems to me you do by calling yourself XXXX approach) when you might not want to sell the goods on offer. Perhaps I am "hearing" too much in the term XXXX approach, albeit at times the airport becomes XXXX tower, when a second controller is not on duty for example, and we all then know an approach services is definitely not available.

[bookworm]

Fuji, try this link for MATS Part 1 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493__Part1.pdf) (2MB).

[Flyin'Dutch']

FA

See where you are coming from but Approach as in XXXX Approach has obviously nowt to do with the approach as in every day lingo.

Since it is your homefield; have you had a chance to ask them the reasons why they deal with these things in this way.

No doubt they can give you chapter and verse of their policy and would be interesting to find out why they do it like this.

Sometimes things which are seemingly without any common sense are very sensible if you know the reasons why!

Lack of communication [sic!] is often the source for frustration and upset.

If you do find out will you let us know.

Curious if nothing else

FD

[Wrong Stuff]

My feelings generally are that if you're there to shoot some practice approaches you should as a matter of courtesy book in, if that's what ATC require. If they're full, then hard luck - they're full. If you're going there as a destination, however, you should be able to receive whatever service you require - within reason. It's quite understandable that ATC should limit the facilities they provide for training purposes so that they have enough capacity for those who actually want to land there.

Unfortunately that simplistic view is then complicated by not everyone playing by the rules. A little while ago I overheard an IMC student telling his instructor that they couldn't do their training exercise to Cranfield because ATC were booked up with practice approaches. The instructor told him not to worry - they'd get an approach slot by pretending they were going to land there.

So the bottom line is probably that we all need to be reasonable. When the weather is poor ATC services generally bend over backwards to help you out as best they can. Conversely, when we're doing something primarily for training purposes I think we need to cut them a little slack.

And sometimes it all works in our favour anyway - like the last time I wanted a practice radar vectored ILS approach in fine VMC. I was landing at the airport to go into town anyway, but thought I'd ask for it just to keep current. Not only were they happy to provide it, but they halved the standard landing fee as it counted as a training flight!

[alphaalpha]

Slightly off thread, but landing at Shoreham a few years ago in poor weather, I was given excellent service.

The runway in use was 21 and I was unhappy about the NDB/DME approach to this runway because it is a stepped down approach over high ground to the north and was something I had never done before. I explained m,y concern to ATC and was offered the NDB/DME approach to 03, which is over the sea, plus a circle to land on 21.

All no fuss, done for my convenience. When it matters, they come up with the goods! (I am now happy with stepped non-precision approaches, needless to say).

[Spitoon]

Having worked as a controller at an airport that was favoured by several instrument training organisations I can maybe explain the simple reason for pre-booking.

Operating a procedural approach service with one beacon and routine approaches to a go-around is hard work (and can involve a lot of R/T). And I don't mean hard for the *poor* controller. The rules about where aircraft can go and how far apart the must be can be complex and, in practical terms, it's not normally possible to accommodate more than two aircraft at the same time. Add in a few commercial movements which the airport, quite reasonably, doesn't want delayed and two trainers can really make a mess of things!

If you are VMC and can see the other traffic that you're being separated from it might seem an awful long way away - but that's only because the rules are set that way.

If the controller has radar things get a bit easier because even if you are training and getting what sounds like a procedural service, the controller can watch where you are and bring other aircraft around you at much smaller separations than a procedural service requires.

It would be nice to suggest that you ask to visit a busy procedural approach unit to see how it works but there are so few around. But do try if you get the chance.

And one last thought. When you hear a controller talking about doing approach control with his/her eyes shut they're not bragging, it's just that that's what it feels like! :)

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

spitoon, I agree, procedural approach is rather 'interesting'. However, that does not get away from the original statement that VMC approaches are assumed to be training approaches. This is a big misconception. In the military we always follow the courteous approach and pre-book our intstument approaches when visiting other airfields. However, if the IFR approach is at your parent airfield there is generally no requirement to pre-book but it is taken as read that any training approach has a relatively low priority,ordinarily taking second place to a 'route' inbound). Nevertheless, if a pilot elects to operate under IFR he should be afforded the appropriate service.

[Spitoon]

But Whippy, I think you've really only argued my point for me. As a controller, the weather conditions are largely immaterial - an IFR approach is an IFR approach even if it's a lovely sunny day.

You're quite right that any pilot that elects to operate IFR should receive the appropriate service. But if there are two in the hold doing practice approaches and go-arounds below a 'real' IFR approach (no offence intended) how does an expected approach time in, say, 60 minutes suit. If there's only one beacon there are few easy (or, more importantly, quick) ways of getting the trainers out of the way of the 'real' IFR aircraft.

And bear in mind that although you'll always keep a level clear for a go-around, when an aircraft does go-around it will often further limit the available options and extend EATs. Therefore, by booking training flights, the airport is ensuring that ad-hoc arrivals get the appropriate service while accommodating a level of training that can be handled in a sensible manner.

My apologies to Fuji and colleagues for what might appear to be becomming a discourse on ATC procedures. I hope if people have taken the time to read this far it's because it's interesting.

From a personal perspective, I recognise that everyone has to learn and practice their skills and I'll try and make sure that delays are as short as possible. Yes, I'll accept six aircraft for instrument training, but four will simply go round the hold. Without wishing to start a debate about traing schools, your school may be happy to take money off you to fly round the hold but is that good value if you've got holds sorted and want to practice approaches?

[Fuji Abound]

I have found this to be a very interesting debate, particularly the contributions from the ATC guys – it is good to see things from your perspective.

To clear a couple of points. I did have an off air chat with ATC. It is the substance of that conversation that I reflected in my initial question. I also do not have a particular problem with booking an approach if that is what is required.

I think there are two issues however. The first is that there seems to be an increasing trend to complicate life unnecessarily. I would never ask for an approach (for currency purpose) if things appeared busy or several other aircraft were in the hold. However when it is quiet there are times when you feel, without having set of with the intention, that it would be useful to fly an approach to land. It takes 10 seconds of air time to make the request and 10 seconds for it to be refused – I have no issue with that. That has previously been the procedure here and at many other airports – in my view very sensible.

Secondly, I was interested for interest sake in the strict regulatory position. As I said previously it still seems to me odd to refer to yourself as offering a service when in fact strictly you are not – in other words if you cannot for whatever reason accommodate any further traffic on the procedural approach say so on the ATIS and provide a “tower” service.

Finally and for the avoidance of any doubt, Shoreham has always provided a first class ATC service. There are a number of occasions when I have had to fly an approach to minimum; the service has unhesitatingly been there, and without pre-booking of course. I make absolutely no criticism of ATC what so ever. My comment is purely to see what views others have on any airport adopting this type of policy.

[matspart3]

At Gloucestershire Airport we operate a booking system for training instrument approaches, which is a major part of our business.

We issue 30 minute 'slots' on the whole and half hours. This gives you time to do a join, 1 hold, the approach and missed approach procedure or 2 approaches....or any combination of the abvoe. All Instrument training is PPR and accepted on the basis that, if commercial traffic or arrivals requiring an approach due to weather turn up, the trainers go to the back of the queue. Additional training approaches are accepted if we can fit them in. We do our best, the more approaches we get in, the more money we make...but it'd not always as straightforward as it may seem.

Even if you elect to fly the approach under VFR, thereby removing our obligation to provide standard separation, we're still responsible for regulating the flow into the ATZ and 'sequencing' the traffic safely and expeditiously...and let's be honest...you're doing the approach to 'keep your hand in' i.e. flying predominantly by reference to the instruments and, subsequently not really looking out the window as you should be under VFR, so we'd treat you as IFR anyway

Another potential issue, which judging by your reference to 'Tower' on the ATIS, may apply here is the legal situation. Can't remember the ANO Article number, but the gist is "Providers of air traffic services are to provide an Approach Control Service when Instrument Approach Procedures are notified as in use" (...that's incidentally why you can't legally fly IAP's at a non-ATC airfield.)
If Shoreham don't always have an Approach rated Controller available for duty then the IAP's cannot be used.

There have been rare occasions here, during staff sickness/shortage etc. when we've had to 'withdraw' the Approach service because the ATCO on duty only has a Tower rating.

The 'Black Art' of Procedural Approach Control, particularly outside Controlled Airspace, is great fun....especially at night when everything's IFR!! Pity it's no longer mandatory to hold the Procedural Rating before progressing to Approach Radar...IMHO the newer generation of ATCO's are missing out on a skill which requires you to build a mental picture of the traffic situation. That said, I do get a bit scared when our Radar's u/s....

Hope this drivel makes sense to any non ATC types reading

[Flyin'Dutch']

It does!

TXS

FD

[slim_slag]

matspart3

you're doing the approach to 'keep your hand in' i.e. flying predominantly by reference to the instruments and, subsequently not really looking out the window as you should be under VFR, so we'd treat you as IFR anyway

Don't these people have safety pilots :eek:

[matspart3]

in the UK you only need to have a 'competent observer' and advise ATC

[niknak]

Interesting posts.
We have a very large training commitment, mainly overspill from the London airports where training cannot be accomodated, but also based and local operators utilising a wide variation of aircraft types.
We also have to mix this lot in with a high density of commercial traffic, so accomodating a procedural approach can be a work of art. It's not uncommon to be established on the approach in a PA28 , with a B757 12 miles behind and catching you up :eek:
We benefit from having full radar services, otherwise we wouldn't be able to fit in so much training, or be as flexible about people turning up late, early or not at all.
The main thing to remember when training, is that sometimes you won't get what you want when you want it, but we'll always bend over backwards to help you out in any situation that warrants it.

P.S.
MatsPt2 - I understand that the requirement for a procedural approach rating still applies prior to obtaining a radar rating, if the airfield you're going to work at is outside CAS.
I agree that the exemption is a bad move, and that it is almost exclusively a NATS airports thing only - several other airports inside CAS (Newcastle/Leeds/Teeside) still require their atcos to have the procedural rating.

[slim_slag]

matspart3

So if you have a 'competant observer' (sounds dangerously ambiguos to me) why not treat them like any other VFR traffic? If you are essentially providing IFR separation services it's no wonder you have a reduction in approaches per hour.

There is a non-towered airfield round here with an ILS and a procedure turn using a VOR as it's fix, no radar services provided. VFR traffic shooting practice approaches 'self regulates' itself, holding in a stack above the VOR, using a common frequency. We should easily and safely be able to get ten approaches in per hour. Why should that also not be possible in a non-radar environment when you are talking to a controller instead of each other?

I thought I'd just edit this because I'm not being critical of ATC, I think they do a great job and generally do bend over backwards to fit in practice approaches. I just find it interesting that at a towered field I fly out of in the US, which has about 250000 movements per year with two runways and no radar (work that out per hour, tower open for 12 hours per day), they fit in all the practice approaches that gets thrown at them. No booking required.

[matspart3]

Slim
We DO treat those ones as VFR. Nevertheless, not everyone can do the approach at the same time....so you still need to apply a degree of 'sequencing' especially when you've got five circuit trainers and the odd vortex wake problem too!

I wish our VFR traffic would 'self regulate' on it's own frequency...I could go hoome early then.

We handle about 85 000 movements per year without a parallel runway and very rarely turn down 'extra' instrument trainers.

[slim_slag]

mat

:D :D

Yeh, it's nice to go home early - shame that in the brave new world of UK ATC you need the VFR traffic to pay for the beers and mortgage :)

I don't really know how ATC works, and I have a lot of time for the people on the front line, but looking at how things are done elsewhere, 85000 movements a year in a single runway radar environment is not enough to require having to book a practice approach.

Empower the guys in the tower and let them decide at the time!

Blame the management I say :D

(Must have misunderstood you on the VFR/IFR issue)

[Fuji Abound]

slim_slag - good point. I had not mentioned this previously, but having done some flying State side, I suspect US pilots would find the need to book an approach when you pitch up at an airfield in VFR conditions unusual to say the least. In fact I wonder what their reaction would be.

Now that riase the question as to why US airports are better able to provide the service than us. I wonder is it because management sees approaches as just another revenue source, albeit that does not entirely explain the sort of policy discussed on this post, or is it because controllers in the UK are just more cautious about handling larger volumes of traffic which would not be out of the ordinary in the States. Maybe there are other reasons.

[matspart3]

Slim
Common sense applies too! We'll happily scrap the booking system, but the approach interval we still always be 10 minutes! Aeroplanes can't fly simultaneous procedural approaches so somebody will end up going around the hold until it's their turn! Pilot's might moan about booking but they'll be more pi$$ed off about having to go round the stack for an extra 20 minutes!
The fact that we have radar doesn't always necessarily help. It's primary only and located on the airfield. This means that it can't 'see' the holding traffic because it's in the radar overhead and the pilots want to fly the full procedure anyway. We use the radar to fit the commercial traffic in around the procedural trainers.
85 000 flights (...and we're only open 12 hours a day) makes us about the 13th busiest public use licensed airfield in the UK each year.

Aviation as a whole, and particularly ATC, are obviously vastly different Stateside. I have no experience of it, but is it really THAT busy? Are the skys really black with aeroplanes?....Maybe the standards of airmanship are higher?

Fuji
I don't think that there's a 'political' issue here. Shoreham handles a similar volume of traffic as us extremely efficiently and effectively, I'm sure you'll agree....I've flown in a few times (I was number 6 downwind once) and it's like the war! I genuinely believe that there efforts to 'regulate' the instrument traffic is safety motivated.

[SimJock]

personally I don't think a few practise holds are a good thing to do. They do take a while to get the timing right in the various wind conditions. I did 3 holds at Shoreham at 4000ft, below me was transit traffic at 2500ft and then circuit traffic at 1100ft. Even though it was busy it was good practice.

Another reason you may want to fly an ILS in VMC is if you became suspicious that your ILS receiver/indicator wasn't quite performing correctly so you could carry out a visual and instrument cross check.

Try Le Touquet for your practice ILS, you can do as many as you like, generally no booking, and just one 12 euro landing fee.

[rustle]

"Try Le Touquet for your practice ILS, you can do as many as you like, generally no booking, and just one 12 euro landing fee"

Assuming you mean VFR circuits, with the ILS tuned in and not "used" unless you hold an IR...

I understood this thread to be about getting practice doing holds and procedural IFR letdowns, which you cannot do at LFAT with an IMC rating.

EA: "...A practice ILS is what I call flying an approach in VFR conditions, under the hood, by sole reference to the instruments..."

It may be me misunderstanding though :p

[Fuji Abound]

Are you saying you cannot fly an approach at L2K because it is in class D in which you cannnot fly IFR in Europe without an IR?

[rustle]

Oi! You changed the question just as I was about to answer the original one about IFR UK/Europe... :)

You can fly the approach at LFAT without an IR, but you cannot do so in real or simulated IMC without an IR AFAIK.

An IMC rating doesn't cross the channel to France - it ends at the FIR boundary.

People have been asked at LFAT to produce their licence when IFR inbound -- by UK CAA officials :o

"Under the hood" / screens up is simulated IMC.

[englishal]

However, you could do so under the hood, if you have a safety pilot who is qualified and current on type, in VMC, who has a nice clear view out of the windscreen ;) Or if your RHS person holds an IR and you're in IMC....

It would be very un-wise to practice instruments using screens or hoods and NOT to have a competent safety pilot (rather than just an 'observer').

[luckily the CAA officials weren't there when I shot the ILS, in IMC, into LFAT :eek: ]

Cherio
EA;)

[Fuji Abound]

Rustle - I was intrigued by your first post and only changed my reply because it got me thinking. A quick check of Irv's helpful questions and answers revealed

"On a simple PPL, the Air Navigation Order stops you flying IFR in classes "A through E" controlled airspace, leaving "F" and "G" ('the Open FIR' to use an old term). "

Now what seems to follow from that is that in the UK you cannot file IFR in class D without an instrument rating (IMC or IR), and to avoid any confusion I mean in VMC conditions because what you file (IFR or VFR) has nothing to do in itself with the metrological conditions. I do not see, simulated or otherwise, how you can fly a procedural approach (in VMC and with a safety pilot) without being IFR because even if your entry to the procedure was VFR surely by definition you must become IFR once the approach starts. Presumably that means in the UK without an instrument rating there are no circumstances in which you can fly a procedural approach in class D except with an instrument rated pilot who is acting in his P1 capacity or under training with a QFI. Of course there are some approaches in the UK not in class A or D so for those all would be well - EGKA for example.

Now how does that change in Europe. Well the IMC is not longer valid as an instrument rating so your priviliges are no different that a non instrument rated pilot. L2K is in class D (I think) so presumably you have no business to be there IFR and strictly you cannot fly the approach without being IFR even in VMC.

Presumably in Europe, much as in the UK, what you can do is file IFR so long as you remain outside controlled air space and of course reamin within your metrological entitlement.

[englishal]

without being IFR because even if your entry to the procedure was VFR surely by definition you must become IFR once the approach starts
Why? I have requested a 'practice' (;) ) approach but been told to "remain VFR, seperation services not provided".....Being vectored for or flying an instrument approach does not constitute an IFR clearance.

Equally, being under IFR in VMC does not absolve a pilot from "see and avoid".

Cheers
EA

[FormationFlyer]

On the subject of using the RHS' IR to get in....

Only if *they* are PIC....otherwise in a light a/c they are NOT required crew & therefore the IR counts for jack....

[englishal]

Fair enough, but once it becomes nescesary to use the IR, why can't the RHS person take over being PIC? For example, if a basic PPL is flying along with his mate, in VFR conditions, under VFR, but is about to enter an area of IMC where an IR would be required, then the RHS person becomes PIC.

I've used this many times in the US, flying with VFR mates. Its fine flying out in the desert VFR, but pop over the hills into the LA basin, and the weather is sh*te. So I, from the RHS, pick up an IFR clearance to wherever, and we continue under IFR. From this point on, my ticket is on the line, so I become PIC...nothing magical, no officially signed document printed out in triplicate and filed with the FAA or anything......

Cheers
EA

[Fuji Abound]

Accepting VFR for the approach makes sense.

"You can fly the approach at LFAT without an IR, but you cannot do so in real or simulated IMC without an IR AFAIK."

OK - but you accept a VFR approach under the hood. You have a qualified and competent safety pilot, who for the purposes of the approach becomes P1 and you get in a bit of currency training at L2K prices. That would seem to work - wouldnt it?

.. .. .. and the waiting CAA official is happy as well isnt he?

[rustle]

OK - but you accept a VFR approach under the hood. You have a qualified and competent safety pilot, who for the purposes of the approach becomes P1 and you get in a bit of currency training at L2K prices. That would seem to work - wouldnt it?

.. .. .. and the waiting CAA official is happy as well isnt he?
Unless you know an IR instructor who's happy to do all this RHS stuff for free, it sounds more expensive than doing it here :p

If you haven't got an IR you cannot fly the ILS in real or simulated IMC at LFAT unless you're under instruction from an IRI.

If you meet (or better) those conditions, then the CAA won't have an issue - but they, like me, might question how much money you saved in this process* ;)

* Unless you were taking your IRI friend there for lunch anyway.

[englishal]

If you haven't got an IR you cannot fly the ILS in real or simulated IMC at LFAT unless you're under instruction from an IRI
Don't see why? JAR makes room for flying under the hood with the competent observer person, and last I knew, France was part of the JAA.....? As far as I see it...so long as you remain VFR, and by that I mean one qualified pilot is operating under visual flight rules, the other can be under the hood and you can be perfectly legal. You're still not flying 'in accordance with IFR' even when established on the ILS as no IFR clearance has been issued.

Who gets to claim P1 in this circumstance might be a tricky, but then as far as I remember, JAR doesn't make any allowance for the safety pilot to claim any time.

Cheers
EA:)

[2Donkeys]

This thread seems to have converged around the right answer :).

Flight under IFR in France in illegal unless the person acting as PIC holds a valid Instrument Rating. This applies regardless of the prevailing Weather conditions, and the airspace in which the flight is conducted.

An instrument approach may be flown by a non-IR holder in France, providing that the clearance requested and accepted is a VFR clearance, and the flight is conducted within VMC minima, and providing that an appropriate person acts as lookout for the pilot, where vision-obscuring devices are used.

Where the pilot flying the approach is accompanied by a non-instructor IR holder. Should the need arise to conduct an instrument approach for real, the IR holder must act as PIC, and the initial PIC will need to relinquish command for logging purposes. Both pilots will need to satisfy themselves that matters such as insurance cover remain adequate following the change of commander.

Where the flight is instructional, and the supervising pilot is a qualified IR Instructor, the approach may be conducted either under an IFR or VFR clearance, as may be operationally appropriate. In the case of the IFR option being adopted, ATC will be responsible for assuring the aircraft's separation from other flights, to a degree defined by the class of airspace in which in the approach is being flown. Le Touquet is Class E. The level of protection practically offered for IFR flights is somewhat slight... Better keep the eyes peeled :D

[rustle]

EA,

Under your interpretation two non-rated (vanilla PPL) pilots could fly with the screens up, RHS doing the VFR compliance bit, LHS "practicing" in simulated IMC, with the RHS being P1 and neither qualified to fly in IMC.

Sounds a bit iffy to me.

Where's the experts when you need them? Irv?! 2D?!

Edited cos 2D answered at the same time I posted this - do I know you 2D, your answer sounds familiar...

[2Donkeys]

Rustle wrote to EA:

Under your interpretation two non-rated (vanilla PPL) pilots could fly with the screens up, RHS doing the VFR compliance bit, LHS "practicing" in simulated IMC, with the RHS being P1 and neither qualified to fly in IMC.

And indeed EA is correct.

In France, a pilot is legally permitted to simulate flight in Instrument Conditions providing he carries an appropriate lookout. This lookout pilot does not need to be Instrument Rated but must be able to maintain an adequate look-out despite any vision limiting devices that are in use. The Lookout is supernumary, and may not log time. Flight conducted in this fashion must obey VFR. This extends to ensuring that the flight is flown at the appropriate VFR cruising level (semi+500).

If two such pilots elect to practise an instrument approach, they are free to do so in France, although it is customary to telephone in advance for permission. In requesting the approach, the PIC must make it clear that the approach will be flown under a VFR clearance. This clarifies (especially in Class E airspace such as LFAT) just who is responsible for separation between the flight and other VFR traffic.... ie The PIC, not ATC.

[2Donkeys]

Rustle wrote:

do I know you 2D, your answer sounds familiar...

Could be.... :D

[Julian]

Under the FAA system you can take someone who to sit RHS whilst you conduct a practice ILS under the hood, they should hold a PPL and be rated on aircraft type (i.e. multi, etc!). They maintain a lookout for you for conflicting traffic. Obviously the fact they can see the runway and will know if you are way off course would enable them to call a halt if they think you are seriously out of kilter.

FF, there is nothing to stop the RHS IR being utilisied to get the approach if to flown under IFR rules, PIC is merely transferred and an airbourne clearance requested by the qualified PIC.

On that point, is there anything that says that the PIC HAS to sit RHS or is it just the way its always been done?

[2Donkeys]

Generally speaking, there is nothing to prevent the handling pilot from sitting in either seat. The LHS thing is tradition. It is, however, not unknown for insurers to insist that the aircraft is flown from that seat, or that the pilot has a satisfactory check-out, before piloting from the RHS.

It is this, rather than the law which might determine the seat in which the PIC sits.

[rustle]

2Donkeys,

Sussed it.

The last two letters on one of your aircraft tail numbers is the same as my initials. :D

[2Donkeys]

You've got it :cool:

[slim_slag]

matsmart

Aviation as a whole, and particularly ATC, are obviously vastly different Stateside. I have no experience of it, but is it really THAT busy? Are the skys really black with aeroplanes?....Maybe the standards of airmanship are higher?

Not sure the sky is black with aeroplanes, but when receiving radar services round here, I always hear approach control saying 'multiple VFR targets in your vicinity and I cannot distinguish between them' (essentially you are on your own for now).

I even heard somebody cancel IFR yesterday after receiving multiple RAs, he thought it was "safer" to vector himself around the traffic. I could almost hear the thud when the controller fell off his chair in shock.

There are also GA airports in the US which are busier than anything outside the US (movement wise) and you just turn up un-announced and do your thing.

I think the difference is mainly because US ATC is far better resourced than in the UK. The GA community is also quite powerful, and if a unit round here was to suggest booking in advance, there would be some nasty stuff flying.

So what's this about having to shut down approach services when the controller isn't approach certified? Don't you all have to know how to read a plate??? :) :)

Cheers.