IMC rating legalities
Thread Starter
Quote:
"In other words let's say there is a tall structure 4 nm from the airport".
Mach Jump I think you've hit the nail on the head that endangering the aircraft will take priority.
Whopity, what do you mean by "Then it (the tower) will be taken into account when calculating approach procedure minima. This may be official or unofficial..." What do you classify as an unofficial procedure?
"In other words let's say there is a tall structure 4 nm from the airport".
Mach Jump I think you've hit the nail on the head that endangering the aircraft will take priority.
Whopity, what do you mean by "Then it (the tower) will be taken into account when calculating approach procedure minima. This may be official or unofficial..." What do you classify as an unofficial procedure?
Official approach procedures are published in the UK AIP. There are also "discreet procedures" developed by other organisations that are not published and are "unofficial" but still perfectly legal. The procedure designers, not (the tower) follow strict rules when designing procedures which take into account all obstacles in the approach domain and apply appriopriate minima to that sector of the approach to allow for possible position tolerances. If you deviate from the approach procedure, then you should carry out the missed approach procedure which will take you back to a safe altitude to ensure you clear any obstacles.
Presumably the 'discreet procedures' aren't published due the cost involved in upgrading them to 'official' status?
Whereas those who fly 3° approaches from a waypoint they've inserted into a nav system, or even a portable iToy 'app', do so contrary to the AIP and at risk to themselves, their passengers and those on the ground.
Or will the smartarses now say that it's some form of self-regulated 'informed consent' on behalf of the pilot
and therefore OK to do so?
Whereas those who fly 3° approaches from a waypoint they've inserted into a nav system, or even a portable iToy 'app', do so contrary to the AIP and at risk to themselves, their passengers and those on the ground.
Or will the smartarses now say that it's some form of self-regulated 'informed consent' on behalf of the pilot
and therefore OK to do so?
There lies the problem, the average GPS use cobbling together a home brew procedure has little idea of the factors taken into account when designing a safe procedure. Many "discreet" procedures are simply "not for public use", hence they are not published.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bungle-Try reading the AAIB reports before posting, I would suggest.....
The majority of IMC approach accidents are caused by pilots on published procedures not complying with the published procedure or published minima
The majority of IMC approach accidents are caused by pilots on published procedures not complying with the published procedure or published minima
Bungle-Try reading the AAIB reports before posting...
I take your point, though. I don't recall reading any accident reports where the aircraft was performing an 'unofficial'(non-approved) instrument approach, although it could be that we just never knew that was what they were doing at the time.
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 14th Mar 2015 at 00:18.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and 30 mins later the CFI of the Warwckshire Aero Club was killed with the pilot and 3 passengers at Birmingham after the third approach in 200 metres .
Both pilots in these two accidents had alternate airfields available and above limits(Luton & EMA)
Both pilots in these two accidents had alternate airfields available and above limits(Luton & EMA)
