Flying across an instrument approach VFR?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Kent
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying across an instrument approach VFR?
Slightly random question this one but I'm intrigued to see if anyone is able to answer ahead of me locating an appropriate answer...
I'm toward the end of my PPL training and on a flight departing Goodwood heading to Lydd you pass Shoreham. Routing past Shoreham you can cross right through the instrument approach. Is there some standard operating procedure to these defined areas? Should I be avoiding them completely? Flying at a particular altitude? Am I missing something entirely?
I'm not sure how the two worlds meet and avoid (IFR/VFR).
I'm toward the end of my PPL training and on a flight departing Goodwood heading to Lydd you pass Shoreham. Routing past Shoreham you can cross right through the instrument approach. Is there some standard operating procedure to these defined areas? Should I be avoiding them completely? Flying at a particular altitude? Am I missing something entirely?
I'm not sure how the two worlds meet and avoid (IFR/VFR).
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've often wondered the same, it's class G, obviously talking to the unit controlling it is the way to go, but is there a rule? Do you calculate a 3 degree line and avoid that? I crossed Edinburgh's today, talking to them, they just asked my position twice.
I seem to recall there are several VRPs on the coastal side from west though north to east of Shoreham and thay ask you to route via these as they are 'deemed' to be clear of the iaps.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a perfect world the VFR guy is on a service while transiting past across portions of the instrument procedure outside CAS (not in the airfield zone) so an area or tower controller (with or without radar) is aware of the VFR guys location or presence. But we don't live in a perfect world.
As for seperation my understanding is the guy flying the IAP still has all the see and avoid obligations of VFR if conditions allow, if conditions are IMC then the VFR guy ain't gonna be there unless he's gone mad.
Again this is all outside controlled airspace like at fields where there is no continuous controlled airspace down from the airway to the part of the IAP that is protected at the intended field of landing for the traffic on a clearance.
That's the way I understand it.
Edit to add. The above is seperate from someone who is flying in IMC conditions but not on a clearance and in uncontrolled airspace which I suspect happens a lot in my neck of the woods. But they would most likely be on a service and would not be messing about down low near a IAP unless they were planing on landing there in which case they would be picking up a clearance for the procedure so would be communicating with the controlling authority.
As for seperation my understanding is the guy flying the IAP still has all the see and avoid obligations of VFR if conditions allow, if conditions are IMC then the VFR guy ain't gonna be there unless he's gone mad.
Again this is all outside controlled airspace like at fields where there is no continuous controlled airspace down from the airway to the part of the IAP that is protected at the intended field of landing for the traffic on a clearance.
That's the way I understand it.
Edit to add. The above is seperate from someone who is flying in IMC conditions but not on a clearance and in uncontrolled airspace which I suspect happens a lot in my neck of the woods. But they would most likely be on a service and would not be messing about down low near a IAP unless they were planing on landing there in which case they would be picking up a clearance for the procedure so would be communicating with the controlling authority.
Last edited by piperboy84; 6th Aug 2017 at 07:54.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality - people often just fly through the IFR approaches and give a ****, in G totally backed up by jurisdiction
Perfect world - pilots check for nearby airports and do estimate where STAR and SID patterns may be in conflict to their flight path, when in doubt talk to INFORMATION
Even better world - airmen check for the IFR patterns of airports close to flightpath at flight preparation, check whom to contact when nearby and talk to the appropriate frequency when approaching the area
;-)
Perfect world - pilots check for nearby airports and do estimate where STAR and SID patterns may be in conflict to their flight path, when in doubt talk to INFORMATION
Even better world - airmen check for the IFR patterns of airports close to flightpath at flight preparation, check whom to contact when nearby and talk to the appropriate frequency when approaching the area
;-)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality - people often just fly through the IFR approaches and give a ****, in G totally backed up by jurisdiction
Perfect world - pilots check for nearby airports and do estimate where STAR and SID patterns may be in conflict to their flight path, when in doubt talk to INFORMATION
Even better world - airmen check for the IFR patterns of airports close to flightpath at flight preparation, check whom to contact when nearby and talk to the appropriate frequency when approaching the area
;-)
Perfect world - pilots check for nearby airports and do estimate where STAR and SID patterns may be in conflict to their flight path, when in doubt talk to INFORMATION
Even better world - airmen check for the IFR patterns of airports close to flightpath at flight preparation, check whom to contact when nearby and talk to the appropriate frequency when approaching the area
;-)
There are many Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP's) in Class G airspace in this part of the world. We used to have an excellent system for dealing with the situation the LOP refers to.
Each IAP was inside a piece at airspace designated an Instrument Approach Restricted Area (IARA). The lateral dimensions were depicted on the charts. The vertical limits written beside the boundary.
The rules were for VFR flight inside these areas were you had to either operate 1000' below the cloud and 1 nm horizontally from cloud or if you couldn't maintain this separation from cloud you needed to ascertain there was not going to be an approach carried out while you were inside the IARA. Otherwise you just stayed outside the depicted area.
It work really well. I say "worked" because our CAA in their infinite wisdom did away with them as they were not ICAO compliant airspace.
Each IAP was inside a piece at airspace designated an Instrument Approach Restricted Area (IARA). The lateral dimensions were depicted on the charts. The vertical limits written beside the boundary.
The rules were for VFR flight inside these areas were you had to either operate 1000' below the cloud and 1 nm horizontally from cloud or if you couldn't maintain this separation from cloud you needed to ascertain there was not going to be an approach carried out while you were inside the IARA. Otherwise you just stayed outside the depicted area.
It work really well. I say "worked" because our CAA in their infinite wisdom did away with them as they were not ICAO compliant airspace.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed CH but it's unrealistic to expect a 75 hour weightshifter flying along on a XC in his boiler suit,wellies and gloves and with charts and frequency info flapping in the wind (que the verbal assaults) to know where all the procedure segments are located outside the zone, know what a star or sid is, or proactively enquire on the radio about potential traffic while skirting the CAS of a nearby airfield. That's why it's important to get a service, use a listening squak, or just give them a courtesy heads up that youre manoeuvring/transiting near their area although not obliged to do so.
In todays world the reflex seems to have some kind of automatism to get some "service" or even go "must have an app for that", everything which keeps responsibility and accountability away from the person. I am old fart and am happy with it, I don't expect a low time pilot to keep free of modern worlds brain extensions, or better brain replacements, but I still hope for a revival of respect for human skills and the ability for people power.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the whole reason for the complete muddle of services in class G that the UK uses.
It try's to force control into class G so that regionals without CAS can keep the IAP's clear of spam cans and other traffic.
They don't really want to give a service in class G because they have to give it for free. But they don't want to pay for CAS or maybe don't have the traffic to warrant it.
But they have 60ton aircraft wanting to land and provide revenue to the regional airport. So its a catch 22 control in uncontrolled airspace.
It try's to force control into class G so that regionals without CAS can keep the IAP's clear of spam cans and other traffic.
They don't really want to give a service in class G because they have to give it for free. But they don't want to pay for CAS or maybe don't have the traffic to warrant it.
But they have 60ton aircraft wanting to land and provide revenue to the regional airport. So its a catch 22 control in uncontrolled airspace.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the whole reason for the complete muddle of services in class G that the UK uses.
It try's to force control into class G so that regionals without CAS can keep the IAP's clear of spam cans and other traffic.
They don't really want to give a service in class G because they have to give it for free. But they don't want to pay for CAS or maybe don't have the traffic to warrant it.
But they have 60ton aircraft wanting to land and provide revenue to the regional airport. So its a catch 22 control in uncontrolled airspace.
It try's to force control into class G so that regionals without CAS can keep the IAP's clear of spam cans and other traffic.
They don't really want to give a service in class G because they have to give it for free. But they don't want to pay for CAS or maybe don't have the traffic to warrant it.
But they have 60ton aircraft wanting to land and provide revenue to the regional airport. So its a catch 22 control in uncontrolled airspace.
And if you think that there is no-one in the cloud around you think again. I've had a couple of go-rounds due to people flying IMC through the approach. One of them was an RAF Puma.
I fly GA as well as for a living, and it is the flying through marked approaches, practising approaches without telling anyone and similar behaviour that opens the door to more CAS, and more griping from GA about "airspace grabs" There are a lot of GA aeroplanes out there, they have perfectly good rights, but some people seem determined to cock it all up for the majority by flying like idiots.
This has been covered before, with any luck ATCO Fred will be along with his take shortly, he has seen it too, and he and I have filled in the paperwork together.
SND
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality - people often just fly through the IFR approaches and give a ****, in G totally backed up by jurisdiction
Perfect world - pilots check for nearby airports and do estimate where STAR and SID patterns may be in conflict to their flight path, when in doubt talk to INFORMATION
Even better world - airmen check for the IFR patterns of airports close to flightpath at flight preparation, check whom to contact when nearby and talk to the appropriate frequency when approaching the area
;-)
Perfect world - pilots check for nearby airports and do estimate where STAR and SID patterns may be in conflict to their flight path, when in doubt talk to INFORMATION
Even better world - airmen check for the IFR patterns of airports close to flightpath at flight preparation, check whom to contact when nearby and talk to the appropriate frequency when approaching the area
;-)
I would certainly go for this version.
Being aware of the fact that a heavy smack in the left ear is a distinct possibility, self preservation rules and all that. The grave yards a full of people who had the right of way. "Not obliged to" may be the case. Doesn't common sense come into it anymore?
There are many Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP's) in Class G airspace in this part of the world. We used to have an excellent system for dealing with the situation the LOP refers to.
Each IAP was inside a piece at airspace designated an Instrument Approach Restricted Area (IARA). The lateral dimensions were depicted on the charts. The vertical limits written beside the boundary.
The rules were for VFR flight inside these areas were you had to either operate 1000' below the cloud and 1 nm horizontally from cloud or if you couldn't maintain this separation from cloud you needed to ascertain there was not going to be an approach carried out while you were inside the IARA. Otherwise you just stayed outside the depicted area.
It work really well. I say "worked" because our CAA in their infinite wisdom did away with them as they were not ICAO compliant airspace.
Each IAP was inside a piece at airspace designated an Instrument Approach Restricted Area (IARA). The lateral dimensions were depicted on the charts. The vertical limits written beside the boundary.
The rules were for VFR flight inside these areas were you had to either operate 1000' below the cloud and 1 nm horizontally from cloud or if you couldn't maintain this separation from cloud you needed to ascertain there was not going to be an approach carried out while you were inside the IARA. Otherwise you just stayed outside the depicted area.
It work really well. I say "worked" because our CAA in their infinite wisdom did away with them as they were not ICAO compliant airspace.
I can only repeat my idea for UK use that every airport with an iap, whether civil or military, should have a 5nm radius ATZ instead of the paltry 2 or 2.5nm which with todays aircraft, barely protects the visual circuit let alone iaps. Would also do away with the MATZ system.
To be fair: the Brits are not alone to struggle with IFR in uncontrolled airspace. Germany "solved" it by making that airspace class F, but has now - perhaps because of SERA? - made those areas RMZs, Radio Mandatory Zones, or even Transponder Mandatory TMZ. Likewise, Belgium's only uncontrolled IFR field EBKT has a RMZ, too.
@chevvron: yes I know the Brits like do things their own way - and their ways are not necessarily incorrect - but it is partly a matter of semantics too, and that's where things become confusing. There really can't be a controller in class G, perdefinition of class G, so the person working the radio is not a controller, just a "radio operator".
Then again, I understand the UK has, or at least used to have, controlled aerodromes inside uncontrolled airspace, however hard that is to imagine. I suppose in this situation the airfield radio operator does have authority, and the associated responsability, within the ATZ. Perhaps such is the situation at Shoreham?
@chevvron: yes I know the Brits like do things their own way - and their ways are not necessarily incorrect - but it is partly a matter of semantics too, and that's where things become confusing. There really can't be a controller in class G, perdefinition of class G, so the person working the radio is not a controller, just a "radio operator".
Then again, I understand the UK has, or at least used to have, controlled aerodromes inside uncontrolled airspace, however hard that is to imagine. I suppose in this situation the airfield radio operator does have authority, and the associated responsability, within the ATZ. Perhaps such is the situation at Shoreham?
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 6th Aug 2017 at 13:06.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are loads of them Jan in class G in the UK. Alot of the Scottish airports are in this situation.
I fly CAT as well and will later on today operate in a class G controlled airport with instrument approaches.
If the safety case can't be made that it is acceptable risk for CAT to use AIP's in class G then the CAT should stop flying into them end of until the protection is in place.
Trying to change the principles of class G being uncontrolled to controlled by tweaking the ATS in class G and RT does not mitigate any of the risk. As long as it legal to fly within the AIP's without talking to anyone its unsafe and the risk of sliding 60 tons down the ILS to find a metal thing right on your nose exists.
I fly CAT as well and will later on today operate in a class G controlled airport with instrument approaches.
If the safety case can't be made that it is acceptable risk for CAT to use AIP's in class G then the CAT should stop flying into them end of until the protection is in place.
Trying to change the principles of class G being uncontrolled to controlled by tweaking the ATS in class G and RT does not mitigate any of the risk. As long as it legal to fly within the AIP's without talking to anyone its unsafe and the risk of sliding 60 tons down the ILS to find a metal thing right on your nose exists.
@tescoapp: thanks for your patience but I still don't get it.
You confirm the UK has controlled aerodromes in uncontrolled airspace? Is then indeed the ATZ a "cut-out" of the uncontrolled class G, under control of the tower radio operator? Or where are the limits of the controller's authority/responsability?
(and what do you mean by "AIP" in this context? For me that acronym stands only for "Aeronautical Information Publication" but you seem to have another meaning for it? (oh, over in them US of A it can also stand for "Airport Improvement Program" - not what you meant either, I assume?))
You confirm the UK has controlled aerodromes in uncontrolled airspace? Is then indeed the ATZ a "cut-out" of the uncontrolled class G, under control of the tower radio operator? Or where are the limits of the controller's authority/responsability?
(and what do you mean by "AIP" in this context? For me that acronym stands only for "Aeronautical Information Publication" but you seem to have another meaning for it? (oh, over in them US of A it can also stand for "Airport Improvement Program" - not what you meant either, I assume?))
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again UK is a bit funny in regards to ATZ's and none ICAO.
ATZ you must obey the instructions of the controller or at least contact the flight info officer. It is active even if the airfield is closed and if you can't contact someone you can't go in.
There is another muddle is that we have also MATZ which is a buckshee bit of airspace which still remains class G to civilians but controlled to a military pilot and you have no requirement to talk to them or even acknowledge it exists. Within that there is a ATZ around a military field with the same rules as any other ATZ. I might add it is bad airmanship and extremely unwise to start playing the I know my rights with a MATZ.
An ATZ is extremely small I might add max 5 NM diameter and 2000ft. So most GA circuits will go outside it the way they seem to be flown these days.
For the ATZ to be any use to a regional field it would need to be at least 20 if not 30 miles diameter and go up to 4500ft. Even then its getting the aircraft into that ATZ as the problem most new CAS get less airspace.
ATZ you must obey the instructions of the controller or at least contact the flight info officer. It is active even if the airfield is closed and if you can't contact someone you can't go in.
There is another muddle is that we have also MATZ which is a buckshee bit of airspace which still remains class G to civilians but controlled to a military pilot and you have no requirement to talk to them or even acknowledge it exists. Within that there is a ATZ around a military field with the same rules as any other ATZ. I might add it is bad airmanship and extremely unwise to start playing the I know my rights with a MATZ.
An ATZ is extremely small I might add max 5 NM diameter and 2000ft. So most GA circuits will go outside it the way they seem to be flown these days.
For the ATZ to be any use to a regional field it would need to be at least 20 if not 30 miles diameter and go up to 4500ft. Even then its getting the aircraft into that ATZ as the problem most new CAS get less airspace.
Last edited by tescoapp; 6th Aug 2017 at 14:38.