UK trial GPS approaches, non-G-reg

[IO540]

Currently foreign reg planes are banned from these.

However -

If the IAP is outside CAS, ATC have no authority. What prevents somebody flying it but breaking off just outside the ATZ? Or flying the whole lot but not descending below 2000ft AGL.

In practice, one would contact ATC and tell them, for obvious courtesy and traffic information reasons.

I can't see a problem with this, especially given that the procedures go out a very long way, and there is going to be a ton of traffic flying the very same tracks who probably won't be talking to that ATC unit at all.

Opinions?

[Fuji Abound]

Perhaps not the answer you are looking for, but I cant see why you would want to do so.

The CAA in their wisdom are not interested in the opinion of any pilots other than those in G reg aircraft, so you can be of no help so far as their survey is concerned.

Presumably you want to fly the GPS apporach for your own interest. Surely ATC can permit you to do a let down using the GPS approach if you tell them it is a visual let down.

[Chilli Monster]

If the IAP is outside CAS, ATC have no authority.
Incorrect.

By definition, under UK regs to have an IAP you have to (on the whole, there are rare exceptions) have ATC. BY that reasoning if ATC say you can't, or are not cleared to fly an instrument procedure then you can't. To do so would mean you would possibly be eroding separation from an aircraft lawfully allowed to fly the approach.

Yet another reason why all IAP's in the UK should be protected by at least Class 'E' airspace, and as such should only be flown iaw with an IFR clearance. (Like the rest of the world).

[bookworm]

Practice instrument approaches
7 (1) Within the United Kingdom an aircraft shall not carry out instrument approach practice when flying in Visual Meteorological Conditions unless:
(a) the appropriate air traffic control unit has previously been informed that the flight is to be made for the purpose of instrument approach practice; and

[IO540]

Thank you chaps, good stuff.

As I wrote, I would have called up ATC but I wonder if they would have refused even though the reason is not connected with traffic. Presumably the CAA have instructed them to refuse non-G-reg. The really funny thing is that the Jepp approach plate says "VMC" but doesn't say "G-reg only" so they may well get nasty foreigners with dodgy Mongolian registrations turning up and asking for the approach :)

Fuji - the reason would be simply to make sure the GPS is correctly sequencing through the approach. This can't be tested just anywhere else, because while the auto-sequencing from enroute to terminal mode will happen within 30nm of the FAF or so (so this can be tested some distance away) the auto-sequencing from terminal to approach mode happens only very close to the final approach track.

It's not like practicing some VOR approach using another VOR 100 miles away, which is what people normally do.

However, there may be another way: selecting the conventional (e.g. NDB/DME) approach out of the database, and then flying that approach officially, should generate the same sequencing. I don't think the GPS differentiates between a "proper" GPS approach and an overlay of a conventional one. But for some reason I have not managed to get the final sequence in this to work, even though (I have verified) the GPS is correctly configured for the full US-style GPS approaches. Time to do some digging perhaps :)

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, I see your purpose and I guess it should not be a problem getting approval for a visual approach.

Equally comparing the NDB DME and GPS procedures presumably the GPS procedure could be coupled whilst minitoring the NDB DME approach for legality?

Excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense.

[DFC]

Excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense.


This was explained a short time ago on the original thred.

If the CAA publish a procedure for international flights then it must conform to ICAO SARPS.

The CAA has decided that a trial is necessary to enable it to decide if such approach procedures could at a future date be published in accordance with ICAO SARPS.

The CAA would require the agreement of the FAA to use US aircraft on international flights in such a trial procedure that may not meet ICAO SARPS. There are suficient G registered aircraft available to make such a request unnecessary.

If the pilot of a US aircraft wants to fly GPS approach procedures then the very simple answer is that there are numerous such procedures available in the USA.

Regards,

DFC

[FlyingForFun]

Practice instrument approaches
7 (1) Within the United Kingdom an aircraft shall not carry out instrument approach practice when flying in Visual Meteorological Conditions unless:
(a) the appropriate air traffic control unit has previously been informed that the flight is to be made for the purpose of instrument approach practice; andTrue, but if IO540 is not planning on landing off of the "approach", maybe it's not actually an approach? Maybe it's just manoevering visually in the general area of the final approach track?

I've done this a few times - generally when there hasn't been a suitably qualified controller around to "clear" me for an approach, but I've been doing instrument training in good VMC. The controller has asked me to report at various different points (turning back towards the airfield, for example), being careful to avoid using any phraseology which relates to an instrument approach. Once I'm established on final, he can clear me to land, or go around, just as if I had established visually onto a long final.

I'm not quite sure how IO540 would communicate his requirements to ATC, though. Whenever I've done this in the past, it's been initiated by ATC due to their staffing situation, and it's often agreed on the phone when I've booked out rather than on the r/t.

FFF
-------------

[JW411]

IO540:

I have to take you to task. How can you fly a GPS approach to minimums when you remain at 2000 ft? I cannot believe that you really meant to say that.

I have been flying GPS approaches within the CAA GPS trials procedures for a couple of weeks now and I have to say that it has been going pretty well. I have an interest in this for I am a recently retired professional pilot with more hours than I would care to remember but I would like to have GPS approaches approved if I need them in the future to keep my bum out of the hot butter.

My local airfield is well up to speed and when I call them before flight to warn them of my desire to conduct GPS approaches, the first question I get is, "What is your PRN Number"?

Without that you are picking your nose with boxing gloves!

Why don't you try and register if it is that important to you?

[IO540]

jw411

Please read what I wrote earlier, about the purpose of doing this (checking GPS auto-sequencing).

I also didn't make it 100% explicitly clear that I am N-reg, so here it is: I am N-reg.

As far as the GPS is concerned, it is doing lateral navigation only. It has no knowledge of anything vertical. It will work just the same with the plane descending from say 3000ft to the MDA, as it would if one flew an SR71 down the same track at 80,000ft.

This isn't actually a big deal because I can fly the GPS track as a VFR approach which ends with a straight-in. Nobody will know the difference, because there won't be any :)

[drauk]

I know IO540 rubs some of you up the wrong way because he is a bit modern, but does that mean the rest of us have to put up with people just having a go at him in the midst of what could be a useful or interesting discussion?

DFC:

If the pilot of a US aircraft wants to fly GPS approach procedures then the very simple answer is that there are numerous such procedures available in the USA.

Does it make you feel smug to come out with such crap?

JW411:

I have to take you to task. How can you fly a GPS approach to minimums when you remain at 2000 ft? I cannot believe that you really meant to say that.

Where did he or anyone else mention flying to minimums? He explained why he wants to do it. Do you just make stuff up out of spite or was it a mistake?

IO540, why not just fly the NDB approach, using your ADF, but have the GPS approach active on your GPS? I've not looked at the plate but surely the final approach leg is similar enough for this to meet your needs?

[IO540]

Very good point, Drauk, and have thought of that, and tried it, but I suspect it isn't quite working. I am trying to check out some stuff right now but it's possible the KLN94 treats the overlays (which is what you refer to) differently to standalone GNSS approaches. Not sure why this should be, and I am probably wrong.

[Fuji Abound]

Surely the terms of the trial are to be complied with if you are trialing the sytem for the CAA. If you are flying a visual approach if you wish to supplement the approach using the published GPS procedure that is a matter for you - you simply require the permission of ATC to fly the approach visually, which doubtless at Shoreham will readily be given.

I have flown the approach a couple of times without problem and AT are their usual helpful selves albeit the aircraft is on the UK register.

[rustle]

Excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense.

Did you complain when the FAA trialled their's with US pilots and US registered aircraft?

What about when CASA trialled their's with Australian pilots and Australian registered aircraft?

Asking locally registered pilots with the correct qualifications to do some trials in locally registered and suitably equipped aircraft is not nonsense.

I'm sure when the trial data is collated and compared with data received from other states the CAA will implement some GNSS approaches in the UK.

I'm equally sure they'll let you play too, then. :)

[Fuji Abound]

The purpose of a trial is to identify whether there are any shortcomings in the procedure. This would seem to me to include (but not necessarily be limited to) ATC procedures, pilot interaction with ATC, the actual procedure itself, and any shortcomings that may come to light with the equipment.

For any trial to be meaningful you would hope to engage as large a population as possible - the drug industry learned that lesson many years ago. The fact of the matter is that most "serious" IFR aircraft and users that would comply with the operational requirements of the trail are on the N reg. The fact of the matter is that neither the pilot nor the aircraft know (or probably care) what letter is on the side of the aircraft. Ideally, I would therefore want to engage as many people in the trial as possible. DFC has pointed out that the CAA could not do this without FAA permission. He may well be correct. That is however not what I said. Rustle asks whether I complained about other trials elsewhere. With respect for the reasons I have said I would simply prefer in ideal circumstances that the trail be as useful as possible hence my original comment - "excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense".

All that aside strangely you dont find too many G reg aircraft in the US or Australia or any where else for that matter, so I guess the FAA didnt think engaging the G reg would have made their trails any more effective.

PS - already done the playing, so it doesnt really matter to me any way, but I would have liked IO540to have played as well.

[IO540]

I guess the trial is as much to get ATC used to it as anything else.

There is no objective need to trial GPS; the Americans have done that over 1 million + GPS approaches over a decade or more.

I wanted to test the GPS sensitivity sequencing because while anybody can fly a GPS track by following the track line on the moving map, it is useful to be able to fly it coupled to an autopilot. Just like it is useful to be able to fly a coupled ILS occassionally, on days when one is under a heavy workload.

The sensitivity increase can potentially play games with the autopilot's ability to track the track, especially at the 0.3nm full-scale setting, inside the FAF.

I don't think the CAA thought about this aspect of the matter. By limiting it to G-reg, they have limited it (mostly) to pilots that don't have the equipment, or they have it incorrectly configured, or (and this will be true in nearly all cases) they don't know how it's supposed to be used to fly a real GPS approach.

To top it, CAA inspectors placing a plane onto G-reg for the first time have generally insisted that an IFR GPS has approaches disabled (in the maintenance config pages, not officially accessible to the pilot), which will prevent most new G-reg planes from participating in the trial at all. I don't think the CAA thought about that too; that their own CofA inspectors have unknowingly sabotaged the trial.

[rustle]

The fact of the matter is that most "serious" IFR aircraft and users that would comply with the operational requirements of the trail are on the N reg.
Is that an actual fact, a Fuji Abound fact, or an IO540 fact? ;)

We have had these "facts" previously. For example, the "fact" that the CAA and/or Jepp had messed up the database and it could never work.

Oh. They didn't and it does... (See previous GPS approach thread for that one)

What you may have failed to do is count all of the IMC rated pilots or IMC student who are entitled to trial these approaches for the CAA.

I haven't checked, but I'll bet there's more IMC holders in the UK than FAA/IR holders...

I'll also bet there's more G reg'd aircraft suitably equipped for the trial (NB if you read the trial documentation you will see the relaxation of the TSO requirements) than there are N reg'd in the UK.

All that aside strangely you dont find too many G reg aircraft in the US or Australia or any where else for that matter, so I guess the FAA didnt think engaging the G reg would have made their trails any more effective.

That doesn't even begin to address the point I was making, but never mind. :rolleyes:

PS - already done the playing, so it doesnt really matter to me any way, but I would have liked IO540to have played as well.

IO540 or any other competent observer is more than capable of assisting in this trial and seeing how it works. All he (or anyone else) requires is to sit alongside someone with suitable qualifications in a suitably equipped G reg'd aircraft!

If someone on the N register wants to test their own equipment WTF has that to do with the CAA? That's like me renouncing my UK Citizenship then demanding assistance from the UK embassy when overseas :rolleyes:

To top it, CAA inspectors placing a plane onto G-reg for the first time have generally insisted that an IFR GPS has approaches disabled (in the maintenance config pages, not officially accessible to the pilot), which will prevent most new G-reg planes from participating in the trial at all. I don't think the CAA thought about that too; that their own CofA inspectors have unknowingly sabotaged the trial.

That fact has been comprehensively answered elsewhere -- I read it myself just moments ago ;)

[IO540]

I haven't checked, but I'll bet there's more IMC holders in the UK than FAA/IR holders...

There must be, and I was one of them for several years myself, but few of them will have a TSO129 GPS installation, with the approaches enabled. No need to for en route ops, so why should they?

That fact has been comprehensively answered elsewhere

Can you post a URL? There is a limit to how many pilot forums one can read, and get some work done :O

[aluminium persuader]

I would imagine that by using G- reg a/c the implication is that the GPS installation will be to CAA standards rather than anyone else's, and that is the info the CAA will be interested in. The tech spec may differ country to country. From an ATC point of view the nationality of the a/c is irrelevant. We are not police. It's up to you to comply with the law.

[Fuji Abound]

Rustle - what a load of C£$%.

So lets get this right.

Nearly all the aircraft we fly are made in the States (a Fuji fact). Nearly all of the equipment we use is American (a Fuji fact). Nearly all of the pilots flying GA N reg aircraft in the UK are British. GPS was put there and paid for by the Americans. (a couple more Fuji facts) .. .. .. and you need the Japanese to tell you that! Clever people you know.

So the only difference between aircraft and pilots that qualify for the trials on the basis of having the correct equipment or having an IR or IMCR (and note with an FAA IR they are entitled to an IMCR without further ado) is one has a N painted on the side and the other a G.

What a bright idea to exclude N reg aircraft.

Well rather than the normal protectionist moaning for goodness sake recognise aviation as the one business in which international boundaries should count for very little and embrace everyone.

I said excluding N reg is complete nonesense and I stand by it. In principle it is, and I have not seen one good reason for doing so. That said I accept for legal reasons there may be a genuine problem, BUT that is a problem we have created for ourselves. It makes me wonder if the CAA had written to the FAA for consent that N reg aircraft be included in these trials what response they would have received.

[DFC]

All that aside strangely you dont find too many G reg aircraft in the US.......

Has a lot to do with the fact that they are required to leave or be placed on the N register after 6 months.

------

If thre are no G registered aircraft equipped to do the trial then that will be highlighted in the trial results by the lack of approaches flown or the fact that only a few registrations participated in the trial.

That would also be a factor in any future decision regarding GPS approaches at GA aerodromes. Why spend lots of money making a GPS procedure available for very few users.

People who choose to go N reg so that they can be outside the UK/European regulatory system can not complain when the UK/European system treats them like they are not part of the system.

For a person who does lots of "real world flying" and constantly criss-crosses Europe doing real IFR flying, it seems odd that with the number of already established GPS approaches in Europe, there has never been a chance to fly one of them...eh IO540?

Ask the FAA for a waiver and then ask the CAA. If you put some effort in you will get what you want!

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

"People who choose to go N reg so that they can be outside the UK/European regulatory system can not complain when the UK/European system treats them like they are not part of the system."

If I were an American I might wonder what you are doing using by Global Positioning system which I paid for. I might also be having a small chuckle that you are so inept at running your own GA business that pilots want to sign up their aircraft on my register and come and do their PPL in my country.

As I said before aviation is the one industry where international boundaries should count for very little. There should be one standard. There should be equal participation. I f Europe goes down the road of petty protectionist £r$$ I suspect it is Europe that will suffer.

The FAA IR is a ICAO qualification. The ICAO consider you are safe to use it any where in the world. However in Europe change the N to a G and you cant. Clearly the lunatics are running the asylum.

[IO540]

If thre are no G registered aircraft equipped to do the trial then that will be highlighted in the trial results by the lack of approaches flown or the fact that only a few registrations participated in the trial.

The other possibility is that a lot of participants won't know the correct procedures (why should they, never been trained) and it will be concluded that they aren't working very well.

For a person who does lots of "real world flying" and constantly criss-crosses Europe doing real IFR flying, it seems odd that with the number of already established GPS approaches in Europe, there has never been a chance to fly one of them...eh IO540?

There are a few others but they offer no benefit because they are generally at major ILS airports, into which I can the ILS, on autopilot down to 200ft DH if desired. Much better and safer than a NP GPS procedure with a MDH of say 800ft, and ATC are used to it and it falls nicely into place with the way they work.

You also forget that the Jepp database has had the approaches in it for just a few days!

[rustle]

Well rather than the normal protectionist moaning for goodness sake recognise aviation as the one business in which international boundaries should count for very little and embrace everyone.

"Protectionist" is an attribute not normally associated with me, but there you go :rolleyes:

Has a lot to do with the fact that they are required to leave or be placed on the N register after 6 months.

DFC, thanks for reminding the readers who the real "protectionists" are :ugh: :hmm:

IO540, the TSO stuff I was reading about on PPLIR ;) and in the CAA publication about the approaches downloadable from the Leeds UNI site.

[Fuji Abound]

Exactly my point - get out of the box.

Who cares what others are doing. We should be world leaders.

If we are prepared to sign up to a standard, embrace it for what is, rather than pick and chose the bits we like.

The sole purpose of a trial is to test the system. That should mean embrace all the users who are likely to use it. That can be the only scientific approach. Ask the FAA if they want to participate. If they don’t, fine, that is a matter for them. Stand proud and ensure we have a regime in which pilots want to participate. Goodness knows why pilots should ask for an exemption, if the CAA cant be bothered to do so in the first place.

One fact in this area of debate has always stood out for me. How many PPL IRs were granted last year and the year before and the year before. It is a disgrace. As supporters of GA we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing these inequities. Is there one of you who will come forward and tell us you believe we should not recognise an ICAO rating? Is there one of you who supports a system in which you can count on nearly one hand the number of PPL IRs granted last year to pilots who have no commercial aspirations.

and to the point in question, is there on of you who can tell me why (in priciple) we should exclude N reg aircraft from a trial to test a new system if those aircraft and the pilot is equipted to the required standard other than "we dont like the N reg brigade, because they arent real pilots and dont fly real aircraft and shouldnt play with our micky mouse systems".

[IO540]

Rustle, we may have wires crossed but I can't see anywhere guidance notes for people whose GPS installation meets the CAA requirements but doesn't have the approach mode enabled. Of course they can just get hold of the Installation Manual for their GPS, look up the "super secret keypad sequence" required to get into the config pages, and re-enable it, but that's illegal :=

As an aside, a small point but worth knowing about: I have been thumbing through a lot of GPS approach procedure detail stuff in the GPS operating manual (there is actually enough there for a 2-day hands-on training course, something else that appears to have been overlooked) and it turns out that one cannot fly an overlay procedure as a GPS procedure; when such an approach is selected the GPS will

a) not switch to the approach mode, and

b) not drive the CDI or HSI

This is based on the reasonable assumption that the pilot is using the conventional navaid equipment to fly the procedure, and the GPS is used for monitoring only. So, such procedures cannot be flown with the GPS driving the autopilot (assuming the AP works off the HSI, as most do). The fact that the HSI bar doesn't do a great deal is slightly non-obvious; a bit like flying an ILS with both needles perfectly centred because the instrument has failed ;)

OTOH, overlay procedures in the USA can and are thus flown, I am informed this morning. It would appear that Jepp have "GPS enabled" the US overlays but have not similarly enabled European overlays.

[DFC]

There are a few others but they offer no benefit because they are generally at major ILS airports, into which I can the ILS, on autopilot down to 200ft DH if desired. Much better and safer than a NP GPS procedure with a MDH of say 800ft, and ATC are used to it and it falls nicely into place with the way they work.

Two points;

1. There are plenty of procedures that are not so situated. One is quite close to UK controlled airspace if you care to look.

More importantly,

2. The purpose of the trial is to obtain data for the CAA to base any future decision regarding the provision of GPS approaches on. It is most definitely not so that you can test the autopilot on your aircraft.

----------
One fact in this area of debate has always stood out for me. How many PPL IRs were granted last year and the year before and the year before. It is a disgrace. As supporters of GA we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing these inequities

The simple fact is that the majority of GA flying outside the training system be it mesing about in an old cub or auster or ripping off to the South of France in a nice twin or getting in a few aeros on a calm evening before sunset is done by holders of CPL or higher licenses. The PPL holders as IO540 correctly points out are more often limited to a few burger runs.

Thus that argument is a waste of time. I can't see how you can support such an argument while at the same time say that the IMC can be used as a poor man's IR.......would you not have to include IMC ratings in the figure as well? ;)

-----------

It is clear that this is the first such trial that IO540 or Fuji have been involved with. Let me point out that in the commercial world there are very often trials of various equipment or procedure changes. It is not unusual for such trials to be limited to certain operators and even certain flights or aircraft or crews within airlines. You sound like airline x complaining that airline y is being allowed to fly a trial while x is not. The answer is simply await the results of the trial or find a way of getting yourself involved ( for the betterment of the trial and not one's personal equipment or ideas) as per the trial conditions.

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

"The simple fact is that the majority of GA flying outside the training system be it mesing about in an old cub or auster or ripping off to the South of France in a nice twin or getting in a few aeros on a calm evening before sunset is done by holders of CPL or higher licenses."

If that is true it is down to very poor instructing I am afraid. Even more reason to let our N reg friends at it - at least they still seem to receive proper instruction.

"It is clear that this is the first such trial that IO540 or Fuji have been involved with."

What is clear is that despite your protestations you cannot answer the questions I put. It is the old politicians trick of answer a question with another question that is wholly irrelevant to the debate.

I am in any event very wary of the argument - "that is the way it has always been done". Like my earlier point - carry on granting 1 PPL / IR a year and yet be surprised at all the FAA IRs and N regs around, then try and prevent the use of N reg aircraft, and then I suppose be surprised you have killed off one whole part of GA.

If you are an instructor its your neck on the block, not mine!

We should be doing something about it, rather than making cheap remarks about the IMCR or the N reg guys not being allowed to play. That is easy to do - the right thing to do would be to try and change the system for the better, but we would rather protect what we perceive to be our own immediate interests.

[IO540]

I am still trying to work out what DFC does for a living, or a hobby ;)

I have a pretty good idea.

All of the UK trial approaches are on airfields with an existing IAP, and as far as I can see there is no reduction in the MDH, so what is the point? One could charitably speculate that they will reduce the MDH when the IAP goes live...

The trial may not be to test one's autopilot (if that is so, the CAA needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the latter 5th of the 20th century) but it most certainly is about testing one's GPS.

[DFC]

Fuji,

I answered your question many moons ago on the first thred.

Again I say that the CAA can not publish procedures for international traffic unless the CAA is happy that they are meeting the full ICAO SARPS. If the CAA was content that GPS procedures were safe to proceed with in the UK then there would be no need for a trial.

If an N reg operator wanted to participate, they could ask the FAA for a waiver and then ask the CAA to participate. They could also use one of the many UK registered aircraft available to participate.

An N reg single aircraft GA operator who thinks that the trial will be any less successful without their being involved should show something more than an FAA IR and a standard equipped aircraft.

Trials flying is done for the good of the trial. NOT for personal gratification or personal testing of one's own equipment.

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

DFC

Yes - and that is the other thing politicians do - answer a question they wish they had been asked, rather than the question actually asked. :ugh:

IO

"All of the UK trial approaches are on airfields with an existing IAP, and as far as I can see there is no reduction in the MDH, so what is the point? One could charitably speculate that they will reduce the MDH when the IAP goes live..."

That puzzles me as well.

Lets see, they cant be testing GPS per se because that has already been done,

they cant be testing the aircraft born equipment because that has also been done, and in any event DFC has outlawed that possibility,

they might be testing ATCs ability to cope with a new procedure, but I wouldn’t want to be that disingenuous to air traffic,

they cant be testing foreign pilots, because they have been effectively excluded, and when the GPS approach at Lille was introduced the French didn’t test French pilots, so it cant even be European pilots,

ah, so it must be to test British IMCR or IR holders. A dodgy lot if you ask me.

Of course they might think physics behaves in a different way in these little old islands of ours, or they might think our chaps aren’t sure how to draw up a GPS plate.

It will be interesting to read the results of the trial though - a shame it is only going to test part of the population. It does make you wonder (God forbid) if there was any sort of accident involving a foreign pilot in a foreign registered aircraft what the legal repercussions might be if there was found to be some peculiarity about the way the foreign pilot or aircraft operated. Erm so let me see - you only trialed UK aircraft and then you let everyone use it.

[JW411]

DFC:

I find myself in agreement with you. I have a valid ATPL and have been flying aeroplanes solo since 1957. I also fly for fun and thoroughly enjoy it.

I got my first professional IR in 1962 in the RAF. It has been renewed every year since then and I still have one (JAR). I would have to say that the easiest renewals that I ever did were in the USA when I flew the DC-10 for a Part 121 operator.

My little aeroplane is fully-IFR equipped and my GPS is certificated to TSO C129a, Class A1 (en route, terminal and approach).

I think that I am as qualified as any to take part in the CAA GPS trials and I might just be able to give a more dispassionate view than some of you. Any trial can produce some interesting results. As someone else previously pointed out, ATC are also involved in this in a big way and the interaction can be quite interesting.

The other day I was asked if I had booked my letdowns on "the website"!

I wonder if they do this at Heathrow!

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I might interject into this fascinating discussion.

Firstly, I'm not involved in this trial, nor do I work for the CAA - I never have.

I do however have a couple of decades of flight test experience, and am a CAA authorised signatory for test plans and reports (amongst several other things).

If I was working for CAA, or more likely a CAA approved organisation, and was asked to plan such a trial (not entirely unlikely, it's the sort of thing I do), then I would not be interested in the integrity of GPS equipment - that is well established and the data I can pull off the shelf. Nor would I be interested in whether GPS approaches are viable per-ce, that's well proven in the USA.

What I'd be interested in would be (in no particular order):

(1) How to produce GPS approach plates and procedures for use at UK airfields?
(2) What training would be required for UK/JAA IMC and IR rated pilots to operate GPS approach procedures?
(3) What training would be required for UK ATC to operate GPS approach procedures.
(4) What changes would be needed to the UK AIP and associated documents to permit this.

The biggie is (2), I'd not want the data I was generating to be "polluted" by aircrew being primarily trained in non-UK practices, nor aircraft typically equipped to different minimum legal requirements than contained in the UK AIP. For that reason alone, I would exclude N-reg aircraft, and pilots without UK licences, I'd certainly prefer to have aircrew without US licences and experience in the main conduct of the trial - although I'd certainly be very happy to use them as a separate part of the trial, or in the planning of it.

In addition there is the inevitable political position. UK CAA would like us all to be flying G-reg aeroplanes. To acknowledge that there are things that work better in N-reg aircraft by including them in the trial would cause a political disaster that I can't imagine would go down well with the chairman!

Finally, you only need a certain sample size; if you can get it with what's on the G-reg (aeroplanes and pilots) why go to the cost and complication of negotiating data and permissions with FAA to use their fleet?

G

[drauk]

Has anyone in an N-reg actually called up one of the partcipating airfields and said "Hi, I'd like to try the GPS approach. I'm N reg so I won't be doing it officially, but I'll fly the whole thing as an entirely visual approach, is that okay with you?". If so, what did they say? Seems like a reasonable question to me.

[Fuji Abound]

Genghis - what a well considered post.

I would comment on one aspect.

You say you would be happy to include N reg aircraft in a separate part of the trial but would not want to pollute the trial as a whole.

Surely the key is the first part. Include the N reg guys in the sample because you can sub divide the results, and it might give some interesting data - it certainly cant do any harm. The results could be interesting because in theory you have got one group of pilots accustom to GPS approaches (but maybe unaccustomed to the way they will be implemented in Europe) and a group of pilots unaccustomed to GPS approaches.

Of course we also know the reality is whilst the FAA IR guys may have done some or all of their training in the States on the whole they probably spend the majority of their time flying in Europe.

[IO540]

GTE

I agree with you - and I am certain the politics will always completely override any desire to capture a useful sample.

Except for one thing:

"nor aircraft typically equipped to different minimum legal requirements than contained in the UK AIP"

In CAA-speak "different" would suggest "lower" ;)

There is no basis for this because the equipment carriage requirements (in ANO Schedule 4 and 5) apply to all aircraft registrations. There is no basis for assuming that foreign reg planes violate UK law, any more than UK regd planes do.

In reality, loads of G-reg planes fly underequipped IFR in CAS, illegally, and no doubt some SR22s without ADF/DME fly illegally IFR in CAS, and if you spent a week trawling through the respective national AIPs to determine the equipment carriage v. airspace class matrix for every EU State's airspace you would find that an awful lot of technical violations are almost inevitable. This is an area in which ignorance is bliss; one would go mad otherwise.

But this is no grounds to assume that N-reg is more likely to be under-equipped than G-reg. In fact, just looking around, the very reverse is very much in evidence.

Drauk - not sure I would want to even try it in an N-reg. In the UK GA scene, with so many people listening in on VHF (routinely in flying schools) a report would go to the CAA the same day. But, as I posted earlier, I don't see why one could not fly the track at say 3000ft AGL. The aircraft equipment won't behave any differently.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis - what a well considered post.
I would comment on one aspect.
You say you would be happy to include N reg aircraft in a separate part of the trial but would not want to pollute the trial as a whole.
Surely the key is the first part. Include the N reg guys in the sample because you can sub divide the results, and it might give some interesting data - it certainly cant do any harm. The results could be interesting because in theory you have got one group of pilots accustom to GPS approaches (but maybe unaccustomed to the way they will be implemented in Europe) and a group of pilots unaccustomed to GPS approaches.
Of course we also know the reality is whilst the FAA IR guys may have done some or all of their training in the States on the whole they probably spend the majority of their time flying in Europe.

Whilst on the face of it, that argument is sound, I can't help suspect that any benefit this offers, could be drawn far more easily by the lead researchers spending some time in the USA seeing how they do it there. If they've not done this, I'd frankly be extremely surprised.

G

[IO540]

Having been to one CAA presentation on this, I don't think they even asked the FAA questions like that.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Having been to one CAA presentation on this, I don't think they even asked the FAA questions like that.
I'm curious - why do you say that?

G

(As I said before, no involvement myself, but curious).

[rustle]

(2) What training would be required for UK/JAA IMC and IR rated pilots to operate GPS approach procedures?

G

An excellent question :)

The only example syllabus I have been able to find is from Australia.

There doesn't appear to be an FAA or CAA equivalent. (Happy to be corrected if someone can find a URL to an FAA or CAA version)

See Appendix 4 to this document (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao40/400201.pdf)

[IO540]

The FAA addresses this pretty effectively by the fact that if you turn up for an FAA checkride (PPL or IR) in some spaceship, the examiner will ask you to show you can operate all the buttons.

Gets a little worrisome when you are used to rented spamcans and then go to the USA to do the PPL or whatever, and all the planes you can rent have a GNS430+530+ S-tec 55X :)

I do agree, however, that GPS training is needed to fly GPS approaches. I guess the biggest problem will be to find instructors - I have never met anyone in the UK who fully understands the ins and outs of how to fly a full approach and then transition to the missed, all done with the GPS in LEG/OBS modes as intended by the manufacturer.

In reality, people who fly planes at this level aren't stupid, and they stick to the features they know, and ignore the rest. Nothing wrong with that.

[drauk]

I have never met anyone in the UK who fully understands the ins and outs of how to fly a full approach and then transition to the missed, all done with the GPS in LEG/OBS modes as intended by the manufacturer.

Sure you have! But where did I learn to do it? In the US.

[englishal]

I think that there is a definite air of snobbery in Britain, which tends to make some people think that N reg and American licence holders are trained to inferior standards ;) . Frankly this attitude used to bug me, but now I couldn't care less (I've been flying with an FAA instrument rating since 2001 when I had 140 hours TT, and have never let it lapse.......unlike some people who let their IR lapse a year after achieving it). I have done many GPS approaches, manually flown and (shock horror) autopilot coupled, and they work well, so I don't really know why they need to be trialed? Whoever designes them just needs to pick several waypoints on the map, and create the approach - not rocket science. If I could edit the dB of an IFR certified GPS I could create my own into my own home airfield ;)

Maybe the British pilot just can't handle them (new fangled technology and all that), and that the CAA are actually admitting that there is no point including N registered aeroplanes, as chances are that their pilots are indeed very familiar with the GPS approach.

[DFC]

I have never met anyone in the UK who fully understands the ins and outs of how to fly a full approach and then transition to the missed,

Perhaps if you met me and a host of other instructors I know, you would have met more than 1 person who does and who teaches it.

Of course, we may not teach it the way you want to hear it, but it pleases the CAA and the FAA and the appropriate manufacturers!

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

Its bizarre.

All these instructors in the UK apparently teaching GPS approaches as if we have been doing them for years and the techniques are well established

- and there was me thinking they only just started trialing them ;)

- I know they must have learnt in the States or courtesy of Mr Gates ;) ;)

- or not really know what they are doing yet :ouch:

Mind you I wouldnt mind meeting at least one of them - and you teach where?

[IO540]

These amazing instructors, Fuji, must have a pretty interesting life. Way above the normal training industry average. I mean, for every practice approach they have been teaching, they have had to fly to France or perhaps much further, with the student paying for it ;)

It's a windup.

Especially if the missed approach procedure is based on a conventional navaid.

[DFC]

IO540,

For a "very well traveled pilot flying all over Europe", France can be far away when it suits your argument! :)

If you did an IR in the USA, you would have had ample oportunity to try out all sorts of GPS approaches.

Perhaps you need to ask round about training providers who operate in more than just the UK as well as those providing training for the Avidyne and Garmin 1000 integrated systems not to mention FNPT 2 training in GPS approach procedures.

From your postings regarding GPS, I can tell that your experience and training does not match your bluster and that you by your own admission can not cope without GPS. Perhaps a few well spent minutes in the company of an instructor would improve your life expectancy.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

DFC I am not taking your very obvious bait, but being relatively civilised will reply to other points.

In the USA, a pilot (PPL or IR) has a choice of schools. Some have very modern spamcans (if that's not a contradiction in terms) with a G1000, some will have spamcans with GNS430/530 type stuff, some will have spamcans just like the UK with old junk that's almost falling out of the panel.

You can get your training done in any of these. It's your choice. But whatever you learn it you will do the checkride in and the examiner will expect to see mastery of the aircraft.

If you choose a school with a C172 with a G1000 and all the other kit, you will get the same IR as in a school flying junk. But the former will take 1-2 weeks longer (unless you know the kit already which is probably unlikely at that stage). And a lot of the procedures are highly equipment specific, so if you learn on a G1000+55X plane and then fly a KLN94/KMD550+KFC225 plane, there will be a lot to un-learn and re-learn. in IFR, currency on type is #1 #2 and #3.

So there is a good argument for doing a simple IR where you spend some weeks, several hours a day, banging VORs, localisers and glideslopes (which is what I did) and then getting type specific training on the stuff you will be flying afterwards. Such an IR is similar to the JAA IR, which is still pretty traditional in terms of resources used.

In this context we are usually talking about whole or part-ownership so there is ample opportunity to get clued up and put in the hours.

The immediate problem is that very few instructors in the UK, or indeed Europe, know anything about modern avionics. The next problem is lack of places to practice; no point in going to France to fly a GPS approach when a) there aren't any in the UK; b) any that might come are duplicates of existing procedures which can be flown conventionally and/or with GPS; c) any in Europe are on airports that (mostly) have ILS anyway.

Usually the only way for UK pilots to learn the procedures is by reading the American flying magazines. They often contain excellent articles.

[Fuji Abound]

I still think the real problem is that all this wonderful training is going on some where and presumably available to all but no one will reveal where. It is obvioulsy a very closely guarded secret. In fact so closely guarded that I wonder whether you have to shoot yourself if you mistakenly reveal the location.

It must be a bit like EASA - dont provide the users with any means of contacting them by telehone and then you can be certain the number of complaints you receive will half. The perfect solution towards which we are obviously moving is provide the user with no means of contacting you what so ever.

You can then claim the training is available and of course no one can disprove you or for that matter gain the benefit.