UK IFR Flight Manual and Stuff

[bigfoot01]

I have done a search of the forums and seen a number of threads on Jeppesen vrs Aerad. (I have concluded the answer is Jeppesen, unless you prefer Aerad!) I am just in the middle of doing my IMC, which I am quite enjoying. While leafing through Transair and Flightstore catalogues and staring at the terrible weather we are enjoying at the moment, I thought I should spend some money.

Looking at the 2 UK IFR Flight Manuals, I am thinking when I get my IMC, if I ever get caught by the weather it would be nice to have some plates I could use to get down. Also, it would be good to have some plates to practice with.

I would appreciate thoughts on this (as you lot are a very clever bunch!) and also if anybody knows whether Jeppesen or Aerad cover the most UK airports - from the information provided Aerad seems to offer the most includig Sheffield EGSY where I fly from (I didn't even know they had an instrument approach!)

Finally, I have seen some 'plates' of unofficial instrument approaches. I will not mention any names, incase this it is more wrong than I can possibly imagine, however, if not, does anybody know where to typically obtain these? Thoughts appreciated as always.

[S-Works]

Sheffield does not have an Instrument approach. It used to in its heyday when it was a proper airport and not the main road through an industrial estate.

I would suggest as an IMC pilot you download the plates you need from the AIS website as you will get very bored with the paper updated for Jepp or Aerad and as an IMC pilot you will get limited use out of the subscription. If you really want to get into IMC flying then those of us that do it a lot tend to use the Jeppview electronic service. You can get a UK only coverage as I recall. This is updated every 2 weeks across the internet and allows you to print the plates you need. Carrying the books in the back of the aircraft just in case shows a clear lack of planning and a very quick way to get killed.

There are a lot of "training" approaches out there that are not in the official approaches.

[IO540]

I used to buy the Aerad airway manual (UK) but later changed to the Jepp version a) because the paper is thinner and it all fits into just one binder and b) because of a longer term intention to move to Jeppview and do away with buying paper plates altogether.

I would recommend not bothering with buying any paper plates. Buy a sub to Jeppview 3, and print off the plates for departure, destination, and a few alternates.

Updating the paper subs takes for ever. It makes you look like a real pilot doing it in the airport bar, especially if you wear the proper uniform, but it's a waste of time for the UK and impractical for when you later fly into Europe.

Aerad is a dead product, kept alive by British Airways and a few others. They don't have an electronic version which integrates with flight planning, enroute charts, etc. The sooner you move to Jepp the better.

Eventually you will end up with Flitestar for planning and Jeppview for the approach plates. It's clunky software but does the job.

The Eurocontrol plates are free but are nothing like as readable as the Jepp ones.

[Fuji Abound]

Excellent thoughts from both Bose and IO540.

I would only repeat that unless you have a bottomless wallet, or are really going to do a whole lot of IFR flying, consider just using the AIS and Eurocontrol sites for the time being.

I have known a few people with IRs and IMCs sign up for one of the sub services to find they end up doing half a dozen trips a year. Guess what - they dont renew it next time around. Far better to do it the other way, see if you really need it and then sign up if you do.

The plates on the AIS are fine, they are all there, and if you print off the ones you want before a trip you will know they are up to date. Take your pick which ones you want to look at during your training. Moreover, all the SIDs STARs etc are there as well so you can really fill your boots.

Unfortunately you will not be able to use your IMC in Europe so those on Eurocontrol are irrelevant any way.

[bigfoot01]

Thanks for the response, the information is fantastic on AIS. :ok:

I have not made use of AIS before. For anybody else interested:

www.ais.org.uk (http://www.ais.org.uk)

Register and follow links to UK IAIP and then Aerodrome data specific. Definitely not worth buying the book!

Another top job by the pprune!

[Fuji Abound]

http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/login.jsp;WLSSecurityAesSessionCookie=RnFpnQCc3FFb2n18FM8Uwe Is2Kco6rX1vEJEvZjMNLAOnX0JT4B3!4745227270527016192!172422922 !80!7002

The above will take you straight to the UK plates, but you first need to register (free) and enter your registration.

http://neige.fleurb.jmsp.net/html/frameset_aip_uk.htm

French plates are here.

[Kiltie]

I agree with IO540 that Jepps are becoming more and more prevalent in electronic format. However, having started my career on AERADs, then switched to Jepps, then back to AERAD; my latest employer uses Jepps.

Personally, I can't stand Jepps! Their layout is dull with much important information hidden in small print. They contain many potential level-bust traps by nature of their design. I continue to use AERADs for my private flying.

Many will disagree of course.........

[High Wing Drifter]

I bought the Jepp UK IFR plates when I passed my IMC, never used them!! I then completed my IR using an Aerad airways chart (very clear) and the AIS plates. The only gotcha with the AIS plates is they give you the OCA/OCH, not the DA/DH/MDA/MDH - you must calculate these yourself.

I have subsequently been taught to use Jepp plates which I now think are of a superior format compared to the AIS or Aerad. But it is very much a matter of what you were taught and that is often what you are ultimately most happy with.

[18greens]

High wing drifter,

remind me how to calculate MDA/DH from OCA.

[helicopter-redeye]

...from the information provided Aerad seems to offer the most includig Sheffield EGSY where I fly from (I didn't even know they had an instrument approach!)...


But if you do buy it and there is still an NDB and NDB/ DME plate in there let me have a copy. The ILS is of course, just the "railings at the end of the long road" now.

h-r;)

[bigfoot01]

...training purposes. It is straight forward to simulate an ILS with a little GPS. I wonder if we could find a source of 'training' plates!

[IO540]

I too would like to see any de-commissioned approach procedures ;)

I agree Aerad plates are clearer than Jepp. It depends on what you want to do afterwards.

Aerad are a dead end product - you get printed plates, and you get printed airways charts.

I don't know if their airways charts still carry both high and low airways; they were very cluttered.

Aerad did do something "electronic", selling their plates in PDF format I believe, but these were not usable in any manner with a GPS.

With Jepp, you get a more useful product set:

Flitestar - relatively comprehensive VFR/IFR flight planning

Jeppview - approach plate viewer/printer, plus a subset of Flitestar in JV3

JV also comes with Flitedeck which gives you a GPS moving map over anything which it can display: enroute charts or approach plates. It won't do this with SIDs/STARs because most of these are not drawn to scale.

Flitestar/Jeppview are the only European airways flight planning products on the market, and the issues with Eurocontrol routings are so bad that planning a route off the printed airways charts alone rarely works.

Unless one's IFR ambitions are fixed for ever, it pays to look forward, and getting used to Jepp plates is then a good idea.

Also, a lot of people have a Jeppview sub, or have access to one, and can email you the approach plates as a PDF. It takes only a moment to do that for somebody. Most jet operators have the worldwide JV sub ($$$$).

The UK JV sub is similar in price to the printed book, so IMHO it's no contest.

For VFR, just use Navbox. Far easier to use than the clunky Jepp products, but it's another dead end product which is excellent for European VFR and that's it. I have a sub to the pro version - excellent for a quick VFR flight around the UK.

[helicopter-redeye]

It is straight forward to simulate an ILS with a little GPS

How does a GPS simulate glideslope?

[Dr Eckener]

I am just in the middle of doing my IMC
So why offer him....
French plates are here.
Just being a miserable old swine - ignore me ;)
remind me how to calculate MDA/DH from OCA.
Compare system minima with OCH. Take the higher as the mimima.
Main system minima are CAT 1 ILS - 200', LLZ - 250', VOR/DME - 250', NDB/DME - 300'.
If required add 50' PEC for precision approach.

[bigfoot01]

I meant NDB - that's not working at Sheffield at the moment either! Doing too many things at once!

[Fuji Abound]

Just to complete the picture these people also provide plates "specially" designed for Cat A aircraft:

http://www.gcap.co.uk/platesindex.html

I think it is correct to say they have found mixed favour, but they are "simple and clear".

Dr E

The trick is to read the whole of the posts on the thread (before and after) :).

Dont forget to add the IMCR recommended uplift if you wish.

[Dr Eckener]

Unfortunately you will not be able to use your IMC in Europe so those on Eurocontrol are irrelevant any way.
I stand suitably chastised Fuji!

[tmmorris]

Err... BigFoot01, slightly surprised you haven't used www.ais.org.uk before. Where were you getting your NOTAMs for cross-country flying? Or did someone at your club do them for you?

Tim

[bigfoot01]

I have always used a product called NOTAM Map, it seems to download a feed, so you can read the Notams and produces a visual reference, which is quite handy. I think I picked it up here in the early days and have not really looked anywhere else. I have also been known to look at the printed Notams in the club before a local flight.

[soay]

http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/login.jsp;...422922!80!7002
The above will take you straight to the UK plates, but you first need to register (free) and enter your registration.
Not for me it doesn't. I've got to follow menus/links to all these pages to get to the AIP Indexes:

PUBLICATIONS/UKAIP
The UK AIP Package
UK AIP
UK AIP

I've been looking for the opportunity to ask if I'm doing something wrong, because that gets very tedious after a while!

[drauk]

You can get the AIS plates from fly.dsc.net without registering. You can either search for the aerodrome you want or even just put the identifier straight in the URL, like this:

http://fly.dsc.net/u/Charts?ident=EGSH

You can also download whole collections of plates here:

http://fly.dsc.net/u/Charts

[IO540]

How does a GPS simulate glideslope?

The Garmin 496 is one that has that feature. I have an explanation somewhere which I can probably dig out if you really need it, but IIRC you use the descent management feature with a setting of 0 for the desired height at the destination. The HSI page then shows you a CDI with LOC/GS on it.

I know of some pilots who use it as a cross-check for an ILS.

I don't know of any IFR GPS that has this feature.

It would be a fun debate whether this is more or less safe than a DIY approach that uses a GPS for lateral nav, and a traditional dive/drive profile for the vertical nav. In general, continuous lateral+vertical guidance is safer because you have less workload and can't mess up the stepdown fixes.

[bigfoot01]

I know some GPS that have a course deviation indicator and which could be used to simulate a 'training' and 'simulated' VOR Approach. You could calculate your heights along a 3 degree guide slope. I am guessing if you are up there, can't fly in VFR and are determined to land, it is probably safer than nothing, but if you need it, you probably shouldn't be up there. The problem is it can get quite confusing and if you program in a waypoint incorrectly or set the gps up wrongly, then you could cause a problem. The thing about simulating a VOR with a GPS, especially one you have programmed yourself, is you can ident a VOR and you can be pretty confident you know where it is. The same generally can't be said for GPS. If I go into your gps and change a number on a way point, I could move it a long way away!

If it is just a cross check to VFR Flight, then hey ho.

I don't know if I would trust a gps to do an ils approach, I know height information isn't accurate with the GPS Units and I wouldn't like to trust a little in built altimeter.

[Keef]

I agree with what the folks above have said. With an IMC rating, you don't want to be updating IFR plates in a book covering umpteen airfields all over the UK, and who knows what for elsewhere.

It's far easier to download them from AIS (or from Drauk, which is where I get mine now) as you need them. Don't keep using the old ones without checking for updates before each trip!

You can't legally use your IMC abroad, although you might (for safety's sake only) choose to download the IFR plates for your foreign destination and alternate - just in case.

[tmmorris]

I'd love to do that but AIS don't have plates for military airfields, including my home base, and I can no longer rely on the FLIP publications from the RAF because they only include one approach per runway. So I have been forced into Jeppesen.

Incidentally I wouldn't dream of flying an NDB approach in IMC without my (hand-held) GPS set up to navigate to the NDB waypoint in CDI mode. I have the Lowrance 1000 which does this admirably - you can split the screen and have CDI on the left, moving map on the right. Comparing the GPS and ADF readings is quite scary, especially at 'notorious' places like Shoreham and Gloucester. (And guess which is closer to the profile on the plate...)

Tim

[bigfoot01]

OK, I am in the middle of my IMC, so I am happy to admit that I don't have an appreciation of the practical world of this sort of thing. If you are flying an NDB approach and your GPS is pointing in the wrong direction in IMC what do you do?

[Fuji Abound]

Bigfoot1

I think you will need to clarrify what it is you are asking - are you asking what you would do if your GPS was telling you one thing and your ADF something different?

[tmmorris]

If you are asking what Fuji thinks you are, then it's your call, I'm afraid.

Personally if on approach, I'd break off the approach, tell ATC why, and try to get some other nav fix (radar, if possible). Try the approach again, and if it happens again, divert (or use another approach aid if you can, e.g. VOR approach instead of NDB, or ask for an SRA if they can do them (Gloucester can).

Or continue the approach using the GPS only :-P but don't tell the CAA.

But like so many thinks in flying, it's a judgment call.

Tim

[bigfoot01]

Fuji, happy to clarify - yes.

I guess if you don't bust the MDA, who's to know? But it sounds worrying that you can have those sort of problems on a NDB approach!

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji, happy to clarify - yes.

I guess if you don't bust the MDA, who's to know? But it sounds worrying that you can have those sort of problems on a NDB approach!

I still dont understand the question, but assuming it is the one I think you are asking, then tmmorris has it - don’t bet your life on the GPS.

The reality is even if it is an approach approved panel GPS it is not approved for what you are trying to do with it.

Even at places like Shoreham there is something fundamentally wrong with either the GPS or the ADF if there is a gross error between the two.

If there is a gross error resolve that first.

Does the ADF 180 turn when the GPS reckons you are over the beacon?

Does the DME correspond with the GPS. The DME is not going to be effected in the same way as the ADF by local topography.

How is the the discrepancy resolved by DF?

In short there are plenty of means of assessing whether if there is a gross error it is down to the GPS or ADF, and of course it is the gross error scenario that is the one to worry about.

[High Wing Drifter]

If flying an NDB procedure then I would not use a GPS, I suspect it would complicate matters. I won't be flying the wrong direction without a gross error at or before the IAF so all the GPS can do is amplify any lack of confidence. The NDB procedure is designed to be safe within the limits of the locator, if the needle is in the correct sense, the ID is verified, the DME looks right, my height corresponds to the DME and my heading is about right then I am where I should be.

[tmmorris]

DF's a good point, actually, and often overlooked. Get a QDR from the approach unit and compare it to where you think you are.

One of these days I must get round to flying a DF approach, before they are abolished completely.

Tim

[bigfoot01]

...Fuji, just wondered what you didn't understand about my question? You answered it nonetheless. If you have a gps way point set up to the same place as an NDB and one is pointing one way and one is pointing the other what would you do?

[Fuji Abound]

I'd fly to the beacon using the GPS, monitoring the ADF to see whether as I got closer it behaved in the way I would expect. I would cross reference with the DME. If the ADF continued to show a gross error I would ask AT for a DF and use this combined with the GPS and DME to prove my position. If I was satisfied the ADF was u/s and I had no other way of making a cloud break I would rely on the gps, supported with the DME and DF. In the case of Shoreham, given the high ground to the north, I would fly the NDB DME to 02 regardless of the active and perform a low level circuit to land using the GPS if I really had to.

I would report the ADF as u/s after I landed.

[IO540]

If I had a serious difference between a GPS and an ADF, I would divert to somewhere with an ILS.

If [as above] I had not enough fuel or had to land for some other reason, I would trust the GPS anytime. The ADF is a joke at times, anything up to 30 degrees out depending on local terrain features, coastline, storms, etc.

Proper airmanship however dictates that you trust the ADF over a GPS, and if you die as a result, that is acceptable :ugh:

[High Wing Drifter]

In my limited experience, I have seen excessive ADF deviations for locators, but never yet within the range of the average dimensions of the initial instrument approach. As terrain and coast errors are predictable, then I would expect them to be taken account of in the design of the approach.

[IO540]

HWD

IMHO you are doing things the official way, but the wrong way round when it comes to minimising risk.

The smart way is to use the most accurate and most reliable nav device as the primary reference, and use the next best one as a cross-check.

So, fly the GPS overlay as #1, and check the ADF at appropriate points as #2.

This incidentally, is how certain low cost airlines fly nonprecision approaches into airports with VOR or NDB approaches, under an AOC and an ops manual that is approved by the UK CAA. They fly it using the FMS, and just do a quick ADF check at the FAF.

To do the opposite is like using a Trabant to tow a Toyota, so you can use the Toyota when the Trabant packs up.

It's true that the powers to be know that NDB approaches are truly cr*p - even if this is never admitted officially - and NDB approaches are designed so you don't kill yourself even if the error is huge. You may not be in a position to land when you get visual if the error is really bad, but that's "OK". With NDB/DME approaches they set the DME stepdowns so that you miss the terrain on the basis of DME alone, usually.

[davidatter708]

Whilst doing normal PPL training we did an ADF let down at leicester with plates ment to end up on final for 28 i was 90degrees across 28 flying a heading of 190 when i popped out of cloud shows how naff ADF can be
David

[High Wing Drifter]

Mr IO,

I'm only too aware of your attitude towards that technology :) And it is true that I'm basing my opinion on my training, but so far the rules of thumb, methods and techniques provided do a very good job of minimising the potential for confusing and reducing risk. Adding more things to the picture all potentially telling their own different story is surely potential for more confusion.

They fly it using the FMS, and just do a quick ADF check at the FAF.
Well I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that assuming a managed approach horizontal navigation will be with a heading select and vertical will be with vert speed, flight path angle or an FMS profile. But this is not the same thing as tracking a GPS which you implied, the NDB is tracked. However, I see the map view and position updates on the MFD as an integrated DME/VOR crosscut permutation, RAIM GPS and IRS. To me this must be quite a different proposition to trying to correlate raw data and a remote and non-integrated GPS.

I think another factor for commercial ops is that the planning minima will be +200' and 1000m so ordinarily, go-arounds due to lack of alignment with the centerline should be few and far between. Again, another assumption on my part.

[IO540]

I disagree - except for the difference that an FMS gets its position reference from INS and that has a high degree of autonomy, whereas a loss of GPS reception will affect one's position immediately.

RAIM, however, should address this adequately.

I don't think any present day navigation system tracks an NDB - in any phase of flight. The "worst" thing that anything flying might be tracking is a VOR. NDB tracking is done purely manually, by looking at an ADF (which can be presented as an RMI but the needle still does the same thing). A plane that was flying a coupled NDB approach, or even tracking an NDB enroute, would be all over the place, banking 30 degrees or more just to stay on it.

I am trying to make a reasonable argument here, for discussion - my "attitude" should not be relevant.

[High Wing Drifter]

I was intending the "attitude" comment to be light hearted, of course this is an intelligent and rational debate. Apologies. I have been very careful to put "I" and not "one's" or "you" in my views. This is my view based on my experience and training, and I accept that it doesn't necessarily make me right, just makes it reasonable too.

I don't think any present day navigation system tracks an NDB - in any phase of flight.
Absolutely, hence the reference to "heading select" which is the AP being manually driven (for want of a better phrase).

My counter point to the airliner reference was really that a fully integrated system being handled by two pilots to, probably more stringent planning criteria is perhaps not so easily comparable to a relatively very inexperienced single pilot hand flying an approach, not planning in accordance with JAR-OPS and introducing more sources of potentially conflicting information.

[IO540]

No offence taken, HWD - I write straight and don't read others between the lines (unless they really work at it, like some do) :)

Fair point re multi crew; however this can also be argued the other way: a single pilot IFR flight increases pilot workload and he then needs the best possible equipment available.

In reality, most accidents are pilot error (even with 2 x ATPL) and this drives most commercial procedure training (CRM etc). But straight equipment performance/reliability is a separate issue IMHO.

There is no doubt in my mind that a pilot is better off relying on the best technology.

The exception is where he doesn't know how to use it, and this leads to the conflict which fills these forums so often - PPL training is very basic and does not attempt to address much past WW2 gear. So, there is much "advice" to avoid using modern gear. This is a fair point too, but is backwards-looking. I am sure Columbus would have gone for the dreaded 3-letter G-word instantly.

Back to ADF: as you say you need to either fly it manually or in HDG mode. However, if you choose to fly the corresponding GPS overlay then you can fly it coupled with an autopilot, and it is your choice whether to spend the copious extra time you now have to monitor the ADF. IMHO it's an obvious choice: monitoring is far easier and safer than flying+monitoring.

We don't have GPS approaches, but the overlays have been in the Jepp databases for years, and most airports with a published IAP have them - even if it's just the final approach track as a short line from the FAF to the runway.