Minimum Instruments For IFR/IMC

[smortimore]

There are a few of us debating signing up for the Cirrus syndicate operated by Flycummuls.

The breaker looks like the fact that the 20's are not equipped with an ADF. I know that it is not on the minimum equipment list in the US for IFR flying, but I am sure that it is in the UK FIR etc.

I seem to remember was a major issue when they first started arriving in Europe.

I have searched through LASORS and the CAA website but cannot find anything on this.

As IMC capable is a must for us, anybody know the answer and where it is referenced?

Thanks

[adz1616]

hi

I have an N registered aircraft without an adf also, I believe it is a requirement in europe to have an ADF to fly IFR legally even though you can manage without it with a GPS

[TheOddOne]

A lot of folk get confused (rightly) by UK IFR definition and requirements. Of course if you mean within Class 'A' airspace then you are talking about the equipment lists as specified in the ANO.

However, the ONLY 'instruments' you need in the UK for IFR in Class 'G' are an altimeter (for telling if you're 1,000' above an obstruction) and a compass (to tell what course you're on with reference to said obstruction)

UK IFR definition outside CAS has NOTHING to do with flight 'by sole reference to instruments' as it does elsewhere and you might sensibly think it should here, too.

TheOddOne

[BackPacker]

Details in the UK AIP, specifically 1.5.3, para 1.2.2.

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/gen/EG_GEN_1_5_en.pdf

The document talks about "IFR flight in controlled airspace". I don't see a distinction between A on one side and D-E on the other side, so my guess is that it would be required in B-E too. But I'm not IFR rated and don't fly in the UK all that often, so I might have missed something.

[Islander2]

IFR, in IMC or VMC, is fine with no ADF outside Class A airspace.Fine it might well be, but in UK Class B, C, D and E airspace (as well as Class A) it ain't legal unless the ATCU has otherwise permitted in relation to the particular flight ... ref Schedule 5 ANO, paragraphs 2(1), 3(1) and 4.

[bookworm]

The CAA is consulting (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1729&pagetype=90) on removing the requirement for an ADF for flight in controlled airspace.

It doesn't, however, address the issue of NDB approaches, and approaches for which an NDB forms a fix.

[Islander2]

However, the ONLY 'instruments' you need in the UK for IFR in Class 'G' are an altimeter (for telling if you're 1,000' above an obstruction) and a compass (to tell what course you're on with reference to said obstruction)TheOddOne, sorry but that's plain wrong!

Firstly, you haven't correctly covered the equipment mandated by Schedule 4 of the ANO for non-public-transport flight OCAS.

Perhaps less well known, you also haven't considered the equipment mandated for IFR flight by the 'Kinds of Operations Equipment List' set out in the Limitations Section of the aeroplane's POH.

Not that this anything to do with the original poster's query!

[IO540]

a) The carriage of an ADF is mandatory for IFR in controlled airspace in the UK.

b) The carriage of a DME is mandatory for IFR in practically all of Europe.

There are no known prosecutions in the UK, on the above - despite much rumour on pilot forums :)

As bookworm suggests, even if a) is removed, a plane without an ADF will still be practically useless for IFR, due to the large number of approaches in UK and abroad which feature an NDB.

This leads to an interesting debate whether an ADF should be used for flying these; suprisingly there appears to be no legal requirements for that. I think most smart pilots fly NDB approaches using their GPS (either using the OBS mode, or using the overlay) while checking the ADF at the top of descent.

[TheOddOne]

TheOddOne, sorry but that's plain wrong!

Firstly, you haven't correctly covered the equipment mandated by Schedule 4 of the ANO for non-public-transport flight OCAS.

Yes, you're quite right, I do apologise. No compass required, but a turn & slip instead. Altimeter I was right about...

(2) Aeroplanes

(a) flying for purposes other than public transport; and

A(1) and (2) and B(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)

(ii) when flying under Instrument Flight Rules;


(aa) outside controlled airspace - D



A and B are about equipment, seat belts etc

D says

Scale D


(1) In the case of a helicopter or gyroplane, a slip indicator.

(2) In the case of any other flying machine either—



(a) a turn indicator and a slip indicator; or

(b) a gyroscopic bank and pitch indicator and a gyroscopic direction indicator.


(3) A sensitive pressure altimeter adjustable for any sea level barometric pressure which the weather report or forecasts available to the commander of the aircraft indicate is likely to be encountered during the intended flight.

I can't see any other requirement for IFR flight in the UK in VMC OCAS.

I have several friends with aircraft with no electrical systems who fly non-radio who sometimes fly in accordance with IFR VMC OCAS below 3000'.

TOO

[Islander2]

TheOddOne, that's correct as far as it goes ... but you're still completely ignoring the other legal requirement, which is compliance with the Kinds of Operations Equipment List contained within the POH.

In my aeroplane, flight under IFR (inside or outside controlled airspace and in VMC or IMC) requires the following flight instruments to be fitted and operable: ASI; Altimeter; Attitude Indicator; Directional Gyro; Magnetic Compass; OAT Indicator; Clock; Slip-Skid Indicator; and Rate-of-Turn Indicator.

Since this is a requirement contained within the Limitations Section of the POH, it is a legal necessity for validity of the CofA.

I have several friends with aircraft with no electrical systems who fly non-radio who sometimes fly in accordance with IFR VMC OCAS below 3000'.I rather suspect this is far removed from what the original poster had in mind with their query! In any event, your friends may well be doing so illegally if they're G-Reg! Schedule 5 of the ANO, paragraph 2(5)(e) requires radiocoms equipment to be carried for ANY G-Reg IFR flight, wherever they may be.

[bookworm]

As bookworm suggests, even if a) is removed, a plane without an ADF will still be practically useless for IFR, due to the large number of approaches in UK and abroad which feature an NDB.

Oh practically it would be just fine. ;)

[IO540]

OK I agree ;)

By "practically" I was thinking about being legal in countries where the carriage of an ADF is mandatory for flying NDB-based approaches.

It's a while since I did a trawl of the AIPs but I recall Switzerland mandated the carriage of an ADF for any NDB approach, which is a novelty (no such rule in the UK).

[A and C]

I'm racking my brain to think of the last time that I used the ADF for anything (apart from getting the Cricket scores).

In all the practical IF that I do the ADF is not used because the Area Nav will do the job of getting you to an NDB better than the ADF will, for legal reasons I may well tune the ADF to the station.

The big problem is that if the requirement for ADF is dropped some of the NDB approaches will be withdrawn and the way things are going in the UK at the moment these approaches won't be replaced with GNSS (GPS) approaches.

Having started using the GNSS approaches for real now I find it hard to see why the authority's are taking so much time to bin the ADF once and for all the safety case alone must be compelling.

[A and C]

The last "real" NDB approach that I did was about 15 years back into Cologne one night when the ILS was off for maintenance, the ADF needle spent almost the whole approach swinging between the NDB and two large thunderstorms, I thank my luck that the cloud base was well above the minima that night.

Each time I do an IR renewal as I go down the NDB approach I can't help thinking that in this day and age I should not be doing this with a 78 tonne airliner! (or a PA34!!).

[glazer]

"Don't get me wrong, the aircraft I usually fly has serious EFIS and a good FMS (which uses GPS as well as DME and VOR), but I like to cross check and I find the ADF needle an invaluable aid to situational awareness. "

So what do would you do if the the ADF pointed in a different direction from your FMS?:confused:

[IO540]

So what do would you do if the the ADF pointed in a different direction from your FMS?

I am sure they have an approved procedure for that case - it's a commercial op with an approved manual.

I had a funny exchange with an instructor a while ago. I asked him what he would do if the ADF said he was OK but a GPS was saying he is going to die. His reply was he would trust the ADF. D*ckhead.

This kind of stupidity, within some of the instructing profession, is why we still have these attitudes.

The correct answer, for most people I think, is you climb to the SSA, get radar vectors, and land somewhere with an ILS.

[421C]

This leads to an interesting debate whether an ADF should be used for flying these; suprisingly there appears to be no legal requirements for that


It's by default, unless you have a legal approach-approved IFR GPS installation and operational approval to fly "overlay" GPS procedures.

I think the point of DME and ADF being required to be carried but not required to be used is that there can be approved alternatives for use in an FMS-equipped aircraft (but requiring the radio kit to be carried as a back up or cross-check)

[A and C]

Did you actually use the ADF? I would tune the thing if it was part of the procedure and keep it in the scan but to be quite honest I have not had to make any practical use of the information that the ADF had to offer for a long time.

I find it very hard to think of a situation it which an ADF would tell you that the FMS had gone wrong before the FMS had done so already, ADF is dark ages technology with so many potential errors that if someone tried to introduce it now as a new navigation system they would lock them up in the funny farm!

To be quite honest I think that you would do well to examine he way you are flying the aircraft to see if some of your practices are not a hang over from the way the IR is taught in the UK and you are not using the out dated practices that are the stock in trade of those who love to turn everything into a black art just to make themselves look clever.

[jxk]

I know technology has moved on but I used to get great satisfaction out of being able to complete a plus/minus 10 second NDB hold and approach. Oh the good old days, does any one remember the VDF procedure .. Request QDM:)

[A and C]

Looks like I have hit the nail on the head and got you thinking about this!

I did not in any way criticise you or the way you fly but just suggested that you look at things from another viewpoint and examine the way you are (or are not) using the information presented to you and the value you place upon it.

To think that the ADF will tell you that an FMS has packed up before the FMS will tell you its self is deeply flawed thinking, it would seem that you are tuning the ADF as some sort of safety blanket without thinking of the limitations of the system. Map shift is very unlikely with a modern FMS and almost imposable to correct with out a good position fix and ADF simply would not give you such a fix, VOR/DME is just about up to this.

So the bottom line is that the ADF points (sometimes) at something that is (sometimes) useful but is subject to all sorts of errors (at random) so I like you tune the thing each approach in line with company SOP,s but it is not the source of much in the way of useful or reliable information. So why are we bothering with ADF in this day and age?

However the way you seem to snap back at another view on the subject seems to indicate a mind that is already half closed to another view of the way aircraft can be flown, remember that the worlds biggest user of aircraft no longer requires ADF for IFR flight.

[smortimore]

thanks for all the input into the discussion. Looks like an ADF is required: For transits/landings IFR in zones and as there are so many procedures out there that still use them.

I certainly tune it in as a back up when flying. But then again I still draw a line on a map and use the GPS to check it!

[IO540]

I know technology has moved on but I used to get great satisfaction out of being able to complete a plus/minus 10 second NDB hold and approach

The thing is that you could point to any number of 'hey look how skilled I am at this' things but unless they are relevant to practical flying, they are just a waste of the pilot's time and brain space, and can be regarded as the province of the (many) elitist types which still inhabit the aviation world - particularly the regulatory bits of it.

The protected area of a hold is massive - big enough for a 747 at something like 200kt. Consequently there is exactly zero point in flying one to the accuracy you refer to. It may be fun but a pilot doing that - no matter how good he is - isn't going to have spare brain capacity to keep tabs on everything else he needs to do. Let's say that on hold #7 the surface wind changes resulting in a runway change and he has to dig out a bunch of the 'other' approach plates, while flying this wonderfully perfect NDB hold. The whole job is going to come to pieces - because he had no spare brain capacity. Better still, his fuel goes below reserves while in the hold and then he has to do something else.

The 'art' of flying safely is to manage the cockpit workload so it is minimised, and then you can handle whatever ATC or weather throw at you.

Funnily enough I quite like the ADF - when I used to fly VFR abroad, it made a handy backup for the GPS because very often there were no VORs on the route (the VORs were in CAS). I have a dual-needle RMI displaying the ADF bearing and flying NDB-anything is a piece of cake. But if you look at the cost of a modern reliable ADF (and there is only the KR87 - the rest is nearly all unreliable junk) it's a good few grand and this is not justified against other kit you could spend that sort of money on. The ADF is also very inaccurate, with 30 degree errors (within a specific close range to the beacon, say between 3nm and 5nm) being common.

[jxk]

IO
I think you're trying to tell me that you can't handle the cockpit load - just joking. I thought that teaching the ADF/NDB hold was a good exercise for a student as it taught them about cockpit scan and discipline. Of course these days you can get the autopilot to do it all for you. I flew around Australia a couple of years back, some of the NDBs had a 150 mile range and it was interesting to compare it with the GPS. I agree the cost of ADF equipment is out of proportion with other types of kit and that the KR87 is probably the best available at the moment.

[IO540]

Well yes but you are moving the goalposts :)

Long range enroute nav works pretty well with NDBs because the field distortion caused by coasts and terrain tends to be only local to the beacon, so if you are 100nm away from the beacon, it will be accurate. On my system I have found enroute NDB nav to be more or less as accurate as VOR tracking. I can see the old NDBs, radiating tens of kW, worked very well in the old days, and there were no VORs.

And anybody with the briefest training can enroute track towards an NDB. Especially when enroute when there isn't normally much to do.

But earlier on you talked about NDB holds. These, especially if flown with the 'gates' beloved by IR examiners, are just plain hard work.

Autopilots don't come into this, though obviously they drop cockpit workload by an order of magnitude. But I think that if somebody has an AP, they probably also have a GPS....

And very few GA autopilots can fly holds. Only the relatively modern kit can. You need something like a GNS430W or 530W, driving an AP via ARINC, to fly holds - especially if you want it to compute and fly the correct pattern entry. My AP can fly anything but the KLN94 GPS doesn't contain holding patterns or even (in Europe) any curved tracks.

If I had to fly a hold (only about once in last few years) I would use the OBS mode of the GPS to give me the inbound track on the screen, and then twiddle the heading bug.

[A and C]

I am always pleased to be of assistance but it is not your flying technique that I am seeking to improve!

You would certainly make a fascinating addition to a CRM course, the moment that someone suggests a way of looking at things you instantly think that they are "having a go" at you personally, (rather than the training system and general stick in the mud attitude of the UK regulatory authority that has (mis?)programed your brain).

Last night out of pure interest I did an NDB approach using the company SOP. the ADF was tuned and selected but with two FMC's three ADIRU's two GPS's five DME's and three VOR's doing all the thinking just how much input did the ADF have into the management of the approach?.

The answer of course it that the ADF had absolutely no input what so ever in the positioning of the aircraft either vertically of laterally and to all intents and purposes the aircraft was on an RNAV approach with the ADF selected to stay legal.

Fortunately I don't have to fly under UK CAA regulation as last nights fully managed approach (I am told) is still not approved by them despite the aircraft being on the UK register for twenty years, Flying with company's that are regulated by authority's that don't have the head in the sand attitude of the CAA had been a real eye opener into the potentials for safety improvement.

The only criticism that I would level at you (and only on the basis of two or three posts on this forum) is that you don't seem to have an open mind to other ways of looking at things, but perhaps you are a victim of he CAA controlled training, I know that until I got out into the big wide world I to had an attitude that was narrowed by my UK training.