IR approaches into private sites? (UK) [Archive]

Special 25

13th Aug 2010, 09:13

Google 'Phillip Carter' if you want to find out the results of these sorts of approaches.

I was amazed when I met pilots who were willing to fly these 'Standard GPS' approaches into unapproved sites or airfields without instrument approaches. It was clear that pilots routinely fly down through 300 ft even in the London area, because 'that is the only option'. Obviously, there approaches are practiced and checked out in good VMC first, but it won't take account of any cranes being erected etc.

I did ask what ATC comment was made if they descend IMC, and the reply was that ATC aren't necessarily aware - You just report descending, continuing VFR, QSY - So the onus is on the pilot and ATC have no clear reason to question you.

I am aware that I sit here in my ivory tower, safe in the protection of a large commercial operator and I have none of the pressure bearing down on me that a small charter company would have. Even still ........... !

FloaterNorthWest

13th Aug 2010, 10:31

Helimutt,

My point is that you are doing a non-approved GPS letdown (maybe an NDB approach if some of the rigs still have them) below MSA in IMC with fare paying passengers. You must be IMC at some point or there is no point doing the approach if you are VMC.

And yes there are no wires at sea but there are some big structures that move and can be hidden on the weather radar by clutter.

And if you aren't happy, why do them? Just say no. Simples! Think we know what would happen (or has happened) if you did that?

Ivor,

Did he come from the direction of Bewl Water?

FNW

MINself

13th Aug 2010, 11:43

Sorry to nit pick but an ARA strictly speaking isn't a GPS approach - the GPS is only used as a cross check to the radar picture and it is most certainly an approved procedure!

Horror box

13th Aug 2010, 12:11

My point is that you are doing a non-approved GPS letdown (maybe an NDB approach if some of the rigs still have them) below MSA in IMC with fare paying passengers. You must be IMC at some point or there is no point doing the approach if you are VMC.

And yes there are no wires at sea but there are some big structures that move and can be hidden on the weather radar by clutter.

And if you aren't happy, why do them? Just say no. Simples! Think we know what would happen (or has happened) if you did that?

Ivor,

An ARA (airborne radar approach) is not a GPS letdown at all. As mentioned it is an approved IFR non-precision approach with a published procedure, approved by the CAA, with MDH, MAPt and Missed App procedure. It requires (at least in the country where I operate) an NDB and serviceable radar (which is used in ground mapping mode and sea de-clutter), and GPS may be used as an overlay to confirm the radar returns and positions of reported rig positions. All radar returns are avoided by at least 1nm. In modern machines it is a very established and safe procedure bringing you out on finals, at 0.75nm at MDH, with a clear run-in and clear missed approach section, checked and briefed, and is conducted in a multi-crew environment most often fully coupled 3-cue AP until after MAPt. This gives you the required obstacle clearances and we are provided a full radar or ADS contact all the way, with traffic info from ATC and TCAS as a secondary. Whist radar service is not always available in all all operations there is some form of air traffic service and deconfliction common to all.
So definitely not just "a non-approved GPS letdown" - sorry to disappoint!

helimutt

13th Aug 2010, 12:56

It amazes me why FNW always likes to try pick holes, (not literally :E) and believe me, there are a couple of times we have said no thanks, and gone home!
It isn't a non approved gps letdown either. IFR, non-precision approach isn't it? Even if it is a ridiculous thing to have to do. :ugh::ugh:
That's the difference of working offshore. The Chief Pilot will back you up if you give good reason not to do a job. No arguments. Onshore, you might be shown the door, because there's always one hero ready to do it, right?
Always home in time for tea and medals? ;)

Many thanks Ivor and Horror for the input. :ok:

FloaterNorthWest

13th Aug 2010, 13:48

Thanks everyone you have argued the point I wanted to make that it is possible to have a safe letdown procedure in IMC without a ground based system.

I agree that IMC letdowns are risky and not to be taken lightly and should only be used if the same thought and care is taken as on offshore ARAs. The only added cover you have onshore is that there may be radar cover available.

Sadly there are lots of pilots who have died trying to do it (and killed innocent people) without the necessary experience or suitably equipped aircraft but conversely there are lots of these letdowns carried out perfectly safely everyday using the procedures outlined above for ARAs.

Helimutt,

Sorry to nit pick with you but statements like;

well, you could ask a couple of pilots who've done it in the past but unfortunately, THEY'RE DEAD!!!!!!

Anyone flying like that wants kicked in the nuts very hard!

just gets my back up and today you hit a nerve.

I believe previously we disagreed on the merits of having an IR rated pilot to take passengers to Rally GB. I remember you advocated VFR pilots to fly around Wales in November.

Enjoy your tea and medals while it lasts because another set of heros are coming over the hill :}

FNW

Pandalet

13th Aug 2010, 13:59

Out of interest, if you were going to a private site within shouting distance of an airfield with published approaches, ILS, etc, could you fly IFR to the airfield and perform a normal approach (assuming minimas are ok, etc), then break off the approach when you're out of the cloud and proceed VFR to your (private site) destination? Would you have to complete the approach (and effectively start a new flight), or is there a procedure for this?

Obviously, I'm assuming that you can clear built-up areas, aren't going to break rule 5 while transiting, etc. I'm just curious about using an IR-capable destination as a way-point for getting out of IFR and into VFR before transiting to a VFR-only destination.

[email protected]

13th Aug 2010, 14:12

Interesting thread.

Regardless of for, or against - I think we would all agree that there is inherently more risk involved in such a procedure as compared to others (i.e. standard ILS, ARA etc etc). Even if training to stay proficient there is still more risk involved although we all like challenges :).

My question might be more along the lines of what circumstances might warrant the risk. On the face of what I've read, you must wonder. I'm sure that we all exercise our skills every day, but equally I'm sure we still try to use superior judgement to avoid situations requiring the use of superior skills. I say keep them in the back pocket for that rainy day so we can enjoy a healthier industry.

jellycopter

13th Aug 2010, 14:12

FloaterNorthWest

13th Aug 2010, 14:26

Pandalet,

Yes, if an airfield is nearby then why not shoot the approach. No need to take the risk of a self positioning IMC letdown. If you are public transport you would always use this method to break cloud then continue VFR to the destination.

Most of the time you will break cloud early in the procedure and precede to your destination. If you get down to the minima of an ILS it is unlikely you are going to get to a destination unless it is next to the airfield.

The trick is always have a back up plan up your sleeve to get the pax to the destination so that you don't get pressured into a corner. A Satphone is a great help in these situations!

FNW

Horror box

13th Aug 2010, 15:53

I'm not condoning the practice of GPS let-downs HOWEVER, the current ground based instrument approach procedures are based on systems that were invented and certified decades ago. (It's not that long ago that we did DECCA approaches IMC in non-coupled dinosaur helicopters!).

Corperate twins now have duplex three/four axis coupled autopilots, multiple GPSs with terrain database (some have DGPS), TCAS, (some have weather radar and GPWS), NDBs, VORs, DMEs and more.

Whilst I agree that in principle it is feasible to design and approve IFR approaches to private landing sites, your statement above really is only half the story. Aircraft systems have improved vastly over the years, but this is not the sole criteria for an approach. I refer you to PANS-OPS and the details of design of approaches. Obstacle clearance is the primary concern when developing an instrument approach. Generally oil and gas platforms are placed with an HPZ (helicopter protected zone) or HFIS, so any traffic or new structure are known and notified, and there is a natural limit to the amount of building and obstacles that suddenly appear offshore. Not the same onshore, where people can in a relatively short space of time erect a large telephone mast, crane, fly kites, use fireworks, shoot weapons etc without too much prior notification or permission required, vastly increasing the chance of a "surprise" to the pilot on an IMC/IFR NPA letdown onshore.
Further to this, whist indeed the procedures are based on systems invented many years ago, they are still in essence the same ground-based systems we use today, especially non-precision, NDB or VOR. These require are large degree of maintenance and constant checking for certification. Again this is entirely possible for a private site, but would be costly, and certification outside a control area/zone for an approach would be potentially difficult, if the operator has no control over the area surrounding and therefore unable to guarantee the obstacle clearance values. It is possible though, and I believe, if I remember correctly from many years ago, uncontrolled, unmanned airfields with NDB approaches in Australia, but these were generally in very sparsely populated areas - in which the UK would probably fit about ten times!
Of course there are also many other requirements relating to descent gradient, fix tolerances and the effect of the surrounding terrain, to start the list, so read PANS-OPS vol 1 for starters, then if you still have the will to live give Vol 2 a go, to see what I mean, and you will see it is not as straight forward as just having a modern aircraft and a "really good" pilot!
Once we have the approach procedure nailed for our onshore private site, we have to get the missed approach sorted, and this is again fairly detail intensive, with regard to obstacle clearance and Cat A operations and performance criteria. All entirely possible, but I suspect there is good reason we do not see it in practice very often onshore.

[email protected]

13th Aug 2010, 16:58

I am very much with helimutt here - self-drive, non-approved GPS approaches are both stupid and selfish but people keep doing it because they get away with it.

They manage not to bump into any other air user on the way down through blind luck and belief in the 'big-sky' theory and convince themselves that their technology (GPS) and superiority as pilots, make it a safe option.

But it's OK because it's what the customer wants:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Two's in

13th Aug 2010, 17:35

Isn't this how we normally hear of these incidents?

The Board of Inquiry determined that:

1. The Meteorological briefing was inadequate.
2. The forecast Meteorological conditions precluded VFR flight.
3. Flight was continued deliberately from VMC into IMC without an IFR flight plan being filed.
4. The Landing Site did not have an approved Instrument Approach.
5. The aircraft descended below the MSA for that sector.
6. The telecom mast owner had notified the CAA of the temporary structure and it was briefed in a current NOTAM.

The Aircraft was consumed by fire and there were no survivors.

helimutt

13th Aug 2010, 17:49

Two's in, you are correct. I know FNW was having a go at me, and I understand why, but he's not the only one who's lost a good friend to accidents of this type. Or maybe I guessed wrong. I'm sure we all know someone who may have died in unfortunate circumstance, but i've spoken to a lot of pilots in my career who, after pushing the envelope, sit back and laugh about it. :=

I just feel anyone who attempts to fly IMC, low level, without the experience of either IF or the A/C itself, then puts themselves and their passengers at risk.

FNW, I don't remember the GB rally thing, but i'll go have a look now.

I don't claim to be an expert, just a mere low time co-pilot, but i'd rather end up a high time co-pilot than end up a blot on the landscape. Maybe i'm selfish like that!

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.:E

212man

17th Aug 2010, 06:16

I'm sure several of you will be familiar with this accident:

http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/4719-0.pdf

I don't profess to be an expert on ICAO Doc8168, but I'm pretty sure 1.36nm would be within the protected area of a properly designed PANSOPS approach.

spinwing

17th Aug 2010, 06:52

Mmmm ....

As quoted by Horror Box ...

.... It is possible though, and I believe, if I remember correctly from many years ago, uncontrolled, unmanned airfields with NDB approaches in Australia, but these were generally in very sparsely populated areas - ...

Quite true .. BUT ... to use these generally low powered NDB approaches you were expected to be on an IFR flight plan and co-ordinated by an active FIS and required to make appropriate radio calls to other possible traffic.

The fact that the beacons themselves were often practically useless as one often got the 'ident' only as you crossed over the airfield boundary is arguable ... they did sort of help you find the airport over some quite featureless terrain.

At least the ADF needle would point to the nearest thunderstorm (often directly over the airport you were tracking too) so you knew where to avoid going. ;)

Thank God for GPS !!! :D

spinwing

17th Aug 2010, 07:32

Mmmm ...

jellycopter ...

The only time one is allowed (AFAIK) to descend below MSA in IMC is when you are being 'Radar Vectored' by a appropriate ATC unit (who will have slightly lower but surveyed vector maps available to them) OR when on a published/ approved approach procedure.

:ooh:

VeeAny

17th Aug 2010, 07:35

They manage not to bump into any other air user on the way down through blind luck and belief in the 'big-sky' theory and convince themselves that their technology (GPS) and superiority as pilots, make it a safe option.

Is this not then also true of anyone who flies a procedural approach (or any any other for that matter) with no radar coverage ?

Just because it may be good airmanship (or perhaps even a legal requirement, I cant remember) to be in communication with a ground station whilst operating under IFR not everyone does, I am sure we all know one or two people who fly imc in (Civvy) singles and speak to no one.

212man

17th Aug 2010, 08:26

The point is that regardless of whther you are talking to anyone, a published approach will have been designed to either PANSOPS or TERPS standards and will therefore assure certain protection levels (when flown to the assumed navaid tolerances and Flight Technical Error standards.) Something drawn on the back of a fag packet, will not.

To compound the issue, it is very easy using PC software - even Word - to produce very professional looking approach plates which can be made to look exactly like Jepessens or Aerads (or whatever their name is this week.) Combine that with user defined FMS VFR approaches that can be flown fully coupled, and you have a massive ill-founded sense of security.

I urge you to read the report I linked to above....

died in unfortunate circumstance

Hopefully when I die it will be in very fortunate circumstances :ok:

jellycopter

17th Aug 2010, 08:54

Apparently it is legal in the UK for flights outside CAS; CAP393 extract below:

Instrument Flight Rules
32.—(1) For flights within controlled airspace rules 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 shall be the Instrument
Flight Rules.
(2) For flights outside controlled airspace rules 33 and 34 shall be the Instrument Flight Rules.
Minimum height
33.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1,000
feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless—
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft flies on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority in relation to the
area over which the aircraft is flying; or
(d) the aircraft flies at an altitude not exceeding 3,000 feet above mean sea level and remains
clear of cloud and with the surface in sight and in a flight visibility of at least 800 metres.
(2) The aircraft shall comply with rule 5.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a helicopter that is air-taxiing or conducting manoeuvres in
accordance with rule 6(i).
Quadrantal rule and semi-circular rule
34.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an aircraft in level flight above 3,000 feet above
mean sea level or above the appropriate transition altitude, whichever is the higher, shall be flown
at a level appropriate to its magnetic track, in accordance with Table 1 or Table 2, as appropriate.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the level of flight shall be measured by an altimeter set—
(a) in the case of a flight over the United Kingdom, to a pressure setting of 1013.2
hectopascals; or
(b) in the case of any other flight, according to the system published by the competent
authority in relation to the area over which the aircraft is flying.
(3) An aircraft may be flown at a level other than the level required by paragraph (1) if it flies:
(a) in conformity with instructions given by an air traffic control unit;
(b) in accordance with notified en-route holding patterns; or
(c) in accordance with holding procedures notified in relation to an aerodrome.
(4) For the purposes of this rule ‘transition altitude’ means the altitude which is notified in
relation to flights over notified areas.

No mention of descending below MSA etc.

JJ

Horror box

17th Aug 2010, 10:19

Quite true .. BUT ... to use these generally low powered NDB approaches you were expected to be on an IFR flight plan and co-ordinated by an active FIS and required to make appropriate radio calls to other possible traffic.

The fact that the beacons themselves were often practically useless as one often got the 'ident' only as you crossed over the airfield boundary is arguable ... they did sort of help you find the airport over some quite featureless terrain

I couldn't agree more. From my experience, these low powered NDBs were more for general navigation than making a IFR approach, although my point was that it is "in theory" possible, but in practice not much use, as the procedures required to make this of any use, effectively require it to be at an airfield with some form of control, and to give you any sort of minima worth using, it would probably need a radar.

ShyTorque

17th Aug 2010, 11:33

I reckon Jellycopter is correct.

Unpalatable as it may seem to some, UK IFR rules do allow this in Class G airspace.

However, the relevant part of Rule 5 (i.e. 1000 ft rule) must obviously be complied with.

I don't see how Crab can relate an IMC approach in isolation to folk allegedly relying on the so-called "Big sky theory".

If an aircraft is being operated in the descent to land whilst IMC without radar cover (or other means of being made aware of others, such as TCAS), it is no different from doing the same in cruise flight under IFR, with respect to aircraft separation, which is also allowed under UK's IFR rules.

spinwing

17th Aug 2010, 11:41

Mmm ...

Does not Rule 33d (above) effectively mean Yes you are IFR BUT in VMC therefore 'see and be seen' applies??

A bit like Helicopter 'Special VFR' really being an IFR clearance inside a CTA!

:confused:

Horror box

17th Aug 2010, 12:11

A good reminder from 212man there about the N.Ireland accident, and well worth a read or re-read. Experienced, trained crew, PF and chief pilot with IR's, and all totally unaware of the impending situation. A locally established procedure, that had probably been flown many times by the PNF, and a small chain of events go unnoticed, leading to a CFIT.

While GPS, as employed in the approach from WARRN to MAP, would
give the pilot an approach aid that is similar in function and accuracy to
a VOR or ILS localisor approach, there are fundamental differences. A
VOR or ILS approach is produced by a qualified agency, and is
designed and approved in accordance with internationally agreed
standards, particularly with regard to obstacle clearance limitations.
Independent verification is always a feature of such approved
approaches. The locally-produced GPS approach procedure that was
used for the approach to Ballyedmond by G-HAUG was a simple sketch
of the local area with the route and waypoints marked. It did not
apparently contain any waypoint altitude minima or weather minima
data, and only very limited obstacle information. There is no evidence
that any personnel qualified in the design of approach procedures were
involved in producing this procedure.

John R81

17th Aug 2010, 12:12

The construction of Rule 33(1) is such that meeting any one of the exemptions (a) to (d) does mean that you can be below 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft (rule 33(1)). You only have to meet one exemption, so not meeting another exemption is unimportant.

Exemption Rule 33(1)(a) applies to take-off and landing so no need to look at (d).

Exemption Rule 33(1)(d) applies to flights whether they are taking-off or landing or not but it is more restrictive than (a). If not involved in take-off or landing then you have only Rule (d) from this pair and you must fly CoC, <3000 above mean sea level, in sight of ground and with flight vis 800m or more.

Then you still have Rule 5. So +500ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure unless you are landing / taking-off, and the 1,000ft rule.

Simples:)

VeeAny

17th Aug 2010, 14:37

212Man you are of course correct, my point is that even when following a published approach there is still a chance of bumping into someone else who might be there, I was commenting on crabs assertion that this is an unsafe thing to do for the reasons he stated, there are plenty of reasons perhaps that these approaches should not be flown, however the argument about the big sky theory holds no water in my opinion as flying a pubished approach offers you little extra mid air collision protection.

[Edited to say whilst I have left my orignial wording above, I do mean approaches outside of Controlled airspace].

Horror box

17th Aug 2010, 15:29

There is quite a difference between flying in uncontrolled airspace to a gps letdown with zero ATC or traffic separation and communication and carrying out a published procedure in controlled airspace, where at least all IFR traffic is receiving separation instruction and VFR traffic is receiving at a minimum traffic info and is still subject to clearance.

I was commenting on crabs assertion that this is an unsafe thing to do for the reasons he stated, there are plenty of reasons perhaps that these approaches should not be flown, however the argument about the big sky theory holds no water in my opinion as flying a pubished approach offers you little extra mid air collision protection.

I am pretty much in agreement with Crabs comment here, and those of you who do routinely carry out these type of letdowns are sooner or later going to hit someone or something. I think Crabs comment was alluding to the fact that it is simply a complacent attitude and the belief that there is such a remote chance that someone else is in exactly the same place and time that is so worrying. To claim that a non-published approach offers the same "mid air collision protection" as a published approach is in my view frankly a ridiculous statement.

jellycopter

17th Aug 2010, 16:57

Crab

Just out of interest, from memory, i think there's an instrument procedure for Chivenor (ILS?) that's neither radar controlled or published in the public domain. How do you establish any form of collison avoidance when flying this procedure in IMC?

JJ

ShyTorque

17th Aug 2010, 17:08

Yellow paint.... ;)

jellycopter

17th Aug 2010, 17:08

Horror Box

I think VeeAny meant 'flying a published approach outside controlled airspace'. Clearly, flying a published approach inside CAS offers the best protection there is. However, there are many published approaches outside CAS that offer little or no protection other than the 'big sky'. ATZs only generally offer protection out to 2nm and 2000ft, and published approach procedures always extend well outside those parameters.

JJ

VeeAny

17th Aug 2010, 17:39

To claim that a non-published approach offers the same "mid air collision protection" as a published approach is in my view frankly a ridiculous statement.

Did someone say that ?

I must have missed it, and no I am not being sarchastic, it was certainly not my intention to imply it.

My point is a published approach outside controlled airspace might offer more protection but it does not and cannot guarantee protection while others are bimbling around IMC in the vicinity.

I have been invited to leave a previousjob because I was not willing to push on where some others would (I did not however ever kill the boss or hit anything with his helicopter, or damage it any way), perhaps my replacement may well be the person this thread started about, I really don't know.

Can these let downs be done with a similar level of risk and safety to published approaches, I think they probably can but the circumstances are different and involve the pilot on a much more personal level, he must know the area well, must operate to much higher minima (in my opinion). Having a locally trusted contact can help to ensure the approach does not have anything newly erected in it.

Down to 200ft though I agree pretty much with all the people opposed to this concept, there are too many variables and the approach path cannot be considered to be free of all obstacles all the time.

Would less people be opposed to the idea if minima of 500ft AGL were considered, its above the height at which notification would be required to the CAA for any 'local erection's :-) and could be done under some kind of 'Radar Service' if one was available. It still does however offer no protection from the popup traffic that might be just below the cloudbase.

There are enough airfields in this country with commercial ops and little or no radar cover, it must be only a matter of time until a commercial flight hits popup traffic as it descends, outside controlled airspace there is little protection from this at low level, consider the pilot who is just over 2miles from an airfield at 650ft just outside the atz and the commercial flight that might break cloud at this level and find the offending pilot in front of him.

I don't know what the right answer is but I do know there is no panacea, approved or not they both involve risk, as does all of out flying it is up to us to mitigate that risk and sometimes we get it wrong.

[edited to say JJ is correct, it just took me 20 minutes to write this and I have just seen his post, I am indeed talking about outside controlled airspace]

212man

17th Aug 2010, 23:10

It's interesting the way this thread has turned. I think the quoting of Article 33 is of some interest but doesn't in any way imply it's acceptable to fly non-published procedures. The article simply says that you must be at or above MSA OR in sight of the ground - it's not a complex concept. The bit about taking off and landing is a 'red herring' in this discussion - of course you have to be below MSA in those phases of flight! How else could you land and take off? That is an entirely different concept to descending below MSA - in IMC - without any assurance of terrain clearance.

If we want to quote Articles I would venture this is a more relevant one in the context of intending to make an unpublished instrument approach, and the one lawyers would be most interested in:

Commander to be satisfied that flight can be safely completed

87. The commander of a flying machine must, before take-off, take all reasonable steps so as to be satisfied that it is capable of safely taking off, reaching and maintaining a safe height and making a safe landing at the place of intended destination having regard to—
(a) the performance of the flying machine in the conditions to be expected on the intended flight; and
(b) any obstructions at the places of departure and intended destination and on the intended route.

The topic of mid-air collision has some basis I guess, but it would be a shame to allow it to distract attention from the real reason this thread is important. Hitting the ground is the most likely danger - not another aircraft. Probably even less likely given that we are talking in the main about modern medium twin IFR helicopters that will generally be ACAS equipped.

One point of clarification - when I say published procedures, I also mean private procedures that may not be generally available to other operators, but that have been designed by a professional Procedure Designer to PANSOPS/TERPS standards.

[email protected]

18th Aug 2010, 06:45

Jellycopter - Cardiff Radar and the hope that no-one would be stupid enough to be bimbling around IMC below MSA with no RT contact near an active airfield.

Although some of the replies on this thread make me worry that some pilots think that is quite acceptable (legal or not). I just hope I'm not the one who has to pick up the pieces.

ShyTorque

18th Aug 2010, 07:23

Crab, so presumably Cardiff Radar would also pick up the other aircraft and provide you with information / separation iaw the service you normally request, especially if the other aircraft was using a transponder.

Is your Seaking TCAS equipped, btw? Many modern IFR helicopters are; I'm not sure if the MOD have got around to bringing yours up to date yet like they have seen fit to do with other RAF types. If not, I would think there would be a good case to do so, even in these cash-strapped days.

Seems to me you are presuming that pilots here carry out their own business in IMC "blind", i.e. with no rt contact and no radar service. I certainly wouldn't if a service was available; I don't think that anyone else with common sense would.

Having said that, I did once see a mode 'A' only R-44 (as an unstabilised single, presumably non-IFR equipped and certainly not allowed to fly IFR in UK) who passed only just beneath me in solid cloud under the London TMA a few years back. We were in receipt of a radar information service at the time, he was certainly not on the local radar unit's frequency. The cloudbase was about 1200' and we were at 2400', so he certainly wasn't scud running!

[email protected]

18th Aug 2010, 07:59

No not TCAS equipped but I don't believe many mil aircraft are. Cardiff's radar service is limited in our area however and below top of drop is not much protection.

I wouldn't operate IMC with no radar and RT either unless I really have to (not much radar coverage in the wee small hours on a job inland away from major airports).

Operating in the cruise IMC and flying quadrantals to ensure separation is not the same as descending IMC to cloudbreak/land with no radar or RT (or worse, pretending you are VMC so ATC don't panic).

ShyTorque

18th Aug 2010, 12:04

I agree but a grey area (pun unintended) exists at the low altitudes we rotary folk are often required to operate at.

A lot of light aircraft and rotary wing (albeit away from your area, over lower terrain and under the London TMA, for example) are often obliged to fly in IMC, but do not fly high enough to use quadrantals, nor are they able to climb higher.

You and your colleagues should push hard for TCAS; you might be surprised how useful (and interesting!) it can be. Even the police aircraft are now widely so equipped. I mention that because I know as an ex-police pilot (and ex-SAR boy too), they are always very much budget constrained but saw it as a priority and did obtain it some years ago. I've operated for over a decade with it and wouldn't like to go back to flying without it, especially when under IFR in these days of decreasing LARS cover.

212man

18th Aug 2010, 12:33

they are always very much budget constrained but saw it as a priority and did obtain it some years ago.

I imagine the cause was greatly assisted by having a senior CAA Flight Ops chap inside a Police AS355 whilst a Tucano took a chunk out of it :ok:

[email protected]

18th Aug 2010, 12:45

A lot of light aircraft and rotary wing (albeit away from your area, over lower terrain and under the London TMA, for example) are often obliged to fly in IMC, but do not fly high enough to use quadrantals, nor are they able to climb higher.
and presumably are therefore in receipt of a radar service and would only let down using a proper published procedure. If not, what the f*** are they doing?

Francis Frogbound

18th Aug 2010, 16:57

Crab;

Go fly the ILS into Oxford one grotty weekend and see how many TCAS contacts there are between ToD and DA, very few talking to Brize LARS and even less talking to Oxford. I filed on one there a while ago, he flew from a neighbouring airfield and ran a business at Oxford, his attitude was "I was in the open FIR, why should I talk to anyone?" he was aware of the ILS, but too selfish to care.

I honestly think a lot of these guys are bimbling around busy airspace IMC following GPS moving maps and have never noticed the approach symbol on the CAA charts, if they even carry them. The airspace between Manchester and the south coast is incredibly busy compared to your patch with, GA at all altitudes below controlled airspace and from what my TCAS and radar services tell me quite happy to fly around IMC without talking to a soul.

SND

ShyTorque

18th Aug 2010, 19:15

and presumably are therefore in receipt of a radar service and would only let down using a proper published procedure. If not, what the f*** are they doing?

Transitting Class G, around the Heathrow, City, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted CTRs, that's what they are doing.

You would have to ask the individual pilots why some don't obtain a service if that's what they do, especially now that Farnborough LARS has thankfully been increased in capability. For years before there was no cover available north of LHR.

However, obviously there is sometimes no need to carry out an IMC letdown if suitable VMC weather exists at their destination.

FiFB, Yes, that area around Kidlington is a difficult one to safely transit, with Oxford IFR departures not always speaking to Brize Radar.

Two's in

18th Aug 2010, 19:31

Doesn't this discussion reinforce the fact that given the number of non-TCAS equipped aircraft there are out there, even if you don't create your very own smoking hole at the bottom of some GPS cowboy inspired game of blind-man's bluff, your chances of hitting some other daft sod on the way to the inquest are also quite high?

jellycopter

18th Aug 2010, 20:01

Are there any stats available for IMC mid-air collisions? I've never heard of a single one, but know of many VMC mid-airs, especially around airports. On that basis, I think I'm going to fly everywhere I can IMC;)

JJ

ShyTorque

18th Aug 2010, 20:30

JJ, Yes, there is strange logic in doing so! IFR aircraft are mandated to have a transponder. VFR aircraft probably won't go IFR, they might even stay grounded if the weather is remotely poor.

Use TCAS, get a LARS service and avoid the madding crowds, especially if you can get above overcast cloud. Just beware below 3,000 feet for the bloke coming the other way in cloud at the same altitude, without his transponder on, not talking, no LARS....

thewarnerbros

22nd Aug 2010, 14:04

I have heard that these types of approach can be done with the aid of an iPhone 4. Perhaps all pilots at Patriot Redhill should be issued with them so that they can fly with a bit more confidence. Normally allows safe IFR down to the ground. Alternatively, 20 years + experience and a training in the forces ...:p

helimutt

22nd Aug 2010, 15:02

even if you don't create your very own smoking hole at the bottom of some GPS cowboy inspired game of blind-man's bluff, your chances of hitting some other daft sod on the way to the inquest are also quite high?

One of the funniest quotes i've read in ages. Well it would be funny if it wasn't so bloody serious!

thewarnerbros

22nd Aug 2010, 17:14

;)Come on Helimut ... Get a life - or even an iPhone 4 ... It might help you get a new job;)

helimutt

22nd Aug 2010, 20:12

I won't get a job. :{ Can't afford an iPhone4. I have my fleet of luxury cars and my mansion to sell now. :(

:E

Flingingwings

22nd Aug 2010, 20:16

I'm sorry but your last one wasn't a luxury car HM :E

helimutt

22nd Aug 2010, 21:29

My bloody point exactly! I can't afford any.

Anyway, 280hr pilot, 16hrs advanced hovering R22 experience, GPS savvy, PPL, seeks lucrative job. Will work for beer!

:p

thewarnerbros

22nd Aug 2010, 21:38

With your experience, you must be worth £35,000 pa at Patriot Redhill. :yuk:

helimutt

23rd Aug 2010, 08:10

That Much???:eek: I'm off with my CV then. Cheers for the heads-up.:ok:

I love how friendly the folk are on this site. No p!ss taking at all. ;)

thewarnerbros

23rd Aug 2010, 08:32

No problem. I will tell Bond hr that we have one less to get rid of ...:cool:

rotorspeed

23rd Aug 2010, 22:42

Returning to the thread topic, I wonder just what the facts are ref accidents on IFR let downs to private sites - that were attributable to the approach not being an approved precision/non precision approach but a GPS one?

Seems to me the Irish S76 accident was really not the fault of a GPS approach - it was more about pilots simply not performing the approach they intended, accurately. Similar to just getting too low on an ILS and hitting the ground, for example. Interestingly this S76 accident throws up a hazard of two crew ops - here both rather assumed the other knew what he was doing without enough questioning.

Moving on to the other UK accident mentioned, with owner Philip Carter near Peterborough in an AS355F2, this was again not a consequence of hitting the ground from inaccurate GPS position or hitting unforseen obstacles. It was either from excessive descent in IMC to no limit or within 100ft or so AGL, or more likely I suspect descent to too poor VMC night conditions and then loss of control effectively through then entering IMC at low level and speed whilst transiting the mile to the destination.

So, what examples in the UK have there been of accidents into private sites as a direct consequence of an unapproved IFR let downs?

212man

24th Aug 2010, 01:46

Seems to me the Irish S76 accident was really not the fault of a GPS approach - it was more about pilots simply not performing the approach they intended, accurately

Rotorspeed,
What accuracy should they have maintained? What were the dimensions of the primary and secondary protected areas for this initial approach segment? What Flight Technical errors, pilot reaction times and wind speeds were used when determining the turn radius and ground track? What descent gradient was assumed etc etc:ugh:

The simple fact that they hit the ground 1.36nm offset from the intended track - in this phase of the approach - shows that this procedure did not meet any normal design standard. If that does not constitute accidents into private sites as a direct consequence of an unapproved IFR let downs I don't know what does!

To put a perspective on it, there is a VOR procedure at a neighbouring airport here that has a 14nm outbound leg with a descent from 3500' to 2000', prior to a procedure turn. If you hit terrain 1.36nm at the end of that leg you would have tracked in error by 5.5° . Given that the normal tolerance for IR testing - not the procedure design - is 5°, do you think CFIT would be a reasonable outcome for a 0.5° error?

As an aside, it's easy to concentrate on the approach phase in isolation - what about the missed approach? Imagine climbing out from this missed approach point on one engine :\

[email protected]

24th Aug 2010, 05:38

And more importantly, who calculated the DH/MDH and based on what pressure setting?

The most dangerous thing about such approaches in my mind is the same mindset that prompts a pilot to carry one out in the first place will be the same mindset that keeps him going that bit further down the approach to get visual rather than throw it away.

212man

24th Aug 2010, 05:53

And more importantly, who calculated the DH/MDH and based on what pressure setting?

I believe (stand to be corrected) that it was Radalt based as over the Lough. Calculated how? - anyone's guess!

rotorspeed

24th Aug 2010, 08:21

212man

Given the local terrain in the S76 accident I fully agree that the GPS approach here did not meet any normal design standard, which meant high standards of accuracy were necessary. The pilots should have maintained an accuracy to keep themselves well away from the hills. With GPS a lateral tolerance of 250m could have been achieved. Had the approach been overlayed as a route on a moving map their error would have been obvious and probably avoided. This was not an example where the pilots were trying hard and did a good job endeavouring to fly the approach well - it was very casually undertaken, which was the problem. A published approach flown with similar attitude could have had similar consequences.

Your example of the 5 deg tolerance highlights the inaccuracy of a VOR approach compared with GPS. With a VOR or NDB approach a tolerance measured in degrees is all that can be used, and this results in a large tolerance at distance. A GPS approach will obviously have a spatial tolerance regardless of distance from the landing site and be far more accurate over most of the approach.

To be clear, I am not actually defending this S76 approach - just saying the reason this accident occurred was fundamentally poor piloting and CRM.

Aser

24th Aug 2010, 11:36

rotorspeed , ok then, we just need to super-pilots never doing little errors... :ugh:

The problem was flying that app in the first place, not a bad pilot performance.

There is a NEED for a margin, always. No matter how precise the aids are.

I've been in similar apps and I will not be there again. For me IMC over terrain = published IFR flight and app (or offshore ifr), if not, I don't want the job.

You will not get to the retirement doing that for ever...

Best regards
Aser

Reely340

12th Oct 2015, 19:18

I'm augmenting this thread of to me (Austrian) very peculiar
"UK approaches" in IMC under VFR (IFR would need ATC guidance, publiced procedures, not?)

The Ballyedmond incident was an ac operating under private pilots rules, albeit conducted by CPLs, clearly in IMC, flying their own GPS guided approach to a private helipad.

A) Is any of that legal under EASA regulations?
If yes, what are the limitations, license- wearther-limits- or type-of-operation- wise.

B) Is it still legal under CAA ruling (G- reg, grandfathered, etc) ?

TheiC

12th Oct 2015, 19:46

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/548aff04ed915d4c100002ce/Sikorsky_S-76C_G-WIWI_12-14_v2.pdf

Reely340

13th Oct 2015, 09:32

Thx, interesting read.

So, whats the EASA's current (2015) stance on IFR flights outsde controlled airspace, especially in IMC?

puntosaurus

15th Oct 2015, 12:38

SERA.5015 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) - Rules Applicable to All IFR Flights

(a) Aircraft Equipment
Aircraft shall be equipped with suitable instruments and with navigation equipment appropriate to the route to be flown and in accordance with the applicable air operations legislation.

(b) Minimum Levels
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:
(1) over high terrain or in mountainous areas, at a level which is at least 600 m (2 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft;

(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.