Approach Charts

[Evo]

Are all UK airfield instrument approach charts available online? The AIP en-route/aerodromes-specific bit contains quite a few, but I cannot find Goodwood (although the Navaids bit of the AIP lists GWC as being an approach aid). Aerad contains it, and Thom book 5 reproduces the 32 VOR letdown (page 382 of my copy). But can i download it from anywhere?

[RichyRich]

Hi Evo

I'm probably showing my ignorance here.... The AIS website lists Goddwood as Chichester/Goodwood, EGHR. Link to it's PDF:

http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/ad/302HR01.PDF

[rustle]

Evo, can't remember when, but Goodwood ceased to have IAPs some time ago - hence no IAP plates on the AIS website.

May be because they don't have tower/approach?? Someone will know why they lost it...

[Evo]

(@RichyRich) Yeah, I can find that - but Goodwood only gets the general aerodrome chart that you posted a link to. If you go to the list of aerodromes and click on Shoreham (say) it gives you a choice between a similar aerodrome chart and three instrument approach charts (NDB/DME RWY 03, VDF RWY 03 and NDB/DME RWY 21). I know Goodwood has a published VOR/DME RWY 32 approach - and possibly others - and that's what I'm looking for.

edit: Rustle. Has it vanished from the latest Aerad/Jeppesen books then? It is in the Aerad that we have at my club, but that may be out of date. The letdown is still used (although it may be unofficial and/or training only) and GWC is still listed as an approach aid for EGHR in the AIP.

edit 2 - just noticed that the chart in Thom is dated 1991 :rolleyes: :O Hope our Aerad isn't that old, but we've probably (hopefully!) kept the plate as it's used for training...

[rustle]

It has gone (don't know when) - just checked my Aerads and JeppView.

You may want to have a look into how up-to-date the club Aerads are if you're using them for IMC training ;)

[Pilotage]

AIP only lists licensed aerodromes.

For others, you might strike lucky and find the local club has the required information on a webpage (for example http://cfc.deltabbs.org/page3.html or http://www.enstonemicrolights.co.uk/airfield%20map.htm); try the directory at http://www.pilotfriend.com/links/flying%20clubs/126.htm, otherwise you'll just have to spend £20 on a copy of Pooleys like the rest of us.

P

[Evo]

Goodwood is licenced - but I was trying to avoid the £155 Aerad, not the £20 Pooleys (which I've got) :)

[Aussie Andy]

Try calling the flying club there - they might be able to fax instrument approach inform to you, or at least confirm whether or not a published procedure still exists?

[Evo]

Andy - I fly from Goodwood and I know the approach unofficially exists because I've flown it during IMC training. I was trying to get my own copies of the procedure, but I didn't realize that it doesn't officially exist any more (and probably hasn't for a while). Rustle has taught me a bit about checking how up to date my information is :ok:

[PhilD]

Does the same apply to Blackbushe - I seem to remember seeing an old NDB letdown plate, but there is certainly no IAP listed anywhere now.

BTW - if anyone has the old plate I'd appreciate a copy!

[rustle]

Hi Phil, I wasn't aware of any official IAP for Blackbushe.

There was a "back of fag packet" let-down/cloud-break design from one of the EF guys...

Far safer to use Farnborough ILS and either become VMC below or land at Farnborough (FOC for weather diverts ;) )

[Chilli Monster]

Evo - as others have hinted but I will re-iterate:

There are no official IAP's for Goodwood.

There used to be, when it was full ATC. It ceased to be that at the beginning of 1996 and when the ATC went so did the approval to do Instrument Approaches. Same thing happened to Sheffield last year.

So - that's why you can't find them. They don't officially / legally exist anymore.

[Pilotage]

Ah, but you didn't use the magic word "instrument" before approach did you.

If you don't want to spend money on Aerad (which is horrible anyway, go with Jeppesens), you can buy the RAF's plates much cheaper from http://www.aidu.co.uk/ Very user friendly and the South of England book is £11.60 one-off, £1 for a single plate or £46pa for a subscription, but they don't list Goodwood either.

Maybe you should just phone them and ask.

P

[Evo]

I did in my first sentence! :)

Thanks for the link though, very useful.

[Pilotage]

Oh, so you did, sorry.

I recommend their "minor airfields guide" as well by the way, which I find more small cockpit friendly than Pooleys and infinitely more so than AFE.

P

[FlyingForFun]

Ok, so here's a question:

A pilot with a valid and current IMC rating or IR has in front of him a plate for an unofficial instrument approach procedure. Maybe it's an old procedure which has been discontinued, maybe it's a procedure which has been devised by local pilots over several years but has never been official. Is he allowed to fly the procedure?

Under IFR, you need to be 1000' above the nearest obstacle blah blah blah, except for approach and departure. I can't find anything which says that the approach has to be an "official" approach or any similar words. As far as I can tell, it's legal. But I'd be interested to hear what others think.

As for it being safe, well, that's not possible to say without giving details of a specific case - so let's assume that our pilot isn't going to do anything unsafe at all, the only question is the legality.

FFF
----------

[rustle]

There isn't a procedure to follow. Period. So this "procedure" is nothing more than a scrap of paper with writing on it :)

If, by following the track and height profiles on this "scrap of paper", no other IF rules are broken (including quadrantal) then I can't see why you couldn't fly it down to MSA (an IF rule) or VMC if that came first...

Here's another question for you!

You're over the sea (no land for 5 miles each direction) and above o/c cloud at 2400'

You "know" the ceiling is at 800' AMSL

Can you descend through the 8/8 to VMC below? (Forget ratings, assume current IR)

Does it make any difference if you are under a RAS/RIS/FIS?

[Chilli Monster]

For a facility to be used as an approach aid the aerodrome license holder has to provide an ATC Approach Control Service (ANO - Article 90).

No APP service - facility cannot be used an approach aid. FFF's assumption that it would be legal therefore is dubious. Of course if you were to stop the approach at 1000ft then different matter - but then you're just obeying the 1000ft rule. Any lower than that though and you're asking for trouble legally.

[Evo]

Seems like it should be fine.

Think about what would happen if there was no approach and you were flying from White Waltham to Goodwood with your new IMC rating. It's CAVOK north of Guildford, but (for strange Met reasons that only Irv can explain) to the south there is overcast at 1000 feet, tops at 2000. You approach from the north, overfly GWC at 2400 and track out on the 160 radial and start to descend. At 6DME and 1500 feet you level out, do a rate-1 turn to 325 degrees and then start to descend again. At 1000 feet you come out of cloud, see runway 32 about 3 miles ahead and land.

It's a sensible thing to do. All the high ground is to the north of the aerodrome, so descending to the south is fine and by 6 DME you're almost over the sea. It seems to me to be a perfectly sensible letdown - it just happens to be the old VOR approach to runway 32.

(rustle kind of got there first :) )

[FlyingForFun]

Ah, but Rustle (and Evo),If... no other IF rules are broken (including quadrantal) then I can't see why you couldn't fly it down to MSAWhat about the 1000' rule? That's where I'm not sure. Because the rule doesn't count if you're making an approach. Do the "track and height profiles on this scrap of paper" count as an approach?

To answer your question about descending through the cloud over the sea, no I don't believe that's legal. Again, it's the 1000' rule that's going to catch you - there is no way you could reasonable describe what you are proposing as an approach, so you are illegal under IFR, and you can't be VFR if you're in cloud. Doesn't make any different if you're receiving any radar or non-radar service from anyone. At least that's my interpretation.

(Looking for the exact text of the low-flying rules right now to paste in here...)

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

Edit: the text of the rule can be found here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF), on page 249 of the document, under rule 29:
Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5,in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 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 is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority;or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Therefore, I would argue that in my scenario, (a) comes into account, because it is necessary to fly below 1000' in order to land.

[Evo]

This is turning into quite an interesting thread. I dont know the answer, but what happens if I arrive overhead GWC in the conditions I describe. Do I have to divert to Shoreham and their NDB approach? How high does the cloudbase need to be for me to land?

[Keef]

Under UK law, it's not an approved instrument approach procedure. So you aren't flying an "approach", you're just flying under IFR and trying to descend below cloud to become VMC to fly a visual approach. So comply with all the IFR rules, just as if you were enroute.

If you can't descend to VMC, go to somewhere that you can (ie somewhere with a proper IAP), descend below cloud there, then fly VFR to your destination.

If you're under the hood in good VMC with an instructor, there's no reason at all not to "practice" IFR approaches with that spoof procedure, just to learn how to do it. But don't do it "in anger".

One day, the UK may go to the US system whereby you can fly an IAP with no App/Twr (indeed, with no ground-based radio at all). Could work in low-traffic-density areas, I suppose. Don't hold your breath...

[FlyingForFun]

Keef - please read the text of the rule, which I've pasted a couple of posts up. There is nothing in there which mentions an "approach", nothing which says that you can't make up your own unofficial procedure. The only rule which there is any debate about is rule 29, but that rule explicitly states that it doesn't apply when "it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to... land".

Therefore, I can't see anything illegal with following the old Goodwood "procedure", even though it's not recognised any more. As far as I can tell, it is possible to do this while still complying with all the IFR rules.

Interesting point about minimums, though - now that we are not following a "procedure", what minimums can we use? I don't know the answer to that - I suspect it would be to find an appropriate MSA, add a safety margin to it, check that you're within the system minima for the type of approach aids which your "track and height profiles on the scrap of paper" make use of, and if you're IMC-rated check that this is above the recommended minima for an IMC-rated pilot? In other words, do basically what an airport authority would be required to do if they were creating an official procedure.

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

[tmmorris]

Can't remember where I saw it (AOPA magazine? Today's Pilot?) but I saw a reference somewhere that the CAA is thinking of licensing IAPs for aerodromes with only a Tower controller, as is the case in the US. If this goes through it could make a huge difference to IMC rated pilots (though many aerodromes would probably ditch their Approach control as a result!)

Tim

[rustle]

FFF, I disagree with this: I would argue that in my scenario, (a) comes into account, because it is necessary to fly below 1000' in order to land.

Under what rules are you flying/landing? VFR or IFR? I can't see how you legally transitioned from one (IFR) to the other (VFR).

Evo, How high does the cloudbase need to be for me to land? At least 1000' above any obstacles within 5nm of track.

So, approaching Goodwood in the conditions you describe (1500' base) you can descend over the sea to VMC and commit to landing VFR (circuit/standard VFR join whatever)

Remember cloud ceiling (in METARS/ RT) is AAL or AGL, not AMSL.

[FlyingForFun]

Rustle, I'm totally confused by your last post.

I'm proposting to stay under IFR until I break out of the cloud. While I'm more than 1000' above the nearest obstacle yadda yadda yadda, I'm complying with rule 29 (as I must if I'm under IFR). Below 1000' yadda yadda yadda, rule 29 no longer applies due to exemption (a) (which I agree could apply in your scenario, although it's more open for debate). I continue down to my MDA, in accordance with normal practice when making a non-precision approach in IMC. If I happen to break out of the cloud, then I can immediately transition to VFR, where rule 29 no longer applies. Rule 5 still applies, but I've been complying with rule 5 the whole time. Where's the problem?

I also don't see why Evo needs the cloudbase to be "at least 1000' above any obstacles within 5nm of track" in order to be able to land, since exemption (a) allows him to go lower than that.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

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

[Evo]

I'm glad that one of you guys (Rustle with an IR, FFF with ATPL writtens) is confused - 'cos I am too :)

[rustle]

FFF, I think the "sticking point" is whether there is an approach or not.

You believe there is nothing preventing an approach under IFR without any approach aids (covered in Chilli's post above) and without any approach procedure (covered, I thought ;) in mine)

If you are right (about being allowed to use the "procedure"), then you are also correct about R29 and its applicability.

If I am right (about not being allowed to use what is, effectively, a scrap of paper with writing on it), then you cannot transition from IFR to VFR if the cloud base is lower than (min) 1000' AGL because to do so will breach the 1000' rule.

So all we need do now is agree that there's no approach because there is no procedure, and we're set :)

The rules are quite clear.

If I have the 20th April 2003 plates for Farnborough, but they were re-issued on the 21st April 2003 then my approach (using the old 20th April plates) is illegal is it not?

[FlyingForFun]

I'm going to disagree with you again, Rustle.The rules are quite clearCrap! :D :D :D

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

[Keef]

It's not easy!

The AIP and the ANO go into great and careful detail to define the minima (vis and DH/MDH etc) for IAPs, but make no mention of minima for IFR approaches where there are no IAPs.

So the question is "How can you define when it is legal to commence a descent for landing when there is no IAP?" Is it permissible to invent your own? Perhaps we should ask the CAA.

There is a table of minima for non-precision aids which sets absolute minima (for an IR pilot) starting at 400 feet and going up from there. (For precision aids, they are lower).

There are also minima for circling approaches when descending off an IAP to land on a runway without an AIP. It is also prohibited to use any other than an approved IAP when making such an approach. But none of that seems to apply to aerodromes without approved IAPs. Should we define that as "permission", or "automatic exclusion"?

ANO Article 40 defines 1000 feet as the minimum height to continue an approach on a notified IAP if the RVR is outside minima. It doesn't mention non-notified IAPs at all.

My conclusion is that if I had an accident using an unofficial IAP, and descending below 1000 feet, the CAA would find a valid reason to prosecute. I don't think the exception in ENR 1.3.1.2.1 would be a very good defence.

I think I'll stick to the method I was taught - divert to somewhere with an IAP. If necessary, fly VFR below cloud to my destination (remembering VFR minima in the airspace I'm using).

Where's bookworm when we need him?

[QNH 1013]

I believe the AIP used to refer to unpublished approaches. I seem to remember a paragraph at the end of a section on instrument approaches along the lines of .... nothing in the above shall prevent a non-public transport flight using an unpublished approach at an aerodrome outside of controlled airspace...

I have not used quotes, because I am quoting from memory, but I will try and find an old AIP and look it up. I notice this paragraph does not appear in the current AIP, but unless there was a corresponding change in something in the ANO (which I understand outranks the AIP) that may not be significant.

I'll try and find the reference in the next couple of days to check that my memory is not playing tricks.

[Fuji Abound]

Interesting debate to which I cannot add in so far as the legality is concerned.

However Sega operate two King Air air ambulances out of Goodwood with an AOC landing it all weathers, night and day. They use the VOR "procedure" down to minimium with the consent of the CAA. I will try and found out exactly how this works - but it does.

[Evo]

Cega not Sega :) but good idea. I know a couple of pilots there, so I'll ask how they work it.

[rustle]

Ahhh, that was another variable I didn't want to introduce into the equation...

With "special dispensation" there are approved, non-ATC, instrument approaches.

Several in Scotland - other PPRuNers know far more about them than I do.

But you need permission from CAA to use them, and AFAIK they (CAA) vet the procedures for each company using them.

They won't help in this hypothetical scenario though - that much I do know ;)

PS, Fuji Abound, where've you been? There's someone asking about the new IWR you were working on (you are still working on it I assume ;) )

[vintage ATCO]

About three years ago I spent some time at the Belgrano on an aerodrome safeguarding course. There was talk then of explicity prohibiting unofficial IAPs. They haven't done it yet so maybe it isn't easy but I'm with Keef. It if all went horribly wrong then they would find some means to prosecute (and rightly so in my view.)

Certain companies do have their own IAPs at individual airfields approved by CAA, and not requiring full ATC. But don't hang your hat on the recent consultation paper which mentioned IAPs at non-ATC airfields. It went on to say they would be considered if accompanied by a 'robust safety case'. They would mean robust.

VA

[rustle]

FFF, here's the story of an unofficial approach:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/apr03/n961jm.htm

Not strictly relevant to this current thread, but shows the "thinking" behind some unofficial approaches and lack of positive ATC...

[FlyingForFun]

Very interesting reading, Rustle.

You're right about it not being relevant to the thread, though. In this case, the cloud base was sufficiently high for the pilot to be able to break cloud and switch to VFR well above any limits. His error came after that, when he was VFR in VMC, and elected to continue a visual approach despite flying into an area of bad viz. Could happen just as easilly to a vanilla PPL flying circuits, I suppose (except for his home-made runway lighting system...)

From my first post on this thread:As for it being safe, well, that's not possible to say without giving details of a specific case - so let's assume that our pilot isn't going to do anything unsafe at all, the only question is the legalityVintage ATCO's post has further convinced me that what I'm proposing is legal. I am making no comment on whether or not it's safe.

FFF
----------

[matspart3]

The CAA Proposal is to permit IAP's at Aerodromes with only Tower controllers or AFISO's is here: -

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/43/diap_ria_amendment_to_article_90.pdf

The 'robust' safety case will be interesting...Just how do you 'manage' the traffic in the FIR, with no mandate to issue positive instructins/clearances.

A couple of other points to bear in mind, you'd need an initial and annual Obstacle Survey (Initial about £12K, annual circa £5K), appropriate safeguarding to ensure that the local council don't put up a tower block on a 3 mile final (we've just been quoted £4k pa)....and you'll have to design your own procedure as DAP will no longer do it for you.

[rustle]

FFF You're right about it not being relevant to the thread, though

Oi! It wasn't that irrelevant ;)

I guess it comes down to how narrowly you define "legal". If the only concern is whether you'd get a criminal record you might be okay because it isn't specifically outlawed - as long as they don't go for criminal negligence :)

Its a similar situation to 90 day PAX rules (ish)

Don't fly for 23 months, go solo for three full stop circuits, take passengers. Have incident/accident.
Legal - yes.
Negligent?

[FlyingForFun]

The link which matspart3 provides shows clear evidence that it is currently legal, and accepted by the CAA:Flying an IAP not approved by the CAA will be prohibited.(The implication being that it is not currently prohibited.)These measures will affect... some individuals using non-notified IAPs.(The implication being that some individuals use non-notified IAPs.)

It is also clear that if the proposed changes go ahead, this activity would become illegal:Proposed changes are shown underlined... as appropriate.

...

90-(2) A person shall not cause or permit any instrument approach procedure to be established or used to fly to any aerodrome in the United Kingdom otherwise than under and in accordance with an approval granted by the CAA to the person in charge of the aerodrome.The author also makes it clear that there are safety implications with the current, legal situation:There will be an improvement in safety because all IAPs and associated navigation aids (navaids) will be designed and properly approved for the purpose.

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

[Aussie Andy]

Hi all,

As someone just starting my IMC training, I've found it fascinating to follow this thread so far!

Besides the fine points of the law, I guess it also comes down to airmanship and experience.

I think there is a lot of abuse as well. I remember, when still training for my PPL a couple of years ago, seeing a light twin appear out of the murk on short final at Wycombe (which although it has a TWR it has no VOR/ADF or othe facility, and no approved direct IAP).

I asked my instructor how this was possible, thinking at the time there must be some mysterious approach aid (GPS!?!) that I didn't really understand..! He explained that this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed, and that he couldn't understand how, at an ATC controlled airfield, it was possible and not reported!? Maybe it was/is!? Anyway, left me with the impression that people sometimes take intentional risks... not a great idea!?

Andy

[Mobieus1]

I thought the procedure was to do a approved instrument let down at a nearby aerodrome and once clear of cloud proceed VFR to the original destination aerodrome under the cloud base.

[Aussie Andy]

Mobieus1 thought the procedure was to do a approved instrument let down at a nearby aerodrome and once clear of cloud proceed VFR to the original destination aerodrome under the cloud base. Yep: but that wasn't what happened in this case... I said we have no direct IAP at Wycombe... and this guy just came straight in on RWY 25, breaking cloud on short final, less than 500' aal anway as I saw it on the day...

[tmmorris]

Following the suggestion above I took a look at the No.1 AIDU website (www.aidu.co.uk). Sadly it seems that although at the moment you can buy IAPs in books and individually cheaper here than anywhere else, this is all about to change. They are gradually replacing the existing charts with AERAD ones; and AERAD won't allow them to be sold on to civilians. I guess that's the creeping outsourcing of the armed forces again.

I'm going to try to persuade them that I am military personnel for the purpose of this ruling...!

Plt Off T. M. Morris RAFVR(T) (i.e. a noddy officer in my school's Cadet Force!)

[Aussie Andy]

tmmorris: I see your location is Oxford - does that mean you fly with the UAS at RAF Benson? I fly with RAF Benson FC there... there are often some MIL approach plates "lying around..." I think you'll find!

[tmmorris]

Thanks - yes, we do take cadets to Benson, so I will see what I can 'pick up' next time I'm there. Probably won't be for a few weeks, though - I can't make the next flying slot we have (Weds) so my superior officer is going, lucky b*st*rd.

Tim

[Evo]

However Sega operate two King Air air ambulances out of Goodwood with an AOC landing it all weathers, night and day. They use the VOR "procedure" down to minimium with the consent of the CAA. I will try and found out exactly how this works - but it does.


Ok, know the answer to this now. Will explain to Rustle & FFF in the pub on Sunday ... if they still care :)

[FlyingForFun]

Evo,

Yes, I do still care. Although I'm not sure that I will after a few beers on Sunday ;)

FFF
----------

[Timmy O'Tool]

Hi all,

On the subject of approach plates does anyone have a website address for obtaining German approach plates and Notams...?

EDLP in particular

Thanks

[Aussie Andy]

Try http://www.baseops.de/ and drill down from there - there's a link to the German MIL AIP anyway...

Hope this helps,


Andy

Hang on...

You want http://www.airports.de/ - enter EDLP in the box at top right under "oder ICAO-Code" then click the button... it works!

See also http://www.flughafen-paderborn-lippstadt.de/

[Timmy O'Tool]

Andy,

Thanks mate, don't suppose you've got an English/German dictionary I can borrow...!:hmm:

[Aussie Andy]

All you need are the Google Language Tools (http://www.google.co.uk/language_tools) where you can enter a URL, or a snippet of text, and it will automatically translate the whole web page, or snippet of text, from/to which langauges you desire.

I've done it for you: click here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airports.de%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools will give an English translation of the front page of http://www.airports.de, and each of the airport details pages contains both English and German anyway.

Andy

[Keef]

Oder, gegen Gebühr, wird Keef für Dich dolmetschen!

Interpreter and/or co-pilot available...

[Timmy O'Tool]

Andy

Brilliant, thanks a lot mate

[tmmorris]

No 1 AIDU also supply foreign plates:

www.aidu.co.uk

Worth a try; I'm still not sure I understand the rules regarding civvy/military users, and they still maintain I'm a civvy despite the evidence to the contrary in my letter of commission...

Tim

(aka Plt Off T. M. Morris RAFVR(T) 0216008E)