Procedural approach?

[Spitoon]

Originally Posted by HILETI

but is it reasonable to presume that (a) (see below) could be interpreted to mean that if the Controller believes that the a/c is capable of safely and efficiently proceeding to a point on the published approach that does not require flying the full procedure, then they can permit this 'short cut'?

You know what they say about assumptions...

The controller will usually be asked for a clearance to self position. It's a good few years since I was operational and it was certainly the case then and I don't think things have changed much in most places. The only thing the controller is likely to consider before issuing a clearance to self position is whether there is any other traffic in the way or a need to know better where the approaching aircraft is in order to separate it from other traffic. If you honestly think that the average controller knows the capability of each aircraft he or she handles, let alone whether he crew fly it safely to a particular point on the approach, I think you need to visit an ACC or approach room and talk to a few controllers!

And, yes, in some ways ATC has not kept up with the capabilities that some aircraft have, but the system still has to accommodate other aircraft with lesser capabilities. But I suspect the real reason that self positioning is not approved more often is because whilst one (your) aircraft is very capable of making its way to a centre fix or whatever, the controller has to manage all the aircraft and to sequence them, fit in outbounds and transits and a whole bunch of other things. Accommodating a 'self positioner' into a sequence or traffic plan is not easy, allowing two aircraft to self position from a similar distance starts to get into the realms of not really controlling any more. There's plenty of work being done to take advantage of aircraft capabilities and there are some truly fantastic concepts of operation and supporting technological systems being developed (Next Gen and SESAR, for example), but many are not yet able to deliver the goods. Strangely, the technology often seems unable to do the job better than humans.

But ATC has not stood still, maybe it's not so obvious in the aircraft but there have been many changes to the system over the last 10 or 15 years. I guess many of the changes will come into their own when other parts of the new concept of operations gets rolled out. (OK, some of that last bit is slightly tongue in cheek - maybe I've been taking some of the SESAR stuff too seriously again!)

[This is a crisis]

@ Spitoon

Not sure I agree My interpretation is that the sections of the rules are three distinct subjetcs:


a) refers to ATC clearance which I interpret as route clearances, levels, headings

b) compliance with SIDs etc and

c) which is the relevant one, compliance with the published Instrument Approach Procedure.

The published IAP is one that is approved by the national authority as providing a terrain safe approach. No ATCO I know would amend the published procedure on the hoof and authorise a non standard IAP.

Having said that, if requested by the crew it would be a very clear 'at your discretion you may intercept the final approach direct' with a descent only to the level published in the procedure. Descent below that, if you choose not to follow the published procedure, would definitely be at your own discretion

[mad_jock]

The decending down to procedure alt outside the published procedure is whats going to kill you.

Positioning above MSA is safe when you start going below that, thats when you meet the TV mast or hill that had the MSA at that level any way.

If you really want to cover yourself clear them to self position above MSA and cleared to decend at xx miles final which is inside the protected area down to procedure alt. Then cleared to decend with procedure.

Or you could clear them to any other point on the procedure and only then to decend to procedure alt while following the profile.

[kpnagidi]

AIP procedures are derived by a suitably trained group of controllers, based on strict (and sometimes "stupid" but nevertheless obligatory criteria) and approved / published by the relevant State, meaning they are that State's law. Anyone who thinks they can override those procedures by clearing / approving what they consider to be safe (although it might actually be...) may need to think again. Says not me but a controller who has actually been working for this Service. E.g. we have a published visual departure heading northbound over sea but not one heading westbound also over sea! If it's not published, we can't clear it.

ATC needs to take into consideration not only all the different aircrafts' capabilities, but also all the different controllers' capabilities, meaning inside the same unit. So what's passed on as a guideline by a unit's supervisor may not be the case for another. Unfortunately most Annexes and Documents seem to have been writen by lawyers... vague on purpose...

[mad_jock]

AIP isn`t law. Its information. Air navigation order is law in the UK.

And I really hope its a set of performance engineers that design the procedures with pilots and controllers having very little to do with the design.

The aircraft emergency procedures are all done by them and some carry very little resemblance to anything you would expect or whats published in the AIP.

[This is a crisis]

Sorry Mad Jock, going to disagree again!

The UK AIP is the official method of promulgating 'notified' procedures, rules etc. IAPs are notified procedures.

UK ANO defines notified as:

'Notified' means set out with the authority of the CAA in a document published by or under an arrangement entered into with the CAA and entitled 'United Kingdom Notam' or 'United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication' and for the time being in force;

So the AIP is certainly not just information!

[Spitoon]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

But I don't see anything in the definition that you have culled from the ANO that makes the AIP law.

I'd be pleased to hear why you believe that the definition makes the AIP law. You might like to start by explaining which bits of legislation are cited when someone ends up in court for not doing something they should.

Of course, things may change when all parts of SERA, currently being drafted by EASA, are enacted. I'd be interested in your views on that also.

[mad_jock]

There are alot of things the CAA would like to be law and issue instructions through in the old days lasors and the AIP which don`t stand up in court.

I do agree though that some would like to think of it as law along with there Mats part 1 and 2. But in reality you won`t find a single prosecution of any pilot who has not complied with any of these documents. Even those pillocks that flew the NDB approach at BHX at MDA for 12 miles in I think an A320 after selecting the wrong DME.

Its half the problem with this atcocas crap we have now they have tried to instruct pilots that they should be controlled in class g which goes against the whole principle of class g.

In theory the pilot doesn`t even need a clearance just rock up ask for a basic service and its got sod all to do with the procedural controller.

[This is a crisis]

I did not actually say the AIP was law - I said it was more than just information which is what Mad Jock implied. It is referenced in the Air Navigation Order so how can it just be information that you can use or ignore as you wish?

The bottom line, whether it is right or wrong, is that:

Rule 36 (c) states that the Commander of the aircraft shall fly in conformity with the the holding and instrument approach procedures notified in relation to the aerodrome of destination.

'Notified' means set out with the authority of the CAA in a document published by or under an arrangement entered into with the CAA and entitled 'United Kingdom Notam' or 'United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication' and for the time being in force.

Therefore, the law is saying you must conform to the notified procedure published in the AIP. I do not see how it can be any clearer.

Whilst it may be more expeditious for pilots to do abbreviated procedures, you also have to bear in mind that many procedural approved departure separations rely on the aircraft carrying out the full procedure. For example, departures can be authorised from the time the aircraft reports outbound from the nav facility until it reaches a certain point on final approach. Timings for EATs for other aircraft are also based on the published procedure times.

My view on ATSOCAS - pilots are not being instructed to be controlled. There are levels of service available. Which one a pilot chooses to avail himself of is entirely up to them.

As far as prosecutions are concerned, I think the CAA take a very prgamatic view and recognise that we are all human and can make mistakes. Prosecutions are usually reserved for cases where there has been a flagrant and intentional breaking of the rules. There are occasions when we can all be 'pillocks' and make a mistake!

As far as 'just rock up ask for a basic service and its got sod all to do with the procedural controller' well.......IMHO what a dangerously arrogant attitude. Believe it or not we are all in this together to provide as safe a service as possible. I have not had much experience in providing an approach service outside controlled airspace but as far as I can see, whether inside or outside, the rule regarding conforming to the published procedure is the same.

I think I am 'spent' on this subject now

[Spitoon]

Originally Posted by This is a crisis

Rule 36 (c) states that the Commander of the aircraft shall fly in conformity with the the holding and instrument approach procedures notified in relation to the aerodrome of destination.

Sadly, taking one sub-paragraph of the legislation out of context omits possible, and perhaps important, parts elsewhere in the legal text. I am glad it cannot be any clearer for you.....but do I take it from this that you have never cleared an aircraft for a visual approach? Or modified the SID (or whatever might have been published in the AIP) flown by an aircraft under your control?

Of course, there are other rules about such things that you may wish to cite which further highlights the dangers of taking one but of the rules and building an argument around it.

But returning to the bit of legislation you first brought into the debate, perhaps I can offer an alternative interpretation by reproducing it in paraphrased English...

36 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the pilot must follow:

(a) the clearance that ATC has given him or her for the moment;

and, unless the controller clears him for something else;

(b)/(c) the notified departure and approach procedures.

Your point about departure separations is valid - up to a point. There may be some useful deemed separations between arriving and departing aircraft in the MATS Pt 2/Local ATC Instructions based on the approach path flown by an aircraft flying the full procedure, but separation standards are quite clear and two aircraft are either separated, or they are not - if you haven't got a 'standard separation' and you can't apply a deemer, then they're not separated. I guess it's relevant to the discussion because it will (or should) affect the controller's whether or not to authorise an aircraft to self-position to a centre fix or whatever.

You perhaps miss my point about CAA prosecutions, but it's probably not something to pursue as I guess I was just picking up vibes from mad_jock. Nonetheless, I'm still a bit unclear on what status you are suggesting the AIP has.

And, by the way, I think there are are some who might take issue with you about the CAA being pragmatic when it comes to prosecutions - there are examples where they appear to have gone for the 'little man' who can't afford to fight back.

I'm not sure that I understand your comment 'My view on ATSOCAS - pilots are not being instructed to be controlled'. When instructions are issued to a pilot 'under' ATSOCAS, what are they for?

Likewise, your view that the rule regarding conforming to the published procedure is the same whether the approach is inside or outside controlled airspace is worthy of discussion when you combine it with the rules and regulations related to different classes of airspace and the content of MATS Pt 1.

Shame you're 'spent' on the subject; I thought it was just getting interesting.

And apologied to the OP for what might be considered thread drift but, if nothing else, maybe the posts illustrate that there is no common view on the topic.

[mad_jock]

The problem is most don`t have a clue about the differences if they are not from the UK. And basic they understand the word but not what it means.

Its extremely rare that a pilot has even seen the AIP plate for a given approach. Never mind country they are flying in.

They will use there part C airways manual which may have custom made approaches and not just the commercial jeps. These approaches will take into account of aircraft performance. They may also have additional way points added and different decent profiles. The normal jeps also have differences which include eu-ops differences to pan ops

The part C is controlled and signed off by the flight ops inspector.

I have also had a flight ops inspection with the inspector in the jump seat. And done this very thing. It was him that stated that AIP is information. And as long as you wern`t making up a diy approach the joining of a published approach while ensuring terrain safe was acceptable in class G. Controlled you have to as your told of course.

Another reason why we do it is to limit the exposure to icing flying for 10-15 mins. With the props shedding onto the hull isn`t pleasant and neither is the half ton of ice subtraction to your performance.

[This is a crisis]

Spitoon

Oh, go on then, maybe I can manage another one

You are quite right of course in that 'the law is an ass' and what may appear to be black and white to one can be interpreted differently by others. Unfortunately, the only way that these issues are normally reconciled is in a court of law where two parties take to the ring to try and sway the judge!

I remember clearly what my Law instructor told me....write it down as it is written and don't under any circumtances paraphrase it because you can completely change the intended meaning

I take your point regarding visual approaches and yes, I have cleared aircraft for them many times. This, as you correctly point out, is covered and is a recognised exemption from having to carry out the full instrument approach. The point I was trying to make, and I think is what the OP asked about, is that if you do carry out an instrument approach is has to be the one that is published, notified, whatever in the AIP and you cannot modify it to suit yourself. I accept that rules for outside and inside CAS in Mats 1 are different but I do not feel that changes the fundamental purpose of Rule 36 which, I believe anyway, is to ensure that instrument approach are not made up as you go along.

As you say, separation is separation although 'deemers' are based, from what I recall on ICAO 4444 which is the one that specifies when aircraft may depart when aircraft are carrying out instrument approaches. So while they are listed in MATS 2, they are based on ICAO standards and also have to be approved by the CAA.

As for the status of the AIP, I would argue that as it is named under the ANO definition of 'notified' it is the vehicle by which oficial procedures required by the ANO are published and promulgated. I accept it is not an authorative statement of the law but it really is the only official publication that is issued under the requirements of ICAO and is specifically named in the UK ANO.

As regards plates published by Jeps and the like, my understanding is that the data is taken from the official IAP and presented in a slightly different format with added operational data. The actual approach, profiles levels however I would argue must be identical to the official IAP. ATC only work off the AIP plates and I doubt very much if it was permitted for airlines plates to be fundamentally different to AIP ones, in fact it would be a recipie for disaster!

The ATSOCAS comment was in answer to Mad Jocks statement that 'they have tried to instruct pilots in class g that they should be controlled'. I was merely stateing that it was entirely down to the pilot as to whether he was Basic, TS or DCS. Nobody was forcing anyone to do anything

Mad Jock, I accept what you say regarding icing but would argue that is a totally different situation and the Commaders authority allows him to deviate from anything, including an ATC clearance, to avoid immediate danger.

[mad_jock]

Ok how about a question Crisis.?

How many times have you clear an aircraft "cleared low approach and go-around not below 150ft"

Oh and there are approximately 35 instrument approaches in the UK which aren't in the AIP. I have over 600 approaches using these procedures in CAT aircraft on a UK AOC. All perfectly legal and defined in the ops manual which were approved.

The actual approach, profiles levels however I would argue must be identical to the official IAP. ATC only work off the AIP plates and I doubt very much if it was permitted for airlines plates to be fundamentally different to AIP ones, in fact it would be a recipie for disaster

you should see some of the emergency engine failures procedures. We had one that had us heading straight across the second runway at Manchester.

Yes they can be different. Some times its just a screw up by Jeps other times its on purpose. 99% of the time it will never be an issue because its radar vectors all the time in controlled airspace.

I was merely stateing that it was entirely down to the pilot as to whether he was Basic, TS or DCS. Nobody was forcing anyone to do anything

This is the fundamental problem. Its only Basic and Procedural. You as a UK ATCO couldn't spot you couldn't get a TS or a DCS flying a procedure using a procedural approach and asking for a direct to 10 mile finals what the hell chance has some poor sod who very rarely flys in Class G and doesn't have a clue about the different types of service.

[This is a crisis]

Not quite sure what you are getting at Jock with the low approach not below 150 feet?

If you are referring to the Low Flying rules then if you are practising Instrument Approaches at a Government or Licenced aerodrome then I am pretty sure from memory they do not apply. As an ATCO I would only say 'Cleared Low Approach'.

If you just want to do a 'beat up' then the runway is considered an object and the 500 foot rule applies.

Perhaps you could name some of the 35 Instrument Approaches that are not in the AIP? I would be intrigued to do a bit more research on them.

Not quite sure what engine out procedures have to do with IAPs but you are right, some are bizarre and have to be managed dynamically. That is what we get paid for. At my unit we hold copies of engine out procedures for the operators so in the event we have a rough idea of what the aircraft is going to do.

[mad_jock]

If you are referring to the Low Flying rules then if you are practising Instrument Approaches at a Government or Licenced aerodrome then I am pretty sure from memory they do not apply

Rule 5 doesn't have such a wavier, only wavier is for the intentions of landing. Unless you have a dispensation issued by the CAA. But the IR test requires you to go down to mins. They won't want a for training purposes in the regulations because that would open the door for PFL's busting the rule 5. So everyone does it and everyone ignores this fact. A bit like the going for 10mile final above MSA.

And we could argue the toss about the mil approaches which aren't PAN-ops which is why they are adjusted for civilian operations if you don't you can end up with EGPWS warnings causing go-arounds due to the low approach gradients and differences in obstacle requirements.

But most of the uncontrolled Scottish airfields have approaches associated with them which will only be found in operators part C (Loganairs ambulance flight manual I suspect would have them all). The one which you may be able to get your hands on is Tiree. And operators wishing to use it needs to apply to HIAL and then they will be sent it to be included in the part C and then signed off by flight ops.

Sometimes single engine we just can't do the procedure missed approach. So there is an emergency turn on the go around given in the landing pref tables. I can't think of any in the UK but there are a few for the Norwegian cat B and C runways. Some of them you have to stay low and do a visual segment along a Fjord then climb when you get to a landmark. Varga in the Faroes is the same for my type once below 1000ft there is a bloody huge rock 8 miles out and the sides go up to 3000ft so you have to run along the shore.

Sørvágsfjørður frá Vága Floghavn

[This is a crisis]

Don't want to appear to be a smart ass Jock, but I think you will find the exemption to Rule 5 is actually Rule 6!

Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6 The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Landing and taking off

(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of:

(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or

(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,

a Government or licensed aerodrome.

There is even an exemption, based on weight, for 'Training Aerodromes' which is basically any aerodrome the Commander thinks is fit.

Back to the thread, I looked at Tiree in the AIP and I see they have a VOR/DME but there is no published procedure for it. However, Tiree only appears to provide an AFIS and for an aid to be used as a holding, approach or let down aid, you have to provide an Approach Control Service (Article 172 of the Air Navigation Order). Therefore Tiree cannot have a notified Instrument Approach Procedure, which would account for lack of any in the AIP.

Can you decribe what your perception is of the unpublished 'approach procedure' for Tiree? Is it more approval to use the VOR/DME to locate the airfield and then make a VFR/VMC descent overhead if the conditions are suitable?

As much as I try I cannot see how it can be an approved IFR let down when it goes completely against the ANO.

I am open of course to be convinced!

[mad_jock]

Can you decribe what your perception is of the unpublished 'approach procedure' for Tiree? Is it more approval to use the VOR/DME to locate the airfield and then make a VFR/VMC descent overhead if the conditions are suitable?

Its a full instrument VOR procedure with a 400ft mins from memory. Barra also has one as well run by a FISO.

The other uncontrolled fields don't even have a FISO. A few of them have AG which is usually some old dear looking out her kitchen window. Been like that for at least 20 years.

Email HIAL and they might send you a copy of the instrument approach.

Outside the UK its pretty normal for an Information service to have full instrument approaches even to ILS's.

[BOAC]

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...lay-tiree.html

[UpperATC]

Regarding the MSA - SKYbrary - Minimum Sector Altitude

It was almost a routine, when I was working "pure" procedural approach. Just a few STARs and SIDs (none of them deemed separated) were completely useless when there were several IFR arrivals or departures in 10 or 20 minutes. Old fashioned 15° and 15DME on radials, as well as several DME readings, 30° on NDB - were the only way to avoid severe delays. And this could be done only with the help of MSA (when an acft was taken off the standard procedure), drawn around the main, and the supporting NAVaid stations.
MSA, 25NM around the station, sliced like a cake into a few sectors with different altitudes was (is) a great thing. And establishing the position of an acft with the help of DME, Radials, or QDM/QDR from the station is not that difficult.

Maybe I'm wrong but the description of "Minimum sector altitudes or terminal arrival altitudes" sounds quite self-explaining?

[justanotherflyer]

NZScion:

In New Zealand, there is a section in the AIP that applies to this situation:

Effectively the procedure specified in PANS-OPS (Ref Figure I-4-3-4).