UK IMC Rating Minima
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minima
Bookworm
I thought that was what your arguement would be and I for one cannot see reason why you are wrong.
The responsibilties of an Instructor and Examiner, as I see it, determine that we should think seriously about the standards to which the student/candidate is legally and lawfully permitted to exercise the privileges of their licence. We are legally bound to undertake our roles and responsibilies to them accordingly.
It may be that if as Instructors/Examiners we do not fulfil our function to train our student to the standards that they will later be entitled to exercise or subsequently test to the flying standards permitted it may be considered that we have, to put it mildly, fallen short of our professional duty to the student/candidate.
I thought that was what your arguement would be and I for one cannot see reason why you are wrong.
The responsibilties of an Instructor and Examiner, as I see it, determine that we should think seriously about the standards to which the student/candidate is legally and lawfully permitted to exercise the privileges of their licence. We are legally bound to undertake our roles and responsibilies to them accordingly.
It may be that if as Instructors/Examiners we do not fulfil our function to train our student to the standards that they will later be entitled to exercise or subsequently test to the flying standards permitted it may be considered that we have, to put it mildly, fallen short of our professional duty to the student/candidate.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, homeguard. There's a fine line to tread between instilling too much confidence in the student and not instilling enough competence.
The downside of teaching someone to fly ILSs to 200 ft is that they may believe they can do so by themselves in extreme conditions some 11 months after their last experience of instrument flying. If they do they're in for a rude shock. But I don't think you can regulate against stupidity. Let them try it in training.
I fully support teaching circling at the true circling MDH -- that was the way I was taught my IMC rating many years back. I just feel that students should be aware of the difference between flying a "bad weather" circuit at 500 ft on a nice calm summer's afternoon, and flying a night circling approach at an unfamiliar airport with a howling wind with scraps of cloud at or below MDH in poor vis after a non-precision approach. They're very different games, as you well know.
The downside of teaching someone to fly ILSs to 200 ft is that they may believe they can do so by themselves in extreme conditions some 11 months after their last experience of instrument flying. If they do they're in for a rude shock. But I don't think you can regulate against stupidity. Let them try it in training.
I fully support teaching circling at the true circling MDH -- that was the way I was taught my IMC rating many years back. I just feel that students should be aware of the difference between flying a "bad weather" circuit at 500 ft on a nice calm summer's afternoon, and flying a night circling approach at an unfamiliar airport with a howling wind with scraps of cloud at or below MDH in poor vis after a non-precision approach. They're very different games, as you well know.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps there is a very good argument for the CAA to amend the rules for IMC pilots to something like;
Shall add 300ft and 1000m to all published approach minima.
Simple, unambigious and appropriate.
So if the minima are DH200, RVR800 (best for single pilot ILS), then the IMC pilot would use DH500, RVR1800m. Simple.
Regards,
DFC
PS, was not aware of the circuits height at Gloucester so used 800ft purely as an example. Thanks for the info that it is 1000ft.
Shall add 300ft and 1000m to all published approach minima.
Simple, unambigious and appropriate.
So if the minima are DH200, RVR800 (best for single pilot ILS), then the IMC pilot would use DH500, RVR1800m. Simple.
Regards,
DFC
PS, was not aware of the circuits height at Gloucester so used 800ft purely as an example. Thanks for the info that it is 1000ft.
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all for your input, an interesting debate, which has certainly opened my eyes to the various sides of the argument (particularly the legal issues).
In my earlier example (Glos NDB/DME Rwy 27) I suggested if you elected to commence an approach to circle and land on 22, i.e. a published OCA of 745' (no 200' added). However if you elected to commence an approach to land on 27 then the recommended OCA would be 800' (the published + 200')
Let's say the cloud base is at 770'. The wind is 245/10. (equal crosswind for both runways)
So, for the approach to 27 the IMC pilot would have gone around at 800' but for the circling approach the pilot could have continued, and landed on 22. (which in itself doesn't seem logical)
So, can the pilot, at say 750' change his mind and elect to land on 27, because that is the runway he's lined up on? Surely that would be safer, but wouldn't he then have "bust" the recommended minima...?
I hope that makes sense....
bluskis the one thing I am sure of, it that this is not as black and white as I thought!!
goddammit I did mention the Glos circuit height in my earlier post
In my earlier example (Glos NDB/DME Rwy 27) I suggested if you elected to commence an approach to circle and land on 22, i.e. a published OCA of 745' (no 200' added). However if you elected to commence an approach to land on 27 then the recommended OCA would be 800' (the published + 200')
Let's say the cloud base is at 770'. The wind is 245/10. (equal crosswind for both runways)
So, for the approach to 27 the IMC pilot would have gone around at 800' but for the circling approach the pilot could have continued, and landed on 22. (which in itself doesn't seem logical)
So, can the pilot, at say 750' change his mind and elect to land on 27, because that is the runway he's lined up on? Surely that would be safer, but wouldn't he then have "bust" the recommended minima...?
I hope that makes sense....
bluskis the one thing I am sure of, it that this is not as black and white as I thought!!
goddammit I did mention the Glos circuit height in my earlier post
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snigs
So you did, i completely missed that post as i flicked through the thread.
So after all this, will you be teaching your imc students to
as recommended at
or do feel, like some, that only applies to the straight-in approach??
So you did, i completely missed that post as i flicked through the thread.
So after all this, will you be teaching your imc students to
add 200 ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH
AD 1.1.2 para 3.3.2.1
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
goddammit, the $64m question eh!!
I'm leaning towards a consistent approach. Do it for all.
A student will take in a blanket rule easier than the rule plus exceptions, however, if the student is eminently capable and switched on then.....
Like I said, it's not black and white anymore....
I'm leaning towards a consistent approach. Do it for all.
A student will take in a blanket rule easier than the rule plus exceptions, however, if the student is eminently capable and switched on then.....
Like I said, it's not black and white anymore....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is impossible for the circling minima to be lower than the straight-in minima.
Thus one could never end up in a situation wher the straight in minima was say 700ft and the circling minima was 600ft.
In an exceptional case, the circling minima may equal the straight in minima however, this would be unusal.
The reason why circling minima are greather is that the area considered for obstacles is much larger and displaced arround the runway. Thus in a totally flat terain, with absolutely no obstacles, if the och for a straight in approach was 700ft then the circling approach could in theory also be 700ft but it could not be less.
Does that explain the situation?
Regards,
DFC
Thus one could never end up in a situation wher the straight in minima was say 700ft and the circling minima was 600ft.
In an exceptional case, the circling minima may equal the straight in minima however, this would be unusal.
The reason why circling minima are greather is that the area considered for obstacles is much larger and displaced arround the runway. Thus in a totally flat terain, with absolutely no obstacles, if the och for a straight in approach was 700ft then the circling approach could in theory also be 700ft but it could not be less.
Does that explain the situation?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I am almost certain i agree with you on this topic, i only started to get confused on the whole issue when i started reading this thread.
Once an imc individual has the IR pilots MDHs for straight-in and VM(C) approaches, why would they elect to add the recommended 200' to one and not the other? I accept it's a recommendation, but surely one is either going to ignore it or follow it.
I am almost certain i agree with you on this topic, i only started to get confused on the whole issue when i started reading this thread.
Once an imc individual has the IR pilots MDHs for straight-in and VM(C) approaches, why would they elect to add the recommended 200' to one and not the other? I accept it's a recommendation, but surely one is either going to ignore it or follow it.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minima
CAP507 while recommending that the IMC Pilot adds 200' to the approach minima together with the 500'/600', it is specific that such a recommendation does not cover the VM(C). For the simple fact that while on your approach within imc your only reference is to your instruments and radio indications, the work load is high. Circling to land you are visual and therefore can be more certain of maintaining the required flight path and not hit anything.
A major reason for confusion here is that so many wish to interpret the rules in a way that they wish it to be. There are no shortage of comments to the effect that; an IMC rated Pilot is not as good as a IR Pilot and so must add the 200' for that. Rubbish, the same standards applied to flight in imc for the IR and IMC Pilot are the same.
The 15 hour IMC course is a minima not an absolute. The hours required to train are those required to meet the standards. The major differences between the IR and the IMC are of course the exams, airways flight (so what) and most effectively the requirement to train and demonstrate RADAR,ADF and VOR/ILS procedures within the one test.
The IMC course may be completed using only ADF/Controller Procedures or VOR/Controller Procedures or VOR/ILS/Controller or Controller Procedures alone, RADAR if there is any, make a choice. The IMC test only requires that one procedure is examined.
The length of the IMC course reflect these differences. The duration of the training should not be a compromise. It cannot be acceptable that the standards trained to are good enough only for the higher minimas but not good enough for the full procedure to which they will be licenced! "Look mate don't think that what we have just trained for is anything that you should really consider doing in real life - it's a get yourself out of trouble thing, that all". That kind of scenario cannot be correct.
The addition of 100' increments for lack of currency and practice is recommended to all Pilots, IMC or IR holders.
Whatever I have said throughout this debate, Safety, of course, is paramount!
A major reason for confusion here is that so many wish to interpret the rules in a way that they wish it to be. There are no shortage of comments to the effect that; an IMC rated Pilot is not as good as a IR Pilot and so must add the 200' for that. Rubbish, the same standards applied to flight in imc for the IR and IMC Pilot are the same.
The 15 hour IMC course is a minima not an absolute. The hours required to train are those required to meet the standards. The major differences between the IR and the IMC are of course the exams, airways flight (so what) and most effectively the requirement to train and demonstrate RADAR,ADF and VOR/ILS procedures within the one test.
The IMC course may be completed using only ADF/Controller Procedures or VOR/Controller Procedures or VOR/ILS/Controller or Controller Procedures alone, RADAR if there is any, make a choice. The IMC test only requires that one procedure is examined.
The length of the IMC course reflect these differences. The duration of the training should not be a compromise. It cannot be acceptable that the standards trained to are good enough only for the higher minimas but not good enough for the full procedure to which they will be licenced! "Look mate don't think that what we have just trained for is anything that you should really consider doing in real life - it's a get yourself out of trouble thing, that all". That kind of scenario cannot be correct.
The addition of 100' increments for lack of currency and practice is recommended to all Pilots, IMC or IR holders.
Whatever I have said throughout this debate, Safety, of course, is paramount!
Since the lowest recommended MDH for a non-precision approach flown by an IMC rated pilot is 600ft, I examine their ability to fly a bad weather circuit at 600ft on the IMC Rating Skill Test. Normally one would reach MDA/H, maintain it until reaching the missed approach point (unless you are one of those airliner drivers who insists on treating MDA/H the same as DA/H by going around immediately upon reaching it if they don't have landing criteria), then carry out a missed approach if visual criteria have not been achieved. For the test I get the applicants to fly a radar-vectored ILS to assess their ability to work with ATC, monitor their position and fly a good approach - then to carry out a go-around. I then position the aircraft where I want at 600 ft in the bad weather configuration whilst the applicant doffs the foggles (I refuse point blank to use those damn dangerous tin screens so beloved of CAA IREs) - then I task them to fly a 600 ft bad weather circuit to land.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP507 while recommending that the IMC Pilot adds 200' to the approach minima together with the 500'/600', it is specific that such a recommendation does not cover the VM(C).
so does it differ from the AIP which says
add 200 ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minima
VM(C) is seperate from the Minimum Descent Height/Decision Height which pertains to the approach only.
VM(C) is often higher than the MDH/DH owing to the fact that obstructions not affecting the approach profile or Missed Approach Procedure are to be considered when circling.
VM(C) is often higher than the MDH/DH owing to the fact that obstructions not affecting the approach profile or Missed Approach Procedure are to be considered when circling.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VM(C) is Visual Manoeuvring (circling)
MDH is minimum descent height.
Is the MDH not calculated using the appropriate OCH, which if one where going to be VM(C) would be the VM(C) OCH that appears on the approach plate?
Surely that must be the case. Otherwise, how would an individual calc an MDH for , say, the procedure sniggs used, the gloucestershire NDB(L) AERODROME, which only has VM(C) OCA (OCH AAL)???
MDH is minimum descent height.
Is the MDH not calculated using the appropriate OCH, which if one where going to be VM(C) would be the VM(C) OCH that appears on the approach plate?
Surely that must be the case. Otherwise, how would an individual calc an MDH for , say, the procedure sniggs used, the gloucestershire NDB(L) AERODROME, which only has VM(C) OCA (OCH AAL)???
Last edited by vfrflyer; 23rd Mar 2004 at 13:55.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minima
vfrflyer
Of cause they can be the same but not always, as I stated;
'VM(C) is often higher than the MDH/DH owing to the fact that obstructions not affecting the approach profile or Missed Approach Procedure are to be considered when circling.'
An obstruction affecting the approach profile may not also affect the area designated for circling. The circling areas around an airport may differ N,S,E or west and anywhere in between. i.e. An obstruction to say the west of an airfield may not affect circling to the east of it. Therefore the VM(C) area's surrounding an airfield may also differ, one from another.
Of cause they can be the same but not always, as I stated;
'VM(C) is often higher than the MDH/DH owing to the fact that obstructions not affecting the approach profile or Missed Approach Procedure are to be considered when circling.'
An obstruction affecting the approach profile may not also affect the area designated for circling. The circling areas around an airport may differ N,S,E or west and anywhere in between. i.e. An obstruction to say the west of an airfield may not affect circling to the east of it. Therefore the VM(C) area's surrounding an airfield may also differ, one from another.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not saying they are the same.
When carrying out an NDB procedure one will have preplanned an MDH, whatever one's intentions may be.
If one intends to land on a suitably orientated runway from a straight-in approach this MDH will be calculated using the OCA.
If one intends to visually manoeuvre then this MDH will have been calculated using the VM(C) OCA.
In both cases one must have an MDH.
It is then a matter of deciding whether one wishes to follow the recommendation and add 200'.
VM(C) is an action, MDH is a minima therefore they are
never the same thing.
When carrying out an NDB procedure one will have preplanned an MDH, whatever one's intentions may be.
If one intends to land on a suitably orientated runway from a straight-in approach this MDH will be calculated using the OCA.
If one intends to visually manoeuvre then this MDH will have been calculated using the VM(C) OCA.
In both cases one must have an MDH.
It is then a matter of deciding whether one wishes to follow the recommendation and add 200'.
VM(C) is an action, MDH is a minima therefore they are
never the same thing.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minima
vfrflyer
You appear to answering your own question. Interpreting the law is difficult enough. If we start getting into semantics we will be doomed from ever getting clarity, however long the debate.
You appear to answering your own question. Interpreting the law is difficult enough. If we start getting into semantics we will be doomed from ever getting clarity, however long the debate.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not getting into semantics.
I am disagreeing with your view that the 200' recommendation only applies to the MDH for straight in approaches.
It is a recommendation to apply to ALL MDHs.
I am disagreeing with your view that the 200' recommendation only applies to the MDH for straight in approaches.
It is a recommendation to apply to ALL MDHs.
Is the MDH not calculated using the appropriate OCH, which if one where going to be VM(C) would be the VM(C) OCH that appears on the approach plate?
Surely that must be the case. Otherwise, how would an individual calc an MDH for , say, the procedure sniggs used, the gloucestershire NDB(L) AERODROME, which only has VM(C) OCA (OCH AAL)???
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vfrflyer
As far as the UK AIP goes you are absolutely correct. Unless the CAP 507 is different, homeguard wrongly believes the recommendation only applies to straight-in approaches.
I can't imagine how he would come up with a MDH for the glos NDB, as he doesn't seem to use the VM(C)OCA to calculate his approach minima!!
Oh, and do let him repeat himself, it gives me something to laugh at
As far as the UK AIP goes you are absolutely correct. Unless the CAP 507 is different, homeguard wrongly believes the recommendation only applies to straight-in approaches.
I can't imagine how he would come up with a MDH for the glos NDB, as he doesn't seem to use the VM(C)OCA to calculate his approach minima!!
Oh, and do let him repeat himself, it gives me something to laugh at
Last edited by goddammit; 23rd Mar 2004 at 17:20.