CIR renewal NDB appr.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Wally,
What I mean by "2 different standards" for IFR procedures and IFR test, is that one would be set for terrain/traffic/airspace separation, and another being measurement of applicants' flying skill.
For example, there is no prescribed tracking tolerance for en-route navigation (Jepps ATC 500 series 5.6.1), but the testing standard (CAO) requires the applicant to demonstrate 5 degrees or less.
I am not an expert in approach design, but how I read it is Jepps requirement; "descent may be commenced once on a heading to intercept out bound track" will provide terrain clearance. While the candidate is doing exactly that, aircraft may still be outside 5 degrees of outbound track. If this error is sustained (which is hard to do as aircraft is already on a heading to intercept outbound track), ATO could interpret this as not meeting testing standard.
I can't really see it anywhere in CAO40.2.1 talking about procedural standard, as the whole section is about "issue of an rating".
interesting you believe that a test for the issue or renewal of an NDB app & an inst app procedure are 2 diff things. Yr correct as far as the statement goes 'during a test' but the tracking tolerances pertaining to that exact app are mentioned in the CAO's as diff. (my interpretation only) Test or actual I see the same risks esspecially if the test is conducted in actual IMC.
For example, there is no prescribed tracking tolerance for en-route navigation (Jepps ATC 500 series 5.6.1), but the testing standard (CAO) requires the applicant to demonstrate 5 degrees or less.
I am not an expert in approach design, but how I read it is Jepps requirement; "descent may be commenced once on a heading to intercept out bound track" will provide terrain clearance. While the candidate is doing exactly that, aircraft may still be outside 5 degrees of outbound track. If this error is sustained (which is hard to do as aircraft is already on a heading to intercept outbound track), ATO could interpret this as not meeting testing standard.
I can't really see it anywhere in CAO40.2.1 talking about procedural standard, as the whole section is about "issue of an rating".
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many guys/gals out there realise that during an NDB approach for the issue/renewal of a rating requires that the the track of the NDB must be within +/- 5 degs before decent
I was always under the opinion that the AIPs/Jepps were just as legally binding, it was just that the CAOs were rather general on some topics and the AIPs/Jepps elaborated more on the everyday aspect of flying.
My input anyway
Join Date: May 2007
Location: qld (if you couldn't work that out from my name!)
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4X we hear what yr saying & most ATO's would be looking for just that, sustained errors that are not recognized or corrected, that's widely known by all whom at least instruct. BUT the CAO's are a legal document & don't mention 'sustained errors' anywhere.
Well here is the link to the CAOs.
http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao40/400201.pdf
In appendix 1, titled "Instrument Rating Test", scroll down to section 3 titled "Flight Tolerances".
It states,
Flight within specified tolerances is necessary for the applicant to be judged proficient in the required flying manoeuvres. There shall be no sustained errors in excess of the specified tolerances.
Now for the main issue of this thread, I think many are reading too much into it. Australian Aviation Law states that CASA can issue further instructions to the Regulations. That's what the CAOs and AIP are. The AIP is one such document where CASA is providing further, or more detailed instructions on what the CAOs mean - for example, with regard to descent on track.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone here is bringing lots of good points derived from how they read the rules & regs. I'm not directly trying to dispute anyones perception on how they believe it to be done (tollerances) just attempting to understand why we seem to have 2 diff tollerances that are applied to the NDB app tracking whether it be under test conditions or in real life day to day experiences.
'landof4x you seem to be the one who is somewhat off on a diff train of thought which is fine, you obviously have read it all in detail & came up with what you believe is the case. Remember I didn't make up the rules, I didn't write them as shown & I haven't to date applied them any differently to most in here, 'till just recently that is when an approved testing officer showed me the differences. One reg is pertaining to 'flight tolerances' & the other is pertaining to 'procedure tolearances. The question is are they one & the same? Also remember these two sub headings are just that, two seperate headings with two different statements.
I take back my statement 'landof4x' that there isn't anywhere in the CAO's that doesn't mention sustained errors, for that I stand corrected but it makes no reference to such where 'procedure tolerances' are being promulgated.
Does it matter whether yr conducting general heading flight tolerances or an actual track keeping excercise as in the outbound leg of an app?
landof4x you bring good strong points to the debate here but they are, like mine & everyone elses in here just opinions & interpretations
Now this guy maybe right or wrong BUT seeing as he is the examiner & I was the candidate there needs to be a 'chief & an indian' on the day. Both ways would have yeilded a safe outcome I believe anyway. I believed it best to bring it to the troops for further discussion.
Lets hope that we stay civilized on this hey !
CW
'landof4x you seem to be the one who is somewhat off on a diff train of thought which is fine, you obviously have read it all in detail & came up with what you believe is the case. Remember I didn't make up the rules, I didn't write them as shown & I haven't to date applied them any differently to most in here, 'till just recently that is when an approved testing officer showed me the differences. One reg is pertaining to 'flight tolerances' & the other is pertaining to 'procedure tolearances. The question is are they one & the same? Also remember these two sub headings are just that, two seperate headings with two different statements.
I take back my statement 'landof4x' that there isn't anywhere in the CAO's that doesn't mention sustained errors, for that I stand corrected but it makes no reference to such where 'procedure tolerances' are being promulgated.
Does it matter whether yr conducting general heading flight tolerances or an actual track keeping excercise as in the outbound leg of an app?
landof4x you bring good strong points to the debate here but they are, like mine & everyone elses in here just opinions & interpretations
Now this guy maybe right or wrong BUT seeing as he is the examiner & I was the candidate there needs to be a 'chief & an indian' on the day. Both ways would have yeilded a safe outcome I believe anyway. I believed it best to bring it to the troops for further discussion.
Lets hope that we stay civilized on this hey !
CW
Join Date: May 2007
Location: qld (if you couldn't work that out from my name!)
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, completely agreed. I did somewhat go off on a tangent regarding sustained errors, but it's a real bee in my bonnet at the moment.
With regard to the outbound leg of a letdown procedure and when descent can be initiated, if you want a legal perspective to stand on all you would have to do is track down the law which states that the AIP is a valid document.
It's their oversight, not yours. You have completed an instrument approach in accordance with CASA instructions from the AIP. He can point out the difference in the documents to you purely for interests sake or to pass the time of day, but he can't sock you for following the AIP instructions.
With regard to the outbound leg of a letdown procedure and when descent can be initiated, if you want a legal perspective to stand on all you would have to do is track down the law which states that the AIP is a valid document.
It's their oversight, not yours. You have completed an instrument approach in accordance with CASA instructions from the AIP. He can point out the difference in the documents to you purely for interests sake or to pass the time of day, but he can't sock you for following the AIP instructions.
Tracking Tolerances
"For example, there is no prescribed tracking tolerance for en-route navigation (Jepps ATC 500 series 5.6.1)..."
I agree with MOQ. Tolerances are discussed in AIP/Jepps (ATC General Flight Procedures 5.4.1) as follows:
"Tolerances are applied to tracks to assess containment areas for the purposes of ensuring navigational integrity, separation from other traffic.....These tolerances are based on the assumption that the pilot will maintain track as closely as possible."
"The pilot in command must, at all times, take positive action to regain track as soon as a deviation from the correct track is recognized." (5.4.2)
Jepps then goes on to specify tolerances for track keeping/enroute navigation within CTA, however, these are only inferred by declaring that pilots must notify ATC if they are off track by prescribed amounts.
"... the pilot must immediately notify ATC if the aircraft is found to be off-track by any of the deviations described below..." (5.6.2)
"where track guidance is provided by NDB or Locator - +/- 5 deg or more from the specified bearing" (5.6.2 [b])
"NOTE: The values given above must not be interpreted as defining a sector within which the pilot is permitted to navigate" (5.6.2)
The only other reference I am aware of relating to track keeping for a pilot OCTA is CTA avoidance insofar as a pilot:
"of an aircraft operating in Class "G" airspace, or to the VFR in Class "E" airspace, must apply appropriate tolerances to the flight path to ensure that controlled airspace, or restricted areas, are not infringed." (5.10.1)
"... the following navigational tolerances must be applied to the intended flight path......NDB +/- 6.9 degrees" (5.10.2).
In relation to where CAO 40.2.1 makes references to an "Instrument Rating Test", when I was teaching multi/IFR, we went through the requirements in Appendix I with each student very carefully as part of their test preparation, including the tracking tolerances (3.5) and the 'sustained errors' aspect. These are Instrument Rating test tolerances only and do not apply to normal enroute navigation, unless explicitly stated elsewhere, as far as I am aware.
Finally, reversal procedures with a base turn - as Jepps says "...the descent to the specified altitude may be commenced after the aircraft has crossed the fix or facility and is established on the specified track or has turned to a heading to intercept the specified outbound track." (Jepps Terminal 3.5.2 unless the copy I'm looking at is out of date). This differs from turning inbound during the reversal procedure turn, where the limiting procedure altitude must not be descended through until the aircraft is established on track (within 5 deg). That's certainly what we taught a few years ago.
DA
I agree with MOQ. Tolerances are discussed in AIP/Jepps (ATC General Flight Procedures 5.4.1) as follows:
"Tolerances are applied to tracks to assess containment areas for the purposes of ensuring navigational integrity, separation from other traffic.....These tolerances are based on the assumption that the pilot will maintain track as closely as possible."
"The pilot in command must, at all times, take positive action to regain track as soon as a deviation from the correct track is recognized." (5.4.2)
Jepps then goes on to specify tolerances for track keeping/enroute navigation within CTA, however, these are only inferred by declaring that pilots must notify ATC if they are off track by prescribed amounts.
"... the pilot must immediately notify ATC if the aircraft is found to be off-track by any of the deviations described below..." (5.6.2)
"where track guidance is provided by NDB or Locator - +/- 5 deg or more from the specified bearing" (5.6.2 [b])
"NOTE: The values given above must not be interpreted as defining a sector within which the pilot is permitted to navigate" (5.6.2)
The only other reference I am aware of relating to track keeping for a pilot OCTA is CTA avoidance insofar as a pilot:
"of an aircraft operating in Class "G" airspace, or to the VFR in Class "E" airspace, must apply appropriate tolerances to the flight path to ensure that controlled airspace, or restricted areas, are not infringed." (5.10.1)
"... the following navigational tolerances must be applied to the intended flight path......NDB +/- 6.9 degrees" (5.10.2).
In relation to where CAO 40.2.1 makes references to an "Instrument Rating Test", when I was teaching multi/IFR, we went through the requirements in Appendix I with each student very carefully as part of their test preparation, including the tracking tolerances (3.5) and the 'sustained errors' aspect. These are Instrument Rating test tolerances only and do not apply to normal enroute navigation, unless explicitly stated elsewhere, as far as I am aware.
Finally, reversal procedures with a base turn - as Jepps says "...the descent to the specified altitude may be commenced after the aircraft has crossed the fix or facility and is established on the specified track or has turned to a heading to intercept the specified outbound track." (Jepps Terminal 3.5.2 unless the copy I'm looking at is out of date). This differs from turning inbound during the reversal procedure turn, where the limiting procedure altitude must not be descended through until the aircraft is established on track (within 5 deg). That's certainly what we taught a few years ago.
DA
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah s*&* - we all better hand in our CIR! - Pot-a-to -freaking Pot-ah-to.
The guys that debate this crap are generally the ones that carry a full set of AIP around in the aircraft - not realising charts are AIPs!!
The guys that debate this crap are generally the ones that carry a full set of AIP around in the aircraft - not realising charts are AIPs!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries 'landof4x', I've enjoyed yr posts, well thought out, direct & relevant.
'Dragginair'.....good post, & a well put together list of references of what we already know as per the various regs.
'wateroff', yr coments are noted. The AIP charts have various notes in the pre-amble stating what's required. Some planes I have flown over the years have had a full set of the AIP in the aircrafts library kept onboard. Some thing are done professionally.
I guess more can be said here about this subject but in order for a new entrant to this thread to understand my original post & the possible alternate reasonings the whole thread would need to be read. Some threads run for sooooo long that we get lost with the original comment, still am sure someone will get a little heated under the collar Just reiterating here, I'm just the messenger, am simply putting fwd something that I recently have learned whether it be right or wrong.
CW
'Dragginair'.....good post, & a well put together list of references of what we already know as per the various regs.
'wateroff', yr coments are noted. The AIP charts have various notes in the pre-amble stating what's required. Some planes I have flown over the years have had a full set of the AIP in the aircrafts library kept onboard. Some thing are done professionally.
I guess more can be said here about this subject but in order for a new entrant to this thread to understand my original post & the possible alternate reasonings the whole thread would need to be read. Some threads run for sooooo long that we get lost with the original comment, still am sure someone will get a little heated under the collar
Just reiterating here, I'm just the messenger, am simply putting fwd something that I recently have learned whether it be right or wrong.CW
I once heard of a guy failing a renewal due to tracking tolerances.
Turning inbound on final approach, he rolled out within limits. However, due to quadrantal error, the needle moved outside the 5deg when he rolled level. ATO says FAIL, needless to say that particular ATO was not booked for the retest.
Turning inbound on final approach, he rolled out within limits. However, due to quadrantal error, the needle moved outside the 5deg when he rolled level. ATO says FAIL, needless to say that particular ATO was not booked for the retest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..............yeah well that's open to a lot of conjecture what that ATO did, but that's another story for another time. An ATO's hardest task is to know/recognize the difference between poor airmanship and/or equipment inaccuracies & then act accordingly.
Tnxs guys for all the input here on the subject of tracking tolerances, I for one always do try to do it better every time, the words 'good enough' & 'professional' are worlds apart
Fly safe
CW
Tnxs guys for all the input here on the subject of tracking tolerances, I for one always do try to do it better every time, the words 'good enough' & 'professional' are worlds apart
Fly safe
CW
apologies, it wasnt quadrantal error at all, must have had a few.
It was coastal refraction.... he established inbound, but as he passed the coast....
I wouldnt have thought that would count as a SUSTAINED error, provided action was taken as soon as the discrepancy was noticed, especially considering you have no real way of knowing when you will pass over the coast.
It was coastal refraction.... he established inbound, but as he passed the coast....
I wouldnt have thought that would count as a SUSTAINED error, provided action was taken as soon as the discrepancy was noticed, especially considering you have no real way of knowing when you will pass over the coast.
Interesting .. that 5deg outbound thingy. I should read the rules more often!
Being an old fashioned sort of guy, I just get within the 5deg before descending outbound!
Maybe I should use the rules to my advantage and not be such a high achiever!
After all, close enough is good enough!
Being an old fashioned sort of guy, I just get within the 5deg before descending outbound!
Maybe I should use the rules to my advantage and not be such a high achiever!
After all, close enough is good enough!
Nope... good enough means you pass the test. Professional means you still think you could/should have done better, and then go work on it.
