VFR pilot making an ILS

[BEagle]

Thanks, Tony et al.

Experience might help in making suggestions, but it does not confer infallibility! As I said to a young co-pilot I was debriefing only a year or so ago "Don't forget that even the oldest and most experienced gits in the other seat can kill you if you let them screw up unchallenged!"

Personally I feel that FJJP's post: "A lot of people here are missing the essential point. The ILS is an instrument procedure. That means you should be 'heads down' for the whole procedure right down to decision height. The instrument scan is an important part of the process - a filthy night is not the time to find out that you have a lousy scan technique." sums up the situation admirably.

But to fly the instrument procedure you need to have been properly trained and to hold the appropriate qualification.

Incidentally, there is a project afoot to introduce a 'Basic IR' proposal which we would hope to be a procedural endorsement to an IMC Rating, recognised internationally, allowing access to lower levels of Class A airspace without the need for a full IR. But it's going to take time - and at this stage it's only a proposal.

[greatorex]

FJJP,

I agree with your point about the ILS being entirely and instrument procedure, however, I think that the question was more of one about 'Could I get radar vectors to the ILS and keep an eye on the needles on my way in?' rather than executing the entire operation heads down all the way through.

Tony Bowers,

I am sure that BEagle is a very fine and capable pilot, a prince amongst instructors and a fair and kind examiner.

You are absolutely correct! I know of no one who has done more for GA in the UK in recent times than he has .

Cheers,

G

[BEagle]

greatorex - thanks for your kind words, but I can certainly think of many who've advanced the cause of GA rather more than I have - Polly Vacher for one!

Vectors to a straight-in visual approach whilst keeping the odd eye on your ILS display (not a bad idea to check that it actually works before you need it in anger!) is one thing; untrained attempts at a 'real' ILS (even in VMC) quite another.

Now, as to whether flying a properly qualified pilot flying an ILS approach to land in VMC is 'carrying out instrument approach practice' as regulated under Rule 7, I wouldn't wish to comment upon. What exactly constitutes 'practice'....

[bookworm]

I have never heard the phrase and i do not actually think it exists of a simulated ILS approach under VFR .

Out of interest, which bit do you object to? 'Simulated'? Although I don't think it's strictly necessary here, it seems to adhere to the general principle that I've been taught to distinguish practice from simulated. If I announce that I'm flying practice asymmetric, it means that I've shut an engine down for training. If I'm simulated asymmetric, it means that the power on one engine has been retarded but I can get it back at short notice. Similarly with IAPs, I can (and sometimes do) go and make practice approaches on a day with 1000 m vis and a ceiling of 400 ft. If I'm ending an operational flight with an ILS in VMC, I'm simulating the need for the instrument approach, even though I'm not flying for the practice. I don't know of any official definitions to justify the distinction, but it seems to be a widely held convention.

If when I am quiet and a local aircraft requests from myself an ILS approach all I ask from them is if they are doing the approach VFR or IFR.

What if you're not quiet? In my experience there is an implicit assumption that an aircraft that requests an ILS approach will fly it under IFR. If a pilot wants (or is obliged) to fly it under VFR, I think he needs to make that explicit.

[Eira]

At our airport any aircraft who makes an approach for the ILS who does not intend to land has to book a Beacon Slot .
Aircraft not training and landing, unless we are subject to PPR ,are able to be vectored in for an ILS when they request it and as you rightly said if they are IFR we expect to vector them for an ILS approach or NDB or SRA whichever type of approach they request.
I have only ever encountered locally based aircraft request VFR ILS approaches, they are aware of our situation with training and thus only request from us an approach when we are quiet, knowing full well that we will do our best to accomodate them when we are busy but that they will be significantly delayedas they are not scheduled flights and are training flights which take a lower priority.
Any aircraft which requires to make an ILS approach will be accomodated be it VFR or IFR but I must ask under what circumstances you would think a VFR aircraft must make an approach with the ILS.
I do not object to the statement Simulated ILS under VFR it just would be met with the response of what ????
you are either flying the ILS or you are not as far as we are concerned

[FJJP]

I am not Beagles keeper - I happen to know the man and his background - but I find that personal remarks against any individual (even those who post the most stupid and ill-informed comments), tend to lower the standard of comment towards 'not worth reading the forum'. I rarely visit Jet Blast for just that reason - it became very tedious.

Similarily, There are so-called experts out there (you spot them from the quality and depth of knowledge in their comments) who really have little right to slag off those with a lifetime career in professional aviation. [By the way, I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here - it's a general observation].

The terminology 'simulated' and 'practice' in relation to asymmetric flight was introduced some years ago to differentiate between ESD and flight idle aproaches; in certain ac types the parameters for commitment to landing differ significantly, and it was an early warning to ATC to prepare them for final clearances.

There is no such thing as 'practice' and 'simulated' ILS approaches. An ILS is an ILS whether flown in IMC or VMC. You can practice ILS approaches in both VMC and IMC, but how do you simulate an ILS?

[Flyin'Dutch']

To cap it all:

BEagle wrote:

Vectors to a straight-in visual approach whilst keeping the odd eye on your ILS display (not a bad idea to check that it actually works before you need it in anger!) is one thing

and FJJD said:

G-747 would be better asking for vectors to 4 miles final for a straight-in approach. There would be no harm in him glancing occasionally at the ILS needles, as he would the ASI, etc.

The way I read the first posting by G-747 that was all he was after.

I think it is also fairly safe to say that all on here would agree that any attempt to fly an IAP without appropriate training in simulated or real IMC would be foolish indeed.

With that all out of the way can we skip the aggro and have a beer?

The problem with these internet based 'conversations' is that we as humans are used to the fact that 80% of interhuman communication is non-verbal, and the lack of that 80% is evident

Those who read these messages have to bear that in mind as do those that post.

As the French say: 'C'est le ton qui fait la musique'

The likelihood that we would all get on fine if meeting up in our local is pretty good, methinks.

FD

[bookworm]

Any aircraft which requires to make an ILS approach will be accomodated be it VFR or IFR but I must ask under what circumstances you would think a VFR aircraft must make an approach with the ILS.
I do not object to the statement Simulated ILS under VFR it just would be met with the response of what ????
you are either flying the ILS or you are not as far as we are concerned

Yes, I take the point, Eira. Every ILS approach under VFR is simulated, so why mention it? The VFR part is the important bit.

[englishal]

My last penneth worth

There seems to be a common misconception that flying IFR is a "heads in cockpit" thing. This may be true in IMC, but in VMC you should NOT keep your head in the cockpit. You may be receiving seperation services from ATC but ATC can vector you into a mountain, or into the path of pop up traffic they didn't pick up in time, and ultimately its the PIC's responsibility to see and avoid. I respect high time experienced pilots and learn a lot from them, however its in my nature to question what they say when what they say hasn't been justified properly.

Still, as FD no doubt we'd all get along in the pub which is the important thing

EA

[genius-747]

Hi,
its me, the creator of this online cat fight!!!

BEagle wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vectors to a straight-in visual approach whilst keeping the odd eye on your ILS display (not a bad idea to check that it actually works before you need it in anger!) is one thing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and FJJD said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-747 would be better asking for vectors to 4 miles final for a straight-in approach. There would be no harm in him glancing occasionally at the ILS needles, as he would the ASI, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats all I want to use the ILS for, and I am guessing from what I have read it is completely acceptabe to request vectors for a 3-4 mine final straight in.

When ATC give you these vectors how would they give you the final vector onto the runway course. I know with vectors for the ILS they say something like

"G-EOXX turn left heading 240 to intercept the localiser report established"

"How would ATC do it if you request Radar Vectors for a 3 mile straight in approach for runway xx"


Thanks a bunch for all the replies, made for a great read.

ps: Beagle, sorry you had to get so much stick in this thread!

P

[BEagle]

Ah well, what's wrong with a wee bit of craic.....

If you ask for vectors to a straight-in visual, you'll probably be asked to report RW in sight and then directed to TWR frequency.

Strictly speaking, if there are others in the visual circuit, you'd have to fit in with them. Appearing on a 4 mile visual final won't give you priority over someone in the conventional circuit. Or rather, it shouldn't......

When I was Duty Instructor at RAF Benson some years ago, we had 4 students in the visual circuit. A Queen's Flight (as it was then) BAe 146, having offloaded the royals and corgis elsewhere, announced that it was 'straight in with the RW in sight'. I told the tower controller to instruct the 146 that he was cleared to join with 4 in and to report deadside. "I can't do that...it's the Queen's Flight" retorted the air trafficker. "Yes you will, them's the rules" quoth I. And he did - and the Queen's Flight mate thought it was Christmas as he gleefully broke into the circuit right over the tower! "Don't often get the chance to have that much fun", he said!

So enjoy the freedom of visual flying and get a good understanding of ILS with MS flight sim or whatever. Then do your IMC rating - but don't forget the joys of basic visual flying even in Class D airspace - it's your right! And have FUN - that's what really matters and why we do it!

[Keef]

My goodness me! I go away for a couple of weeks, and come back to catfights on PPRuNe. Tut!

My home field is one of those fine places that charges the same landing fee whatever aids you use or don't use. So whenever I return home with another pilot in the RHS, I ask for a practice ILS (or NDB, or whatever) procedure. Out comes the hood, and off we go.

It keeps the skills slightly honed, it keeps the FAA IR valid (need 6 approaches in 6 months for that), and is good for the soul too.

With no pilot in the RHS, I join VFR. I might have the ILS selected, just to check that the needles are doing what they should, but no more than that.

I've been safety pilot for another IR practising in VMC under full ATC control, and had to shout "break off the turn" as another aircraft flew exactly where we were going to be. Not showing on radar, shouldn't have been there (Class B airspace), but no consolation if we'd hit him.

[Tinstaafl]

Genius, when you want to 'do' the ILS, arrange your clearance for a 10nm final starting at 2000' or so & ask for all the lights to be on full bright. Tell them it's for photos IF (unlikely) they ask anything.

Enjoy the view & seeing how precisely the ILS will reflect your VFR approach flight path deviations.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Can't really see all the fuss. Most people fly an approach far more accurately visually than any ILS. If it is to be used for the localiser only, just like tracking a VOR, then I see no problem, However using the glideslope... It's only hitting the ground that usually kills you isn't it. As Beagle et al have said mixing and matching the types of approach is not really a sensible thing to do. It is too easy for inexperienced pilots to get fixated on the wrong instrument. (Ask me how I know that!) Get an IMC or IR and learn how to do it properly rather than mucking about and potentially bending a perfectly good aircraft.

No more BEagle bashing please, he knows more about flying and flight training than most of us here put together. Personally I like it that he doesn't pull his punches I feel he's earnt that right, have you? Dealing with daft questions day in, day out can be a little wearing, especially when the answer is usually common sense. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your egotistical view on a subject doesn't give anybody carte-blanche to attack somebody's character as has happened earlier on this thread.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Thank you for that SASlowly.

I can only go on what people post here. As I explained on here we do not have the benefit of the important non-verbal communication on these forums so that makes it sometimes difficult to discern what people are like and how things are meant to come across.

Upon reflection of my contributions I can not say that at any time I have played the man and not the ball.

Surely I have disagreed with people who are may be in years and experience many times my senior. That can not be a problem can it?

Am not sure where you are coming from as it seems that we, in the end, all agreed.

Made me chuckle when you felt the need to have a sneer:

IO540 and FD you have come across as having a serious ego issue

after just pleading for:

No more BEagle bashing please

May be just as well you are an instructor and not a psychologist.

Would it be a good idea, in your quest to make the world a better place, to show others the respect you obviously desire?

FD

[FlyingForFun]

One point I'm surprised no one else has picked up on yet: as a VFR pilot, flying a VFR approach in good visual conditions, I might find the localiser useful to check that I'm lined up with the runway, head outside but with an occassional glance inside to check the needle is centred.

But I wouldn't want to use the glideslope - it would put me much lower than I'd like to be.

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

[Say again s l o w l y]

HMM, maybe a a bit of an over reaction, but I still stand by (most of)my comments. BEag's may have a gruff way of putting stuff across, but it doesn't make his points any less valid.

FD, who threw the first (verbal) punch here anyway?? I did feel you both came across as being overly aggressive and I have felt the same on other threads. All these combine to give a picture of a type of pilot all instructors have to deal with every day. Namely the egotistical, I'm better than everybody else despite all evidence to the contrary. I have no idea whether this is true or not, as I have never had the pleasure of meeting you, but as you say, sometimes on these forums we need to be careful about causing offence.

I will throw this into the mix, if somebody came into your office and started to throw their weight around. Despite the fact they are far less qualified or experienced than you and only see that world from one perspective. Would it not aggravate you?

FFF I think your point is one that a few people have made.

[ratt]

the average military ATCO hasn't a clue about the requirements of Rule 6 & 7

BEagle - I would asume that pilots would follow the rules when making any approach to an airfield. I am stating that the facility is there to be used. The ATCO knows the rules that he needs to and expects the pilot to do likewise. I wouldn't know that someone's PPL was out of date if they called up for a FIS now would I?

TKF - I would suggest phoning your local a/f for pricing info.

[Timothy]

SA s

FD is actually a very nice chap, exceedingly helpful, works in a caring profession and is the last person that I would describe as either aggressive or arrogant.

I daresay that this has all been an example, as he says himself, of the verbals overarching the non-verbals.

I had a similar experience at the hands of bose-x and greatorex on another thread recently and am perfectly happy to put it down to different accents being put on words than are intended.

Just as a matter of interest, say the following sentence seven times, emphasising each of the words once on each occasion.

I didn't say she stole the money

W

[Say again s l o w l y]

Very good WC, shows how the meaning changes with different emphasis. Point made and taken!