Warning! Don't do this....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lancaster
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warning! Don't do this....
The CAA are prosecuting a Cirrus pilot for illegal IFR.
Does anyone know more about this?
Cirrus and their pilots in the UK have been burying their heads in the sand about the rules, because the SR-20/22 does not come with minimum equipment, but they fly IFR anyway.
In Europe GPS can't be used in place of Ground based aids!
At Aerofair last year I refused to get involved with a Cirrus because of this, but I was amazed that no-one was taking it seriously.
Cirrus aircraft are routinely flying IFR and the pilots are even publishing details of their flights on the web!
Now the CAA have made the position clear, and it applies to any aircraft - If you don't have "FULL AIRWAYS" according to the UK rules, stay out of controlled airspace and don't attempt illegal instrument approaches using GPS.
The Lancastrian
Does anyone know more about this?
Cirrus and their pilots in the UK have been burying their heads in the sand about the rules, because the SR-20/22 does not come with minimum equipment, but they fly IFR anyway.
In Europe GPS can't be used in place of Ground based aids!
At Aerofair last year I refused to get involved with a Cirrus because of this, but I was amazed that no-one was taking it seriously.
Cirrus aircraft are routinely flying IFR and the pilots are even publishing details of their flights on the web!
Now the CAA have made the position clear, and it applies to any aircraft - If you don't have "FULL AIRWAYS" according to the UK rules, stay out of controlled airspace and don't attempt illegal instrument approaches using GPS.
The Lancastrian
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA are prosecuting a Cirrus pilot for illegal IFR.
Does anyone know more about this?
Does anyone know more about this?
It was suggested to me that the scene of the rampcheck was East Midlands Airport and that the flight had arrived off airways.
The aircraft concerned had neither ADF nor DME (as is the case with many/most Cirruses) and the CAA is keen to make an example of the pilot - in line with its recent approach to infractions involving N-registered aircraft.
All rumour, no facts to hang this on though.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am neither instrumented rated nor based in the UK, so don't keep up to speed on this sort of stuff! But have the CAA issued some sort of reminder about the equipment required for IFR flight in their airspace?
If they haven't, this, combined with a notice of intention to check and prosecute, would seem like a much better way of making their point, than simply picking on someone at random and throwing the book at them.
As you say, no one seems to know anything about this, just heard the rumour. How long will it take to come to court? How long to actually get a final decision by the court? Surely a published reminder, and statement of intent would have a much speedier and widespread effect?
There seems to be a lot of people out there who like to bash the Cirrus, and I can only guess why. But in the light of that, I'd be inclined to disregard rumours, as just that, until we know something for a fact. I imagine a lot of people would feel the same way. So once again, it would seem to make far more sense for the CAA to make a statement, rather than simply pick someone to prosecute.
On the other hand, Cirrus's competitors might have an interest in spreading a rumour though, and this may be all that this story is?
dp
If they haven't, this, combined with a notice of intention to check and prosecute, would seem like a much better way of making their point, than simply picking on someone at random and throwing the book at them.
As you say, no one seems to know anything about this, just heard the rumour. How long will it take to come to court? How long to actually get a final decision by the court? Surely a published reminder, and statement of intent would have a much speedier and widespread effect?
There seems to be a lot of people out there who like to bash the Cirrus, and I can only guess why. But in the light of that, I'd be inclined to disregard rumours, as just that, until we know something for a fact. I imagine a lot of people would feel the same way. So once again, it would seem to make far more sense for the CAA to make a statement, rather than simply pick someone to prosecute.
On the other hand, Cirrus's competitors might have an interest in spreading a rumour though, and this may be all that this story is?
dp
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules is rules I suppose, no matter how outdated, archaic and absurd they are.....
Still, I'm happy in the knowledge that if I decide to piss on the back left wheel of a Hackney Cab next friday night, that the law is there to protect me.....
Still, I'm happy in the knowledge that if I decide to piss on the back left wheel of a Hackney Cab next friday night, that the law is there to protect me.....
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it comes to General Aviation aircraft and flying, it seems far too many rules are out of date.
Makes you wonder if the chap who wrote then all in 1945 has died, and no else has been allowed to pick up his ball.
Loran, GPS, Computer controlled engines, Transistorised ignition, Composite airframe certification requirements, reliable transistorised radio's, and the archaic WWII method they are employed, in fact almost everything introduced into service, since 1945!
Or could it be, it is the same man, who in spite of every advance still see's, in his very 'British' way, 'no need' to change what he has already written.
It makes no sense to require out dated, obsolete equipment, when far better technology is available, but not 'approved' for use.
One day someone will die because of it.
W.B.
Makes you wonder if the chap who wrote then all in 1945 has died, and no else has been allowed to pick up his ball.
Loran, GPS, Computer controlled engines, Transistorised ignition, Composite airframe certification requirements, reliable transistorised radio's, and the archaic WWII method they are employed, in fact almost everything introduced into service, since 1945!
Or could it be, it is the same man, who in spite of every advance still see's, in his very 'British' way, 'no need' to change what he has already written.
It makes no sense to require out dated, obsolete equipment, when far better technology is available, but not 'approved' for use.
One day someone will die because of it.
W.B.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I looked, DME was not required for IFR flight in UK airways, however, ADF certainly is. Many instrument approaches do however require DME now. The marker beacons on many ILS approaches have been replaced by DME ranges.
The minimum nav equipment required for IFR flight both in and out of controlled airspace (in the UK) are listed in the ANO. These requirements in some cases are more stringent than the FAA requirements for flight in US airspace.
The minimum nav equipment required for IFR flight both in and out of controlled airspace (in the UK) are listed in the ANO. These requirements in some cases are more stringent than the FAA requirements for flight in US airspace.
Last time I looked, DME was not required for IFR flight in UK airways, however, ADF certainly is.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA are completely entitled to pursue the slightest technical breach of the ANO.
What they need to do is explain why they are suddenly vigorously pursuing matters which they have known about for years and had ample opportunity to do something about.
Every time a Cirrus files an IFR FP via CAS, anybody who sees that FP and has as much as opened a general aviation magazine or been to any airshow over the last few years will be aware that the aircraft probably doesn't carry an ADF.
Then there is the N-reg stuff, with the Dennis Kenyon prosecution and some others that aren't public yet. The CAA have been perfectly aware for years that training in N-reg planes has been done, completely openly, at a number of outfits around the UK, with examiners coming over openly from the USA.
Perhaps a political decision has been made to make N-reg life as hard as possible, without breaching the ICAO treaty obligations. Certainly all this fits that interpretation.
What they need to do is explain why they are suddenly vigorously pursuing matters which they have known about for years and had ample opportunity to do something about.
Every time a Cirrus files an IFR FP via CAS, anybody who sees that FP and has as much as opened a general aviation magazine or been to any airshow over the last few years will be aware that the aircraft probably doesn't carry an ADF.
Then there is the N-reg stuff, with the Dennis Kenyon prosecution and some others that aren't public yet. The CAA have been perfectly aware for years that training in N-reg planes has been done, completely openly, at a number of outfits around the UK, with examiners coming over openly from the USA.
Perhaps a political decision has been made to make N-reg life as hard as possible, without breaching the ICAO treaty obligations. Certainly all this fits that interpretation.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2D,
"Or perhaps the CAA has decided that since the FAA lacks the numbers and willingness to regulate its vast UK-based fleet, somebody needs to take a more proactive line."
Surely that begs the question "Why is there such a large N-reg fleet in the UK?"
Couldn't be because of the restrictive and out dated regulations of the CAA could it?
Why, for example, do CAA regulations require so much more maintenance on G-reg aircraft than the (American) Manufacturer (or the FAA) says is required?
The FAA have no interest in any aircraft exported from the U.S. It is no longer considered part of the U.S. fleet.
It is obvious that the FAA see no advantage in supporting the CAA and it's out of date regulations.
W.B.
"Or perhaps the CAA has decided that since the FAA lacks the numbers and willingness to regulate its vast UK-based fleet, somebody needs to take a more proactive line."
Surely that begs the question "Why is there such a large N-reg fleet in the UK?"
Couldn't be because of the restrictive and out dated regulations of the CAA could it?
Why, for example, do CAA regulations require so much more maintenance on G-reg aircraft than the (American) Manufacturer (or the FAA) says is required?
The FAA have no interest in any aircraft exported from the U.S. It is no longer considered part of the U.S. fleet.
It is obvious that the FAA see no advantage in supporting the CAA and it's out of date regulations.
W.B.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely that begs the question "Why is there such a large N-reg fleet in the UK?"
2D
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Can't say I have any sympathy with a pilot who breaks the rules like this. A flight plan form is required for an IFR flight in CAS. On that form there is a box (No. 10) for "Equipment". If the pilot lies by giving a false answer, because he doesn't have the necessary equipment, then he deserves all that's coming to him, imho.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reason by far for the *private* N-reg fleet is the FAA IR. JAA have practically killed off the PPL/IR so they have only themselves to blame (and the UK authorities for signing up to it).
There is little or no maintenance advantage because N-reg owners are regarded as a nice earner for maintenance organisations. The remaining advantage is on minor mods, fitting non-STC equipment, which the CAA makes really hard and for no good reason.
There is little or no maintenance advantage because N-reg owners are regarded as a nice earner for maintenance organisations. The remaining advantage is on minor mods, fitting non-STC equipment, which the CAA makes really hard and for no good reason.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They do if they fly to Europe, yes.
Do they actually use it? Of course not
They fly waypoints in the FMS and AFAIK the FMS doesn't use NDBs for corecting the gyros.
But an ADF has to be carried.
I know a 7x7 pilot who flies to Russia and they have NDBs and they use them all the time. But Russia is a different universe...
More practically, I would never fly a plane without an ADF because it's handy for navigation on routes where there aren't VORs. Much of France is one example, and their VORs don't have colocated DMEs either. They have quite a lot of NDBs in the middle of apparently nowhere, and they make great waypoints. Obviously one still uses the GPS for primary navigation (and to drive the autopilot if applicable) and having the RMI/ADF pointing to the next NDB is a fine backup. In the absence of nasty weather, NDBs are nearly as accurate as VORs for en-route nav over flat open country.
Do they actually use it? Of course not
They fly waypoints in the FMS and AFAIK the FMS doesn't use NDBs for corecting the gyros.But an ADF has to be carried.
I know a 7x7 pilot who flies to Russia and they have NDBs and they use them all the time. But Russia is a different universe...
More practically, I would never fly a plane without an ADF because it's handy for navigation on routes where there aren't VORs. Much of France is one example, and their VORs don't have colocated DMEs either. They have quite a lot of NDBs in the middle of apparently nowhere, and they make great waypoints. Obviously one still uses the GPS for primary navigation (and to drive the autopilot if applicable) and having the RMI/ADF pointing to the next NDB is a fine backup. In the absence of nasty weather, NDBs are nearly as accurate as VORs for en-route nav over flat open country.
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Cirrus SR-22 owner, I'd just comment that there
is a retrofit option of an ADF kit organised by European COPA
in cooperation with Cirrus Design to prevent just the
problem described earlier in the thread.
The CAA obviously has its head in the sand on the whole GPS issue but what's new.
Every plane I've flown in with an ADF, the ADF has pointed
its own sweet way when it wanted, 50's technology which
should have been retired 20 years ago.
-- Andrew
is a retrofit option of an ADF kit organised by European COPA
in cooperation with Cirrus Design to prevent just the
problem described earlier in the thread.
The CAA obviously has its head in the sand on the whole GPS issue but what's new.
Every plane I've flown in with an ADF, the ADF has pointed
its own sweet way when it wanted, 50's technology which
should have been retired 20 years ago.
-- Andrew