Practice IAPs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Practice IAPs
What makes an IAP a practice one? I know that for a practice IAP in VMC you need a safety observer (your 'granny' will do) but if you carry one out in IMC you don't. But what if you are flying solo and elect to fly IFR: can you then carry out an IAP in VMC, or do you have to go for a visual approach?
Tim
Tim
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're IFR, solo and you go for the IAP in VMC then that's no problem. However, in this scenario no view limiting devices can be used and you would conduct the approach as if you would in IMC - occasionally checking to see whether you'd gone visual. Nothing wrong with taking the approach down to DA/MDA but you have a responsibility to other airspace users to keep the scan going outside as well as in - which would detract from the normal training process of "head in" until the relevant point of the approach.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lymington
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually your granny won't do. Your safety pilot needs to be a ppl or someone with enough flying experience to easily anticipate and recognise any potential conflict.
Someone without this experience is much less likely to spot any potential traffic problems.
Someone without this experience is much less likely to spot any potential traffic problems.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so, yawningdog...
You are confusing this with the rules for 'view-limiting devices', which I never mentioned...
Thanks, Chilli - that's what I suspected. I wasn't planning on foggles &c.
Tim
7 (1) Within the United Kingdom an aircraft shall not carry out instrument approach practice
when flying in Visual Meteorological Conditions unless:
(a) the appropriate air traffic control unit has previously been informed that the flight is
to be made for the purpose of instrument approach practice; and
(b) if the flight is not being carried out in simulated instrument flight conditions, a
competent observer is carried in such a position in the aircraft that he has an
adequate field of vision and can readily communicate with the pilot flying the aircraft.
when flying in Visual Meteorological Conditions unless:
(a) the appropriate air traffic control unit has previously been informed that the flight is
to be made for the purpose of instrument approach practice; and
(b) if the flight is not being carried out in simulated instrument flight conditions, a
competent observer is carried in such a position in the aircraft that he has an
adequate field of vision and can readily communicate with the pilot flying the aircraft.
Thanks, Chilli - that's what I suspected. I wasn't planning on foggles &c.
Tim
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Norwich
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit to getting myself very confused. If under 7(1) an aircraft shall not carry out an instrument approach practice when flying VMC unless (a) and (b) are complied with. How is this different to flying IFR in VMC and carrying out a IAP?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an aircraft shall not carry out an instrument approach practice
A landing is a landing. Does a missed approach constitute "practice"? Surely not otherwise commercial traffic carrying passengers would never be allowed to do one
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does a missed approach constitute "practice"?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The obvious Q is how can anybody tell your "intention"?
Seems a bizzare area to legislate in.
If "practice" was defined as a flight on which an instructor is present and - if G-reg - implicitly PIC that would be something else.
Seems a bizzare area to legislate in.
If "practice" was defined as a flight on which an instructor is present and - if G-reg - implicitly PIC that would be something else.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding......
If it's practice you are still under VFR and you are responsible for your own separation, the controller isn't.
If it's not practice, you will get a proper clearance, the controller has to separate you, (but if you are in VMC you do too).
How do you tell the difference? If it's a practice approach, you request a practice approach.
If it's practice you are still under VFR and you are responsible for your own separation, the controller isn't.
If it's not practice, you will get a proper clearance, the controller has to separate you, (but if you are in VMC you do too).
How do you tell the difference? If it's a practice approach, you request a practice approach.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the advantage of telling the controller it is "practice"?
How does this apply to outside the UK?
A part of the point I am trying to make is that the IMC Rating or the JAA IR does not require the pilot to maintain any currency whatsoever.
The FAA IR does, but most pilots will log the six approaches as part of normal flying. Also, most FAA pilots fly outside the UK.
How does this apply to outside the UK?
A part of the point I am trying to make is that the IMC Rating or the JAA IR does not require the pilot to maintain any currency whatsoever.
The FAA IR does, but most pilots will log the six approaches as part of normal flying. Also, most FAA pilots fly outside the UK.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, if it's practice, the controller doesn't have to separate you from other airborne VFR traffic, so it makes his life easier and you are more likely to get your request approved.
I'm not sure many people shoot their six approaches as part of normal flying. If you are flying IFR, when can you log an approach? Do you have to be in cloud all the way from the IAF to minimums for it to count?
I'm not sure many people shoot their six approaches as part of normal flying. If you are flying IFR, when can you log an approach? Do you have to be in cloud all the way from the IAF to minimums for it to count?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The prevailing wisdom in FAA land appears to be that the approaches have to be in real IMC.
I'd say that *most* FAA IR pilots over here are aircraft owners, not renters. And if you have a plane, you will be flying it all over the place
Whereas a JAA IR holder complained to me the other day that the FAA IR is "really hard to keep" - because you have to keep flying a plane.........
I'd say that *most* FAA IR pilots over here are aircraft owners, not renters. And if you have a plane, you will be flying it all over the place
Whereas a JAA IR holder complained to me the other day that the FAA IR is "really hard to keep" - because you have to keep flying a plane.........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case I disagree with the prevailing wisdom. If you want to keep your IR current under 61.57 by flying six actual IMC approaches in six months, you need to descend to DH or the MAP/MDA in actual conditions. I doubt most people do that in normal flying, it must be even more difficult if you are UK based because it will have to be on a published approach to count under the FARs. Most FAA people remain instrument current by flying with a safety pilot under the hood on practice approaches (or they should do legally, I know plenty of people who don't)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to give a view from a UK ATC perspective - and I stress it's my view because there is just as much confusion and differing opinions amongst controllers as there seems to be amongst pilots.
If a pilot asks for a practice approach I will clear him/her for an approach. I will provide standard separation between the 'practice' aircraft and all other IFR traffic. I will give traffic info on VFR traffic to the 'practice' aircraft - and traffic info on the 'practice' aircraft to other aircarft in the area. So the fact that it's a practice approach makes absolutely no difference to me - I treat it like a proper one! (For the record - the exception to this is practice Cat II/III approaches but I guess that's not really what we're talking about here)
I don't know whether this is right or wrong because I can't get my head around the law on this topic but it is safe. But like I said earlier, ask a different controller and there's every chance you'll get a different answer.
I would normally refer anyone to the guidance and procedures in the Manual of Air Traffic Services. But I don't think there's anything in it on this!
If a pilot asks for a practice approach I will clear him/her for an approach. I will provide standard separation between the 'practice' aircraft and all other IFR traffic. I will give traffic info on VFR traffic to the 'practice' aircraft - and traffic info on the 'practice' aircraft to other aircarft in the area. So the fact that it's a practice approach makes absolutely no difference to me - I treat it like a proper one! (For the record - the exception to this is practice Cat II/III approaches but I guess that's not really what we're talking about here)
I don't know whether this is right or wrong because I can't get my head around the law on this topic but it is safe. But like I said earlier, ask a different controller and there's every chance you'll get a different answer.
I would normally refer anyone to the guidance and procedures in the Manual of Air Traffic Services. But I don't think there's anything in it on this!
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points:
1. My (very wise) instrument instructor warned me that in Europe I must inform ATC and request a "practice" approach if it's not real IMC/IFR. I don't know where/whether this is in the rules, but home base certainly insists on ILSes being "booked" in advance if it's VMC.
2. The FAA IR can be kept up to date with approaches flown under the hood to minima, with a safety pilot. Or that's what I told the examiner when I did mine, and he didn't tell me I was wrong. How else would you keep your IR current in the "clear" parts of the USA?
1. My (very wise) instrument instructor warned me that in Europe I must inform ATC and request a "practice" approach if it's not real IMC/IFR. I don't know where/whether this is in the rules, but home base certainly insists on ILSes being "booked" in advance if it's VMC.
2. The FAA IR can be kept up to date with approaches flown under the hood to minima, with a safety pilot. Or that's what I told the examiner when I did mine, and he didn't tell me I was wrong. How else would you keep your IR current in the "clear" parts of the USA?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in Europe I must inform ATC and request a "practice" approach if it's not real IMC/IFR. I don't know where/whether this is in the rules, but home base certainly insists on ILSes being "booked" in advance if it's VMC.
Anyway, let's say the weather is poor or marginal and then improves. You aren't required to cancel IFR just because it's improved.
There is no such thing as "IMC/IFR" except that flight in IMC has to be IFR. An IR/IMCR can fly IFR anytime he chooses. Abroad, or in Class A, it just gets more regulated (mandatory flight plan, IFR clearance).
As for booking an ILS, that may be the individual airfield rule, for a "training" flight, if they have half a dozen twins doing IR training in the circuit. A lot of airfields around Europe have restrictions, often a total ban, on "training" flights. But a pilot can still do a fully IFR flight and the destination has to fit him in. That's the ATC job. He may have to hold, etc.
For example Cranfield has a lot of IR training traffic and tries to discourage people going in there IFR if the conditions are OK for a VFR arrival. But you can just do it and they can't stop you. Especially if they have the flight plan.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You miss my point. I said for a "practice" approach. If it's IMC, or if I'm on an IFR flight plan, I would expect to be asked what approach I want and may well choose an ILS.
If I'm on a VFR flight plan (or no flight plan at all) but want an ILS for practice (which I often do), then I book it first and tell them it's for practice. If I'm "under the hood" (cos it's nice VMC outside) then I take a safety pilot, too.
That's what I was taught, and that's what I do.
If I'm "practising" but it's IMC and I'm under IFR, then I don't "book" it. That's what I meant by "IMC/IFR" above.
Don't be so pesky aggressive! Nonsense it ain't. What my IFR instructor taught me, it is.
If I'm on a VFR flight plan (or no flight plan at all) but want an ILS for practice (which I often do), then I book it first and tell them it's for practice. If I'm "under the hood" (cos it's nice VMC outside) then I take a safety pilot, too.
That's what I was taught, and that's what I do.
If I'm "practising" but it's IMC and I'm under IFR, then I don't "book" it. That's what I meant by "IMC/IFR" above.
Don't be so pesky aggressive! Nonsense it ain't. What my IFR instructor taught me, it is.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keef
I do see your point. What I don't see is how a *UK* airfield can legally insist on what is effectively a PPR for an IFR approach, given that:
1) A suitably rated pilot is entitled to arrive IFR (with or without an IFR flight plan)
2) Instructor absent, there is no practical difference that I can see between me choosing to fly an ILS to land because I feel like it, and me choosing to fly an ILS to land because I feel I need the practice (but not telling ATC anything different).
Flying is a constant learning / currency rebuilding process and unless one is flying A-B on business (or some other real purpose) every flight, including the landing, could be regarded as a practice flight.
I do see your point. What I don't see is how a *UK* airfield can legally insist on what is effectively a PPR for an IFR approach, given that:
1) A suitably rated pilot is entitled to arrive IFR (with or without an IFR flight plan)
2) Instructor absent, there is no practical difference that I can see between me choosing to fly an ILS to land because I feel like it, and me choosing to fly an ILS to land because I feel I need the practice (but not telling ATC anything different).
Flying is a constant learning / currency rebuilding process and unless one is flying A-B on business (or some other real purpose) every flight, including the landing, could be regarded as a practice flight.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spittoon, what you have described seems totally reasonable and safe. What happens in my neck of the woods is I request the practice approach, what I hear from the controller is something like
'Cleared for the ILS 30 practice approach, maintain VFR, VFR separation services not provided' (or similar) .
Then I fly the approach as normal, but I am not cleared to fly the missed
Speaking with controllers in a less formal setting, I am told that although the controller will not provide legal IFR separation to me, they always try to. The main difference to the controller, from what I hear, is that in a practice approach they do not have to deconflict the missed approach procedure. As there may be IFR arrivals in that airspace that makes it a lot easier for them to keep the flow rate up.
'Cleared for the ILS 30 practice approach, maintain VFR, VFR separation services not provided' (or similar) .
Then I fly the approach as normal, but I am not cleared to fly the missed
Speaking with controllers in a less formal setting, I am told that although the controller will not provide legal IFR separation to me, they always try to. The main difference to the controller, from what I hear, is that in a practice approach they do not have to deconflict the missed approach procedure. As there may be IFR arrivals in that airspace that makes it a lot easier for them to keep the flow rate up.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be worth going back to the original post here before everyone gets themselves tied in knots:
He's IFR - it has nothing to do with flight conditions - he's IFR, end of story. Quite entitled therefore to fly that IAP no matter what the number of people on the flight deck.
Now follow this reasoning. If someone is ostensibly VFR but asks for an approach for training then effectively they are putting themselves IFR.
Reason?
Either you're going to vector them or they're going to follow a laid down procedure. Either way they stand the risk of going inadvertant IMC due to the nature of the task. On that basis they effectively become IFR, and therefore get treated and handled as such. The term VFR implies the guy can deviate from track and level at will to remain VMC - this has no place in the scenario so far, so isn't applicable. Telling that person to remain VFR defeats the object of the exercise.
As for the missed approach scenario - there would be nothing wrong with the phrase "In the event of a missed approach turn left/right into the visual circuit VFR". That removes the ambiguity as to what rules you're on during the approach, but provides a non-separation required solution at the end of it.
But what if you are flying solo and elect to fly IFR: can you then carry out an IAP in VMC, or do you have to go for a visual approach?
Now follow this reasoning. If someone is ostensibly VFR but asks for an approach for training then effectively they are putting themselves IFR.
Reason?
Either you're going to vector them or they're going to follow a laid down procedure. Either way they stand the risk of going inadvertant IMC due to the nature of the task. On that basis they effectively become IFR, and therefore get treated and handled as such. The term VFR implies the guy can deviate from track and level at will to remain VMC - this has no place in the scenario so far, so isn't applicable. Telling that person to remain VFR defeats the object of the exercise.
As for the missed approach scenario - there would be nothing wrong with the phrase "In the event of a missed approach turn left/right into the visual circuit VFR". That removes the ambiguity as to what rules you're on during the approach, but provides a non-separation required solution at the end of it.
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 11th Oct 2005 at 09:03.