Descending through cloud without a procedure
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon,
At no time have I referred to the low flying rules. The 1000ft above everything within 5nm of the aircraft is an Instrument Flight Rule and nothing to do with rule 5.
You will find in the AIP that Enroute navigation aids are listed in the Enroute section. Approach nav aids are listed in the appropriate aerodrome section. Where for example a VOR is used as both enroute and aerodrome approach aid, this is noted in the enroute and aerodrome sections.
Ask about the regular flight checking of VOR and VOR/DME approach procedures. A very costly exercise for places that have them eg Cranfield. Do you think that such a requirement would be in place if it was not necessary because the average PPL with no knowledge of DOC8168 or the flight checking manual can construct an appropriate procedure and self check the signal quality available from the chosen navigation aid all while flying a typical club spam can in IMC..........give us a break!
Can those who can do all that please rush their CV to FR Aviation's Teeside office and get working on the checker asap. Doing all that with no backup must say that they are far more skilled than any checker pilot I know of.
Regards,
DFC
At no time have I referred to the low flying rules. The 1000ft above everything within 5nm of the aircraft is an Instrument Flight Rule and nothing to do with rule 5.
You will find in the AIP that Enroute navigation aids are listed in the Enroute section. Approach nav aids are listed in the appropriate aerodrome section. Where for example a VOR is used as both enroute and aerodrome approach aid, this is noted in the enroute and aerodrome sections.
Ask about the regular flight checking of VOR and VOR/DME approach procedures. A very costly exercise for places that have them eg Cranfield. Do you think that such a requirement would be in place if it was not necessary because the average PPL with no knowledge of DOC8168 or the flight checking manual can construct an appropriate procedure and self check the signal quality available from the chosen navigation aid all while flying a typical club spam can in IMC..........give us a break!
Can those who can do all that please rush their CV to FR Aviation's Teeside office and get working on the checker asap. Doing all that with no backup must say that they are far more skilled than any checker pilot I know of.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Live near Cardiff (from Scotland)
Age: 47
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So basically i cant use my IMC!Sad,i enjoy doing some IF getting up into the blue sky when its a grey day below!So the outcome is i can`t use non-FM immune a/c in IMC.But why is this not stressed on the IMC course if it`s so important?If i didnt go on this site i would be none the wiser like loads of pilots out there!!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schools don't tell you lots of things, in the interest of revenue.
The #1 thing they don't tell you is just how restrictive self fly hire is. OK, you have a brain and should realise it, but the reality is that most students don't grasp it until they try to take the plane away for a few days.
The #2 thing they don't tell you is that most of the junk most of them have available for hire is unsuitable (and often illegal) for IFR flight.
As regards not being able to use non-FM immune kit in Class G, the situation is not clear cut.
You also still have the following navaids which are not affected by FM immunity requirements, and none of them is prohibited or in any way restricted from being used, at any stage of a flight:
ADF
DME
GPS
The crucial thing is that the regs specify what must be carried, not what may or may not be used.
Take a guess which of the above devices is the one chosen (as the main one, with the others used as a backup) by just about all pilots that fly seriously.
The #1 thing they don't tell you is just how restrictive self fly hire is. OK, you have a brain and should realise it, but the reality is that most students don't grasp it until they try to take the plane away for a few days.
The #2 thing they don't tell you is that most of the junk most of them have available for hire is unsuitable (and often illegal) for IFR flight.
As regards not being able to use non-FM immune kit in Class G, the situation is not clear cut.
You also still have the following navaids which are not affected by FM immunity requirements, and none of them is prohibited or in any way restricted from being used, at any stage of a flight:
ADF
DME
GPS
The crucial thing is that the regs specify what must be carried, not what may or may not be used.
Take a guess which of the above devices is the one chosen (as the main one, with the others used as a backup) by just about all pilots that fly seriously.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also have to carry a map, but many people with GPS don't bother.
I have never met somebody that stupid. Perhaps they exist somewhere...
Of course if a pilot gets airborne without charts and without GPS that is less bad, yes??
pipertommy
You are either a true beginner, or you are a great windup
Nobody on EARTH is going to use an ADF (which suffers from errors up to 30 degrees at the best of times) backed up by a GPS (which can position you within a few yards anywhere on earth). The other way round, yes.
A reflection that most IMC / IR training is illegal or in VMC so a waste of time.
I am trying to work that one out
I have never met somebody that stupid. Perhaps they exist somewhere...
Of course if a pilot gets airborne without charts and without GPS that is less bad, yes??
pipertommy
You are either a true beginner, or you are a great windup
Nobody on EARTH is going to use an ADF (which suffers from errors up to 30 degrees at the best of times) backed up by a GPS (which can position you within a few yards anywhere on earth). The other way round, yes.A reflection that most IMC / IR training is illegal or in VMC so a waste of time.
I am trying to work that one out
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Illegal if done on aircraft not correctly equipted and in IMC, legal if in VMC with the student in fogles, but then perhaps a waste of time 
.
I thought the FAA had just agreed to the "mapless" cockpit if the aircraft is properly equipted?
.I thought the FAA had just agreed to the "mapless" cockpit if the aircraft is properly equipted?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
You will find that all aircraft used for the IR training have to be approved by the CAA. They have to be serviceable for IFR flights in Class A airspace.
------
Io540,
Actually unless the GPS is an approved panel mounted one with an up-to-date database, the ADF backed up by GPS is the only "legal" option. Never mind the CAA - just read the GPS manufacturers own statement regarding that one.
Of course the NDB must be within coverage which is very limited in most cases.
I laugh when people who can't track an NDB slag it off.
-----------
Pipertommy,
You can still use the IMC rating. You just can not rely on the VOR or ILS indications as the sole basis for your departure, enroute navigation or approach. Of course you can not rely on an unapproved GPS as a [/B]sole[/B] means of navigation either.
---------
If anyone finds that when within the DOC with a calibrated serviceable ADF and a competent pilot that an NDB is providing information that is as inaccurate as IO540 describes i.e. well beyond the limits allowed then they should report the matter via an MOR. Silence in such a situation could cause another pilot to have an accident. Would not like to have that on my concience.
Regards,
DFC
You will find that all aircraft used for the IR training have to be approved by the CAA. They have to be serviceable for IFR flights in Class A airspace.
------
Io540,
Actually unless the GPS is an approved panel mounted one with an up-to-date database, the ADF backed up by GPS is the only "legal" option. Never mind the CAA - just read the GPS manufacturers own statement regarding that one.
Of course the NDB must be within coverage which is very limited in most cases.
I laugh when people who can't track an NDB slag it off.
-----------
Pipertommy,
You can still use the IMC rating. You just can not rely on the VOR or ILS indications as the sole basis for your departure, enroute navigation or approach. Of course you can not rely on an unapproved GPS as a [/B]sole[/B] means of navigation either.
---------
If anyone finds that when within the DOC with a calibrated serviceable ADF and a competent pilot that an NDB is providing information that is as inaccurate as IO540 describes i.e. well beyond the limits allowed then they should report the matter via an MOR. Silence in such a situation could cause another pilot to have an accident. Would not like to have that on my concience.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the FAA had just agreed to the "mapless" cockpit if the aircraft is properly equipted?
Not heard of this.
But there is a common misconception in this area: a lot of people go around saying one has to carry the printed chart. This is not specified by any country I am aware of, not even the UK ANO. The wording tends to be like "all required navigation data" but even if the word "chart" is included it doesn't say it has to be the printed chart.
Obviously if one is displaying chart data on some electronic device then there are backup issues, battery life if applicable, etc, and if I was doing this personally I would want two different display devices with at least one of them having a battery life exceeding the fuel endurance, but that's obviously a different matter. Legally, printed charts do not need to be carried.
In the UK the whole GA scene is anally retentive in the extreme but in the much more affluent and modern USA the population of owner pilots flying spaceships equipped with nearly A4-sized displays running Jeppview or other chart products is quite significant. Just look at the aviation magazines they read over there, compared to the UK rags. So there is more discussion over there of flying without any paper, and it certainly isn't illegal.
Illegal if done on aircraft not correctly equipted and in IMC, legal if in VMC with the student in fogles, but then perhaps a waste of time
Well I suppose if you say that IMC training with foggles is nothing like as good as IMC training in real IMC, I would agree.
As regards IR training, this is done by only a few schools in the UK, all of them geared up for ATPL training. They keep reasonably decent planes, not least because the CAA-employed IR examiner wants to do the checkride in Class A. In the UK it isn't even possible to do any flight under ATC direction without going into Class A. This is a world apart from IMCR training.
The funny thing is that a properly trained IMCR holder is perfectly capable of flying IFR in Class A... the only real difference from Class D is that you have to stuff the flight plan through the CFMU website, then talk to London Control, and there isn't much to do en route.
If anyone finds that when within the DOC with a calibrated serviceable ADF and a competent pilot that an NDB is providing information that is as inaccurate as IO540 describes i.e. well beyond the limits allowed then they should report the matter via an MOR. Silence in such a situation could cause another pilot to have an accident. Would not like to have that on my concience.
I will let you in on a closely guarded secret, DFC. Fly to the start of the EGKA 20 inbound track, say 6.5D out, fly a precise inbound track (using a GPS of course ) and plot the RMI reading as you go in.
The good news is that as you track the NDB in, 25-30 degrees off the "real" track, you won't get embedded in the hill provided you stick to the DME stepdowns. That, no doubt, is why the DME is mandatory. All that happens is that if flying it to something like the minima, you may not be able to land because you will be too far off the inbound track.
Not heard of this.
But there is a common misconception in this area: a lot of people go around saying one has to carry the printed chart. This is not specified by any country I am aware of, not even the UK ANO. The wording tends to be like "all required navigation data" but even if the word "chart" is included it doesn't say it has to be the printed chart.
Obviously if one is displaying chart data on some electronic device then there are backup issues, battery life if applicable, etc, and if I was doing this personally I would want two different display devices with at least one of them having a battery life exceeding the fuel endurance, but that's obviously a different matter. Legally, printed charts do not need to be carried.
In the UK the whole GA scene is anally retentive in the extreme but in the much more affluent and modern USA the population of owner pilots flying spaceships equipped with nearly A4-sized displays running Jeppview or other chart products is quite significant. Just look at the aviation magazines they read over there, compared to the UK rags. So there is more discussion over there of flying without any paper, and it certainly isn't illegal.
Illegal if done on aircraft not correctly equipted and in IMC, legal if in VMC with the student in fogles, but then perhaps a waste of time
Well I suppose if you say that IMC training with foggles is nothing like as good as IMC training in real IMC, I would agree.
As regards IR training, this is done by only a few schools in the UK, all of them geared up for ATPL training. They keep reasonably decent planes, not least because the CAA-employed IR examiner wants to do the checkride in Class A. In the UK it isn't even possible to do any flight under ATC direction without going into Class A. This is a world apart from IMCR training.
The funny thing is that a properly trained IMCR holder is perfectly capable of flying IFR in Class A... the only real difference from Class D is that you have to stuff the flight plan through the CFMU website, then talk to London Control, and there isn't much to do en route.
If anyone finds that when within the DOC with a calibrated serviceable ADF and a competent pilot that an NDB is providing information that is as inaccurate as IO540 describes i.e. well beyond the limits allowed then they should report the matter via an MOR. Silence in such a situation could cause another pilot to have an accident. Would not like to have that on my concience.
I will let you in on a closely guarded secret, DFC. Fly to the start of the EGKA 20 inbound track, say 6.5D out, fly a precise inbound track (using a GPS of course
) and plot the RMI reading as you go in.The good news is that as you track the NDB in, 25-30 degrees off the "real" track, you won't get embedded in the hill provided you stick to the DME stepdowns. That, no doubt, is why the DME is mandatory. All that happens is that if flying it to something like the minima, you may not be able to land because you will be too far off the inbound track.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Live near Cardiff (from Scotland)
Age: 47
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 are you a windup
Well if i used GPS then ADF that would be illegal?The GPS i use is not approved for IFR use ONLY VFR as it states on my unit on start up.And yes i am not very experienced in IMC/IFR flying thats why i`m on here,so thanks for stating that ,remember the days when you first started and the questions you had? All i want is the knowledge to use my IMC in a legal way but most of all in a safe manner with the limited kit to hand.I feel this was not fully covered in the IMC course
,remember the days when you first started and the questions you had? All i want is the knowledge to use my IMC in a legal way but most of all in a safe manner with the limited kit to hand.I feel this was not fully covered in the IMC course
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
You can still use the IMC rating. You just can not rely on the VOR or ILS indications as the sole basis for your departure, enroute navigation or approach. Of course you can not rely on an unapproved GPS as a [/b]sole[/b] means of navigation either.
Can't you?
Tim
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pipertommy
I don't think any UK legislation states what equipment you must use. It lists what you must carry.
Everything else is conjecture and perhaps wishful thinking.
Sometimes wholly plausible conjecture (like you are supposed to fly an ILS with an ILS receiver and not by dead reckoning) but at other times it is certain nonsense (like not allowed to use a certain type of GPS when IFR in Class G).
An "IFR GPS" is a specific category of GPS which you need to have if flying on BRNAV routes, above FL095 in Europe. In the UK these are all in Class A anyway.
As tmorris rightly says, you can legally use dead reckoning in IMC. That is about the least accurate and least safe way to do anything, so anything will be better.
You can use any GPS for primary navigation ("primary" is another term not defined in legislation but widely touted by amateur aviation lawyers) anytime.
So I think you worry too much. Get yourself the very best moving map GPS you can afford, make sure it comes with an external antenna which you can clip to a window (for a decent view of the sky) and enjoy yourself!
Around the UK, one can do most flying in Class G.
I don't think any UK legislation states what equipment you must use. It lists what you must carry.
Everything else is conjecture and perhaps wishful thinking.
Sometimes wholly plausible conjecture (like you are supposed to fly an ILS with an ILS receiver and not by dead reckoning) but at other times it is certain nonsense (like not allowed to use a certain type of GPS when IFR in Class G).
An "IFR GPS" is a specific category of GPS which you need to have if flying on BRNAV routes, above FL095 in Europe. In the UK these are all in Class A anyway.
As tmorris rightly says, you can legally use dead reckoning in IMC. That is about the least accurate and least safe way to do anything, so anything will be better.
You can use any GPS for primary navigation ("primary" is another term not defined in legislation but widely touted by amateur aviation lawyers) anytime.
So I think you worry too much. Get yourself the very best moving map GPS you can afford, make sure it comes with an external antenna which you can clip to a window (for a decent view of the sky) and enjoy yourself!
Around the UK, one can do most flying in Class G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't want to turn this into a spat but.....
I'm afraid that rule 29 - the Minimum height rule and, yes, one of the IFRs - does have something to do with rule 5. Rule 29 says you always have to comply with rule 5 too. It also says that you do not have to maintain 1000ft obstacle/terrain clearance "if it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land". We each may have an interpretation of what would be neccessary - I guess the only person who really gets to make that judgement is a judge in court - but in my view descending, effectively en-route, in order to make a visual approach is not necessary.
Again it's an interpretation of words but rule 40 refers to "restrictions and appropriate procedures" and unless the AIP explicitly says "thou shalt NOT" it is not a restriction. And as far as I know at the moment there is no such explicit limitation on the use of navaids.
For what it is worth the AIP does say (page AD 1-1-18 if anyone cares)
Strangely enough, I am fairly familiar with flight checking requirements and I agree there's a good reason for all of the checks....but that doesn't mean there isn't a loophole in the legislative framework at present.
At no time have I referred to the low flying rules. The 1000ft above everything within 5nm of the aircraft is an Instrument Flight Rule and nothing to do with rule 5.
You will find in the AIP that Enroute navigation aids are listed in the Enroute section. Approach nav aids are listed in the appropriate aerodrome section. Where for example a VOR is used as both enroute and aerodrome approach aid, this is noted in the enroute and aerodrome sections.
For what it is worth the AIP does say (page AD 1-1-18 if anyone cares)
Aerodromes without published Instrument Approach Procedures
For an aircraft landing at an aerodrome without an instrument approach procedure either:
a A descent should be made in VMC until in visual contact with the ground, then fly to the destination;
b An IAP at a nearby aerodrome should be flown and proceed as in (a); or
c If neither (a) nor (b) is possible, first obtain an accurate fix and then descend not lower than 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within 5 nm (8 km) of the aircraft. If visual contact (as at (a) above) has not been established at this height, the aircraft should divert to a suitable alternate with a published instrument approach procedure.
For an aircraft landing at an aerodrome without an instrument approach procedure either:
a A descent should be made in VMC until in visual contact with the ground, then fly to the destination;
b An IAP at a nearby aerodrome should be flown and proceed as in (a); or
c If neither (a) nor (b) is possible, first obtain an accurate fix and then descend not lower than 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within 5 nm (8 km) of the aircraft. If visual contact (as at (a) above) has not been established at this height, the aircraft should divert to a suitable alternate with a published instrument approach procedure.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but in my view descending, effectively en-route, in order to make a visual approach is not necessary.
I can't see this. A descent to land is clearly necessary.
If you have legislation banning an IFR approach unless it's a published one (like the FAA has) that's something else. But until you have, what else is one supposed to do in order to land?
I can't see this. A descent to land is clearly necessary.
If you have legislation banning an IFR approach unless it's a published one (like the FAA has) that's something else. But until you have, what else is one supposed to do in order to land?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I0540
Not all, have a look at airspace North, and Northwest, of the Manchester area
An "IFR GPS" is a specific category of GPS which you need to have if flying on BRNAV routes, above FL095 in Europe. In the UK these are all in Class A anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar
And in the Cardiff area!.
-------
IO540, explain to me exactly how you set up your GPS when flying the Shoreham NDBDME procedure you talk of. WGS84 coordinates? tracking to the NDB? on the final approach QDM or tracking to EGKA on the runway QDM?
Seems to me like your ADF tracking could be out. Remember that approach only gets you down to circling altitude so having to manoeuvre all round the circuit should not be a problem! The 02 approach gives you lower circling minima even without DME!
Regards,
DFC
And in the Cardiff area!.
-------
IO540, explain to me exactly how you set up your GPS when flying the Shoreham NDBDME procedure you talk of. WGS84 coordinates? tracking to the NDB? on the final approach QDM or tracking to EGKA on the runway QDM?
Seems to me like your ADF tracking could be out. Remember that approach only gets you down to circling altitude so having to manoeuvre all round the circuit should not be a problem! The 02 approach gives you lower circling minima even without DME!
Regards,
DFC