Descending through cloud without a procedure

[Droopystop]

Shy Tourque's experience is somewhat worrying. Is it the case that since the instrument requirements for the PPL have increased, instructors are increasingly (illegally in some cases) taking students into IMC to make use of the undoubted benefits of experiencing it for real? Of course when instructing, the radio can be a bit of a pain, especially if having to provide the long speil of filing an airbourn flight plan, so they just don't bother and rely on the big sky theory. Except that in certain parts of the country, the sky is not that big. It would also be interesting to see if the level of IFR traffic OCAS is on the increase. Certainly the ever increasing numbers of smaller airports (OCAS) being adopted by low cost airlines is not helping but are there more and more people using small twin IFR helicopters, biz jets and private pilots trying to go by air rather than being stuck on the roads?

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

There is an increasingly held view that it is a waste of time talking to London info.
The fact of the matter remains there are significant parts of the country were there is no RIS or LARS and no other meaningful service.
Never the less I still find some of the traffic information that can be provided by London info or ATC useful.

I don't think the view is increasing - it's more that there are a lot of people calling who don't really need to who are, by dint of clogging up the frequency, preventing them from doing their main tasks and preventing those with a higher priority requirement to call them from getting what they need.

This has been spouted many times before, but the main priorities for London information are:

1) Dissemination of information required for the safe conduct of flights (weather, danger area activity, TDA activity etc).

The calling for a pseudo ATC service, which is not actually provided, does not fall within that remit

2) Receipt of airborne flight plans, and issuing of ATC clearances when that clearance cannot be obtained from an ATC unit

How can they do that when the frequency is clogged by people who are calling for the pseudo ATC service mentioned above.

3) Provide Alerting service

If you're over the English Channel, Irish Sea, Middle of Wales you want a safety net just in case it all goes quiet. That is a servce that is seriously downgraded when every cretin from here to kingdom come is calling for a supposed "Flight information Service" (Read - "I want someone to talk to because that's what I was taught to do"). If you're over the south of England, in good VMC, do you need to make that call?

NO - look out of the damn window - it's going to serve more use!

[Fuji Abound]

Chilli

Whilst I have some symphathy for your comments the CAA would seem to take a different view. AIC 48/2004 offers some specific guidance about what an ACC FIS is intended to provided which specifcally (there use of words) includes "general traffic information" and "general information about traffic reported as operating in the same area".

Outside of controlled airspace in IMC I know of no other service that can provide traffic information. A visit to SFD on IMC days will tell you there is a fair bit of instrument training traffic around and some en route traffic who doubless should be at the correct level but are often not. I am pleased to have an idea who is around and what they are doing, VMC and IMC whilst also looking out of the window.

I find if you have a serious problem a Pan tends to grab everyones attention, with the resultant peace and quite that follows. Of course as you know D and D are probably a better alternative in these circumstances, as presumably you will be after a fix as soon as possible.

Personally I have never had a problem getting the information you indicate. I accept that there are occasions when it may take several minutes to get a call in, but there again as long as you are thinking ahead I dont see that as a problem. I would however suggest that if only pilots were trained better the vast majority of calls could be a great deal shorter if only by cutting out all the ums and ahs. Some calls make us all cringe.

Think before you speak, and that way you will know what you are going to say.

In so far as the thread is concerned, again I would quite like to know from London info or anyone else for that matter if an aircarft is "attempting" a cloud break where I am.

[pipertommy]

One last question!Whats is the cockpit equipment requirement for an SRA in class D airspace.As i said before on here i done a few during my IMC training(vfr-foggles) but slightly unsure of exact requirement for the A/C?But happy with the actual procedure.Checked through my training books but they just give information on flying side of things.

[High Wing Drifter]

Have a look at the tables in Schedules 4 and 5 of the ANO. Amongst other things, the requirement is based on IFR in CAS but not the type of approach.

[IO540]

There is a lot of confusion on this issue because a) PPL students are told nothing about the equipment carriage rules and b) schools like to "economise" by flying practice approaches under pretend-VFR whenever possible, and the rest of the time they rely on the fact that ATC will never ask the question whether the plane is legal for IFR in CAS.

[pipertommy]

Yes!I think i`ve been had by the VFR foggles gag!Poor show that the equipment required is not covered in any of the course manuals!

[unfazed]

I think you mean 1000 AGL (or above highest obstacle in vicinity

Just realised that if not descending below 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5 nm of track means not descending below approx 1500ft (or higher) in my part of the London TMA

Example - Planned descent to 1000ft, ATC advises Tower 3nm ahead of track up to 750 agl (which you know about and have planned for) - although
you are navigating clear of the tower you will now need to maintain 1000 ft above that tower to remain legal in IMC (Not below 1000ft above the highest point within 5nm). So you cannot now descend below 1,000 + 750 + elevation at tower (lets say 2000 ft)

I realise in hindsight that my descent to 1000 ft to break cloud "near" the tower (even though there was awhopping great VOR prior to twr which was my turning point) was technically illegal.

Lesson learned (measure 5nm each side of intended track and be more conservative with min descents, this will ensure that you remain legal and safe but will require more planning as you now need to ensure that you can break cloud prior to destination and any obstructions on route will keep you high