UK trial GPS approaches, non-G-reg
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
All that aside strangely you dont find too many G reg aircraft in the US.......
------
If thre are no G registered aircraft equipped to do the trial then that will be highlighted in the trial results by the lack of approaches flown or the fact that only a few registrations participated in the trial.
That would also be a factor in any future decision regarding GPS approaches at GA aerodromes. Why spend lots of money making a GPS procedure available for very few users.
People who choose to go N reg so that they can be outside the UK/European regulatory system can not complain when the UK/European system treats them like they are not part of the system.
For a person who does lots of "real world flying" and constantly criss-crosses Europe doing real IFR flying, it seems odd that with the number of already established GPS approaches in Europe, there has never been a chance to fly one of them...eh IO540?
Ask the FAA for a waiver and then ask the CAA. If you put some effort in you will get what you want!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"People who choose to go N reg so that they can be outside the UK/European regulatory system can not complain when the UK/European system treats them like they are not part of the system."
If I were an American I might wonder what you are doing using by Global Positioning system which I paid for. I might also be having a small chuckle that you are so inept at running your own GA business that pilots want to sign up their aircraft on my register and come and do their PPL in my country.
As I said before aviation is the one industry where international boundaries should count for very little. There should be one standard. There should be equal participation. I f Europe goes down the road of petty protectionist £r$$ I suspect it is Europe that will suffer.
The FAA IR is a ICAO qualification. The ICAO consider you are safe to use it any where in the world. However in Europe change the N to a G and you cant. Clearly the lunatics are running the asylum.
If I were an American I might wonder what you are doing using by Global Positioning system which I paid for. I might also be having a small chuckle that you are so inept at running your own GA business that pilots want to sign up their aircraft on my register and come and do their PPL in my country.
As I said before aviation is the one industry where international boundaries should count for very little. There should be one standard. There should be equal participation. I f Europe goes down the road of petty protectionist £r$$ I suspect it is Europe that will suffer.
The FAA IR is a ICAO qualification. The ICAO consider you are safe to use it any where in the world. However in Europe change the N to a G and you cant. Clearly the lunatics are running the asylum.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If thre are no G registered aircraft equipped to do the trial then that will be highlighted in the trial results by the lack of approaches flown or the fact that only a few registrations participated in the trial.
The other possibility is that a lot of participants won't know the correct procedures (why should they, never been trained) and it will be concluded that they aren't working very well.
For a person who does lots of "real world flying" and constantly criss-crosses Europe doing real IFR flying, it seems odd that with the number of already established GPS approaches in Europe, there has never been a chance to fly one of them...eh IO540?
There are a few others but they offer no benefit because they are generally at major ILS airports, into which I can the ILS, on autopilot down to 200ft DH if desired. Much better and safer than a NP GPS procedure with a MDH of say 800ft, and ATC are used to it and it falls nicely into place with the way they work.
You also forget that the Jepp database has had the approaches in it for just a few days!
The other possibility is that a lot of participants won't know the correct procedures (why should they, never been trained) and it will be concluded that they aren't working very well.
For a person who does lots of "real world flying" and constantly criss-crosses Europe doing real IFR flying, it seems odd that with the number of already established GPS approaches in Europe, there has never been a chance to fly one of them...eh IO540?
There are a few others but they offer no benefit because they are generally at major ILS airports, into which I can the ILS, on autopilot down to 200ft DH if desired. Much better and safer than a NP GPS procedure with a MDH of say 800ft, and ATC are used to it and it falls nicely into place with the way they work.
You also forget that the Jepp database has had the approaches in it for just a few days!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
Well rather than the normal protectionist moaning for goodness sake recognise aviation as the one business in which international boundaries should count for very little and embrace everyone.
Originally Posted by DFC
Has a lot to do with the fact that they are required to leave or be placed on the N register after 6 months.
IO540, the TSO stuff I was reading about on PPLIR
and in the CAA publication about the approaches downloadable from the Leeds UNI site.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly my point - get out of the box.
Who cares what others are doing. We should be world leaders.
If we are prepared to sign up to a standard, embrace it for what is, rather than pick and chose the bits we like.
The sole purpose of a trial is to test the system. That should mean embrace all the users who are likely to use it. That can be the only scientific approach. Ask the FAA if they want to participate. If they don’t, fine, that is a matter for them. Stand proud and ensure we have a regime in which pilots want to participate. Goodness knows why pilots should ask for an exemption, if the CAA cant be bothered to do so in the first place.
One fact in this area of debate has always stood out for me. How many PPL IRs were granted last year and the year before and the year before. It is a disgrace. As supporters of GA we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing these inequities. Is there one of you who will come forward and tell us you believe we should not recognise an ICAO rating? Is there one of you who supports a system in which you can count on nearly one hand the number of PPL IRs granted last year to pilots who have no commercial aspirations.
and to the point in question, is there on of you who can tell me why (in priciple) we should exclude N reg aircraft from a trial to test a new system if those aircraft and the pilot is equipted to the required standard other than "we dont like the N reg brigade, because they arent real pilots and dont fly real aircraft and shouldnt play with our micky mouse systems".
Who cares what others are doing. We should be world leaders.
If we are prepared to sign up to a standard, embrace it for what is, rather than pick and chose the bits we like.
The sole purpose of a trial is to test the system. That should mean embrace all the users who are likely to use it. That can be the only scientific approach. Ask the FAA if they want to participate. If they don’t, fine, that is a matter for them. Stand proud and ensure we have a regime in which pilots want to participate. Goodness knows why pilots should ask for an exemption, if the CAA cant be bothered to do so in the first place.
One fact in this area of debate has always stood out for me. How many PPL IRs were granted last year and the year before and the year before. It is a disgrace. As supporters of GA we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing these inequities. Is there one of you who will come forward and tell us you believe we should not recognise an ICAO rating? Is there one of you who supports a system in which you can count on nearly one hand the number of PPL IRs granted last year to pilots who have no commercial aspirations.
and to the point in question, is there on of you who can tell me why (in priciple) we should exclude N reg aircraft from a trial to test a new system if those aircraft and the pilot is equipted to the required standard other than "we dont like the N reg brigade, because they arent real pilots and dont fly real aircraft and shouldnt play with our micky mouse systems".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle, we may have wires crossed but I can't see anywhere guidance notes for people whose GPS installation meets the CAA requirements but doesn't have the approach mode enabled. Of course they can just get hold of the Installation Manual for their GPS, look up the "super secret keypad sequence" required to get into the config pages, and re-enable it, but that's illegal 
As an aside, a small point but worth knowing about: I have been thumbing through a lot of GPS approach procedure detail stuff in the GPS operating manual (there is actually enough there for a 2-day hands-on training course, something else that appears to have been overlooked) and it turns out that one cannot fly an overlay procedure as a GPS procedure; when such an approach is selected the GPS will
a) not switch to the approach mode, and
b) not drive the CDI or HSI
This is based on the reasonable assumption that the pilot is using the conventional navaid equipment to fly the procedure, and the GPS is used for monitoring only. So, such procedures cannot be flown with the GPS driving the autopilot (assuming the AP works off the HSI, as most do). The fact that the HSI bar doesn't do a great deal is slightly non-obvious; a bit like flying an ILS with both needles perfectly centred because the instrument has failed
OTOH, overlay procedures in the USA can and are thus flown, I am informed this morning. It would appear that Jepp have "GPS enabled" the US overlays but have not similarly enabled European overlays.
As an aside, a small point but worth knowing about: I have been thumbing through a lot of GPS approach procedure detail stuff in the GPS operating manual (there is actually enough there for a 2-day hands-on training course, something else that appears to have been overlooked) and it turns out that one cannot fly an overlay procedure as a GPS procedure; when such an approach is selected the GPS will
a) not switch to the approach mode, and
b) not drive the CDI or HSI
This is based on the reasonable assumption that the pilot is using the conventional navaid equipment to fly the procedure, and the GPS is used for monitoring only. So, such procedures cannot be flown with the GPS driving the autopilot (assuming the AP works off the HSI, as most do). The fact that the HSI bar doesn't do a great deal is slightly non-obvious; a bit like flying an ILS with both needles perfectly centred because the instrument has failed
OTOH, overlay procedures in the USA can and are thus flown, I am informed this morning. It would appear that Jepp have "GPS enabled" the US overlays but have not similarly enabled European overlays.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
There are a few others but they offer no benefit because they are generally at major ILS airports, into which I can the ILS, on autopilot down to 200ft DH if desired. Much better and safer than a NP GPS procedure with a MDH of say 800ft, and ATC are used to it and it falls nicely into place with the way they work.
1. There are plenty of procedures that are not so situated. One is quite close to UK controlled airspace if you care to look.
More importantly,
2. The purpose of the trial is to obtain data for the CAA to base any future decision regarding the provision of GPS approaches on. It is most definitely not so that you can test the autopilot on your aircraft.
----------
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
One fact in this area of debate has always stood out for me. How many PPL IRs were granted last year and the year before and the year before. It is a disgrace. As supporters of GA we should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing these inequities
Thus that argument is a waste of time. I can't see how you can support such an argument while at the same time say that the IMC can be used as a poor man's IR.......would you not have to include IMC ratings in the figure as well?
-----------
It is clear that this is the first such trial that IO540 or Fuji have been involved with. Let me point out that in the commercial world there are very often trials of various equipment or procedure changes. It is not unusual for such trials to be limited to certain operators and even certain flights or aircraft or crews within airlines. You sound like airline x complaining that airline y is being allowed to fly a trial while x is not. The answer is simply await the results of the trial or find a way of getting yourself involved ( for the betterment of the trial and not one's personal equipment or ideas) as per the trial conditions.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The simple fact is that the majority of GA flying outside the training system be it mesing about in an old cub or auster or ripping off to the South of France in a nice twin or getting in a few aeros on a calm evening before sunset is done by holders of CPL or higher licenses."
If that is true it is down to very poor instructing I am afraid. Even more reason to let our N reg friends at it - at least they still seem to receive proper instruction.
"It is clear that this is the first such trial that IO540 or Fuji have been involved with."
What is clear is that despite your protestations you cannot answer the questions I put. It is the old politicians trick of answer a question with another question that is wholly irrelevant to the debate.
I am in any event very wary of the argument - "that is the way it has always been done". Like my earlier point - carry on granting 1 PPL / IR a year and yet be surprised at all the FAA IRs and N regs around, then try and prevent the use of N reg aircraft, and then I suppose be surprised you have killed off one whole part of GA.
If you are an instructor its your neck on the block, not mine!
We should be doing something about it, rather than making cheap remarks about the IMCR or the N reg guys not being allowed to play. That is easy to do - the right thing to do would be to try and change the system for the better, but we would rather protect what we perceive to be our own immediate interests.
If that is true it is down to very poor instructing I am afraid. Even more reason to let our N reg friends at it - at least they still seem to receive proper instruction.
"It is clear that this is the first such trial that IO540 or Fuji have been involved with."
What is clear is that despite your protestations you cannot answer the questions I put. It is the old politicians trick of answer a question with another question that is wholly irrelevant to the debate.
I am in any event very wary of the argument - "that is the way it has always been done". Like my earlier point - carry on granting 1 PPL / IR a year and yet be surprised at all the FAA IRs and N regs around, then try and prevent the use of N reg aircraft, and then I suppose be surprised you have killed off one whole part of GA.
If you are an instructor its your neck on the block, not mine!
We should be doing something about it, rather than making cheap remarks about the IMCR or the N reg guys not being allowed to play. That is easy to do - the right thing to do would be to try and change the system for the better, but we would rather protect what we perceive to be our own immediate interests.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still trying to work out what DFC does for a living, or a hobby
I have a pretty good idea.
All of the UK trial approaches are on airfields with an existing IAP, and as far as I can see there is no reduction in the MDH, so what is the point? One could charitably speculate that they will reduce the MDH when the IAP goes live...
The trial may not be to test one's autopilot (if that is so, the CAA needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the latter 5th of the 20th century) but it most certainly is about testing one's GPS.
I have a pretty good idea.
All of the UK trial approaches are on airfields with an existing IAP, and as far as I can see there is no reduction in the MDH, so what is the point? One could charitably speculate that they will reduce the MDH when the IAP goes live...
The trial may not be to test one's autopilot (if that is so, the CAA needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the latter 5th of the 20th century) but it most certainly is about testing one's GPS.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
I answered your question many moons ago on the first thred.
Again I say that the CAA can not publish procedures for international traffic unless the CAA is happy that they are meeting the full ICAO SARPS. If the CAA was content that GPS procedures were safe to proceed with in the UK then there would be no need for a trial.
If an N reg operator wanted to participate, they could ask the FAA for a waiver and then ask the CAA to participate. They could also use one of the many UK registered aircraft available to participate.
An N reg single aircraft GA operator who thinks that the trial will be any less successful without their being involved should show something more than an FAA IR and a standard equipped aircraft.
Trials flying is done for the good of the trial. NOT for personal gratification or personal testing of one's own equipment.
Regards,
DFC
I answered your question many moons ago on the first thred.
Again I say that the CAA can not publish procedures for international traffic unless the CAA is happy that they are meeting the full ICAO SARPS. If the CAA was content that GPS procedures were safe to proceed with in the UK then there would be no need for a trial.
If an N reg operator wanted to participate, they could ask the FAA for a waiver and then ask the CAA to participate. They could also use one of the many UK registered aircraft available to participate.
An N reg single aircraft GA operator who thinks that the trial will be any less successful without their being involved should show something more than an FAA IR and a standard equipped aircraft.
Trials flying is done for the good of the trial. NOT for personal gratification or personal testing of one's own equipment.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Yes - and that is the other thing politicians do - answer a question they wish they had been asked, rather than the question actually asked.
IO
"All of the UK trial approaches are on airfields with an existing IAP, and as far as I can see there is no reduction in the MDH, so what is the point? One could charitably speculate that they will reduce the MDH when the IAP goes live..."
That puzzles me as well.
Lets see, they cant be testing GPS per se because that has already been done,
they cant be testing the aircraft born equipment because that has also been done, and in any event DFC has outlawed that possibility,
they might be testing ATCs ability to cope with a new procedure, but I wouldn’t want to be that disingenuous to air traffic,
they cant be testing foreign pilots, because they have been effectively excluded, and when the GPS approach at Lille was introduced the French didn’t test French pilots, so it cant even be European pilots,
ah, so it must be to test British IMCR or IR holders. A dodgy lot if you ask me.
Of course they might think physics behaves in a different way in these little old islands of ours, or they might think our chaps aren’t sure how to draw up a GPS plate.
It will be interesting to read the results of the trial though - a shame it is only going to test part of the population. It does make you wonder (God forbid) if there was any sort of accident involving a foreign pilot in a foreign registered aircraft what the legal repercussions might be if there was found to be some peculiarity about the way the foreign pilot or aircraft operated. Erm so let me see - you only trialed UK aircraft and then you let everyone use it.
Yes - and that is the other thing politicians do - answer a question they wish they had been asked, rather than the question actually asked.
IO
"All of the UK trial approaches are on airfields with an existing IAP, and as far as I can see there is no reduction in the MDH, so what is the point? One could charitably speculate that they will reduce the MDH when the IAP goes live..."
That puzzles me as well.
Lets see, they cant be testing GPS per se because that has already been done,
they cant be testing the aircraft born equipment because that has also been done, and in any event DFC has outlawed that possibility,
they might be testing ATCs ability to cope with a new procedure, but I wouldn’t want to be that disingenuous to air traffic,
they cant be testing foreign pilots, because they have been effectively excluded, and when the GPS approach at Lille was introduced the French didn’t test French pilots, so it cant even be European pilots,
ah, so it must be to test British IMCR or IR holders. A dodgy lot if you ask me.
Of course they might think physics behaves in a different way in these little old islands of ours, or they might think our chaps aren’t sure how to draw up a GPS plate.
It will be interesting to read the results of the trial though - a shame it is only going to test part of the population. It does make you wonder (God forbid) if there was any sort of accident involving a foreign pilot in a foreign registered aircraft what the legal repercussions might be if there was found to be some peculiarity about the way the foreign pilot or aircraft operated. Erm so let me see - you only trialed UK aircraft and then you let everyone use it.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 15th Jun 2006 at 10:05.
DFC:
I find myself in agreement with you. I have a valid ATPL and have been flying aeroplanes solo since 1957. I also fly for fun and thoroughly enjoy it.
I got my first professional IR in 1962 in the RAF. It has been renewed every year since then and I still have one (JAR). I would have to say that the easiest renewals that I ever did were in the USA when I flew the DC-10 for a Part 121 operator.
My little aeroplane is fully-IFR equipped and my GPS is certificated to TSO C129a, Class A1 (en route, terminal and approach).
I think that I am as qualified as any to take part in the CAA GPS trials and I might just be able to give a more dispassionate view than some of you. Any trial can produce some interesting results. As someone else previously pointed out, ATC are also involved in this in a big way and the interaction can be quite interesting.
The other day I was asked if I had booked my letdowns on "the website"!
I wonder if they do this at Heathrow!
I find myself in agreement with you. I have a valid ATPL and have been flying aeroplanes solo since 1957. I also fly for fun and thoroughly enjoy it.
I got my first professional IR in 1962 in the RAF. It has been renewed every year since then and I still have one (JAR). I would have to say that the easiest renewals that I ever did were in the USA when I flew the DC-10 for a Part 121 operator.
My little aeroplane is fully-IFR equipped and my GPS is certificated to TSO C129a, Class A1 (en route, terminal and approach).
I think that I am as qualified as any to take part in the CAA GPS trials and I might just be able to give a more dispassionate view than some of you. Any trial can produce some interesting results. As someone else previously pointed out, ATC are also involved in this in a big way and the interaction can be quite interesting.
The other day I was asked if I had booked my letdowns on "the website"!
I wonder if they do this at Heathrow!
Last edited by JW411; 15th Jun 2006 at 19:30.
If I might interject into this fascinating discussion.
Firstly, I'm not involved in this trial, nor do I work for the CAA - I never have.
I do however have a couple of decades of flight test experience, and am a CAA authorised signatory for test plans and reports (amongst several other things).
If I was working for CAA, or more likely a CAA approved organisation, and was asked to plan such a trial (not entirely unlikely, it's the sort of thing I do), then I would not be interested in the integrity of GPS equipment - that is well established and the data I can pull off the shelf. Nor would I be interested in whether GPS approaches are viable per-ce, that's well proven in the USA.
What I'd be interested in would be (in no particular order):
(1) How to produce GPS approach plates and procedures for use at UK airfields?
(2) What training would be required for UK/JAA IMC and IR rated pilots to operate GPS approach procedures?
(3) What training would be required for UK ATC to operate GPS approach procedures.
(4) What changes would be needed to the UK AIP and associated documents to permit this.
The biggie is (2), I'd not want the data I was generating to be "polluted" by aircrew being primarily trained in non-UK practices, nor aircraft typically equipped to different minimum legal requirements than contained in the UK AIP. For that reason alone, I would exclude N-reg aircraft, and pilots without UK licences, I'd certainly prefer to have aircrew without US licences and experience in the main conduct of the trial - although I'd certainly be very happy to use them as a separate part of the trial, or in the planning of it.
In addition there is the inevitable political position. UK CAA would like us all to be flying G-reg aeroplanes. To acknowledge that there are things that work better in N-reg aircraft by including them in the trial would cause a political disaster that I can't imagine would go down well with the chairman!
Finally, you only need a certain sample size; if you can get it with what's on the G-reg (aeroplanes and pilots) why go to the cost and complication of negotiating data and permissions with FAA to use their fleet?
G
Firstly, I'm not involved in this trial, nor do I work for the CAA - I never have.
I do however have a couple of decades of flight test experience, and am a CAA authorised signatory for test plans and reports (amongst several other things).
If I was working for CAA, or more likely a CAA approved organisation, and was asked to plan such a trial (not entirely unlikely, it's the sort of thing I do), then I would not be interested in the integrity of GPS equipment - that is well established and the data I can pull off the shelf. Nor would I be interested in whether GPS approaches are viable per-ce, that's well proven in the USA.
What I'd be interested in would be (in no particular order):
(1) How to produce GPS approach plates and procedures for use at UK airfields?
(2) What training would be required for UK/JAA IMC and IR rated pilots to operate GPS approach procedures?
(3) What training would be required for UK ATC to operate GPS approach procedures.
(4) What changes would be needed to the UK AIP and associated documents to permit this.
The biggie is (2), I'd not want the data I was generating to be "polluted" by aircrew being primarily trained in non-UK practices, nor aircraft typically equipped to different minimum legal requirements than contained in the UK AIP. For that reason alone, I would exclude N-reg aircraft, and pilots without UK licences, I'd certainly prefer to have aircrew without US licences and experience in the main conduct of the trial - although I'd certainly be very happy to use them as a separate part of the trial, or in the planning of it.
In addition there is the inevitable political position. UK CAA would like us all to be flying G-reg aeroplanes. To acknowledge that there are things that work better in N-reg aircraft by including them in the trial would cause a political disaster that I can't imagine would go down well with the chairman!
Finally, you only need a certain sample size; if you can get it with what's on the G-reg (aeroplanes and pilots) why go to the cost and complication of negotiating data and permissions with FAA to use their fleet?
G
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone in an N-reg actually called up one of the partcipating airfields and said "Hi, I'd like to try the GPS approach. I'm N reg so I won't be doing it officially, but I'll fly the whole thing as an entirely visual approach, is that okay with you?". If so, what did they say? Seems like a reasonable question to me.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis - what a well considered post.
I would comment on one aspect.
You say you would be happy to include N reg aircraft in a separate part of the trial but would not want to pollute the trial as a whole.
Surely the key is the first part. Include the N reg guys in the sample because you can sub divide the results, and it might give some interesting data - it certainly cant do any harm. The results could be interesting because in theory you have got one group of pilots accustom to GPS approaches (but maybe unaccustomed to the way they will be implemented in Europe) and a group of pilots unaccustomed to GPS approaches.
Of course we also know the reality is whilst the FAA IR guys may have done some or all of their training in the States on the whole they probably spend the majority of their time flying in Europe.
I would comment on one aspect.
You say you would be happy to include N reg aircraft in a separate part of the trial but would not want to pollute the trial as a whole.
Surely the key is the first part. Include the N reg guys in the sample because you can sub divide the results, and it might give some interesting data - it certainly cant do any harm. The results could be interesting because in theory you have got one group of pilots accustom to GPS approaches (but maybe unaccustomed to the way they will be implemented in Europe) and a group of pilots unaccustomed to GPS approaches.
Of course we also know the reality is whilst the FAA IR guys may have done some or all of their training in the States on the whole they probably spend the majority of their time flying in Europe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTE
I agree with you - and I am certain the politics will always completely override any desire to capture a useful sample.
Except for one thing:
"nor aircraft typically equipped to different minimum legal requirements than contained in the UK AIP"
In CAA-speak "different" would suggest "lower"
There is no basis for this because the equipment carriage requirements (in ANO Schedule 4 and 5) apply to all aircraft registrations. There is no basis for assuming that foreign reg planes violate UK law, any more than UK regd planes do.
In reality, loads of G-reg planes fly underequipped IFR in CAS, illegally, and no doubt some SR22s without ADF/DME fly illegally IFR in CAS, and if you spent a week trawling through the respective national AIPs to determine the equipment carriage v. airspace class matrix for every EU State's airspace you would find that an awful lot of technical violations are almost inevitable. This is an area in which ignorance is bliss; one would go mad otherwise.
But this is no grounds to assume that N-reg is more likely to be under-equipped than G-reg. In fact, just looking around, the very reverse is very much in evidence.
Drauk - not sure I would want to even try it in an N-reg. In the UK GA scene, with so many people listening in on VHF (routinely in flying schools) a report would go to the CAA the same day. But, as I posted earlier, I don't see why one could not fly the track at say 3000ft AGL. The aircraft equipment won't behave any differently.
I agree with you - and I am certain the politics will always completely override any desire to capture a useful sample.
Except for one thing:
"nor aircraft typically equipped to different minimum legal requirements than contained in the UK AIP"
In CAA-speak "different" would suggest "lower"
There is no basis for this because the equipment carriage requirements (in ANO Schedule 4 and 5) apply to all aircraft registrations. There is no basis for assuming that foreign reg planes violate UK law, any more than UK regd planes do.
In reality, loads of G-reg planes fly underequipped IFR in CAS, illegally, and no doubt some SR22s without ADF/DME fly illegally IFR in CAS, and if you spent a week trawling through the respective national AIPs to determine the equipment carriage v. airspace class matrix for every EU State's airspace you would find that an awful lot of technical violations are almost inevitable. This is an area in which ignorance is bliss; one would go mad otherwise.
But this is no grounds to assume that N-reg is more likely to be under-equipped than G-reg. In fact, just looking around, the very reverse is very much in evidence.
Drauk - not sure I would want to even try it in an N-reg. In the UK GA scene, with so many people listening in on VHF (routinely in flying schools) a report would go to the CAA the same day. But, as I posted earlier, I don't see why one could not fly the track at say 3000ft AGL. The aircraft equipment won't behave any differently.
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
Genghis - what a well considered post.
I would comment on one aspect.
You say you would be happy to include N reg aircraft in a separate part of the trial but would not want to pollute the trial as a whole.
Surely the key is the first part. Include the N reg guys in the sample because you can sub divide the results, and it might give some interesting data - it certainly cant do any harm. The results could be interesting because in theory you have got one group of pilots accustom to GPS approaches (but maybe unaccustomed to the way they will be implemented in Europe) and a group of pilots unaccustomed to GPS approaches.
Of course we also know the reality is whilst the FAA IR guys may have done some or all of their training in the States on the whole they probably spend the majority of their time flying in Europe.
I would comment on one aspect.
You say you would be happy to include N reg aircraft in a separate part of the trial but would not want to pollute the trial as a whole.
Surely the key is the first part. Include the N reg guys in the sample because you can sub divide the results, and it might give some interesting data - it certainly cant do any harm. The results could be interesting because in theory you have got one group of pilots accustom to GPS approaches (but maybe unaccustomed to the way they will be implemented in Europe) and a group of pilots unaccustomed to GPS approaches.
Of course we also know the reality is whilst the FAA IR guys may have done some or all of their training in the States on the whole they probably spend the majority of their time flying in Europe.
G
Originally Posted by IO540
Having been to one CAA presentation on this, I don't think they even asked the FAA questions like that.
G
(As I said before, no involvement myself, but curious).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
(2) What training would be required for UK/JAA IMC and IR rated pilots to operate GPS approach procedures?
G
G
The only example syllabus I have been able to find is from Australia.
There doesn't appear to be an FAA or CAA equivalent. (Happy to be corrected if someone can find a URL to an FAA or CAA version)
See Appendix 4 to this document