UK trial GPS approaches, non-G-reg
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK trial GPS approaches, non-G-reg
Currently foreign reg planes are banned from these.
However -
If the IAP is outside CAS, ATC have no authority. What prevents somebody flying it but breaking off just outside the ATZ? Or flying the whole lot but not descending below 2000ft AGL.
In practice, one would contact ATC and tell them, for obvious courtesy and traffic information reasons.
I can't see a problem with this, especially given that the procedures go out a very long way, and there is going to be a ton of traffic flying the very same tracks who probably won't be talking to that ATC unit at all.
Opinions?
However -
If the IAP is outside CAS, ATC have no authority. What prevents somebody flying it but breaking off just outside the ATZ? Or flying the whole lot but not descending below 2000ft AGL.
In practice, one would contact ATC and tell them, for obvious courtesy and traffic information reasons.
I can't see a problem with this, especially given that the procedures go out a very long way, and there is going to be a ton of traffic flying the very same tracks who probably won't be talking to that ATC unit at all.
Opinions?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps not the answer you are looking for, but I cant see why you would want to do so.
The CAA in their wisdom are not interested in the opinion of any pilots other than those in G reg aircraft, so you can be of no help so far as their survey is concerned.
Presumably you want to fly the GPS apporach for your own interest. Surely ATC can permit you to do a let down using the GPS approach if you tell them it is a visual let down.
The CAA in their wisdom are not interested in the opinion of any pilots other than those in G reg aircraft, so you can be of no help so far as their survey is concerned.
Presumably you want to fly the GPS apporach for your own interest. Surely ATC can permit you to do a let down using the GPS approach if you tell them it is a visual let down.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 13th Jun 2006 at 12:39.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
If the IAP is outside CAS, ATC have no authority.
By definition, under UK regs to have an IAP you have to (on the whole, there are rare exceptions) have ATC. BY that reasoning if ATC say you can't, or are not cleared to fly an instrument procedure then you can't. To do so would mean you would possibly be eroding separation from an aircraft lawfully allowed to fly the approach.
Yet another reason why all IAP's in the UK should be protected by at least Class 'E' airspace, and as such should only be flown iaw with an IFR clearance. (Like the rest of the world).
Practice instrument approaches
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you chaps, good stuff.
As I wrote, I would have called up ATC but I wonder if they would have refused even though the reason is not connected with traffic. Presumably the CAA have instructed them to refuse non-G-reg. The really funny thing is that the Jepp approach plate says "VMC" but doesn't say "G-reg only" so they may well get nasty foreigners with dodgy Mongolian registrations turning up and asking for the approach
Fuji - the reason would be simply to make sure the GPS is correctly sequencing through the approach. This can't be tested just anywhere else, because while the auto-sequencing from enroute to terminal mode will happen within 30nm of the FAF or so (so this can be tested some distance away) the auto-sequencing from terminal to approach mode happens only very close to the final approach track.
It's not like practicing some VOR approach using another VOR 100 miles away, which is what people normally do.
However, there may be another way: selecting the conventional (e.g. NDB/DME) approach out of the database, and then flying that approach officially, should generate the same sequencing. I don't think the GPS differentiates between a "proper" GPS approach and an overlay of a conventional one. But for some reason I have not managed to get the final sequence in this to work, even though (I have verified) the GPS is correctly configured for the full US-style GPS approaches. Time to do some digging perhaps
As I wrote, I would have called up ATC but I wonder if they would have refused even though the reason is not connected with traffic. Presumably the CAA have instructed them to refuse non-G-reg. The really funny thing is that the Jepp approach plate says "VMC" but doesn't say "G-reg only" so they may well get nasty foreigners with dodgy Mongolian registrations turning up and asking for the approach
Fuji - the reason would be simply to make sure the GPS is correctly sequencing through the approach. This can't be tested just anywhere else, because while the auto-sequencing from enroute to terminal mode will happen within 30nm of the FAF or so (so this can be tested some distance away) the auto-sequencing from terminal to approach mode happens only very close to the final approach track.
It's not like practicing some VOR approach using another VOR 100 miles away, which is what people normally do.
However, there may be another way: selecting the conventional (e.g. NDB/DME) approach out of the database, and then flying that approach officially, should generate the same sequencing. I don't think the GPS differentiates between a "proper" GPS approach and an overlay of a conventional one. But for some reason I have not managed to get the final sequence in this to work, even though (I have verified) the GPS is correctly configured for the full US-style GPS approaches. Time to do some digging perhaps
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I see your purpose and I guess it should not be a problem getting approval for a visual approach.
Equally comparing the NDB DME and GPS procedures presumably the GPS procedure could be coupled whilst minitoring the NDB DME approach for legality?
Excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense.
Equally comparing the NDB DME and GPS procedures presumably the GPS procedure could be coupled whilst minitoring the NDB DME approach for legality?
Excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
Excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense.
This was explained a short time ago on the original thred.
If the CAA publish a procedure for international flights then it must conform to ICAO SARPS.
The CAA has decided that a trial is necessary to enable it to decide if such approach procedures could at a future date be published in accordance with ICAO SARPS.
The CAA would require the agreement of the FAA to use US aircraft on international flights in such a trial procedure that may not meet ICAO SARPS. There are suficient G registered aircraft available to make such a request unnecessary.
If the pilot of a US aircraft wants to fly GPS approach procedures then the very simple answer is that there are numerous such procedures available in the USA.
Regards,
DFC
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bookworm
Practice instrument approaches
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
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
I've done this a few times - generally when there hasn't been a suitably qualified controller around to "clear" me for an approach, but I've been doing instrument training in good VMC. The controller has asked me to report at various different points (turning back towards the airfield, for example), being careful to avoid using any phraseology which relates to an instrument approach. Once I'm established on final, he can clear me to land, or go around, just as if I had established visually onto a long final.
I'm not quite sure how IO540 would communicate his requirements to ATC, though. Whenever I've done this in the past, it's been initiated by ATC due to their staffing situation, and it's often agreed on the phone when I've booked out rather than on the r/t.
FFF
-------------
IO540:
I have to take you to task. How can you fly a GPS approach to minimums when you remain at 2000 ft? I cannot believe that you really meant to say that.
I have been flying GPS approaches within the CAA GPS trials procedures for a couple of weeks now and I have to say that it has been going pretty well. I have an interest in this for I am a recently retired professional pilot with more hours than I would care to remember but I would like to have GPS approaches approved if I need them in the future to keep my bum out of the hot butter.
My local airfield is well up to speed and when I call them before flight to warn them of my desire to conduct GPS approaches, the first question I get is, "What is your PRN Number"?
Without that you are picking your nose with boxing gloves!
Why don't you try and register if it is that important to you?
I have to take you to task. How can you fly a GPS approach to minimums when you remain at 2000 ft? I cannot believe that you really meant to say that.
I have been flying GPS approaches within the CAA GPS trials procedures for a couple of weeks now and I have to say that it has been going pretty well. I have an interest in this for I am a recently retired professional pilot with more hours than I would care to remember but I would like to have GPS approaches approved if I need them in the future to keep my bum out of the hot butter.
My local airfield is well up to speed and when I call them before flight to warn them of my desire to conduct GPS approaches, the first question I get is, "What is your PRN Number"?
Without that you are picking your nose with boxing gloves!
Why don't you try and register if it is that important to you?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jw411
Please read what I wrote earlier, about the purpose of doing this (checking GPS auto-sequencing).
I also didn't make it 100% explicitly clear that I am N-reg, so here it is: I am N-reg.
As far as the GPS is concerned, it is doing lateral navigation only. It has no knowledge of anything vertical. It will work just the same with the plane descending from say 3000ft to the MDA, as it would if one flew an SR71 down the same track at 80,000ft.
This isn't actually a big deal because I can fly the GPS track as a VFR approach which ends with a straight-in. Nobody will know the difference, because there won't be any
Please read what I wrote earlier, about the purpose of doing this (checking GPS auto-sequencing).
I also didn't make it 100% explicitly clear that I am N-reg, so here it is: I am N-reg.
As far as the GPS is concerned, it is doing lateral navigation only. It has no knowledge of anything vertical. It will work just the same with the plane descending from say 3000ft to the MDA, as it would if one flew an SR71 down the same track at 80,000ft.
This isn't actually a big deal because I can fly the GPS track as a VFR approach which ends with a straight-in. Nobody will know the difference, because there won't be any
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know IO540 rubs some of you up the wrong way because he is a bit modern, but does that mean the rest of us have to put up with people just having a go at him in the midst of what could be a useful or interesting discussion?
DFC:
Does it make you feel smug to come out with such crap?
JW411:
Where did he or anyone else mention flying to minimums? He explained why he wants to do it. Do you just make stuff up out of spite or was it a mistake?
IO540, why not just fly the NDB approach, using your ADF, but have the GPS approach active on your GPS? I've not looked at the plate but surely the final approach leg is similar enough for this to meet your needs?
DFC:
If the pilot of a US aircraft wants to fly GPS approach procedures then the very simple answer is that there are numerous such procedures available in the USA.
JW411:
I have to take you to task. How can you fly a GPS approach to minimums when you remain at 2000 ft? I cannot believe that you really meant to say that.
IO540, why not just fly the NDB approach, using your ADF, but have the GPS approach active on your GPS? I've not looked at the plate but surely the final approach leg is similar enough for this to meet your needs?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good point, Drauk, and have thought of that, and tried it, but I suspect it isn't quite working. I am trying to check out some stuff right now but it's possible the KLN94 treats the overlays (which is what you refer to) differently to standalone GNSS approaches. Not sure why this should be, and I am probably wrong.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the terms of the trial are to be complied with if you are trialing the sytem for the CAA. If you are flying a visual approach if you wish to supplement the approach using the published GPS procedure that is a matter for you - you simply require the permission of ATC to fly the approach visually, which doubtless at Shoreham will readily be given.
I have flown the approach a couple of times without problem and AT are their usual helpful selves albeit the aircraft is on the UK register.
I have flown the approach a couple of times without problem and AT are their usual helpful selves albeit the aircraft is on the UK register.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
Excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense.
What about when CASA trialled their's with Australian pilots and Australian registered aircraft?
Asking locally registered pilots with the correct qualifications to do some trials in locally registered and suitably equipped aircraft is not nonsense.
I'm sure when the trial data is collated and compared with data received from other states the CAA will implement some GNSS approaches in the UK.
I'm equally sure they'll let you play too, then.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The purpose of a trial is to identify whether there are any shortcomings in the procedure. This would seem to me to include (but not necessarily be limited to) ATC procedures, pilot interaction with ATC, the actual procedure itself, and any shortcomings that may come to light with the equipment.
For any trial to be meaningful you would hope to engage as large a population as possible - the drug industry learned that lesson many years ago. The fact of the matter is that most "serious" IFR aircraft and users that would comply with the operational requirements of the trail are on the N reg. The fact of the matter is that neither the pilot nor the aircraft know (or probably care) what letter is on the side of the aircraft. Ideally, I would therefore want to engage as many people in the trial as possible. DFC has pointed out that the CAA could not do this without FAA permission. He may well be correct. That is however not what I said. Rustle asks whether I complained about other trials elsewhere. With respect for the reasons I have said I would simply prefer in ideal circumstances that the trail be as useful as possible hence my original comment - "excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense".
All that aside strangely you dont find too many G reg aircraft in the US or Australia or any where else for that matter, so I guess the FAA didnt think engaging the G reg would have made their trails any more effective.
PS - already done the playing, so it doesnt really matter to me any way, but I would have liked IO540to have played as well.
For any trial to be meaningful you would hope to engage as large a population as possible - the drug industry learned that lesson many years ago. The fact of the matter is that most "serious" IFR aircraft and users that would comply with the operational requirements of the trail are on the N reg. The fact of the matter is that neither the pilot nor the aircraft know (or probably care) what letter is on the side of the aircraft. Ideally, I would therefore want to engage as many people in the trial as possible. DFC has pointed out that the CAA could not do this without FAA permission. He may well be correct. That is however not what I said. Rustle asks whether I complained about other trials elsewhere. With respect for the reasons I have said I would simply prefer in ideal circumstances that the trail be as useful as possible hence my original comment - "excluding N reg aircraft is of course complete nonesense".
All that aside strangely you dont find too many G reg aircraft in the US or Australia or any where else for that matter, so I guess the FAA didnt think engaging the G reg would have made their trails any more effective.
PS - already done the playing, so it doesnt really matter to me any way, but I would have liked IO540to have played as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the trial is as much to get ATC used to it as anything else.
There is no objective need to trial GPS; the Americans have done that over 1 million + GPS approaches over a decade or more.
I wanted to test the GPS sensitivity sequencing because while anybody can fly a GPS track by following the track line on the moving map, it is useful to be able to fly it coupled to an autopilot. Just like it is useful to be able to fly a coupled ILS occassionally, on days when one is under a heavy workload.
The sensitivity increase can potentially play games with the autopilot's ability to track the track, especially at the 0.3nm full-scale setting, inside the FAF.
I don't think the CAA thought about this aspect of the matter. By limiting it to G-reg, they have limited it (mostly) to pilots that don't have the equipment, or they have it incorrectly configured, or (and this will be true in nearly all cases) they don't know how it's supposed to be used to fly a real GPS approach.
To top it, CAA inspectors placing a plane onto G-reg for the first time have generally insisted that an IFR GPS has approaches disabled (in the maintenance config pages, not officially accessible to the pilot), which will prevent most new G-reg planes from participating in the trial at all. I don't think the CAA thought about that too; that their own CofA inspectors have unknowingly sabotaged the trial.
There is no objective need to trial GPS; the Americans have done that over 1 million + GPS approaches over a decade or more.
I wanted to test the GPS sensitivity sequencing because while anybody can fly a GPS track by following the track line on the moving map, it is useful to be able to fly it coupled to an autopilot. Just like it is useful to be able to fly a coupled ILS occassionally, on days when one is under a heavy workload.
The sensitivity increase can potentially play games with the autopilot's ability to track the track, especially at the 0.3nm full-scale setting, inside the FAF.
I don't think the CAA thought about this aspect of the matter. By limiting it to G-reg, they have limited it (mostly) to pilots that don't have the equipment, or they have it incorrectly configured, or (and this will be true in nearly all cases) they don't know how it's supposed to be used to fly a real GPS approach.
To top it, CAA inspectors placing a plane onto G-reg for the first time have generally insisted that an IFR GPS has approaches disabled (in the maintenance config pages, not officially accessible to the pilot), which will prevent most new G-reg planes from participating in the trial at all. I don't think the CAA thought about that too; that their own CofA inspectors have unknowingly sabotaged the trial.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
The fact of the matter is that most "serious" IFR aircraft and users that would comply with the operational requirements of the trail are on the N reg.
We have had these "facts" previously. For example, the "fact" that the CAA and/or Jepp had messed up the database and it could never work.
Oh. They didn't and it does... (See previous GPS approach thread for that one)
What you may have failed to do is count all of the IMC rated pilots or IMC student who are entitled to trial these approaches for the CAA.
I haven't checked, but I'll bet there's more IMC holders in the UK than FAA/IR holders...
I'll also bet there's more G reg'd aircraft suitably equipped for the trial (NB if you read the trial documentation you will see the relaxation of the TSO requirements) than there are N reg'd in the UK.
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
All that aside strangely you dont find too many G reg aircraft in the US or Australia or any where else for that matter, so I guess the FAA didnt think engaging the G reg would have made their trails any more effective.
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
PS - already done the playing, so it doesnt really matter to me any way, but I would have liked IO540to have played as well.
If someone on the N register wants to test their own equipment WTF has that to do with the CAA? That's like me renouncing my UK Citizenship then demanding assistance from the UK embassy when overseas
Originally Posted by IO540
To top it, CAA inspectors placing a plane onto G-reg for the first time have generally insisted that an IFR GPS has approaches disabled (in the maintenance config pages, not officially accessible to the pilot), which will prevent most new G-reg planes from participating in the trial at all. I don't think the CAA thought about that too; that their own CofA inspectors have unknowingly sabotaged the trial.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't checked, but I'll bet there's more IMC holders in the UK than FAA/IR holders...
There must be, and I was one of them for several years myself, but few of them will have a TSO129 GPS installation, with the approaches enabled. No need to for en route ops, so why should they?
That fact has been comprehensively answered elsewhere
Can you post a URL? There is a limit to how many pilot forums one can read, and get some work done
There must be, and I was one of them for several years myself, but few of them will have a TSO129 GPS installation, with the approaches enabled. No need to for en route ops, so why should they?
That fact has been comprehensively answered elsewhere
Can you post a URL? There is a limit to how many pilot forums one can read, and get some work done
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that by using G- reg a/c the implication is that the GPS installation will be to CAA standards rather than anyone else's, and that is the info the CAA will be interested in. The tech spec may differ country to country. From an ATC point of view the nationality of the a/c is irrelevant. We are not police. It's up to you to comply with the law.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle - what a load of C£$%.
So lets get this right.
Nearly all the aircraft we fly are made in the States (a Fuji fact). Nearly all of the equipment we use is American (a Fuji fact). Nearly all of the pilots flying GA N reg aircraft in the UK are British. GPS was put there and paid for by the Americans. (a couple more Fuji facts) .. .. .. and you need the Japanese to tell you that! Clever people you know.
So the only difference between aircraft and pilots that qualify for the trials on the basis of having the correct equipment or having an IR or IMCR (and note with an FAA IR they are entitled to an IMCR without further ado) is one has a N painted on the side and the other a G.
What a bright idea to exclude N reg aircraft.
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.
I said excluding N reg is complete nonesense and I stand by it. In principle it is, and I have not seen one good reason for doing so. That said I accept for legal reasons there may be a genuine problem, BUT that is a problem we have created for ourselves. It makes me wonder if the CAA had written to the FAA for consent that N reg aircraft be included in these trials what response they would have received.
So lets get this right.
Nearly all the aircraft we fly are made in the States (a Fuji fact). Nearly all of the equipment we use is American (a Fuji fact). Nearly all of the pilots flying GA N reg aircraft in the UK are British. GPS was put there and paid for by the Americans. (a couple more Fuji facts) .. .. .. and you need the Japanese to tell you that! Clever people you know.
So the only difference between aircraft and pilots that qualify for the trials on the basis of having the correct equipment or having an IR or IMCR (and note with an FAA IR they are entitled to an IMCR without further ado) is one has a N painted on the side and the other a G.
What a bright idea to exclude N reg aircraft.
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.
I said excluding N reg is complete nonesense and I stand by it. In principle it is, and I have not seen one good reason for doing so. That said I accept for legal reasons there may be a genuine problem, BUT that is a problem we have created for ourselves. It makes me wonder if the CAA had written to the FAA for consent that N reg aircraft be included in these trials what response they would have received.