Un-official Approaches
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: london uk
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Un-official Approaches
For those of us flying in the murk, purely for conversational purposes you understand, i was wondering if you would like to share your local knowledge of your home bases? For starters, i happened to hear in a bar the procedure for the un-official vor approach that whent something like this. Fly 218 inbound to LAM and at 2.2 miles you are a mile and a half from touch down, and you should be at 450'. This will put you on the centre line and now turn a few degrees to the right. Not that i have ever used this info, just thought it would be nice to share it! Watch out for the power lines 2 miles out
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's probably the unpublished approach into Stapleford 
One can find these at every airfield that has a navaid on or near. Wellesbourne, Goodwood, Welshpool, Coventry, you name it. Based commercial operators can get a private CAA dispensation to use these, and they are often overtly used for instrument training in VMC. They are usually known to the locals.
It would be great to get a collection of them, because somebody woul dhave done the terrain survey and the procedure design at some stage. I have not been flying for long enough but I think many/most used to be published, so somebody should have the old approach plates.
One can find these at every airfield that has a navaid on or near. Wellesbourne, Goodwood, Welshpool, Coventry, you name it. Based commercial operators can get a private CAA dispensation to use these, and they are often overtly used for instrument training in VMC. They are usually known to the locals.It would be great to get a collection of them, because somebody woul dhave done the terrain survey and the procedure design at some stage. I have not been flying for long enough but I think many/most used to be published, so somebody should have the old approach plates.
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
It would be great to get a collection of them, because somebody would have done the terrain survey and the procedure design at some stage
At White Waltham, I used to (and I assume pilots still do) track away from the Wallasey NDB on a given easterly QDR (which I forget off the top of my head) whilst descending to your MDA (there was no MDA published, it was left to the pilots' discretion). This would bring you to the southern airfield boundary, so you would look to the left to find the airfield and then join the bad-weather circuit to land. There was a DME check against either Compton or London for a missed approach point, and on reaching that point, if not visual, you would have to make a climbing turn to avoid the LHR control zone.
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, it's quite trivial to design your own VOR/DME approach into some airfield. You have to get the current Ordnance Survey 1:25k maps out, plus the current CAA maps, and work with a generous MDH like say 600ft above the highest obstacle around. If there are any towers etc near the runway then you need to have the MAP further back so you are well visual (or have gone missed) at the relevant time.
A lot of people have done this as a GPS approach, and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that this is a major source of CFITs, especially compared with how many people get killed flying the official IAPs.
It can be done properly if you have a copy of TERPS, which is online somewhere. To do it really properly needs a survey.
I don't think cranes are an issue since anything tall enough should be notamed, and we are not doing an ILS with a 200ft DH.
To be fair though I have done this only once in the last few years (a combined VOR/DME/GPS approach) and it is the lack of GPS approaches that steals most utility value out of UK GA.
A lot of people have done this as a GPS approach, and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that this is a major source of CFITs, especially compared with how many people get killed flying the official IAPs.
It can be done properly if you have a copy of TERPS, which is online somewhere. To do it really properly needs a survey.
I don't think cranes are an issue since anything tall enough should be notamed, and we are not doing an ILS with a 200ft DH.
To be fair though I have done this only once in the last few years (a combined VOR/DME/GPS approach) and it is the lack of GPS approaches that steals most utility value out of UK GA.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have made my own GPS approach with step downs and made it up like a Jepp LetDown Chart which I keep in the ship with me. Works really well but my DH is kept quite high as PAX don't like popping out of the murk 200ft above the ground looking down at a green field!!
Compton? Wescott?
Is there a new NDB down there...I knew I should have bought that new chart!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my DH is kept quite high as PAX don't like popping out of the murk 200ft above the ground looking down at a green field!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just how quick the insurance will wash their hands of any claim
Insurance does cover negligence. Some things may not seem wise to some but I think they are still worth discussing; how to do them right, etc. The bit about 1000ft applies to enroute IFR; there is an exemption for takeoff and landing (unsuprisingly).
Insurance does cover negligence. Some things may not seem wise to some but I think they are still worth discussing; how to do them right, etc. The bit about 1000ft applies to enroute IFR; there is an exemption for takeoff and landing (unsuprisingly).
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, let's not do this one again. Use the search facility if you want to see a full discussion; for the moment, please accept that this has been done to death and that 'home-made' approaches are perfectly legal for a private flight into an airfield with no published approach. The CAA did discuss making them illegal a couple of years ago but nothing has yet happened.
Tim
Tim
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: york
Age: 50
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well i think the original post was for locals to share their knowledge of their fields?
Well for what its worth, if you are flying into top farm you could try the barkway 27 approach. 330 degrees outbound, 9 miles and turn onto 270. You are 2 miles out so down to 600' fotr the turn. Ask Dave to turn the landing light on!!
Well for what its worth, if you are flying into top farm you could try the barkway 27 approach. 330 degrees outbound, 9 miles and turn onto 270. You are 2 miles out so down to 600' fotr the turn. Ask Dave to turn the landing light on!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago I was scared fartless by an over-confident IMC instructor (now dead, earth poisoning) who had lots of "un-official" instrument letdowns. He was actually quite good at doing these things but every now and again you'd end up scraping over house roofs, avoiding TV aerials and such-like. These things sound marvellous, until you end up bumping into things which shouldn't be there! And then you have the interesting legal bit: How exactly do you transit from IFR (where you are 1,000' feet above highest obstable within 5 nm of track) to VFR? This seems to imply that you should have a cloudbase of 1,000' AGL to make the transit. So if you have a minima of 1,000' plus airfield elevation, then these things should be OK (assuming similar thought and planing has gone into the go-around, which always appears to be missing from these plans). I could be wrong, but I get the impression that we are talking of using numbers less than this.
PM
PM
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piltdown Man
I think your understanding is correct, anything less than 1,000 above highest obstacle within 5nm is definitely illegal. Don't think that anybody is promoting descent to lower unless on a published approach.
So yes you do need a decent ceiling for most DIY examples
Also Go around would be to continue on whatever VOR radial that you are tracking and buŁ$er off to the published alternate that you have planned and checked the weather for in advance (yes I suppose I am being a tad optimistic).
I think your understanding is correct, anything less than 1,000 above highest obstacle within 5nm is definitely illegal. Don't think that anybody is promoting descent to lower unless on a published approach.
So yes you do need a decent ceiling for most DIY examples
Also Go around would be to continue on whatever VOR radial that you are tracking and buŁ$er off to the published alternate that you have planned and checked the weather for in advance (yes I suppose I am being a tad optimistic).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last two posts above are a mixture of wishful thinking and being plain wrong.
Everything that is not expressly prohibited is legal.
Whether it's wise is an entirely separate matter.
Unfortunately many people have problems separating the two and that is responsible for a large chunk of bandwidth on pilot forums.
Please, if we have any more posts on this well worn subject, can they be accompanied by references to the primary legislation, the ANO, whose URL is here
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm (HTML version)
Everything that is not expressly prohibited is legal.
Whether it's wise is an entirely separate matter.
Unfortunately many people have problems separating the two and that is responsible for a large chunk of bandwidth on pilot forums.
Please, if we have any more posts on this well worn subject, can they be accompanied by references to the primary legislation, the ANO, whose URL is here
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm (HTML version)
If your airfield has a properly surveyed final approach segment (Type A Survey?), the obstacle clearance within that final approach segment for a non-precision approach would be 250ft above obstacles if you have a final approach fix (FAF) (actually 75m/246ft 'cos ICAO work in metres) or 90m/295ft without FAF PROVIDED your missed approach area was also clear of obstacles.
They're very complicated equations to work out, and should only be done by those with the correct computer software; there is also minimum safe visibility to be taken into account and this also has a factor for any available airfield lighting.
I wouldn't recommend anyone doing the calculations without the necessary experience or without getting it checked by a qualified person; licensed airfields normally get CAA (DAP) to do it but I understand other organisations can now do it with CAA approval.
They're very complicated equations to work out, and should only be done by those with the correct computer software; there is also minimum safe visibility to be taken into account and this also has a factor for any available airfield lighting.
I wouldn't recommend anyone doing the calculations without the necessary experience or without getting it checked by a qualified person; licensed airfields normally get CAA (DAP) to do it but I understand other organisations can now do it with CAA approval.
I would say that approach design is definitely an area of aviation that is "terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect"!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last two posts above are a mixture of wishful thinking and being plain wrong.
Please, if we have any more posts on this well worn subject, can they be accompanied by references to the primary legislation
PM
Last edited by Piltdown Man; 8th Oct 2006 at 20:45. Reason: Missed word!