gCAP IAPs
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by yippipie
My situation is slightly non-standard. I hold a CPL already, and this isn't my initial IR, though the test will be an initial IR format.
Having decided that I will purchase the relevant Aerad booklets, I now find the original training plog format I previously used, may not now be 'standard'
. I appreciate the 'heads-up' FFF. Any idea where I could obtain a copy of one please?
In due course, I'd better double check all my plans with CAA.
Pip.
Having decided that I will purchase the relevant Aerad booklets, I now find the original training plog format I previously used, may not now be 'standard'
. I appreciate the 'heads-up' FFF. Any idea where I could obtain a copy of one please?In due course, I'd better double check all my plans with CAA.
Pip.
Whoever you fly your 170A with should be able to provide you with suitable plogs and/or charts for the CAAFU flight as the 170A flight has to be done with someone from an approved FTO...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the school which will be putting you forward for the IR. Every school will have its own standard plog, which may be quite different from each other (in the same way as different companies have different plogs). The CAA don't actually care what you use, so long as it follows the school's standards.
Hope that helps, but if you need more info I might need more details of your situation. Also, I'm not an expert - I'm happy to give my opinion, but you would be better off talking to a good IR school, and liaising, via the school, with the CAA, especially for a non-standard situation.
FFF
-------------
Hope that helps, but if you need more info I might need more details of your situation. Also, I'm not an expert - I'm happy to give my opinion, but you would be better off talking to a good IR school, and liaising, via the school, with the CAA, especially for a non-standard situation.
FFF
-------------
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
Bose,
The examiners seem to have a "flavour of the month" which they specifically look for. Right now, the flavour of the month is the pre-flight planning - including Plogs, W+B, performance, etc, etc. At least, that's the case for the examiners at Bournemouth - I don't know how closely the exam centres liase with each other.
It is only within the last month or two that the CAA have asked us to create standard Plogs. Probably before too long they will have completely forgotten, and they'll have another "flavour of the month". However, this isn't the first time the subject has come up. Have a read of my CPL Diary in the Wannabes forum, and you'll see that I had to use my school's standard Plog when I did my CPL a few years ago.
As I said, if you were to join a company, you would be using the company plogs, and would not have the option of being able to write your flight planning on your map. So this seems entirely reasonable for an aspiring commercial pilot, even though it doesn't make sense for a PPL/IR.
FFF
-------------
The examiners seem to have a "flavour of the month" which they specifically look for. Right now, the flavour of the month is the pre-flight planning - including Plogs, W+B, performance, etc, etc. At least, that's the case for the examiners at Bournemouth - I don't know how closely the exam centres liase with each other.
It is only within the last month or two that the CAA have asked us to create standard Plogs. Probably before too long they will have completely forgotten, and they'll have another "flavour of the month". However, this isn't the first time the subject has come up. Have a read of my CPL Diary in the Wannabes forum, and you'll see that I had to use my school's standard Plog when I did my CPL a few years ago.
As I said, if you were to join a company, you would be using the company plogs, and would not have the option of being able to write your flight planning on your map. So this seems entirely reasonable for an aspiring commercial pilot, even though it doesn't make sense for a PPL/IR.
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From gCAP MD
An interesting discussion, and if you'll permit me to comment:
1. There is no legal requirement for an Instrument Approach Plate to conform to any particular standard, so pilots are allowed to use Jeppeson, Aerad, AIDU, gCAP or any other, even if it's drawn on the back of a fag packet. I used one of the big two for many years and became so frustrated with the format that I designed my own, and this grew into gCAP. For example, Aerad underline every altitude/ht, even where the AIP has no underlining. They also show the outbound tracks on base turns, for example, for Cat C/D and you have to look in the notes for the Cat A/B track. Things like this make an approach far harder than necessary to fly. The plates in the AIP are the only formally-recognised ones, but as has been pointed out, they're very difficult to use when airborne and I don't know more than a couple of people who do so. Of interest, even the AIP plates don't fully conform with the ICAO requirement, and you'll find the filed differences listed in the AIP.
2. I was a CAA examiner for several years and have seen all manner of failures of IRTs simply because pilots misread the data on the plate; for what it's worth I've now qualified as an instrument approach procedure designer, so I know a fair bit about instrument flying. gCAP plates are cut down only as much as it takes to present the required information concisely and accurately; you'll not find anything missing from our plates which is required for the approach. Our ethos is that an approach plate is just a pattern in the sky which you have to follow in order to land safely. Your situational awareness should have come in pre-flight planning and from the map you carry. In any case, printing contours and obstacles on a plate is unnecessary because if you follow the designated pattern you'll be safe, and in any case most plates aren't drawn properly to scale so you have no way of knowing where the obstacles/high ground actually are; not accurately anyway, and inaccurate information is worse than dangerous. If you deviate from the pattern you must go around, climb to MSA, and talk to someone.
3. PANS-OPS 8168 (the instrument approach procedure designer's bible) states that the procedures are for normal operations; they make no allowance for underperforming aircraft or those with an emergency. It is an operator's responsibility to design procedures for such contingencies. I don't believe that this is widely known.
4. To say that gCAP are not 'proper' plates is incorrect and unjustifiable. Yes, we only have a small database at present but it's expanding. We started only three years ago and are still only a small company and there are a lot of airfields out there so most of our customers fly in the UK only, but there's a lot of this traffic and we have a lot of customers. We're used by IR schools, Public Transport operators and IMC rating holders, and almost everyone who's used our plates says how clear and easy to use they are. It takes only £10 to find out whether you like them or not; for that you get 20 plates. If you have any comments to make specifically I'd be very pleased to hear them, and if I think that the gCAP plates could be improved upon I'll gladly make changes.
I hope this clears up some of the questions. Please email me if you want to know more.
Nick Gribble
1. There is no legal requirement for an Instrument Approach Plate to conform to any particular standard, so pilots are allowed to use Jeppeson, Aerad, AIDU, gCAP or any other, even if it's drawn on the back of a fag packet. I used one of the big two for many years and became so frustrated with the format that I designed my own, and this grew into gCAP. For example, Aerad underline every altitude/ht, even where the AIP has no underlining. They also show the outbound tracks on base turns, for example, for Cat C/D and you have to look in the notes for the Cat A/B track. Things like this make an approach far harder than necessary to fly. The plates in the AIP are the only formally-recognised ones, but as has been pointed out, they're very difficult to use when airborne and I don't know more than a couple of people who do so. Of interest, even the AIP plates don't fully conform with the ICAO requirement, and you'll find the filed differences listed in the AIP.
2. I was a CAA examiner for several years and have seen all manner of failures of IRTs simply because pilots misread the data on the plate; for what it's worth I've now qualified as an instrument approach procedure designer, so I know a fair bit about instrument flying. gCAP plates are cut down only as much as it takes to present the required information concisely and accurately; you'll not find anything missing from our plates which is required for the approach. Our ethos is that an approach plate is just a pattern in the sky which you have to follow in order to land safely. Your situational awareness should have come in pre-flight planning and from the map you carry. In any case, printing contours and obstacles on a plate is unnecessary because if you follow the designated pattern you'll be safe, and in any case most plates aren't drawn properly to scale so you have no way of knowing where the obstacles/high ground actually are; not accurately anyway, and inaccurate information is worse than dangerous. If you deviate from the pattern you must go around, climb to MSA, and talk to someone.
3. PANS-OPS 8168 (the instrument approach procedure designer's bible) states that the procedures are for normal operations; they make no allowance for underperforming aircraft or those with an emergency. It is an operator's responsibility to design procedures for such contingencies. I don't believe that this is widely known.
4. To say that gCAP are not 'proper' plates is incorrect and unjustifiable. Yes, we only have a small database at present but it's expanding. We started only three years ago and are still only a small company and there are a lot of airfields out there so most of our customers fly in the UK only, but there's a lot of this traffic and we have a lot of customers. We're used by IR schools, Public Transport operators and IMC rating holders, and almost everyone who's used our plates says how clear and easy to use they are. It takes only £10 to find out whether you like them or not; for that you get 20 plates. If you have any comments to make specifically I'd be very pleased to hear them, and if I think that the gCAP plates could be improved upon I'll gladly make changes.
I hope this clears up some of the questions. Please email me if you want to know more.
Nick Gribble
