Merry Christmas from the CAA -Another Nail in the IMC Coffin

[DFC]

The CAA have on the 24th of December issued ORS4-671.

"Non-Immune FM Radio Communication and Radio Navigation Equipment"


The interesting bit is;

Where non-immune VOR and ILS receivers remain installed, these must be identified
with a suitably worded placard, e.g. 'VFR FLIGHTS ONLY',

and

For non-public transport flights under instrument flight rules (IFR) in controlled airspace
in the UK, the legal requirements include one VOR receiver (which must be FM
immune). To conduct an ILS approach inside or outside controlled airspace one (FM
immune) ILS receiver is required.

I think that makes it crystal clear - if your VOR is not FM immune, you should only use it for VFR flights i.e. with visual navigation as a back-up to confirm the VOR.

Seems then that many schools who use non-FM immune equipment for IMC rating training are going to have a re-equipment bill. After all they would not encourage illegal use of the VOR and ILS to IMC students now would they?

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

I dont see this being an issue.

The cost of an FM immune receiver is not great. Usually it is a part for part replacement as well.

Plently of training will continue to be done with foggels.

I see no reason why this should have a signficant impact on the IMCr.

[DFC]

There are several issues one being the restriction to VFR flights only. That removes the posibility of going IMC in class G while using a VOR it also prevents it from being used at night even when VMC.

At places like Oxford and Filton etc you can not even fly the ILS under VFR because the document is clear;

"To conduct an ILS approach inside or outside controlled airspace one (FM
immune) ILS receiver is required."

You don't even have to replace the receivers in most cases a filter is all tat is required.

However, most clubs have been using non-FM immune receivers and most PPL IMC rating holders hire non-FM immune aircraft. Why pay for a rating in an illegal aircraft and find that when you get it there are no aircraft that are legal to fly with the rating anyway?

Regards,

DFC

[A and C]

DFC

If people want to fly an ILS with a radio that may be subject to errors introduced by broardcast stations they are stupid. When I break out of cloud at 200ft on an ILS I want to see the runway not the car park at Tesco's!

I cant see any reason for the CAA not to mandate that non FM immune equipment can only be used VFR.

As for my customers they can be assured that if they rent an aircraft from me it will be FM immune.

[Johnm]

I have one King FM immune ILS NAVCOM and one old non immune Collins ILS Navcom, I have yet to see them disagree even as far as the allowed tolerances and both are within a few degrees of the GPS

[Say again s l o w l y]

It shouldn't be an issue, if you are going to use the instruments, then they should be FM Immune.
Only shonky, skinflint clubs and school should be affected by this, and they'll just continue to ignore it as they have before.

[FullyFlapped]

How does your average Jo Pilot know whether he's flying behind something which is FM immune or not ?

Is there an obvious/simple way of knowing or finding out in situ ?

FF

[Johnm]

Is there an obvious/simple way of knowing or finding out in situ ?

Mine's placarded so I haven't looked further

[bookworm]

ORS4-671 is merely a re-issue of ORS4-580 which expired 31 Dec 2007. There's nothing new there.

The Official Record Series enables the CAA to exercise its power under the ANO, and it does so in this Direction to require that:

where an aircraft is flying in the United Kingdom in circumstances in which it is
required under Schedule 5 of the Order to be provided with specified radio
navigation equipment all such required equipment shall comply with the FM
immunity requirements

and also that aircraft with equipment that does not comply:

be fitted in addition with appropriate placards to alert flight crews to the potential
risk of radio interference

The text DFC quotes is from the explanatory note, which is not law. The assertion that Schedule 5 requires an ILS in order to fly an ILS approach outside controlled airspace is incorrect. It's debatable as to whether an ILS receiver is required, but it's certainly not required by Schedule 5 for private flights.

Similarly, the wording given for the placard is an example. "Not FM immune" satisfies the requirement of the Direction.

[Jetscream 32]

bit of a non event this thread - a simple low cost filter - end of problem - most decent flying schools did it years ago, and if your mx provider was worth their salt they would have recommended or done it automatically at CofA

cant see what the fuss is about

Instead of finding out about things after the event and moaning - join AOPA and be part of the ammunition to change things as soon as the CAA issues consultation........

simple - works in the USA fine, and could work here just as well - if enough people were really bothered.

smoke on - go..!

[llanfairpg]

Might be more sensible to have 'IMC IMMUNE' placarded on some pilots!

[Fuji Abound]

simple - works in the USA fine, and could work here just as well - if enough people were really bothered.

Dont start.

[Jetscream 32]

oooooohh! somebody's tired - boxing day blues..!

Is it AOPA uk not making an effort and being a bit stale / boring or is it the UK flying community ignorant to what they could achieve if they had the support of the GA population behind them?

n

[Fuji Abound]

You have been watching too much telly .

The truth is far stranger than you could ever imagine.

Still, the answer to part of your questions is here:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IMC-Rating/

Fill your boots

[S-Works]

Nah fuji is doing a much better job than all the air sports bodies. I am looking forward to the government response to the petition.

[Fuji Abound]

Now, now Bose lets not start the year on the wrong foot

I was very good and didnt rise to the AOPA bait, I think the least you could do is show similiar restraint.

A Happy Christmas to you.

[S-Works]

Likewise.

[Jetscream 32]

so fuji - are you GA Alliance, AOPA, GAMTA, BGA, LAA, BMAA, Intergalactic Space Association or just a determined individual trying to use common sense??

Is it worth starting a new thread to find out what people GA pilots really want out of a body / association and what it wants it to tackle.

My personal view is for something like BALPA for GA - either way we will have to pay - but if the body is good and sucessful then it will be fine.

I look at AOPA UK and see lots of gold braid, lots of fancy titles, but only a couple of people in the office, and a couple of individuals burrying themselves in a lot of paperwork with little resources, no real visibilty in the market and very little real promotion or encouragement towards GA owners / pilots.

My very own personal view of 20 years of GA flying - sorry - but thats how i see it....!

[Fuji Abound]

Jetscream

I hope the last.

Keep a watch on PPRuNe - we are just about to link to a web site we have started to develop specifically to address the IMCr issue.

There are some really good and experienced PPRuNers who are working together on this issue because we believe in what we are doing and also believe that the various representative bodies could do with some help in terms of pilots be able to represent in an inclusive way how strongly they feel about this issue.

The way things are going with the rate of change being borught about by EASA things may develp from there.

Love to have your support.

[DFC]

The assertion that Schedule 5 requires an ILS in order to fly an ILS approach outside controlled airspace is incorrect. It's debatable as to whether an ILS receiver is required, but it's certainly not required by Schedule 5 for private flights.

How do you detect and work out what those ILS radio signals are telling you without the ILS receiver?

Are your tooth fillings FM immune?



Regards,

DFC