Microlights on approach
LH2 must admit the same thought crossed my mind re the tower pointing the microlights out,
I wonder if this head down in the cockpit on the ILS syndrome is common,
Very worrying if it is.
Nick.
I wonder if this head down in the cockpit on the ILS syndrome is common,
Very worrying if it is.
Nick.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I do believe instrument approaches outside CAS are marked on the VFR half mil charts.
I do believe instrument approaches outside CAS are marked on the VFR half mil charts.
For the avoidance of doubt, and for the avoidance of air-to-air contact, remember that it is only the presence of ILS approach(es) that is marked.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander, I think Rightbases point was that only one approach is marked on the charts, while there maybe more than one approach to the field.
Eg, just because there is an approach marked to runway 09 on the chart, does not mean that there is no approach to runway 27, runway 18, runway 36 runway 15 etc. Only one will get marked, not all of them.
dp
Eg, just because there is an approach marked to runway 09 on the chart, does not mean that there is no approach to runway 27, runway 18, runway 36 runway 15 etc. Only one will get marked, not all of them.
dp
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having read the above comments a few thoughts. While there are some very competant pilots around Microlights or otherwise there are also some complete idiots who have very little experience or ability.
Vmc with practice Ils and two pilots there should not be a problem, but change that to minimal VMC or Lowish cloud and a genuine ILS approach where the pilot of the one aircraft is glued visually to his instruments and you have a problem.
Mix in a dolop of Idiot pilot who doesnt really have a clue where he is and there are plenty about and you have a high collision risk.
But people will fly within the regulations they are given and exploit those regulations to the utmost.
So dont blame the pilots blame the regulators.
This thread like the one on gliders flying in IMC conditions without transponders shows a hightened potential risk for a collision.
In my opinion any ILS should carry a hub of NO GO airspace without radio permission. Infringe it and get the book thrown at you. But its the regulators at fault not the pilots whether they be microlights or otherwise.
Pace
Vmc with practice Ils and two pilots there should not be a problem, but change that to minimal VMC or Lowish cloud and a genuine ILS approach where the pilot of the one aircraft is glued visually to his instruments and you have a problem.
Mix in a dolop of Idiot pilot who doesnt really have a clue where he is and there are plenty about and you have a high collision risk.
But people will fly within the regulations they are given and exploit those regulations to the utmost.
So dont blame the pilots blame the regulators.
This thread like the one on gliders flying in IMC conditions without transponders shows a hightened potential risk for a collision.
In my opinion any ILS should carry a hub of NO GO airspace without radio permission. Infringe it and get the book thrown at you. But its the regulators at fault not the pilots whether they be microlights or otherwise.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite right yet about IAPs on charts. The current practise is for IAPs to be marked on the main runway only; where there are IAPs on both ends of the main, they will be marked on both ends when in Class G.
If there is only an IAP on one end (ie: EGKB) it is only marked on the one end.
If IAPs to subsidiary runways, these are not marked (for chart clarity).
Also not marked on charts are:
1) Instrument Holding patterns for the airport if in the overhead or what could be considered a 'normal' IAP area associated with the airport
2) Instrument Departure routes
3) Instrument Missed Approach Procedures
4) Visual Manoeuvring (Circling) areas
As someone else mentioned, ATC often authorise IAPs to a runway that might be against the expectation predicated by the wind conditions (for expedition, or training - particularly where a particular type of IAP is available to only one runway end.
All of the above are good reasons for putting in a call to ATC when in the vicinity; if you can't, then they could be good reasons for giving a wide berth.
Also note that quite a lot of flights may not be conforming to the ideal vertical profile of an IAP, especially if being radar vectored. Don't assume anything!
If there is only an IAP on one end (ie: EGKB) it is only marked on the one end.
If IAPs to subsidiary runways, these are not marked (for chart clarity).
Also not marked on charts are:
1) Instrument Holding patterns for the airport if in the overhead or what could be considered a 'normal' IAP area associated with the airport
2) Instrument Departure routes
3) Instrument Missed Approach Procedures
4) Visual Manoeuvring (Circling) areas
As someone else mentioned, ATC often authorise IAPs to a runway that might be against the expectation predicated by the wind conditions (for expedition, or training - particularly where a particular type of IAP is available to only one runway end.
All of the above are good reasons for putting in a call to ATC when in the vicinity; if you can't, then they could be good reasons for giving a wide berth.
Also note that quite a lot of flights may not be conforming to the ideal vertical profile of an IAP, especially if being radar vectored. Don't assume anything!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bexleyheath
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xrayalpha
That was my understanding, but after a conflict involving me in VFR cct on base leg and an aircraft flying a practice ILS, the FISO said that the ILS aircraft on long final had priority over VFR traffic which is why I was asked to fly an orbit on the base leg instead of requesting Mr ILS to "go missed".
"When practising IFR approaches in VMC, remember that you and everyone else is actually VFR"
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“In my opinion any ILS should carry a hub of NO GO airspace without radio permission. Infringe it and get the book thrown at you. But its the regulators at fault not the pilots whether they be microlights or otherwise.”
This is a great solution for you but can have very unpleasant side effects. There are an increasing number of corridors between CAS which contain considerable VFR traffic. If you narrow the corridor by another ten miles as suggested then you will be forcing large amounts of non radio traffic to transit in a very confined space. Non of this is a problem for an ILS in IMC, as the VFR traffic will be VFR, but on a good day doing a practice ILS in class G, you have to operate see and avoid.
Rod1
This is a great solution for you but can have very unpleasant side effects. There are an increasing number of corridors between CAS which contain considerable VFR traffic. If you narrow the corridor by another ten miles as suggested then you will be forcing large amounts of non radio traffic to transit in a very confined space. Non of this is a problem for an ILS in IMC, as the VFR traffic will be VFR, but on a good day doing a practice ILS in class G, you have to operate see and avoid.
Rod1
Xrayalpha
That was my understanding, but after a conflict involving me in VFR cct on base leg and an aircraft flying a practice ILS, the FISO said that the ILS aircraft on long final had priority over VFR traffic which is why I was asked to fly an orbit on the base leg instead of requesting Mr ILS to "go missed".
That was my understanding, but after a conflict involving me in VFR cct on base leg and an aircraft flying a practice ILS, the FISO said that the ILS aircraft on long final had priority over VFR traffic which is why I was asked to fly an orbit on the base leg instead of requesting Mr ILS to "go missed".
I suppose the controller was just trying to help keep people apart with the minimum total agro. Arguably one orbit for you was much less inconvenience than a go-around for him, regardless of the strict legalities.
G
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Midlands UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thorny issue of microlights mixing with other stuff on finals.
Biggest problem is that us microlights now have to hold back to let the slower spam cans in
. Ohhh how things change.
Biggest problem is that us microlights now have to hold back to let the slower spam cans in
. Ohhh how things change. Guest
Posts: n/a
I suppose the controller was just trying to help keep people apart with the minimum total agro. Arguably one orbit for you was much less inconvenience than a go-around for him, regardless of the strict legalities.
And if it really was a FIS, the pilot is not permitted to make a practice instrument approach.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bexleyheath
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghengis & Spitoon
I know we maybe going off the thread a bit here with my FIS/ILS incident but,,, a couple of points.
1. I hate being asked to orbit on any leg of the circuit. Its inherently dangerous, pilots fly circuits at different distances from the Runway due to aircraft speed, preferances etc and there is a chance that as you complete the first 180 you could go head to head with someone.
2. With (1) in mind I would prefer to be climbed back to, or slightly above circuit height and fly round the dead side for a rejoin/2nd attempt.
3. Mr practice ILS is on long final, I am in the Circuit I would normally expect him to give way to me but If standard practice in this situation is vice versa then it would have been nice to warn me that I would be expected to give way to a prctice ILS. (I was aware a "procedure" was being flown so I knew he was either repositioning for long final or starting long final, I just didnt know where). Yes, with hindsight, I should have asked, before somebody states the obvious.
cpl4hire
I know we maybe going off the thread a bit here with my FIS/ILS incident but,,, a couple of points.
1. I hate being asked to orbit on any leg of the circuit. Its inherently dangerous, pilots fly circuits at different distances from the Runway due to aircraft speed, preferances etc and there is a chance that as you complete the first 180 you could go head to head with someone.
2. With (1) in mind I would prefer to be climbed back to, or slightly above circuit height and fly round the dead side for a rejoin/2nd attempt.
3. Mr practice ILS is on long final, I am in the Circuit I would normally expect him to give way to me but If standard practice in this situation is vice versa then it would have been nice to warn me that I would be expected to give way to a prctice ILS. (I was aware a "procedure" was being flown so I knew he was either repositioning for long final or starting long final, I just didnt know where). Yes, with hindsight, I should have asked, before somebody states the obvious.
cpl4hire
I'm no fan of being asked to orbit either, but I've been asked on a fair number of occasions at both civil and military airfields. Inside class D, where the controller should know were everything is, it shouldn't be inherently dangerous - but on the other hand the recent C150 fatality at Southend shows that it can be.
I can think of an occasion where I was asked to orbit, for example, for an aircraft on the ILS WITH A FUEL EMERGENCY, but then it was much larger than me so I declined a subsequent instruction to stop orbiting and rejoin base - because I'd not have adequate safe separation. My point here is that any ATC instruction has to be accepted - within the rules of the air of course. If you are asked to do something that you consider dangerous, then decline it and say why.
Incidentally, can you offer a little more detail about your particular incident. What class of airspace? What level of service?
G
I can think of an occasion where I was asked to orbit, for example, for an aircraft on the ILS WITH A FUEL EMERGENCY, but then it was much larger than me so I declined a subsequent instruction to stop orbiting and rejoin base - because I'd not have adequate safe separation. My point here is that any ATC instruction has to be accepted - within the rules of the air of course. If you are asked to do something that you consider dangerous, then decline it and say why.
Incidentally, can you offer a little more detail about your particular incident. What class of airspace? What level of service?
G
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bexleyheath
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
Correction to my original post, It wasnt a FIS, I was talking to the Approach Controller within the Airfields ATZ (not Class D). The procedure being flown was non-precision Approach, NDB (with or without DME). The Airfield does not have Radar so position reporting is key. I am just curious to know if the plane on the Procedure did have right of way as the Controller later said.
cpl4hire
Correction to my original post, It wasnt a FIS, I was talking to the Approach Controller within the Airfields ATZ (not Class D). The procedure being flown was non-precision Approach, NDB (with or without DME). The Airfield does not have Radar so position reporting is key. I am just curious to know if the plane on the Procedure did have right of way as the Controller later said.
cpl4hire
Join Date: May 2007
Location: cambridge
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go past Cambridge all the time in both microlights and spamcans. Always listen out so I know whats going on and then get a FI service if required. I dont know if it was flexwings or 3 axis guys that you saw but with flexwing they would definately have seen you as the viz is so good and would probably have been listening to Cambridge too.
I really wouldnt worry about their standard of airmanship as I am sure they would have been in their element whereas you were deprived of your sight out of the window which would make any VFR pilot jumpy. I am sure that we can all exist together if we fly constructively and understand everyone else.
I feel much happer in a jolly old flexwing cos we always see the GA guys before they see us!!!!!
I really wouldnt worry about their standard of airmanship as I am sure they would have been in their element whereas you were deprived of your sight out of the window which would make any VFR pilot jumpy. I am sure that we can all exist together if we fly constructively and understand everyone else.
I feel much happer in a jolly old flexwing cos we always see the GA guys before they see us!!!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of comments.
Firstly, if you cross an approach how do you know other aircraft on the approach are on the IAP?
Secondly, even if they are on the IA, how do you know they are on the G/S?
Thirdly, if you insist on crossing the approach, why not announce that you are doing so and you are visual with any relevant traffic (assuming you have a radio).
Firstly, if you cross an approach how do you know other aircraft on the approach are on the IAP?
Secondly, even if they are on the IA, how do you know they are on the G/S?
Thirdly, if you insist on crossing the approach, why not announce that you are doing so and you are visual with any relevant traffic (assuming you have a radio).
