Where best to practice ILS approaches - south UK?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend a few weeks ago was appx £18 + vat per approach, plus an ILS appraoch and then to land was I think around £20, sorry I dont have the exact invoice to hand.
The French fields sound the best bet if you want to combine a lunch etc.
The French fields sound the best bet if you want to combine a lunch etc.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your probably right Fuji.
As I get way to much practise at ILS's to minima (200') 5 in the last week with RVR's at 550-700m.
still reckon that a NDB/VOR approach has that additional workload which stretches your capacity. Well it stretches mine anyway. And just because the "tolerances" give you +-5 doesn't mean you have to accept it. It just like altitude if you think +- 100ft is OK you will always be crap. If you aim to be the width of the number you will be more than likely be +-50ft as a maximum. Same with an ILS more than quarter scale deflection gets the personal bollocking button pressed if I go outside it.
And if you are practising these approaches for life savers forget all this CAA bollocks about adding stuff on for IMC ratings, it ain't a legal requirement. Fly it down to the plate minimums, if the poo does hit the fan what you going to do waltz around the SE of England wasting fuel just to find a field that has the recommended minima for an IMC? Sod that.
Edited to add it might be worth phoning Newquey. They proberly have quite a bit of spare capacity, no doudt a heap of controllers to train. It could be a win win situation for both parties at the right time of day.
As I get way to much practise at ILS's to minima (200') 5 in the last week with RVR's at 550-700m.
still reckon that a NDB/VOR approach has that additional workload which stretches your capacity. Well it stretches mine anyway. And just because the "tolerances" give you +-5 doesn't mean you have to accept it. It just like altitude if you think +- 100ft is OK you will always be crap. If you aim to be the width of the number you will be more than likely be +-50ft as a maximum. Same with an ILS more than quarter scale deflection gets the personal bollocking button pressed if I go outside it.
And if you are practising these approaches for life savers forget all this CAA bollocks about adding stuff on for IMC ratings, it ain't a legal requirement. Fly it down to the plate minimums, if the poo does hit the fan what you going to do waltz around the SE of England wasting fuel just to find a field that has the recommended minima for an IMC? Sod that.
Edited to add it might be worth phoning Newquey. They proberly have quite a bit of spare capacity, no doudt a heap of controllers to train. It could be a win win situation for both parties at the right time of day.
Last edited by mad_jock; 13th Feb 2009 at 23:37.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridge
Age: 35
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh, you have to pay extra for an ILS approach GA?? I remember about five years ago I shot an ILS at Cambridge RWY 23 (called about 45 minutes ahead), went around from 50 feet and flew happily off, and that was that...? Since then the only ILSs I've ever done have been during flight training and in the good old 737!
In my books having to pay for an ILS anywhere is a rip off! What's next, having to pay to use VOR/RNAV/DME, NDBs, VDF, TACAN etc?
Cheers, Ad
In my books having to pay for an ILS anywhere is a rip off! What's next, having to pay to use VOR/RNAV/DME, NDBs, VDF, TACAN etc?
Cheers, Ad
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my books having to pay for an ILS anywhere is a rip off! What's next, having to pay to use VOR/RNAV/DME, NDBs, VDF, TACAN etc?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my books having to pay for an ILS anywhere is a rip off! What's next, having to pay to use VOR/RNAV/DME, NDBs, VDF, TACAN etc?
Get into the real world.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B the B
I think there maybe a slightly more subtle point.
In the UK nearly everywhere charges more for an IA than a visual approach. In France, for example, this is hardly ever the case. There is an obvious temptation to fly the IA for currency purposes but not declare, which is daft.
Does it cost the airport more when a pilot elects the IA, or do they charge because they can? Clealry the cost of an IA has to be met by someone, but should it be factored into the overall charges paid by all users or should only those using it pay? Are pilots tempted to elect a visual approach if they know they are going to pay a lot more for an IA?
I think there maybe a slightly more subtle point.
In the UK nearly everywhere charges more for an IA than a visual approach. In France, for example, this is hardly ever the case. There is an obvious temptation to fly the IA for currency purposes but not declare, which is daft.
Does it cost the airport more when a pilot elects the IA, or do they charge because they can? Clealry the cost of an IA has to be met by someone, but should it be factored into the overall charges paid by all users or should only those using it pay? Are pilots tempted to elect a visual approach if they know they are going to pay a lot more for an IA?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small technical point a visual approach is an instrument approach. If you go around off a visual approach they will expect you to comply with the published miss approach procedure. I think you mean VFR recovery.
The worst con is the NATS fields who charge a Navigation fee as well as all the rest if you land there. Aberdeen is an example. You can transit the zone and not pay a penny but as soon as you land there you get hit with a 35quid charge for just talking to them.
The worst con is the NATS fields who charge a Navigation fee as well as all the rest if you land there. Aberdeen is an example. You can transit the zone and not pay a penny but as soon as you land there you get hit with a 35quid charge for just talking to them.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small technical point a visual approach is an instrument approach.
On which point after becoming visual might you not request a visual circuit and if you were never in IMC on the IAP inform AT that it will be an IAP followed by a visual circuit. If they agree, you are home and dry.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to the ILS proposal at Shoreham?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem the visual approach technicality's can provided a hole heap of debate.
Last good one was. You are told that the runway in use is 24 and you are cleared for the procedure straight out bound for the ILS. With ten miles to go you pop out of the cloud and are in a position to accept the 06 end for a cheeky visual request it and it is approved. If the birdy blows a tyre clearing the runway which missed approach procedure do you use?
Anyway I have heard that newquay would be partial to a bit of training. The landing fee is 8 quid a ton and there is a hangerage available. Multiple approaches deals can be made involving crates of diet coke and biscuits for the tower.
PS I can manage an arrival off both instruement and VFR approaches
Last good one was. You are told that the runway in use is 24 and you are cleared for the procedure straight out bound for the ILS. With ten miles to go you pop out of the cloud and are in a position to accept the 06 end for a cheeky visual request it and it is approved. If the birdy blows a tyre clearing the runway which missed approach procedure do you use?
Anyway I have heard that newquay would be partial to a bit of training. The landing fee is 8 quid a ton and there is a hangerage available. Multiple approaches deals can be made involving crates of diet coke and biscuits for the tower.
PS I can manage an arrival off both instruement and VFR approaches
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Clealry the cost of an IA has to be met by someone, but should it be factored into the overall charges paid by all users or should only those using it pay?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the "Shoreham ILS", I have no inside knowledge but AIUI the management had grandiose plans for expansion. A business proposal was prepared by an aviation consultant ( I read something about it at the time) under which planes like BA146s were going to be going in there.
Somebody forgot that you can get a flight from Gatwick, just up the road, for much less than it costs to park the car anywhere near Gatwick for a few days...
TBF there was a window of opportunity for Shoreham to "go commercial", about 20 to 25 years ago, but that was about it.
The only way Shoreham can go now is to abandon all silly grandiose plans and become a "centre of excellence for GA" which would perhaps see a runway turn from the present 20/02 (which limits the runway length absolutely) to something like 25/07 which could then be ~ 200m longer, have an ILS, and enable it to handle some low volume but highly lucrative bizjet traffic.
I suspect the ILS idea will be moot anyway once the GPS approach approvals become more commonplace in the user fleet. Currently, they won't even fix the DME.
I think Shoreham charges for approaches but not the first one i.e. the one you land from.
Somebody forgot that you can get a flight from Gatwick, just up the road, for much less than it costs to park the car anywhere near Gatwick for a few days...
TBF there was a window of opportunity for Shoreham to "go commercial", about 20 to 25 years ago, but that was about it.
The only way Shoreham can go now is to abandon all silly grandiose plans and become a "centre of excellence for GA" which would perhaps see a runway turn from the present 20/02 (which limits the runway length absolutely) to something like 25/07 which could then be ~ 200m longer, have an ILS, and enable it to handle some low volume but highly lucrative bizjet traffic.
I suspect the ILS idea will be moot anyway once the GPS approach approvals become more commonplace in the user fleet. Currently, they won't even fix the DME.
I think Shoreham charges for approaches but not the first one i.e. the one you land from.
MJ
You're flying manually, visually? Suggest a visual circuit to start with the best bet, other traffic would dictate to which end! SMA is safe option, but staying VMC appeals more. Also, come 12th March, won't all these standards be based upon service requested (at least outside CAS) rather than flight rules?
No more "cancel IFR" to jump the queue, "request basic service" might become the norm. Also maybe VFR flights to avoid route charges, but request procedural/deconfliction service?
You're flying manually, visually? Suggest a visual circuit to start with the best bet, other traffic would dictate to which end! SMA is safe option, but staying VMC appeals more. Also, come 12th March, won't all these standards be based upon service requested (at least outside CAS) rather than flight rules?
No more "cancel IFR" to jump the queue, "request basic service" might become the norm. Also maybe VFR flights to avoid route charges, but request procedural/deconfliction service?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well actually the missed approach will be the same as for a circling approach. So you have to do the missed approach for the cleared instrument approach. ie GA followed by a turn onto the original missed approach. But in real life I think a request for a visual circuit to the other end would be the common sense choice. And yes it will be manually as was the rest of the flight, very few autopilots where fitted as an option on my type.
Your "contract" with the controller under IFR rules generally means you have to do what they ask you if you like it or not. And if you refuse you better know your Air law inside out. Even if you are FIS in class G IFR the simple fact you have elected to talk to them in the first place means you have agreed to conform to there wishes. eg "XXXX will accept you FL100". If you didn't any sort of air traffic service outside controlled airspace would not be possible. So if you are talking to an approach service it doesn't matter what service you ask for you still have to do as your told.
Also the separation rules are not getting changed only the services from ATS. VFR will still be VFR and everything that entails with separations depending on the airspace.
Apart from the name changes it will have very little effect on pilots in my opinion. It will have a huge effect on controllers forcing them in quite a few places to give a service when they really don't want to or have the capacity to. I suspect it will get revamped quite quickly when they find out that it will overload a significant number of sectors. I should imagine the first morning using it the tay sector will produce a small mountain of MOR forms.
Above 5700kg you get enroute charges even if you are VFR planned so there will be no advantage. Above 5700kg you legally have to file a flight plan and they charge you off that.
So "cancel IFR" will still have a place in the toolbox. It is of limited use in a radar environment but still holds significant advantages to both controllers and pilots in a procedural environment. Get a bunch of pilots who know the procedural rules and the right RT calls, and have the SOP's to take advantage of them. An old school procedural controller on a good wx day can shift way more traffic than a radar controller up to a certain traffic level.
Your "contract" with the controller under IFR rules generally means you have to do what they ask you if you like it or not. And if you refuse you better know your Air law inside out. Even if you are FIS in class G IFR the simple fact you have elected to talk to them in the first place means you have agreed to conform to there wishes. eg "XXXX will accept you FL100". If you didn't any sort of air traffic service outside controlled airspace would not be possible. So if you are talking to an approach service it doesn't matter what service you ask for you still have to do as your told.
Also the separation rules are not getting changed only the services from ATS. VFR will still be VFR and everything that entails with separations depending on the airspace.
Apart from the name changes it will have very little effect on pilots in my opinion. It will have a huge effect on controllers forcing them in quite a few places to give a service when they really don't want to or have the capacity to. I suspect it will get revamped quite quickly when they find out that it will overload a significant number of sectors. I should imagine the first morning using it the tay sector will produce a small mountain of MOR forms.
Above 5700kg you get enroute charges even if you are VFR planned so there will be no advantage. Above 5700kg you legally have to file a flight plan and they charge you off that.
So "cancel IFR" will still have a place in the toolbox. It is of limited use in a radar environment but still holds significant advantages to both controllers and pilots in a procedural environment. Get a bunch of pilots who know the procedural rules and the right RT calls, and have the SOP's to take advantage of them. An old school procedural controller on a good wx day can shift way more traffic than a radar controller up to a certain traffic level.
MJ
You might like to flick thru the new ATSOCAS again. 2 aircraft on a procedural service, regardless of flight rules, will be deconflicted (similar to current seperated). If you cancel IFR, you will still be deconflicted, the minima are service based, not flight rules. Equally, if IFR but get visual, you could change to a Basic Service, no longer receive deconfliction and aim for the field, similar to cancelling IFR at the moment. What your flight rules are will have no bearing upon the service given, it's the service you request that decides it.
You might like to flick thru the new ATSOCAS again. 2 aircraft on a procedural service, regardless of flight rules, will be deconflicted (similar to current seperated). If you cancel IFR, you will still be deconflicted, the minima are service based, not flight rules. Equally, if IFR but get visual, you could change to a Basic Service, no longer receive deconfliction and aim for the field, similar to cancelling IFR at the moment. What your flight rules are will have no bearing upon the service given, it's the service you request that decides it.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kent
Age: 46
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry slightly off topic but i'm also interested in where to practise ILS approaches in SE UK. I passed my IMc rating a couple of months ago, all approaches at southend = £££'s ouch. So would really like to try approaches at different Ad's for a bit of variety and to stay current.
Was particularly interested int the quote: "You might well get 3 or 4 approaches at Calais for 16E ".
I know the imc rating is only valid for the Uk but is it feasable to use Calais for ILS practice under the hood in vmc with a safety pilot onboard. Would the Safety pilot then require an IR?
Ps. sorry for the thread drift.
Was particularly interested int the quote: "You might well get 3 or 4 approaches at Calais for 16E ".
I know the imc rating is only valid for the Uk but is it feasable to use Calais for ILS practice under the hood in vmc with a safety pilot onboard. Would the Safety pilot then require an IR?
Ps. sorry for the thread drift.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moona
You need an IR to operate IFR in France - you knew that anyway.
So far as I am aware the fact you are flying an approach says nothing about whether or not you are IFR or VFR, it is just a way of defining the route you will take and what you will do if you, or AT initiate a go around.
You are therefore quite entitled to fly the approach as long as you remain in VMC and declare VFR. In fact I am not sure whether or not you need to declare VFR but it would be as well to do so given that AT might get excited if you had to break off the approach because there was cloud in the way. Of course AT might not accept you VFR but I doubt that is very likely at Calais.
You cannot operate behind screens without a safety pilot. There has been some debate on here before about what constitutes a safety pilot - worth following the search option. There has also been some debate about the issues in my post before - once again for further reading try the search option.
You need an IR to operate IFR in France - you knew that anyway.
So far as I am aware the fact you are flying an approach says nothing about whether or not you are IFR or VFR, it is just a way of defining the route you will take and what you will do if you, or AT initiate a go around.
You are therefore quite entitled to fly the approach as long as you remain in VMC and declare VFR. In fact I am not sure whether or not you need to declare VFR but it would be as well to do so given that AT might get excited if you had to break off the approach because there was cloud in the way. Of course AT might not accept you VFR but I doubt that is very likely at Calais.
You cannot operate behind screens without a safety pilot. There has been some debate on here before about what constitutes a safety pilot - worth following the search option. There has also been some debate about the issues in my post before - once again for further reading try the search option.