Unpublished let-downs
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Business Sense
Ha! You are having a laugh! The definition in SERA and ICAO annex 6 is current.
I see what you have done though, you have conflated what constitutes an aerodrome for the purposes of licensing (CAP793) with what constitutes an aerodrome for the purposes of determining aerodrome minima. I salute your audacity
...but what constitutes an aerodrome for the purpose of determining aerodrome minima is still any place used for the departure, approach or surface movement of aircraft. As per the still current definition used in Part-NCO as well as SERA and ICAO annex 6.
Quote:
"Defined"
- Past tense
CAP793
The regular use of an area of land or water for aircraft take-offs and/or landings amounts, in law, to the establishment of an aerodrome.
"Defined"
- Past tense
CAP793
The regular use of an area of land or water for aircraft take-offs and/or landings amounts, in law, to the establishment of an aerodrome.
I see what you have done though, you have conflated what constitutes an aerodrome for the purposes of licensing (CAP793) with what constitutes an aerodrome for the purposes of determining aerodrome minima. I salute your audacity
...but what constitutes an aerodrome for the purpose of determining aerodrome minima is still any place used for the departure, approach or surface movement of aircraft. As per the still current definition used in Part-NCO as well as SERA and ICAO annex 6.
Last edited by oggers; 17th Feb 2017 at 13:35.
It doesn't occur to you that the recommendation was acted on or perhaps rendered moot by the intro of EASA Ops.
CAT.OP.MPA.125 Instrument departure and approach procedures
(a) The operator shall ensure that instrument departure and approach procedures established by the State of the aerodrome are used.
(b) Notwithstanding (a), the commander may accept an ATC clearance to deviate from a published departure or arrival route, provided obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full account is taken of the operating conditions. In any case, the final approach shall be flown visually or in accordance with the established instrument approach procedures.
NCC.OP.115 Departure and approach procedures
(a) The pilot-in-command shall use the departure and approach procedures estab*lished by the State of the aerodrome, if such procedures have been published for the runway or FATO to be used.
(b) Notwithstanding (a), the pilot-in-command shall only accept an ATC clearance to deviate from a published procedure:
(1) provided that obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full account is taken of the operating conditions; or
(2) when being radar-vectored by an ATC unit.
(c) In any case, the final approach segment shall be flown visually or in accordance with the published approach procedures.
NCO.OP.115 Departure and approach procedures — aeroplanes and heli*copters
(a) The pilot-in-command shall use the departure and approach procedures estab*lished by the State of the aerodrome, if such procedures have been published for the runway or FATO to be used.
(b) The pilot-in-command may deviate from a published departure route, arrival route or approach procedure:
(1) provided obstacle clearance criteria can be observed, full account is taken of the operating conditions and any ATC clearance is adhered to; or
(2) when being radar-vectored by an ATC unit.
Note the conspicuous absence of NCO.OP.115(c). Just in case you think it's an accidental omission, here's the corresponding bit from SPO, which tends to deal with both complex motor-powered aircraft and non-complex aircraft:
SPO.OP.115 Departure and approach procedures — aeroplanes and heli*copters
(a) The pilot-in-command shall use the departure and approach procedures estab*lished by the State of the aerodrome, if such procedures have been published for the runway or FATO to be used.
(b) The pilot-in-command may deviate from a published departure route, arrival route or approach procedure:
(1) provided obstacle clearance criteria can be observed, full account is taken of the operating conditions and any ATC clearance is adhered to; or
(2) when being radar-vectored by an ATC unit.
(c) In the case of operations with complex motor-powered aircraft, the final approach segment shall be flown visually or in accordance with the published approach procedures.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with Foxmoth on this... Sounds like a neverending argument...
Law or not; Just don't be stupid. Value your life and those of others both in and out of the aircraft. Don't descend below MSA (irrespective of your definition) unless you're on an IAP or in VMC remaining visual until you touchdown.
HAVE COMMON SENSE. Live to fly, don't fly to die!!!
Law or not; Just don't be stupid. Value your life and those of others both in and out of the aircraft. Don't descend below MSA (irrespective of your definition) unless you're on an IAP or in VMC remaining visual until you touchdown.
HAVE COMMON SENSE. Live to fly, don't fly to die!!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes bookworm I agree that part of the regs permits a deviation from published procedures which could be interpreted as permitting a user defined approach all the way from safety altitude to landing. I think it is the only place in the regs where the argument that non-approved approaches are legal has any basis. But the problem is it is contradicted by so much of the other regs and information from the CAA that I have already posted.
One thing that is definitely a red-herring is the notion that a landing site is not subject to the regs pertaining to aerodrome operating minima if it is not a proper airfield. And another red-herring is that ad-hoc descent below safety altitude in IMC is permitted on the basis of SERA 5015. But that one you posted above does on its own merit suggest that an unpublished let-down might be legal for non-complex, non-commercial operations.
One thing that is definitely a red-herring is the notion that a landing site is not subject to the regs pertaining to aerodrome operating minima if it is not a proper airfield. And another red-herring is that ad-hoc descent below safety altitude in IMC is permitted on the basis of SERA 5015. But that one you posted above does on its own merit suggest that an unpublished let-down might be legal for non-complex, non-commercial operations.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However much folks may argue about the legal interpretation of the rules & regulations, historically enforecement has generally been the province of a higher authority whose judgment is instant, final, unforgiving and not subject to appeal.
However much folks may argue about the legal interpretation of the rules & regulations, historically enforecement has generally been the province of a higher authority whose judgment is instant, final, unforgiving and not subject to appeal.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Oggers, again, you regurgitate the same wording that is available to all. Again, the term "should" has never prefaced a mandatory item.
"Should" indicates advice. If the wording read "shall" or "must" I would agree it was mandatory. But it doesn't, even under framework of SERA, which you rather strangely seem to think I haven't read.
The new regulations have had a very significant effect on certain parts of the U.K. industry. Thankfully the CAA have listened to the coal face in a number of areas and gave allowed certain easements. I'm grateful to have been asked for my personal input in a couple of areas in that regard. This (topic under discussion) is one area where SERA has not imposed further restrictions, despite Oggers thinking otherwise.
However, I most definitely wouldn't ever advise any pilot, "private" or otherwise (SERA doesn't differentiate, Oggers) to descend below MSA on a whim, for obvious safety reasons and I certainly would not do so. IFR flights need to be very carefully planned with nominated diversions found as necessary. That latter requirement remains in the ANO, but it rather strangely states:
"If, according to the information available, an aircraft would as regards any flight be required to be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules at the aerodrome of intended landing, the pilot in command of the aircraft must select before take-off a destination alternate aerodrome unless no suitable aerodrome suitable for that purpose is available.
The text I have quoted in bold would rather tend to lead a pilot into the very situation we are discussing! The only possible reason for that wording isn't immediately obvious, but it allows a pilot to use judgement on a forecast weather clearance, such as early morning fog. My personal judgement would be not to take such a risk.
That is a separate issue to the legality of a descent below MSA when necessary to do so in order to land, iaw SERA 5015.
What hasn't really been discussed fully is what constitutes a published approach/letdown and what doesn't. For example, the meaning, in legal terms, of "published". In the past I've been given details of a number of approaches designed and fully surveyed by a CAA recognised expert which the CAA has been fully aware of. You won't find them in any flight guide or the AIP. Some of them are for easily recognised airfields and some are not. Where might an approach be classed as "published" and where might it otherwise exist?
"Should" indicates advice. If the wording read "shall" or "must" I would agree it was mandatory. But it doesn't, even under framework of SERA, which you rather strangely seem to think I haven't read.
The new regulations have had a very significant effect on certain parts of the U.K. industry. Thankfully the CAA have listened to the coal face in a number of areas and gave allowed certain easements. I'm grateful to have been asked for my personal input in a couple of areas in that regard. This (topic under discussion) is one area where SERA has not imposed further restrictions, despite Oggers thinking otherwise.
However, I most definitely wouldn't ever advise any pilot, "private" or otherwise (SERA doesn't differentiate, Oggers) to descend below MSA on a whim, for obvious safety reasons and I certainly would not do so. IFR flights need to be very carefully planned with nominated diversions found as necessary. That latter requirement remains in the ANO, but it rather strangely states:
"If, according to the information available, an aircraft would as regards any flight be required to be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules at the aerodrome of intended landing, the pilot in command of the aircraft must select before take-off a destination alternate aerodrome unless no suitable aerodrome suitable for that purpose is available.
The text I have quoted in bold would rather tend to lead a pilot into the very situation we are discussing! The only possible reason for that wording isn't immediately obvious, but it allows a pilot to use judgement on a forecast weather clearance, such as early morning fog. My personal judgement would be not to take such a risk.
That is a separate issue to the legality of a descent below MSA when necessary to do so in order to land, iaw SERA 5015.
What hasn't really been discussed fully is what constitutes a published approach/letdown and what doesn't. For example, the meaning, in legal terms, of "published". In the past I've been given details of a number of approaches designed and fully surveyed by a CAA recognised expert which the CAA has been fully aware of. You won't find them in any flight guide or the AIP. Some of them are for easily recognised airfields and some are not. Where might an approach be classed as "published" and where might it otherwise exist?
Last edited by ShyTorque; 17th Feb 2017 at 19:06.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
However much folks may argue about the legal interpretation of the rules & regulations, historically enforecement has generally been the province of a higher authority whose judgment is instant, final, unforgiving and not subject to appeal.
But a published approach, flown badly, is also highly likely to suffer the same consequence.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of examples of a badly executed approach where disaster has been averted only because of the additional safeguards built into operating in a properly regulated and controlled environment.
