Unpublished let-downs
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA or any regulatory body will regulate to cover their own backs as well as the obvious safety angle.
I have been flying for 35 years nowadays totally CAS but going back knew many airfields where unpublished procedures were used by even professional pilots usually with a lot of local knowledge and usually on an NDM or other aid with a GPS overlay
A bad pilot can mess up and crash on a published procedure the published part doesn't mean an unpublished procedure isnt cannot itself be a good procedure only that it is not published i.e approved
I am not at all promoting the use of un published procedures but stating the fact that throughout that course of 35 years I know of many even used by professional pilots
OCAS it was probably considered as "creative flying" for those who must fly rather than choose to
I have been flying for 35 years nowadays totally CAS but going back knew many airfields where unpublished procedures were used by even professional pilots usually with a lot of local knowledge and usually on an NDM or other aid with a GPS overlay
A bad pilot can mess up and crash on a published procedure the published part doesn't mean an unpublished procedure isnt cannot itself be a good procedure only that it is not published i.e approved
I am not at all promoting the use of un published procedures but stating the fact that throughout that course of 35 years I know of many even used by professional pilots
OCAS it was probably considered as "creative flying" for those who must fly rather than choose to
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
Chev, I've often wondered how accurate ATC radars are when compared to modern, IFR certified on-board GPS equipment.
Almost every time I ask for a radar service I'm given a reason why it's only a limited service.
Almost every time I ask for a radar service I'm given a reason why it's only a limited service.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm:
...which is why your cherry picking of the rule permitting 'descent in IMC below safety altitude for the purpose of landing' without the need to be established on an approved procedure is such patent cobblers. If it were permitted to carry out home-made approaches there would be no reason that you could not start out on an approved procedure and at some point lower down decide 'I'm going to work to my own made-up minima from here on, and it will be legal because I intend to land'. 
ShyTorque
Well, we are actually discussing what is legal for GA not public transport, and that recommendation pre-dates the publication of both the latest ANO and Part-NCO by 2 years. Anyway, here is the CAA guidance you remain in denial of:
It would not be legal to continue, however you got on to the procedure. NCO.OP.210(e) forbids it.
ShyTorque
Oggers, read the AAIB report. It's not my opinion - it's there in black and white (actually, black and pink in the report, for the more argumentative ones among us)!
Safety Recommendation 2014-35
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the regulations that permit a helicopter engaged in public transport operations to descend below MSA for the purpose of landing, when flying in instrument meteorological conditions but not on a published approach procedure.
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the regulations that permit a helicopter engaged in public transport operations to descend below MSA for the purpose of landing, when flying in instrument meteorological conditions but not on a published approach procedure.
User-defined approaches can be dangerous and are not authorised
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
I'm not in denial of anything. I'm pointing out the difference between official guidance (which I don't disagree with in any way) and the legal position.
It appears that some don't understand that there is a difference.
The CAA website I quoted from has been placed by the authority itself to highlight national differences from the regulations under SERA. With regard to the subject under discussion, they have not elected to differentiate or change what the regulations state. The website was placed to inform all interested parties and is updated more regularly than the ANO.
The rules for public transport are obviously more strict than those for private operations, for very good reason. Part-NCO is a way of further regulating private operations. But not all operations will be covered by those new regulations, based on aircraft maximum weight.
It appears that some don't understand that there is a difference.
The CAA website I quoted from has been placed by the authority itself to highlight national differences from the regulations under SERA. With regard to the subject under discussion, they have not elected to differentiate or change what the regulations state. The website was placed to inform all interested parties and is updated more regularly than the ANO.
The rules for public transport are obviously more strict than those for private operations, for very good reason. Part-NCO is a way of further regulating private operations. But not all operations will be covered by those new regulations, based on aircraft maximum weight.
I once watched a certain rock star attempt to fly his own approach into Blackbushe in his newly purchased Navajo (normally flys a Harvard - gives the game away doesn't it!) . We could see he was on final for Lasham not Blackbushe, but no amount of us telling him would convince him until he broke cloud and could see we were right.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could somebody please define the difference between "unpublished or 'home-grown' instrument let-downs" and "flying low"?
If there is no published procedure to land, there is no procedure to land. If I am performing a flight in IMC under IFR to fly low to check whether I am able to land VMC at an uncontrolled airfield, when does "let-down" begin? At a specific height, or a distance to the field, or? The pilots intention is not (yet) a measurable quantity.
If there is no published procedure to land, there is no procedure to land. If I am performing a flight in IMC under IFR to fly low to check whether I am able to land VMC at an uncontrolled airfield, when does "let-down" begin? At a specific height, or a distance to the field, or? The pilots intention is not (yet) a measurable quantity.
I shake my head at some of the stuff on this thread.
How many posters actually hold an instrument rating?
Chickenhouse, to me "Flying Low" infers you are VMC below the cloudbase in sight of the ground but in order to stay VMC you need to fly lower than the legal minimum above ground level altitude.
For me (unless you're in controlled airspace) the let down starts the minute (assuming you are still IMC) you descend below the MSA (Minimum Safe Altitude) for the Airway you're on and/or when you leave the Airway to track across no mans land (in other words you no longer have a promulgated MSA, unless you have radar coverage) towards the destination airfield.
Flying away from published tracks (random routing) outside of controlled airspace is strictly forbidden here below FL150
How many posters actually hold an instrument rating?
Chickenhouse, to me "Flying Low" infers you are VMC below the cloudbase in sight of the ground but in order to stay VMC you need to fly lower than the legal minimum above ground level altitude.
For me (unless you're in controlled airspace) the let down starts the minute (assuming you are still IMC) you descend below the MSA (Minimum Safe Altitude) for the Airway you're on and/or when you leave the Airway to track across no mans land (in other words you no longer have a promulgated MSA, unless you have radar coverage) towards the destination airfield.
Flying away from published tracks (random routing) outside of controlled airspace is strictly forbidden here below FL150
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/09
You are on a flight from say Gloucester to Caernarfon cloud base 1500 feet. You are IMCR rated and comfortable flying in clouds
How would you have completed that flight ?
I am not promoting un published or home made approaches just stating a fact that in 35 years of flying pilots flying OCAS regularly used such procedures
The most dangerous flying is attempting to fly vmc in lowering cloud and visibility around high ground or commonly known as scud running
A controlled procedure is better than no procedure
You are on a flight from say Gloucester to Caernarfon cloud base 1500 feet. You are IMCR rated and comfortable flying in clouds
How would you have completed that flight ?
I am not promoting un published or home made approaches just stating a fact that in 35 years of flying pilots flying OCAS regularly used such procedures
The most dangerous flying is attempting to fly vmc in lowering cloud and visibility around high ground or commonly known as scud running
A controlled procedure is better than no procedure
Assuming Class G UK airspace, pilot has an instrument qualification and is flying an aeroplane:
1. If completely certain of position, descend as you wish to no lower than 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm.
2. Further descent may only be under a published Instrument Approach Procedure or in accordance with VFR.
3. If you do not have sight of the surface below 3000ft amsl (or 1000ft above terrain, whichever the higher), you do not meet VMC criteria (thanks to nanny-SERA) and should follow the UK IAIP guidance - divert to somewhere which is VMC or has a published IAP.
4. If you do have sight of the surface, remain clear of cloud and fly at 140KIAS or less, you are in VMC provided that the visibility is no less than 1500m.
So, putting all this together, I would see no problem with a pilot flying to an 'initial point' on the extended centreline of the RW, which is 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm, then if in sight of the surface, clear of cloud and below 140 KIAS, flying a descent to the aerodrome with navigational guidance but under VFR. Thus a 'degraded visual environment' approach, not an 'unpublished instrument approach'.
1. If completely certain of position, descend as you wish to no lower than 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm.
2. Further descent may only be under a published Instrument Approach Procedure or in accordance with VFR.
3. If you do not have sight of the surface below 3000ft amsl (or 1000ft above terrain, whichever the higher), you do not meet VMC criteria (thanks to nanny-SERA) and should follow the UK IAIP guidance - divert to somewhere which is VMC or has a published IAP.
4. If you do have sight of the surface, remain clear of cloud and fly at 140KIAS or less, you are in VMC provided that the visibility is no less than 1500m.
So, putting all this together, I would see no problem with a pilot flying to an 'initial point' on the extended centreline of the RW, which is 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm, then if in sight of the surface, clear of cloud and below 140 KIAS, flying a descent to the aerodrome with navigational guidance but under VFR. Thus a 'degraded visual environment' approach, not an 'unpublished instrument approach'.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/09 - most of what you say is not applicable to this thread as your rules seem totally different to the UK which is where most of this discussion is talking about, IFR outside CAS is not only permitted but frequently flown.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Paces flight I would fly to Caernarfon at an appropriate IFR level then let down out to sea down to a 1,000' minima, preferably talking to Valley for both traffic, met reports and confirmation of position, if I could not get visual then I should be able to get an approach to Valley.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descent to MSA to get below cloud not neccesarily to a runway, an "approach" is normally to a runway, so in Paces example you could be in or above cloud at say 6,000' and descend en route to do a cloud break at the en route MSA of say 4,300' (not looked up the actual MSA here) but with a cloudbase of 1500' the only realistic cloudbreak is going to be out over the sea - and I would want to be below cloud before I was back within 5nm of the coast.
Last edited by foxmoth; 5th Feb 2017 at 15:02.
I was just making the point that terms such as cloudbreak and unofficial letdown are bandied about when they are not defined and may therefore imply different things to different people. What you are advocating is compliance with the Rules of the Air!
2 s
2 s
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you are advocating is compliance with the Rules of the Air!
2 s
2 s
Actually There are cloudbreak procedures officially promulgated, iirc one of the Cuban airfields has one
Last edited by foxmoth; 5th Feb 2017 at 16:47. Reason: Sp
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
2. Further descent may only be under a published Instrument Approach Procedure or in accordance with VFR.
part-NCO spells out that aerodromes are subject to national limits.
UK IAIP makes clear the UK policy on aerodromes without IAPs.
By the way, do you fly on an EASA licence? If so, you should be well aware of the meaning of AMC/GM and AltMoCs...
UK IAIP makes clear the UK policy on aerodromes without IAPs.
By the way, do you fly on an EASA licence? If so, you should be well aware of the meaning of AMC/GM and AltMoCs...
Pace: You are on a flight from say Gloucester to Caernarfon cloud base 1500 feet. You are IMCR rated and comfortable flying in clouds
How would you have completed that flight ?
I am not promoting un published or home made approaches just stating a fact that in 35 years of flying pilots flying OCAS regularly used such procedures
The most dangerous flying is attempting to fly vmc in lowering cloud and visibility around high ground or commonly known as scud running
A controlled procedure is better than no procedure
How would you have completed that flight ?
I am not promoting un published or home made approaches just stating a fact that in 35 years of flying pilots flying OCAS regularly used such procedures
The most dangerous flying is attempting to fly vmc in lowering cloud and visibility around high ground or commonly known as scud running
A controlled procedure is better than no procedure
However I assume there is an Airway linking those two places, I'd descend to the MSA for that route and if not visual proceed to the closest suitable airfield with a promulgated IAP and land there.
foxmoth: 27/09 - most of what you say is not applicable to this thread as your rules seem totally different to the UK which is where most of this discussion is talking about, IFR outside CAS is not only permitted but frequently flown.
By the way there is a significant amount of IFR flying conducted outside of CAS in this part of the word. I'd guess at least some part of about 70 - 80 % of my IFR flights has been outside of CAS.