Unpublished let-downs
And then there's this definition.
No mention of CAS.
I also found this bit of info as well.
Foxmoth. I think our Airways are more aligned to the FAA system with very little in common with the UK Airways. We shall have to agree to disagree. Plus we are getting away from the original discussion of un published let downs.
An airway is a legally defined corridor that connects one specified location to another at a specified altitude, along which an aircraft that meets the requirements of the airway may be flown. Airways are defined with segments within a specific altitude block, corridor width, and between fixed geographic coordinates for satellite navigation systems, or between ground-based radio transmitter navigational aids (navaids) (such as VORs or NDBs) or the intersection of specific radials of two navaids.
I also found this bit of info as well.
In most land areas of the world, aircraft are required to fly airways between the departure and destination airports
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is your definition from? I would have thought the ICAO one is the international authority. Certainly the second quote seems more a wikipedia style quote as I have flown in many areas of the world and there are very few that I know where you are REQUIRED to fly airways between airports - from what you have said before even in NZ not a requirement if VFR.
Agree though, major thread drift here.
Agree though, major thread drift here.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point of my posting was to highlight that in NZ it appears the term 'airway' is used differently than in Europe (or the ICAO definition).
If you look at H249 near TIMARU VOR, it is charted for all the world the same as an IFR airway (on Skyvector), but is clearly in class G, and is provided with an ATService, but not ATControl (possibly logically similar to the way the UK provides procedural control in uncontrolled airspace).
The difference clarifies 27/09's comment about always on airways but mostly uncontrolled.
In NZ, there appear to be very few airports without an approach that have surrounding terrain that would be suitable for non-Darwin Award winners to undertake a DIY approach.
If you look at H249 near TIMARU VOR, it is charted for all the world the same as an IFR airway (on Skyvector), but is clearly in class G, and is provided with an ATService, but not ATControl (possibly logically similar to the way the UK provides procedural control in uncontrolled airspace).
The difference clarifies 27/09's comment about always on airways but mostly uncontrolled.
In NZ, there appear to be very few airports without an approach that have surrounding terrain that would be suitable for non-Darwin Award winners to undertake a DIY approach.
in NZ it appears the term 'airway' is used differently
2 s
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Business Sense
Badly written according to you but not according to the CAA, EASA or any official source. Part-NCO and the ANO are current as of now and say operating minimums cannot be less than those approved by the state. It is irrelevant how many LPV approaches there were in the USA in 2009 because they were all approved by the FAA whereas this thread is "Unpublished let-downs".
You will of course be able to name the airline and reproduce the unapproved GPS approaches that you were carrying out every day to below safety altitude in IMC
Again, no argument that WAAS is a huge step forward. But it doesn't matter if it is 10 meters or 10cm accuracy, it still needs to be an approved procedure if you are going to descend below safety altitude in IMC.
Nobody is suggesting that GPS approaches are less safe than ground based approach aids. The argument is about home-made approaches. It is the job of the regulator to check that approaches are designed to the requisite standard. The CAA lag way behind the FAA in facilitating the approval of RNAV approaches, there is no argument about that.
Only down to safety altitude unless you are using an approved procedure.
Pace:
It isn't much of an approach unless it gets you down below safety altitude, and it cannot do that legally unless it has been approved.
The Safety Sense 25 document was a lot of tosh when it was badly written in 2009 and eight years later it reads even worse. Even in 2009 there were more LPV approaches in the USA than ILSs - many, many of them without an ATC facility.
In 2009 I talked to the chap in the CAA who was in charge of GPS rollout, who I believe wrote the aforementioned document, and I was told that the use of GPS and GPS approaches was still all a bit too dodgy/risky and it was not a mature technology. Thankfully, he had the good grace to wind his neck in when I mentioned that his comments were a concern as my airline, one of the largest in the world, had been doing them in widebodies every day for many years.
The introduction of WASS in the states... many years ago ...... brought the accuracy of GPS down from 10-15 metres to around one metre. The equipment available at reasonable cost, with all the protections, even for the smallest, lightest aircraft, is incredible - knowing your position down to 10 metres or so is unbelievable.
... and here in the UK we are still screaming, "here be dragons"
if you are a reasonably experienced instrument rated pilot you should be able to plan a sensible, safe, non airport located, cloud break with a device that tells you your position to within 10 metres and the basic IFR law allows for this.
Pace:
Exactly you would probably cross the NDB confirmed with GPS and ATC and let down in a teardrop a so called un published but safe approach
ANO Operating minima:
(3) For flights under Instrument Flight Rules, the pilot in command must select and use aerodrome operating minima for each departure, destination and destination alternate aerodrome which—
(a)must not be lower than those notified, prescribed or otherwise designated by the relevant competent authority
Part-NCO NCO.OP.110 Aerodrome operating minima — aeroplanes and helicopters:
(a) For instrument flight rules (IFR) flights, the pilot-in-command shall select and use aerodrome operating minima for each departure, destination and alternate aerodrome. Such minima shall:
(1) not be lower than those established by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State
ICAO Annex 6 2.2.2.2 Aerodrome operating minima:
The pilot-in-command shall not operate to or from an aerodrome using operating minima lower than those which may be established for that aerodrome by the State in which it is located, except with the specific approval of that State.
(3) For flights under Instrument Flight Rules, the pilot in command must select and use aerodrome operating minima for each departure, destination and destination alternate aerodrome which—
(a)must not be lower than those notified, prescribed or otherwise designated by the relevant competent authority
Part-NCO NCO.OP.110 Aerodrome operating minima — aeroplanes and helicopters:
(a) For instrument flight rules (IFR) flights, the pilot-in-command shall select and use aerodrome operating minima for each departure, destination and alternate aerodrome. Such minima shall:
(1) not be lower than those established by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State
ICAO Annex 6 2.2.2.2 Aerodrome operating minima:
The pilot-in-command shall not operate to or from an aerodrome using operating minima lower than those which may be established for that aerodrome by the State in which it is located, except with the specific approval of that State.
Oggers,
I'm afraid I found your responses above incongruous. However, .....
Do you fly in Class G or is it always on airways high level in something heavy?
You present information/regulation relating to "aerodromes" to make your case - there is a whole world out there that doesn't fly to/from departure, destination and alternate aerodromes - your take on the LAW is out.
Enjoy the higher levels
I'm afraid I found your responses above incongruous. However, .....
Do you fly in Class G or is it always on airways high level in something heavy?
You present information/regulation relating to "aerodromes" to make your case - there is a whole world out there that doesn't fly to/from departure, destination and alternate aerodromes - your take on the LAW is out.
Enjoy the higher levels
Last edited by Good Business Sense; 13th Feb 2017 at 12:27.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it is a simple distinction between flight in airways vs flight OCAS. For example, see this accident in which a Citation cancelled IFR to do a home made approach into an airport with no instrument approach.
The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong.
The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong.
Hi Jonzarno,
Two different subject matters i.e. The LAW and good airmanship etc.
...... without mixing up/pulling in references to aerodromes, etc etc see SERA 5015.
Cheers
Two different subject matters i.e. The LAW and good airmanship etc.
...... without mixing up/pulling in references to aerodromes, etc etc see SERA 5015.
Cheers
I don't think it is a simple distinction between flight in airways vs flight OCAS. For example, see this accident in which a Citation cancelled IFR to do a home made approach into an airport with no instrument approach.
The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong.
The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong.
I think pilots in the US forget that all of the US is controlled airspace by ICAO definition - class E everywhere from 700/1200ft AGL. So any airway will be in CAS and require a clearance to fly IFR. Whereas the U.K. Is mostly class G.
In any case in the US, even to fly IFR in Class G (which most US pilots have never heard of and don't believe is possible) you still need to be on an IFR flight plan.
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
Please explain what you mean by that.
There are obviously some here who still don't properly understand SERA 5015 (and its equivalent in the UK ANO in previous times). The "Safety Sense" leaflet, although giving advice, is not the legal definition. Check the wording of both.
I note that Beagle has gone totally quiet on this matter and has been obviously reading SERA since he has found a quote regarding the definition of an airway. Hopefully he now understands the wording properly!
There are obviously some here who still don't properly understand SERA 5015 (and its equivalent in the UK ANO in previous times). The "Safety Sense" leaflet, although giving advice, is not the legal definition. Check the wording of both.
I note that Beagle has gone totally quiet on this matter and has been obviously reading SERA since he has found a quote regarding the definition of an airway. Hopefully he now understands the wording properly!
Several pages ago I wrote:
and so now we see this example (interim report here) quoted:
When you describe it as a "home made approach" then I suppose you're correct, in the sense that all VFR approaches are to some extent "home made". The ATIS available at EDDF gave 8000 FEW004. The report for EDFE (which was not available to the crew) gave 4000 FEW008. No evidence is presented in the report that suggests that the crew flew any sort of unpublished let-down which got them into trouble. Rather, they attempted to fly night VFR and got caught out, while making an unstabilised visual approach to a runway with rather unforgiving terrain on its approach.
'At 1855:05 hrs the controller reported “…, field now eleven clock position, range six miles.“ The co-pilot answered that he had the airfield in sight after he had gotten the PIC's assurance.'
Had they instead flown a profile based on level vs distance numbers from their FMS, even at 300 ft per mile, they and their passengers would probably still be alive today.
I'm still waiting for some one to come up with a persuasive list of examples of the "dead bodies and wreckage" attributable to unpublished let-downs. Most of those the examples I've seen cited are accidents that did not seem to depend on whether or not an approach was published or approved.
For example, see this accident in which a Citation cancelled IFR to do a home made approach into an airport with no instrument approach.
The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong.
The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong.
'At 1855:05 hrs the controller reported “…, field now eleven clock position, range six miles.“ The co-pilot answered that he had the airfield in sight after he had gotten the PIC's assurance.'
Had they instead flown a profile based on level vs distance numbers from their FMS, even at 300 ft per mile, they and their passengers would probably still be alive today.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really see how it can be described as anything other than a "home made approach" given that they descended out of whatever FL at which they had been cruising, and tried to fly what they thought was a straight in approach to an airport with no IAP in at best very marginal VMC. After all: if they really could see the airport, how did they come to be victims of CFIT?
Although I have no idea if this is true: a sceptic might conclude that when the controller asked if they could see the airport, they might have said yes in order to avoid getting into trouble because flight in IMC is not permitted in Germany unless on an IFR plan.
I agree that, had they followed the procedure you described, they might well have made it. Equally, that may have been what they were trying to do and they just got it wrong. Either way, they didn't get the indications that things were wrong that they would have had on a properly coded IAP.
That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, though, which was in reply to an earlier post: it was simply that there isn't always a black and white distinction between flights under IFR in airways and flights conducted completely in class G between non-instrument airfields.
Although I have no idea if this is true: a sceptic might conclude that when the controller asked if they could see the airport, they might have said yes in order to avoid getting into trouble because flight in IMC is not permitted in Germany unless on an IFR plan.
I agree that, had they followed the procedure you described, they might well have made it. Equally, that may have been what they were trying to do and they just got it wrong. Either way, they didn't get the indications that things were wrong that they would have had on a properly coded IAP.
That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, though, which was in reply to an earlier post: it was simply that there isn't always a black and white distinction between flights under IFR in airways and flights conducted completely in class G between non-instrument airfields.
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 don't really see how it can be described as anything other than a "home made approach" given that they descended out of whatever FL at which they had been cruising, and tried to fly what they thought was a straight in approach to an airport with no IAP in at best very marginal VMC. After all: if they really could see the airport, how did they come to be victims of CFIT?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps my choice of words wasn't all that it could have been: I think it is highly probable that they made an unpublished let down in order to start the home-made approach.
Again: this wasn't really the aspect I was trying to address in my earliest post, and I wasn't trying to reopen a discussion on this specific accident, only to use it to illustrate my original point.
Again: this wasn't really the aspect I was trying to address in my earliest post, and I wasn't trying to reopen a discussion on this specific accident, only to use it to illustrate my original point.
Again: this wasn't really the aspect I was trying to address in my earliest post, and I wasn't trying to reopen a discussion on this specific accident, only to use it to illustrate my original point.
After all: if they really could see the airport, how did they come to be victims of CFIT?
There are two safety aspects to making any approach work where visual means are insufficient:
1) You need to plan to fly a trajectory that is clear of obstacles and terrain, with a margin consistent with the navigational performance of the system you are using. The trajectory also needs to be consistent with the performance of the aircraft.
2) You need to fly that trajectory with commensurate precision.
Approval and publication of an instrument approach procedure are designed to mitigate the risks associated only with aspect 1. You risk CFIT if you deviate significantly from a safe trajectory, whether or not that trajectory is PANS-OPS compliant, approved or published.
Throughout this thread, assertions have been made that, for example, "there are dead bodies and wreckage strewn all over the place" from the use of trajectories that have not gone through the rigours associated with PANS-OPS design, approval and publication. Yet the only accident examples cited are cases where the flight crew failed to fly a safe trajectory (whether published or not) with reasonable precision.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whether or not that trajectory is PANS-OPS compliant, approved or published.
The point I was trying to make about approved vs home built approaches (and, to an extent as well, cloud break procedures) is that you get a much better indication that you are deviating from what you KNOW to be a safe profile on an approved IAP than on what you THINK is a safe profile on a home built approach.
There has been a thread about this running on PPL/IR which has divided opinion as well.
My own view is that, purely from a flyability standpoint, there is a world of difference between descending over the sea and then following a home built approach that you have programmed and stored into your NAV system and flown several times in VMC to test it to an airport with no hazardous terrain vs making up a descent and approach into a mountain airport when you get stuck in unexpected IMC.
Obviously, those examples represent the extreme ends of a spectrum of danger, and everyone has to decide where their comfort level lies.
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
Jonzarno, I don't think anyone would argue with that and I don't think any one actually has, at least, not on this thread.
The main thrust of the argument here has been that some believe that descending below MSA in order to land is illegal if away from an aerodrome on a "published approach". It's not.
However, if a pilot chooses to do so, he /she is obviously "responsible for your own terrain clearance". Any ATCO will quite rightly make a point of telling you so at the time if you descend below his sector safe altitude.
The main thrust of the argument here has been that some believe that descending below MSA in order to land is illegal if away from an aerodrome on a "published approach". It's not.
However, if a pilot chooses to do so, he /she is obviously "responsible for your own terrain clearance". Any ATCO will quite rightly make a point of telling you so at the time if you descend below his sector safe altitude.