Unpublished let-downs
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you get "a much better indication"?
Your other point is very interesting : I didn't know the reason for the lack of an IAP at Egelsbach. Given the point you make, I suppose it would have made for an interesting situation had the Citation flown what I assumed to have been a home made approach and then gone missed. Would they have ended up conflicted with EDDF traffic?
Given the point you make, I suppose it would have made for an interesting situation had the Citation flown what I assumed to have been a home made approach and then gone missed. Would they have ended up conflicted with EDDF traffic?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently chatted to a few IR and IR(r) students at various schools around London, some at fields without any published approaches over the last few weeks.
I was absolutely horrified when several of them told me that they had been taught to follow a "set of instructions to get back to the field safely in marginal conditions" which involved following radials from nearby VOR/DME. I asked how low they descended, and they told me a figure that sounded too low to be above MSA in these areas. I looked at them and paused for a minute... before asking what the MSA was in the area...
I am not only horrified to find out how many people would descend below MSA, but also at the fact that they were TAUGHT this! I find it absolutely crazy!
I then prompted them about doing a cloud break at a nearby aerodrome, and continue VFR, VMC the whole way back (note the difference between scud running); and some just retorted "why?" And others saying that they didn't even know they could do this!
I find this VERY worrying.
Anyone else think that this may be a good time to press the UK CAA to make GPS approaches more widely available at smaller airfields with/without ATC and make it more affordable paperwork-wise due to the HUGE safety increase provided? More and more IR/ IR(r) training planes being equipped with G430 / G430W / other glass - is it not time to start making approaches in the UK more widely available?
I was absolutely horrified when several of them told me that they had been taught to follow a "set of instructions to get back to the field safely in marginal conditions" which involved following radials from nearby VOR/DME. I asked how low they descended, and they told me a figure that sounded too low to be above MSA in these areas. I looked at them and paused for a minute... before asking what the MSA was in the area...
I am not only horrified to find out how many people would descend below MSA, but also at the fact that they were TAUGHT this! I find it absolutely crazy!
I then prompted them about doing a cloud break at a nearby aerodrome, and continue VFR, VMC the whole way back (note the difference between scud running); and some just retorted "why?" And others saying that they didn't even know they could do this!
I find this VERY worrying.
Anyone else think that this may be a good time to press the UK CAA to make GPS approaches more widely available at smaller airfields with/without ATC and make it more affordable paperwork-wise due to the HUGE safety increase provided? More and more IR/ IR(r) training planes being equipped with G430 / G430W / other glass - is it not time to start making approaches in the UK more widely available?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: in front of comptator :-)
Age: 66
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently chatted to a few IR and IR(r) students at various schools around London, some at fields without any published approaches over the last few weeks.
I was absolutely horrified when several of them told me that they had been taught to follow a "set of instructions to get back to the field safely in marginal conditions" which involved following radials from nearby VOR/DME. I asked how low they descended, and they told me a figure that sounded too low to be above MSA in these areas. I looked at them and paused for a minute... before asking what the MSA was in the area...
I am not only horrified to find out how many people would descend below MSA, but also at the fact that they were TAUGHT this! I find it absolutely crazy!
I then prompted them about doing a cloud break at a nearby aerodrome, and continue VFR, VMC the whole way back (note the difference between scud running); and some just retorted "why?" And others saying that they didn't even know they could do this!
I find this VERY worrying.
Anyone else think that this may be a good time to press the UK CAA to make GPS approaches more widely available at smaller airfields with/without ATC and make it more affordable paperwork-wise due to the HUGE safety increase provided? More and more IR/ IR(r) training planes being equipped with G430 / G430W / other glass - is it not time to start making approaches in the UK more widely available?
I was absolutely horrified when several of them told me that they had been taught to follow a "set of instructions to get back to the field safely in marginal conditions" which involved following radials from nearby VOR/DME. I asked how low they descended, and they told me a figure that sounded too low to be above MSA in these areas. I looked at them and paused for a minute... before asking what the MSA was in the area...
I am not only horrified to find out how many people would descend below MSA, but also at the fact that they were TAUGHT this! I find it absolutely crazy!
I then prompted them about doing a cloud break at a nearby aerodrome, and continue VFR, VMC the whole way back (note the difference between scud running); and some just retorted "why?" And others saying that they didn't even know they could do this!
I find this VERY worrying.
Anyone else think that this may be a good time to press the UK CAA to make GPS approaches more widely available at smaller airfields with/without ATC and make it more affordable paperwork-wise due to the HUGE safety increase provided? More and more IR/ IR(r) training planes being equipped with G430 / G430W / other glass - is it not time to start making approaches in the UK more widely available?
Yes GPS works to a different accuracy to old radio nav kit. The sooner the CAA gets modern approaches to more airfields the better.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Business Sense:
Class G or class A it makes no difference. You cannot descend below the altitude approved by the state, which is either your safety altitude or the aerodrome minima if landing.
"Aerodrome" is defined in the regs as anywhere intended to be used for the arrival, departure or surface movement of aircraft.
ShyTorque:
I expect everyone understands 5015. What seems to be eluding you for some reason is that 5015 does not allow you ignore all the other regulations. SERA is not a complete stand-alone set of regulations, it is only a common core. If you go to the ANO and/or Part-NCO you find the other stuff a private pilot has to comply with.
Let's call it what it is then. It is how the competent authority interprets their own legal definition
Here it is again:
And here are the current regs again:
ANO:
And here is the ICAO stuff it is based on:
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.
2.2.4.7.2 Aeroplanes operated in accordance with the instrument flight rules shall comply with the instrument approach procedures approved by the State in which the aerodrome is located.
Note that in no case is there a caveat that made-up minima can be substituted for approved minima even if you really really intend to land.
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.
ShyTorque:
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.
The "Safety Sense" leaflet, although giving advice, is not the legal definition.
Here it is again:
"User-defined approaches can be dangerous and are not authorised."
And here are the current regs again:
ANO:
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 must not be lower than those notified, prescribed or otherwise designated by the relevant competent authority
Part-NCO: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 not be lower than those established by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State
And here is the ICAO stuff it is based on:
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.
2.2.4.7.2 Aeroplanes operated in accordance with the instrument flight rules shall comply with the instrument approach procedures approved by the State in which the aerodrome is located.
Note that in no case is there a caveat that made-up minima can be substituted for approved minima even if you really really intend to land.
Last edited by oggers; 16th Feb 2017 at 12:20.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Oggers, you are simply regurgitating what you wrote earlier. I do read the regulations, I'm very much aware of what they say.
I take it (looking at what you have written here and elsewhere on the forum) that you make most of your flights departing from a fully IFR equipped airfield, climbing to your MSA on a SID inside CAS and remaining so until your STAR and IFR letdown to a nicely lit runway. I have no issues with that although some don't have that privilege and there is a very different world outside of that type of operation.
Again, you are confusing the rules about airfield operating minima with other IFR rules. How do you think an IFR transit is done when operating from non-airfield sites?
I take it (looking at what you have written here and elsewhere on the forum) that you make most of your flights departing from a fully IFR equipped airfield, climbing to your MSA on a SID inside CAS and remaining so until your STAR and IFR letdown to a nicely lit runway. I have no issues with that although some don't have that privilege and there is a very different world outside of that type of operation.
Again, you are confusing the rules about airfield operating minima with other IFR rules. How do you think an IFR transit is done when operating from non-airfield sites?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit surprised that you didn't realise the reality.
Not "follow X radial of VOR Y and at Z nautical miles DME continue descending below MSA". That is NOT what anyone should EVER do.
But then again, about 80% of them had never heard of an SRA... Sooooo.... Maybe I once again had too much faith in the teaching. Don't these instructors get taught how to teach? Don't they have renewals?
Anyway... How can we attempt to lobby the UK CAA for safer approaches for ALL airfields? I think this is particularly important right now, as we seem to have more and more accidents relating to people doing their own "ad-hoc" approaches. I find it very worrying. If at least these pilots, irrespective of pressures, had an alternative, then maybe there would be fewer accidents.
oggers
In almost everything you've just quoted the word aerodrome is included, yet again. What if you don't use aerodromes, I'm being serious - many operations don't ! I guess if you're nowhere near an airport your references don't count - maybe that's why 5015 is a standalone section of law?
For my sins, amongst may other technical manuals and publications, I've assisted with the writing of large sections of air law for three different countries - I'm happy to be corrected by a decent argument but until then I'll stick to my view.
One last thing - do you have a reference in law for, "User-defined approaches can be dangerous and are not authorised"? I know it was in a GA safety leaflet (you know my opinion of it) but there is no back up reference for the statement in law. Now, whether you think it is good airmanship or not, where is the law that underpins it ?
We're obviously from different schools so I'll leave you to it. No need to respond to the questions above.
All the best
For my sins, amongst may other technical manuals and publications, I've assisted with the writing of large sections of air law for three different countries - I'm happy to be corrected by a decent argument but until then I'll stick to my view.
One last thing - do you have a reference in law for, "User-defined approaches can be dangerous and are not authorised"? I know it was in a GA safety leaflet (you know my opinion of it) but there is no back up reference for the statement in law. Now, whether you think it is good airmanship or not, where is the law that underpins it ?
We're obviously from different schools so I'll leave you to it. No need to respond to the questions above.
All the best
Apart from forced landings, all normal flying whether at London Airport or Farmer Giles' farm strip is at an 'aerodrome':
From ANO2016
From ANO2016
“Aerodrome”—
(a) means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft; and
(b) includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically; but
(c) does not include any area the use of which for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft has been abandoned and has not been resumed;
(a) means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft; and
(b) includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically; but
(c) does not include any area the use of which for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft has been abandoned and has not been resumed;
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if you don't use aerodromes
I am not an expert in law, nor in Instrument Flight Rules, nor do I wish to entertain the possibility of having someone who is properly trained to fly under IFR, do something so reckless and dangerous. IAP exist for a reason, they are very stringent for a reason. The scary thing is that we all know the reasons why - and yet we are still discussing and entertaining this possibility as a "normal" occurrence which I find greatly worrying!
I think you will find that you have ample available reading regarding MSA.
It's important not to pull words out that you like from a sentence/para - it needs to be read in full i.e. in context - below para C helps my point - i.e. even a disused airport does not count ?
“Aerodrome”—
(a) means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft; and
(b) includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically; but
(c) does not include any area the use of which for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft has been abandoned and has not been resumed;
For example, there are many more, when a police helicopter lands in a field or on a road or when a rescue helicopter lands on a rock shelf half way up a mountain does that make it an aerodrome .... I would say no as it's ;
not designed for;
not equipped for;
not set apart for;
not affording facilities for;
For info MSA
One Definition;
The Minimum Sector Altitude (MSA) is the lowest altitude which may be used which will provide a minimum clearance of 300 m (1 000 ft) above all objects located in the area contained within a sector of a circle of 46 km (25 NM) radius centred on a radio aid to navigation.
- Normally quoted around an airfield (found at the top of most IFR charts) - sometimes cut into different sectors with different altitudes quoted.
“Aerodrome”—
(a) means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft; and
(b) includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically; but
(c) does not include any area the use of which for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft has been abandoned and has not been resumed;
For example, there are many more, when a police helicopter lands in a field or on a road or when a rescue helicopter lands on a rock shelf half way up a mountain does that make it an aerodrome .... I would say no as it's ;
not designed for;
not equipped for;
not set apart for;
not affording facilities for;
For info MSA
One Definition;
The Minimum Sector Altitude (MSA) is the lowest altitude which may be used which will provide a minimum clearance of 300 m (1 000 ft) above all objects located in the area contained within a sector of a circle of 46 km (25 NM) radius centred on a radio aid to navigation.
- Normally quoted around an airfield (found at the top of most IFR charts) - sometimes cut into different sectors with different altitudes quoted.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i.e. even a disused airport does not count
not designed for;
not equipped for;
not set apart for;
not affording facilities for;
not equipped for;
not set apart for;
not affording facilities for;
ps: sorry for splitting hairs - this doesn't amend the fact that MSA in the "class G, IR(R) world" generally means Minimum Safety Altitude, which relates to being at least 1000' above the highest obstacle within 5nm of track.
Last edited by alex90; 16th Feb 2017 at 20:37.
Alex90
?
Happens hundreds of times per week in the UK
Re. splitting hairs - in the Commercial Class G IR world MSA relates to my post above and has nothing to do with class G per se and, as far as I'm aware, there is no official term such as "Minimum Safety Altitude" i.e. no definition, ICAO or otherwise. I'm sure many people use these aberrations in various ways but they mean nothing in themselves and they are incorrect.
Once again, the importance of quoting the entire law i.e. all the text ..... The RULE is as follows .... you've left out ..... "Except when necessary for take-off or landing"
SERA.5015 Instrument flight rules (IFR) — Rules applicable to all IFR flights
(b) Minimum levels
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:
(1) over high terrain or in mountainous areas, at a level which is at least 600 m (2 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.
I think we've done this to death now - I'm done - happy landings
Extreme case
Happens hundreds of times per week in the UK
fact that MSA in the "class G, IR(R) world" generally means Minimum Safety Altitude
relates to being at least 1000' above the highest obstacle within 5nm of track
SERA.5015 Instrument flight rules (IFR) — Rules applicable to all IFR flights
(b) Minimum levels
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:
(1) over high terrain or in mountainous areas, at a level which is at least 600 m (2 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.
I think we've done this to death now - I'm done - happy landings
Last edited by Good Business Sense; 16th Feb 2017 at 21:54.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Business Sense:
As I pointed out when you posted that objection the first time, it is the generic term in the regulation for anywhere that you take-off or land.
Here is are the actual definition from ICAO:
You and ShyTorque are both in error in believing that the regulations pertaining to aerodrome minima do not apply to sites that are not - to use the vernacular - 'airports'. But wouldn't it be a nice get out of jail card to play. 'Technically I didn't bust my minimums because I was actually making an approach for the purpose of landing iaw SERA 5015 in the field next to the airport and therefore minima do not apply'.
It makes no difference to me how many technical manuals or legal documents you claim to have written. It is the stuff you are writing here that is in error.
In almost everything you've just quoted the word aerodrome is included, yet again. What if you don't use aerodromes, I'm being serious - many operations don't !
Here is are the actual definition from ICAO:
A defined area on land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft.
And from SERA:aerodrome’ means a defined area (including any buildings, installations and equipment) on land or water or on a fixed, fixed off-shore or floating structure intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft;
As far as the regulations about aerodrome minima go there is nothing in the regs that require the 'aerodrome' to be anything more than the place you intend to land, be it a field, or a flight deck. And in case you are wondering I am familiar with operating from such sites.You and ShyTorque are both in error in believing that the regulations pertaining to aerodrome minima do not apply to sites that are not - to use the vernacular - 'airports'. But wouldn't it be a nice get out of jail card to play. 'Technically I didn't bust my minimums because I was actually making an approach for the purpose of landing iaw SERA 5015 in the field next to the airport and therefore minima do not apply'.
For my sins, amongst may other technical manuals and publications, I've assisted with the writing of large sections of air law for three different countries - I'm happy to be corrected by a decent argument but until then I'll stick to my view.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Oggers, I refer you again to the text from the AAIB report I quoted in post #105.
There was no comment from the CAA on that recommendation and there has been no change under SERA to the regulations that were in force at that time.
Enjoy your airline flying and ILSs.
There was no comment from the CAA on that recommendation and there has been no change under SERA to the regulations that were in force at that time.
Enjoy your airline flying and ILSs.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
You are really clutching at straws. That pre-dates all the current regs. What an AAIB inspector thought might have been legal in 2009 is a very tenuous basis for rejecting the current regulations and advice from the CAA that has all undergone a major change since the report's recommendation to close off that particular loophole. It doesn't occur to you that the recommendation was acted on or perhaps rendered moot by the intro of EASA Ops.
This thread is about unpublished let-downs for private pilots. There is no confusion, the regulations on aerodrome minima apply to IFR approaches (whether the 'aerodrome' happens to be a field or a proper airport). This from the UK AIP has not previously been "regurgitated":
I don't see how the CAA could spell it out any more clearly than that.
Oggers, I refer you again to the text from the AAIB report I quoted in post #105.
Oggers, you are simply regurgitating what you wrote earlier. I do read the regulations, I'm very much aware of what they say.
I take it (looking at what you have written here and elsewhere on the forum) that you make most of your flights departing from a fully IFR equipped airfield, climbing to your MSA on a SID inside CAS and remaining so until your STAR and IFR letdown to a nicely lit runway. I have no issues with that although some don't have that privilege and there is a very different world outside of that type of operation.
Again, you are confusing the rules about airfield operating minima with other IFR rules. How do you think an IFR transit is done when operating from non-airfield sites?
I take it (looking at what you have written here and elsewhere on the forum) that you make most of your flights departing from a fully IFR equipped airfield, climbing to your MSA on a SID inside CAS and remaining so until your STAR and IFR letdown to a nicely lit runway. I have no issues with that although some don't have that privilege and there is a very different world outside of that type of operation.
Again, you are confusing the rules about airfield operating minima with other IFR rules. How do you think an IFR transit is done when operating from non-airfield sites?
4.12 Aerodromes Without Published Instrument Approach Procedures
4.12.1
For an aircraft landing at an aerodrome without an instrument approach procedure either:
a. a descent should be made in VMC until in visual contact with the ground, then fly to the destination; or
b. an IAP at a nearby aerodrome should be flown and proceed as in (a); or
c. if neither (a) nor (b) is possible, first obtain an accurate fix and then descend not lower than 1,000 ft above the highest obstacle within 5 NM (8 km) of the aircraft. If visual contact (as at (a) above) has not been established at this height, the aircraft should divert to a suitable alternate with a published instrument approach procedure.
4.12.1
For an aircraft landing at an aerodrome without an instrument approach procedure either:
a. a descent should be made in VMC until in visual contact with the ground, then fly to the destination; or
b. an IAP at a nearby aerodrome should be flown and proceed as in (a); or
c. if neither (a) nor (b) is possible, first obtain an accurate fix and then descend not lower than 1,000 ft above the highest obstacle within 5 NM (8 km) of the aircraft. If visual contact (as at (a) above) has not been established at this height, the aircraft should divert to a suitable alternate with a published instrument approach procedure.
I don't see how the CAA could spell it out any more clearly than that.
Last edited by oggers; 17th Feb 2017 at 13:24.