Approach Services
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
matspart3
you're doing the approach to 'keep your hand in' i.e. flying predominantly by reference to the instruments and, subsequently not really looking out the window as you should be under VFR, so we'd treat you as IFR anyway
Don't these people have safety pilots
you're doing the approach to 'keep your hand in' i.e. flying predominantly by reference to the instruments and, subsequently not really looking out the window as you should be under VFR, so we'd treat you as IFR anyway
Don't these people have safety pilots
niknak
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
From: UK
Interesting posts.
We have a very large training commitment, mainly overspill from the London airports where training cannot be accomodated, but also based and local operators utilising a wide variation of aircraft types.
We also have to mix this lot in with a high density of commercial traffic, so accomodating a procedural approach can be a work of art. It's not uncommon to be established on the approach in a PA28 , with a B757 12 miles behind and catching you up
We benefit from having full radar services, otherwise we wouldn't be able to fit in so much training, or be as flexible about people turning up late, early or not at all.
The main thing to remember when training, is that sometimes you won't get what you want when you want it, but we'll always bend over backwards to help you out in any situation that warrants it.
P.S.
MatsPt2 - I understand that the requirement for a procedural approach rating still applies prior to obtaining a radar rating, if the airfield you're going to work at is outside CAS.
I agree that the exemption is a bad move, and that it is almost exclusively a NATS airports thing only - several other airports inside CAS (Newcastle/Leeds/Teeside) still require their atcos to have the procedural rating.
We have a very large training commitment, mainly overspill from the London airports where training cannot be accomodated, but also based and local operators utilising a wide variation of aircraft types.
We also have to mix this lot in with a high density of commercial traffic, so accomodating a procedural approach can be a work of art. It's not uncommon to be established on the approach in a PA28 , with a B757 12 miles behind and catching you up
We benefit from having full radar services, otherwise we wouldn't be able to fit in so much training, or be as flexible about people turning up late, early or not at all.
The main thing to remember when training, is that sometimes you won't get what you want when you want it, but we'll always bend over backwards to help you out in any situation that warrants it.
P.S.
MatsPt2 - I understand that the requirement for a procedural approach rating still applies prior to obtaining a radar rating, if the airfield you're going to work at is outside CAS.
I agree that the exemption is a bad move, and that it is almost exclusively a NATS airports thing only - several other airports inside CAS (Newcastle/Leeds/Teeside) still require their atcos to have the procedural rating.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
matspart3
So if you have a 'competant observer' (sounds dangerously ambiguos to me) why not treat them like any other VFR traffic? If you are essentially providing IFR separation services it's no wonder you have a reduction in approaches per hour.
There is a non-towered airfield round here with an ILS and a procedure turn using a VOR as it's fix, no radar services provided. VFR traffic shooting practice approaches 'self regulates' itself, holding in a stack above the VOR, using a common frequency. We should easily and safely be able to get ten approaches in per hour. Why should that also not be possible in a non-radar environment when you are talking to a controller instead of each other?
I thought I'd just edit this because I'm not being critical of ATC, I think they do a great job and generally do bend over backwards to fit in practice approaches. I just find it interesting that at a towered field I fly out of in the US, which has about 250000 movements per year with two runways and no radar (work that out per hour, tower open for 12 hours per day), they fit in all the practice approaches that gets thrown at them. No booking required.
So if you have a 'competant observer' (sounds dangerously ambiguos to me) why not treat them like any other VFR traffic? If you are essentially providing IFR separation services it's no wonder you have a reduction in approaches per hour.
There is a non-towered airfield round here with an ILS and a procedure turn using a VOR as it's fix, no radar services provided. VFR traffic shooting practice approaches 'self regulates' itself, holding in a stack above the VOR, using a common frequency. We should easily and safely be able to get ten approaches in per hour. Why should that also not be possible in a non-radar environment when you are talking to a controller instead of each other?
I thought I'd just edit this because I'm not being critical of ATC, I think they do a great job and generally do bend over backwards to fit in practice approaches. I just find it interesting that at a towered field I fly out of in the US, which has about 250000 movements per year with two runways and no radar (work that out per hour, tower open for 12 hours per day), they fit in all the practice approaches that gets thrown at them. No booking required.
Last edited by slim_slag; 8th November 2002 at 15:27.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: UK
Slim
We DO treat those ones as VFR. Nevertheless, not everyone can do the approach at the same time....so you still need to apply a degree of 'sequencing' especially when you've got five circuit trainers and the odd vortex wake problem too!
I wish our VFR traffic would 'self regulate' on it's own frequency...I could go hoome early then.
We handle about 85 000 movements per year without a parallel runway and very rarely turn down 'extra' instrument trainers.
We DO treat those ones as VFR. Nevertheless, not everyone can do the approach at the same time....so you still need to apply a degree of 'sequencing' especially when you've got five circuit trainers and the odd vortex wake problem too!
I wish our VFR traffic would 'self regulate' on it's own frequency...I could go hoome early then.
We handle about 85 000 movements per year without a parallel runway and very rarely turn down 'extra' instrument trainers.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
mat
Yeh, it's nice to go home early - shame that in the brave new world of UK ATC you need the VFR traffic to pay for the beers and mortgage
I don't really know how ATC works, and I have a lot of time for the people on the front line, but looking at how things are done elsewhere, 85000 movements a year in a single runway radar environment is not enough to require having to book a practice approach.
Empower the guys in the tower and let them decide at the time!
Blame the management I say
(Must have misunderstood you on the VFR/IFR issue)
Yeh, it's nice to go home early - shame that in the brave new world of UK ATC you need the VFR traffic to pay for the beers and mortgage
I don't really know how ATC works, and I have a lot of time for the people on the front line, but looking at how things are done elsewhere, 85000 movements a year in a single runway radar environment is not enough to require having to book a practice approach.
Empower the guys in the tower and let them decide at the time!
Blame the management I say
(Must have misunderstood you on the VFR/IFR issue)
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
slim_slag - good point. I had not mentioned this previously, but having done some flying State side, I suspect US pilots would find the need to book an approach when you pitch up at an airfield in VFR conditions unusual to say the least. In fact I wonder what their reaction would be.
Now that riase the question as to why US airports are better able to provide the service than us. I wonder is it because management sees approaches as just another revenue source, albeit that does not entirely explain the sort of policy discussed on this post, or is it because controllers in the UK are just more cautious about handling larger volumes of traffic which would not be out of the ordinary in the States. Maybe there are other reasons.
Now that riase the question as to why US airports are better able to provide the service than us. I wonder is it because management sees approaches as just another revenue source, albeit that does not entirely explain the sort of policy discussed on this post, or is it because controllers in the UK are just more cautious about handling larger volumes of traffic which would not be out of the ordinary in the States. Maybe there are other reasons.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: UK
Slim
Common sense applies too! We'll happily scrap the booking system, but the approach interval we still always be 10 minutes! Aeroplanes can't fly simultaneous procedural approaches so somebody will end up going around the hold until it's their turn! Pilot's might moan about booking but they'll be more pi$$ed off about having to go round the stack for an extra 20 minutes!
The fact that we have radar doesn't always necessarily help. It's primary only and located on the airfield. This means that it can't 'see' the holding traffic because it's in the radar overhead and the pilots want to fly the full procedure anyway. We use the radar to fit the commercial traffic in around the procedural trainers.
85 000 flights (...and we're only open 12 hours a day) makes us about the 13th busiest public use licensed airfield in the UK each year.
Aviation as a whole, and particularly ATC, are obviously vastly different Stateside. I have no experience of it, but is it really THAT busy? Are the skys really black with aeroplanes?....Maybe the standards of airmanship are higher?
Fuji
I don't think that there's a 'political' issue here. Shoreham handles a similar volume of traffic as us extremely efficiently and effectively, I'm sure you'll agree....I've flown in a few times (I was number 6 downwind once) and it's like the war! I genuinely believe that there efforts to 'regulate' the instrument traffic is safety motivated.
Common sense applies too! We'll happily scrap the booking system, but the approach interval we still always be 10 minutes! Aeroplanes can't fly simultaneous procedural approaches so somebody will end up going around the hold until it's their turn! Pilot's might moan about booking but they'll be more pi$$ed off about having to go round the stack for an extra 20 minutes!
The fact that we have radar doesn't always necessarily help. It's primary only and located on the airfield. This means that it can't 'see' the holding traffic because it's in the radar overhead and the pilots want to fly the full procedure anyway. We use the radar to fit the commercial traffic in around the procedural trainers.
85 000 flights (...and we're only open 12 hours a day) makes us about the 13th busiest public use licensed airfield in the UK each year.
Aviation as a whole, and particularly ATC, are obviously vastly different Stateside. I have no experience of it, but is it really THAT busy? Are the skys really black with aeroplanes?....Maybe the standards of airmanship are higher?
Fuji
I don't think that there's a 'political' issue here. Shoreham handles a similar volume of traffic as us extremely efficiently and effectively, I'm sure you'll agree....I've flown in a few times (I was number 6 downwind once) and it's like the war! I genuinely believe that there efforts to 'regulate' the instrument traffic is safety motivated.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 182
Likes: 1
From: UK
personally I don't think a few practise holds are a good thing to do. They do take a while to get the timing right in the various wind conditions. I did 3 holds at Shoreham at 4000ft, below me was transit traffic at 2500ft and then circuit traffic at 1100ft. Even though it was busy it was good practice.
Another reason you may want to fly an ILS in VMC is if you became suspicious that your ILS receiver/indicator wasn't quite performing correctly so you could carry out a visual and instrument cross check.
Try Le Touquet for your practice ILS, you can do as many as you like, generally no booking, and just one 12 euro landing fee.
Another reason you may want to fly an ILS in VMC is if you became suspicious that your ILS receiver/indicator wasn't quite performing correctly so you could carry out a visual and instrument cross check.
Try Le Touquet for your practice ILS, you can do as many as you like, generally no booking, and just one 12 euro landing fee.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
"Try Le Touquet for your practice ILS, you can do as many as you like, generally no booking, and just one 12 euro landing fee"
Assuming you mean VFR circuits, with the ILS tuned in and not "used" unless you hold an IR...
I understood this thread to be about getting practice doing holds and procedural IFR letdowns, which you cannot do at LFAT with an IMC rating.
It may be me misunderstanding though 
Assuming you mean VFR circuits, with the ILS tuned in and not "used" unless you hold an IR...
I understood this thread to be about getting practice doing holds and procedural IFR letdowns, which you cannot do at LFAT with an IMC rating.
EA: "...A practice ILS is what I call flying an approach in VFR conditions, under the hood, by sole reference to the instruments..."
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
Oi! You changed the question just as I was about to answer the original one about IFR UK/Europe...
You can fly the approach at LFAT without an IR, but you cannot do so in real or simulated IMC without an IR AFAIK.
An IMC rating doesn't cross the channel to France - it ends at the FIR boundary.
People have been asked at LFAT to produce their licence when IFR inbound -- by UK CAA officials :o
"Under the hood" / screens up is simulated IMC.
You can fly the approach at LFAT without an IR, but you cannot do so in real or simulated IMC without an IR AFAIK.
An IMC rating doesn't cross the channel to France - it ends at the FIR boundary.
People have been asked at LFAT to produce their licence when IFR inbound -- by UK CAA officials :o
"Under the hood" / screens up is simulated IMC.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
However, you could do so under the hood, if you have a safety pilot who is qualified and current on type, in VMC, who has a nice clear view out of the windscreen 
Or if your RHS person holds an IR and you're in IMC....
It would be very un-wise to practice instruments using screens or hoods and NOT to have a competent safety pilot (rather than just an 'observer').
[luckily the CAA officials weren't there when I shot the ILS, in IMC, into LFAT ]
Cherio
EA
Or if your RHS person holds an IR and you're in IMC....It would be very un-wise to practice instruments using screens or hoods and NOT to have a competent safety pilot (rather than just an 'observer').
[luckily the CAA officials weren't there when I shot the ILS, in IMC, into LFAT
]Cherio
EA
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Rustle - I was intrigued by your first post and only changed my reply because it got me thinking. A quick check of Irv's helpful questions and answers revealed
"On a simple PPL, the Air Navigation Order stops you flying IFR in classes "A through E" controlled airspace, leaving "F" and "G" ('the Open FIR' to use an old term). "
Now what seems to follow from that is that in the UK you cannot file IFR in class D without an instrument rating (IMC or IR), and to avoid any confusion I mean in VMC conditions because what you file (IFR or VFR) has nothing to do in itself with the metrological conditions. I do not see, simulated or otherwise, how you can fly a procedural approach (in VMC and with a safety pilot) without being IFR because even if your entry to the procedure was VFR surely by definition you must become IFR once the approach starts. Presumably that means in the UK without an instrument rating there are no circumstances in which you can fly a procedural approach in class D except with an instrument rated pilot who is acting in his P1 capacity or under training with a QFI. Of course there are some approaches in the UK not in class A or D so for those all would be well - EGKA for example.
Now how does that change in Europe. Well the IMC is not longer valid as an instrument rating so your priviliges are no different that a non instrument rated pilot. L2K is in class D (I think) so presumably you have no business to be there IFR and strictly you cannot fly the approach without being IFR even in VMC.
Presumably in Europe, much as in the UK, what you can do is file IFR so long as you remain outside controlled air space and of course reamin within your metrological entitlement.
"On a simple PPL, the Air Navigation Order stops you flying IFR in classes "A through E" controlled airspace, leaving "F" and "G" ('the Open FIR' to use an old term). "
Now what seems to follow from that is that in the UK you cannot file IFR in class D without an instrument rating (IMC or IR), and to avoid any confusion I mean in VMC conditions because what you file (IFR or VFR) has nothing to do in itself with the metrological conditions. I do not see, simulated or otherwise, how you can fly a procedural approach (in VMC and with a safety pilot) without being IFR because even if your entry to the procedure was VFR surely by definition you must become IFR once the approach starts. Presumably that means in the UK without an instrument rating there are no circumstances in which you can fly a procedural approach in class D except with an instrument rated pilot who is acting in his P1 capacity or under training with a QFI. Of course there are some approaches in the UK not in class A or D so for those all would be well - EGKA for example.
Now how does that change in Europe. Well the IMC is not longer valid as an instrument rating so your priviliges are no different that a non instrument rated pilot. L2K is in class D (I think) so presumably you have no business to be there IFR and strictly you cannot fly the approach without being IFR even in VMC.
Presumably in Europe, much as in the UK, what you can do is file IFR so long as you remain outside controlled air space and of course reamin within your metrological entitlement.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
without being IFR because even if your entry to the procedure was VFR surely by definition you must become IFR once the approach starts
) approach but been told to "remain VFR, seperation services not provided".....Being vectored for or flying an instrument approach does not constitute an IFR clearance. Equally, being under IFR in VMC does not absolve a pilot from "see and avoid".
Cheers
EA
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Fair enough, but once it becomes nescesary to use the IR, why can't the RHS person take over being PIC? For example, if a basic PPL is flying along with his mate, in VFR conditions, under VFR, but is about to enter an area of IMC where an IR would be required, then the RHS person becomes PIC.
I've used this many times in the US, flying with VFR mates. Its fine flying out in the desert VFR, but pop over the hills into the LA basin, and the weather is !!!!!e. So I, from the RHS, pick up an IFR clearance to wherever, and we continue under IFR. From this point on, my ticket is on the line, so I become PIC...nothing magical, no officially signed document printed out in triplicate and filed with the FAA or anything......
Cheers
EA
I've used this many times in the US, flying with VFR mates. Its fine flying out in the desert VFR, but pop over the hills into the LA basin, and the weather is !!!!!e. So I, from the RHS, pick up an IFR clearance to wherever, and we continue under IFR. From this point on, my ticket is on the line, so I become PIC...nothing magical, no officially signed document printed out in triplicate and filed with the FAA or anything......
Cheers
EA
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Accepting VFR for the approach makes sense.
"You can fly the approach at LFAT without an IR, but you cannot do so in real or simulated IMC without an IR AFAIK."
OK - but you accept a VFR approach under the hood. You have a qualified and competent safety pilot, who for the purposes of the approach becomes P1 and you get in a bit of currency training at L2K prices. That would seem to work - wouldnt it?
.. .. .. and the waiting CAA official is happy as well isnt he?
"You can fly the approach at LFAT without an IR, but you cannot do so in real or simulated IMC without an IR AFAIK."
OK - but you accept a VFR approach under the hood. You have a qualified and competent safety pilot, who for the purposes of the approach becomes P1 and you get in a bit of currency training at L2K prices. That would seem to work - wouldnt it?
.. .. .. and the waiting CAA official is happy as well isnt he?
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
OK - but you accept a VFR approach under the hood. You have a qualified and competent safety pilot, who for the purposes of the approach becomes P1 and you get in a bit of currency training at L2K prices. That would seem to work - wouldnt it?
.. .. .. and the waiting CAA official is happy as well isnt he?
.. .. .. and the waiting CAA official is happy as well isnt he?
If you haven't got an IR you cannot fly the ILS in real or simulated IMC at LFAT unless you're under instruction from an IRI.
If you meet (or better) those conditions, then the CAA won't have an issue - but they, like me, might question how much money you saved in this process*
* Unless you were taking your IRI friend there for lunch anyway.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
If you haven't got an IR you cannot fly the ILS in real or simulated IMC at LFAT unless you're under instruction from an IRI
Who gets to claim P1 in this circumstance might be a tricky, but then as far as I remember, JAR doesn't make any allowance for the safety pilot to claim any time.
Cheers
EA