Approach Charts
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
From: Chichester, UK
This is turning into quite an interesting thread. I dont know the answer, but what happens if I arrive overhead GWC in the conditions I describe. Do I have to divert to Shoreham and their NDB approach? How high does the cloudbase need to be for me to land?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
Under UK law, it's not an approved instrument approach procedure. So you aren't flying an "approach", you're just flying under IFR and trying to descend below cloud to become VMC to fly a visual approach. So comply with all the IFR rules, just as if you were enroute.
If you can't descend to VMC, go to somewhere that you can (ie somewhere with a proper IAP), descend below cloud there, then fly VFR to your destination.
If you're under the hood in good VMC with an instructor, there's no reason at all not to "practice" IFR approaches with that spoof procedure, just to learn how to do it. But don't do it "in anger".
One day, the UK may go to the US system whereby you can fly an IAP with no App/Twr (indeed, with no ground-based radio at all). Could work in low-traffic-density areas, I suppose. Don't hold your breath...
If you can't descend to VMC, go to somewhere that you can (ie somewhere with a proper IAP), descend below cloud there, then fly VFR to your destination.
If you're under the hood in good VMC with an instructor, there's no reason at all not to "practice" IFR approaches with that spoof procedure, just to learn how to do it. But don't do it "in anger".
One day, the UK may go to the US system whereby you can fly an IAP with no App/Twr (indeed, with no ground-based radio at all). Could work in low-traffic-density areas, I suppose. Don't hold your breath...
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
Keef - please read the text of the rule, which I've pasted a couple of posts up. There is nothing in there which mentions an "approach", nothing which says that you can't make up your own unofficial procedure. The only rule which there is any debate about is rule 29, but that rule explicitly states that it doesn't apply when "it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to... land".
Therefore, I can't see anything illegal with following the old Goodwood "procedure", even though it's not recognised any more. As far as I can tell, it is possible to do this while still complying with all the IFR rules.
Interesting point about minimums, though - now that we are not following a "procedure", what minimums can we use? I don't know the answer to that - I suspect it would be to find an appropriate MSA, add a safety margin to it, check that you're within the system minima for the type of approach aids which your "track and height profiles on the scrap of paper" make use of, and if you're IMC-rated check that this is above the recommended minima for an IMC-rated pilot? In other words, do basically what an airport authority would be required to do if they were creating an official procedure.
FFF
-----------
Therefore, I can't see anything illegal with following the old Goodwood "procedure", even though it's not recognised any more. As far as I can tell, it is possible to do this while still complying with all the IFR rules.
Interesting point about minimums, though - now that we are not following a "procedure", what minimums can we use? I don't know the answer to that - I suspect it would be to find an appropriate MSA, add a safety margin to it, check that you're within the system minima for the type of approach aids which your "track and height profiles on the scrap of paper" make use of, and if you're IMC-rated check that this is above the recommended minima for an IMC-rated pilot? In other words, do basically what an airport authority would be required to do if they were creating an official procedure.
FFF
-----------
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
From: Oxford
Can't remember where I saw it (AOPA magazine? Today's Pilot?) but I saw a reference somewhere that the CAA is thinking of licensing IAPs for aerodromes with only a Tower controller, as is the case in the US. If this goes through it could make a huge difference to IMC rated pilots (though many aerodromes would probably ditch their Approach control as a result!)
Tim
Tim
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
FFF, I disagree with this: I would argue that in my scenario, (a) comes into account, because it is necessary to fly below 1000' in order to land.
Under what rules are you flying/landing? VFR or IFR? I can't see how you legally transitioned from one (IFR) to the other (VFR).
Evo, How high does the cloudbase need to be for me to land? At least 1000' above any obstacles within 5nm of track.
So, approaching Goodwood in the conditions you describe (1500' base) you can descend over the sea to VMC and commit to landing VFR (circuit/standard VFR join whatever)
Remember cloud ceiling (in METARS/ RT) is AAL or AGL, not AMSL.
Under what rules are you flying/landing? VFR or IFR? I can't see how you legally transitioned from one (IFR) to the other (VFR).
Evo, How high does the cloudbase need to be for me to land? At least 1000' above any obstacles within 5nm of track.
So, approaching Goodwood in the conditions you describe (1500' base) you can descend over the sea to VMC and commit to landing VFR (circuit/standard VFR join whatever)
Remember cloud ceiling (in METARS/ RT) is AAL or AGL, not AMSL.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
Rustle, I'm totally confused by your last post.
I'm proposting to stay under IFR until I break out of the cloud. While I'm more than 1000' above the nearest obstacle yadda yadda yadda, I'm complying with rule 29 (as I must if I'm under IFR). Below 1000' yadda yadda yadda, rule 29 no longer applies due to exemption (a) (which I agree could apply in your scenario, although it's more open for debate). I continue down to my MDA, in accordance with normal practice when making a non-precision approach in IMC. If I happen to break out of the cloud, then I can immediately transition to VFR, where rule 29 no longer applies. Rule 5 still applies, but I've been complying with rule 5 the whole time. Where's the problem?
I also don't see why Evo needs the cloudbase to be "at least 1000' above any obstacles within 5nm of track" in order to be able to land, since exemption (a) allows him to go lower than that.
FFF
-------------
I'm proposting to stay under IFR until I break out of the cloud. While I'm more than 1000' above the nearest obstacle yadda yadda yadda, I'm complying with rule 29 (as I must if I'm under IFR). Below 1000' yadda yadda yadda, rule 29 no longer applies due to exemption (a) (which I agree could apply in your scenario, although it's more open for debate). I continue down to my MDA, in accordance with normal practice when making a non-precision approach in IMC. If I happen to break out of the cloud, then I can immediately transition to VFR, where rule 29 no longer applies. Rule 5 still applies, but I've been complying with rule 5 the whole time. Where's the problem?
I also don't see why Evo needs the cloudbase to be "at least 1000' above any obstacles within 5nm of track" in order to be able to land, since exemption (a) allows him to go lower than that.
FFF
-------------
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
FFF, I think the "sticking point" is whether there is an approach or not.
You believe there is nothing preventing an approach under IFR without any approach aids (covered in Chilli's post above) and without any approach procedure (covered, I thought
in mine)
If you are right (about being allowed to use the "procedure"), then you are also correct about R29 and its applicability.
If I am right (about not being allowed to use what is, effectively, a scrap of paper with writing on it), then you cannot transition from IFR to VFR if the cloud base is lower than (min) 1000' AGL because to do so will breach the 1000' rule.
So all we need do now is agree that there's no approach because there is no procedure, and we're set
The rules are quite clear.
If I have the 20th April 2003 plates for Farnborough, but they were re-issued on the 21st April 2003 then my approach (using the old 20th April plates) is illegal is it not?
You believe there is nothing preventing an approach under IFR without any approach aids (covered in Chilli's post above) and without any approach procedure (covered, I thought
in mine)If you are right (about being allowed to use the "procedure"), then you are also correct about R29 and its applicability.
If I am right (about not being allowed to use what is, effectively, a scrap of paper with writing on it), then you cannot transition from IFR to VFR if the cloud base is lower than (min) 1000' AGL because to do so will breach the 1000' rule.
So all we need do now is agree that there's no approach because there is no procedure, and we're set
The rules are quite clear.
If I have the 20th April 2003 plates for Farnborough, but they were re-issued on the 21st April 2003 then my approach (using the old 20th April plates) is illegal is it not?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
It's not easy!
The AIP and the ANO go into great and careful detail to define the minima (vis and DH/MDH etc) for IAPs, but make no mention of minima for IFR approaches where there are no IAPs.
So the question is "How can you define when it is legal to commence a descent for landing when there is no IAP?" Is it permissible to invent your own? Perhaps we should ask the CAA.
There is a table of minima for non-precision aids which sets absolute minima (for an IR pilot) starting at 400 feet and going up from there. (For precision aids, they are lower).
There are also minima for circling approaches when descending off an IAP to land on a runway without an AIP. It is also prohibited to use any other than an approved IAP when making such an approach. But none of that seems to apply to aerodromes without approved IAPs. Should we define that as "permission", or "automatic exclusion"?
ANO Article 40 defines 1000 feet as the minimum height to continue an approach on a notified IAP if the RVR is outside minima. It doesn't mention non-notified IAPs at all.
My conclusion is that if I had an accident using an unofficial IAP, and descending below 1000 feet, the CAA would find a valid reason to prosecute. I don't think the exception in ENR 1.3.1.2.1 would be a very good defence.
I think I'll stick to the method I was taught - divert to somewhere with an IAP. If necessary, fly VFR below cloud to my destination (remembering VFR minima in the airspace I'm using).
Where's bookworm when we need him?
The AIP and the ANO go into great and careful detail to define the minima (vis and DH/MDH etc) for IAPs, but make no mention of minima for IFR approaches where there are no IAPs.
So the question is "How can you define when it is legal to commence a descent for landing when there is no IAP?" Is it permissible to invent your own? Perhaps we should ask the CAA.
There is a table of minima for non-precision aids which sets absolute minima (for an IR pilot) starting at 400 feet and going up from there. (For precision aids, they are lower).
There are also minima for circling approaches when descending off an IAP to land on a runway without an AIP. It is also prohibited to use any other than an approved IAP when making such an approach. But none of that seems to apply to aerodromes without approved IAPs. Should we define that as "permission", or "automatic exclusion"?
ANO Article 40 defines 1000 feet as the minimum height to continue an approach on a notified IAP if the RVR is outside minima. It doesn't mention non-notified IAPs at all.
My conclusion is that if I had an accident using an unofficial IAP, and descending below 1000 feet, the CAA would find a valid reason to prosecute. I don't think the exception in ENR 1.3.1.2.1 would be a very good defence.
I think I'll stick to the method I was taught - divert to somewhere with an IAP. If necessary, fly VFR below cloud to my destination (remembering VFR minima in the airspace I'm using).
Where's bookworm when we need him?
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: England
I believe the AIP used to refer to unpublished approaches. I seem to remember a paragraph at the end of a section on instrument approaches along the lines of .... nothing in the above shall prevent a non-public transport flight using an unpublished approach at an aerodrome outside of controlled airspace...
I have not used quotes, because I am quoting from memory, but I will try and find an old AIP and look it up. I notice this paragraph does not appear in the current AIP, but unless there was a corresponding change in something in the ANO (which I understand outranks the AIP) that may not be significant.
I'll try and find the reference in the next couple of days to check that my memory is not playing tricks.
I have not used quotes, because I am quoting from memory, but I will try and find an old AIP and look it up. I notice this paragraph does not appear in the current AIP, but unless there was a corresponding change in something in the ANO (which I understand outranks the AIP) that may not be significant.
I'll try and find the reference in the next couple of days to check that my memory is not playing tricks.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Interesting debate to which I cannot add in so far as the legality is concerned.
However Sega operate two King Air air ambulances out of Goodwood with an AOC landing it all weathers, night and day. They use the VOR "procedure" down to minimium with the consent of the CAA. I will try and found out exactly how this works - but it does.
However Sega operate two King Air air ambulances out of Goodwood with an AOC landing it all weathers, night and day. They use the VOR "procedure" down to minimium with the consent of the CAA. I will try and found out exactly how this works - but it does.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
Ahhh, that was another variable I didn't want to introduce into the equation...
With "special dispensation" there are approved, non-ATC, instrument approaches.
Several in Scotland - other PPRuNers know far more about them than I do.
But you need permission from CAA to use them, and AFAIK they (CAA) vet the procedures for each company using them.
They won't help in this hypothetical scenario though - that much I do know
PS, Fuji Abound, where've you been? There's someone asking about the new IWR you were working on (you are still working on it I assume )
With "special dispensation" there are approved, non-ATC, instrument approaches.
Several in Scotland - other PPRuNers know far more about them than I do.
But you need permission from CAA to use them, and AFAIK they (CAA) vet the procedures for each company using them.
They won't help in this hypothetical scenario though - that much I do know
PS, Fuji Abound, where've you been? There's someone asking about the new IWR you were working on (you are still working on it I assume
)
aceatco, retired
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 1
From: one airshow or another
About three years ago I spent some time at the Belgrano on an aerodrome safeguarding course. There was talk then of explicity prohibiting unofficial IAPs. They haven't done it yet so maybe it isn't easy but I'm with Keef. It if all went horribly wrong then they would find some means to prosecute (and rightly so in my view.)
Certain companies do have their own IAPs at individual airfields approved by CAA, and not requiring full ATC. But don't hang your hat on the recent consultation paper which mentioned IAPs at non-ATC airfields. It went on to say they would be considered if accompanied by a 'robust safety case'. They would mean robust.
VA
Certain companies do have their own IAPs at individual airfields approved by CAA, and not requiring full ATC. But don't hang your hat on the recent consultation paper which mentioned IAPs at non-ATC airfields. It went on to say they would be considered if accompanied by a 'robust safety case'. They would mean robust.
VA
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
FFF, here's the story of an unofficial approach:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/apr03/n961jm.htm
Not strictly relevant to this current thread, but shows the "thinking" behind some unofficial approaches and lack of positive ATC...
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/apr03/n961jm.htm
Not strictly relevant to this current thread, but shows the "thinking" behind some unofficial approaches and lack of positive ATC...
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
Very interesting reading, Rustle.
You're right about it not being relevant to the thread, though. In this case, the cloud base was sufficiently high for the pilot to be able to break cloud and switch to VFR well above any limits. His error came after that, when he was VFR in VMC, and elected to continue a visual approach despite flying into an area of bad viz. Could happen just as easilly to a vanilla PPL flying circuits, I suppose (except for his home-made runway lighting system...)
From my first post on this thread:
Vintage ATCO's post has further convinced me that what I'm proposing is legal. I am making no comment on whether or not it's safe.
FFF
----------
You're right about it not being relevant to the thread, though. In this case, the cloud base was sufficiently high for the pilot to be able to break cloud and switch to VFR well above any limits. His error came after that, when he was VFR in VMC, and elected to continue a visual approach despite flying into an area of bad viz. Could happen just as easilly to a vanilla PPL flying circuits, I suppose (except for his home-made runway lighting system...)
From my first post on this thread:
As for it being safe, well, that's not possible to say without giving details of a specific case - so let's assume that our pilot isn't going to do anything unsafe at all, the only question is the legality
FFF
----------
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: UK
The CAA Proposal is to permit IAP's at Aerodromes with only Tower controllers or AFISO's is here: -
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/43/diap_ri...article_90.pdf
The 'robust' safety case will be interesting...Just how do you 'manage' the traffic in the FIR, with no mandate to issue positive instructins/clearances.
A couple of other points to bear in mind, you'd need an initial and annual Obstacle Survey (Initial about £12K, annual circa £5K), appropriate safeguarding to ensure that the local council don't put up a tower block on a 3 mile final (we've just been quoted £4k pa)....and you'll have to design your own procedure as DAP will no longer do it for you.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/43/diap_ri...article_90.pdf
The 'robust' safety case will be interesting...Just how do you 'manage' the traffic in the FIR, with no mandate to issue positive instructins/clearances.
A couple of other points to bear in mind, you'd need an initial and annual Obstacle Survey (Initial about £12K, annual circa £5K), appropriate safeguarding to ensure that the local council don't put up a tower block on a 3 mile final (we've just been quoted £4k pa)....and you'll have to design your own procedure as DAP will no longer do it for you.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
FFF You're right about it not being relevant to the thread, though
Oi! It wasn't that irrelevant
I guess it comes down to how narrowly you define "legal". If the only concern is whether you'd get a criminal record you might be okay because it isn't specifically outlawed - as long as they don't go for criminal negligence
Its a similar situation to 90 day PAX rules (ish)
Don't fly for 23 months, go solo for three full stop circuits, take passengers. Have incident/accident.
Legal - yes.
Negligent?
Oi! It wasn't that irrelevant
I guess it comes down to how narrowly you define "legal". If the only concern is whether you'd get a criminal record you might be okay because it isn't specifically outlawed - as long as they don't go for criminal negligence
Its a similar situation to 90 day PAX rules (ish)
Don't fly for 23 months, go solo for three full stop circuits, take passengers. Have incident/accident.
Legal - yes.
Negligent?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
The link which matspart3 provides shows clear evidence that it is currently legal, and accepted by the CAA:
(The implication being that it is not currently prohibited.)
(The implication being that some individuals use non-notified IAPs.)
It is also clear that if the proposed changes go ahead, this activity would become illegal:
The author also makes it clear that there are safety implications with the current, legal situation:
FFF
--------------
Flying an IAP not approved by the CAA will be prohibited.
These measures will affect... some individuals using non-notified IAPs.
It is also clear that if the proposed changes go ahead, this activity would become illegal:
Proposed changes are shown underlined... as appropriate.
...
90-(2) A person shall not cause or permit any instrument approach procedure to be established or used to fly to any aerodrome in the United Kingdom otherwise than under and in accordance with an approval granted by the CAA to the person in charge of the aerodrome.
...
90-(2) A person shall not cause or permit any instrument approach procedure to be established or used to fly to any aerodrome in the United Kingdom otherwise than under and in accordance with an approval granted by the CAA to the person in charge of the aerodrome.
There will be an improvement in safety because all IAPs and associated navigation aids (navaids) will be designed and properly approved for the purpose.
--------------