Warning! Don't do this....
 

The CAA are prosecuting a Cirrus pilot for illegal IFR.

Does anyone know more about this?

Cirrus and their pilots in the UK have been burying their heads in the sand about the rules, because the SR-20/22 does not come with minimum equipment, but they fly IFR anyway.

In Europe GPS can't be used in place of Ground based aids!

At Aerofair last year I refused to get involved with a Cirrus because of this, but I was amazed that no-one was taking it seriously.

Cirrus aircraft are routinely flying IFR and the pilots are even publishing details of their flights on the web!

Now the CAA have made the position clear, and it applies to any aircraft - If you don't have "FULL AIRWAYS" according to the UK rules, stay out of controlled airspace and don't attempt illegal instrument approaches using GPS.

The Lancastrian

I can only repeat the extended rumour that I have heard.

It was suggested to me that the scene of the rampcheck was East Midlands Airport and that the flight had arrived off airways.

The aircraft concerned had neither ADF nor DME (as is the case with many/most Cirruses) and the CAA is keen to make an example of the pilot - in line with its recent approach to infractions involving N-registered aircraft.

All rumour, no facts to hang this on though.

I am neither instrumented rated nor based in the UK, so don't keep up to speed on this sort of stuff! But have the CAA issued some sort of reminder about the equipment required for IFR flight in their airspace?

If they haven't, this, combined with a notice of intention to check and prosecute, would seem like a much better way of making their point, than simply picking on someone at random and throwing the book at them.

As you say, no one seems to know anything about this, just heard the rumour. How long will it take to come to court? How long to actually get a final decision by the court? Surely a published reminder, and statement of intent would have a much speedier and widespread effect?

There seems to be a lot of people out there who like to bash the Cirrus, and I can only guess why. But in the light of that, I'd be inclined to disregard rumours, as just that, until we know something for a fact. I imagine a lot of people would feel the same way. So once again, it would seem to make far more sense for the CAA to make a statement, rather than simply pick someone to prosecute.

On the other hand, Cirrus's competitors might have an interest in spreading a rumour though, and this may be all that this story is?:bored:

dp

Rules is rules I suppose, no matter how outdated, archaic and absurd they are.....

Still, I'm happy in the knowledge that if I decide to piss on the back left wheel of a Hackney Cab next friday night, that the law is there to protect me.....

When it comes to General Aviation aircraft and flying, it seems far too many rules are out of date.
Makes you wonder if the chap who wrote then all in 1945 has died, and no else has been allowed to pick up his ball.
Loran, GPS, Computer controlled engines, Transistorised ignition, Composite airframe certification requirements, reliable transistorised radio's, and the archaic WWII method they are employed, in fact almost everything introduced into service, since 1945!
Or could it be, it is the same man, who in spite of every advance still see's, in his very 'British' way, 'no need' to change what he has already written.
It makes no sense to require out dated, obsolete equipment, when far better technology is available, but not 'approved' for use.
One day someone will die because of it.
W.B.

Last time I looked, DME was not required for IFR flight in UK airways, however, ADF certainly is. Many instrument approaches do however require DME now. The marker beacons on many ILS approaches have been replaced by DME ranges.

The minimum nav equipment required for IFR flight both in and out of controlled airspace (in the UK) are listed in the ANO. These requirements in some cases are more stringent than the FAA requirements for flight in US airspace.

You must have last looked a long time ago, QNH 1013. DME has been required as long as I can remember, probably 15 years.

The CAA are completely entitled to pursue the slightest technical breach of the ANO.

What they need to do is explain why they are suddenly vigorously pursuing matters which they have known about for years and had ample opportunity to do something about.

Every time a Cirrus files an IFR FP via CAS, anybody who sees that FP and has as much as opened a general aviation magazine or been to any airshow over the last few years will be aware that the aircraft probably doesn't carry an ADF.

Then there is the N-reg stuff, with the Dennis Kenyon prosecution and some others that aren't public yet. The CAA have been perfectly aware for years that training in N-reg planes has been done, completely openly, at a number of outfits around the UK, with examiners coming over openly from the USA.

Perhaps a political decision has been made to make N-reg life as hard as possible, without breaching the ICAO treaty obligations. Certainly all this fits that interpretation.

IO540

Or perhaps the CAA has decided that since the FAA lacks the numbers and willingness to regulate its vast UK-based fleet, somebody needs to take a more proactive line.

2D

Bookworm, you are of course absolutely right (as usual!). I stand corrected.

2D,
"Or perhaps the CAA has decided that since the FAA lacks the numbers and willingness to regulate its vast UK-based fleet, somebody needs to take a more proactive line."


Surely that begs the question "Why is there such a large N-reg fleet in the UK?"
Couldn't be because of the restrictive and out dated regulations of the CAA could it?
Why, for example, do CAA regulations require so much more maintenance on G-reg aircraft than the (American) Manufacturer (or the FAA) says is required?
The FAA have no interest in any aircraft exported from the U.S. It is no longer considered part of the U.S. fleet.
It is obvious that the FAA see no advantage in supporting the CAA and it's out of date regulations.
W.B.

That too is a very easy question to answer. It used to be about maintenance, predominantly, it is now about the relative ease with which one can obtain FAA qualifications (particularly the IR), compared to their UK counterparts.

2D

Can't say I have any sympathy with a pilot who breaks the rules like this. A flight plan form is required for an IFR flight in CAS. On that form there is a box (No. 10) for "Equipment". If the pilot lies by giving a false answer, because he doesn't have the necessary equipment, then he deserves all that's coming to him, imho.

The main reason by far for the *private* N-reg fleet is the FAA IR. JAA have practically killed off the PPL/IR so they have only themselves to blame (and the UK authorities for signing up to it).

There is little or no maintenance advantage because N-reg owners are regarded as a nice earner for maintenance organisations. The remaining advantage is on minor mods, fitting non-STC equipment, which the CAA makes really hard and for no good reason.

Does every N-reg 747 / 767/ etc. have an ADF?

...and if not, why not?

140

They do if they fly to Europe, yes.

Do they actually use it? Of course not :O They fly waypoints in the FMS and AFAIK the FMS doesn't use NDBs for corecting the gyros.

But an ADF has to be carried.

I know a 7x7 pilot who flies to Russia and they have NDBs and they use them all the time. But Russia is a different universe...

More practically, I would never fly a plane without an ADF because it's handy for navigation on routes where there aren't VORs. Much of France is one example, and their VORs don't have colocated DMEs either. They have quite a lot of NDBs in the middle of apparently nowhere, and they make great waypoints. Obviously one still uses the GPS for primary navigation (and to drive the autopilot if applicable) and having the RMI/ADF pointing to the next NDB is a fine backup. In the absence of nasty weather, NDBs are nearly as accurate as VORs for en-route nav over flat open country.

Does it have to be serviceable or installed? You can pick one up for $50 on Ebay ;)

I fly VFR, but like ADFs.

They're great for spotting electrical activity in the region :-)

As a Cirrus SR-22 owner, I'd just comment that there
is a retrofit option of an ADF kit organised by European COPA
in cooperation with Cirrus Design to prevent just the
problem described earlier in the thread.

The CAA obviously has its head in the sand on the whole GPS issue but what's new.

Every plane I've flown in with an ADF, the ADF has pointed
its own sweet way when it wanted, 50's technology which
should have been retired 20 years ago.

-- Andrew

What does the retrofit look like, and how well does it integrate with the existing cockpit?

I believe that the phrase is Caveat Emptor.

andrewc

Let me guess, you've been flying training aircraft :O

pilot h

The uk dealer has always known this, as has everybody else including all the pilots. The CAA just didn't bother, but now they are having a blitz on all things N-reg.

The evidence for this being Dennis Kenyon, this alleged incident with a Cirrus that nobody has yet proven actually happened, and....

True as a generic statement.

However, exemptions do exist, for example US Airways A330s which don't carry ADF but have permission to make non precision RNAV approaches in to Gatwick based on the NDB procedure. Presumably there are others too.

PR wrote:

You sure about that? I recall the trial but I don't recall a procedure coming out of it....yet anyway.

WF.

Coincidentally, was talking to a RyanAir pilot about this recently. (He was telling me that although RyanAir have their faults as employers, one big advantage is that they get to go to all kinds of out-of-the-way airports where they get to do non-precision or visual approaches without having ATC virtually fly the aircraft for them..... which is how we got onto the subject). He tells me that, when flying an NDB approach, he will fly the FMS track, and this is what the autopilot will be coupled to, but he will certainly have the ADF tuned too, and will cross-check to make sure it's pointing the right way.

FFF
--------------

Hmmm,

Just to clarify a little:

In an aircraft with a good 'map' display (ie, an FMS-equipped aircraft), it is still the case that for an NDB approach, the primary tracking aid is the ADF.

If you go 'out of limits' on the ADF indications below MSA, you must go around. Yes, usually the best way to achieve a good track is by using the map and the tracking information on it, but the means by which you are navigating must be the ADF indications.

And yes, in the past year, I have done NDB approaches in 737s.

It's worth mentioning that the GPS inputs on the 737-NG fail reasonably often (for a typical line pilot, twice a year would not be unusual), and I have had a number of problems with map shift, and once lost the map altogether during a non-precision aproach, because of a technical failure.

If you don't think map shift or the FMC is a problem, do some research on the A320 Addis Ababa incident a short while ago...

Regarding light aircraft, if the GPS in a Boeing, or its map, can let you down, then do you really want to place all your faith in a couple of thousand pounds' worth of panel-mount kit?

Kit

Map shift is not really going to be an issue on a typical GA IFR GPS installation. GA GPS systems do not attempt to blend GPS data with other data (such as VOR/DME) to establish position, therefore there will be no sudden shift in position. If GPS integrity is lost, the display will be flagged (or 3D nav will degrade to 2D) and/or a RAIM warning will show for the approach.

What did you have in mind, in the GA context?

2D

Simply, a GPS approach, during which things get a little out of kilter, followed by the system's recognition of this, and loss of GPS navigation information...

Leaving you part-way down an approach, with no accurate navigation information...

All the RAIM messages in the world won't help you find your way out of trouble, when you have no tracking aids available, nor the current ability to interpret them...

My post was perhaps by way of an attempt to counter IO540's remarks, which seemed to perpetuate the current myth that transport aircraft navigate almost exclusively by computer - jurassic navigation aids such as ADF/NDB still have a part to play, albeit very seldom.

I might add, that if technology provided all the answers, we would be flying a lot more MLS approaches than we are!

(edited to add a new thought - there's honesty!!!)

At the risk of being boring, that isn't Map Shift.

If you lose RAIM during a GPS approach (or GPS guidance), then you fly the missed. If you lack the guidance for the missed, you climb back above MSA and revert another aid.

It would be possible to sound unduly alarmist about GPS approaches. They work remarkably well.

2D

At the risk of being even more boring, for which I apologise in advance...

I didn't say it was map shift. Map shift and GPS failure or degradation are two different things - both with potential to do harm to the navigator (air, land, or sea).

My first post here clearly differentiated between map shift and GPS problems.

'You fly the missed'... Tracking, just, what, to your next destination?

GPS approaches may work remarkably well, when the GPS works remarkably well (not all the time in my very limited experience). So do NDB approaches, VOR approaches, and ILS approaches, not to mention SRA and PAR, TACAN, and QGH (what fun!).

By the way, 'losing RAIM' and having a GPS failure are not the same thing...

Troll alert?
 

2 donkeys, I worry that this thread is a direct result of someone just trying to give Cirrus a bad name.

I just noticed that "the lancastrian" registered with pprune just before he posted the original "rumour".

He posted a similar thing on my web site, and then failed to make direct contact with me when requested.

After giving him some fair time, I deleted the thread.

He then posted it on pprune. I wonder if his middle name is "troll"

Hummn.

Ian

Kit

I would put my trust in GPS any day over ADF.

In the event of a failure of the approach aid, whether it's GPS or an NDB, the procedure is the same and often you have the same degree of guidance available... GPS doesn't add a new dimension to the problem.

Plenty of places now have standalone GPS approaches operating, and I've flown many of them in the last year. So far so good.

I'm not clear what point you are attempting to make about GPS. Are you suggesting as seems to be the case in your first posting, that they are not adequate to be a primary source of approach guidance? If so, are you going to tell the FAA and the many other authorities who think otherwise, or should I?

When we talk about overlay approaches, I know that the correct response is to tune and trust the underlying approach aid, but given a choice between an unflagged GPS and an NDB on a stormy night at a coastal airfield, I wish you all the luck in the world with your ADF.

2D

2D,

Lots of private pilots, in my experience, rely almost absolutely on GPS to navigate en-route, and many rely upon it for approaches.

My points are:

First, IO540's comments were a little misleading, regarding use of ADF on large aircraft.

Second, many people seem to think that GPS, with or without RAIM, is almost infallible. That's certainly not the case, and we should be aware of that fact.

If we are moving towards a world in which there is only one navigation aid, GPS, (and it's an apparently attractive world, too, from many points of view), then we need to understand that we are placing all our eggs in one extremely fragile basket. Using the same aid for en-route and approach guidance is nothing new, but to only have one aid available (or indeed, to become complacent and lose skills appropriate to interpreting the other ones) is altering the risk mix significantly.

Noting your location, perhaps we could chat this over in Mitchell one lunchtime this week, if you wish?

Happy to chat it over, in Mitchell or otherwise. However, my concerns were:

a) By introducing the concept of Map Shift in your first posting, you were introducing a problem specific to FMS systems which does not have a parallel in GA GPS systems, and which does not have any bearing on the use of GPS in light aircraft for approach purposes. If the GPS is showing a RAIM warning, an Integrity warning, or is navigating in 2D mode only, then you don't use it for approaches.

Furthermore, you drew an unfavourable comparison between IFR approved GA GPS systems and airliner FMS equipment

FMS systems are approved for a whole range of operations that GA IFR GPS installations are not approved for... however GPS approaches is not one of those differences and the suggestion that a pilot should not place faith in an approved GPS installation on an approved GPS approach is misleading.

b) Your comments relating to GPS failure and the difficulties of executing an approach

appeared to imply that this was in some way more difficult than executing a missed off (say) an NDB approach in the event of beacon failure and in the absence of any other aid. This is not the case. MAP is established by timing and ICAO approach design methodology assures the rest.


I hope this sets out the questions that I think arise out of your posting. FWIW, I think IO540 was nearer the mark than you give him credit for.

2D

Does anyone have some more info on this ADF/DME retrofit for Cirrus aircraft?

RGV Aviation say "We can offer installation of ADF and DME equipment to your aircraft using Cirrus Design approved data". Ask them.

does anyone have any pics?

Here's one from the COPA Forum, where you're likely to get much better answers to this kind of question:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/uploaded...ADFpicture.JPG

I think everyone is missing the most important point.

ADF is an absolutely critical component of many flights, particularly those during which the Man Utd game is being broadcast live on BBC 5-Live .... alledgedly .... ;)

FF:ok: