None standard instrument approaches.
 

Leaving aside the start of the thread in question.


Using https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/curre...ENOV/enov.html

As an example.

mm can you post those questions again I had a reply written out but it disappeared when the thread was deleted.

Threads, posts and posters are disappearing like snow of a dyke WTF ??????

Why is the other thread removed?!:mad:

The OP will have deleted it.

One of the cultral differences which is taught in CRM is the way different nationalites accept critisim. Or more to the point don't.

He will be away off chuntering about disrespectful island monkeys.

And hoping the the Norwiegens won't be on the look out for a grey market charter flying in IFR in a SET.

The word idiot translated can be more hard core than it is in English native use. Even between natives certain words have different uses and strengths. Mental to a scotsman doesn't mean the same thing as to a southern Englishman which seems to be taken as they have mental health problems which as any scotsman knows most of them do. :p

Anyway the approach thing apart from all that was quite interesting.

I had been digging into the GEN section of the Norway AIP and it had some quite interesting differences to ICAO.

https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/curre...en.pdf#page=14

Haven't managed to find the ICAO ref document though.

I just got in from an eight hour drive and was really hoping to catch up on the original thread...it was just getting interesting...

Last I looked we were discussing engaging the autopilot during the visual segment; oh well...:sad:

Crack on CT be interesting to see what the differences are between what we all have been taught. I would imagine that the latest GA avionics will have a slightly different philosophy to what I am used to.

Personally I wouldn't, but then again I have a ****e AP if fitted which i wouldn't trust. And personally think that looking out the window is the focus not head inside monitoring what george is doing or punching numbers in. And if you can see the runway why use the automatics?

The mode selection and target altitude you set for the segments below MSA is also worthy of discussion.

I guess what I was going to add to the original thread was that while in general I defended the OP's point of view in terms of the Jepp chart being misleading on the separate point of the autopilot I wouldn't personally have kept it engaged beyond the MAP. Now I don't know anything about the PC12 and I'm not going to tell him how to fly his plane but I personally wouldn't do that when flying myself in whatever that might be.

My main experience is with the G1000 system and Garmin autopilot. It is capable of taking one down to 200ft on the ILS if so desired. But while the terrain awareness system (if you have it as an option) will scream at you while heading for the ground, in V/S mode you will crash just as hard as with any other older autopilot if you forget about it...

In general I would only use the ALT, HDG and NAV hold modes for enroute flying and FLC (which is an airspeed hold) to change altitude. I was never taught this as such since PPL or indeed IR training often doesn't talk about autopilot philosophy at all but I just worked out that in general one doesn't use the autopilot close to the ground unless it is locked onto the ILS or heading for/already at a pre-selected alt.

It turned into an interesting thread for sure. Shame it disappeared.

Anyway, mad_jock, you seem to have done a bit of flying around our bit of rock. What sort of crates did you fly here in? :)

I deleted the first thread because I made a mistake.
My mistake was that I believed that it would be possible to discuss seriously in this forum.

With most of the people that was possible, but unfortunately there is one person who doesn´t know the simplest rules of interpersonal communication and has no decency.

This person has repeatedly called me an idiot and not stopped it when I politely asked.

Every word I've written here has been investigated by him, if possible to use it against me.
And he still continues here..

He accusses me of conducting illegal flights.
Is there any proove for that ?


I asked myself why he is doing that.
Did he have a bad childhood, or did his wife ran away? Maybe with a german ? That would explain a lot.
Alcohol may also play a role, as others have noted before.

Note: I am descending to his level now, so that he also can understand me. Being polite, he doesn´t seem to understand.

I am sure now, that he's just a big a s s h o l e and can not do otherwise.

Since my time is too precious to me to deal with such people, I've deleted the thread. It is too bad for the others, I am sorry for that.

I might be banned from here, but I don´t mind, because under this circumstances this Forum is no longer usefull for me.

Inbalance

I would have deleted the thread myself in the same circumstances.

Reposting the technical questions I had - which I think are useful and interesting to discuss in the abstract so hopefully can be done with less emotion.

As a reminder, these come from the charts for the ENOV localiser approach and the differences between the Jepp depiction and the AIP. For the sake of argument, the questions apply on the basis that the ENOV runway environment is hidden by a small hill about a quarter mile away on the line of sight from the MAPt to the runway environment. (There are other airports where it is impossible to see the airport from the MAPt)

The questions

1. What does a charted Visual Segment mean (the dashed arrows on the Jepp chart - not the dashed missed approach line and not any lead in lights (which are not on the main plan view). Specifically, is the Visual Segment a path of the ground which one should fly visually or is it just a general guide to where the airport is. Is this different for PANS-OPS and TERPS, is Jepp's use consistent
2. For an approach with a charted visual segment, what visual queues do you need to continue with the approach. Is this different if there is a MAPt (there are Visual Approaches that start using a navaid (KDCA, LFMD) and then visual reference but have not MAPt.
3. If the answer to one above is anything other than the 'runway environment', does anyone have a reference to that.
4. There is another approach that was discussed where you follow lead in lights around the hill. I assume lead in lights count as 'the runway environment', but once again, does anyone have a reference to that.
5. On an approach with a visual segment, when you are cleared for the approach (i.e. the localiser) are you also cleared for the visual segment
6. Norway's AIP does not publish visibility minimums on their charts. Jepp does. How does Jepp determine the visiblity they publish and is it consistent with Euro rules (BW flags that his interpretation of the rules would result in a minimum vis of 5000m but Jepp publishes 1500m

My bet is that most IFR flights in SET around Europe fall into the grey zone you describe.

Part-OPS 1.430 Appx 1 suggests that to proceed below MDA/MDH you need sight of (effectively) the runway or lighting system and that general ground contact isn't sufficient unless specifically approved. That said, ISTR that sight of any part of the aerodrome or surroundings is sufficient for a circling approach, but I can't find such a provision in Part-OPS. Also not sure of the interaction between a limit specified in terms of height AAL/altitude AMSL and a lateral limit on the approach based on a spatial MAPt; that said the approach terminates at the MAPt, and my hunch is that proceeding beyond it, even at or above MDA, without the references specified in 1.430 is a bust (and, I have to concur with MJ, a bit of an idiotic thing to do).

Play nice now boys!

Accusing someone of a grey market charter is pretty serious. He may fly for a private owner or a corporate flight department.

I haven't done that much to be honest but done a reasonable amount of strange approaches between big lumps of rock in both hot and cold climates in other bits of the world.

Most of my flying was further south in the CAT B airfields. The stuff up north was on special flight permits to return people home after an accident. Normally we would't have been able to do it. As you proberly know there is another rule book comes out for commercial operations into those fields. Which if your not a Norweigen carrier the training infrastructure and performance documentation makes it uneconomic to do charters. To be honest normally I would be crying foul but they know what they are doing and they have a pretty good safety record all things considering so thats fine by me. These sort of places need to be flown regularly to keep things safe in even slightly nasty wx. The Vargar route I flew as charters maybe 5 times a year max and it was always 2-3 days of self briefing before I went. And always had the feeling I was on the edge of my abilitys and the aircrafts and its the only route I refused to operate with certain FO's. And it was always a weight dropping off after successfully completeing the trip.

This thread was to discuss none ICAO compliant designed approaches with surrounding dangers to flight safety.

I am sure it doesn't matter what people say the only point you will be looking for is that the Jepp plate is wrong (which it isn't) and you will contact Jepp anyway and more than likely they will change it. And the thousands of pilots across europe the next month will have a moments pause while sticking it in the folder to think "that looks a bit of a bastard" and the world will go on. In reality its proberly less than 10 aircraft a year shoot that approach that arn't Norwegien registered with Scandi pilots on board.

And another cultural difference calling a scotsman an Arschloch really doesn't bother them if they don't respect the person saying it. Someone that comes off an instrument approach without the required visual references doesn't get respect. Be they a 200 hour pilot or a 20k 17 types on there license pilot. They then get it back by saying I stuffed that one up, the plate wasn't the best but thats no excuse.

I have lived and worked in Germany and still have friends there. I also know the standard reaction to critisim from someone who isn't percieved to be socially/proffessionally superiour to themselves (usually gauged by age and number of letters after your name on your card) and more to the point if you are German or not.

About the grey market stuff not really, its not part of my world. The scandi's look after there own and they are perfectly in there rights to have a look at any flight they want to. Just as they are within there rights to spot breath test you on the apron, stick a drug dog onboard and run an engineer over the airframe. All done with politness. I love the place and would be more than happy to work there for a local carrier but unfortunately I don't speak the required lingo. Cracking flying, lovely country and lovely people.

Inbalance

Do not be offended by Mad Jock as he cannot spell and probably meant something else?:rolleyes:
He is your man if you are thinking of building power stations or submerged generators in the Tidal areas up there.
It is just his style! He is ok Really other than his love affair with EASA and making bizarre postings the later into the night it gets :ok:

Pace

I don't love EASA you cheeky man.

And I presumed he was taking mining types up there there are a couple of new big ones up there and there is a few folk sniffing round trying to see how to get personel/emergency freight in and out.

The only thing that even comes near what they want to do is a baby CASA or its big expensive brother. Then there is the issue of getting them on a european reg. The dreaded shorts 360 has been mentioned :eek: after which the pilots quickly change the subject.

Could we try and move on from the original thread. I am actually quite interested in these non-icao approaches and the views of how (or if) any of the flight deck technology should be used in the visual segment.

For Anonystude, yes that is the book answer. But in several cases you can not see the airfield environment from any part of the approach up to and including the MAPt. Clearly they did not intend every approach to end in a missed approach, so there is something beyond the basic rule.

Anybody flown into this one:

That was the reason why I started the thread to be honest.

As far as I can tell actually Anonystude is correct for your normal pilot.

When you start operating regularly into these fields you can get dispensations from the NAA for lower minimums after providing them with performance figures etc. These can also include additional allowable references which are then documented in the company airfield brief.

For example I wouldn't be suprised if the lit mast on the shore of the Fjord was somehow involved in the approach for local operators.

In scotland there are several instrument approaches which arn't even public on the AIP site. But companys can apply and be allowed to use them by the airfield operator.