IFR approach protocol in the UK
 

Scenario: Flying VFR in uncontrolled airspace without a service, you're approaching your destination airfield (non radar equipped but under a LARS overlay with MATZ bordering the field) which has a published instrument procedure with a manned tower and is currently under IFR conditions.

Who would you talk too to start the ball rolling on a clearance to shoot the approach? Control, Information, LARS or direct to the field tower.

Look at the instrument plate. First frequency. Or look at the en route supplement. It will tell you in there.

Now if you are flying without either.....

It lists the tower frequency, but it seems like you would be kind of springing it on them at the last minute, I would have thought the tower would prefer getting a hand off from a overlayed control service.

The approach control will be defined in the airport text at the start of the plates.

You know the bits of the plates nobody ever reads.

Classic case of RTFM

So let me get this straight. Other pilots are likely to be inbound to the same airfield and intending to carry out the same iap, probably initially working the LARS frequency until clear of conflicting traffic; you've not called the LARS frequency or your destination to ascertain if they are aware of any other traffic and to pre - warn them you'll be doing an iap, right?

Basically yes but as the AIP says the initial contact will be with the field tower so i guess they are getting "pre warned" and most likely in the scenario i describe one would be coming from the opposite side of the MATZ and not talking to the LARS

The example I use is approaching Dundee from the north west perhaps from the direction of Coupar Angus

I don't think talking to Leuchars in that scenario would help you at all. They'd phone Dundee and Dundee would tell them to tell you to contact them and, most probably, to remain in VMC.

Dundee's attitude to someone calling up unannounced who's flying VFR but expects to have to fly the IAP will depend crucially on whether they have other IFR traffic. And if they do, the controller will have to work out what to do with you. If you're chugging along at 2000ft and 90kts under the cloudbase, and he has a Do328 expected from the south in half an hour, and (likely in your scenario) the weather's unlikely to allow Leuchars to give the 328 a 'radar to visual', then the controller's focus will be getting the 328 to the NDB at 3000ft to commence the procedure. He would then have to work out if he could get you up to 4000ft en route to the NDB to hold, in time to achieve separation from the 328. Chances are he'd just say remain VMC and remain north of the 09 approach.

NS

Well obviously they would try and get everyone from the North to stay north of Montrose. Everyone from the south to the south of Fife.

And west, west of Perth

Wait until its engines have shut down and tell everyone to report at the Castle.

like they always have.

And if you wanted to get in you would be stupid to admit that you were VFR. Just tell them you at MSA and request a procedural service. They have no option but to clear you to the beacon/IAF its the only thing they can do when your 15 miles out when you speak to them.

(Quote MJ) And if you wanted to get in you would be stupid to admit that you were VFR. Just tell them you at MSA and request a procedural service. They have no option but to clear you to the beacon/IAF its the only thing they can do when your 15 miles out when you speak to them.

MJ has it spot on. Leuchars will not give you any useful radar service due to poor radar performance especially to the north.

If you want to practise the procedure Dundee do not charge. Book first over the phone.

D.O.

They can't even clear you to the beacon to be honest. Only request that you report it.

If your just going there for training its out of order doing what I have suggested. But if your going there to land crack on.

Strikes me if you've got a LARS overlay then why wouldn't you be getting a service from that anyway, even if VFR OCAS ? I know you can and are legal to do so, but personally I always prefer the extra pair of eyes that a service gives you.

when you really don't know...

call on the first frequency, or any frequency associated with the airfield...assuming they are not rat bast#$TY, they will tell you the right frequency to use.

so glad I don't fly in the UK

in my opinion, call Dundee Tower and request IFR procedure approach due to adverse weather conditions.

I would expect, "climb xxxx thousand feet, report when level, report at the beacon to hold at xxx thousand feet."

Once in the hold, ATC knows where you are. Then onward clearance for the procedure.

Any traffic would be given alternative height separation.

Dundee also has DME to assist with traffic separation.

Flyme

That is exactly what I would expect. At Glasgow, say arriving VFR, ask for an IFR clearance from approach. Nine times out of ten, no issues, climb to say 5000, go to hold, or vectored out for the approach you require, either VOR, ILS, or NDB/DME.

In my experience, most ATC units are pretty accommodating of these requests.

But the difference is that Dundee isn't radar-equipped and while the essential first step is to get you up to the holding altitude, if they have other inbound IFR traffic that has priority, they need to get it below you/you above it long before lateral separation becomes an issue. When they can only do Procedural Service that's difficult

They can't move traffic to give priority on a procedural service they are NOT a control service.

In fact you could go in on a basic and all the could do is inform you where the other traffic is.

If they tried to climb me to let that plastic heap in all they would get would be negative due icing.

But the difference is that Dundee isn't radar-equipped and while the essential first step is to get you up to the holding altitude, if they have other inbound IFR traffic that has priority, they need to get it below you/you above it long before lateral separation becomes an issue. When they can only do Procedural Service that's difficult.

Procedure separation was and continues to be used and long pre-dates radar.

The commercial IFR would not normally use the hold; direct to D4 Garmin approach.
Once the location of the intruder is known (e.g. at the hold), no problem for the commercial traffic to stay clear.

flyme.

Interesting. Can you tell me where that procedure is published? Because if it isn't published it's not legal. Joining final at D4 would mean being at 1300ft as you turn on to the ILS. But up to that point you'd be subject to the 10nm MSA which is 2300ft.

Vectors from Leuchars to base leg at MSA in the expectation of going visual, yes, but self-positioning to D4 below MSA? I'd like to see the evidence.

NS

Its completely Illegal, you have to go to the IAF as per EU-OPS and PAN-OPS.

1300 from the south and your playing with a 935 spot height the other side of the river.

Sounds not only a particularly gash thing to do but also stupidly dangerous.

And the other traffic isn't an intruder its got as much right to be in class G as any other aircraft.

So it sounds like your CAT is not only getting in with no known procedural separation but also completely without any terrain separation as anyone knows it.

I take it when you say "manned tower and is currently under IFR conditions" you mean that the airfield is in IMC.


No such thing really as "IFR conditions". IFR is just different flight rules to VFR and different licence privileges. After all most IFR trips I've done have been in VMC. To fly the procedural approach it will done under IFR whatever the weather conditions.


IFR conditions is an American term.

I think you might be more correct to say that the conditions at the airfield would not permit VFR flight. An airfield is an airfield and meteorological conditions are what will determine whether the pilot is able to fly VFR. ISTR that in the UK rules, where there is a CTZ, the wx report at the aerodrome shall determine the flight rules that a pilot may fly in accordance with within the CTZ - this may change with the implementation of SERA.

I meant pea soupy, cannae see oo’t the windae, hounds of the Baskervilles type weather :rolleyes:

Glendalegoon, have to agree with you.

What is the D4 garmin approach ?

Oh and while I am at it, another IFR approach question, I was under the hood with an instructor in perfect VFR conditions and was cleared by approach for the ILS wry 16R at KVNY (van nuys) the wind favored 34, I was instructed that I would need to circle , upon reaching UMBER I self briefed the approach out loud so the instructor could gauge my work, looking at the plate for the DH I noticed there were no circling minimums listed. I asked the instructor what minimums I should use and he said he was unsure but it did not matter as we were going visual soon anyway. My question, is the circling minimums not being listed for that approach a moot point as if the airfield was under IFR conditions with the wind favoring 34 we would not have been given the ILS16 anyway ?

Its a made up illegal gps procedure. Which throws all known safety standards for terrian seperation out the window.

There will be a circling min somewhere. If there isn't one technically you can descend to MSA and thats as low as you can go.

Made up by who? The GPS manufacturer, hence the title garmin, or by some individual pilot who creates his own "GPS" approach in a non certified gps approach database ? Or am I being thick and calling it the D4 garmin is a jokey way of implying one would make up there own approach

Is this an UK special question?

As I remember from flying under EU rules on continental Europe, you had to declare some kind of urgency to ATC to be allowed to pick up IFR in flight without prior flight plan. In many cases I heard them say, "land at the nearest airport, file a flight plan for IFR and take off again with it" - same with this night VFR flying. Am I correct, that this AFIL for VFR is now coming with this SERA thingies and that currently the question is only raising in the UK?

Made up by the pilots usually with no sanction by the company.

There is no EU rule stopping you flying IFR without a plan.

Over 7500kg you have to have a flight plan anyway be it VFR or IFR.

Some country's though may get ****ty with you or have differences files. As such ATC services are not under a common EASA set of rules yet and there are quite large differences between country's.

And UK has the most differences I might add away from ICAO.

Indeed. But we don't know whether flyme273 suggested this procedure because he's flown it, or just because he reckons made-up GPS approaches are a useful thing generically. If it's the former, I'd wager that he's only ever done it when they got VMC at 3000ft (the lowest they'd be cleared to by Dundee on a Procedural Service). Because if any operators were using made-up approaches at less than MSA in IMC to get into Dundee, not only would that operator be in serious danger of being up before the beak (never mind hitting terrain); the controllers at Dundee would also be in the frame. And there's no way they'd be doing that.
NS

that's not the way I read it.

I read it that it was a way of getting under the traffic in the hold so they could get in first.

And if the cloud base was more than 3k the SEP wouldn't be IFR either.

And I agree if anyone hears it being done a phone call to the AAIB and the aircraft will be impounded until the CVR and FDR is pulled.

mad jock you're being a bit obstructional. This was all started by your post #14 when you refused to climb.

A more reasonable pilot would oblige ATC and accept an extra 1,000 ft. Temperature drop (in cloud) would be 1.5 degrees less. Icing was never part of the example.

In any event once the intruder's position is known (e.g. at the hold), ATC can safety pass a vector (e.g. fly to the east) to keep lateral separation from the commercial inbound.

From a higher altitude the commercial can expedite descent i.e. use speed brakes, on the outbound heading to be level per procedure at the turn.

If this became a sticky situation ATC would give the intruder priority.

I never suggested flying below MSA.


flyme.

Its class g there is no priority and as such there is no such thing as an intruder.

Just traffic.

Procedural controllers in class G cannot force any aircraft to do anything.

Are you really a pilot flying CAT?

A procedural controller issuing vectors your in cloud cuckoo land. Again if anyone hears that report them.

The only thing they can do is send you to the intial approach fix and when there is no traffic that they know about tell you that to start the procedure.

BTW I am Atpl holder with a reasonable amount of experence flying into all the procedural airports in scotland. Everything you have suggested is completely against pan-ops and illegal.

I hope to hell your a FO

They must, at least, be able to terminate procedural service to any aircraft with whom they cannot reach an agreement? Eg if you're cleared to the hold (OCAS) at 4,000' you can't say "sorry mate, it's class G, I'm taking 2,000'".

Under the ATSOCA crap thats exactly what the pilot can do. The controller can then drop them to a basic service if they so wish.

But as such they can't clear you for anything. Its a procedural service for participating traffic.

Which is a common miss conception to alot of CAT pilots they have zero protection just because they are talking to a procedural service or for that matter while flying a procedure in class G. Anything can be flying through the procedure airspace and hold with out talking to the service.

Personally I think CAT pilots should have procedural class G airspace rating. The knowledge level of most is utterly appalling as shown by flyme

From 2014 Airspace & Safety Initiative (ASI). so may not necessarily be authoritative:
It would seem that mad_jock is correct but, for me, that then raises another question:

Why do Controllers use the phrases: "Cleared to enter the Hold", "Cleared for the ILS procedure", etc?

unless your in controlled airspace they shouldn't.

"nothing know to effect taking up the hold FLxxx"

"nothing known to effect the NDB/DME/ILS runway xx report beacon outbound"

etc should be what your getting in Class G.

I think you should inform the authors of section 1.9.1 of CAP 413.

Certainly those are exactly the sort of clearances you hear on a procedural service at places like Cranfield.

It was the word "advice" (that I underlined) in my original comment that caused me to ask my question. However I now note that "advice" only applies for deconfliction purposes.

Is the ATC unit not the 'Controlling Authority' for their Procedure and therefore perfectly able to give Clearances to those aircraft that have requested to participate in their Procedural Service?

They would certainly (as Gertrude suggests) be entitled to say "Procedural Service Terminated - Advise us of your intentions" to those aircraft that refuse to abide by their terms.

MJ: I was rather hoping he might be a spotter
NS