Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 9666023)
part-NCO spells out that aerodromes are subject to national limits.
UK IAIP makes clear the UK policy on aerodromes without IAPs. By the way, do you fly on an EASA licence? If so, you should be well aware of the meaning of AMC/GM and AltMoCs... |
ShyTorque,
Don't worry you are right. Many people are producing statements taken out of context. The Safety Sense 25 document was a lot of tosh when it was badly written in 2009 and eight years later it reads even worse. Even in 2009 there were more LPV approaches in the USA than ILSs - many, many of them without an ATC facility. In 2009 I talked to the chap in the CAA who was in charge of GPS rollout, who I believe wrote the aforementioned document, and I was told that the use of GPS and GPS approaches was still all a bit too dodgy/risky and it was not a mature technology. Thankfully, he had the good grace to wind his neck in when I mentioned that his comments were a concern as my airline, one of the largest in the world, had been doing them in widebodies every day for many years. The introduction of WASS in the states... many years ago ...... brought the accuracy of GPS down from 10-15 metres to around one metre. The equipment available at reasonable cost, with all the protections, even for the smallest, lightest aircraft, is incredible - knowing your position down to 10 metres or so is unbelievable. Goodness, synthetic vision has now been introduced to GA and TAWS as well as TCAS are also available as add ons. You can get a GPS approach done for you very cheaply by many companies advertising on the net.... you can get the software and be trained to do it yourself. China is building over 200 airports before 2020 and none of them will have a VOR, NDB or ILS ! ... and here in the UK we are still screaming, "here be dragons" If you are a reasonably experienced instrument rated pilot you should be able to plan a sensible, safe, non airport located, cloud break with a device that tells you your position to within 10 metres and the basic IFR law allows for this. Many aviation companies/entities need to do this every day whilst carrying out their tasks and they have developed good SOPs to keep it safe and LEGAL. |
By the way there is a significant amount of IFR flying conducted outside of CAS in this part of the word. I'd guess at least some part of about 70 - 80 % of my IFR flights has been outside of CAS. Flying away from published tracks (random routing) outside of controlled airspace is strictly forbidden here below FL150 In Paces example there is no airway and no CAS, in the UK we can fly IFR on any routing we choose if outside CAS. |
Foxmoth,
Do you have an Instrument Rating? Airways and Controlled Airspace are two different things. I don't have access to your UK charts, But looking on Skyvector it would seem to me you guys have Airways that proceed outside of controlled airspace, just like we do here. I fail to see what you're getting at when you say Airways and CAS as being the same thing. They're not. One area where we do differ is random routing outside of controlled airspace. This is absolutely forbidden here below FL150. How do you guarantee you are safely clear of any terrain, and unless using GPS how can you easily pin point your position to even know where you are? Flying around in cloud like you guys do on a random track outside of controlled airspace makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. |
27/09;
Here in EASA land airways are controlled airspace. IFR outside CAS is perfectly permissible. For her he route described earlier, there is an airway well above and a plenty of CAS for Bristol and Cardiff which puts the base way up. I fly rotary mainly and fixed wing when ops let me and an awful lot of my Public Transport rotary flying is IFR outside CAS. It's the way it is and it works. SND |
How do you guarantee you are safely clear of any terrain, and unless using GPS how can you easily pin point your position to even know where you are? As a matter of interest, how does an airway work if not CAS, it seems to me you are then just forcing all the aircraft into the same airspace, and if not controlled you are actually increasing the collision risk! |
Flying around in cloud like you guys do on a random track outside of controlled airspace makes the hair on the back of my head stand up. |
Foxmoth, Yep I have VOR, ADF , GPS on my IR. They're all quite easy to use.
An Airway doesn't need to be in CAS, at least not in this part of the world. The Airway has a minimum altitude assigned to it, this may change at various DME points along it's route to ensure clearance from terrain. While we usually follow Airways inside CAS, since CAS usually also means surveillance airspace we often get direct (random route) tracking. In this part of the world we could not operate outside of controlled airspace without Airways. There's far to much cumulo granite about. There's never been an issue with traffic conflicts on an Airway outside of CAS. A, the traffic on these routes is never that great to start with, B all IFR flights are on a Flight Plan and IFR flights are advised of other IFR flights and where necessary each flight co-ordinates with other flights to ensure separation. While the perceived risk of collision with another aircraft may be higher the very real risk of collision with cumulo granite all but disappears. How do you go point to point outside of CAS and no Airway. Are you flying from nav aid to nav aid? If not how do you quickly and accurately pin point your position? Is the nav aid coverage that good every where in the UK? How do you ensure safe terrain clearance? You mention radar assistance, that to me infers you are in controlled airspace, is that so? There is no radar assistance outside of CAS here. Due to the topography there's large parts of NZ that don't have radar coverage so no chance of radar assistance. |
If you are a reasonably experienced instrument rated pilot you should be able to plan a sensible, safe, non airport located, cloud break with a device that tells you your position to within 10 metres . :D:ok: In my case it's two metres.:) First choice is the GPS. |
27/09, your posts makes my point that you are talking a very different set of rules, here I can launch off IFR without a flight plan, outside CAS there is often radar assistance from various providers, they may not give you radar CONTROL, but they will give traffic info and confirm your position, whilst we do not have the terrain problems you have in NZ (highest ground here is about 3,600') I would have thought even there you should know what your position is near enough to be able to know what your MSA is, heck, I could do THAT with just DR nav!!
I think one reason Pace picked the route he did is because there is no CAS, including airways, below 10,000' and it goes over high ground including very close to mount Snowdon which is the highest terrain in the UK! Edited to add - highest in the UK outside of Scotland! |
As a Scot, I couldn't let tat one go.
The highest point in Scotland (also the highest in the United Kingdom) is Ben Nevis, standing at 1344 metres (4409 ft.). |
Apologies FM, you are of course correct!
|
Just had a quick look at NZ rules and airspace classifications, which are of course very different to the UK.
NZ Controlled airspace A, C, D. Appears organised like the US for Class C and D. Class A is the same as UK airways, but appears to only be high level for commercial jet traffic. There are 'Airways' in class G that are defined routes that guarantee terrain clearance. It is mandatory to be receiving traffic information if operating under IFR, but appears to rely on self separation for collision avoidance. UK Airways are almost always class A and can be quite low level. Class C is used like the the US Class A to ensure all aircraft are under positive control at 'jet' levels. Class G, there is absolutely no requirement to talk to anyone or receive any service IFR or VFR, VMC or IMC. There are no (or almost no) Class G advisory routes, and the Class F routes are in very remote areas. So effectively, 'all' airways are controlled. most GA IFR flights are on random routes where altitudes for sufficient terrain clearance are established by the pilot during flight planning. |
There are 'Airways' in class G that are defined routes that guarantee terrain clearance. It is mandatory to be receiving traffic information if operating under IFR, but appears to rely on self separation for collision avoidance. 2 s |
If I remember correctly, in UK there used to be something similar called "Advisory routes".
But they couldn't be defined as Airways there. |
2 sheds: So they are not, by definition, airways. Even to put the word in quotes is completely misleading. I can assure you they are Airways that mm_flynn is referring to. |
An airway is: a control area or portion thereof established in the form of a corridor. (ICAO Annex 11) A control area (CTA) is an aviation term that describes a volume of controlled airspace Controlled Airspace is defined as airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. |
Originally Posted by foxmoth
(Post 9667545)
And Control area
So by ICAO definition, what you describe are not Airways, here they might be called Advisory routes, though I suppose a better definition for you would be "Compulsory Instrument Routings" |
Well I suppose they are just really extensions of the wedding cake layer joining up different cakes!:8
|
Stop it, you're making me hungry...
I think pilots in the US forget that all of the US is controlled airspace by ICAO definition - class E everywhere from 700/1200ft AGL. So any airway will be in CAS and require a clearance to fly IFR. Whereas the U.K. Is mostly class G. |
And then there's this definition.
An airway is a legally defined corridor that connects one specified location to another at a specified altitude, along which an aircraft that meets the requirements of the airway may be flown. Airways are defined with segments within a specific altitude block, corridor width, and between fixed geographic coordinates for satellite navigation systems, or between ground-based radio transmitter navigational aids (navaids) (such as VORs or NDBs) or the intersection of specific radials of two navaids. I also found this bit of info as well. In most land areas of the world, aircraft are required to fly airways between the departure and destination airports |
Where is your definition from? I would have thought the ICAO one is the international authority. Certainly the second quote seems more a wikipedia style quote as I have flown in many areas of the world and there are very few that I know where you are REQUIRED to fly airways between airports - from what you have said before even in NZ not a requirement if VFR.
Agree though, major thread drift here. |
SERA definition:
36. ‘airway’ means a control area or portion thereof established in the form of a corridor; |
The point of my posting was to highlight that in NZ it appears the term 'airway' is used differently than in Europe (or the ICAO definition).
If you look at H249 near TIMARU VOR, it is charted for all the world the same as an IFR airway (on Skyvector), but is clearly in class G, and is provided with an ATService, but not ATControl (possibly logically similar to the way the UK provides procedural control in uncontrolled airspace). The difference clarifies 27/09's comment about always on airways but mostly uncontrolled. In NZ, there appear to be very few airports without an approach that have surrounding terrain that would be suitable for non-Darwin Award winners to undertake a DIY approach. |
in NZ it appears the term 'airway' is used differently 2 s |
Good Business Sense
The Safety Sense 25 document was a lot of tosh when it was badly written in 2009 and eight years later it reads even worse. Even in 2009 there were more LPV approaches in the USA than ILSs - many, many of them without an ATC facility. In 2009 I talked to the chap in the CAA who was in charge of GPS rollout, who I believe wrote the aforementioned document, and I was told that the use of GPS and GPS approaches was still all a bit too dodgy/risky and it was not a mature technology. Thankfully, he had the good grace to wind his neck in when I mentioned that his comments were a concern as my airline, one of the largest in the world, had been doing them in widebodies every day for many years. The introduction of WASS in the states... many years ago ...... brought the accuracy of GPS down from 10-15 metres to around one metre. The equipment available at reasonable cost, with all the protections, even for the smallest, lightest aircraft, is incredible - knowing your position down to 10 metres or so is unbelievable. ... and here in the UK we are still screaming, "here be dragons" if you are a reasonably experienced instrument rated pilot you should be able to plan a sensible, safe, non airport located, cloud break with a device that tells you your position to within 10 metres and the basic IFR law allows for this. Pace: Exactly you would probably cross the NDB confirmed with GPS and ATC and let down in a teardrop a so called un published but safe approach ANO Operating minima: (3) For flights under Instrument Flight Rules, the pilot in command must select and use aerodrome operating minima for each departure, destination and destination alternate aerodrome which— (a)must not be lower than those notified, prescribed or otherwise designated by the relevant competent authority Part-NCO NCO.OP.110 Aerodrome operating minima — aeroplanes and helicopters: (a) For instrument flight rules (IFR) flights, the pilot-in-command shall select and use aerodrome operating minima for each departure, destination and alternate aerodrome. Such minima shall: (1) not be lower than those established by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State ICAO Annex 6 2.2.2.2 Aerodrome operating minima: The pilot-in-command shall not operate to or from an aerodrome using operating minima lower than those which may be established for that aerodrome by the State in which it is located, except with the specific approval of that State. |
Oggers,
I'm afraid I found your responses above incongruous. However, ..... Do you fly in Class G or is it always on airways high level in something heavy? You present information/regulation relating to "aerodromes" to make your case - there is a whole world out there that doesn't fly to/from departure, destination and alternate aerodromes - your take on the LAW is out. Enjoy the higher levels |
I don't think it is a simple distinction between flight in airways vs flight OCAS. For example, see this accident in which a Citation cancelled IFR to do a home made approach into an airport with no instrument approach.
The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong. |
Hi Jonzarno,
Two different subject matters i.e. The LAW and good airmanship etc. ...... without mixing up/pulling in references to aerodromes, etc etc see SERA 5015. Cheers
Originally Posted by Jonzarno
(Post 9674401)
I don't think it is a simple distinction between flight in airways vs flight OCAS. For example, see this accident in which a Citation cancelled IFR to do a home made approach into an airport with no instrument approach.
The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong. |
I was thinking more in terms of the Laws of Physics......
|
I think pilots in the US forget that all of the US is controlled airspace by ICAO definition - class E everywhere from 700/1200ft AGL. So any airway will be in CAS and require a clearance to fly IFR. Whereas the U.K. Is mostly class G. In any case in the US, even to fly IFR in Class G (which most US pilots have never heard of and don't believe is possible) you still need to be on an IFR flight plan. |
Originally Posted by Jonzarno
(Post 9674569)
I was thinking more in terms of the Laws of Physics......
There are obviously some here who still don't properly understand SERA 5015 (and its equivalent in the UK ANO in previous times). The "Safety Sense" leaflet, although giving advice, is not the legal definition. Check the wording of both. I note that Beagle has gone totally quiet on this matter and has been obviously reading SERA since he has found a quote regarding the definition of an airway. Hopefully he now understands the wording properly! |
Several pages ago I wrote:
I'm still waiting for some one to come up with a persuasive list of examples of the "dead bodies and wreckage" attributable to unpublished let-downs. Most of those the examples I've seen cited are accidents that did not seem to depend on whether or not an approach was published or approved. For example, see this accident in which a Citation cancelled IFR to do a home made approach into an airport with no instrument approach. The pilot had probably done this many times before and, for all I know, perhaps into other similar airports. For whatever reason, this time it went wrong. 'At 1855:05 hrs the controller reported “…, field now eleven clock position, range six miles.“ The co-pilot answered that he had the airfield in sight after he had gotten the PIC's assurance.' Had they instead flown a profile based on level vs distance numbers from their FMS, even at 300 ft per mile, they and their passengers would probably still be alive today. |
I don't really see how it can be described as anything other than a "home made approach" given that they descended out of whatever FL at which they had been cruising, and tried to fly what they thought was a straight in approach to an airport with no IAP in at best very marginal VMC. After all: if they really could see the airport, how did they come to be victims of CFIT?
Although I have no idea if this is true: a sceptic might conclude that when the controller asked if they could see the airport, they might have said yes in order to avoid getting into trouble because flight in IMC is not permitted in Germany unless on an IFR plan. I agree that, had they followed the procedure you described, they might well have made it. Equally, that may have been what they were trying to do and they just got it wrong. Either way, they didn't get the indications that things were wrong that they would have had on a properly coded IAP. That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, though, which was in reply to an earlier post: it was simply that there isn't always a black and white distinction between flights under IFR in airways and flights conducted completely in class G between non-instrument airfields. |
I don't really see how it can be described as anything other than a "home made approach" given that they descended out of whatever FL at which they had been cruising, and tried to fly what they thought was a straight in approach to an airport with no IAP in at best very marginal VMC. After all: if they really could see the airport, how did they come to be victims of CFIT? |
Perhaps my choice of words wasn't all that it could have been: I think it is highly probable that they made an unpublished let down in order to start the home-made approach.
Again: this wasn't really the aspect I was trying to address in my earliest post, and I wasn't trying to reopen a discussion on this specific accident, only to use it to illustrate my original point. |
Again: this wasn't really the aspect I was trying to address in my earliest post, and I wasn't trying to reopen a discussion on this specific accident, only to use it to illustrate my original point. After all: if they really could see the airport, how did they come to be victims of CFIT? There are two safety aspects to making any approach work where visual means are insufficient: 1) You need to plan to fly a trajectory that is clear of obstacles and terrain, with a margin consistent with the navigational performance of the system you are using. The trajectory also needs to be consistent with the performance of the aircraft. 2) You need to fly that trajectory with commensurate precision. Approval and publication of an instrument approach procedure are designed to mitigate the risks associated only with aspect 1. You risk CFIT if you deviate significantly from a safe trajectory, whether or not that trajectory is PANS-OPS compliant, approved or published. Throughout this thread, assertions have been made that, for example, "there are dead bodies and wreckage strewn all over the place" from the use of trajectories that have not gone through the rigours associated with PANS-OPS design, approval and publication. Yet the only accident examples cited are cases where the flight crew failed to fly a safe trajectory (whether published or not) with reasonable precision. |
Agree, ANY approach, published or unpublished is unsafe if you do not fly it accurately.
|
whether or not that trajectory is PANS-OPS compliant, approved or published. The point I was trying to make about approved vs home built approaches (and, to an extent as well, cloud break procedures) is that you get a much better indication that you are deviating from what you KNOW to be a safe profile on an approved IAP than on what you THINK is a safe profile on a home built approach. There has been a thread about this running on PPL/IR which has divided opinion as well. My own view is that, purely from a flyability standpoint, there is a world of difference between descending over the sea and then following a home built approach that you have programmed and stored into your NAV system and flown several times in VMC to test it to an airport with no hazardous terrain vs making up a descent and approach into a mountain airport when you get stuck in unexpected IMC. Obviously, those examples represent the extreme ends of a spectrum of danger, and everyone has to decide where their comfort level lies. |
Jonzarno, I don't think anyone would argue with that and I don't think any one actually has, at least, not on this thread.
The main thrust of the argument here has been that some believe that descending below MSA in order to land is illegal if away from an aerodrome on a "published approach". It's not. However, if a pilot chooses to do so, he /she is obviously "responsible for your own terrain clearance". Any ATCO will quite rightly make a point of telling you so at the time if you descend below his sector safe altitude. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.