There are loads of such "private" IAPs around the UK, based on some nearby navaid. Most airfields with an on-site or nearby navaid either have one, or had one when they had full ATC.

How about the posibility of collision in IMC with the oporator approved to complete the procedure?

There is no ATC to provide separation or organise an approach sequence.

Very much one operator at a time being very cautious.

If I found that I was about to start an approved cloudbreak into a base aerodrome only to find another unapproved private operator already in the procedure, it would be a case of;

1. MOR and

2. Report to company that someone outside the business has obtained a copy of the confidential parts of the ops manual.

Regards,

DFC

DFC you have missed the point.

Whilst what you say is of course correct the poster said

"shall not make use of any radio navigation aid without complying with such restrictions and appropriate procedures as may be notified in relation to that aid"

my question was what are the restrictions and appropriate procedures applicable to any VOR in open FIR.

But, after all the shouting's over, why would you want to do it? Whether the law does or doesn't ban (or allow) specific classes of approach ... what makes sense?

ADF is notoriously inaccurate: I flew an NDB procedure on my FAA IR checkride, with the needles in the right places all the way to the MAP. After I'd done the missed procedire and got to the holding fix, the examiner asked me how far left or right of the centreline I thought I was at the MAP. I said I thought I was ON the centreline. He agreed that's what the instruments showed, and said that in fact I probably wouldn't even have seen the airfield, which was a good half mile to one side. We then had an "examiner debate" about ADF errors, when I surprised him by telling him about Coastal Effect - I suppose they don't get a lot of that on NDB procedures in the USA.

I've flown an NDB procedure "in anger" just once - the 02 at Shoreham. I was very glad indeed that I had the GNS430 running alongside, with the 02 NDB procedure displayed. (I've flown countless NDB procedures in training and "renewals", under the hood, but that's a lot easier).


Stuck above an overcast, with 400 foot cloudbase all around? I'll go (above MSA) somewhere with an ILS and vis above minima, thank you very much. Cowardice Prolongs Active Life and all that.

Well yes I don't think even pretty bold pilots would do a DIY letdown through OVC004.

Over the sea, perhaps, but that only gets you into a runway which is right on the coast.

It's a question of degree. Many, myself included, would be happy to do it through OVC010 but one has to study the chart and also Ordnance Survey maps of the area very carefully beforehand.

There is no suggestion, I hope, of doing this with an ADF. That's a great way to get killed. A GPS plus VOR/DME would be my minimum equipment i.e. two unconnected position fixing methods.

Incidentally, ADF is affected not only by coasts but also by high terrain close to the aerial. At Shoreham you get a huge error, 30 degrees easily, on the 20 approach even if approaching more or less perpendicular to the coast (when any coastal effect should be symmetrical).

Sometimes NDB approaches can't be avoided. Like Berlin Tempelhof (EDDI) right now - ILS inoperative, the runway with VOR approaches is closed, so all you have is NDB/DME. I can just imagine somebody going in there IFR/airways and expecting for the customary radar vectored ILS :O And I bet more than 50% of professional (e.g. bizjet) pilots would have made that mistake.

I have to say that I am astonished that a thread on a 'Professional' pilots' rumour network, even in the 'Private' (a.k.a. amateur) forum, entitled "Descending through cloud without a procedure" could have streched to 6 pages. The whole concept is wrong, stupid and, as Graham Hill, among others, discovered, ultimately fatal.

I have to say that I am astonished that a thread on a 'Professional' pilots' rumour network, even in the 'Private' (a.k.a. amateur) forum, entitled "Descending through cloud without a procedure" could have streched to 6 pages. The whole concept is wrong, stupid and, as Graham Hill, among others, discovered, ultimately fatal.

The problem with attending too many CAA safety evenings and listening to too many of the boring righteous old farts who take up so much space in UK GA is that it all dulls one's brain. The result is that one stops asking intelligent questions and stops seeking intelligent answers to them.

Critical analysis is what keeps one's brain going into ripe old age.

If every GA airfield has a GPS approach then you might have a point.

:D BB, don't even think about trying a logical discussion with IO540. His chances of becoming a "boring old fart" are not good!

"I have to say that I am astonished that a thread on a 'Professional' pilots' rumour network, even in the 'Private' (a.k.a. amateur) forum, entitled "Descending through cloud without a procedure" could have streched to 6 pages. The whole concept is wrong, stupid and, as Graham Hill, among others, discovered, ultimately fatal."

= "logical discussion"

???

BillieBob, it's not the 'descending through cloud without a procedure' that's ultimately fatal, it's the 'getting it wrong'. And that applies equally to 'descending through cloud with a procedure, as countless 'professional' pilots have discovered to their cost.

Graham Hill did not have the benefit of an IFR-approved GPS, which arguably makes a carefully-considered NPA (using cautiously-high minima) to an airfield without a published approach actually safer than an NDB approach into some airfields that have a published IAP (maybe with only timing for distance-to-go reference). I have no doubt as to which I would choose in certain circumstances.

""I have to say that I am astonished that a thread on a 'Professional' pilots' rumour network, even in the 'Private' (a.k.a. amateur) forum, entitled "Descending through cloud without a procedure" could have streched to 6 pages. The whole concept is wrong, stupid and, as Graham Hill, among others, discovered, ultimately fatal."

Personally I has always thought amateur means "doesnt get paid for" and professional "does". That saves any confusion about there being some amateurs better than professionals and vica versa :) .

Safe aviation is about assessing risk. If I really had to would I rather descend with an NDB / DME or with a GPS. Maybe there might be a situation in which I need to make a cloud break - what are the factors I should consider? The aircraft is not FM immune but I have managed to get into IMC - what are the consequences? IMHO that is one of the reasons we enjoy this type of debate.

There are always those who come along and say blindly - ah, you cant do that becasue the ANO says so, or convensional wisdom is agin it. I worry more about those pilots because they think within the box.

BB wrote:

Surely the fact that the discussion has stretched to 6 pages shows that it isn't as clear cut as just being "wrong, stupid and ... ultimately fatal"?

What IO540, and others, are trying to do is to gather as much of an informed opinion as possible on something that you can't just pick up in a book. What with all the legislation, the old-school "you young kids with your fancy GPS don't know what you're talking about" and flying schools operating on ever tighter margins with shrinking numbers of customers, it's incredibly hard for people who enjoy flying to get good, useful and valuable information. So, whilst you're astonished the rest of us will go on trying to learn and happily debate the pros and cons of, say, descending through cloud using the various means we have of avoiding hitting the ground.

Descended through cloud a couple of days ago whilst getting a FIS from LARS - controller got a bit twitchy but we used a VOR radial and DME to find our way and set a local area MSA which provided sensible seperation from high objects and ground in local area, we also had a backup plan for divert in case we could not get visual

All worked a treat ! No safety compromised and can't think of another way to get in to an airfield with no formal approach procedure. :)

Is there really such a glaring loophole in the ANO that allows a private pilot to make up their own DIY approach to an airfield with no IAP and choose their own minima?

Yes, it's called "pilot with a brain".

For most purposes, this presumption is adequately validated by getting the candidate to sit half a dozen PPL exams, plus one more IMCR exam, plus (for those who have an IR) one more IR exam (if FAA IR), plus 10 or so more IR exams (if JAA IR). Plus some flight training.

But seriously, it is actually quite normal during IFR operations to be in IMC. During this time, one might be climbing, or one might also (shock, horror) be descending. If, when descending, one becomes visual with the ground, then one is in a position to do a visual approach.

It's awfully difficult to draft legislation which bans descent during IFR!

The question which one could debate is how low one should go. Going down to what on the UK scene is called "MSA" amounts to a DIY instrument approach with a DH of 1000ft.

Sorry to sound patronising but by writing

Is there really such a glaring loophole in the ANO that allows a private pilot to make up their own DIY approach to an airfield with no IAP and choose their own minima?

you walked straight into that one.

:O

I never had an issue with descending to MSA in IMC. All perfectly normal avaition practice. My question goes beyond the MSA stage. So I will ask the question again: Is it legal for a private pilot to descend (in IMC) to say (for the sake of this thread) 400' MDH on a DIY approach?

Do not assume my level of experience or qualifications from my posts here, I choose not to advertise them. However they are such that your patronising tone is amusing. My only fault here is my ability to express myself, but then we all fall foul of that on these forums from time to time.

Unfazed and others... The concept of a home made GPS/VOR/NDB approach is alien to some people, although I now accept it could have its uses. The problem a lot of us older pilots have, is the one about being in cloud without a radar service...... You rely on the Big Sky theory, in other words that no-one else will be in your cloud. This will work 999,999 times out of 1,000,000. Then you have to think like the national lottery, it COULD be YOU!!
I have flown in many nasty places, often without radar cover in very poor weather. We had an emergency letdown GPS procedure that was just that... An EMERGENCY plate.
Risk assessment is part of life these days, the chances of a mid-air collision are not great, but they are there. So "Do you feel lucky??"

So I will ask the question again: Is it legal for a private pilot to descend (in IMC) to say (for the sake of this thread) 400' MDH on a DIY approach?

Common sense would dictate that you do not descend below 800 feet which is the non-precision system minima plus 200 for luck (and then sanity check that against the local terrain and obstacles within 25 miles circumference).

Also agree that you should not play "cloud roullette" but should get a RIS OR RAS.

Other caveats - Have at least an IMC rating, preferrably IR, be current and proficient, have a plan B and a Plan C (i.e. know where your alternates are and make sure that you can reach them and that they have VFR weather or a precision approach which is forecast to be well above minimums (legal and personal).

Plan well in advance and don't get caught out !

How do you cope with aerodromes outside controlled airspace with IAPs and procedural approach control, then? Or indeed for that matter, with enroute IFR outside controlled airspace where no radar service is available?

There is, unfortunately, no such thing as "safe" in aviation, only "safer". Risks are always relative, and there's a strong argument to suggest that without a radar service you are safer overall in low-traffic-density cloud than in high-traffic-density VMC, as see-and-avoid is imperfect.

Of the risks to be assessed in any DIY instrument let-down, I would have thought that the risk of collision with obstacles or terrain vastly outweigh the risk of mid-air collision.

Bookworm

You are quite right there is nothing to stop you flying without a RIS or RAS outside of controlled airspace, hopefully everyone is sticking to the correct altitudes however you must admit that there is a risk of collision with some other IFR aircraft who is sharing the same cloud as you are and not talking to anyone else

I can only advise what I would do, as I am not prepared to take risks like that when I don't need to, that's where I choose to draw my own personal line. You can ask for a service (FIS) outside CAS but it is subject to radar cover and workload. I can only advise that you eliminate as much risk as you can and then check to see how important the flight is.

Hope this helps