Flight Planning for an IMC Flight
 

I have been told that flight planning for vfr and ifr are the same, instead of aiming for visual turning points, you plan to route over beacons...

Is this broadly correct or should I aim for an off-set of a beacon to avoid dangers of collision over a beacon, etc.

We can assume there is no radar service watching over me. Also, experience/goal is IMC level rather than IR.

Thanks.

In the open FIR you can route where you like, but if flying IFR above the transition altitude you must fly quadrantal levels.

It depends on where you are coming from. Have you got a PPL and the IMC Rating, or just a PPL?

In Class G you can fly anywhere. The route chosen depends on your navigation method; normally one would choose to route via VORs because VOR/DME makes a good backup for a GPS, but often there is no VOR (or NDB) there so one can pick up airways intersections (they are also in the GPS database so they are handy). One should never use user waypoints in a GPS, due to the potential for data entry errors.

Say you are routing Elstree to Bembridge (assuming it's back in action!), via somewhere near Booker to make the turn south but in any case avoiding LHR class A. All in IMC but out of airways and no GPS just standard VOR/NDB/DME.

Don't even think of it without GPS and radar cover. In theory you could fly VOR radials off CPT and SAM but I woudn't recommend it unless you were desperate.

In Class G, you can fly anywhere. Just get the map out and draw a route :)

By all means get a radar service but there will be hardly any GA traffic on an IMC day anyway...

I0540, would you mind expanding on this please? I've not heard of this before. I'm assuming this would work on my Airbox Clarity?

Radar cover is almost an irrevelance - you will see little traffic about on this route on a genuinely IMC day and in any event the chance of hitting someone is way less than the risk of an engine failure. Of course it just might happen. For that reason I personally prefer to use some form of TAS or to be in receipt of a service but many quite reasonably dont. In reality you will get a service most of the way. Farnborough North and West will take you just about from west of Heathrow all the way down to the edge of the downs - thereafter you might persuade Solent to give you a service if you ask nicely, but dont count on it because it is outside their remitt. You could route through Luton and SVFR through Heathrow if the base is high enough.

GPS is nto a bad idea if you doubt your ability to navigate. The airspace along this route is quite tight in terms of avoiding the various bits of class D and class A. You will not be kindly received if you infringe. On the other hand with radar cover you will get some warning although obviously that is not something on which to rely.

If you are itending to stop at Bembridge assuming it is open and then return to Elestree the cloud base will obviously be very relevant because neither have an useful let down. It is relatively safe to make a cloud break at Bembridge from the east (over the sea). If push comes to shove you can probably negotiate a let down at Southampton or for sure at Shoreham if for example it is a matter of getting visual below a base of 800 feet or above. Neither are good locations for a made up let down at or in the vicinity of the overhead with high ground and masts around. Nor are you likely to get an accurate indication of the base. I would leave that for those folk who "know" what they are doing.

If you go anywhere near Parham do take account that they often have gliders up with surprisingly low bases.

I think he means most GPS setups will have the airways intersections in their database effectively like another set of VRPs although hopefully more certain that they have been accurately included! Obviously with a GPS you can use these for a steer and the controllers will be familiar with them so if push comes to shove you can either ask them for a heading or indicate that a particular intersection is your next RP.

Okay - so we can forget about the VOR/DME at BNN, the NDB's at HENton, BURnham, WestCOtt and WODley.

We can also forget about the traffic or deconfliction service provided by either Farnborough Radar on 132.8, 125.25, Benson on 120.9 or Luton 129.55 if they're not busy.

If you want to just stare head down at the GPS unit - pray that we've got a signal and that the database it is loaded with is upto date.

Use ALL methods / facilities available to keep your spacial awareness and your options open in the event of system failures.

DD

When I plan a "UK-style VFR" flight (i.e. one where you may encounter IMC and, being instrument qualified and capable, you proceed in IMC) I plan it on VORs as far as possible.

If there are no VORs handy, NDBs will do, otherwise I use airways intersections e.g. ORTAC, ROLEX, etc.

The airways intersections come in handy when crossing to another country too because you pick ones which lie on the FIR boundary (e.g. SITET) and then your plog will have the ETA to SITET which you stick on the flight plan.

The catch is that intersections are obviously RNAV-only i.e. GPS and no backup exists. I am not concerned about that myself because there are usually other ways in such a case.

It is no rocket science to do this, and one should not read more into it.

Wow. How does one imagine we manage to navigate without GPS?

One should be able to do so quite well, else one ought not be navigating.

Generally one should plan to a waypoint, rather than offsetting to one side or the other.

When planning RNAV or GPS waypoints, one differentiates between "flyover" and "fly past" waypoints, but in planning a flight under VFR or IFR, one generally lays out the waypoints that define the route. If you pick DOV VOR, for example, you're naming that as a waypoint on the route, and your flight is planned to fly to that VOR, then on to another waypoint. A waypoint can be an intersection, a point along an airway arranged by name, distance/radial, or any other means, but one defines the route by waypoints. Waypoints can be airports, NDB's, VOR's, or simply RNAV/GPS intersections (if that's the form of navigation you'll be using). Your flight plan presumes to fly directly to each of these waypoints, one after the other, thus laying out the course you intend to take.

In practice, when actually flying a route, it's common to offset to the right by a little bit. Today with GPS navigation as accurate as it often is, aircraft can find themselves within a few meters or less of an airway centerline most of the time. This puts all the aircraft on the same airway in the same place, which isn't necessarily good.

Offsetting to the right a little creates a little more spacing.

Operating around the world, it's very common to have other aircraft pass directly over or under us, because they're following the same airway that we are, precisely. It's very common for crews to offset a mile, two miles, or three miles off track, paralleling the intended course.

This isn't necessary, but it's good practice, or technique. If each aircraft approaches a waypoint from opposite directions, each offset one mile, then they've gained two miles of separation. This is useful.

In any case, for planning purposes, generally you plan from waypoint to waypoint, until your journey is complete. You can begin and end your journey with a departure procedure and an arrival, and simply plan your flight to a fix on the arrival, then name the arrival, if you like. Likewise, you can simply use an airway and name the airway, rather than citing each waypoint in the airway. You can enter and leave the airway at any point; simply file to a point along the airway (needn't be a VOR), and at some point when you want off the airway, file from the point you want off to a new waypoint some place else.

As others have noted, in Class G, you're fairly free to do as you will because it's uncontrolled.

I suspect that one or two folks have the lost the bit about this trip being in solid IMC.

I fly IFR/IMC in class G a fair bit around Southern England and there's a lot of complex controlled airspace, VOR/DME is generally accurate enough if it's on your route, but otherwise GPS is essential as far as I'm concerned.

I'd also avoid IMC flight without a radar service unless it wasn't available.

That said I've got two VOR/ILS a DME and a ADF and I'll have 'em all tuned idented and selected if they're available as well as a chart on my lap. I see no harm in having belt, braces and a piece of string to hold up one's trousers in IMC.

On that I think we would all agree. You will not catch me flying around such tight airspace without a GPS and I will always take a traffic service if I can get one. Doesnt mean I wouldnt fly without a traffic service (although these days I have TAS and I am a lot more comfortable with it), and it doesnt mean I wouldnt fly without a GPS if I had to.

Last year I did about a quarter way across Europe without almost anything after the GPS failed on the aircraft I was reluctantly flying and the VOR was a awaste of space most of the time. I did ask air traffic to keep a watchful eye on my progress however! :=

Are these the places I can see if I look in AIS-IAIP-en route charts-lower ATS routes?
If so, is there a better chart available? I still couldn't find ORTAC or ROLEX.

No idea whether IFR reporting points are shown on the Airbox units but they are shown on both my VFR Garmin units. They are all five letter names and there are loads of 'em!

Some of them show up on the CAA 500k map - e.g. look at the boundary with France and you will see ORTAC GARMI NEVIL SITET etc etc. all along that line.

Over land, few if any are shown.

They are on the IFR (e.g. Lower Airways) charts but those are useless for non-airways flight (they are pretty naff for airways flight too ;) ).

They are fortunately found in Navbox and Flitestar. I don't know if Skydemon shows them (it must do) and I don't know if Flitestar VFR shows them. I think PocketFMS also shows them.

I use Navbox for low level flight, in conjunction with the printed 500k chart.

As a superficial example, Elstree to Bembridge could be done as

BOV BENSU VAPID HAZEL

BOV WOD MID is done wholly on navaids but goes right up to the LHR CAS (not good).

Anyway you get the idea. These intersections are really handy, if you are using a PC to do the plog. I've been doing all low level flights this way since the day I got the PPL.

Handheld GPSs have them in the database.

Got it now, many thanks for the explanation. It's a pity that these are not marked on land on the half mill chart.

I Use them all the time ;) There are many reasons you may use a user created waypoint. Obviously if you have a VOR NDB Intersection etc use those to load into your GPS but sometimes you have to create your own.
The main point with user created waypoints is to be aware that there is room for error and never trust one item back it up! Ie in the simplest term is the waypoint in the right direction? Is the DME readout matching to the map distance?
Pilots often use user created waypoints for approaches based on NDB DME.
The GPS is more accurate and not prone to so many errors! used together to back one another up you can then fly with more accuracy using the GPS but backing up the GPS with NDB/ DME.

Flying a straight line across a ridge of high terrain you may have weather or strong winds where its not passenger friendly to plough over them. Use user created waypoints to avoid the hills but dont fly them with blind faith. Check!

Rely on one item in any nav piece of kit and you are asking for trouble.
I am sure flying an ILS you dont blindly trust the ILS but check spot heights on the chart against the glideslope.

I have known of pilots who have flown frozen needles blindly!

Even there its useful to have the GPS to confirm the localiser centre point matches the GPS inbound.

Flying back from INDIA in an old wreck of a Citation and having been assured the GPS had the whole world installed Europe was not there.We had to load every single point using lat long coordinates for the complete trip from Saudi Arabia (Yikes) but we double checked and confirmed each item and then checked againt the maps. We only got one out of about 60 points wrong and soon identified it as being wrong.

Pace

Sure it can be done but whether I would recommend someone new to IFR to generate a load of user waypoints in his flight planning program, and then litter his GPS memory with them, that's a different story.

If one has a GPS which the flight planning program will download to (something to check out before buying either of these items) then the user waypoints should transfer fine into the GPS, but if you make a habit of creating them, you will end up with so many that mistakes are possible.

We all speak with our own experiences and since 2001 I have had to create user waypoints for

1) La Axarquia (LEAX) in Spain, in 2003. By 2004 it was in the Jepp database.

2) Messalonghi private airfield in Greece (near the MESSI intersection), in 2010.

3) A DIY GPS approach into a certain UK airfield. I developed a very nice IAP, with a missed approach, for that place (lots of hills nearby) which uses several GPS waypoints, all on the same inbound track (as is the IAF; there is a procedure turn if you come in from the other direction) and all those up to and including the FAF (the TOD) are double-checked against a nearby VOR/DME. I flew it a few times in VMC but never had a reason to go there in bad wx again...

I wouldn't consider these a good reason for using user waypoints for hacking around the SE of England ;)

10540

Why not? They are more fiddly but as stated as long as you double check putting them in. Confirm their positions using other aids and LIKE using any other aid dont trust it blindly! whats the problem? :E

Pace

Being able to trust it a bit more?

I think my point was that actually user waypoints are very rarely needed. They can be time consuming to enter, whereas clicking on some airway intersections is much quicker.

I suspect not. If you're flying under IFR will your accuracy be less if visibility is lower? Either you can navigate, or you can't.
There's no question that you should avail yourself of all the resources you have handy. One shouldn't presume, however, that simply because instrument conditions exist, one can't navigate without a GPS. If one can't get by without the GPS, one perhaps ought not go in the first place.

When I do a long trip (long being 7,000+ miles), the loaded flight plan can go on for twelve pages or more. I check every single waypoint by distance and bearing between waypoints, as well as verifying the latitude and longitude of every single waypoint, before departure. I generally enter it into at least three different GPS, INS, and FMS computers on board, and verify every single one of them. I also tune and identify courses, and keep track of waypoints one at a time during the entire length of the flight. Every few waypoints I verify accuracy of the nav, time over the waypoint, fuel, expected fuel burn against actual fuel burn, expected fuel remaining vs. actual fuel remaining, etc.

Verifying the data one is using should be a part of every single flight, whether the information is in a database, or not.

Absolutely. I do it all the time. Every oceanic crossing involves flight between waypoints, often marked by lat/long locations, and every one of these is manually entered before the crossing. As we reach each location, we verify nav accuracy shortly after crossing the fix and keep it plotted on charts as a record of what we did. We check our VHF nav against GPS and INS/IRS nav before going feet wet, and check it against the altimeters; it all gets recorded on charts to verify we did it and that it was accurate. Every waypoint is updated and the time over the next one forecast. We have to be accurate along the track and horizontally, and we must be within three minutes over every waypoint. It's absolutely crucial to keep verifying what's next, what's loaded the nav system in use, and current trends during the flight.

A flight which is slower due to headwinds will have a different fuel burn, will arrive over waypoints at later times, and may affect our ETA over this point or that point. Other traffic is being predicated on our ability to be where we say we are, or will be, when we say it.

These are no different than the techniques I used as a student pilot on my first solo cross country, and no different than I teach a student to use. Verifying the information, checking it regularly during the flight, and keeping it updated with current trends and changing conditions is elemental to the safe conduct of a cross country flight.

I use my own GPS waypoints on almost every flight. "Rubbish in = rubbish out" obviously holds true but checking before pressing enter and checking that the GPS tracks and distances are correct before flight is the way to eliminate such errors. Just like inputting to any other navigation equipment.

There was a comment about joining and using airways. Not possible if the pilot holds an IMC rating rather than an IR, which was intimated in the first post.

You can use airway intersections as waypoints.

The fact there may be a real ATS route 8000ft above you doesn't matter :)

What you cannot do on the IMCR is fly in Class A (IFR).

See my comment above!

Hence why creating user way points is more needed flying OCAS than flying in CAS.

Flying OCAS means avoiding CAS, means flying to points which wont have VOR, NDB, intersections in the correct places.

Flying OCAS Means you will be shooting approaches into places which may have zero published approaches or limited approaches which maybe pilot interpretated or non precision.

Hence the reason why I am pushing the knowledge of creating user waypoints in a safe and accurate way and backing them up by checking them.

Infact using a Garmin will allow you to create a user point simply by placing a cursor where visually you want it to be and allowing the system to create that point for you?

Pace

Precisely. There is a world of difference between manually entering lat/long waypoints on the one hand, and physically placing them in the right place on a moving map display using the cursor on the other. A picture paints a thousand words and cannot lie etc.

Say again? You're suggesting that inputting a lat and long is somehow deceptive, inaccurate, or a lie?

Verify your coordinates and enter them. Not exactly rocket science, and pretty darn precise.

I spent years locating points in the middle of nowhere visually when responding to fires and other emergencies. When GPS became available, I began integrating that with LoRaN and other navigation to find the same coordinates. Inputting the coordinates for a fire could take us to a single burning tree in a thousand square miles of forest.

There's no need to try to lay in a point on a moving map first. If your coordinates are good, they're good. You should always verify them numerically, and look at a real map at the same time; see if your coordinates are where you think.

I've long suggested that VFR pilots, including non-instrument rated pilots, carry instrument charts, anyway. There's a lot of good information on those charts that can be of use. Where practicable, it's a good idea for pilots flying IFR to carry VFR charts, too. It's not always practicable, but it's a good idea.

You can't fly an airway or airway routing while operating VFR? No reason why one can't do it IFR, either.

Of course I am not saying that. I am merely using an old English idiom and "suggesting" that there is less room for doubt using pictures rather than (or additional to) numbers.

PUFL,
You don't need to fly over the beacons unless it makes sense to do so. I usually (I say usually as that is what I used to do but don't fly GA at the moment) first look at tge VFR chart to determine a sensible general route avoid Class A and a plan B if Class D isn't available and other awkward airspace, etc. Once you have the macro route, figure out what radial/DMEs, QDM/QDRs or crosscuts you want to use to achieve that. There should be no problem dead reckoning a few miles between nice juicy fixes. Also plan a sensible place for a cloud break if arriving visual (also for possible diversions), give yourself a bit more distance than you might think you need.

Make sure your MSA assessments are accurate. Don't just use the GRID MORA, as that is probably higher than you need. Actually workout the MSA for the planned route with a bit of lateral fat. If push comes to shove, you want to know you can fly a couple of hudred feet lower if needed!

Don't forget about glide clear too.

Fix to fix navigation technique is powerful, but brain intensive (best link I could find quickly).

You're not going to be more accurate by laying in a waypoint over a moving map. Get the correct lat/long for the waypoint, and you're dead-nuts accurate.

Scroll a cursor around and drop it where you *think* the waypoint is, and you're not nearly as accurate.

Tha use of lat long co ordinates. Seems to be a forgotten art with modern GPS and the PPL world ?

Flying over vast areas of Africa and many parts of the world when flying airways there is little or no radar coverage means extensive use of lat long co ordinates.

Flying those airways and you will be streaming out long lists of lat long co ordinates to controllers with estimates and you will hear every other airline doing the same.
I do find it amazing that there is a reluctance to create user waypoints using co ordinates.

Yes there is room for error but that goes for inputting any nav or communication data.

How many times have you put in an intersection name only to mispel it and find you are heading somewhere 3000 miles away?

Using a Garmin 530 / 430 does allow you to create points with a cursor! more useful for skirting around shown blocks of airspace but the use of lat long co ordinates should not become a lost art as we become slaves to the direct to button on GPS units.

Pace

I tend to use airway intersections rather than anything else for VFR. For example instead of trying to enter a waypoint for Reading, I'll just use LINDY which is in the GPS.

I have made many errors over the years entering wrong lat and long info - normally related to entering EAST instead of WEST which makes a big difference ;) I distinctly remember doing this one time, checking, double checking and I still had it wrong. It was only when it became obvious that it was wrong that I sussed out why.

I suppose it is like proof reading your own typing.

englishall

I have no problem in using an intersection point if it happens to be above where you want to be.
Why create work for yourself creating another point below it?

There are remote areas even in the UK where such existing points dont exist and knowing how to create one accurately and safely is a must.

I would love to create my own SID STARS for certain airfields and store them in the Garmin 530/430 under airfield data.
Sadly have not found a way to do that creating them is no problem but bunching them together and saving them as an approach???
Anyone know how to do that with the GARMIN 430/530?

Pace

Not possible to create a loadable "approach" on any IFR GPS I know of.

What you can obviously do is create a flight plan whose waypoints just happen to form an approach procedure, and when you are near the destination you load that flight plan to replace the existing one.

With the GNSx30W units one can load flight plans generated in Flitestar, via a flash card and some Garmin converter software, but that doesn't appear to deliver anything useful when in the air already.

10540

The only way I can see how it can be done is in the saved flight plans with the starting and ending points of the approach all loaded and saved.

Making a trip you would have to select that plan add your departure airfield and waypoint which then run into the approach part.

Not sure you could just jump from one plan to another mid flight?

Pace

SNSGuppy,

Of course anyone can use airways designated points if they are convenient but they may obviously not be, due to airspace constraints such as danger areas or other controlled airspace beneath them.

We may be separated by a common language but in this part of the world an IMC rated pilot is restricted in what he/she is allowed to do. An IMC rated pilot cannot enter controlled airspace under IFR. Airways are Class A and therefore require flight to be conducted under IFR. Special VFR is allowed in CTZs but not in airways.

This probably depends on the type of GPS but it's certainly possible to change flightplans in flight using 430/530.

During pre-flight planning I use Google Earth to obtain my lat/long co-ordinates, scrolling the pointer to the desired location and reading off the bottom of the page. They are always within a couple of metres or so.

I use my own waypoints for routing through and around controlled airspace and landing sites; they are used bioth IFR and VFR.

If you are going to build your own GPS approaches i would strongly reccomend reading this: http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/4719-0.PDF
The instructor was a good mate of mine.

I'm not aware of any IFR GPS equipment that doesn't include an approach database.

If one is going to fly a legal approach using the GPS equipment, it has to be selectable from the database.

Of course one can load an approach on GPS equipment.

You can, but I don't know if you can save them in the way you're seeking.

I used such setups a lot in Iraq, especially to locations that didn't have the guidance I wanted, or to locations that needed alternate guidance (for reasons that won't be discussed). Certain locations under certain conditions offered few if any alternates during sudden changes in conditions. Dust storms could arise which caused visibility to go to nearly nothing in very short order, and could last much longer than fuel reserves. Diverting to Syria or Iran wasn't an option, and generally most other alternates in the area were down as well. Having a backup plan was a very wise idea.

Using a Garmin 530, establishing an endpoint at the threshold or at some point on the runway, a course line could be laid in and a waypoint built off the threshold point. I had all that coded and ready before departure. With prior checking of the approach path in visual conditions, I could be sure of obstruction clearance (it's a very flat place, mostly), and while vertical guidance could be introduced, I elected to operate as non-precision guidance using a 3:1 descent monitored off the distance to the threshold waypoint.

In areas where other guidance was not reliable or certain surface features sometimes prevented flying that guidance, the ability to get to the runway under unusual or adverse conditions was critical, and often used. The same in other parts of the world, too, for similar reasons.

Obviously you're not going to be doing this in the UK in order to fly an instrument arrival and approach; you'll fly what's in your database, or fly your VHF navigation. Having it as a backup for orientation (something as simple as extending the runway centerline to orient yourself to the final approach course, for example) is a handy tool at night, as a backup to other means of navigation, or even for plain-jane day VFR flying.