IR approaches into private sites? (UK)
Two's in, you are correct. I know FNW was having a go at me, and I understand why, but he's not the only one who's lost a good friend to accidents of this type. Or maybe I guessed wrong. I'm sure we all know someone who may have died in unfortunate circumstance, but i've spoken to a lot of pilots in my career who, after pushing the envelope, sit back and laugh about it. 
I just feel anyone who attempts to fly IMC, low level, without the experience of either IF or the A/C itself, then puts themselves and their passengers at risk.
FNW, I don't remember the GB rally thing, but i'll go have a look now.
I don't claim to be an expert, just a mere low time co-pilot, but i'd rather end up a high time co-pilot than end up a blot on the landscape. Maybe i'm selfish like that!
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
I just feel anyone who attempts to fly IMC, low level, without the experience of either IF or the A/C itself, then puts themselves and their passengers at risk.
FNW, I don't remember the GB rally thing, but i'll go have a look now.
I don't claim to be an expert, just a mere low time co-pilot, but i'd rather end up a high time co-pilot than end up a blot on the landscape. Maybe i'm selfish like that!
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
I'm sure several of you will be familiar with this accident:
http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/4719-0.pdf
I don't profess to be an expert on ICAO Doc8168, but I'm pretty sure 1.36nm would be within the protected area of a properly designed PANSOPS approach.
http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/4719-0.pdf
I don't profess to be an expert on ICAO Doc8168, but I'm pretty sure 1.36nm would be within the protected area of a properly designed PANSOPS approach.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ....
As quoted by Horror Box ...
.... It is possible though, and I believe, if I remember correctly from many years ago, uncontrolled, unmanned airfields with NDB approaches in Australia, but these were generally in very sparsely populated areas - ...
Quite true .. BUT ... to use these generally low powered NDB approaches you were expected to be on an IFR flight plan and co-ordinated by an active FIS and required to make appropriate radio calls to other possible traffic.
The fact that the beacons themselves were often practically useless as one often got the 'ident' only as you crossed over the airfield boundary is arguable ... they did sort of help you find the airport over some quite featureless terrain.
At least the ADF needle would point to the nearest thunderstorm (often directly over the airport you were tracking too) so you knew where to avoid going.
Thank God for GPS !!!
As quoted by Horror Box ...
.... It is possible though, and I believe, if I remember correctly from many years ago, uncontrolled, unmanned airfields with NDB approaches in Australia, but these were generally in very sparsely populated areas - ...
Quite true .. BUT ... to use these generally low powered NDB approaches you were expected to be on an IFR flight plan and co-ordinated by an active FIS and required to make appropriate radio calls to other possible traffic.
The fact that the beacons themselves were often practically useless as one often got the 'ident' only as you crossed over the airfield boundary is arguable ... they did sort of help you find the airport over some quite featureless terrain.
At least the ADF needle would point to the nearest thunderstorm (often directly over the airport you were tracking too) so you knew where to avoid going.
Thank God for GPS !!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
jellycopter ...
The only time one is allowed (AFAIK) to descend below MSA in IMC is when you are being 'Radar Vectored' by a appropriate ATC unit (who will have slightly lower but surveyed vector maps available to them) OR when on a published/ approved approach procedure.
jellycopter ...
The only time one is allowed (AFAIK) to descend below MSA in IMC is when you are being 'Radar Vectored' by a appropriate ATC unit (who will have slightly lower but surveyed vector maps available to them) OR when on a published/ approved approach procedure.
They manage not to bump into any other air user on the way down through blind luck and belief in the 'big-sky' theory and convince themselves that their technology (GPS) and superiority as pilots, make it a safe option.
Just because it may be good airmanship (or perhaps even a legal requirement, I cant remember) to be in communication with a ground station whilst operating under IFR not everyone does, I am sure we all know one or two people who fly imc in (Civvy) singles and speak to no one.
The point is that regardless of whther you are talking to anyone, a published approach will have been designed to either PANSOPS or TERPS standards and will therefore assure certain protection levels (when flown to the assumed navaid tolerances and Flight Technical Error standards.) Something drawn on the back of a fag packet, will not.
To compound the issue, it is very easy using PC software - even Word - to produce very professional looking approach plates which can be made to look exactly like Jepessens or Aerads (or whatever their name is this week.) Combine that with user defined FMS VFR approaches that can be flown fully coupled, and you have a massive ill-founded sense of security.
I urge you to read the report I linked to above....
Hopefully when I die it will be in very fortunate circumstances 
To compound the issue, it is very easy using PC software - even Word - to produce very professional looking approach plates which can be made to look exactly like Jepessens or Aerads (or whatever their name is this week.) Combine that with user defined FMS VFR approaches that can be flown fully coupled, and you have a massive ill-founded sense of security.
I urge you to read the report I linked to above....
died in unfortunate circumstance
Apparently it is legal in the UK for flights outside CAS; CAP393 extract below:
Instrument Flight Rules
32.—(1) For flights within controlled airspace rules 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 shall be the Instrument
Flight Rules.
(2) For flights outside controlled airspace rules 33 and 34 shall be the Instrument Flight Rules.
Minimum height
33.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1,000
feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless—
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft flies on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority in relation to the
area over which the aircraft is flying; or
(d) the aircraft flies at an altitude not exceeding 3,000 feet above mean sea level and remains
clear of cloud and with the surface in sight and in a flight visibility of at least 800 metres.
(2) The aircraft shall comply with rule 5.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a helicopter that is air-taxiing or conducting manoeuvres in
accordance with rule 6(i).
Quadrantal rule and semi-circular rule
34.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an aircraft in level flight above 3,000 feet above
mean sea level or above the appropriate transition altitude, whichever is the higher, shall be flown
at a level appropriate to its magnetic track, in accordance with Table 1 or Table 2, as appropriate.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the level of flight shall be measured by an altimeter set—
(a) in the case of a flight over the United Kingdom, to a pressure setting of 1013.2
hectopascals; or
(b) in the case of any other flight, according to the system published by the competent
authority in relation to the area over which the aircraft is flying.
(3) An aircraft may be flown at a level other than the level required by paragraph (1) if it flies:
(a) in conformity with instructions given by an air traffic control unit;
(b) in accordance with notified en-route holding patterns; or
(c) in accordance with holding procedures notified in relation to an aerodrome.
(4) For the purposes of this rule ‘transition altitude’ means the altitude which is notified in
relation to flights over notified areas.
No mention of descending below MSA etc.
JJ
Instrument Flight Rules
32.—(1) For flights within controlled airspace rules 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 shall be the Instrument
Flight Rules.
(2) For flights outside controlled airspace rules 33 and 34 shall be the Instrument Flight Rules.
Minimum height
33.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1,000
feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless—
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft flies on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority in relation to the
area over which the aircraft is flying; or
(d) the aircraft flies at an altitude not exceeding 3,000 feet above mean sea level and remains
clear of cloud and with the surface in sight and in a flight visibility of at least 800 metres.
(2) The aircraft shall comply with rule 5.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a helicopter that is air-taxiing or conducting manoeuvres in
accordance with rule 6(i).
Quadrantal rule and semi-circular rule
34.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an aircraft in level flight above 3,000 feet above
mean sea level or above the appropriate transition altitude, whichever is the higher, shall be flown
at a level appropriate to its magnetic track, in accordance with Table 1 or Table 2, as appropriate.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the level of flight shall be measured by an altimeter set—
(a) in the case of a flight over the United Kingdom, to a pressure setting of 1013.2
hectopascals; or
(b) in the case of any other flight, according to the system published by the competent
authority in relation to the area over which the aircraft is flying.
(3) An aircraft may be flown at a level other than the level required by paragraph (1) if it flies:
(a) in conformity with instructions given by an air traffic control unit;
(b) in accordance with notified en-route holding patterns; or
(c) in accordance with holding procedures notified in relation to an aerodrome.
(4) For the purposes of this rule ‘transition altitude’ means the altitude which is notified in
relation to flights over notified areas.
No mention of descending below MSA etc.
JJ
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite true .. BUT ... to use these generally low powered NDB approaches you were expected to be on an IFR flight plan and co-ordinated by an active FIS and required to make appropriate radio calls to other possible traffic.
The fact that the beacons themselves were often practically useless as one often got the 'ident' only as you crossed over the airfield boundary is arguable ... they did sort of help you find the airport over some quite featureless terrain
The fact that the beacons themselves were often practically useless as one often got the 'ident' only as you crossed over the airfield boundary is arguable ... they did sort of help you find the airport over some quite featureless terrain
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
I reckon Jellycopter is correct.
Unpalatable as it may seem to some, UK IFR rules do allow this in Class G airspace.
However, the relevant part of Rule 5 (i.e. 1000 ft rule) must obviously be complied with.
I don't see how Crab can relate an IMC approach in isolation to folk allegedly relying on the so-called "Big sky theory".
If an aircraft is being operated in the descent to land whilst IMC without radar cover (or other means of being made aware of others, such as TCAS), it is no different from doing the same in cruise flight under IFR, with respect to aircraft separation, which is also allowed under UK's IFR rules.
Unpalatable as it may seem to some, UK IFR rules do allow this in Class G airspace.
However, the relevant part of Rule 5 (i.e. 1000 ft rule) must obviously be complied with.
I don't see how Crab can relate an IMC approach in isolation to folk allegedly relying on the so-called "Big sky theory".
If an aircraft is being operated in the descent to land whilst IMC without radar cover (or other means of being made aware of others, such as TCAS), it is no different from doing the same in cruise flight under IFR, with respect to aircraft separation, which is also allowed under UK's IFR rules.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm ...
Does not Rule 33d (above) effectively mean Yes you are IFR BUT in VMC therefore 'see and be seen' applies??
A bit like Helicopter 'Special VFR' really being an IFR clearance inside a CTA!
Does not Rule 33d (above) effectively mean Yes you are IFR BUT in VMC therefore 'see and be seen' applies??
A bit like Helicopter 'Special VFR' really being an IFR clearance inside a CTA!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good reminder from 212man there about the N.Ireland accident, and well worth a read or re-read. Experienced, trained crew, PF and chief pilot with IR's, and all totally unaware of the impending situation. A locally established procedure, that had probably been flown many times by the PNF, and a small chain of events go unnoticed, leading to a CFIT.
While GPS, as employed in the approach from WARRN to MAP, would
give the pilot an approach aid that is similar in function and accuracy to
a VOR or ILS localisor approach, there are fundamental differences. A
VOR or ILS approach is produced by a qualified agency, and is
designed and approved in accordance with internationally agreed
standards, particularly with regard to obstacle clearance limitations.
Independent verification is always a feature of such approved
approaches. The locally-produced GPS approach procedure that was
used for the approach to Ballyedmond by G-HAUG was a simple sketch
of the local area with the route and waypoints marked. It did not
apparently contain any waypoint altitude minima or weather minima
data, and only very limited obstacle information. There is no evidence
that any personnel qualified in the design of approach procedures were
involved in producing this procedure.
give the pilot an approach aid that is similar in function and accuracy to
a VOR or ILS localisor approach, there are fundamental differences. A
VOR or ILS approach is produced by a qualified agency, and is
designed and approved in accordance with internationally agreed
standards, particularly with regard to obstacle clearance limitations.
Independent verification is always a feature of such approved
approaches. The locally-produced GPS approach procedure that was
used for the approach to Ballyedmond by G-HAUG was a simple sketch
of the local area with the route and waypoints marked. It did not
apparently contain any waypoint altitude minima or weather minima
data, and only very limited obstacle information. There is no evidence
that any personnel qualified in the design of approach procedures were
involved in producing this procedure.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The construction of Rule 33(1) is such that meeting any one of the exemptions (a) to (d) does mean that you can be below 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft (rule 33(1)). You only have to meet one exemption, so not meeting another exemption is unimportant.
Exemption Rule 33(1)(a) applies to take-off and landing so no need to look at (d).
Exemption Rule 33(1)(d) applies to flights whether they are taking-off or landing or not but it is more restrictive than (a). If not involved in take-off or landing then you have only Rule (d) from this pair and you must fly CoC, <3000 above mean sea level, in sight of ground and with flight vis 800m or more.
Then you still have Rule 5. So +500ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure unless you are landing / taking-off, and the 1,000ft rule.
Simples
Exemption Rule 33(1)(a) applies to take-off and landing so no need to look at (d).
Exemption Rule 33(1)(d) applies to flights whether they are taking-off or landing or not but it is more restrictive than (a). If not involved in take-off or landing then you have only Rule (d) from this pair and you must fly CoC, <3000 above mean sea level, in sight of ground and with flight vis 800m or more.
Then you still have Rule 5. So +500ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure unless you are landing / taking-off, and the 1,000ft rule.
Simples
212Man you are of course correct, my point is that even when following a published approach there is still a chance of bumping into someone else who might be there, I was commenting on crabs assertion that this is an unsafe thing to do for the reasons he stated, there are plenty of reasons perhaps that these approaches should not be flown, however the argument about the big sky theory holds no water in my opinion as flying a pubished approach offers you little extra mid air collision protection.
[Edited to say whilst I have left my orignial wording above, I do mean approaches outside of Controlled airspace].
[Edited to say whilst I have left my orignial wording above, I do mean approaches outside of Controlled airspace].
Last edited by VeeAny; 17th Aug 2010 at 17:43.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is quite a difference between flying in uncontrolled airspace to a gps letdown with zero ATC or traffic separation and communication and carrying out a published procedure in controlled airspace, where at least all IFR traffic is receiving separation instruction and VFR traffic is receiving at a minimum traffic info and is still subject to clearance.
I am pretty much in agreement with Crabs comment here, and those of you who do routinely carry out these type of letdowns are sooner or later going to hit someone or something. I think Crabs comment was alluding to the fact that it is simply a complacent attitude and the belief that there is such a remote chance that someone else is in exactly the same place and time that is so worrying. To claim that a non-published approach offers the same "mid air collision protection" as a published approach is in my view frankly a ridiculous statement.
I was commenting on crabs assertion that this is an unsafe thing to do for the reasons he stated, there are plenty of reasons perhaps that these approaches should not be flown, however the argument about the big sky theory holds no water in my opinion as flying a pubished approach offers you little extra mid air collision protection.
Crab
Just out of interest, from memory, i think there's an instrument procedure for Chivenor (ILS?) that's neither radar controlled or published in the public domain. How do you establish any form of collison avoidance when flying this procedure in IMC?
JJ
Just out of interest, from memory, i think there's an instrument procedure for Chivenor (ILS?) that's neither radar controlled or published in the public domain. How do you establish any form of collison avoidance when flying this procedure in IMC?
JJ
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Yellow paint....
Horror Box
I think VeeAny meant 'flying a published approach outside controlled airspace'. Clearly, flying a published approach inside CAS offers the best protection there is. However, there are many published approaches outside CAS that offer little or no protection other than the 'big sky'. ATZs only generally offer protection out to 2nm and 2000ft, and published approach procedures always extend well outside those parameters.
JJ
I think VeeAny meant 'flying a published approach outside controlled airspace'. Clearly, flying a published approach inside CAS offers the best protection there is. However, there are many published approaches outside CAS that offer little or no protection other than the 'big sky'. ATZs only generally offer protection out to 2nm and 2000ft, and published approach procedures always extend well outside those parameters.
JJ
To claim that a non-published approach offers the same "mid air collision protection" as a published approach is in my view frankly a ridiculous statement.
I must have missed it, and no I am not being sarchastic, it was certainly not my intention to imply it.
My point is a published approach outside controlled airspace might offer more protection but it does not and cannot guarantee protection while others are bimbling around IMC in the vicinity.
I have been invited to leave a previousjob because I was not willing to push on where some others would (I did not however ever kill the boss or hit anything with his helicopter, or damage it any way), perhaps my replacement may well be the person this thread started about, I really don't know.
Can these let downs be done with a similar level of risk and safety to published approaches, I think they probably can but the circumstances are different and involve the pilot on a much more personal level, he must know the area well, must operate to much higher minima (in my opinion). Having a locally trusted contact can help to ensure the approach does not have anything newly erected in it.
Down to 200ft though I agree pretty much with all the people opposed to this concept, there are too many variables and the approach path cannot be considered to be free of all obstacles all the time.
Would less people be opposed to the idea if minima of 500ft AGL were considered, its above the height at which notification would be required to the CAA for any 'local erection's :-) and could be done under some kind of 'Radar Service' if one was available. It still does however offer no protection from the popup traffic that might be just below the cloudbase.
There are enough airfields in this country with commercial ops and little or no radar cover, it must be only a matter of time until a commercial flight hits popup traffic as it descends, outside controlled airspace there is little protection from this at low level, consider the pilot who is just over 2miles from an airfield at 650ft just outside the atz and the commercial flight that might break cloud at this level and find the offending pilot in front of him.
I don't know what the right answer is but I do know there is no panacea, approved or not they both involve risk, as does all of out flying it is up to us to mitigate that risk and sometimes we get it wrong.
[edited to say JJ is correct, it just took me 20 minutes to write this and I have just seen his post, I am indeed talking about outside controlled airspace]
Last edited by VeeAny; 18th Aug 2010 at 06:23.
It's interesting the way this thread has turned. I think the quoting of Article 33 is of some interest but doesn't in any way imply it's acceptable to fly non-published procedures. The article simply says that you must be at or above MSA OR in sight of the ground - it's not a complex concept. The bit about taking off and landing is a 'red herring' in this discussion - of course you have to be below MSA in those phases of flight! How else could you land and take off? That is an entirely different concept to descending below MSA - in IMC - without any assurance of terrain clearance.
If we want to quote Articles I would venture this is a more relevant one in the context of intending to make an unpublished instrument approach, and the one lawyers would be most interested in:
The topic of mid-air collision has some basis I guess, but it would be a shame to allow it to distract attention from the real reason this thread is important. Hitting the ground is the most likely danger - not another aircraft. Probably even less likely given that we are talking in the main about modern medium twin IFR helicopters that will generally be ACAS equipped.
One point of clarification - when I say published procedures, I also mean private procedures that may not be generally available to other operators, but that have been designed by a professional Procedure Designer to PANSOPS/TERPS standards.
If we want to quote Articles I would venture this is a more relevant one in the context of intending to make an unpublished instrument approach, and the one lawyers would be most interested in:
Commander to be satisfied that flight can be safely completed
87. The commander of a flying machine must, before take-off, take all reasonable steps so as to be satisfied that it is capable of safely taking off, reaching and maintaining a safe height and making a safe landing at the place of intended destination having regard to—
(a) the performance of the flying machine in the conditions to be expected on the intended flight; and
(b) any obstructions at the places of departure and intended destination and on the intended route.
87. The commander of a flying machine must, before take-off, take all reasonable steps so as to be satisfied that it is capable of safely taking off, reaching and maintaining a safe height and making a safe landing at the place of intended destination having regard to—
(a) the performance of the flying machine in the conditions to be expected on the intended flight; and
(b) any obstructions at the places of departure and intended destination and on the intended route.
One point of clarification - when I say published procedures, I also mean private procedures that may not be generally available to other operators, but that have been designed by a professional Procedure Designer to PANSOPS/TERPS standards.
Jellycopter - Cardiff Radar and the hope that no-one would be stupid enough to be bimbling around IMC below MSA with no RT contact near an active airfield.
Although some of the replies on this thread make me worry that some pilots think that is quite acceptable (legal or not). I just hope I'm not the one who has to pick up the pieces.
Although some of the replies on this thread make me worry that some pilots think that is quite acceptable (legal or not). I just hope I'm not the one who has to pick up the pieces.