IR approaches into private sites? (UK)

[helimutt]

well, you could ask a couple of pilots who've done it in the past but unfortunately, THEY'RE DEAD!!!!!!


Anyone flying like that wants kicked in the nuts very hard!

[FSXPilot]

Seems like a perfect way to kill yourself. Makes me also question if this is exactly what happened? I've yet to meet a pilot who would try to do **** like this but then I've not met every pilot.
If someone who does read these forums has tried to do this then WTF were you playing at?

[helimutt]

commercial pressure! everytime!

[biggles99]

steady on guys

Perception and perspective are wonderful things.

I've landed on more than one occasion when on-lookers thought it was either foggy or cloudy, yet from the cockpit I never lost sight of the ground at any stage of the flight, right up to shut down.

I cannot comment on this particular landing, I wasn't in the cockpit, but bear in mind that things do look different depending on where you are.

Big Ls.

[MightyGem]

This was a topic a couple of years ago. A few posters seemed to think that there was nothing wrong with it.

[FloaterNorthWest]

Helimutt,

Do you do rig radar approaches? Do you descend below MSA when not on an approved procedure?

FNW

[helimutt]

FNW, yes (not much chance of a wire strike at sea, and it still doesn't mean we like doing them) And no, we don't descend below MSA if not on a published procedure, if IMC. But surely you know that already, so your point is?

[Special 25]

Google 'Phillip Carter' if you want to find out the results of these sorts of approaches.

I was amazed when I met pilots who were willing to fly these 'Standard GPS' approaches into unapproved sites or airfields without instrument approaches. It was clear that pilots routinely fly down through 300 ft even in the London area, because 'that is the only option'. Obviously, there approaches are practiced and checked out in good VMC first, but it won't take account of any cranes being erected etc.

I did ask what ATC comment was made if they descend IMC, and the reply was that ATC aren't necessarily aware - You just report descending, continuing VFR, QSY - So the onus is on the pilot and ATC have no clear reason to question you.

I am aware that I sit here in my ivory tower, safe in the protection of a large commercial operator and I have none of the pressure bearing down on me that a small charter company would have. Even still ........... !

[FloaterNorthWest]

Helimutt,

My point is that you are doing a non-approved GPS letdown (maybe an NDB approach if some of the rigs still have them) below MSA in IMC with fare paying passengers. You must be IMC at some point or there is no point doing the approach if you are VMC.

And yes there are no wires at sea but there are some big structures that move and can be hidden on the weather radar by clutter.

And if you aren't happy, why do them? Just say no. Simples! Think we know what would happen (or has happened) if you did that?

Ivor,

Did he come from the direction of Bewl Water?

FNW

[MINself]

Sorry to nit pick but an ARA strictly speaking isn't a GPS approach - the GPS is only used as a cross check to the radar picture and it is most certainly an approved procedure!

[Horror box]

My point is that you are doing a non-approved GPS letdown (maybe an NDB approach if some of the rigs still have them) below MSA in IMC with fare paying passengers. You must be IMC at some point or there is no point doing the approach if you are VMC.

And yes there are no wires at sea but there are some big structures that move and can be hidden on the weather radar by clutter.

And if you aren't happy, why do them? Just say no. Simples! Think we know what would happen (or has happened) if you did that?

Ivor,

An ARA (airborne radar approach) is not a GPS letdown at all. As mentioned it is an approved IFR non-precision approach with a published procedure, approved by the CAA, with MDH, MAPt and Missed App procedure. It requires (at least in the country where I operate) an NDB and serviceable radar (which is used in ground mapping mode and sea de-clutter), and GPS may be used as an overlay to confirm the radar returns and positions of reported rig positions. All radar returns are avoided by at least 1nm. In modern machines it is a very established and safe procedure bringing you out on finals, at 0.75nm at MDH, with a clear run-in and clear missed approach section, checked and briefed, and is conducted in a multi-crew environment most often fully coupled 3-cue AP until after MAPt. This gives you the required obstacle clearances and we are provided a full radar or ADS contact all the way, with traffic info from ATC and TCAS as a secondary. Whist radar service is not always available in all all operations there is some form of air traffic service and deconfliction common to all.
So definitely not just "a non-approved GPS letdown" - sorry to disappoint!

[helimutt]

It amazes me why FNW always likes to try pick holes, (not literally ) and believe me, there are a couple of times we have said no thanks, and gone home!
It isn't a non approved gps letdown either. IFR, non-precision approach isn't it? Even if it is a ridiculous thing to have to do.
That's the difference of working offshore. The Chief Pilot will back you up if you give good reason not to do a job. No arguments. Onshore, you might be shown the door, because there's always one hero ready to do it, right?
Always home in time for tea and medals?


Many thanks Ivor and Horror for the input.

[FloaterNorthWest]

Thanks everyone you have argued the point I wanted to make that it is possible to have a safe letdown procedure in IMC without a ground based system.

I agree that IMC letdowns are risky and not to be taken lightly and should only be used if the same thought and care is taken as on offshore ARAs. The only added cover you have onshore is that there may be radar cover available.

Sadly there are lots of pilots who have died trying to do it (and killed innocent people) without the necessary experience or suitably equipped aircraft but conversely there are lots of these letdowns carried out perfectly safely everyday using the procedures outlined above for ARAs.

Helimutt,

Sorry to nit pick with you but statements like;

well, you could ask a couple of pilots who've done it in the past but unfortunately, THEY'RE DEAD!!!!!!

Anyone flying like that wants kicked in the nuts very hard!

just gets my back up and today you hit a nerve.

I believe previously we disagreed on the merits of having an IR rated pilot to take passengers to Rally GB. I remember you advocated VFR pilots to fly around Wales in November.

Enjoy your tea and medals while it lasts because another set of heros are coming over the hill

FNW

[Pandalet]

Out of interest, if you were going to a private site within shouting distance of an airfield with published approaches, ILS, etc, could you fly IFR to the airfield and perform a normal approach (assuming minimas are ok, etc), then break off the approach when you're out of the cloud and proceed VFR to your (private site) destination? Would you have to complete the approach (and effectively start a new flight), or is there a procedure for this?

Obviously, I'm assuming that you can clear built-up areas, aren't going to break rule 5 while transiting, etc. I'm just curious about using an IR-capable destination as a way-point for getting out of IFR and into VFR before transiting to a VFR-only destination.

[[email protected]]

Interesting thread.

Regardless of for, or against - I think we would all agree that there is inherently more risk involved in such a procedure as compared to others (i.e. standard ILS, ARA etc etc). Even if training to stay proficient there is still more risk involved although we all like challenges .

My question might be more along the lines of what circumstances might warrant the risk. On the face of what I've read, you must wonder. I'm sure that we all exercise our skills every day, but equally I'm sure we still try to use superior judgement to avoid situations requiring the use of superior skills. I say keep them in the back pocket for that rainy day so we can enjoy a healthier industry.

[jellycopter]

I'm not condoning the practice of GPS let-downs HOWEVER, the current ground based instrument approach procedures are based on systems that were invented and certified decades ago. (It's not that long ago that we did DECCA approaches IMC in non-coupled dinosaur helicopters!).

Corperate twins now have duplex three/four axis coupled autopilots, multiple GPSs with terrain database (some have DGPS), TCAS, (some have weather radar and GPWS), NDBs, VORs, DMEs and more.

It may not be legal to fly below MSA when IMC (I'm not sure?), however, the laws and procedures are based on ancient equipment and aren't necessarily appropriate today. But like anything in aviation, the laws always seem to get more restrictive, and rarely less so (the 1000ft rule and training from non-licensed sites are notably refreshing exceptions) despite technological advances.

Should there be a case for allowing non-precision approaches to 'points in space' with suitably equipped helicopters?

[FloaterNorthWest]

Pandalet,

Yes, if an airfield is nearby then why not shoot the approach. No need to take the risk of a self positioning IMC letdown. If you are public transport you would always use this method to break cloud then continue VFR to the destination.

Most of the time you will break cloud early in the procedure and precede to your destination. If you get down to the minima of an ILS it is unlikely you are going to get to a destination unless it is next to the airfield.

The trick is always have a back up plan up your sleeve to get the pax to the destination so that you don't get pressured into a corner. A Satphone is a great help in these situations!

FNW

[Horror box]

I'm not condoning the practice of GPS let-downs HOWEVER, the current ground based instrument approach procedures are based on systems that were invented and certified decades ago. (It's not that long ago that we did DECCA approaches IMC in non-coupled dinosaur helicopters!).

Corperate twins now have duplex three/four axis coupled autopilots, multiple GPSs with terrain database (some have DGPS), TCAS, (some have weather radar and GPWS), NDBs, VORs, DMEs and more.

Whilst I agree that in principle it is feasible to design and approve IFR approaches to private landing sites, your statement above really is only half the story. Aircraft systems have improved vastly over the years, but this is not the sole criteria for an approach. I refer you to PANS-OPS and the details of design of approaches. Obstacle clearance is the primary concern when developing an instrument approach. Generally oil and gas platforms are placed with an HPZ (helicopter protected zone) or HFIS, so any traffic or new structure are known and notified, and there is a natural limit to the amount of building and obstacles that suddenly appear offshore. Not the same onshore, where people can in a relatively short space of time erect a large telephone mast, crane, fly kites, use fireworks, shoot weapons etc without too much prior notification or permission required, vastly increasing the chance of a "surprise" to the pilot on an IMC/IFR NPA letdown onshore.
Further to this, whist indeed the procedures are based on systems invented many years ago, they are still in essence the same ground-based systems we use today, especially non-precision, NDB or VOR. These require are large degree of maintenance and constant checking for certification. Again this is entirely possible for a private site, but would be costly, and certification outside a control area/zone for an approach would be potentially difficult, if the operator has no control over the area surrounding and therefore unable to guarantee the obstacle clearance values. 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 - in which the UK would probably fit about ten times!
Of course there are also many other requirements relating to descent gradient, fix tolerances and the effect of the surrounding terrain, to start the list, so read PANS-OPS vol 1 for starters, then if you still have the will to live give Vol 2 a go, to see what I mean, and you will see it is not as straight forward as just having a modern aircraft and a "really good" pilot!
Once we have the approach procedure nailed for our onshore private site, we have to get the missed approach sorted, and this is again fairly detail intensive, with regard to obstacle clearance and Cat A operations and performance criteria. All entirely possible, but I suspect there is good reason we do not see it in practice very often onshore.

[[email protected]]

I am very much with helimutt here - self-drive, non-approved GPS approaches are both stupid and selfish but people keep doing it because they get away with it.

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.

But it's OK because it's what the customer wants

[Two's in]

Isn't this how we normally hear of these incidents?

The Board of Inquiry determined that:

1. The Meteorological briefing was inadequate.
2. The forecast Meteorological conditions precluded VFR flight.
3. Flight was continued deliberately from VMC into IMC without an IFR flight plan being filed.
4. The Landing Site did not have an approved Instrument Approach.
5. The aircraft descended below the MSA for that sector.
6. The telecom mast owner had notified the CAA of the temporary structure and it was briefed in a current NOTAM.

The Aircraft was consumed by fire and there were no survivors.