IFR departures - SID, Omnidirectional, ATC clearance
Performance is the responsibility of the Captain. A SID will not guarantee obstacle clearance by itself, will it?
The FAA TERPS answered is all airports with an instrument approach must be assessed under the diverse departure obstacle standard—ICA to 400’ above the DER, then 200’/nm to the airway structure. If neither a SID or and ODP is published, then the diverse procedure applies. Close-in obstacles, under 200’ IIRC, do not generate a climb gradient.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Aucky
In your OP you asked a question regarding an unlicensed airfield. It it permitted to operate CAT from such an airfield?
I can think of several licensed UK airports that operate regular scheduled CAT services from airfields without SIDs.. Look to the Scottish Highlands and Islands for examples.
In your OP you asked a question regarding an unlicensed airfield. It it permitted to operate CAT from such an airfield?
I can think of several licensed UK airports that operate regular scheduled CAT services from airfields without SIDs.. Look to the Scottish Highlands and Islands for examples.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CAT.OP.MPA.125(c) goes on to state - Notwithstanding (a), the operator may use procedures other than those referred to in (a) provided they have been approved by the State in which the aerodrome is located and are specified in the operations manual.
Simples. Part A and Part C of the Ops manual.
Simples. Part A and Part C of the Ops manual.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
assuming the pilot on the day is concerned enough to to find a solution where there is no SID and no specific clearance (and no clues in the OM's), the best thing i read so far on this thread (from Apate) is:-
"Bottom line is that you are responsible for obstacle clearance. The easiest way to do this would be to follow any published missed approach procedure until MSA is reached for the sector you are departing in."
this seems eminently practical to me...especially if its a airfield where you have no experience.
"Bottom line is that you are responsible for obstacle clearance. The easiest way to do this would be to follow any published missed approach procedure until MSA is reached for the sector you are departing in."
this seems eminently practical to me...especially if its a airfield where you have no experience.
The thing that strikes me most about this conversation is this: ATC procedures/rules are now at such a level of complexity that a competent person will struggle to understand them.
I count myself lucky - in 7500hrs rotary in the RAF, I was mostly operational or SAR. I never flew a SID…not once. I called ATC, told them what I needed to do, and the answer was invariably ‘yes’. When procedures become the subject of threads like this then I suggest they are unfit for purpose as their whole point is to ease the work burden.
This is why AI aircraft are absolutely in inevitable. A rule based system is, by definition, ripe for takeover by computers, and the days of the pilot are numbered.
I say that as a pilot.
I count myself lucky - in 7500hrs rotary in the RAF, I was mostly operational or SAR. I never flew a SID…not once. I called ATC, told them what I needed to do, and the answer was invariably ‘yes’. When procedures become the subject of threads like this then I suggest they are unfit for purpose as their whole point is to ease the work burden.
This is why AI aircraft are absolutely in inevitable. A rule based system is, by definition, ripe for takeover by computers, and the days of the pilot are numbered.
I say that as a pilot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bottom line is that you are responsible for obstacle clearance
It’s quite shocking to me that after everyone’s input thus far, and their combined experience, nobody seems to know the answer. If every IFR aerodrome had a straightforward omnidirectional departure published in the AIP we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but they don’t, and the fact no-one seems to know the gospel answer points to a significant failure of the regulation, it’s oversight, or implementation/knowledge of national procedure. I have looked through the AIP and as yet not found anything relevant. A relatively straightforward question shouldn’t have an ambiguous answer…
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Aucky.
The FOM or his deputy having recognised the need to publish a procedure will write a paragraph or two in the Part A to state the problem and how the company will address it. An airfield brief in the Part C is then written after having consulted the airfield charts and if necessary the airport in question. Often there are already local procedures in force to cover such situations you asked about. The FOM / deputy will devise a solution to such matters as fulfilling performance requirements. If the airport requires some procedures outside the norm it would be categorised as a Cat B or even a Cat C airport.
The FOM or his deputy having recognised the need to publish a procedure will write a paragraph or two in the Part A to state the problem and how the company will address it. An airfield brief in the Part C is then written after having consulted the airfield charts and if necessary the airport in question. Often there are already local procedures in force to cover such situations you asked about. The FOM / deputy will devise a solution to such matters as fulfilling performance requirements. If the airport requires some procedures outside the norm it would be categorised as a Cat B or even a Cat C airport.
We seem to have lost AM!
You might be better worrying about how you can be in the procedural hold at Gloucester, and then get cleared for the procedure to the runway requiring a descent through class G airspace above the ATZ where anyone can just bimble through without even talking to ATC.
Much like the ILS at Gloucester on the Westerly runway where, although it is marked as an instrument approach zone on charts, someone could legally fly straight through it (and have) again without talking to ATC - very interesting on a marginal VFR day.
Much like the ILS at Gloucester on the Westerly runway where, although it is marked as an instrument approach zone on charts, someone could legally fly straight through it (and have) again without talking to ATC - very interesting on a marginal VFR day.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
You might be better worrying about how you can be in the procedural hold at Gloucester, and then get cleared for the procedure to the runway requiring a descent through class G airspace above the ATZ where anyone can just bimble through without even talking to ATC.
Much like the ILS at Gloucester on the Westerly runway where, although it is marked as an instrument approach zone on charts, someone could legally fly straight through it (and have) again without talking to ATC - very interesting on a marginal VFR day.
Much like the ILS at Gloucester on the Westerly runway where, although it is marked as an instrument approach zone on charts, someone could legally fly straight through it (and have) again without talking to ATC - very interesting on a marginal VFR day.
I rather get the impression that you think that just because you are IFR you don’t need to look out. Hopefully I’m wrong.
Oh and having re-read your post, I very much doubt you would ever be “cleared” for a procedure in Class G. Clearances can only be given for flight in controlled airspace. You might have your proposed approach “approved” but that doesn’t include the magic word “cleared”.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 14th Nov 2021 at 20:47.
I think it's reasonably clear what Crab is saying. TYPICALLY when flying an insrument approach you are in controlled airspace and can rely on a certain amount of comfort in knowing that other airspace users are on the same frequency and being separated from you. To be in the middle of an approach and have random aircraft, you are unaware of (because they are not required to broadcast their presence), appearing from nowhere is probably quite disconcerting. I see Gloucester is by no means alone - Cranfield, Oxford and Humberside to name a few. https://maps.openaip.net/?destinatio...et/node/162212
Thanks 212man - at least you were paying attention
yes you are.
I rather get the impression that you think that just because you are IFR you don’t need to look out. Hopefully I’m wrong.
I think it's reasonably clear what Crab is saying. TYPICALLY when flying an insrument approach you are in controlled airspace and can rely on a certain amount of comfort in knowing that other airspace users are on the same frequency and being separated from you. To be in the middle of an approach and have random aircraft, you are unaware of (because they are not required to broadcast their presence), appearing from nowhere is probably quite disconcerting. I see Gloucester is by no means alone - Cranfield, Oxford and Humberside to name a few. https://maps.openaip.net/?destinatio...et/node/162212
My point was really to remind that just because one is IFR does not absolve one from keeping an adequate lookout. GM1 to SERA.3201 has this to say:
VIGILANCE ON BOARD AN AIRCRAFT
Regardless of the type of flight or the class of airspace in which the aircraft is operating, it is important that vigilance for the purpose of detecting potential collisions be exercised on board an aircraft. This vigilance is important at all times including while operating on the movement area of an aerodrome.
And there is of course radar at Gloucester, they will give you traffic information if necessary.
Of course, everyone would like to have their own private bit of airspace where no-one else is allowed to go, but with airspace being a scarce commodity, we have to share nicely.
Not sure how we drifted into Offshore approaches in Scotland when the OP clearly mentioned Cambridge and Gloucester HC - perhaps you have never flown at either airfield but felt you had to make a comment?
I have been 'cleared for the procedure' from the hold IMC at Gloucester and descended intermittent IMC/VMC through class G before getting to the IAF and flying the approach without (as Bravo 73 rightly says) radar service. It happens all the time because of the amount of IR training and testing that gets done there.
I have been 'cleared for the procedure' from the hold IMC at Gloucester and descended intermittent IMC/VMC through class G before getting to the IAF and flying the approach without (as Bravo 73 rightly says) radar service. It happens all the time because of the amount of IR training and testing that gets done there.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alderney IFR
In a similar vein, how does one depart Alderney IFR….?There are commercial operators on CAT flights that land using an RNP LPV200 but how do they get airborne and join the airways structure?Odd,as it sits in a Class D CTR with radar control and atc.
i cannae see any SID or omni deps
i cannae see any SID or omni deps
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Not sure how we drifted into Offshore approaches in Scotland when the OP clearly mentioned Cambridge and Gloucester HC - perhaps you have never flown at either airfield but felt you had to make a comment?
With regard to Gloucester (which I have flown into, though it was many years ago) if they can't even keep their radar serviceable how could they possibly manage controlled airspace - unless that airspace should exist just to allow a tiny minority to carry out intrument approaches without feeling the need to look out, at the expense of excluding or making life very difficult for many other classes of airspace users.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that strikes me most about this conversation is this: ATC procedures/rules are now at such a level of complexity that a competent person will struggle to understand them.
I count myself lucky - in 7500hrs rotary in the RAF, I was mostly operational or SAR. I never flew a SID…not once. I called ATC, told them what I needed to do, and the answer was invariably ‘yes’. When procedures become the subject of threads like this then I suggest they are unfit for purpose as their whole point is to ease the work burden.
This is why AI aircraft are absolutely in inevitable. A rule based system is, by definition, ripe for takeover by computers, and the days of the pilot are numbered.
I say that as a pilot.
I count myself lucky - in 7500hrs rotary in the RAF, I was mostly operational or SAR. I never flew a SID…not once. I called ATC, told them what I needed to do, and the answer was invariably ‘yes’. When procedures become the subject of threads like this then I suggest they are unfit for purpose as their whole point is to ease the work burden.
This is why AI aircraft are absolutely in inevitable. A rule based system is, by definition, ripe for takeover by computers, and the days of the pilot are numbered.
I say that as a pilot.
The point being that a certain amount of woe and hysteria was being conjoured up for what is in fact a perfectly routine occurrence.
The MAP for Gloucester takes you to the edge of the ATZ but then climbs you and turns you back to the NDB hold at 2800' - ie outside the ATZ in class G (normal hold is at 4000') . You are possibly IMC with no radar service where anyone can just fly through.