Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

IFR departures - SID, Omnidirectional, ATC clearance

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

IFR departures - SID, Omnidirectional, ATC clearance

Old 18th Nov 2021, 17:09
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 65
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
It may be a perfectly routine occurrence offshore but only those airfields not in CAS onshore will have an unprotected instrument approach. It is an issue, especially when the airfield doesn't have radar.

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.
But people can and do fly IMC outside controlled airspace with no radar cover all the time. They donít seem to crash very often. Well let me rephrase that, there is plenty of crashing due to pilot error but none due to mid air collisions in IMC. In aviation (and elsewhere of course) you have to analyse carefully what is actually dangerous and what isnít. Sometimes stuff that looks dangerous actually isnít, and stuff that looks safe is actually dangerous. Humans are bad at judging that sort of thing.

Anyway I would agree that having a serviceable radar would be a good thing. I donít agree that having more controlled airspace would be a good or necessary thing.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2021, 17:48
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 530
Aucky - is your reason for starting this thread because of an academic issue, in that you are concerned/interested that there is a technical gap in the regs here, or a practical issue, in that you are concerned about the collision risks of departing in IMC from particularly airfields in Class G airspace?
rotorspeed is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2021, 21:35
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 427
Originally Posted by rotorspeed View Post
Aucky - is your reason for starting this thread because of an academic issue, in that you are concerned/interested that there is a technical gap in the regs here, or a practical issue, in that you are concerned about the collision risks of departing in IMC from particularly airfields in Class G airspace?
My interest is two fold: 1) As a conscientious pilot I like to understand what rules Iím supposed to be adhering to incase I one day need to justify them, and 2) as post-holder I want to understand what procedures are considered normal practice amongst other experienced professional pilots who fly for a spread of operators, in the absence of clarity within application of the regulation. Perhaps there is a 3rd reason, which is to highlight the total idiocy of making it so hard to approve a PinS departure without 2+ years of work and ACPs, and to simultaneously allow people to depart IFR from aerodromes without even an omnidirectional departure.

To be clear - I have no interest in trying to restrict people from doing what they already do, I think we should be able to depart IFR from an airfield without a SID, but it would be nice if IFR aerodrome operators were incentivised to at least publish an omnidirectional departure which we could very simply hang our hat on, without having to come up with convoluted OM part A or C procedures.

The issue of collision risks when flying IMC in class G, with other aircraft at least, is not a real concern for me. Iíve spent significantly more time IFR in class G than any other airspace and Iíve found VFR in class G to be significantly more dangerous from a MAC perspective. Most aircraft flying in IMC have some form of transponder and talk on the radio. That said, I quite like the use of class E on the continent for IFR traffic.

Last edited by Aucky; 18th Nov 2021 at 22:08.
Aucky is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2021, 09:46
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,781
Iíve found VFR in class G to be significantly more dangerous from a MAC perspective
exactly my point - when you mix IFR traffic in variable IMC/VMC with VFR traffic trying to stay VMC in class G, you have a recipe for disaster.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2021, 14:25
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 621
Hi Archive
Three good reasons for asking questions on here (even as a form 4 holder) 1 - the CAA don't always give the correct answer or give valid reasons for the answer, 2- the regulations and explanatory material are often out of date and/or confusing and 3, there is considerable knowledge out there on PPRuNe and so long as you can sort the wheat from the chaff, the comments can be useful and enlightening for all.
Cheers
TeeS
TeeS is online now  
Old 19th Nov 2021, 16:11
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 65
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
exactly my point - when you mix IFR traffic in variable IMC/VMC with VFR traffic trying to stay VMC in class G, you have a recipe for disaster.
Yes this definitely is a major source of U.K. aviation disasters.



Not!
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2021, 18:29
  #47 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 427
Originally Posted by Archive mole View Post
As a Form 4 holder you are expected to be competent, knowledgeable and responsible about what you are overseeing. You will also have direct access to the CAA OPS inspector of your organisation to ask for advice when you need it - itís free, impartial and the best advice you will get. Perhaps you would be better advised doing that rather than asking questions on an online forum?
Perhaps, but generally I have found ops inspectors are more receptive when you tell them what you intend to write, the reasons why, and the safety case for doing so, and if you are unsure what is considered acceptable, that you have exhaustedy all available resources in attempting to arrive at the most sensible and acceptable content. Usually within the framework of the regulation this is very straightforward, other times it is less so. Having spoken to a number of other current postholders (and ex-postholders), as well as some of the most established IR trainers in the UK, this specific issue seemingly remains largely unaddressed within the onshore framework of operators who donít have an OM C entry for every licensed aerodrome that they may be expected to fly to, or a state/company approved procedure. I therefore standby my approach that I will very happily reach out to other professional colleagues in industry to see what I am missing, before going to my ops inspector to ask for help. Itís easy to downplay the potential benefit of an Ďonline forumí but personally, like Wikipedia, I find that there is a huge amount of useful information which is not taken as fact, but which may lead you to the right source to find the answer. There is also the potential benefit, though you may not personally see it as one, that promoting conversation can be useful to others who have any interest on the topic. If they are not interested I would suggest they neednít read this thread 👍🏼

I have read of a number of ops manuals, and most contain a line in OM A 8.1.2 to the effect of ďUnless specific instrument approach/departure procedures exist, flights are to be carried out under Visual Flight RulesÖĒ. I also know that many depart IFR from airfields without instrument departures every day without the AIP or OM C giving any published IFR departures. Iím not going to keep pressing this one, I shall take it offline now. Thanks to those who have input with useful suggestions.

Aucky is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.