It will if you have the performance to follow the profile.

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.

I’m aware it happens, and understand how it can be done safely, my question was more around the operational compliance of doing so without some form of notified departure, whether SID or ODP, when conducting CAT operations iaw CAT.OP.MPA.125

In which case, has any professional pilot here seen such a thing in their ops manual if it’s what everyone is doing? It would seem odd that after 26 posts no-one has given an example of this…

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.

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.

From an immediate safety of life perspective yes, but working back from the smoking hole in the ground you should be the last line of defence in preventing the accident. The unfortunate R116 accident and report quite clearly highlight that whilst the pilots are ultimately responsible for obstacle clearance, the regulation, management systems, and operational procedures all have a significant role to play in ensuring earlier layers of defence. Very few things should be left to the pilot to come up with their own procedures on the day, or their own way of establishing compliance with the regulation. I’m asking how these should be done, as opposed to how they can be done.

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…

Thanks AM, do you recall what was considered acceptable to the authority as a method of analysing the local area for obstacles such that the required performance can be established? OS mapping/aeronautical charts/3rd party surveyor?

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.

i don’t see your point. Regardless of VFR or IFR you are responsible for maintaining a collision-avoidance lookout. If the conditions are VMC then (allegedly) one is capable of “see and avoid”. I don’t understand why you see flying an IFR procedure in VFR is in some way worse than flying VFR in the same weather conditions? Maybe as a (ex) SAR pilot you habitually avoided flying VFR on a marginal VMC day? Seems unlikely!

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”.

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:):ok:

yes you are.

Typically when you are flying an offshore instrument approach, you are in Class G - although admittedly "unknown" traffic density tends to be miniscule. Onshore I agree the norm is inside controlled airspace, but it certainly doesn't have to be. Loads of instrument approaches in Scotland are outside CAS. Inverness, Dundee, Wick, Kirkwall and many others. So I don't really see it as a big deal, apart from the greater traffic densities in England.

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.

The radar at Gloucester hasn’t worked for years.

Depending on the time of day/year, you might get a service from Brize. But not whilst on the approach itself.

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.

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

Yes. I felt I had to make a comment because of the comment "Typically when flying an instrument approach you are in controlled airspace". Bearing in mind this is a helicopter forum, I suggest that when flying an instrument approach in a helcopter its quite likely not to be in controlled airspace - simply because of the amount of offshore IFR flying that goes on compared to that on land into airfields with CAS, and that therefore the quoted comment is misleading. The point being that a certain amount of woe and hysteria was being conjoured up for what is in fact a perfectly routine occurrence.

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.

If ever there was an omen signaling the end of manned helicopter flight, it would definitely be whatever the hell you just said.

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.