IMC non procedural approach

[Timothy]

Best to apply the strictist law - law of self preservation. I.e. don't fly below any objects and don't hit anything!

...and this is exactly my position.

It is impossible for anyone in Gatwick, Westminster or Strasbourg to determine, years in advance, whether a particular approach is safe on any particular day; I am in a better position to decide that for myself on a case by case basis.

The danger is that if the law says that something is acceptable, people will confuse that for being safe. For example, I would far prefer to land in 700m RVR off an ILS into LHR (which is illegal) than to fly a raw data Shoreham 20 NDB to minima on a raw and blustery night (which is legal).

The interesting anomaly is the recommended higher minima for IMCR holders. I've never really understood their place in the ANO/AIP. In law there is either a prohibition or there isn't and there isn't, so those recommendations belong in Safety Circulars, not organs of law.

[bookworm]

The interesting anomaly is the recommended higher minima for IMCR holders. I've never really understood their place in the ANO/AIP. In law there is either a prohibition or there isn't and there isn't, so those recommendations belong in Safety Circulars, not organs of law.

Much of the AIP is informational, and it's only an "organ of law" in the sense that the ANO provides a mechanism for certain details to be notified in the AIP. The mechanism for calculating minima just happens to be one of those things notified in the AIP, but the recommendation to use higher minima for IMCR holder is informational.

[Jwscud]

Best to apply the strictist law - law of self preservation. I.e. don't fly below any objects and don't hit anything!

...and this is exactly my position.

The danger is that if the law says that something is acceptable, people will confuse that for being safe. For example, I would far prefer to land in 700m RVR off an ILS into LHR (which is illegal) than to fly a raw data Shoreham 20 NDB to minima on a raw and blustery night (which is legal).

EU Ops has actually changed this - if you are making a coupled approach using an autopilot, you can fly to standard CAT I RVR - Reference EU OPS Appendix to 1.430 (new) discussing single pilot RVR limits. I flew both the NDB and GPS approaches on 20 in IMC with a strong southerly wind on my IR training - both fairly hairy, though LNAV+V makes the GPS much less so.

[Sir Morley Steven]

Provided there is completely flat land around for five miles.

I used the word "MSA" so yes, MSA=MSA

There is no such thing as e.g. "MSA is 2000ft but there is a tower sticking up over there to 3000ft so you have to be careful to not hit it". In that case, MSA would be 4000ft.

I know you did Peter. I was referring to your claim that the fact that you can descend to the MSA means a DIY approach with a 100ft decision height complies with the minimum height rule.
Can you name an airfield where this is possible?
If there is flat land all around you don't need a DIY approach. Just descend perfectly safely to the MSH and continue VFR.
Generally I do this just over the coast if there's any close by. There the MSA is 1000ft QNH provides there are no large objects, of course.

[Sir Morley Steven]

In fact, let's be specific.
Could you describe a DIY approach into Blackbushe which takes you down to 1000ft AGL? As far as I can see it I can't descend below 1765 QNH.

[Timothy]

Steve,

I can think of very few airfields where it is not possible, to such a point that I can't see what you are saying. For Blackbushe it's a very straightforward OBS.

Whether the minima are 500' QFE or non existent is the only real question, the one which has never been asked or answered.

Josh,

Things have not changed, it is 550m if you have an autopilot which can be coupled down to system minima, or are two crew, 800m otherwise. I haven't and I'm not, so it's 800m for me hence 700m is illegal.

[Sir Morley Steven]

Then we don't know what each other is saying. I was discussing Peters point that an approach down to 1000ft will not descend past the MSA.
If I descended to 1000ft AGL at the Bushe I would be in breach of the 1000ft rule due Bagshot mast.
Sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm not trying to be clever either, just trying to understand how I could legally descend below 1765 QNH at Blackbushe in IMC.

[peterh337]

I think you also need HIAL for the 550m figure.

Re the 1765ft MDA that appears to be true at Blackbushe on a straight MSA basis (within 5nm of track) due to the tower there.

If one was designing an IAP for R25/07 one would obviously need to examine that obstacle. However it is several nm off the FAT...

You can legally descend below the MSA for the purposes of a landing (G-reg, UK airspace).

[Sir Morley Steven]

Thanks Peter. At least you know what I am saying

[Sir Morley Steven]

Thanks Peter. At least you know what I am saying

[Timothy]

It's not that hard. The 1000' IFR rule only applies if your descent is not for the purpose of landing, the 500' Rule 5 only applies if your descent to land is not in accordance with normal aviation practice.

I actually don't understand how this has got to three pages when every third post makes exactly this point.

[Paul_Sengupta]

However until you are visual you cannot (safely) have an intent to land.

Why? If I didn't intend on landing, I wouldn't descend and/or start the procedure.