Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1700003
PaulB wrote:
Lockhaven wrote:Its not a clearance, its a procedural service advising you of other traffic, wisely other traffic participates so everyone knows were each other is, as always in the UK "legal" "blame" "what if" "unsafe" "not possible" pops up :roll:


So, in that example, why do you need Montreal Center? Why could pilots just tell Wabush what they're doing? Or is it a case, like the UK, that other pilots not talking to Montreal or Wabush (or perhaps not talking to anyone) may be flying through the approach and the Radar unit can advise of those?

Given the fractured structure of ATC in the UK, I just can't see that working or being achievable so we perhaps need to have a different goal that maybe is achievable?

Sorry if I'm being thick here....


Ok in that example Wabash is approx 500nm from Montreal.

Firstly you would probably be talking to Montreal Centre via relay stations not directly while using the airways in the area, so in this case if you were enroute to Wabash they would advise you of any other traffic in the Wabash area either from radar returns or via telephone link to Wabash tower (if the guy was in the tower and not having his dinner) as there is no official ATC its just a guy to pass the weather and advise if other traffic is using the approach or landing at Wabash.

You could also just speak directly to Wabash for the approach if you had flown in from a more local airport non airways, again assuming the guy is not having his dinner, because he isn't ATC.

The point is, pilots know how the system works and everyone makes blind calls if required.

What needs to happen in the UK is to educate pilots on how these sort of systems work, the CAA need to realise these systems work without full oversight and control by them, UK ATC need to be educated in to a new way of thinking instead of believing they have overall control to make such systems work, and airports around the UK need to stop having there own power craze regarding bits of airspace around them.

Almost everything is achievable but it helps if people pull their heads out of the sand and look around them instead of saying No first because thats the way we have always done it.
#1700057
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
chevvron wrote:Don't forget the 'initial' and 'intermediate' portions of the iap will be conducted mostly in Class 'E' airspace so IFR separation will be provided against other IFR traffic; it's only the 'final' portion which will be in Class G

At most airports that being surface to 700ft only.

G

2.3 nm final assuming a nominal 3 deg GP. Plenty of room for VFR traffic to get in the way.
#1700070
Katamarino wrote:
chevvron wrote:2.3 nm final assuming a nominal 3 deg GP. Plenty of room for VFR traffic to get in the way.


If it's VFR it doesn't matter as you'll be able to see and avoid.


Much as I’m for approaches like this, if the cloudbase is 750’ and the VFR traffic is at 700’ on final, there’s not much room for error.

Unless everyone is carrying suitably equipped transponders and a decent TAS to be prewarned of that traffic. Or everyone makes proper positioning reports so that both know each other is there and can sort separation.

It’s not impossible but it would need everyone to play the game.
#1700083
AndyR wrote:
Much as I’m for approaches like this, if the cloudbase is 750’ and the VFR traffic is at 700’ on final, there’s not much room for error.


I think it's all about sensible assessment of risk. Far more aircraft have been brought down by birds than by a mid-air collision in the circumstances described (in fact, I have never heard of an accident resulting from a situation like that).

We don't ban all flying where birds might be, and that's a bigger risk. Arbitrarily denying the ability to fly approaches to smaller fields in this manner encourages people to scud run or fly their own homebuilt procedures, so the situation we have here is arguably more dangerous.

Of course, the logic of the bureaucrats at the CAA is probably that they can't be blamed for birds, or people scud running; and covering their **** is far more important to them than safety in the national aviation system, I'd wager.
Lockhaven, bookworm, Stampe liked this
#1700087
From a while ago (2006) but:
More than half the [FAA Private] pilots eventually get an instrument rating but only a small percentage of those maintain instrument currency. One association president said a while back that only 15 percent of its instrument-rated members were instrument current.


So whatever the current pilot numbers are on either side of the Atlantic, it is evident that many more FAA Private Pilots take the IR training than UK PPLs train for an IR(R) / IMCR.
#1700090
PaulB wrote:What proportion of FAA GA pilots have an IR and what proportion of UK GA pilots have an IR/IR(R)?


Does it matter, the types of airfields we are discussing for GA having such approaches are mainly outside controlled airspace so the approach could be flown using an IMC rating.
#1700126
One big difference between the USA and UK environment in my experience is that US pilots obey their VFR cloud separation minima (1000' above, 500' below, 2000' beside) and regularly chastise pilots in the crew room who are suspected of scud running. The SERA rules are similar.

The UK weather forces us to apply exemptions akin to "clear of cloud", and pilots are regularly seen to apply these minima. Having IFR and VFR potentially within a few feet of each other and unable to see each other, one being just inside cloud under IFR on a GPS approach and the other just outside scud running under "VFR" is a huge difference.

If we want more GNSS approaches, the cost may be that VFR pilots are forced to accept and comply with US/SERA-like cloud separation.
#1700127
T67M wrote:One big difference between the USA and UK environment in my experience is that US pilots obey their VFR cloud separation minima (1000' above, 500' below, 2000' beside) and regularly chastise pilots in the crew room who are suspected of scud running. The SERA rules are similar.

The UK weather forces us to apply exemptions akin to "clear of cloud", and pilots are regularly seen to apply these minima. Having IFR and VFR potentially within a few feet of each other and unable to see each other, one being just inside cloud under IFR on a GPS approach and the other just outside scud running under "VFR" is a huge difference.

If we want more GNSS approaches, the cost may be that VFR pilots are forced to accept and comply with US/SERA-like cloud separation.


Then the answer is, make both options easily available to all pilots.
T67M liked this
#1700131
rdfb wrote:
T67M wrote:If we want more GNSS approaches, the cost may be that VFR pilots are forced to accept and comply with US/SERA-like cloud separation.


Or mandate electronic conspicuity equipment (both send and receive) for all IFR and for all VFR flying closer than the SERA minima.


But once again you are offering the CAA more ammunition to make the system complicated.

What I showed above, Wabash as an example has been, and still is working around the world without all of the wizardry just using basic procedural techniques.

35 years ago I flew in to Wabash in an SEP aircraft at night in IMC using one runway and a biz jet Challenger was making an approach for the other runway because we talked to each other and found a solution to both do an approach at the same time in IMC knowing he would end up landing before me.

STOP making it complicated, use some common sense instead of getting all wrapped up technology.
Dave W, PaulB, T67M and 2 others liked this
#1700145
PaulB wrote:So... how would the above example work in FAA land?


In FAAland, a cloudbase below 1000ft automatically is IFR in the vicinity of an airport. VFR traffic may not fly. IFR traffic must fly at 1000ft above, etc. etc. So scud-running at 800ft below an 850ft cloudbase, is firmly illegal. And in class E you need to be 500ft below cloud.

You *could* have a non-radio non-transponder aeroplane VFR at 1000ft, below a 1500ft cloudbase, and another aeroplane inbound on an IAP breaking cloud at 1500ft. In class E for the VFR traffic to be there legally they need 3 miles visibility. Thinking about those numbers, you can see that there are good margins built into the system.

G
Lockhaven, T67M liked this