[jhb_airlines] Re: Standard Pocedure

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:46:46 +0100

This is why, in real life, an aircraft will tune into the ATIS whilst en
route. The crew will then dig out the appropriate plates and run through
them in the landing briefing. This is done on every flight - regardless of
whether you have been into the airfield thousands of times before. If it's a
new airfield then the landing briefing is quite critical and more attention
will be spent going through the plate.

To make life easier the approach procedures are standardised. Nowadays most
airfields employ the teardrop approach as it is easier to manage than the
old reverse course approach. All you really need to check is the outbound
heading, the descent altitude and the DME distance at which the turn to the
ILS starts. At EGNS I know we go out on the 101 radial to just 8DME dropping
to 2000ft. That's from the RWY NDB though - the procedures is quite
different from CAR NDB.

This is the rub though - there are usually several variants of the
procedures and you have to be clear which on you are using. At EGNS we can
start the procedure from any of the holding stacks - KELLY, VANIN, IOM, RWY
or CAR - so the plate shows all five. CAR is the worst <g>..

ATC will clear you to one of these holding stacks and it is up to the pilot
to work out the one he needs. The rub is that ATC will not know the actual
procedure employed because some relate to aircraft category and only the
pilot will know which approach is appropriate. Although Anthony knew the
cleared procedure would put you on the ILS at Jersey he would not have known
if your outbound heading would have been 111 or that for Cat C or D aircraft
- only the pilot would know this.

Stick with this because reading (and flying) IAP's can be very rewarding.
It's what pilots do endlessly during their flying training. Obviously an ILS
approach is the easiest because it has glideslope guidance but examiners are
a cruel lot and it always seems to be an NDB approach that the poor pilot is
asked to do during the test - sometimes asymmetric too.

I'd not suggest anyone here tries an NDB approach except in zero wind
conditions unless they already know the basics of NDB tracking. It's
something that really can't be self taught as you need to understand a few
basic concepts about tracking and drift correction first. Flying to an NDB
is easy enough but then it gets more complex, such as intercepting a
specific inbound "radial" to and NDB and maintaining that radial when there
is a crosswind.

I'm glad this topic has cropped up though as it is a gap in our current
experience that needs filling.

bones

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 20 October 2005 18:31
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Standard Pocedure


Thanks for that.
The procedure you describe is the one I thought, but not with any
confidence, I should follow. I had before me the IAP pate for Jersey 27.
I was mistaken in thinking that the section of the plate from which I
got some of the info, eg altitude, was MAP. The intention was however,
to do as  you say, to fly over the JSY, then leave heading 111, whilst
descending to 2000', then to turn left, to intercept the localiser. My
request was for confirmation that I should overfly JSY then proceed to
the localiser from a left turn seems reasonable. The only response, that
I should follow the procedure, didn't either clarify it or increase my
confidence. Bear in mind we're all one man crew.
 The situation would have been greatly simplified if the response to my
request had been "Affirmative" or "that is the procedure",  "proceed on
111 for 8 miles, before turning for the ILS", or any elaboration on that
theme. It would be easier to learn at the time than have to wait until
after the event. That sounds a bit stuffy but isn't meant to be.

Gerry Winskill

Bones wrote:

>None were right but I'll have to wind the clock back to explain this.
>Bear with me as this is important reading and will take you one step
>further in knowledge..
>
>You have all jumped into the real ATC world at the deep end and, as a
>result, have somewhat missed out on some basic essentials. The FPI
>world is not just an ATC simulation but is more specific - it's an ATC
>radar simulation and assumes that all aircraft will be radar guided and
>vectored. In the real world not many units have radar and so there is a
>second method of controlling which is actually the basic method of ATC
>and which you don't really know anything about in depth - although I do
>mention it from time to time in these posts.
>
>Procedural control is the basic form of controlling aircraft in the UK.
>It's all done by timings and fixed routes and it needs a clear
>understanding by both controllers and pilots to work. It's hard work
>and so it takes up a large chunk of both pilot and controller training.
>Radar obviously makes life a lot easier and so it is accepted as the
>norm in the real world at those units it is fitted. Many pilots will
>fly around every day in a full radar environment and never have to
>resort to procedural methods - but it doesn't mean they don't know
>them. If a radar fails then ATC and the pilots will immediately shift
>over to procedural control, as Anthony did last night.
>
>You are flying into Ronaldsway from WAL VOR. Normally you would expect
>to be put over to EGNS_APP approaching Kelly and expect to be told
>"this will be radar vectoring for the ILS runway 26." or similar. ATC
>will then turn you right onto a heading of around 345, drop you to
>3000ft and, a little later turn you left again to hit the ILS. Piece of
>cake for ATC and a doddle for pilots as they just dial in a couple of
>headings and leave navigation in the hands of the controller. They
>assume that the end result will put them onto the ILS at the right
>distance and height for a nice coupled approach. You've all done it,
>it's easy and you get to think that flying is a real doddle.
>
>Now go back to the days when you flew around in FS without FPI and had
>to plan your own approaches to airports. Harder isn't it? If it wasn't
>for FSNav it would still be tricky for many pilots to get from position
>X to a 10nm final for the ILS on a nice closing heading. You can do
>this from the navaids alone but the trouble is that most of you haven't
>been trained to develop positional awareness from navaid readings
>because all the goodies in FS have taken that work away from you. In
>real life we don't have FSNav and so we fall back onto Procedural
>Control. What is this?
>
>Procedural Control is the basic written procedures for all UK airports
>contained in the AIP. They exist for all airports that have a published
>approach procedure - whether ILS, NDB or VOR. Technically every pilot
>should plan to fly the procedural approach - it's what should be put in
>the flight plan - and they should also be prepared to fly it too. Most
>times they will not because radar will be available to expedite matters
>but this is what the difference is between yourselves and real life
>pilots. The latter will know the procedural approach (and can fly it)
>whereas FS pilots tend to assume that radar will guide them in.
>
>The approach procedures are all there in the AIP. They are split into
>Initial Approach procedures (basically the STAR's) which take you from
>airways to the holding facility at the airfield and the Final Approach
>procedure which is the specific procedure for a particular runway and
>approach aid (such as the ILS approach for 26 or the NDB/DME approach).
>
>Anthony was correct last night in that the STAR ended up at the holding
>fix for Jersey - the JSY VOR. With no radar you could have been put in
>the hold at the VOR but there was no point as he had no conflicting
>traffic. He therefore allowed you to continue with the approach by
>clearing you for the "standard procedure". Actually this isn't quite
>correct as it doesn't specify which procedure it is but that's beside
>the point as all I would have said "Cleared for the ILS procedure for
>26." So, you are over the VOR and have been cleared for the approach
>procedure. This is where you must turn to the Instrument Approach plate
>page.
>
>The IAP is the procedure that takes you from the hold to the runway.
>You all know these as they are seen in many places - even in the books
>that used to come with the earlier versions of FS (sigh). For Jersey
>it's quite simple - you leave the VOR on a track of 111 descending to
>2000ft. At 8.5DME you turn left to intercept the ILS. The IAP also
>contains the correct Missed Approach procedure (MAP) so if all goes
>wrong you should follow this back to the hold for another try.
>
>In last night's case the ATIS should have given you the landing runway
>so I would have automatically got out both the STAR chart and the IAP
>for 26..
>
>bones
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>Sent: 20 October 2005 15:15
>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Standard Pocedure
>
>
>Alastair.
>I'd got that but when I asked for confirmation that I joined the ILS
>for 27, after flying overhead JSY, I just got a repeat of Follow
>Standard Procedure. The STAR, as far as I can see, doesn't route, in
>detail, from JSY to either rwy, so the absence of vectors, or
>additional info, left me with the apparent options
>1) JSY, then left hand circuit to join 27 ILS, as in the MAP
>2) Approach JSY, from the North, then turn downwind, to join 27 ILS
>from a right hand base leg. Which is what I did.
>3) Panic
>
>Gerry Winskill
>
>gwinsk@xxxxxxx
>
>Alastair wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi Jerry
>>
>>See:-
>>
>>http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/32JJ0703.PDF
>>
>>I thought I was doing well until I got the 'go around' from the tower
>>controller.
>>
>>5 miles short final, and another aircraft on the runway, I don't think
>>that the controller was aware that there was an aircraft on short
>>finals, until I called him.  He seemed to be concentrating on the
>>departing aircraft more than anything else. After that, absolutely no
>>comms. from the ground controller.
>>
>>Apart from that it went quite well, apart from having to do a re-boot
>>on the Gatwick leg.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Alastair
>>
>>Gerry Winskill wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Probably a daft question, with an obvious answer, but what's
>>>"Standard Procedure"?
>>>
>>>In context, I was not, apparently, visible on the controller's
>>>screen, as I approached Jersey, last night. Since he couldn't see me
>>>and had just one other a/c, Alastair, who was a respectable distance
>>>ahead, he instructed me to follow standard procedure and report when
>>>established on the localiser. A quick look through all the Jersey
>>>plates to hand didn't show up anything called Standard Procedure, for
>>>runway 27. The nearest I could see was the MAP, which involve a JSY
>>>join, followed by left hand circuit to join the ILS. I asked whether
>>>I was right if  I used this route but just got a repeat of the
>>>initial request to follow standard procedure.
>>>At that point I must admit to capitalising on the fact that the
>>>controller's misfortune was greater than my own. I was visual with
>>>Alastair, whilst the controller couldn't see me. I'd heard Alastair
>>>being given headings for a right hand circuit, so I just followed the
>>>same pattern. The controller knew not where I was until I reported
>>>"localiser established". BUT....this could crop up again. I thought I
>>>had all the required plates to hand but I must have been wrong.
>>>Dear Agony Aunt; what should I have done; apart from keeping my legs
>>>crossed!
>>>
>>>Gerry Winskill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Other related posts: