More quirks of French IFR - NIMBY waypoints

gallois wrote:

Is France the only country to have VPTs? How about circling to land in general?

France is the only country in Europe to use VPTs extensively. They are very unusual in other countries. You can’t compare VPTs with circle to land. In circle to land you have to stay in an area – not along a trackr. Also, according to PANS-OPS the corridor width for VPTs is 1400 m for cat A aircraft. You need much less to avoid noise-sensitive areas at LFMD.

In reality I don’t think any of the airports in the south-west of England are any less proscriptive about the shape of their pattern for VFR traffic than this. Perhaps for slightly better reasons, for example Denham, Fairoaks, and Redhill where you are under the TMAs. Even Blackbushe has a dogleg on its downwind if I remember correctly.

It seems to me that it’s only a matter of time before noise abatement procedures are implicated in an accident.

Not really any different to flying in Denham or Fairoaks or Redhill where the penalties for straying are much worse. I suspect the airport have to have it on file that they wrote so they can show compliance.

I’ve done LFMD half a dozen times in the last couple of years without issue and with SkyDemon and making a mental map of exactly what I am trying to do before take off. Exactly the same way as I do for any instrument approach. PPPPPP. Simples.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Also, according to PANS-OPS the corridor width for VPTs is 1400 m for cat A aircraft. You need much less to avoid noise-sensitive areas at LFMD.

In addition, the same approach has to be followed by aircraft category B and C.

On approach plates (both Jepp and SIA) LUXUS and PIBON are marked as compulsory reporting but there are two inconsistencies further on:
1. Points A and B are at Jepp plate marked as non-compulsory reporting waypoints and on SIA plate they are marked just as a points with I’d say non-ICAO symbol.
2. Jepp plate specifies CMD as LOC DME while SIA plate depicts it as only DME (although from localizer approach plates it’s obvious that it’s LOC).

BTW point A is some 3+ NM from CMD (I guess radial 18) and point B is 2.3 NM from CMD (on radial 350) so it’s obvious that both points could be specified both using conventional navigation (using CMD LOC DME both points are within range of LOC back course) and GPS.

Between 20 and 30 degrees, usually, depending on how tight the circuit is, and if there is a crosswind from the live side. That is for SEP circuit speeds, and not precise as I look outside and adjust the tuen to roll out on a particular track / final rather than looking at the AI to achieve a precise bank angle. Rate 1 turns are for IFR.

Leading/lagging the turn depending on wind is also something of an art and if turning too early that might lead to a flatter turn.

In general I think 45 degree banked turns in circuits are not a good idea, and most twin pilots would agree (an inboard engine failure could be, ahem, interesting) and hence you get the more “oval” circuits at higher speeds. No point rolling out for 5 seconds, much smoother to just have one continuous flat turn in a narrow circuit.

Is having things such.as Skydemon, FF, SDVFR leading to pilots doing less pre flight planning than they used to?

In my experience, it leads to deteriorating pure visual navigation skills.

I can provide two examples. The first one is myself. I had a few hundred VFR hours in the pre moving map GPS days. Happily flew visual only, with the occasional VOR fix / following a radial.

Then I got an IR and flew 80 percent IFR and 20 percent VFR segments mostly flown with moving map.

After that, I went back to visual flying to get a CPL. Boy, was I bad. It only took a few hours to get the habits back to be comfortable, but it took some effort.

The second anecdote is one of my students. He was exceptionally good, during his training we went glider site hunting and practiced diversions (hey, take me to Little-Farmstrip-On-The-Field) in less than 5k visibility in an Arrow (slowing down is for wimps). He got every single one. No GPS or other nav aids allowed.

A few years later, on a revalidation flight, he was rubbish. Heads down, staring at the iPad all the time, and completely lost when asked him to put it away.

We won’t go back to the pure visual navigation, and GPS assisted is much better anyway. But the reality is that fewer and fewer pilots – especially those who fly to larger airports – are used to to identify ground features with the same level of confidence than 20 years ago

So it is good that reports are made that a procedure is difficult to follow in practice, and the best response by the authorities / publisher is to make the publications better, not to tell the pilots to get better.

Emir wrote:

In addition, the same approach has to be followed by aircraft category B and C.

…and for these categories the corridor widths are 1500 and 1800 m, respectively…

gallois wrote:

Oh dear are you saying you cannot overfly identifiable landmarks at 2000ft in.VMC conditions without GNSS. Where on earth were you trained.

I’m perfectly able to “overfly a point” within ICAO tolerances, but that’s not what is required at LFMD.

I’m perfectly able to fly in a way that each occupant of the aircraft (not following along on a GNSS movable map) will be 100% convinced I overflew a specific point. But that is different from actually overflying that point. If/when we meet, I’d be happy to go fly with you, in an area where you are not familiar, where you fly purely visually without any GNSS nor moving map reference, and I record the flight with a GNSS receiver. If at that time you show to be able:

• To overfly a straight street without overflying any house on either side of the street, much less overflying the “wrong” parallel street.
• Overfly a specific point while in a smooth continuous turn within a “normal” house land plot-sized tolerance.

then, as we say in French figuratively, I will eat my hat.

gallois wrote:

We all know what part of our wing to look at to judge 1km don’t we?

I’ve flown with several French, or French tradition trained, instructors. They “teach” stuff like that, but when cross-checked against actual independent measure, that kind of rule of thumb always falls short of any kind of precision. Yeah, they indicated such “reference” spots on the wings, on the windscreen, on the cowling, everywhere. Then it just doesn’t work with any precision, because I’m taller, or I move my head a dozen cm left or right, or I sit straighter or more up front or a myriad of other factors.

lionel wrote:

gallois wrote:

We all know what part of our wing to look at to judge 1km don’t we?

I’ve flown with several French, or French tradition trained, instructors. They “teach” stuff like that,

Indeed, I have never heard of that, nor would I know what part of the wing to look at.