This has come up many times; most recently here.
Annecy is just one of many airports where if you totally screw up before reaching the decision height then you will probably get killed. Shoreham EGKA on 20 is another one; the DH is 800ft but there is a tower around 850.
I must say I am not totally happy flying the really dodgy ones in IMC. Even commercial pilots have said to me they would not want to fly the Bolzano localiser approach in IMC.
And then the missed approach is another thing…
I have been to Annecy many times. I found the approach more scary in VMC!
I wouldn’t call it in the slightest dodgy. It’s the same as many airfields where the local terrain is higher than the airport.
The reality is that at many airfields, especially in England, you could be doing pretty stupid things with no notifiable impact on your life expectancy. That’s definitely not true at Annecy. I agree that Shoreham 20 has a lot less tolerance for error than many airfields in the UK, especially coastal ones.
The Annecy IAP I would fly in IMC with the Cirrus with WAAS and the large MFD with the active Approach Chart that gives 100% situational awareness.
The Shoreham IAP looks like pretty simple and easy to fly.
Try the ILS into Vagar EKVG on the Faroes: strictly speaking, not an ILS but an IGS because it is offset, the plate has a warning that ICAO obstacle separation is not maintained and the go-around is an exercise in interesting NDB tracking up a narrow valley flying straight at a small mountain. Flying to minima in the normal gusty winds concentrates the mind.
I will do it, but only on days when I don’t need to worry about other things (crazy winds and icing being favourites up there), and only because I’ve done it twice before in good conditions.
jwoolard wrote:
the go-around is an exercise in interesting NDB tracking up a narrow valley flying straight at a small mountain
Only that nobody in his right mind would ever track an NDB for anything other than fun. With all procedures present in RNAV systems, it’s safe if you setup things correctly and remain on top of it.
V true Achim. My plan has always been to fly it using the missed approach guidance on the Garmin monitored closely Vs terrain displayed on the GTN and Skydemon, with the ADF set up as a backup.
Yes of course it’s easy. But it will kill you if you get it wrong, while some other approaches won’t.
jwoolard wrote:
Try the ILS into Vagar EKVG on the Faroes: strictly speaking, not an ILS but an IGS because it is offset, the plate has a warning that ICAO obstacle separation is not maintained and the go-around is an exercise in interesting NDB tracking up a narrow valley flying straight at a small mountain. Flying to minima in the normal gusty winds concentrates the mind.
Try the localiser only approach back in the other way in IMC.
I struggle to understand the original post. If you have an instrument approach in IMC you must always fly it accurately. I don’t have a list of those on which I can relax and those I have to pay attention to. Of course some are more worrying than others but if you follow the approach you must be fine. On those difficult approaches of course you will use GPS – using the NDB is just asking to be a statistic.
In my opinion those difficult approaches with complex missed approaches should be flown using the GPS as primary when single pilot in the real world.
