Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 70
November-December 2008
Non-precision
approach CFIT
step-down fixes
and chart gremlins
By Chris Cook
CONTENTS
Non-precision approach CFIT
1
Persistence rewarded! PPL/IR Europes
contribution to making GPS
approaches a reality
2
Using GPS non-precision
approaches in the UK
3
You never forget your first time
9
Regulatory roundup
11
Eurostuff
12
Chairmans corner
13
Pilots talk
15
Trip to Granada
17
PPL/IR Europe is
open to any pilot interested in the operation
of light aircraft under
IFR in Europe. The
annual subscription
is GBP60 and more
details are available
from the Membership
Secretary.
Instrument Pilot is the maga-
Instrument Pilot
Jim Thorpe
Chairman
+44 1989 770355
+44 1989 770511
chairman@pplir.org
Steve Dunnett
Meetings Secretary
+44 2920 875 188
+44 2920 876 749
meetings@pplir.org
David Bruford
Press Secretary
+44 1823 461 310
+44 1823 461 928
pressoffice@pplir.org
Anthony Mollison
Pilot Training Specialist
& BBGA Representative
+44 7813 678373
+44 1202 574020
anthony.mollison@
fsmail.net
Ian Chandler
Secretary & Treasurer
+44 1702 200 353
+44 1702 354 488
treasurer@pplir.org
Paul Draper
NATMAC, PAG, GAA
& EAS Representative
+44 1962 850775
paulr.draper@yahoo.
co.uk
David Earle
Instrument Pilot Editor
+44 7802 685642
theeditor@pplir.org
Andrew Lambert
Membership Secretary
+44 7836 793266
+44 1428 751654
andrew.lambert@
ems-uk.com
Timothy Nathan
Web Site Editor
+44 1372 812 469
+44 1372 747 778
webeditor@pplir.org
Eugenio Pozzo
Italian Representative
+39 348 300 6906
+39 041 810 9917
eupozzo@tin.it
Alan South
DfT SES Forum
Representative
+44 1763 838465
+44 1763 838465
alan@littlewissett.
eclipse.co.uk
Persistence rewarded!
PPL/IR Europes
contribution to making
GPS approaches a reality
By Jim Thorpe
Time passed...
Then there was some sort of internal reorganisation
within the CAA. Emails to the original contact
went unanswered and time passed. In September
2005 we finally made effective contact with
someone in a different area of the CAA who
accepted responsibility for the process. At this point
we were invited to send a representative to a group
known as TRAPT, which is the focal point for
everyone interested in terminal area procedures.
It is attended by Eurocontrol, airlines, NATS,
CAA, pilot unions and various CAA departments,
and meets about three times a year. It has proved
to be a valuable platform enabling us to have
meaningful input into GPS certification, PRNAV
requirements, TMA transit routes and more.
memsec@pplir.org
70/2008
Using GPS
non-precision
approaches
in the UK
P2
participants 85 were at Gloucester and my estimation was that
well over a hundred were flown by PPL/IR Europe members. A
complicated analysis by Imperial College, London was published
in March 2007. Perhaps unsurprisingly from our perspective, it
found that there were no significant issues. It seemed we were
on the home-straight. There had been some detailed issues
with specific procedures so some redrafting was needed.
By Vasa Babic
20
What next?
The cynical might say that the approaches soon to be in place
are not that useful. They are at airfields that currently have
instrument approaches and they do not reduce minima. This
is true, but in our view they have been an inescapable first step.
Along the way we have also held meetings with the CAA to
gauge their reaction to the concept of GPS approaches at licensed
airfields without ATC and even at airstrips with no ATC. They
have been quite supportive in principle. We have commissioned
a qualified approach designer to produce ICAO compliant
approaches for such a licensed airfield and for an unlicensed
strip. We have flown informal trials for these approaches. It
has not been practical to proceed further until the published
approaches were in operation. Soon we will start what may
be another long process towards this next goal.
70/2008
Avionics
The CAA press release on Shorehams approaches says:
The aircraft navigation system installation, based upon GNSS
receiver equipment qualified to (E)TSO-C129A (certain classes
only) or (E)TSO-C145 or (E)TSO-C146, must be approved for the
purpose. What does this mean?
TSOs are technical standards orders, the minimum specifications
issued by the FAA for products to be used in type certified aircraft.
(E)TSOs are essentially the identical EASA equivalent. Keen
readers can find TSO documents at http://rgl.faa.gov/. C129 was
the original TSO for GPS receivers. The enigmatic certain classes
only in the CAA quote is actually quite simple. Class A receivers are
panel mounts, Class B and C are used in flight management systems
P4
Instrument Pilot
2100
APP
123.150
SHOREHAM APPROACH
AD ELEVATION
A/G
123.150
SHOREHAM RADIO
THR ELEVATION
TWR
123.150, 125.400
SHOREHAM TOWER
ATIS
125.300
SHOREHAM INFORMATION
OBSTACLE ELEVATION
854 AMSL
000 30W
TRANSITION ALTITUDE
25N
2300
666
FR
600
ROM
MID 114.00D
203
510314N 0003730W
200'
5100N
10NM
MID
522
300
R11
6/D
13
328
BITLI (321)
IAF
25NM
ADURI
IAF/IF
2200
3.5
2200
0
/D1
247
NITEN
YR
MA
IAF
2100
(NITEN)
(ADURI)
1900
2200
IT
LI
600
300
KA20F
FAF
(847)
610 712
310
602
(245)
1.9NM
656
348
82
(341)
(75)
RW20
MAPT
023
203
498
(491)
790
(783)
203
266
300
(603)
(303)
252
813
600
854
3NM
555
25NM FR
677
781
4.5
700
SHM 332
shm
505008N 0001743W
LHA 2000
1 MIN
RW20
1490(1483)
970(963)
Instrument Pilot
MAY 117.90D
(Ch 126X)
4000
may
5100N
510102N 0000658E
360'
TAA
3.5
TAA
O
FR
837
(ADURI)
MAYFIELD
220
(213)
3.5
(BITLI)
787
300
(BITLI) (ADURI)
(NITEN)
GATWICK 2500
CTA D 1500
(Ch 87X)
mid
AD
U
RI
2100
I
UR
AD
NM F
15
502
MIDHURST
300
3000
000 00
TAA
600
(GNSS)
T
NI
OM
EN
508
712
30
0
P3
(FMS). Class A1 units have NPA capability,
knowledge of GPS is strongest on the directClass A2 units dont. In practice, every IFR
to button, and somewhat hazy elsewhere,
GPS panel mount fitted in a GA aircraft will there are important operating details which
be Class A1, unless it is either very old or a
you will need to learn. Approach procedures
new WAAS receiver. The latter are certified
are both more critical and implemented
under TSO-C146 e.g. the Garmin GNS480, less intuitively in GPS units than enroute
430W, 530W and 1000W; with C145 used
navigation. For example, the right-angle on
for WAAS FMS sensors.
a GPS approach from the top of the T onto
So, the easy part is that if you have an IFR the final approach track is usually a fly-by
GPS, it is likely to be capable
AD 2-EGKA-8-4 (20 Nov 08)
of GPS NPAs; however, it is
INSTRUMENT APPROACH CHART - ICAO
unlikely to be approved for
the purpose. The approval
status of a GPS is defined by
the flight manual supplement
(FMS) associated with the
units installation. Many GPS
have been fitted VFR-only
in which case an avionics shop
should be consulted for IFR
094
and NPA approval. Even IFR
291
70/2008
70/2008
Figure 2, Australian AIP format for the Alice Springs Locator/NDB approach
Instrument Pilot
PIC to FO:
FO to PIC:
Time 19:33
FO to PIC:
PIC to FO:
FO to PIC:
PO to PIC:
PIC to FO:
PIC to FO:
FO to PIC:
Time 19:34
PIC to FO:
Instrument Pilot
FO to PIC:
PIC to FO:
PIC to FO:
FO to PIC:
Time 19:46
PIC to FO:
FO to PIC:
Time 19:47
PIC to FO:
Time 19:52
FO to PIC:
PIC to FO:
Time 19:53
PIC to FO:
OK coming up overhead
Simpsons Gap
Righto
70/2008
70/2008
Instrument Pilot
Conventional procedure
RNAV procedure
Instrument Pilot
70/2008
P8
Figure 5 and ask yourself this: Even under
pressure from a heavy workload, would you
have commenced a 1,500ft/min descent upon
passing TPB if that terrain profile had been
shown on your chart? Perhaps this is a further
reason (in addition to cost) for preferring UK
CAA instrument approach charts over their
commercial equivalents.
70/2008
Instrument Pilot
Be prepared
But, back to Glasgow. With weather checked,
my flight plan filed, pre-flight checks done
(about three times), instruments tuned in,
radios functioning properly, everything
identing correctly and clearance received,
I am ready for my first solo IFR flight into
real IMC. For your information, I had
a 300 foot cloud-base in light rain, with
tops predicted at about 5,000 feet and
an initial requested flight level of 080.
The 06 runway has an NDB along it for
the reciprocal let down procedure, so I had
that set up and idented as well as an early
track and drift check, expecting to follow the
standard instrument departure (SID) towards
my first VOR that was also set up, but too far
away to ident and still showing its off-flag.
The SID called for an NDB track on a set
QDR (radial from) to intercept the VOR
QDM (track to) at a predetermined DME
from the ILS. As you can detect this was
going to be interesting, what with the various
navigation instrument frequency changes and
likely radio frequency changes as well.
No sooner was the undercarriage up,
the flaps up, and me reducing from full
power to climb power and entering IMC,
the tower controller handed me over to the
approach controller, who then handed me
over to the radar controller who immediately
Instrument Pilot
VMC on top
All of this made eminent sense because I
had a vivid idea of what the controller was
seeing and what he was trying to do. I doubt
that I would have been so confident without
my voluntary visit to ATC radar room.
Suddenly a burst out of the cloud tops
and into the autumn sunshine with no
cloud above or ahead, and more or less at an
altitude as advertised by the met office. This
was very reassuring and a welcome respite
that enabled me to come off the artificial
horizon, airspeed indicator, rate of climb
indicator and relax. This was now IFR in
VMC on top. No sign of any ground ahead
or below. Just the satisfaction of getting there
unscathed and without a word of complaint
from ATC.
Maintaining the assigned flight level,
checking the power settings for temperature
and altitude, rechecking the Ts and Ps and I
also checked the indicated airspeed and the
corrected true air speed. Something I always
do to the monitor performance.
Time to check ground speed and drift
now against expected winds (no GPS in
those days) using only the VOR D-bar and
DME. And sure enough the next received
transmission from ATC was a request for my
estimate at Pole Hill VOR. I knew that this
would be used to pass across to Manchester
ATC as the next controller. In anticipation,
I had set the expected Manchester frequency
on the number two radio. This is a good
habit well worth acquiring as it considerably
reduces cockpit work load when you become
busy.
10
70/2008
70/2008
11
Instrument Pilot
EUROSTUFF
By John Pickett
Instrument Pilot
12
70/2008
and licensing requirements for flying VLJs such as the PiperJet. This aeroplane, it is
claimed, can operate at 360kt, at 35,000 ft, carry full fuel and up to six seats.
By Jim Thorpe
Galileo
The EU has reduced the list of companies wishing to be engaged in the Galileo satellite
navigation project. 21 companies submitted requests to participate in the project and
the EU has selected 11 to go forward to the next phase. Companies from Italy, the
Netherlands, UK, France and Germany are involved. Full details here: www.gsa.
europa.eu/go/news/eleven-candidates-short-listed-in-galileo-procurement-process.
The first CABRI is delivered. The Cabri G2 is the first light helicopter to
be certified by EASA. The first production version was delivered to French
helicopter operators IXAir. It will be used for training at Toussus-le Noble.
UK - Mode S
It is understood that the UK CAA is continuing to evaluate the responses from phase
two of the introduction of Mode S. Whatever the evaluation shows it appears that it is
here to stay and that every aircraft that operates in any form of controlled airspace or
internationally will need to have the equipment fitted within the next three to four years.
70/2008
Chairmans Corner
13
Instrument Pilot
P 13
I dont want to get too drawn into how
EASA works if only because I dont claim to
be an expert. There is a lot of explanation of
the process on EASAs website for those who
are interested. The key priority for us was
to get representation on FCL.008. There
are only two standing committees within
the EASA framework which can propose
members for such ad hoc expert groups and
a nomination from Europe Air Sports (EAS)
was the only way in which PPL/IR Europe
might put a candidate forward. We have
been a member of EAS for some years and
at times have doubted if it was worthwhile.
This is not to denigrate the body or its
leaders. It is rather that its activities have
been driven by the lighter end of general
aviation and often seems to be dominated
by the gliding community who are better
organised and more politically aware than
most of GA. Credit must go to Paul Draper
for persistently fighting our corner and
retaining enthusiasm at times when the
value of our participation in EAS was not
obvious. A quirk of the EASA system is that
committee members, although they may be
sponsored by organisation are deemed to
act as independent experts. This means that
no substitution is allowed and an individual
must agree to attend personally a series of
meetings in Europe without knowing the
dates or scope of the commitment. After
some considerable lobbying behind the
scenes, EASA has accepted my nomination
and I am now an official expert!
The committee consists of seven people,
three nominated by the national aviation
authorities (including the CAA), one
European professional pilot representative
and three nominated by EAS: myself, one
from a flying training body and one from
IAOPA. Some background research would
indicate that only two of this group could be
expected to be generally unfavourable to any
change in the status quo.
A way forward?
Much has appeared in this magazine,
and on our forum, about how the IR
could be made more accessible without
any reduction in quality. I wont rehearse
the arguments here but just give you the
bullet points we will be putting forward.
Please understand that there is no chance
of root and branch reform. It is no use
coming forward with radical proposals
to revamp the whole airspace system or
adopt the FAA system. We are part of
Europe and the European way of doing
things is now established. We are working
within the system towards changes which
stand some chance of acceptance.
Instrument Pilot
A modular approach
For whatever historical reason the EASA
proposals contain a ten hour basic
instrument rating. This is in our view not
a particularly useful concept as it stands
since it confers no privileges other than
the training being allowed against the full
IR training requirement; however, it exists
and could be built on. We are therefore
suggesting it might be the first stage of a
European instrument qualification (EIQ)
carrying the privileges of flight under
IMC in defined and fairly benign weather
conditions but not giving the right to
conduct instrument approaches. Without
going into too much detail, the aim is that
this basic level EIQ would serve the needs
of the majority of IMC rated pilots for
flying VFR on top, escaping inadvertent
IMC entry and having enough skill to
perform an instrument approach under real
emergency conditions only. This basic EIQ
stage would be examined by flight test.
The second EIQ stage would be a modular
process in which candidates would be
authorised by log book sign offs for various
approach types and various types of airfields.
This approach owes a lot to the successful
Australian modular system. The airspace
and airfields where this qualification would
14
What next?
At the time of writing these ideas have
been explored with our own membership,
the CAA, AOPA and the LAA. They
seem to have been generally welcomed.
The first meeting of the EASA FCL.008
committee is in December and only then
will the potential for progress really become
clear; however, I choose to be optimistic.
There are many hurdles and potential
pitfalls but there seems to be a real chance
that a sensible structure for regulating
instrument flying across Europe might
emerge. Maybe the shameful situation
that proportionately 10 times more US
PPLs hold an instrument rating than do
European PPLs can start to be put right.
European Aviation Safety Agency
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Task
Issue:
Date:
31 October 2008
Regulatory reference
70/2008
Pilots talk
Compiled By David Bruford
70/2008
15
Instrument Pilot
Instrument Pilot
16
70/2008
Trip to Granada
By Peter Holy
Part 1 of 2
Pre-flight
preparation
The aircraft
The aircraft is a 2002 Socata TB20GT which has a zero-fuel
book range of approximately 1,100nm and a cruise speed of
155kt TAS at 10,000ft. Extra economical cruise power settings can
extend the range to 1,300nm. It has a ceiling of about 20,000ft
and is equipped with oxygen but is not certified for flight into
icing conditions although it has a TKS de-iced propeller.
Navigation equipment includes a KLN94 IFR/BRNAV GPS and
a KMD550 MFD and these are used for primary navigation. The
aircraft has a KFC225 autopilot which can track VOR/GPS/LOC/
ILS and fly a preset altitude or vertical speed. There is an additional
battery powered Garmin 496 GPS which also provides an audio
terrain warning (TAWS) function with a European terrain and
obstacle database.
P 18
70/2008
17
Instrument Pilot
Peters Canon IP90 portable printer and Thinkpad X60s 1704 for preflight planning
P 17
Equipment
submitted to CFMU for validation. The
On any significant trip I carry a laptop
resulting error messages are interpreted,
(Thinkpad X60s 1704) and sometimes the
appropriate exclusions or level changes
Canon IP90 lightweight portable printer.
are added, and the process is repeated
The laptop carries flight planning
as necessary. Most European routes
software (Navbox for VFR and Jeppesen
are validated after just a few automatic
Flitestar for IFR/airways), and also approach iterations. Very occasionally, one needs to
plates and enroute charts in electronic
add exclusion manually. The end result is
format (Jeppview). It also has Internet access validated for the actual date/time of the
via WIFI, GPRS and 3G. This enables one
planned fight, which can be done up to
to get weather and Notams; file flight plans; five days ahead. This program reduces a
and send faxes to airports. And for longer
sometimes horrendous process to a minute
trips it enables routings to be re-worked
or two. I have so far tested it with every
anytime on the ground. It can also connect
airways route I have ever done and it did
via Bluetooth to a Thuraya satellite phone
them all very easily, with a trivial manual
for Internet and fax functions anywhere.
intervention in some cases.
Most importantly, it achieves
Flight plans are filed electronically, using
independence from airport weather briefing
either Homebriefing (www.homebriefing.
and flight plan filing services which are at
com) or the new UK NATS AFPEx (https://
best an unpredictable waste of time and may ts3.flightplanningonline.co.uk/) facility.
be missing altogether. Obviously all possible
While AFPEx is free, it is available only to
planning is done before departure, at ones
UK resident pilots. It is also not generally
home where Internet and printing cost
suitable for use while travelling because it
virtually nothing.
forces a fresh download of its 5MB Java
application which is infeasible if one is
European IFR airways
using GPRS/3G data or if using an Internet
cafe computer. Either facility will however
route generation
accept flight plans without geographical
This has always been a difficult process
restrictions. Because Homebriefing costs
because the European airways system
about 4 per flight plan, I tend to use
contains a huge number of rules and
AFPEx whenever I can get a fast low cost
restrictions, with thousands of changes
Internet connection on my own computer,
loaded into the database every day.
and save the Homebriefing facility for the
Eurocontrol/CFMU have never made
remaining situations.
their in-house route generation tools or the
Notams are obtained using the traditional
current airway database available externally,
UK NATS website. I use the narrow route
though CFMU do offer a route validation
briefing only and one simply pastes the
tool at www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/j_cia_
airways route in there. With IFR flights,
public/cia_public/pages/ifpuv-structured.
enroute situations e.g. restricted areas due
jsf; however, this time I used a new software
to air shows, are not normally an issue
tool Autoplan IFR (www.autoplan.aero/).
because Eurocontrol and ATC will make
This program generates valid and usable
sure no airways traffic is routed where it
lower airways routings for anywhere in
should not go, but Notams remain vital
Europe. The route is initially determined
for airport information such as out of
using a maze algorithm to find the shortest
service instrument approaches and PPR
route through the airway maze and is then
requirements.
Instrument Pilot
18
Weather information
My usual sources for weather for IFR/
airways trips are the MSLP charts in the
first instance which are available up to five
days ahead and show obvious features,
the SigWx form which shows weather
above FL100 (available about 18 hours
ahead) and TAFs/METARs for departure,
destination, alternate, and perhaps some
airports along the route. For more shortterm detail, this data is supplemented with
weather radar, Sferics and satellite images.
70/2008
Flying airways, VFR on top, with Biarritz appearing through the cloud en route to Granada
Airways flight in Europe has to be done
at certain minimum altitudes (the airway
MEAs) and if there is any cloud these
altitudes would normally place the aircraft
into cloud. Therefore, the general strategy
for IFR flight is to climb until VMC on top
is reached and stay there in the sunshine
for the entire flight. Anything else results
in an unpleasant and potentially turbulent
flight with - especially over many hours
- a high chance of icing. Another risk in
entering IMC when enroute is that one
obviously cannot see ahead and a serious
deterioration in the conditions cannot be
detected until it gets bad enough to show up
on a stormscope or - if you have one - radar.
Therefore, the above weather sources are
supplemented by more modern sources such
as Meteoblue and NOAA which offer data
on vertical cloud profiles, as well as offering
longer range forecasts. However, the quality
of cloud tops forecasting remains poor and
one is doing well if the forecast is within a
few thousand feet of reality! (Ed: See also
Peters article Cloud Tops in Instrument
Pilot 65.)
For this trip, for the day of departure
(planned for 08:00Z) the 06:00 and 12:00
MSLP charts showed a lack of fronts along
the proposed route, which is always a good
start, but also showed troughs in France.
The 06:00 SigWx showed nothing of
relevance at high level along the route, other
than some stuff over the English Channel.
The icing hazard charts for 06:00 and
12:00 did not show anything affecting the
route. I occasionally look at these but dont
think they mean a great deal. Obviously
icing is a hazard only when flying in IMC
which I dont do anyway when enroute,
and my experience is that during a flight of
some hours in IMC, at temperatures 0C to
-15C, one is virtually certain to get at least
some ice.
70/2008
19
Instrument Pilot
P 19
air; however, engine efficiency is not constant over its power output,
is poor at the very low power outputs one gets at say FL200, and the
result is that the best mpg is obtained around 10,000ft for most
normally aspirated GA aircraft types.
The TB20 flight manual contains fuel consumption data but
for some reason this was not generated from actual performance.
The best economy values - which one assumes refer to peak
EGT operation (but Socata have never clarified this) - are 10-20%
conservative. The reason may have been ignorance or a desire to
publish conservative data since the early TB20s did not have any
engine instrumentation.
It turns out that using optimal engine management a TB20 can fly
for about 1,300nm, some 20% further than the published data. This
can be achieved using several combinations of rpm and fuel flow,
but the best appears to be 10,000ft, wide open throttle, 2,200rpm
and 25F LOP. The fuel flow in this condition is 9.0 US gallons/hr)
which delivers a TAS of 140kt and, with 86.2 USG of usable fuel,
gives a zero-fuel endurance of 9.3 hours. At 140kt TAS, 9.3 hours
means a range of 1,300nm. Surprisingly however, due to the TAS
gain the MPG is only very slightly worse at 20,000ft.
The above 1,300nm figure ignores the extra fuel used during the
climb, but one recovers some of that loss during the descent.
And things get better at lower aircraft loadings: the lighter you
are the faster it goes for the same fuel flow and even if you take off
at MTOW this gradually improves due to the fuel being burnt off.
The result is that 1,300nm is a practically achievable zero-fuel range
and I have proved this over many flights, by setting a specific engine
operating point and watching the speed and fuel flow. Accurate
instrumentation, whose accuracy is regularly verified, is obviously
required.
Unfortunately it is impossible to do the above leaning procedure
simply by setting up some fuel flow numbers. On the first flight
on this trip, air temperature varied from -20C (FL190, France)
to +11C (FL090, Spain) and this represents a big change in air
density, requiring correspondingly different fuel flows - even if the
MP remained constant. Even Avgas varies in density: it expands
0.1% per C so the density difference between fuel loaded from a
bowser sitting in Spanish sunshine at +30C, and cooling to -20C,
is 5%. The turbine based fuel flowmeter measures volume flow, but
combustion works on mass flow. Therefore, for optimum economy,
one needs to re-set the desired operating point (say 25F LOP) at
different phases of the flight.
Fuel planning has to include alternates. One should plan two
alternates: a weather alternate (which is taken if the destination
weather is no good) and a crash alternate (which is taken if
somebody has crashed on the destination runway and closed the
airport). Obviously, while the latter can be right next door to the
destination, the former cannot since its weather is likely to be
the same! However, a weather alternate can be next door if it is,
for example, an airport with an ILS but with a 100 landing fee
which you are trying to avoid by going to an airport which has no
instrument approach!
Conventionally, a pilot is trained to proceed to the destination and
if this proves no good, he proceeds to the alternate. Under FAA IFR
rules, one needs enough fuel to fly to the alternate plus 45 minutes
at cruise speed. This is OK for a B737 doing 500kt but 45 mins
does not get you far at 140kt, if there is widespread bad weather. I
therefore plan a reserve of at least 2 hours after the alternate and this
is more realistic given the often poor choice of alternates.
Nowadays I have satellite Internet access in the cockpit and can get
weather data during flight.
This allows diversions to be planned well ahead, enabling more
intelligent choices to be made. The display device shown on the left
is an LS800 tablet computer which normally sits somewhere to hand,
running VFR charts under Oziexplorer; this is a useful emergency
function for e.g. an engine failure above overcast because one can
see the nature of the terrain below. I have both VFR aviation and
1:50,000 topographic charts for most of Europe.
This flight had an airways distance of 869nm. Working at the
previously established 10,000ft performance of 140kt TAS and
9.0GPH, the calculated airborne time was therefore 6.2 hours, and
the fuel requirement (ignoring the climb and descent phases) was
55.8USG, leaving a reserve at destination of 30.4USG. The alternate,
Malaga, was about 40nm further and the 30USG reserve was thus
sufficient for at least another 2 hours after that. While there was
plenty of leeway here, this calculation does make some assumptions
e.g. no headwind. To some extent therefore, one was going to rely
on the very accurate on-board fuel flowmeter / GPS system which
calculates a continuously updated fuel at destination value.
Part 2 of this article will cover Peters actual flight to
and from Granada. More information on IFR flying
and his aircraft can be found on Peters own
website at www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/.
LS800 tablet
computer
and satellite
Internet
access enables
weather data
to be obtained
during flight
Instrument Pilot
20
70/2008