Graham – yes that seems very reasonable to me, although I suppose it might apply equally to running around below the London TMA at 2,500, around much of the Gatwick, Heathrow and City zone where, in the event of a catastrophic failure, you would need to be equally quick witted.
At least it would seem that the radar cover in the zone is sufficiently good that infact they would locate you with pinpoint accuracy and very quickly after a ditching, so perhaps the Mayday is not as essentially as it might be if you were working London or the such like.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Graham – yes that seems very reasonable to me, although I suppose it might apply equally to running around below the London TMA at 2,500, around much of the Gatwick, Heathrow and City zone where, in the event of a catastrophic failure, you would need to be equally quick witted.
But at least in that situation all I need to do is survive the forced landing – in the south east of England I am not concerned about the need to be ‘rescued’ once down. I also don’t need to mess about with a raft or unplugging all the headsets. In an engine failure over land, a Mayday call comes a long way down my list of priorities. Indeed, I don’t really like flying under the 2,500ft part of the LTMA in an aeroplane that doesn’t glide well and doesn’t stop in a short distance on the ground. I avoid it where I can in the TB10. In the PA-17 I am more ok with it, since the glide is better (at least more time, if not further), the touchdown speed can be very slow if required and I can stop it in a very short distance if I have to.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
At least it would seem that the radar cover in the zone is sufficiently good that infact they would locate you with pinpoint accuracy and very quickly after a ditching, so perhaps the Mayday is not as essentially as it might be if you were working London or the such like.
Yes the Channel Islands have good radar cover, but I would still want to get a good Mayday call out to make the situation completely unambiguous. I don’t want them messing about with the ‘uncertainty phase’ and stuff like that. I want to make it clear over the RT that we’re definitely going down right now, I want to give our final intended heading for the ditching so that they can extrapolate touchdown position from the last radar trace, and I want the rescue helicopter crew strapping in with the rotors turning before we hit the water.
Graham – am I am not being facetious, because I accept your comments, but if the base was 3,000 feet and you didnt have an instrument rating what would you do?
It is interesting, because having been there just a few days ago, I did the whole route at 1,900 feet. Why? Well I could well have climbed through, but one of the delights of a twin is I am sometimes happy to enjoy the view (which was great), but I recall thinking I wouldnt have done that in a single, even if in years past I would and did.
Sorry Fuji I’m not sure of your question, 3,000 foot base over land or sea? I don’t have an IR, just and IR(R).
Over sea, in a single, I probably just wouldn’t fly it. But it might depend on how far the crossing was, how many I had on board, etc. I might do Dover-Calais at 3,000 feet in summer and if just one or two-up. But I wouldn’t cross from the Isle of Wight to the Channel Islands at that level.
A twin is totally different, obviously. You have a second engine to guide you to your ditching ;-)
Over land, well in the PA-17 most flying is below 3,000 feet – I am fine with that – as one can stick it down on a football pitch. In the TB10, I don’t really like it that low for any length of time. So much so that after the impromtu EuroGA meet at LFAT yesterday, I changed my route a bit on the way back to avoid an extended time below the 2,500 portion of the LTMA. It just isn’t very nice down there, and it’s usually bumpy.
Edited to add, also under the 2,500ft LTMA in bumpy conditions without an autopilot…… one is a moment of inattention away from a vertical CAS bust.
Over sea.
I was just interested in how your risk profile would be influenced by the weather, and, of course, that is fine. We all know of days when flying conditions are very good below 3,000 feet, but a climb is not possible without going IMC, and some would press on in these circumstances. Of course this would prevent you accepting a higher clearance in the zone if you agreed to maintain VMC.
Oh of course I recognise the smile, but as you know, not all twins take you to the crash, I am happy on one certainly over the 100 mile crossing if needs must. Well happy being a relative term.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
but a climb is not possible without going IMC
As long as it is not convective or icing, I’d just climb into IMC. The preference would be to get to VMC on top, but if it wasn’t possible then I’d cruise in IMC. It is not like the crossing is so long as to make cruising in IMC too arduous.
Assuming not convective or icing, then I’d rather FL70 in IMC than <3,000ft in VMC when crossing to the Channel Islands.
I agree – I rather meant that you wouldnt be able to accept the climb without an IR/IRR or a pop up clearance within the zone, so would you then continue below the base or not go at all?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Of course this would prevent you accepting a higher clearance in the zone if you agreed to maintain VMC.
Sorry I missed this bit. When approaching the Channel Islands I always request IFR into the zone and vectors for the ILS – that solves the VMC problem and the altitude problem in one hit. I have never had an approach like this where they have forced me down the platform altitude early, the descent to 2,000ft has always been “when ready”.
Ah ok, I actually meant going back to your original scenario on departure? If you were on an IFR departure of course the answer would be the same, but if not, then you accept an initial clearance not above 2,500 VFR, but then may not be able to accept a further climb.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I agree – I rather meant that you wouldnt be able to accept the climb without an IR/IRR or a pop up clearance within the zone, so would you then continue below the base or not go at all?
If I did not have any instrument qualification at all then I don’t think I’d cross to the Channel Islands unless there was no cloud ceiling below about 5,000ft. It doesn’t have to be strictly CAVOK, because obviously one can climb/descend through FEW or SCT quite easily while maintaining VMC. Once you get to BKN I think it requires a lucky hole in the right place or an off-track routing to get down. I saw this in France the other week – it felt a touch unusual to be thinking to myself “I have to turn a bit and go down through the gap, because I am not legal to pass through that bit of cloud.”
I got the IMCr quite soon after the PPL, mainly because I realised that it massively increased the number of flyable days in the UK. Plus it is some more serious training where you are held to higher standards (I made it clear to my IMCr instructor that I wanted to be held to IR standards of accuracy) and it really improves your skills. It makes you a much better VFR pilot, as well as giving you some instrument capability.
