FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 1290.PDF
.,GHT /niernoiionol. 30 Apri/ (V64 723 This extract (very slightly reduced) from Jeppesen's London Area Chan #tM_3 indicates the facilities and pro- -i3SS ,?„- cedures which are available and [j>(jjj %V should be understood by the private ' -* pilot flying an aircraft equipped with radio aids ©1964 Jepp«sen & Co, Denver. Colo, USA All rights reserved •**•/ controlled airspace is in fact reasonably qualified to do so. If the private pilot wants to enjoy the benefit of equipment and training he has taken the trouble to obtain, he must first quite clearly decide exactly what it is he wants to do. Airways operation is not to be undertaken lightly. At the other end of the scale, pure instrument flying, without radio or navaids, may be essential, but it is not a self-sufficient art. Too many people are flying aircraft with certain aids and the ability to use them, but no official benefit. Too many are using the aids with insufficient knowledge and experience. But if a private pilot in an aircraft with full blind- flying panel, VHF communications and, say, a radio compass were able to show an official ADF rating proving his ability to a known standard, he would have the best chance of using that radio compass to fly in conditions well within his capability, but at present legally out of his reach. Surely here is the key to a system of intermediate ratings. A Ladder of Ratings At the moment the PPL has three basic Classes, A for single- engined flying, B for multi-engined and C for specific types of aircraft of more than 12,5001b gross weight. There are also heli- copter and seaplane ratings, though these are outside the general area of activity. More and more people are now obtaining the RT rating, a simple, but rather tedious iittle test which does not really teach the inexperienced pilot the elusive skill of good RT practice. There is the night flying rating; and there are the instructors' ratings. This scale of ratings has not changed since World War 2, though since the import restrictions were lifted in 1960, radio equipment combined with full blind-flying panels have become the rule rather than the exception in new aircraft. Surely it is time now to make more ratings available. It is easy to envisage a ladder of ratings, each covering one basic radio aid, which a pilot could collect as and when he installed the aids or had access to them. Ultimately, he would accumulate a sufficient number of these ratings to have covered the ground of the instrument rating itself. As he passed the final stage, he could automatically be given the full instrument rating. Each rating should be associated with a specific set of permitted semi-IFR procedures. There should be no obligation to obtain the ratings before being allowed to use the related equipment for VFR flights, but the rating should bring certain privileges in IMC and IFR. The ARB classification of radio performance would have to be associated with the recognized use of the aids. If one discounts, as has been suggested here, actual airways nying without a complete rating and full equipment, these inter- mediate ratings would open the way to greatly improved operation w and near terminal zones. Either radio compass alone, or VOR/ 1LS with marker receiver, but without glide-slope, make precision approaches in minima down to about 600ft or 800ft and one mile Perfectly safe and accurate. Departures from a terminal zone on modified routes would also become perfectly feasible. This is,m & all, the type of operation which the rather better qualified Private pilot mainly needs to extend the usefulness of his flying. 11 goes without saying that basic instrument flying is a funda- mental prerequisite for any semi-IFR flying. If the weather is VMC, neither the aids nor the procedural facilitation are necessary. In IMC, no navaid is of any use without a full blind-flying panel and the ability to use it confidently. First step on the ladder, then, is an instrument capability. Next is an RT rating effectively teaching good RT working, rather than the present esoteric little CAP.46. An addition to the RT qualification might be VDF let-down and GCA procedure, with practical inflight training. But this should not be an integral part of the RT rating, because such an addition would make it too much of a hurdle for many beginners. For terminal area operation, the radio compass is still the only single aid allowing both navigation and the actual precision approach. When VOR is much more widely installed, this (with 1LS localizer) will become the easier and surer of the two. Marker beacon is necessary with ILS, but not with radio compass. To a pilot proficient in holding patterns and approach procedures, flight along airways is not significantly more difficult. The instru- ment rating does, however, at present include certain "ground" subjects which would not necessarily find a convenient place in the intermediate ratings. Meteorology—interpretation of weather maps and codes—and navigation plotting are examples. These could in any case be dropped, modified or made the subject of a final stage between the last semi-IFR rating and the granting of the full instrument rating—and this should be renamed airways rating. One difficulty in the proposed intermediate system is the problem of what the MoA calls "recency." Instrument flying must be consistently practised and no qualification based upon it can be granted once and for all. The pilot will have to keep in practice and his ability will have to be regularly checked. If the requirement for initial rating tests does not already strain the available examining capacity, then the re-rating commitment almost certainly will. But there is no real way round this, and a method of training and examination, probably based on a widespread distribution of club- based instructors, must be an integral part of the scheme. The presence of qualified radio-aid instructors in the clubs can do nothing but good if only by spreading knowledge and incentive. There are, of course, other forms of flying demanding skill at least as great as that for the instrument rating—aerobatics is just one. A rating to cover this could be introduced, but it would be a recognition of sheer skill, and not a way to specific privileges. The obvious temptation to make such a rating a sine qua non for partici- pation in air displays should be strongly resisted. This scheme of step-by-step ratings, each tied to a specific aid and each bringing a specific type of limited IFR operation within legal reach, we would like to throw into the general pool of discus- sion. Surely here must lie the key to incentive to improve ability, to install more and more equipment and to open up controlled airfields to IFR approaches and departures by private pilots. We would like to add the rider that there is no magic in the full instru- ment rating as at present constituted. The big hurdle is the initial flight test and exams—nothing in aiiways flying will ever be as difficult as those two steps, except an actual emergency. The main deterrence of the rating is its all-embracing character, the sheer weight of study and toil—and the quite disproportionate cost. The step-by-step approach must surely make the path easier, just as it makes the ultimate attainment of the full rating less necessary.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
