Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

RNAV, GNSS, GPSS. Your place to discuss all aspects pertaining to Instrument Flying.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Hop Harrigan
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:55 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 19 times

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by Hop Harrigan » Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:48 pm

"...comment just below the PLAN view"
...apologies for quality of the attachment...coming off iPhone
There is no gravity...the Earth sucks
kleyn
Tripped over wheel chock
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:12 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by kleyn » Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:54 pm

If you look at the Jeppesen plate it all become clear. There is no ring on the Jeppesen plate but only the note that specify that the initial approach altitude is 6300ft or higher MSA and to descend in the hold to 3500ft.
User avatar
Jayson v Schalkwyk
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2022
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:02 am
Closest Airfield: Himeville
Location: Between A and B
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by Jayson v Schalkwyk » Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:58 pm

Hop Harrigan wrote:Ok, this might clear it up? Just pulled the Jepp plate (attached). Check the comment just below the lab view..."Initial approach altitude 6300' or higher MSA. Descend in holding to 3500'".
Strange that CAA/ATNS don't include this.
image.jpeg
Check note 1 on the CAA AIP... It does say initial altitude of 6300 of higher MSA. It is assumed you will follow the standard procedure of flying the sector entry and then descend in the hold to 3500.

Jeppesen, makes using the plates easier by applying some of their own "data" and design layout. The briefing strip is just one such example. When airfields are close to terrain they will publish the plate with different shades of brown indicating the height of terrain, aiding situational awareness. They will also translate publish state minima in to a useable format i.e., taking the OCH and publishing a DA or MDA instead.

This is turning into a useful discussion. Well done guys.
Jayson van Schalkwyk

A pilot's professionalism is judged by how he flies when nobody is looking
User avatar
Hop Harrigan
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:55 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 19 times

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by Hop Harrigan » Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:50 pm

Pic attach retried...
image.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
There is no gravity...the Earth sucks
User avatar
Hop Harrigan
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:55 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 19 times

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by Hop Harrigan » Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:51 pm

…now the flipping' thing comes out sideways…grrrrrr
There is no gravity...the Earth sucks
User avatar
hatman
Ooops forgot to turn the fuel back on!
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by hatman » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:25 am

With many legal approaches into Plet in a bus jet we will descend vmc till top of cloud and then enter pattern for the approach. The whole reason for the cloud break is to keep you safe from the terrain. If it is clear to whatever level above the cloud you will be able to see any obstacles. The only condition is that you are established in the pattern at whatever level before going into the cloud. if the cloud is higher than the MSA then stick to the whole procedure.
User avatar
apilot
Take off Clearance
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 8:30 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 0

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by apilot » Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:15 pm

Thank you, hatman.
It's called a VMC descent.
User avatar
AOYB
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1722
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:15 am
Location: neither here nor there
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by AOYB » Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:17 am

There are lots of opinions, but very few references, so let me add a few.
SACARS 91.06.34 wrote: (1) When an instrument approach to, or instrument departure from, an aerodrome is necessary, the PIC of an aircraft shall use the instrument approach and departure procedure as published by the Director in the AIC, IAIP, IAIP Supplement or NOTAM or otherwise approved by the Director.

(2) No person flying an aircraft may execute, or endeavour to execute an instrument approach or instrument departure at an aerodrome unless—
(b)
the flight is conducted in accordance with procedures for instrument approach or instrument departure authorised by the Director for the specific aerodrome and manoeuvre to be executed;
91.07.15 wrote: (1) The owner or operator of an aircraft shall ensure that the instrument approach and departure procedures, established by the appropriate authority of the State in which the aerodrome to be used, is located, are used.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions prescribed in sub-regulation (1), a PIC may accept an air traffic control clearance to deviate from a published approach or departure route: Provided that—
(a)obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full account is taken of the operating conditions; and
(b)the final approach is flown visually
.
So...You can deviate from the approach as published, but only if you can visually maintain the obstacle clearance. This then leads us into visual and VMC approaches. Two of the most misunderstood and misquoted items.
SACARS part 1 wrote:“visual approach” means an approach by an IFR flight when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain
A VMC approach is not defined in the CARS, but it is in the AIP.

[quote="SA AIP"1.5.2.1"]A VMC Approach enables the pilot to descend below the initial approach altitude while maintaining VMC.[/quote]

The requirements for each and what they offer are slightly different. It is important to note that both allow the aircraft to maintain operation under IFR.


Sources for the following: SA AIP and SA Air Traffic Services section 2
Visual approach:
Seperation between aircraft is done by ATC.
Aircraft is within 25nm of aerodrome
Pilot can maintain own seperation from terrain.
Pilot will remain inside controlled airspace
Reasonable assurance that a visual approach and landing can be completed
Reported ceiling is above initial approach altitude.

VMC approach
Own traffic separation (traffic separation minima can therefore be reduced)
VMC (so basically VFR guidelines for visibility and distance from cloud)
Visual contact with the aerodrome
Since it is not mentioned, the pilot may be outside controlled airspace at times
Both are still IFR. It is also worth noting that a visual approach does not require you to have the field in sight, just that you must maintain visual reference to terrain.

So, in summary. Fly the approach as charted. Unless, you can satisfy the requirements above, and then you may omit portions of the approach in order to do a VMC or a visual approach.

As apilot mentioned, it will be a VMC approach into Plett.
I am the last Cylon...
SandPiper
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 724
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:15 pm
Location: Swakopmund
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 7 times

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by SandPiper » Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:20 am

Ja...but....

vmc and visual apptoaches are typically flown after breaking cloud.
This scenario is exactly the opposite.

I agree with hatman, but to pick the flypoo from the pepper, Brand is correct.

Ok, now I am confused. :roll:
Globemaster
Engine full power confirmed
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:11 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by Globemaster » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:26 am

I see a two fold reason for the notes:
Firstly the initial approach altitude or higher MSA is to ensure terrain clearance during your initial descent to the NDB.
Secondly the descent in the hold enables you to establish drift correction by the time you go down below 3500' (changing winds as you pass through different levels).

You have to assume worst case senario that the aircraft only has an ADF as this is the minimum nav aid required for the approach(no GPS for tracks).

Sticking to the approach ensures protection from the hard stuff.
All systems are go!
Upthere
Lining Up
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:26 am
Closest Airfield: FAOR
Location: Anywhere
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by Upthere » Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:17 am

Having done plenty oversights with a SACAA TSO in the back of the simulator I can remember one of the questions asked.
Is it legal? Yes...
Is it the clever thing to do? No...
Next time you arrive at the airfield, the weather conditions might be slightly different and you will try and push to get in again. A lot of the accidents that have happend with customized approaches indicated that the pilot(s) have done it their way many times before.
'Slim vang sy baas'.
Fly, fly, fly, fly...
User avatar
Hop Harrigan
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:55 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 19 times

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by Hop Harrigan » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:10 am

Gents,
So are we agreed? Even with 5000' of blue sky above a solid cloud layer, on arrival at Plet it is legally required that one enter and descend in the hold from 8000' down to the start of the approach at 3500'.
That takes me two holds (at -500'/min in order to preserve my pax eardrums) and adds about 8 minutes to the approach.
I do notice that a particular airline serving Plet descends on the way in to 3500'...but they may be using the RNav approach they've had approved.
Is there any possibility those nice airline guys might publish their approach for everyone to use?
Hop
There is no gravity...the Earth sucks
yak55
Tripped over wheel chock
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:37 am
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by yak55 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:07 am

Flying the full procedure when IMC is legally correct and prudent.However when you can descend to 3500 on top it is acceptable to do so.

I regularly fly this approach and always descend to cloud top own terrain clearance even when still controlled by George.
User avatar
Hop Harrigan
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:55 pm
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 19 times

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by Hop Harrigan » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:23 pm

Hi yak55,
Not sure if you've read the posts above, but there seem to be differing opinions on whether the visual descent is strictly legal or not.
Be nice if we could get a definitive answer on this
Hop
There is no gravity...the Earth sucks
P2T2
Forgot to remove the chocks!
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:13 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Plettenberg Bay Cloudbreak

Unread post by P2T2 » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:04 pm

Nothing illegal about a visual decent in IFR below MSA. IFR in IMC is a different ball game. I don't see anything wrong with descending to 3500' or a higher cloud base in this instance before commencing the approach. Assuming you are visual up until that point.

Return to “Instrument Flying”