Brussels blocking UK from using EGNOS for LPV - and selection of alternates, and LPV versus +V

chflyer wrote:

It’s probably been already beaten to death, but why is ATC needed for an approach, specifically TWR? All that is really needed is an ATC facility to clear the approach and are there anyway for CAS and not airport-specific since covering an area. This is done in both Germany and France (although very differently) and it works well.

You don’t even need an approach controller. Sweden (and Norway and Finland) have lots of instrument airports – of which several have airline traffic – in class G without any ATC whatsoever – only FIS.

You don’t even need an approach controller. Sweden (and Norway and Finland) have lots of instrument airports – of which several have airline traffic – in class G without any ATC whatsoever – only FIS.

See e.g. here.

But it doesn’t quite work as claimed… It is never a “free for all”. It could be implemented as a totally pilot-organised procedure but AFAIK nobody has done that. And I am not surprised… recently I was flying to an untowered Brac LDSB which had several planes about to depart (mostly German, but at least some seemed to speak English) and it took me ages on the radio to extract the information on how many and where etc. The situation got clarified eventually, with some “nonstandard phraseology”

@Peter, they don’t need a Radar controller, right? Prodcedural should be enough, and that costs about the same as for FIS per controller…

Affirm; you don’t need “radar”.

But “procedural” is a right PITA if you have to confirm the previous traffic has landed. This will work at airports which have practically zero traffic – which is probably all the examples in Europe

And even then, you need a “controller” to make sure nobody commences the approach, don’t you? If no, I am not sure how they work it, in the case of a pilot who chooses to disregard the “information that the approach is busy” So basically you have shifted the “controller” further back, and he controls just a holding pattern.

But throw in one busy FTO doing IR training and the whole thing collapses instantly.

Peter wrote:

But “procedural” is a right PITA if you have to confirm the previous traffic has landed. This will work at airports which have practically zero traffic – which is probably all the examples in Europe

Some holds?

Peter wrote:

If no, I am not sure how they work it, in the case of a pilot who chooses to disregard the “information that the approach is busy”

They can’t! Pilots have to comply with APP commands – it is not FIS.
That was the reason for the objection to IAP under FIS from UK CAA

Peter wrote:

But it doesn’t quite work as claimed… It is never a “free for all”.

I don’t understand. What doesn’t work as claimed?

Ibra wrote:

You still need “to get QNH” from nearby FIS/ATC (who tells you if you are 1st or 2nd), why can’t London Info offer that?

:) In France nearby FIS/ATC likely to have been trained and qualified as ATSO, not as FISO in the UK.
Politics?

So, it appears there is no actual degradation of signal:
https://egnos-user-support.essp-sas.eu/new_egnos_ops/aviation-portal/aviation-dashboard

LNAV,LNAV/VNAV,LPV approaches are all included on the same RNP approach plate, with different minima.

Like wise, there is only one RNP approach for them in the database, usually named RNAV xxgps LPV(or similar)

So apart from a possible name change( which hasn’t happened this month) will the coding change?
I.E.how is it different for an LPV?