Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

CAA recognise their failure to approve GPS approaches following four-year delay

https://ukga.com/news/view?contentId=43357

Does anyone have more colour on this?

EGTF, EGLK, United Kingdom

I have been tackling Mark Swan and, latterly, Jon Round about this for years and they have always been “about to do something.” Whether Grant and the APPG have finally got action is an open question.

The fundamental problem is that the CAA is not prepared to allow any small Type I risk (the risk involved in doing something/making changes) to compensate for the huge Type II risk (the risks of leaving things as they are.)

People, and their families, die on a regular basis because they are attempting to scud-run in poor conditions, whereas the real risk of a mid-air on an uncontrolled RNP approach is miniscule. But the CAA cannot be held responsible for the former, whereas they potentially could for the latter, so people continue to die.

But latest versions of GTN software may just alleviate the issue in a way that the CAA won’t do, suggesting that unregulated solutions are way in advance of the regulators.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Isn’t this a bit embarrassing for the CAA?

What does the latest versions of the GTN software do?

Provides vertical guidance – a pseudo glide path.

The issue isn’t about the accuracy/integrity of the approach. The main stumbling point is separation of aircraft, especially between those undertaking the IAP and other traffic. This is an ATC sacred cow.

Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

Ironically, people finding their way randomly to a GTN FAT might be safer, from a separation point of view, than having a published approach. Also, they would not be using the approach for instrument training on VMC days. Plus, the CAA don’t have to take responsibility for their behaviour. Just a thought.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Oh, like many I’ve ran numerous arguments/mitigations etc. I think that, deep down, there are those who feel threatened by the removal of the requirement for ATC under such scenarios. They appear to be almost completely blind to the fact that we are talking about uncontrolled airspace and the associated risks (background noise) which are always present.

This one will take an adult to make a decision and, I suspect, a change to the ANO.

Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

The difficulty is that all the potential adults are ex controllers.

EGKB Biggin Hill

And another question – does anyone know what is the new official route to get an approval for IAP OCAS?

CAP 1122 does not appear to be valid anymore:

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=6252
View File: Not available for download
Purchase Copy: Printed copy not available for purchase

“Please be advised that the CAA is not currently accepting applications for CAP1122 approval. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.”

Hmmm… very interesting!

It turns out that I had saved that CAP1122 document in 2016 – here. I do this routinely nowadays because the CAA habitually publishes something and then withdraws it, so the discussion becomes meaningless.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It sounds like the above CAP1122 has been superseded by CAP1616 – here and here for the big and smaller PDFs respectively.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
22 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top