Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Decommissioning plans for NDB VOR & especially ILS across Europe

I confess I’d always thought you needed a current database to fly an RNAV* approach (but not necessarily for en-route).

Page 22 is the most interesting page for me. Explains the regulatory impact and transition plan, including tests for existing IR pilots. ATOs are expected to comply with suitable training in their IR courses by August 2016.

There still seems to be quite a lot of variation between how each country NAA might interpret the requirements.

Josh’s perspective was quite a surprise to me – I’m not disagreeing with it, just hadn’t realised how much more hassle would be involved.

Lastly, in the US where the FAA also funds many VOR and NDB beacons nationally, these will be decommissioned from airports with LPV from this year on.
736 VOR and NDB non-precision approaches are to be decommissioned.
This is part of a wider plan to remove 950 VORs from mid-2016 (including those used for VOR approaches).

Here in Europe, the current plan is to have LPV approaches for all non-precision runways in place by 2024, but the current rate of progress makes this look very ambitious to me.

EDIT: Clarified I meant RNAV/GPS approach rather than one using only ground aids

Last Edited by DavidC at 27 Jan 22:08
FlyerDavidUK, PPL & IR Instructor
EGBJ, United Kingdom

I confess I’d always thought you needed a current database to fly an approach

Not for an ILS, however There isn’t a database involved (normally).

the current rate of progress makes this look very ambitious to me.

I looked at their map and Shoreham EGKA is shown there as “planned for 2016”, which is “ambitious” or not depending on various things.

The other dimension to all this is the dire shortage of competent avionics shops. A lot of people have been able to get by for years or decades…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

RNAV approaches are in general a Good Thing. Many airports that have no approaches on one end and an ILS in the other are now getting strait in RNAV approaches. Ditto airports with offset VOR approaches due to the location of the beacon.

However, like anything, all eggs in one basket is a bad idea. The Turkish accident in Nepal demonstrated that even commercial databases for the highest level RNP(AR) approaches may be suspect and this is the kind of latent error that no amount of work in the cockpit or briefing will pick up.

Another issue on the airline side is the cost of certified equipment – new aircraft are coming out with very user friendly avionics solutions but the Locos have 300+ aircraft and the cost/benefit of upgrading them is not even marginal. Their view I suspect is that they pay for ILSs through landing fees and Nav charges, and I would imagine Ryanair and Easyjet are making their views known to those airports that are thinking about binning their ILSs.

Regarding the hassle, I actually feel a lot of the SOPs are quite sensible – given there are no outside safeguards in terms of beacons, idents &c, one is required to:

- Confirm RAIM availability
- Manually select approach RNP
- Verify the approach leg by leg from the approach plate
- Verify the coded glide path
- Discuss and plan for loss of RNAV (it does happen, especially N Italy and other mountainous areas)

Although in practice, one is flying the aircraft in exactly the same method and guidance mode of a VOR/DME approach, one does not have the VOR needle confirming you’re on the correct radial or the DME cross check to confirm your altitude.

One big advantage that is rarely mentioned though is that a properly coded LPV slope will protect you from an incorrectly set QNH.

All in all, they are well worth the hassle in the end, but at the moment we are at the “growing pains” area, where expensive investment is needed to meet the new standard, the goalposts on training requirements are moving all the time and national regulators in general are throwing spanners in the work with conservative and inconsistent approaches to certification.

London area

Josh wrote:


One big advantage that is rarely mentioned though is that a properly coded LPV slope will protect you from an incorrectly set QNH.

Compared to an ILS? Why? I’m not sure what you mean…

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

Josh wrote:

The Turkish accident in Nepal demonstrated that even commercial databases for the highest level RNP(AR) approaches may be suspect

They weren’t even on an LPV approach, just RNAV, and descended to 14 ft AGL on autopilot in the fog. How is it then the fault of the database provider if they touch down next to the runway?

Josh wrote:

Another issue on the airline side is the cost of certified equipment – new aircraft are coming out with very user friendly avionics solutions but the Locos have 300+ aircraft and the cost/benefit of upgrading them is not even marginal. Their view I suspect is that they pay for ILSs through landing fees and Nav charges, and I would imagine Ryanair and Easyjet are making their views known to those airports that are thinking about binning their ILSs.

I don’t think it’s an issue for Ryanair and Easyjet is it? They have about the youngest fleets in the world, surely they will be WAAS enabled from delivery. If Ryanair thought it would get them lower landing fees to go to LPV ops surely the commercial pressure would be the other way?

Last Edited by Neil at 28 Jan 10:00
Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

There is no CAT 3 LPV. ILS is here to stay “for ever” for airlines.

Their despatch rate would be way down if they had to go around at 200ft or 250ft.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I’d argue that this kind of incident makes a strong case for more LPV rather than just RNAV 0.3 approaches such as this. While this approach would almost certainly still have been illegal/below minimums, there’s a higher chance the aircraft would be tracking closer to the centreline.

As an aside, I was surprised to read that “India’s government dispatched a Hercules C-130 with an aircraft removal kit to Kathmandu on request”. What does an aircraft removal kit look like? Is it just a bulldozer, or a bit more subtle than that ;)

Also surprised that the co-pilot was still only a Frozen ATPL despite having around 7,500 hours total time. I thought it was mostly a formality to unfreeze after 1500 hours.

Apologies if this is too much thread drift.

FlyerDavidUK, PPL & IR Instructor
EGBJ, United Kingdom

Anthony – LPV as opposed to a non-precision approach. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Rwy20 – the runway threshold position was incorrectly coded in the database due to a confusion over planned work, leading to previous crews breaking out 4 Whites on the PAPIs. An incorrectly coded threshold position at 200ft minima would leave you dangerously positioned when becoming visual and with no option to go around and divert.

Neil – the 737NG “out of the box” has no LPV capability. It wasn’t even initially available on purchase I believe. The upgrades from Boeing are $$$$$. One of the reasons the Locos save cash is they don’t go for the expensive “options” on their aircraft both to maintain fleet commonality and to save cash.

London area

Peter wrote:

There is no CAT 3 LPV. ILS is here to stay “for ever” for airlines.

That sounds like one of those famously wrong tech predictions not taking into account that there is no logic connection between these two. I predict that we will replace CAT3 ILS with more lightweight, equally reliable technology some day (not necessarily satellite based though).

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top