Airborne_Again wrote:
I would guess the reason is that all arrivals, missed approaches and departures have to use the same corridor between the airport and RENKI?
The main issue is this approach is vertically under the operations of the big airport EDDB so everything has to be coordinated with them. Thus, they try to limit the traffic to keep the workload for those controllers under control. The exact same applies to EDAZ which works with the same PPR rules on the other side of Berlin.
But in real lif ethe problem is not as bad as it is discussed here. In many years of flying in and out of EDAZ I had very little problems with this PPR. It is just annoying, one more phone call to do, but not a real restriction. Just everybody avoid CAVOK IFR approaches into those airports. This creates workload for the controllers, disrupts the VFR traffic flow etc. Only use them if really required or once for training purposes.
Arne wrote:
The important part about the IFR procedures at EDAY is to obtain the PPR from Bremen ACC
eddsPeter wrote:
And only two aircraft the hour are accepted.
I would guess the reason is that all arrivals, missed approaches and departures have to use the same corridor between the airport and RENKI?
The important part about the IFR procedures at EDAY is to obtain the PPR from Bremen ACC (See AD 2.20, §2.1).
If you don’t do it ahead of time, Approach will definitely complain about it on the radio, and they may reject your request.
And the bad thing is, Bremen ACC does accept it only on the day of flight, not ahead of it. And only two aircraft the hour are accepted. I tried it once and the guy on the phone, who was really polite and didn‘t like the rule as well, suggested a call late in the night before flight or very, very early in the morning to be sure to get the slot.
I decided finally to go VFR.
Does nobody know what happened in 2021 when those approaches were removed and then later (don’t know when) restored?
I remember legal disputes regarding certification of QNH measurement equipment. Then using a QNH from nearby airport, then adjusting minima for possible error etc. etc. German precision at its best…
The important part about the IFR procedures at EDAY is to obtain the PPR from Bremen ACC (See AD 2.20, §2.1).
If you don’t do it ahead of time, Approach will definitely complain about it on the radio, and they may reject your request. Last fall we were two (unrelated) flights arriving IFR from the north into Strausberg, neither had done it. I was the second flight, the weather was more than fair so I did not fight it, apologized for the mistake and we finished VFR.
The person at the airport office where you pay the bills remind you of this before you leave. With so many people missing that point, they have printed the phone number on small papers (paper ad style) and distribute them to all the owners of an IFR flight plan. I could get my departure PPR over the phone literally 5’ before stepping into the plane.
Strausberg is only an AFIS airport with no controlled airspace, they can get you your clearance on the ground, but they cannot do more coordination like a TWR would. Whether this was the reason for the suspension in 2021, I don’t know.
Other than that, both SID and STAR work.
Just bumped into this thread searching for something about Strausberg.
I see there are currently 2 RNP approaches with LPV and their own EGNOS channels.
Does nobody know what happened in 2021 when those approaches were removed and then later (don’t know when) restored?
Just joking 
(no way one can get a serious “local QNH in every 3D space”, they have to decide between Euler & Lagrange formulation first and for data that would be scalars, vectors or tensors…I can’t imagine how much bureaucracy would come up out of that )
Ibra wrote:
maybe when we have current weather balloon soundings with GPS ALT & QNH ALT & STD ALT on a given day
I see you are joking, but QNH is a local setting based on a surface location. In effect it accounts for the temperature and pressure at the local site and elevation, so a remote site in a balloon would not be of any use.
I guess near AD datum with SBAS correction the difference, or it’s variation is expected to be tiny (or at least near some static value of WGS error from model surface & real surface error)
But yes we are far from certification of GPS Altitude for the purpose of ATC terrain clearance or traffic separation in terminal airspace with QNH baro, or to fly in RVSM flight levels on STD baro maybe when we have current weather balloon soundings with GPS ALT & QNH ALT & STD ALT on a given day
Cobalt wrote:
However, in practice that does not work because the published airport elevation is NOT a GPS altitude, and there is no standard GPS altitude to start with.
The GPS altitude used for the purposes of the LPV is based on WGS84 and is called a geometric altitude as it is based on the spheroid surface, not the real surface. The altitude of the airport reference is in terms of a geometric altitude included as the “LTP/FTP Ellipsoidal Height” element in the FAS block. For that matter, the geometric ellipsoidal height is what is specified in the database for obstacles and terrain. So internal to the GPS, everything is in terms of the the geometric ellipsoidal height. This is also the form of altitude that is broadcast by ADS-B Out.
