Egnos User Support publish this map showing planned and available LPV approaches throughout Europe. Green are published approaches, yellow are “planned”.
The data comes from Eurocontrol. You can register and access a tool which dissects the raw data, and drill down by country, approach type etc.
I recall that there was a goal to equip all non-precision instrument runways serving Commercial Air Traffic with LPV by end 2018, but can’t find the specific web reference.
Eurocontrol publish this summary
This press article from 2014 gives a rough clue, stating that the UK was leading the way (because the first ever European one was in the Channel Islands), a position challenged by one of the readers in the comment section.
Some countries are clearly well on target, with Germany and France having the most and making greatest progress. These include several with FISOs in the tower and LPV200 for lower minima. You can see that the current rate of deployment makes it very realistic to achieve the target by end 2018.
Elsewhere progress has been variable to say the least, with the graphic map above showing planned dates that every year just get delayed by another year – like GroundHog day. Here’s the currently reported position for the UK. We are about 35% of the way there with the number “planned” to double during 2018. Given the slowing progress during 2017, I just can’t see how this is credible.
An example would be St Mary’s in the Scilly Isles, a busy commercial airport which had £7 million spent on it building a new terminal and paved runways. Three LPV approaches were designed, flight tested and documentation delivered to the UK CAA in Q3 2016 but absolutely nothing has been approved. The airport currently only has a timed NDB approach without radar coverage. Gloucester already has an LNAV and ILS so you’d think that upgrading to LPV would be fairly trivial. These are just a sample of many applications pending at the UK CAA which appears to be grossly understaffed for this purpose. It’s unclear if their approval process is efficient or gold plated but its certainly not delivering the output compared with elsewhere in Europe.
Sweden took a lot of persuading that EGNOS would work satisfactorily at higher latitudes, so was late to the game. While Norway has an impressive number, Sweden is only just starting. They have an ambitious target for 2018, which may be more credible if they really do now accept the technology.
A few countries are very much further behind the curve. I’d pick out Spain and Romania, the latter forecasts growth in coverage from 2 to 31 of their airports in the next 12 months alone.
I’m aware that the sources of this data are wide and varied. Those implemented already are far easier to track that planned dates. What needs to be done is to use this data more forcefully with regulators to accelerate approval of new approaches. I never thought I’d say this, but perhaps the UK CAA could learn a few things from their French and German counterparts. Some will say its purely about funding (staffing for this at the UK has been heavily reduced), but its also about clarity of why there are delays and what action can be taken to streamline it.
The target for all instrument runway ends to be 3D has been moved to 2024, and that is still expected to be met.
Ultimately, for the UK, the airport has to find c. 30k per runway end from its own funds, basically from extra traffic which it thinks LPV will bring, and 60k for a non taxpayer funded airport is a lot of money.
Plus a UK airport needs full ATC for any IAP, which leaves very few airports that would really benefit. For example Shoreham (full ATC) already has the LNAV approaches so you can fly the +V advisory glideslope and get basically LPV except with a higher minima than a real LPV would be. Redhill would be a good one and has full ATC but has no IAPs because the runway is grass, and any attempt to do a hard runway gets blocked by Biggin Hill who don’t want the competion 
The rest of the UK GA airfields don’t generally have ATC (because ATC salaries are a huge fixed cost) so they can never benefit anyway – examples are Elstree, Goodwood, Lee on Solent, you name it….
From the airport’s POV, when you take out
there isn’t much traffic left to fund the 60k. It would be FTO training flights (LPV should count as the precision approach) and the more diligently operated bizjets which will always divert to Biggin or Gatwick, etc.
The EU can set targets but setting a target does nothing to drive the demand.
Interesting that most of the graphs show the „magic happens“ effect where the gradient is a lot bigger than during the previous years…
and – surprise – matches exactly the deadline or target. Looks like serious planning, so we can be confident that they will make it.
Anyway – thanks for extracting this interesting information!
Ultimately, for the UK, the airport has to find c. 30k per runway end from its own funds, basically from extra traffic which it thinks LPV will bring, and 60k for a non taxpayer funded airport is a lot of money.
Funding has been available from the GSA to accelerate the process. They’ve given €12 million so far with another round due soon
This is primarily for airports with commercial traffic and paved runways of 800m or more. There is a separate discussion around developing approaches or cloud-breaks for smaller GA airfields and grass strips. I could start a separate thread on that with some of the latest thinking and presentations from EASA.
While full funding for small airfields would be a problem, there seem to be quite a few applications that have been funded and submitted but seem to be sitting on the UK CAA’s in-tray awaiting review and approval.
Plus a UK airport needs full ATC for any IAP, which leaves very few airports that would really benefit
Let’s not reinforce that outdated thinking. You can visit several Scottish Islands manned by FISOs with no radar or approach control ATC but with full LPV approaches now and CAP1122 covers the principles. There are approved LPV approaches in other countries for airfields manned by a FISO, for example in Germany at Schwabish Hall or France at Cherbourg. Other non-ATC UK airfields have submitted applications for LPV approaches. The problem in the UK seems to be a lack of commitment to progress these.
The target for all instrument runway ends to be 3D has been moved to 2024, and that is still expected to be met.
Now you mention it, I do recall that date. I had a look for a reference document and found this “Simple Guidelines for ANSP and Aircraft Operators for LPV implementation” from ESA. It’s a bit out of date but does clarify what EASA intended to do in one of the rulemaking tasks back in 2015.
This map is nice indeed because it is rare to know what is planned by our regulators.
DavidC wrote:
This is primarily for airports with commercial traffic and paved runways of 800m or more. There is a separate discussion around developing approaches or cloud-breaks for smaller GA airfields and grass strips. I could start a separate thread on that with some of the latest thinking and presentations from EASA.
Now I am reassured. Please do !
CAP1122 in the UK has been desperately slow, I think mainly because it has been difficult to persuade the responsible people in middle management at the CAA that the safety advantage of having a 3D approach to prevent CFIT when scud running hugely outweighs the miniscule risk of mid-air collision in IMC when using such an approach.
While senior management has espoused proportionality and risk-based approaches, the message does not seem to have filtered down to the level where Inspectors are taking the decisions, where there remains an aversion to the introduction of any risk, even when it mitigates a far greater risk.
I have raised this innumerable times at all the appropriate forums, from direct conversations with Mark Swan, Director of the CAA’s Safety and Airspace Regulation Group, through to raising it tens of times at meetings such as NATMAC, GAP, FASIIG and many more.
Jon Round, Head of Airspace, Air Traffic Management and Aerodromes, has now been tasked with relieving the log-jam of CAP1122 applications, and maybe making it clear to the Inspectors that they have to let some risks go in order to mitigate other, much greater risks. Jon is a talented, capable and determined person and I have every confidence that he will get 1122 applications on the move again.
The bottom line is that the Earth is very, very big and it is very easy to hit it accidentally with an aircraft.
By comparison, aircraft are very, very small and it’s quite hard to hit them with another aircraft. Although it does happen in VMC (such as the tragic accident at Wycombe recently), it has never happened outside controlled airspace in IMC. Of course it might happen one day, and we must accept that; but in the meantime the entire Garvey family were actually killed trying to scud run into Dunkeswell, and more recently David Norris was killed trying to scud run into Chalgrove.
These deaths have been mounting since Graham Hill in 1975 and, no doubt long before. All of them would have been avoided (almost for certain) had there been LPV approaches.
It just doesn’t make sense to promote a “might happen one day” above the real, actual, regular attrition of our friends, but that seems to be what is happening in the CAP1122 process.
In my opinion, that is because it is being lead by air traffickers and not pilots.
Let’s not reinforce that outdated thinking
It wasn’t my aim to reinforce outdated thinking. I am well aware of discussions going back many years on how one could avoid the need for ATC. Actually the UK never needed ATC in the tower for an IAP; the CAA merely insisted on some sort of approach control. And the ICAO requirement for an ATCO for doing any “controlling” (pushed for hard by ATC unions who obviously want to protect the ATC status – same issue with London Info employing FISOs who ostensibly “have no radar”) finished it off nicely.
I can see it works (in the “CAA emotional acceptance” sense) in Scotland because there is almost no traffic there, and the traffic which the IAPs were provided for were commercial ops which normally get a good service from Scottish Control. Plus, in the sort of wx in which an IAP is actually used there will be practically minus zero GA traffic in Scotland 
I cannot see anything in that doc actually saying that an airfield with say 50k annual movements and AFIS could have an IAP. Maybe I missed it – too many pages
I am considerably heartened by Timothy’s report which clarifies what the log-jam is, and offers some promise of improvement. Let’s hope that 2018 sees some visible progress. I don’t doubt that Timothy and others in various representative groups have been pressing arguments for some time so many thanks to him and any others doing so.
Peter makes a similar point that there is a “CAA emotional acceptance” issue at middle management level. I can only say that there is now precedent to implement others with no approach control and FISO manned towers, with more and more being rolled out throughout Europe.
I’ll start a separate thread with some material from EASA I’ve come across regarding their latest thinking for non-commercial airport instrument approaches.
DavidC wrote:
Now you mention it, I do recall that date. I had a look for a reference document and found this “Simple Guidelines for ANSP and Aircraft Operators for LPV implementation” from ESA. It’s a bit out of date but does clarify what EASA intended to do in one of the rulemaking tasks back in 2015.
The GSA (which is not the ESA, by the way, but I think you know that) has lobbied rather successfully since 2015. Last I heard, the mandate was going to be LPV to instrument runways by 2024 if they already have a precision approach and 2020 if they don’t. Of course the mandate is one thing and real world implementation, particularly in states where airports own their IAPs, is another.
Romania, which you mention as being behind, has an excuse. EGNOS availability in Eastern Romania is not great, as it’s on the edge of the coverage.
