Some people hold that ATC is necessary for instrument approaches,
I didn’t say that. I merely pointed out that the US scenario, with its special approach controller funding, is not helpful for the European – particularly the UK – case.
If it was me, I would allow DIY flying of these approaches, with mandatory two-way electronic conspicuity. It is not like DIY (unpublished) approaches where the trajectory is rather random. Flying an ex-database trajectory means you are very likely to go into the back of somebody, or somebody will go into the back of you. And the lack of mid-air statistics doesn’t help in this case because we know there won’t be any because almost nobody is flying published IAPs non-radio. I know for a fact it does happen at certain airports which have only a part time approach controller, but it seems very rare, and probably most people doing it have both Mode C/S and TCAS.
Mandatory radio (even if only self reporting) seem like a very effective way of reducing collision risk. Possibly marginally move effective than VFR as there is much less ambiguity as to where the reporting station actually is / where it’s going.
Peter wrote:
If it was me, I would allow DIY flying of these approaches, with mandatory two-way electronic conspicuity.
I agree with your comment about increased collision risk when flying database IAP tracks but why would “two-way electronic conspicuity” need to be mandatory?
It’s not like these places will be swarming with IFR traffic. There are lots of Swedish AFIS airports without an approach controller. Should there be more than one IFR movement at a time, the pilots will sort out the sequencing themselves over radio. It helps that radio contact with AFIS is mandatory so the AFISO will know about all traffic.
Quite. It is the Heathrowisation of Shobdon (as it were) that has been so detrimental to light aviation over my lifetime.
There are plenty of non-towered unmanned (nobody there at all) airfields in non-radar environments in Australia with IAPs….self separation by radio only…
Yes; radio is the other option. However in UK Class G you can fly IFR non-radio (including flying DIY approaches, in G-regs at least) so that would have to be changed.
In the US, IFR traffic is separated from IFR traffic and not from VFR traffic at non towered airports. The primary mission of the ATC clearance is to ensure one in – one out IFR operation at non towered airports. There isn’t a requirement for radar coverage and IFR traffic must fend for themselves anytime the visibility is 1 SM or greater, as in class G, that is beautiful VFR day. At a non towered airports with approaches, if they are class G to the surface, class G begins below 700 AGL. For airports that don’t have IFR approaches, class G typically begins below 1200 AGL. There may be cases of mid air collisions at non towered airports where mixing of IFR and VFR traffic is involved, but I am not aware of any. I would prefer if any non towered airport that had instrument approaches were class E to the surface because of the possibility that a VFR aircraft can be clear of clouds and have 1 mile visibility and in theory could be just below the ceiling as an IFR aircraft on approach pops out, but it has never been demonstrated that this is anything other than a concern. With class E, at least there is a cloud separation requirement of 500 below and 3 SM visibility requirement which would give an IFR aircraft time to spot VFR traffic. Procedural separation as is used by ATC in the US should work anywhere there are cloud separation and visibility requirements for VFR aircraft.
Procedural separation as is used by ATC in the US should work anywhere there are cloud separation and visibility requirements for VFR aircraft.
Yes; exactly. This is where USA’s Class E works well. It makes the most dangerously conflicting VFR traffic illegal because basically any “VFR” traffic flying through the IAP trajectory in poor vis or in IMC would be automatically illegal, whereas in the UK such traffic, in Class G, is 100% legal. We had a bit of a thread on that here.
One could argue that a midair between a plane on an IAP and some VFR flight which just happens to be flying at the (say) 2000ft platform altitude, totally oblivious to the IAP’s existence, is unlikely. But the emotional “russian roulette” issue remains because is say 1600m vis, 100% legal for VFR, the instrument traffic will at 2000ft be in a pea soup and not looking for other traffic. One can see why regulators don’t like this, in the UK system. Especially as most of the regulators are ex Royal Air Force (mostly ex RAF ATC) where the “Mk 1 eyeball” is the cornerstone of all life on earth 
If I were a regulator, I would suggest lowering the class E around an airport that had no tower but had approaches.
Sure; unfortunately the UK has almost no Class E (there is a bit in Scotland). The reasons for this appear to be
Some other European countries do have Class E. France has a lot of it although the base is usually FL065 or so, and it goes up to FL120 (above that it is generally Class D, with Class A above FL200, IIRC). Germany has Class E too. But none of these use it to protect IAPs the way the USA uses it.
