I read a thread about whether IFR approaches exist for untowered airports but what about IFR approaches to airports where the tower is closed but still allow traffc to arrive and depart while it is not in operation (in the US this would be like a class D airport turning into a E or G when the tower is closed). Is one able to get an approach clearance? Is one needed since I assume it turns into G airspace? How about if the approach normally begins in an overlying TMA which is still active?
In which country? 
In Europe there is always an “approach controller” of some sort, though the terminology can be “surprising”…
For example, taking France, you have this variation (example of Laval). Also France has a strange (and apparently very old, looking at the reference to a signals square) law that in such a scenario you cannot just land but have to fly around the airport first.
There are also similar arrangements in Spain, when flying to an airport which is AFIS, not ATC.
In which country?
Sweden
Peter wrote:
In Europe there is always an “approach controller” of some sort, though the terminology can be “surprising”…
No, there is not! We’ve been through this before.
Just one example. An AFIS airport in Sweden not located under a TMA. Controlled airspace starts at FL95. The center controller will clear you to leave controlled airspace by descent and hand you over to the AFIS unit. It is entirely up to you to carry out the approach.
Cttime wrote:
Sweden
You are asking specifically about a controlled airport which is open but where the tower is closed.
In case the approach can be carried out entirely in uncontrolled airspace (Västerås ESOW comes to mind) the situation is very similar to that of an AFIS airport, except that there is no AFIS. You will be cleared to leave controlled airspace by descent (unless leaving some adjacent controlled airspace from the side) and it is then up to you to do the approach.
If there is an active controlled airspace so close above that you have to start the approach there (Norrköping ESSP with Östgöta TMC open comes to mind), you have a problem. The old national Swedish ops regulations required an open ATS unit (TWR or AFIS) for an IFR approach. That requirement is gone since part-NCO took over. However, to the best of my knowledge Swedish ATC has not changed its procedures. I have not actually tried making an IFR approach in this situation, but you are very likely to be refused an approach clearance. ATC will also not clear you below the MVA, so you can’t start the approach yourself unless the MSA is lower, which is unlikely. (In the ESSP case the MVA is 1800’ while the approaches start at 2100’ and the lowest MSA is 1900’.)
The best thing to do is to call the TMC in question in advance and ask.
Peter wrote:
For example, taking France, you have this variation (example of Laval).
That sounds very much like the US although almost every non-towered airport I’ve seen (mostly in the eastern US) has at least 1 approach. My understanding is for separation (maybe depending on radar coverage also) they don’t clear more than one aircraft for an approach to the same non-towered airport at a time. Also they usually remind you to cancel IFR on the ground if you don’t cancel with them before changing to the CTAF.
Airborne_Again wrote:
You are asking specifically about a controlled airport which is open but where the tower is closed.
Exactly. For example, take ESGT. Gothenburg TMA starts at 1500 ft and the ILS 33 begins at 2000 ft. If the old national regulation no longer applies and the AIP doesn’t say anything about this then shouldn’t the ATS be providing a clearance (at least for that portion of the approach in their airspace?)
Airborne_Again wrote:
The best thing to do is to call the TMC in question in advance and ask.
I may do that and get back to you.
Cttime wrote:
Exactly. For example, take ESGT. Gothenburg TMA starts at 1500 ft and the ILS 33 begins at 2000 ft. If the old national regulation no longer applies and the AIP doesn’t say anything about this then shouldn’t the ATS be providing a clearance (at least for that portion of the approach in their airspace?)
They should, but the air traffic controllers are bound by their procedures which may not (indeed I expect not) have been updated to cater to this situation. But I would be very pleasantly surprised if I was wrong.
I finally got around (after a month) to contacting Gothenburg TMC and received some info that I’ll pass along. My comments in [ ].
So the supervisor I exchanged email with says that their regulations don’t allow them to issue clearances in Class G airspace. What they will do if someone wanted to make an approach at an uncontrolled airport [we used ESGT in our example] would be they would clear the aircraft down to 5000 ft or lower (or flight planned altitude) towards the beacon. When approaching uncontrolled airspace they will terminate radar service and report any traffic they see, then clear you to descend and remain outside of controlled airspace (maintaining own separation/obstacle clearance).
He also pointed out that the ILS requires constant monitoring to be operational [I remember something about this from the ATPL theory] and that some airports turn off the ILS when closing.
I wonder why they would turn off the ILS [I haven’t seen them turned off and he did admit that he was unsure if they still do]. It seems like a bad idea to me, what if something happened closing Landvetters single runway and an aircraft had an emergency that didn’t allow a normal diversion.
Well, LPV approaches would probably solve that problem. Here in the DK there have been talks about GPS approaches to non towered airfields.
