Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

GPS IAP design in different countries

If I had to guess at why there’s no published hold for the Sywell approaches then I’d say it’s because if they published them then they’d have to in some way mark them up as ‘areas to avoid’ on the VFR chart with some special status or other.

I’m aware that other OCAS approaches have holds, but where Sywell is unique is not having ATC. No comment on how reasonable it is, but the regulatory assumption that allows those other holds is probably that passing traffic can/should call the ATC unit and this mitigates the risk of of traffic ploughing through the hold.

I have not bought a 2020 VFR chart yet. Does Sywell have ‘feathers’?

EGLM & EGTN

Emir wrote:

Isn’t that still mandatory for IFR aircrafts in EASA world?

No specific navigation equipment is mandatory for IFR aircraft in the EASA world under part-NCO. You simply need the equipment required to fly according to your flight plan, airspace requirements, any procedures you intend to fly and sufficient additional equipment to be able to conclude the flight safely (not necessarily according to plan) in case of failure of any one piece of navigation equipment (NCO.IDE.A.195).

In most (but not all!) cases the airspace requirement means you need PBN equipment.

In fact, if you can navigate using landmarks (and don’t fly in PBN airspace) then you don’t need any navigation equipment for IFR! (This is clearly impractical, but still…)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

No specific navigation equipment is mandatory for IFR aircraft in the EASA world under part-NCO. You simply need the equipment required to fly according to your flight plan, airspace requirements, any procedures you intend to fly and sufficient additional equipment to be able to conclude the flight safely (not necessarily according to plan) in case of failure of any one piece of navigation equipment (NCO.IDE.A.195).

In most (but not all!) cases the airspace requirement means you need PBN equipment.

In fact, if you can navigate using landmarks (and don’t fly in PBN airspace) then you don’t need any navigation equipment for IFR! (This is clearly impractical, but still…)

I don’t follow changes in regulations so strictly but as I remember in the past some countries (e.g. Germany) had pretty strict rules about aircraft equipment necessary to register aircraft as “IFR”.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Graham wrote:

I have not bought a 2020 VFR chart yet. Does Sywell have ‘feathers’?

It does in Skydemon.

EGTR

I think CAA should put MATZ stubs or squares around airport with instrument procedures, they do not mean anything as CAS but they may keep some VFR away or at least push them to call better than those “feathers”

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Emir wrote:

I don’t follow changes in regulations so strictly

Part-NCO was such a game changer for most countries that everyone should read it in detail, at least once.

but as I remember in the past some countries (e.g. Germany) had pretty strict rules about aircraft equipment necessary to register aircraft as “IFR”.

That’s a slightly different question which I haven’t looked into, but I don’t think they can do that anymore — at least not for EASA aircraft. Annex I is a different matter.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Part-NCO was such a game changer for most countries that everyone should read it in detail, at least once.

Thanks, I’ll do it. It’s shame you didn’t recommend me this reading earlier while in lockdown

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Emir wrote:

It’s shame you didn’t recommend me this reading earlier while in lockdown

Sorry. I’ll keep that in mind if there ever is a second wave lockdown!

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

In a slightly related question, I was doing some practise on X-Plane 11 the other day, using the below approach with the built-in GNS430. The GNS sequences the hold at ERTUN automatically as part of the approach. Are you expected to fly it unless told otherwise, and if you are cleared for the approach without the need for the hold, how do you get the GNS to skip it and go from ERTUN to FAF?

EIMH, Ireland

I think the answer is that the sim box is showing the wrong approach. The RNP 17 approach has standard T-bar segments which permit direct entry to the intermediate and final segments from all directions. Waypoints URITI or DINVI are the Initial Approach Fixes when arriving from the south as depicted by the TAA icons. When arriving from the north you would use ERTUN as the IAF/IF as depicted and continue to the FAF. For the RNP 17 there would be no point in flying round the hold, which in this context is intended for the missed approach as noted on the plate.

Last Edited by NeilC at 13 May 20:18
NeilC
EGPT, LMML
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top