Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Which country allows IAPs without ATC?

Having spoken to someone in the system here, the issue in the UK seems to be not with flying the IAP without ATC (in relevant cases, it is in Class G anyway and the obvious risk there is already accepted) but with integrating the inbound with circuit traffic as it enters the ATZ boundary

Well can’t someone ask the CAA and get an answer of what measures would need to be taken to make them happy to allow it?

Peter wrote:

AIUI the UK concern was with IFR traffic popping out of the cloud 100ft above the pattern (circuit) height, which doesn’t give the pattern traffic much time to spot it.

Admittedly if the pattern height is 1000ft AGL and the cloudbase is 1100ft, there will not be much pattern traffic, but …


At 1100 ft on a standard glidepath you’ll be about 3,5 NM from the runway. There really should be no circuit traffic at that distance.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Some relevant posts are around here and CAP1122 is the doc applicable in the UK, on which the CAA is dragging its heels.

As usual for every winner is a loser and the ATC profession generally is against this, because it’s obvious where it might lead. The smaller airfields with ATC (e.g. EGKA) can’t pay the money to recruit and long-term retain ATCOs when the one down the road (e.g. EGHH) is paying 20k more, but they serve as a useful place for new ATCOs to enter the profession and learn the job. The CAA is generally against it too; the present day UK CAA is more heavily bound up by rules than ever before.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Australia, plenty of Instrument Approach Procedures in Class G airspace!

It’s awesome. But we do have a lot of pilot-to-pilot broadcasting and communication that makes it possible.

In Europe you seem to be told off for wanting to talk to another aircraft i.e. for separation. Go wash your mouth, we don’t do that!

Sywell EGBK RNAV GNSS Instrument Approaches Approved by UK CAA

This looks like the UK’s very first IAP at an airfield without ATC.

CAA link local copy

This was originally posted by someone else but due to some political content was moved to the political/ off topic thread.

The above document is mostly waffle. What is not known is how the airport managed to meet the safety case for (what was) CAP1122. Many had tried and all had failed.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Whist probably not of practical relevance, it is limited to 6 movements a day, so I can’t see it being used to plug the training gap in the UK

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

6 movements a day is completely nuts. The only way it can be worth doing for that is for 6 bizjet/King Air/PC12 movements at say 300 quid each

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I didn’t read the doc, but I knew they had to be a screw-up in this good news
So it is a political gesture towards LAA and AOPA to show CAA is working.
Is Sywell full of IFR planes, or in a IFR intense training area ?

LFOU, France

Six a day means one approach every two hours?
How very generous of them…
What is the point then? Some training aircraft can fly practice approach in VMC without announcing it?
Like with many other things done by CAA I suspect that it might make some sense but I’m just not smart enough to see it.

EGTR

The document linked below appears to highlight the frustrations experienced attempting to gain a GNSS approach. Also should note that training flights are not allowed.

Letter indicating aspirations local copy

EGBW, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top