Funny how that letter has been redacted to conceal the name of the CAA contact. The name must be in the public domain given that the job title is shown, and a google on “caa head of airspace, air traffic management and aerodromes” digs it out in under 1 second. And, like with nearly everyone in the CAA, keeping half an eye on the next job, his LinkedIn page.
6 approaches an hour is appallingly disingenuous. Maybe this is the only basis on which the CAA will approve approaches without an approach controller.
One presumes the ATC union is the major player in trying to prevent IAPs without ATC (or at least make them useless and not worth having)?
Peter wrote:
Funny how that letter has been redacted to conceal the name of the CAA contact. The name must be in the public domain given that the job title is shown, and a google on “caa head of airspace, air traffic management and aerodromes” digs it out in under 1 second. And, like with nearly everyone in the CAA, keeping half an eye on the next job, his LinkedIn page.
That’s true, but data protection regulations frequently mean that public domain information can’t just be posted to a web site. You have to specifically request it.
It would take this totally off topic if I asked for the exact paragraph. These are civil servants.
Better late than never.
6 movements a day is completely nuts
Yikes. What an embarrassment.
Will they have to charge some £150 per approach then due to the limited slots?
From what I can find out there will be several restrictions over and above the 6 Approaches per day.
The LNAV+V Approach will only be available in the following circumstances
1. PPR required for the Approach
2. Instrument conditions must exist at the time of the Approach
3. No training flights. (I think Instrument Rating Renewals might be permitted)
4. No other traffic in the ATZ
There may be other requirements that I am not aware of yet.
I wonder who dreamt up those restrictions and how he or she hopes to enforce them.
Perhaps I’ll drop Mr Round a line…
PPR required for the approach
Does this mean anyone who is arriving at EGBK and finds he needs the IAP, needs to carry a satellite phone so he can phone up for PPR? Only partly tongue in cheek, as I have personally witnessed exactly this scenario at Duxford (many years ago admittedly; they told us to lan at Cambridge and telephone them for PPR).
Utterly shameful to create this situation and keep a straight face.
how he or she hopes to enforce them.
They can’t enforce the pilot-interpreted wx resulting in the need for the IAP, but the CAA can give the airport a load of under the table hassle. From wiki: “Northampton (Sywell) Aerodrome has a CAA Ordinary Licence [my bold] (Number P496) that allows flights for the public transport of passengers or for…” and this is the hook on which the CAA can hang them.
