In the US, one does not need to have ATC at the airport for approaches, but ATC is in the area, either a center sector or an approach/departure control and issue the approach clearance. Airports that do not have a tower, are one IFR operation at a time. So only a single approach or a single IFR departure release. In the case of a departure release, the pilot must cancel if they do not depart or the airspace is blocked. Usually this is accomplished by phone or radio. Same for approaches, the pilot has to cancel with ATC once they are on the ground or a SAR will get initiated and IFR operations are blocked.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Demanding ATC for an approach to a small airfield which would only by used by noncommercial flights doesn’t mean more ATC jobs – it will mean fewer approaches.
As I said it might be a bit more subtle. Of course in this instance it means fewer approaches, but its a long game on the part of the vested interests, not a short one.
The issue is that if these small / non-commercial operations go ahead without ATC then it’s the thin end of the wedge. If it can be demonstrated that IFR operations can happen safely without ATC then people might start to ask what else is possible – and the vested interests don’t want this at all.
Cobalt wrote:
for example the UK CAA with their feet dragging and stupid restrictions (such as the number of flights) on instrument approaches without ATC.
That one is definitely ATC interest driven. If e.g. Sywell was allowed to have a functionally useful instrument approach without such ludicrous restrictions, then other airports (e.g. Shoreham, Gloucester, Oxford) might start thinking about how much money they could save by not having full ATC, or at least not having it all of the time. Shoreham already doesn’t have it all of the time, but the instrument approaches are ‘unavailable’ (you just ‘self-position for long final’) when there is no approach-qualified controller working.
Graham wrote:
I tend to feel most of these national restrictions originate from the efforts (formal or not-so-formal and subtle or not-so-subtle) of what might amount to an ATC job protection interest in various regulatory roles?
I think it is a self-reinforcing belief system. “Uncontrolled IFR Verboten” – Why? – “Obviously because it is dangerous!”. After 50 years of that, “Everyone ‘knows’ that uncontrolled IFR is dangerous”. Now the rules change and uncontrolled IFR is allowed – but because everyone ‘knows’ it is dangerous, they try to prohibit it again, or at the very least, make very, very, difficult.
It is not a particular country – many countries’ regulators (try to) reintroduce stupid restrictions, for example the UK CAA with their feet dragging and stupid restrictions (such as the number of flights) on instrument approaches without ATC.
Graham wrote:
I tend to feel most of these national restrictions originate from the efforts (formal or not-so-formal and subtle or not-so-subtle) of what might amount to an ATC job protection interest in various regulatory roles?
I don’t see how the Swedish proposal would protect ATC jobs. Possibly if it concerned CAT, but it doesn’t. Demanding ATC for an approach to a small airfield which would only by used by noncommercial flights doesn’t mean more ATC jobs – it will mean fewer approaches. It’s more likely that the proposal was founded in a misdirected sense of ensuring safety.
I tend to feel most of these national restrictions originate from the efforts (formal or not-so-formal and subtle or not-so-subtle) of what might amount to an ATC job protection interest in various regulatory roles?
Ibra wrote:
Obviously, NAA can easily make uncontrolled IFR impossible (just put MAX DCT = 0NM outside STARs/IAPs/SIDs for IFR in Class G )
Or, like Germany is doing: Just not allow to fly from Golf to Echo and vice versa under IFR…
LeSving wrote:
Anyway, could you say a bit more about where in Part-NCO this is found?
It is not found explicitly, since everything not forbidden is allowed. But you can compare the paragraphs in part-NCO about use of airports and instrument procedures with the corresponding paragraphs in part-CAT to see what part-CAT requires but part-NCO does not. There is also an upcoming proposed change to part-NCO that will clarify this.
Interesting. My regard for the Norwegian CAA is at an all time low ATM, and it’s because of slightly similar things. It seems they just make up stuff instead of operating within their own regulations, which is EASA regulations in these cases. It’s as if they don’t know the regulations themselves, or “pretend” it doesn’t apply to them, as if they think they can pick and choose. Anyway, could you say a bit more about where in Part-NCO this is found?
Ibra wrote:
Not sure where does this sit with EASA/NCO & EGNOS roadmap for GA
It doesn’t – which I’m sure was a major reason why the proposal was withdrawn. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the Swedish Transport Agency.
Obviously, NAA can easily make uncontrolled IFR impossible (just put MAX DCT = 0NM outside STARs/IAPs/SIDs for IFR in Class G )
Yes, that’s the kind of thing I mean by “practical difficulties”.
Not sure where does this sit with EASA/NCO & EGNOS roadmap for GA
In any case individual countries can’t override NCO rules which explicitly allow uncontrolled IFR without ATS including for takeoffs/landings operations, this may not be sugar coated enough for everybody taste to swallow (I am sure lot of people will change their minds as time evolve, just like when GPS was introduced for approaches initially it was Alaska cowboy flying, then first legal published GPS IAP in Alaska for CAT in 2000, then it went into every CAT operation manual with specific NAA authorizations in 2010, now it’s worldwide ICAO thingy with mandatory PBN signoff in 2020, and I see load of low hours PA28 pilots flying Sywell RNP with barely 75h total
Obviously, NAA can easily make uncontrolled IFR impossible (just put MAX DCT = 0NM outside STARs/IAPs/SIDs for IFR in Class G 
)
