@NCYankee, thanks for the information regarding the practical aspects of the american way. But what happens if there is not ATC around? Lets say there is no controlled airspace close enough to have reception on radar or radio. Is it still allowed to have an approach there?
But what happens if there is not ATC around?
AIUI, the basic factor here is that the USA always has remotely located approach controllers.
So all instrument approaches in the USA are cleared and – at least up to a certain distance to run – monitored, using radar, or separated procedurally.
The same can be done in Europe. For example in the UK there is no regulation prohibiting an instrument approach to an uncontrolled runway. You “just” need to pay an approach controller. In the UK there is only one such case – do a search here on
Walney Island
and you get a number of hits on this topic.
Biggin Hill uses Thames Radar and pays them a substantial fee, rumoured to be of the order of GBP 100k/year. I know Thames Radar is not a NATS unit but NATS have said that a fully costed H24 ATC desk is GBP 1M/year, so this figure won’t be far off and might even be on the low side.
An alternative approach is to use self separation i.e. inbound traffic talks to each other. Has this been implemented anywhere in Europe? I am sure it would work but there are obvious “emotional” issues with it, and the “lack of control” which always upsets European regulators. There have been rumours of some positive noises about this from someone speaking to the UK CAA. I vaguely recall PPL/IR (I am no longer “in” so not up to date) were talking to the CAA but later reported it all went backwards.
Peter wrote:
An alternative approach is to use self separation i.e. inbound traffic talks to each other. Has this been implemented anywhere in Europe? I am sure it would work but there are obvious “emotional” issues with it, and the “lack of control” which always upsets European regulators. There have been rumours of some positive noises about this from someone speaking to the UK CAA. I vaguely recall PPL/IR (I am no longer “in” so not up to date) were talking to the CAA but later reported it all went backwards.
I think that this would be the ultimate goal of this. There are areas in Europe, especially Scandinavia, where flight information service won’t have coverage and this needs to be accessible to these remote locations. It would be interesting to hear what the french pilots are saying since I cannot see any clearance requirements in the AIP rules. It would also be interesting to see one of those procedures on a plate.
Can anyone find this for me?
Peter wrote:
An alternative approach is to use self separation i.e. inbound traffic talks to each other. Has this been implemented anywhere in Europe?
This is more or less how it works at most Swedish uncontrolled airports with an IAP. And there is scheduled CAT at such airports. There does have to be an AFIS officer in the tower but (s)he provides airport and traffic information and no separation services. AFAIK it works the same in Finland and Norway and possibly also in Denmark.
There are a few AFIS airports that happen to have controlled airspace immediately above and in that case you do get an approach control service, but that’s the exception.
It’s been pointed out by ATCOs posting on forums that ICAO mandates any “control” or airborne “clearances” to be done by an ATCO (not e.g. a FISO).
Also if an ATCO is to be permitted to see a radar screen and issue instructions based on what he sees on it* then he must be a radar qualified ATCO.
The ATC business is heavily union organised and a radar ATCO costs more money. A French pilot I know told me all French ATCOs are radar qualified, which would solve a lot of the political issues in one go.
Obviously it would be possible for EASA to file a difference to ICAO (by the EU issuing a Directive to all member states to use their individual ICAO seats to file individual differences) or even individual countries could do it (France/Sweden?) but I have not heard of anything like this having been done.
* London Information (southern UK’s FIS) has radar screens but is not permitted to reveal that on the radio, hence they are able to employ the lower paid FISO staff.
Peter wrote:
An alternative approach is to use self separation i.e. inbound traffic talks to each other. Has this been implemented anywhere in Europe?
In Norway you can fly IFR in G. As far as I know, for all IFR you have to have two way radio communication and a transponder. You have to be in contact with information, which is not always possible in wallies and fjords if the airport is closed, hence remotely operated towers. For unmanned airports, to be able to land, there has to be VFR minima at the airport (VFR and IFR). When the airports becomes remotely operated, they will be like any other airport, only open 24/7.
In Sweden all of them have radar qualifications since it is often the same people watching the lower levels as is controlling FL100 and above.
Can someone tag any frenchies here to get them into this conversation, I think they would add a lot by just telling how this works in France?
I think the best frenchy source of information would be @Guillaume 
Fly310 wrote:
But what happens if there is not ATC around? Lets say there is no controlled airspace close enough to have reception on radar or radio. Is it still allowed to have an approach there?
It is handled proceduraly. Radar coverage is pretty good now a days, but there are still gaps, particularly in the mountainous areas. There are also gaps in communication. Clearances can be issued for approaches while still at altitude. We also have a cruise clearance which is a clearance to an airport and authority to descend at pilots discretion and then fly the approach. Once you vacate an altitude, you may not climb back to the altitude. Also, there are PT or DME arc’s used in non radar environment to get oriented onto the final approach course. You call when you get on the ground or if you miss the approach, you follow the missed approach guidance or what ever the controller issued prior to being cleared for the approach. Most approaches at non towered airports involve some portion of the flight in class G airspace. We still have a few class G airspace areas that are above 700/1200 AGL, but even these are going away and should be completely gone in the next few years. You might get a departure clearance to contact Center when above 7000 or similar as part of your departure clearance. The point is that procedures can be developed that provide for terrain, obstacle clearance and communication gaps, particularly with GPS. Until recently, we needed to be within the service volume of a ground facility in order to obtain an IFR clearance. Now we can be up to 500 NM on a GPS RNAV route on departure.
