GPS-approaches into uncontrolled/closed airports

You can fly into e.g. Reims-Prunay (LFQA) at night to have diner there at the restaurant on the airfield. I have done so, with nobody on the airfield there. Of course, I would call ahead of time to the manager of LFQA to make sure the Pilot-controlled-lights (PCL or STEP) would work that night and to tell them I would be coming. Then you just fly to the airfield and fly the GPS approach, turn on the runway lights, park the aircraft and enjoy diner. Then after diner you use a torch light to find your aircraft, start up, activate the runway lights and take-off. Then after takeoff you contact the nearest frequency for a further clearance. I do this “all the time”. At LFQA they suggest you to call a number a Orly to get the clearance and squawk on the ground, but you can also go airborne and talk on the radio. Has never been an issue. Same for other airfields in France. No controller there. Airport is technically open, but completely dark when you arrive or walk away from the airport. Nobody there to check the runway. Nobody there to help. Just the airport and you.

There is no issue with landing at an untowered airport, from an IAP.

The real Q is whether you are using the services of an approach controller on the way down.

The next real Q is who is paying his salary

In the USA there is always an approach controller involved. The US taxpayer is paying him.

In the “privatised UK” this problem will never be solved. Well, not unless they accept mutual negotiation between multiple inbound airborne traffic. You can legally land anywhere without a tower or indeed any human presence. It is the approach controller who is currently needed, and he must be an ATCO pay grade. He could just be a man sitting in a hut on the North Pole, with a radio… that would meet the requirements.

@Fly310 I think the answer to that question is in the AIP extract with which you opened this post:

Fly310 wrote:

The approaches procedures are compulsorily followed with a circling for which minima are possibly increased and published.

The reasoning why you have to circle is probably that you cannot know the wind, so you will have to fly over the windsock and choose a landing direction first. In practice, if the conditions are close to the circling minima and the runway is long, I think I would rather go with the general wind direction at altitude (or what the PFD indicates on final approach) and deduce the active runway from that. At least that is how I did it on my so far only IFR approach into an uncontrolled French airfield – which then did mean that I needed to circle after the ILS anyway.

I know very well the French regs, I own a house in France, I learnt to fly there, and I spend all my summer vacations in France. French is my first language as you must have guessed.
In Belgium there must be a Commandant d’aérodrome (You don’t call him Commandant nor Mon Commandant, although it would be fun to do so).
It has nothing to do with ATC. Even if there is no ATC, there must be a Commandant d’aérodrome.
In the UK I don’t know the rule, but in practice I’ve never seen an aerodrome open with nobody on the ground.
I France it’s just not mandatory for anyone to be on the ground when you land. So as a principle it’s allowed to land anytime. There are exceptions though, you would find them in the VAC, IAC, or in the Notams.
At night you must have lights, and for many small airfields be allowed to use the airfield at night. Usually there is a PCL otherwise you will need someone to switch the lights on.
Landing fees are usually affordable in France, but using lights is always billed as an extra fee. Unfortunately dishonest pilots often use the PCL without paying, so the PCL is more an more switched off unless you call in advance and give satisfactory credentials (see AIP or Notams for that).
As always,beware of permanent Notams, so always check the Notams, even months before flying.
AIC FRANCE A 21/15
Communications with air traffic services units can be held in French or English language unless the mention « FR only » is specified
on the relevant aeronautical charts* in which case communications shall be held in French language
*standard instrument departure charts, standard instrument arrival charts, instrument approach charts, visual approach charts, ATC
surveillance minimum altitude charts, aerodrome/heliport charts, regional charts, en route charts, world aeronautical
charts 1:1 000 000, aeronautical charts 1:500 000.

Out of ATC hours, see the relevant IAC/VAC/Notam to check whether English is allowed. As a rule, when there is a published IFR approach, French is mandatory for blind calls.

Even if radio is not mandatory, you must make blind calls if you have a radio. Radio is always mandatory under IFR in France, and under IFR you must always be in contact with ATC, unless for the final part of the approach when you make blind calls at a no ATC airfields.
(to be continued)

Peter wrote:

There is no issue with landing at an untowered airport, from an IAP.

No, not in the UK, but there might well be in other countries. In Sweden, you must have an open tower with ATC or AFIS if you want to land under IFR, even for private flights. (This is something that I expect will change with part-NCO.) But you don’t need an approach controller.

Fly310 wrote:

Is there a regulatory reason for this high minima or is it related to the nearest QNH-station that the pilot get the QNH from.

I recall having read somewhere that in the US, where this sort of thing is common, there is a formula to determine the increase in (M)DA when using a “remote” QNH depending on the distance between the QNH station and the airport where you are making the approach.

But you don’t need an approach controller.

Normally the approach controller is in the tower.

If the tower doesn’t contain an ATCO, then he needs to be elsewhere. For example Sitia LGST, Milos LGML, are IFR airports but no ATC in the tower. You “land at your discretion”. The approach controller is Iraklion Approach or Athena Radar, respectively.

The approach controller needs to be an ATCO (ICAO rule – “cleared for the approach” requires an ATCO).

If a country is operating a scheme where you can fly an IAP without being “cleared for the approach” that would be really interesting. There was a proposal in the UK to allow a – much lower cost – FISO to speak the “cleared for the approach” words but it met with fierce resistance, allegedly from the ATC unions.

Once you are visual (MDA etc) then you don’t need to be talking to anybody. There should not be anybody else coming off that IAP because nobody else was cleared to fly it at the same time as you (plus or minus X mins). There might be circuit traffic but that’s normal in flying You are as good as VFR now, and despite being technically “IFR” all the way to tarmac you are really on your own and if the airport is OCAS then anybody else could be there 100% legally. I don’t think any country should have an emotional issue with that (of course some do). It’s the “bit before that” which is where the obstacles lie, and I don’t think these are easy because you really do not want somebody else on that IAP. You could be in IMC, and with modern GPS nav you could easily collide with somebody.

Peter wrote:

If a country is operating a scheme where you can fly an IAP without being “cleared for the approach” that would be really interesting.

I’ve written several times now that it works like that for uncontrolled airports in Sweden (and Norway, and Finland). What more do you want?

And why should you need an approach clearance in the first place? We are talking about UNcontrolled airports and class G airspace.