Peter wrote:
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.
The Swedish CAA is more concerned with traffic below the clouds in traffic circuit. They also made something up about pilots being in an “approach mindset” which means that he will think that he is protected from other traffic and therefore this is very dangerous. But like @Airborne_Again said, we already have several places in Sweden where the actual approach is uncontrolled and you only have AFIS for the last 1500ish ft and below.
Interesting to read that the dangers are completely different depending who you are talking to…
I am flying the approach in IMC and IFR into LFQA. There is nobody giving me an approach clearance. I also depart in IMC if needs to be and pick up the clearance in the air or call ahead on the ground. I do always call with the aerodrome ahead of time to make sure the PCL system to turn on the lights works and is turned on. Officially I should speak French, which I don’t always do. In some cases I will be in contact with a controller. E.g. when landing at 3 o’clock at night at Lyon-Bron (LFLY), I have to use the pilot-controlled-lights as there is really nobody in the tower at that time at Lyon-Bron. However, the approach controller for Lyon-Exupery (the big airport right next door) is awake and there on the frequency and will clear me for the approach. Then on short final he can close my flightplan for me, or I opt to call him on the ground on the radio (is possible at Lyon-Bron as Exupery is just a few km away) or I will call Le Bourget Plan de Vol to close the flightplan. Just closing the flightplan by sending an AFTN message into the system is not enough in France. They expect you to call in such situations.
Anyways: I think that the way it works in France is the way it ideally should work everywhere in Europe, but that is not the case. :-(
AeroPlus wrote:
Anyways: I think that they way it works in France is the way it ideally should work everywhere in Europe, but that is not the case. :-(
I agree. Thank you for your inputs!
In the US, the approach clearance is given while in class E airspace. Any departures must also have a clearance prior to departing which will result in climbing into class E airspace. This provides for one in – one out separation for IFR traffic in the portion of the approach or departure that is within class G. This does not separate IFR from VFR traffic. There are no approaches that don’t begin in class E airspace, so IFR is legal but impractical in airspace that consists solely as class G airspace. As I said, even though some of this airspace still exists, it will be gone within a year or two.
Airborne_Again wrote:
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?
It’s that, and it’s also the way experimental homebuilt are operated (IFR and stuff).
On my reading of the UK ANO, we don’t need an approach controller for a private GPS let-down procedure OCAS, and there is no Article prohibiting an aerodrome operator from publishing such a procedure, as long as it is not “notified” in the AIP. Or am I missing something?
Peter.
The European GNSS Agency and EASA published this report a little while back. local copy
I know of at least one airport in Sweden where they were planning to introduce it this spring, but like many other things it went out the window with covid-19.
