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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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. :-(
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…
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.
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.
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.
