Slovakian firm designing LPV approaches for Scottish airports
These are currently unpublished – the airport is VFR only.
There is a long standing precedent for this, whereby commercial operators retain the “intellectual property” in the approach and nobody else is allowed to know about it. But all the ones known about thus far have been NDB or VOR based.
How is it possible for the Jepp GPS database to contain unpublished GPS approaches? Is there some software key which can be entered into the GPS which enables their display?
Come to think of it, I have heard that Gatwick EGKK has had some sort of unpublished GPS approach for years, so there must be a way… It is also known that LPV approaches were being tested in Spain for a few years, using a GNS480 with the firmware reportedly hacked to ignore the Test flag, but that is a hack which isn’t going to be available for real-world use.
LPV minimums of 700 feet at what is essentially a non-mountainous airport. What’s the deal?
Anyway, sad to see these procedures being withheld from the “public”…
On Barra the really important info of course is found in the tide tables!
LPV minimums of 700 feet at what is essentially a non-mountainous airport. What’s the deal?
Obviously anybody can descend to 700ft over open sea, so the deal is to provide a legal facade for public transport flights in conditions which are sub-VFR, which for them probably means cloudbase below 1000ft AMSL.
Once there is an IAP, it opens up all sorts of possibilities because the point at which you see the runway is, shall we say, pilot interpreted.
Also I suspect you can’t get an AOC ops manual written to permit a descent below MSA over the open sea. There is no official way to descend below the MSA unless there is an official IAP. It’s simply impossible 
Does Barra have full ATC? If not, it gets even more interesting! But I have heard of Scottish airports doing this before.
The deal is to provide a legal facade for public transport flights in conditions which are sub-VFR, which for them probably means cloudbase below 1000ft AMSL.
Once there is an IAP, it opens up all sorts of possibilities because the point at which you see the runway is, shall we say, pilot interpreted.
On both accounts: I didn’t want to say it myself…
I still find these minimums a little odd, but I guess the dunes and other hills right at the runway end play a role, after all.
Private approaches in the US are in the Jeppesen and Garmin databases. They are not hidden. What is controlled is the approach charts. Only the airport operator or approach owner has these and they are controlled distribution, with a serial number for each chart. Only authorized users are approved to use the charts and the facility owner signs an agreement to that effect. Some users may only use the charts and fly the approach under a Authorization Letter from the FAA. For example, at Heavin’s Landing, GE99, only property owners may have a copy of the RNAV (GPS) procedure, but it is in every US GPS database.
This may be something to do with this CAA consultation – Draft Cap 1122.
The PDF is here
I haven’t read it (it’s a very dense document) but page 8 looks like the bit which allows them to bend the mandatory-ATC requirement for “isolated communities”.
The unpublished approaches are called Discrete Instrument Approach Procedures.
Private approaches in the US are in the Jeppesen and Garmin databases. They are not hidden. What is controlled is the approach charts.
Extremely interesting! Maybe I should look in the KLN94 to see if the Barra EGPR one is in there
bend the mandatory-ATC requirement for “isolated communities”.
How can that be justified? It’s either safe or it isn’t safe.
There is a 383 metre hill within 3.5NM of the landing area, and 201 metre one within 0.75NM.LPV minimums of 700 feet at what is essentially a non-mountainous airport. What’s the deal?
