Unless something changed very recently, CAP1122 appears dead and then ATC is 100% relevant.
Otherwise, what would be the proposal for scheduling traffic on the IAP, and then merging it into circuit traffic?
France uses a remotely located approach controller – just like the US. And they require the previous traffic to have landed before the next one can commence the approach. This is a no-go in the UK since the airport will get billed (by NATS, etc, and accordingly heavily) for the approach service.
How are the Scilly Isles different? They have ATC and they have IAPs already. What would they be applying for? LPV?
Peter wrote:
Otherwise, what would be the proposal for scheduling traffic on the IAP, and then merging it into circuit traffic?France uses a remotely located approach controller – just like the US. And they require the previous traffic to have landed before the next one can commence the approach. This is a no-go in the UK since the airport will get billed (by NATS, etc, and accordingly heavily) for the approach service.
It works in Sweden without even a remote approach controller and no restriction of only one aircraft on the approach. Pilots sort it out themselves with the assistance of the AFISO. OTOH only airports with a small amount of traffic will be approved for AFIS.
There are AFIS based approaches all over France and Germany.
It’s really difficult to counter the assertion that we can’t have them in the UK except to say “keep looking at AIRAC”.
I am validating one on Wednesday. Applications are in from several others.
Hey ho.
Peter wrote:
How are the Scilly Isles different? They have ATC and they have IAPs already. What would they be applying for? LPV?
Scillies currently have a timed NDB approach. They did design LPV approaches and flight test them but their application has been sitting gathering dust in the CAA Intray since 2016. Surely there can’t be clearer evidence of Timothy’s hypothesis about CAA attitude to the risk of approving anything than this.
He did indeed have the Aztec accident there. However, would a likely LPV DH be low enough? We don’t seem to be getting the 200ft which is common for ILS.
I think under LTMA the question has been tricky, let’s face it it is big business cascade: Luton/Gatwick, Biggin/Farnbourough, Redhill…
Also, I am afraid the short answer is CAS with no easy/cheap GA access all over the place (managed by NATS?) which may defeat the purpose
Away from London mess, you could argue it is a purely a regulator call, but having nothing to train on for live RNAV/LPV approach apart from few go in a simulator is an big aberration to safety and does not serve well the current unregulated approach (scud running vs mid-air collision vs not flying) to the topic !
It seems that Grant Shapps (for our non-UK readers, the recently appointed Minister for Transport and a keen GA IFR pilot) has really shaken things up for UK GA IFR.
The Department for Transport has instructed the CAA that their top airspace priority is to get the backlog of GNSS/RNP/LPV approaches at non-ATC GA airfields in place, and has provided funding.
I am not sure whether I am at liberty to say how the funding is to be used (there was lots of talk of Purdah [no discussion of Government policy during an election campaign] at the meeting) but let me just say for the moment that it’s very good news indeed for the 13 applicants (the 14th, Halfpenny Green/Wolverhampton is definitely no longer interested).
The head of Airspace at the CAA’s opinion is that they could all be in by Summer.
The obvious question is about what happens on Dec 12 (election day) if the Tories are no longer in power. DfT say that the money is in the bank and is not dependent upon Shapps continuing to be behind the desk.
I have been banging this drum for many, many years and I am a little dazed.
This bit has been doing UK social media for a week or two (my emphasis, being highly relevant to this thread):
I don’t have a primary (CAA or Govt) source for it, however. I imagine it is from a presentation he made somewhere.
It’s good stuff and I expect a few P45s to be written.
Is there a document for how the UK treats published approaches at a “non-instrument runway”(or similar scenario)? We are trying to get this sorted in Sweden but the CAA is very scared…
The Department for Transport has instructed the CAA that their top airspace priority is to get the backlog of GNSS/RNP/LPV approaches at non-ATC GA airfields in place, and has provided funding.
Great, but allowing GPS overlay non-precision approaches would also be a cheap and very valuable contributor to safety. No airline would fly an NDB using the ADF for real, but on the FMS.
