Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

UK CAA heel dragging on GPS approaches, including LPV, and approaches with no ATC, and CAP1122

OK so the airfield getsit for free but someone still has to pick up the bill. Is it still 30K?

The Government pays since the cost of installing an RNAV approach is a one-off expense, as against €30,000 annual cost/

Rochester, UK, United Kingdom

I think France has a bigger incentive than the UK to fund this, because they have/had many ILS approaches at airports which have low or negligible usage, whereas the UK never had these. I bet you that if say Shoreham had an ILS and the CAA was paying for it, they would be really keen to pay for an LPV Anyway the whole funding system is different.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I understand that a number of airfields who have applied for RNAV approaches (all currently on hold) have been summoned to a meeting at the CAA in early May, so hopefully there will be some news after that.

EGCJ, United Kingdom

That sounds ominous.

Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

CAA recognise their failure to approve GPS approaches following four-year delay

here

Does anyone have more colour on this?

EGTF, EGLK, United Kingdom

I have been tackling Mark Swan and, latterly, Jon Round about this for years and they have always been “about to do something.” Whether Grant and the APPG have finally got action is an open question.

The fundamental problem is that the CAA is not prepared to allow any small Type I risk (the risk involved in doing something/making changes) to compensate for the huge Type II risk (the risks of leaving things as they are.)

People, and their families, die on a regular basis because they are attempting to scud-run in poor conditions, whereas the real risk of a mid-air on an uncontrolled RNP approach is miniscule. But the CAA cannot be held responsible for the former, whereas they potentially could for the latter, so people continue to die.

But latest versions of GTN software may just alleviate the issue in a way that the CAA won’t do, suggesting that unregulated solutions are way in advance of the regulators.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Isn’t this a bit embarrassing for the CAA?

What does the latest versions of the GTN software do?

Provides vertical guidance – a pseudo glide path.

The issue isn’t about the accuracy/integrity of the approach. The main stumbling point is separation of aircraft, especially between those undertaking the IAP and other traffic. This is an ATC sacred cow.

Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

Ironically, people finding their way randomly to a GTN FAT might be safer, from a separation point of view, than having a published approach. Also, they would not be using the approach for instrument training on VMC days. Plus, the CAA don’t have to take responsibility for their behaviour. Just a thought.

EGKB Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top