Why did the FAA allow overlay GPS approaches taking advantage of previously surveyed data?
Why does EASA fail to follow suit with clear safety implications?
This thread is just the UK not implementing RNAV/GNSS approach procedures yeah? And when people post that nowhere is doing it, they mean in the UK? If anyone saw the notams for this area during the week they will have noticed (Tuesday or Wednesday, I think it was) the LFFK was closed whilst the dgac ran calibration checks for the new GNSS procedure to runway 27. I don’t think LFFK is the first non towered non AFIS non A/G airfield in France with such a procedure. And of course there is normally, nothing stopping you making IAP procedures to most airfields where such procedures exist, out of hours. There are usually just different minima and added restrictions like you must circle to land. I apologise if I am missing the point of this thread, sometimes I get confused by the different ways of operating IFR in different countries and need to learn before I fly there. For instance on a planned trip to the UK I am being offered (in Autorouter, I think) Dunkeswell and Eaglescott as the two nearest IFR fields to Exeter, coming from France that is. I am having a problem getting the UK AIP on line at the moment to confirm this and do not have Jeppesen, the old charts say VFR only. Sywell is shown on the AIP as a VFR/IFR destination but when you go further it says there is no IAP at Sywell.
I was hoping to learn more in this thread but I am getting more confused.
For instance on a planned trip to the UK I am being offered (in Autorouter, I think) Dunkeswell and Eaglescott as the two nearest IFR fields to Exeter,
Dunkeswell, Eaglescott, Sywell and Shoreham today also, could not be described as “IFR” but in the UK you can file an “I” flight plan to anywhere including a ZZZZ farm strip. In some places e.g. Germany you cannot (has to be a “Y” or “Z” to pass Eurocontrol validation).
In all these cases if you are on a Eurocontrol IFR flight plan, you will get dropped out of CAS by London Control, possibly with a handover to some radar unit like Farnborough, and you are OCAS, on your own, and cannot re-enter CAS. Welcome to UK Class G 
It is actually pretty good – except for the bad shortage of IAPs generally, so people do sometimes fly DIY IAPs.
None of Sywell, Eaglescott and Dunkeswell has an IAP. I doubt whether they are being suggested as IFR alternatives as such.
However, Dunkeswell sits high on top of a hill, and may well be clear when Exeter is below minima in fog, so it does make some sense to add it to an IFR plan as an alternate. I usually make EGTF my alternate for EGKB because it is 500’ lower and therefore often available when Biggin has its head in the clouds.
But on the general point, yes, there are non-towered airfields all over Europe with IAPs, but I believe that the great majority of them have Approach Control services. LFFK is not yet in the AIP as having IAPs, but I imagine that when it is, its Approach will be shared with LFBH.
Having said that, The UK CAA does appear to be hung up on the concept of non-ATC IAPs. But they have always been slow to buy in to RNAV approaches and GNSS procedures in general. It does seem odd that the most liberal regime when it comes to IFR/IMC in Class G should be so exercised by this low risk.
Incidentally, we also have lots of IAPs in Class G in the UK, very often at non-radar airfields, so while we fly the supersafe ILS, anyone who chooses can fly straight across us at procedure altitude, in IMC, entirely undetected. There is some serious doublethink going on at the CAA.
Much clearer, many thanks to both of you.
I doubt whether they are being suggested as IFR alternatives as such.
I have just done a test route. Gallois is right. AR offers this for EGTE:
The VFR/IFR distinction above is meaningless; none of them have IAPs but all of them can be filed on a “I” FP.
And if you tick the box you get the same
Incidentally Plymouth has been closed for years…
So one needs to dig the approach plates out.
On the main topic, the UK has very few airfields which are immediate candidates under current CAA rules (i.e. have ATC already) for IAPs. I can think of Booker EGTB and Redhill EGKR. Redhill has tried and tried but Biggin Hill EGKB doesn’t want the competition so lobbies hard to block Redhill from doing anything there.
Did anyone hear anything about this? I have seen a few semi apologetic news items where the CAA have admitted progress is slow, but cannot recall anything else
It makes you wonder whether the CAA have given up on CAP1122 now that GTN v6.41 is available, providing LPV like guidance to every runway end, automatically checked for terrain and obstacles.
Timothy wrote:
It makes you wonder whether the CAA have given up on CAP1122 now that GTN v6.41 is available, providing LPV like guidance to every runway end, automatically checked for terrain and obstacles.
I know what you mean, but this only works for Private GA operations. The AOC operators large and small need approved approaches, and I would have thought the French model of removing conventional navaids would have commercial merit.
