For some background to the above, do a search with
GTN AND glideslope
Since nobody will openly say on the radio they are doing this, it will work only as long as very few are 
I think the reason we are getting so few new GPS approaches is because
Timothy wrote:
It makes you wonder whether the CAA have given up on CAP1122
Reference: CAP1122
Title: Application for Instrument Approach Procedures to Aerodromes without an Instrument Runway and/or Approach Control
Description: Please be advised that the CAA is not currently accepting applications for CAP1122 approval. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.
Status: Reference Only
Review Comment: None
Version: 1
Date: 13 April 2018
View File: Not available for download
Purchase Copy: Printed copy not available for purchase
From the Kemble application, para 6
it must be recognised that Kemble has been attempting to move forward with an RNAV(GNSS) approach for almost eleven years. The CS has followed CAA advice and direction through CAP 725, CAP 1515, CAP 1122 and the latest guidance in May 18 for existing CAP 1122 applicant aerodromes to progress through the CAA ‘bow-tie’ safety case and CAP 1616 process.
From here
What precisely are these CAA barriers that you are referring to?
Maybe the answer is to merge the threads rather than keep them separate? It really is the same topic.
We are talking about designing and validating approaches, right? The principal barrier to the design and validation of approaches is regulation, right? (Otherwise we would all just install GTNs and fly Visual Approaches, which are perfectly fit for purpose).
So why would we separate regulation from the technicalities? The technicalities are only there because of regulation.
And if we are going to talk about regulation, why would we not talk about the competence and politics of the regulators?
Here you go Timothy. I have now created a new thread, specially for you, and moved some old threads into it. You can post everything on this topic in here.
Now I have to go to work.
boscomantico wrote:
What precisely are these CAA barriers that you are referring to?
There are a number.
The CAA announced many years ago (to much fanfare) that they were going to introduce a cheap, fast-track way of introducing RNP approaches to GA airfields without ATC and instrument runways.
Several airfields put in a lot of time, effort and money to make proposals and the CAA almost completely failed to deliver, until the various airfields fell by the wayside of CAA intransigence, delay and lack of understanding.
The principal problem is the CAA requiring mitigations and procedures which are unnecessary and largely unachievable outside controlled airspace. Things like radar coverage, holds etc. and demanding levels of precision quite out of proportion to the job in hand.
I think that the reason is that the CAA is very short of qualified staff and are therefore having to use inspectors who have little knowledge and experience of the risk environment of GA. These inspectors do not understand that the alternative to having an approach is scud-running and people dying (the CAA actually recommends scud running as the way to get into VFR fields in bad weather, even though they recognise CFIT as a major killer…go figure).
The tragedy at Dunkeswell which killed the Garvey family would have been avoided if there had been an approach, instead of Philip trying to get in between the trees and the clouds.
The problem is that the CAA “own” the risk of an approved approach going wrong, but refuse to accept responsibility for the consequences of their inaction.
They talk about the commercial designers not doing their jobs properly, but the truth is that those very designers are producing work acceptable to all the other NAAs. It is the CAA’s constant demands for tiny changes as a result of nugatory omissions or inaccuracies that is resulting in the designers now turning down any potential contracts which will involve CAA oversight, because they know they will lose money on them.
What we need is a pragmatic and risk based approach, as seen over most of Europe. Let’s face it, with the DHs that the CAA is placing on new LPV approaches, we may as well use SkyDemon to get us roughly in the right place. The CAA is treating the LPV approach as a cloudbreak to VMC. Which is also failing to get the point that a higher DH is not safer. They are not comparing the risks of letting someone go down to 200’ to those of go-arounds, missed approaches and diversions in a single crew environment. There is no risk-based thinking going on.
And the upshot?
This map shows the current EGNOS based approaches in Europe:
How do they keep their jobs?
In some ways, my current thinking is that maybe we should not have any more instrument approaches to VFR airfields, because the CAA is dealing with it with such incompetence that we are better off to use our GNSS boxes to make unregulated approaches, which are not subject to any minima, rather than be limited to the ridiculously high minima they are setting (which then become law).
How ironic that I can’t get into a big tarmac runway because of a 500’/1500m visibility requirement, but I can get into the grass field nearby using the Visual Approach to whatever minima I choose.
The CAA need some serious education in GA.
(By the way, I loved @Balliol’s comment about going feral, I fear this is the future of GA. A requisite number of fingers raised to incompetent regulators, and we just get on with it.)
Timothy’s posts:
(when defending the CAA, sitting on a committee there)
If there is evidence that people are switching off their transponders to avoid the consequences of being pursued following an infringement then it is a serious matter that that group must respond to, as it is clearly a more serious danger than people with Mode C infringing (because, particularly, of deeming.)
(when criticising the CAA for lack of GPS approaches)
By the way, I loved @Balliol’s comment about going feral, I fear this is the future of GA. A requisite number of fingers raised to incompetent regulators, and we just get on with it
I don’t think this is doing much good for EuroGA’s objective: to create a useful resource for European GA. What I see increasingly happening is that EuroGA is just being used as a dumping ground for material which would get the poster chucked out of any other aviation forum.
If I, as a mod, didn’t get targeted with personal attacks while trying to achieve the foregoing, I wouldn’t be so bothered. I would just dump all this stuff in the politics thread.
BTW the map is truncated to not show the Alderney LPV. I think that was UK’s first one? Presumably they used Alderney because they expected everybody to crash there, and in Alderney few would notice.
