I didn’t know that – it’s a while since I’ve been there
In that case, it’s “easy”. Same as Redhill – one of the few UK airfields with ATC but no IAPs.
I then wonder what the “big deal” is. Is it the runway spec?
With a suitable runway, any ATC airfield in the UK could have a GPS approach, for about 30-35k.
While i was towing gliders at Wycombe last year, i would often see aircraft arriving out of hours in dog Sh*t weather (cloud base 200ft). I presume they were using “home made” GPS approaches?
Sorry Peter, but what is LPV? Add an entry to the Glossary?
LPV is like a normal GPS/LNAV approach (which gives lateral navigation guidance only) but it also gives a “glideslope” i.e. vertical guidance.
LPV needs one of
GNS430W GNS530W GTN650 GTN750 GNS480
and if the installation is done right it can be autopilot-coupled too. The aircraft GPS installation also needs an AFMS authorising such approaches.
i would often see aircraft arriving out of hours in dog Sh*t weather (cloud base 200ft). I presume they were using “home made” GPS approaches?
Probably, though a DIY letdown (which will obviously have LNAV guidance only) in real OVC002 is “pushing the boundaries” a bit IMHO
I hear through the grapevine, that the huge network of airfields throughout france with full atc and instrument approaches (who spend much of their working days happily untroubled by aircraft) is going to be systematically downgraded to FISO status, although the instrument approaches will remain.
I am sure they will still have a radar screen (official or not) so nothing will actually change.
Here in the UK, the rumour is that it costs 100k a year to get the feed from NATS.
This particular oroject falls directly on my desk as the aerodrome manager and ANSP at Booker. :)
The oroject is in its embryonic stages but some of the issues we will face include:
Runway length – traditionally you need >800m for an instrument runway; ours is 723m. The feeling is that an increased DH/DA will allow for this deficiency (more time to configure for a visual landing).
ATC – we have ADV controllers. In other words they currently have no responsibility/authority to either control or integrate instrument traffic.
Sequencing – how would it work?
Airspace – ordinarily the establishment of an IAP would require an airspace change proposal , even for Class G. There is little appetite to g down this route.
Personally I’m very excited about this project and am optimistic that we will end up with a precision approach capability with a sensible DA/DH. Importantly, there is a desire to make the rules fit the scenario. I’m most willing to entertain thoughts about how we can take things forward.
When is this likely to become active? I’d love to come and test your LPV approach – I’ve got the approval with my GTN750, and I’m currently based at Denham.
Interesting issue whether a precision approach with a v high minima is of much use. I am all for approaches in class G but if minima is 700-800 as it would need to be to configure for a visual, does it achieve any more than a non precision cloud break?
Ie. would not an LNAV/VNAV or even LNAV do?
That is exactly the problem with Shoreham’s approaches (not LPV currently) whose minima are no lower than doing a DIY letdown over the sea and coming in either straight (02) or flying a low level circuit (20).
The only argument for them is that flying a straight-in GPS/LNAV approach (or flying an NDB approach but tracking a GPS with 0.3nm FSD setting on the GPS) is safer than doing the above stuff, especially a low level circuit at 800ft which does require that the pilot can actually fly, and fly a tight circuit. Most airlines ban circling approaches for this reason.
Such approaches, together with many others around the UK, exist largely to pay lip service to AOC traffic requirements. It’s like an NDB on some Greek island… nobody will actually use it for real.
If Shoreham (or Wycombe) get LPV with say a 300ft DH, that would transform things because it would get you below UK’s common warm front wx. I would then probably spend the money on some new gear