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

I don’t get overly exercised about precision vs. non-precision. The reality is that best practice nowadays is to fly a CDFA thus emulating a precision approach; not many of us dive-and-drive at the FAF any more. I don’t know what absolute figure we will end up with but I don’t expect it to be in the 200ft territory, probably nearer to 500ft. However, the advantage is that the safety margins will be clearly understood and, over time, we may be able to improve.

I think that the new approach from the Regulator should be embraced and that we should make sure we can walk before we run. If we get this right the results will be fantastic. If we rush into things and get it wrong, we run the risk of spoiling future potential. Let’s tease out the problems, identify solutions and then prove, statistically, that progress does not undermine safety.

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

EGTB does have ATC.

I can imagine Farnborough or London descending the aircraft through the LTMA, providing Deconfliction Service if OCAS, then vectoring/clearing the aircraft to fly the LPV approach, and then handoff to Wycombe Tower.

Where would the missed approach procedure go? Would the hold be within the LTMA? I suppose that could make most sense.

Will Wycombe’s ATZ turn into a Class E CTA with a Class D CTR (French style); and when the Tower has gone home, a Class E CTA with a Class G RMZ (German style)?

It would be interesting to see where the SIDs and STARs would go, if any.

Obviously navigation service charges would be payable – collected by Wycombe and a portion of it payable to NATS.

I can only hope they would be reasonably priced.

Last Edited by at 04 Jun 11:15

Any part in Class A would make it unusable to IMCR holders.

There won’t be SIDs/STARs for a Class G airport. They might get Biggin-type SDRs (published as "SID"s by Jepp).

Last Edited by Peter at 04 Jun 12:18
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I don’t think controlled airspace is really needed.

If it’s class E the IAP traffic doesn’t really get any protection, anything class D or above seems excessive and introduces a bunch of other problems. Given that DP has said that all the ATCOs at Booker can only control traffic visually (from what I understand of ATCO ratings) then there is little they could do.

I can’t see London Control providing vectors for the approach, they are too busy doing other things and who would be funding it? (the big question!). This is why Biggin uses Thames Radar for their approaches (or occasionally City Director).

The only way I can really see it working is that the approach has several different IAFs in different directions, with the ones in the wrong direction having hexagonal (or so) routing via other fixes round to the FAF. It could be done with an RTF leg I suppose but then that asks for more equipment I think. With this in mind I would say London control will at a suitable point, release you to your own navigation to one of the IAFs and clear you to leave controlled airspace through descent. Not unlike what happens going into Oxford for example with the “Route to the OX, Oxford will accept you at Altitude 3000’ (or whatever), cleareed to leave controlled airspace by descent report passing 4500’ (or whatever the CAS limit is so they can hand you over)”

Maybe there would have to be a procedure where the London controller would have call Booker and say there is one coming he will reach the XXXXX IAF in 2 minutes so that the Booker controller can sort out the circuit to get aircraft to hold in the appropriate places, since they can’t really do much with the IAP traffic.

Of course this changes again when we look at someone coming OCAS to do the approach because in theory they could be established on final and not call Booker until just approaching the ATZ which could get messy, so maybe there would have to be a procedure with these approaches to state that a call has to be made no later than the IAF?

Missed approach could be done with a route to XXXXX and hold type thing where XXXXX is not in the way of other likely traffic nor in CAS.

Just my thoughts.

United Kingdom

If it’s class E the IAP traffic doesn’t really get any protection

They are separated from hitting each other for a start.

[London Control] are too busy doing other things

What?! Too busy to be able to provide approach services to London airports like Wycombe?

who would be funding it?

Navigation service charges. As per my above post.

Last Edited by at 04 Jun 23:08

Yes but how are they separated? Booker ATC can’t do it and I am not sure that navigation service charges would cover having an remote radar ATCO to do it as I believe the costs of this run into 6 figures PA. If you mean navigation charges administered by the airport (I’ll keep talking about Booker here since it’s likely to be doing a lot of the figuring stuff out) then how much would that charge have to be per IAP to cover it? If you mean airways charges then I would doubt most of the traffic will be paying these due to both the length of the runway and the weight required for the fees to be applicable, and also the fact that I think most of the traffic will be non airways traffic anyway.

My other point about class E is that especially in the south of England, the biggest threat is going to be VFR traffic flying around (both VMC and IMC realistically) which will not be separated from the ‘genuine’ IFR inbounds.

This is why I think CAS is not really necessary for this.

United Kingdom

I am not sure that navigation service charges would cover having an remote radar ATCO to do it as I believe the costs of this run into 6 figures PA.

Only if you set up a dedicated approach unit and put people dedicated to service this one and only one airport.

You can avoid such costs by scaling up already established centralised approach units such as London.

It is certainly the most cost effective way to meet the needs of air traffic expansion.

This has been demonstrated to work extremely well in many countries across the globe.

Last Edited by at 05 Jun 00:26

I appreciate that it works in other countries, I am just not convinced that it will work in the UK. The 6 figure rumour quite often involves Biggin Hill, which does NOT have a dedicated approach unit. They use Thames radar who also (and primarily I believe) deal with London City traffic. Biggin allegedly pays this 6 figure sum to them for the provision of approach (radar) services to the field, which is pretty close to what you are describing.

The principle of using in place ATC to cover new airports becomes much easier when the ATC is government owned / publicly funded, unlike (truly) NATS in the UK.

United Kingdom

Firstly, Class E is not relevant here because (a) the UK doesn’t use it and (b) if it did then you would need an approach controller because Class E is CAS for IFR so a clearance to fly the approach would be required (as per US practice).

Secondly, the cost recovery by NATS (and other units) is too high to make it cost effective in the UK.

The “navigation charge” funding and “dedicated approach unit” statements don’t make any sense. The 2T+ prospective IFR traffic to Booker is way too small to fund anything. An H24 ATC desk is about a million quid a year and even Biggin isn’t paying anywhere near the daytime version of that. If NATS offered an approach controller it would cost about the same as Biggin pay to Thames.

But in the case of Booker, the on-field controller would schedule the traffic to the IAP. There is nothing complicated about this. The real progress for the UK would be the cracking of the “mandatory ATC for any IAP” requirement, which would bring GPS approaches to airfields which cannot afford the very high cost of ATC. These are the great majority. Therehas been much talk about this for years but I don’t see anything has been worked out. In Class G it is possible because no approach clearance is required.

Another factor is that London Control handles only Eurocontrol IFR traffic (in essence). They don’t handle UK’s “DIY IFR” traffic i.e. IMC Rated pilots. So LC could not act as an approach controller for Booker unless they changes their operating mode, adding special rules like an assumption to not send anybody going around into Class A.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Class E is not relevant here because (a) the UK doesn’t use it

I see it being used in Belfast and coming soon to Aberdeen?

The principle of using in place ATC to cover new airports becomes much easier when the ATC is government owned / publicly funded, unlike (truly) NATS in the UK.

the cost recovery by NATS (and other units) is too high to make it cost effective in the UK.

This is to do with regulation of pricing in the absence of competitiveness of the sector – look at CAA’s RP2 consultations. GA airports need to get involved.

would be the cracking of the “mandatory ATC for any IAP” requirement

Of course. Many mini airports do not have ATC based there, and this would be an excellent win. But there exists an approach service that provides the sequencing and separation needed to IFR traffic in Class E airspace until they drop out into Class G (i.e. no ATC) at the ‘other end’ at some 700-1200ft.

Wycombe already has ATC due to traffic intensity and nobody is in the business of getting rid of it. In future it would need to integrate a mix of VFR+IFR traffic.

Last Edited by at 05 Jun 09:51
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top