It is unfortunate that the UK regulator is not above suggesting thinly-veiled threats to cover up the holes in the system.
In each case where it appears in the example text, the words “Request your intentions?” translate as:
“I know what you want to do and I’m not empowered to refuse you, but I will MOR the sh*t out of you if you do it.”
The whole system continues to struggle with the idea that nobody below the level of “ATC” should (by law, by ICAO, by union policy, etc) be “controlling” airborne traffic, while at the same time most of the airfields which would benefit cannot afford ATC salaries, and while the UK ATC cost recovery system blocks any possibility of a US-style remotely located approach controller…
So the dancing around the edges continues.
Peter wrote:
This is comical…
No, farcical….whoever wrote that drivel, and whoever approved it for publication, deserves a GasCo course before a stiff interview with the CAA’s HR people.
Depends what kind of “relationship you have with AFIS/AG” and if you need anything from them? if you have QNH, traffic, wind, visibility, ceiling then you only need PPR from them, so you can call Sywell ask for RNP PPR IFR if they say yes you fly it if they say no tell them you will be flying VFR (you need 1500m visibility & 500ft ceilings and honestly you are not going to Sywell bellow that with RNP PPR obtained or without 
)
AFIS/AG may remind you to fly overhead joins, but it’s easy to make “IFR hold calls” in clouds, even make it two holds with few standbys if you wish (just making sure it’s clear who is in charge of the situation ), then follow visual circuit path at MSA before intercepting the long IFR final, then call it VFR at ATZ boundary and land VFR then follow their instructions (FISO controls ground while AG controls parking), you don’t risk anything from CAA: it’s 100% legal to change VFR/IFR flight rules in UK OCAS as you wish without being on published SID/IAP/STAR/Airways not even in radio contact but you still need RT contact inside ATZs
Of course all at your own risk, don’t worry too much about CFIT risk (terrain & obstacles, save those worries to Switzerland & Norway) or MAC risk (for traffic collision, remember non-TXP traffic don’t fly in clouds and ATS traffic information in UK with no radar is a farce and anything bellow radar is impossible), the biggest risk doing free-style IFR/VFR in UK is CFIA: “controlled flight into airspace” so brief well your hold & join & go-around to avoid hitting “airspace mountains & hills” (e.g. CTR, CTA, TMA, ATZ) that would really piss ATS/NATS/CAA, however, what you do off-airways or bellow MVA/MSA is simply 100% your business but don’t do VFR in IMC cross-country bellow MSA or try to fly low VFR circuits to please ATC/AFIS/AG, take care of yourself and treat yourself with respect OCAS: keep IFR until 30s before landing or 30s after go-around !
If landing, worth an off the record chat with AFIS/AG in the tower to get to know each other personally, you still have to deal with them for PPR to visit, you better be a friend
Peter wrote:
This is comical…
How is it possible that the same document says “AGCS operators are not permitted to restrict access to an ATZ”, yet it gives them the power to approve or reject an RNP approach?
What if someone decided to fly a 3D trajectory in the air which happens to be the same as that of the RNP IAP? You could do that outside the ATZ in Class G no problem, and then break off just before hitting the ATZ (2 NM before the rwy threshold, so at aprox 650 ft agl?
Quite. That is the principle by which VFR and IFR can coexist and mix, worldwide.
Another interesting CAA twist for A/G or AFIS ?? More MORs (!) on the way??
Its an A/G…so they cant give instructions to a pilot in the air.
A/G is in 2-way comms with the aeroplane so even with the new Barton/CAA ATZ interpretation you are OK to enter the ATZ.
But you can be told you cant do an approach or circuit?
Question: I do not fly IFR, so forgive my naivety, but is this stuff not self regulating? If the weather is VMC at the aerodrome, then anyone on an IFR approach can look out of the window and look for traffic that is VFR just like anyone else once they are out of IMC on the approach and in VMC. If the weather is such that an IFR approach is required in IMC below circuit height then no-one will be in the circuit VFR anyway. If its IFR training under the hood, then arent you supposed to have a second pilot looking out?
Regards, SD..
This is comical…
The CAA have released this Supplementary Instruction regarding: RT Phraseology for RNP IAPs at Aerodromes with AGCS
As of today, is it only Sywell that has RNP IAPs?
In the UK, everything involving GPS procedures requires „mitigation“. The CAA‘s very favourite word…
