The 30M may have been the marginal cost of the extra hardware and staff. The 900M is meaningless; anything “tech” the EU does is a galactic-sized collaborative project on which half the money is wasted on dividing up the work across countries, most of whom have no expertise, and on get-togethers in nice hotels.
The UK presumably judged the 30M is 29.9M too much to spend on GA, 99% of which pays no route charges, and with LPV being irrelevant to nearly all commercial ops. NATS people waste no time on UK chat sites in reminding us of this 
And with +V, most of us don’t actually need LPV…
Which all begs the question why is the thread still titled “Brussels blocking UK….” which is demonstrably not the case. Perhaps “UK unwilling to pay….” would be more accurate?
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Perhaps “UK unwilling to pay….” would be more accurate?
Fair point !
Before anyone gets into “THEY are asking US to pay a lot” (which was UK DfT initial argument)
- The price is still fair as it’s % of UK/EU GDP times annual EGNOS cost of project
- The price is very excessive as GA projects are self-funded (UK ANSP & NAA are privately funded)
However, it’s always OTHER fault, after all why EGNOS is expensive to feed like another EU Gargantua? but be cool: UK DfT can make own GA SBAS for 1m/year, get it into Garmin for a symbolic 1£ STC, CAA gets it into IAP plates (cost for ink) and the problem is solved
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Which all begs the question why is the thread still titled “Brussels blocking UK….” which is demonstrably not the case. Perhaps “UK unwilling to pay….” would be more accurate?
That’s been clear from the very start, hasn’t it. But you can always construe a price tag that you think is too high as “Brussels blocking”, just as you can construe the UK being treated like any third country – which it what it has chosen to be – as “Brussels punishing”.
Not really, because the signal is being maintained, and they are not doing anything to block the UK land mass from receiving it. They probably can’t do that technically, because they certainly would if it was feasible; the Channel Islands and N France would be a challenge though.
All that Brussels has done is withdrawn the technicality of the Safety of Life certification, which is a purely “paper” device which blocks the UK from legally using the signal for LPV. It can still be used for +V or any other purpose where higher integrity is desired; SBAS doesn’t actually give you much more accuracy.
Brussels wanted the 30M for that piece of paper, which is wholly symbolic. Nothing physical would actually change.
To be fair, if I was the UK govt, I would not pay 30M either for LPV. It is like giving a 7 digits a year subsidy to every GA-accessible airport which has full ATC (needed for any IAP; a well thrashed topic in other threads) but no ILS. Politically this absolutely could not be justified. And as I say the continued availability of +V just makes the whole thing silly.
So nothing is “blocked”, there was no need for LPV anyway to start with, even 1m/year will be too much for DfT/CAA to subsidy, can we change the title to “LPV is useless, expensive, bureaucratic…and not worth any UK taxpayer money”, I am bit bothered as the first post in this thread has my name and I don’t think the title is right sadly +V while it’s cheap, useful and hassle free…it is not approved to tick 3D in training & exams, a tiny piece of paper on CAA side?
At some point there was one single NAA asking Garmin to disable +V on SBAS units when the user loads an RNP in their ICAO airports with L/VNAV minima, I will let you guess who
You won’t get +V in GNSS in EGXX airports if L/VNAV minima are published and without BARO-VNAV you won’t fly 3D, the funny thing if it’s LNAV minima only (no LPV minim & no L/VNAV minim), Garmin decided to keep LNAV+V (they were asked to remove it)
Title changed to …blocking UK from using EGNOS for LPV…
Do you have evidence (other than hearsay posted on FB etc) that the UK asked US avionics manufacturers to remove +V? I’ve never heard such a thing. Also note that DIY approaches (approaches without any formal navigational assistance) have always been 100% legal in the UK. So the CAA asking +V to be removed makes zero sense.
IR “training standards” is another topic. You could drag out all sorts of stuff from all over Europe for it. Actually probably not since few people (apart from Brits) criticise their own country on EuroGA How many European CAAs allow +V to be used for the IR checkride?
Peter wrote:
Do you have evidence (other than hearsay posted on FB etc) that the UK asked US avionics manufacturers to remove +V?
Yes there is no evidence of that communication other than hearsay posted online but the fact remain here: UK L/VNAV minima are only allowed with Baro-VNAV equipped aircraft, presumably the reason why Jepp/Garmin database (forced or not) to remove vertical guidance if it’s GNSS only aircraft with SBAS
This killed use of LNAV+V down to LNAV minima anytime L/VNAV minima is published while the LPV is removed:
1) If it’s up to LPV minima you get official slope
2) If it’s up to L/VNAV minima you get nothing, you get LNAV without +V
3) If it’s up to LNAV minima you get +V advisory
I know that 2) works like charm elsewhere…as GA user, it will be good if they removed both LPV minima AND L/VNAV minima, then you have +V everywhere down to LNAV minima which is better than nothing
Luckily there are not that many L/VNAV plates around but something to keep in mind regarding +V
Ibra wrote:
Yes there is no evidence of that communication other than hearsay posted online but the fact remain here: UK L/VNAV minima are only allowed with Baro-VNAV equipped aircraft, presumably reason why Jepp/Garmin database removed vertical guidance if it’s a GNSS+SBAS only aircraft
@Ibra, it WAS removed, VNAV is back, apparently, – CAA has removed that limitation.
arj1 wrote:
it WAS removed, VNAV is back, apparently, – CAA has removed that limitation
I missed that then, my bad then, when did that happen? we do have +V for any RNP in UK today? can I fly L/VNAV minima without BARO on GPS for places where LPV was removed? (say Kemble assuming I got an AOC to book the IAP)
