Peter wrote:
Yes it is possible Brussels is paying for the two monitoring stations on UK soil. Unlikely, IMHO, but who knows?
I’d say it’s almost certain Brussels is paying for them and always has done. I doubt the UK Gov directly paid for those sites or owns those sites, I would imagine they are owned by some incorporated entity that is funded by Brussels (and always was funded by Brussels, and therefore funded in part via the UK before Brexit, through the UK’s contribution to Brussels).
There is a lot of good data on the EGNOS site. If you have a TSO C145/146 GPS, you might want to become familiar with the site.
https://egnos-user-support.essp-sas.eu/new_egnos_ops/aviation-portal/aviation-dashboard
Excellent..yes, my gtn 650 is TSO C146c, interesting site, looking at the web address shows full coverage of uk!
My understanding is that is is not entirely an administrative thing whether the UK can have LPV approaches.
“Those who run EGNOS” (GSA? / ESSP?) provide NOTAM “proposals” of observed or predicted EGNOS outages for airports that have LPV approaches.
Without a Safety of Life agreement with the UK I don’t think any such NOTAM proposals will be provided.
Anders wrote:
“Those who run EGNOS” (GSA? / ESSP?) provide NOTAM “proposals” of observed or predicted EGNOS outages for airports that have LPV approaches.
Without a Safety of Life agreement with the UK I don’t think any such NOTAM proposals will be provided.
That’s my understanding, too. And I would call that an administrative matter. It’s not a technical one.
Frankly, it’s embarrassing looking at that map and seeing the UK completely blank.
alioth wrote:
Frankly, it’s embarrassing looking at that map and seeing the UK completely blank
Not sure if totally correct, but I understand it was not until the C19th that Britain managed to restore its water works to Roman standards – just saying :)
Frankly, it’s embarrassing looking at that map and seeing the UK completely blank.
That’s because the UK does not have a national funding system for this stuff. It’s all privatised, and GA mostly pays no route charges (so NATS basically hates it – go along to any of their presentations and you get the idea pretty clearly), while nearly all CAT cannot use LPV.
All the time you are asking an airport to pay ~30k per runway end for a GPS approach, plus demanding full ATC for any approach, you will get the UK situation.
It isn’t ever going to change.
Peter wrote:
plus demanding full ATC for any approach
It’s probably been already beaten to death, but why is ATC needed for an approach, specifically TWR? All that is really needed is an ATC facility to clear the approach and are there anyway for CAS and not airport-specific since covering an area. This is done in both Germany and France (although very differently) and it works well.
Yes that is 100% correct, in the UK too, but the UK has no framework for State funding of a remote approach controller.
In France, Germany, the US, the approach controller is funded by the State.
In the UK, his employer will send an invoice to the owner of the said runway 
And it isn’t a small invoice. According to NATS, a fully costed H24 radar desk is > £1M/year and that figure is from many years ago. It’s been reported (but never verified officially) that Biggin Hill EGKB pays 50k-100k/year to Thames Radar (London City; not sure what else they do) for their approach control. And this is not a good example because Biggin already has ATC, so they would just need to (a) rent a radar feed from NATS which is reportedly (but never verified officially) 100k/year and (b) employ a radar qualified controller (100-150k/year for sufficient shifts). NATS does full cost recovery. The only example of a non-ATC UK facility paying a remote approach controller is Walney Island but I have no idea whether that is still current
Funnily that has LPV, and notamed INOP like the others above
L2561/21
LPV LINES OF OCA(H) DISPLAYED ON THE RNP INSTRUMENT
APPROACH CHARTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR USE.
FROM: 25 JUN 2021 00:01 TO: 24 SEP 2021 23:59
