Pure conjecture, but Coll also has an airport, so perhaps they want to keep aircraft on approach a little higher (2100 vs 1600 feet) at that point?
I can’t find EGPU in my Jepps ( world wide subscription ).
These approved operator only approches I think are in place to allow operation by air ambulance flights without full ATC.
UK airspace policy is that for IFR approaches you need ATC but it would seem they are happy to relax these rules for medical Emegency flights.
Timothy wrote:
Does anyone know the purpose of LIVPO? Why are some procedures designed with a “straight in” IAF, rather than just using the IF as an IAF, as is rather more common?
My guess: In this case the TAA from the northeast is 2100 while the altitude at the IF (PU23I) is 1600 or above. If there was not a separate IAF from the northeast, you would have to maintain 2100 until PU23I. There has to be a level segment of some minimum length (2 NM?) between the IF and the FAF. If PU23I was both IAF and IF, you would then only have 1.5 miles to descend 500 feet. Category B aircraft may have a speed of 180 IAS on initial approach which (depending on wind etc.) could require an average ROD of >1000 fpm. I guess that is considered excessive.
That doesn’t make sense, since Kirkwall and Wick already do have (other) instrument approaches without such stupid restrictions…
Airborne_Again wrote:
Timothy wrote:
Does anyone know the purpose of LIVPO? Why are some procedures designed with a “straight in” IAF, rather than just using the IF as an IAF, as is rather more common?
My guess: In this case the TAA from the northeast is 2100 while the altitude at the IF (PU23I) is 1600 or above. If there was not a separate IAF from the northeast, you would have to maintain 2100 until PU23I. There has to be a level segment of some minimum length (2 NM?) between the IF and the FAF. If PU23I was both IAF and IF, you would then only have 1.5 miles to descend 500 feet. Category B aircraft may have a speed of 180 IAS on initial approach which (depending on wind etc.) could require an average ROD of >1000 fpm. I guess that is considered excessive.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you.
for IFR approaches you need ATC but it would seem they are happy to relax these rules for medical Emegency flights.
I don’t believe that’s true anymore. For example Lands End is AFIS and an RNAV approach. There are other examples elsewhere and more coming soon.
I don’t think the regulator can be attributed with all of the constraints being applied to RNAV in the UK alone. It may be that HIAL who own these Scottish airports have added their own constraints.
My understanding was that (non RNAV) IAPs already existed for several of these airfields by approved operators such as Air Ambulance but were not published. These RNAV ones are now visible but perhaps limited to airlines and emergency services only at this stage. So it may be wrong to lay the blame only with national regulators.
More information and local knowledge is needed
…and, of course, there is nothing to stop a UK Part-NCO pilot doing some very simple calculations and pointing an OBS at a runway end.
Yesterday, for example, it was clear that it was going to be murky getting in to Leeds East for Project Propeller, so I carefully plotted an IAF, IF, FAF, MAP and MA climb point, and I calculated a 3° slope based on ARP, runway length and elevation (I have built an Excel calculator for this purpose), and I had an LNAV approach not very far off the qualities of an approved one.
Did you also get the 1:25k OS map and check the obstacle clearance?
The alternative is to set the MDA to a value which in most cases renders the “IAP” worth little, relative to descending to the SSA.
I don’t believe that’s true anymore. For example Lands End is AFIS and an RNAV approach. There are other examples elsewhere and more coming soon.
Can anyone fly these IAPs? If so, that’s real progress. But how do they deal with the clearance to fly the approach? The USA (the usual quoted example) deal with it by having a taxpayer funded approach controller, remotely located. Walney Island (a long-time UK AFIS airport with an ILS) dealt with it by having a remotely located approach controller on the payroll of British Aerospace (or some such). I think the UK CAA struggles with this, and unfortunately correctly so because under ICAO only a “controller” (an ATCO) can “clear” you for the approach. Obviously there are multiple solutions but none are ICAO compliant.
Yes, I check the obstacle clearance quite carefully but I make two assumptions:
This, of course, does not meet the same standards as £50k worth of survey, which is why it acceptable for Part-NCO and not CAT, but, given the real risks entailed, and indeed the fact that the survey is only good on the day it is made, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption on which to base an approach.
We have to decide where gold plating is most effectively used.
In theory you need to assume 798’ on a half mil, as the first contour is 500’, hence you could have a 299’ obstacle on a 499’ contour, both unmarked.
