I think EASA cannot do anything which impinges on
I don’t think that’s true of the European Commission, which is EASA’s client. Here’s bit of the new BR proposal that is very much to do with happens on the ground.
Article 33
Protection of aerodrome surroundings
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that aerodromes located in their territory are safeguarded against activities and developments in their surroundings which may cause unacceptable risks to aircraft using the aerodrome.
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 391/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services deals with funding
Technical requirements and operation procedures for airspace design (ASD), including procedure design is about airspace structures.
SERA and the rest of the Single European Sky package apply to all civil aircraft, whether sub-ICAO, sub-BR (Annex II) or whatever.
So I think what you identify is what EASA hasn’t yet got to, rather than what it cannot do.
Anders wrote:
Many instrument airports in Sweden have very limited ATS opening hours. Will it now be legal to make instrument approaches when the TWR or AFIS is closed?
bookworm wrote:
In that sense, what happens at instrument airports in Sweden will be very much up to the Swedish CAA
The Swedish requirement that private flights need an open TWR or AFIS unit to make an instrument approach is found in a national regulation (LFS 2007:58) for which the Swedish CAA has already published a proposed amendment which adds the statement that “Föreskrifterna gäller endast för flygning där gemensamma europeiska civila luftfartsbestämmelser inte ska tillämpas” (“The regulations are only valid for flights where common European civil air traffic regulations are not to be applied”).
This means that after August 25, that national regulation will only apply to private flights with Annex II aircraft.
and the ANSPs
I don’t see how this can be a concern of the ANSPs.
Over the years I have flown literally thousands of these. All in VMC all as part of IMC training. In fact one timed NDB approach I must have flown 500 times and it worked absolutely fine.
Looking at things as we are today. I could fly it with greater accuracy using the GPS. I could also fly it using GPS derived distance rather than a timed procedure. I could also fly it with a Ipad for greater situational awareness.
The airfield is located in Class G and is air ground although when its not busy you simply self announce. I also feel I am more likely to bump into someone on a perfect VFR when ever man and his dog is airborne and doing overhead joins. When its IMC no one is really flying. I’ve also flown instrument approaches into airfields with information and I can’t see what added safety benefit I get from them as the don’t have radar and there could still be aircraft that they are not aware of in Class G.
If I was still based at this airfield I think I would simply fly the unofficial approach in IMC and have a sensible minima. Would that really be reckless?
The problem as I see it is that things can change very quickly and if you come back from a trip lasting a few days you may be in for a very nasty surprise. Example – at a field close to Lelystad a 400ft mast appeared overnight. A planning oversight by the local authority meant that the airfield was not notified and nobody considered the safety aspect until the mast was erected.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
The problem as I see it is that things can change very quickly and if you come back from a trip lasting a few days you may be in for a very nasty surprise. Example – at a field close to Lelystad a 400ft mast appeared overnight. A planning oversight by the local authority meant that the airfield was not notified and nobody considered the safety aspect until the mast was erected.
But in that case an official approach wouldn’t have helped, would it?
Agreed.
This depends a lot on the decision height you are working to.
I would say a 400ft DH is quite “aggressive”. For example we have wind turbines popping up everywhere and take e.g. Lydd EGMD where there is no real terrain for 100+ nm, which has a wind farm going up 377ft AGL
Nowadays there are many of these out in the sea, so a descent down to “near zero” (say 100ft) which for years has been practiced by so many pilots going into coastal airfields, is not safe anymore.
So if you are doing this you need to do a lot of diligence with current topo maps, and most pilots simply aren’t going to do that. Messing with topo maps is a rather “anorak” activity…
You also need to design the missed approach procedure.
I would work on IMC rating minima. I think one of the problems with unofficial approaches is the characters flying them. I would still treat it with respect and if below my “dodgy minima” go elesewhere.
As for designing them well a fair number used to be the approved approaches but are no longer due loss of ATC or ATIS etc
Others are the same approach profile for a particular runway that are now being flown at a different airfield.
Those that are a fresh design have been flown that many times that they do work very well.
I even tell a local LARS unit I’m flying the Kirkwall runway 27 NDB approach into a local airfield in class g.
The risk assessment might be to compare a ‘cloud break’ using the 1,000’ above the highest obstacle within 5 nm rule, or transiting in MVFR from the nearest approved instrument approach facility, and then what your sensible minima might be for the MVFR transit.
Either way you might find that minima converges around 1,500’ and 5k visibility, which is typical minima for ATZs.
I got this by email and directed the person to EuroGA because I don’t know anything about this, but he has not appeared…
.
