New IFR Procedures at Zell am See (LOWZ)

Interesting…

The procedures are what one would fly in VMC, especially the arrival one

Nothing yet in Jeppesen in the current cycle.

Peter wrote:

Nothing yet in Jeppesen in the current cycle.

Effective March 29, so I wouldn’t expect Jeppesen to show it for some time.

That is one hell of a motivator to get on with the IR for sure… It would probably be the single most useful application of the IR for me to be able to fly in and out of LOWZ for skiing weekends in winter with a higher dispatch rate…

Patrick,

have you seen the minima for this approach?
No way this procedure will really change typical GA dispatch rates in and out of this airport.
It’s the same as Vöslau. These airfields don’t have “instrument runways”, hence they cannot have “real” instrument approaches to those runway ends. Instead, it’s a procedure that leads you IFR to the vicinitiy of the aerdrome, but then you have to make the final approach visually, and under VFR.

It’s essentially a goodie for those IFR pilots who who can’t properly fly VFR anymore and freak out when they hear they have to organize the approach into an aerodrome themselves.

I am not saying this procedure is bad. It is good as it makes the approach into this airfied a more orderly process. It’s also much better for ATC, since they don’t have to deal with flight rules changes in the air, passing on clearances, etc. which regularly blocks frequencies for minutes. But it will not really change dispatch rates. It’s the same as with coastal airfields with just an NDB approach with minima of 800 feet and 1500 meters vis…

Bosco,

boscomantico wrote:

have you seen the minima for this approach?
No way this procedure will really change typical GA dispatch rates in and out of this airport.

I don’t know. It is a cloud break procedure more or less where you can descend into the valley down to 3000 ft AGL. Yes, that is quite high but it will still allow approaches there which were so far not possible, e.g. if the VFR routes through the north/south valleys are blocked.

boscomantico wrote:

It’s essentially a goodie for those IFR pilots who who can’t properly fly VFR anymore and freak out when they hear they have to organize the approach into an aerodrome themselves.

Quite a statement. Just because some IFR pilots do not wish to fly low through valleys in the Alps in unknown territory to them they are incompetent to fly “proper VFR”? With this procedure you can descend into the valley through cloud whereas without it, given a 3000 ft ceiling, you’d have to maneuver through the mountains to get to the valley. I can understand that many IFR pilots prefer that.

Would a proper procedure like this e.g. have helped avoid accidents like the TB20 near Albertville? I am almost sure it would. Hopefully there will be something like this coming up for Samedan as well.

The same arguments keep popping up when such approaches are designed, it was also like this in Sion. But the IGS in Sion has well proven it’s worth over the years. I have no doubt that this one will as well.

Patrick wrote:

That is one hell of a motivator to get on with the IR for sure… It would probably be the single most useful application of the IR for me to be able to fly in and out of LOWZ for skiing weekends in winter with a higher dispatch rate

IMC in winter you’ll surely be dealing with ice too.

boscomantico wrote:

These airfields don’t have “instrument runways”, hence they cannot have “real” instrument approaches to those runway ends. Instead, it’s a procedure that leads you IFR to the vicinitiy of the aerdrome, but then you have to make the final approach visually, and under VFR.

Visually yes, VFR no. Formally, if you don’t have an instrument runway the minimum can be no lower than the circling minimum — but as we know if the obstacle situation is good, circling minima can be as low as 400’.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Visually yes, VFR no. Formally, if you don’t have an instrument runway the minimum can be no lower than the circling minimum — but as we know if the obstacle situation is good, circling minima can be as low as 400’.

I am somewhat confused by this statement. You seem to be saying that an abolute minimum on approach to land VFR is 400’. I am sorry if I misunderstand but what is the relevance to 400’, is it something in your country?

Visually yes, VFR no

Yes, VFR. The plate says "IFR status ends when starting to descend below OCA/H.

Not that it matters much, since in Golf, if you have to be visual anyway, IFR or VFR doesn’t make much of a difference.

Still, it really is a far cry from a real IAP.