Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Laval LFOV, and the non ATC approach

Here’s the video, with all ATC interaction. It is as short as I could make it while retaining this.



Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Great video, the view point on the wing is very interesting. Really for long videos though it’s great to be able to change – which is why I stopped doing videos almost immediately, it’s just too much work!

I think you’re a bit harsh calling LONDON Info useless given how they sorted you out ;-)

EGTF, LFTF

I think the staff there try their very best, but the way their function is defined is pretty useless. No radar (well not officially) and they are a bit like a GP whose main function is to stop too many of the great unwashed getting in direct contact with GOD (the consultant/surgeon/whatever)

The conditions were hazy and the flight was mostly into the sun, but otherwise the camera produces great results. One never gets these filming through a cockpit window. I did a very elaborate camcorder mounting, antivibration, the lot, in 2012, for a flight to Barcelona, but the result was still quite poor.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

But this screwed up the software at both NATS and France. NATS lost the FP completely. France corrupted it with a destination of LFOX, which resulted in me getting the first half of the flight going somewhere else

That’s really strange and I can’t see how that could happen unless there was a manual intervention somewhere and someone mistyped or mixed up flight plans.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

That’s really strange and I can’t see how that could happen unless there was a manual intervention somewhere and someone mistyped or mixed up flight plans.

Maybe, I sometimes have the impression the system is pretending to be digital, but with biomechanics read-n-type interfaces in between.

Yes I did wonder whether somebody was transcribing something over the phone, and there was a misunderstanding. But it is weird when LFOV tower had the right flight plan and they had it within minutes; I was on the phone to the guy when the FP arrived.

I got this comment from someone, elsewhere

basically you were in uncontrolled airspace so they will never clear you for the approach, you’ll only get known traffic information. The reason you were asked to hold is defined in the “Arrêté du 17 juillet 1992” which basically says that you are not allowed to proceed for a straight-in approach while someone is in the traffic pattern on non-towered airfields (in this case there was another traffic on final and Laval provides only AFIS). With this weather another solution would have been to join downwind for a visual (which is where you should join on non towered airfields if there is a traffic) and save some time.

Details here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Arrêté du 17 juillet 1992 section 5.1.3.2 doesn’t say that there should be no traffic in the traffic patern on a AFIS field as a requirement to perform a straight-in IFR approach.

What is stated above is a requirement to perform straight-in VFR approach (section 4.2.2.2).

Last Edited by Guillaume at 15 Feb 15:02

Guillaume wrote:

Arrêté du 17 juillet 1992 section 5.1.3.2 doesn’t say that there should be no traffic in the traffic patern on a AFIS field as a condition to perform a straight in IFR approach.

At the risk of sounding like a parrot, does that rule carry any legal force with since SERA, IFR or not?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a parrot, does that rule carry any legal force with since SERA, IFR or not?

Unless someone challenge this rule in a court, we can’t be sure.
But there is nothing in SERA that goes against it (unlike the “national cost sharing rule” we had for NCO flights which was clearly against Part-NCO).

Last Edited by Guillaume at 15 Feb 15:24

Guillaume wrote:

But there is nothing in SERA that goes against it

That’s not relevant. Within their area of applicability EU regulations are exhaustive. Member States can neither add to them nor take anything away.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 15 Feb 15:57
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top