Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Shoreham EGKA news 2018 / 2019 (and flying IAPs no longer published)

There’s a lot of disinformation circulating on the UK aviation chatter sites about Shoreham, with not a small amount of gloating from the “boycott everything over £10” brigade.

Basically what’s happened is that something is happening at Bournemouth and they are paying ATCOs 20k over the going rate, so every ATCO who can move is going down there… Cambridge now has the same problem: a lack of ATCOs.

So for a while they have done A/G

Currently instrument approaches are not available but are expected to return soon, during ATC hours, and subject to the availability of an approach qualified ATCO.

As usual, check notams before flight.

Based pilots can fly via an indemnity, which works ok. The “CPL” requirement in the original indemnity has been removed; I am sure it was an error because while I have one, very few private pilots do.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It’s the thin end of the wedge…..similar to the way Coventry went.

EGBE (COVENTRY, UK)

It appears to be known that the CAA has always refused EGKA to go non-ATC, due to the traffic levels.

The Hunter crash, although obviously not related to the airport or ATC, has just made people at the CAA a lot more nervous about “liability”.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

with not a small amount of gloating from the “boycott everything over £10” brigade.

Where are you seeing this, out of interest?

Based pilots can fly via an indemnity, which works ok

It is easy to see how this works for an owner pilot but how does the Indemnity work for a syndicate?

I am sure the risks are low but if a trustee or administrator of a syndicate signs an Indemnity on behalf of the group does he/she (or the whole group) become liable for the wrongdoing of a single pilot – however unlikely that might be?

PJL
EGMD, EGKA

I fly for a company that operates out of Shoreham. OK, the closures and indemnity procedures are a bit of a pain but with a bit of planning we’re getting most of our stuff done. The lack of an instrument approach adds a few kgs of fuel to the equation but, as yet, we haven’t had to abandon any aircraft at an unfeasibly expensive ILS equipped airport. I do hope they get things sorted.

PS. Booker has a similar issue.

Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Unless Shoreham gets the ATC situation resolved soon, the approach charts will disappear from all databases. So I suggest that you save the PDFs and maybe keep a database cartridge with the GPS approaches. I am saving the Jepp PDF and am digging out the coordinates of the waypoints right now. However one should probably not fly the exact approaches (as in all the way from the IAF) in case somebody else has the same idea and is stupid enough to be doing it non-transponder.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Unless Shoreham gets the ATC situation resolved soon, the approach charts will disappear from all databases.

As long as the charts remain in AIP-UK they should remain in all databases. The staffing situation is not Jeppesen’s concern.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

That I agree with However this is an extract from some UK VFR chart amendment list:

> Amendment to lateral limits: see here for full details.
> SHOREHAM (EGKA)
> Our Ref: 145627
> Year: 2018
> Effective: 26/03/2018
> Details:
> SHOREHAM (EGKA)
>
> Remove both IAP cones from civil aero site at 505008.00N 0001750.00W, due to withdrawal of instrument approach procedures.
> UK AIP ENR 5.5 – GLIDER SITES
> Our Ref: 105442
> Year: 2018
> Effective: 16/03/2018
> Details:
> UK AIP ENR 5.5 – GLIDER SITES

It is a separate matter that removing the IAP cones is a procedurally correct but totally stupid action on the part of the map editor!

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
77 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top