AIUI the LPV approval has been stuck at the CAA for a couple of years. The gradient on R20 would be something like 4.5 degrees which the CAA say has never before been one with LPV (is that really true?) and therefore they cannot approve it without some data or something… The airport did loads of flight tests with various planes all the way to a CJ4 and none of them had the slightest problem with it, but it wasn’t enough for the CAA.
The more practical issue is that the minima at Shoreham were so “generous” that the IAPs didn’t do a great deal. “Since for ever” some people would fly in on 02 at 200ft … got to be a bit more careful nowadays with descending too soon, due to the ~500ft wind farm out in the sea 
And the ~800ft DH on 20 was no better than flying the R02 IAP and circling to R20. The IAPs were safer than “cowboy tactics” because they would be in the database, the bizjets could fly the synthetic glideslope coupled (Collins Proline), and you got the extra comfort of ATC which cleared only one plane at a time for the IAP and made sure circuit traffic would be out of the way when you got down to 4 miles.
What will happen now is that some people will fly the GPS IAPs using user waypoints and one needs to hope that anybody doing that has their transponder ON so they show up on your TCAS; in line with UK GA tradition roughly half of the locals are non-TXP or Mode A But that crowd aren’t flying in IMC. And on busy days this is likely to get interesting since nobody will be doing anything about circuit traffic, which could be extra interesting if the cloudbase is say 1200ft when you could have circuit traffic at 1100ft, and the circuit traffic could be really anywhere, from a tight circuit, all the way out to a B52 circuit. In OVC005 and R02 it will be OK because nobody will be flying.
It is a loss of revenue because the based FTO cannot fly the approaches now for real. I know of airfields where IMCR training is done with DIY IAPs but I doubt you can run an ATPL FTO that way.
The LPV20 DH was going to be about 500-550ft which would have been a tangible improvement in typical wx.
One hopes Shoreham will climb its way back up from this situation, obviously. Right now they are saving vast amounts of money because ATC is the biggest single fixed cost component of any GA-size airport. OTOH the CAA has limited their movements to one per 10 mins (!) under A/G which cripples the revenue on nice summer days when you need to make real money to recover what you inevitably lose during the winter. But the ancient decrepit birdsh1t-filled hangar now has a new roof and new doors, which is a real tangible improvement, especially as the ex-MCA hangar has been lost (taken over by an aviation services company). They just need somebody with an air rifle to shoot the pidgeons and finally, after years, we will have a hangar which a pilot in Upper Volta might not recognise 
A real diversion is always an ILS i.e. Biggin Hill. It is open till 11pm, with a massive surcharge after 9pm.
6 movements an hour? I fly from airfields with A/G who have that many in the circuit.
I’d wonder if Shoreham wouldn’t be better off to simply go unlicensed and have A/G. How much traffic do they have that requires a licensed airfield?
6 movements an hour? I fly from airfields with A/G who have that many in the circuit.
Shoreham had that too, for years, on most sunny weekends.
I’d wonder if Shoreham wouldn’t be better off to simply go unlicensed and have A/G. How much traffic do they have that requires a licensed airfield?
I don’t know the CAA/ATC politics but I heard that if they went unlicensed they would never get full-time ATC back. That’s all I know… no idea of the connection between the two.
Licensing isn’t just about the traffic, which AFAIK these days is just AOC stuff. It also gives you CAA protection from property sharks building on adjacent land, and all the various variations of that problem. One UK airport manager once posted that the cost of being licensed is about 5k a year extra, which he thought was worth paying, in his particular case (not Shoreham; I think it was Booker or one of those).
I do think the only way forward for Shoreham, which is not a “farm strip” and should never become one because it will then be promptly closed and built over, is to become a high quality airport for GA, with quality hangarage attracting quality upmarket aircraft, and that means instrument approaches, with LPV being key, for reasons I posted in #31 above. I am sure Redhill would do exactly that too (and they already have ATC) but Biggin will always do all it can to kill any such proposal because they don’t want the competition. I am confident Shoreham will eventually turn around and get out of this situation, because the will and the ability is there now.
Peter wrote:
Biggin will always do all it can to kill any such proposal because they don’t want the competition.
How long ago was it that they opposed the Redhill plans?
I only ask because they’re not exactly desperate for GA to be based with them right now, with the loss of the training etc.
One would think that if they wanted to quietly lose the GA side of their traffic without making headlines they’d encourage the Redhill plans. AFAIK the Redhill plans weren’t for biz jets were they?
I don’t think Biggin wants to push GA out. They still charge “only” 30 quid to land there. This is easy money for them. What Biggin didn’t want was training traffic, presumably because it gets in the way of their high net worth clients. If Biggin wanted to push GA out they would “do a Fraport” and have a flat rate of 300 quid up to 5.7T…
I wonder if the Ops manuals for the commercial ATO that are based there state training has done be done from a licenced airfield. I certainly know that was the case an an ATO where I work.
Peter wrote:
A real diversion is always an ILS i.e. Biggin Hill. It is open till 11pm, with a massive surcharge after 9pm.
Biggin Hill has an ILS with a relatively higher DA (not DH) is relatively higher at 726 ft. Especially when there is widespread fog at low levels, often the absolute DA rather than DH matters. A DA at 430 ft for the RNAV 02 at Shoreham is 300 ft lower than at Biggin Hill.
Oh well, there are of course EGTK, EGHH and EGHI with low DAs and they are reasonably good alternates, including at night, it is just annoying that there is one less alternate for consideration…
Peter wrote:
What will happen now is that some people will fly the GPS IAPs using user waypoints
With an IAP one obviously wouldn’t need to do an overhead join. But with the IAPs no longer in existence, one can’t be guaranteed that one be given a straight-in approach and rather be required to do an overhead join, no?
there are of course EGTK, EGHH and EGHI with low DAs and they are reasonably good alternates, including at night, it is just annoying that there is one less alternate for consideration…
Yes; I choose Biggin EGKB because my car is normally parked at Shoreham and the taxi from Biggin to Shoreham is 1hr to 1:15 and costs about £70, whereas EGHI and especially EGHH are much further (and the road connections are truly crappy). EGHI has little longer-term GA parking and EGHH is pretty pricey too for parking (some previous threads). Lydd EGMD is a great diversion with an ILS and often avoids the Shoreham fog but a taxi to Shoreham would be some £200 (it was £150 about 10 years ago). Obviously if you just want somewhere to land, get a bed above some pub, and fly out of there the next day you do have these options; I would choose EGMD every time in that case unless I need the longer opening hours of EGKB.
With an IAP one obviously wouldn’t need to do an overhead join. But with the IAPs no longer in existence, one can’t be guaranteed that one be given a straight-in approach and rather be required to do an overhead join, no?
Overhead joins are rare at Shoreham and I haven’t done one in years, and same in most of the UK. They are done mostly where you get a “little Hitler” A/G or FISO on the ground who enjoys inflicting the most pain; an OHJ with a RH circuit gives the best masochistic experience
