So there is a NOTAM that the IAPs are suspended until June 20. Then Jeppesen may or may not remove them from the database.
Peter wrote:
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.
Would you use old (unofficial) instrument approach in actual IMC for landing to what actually is VFR airport?
The NOTAMs implies that the navaids are unmonitored and thus not to be used…
Airborne_Again wrote:
navaids are unmonitored
The GPS is unmonitored? Who, these days, really uses the NDB as primary nav source on an NDB approach, especially a coastal one? Also, Shoreham has official RNAV approaches available.
Emir wrote:
Would you use old (unofficial) instrument approach in actual IMC for landing to what actually is VFR airport?
In the UK, there is no such thing as a VFR airport.
Seriously, all this stuff is antiquated. GPS approaches are paths in space supported by a database and can be flown without anybody there. While an ATC service providing separation and support is certainly desirable, it should not be a requirement, and under part-NCC in Europe, it isn’t.
So I would happily fly a GPS approach in my database, or even the NDB overlay, to minima, without ATC separation, at Shoreham or anywhere else as long as I can legally do it, which is as long as it is established outside controlled airspace.
Cobalt wrote:
Who, these days, really uses the NDB as primary nav source on an NDB approach, … Also, Shoreham has official RNAV approaches available.
I didn’t say anything about that — just what the NOTAM said.
Apparently the CAA has ruled that operations under the indemnity are to be banned during the mandatory ATC breaks, when the ATCO is probably physically in the tower. Only when the airport is “closed all day” can the indemnity be used.
An interesting line of reasoning…
Has anyone asked the CAA what their reasoning for that would be?
Apparently the reason is very complicated. Also the ATCO is not in the tower during his break.
I am sure Shoreham will sort itself out soon. The reason for these troubles is that NATS have for many years not recruited enough controllers and have recently changed this policy in a big way and this has sucked controllers out from many places.
Also the CAA does not permit an airfield to mix A/G AFIS and ATC. You can have only 1 or 2 out of the 3. Also going to AFIS is of limited value since the salary is only ~5k below ATC. Shoreham will end up running some mixture of A/G and ATC.
Apparently the famous CAP1122 does permit (subject to a very complex safety case, which AFAIK nobody has yet succeeded in putting together) IAPs without ATC, but only for private flights, not for training and above. So a based school could not fly IAPs, and that would take out much or most of the IFR income.
Peter wrote:
Apparently the famous CAP1122 does permit (subject to a very complex safety case, which AFAIK nobody has yet succeeded in putting together) IAPs without ATC, but only for private flights, not for training and above. So a based school could not fly IAPs, and that would take out much or most of the IFR income.Hmmm. Part-NCO….?
Cobalt wrote:
In the UK, there is no such thing as a VFR airport.
Cobalt wrote:
So I would happily fly a GPS approach in my database, or even the NDB overlay, to minima, without ATC separation, at Shoreham or anywhere else as long as I can legally do it, which is as long as it is established outside controlled airspace.
