Stapleford says they are 100 pages into the “safety case” now but still not within sight of getting approved.
OTOH the UK has an additional problem: ATC funding. This means if say Goodwood was to use Farnborough as the approach controller (to clear traffic to some waypoint, around which you hold until the previous has landed) Farnborough will invoice Goodwood for the service, and this completely kills the proposition. Biggin Hill pays Thames Radar for this – done this one many times here – and while nobody will publicly say how much, it is thought to be 50-100k a year. But Biggin has a hefty bizjet income – lots of IFR traffic which must fly IFR. In all other countries this charge would not be made.
The solution to this must be a procedural one, not involving need for any ATC anywhere.
Peter wrote:
The solution to this must be a procedural one, not involving need for any ATC anywhere.
I am assuming most will be OCAS and fully procedural ATC at “own CAS and traffic risk” (will you hold at 2300ft bellow LTMA to land on procedural), most GA airfields can’t afford radar ATC, but you can get Redhill/Shoreham ATC to clear you to Goodwood 
Peter wrote:
You don’t get “cleared for the approach” by a FISO. ATC unions would not allow that anywhere in Europe The issue is solved procedurally, which sidesteps a FISO having to “control” airborne traffic.
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that someone must always give you an approach clearance. That’s not the case. An AFISO doesn’t issue approach clearances because none is needed in class G airspace! It has nothing to do with unions.
This is where the “emotional problem” lies. In the US you have a remotely located approach controller and you have Class E down to a low level (in the context of an unmanned tower etc).
So how is this solved in the absence of these two things, given that the country in question is unwilling to pay for the ATC services which would need to follow from any new CAS (even Class E)?
Peter wrote:
So how is this solved in the absence of these two things, given that the country in question is unwilling to pay for the ATC services which would need to follow from any new CAS (even Class E)?
How is what solved? I don’t see there is anything to solve in Class G with an RMZ and a AFISO. The pilot announces his/her intentions, the AFISO provides traffic information, any conflicts are sorted out by the pilot(s) and then the pilot flies the approach. Simples!
Approach in class G is aimed as obstacles and terrain separation, why you even need ATC/FIS? they can’t offer separation or clerance neither at best they will tell you another guy is in the circuit or still on the runway…
It is only in the UK that ATC clears aircraft for approaches situated entirely in class Golf airspace.
Yes it’s all a bit strange if one looks at airspace classes and the precise operating procedures i.e. no “clearance” is possible in G.
But then what about a clearance to enter an ATZ? If it is an ATC ATZ you need one. If it is not an ATZ ATZ (AFIS or A/G) then the CAA guy will still bust you if you enter it silently – e.g. here. All this is Class G.
I think the UK has made a rod for its own back with this anal approach, and they need somebody to find them a ladder with which they can climb down. Two English idioms there!
Maybe no approach clearance then a call at the FAF on the A/G frequency. It leaves enough time for one her traffic to stay clear.
The problem is : what happens if 2 aircraft not talking to anyone (even london info), no FPL, decide to take the same approach at the same time. They don’t have a dedicated frequency to coordinate their intentions.
In Canada, an IFR must announce on CTAF 5 minutes before starting the approach, even though he is still talking to APP.
The question is generic what happens when two aircraft in clouds are flying in class G? to me this is a zero concern, honestly I am happy to share Class G IAP approach paths with someone else in clouds as long as that avoids hitting terrain/obstacles (CFIT risk in IMC) which are no joke in terms of magnitude/probablity to randomly hitting another traffic (MAC risk in IMC), of course calling with intentions and reports may help but I have been going to the same VOR as another aircraft in clouds, my take away best to just ignore it and carry on flying the aircraft like you did not heard it or do 180 and stay away in the soup
The UK had a tradition of “deconfliction service” and “approach clearance” which are practically separation and clerance in Class G for “uncontrolled IFR” (you do get vectors, levels and clearances) but they are still called “flight information service” in the book, so that exaplains why you need clerance to a published approach but you don’t need one for your own designed approach…
