UK CAP2304 - a new approach to instrument approaches at GA airfields

Thanks for the reference, just by reading first pages it looks like moving the right way !

This seems to be having another go at the old CAP1122 which in theory did this but nobody was able to put together the required safety case.

Unless I am missing something obvious, this doesn’t deal with the main issue which is “mandatory ATC”:

There is no (explicit) “mandatory ATC” for GPS IAP? where do you see that?

- ANO Art183 does indeed mandates ATC and Approch Control Service (FIS by ATC) for any IAP using ground based Nav Aids (ILS, VOR, NDB)

- CAA choosed to have GPS IAP without ATC Approach Control but required AFIS with Basic Service as well as restrictions for PPR and 6 slots per day not to piss controllers

The “one aircraft at the time” principal is also applied in US & France for GPS IAP without AD ATS but en-route ATC give the sequencing if inbound from airspace, CAA choose to make that 60min-90min while in other countries it is 10min

The big bottle neck in my opinion is the lack of “air-to-air” safety case for Unicom? CTAF, Auto-Info…not sure why one need an AFIS or AG for VFR airfields? if they offer any safety levels like triggering SAR, why that is not enough for IFR?

There is a big difference between 10 mins (or waiting for previous traffic to land and the tower phones the approach controller to tell him so) and 60-90 mins which is the Sywell almost totally useless way of doing it.

The latter translates to “mandatory ATC” if you want something that’s actually usable.

What am I missing?

The “one aircraft at the time” principal is also applied in US & France

Obviously you can have only one at a time landing It’s a matter of how it is spaced out. In the US they have a remotely located (taxpayer funded) approach controller. In France (above link) they also have a remotely located (taxpayer funded) approach controller but since they don’t have US type Class E down there, the Tower phones Approach when you have landed (a strange approach, no pun intended, but fair enough).

This doesn’t change anything in practical terms. 60-90 minute spacing is useless, especially if it places restrictions on other traffic using the aerodrome but not the instrument approach.

Why can’t it just be air-to-air? You mandate that an aircraft using the approach must make a call at various points (e.g. 10 miles out, 2 miles to IAF, IAF, FAF, short final, landed, vacated) and that before starting the approach an aircraft must call and ask whether another aircraft is on the approach…. and if they are then they must hold off.

Peter wrote:

The latter translates to “mandatory ATC” if you want something that’s actually usable.

Indeed, the question is where that comes from, some sort of “flight plan eta” or “alerting service”?

I doubt it’s for traffic separation, unless it’s the US with Echo everywhere

In France, if IAP in Golf, they may or may not sequence for approach:
1) If ATC/AFIS at airfield, the runway in-use is known and they do sequence IFR traffic one by one
2) If no AFIS at airfield, you get asked for preferred IAF & ETA for FPL and hand the QNH

In 1), I was asked to orbit once until the previous traffic lands that was on both AFIS/ATC airports
In 2), I twice flew it with other traffic on final both of talking to each other on auto-info (I was expecting remarks on joining circuit after approach without ATS but apparently everybody with an IR seems grown up to keep that kind of stuff to themselves )

However, this is not France or the US. This is the UK, where this particular nut was never cracked by anyone, despite the CAA putting out long documents detailing how it could be cracked given infinite expenditure on ex CAA guys working as aviation consultants

The French or American system can’t work in the UK because there is no approach controller which the airfield could afford (regardless of whether he has radar, or gets a phone call to say the previous traffic has landed).

Unless I am missing something (I didn’t try to decipher the whole thing) this is just another bogus proposal, delivering a near-useless Sywell type solution.

Allegedly, procedural APP controller costs +10%-15% more PA

The issue is between AFIS or A/G, and ATC. For an “all-day” operation it is of the order of 100k/year.

The UK has very few ATC airports which don’t already have an IAP. Basically it is Redhill and a few others which the CAA insisted must have ATC for some reason (Redhill – proximity to Gatwick).

It’s not that bad, but it is still serious money which an airfield has to justify in terms of new traffic.

The other thing which narrows the business case further is that a lot of non-IAP places are routinely used with DIY approaches. It is only aggressively managed places like Cambridge which watch you on FR24 and if they think you are flying a DIY IAP, or an official one when there is no approach controller, they threaten to kick you off the airport. Decent places correctly pretend it is not their problem.

I agree one could do self-separation, of course. But that is “emotionally hard” for the CAA mindset here. It is probably just as emotionally hard in other countries but they have found other ways (all using a taxpayer funded approach controller).

And unfortunately there are some pilots who lie about their position, to “get in”; I’ve seen that countless times.

And you can’t always use FR24 as an unofficial awareness tool (lots of airfields do that) because lots of people fly non-TXP even when there is no relevant airspace; the other day I got very close to somebody who turned on his TXP on a ~7 mile final, initially showing up on my TCAS at +300ft and half a mile

FISO says “nothing to affect the IAP”.

And ATC unions will go ballistic

Currently, in the UK, if there is no approach controller, neither the pilot nor the person in the tower is allowed to make any reference to an IAP, or any waypoint on an IAP. Don’t ask how I know