arj1 wrote:
What would happen if two holds are established OCAS? MAP sends you to one, normal approach stars with another. If full procedure is around 20nm from IAP to IAP, then at 80kts typical approach speed it takes 15min max. So 20 min should be OK. You are allowed to leave hold 1 or 2 only if FISO says “nothing to affect the IAP”.
Am I missing something here?
I am assuming people IFR/IMC are using radios and conspicuity?
If talking on common frequency is allowed then none of this is an issue? Is there anyone on earth who is not happy to give priority to anyone in IMC to do whatever they wish in Golf? especially when it’s IMC down to the ground? Please be my guest
PS: I was flying to North Welad (I don’t recall exact weather but I left Southend at ILS circling minima), by the time I called on North Weald frequency there was another traffic doing the same (flying in clouds to VFR airfield on DIY IAP), I was happy to let him have a go first, wished him good luck and asked if he can report ceiling…there are no published IAP at North Weald, the other traffic mentioned he had me on his TCAS (he was in Cirrus, I was in archer with PAW), the only glitch is we had to go back and forth with AG on frequency rather than talking to each other !
The beauty is zero need to talk about clearances, holds, missed…you keep all for yourself, none of it is anyone else business 
but I got told off for not making an overhead join by an AFIS, so I had to leave my long final and fly OHJ on my GPS…
In France, tower, if there is one, does not telephone approach to tell them you have landed, because there is no tower or nobody in it for the circumstances @Ibra has described
Neither do they do this, normally, when there is an AFISO on duty.
Approach, SIV or ACC will give information such as QNH and traffic. Remember in France IFR you are on an IFR flight plan even in class G which makes it necessary to inform the SIV/app/acc if you’re ETA is going to change by more than +/- 3mins. It is the PICs responsibility to telephone and close the flight plan once landed.
A/A communication allows you to keep separation once on the procedure. VFR gives way to IFR traffic in the procedure.
We used to have a lot of airfields in Class E, eg La Rochelle LFBH. 20 years ago even non radio aircraft could use the airfield. Like many others in France, they are now nearly all class D airspace. However most revert to Class G outside of ATC/AFIS hours.
I just did a read of the document, it seems some stuff has shifted in the right way, theoretically, one can have GPS IAP to an AG airport (at least on paper but I would be interested to see a concrete example)
Some stuff has not: runway has to be licensed and OCH & VIS are, ahem good VMC with DH likely to be sitting 1nm outside ATZ, so the whole fuss is about “approving” what any FCL PPL could legally fly VFR with stopwatch & map?
does not telephone approach to tell them you have landed
They told me that’s what they did. It was also fairly obvious on the radio.
Obviously, not allowing someone to commence the IAP until previous has landed is one way of managing separation on the IAP, but it has two problems
Bottom line is that CAP2304 changes nothing in practice – unless one counts as “IAP every 60-90 mins” as a “solution” which it obviously isn’t.
About the only thing one could argue is that in crap wx there will be little or no traffic anyway, but then the airfield is deprived of IR/IMCR training income, which makes it even less likely they want to splash out for £xx,000 for the IAP design.
Did anyone had the actual cost of Sywell & Kemble designs?
These are CAA fees for IFP but I am wondering what is AD initial and running costs for survey, testing and validation? for surveys, they are usually covered if the airport is already licenced to accept VFR public transport…
Stapleford had their RNP21 hanging for years (maybe because of AG radio), while the cost saving and training don’t mix very well, they had good opportunities to attract more students if RNP is at home-base rather than “begging” left & right, it also increase weather accessibility for IFR training, I think the “order book” minima was 1200ft ceiling & 5km visibility !
Ibra wrote:
These are CAA fees for IFP but I am wondering what is AD initial and running costs for survey, testing and validation? for surveys, they are usually covered if the airport is already licenced to accept VFR public transport…
Ibra, I heard the numbers around 20-25K per threshold (40-50K per runway) overall.
Graham wrote:
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.
This is not a solution of the problem perceived by the CAA because it can not deal with all kinds of radio communication failure.
In the end we have to admit that these 60 mins are not so outrages if (and only if) the task is to guarantee a separation that is based on timing only (and includes room for error, go around, wind, etc.). There are only two options to have something better than these 60 mins:
a) You install any kind of (approach-) controller that can do the separation on a case by case basis and therefore can clear a plane for the approach as soon as he has positive knowledge that the previous plane has landend or
b) Abandon the concept that separation has to be guaranteed and accept the risk that in rare cases two airplanes could completely legally be at the same point at the same time – and leave it up to the pilots if they do accept this risk. In that case they just need to publish a radio frequency for pilot to pilot communication.
There is very little in between those two solutions.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Abandon the concept that separation has to be guaranteed and accept the risk that in rare cases two airplanes could completely legally be at the same point at the same time – and leave it up to the pilots if they do accept this risk.
It’s already the case for IFR in Golf even with ATC, maybe worth reading what “Approach Control” means?
MATS PART 1
MATS PART 1 local copy
Where I am puzzled is suddenly traffic separation on RNP OCAS did become of CAA interest 
First, it’s not like one can fly IMC inside ATZ, 500ft agl OCH minima is such that one will always be in visual segment inside ATZ, so “see & avoid” like in the old days, outside ATZ, well it’s uncontrolled: one should expect to hit anything even with “90min separation on IAP”, anyone could be bimbling around outside ATZ: no radio and worst no transponder and no conspicuity
Even when approach is managed by ATC under “Approach Control”, all one get by “cleared for approach” is they clean VFR from circuit & IFR from runway for the arrival inside ATZ, you still need “clear to land” though, on IAP outside ATZ you are on your own (it may not be obvious but it is what it is), OK let’s look at approaches to Lydd RNP03 & ILS21,
- ATC are non-radar: they give procedural instructions inside ATZ and information outside ATZ
- ATC don’t offer any IFR separation or any IFR clearance outside their 2nm ATZ, the rest is Golf
- I can legally fly ILS21 & RNP03 not talking to them down to 500ft agl on ATZ boundary
I can also fly IFR in IMC to any ATZ on GPS down to 500ft agl right at it’s boundary without any “90min separation” (without IAP, I have to comply with overhead or downwind joins), why this suddenly becomes a problem when RNP is published OCAS and on final landing one is already visual before even they enter the ATZ?
Peter wrote:
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
Indeed. Last time I flew into Shoreham I asked for the RNAV approach to runway 02 and the tower controller very helpfully told me that he wasn’t able to offer the approach, but that it would be absolutely fine if I wanted to “self-position for a 7.4nm final at 2,200ft”. Don’t mention RIPIL!
@Malibuflyer the 60-90 mins is absurd because it makes the IAP unusable for training, makes any arrival other than with a lot of notice unreliable/unworkable, and it doesn’t just affect instrument traffic – the precedent at Sywell is that they basically don’t allow anything else to move in the circuit while it’s happening. That instrument arrival literally books exclusive use of the entire aerodrome and ATZ.
Also, the risk you mention of two aeroplanes occupying the same space already exists. We permit uncontrolled flight in IMC in Class G and there’s no requirement to be talking to anyone. They might argue that safety here derives from randomness of aircraft locations (no mid-air in IMC in the UK since WW2) and the risk increases unacceptably if you define fixed paths through space that aircraft are likely to occupy, i.e. an IAP. I’d counter that people’s self-preservation instincts are likely to kick in and they’ll make damn sure via radio calls that no-one else is trying to do the same thing at the same time. If you have radio failure, go somewhere VMC or squawk 7600 and go somewhere with radar and ATC.
@Ibra the fees the CAA charge to review and approve your proposed approaches are chicken feed. The real cost, and it’s a lot, is the money that you must pay to professional aviation consultants to do all the necessary research and work to develop these incredibly detailed and complex proposals. It’s almost as though it wasn’t quite simple to check for obstructions and airspace issues before drawing a T-shaped approach, or some slight variation on that, leading to the runway. Needless to say, these consultants are all ‘in the system’ people who all know each other, with CAA, NATS, RAF, airport management etc. on their CV.
If you’re a CAA regulator with the power to change the rules on this, why would you? Why destroy your post-retirement consultancy career?
One can post as much text from official docs as one likes, but the CAA doesn’t care about any of this, because this is how it works everywhere. For example in Class E (US, France, whateever) you can have VFR and IFR coexisting without separation, and nobody is bothered because that is how it has always been. But every country “somehow separates” planes on an IAP, and again that is how it has always been.
It will take a new generation of people who have the balls to take a fresh look.
But ATC (and ATC union) rules will continue and they are a major block to any relaxation.
Last 2 posts crossed
