Instrument Approaches without ATC - could the CAA shift on this?

[Contacttower]

I sent in an email as part of the red tape challenge that highlighted some of the issues that are facing GA and regulations that need changing/scrapping...

I mentioned GPS approaches to airfields without ATC and noticed on the comment page that one or two other pilots had also mentioned this issue of GPS approaches into smaller airfields. Having flown a lot in the US this is something that I have always wished would happen here.

I then read in Pilot recently that Rochester have asked for a GPS approach, but that the CAA turned them down due to the lack of ATC.

If the CAA realised that a lot of airfields and pilots want GPS approaches do you think they would shift their position on this?

[mad_jock]

There are already instrument approaches in the UK without airtraffic control.

[Contacttower]

Yes but they are not available to individual pilots, only to certain approved operators.

[chevvron]

You need ATC to decide the 'batting order' when more than one aircraft at a time requests the iap. There may be a 'need' to allocate different altitudes to the first and second aircraft. This is called 'separation' and as such can only be applied by ATC, not FIS.
Course if you're not flying for PT, there's nothing to stop you designing your own 'private' procedure as mentioned above, but I'm not sure what attitude your insurance company might take to doing this. Correctly designed with a 'bulletproof' missed approach procedure (which most private procedures don't appear to have) then you could ask them. Most self designers seem to be unaware that the minima you use needs to take into account any high obstacles in the 'missed approach area'.

[fernytickles]

It does seem very odd that anyone with a current IR, & an aeroplane with necessary equipment can be cleared for an instrument approach at an uncontrolled airport here in the US. We'd be stuck without them.

Yet theyre not allowed in the UK? Nutz.

[Talkdownman]

AUKFISO informed me that GNSS approaches to AFIS exist at Barra and Benbecula. Are these notified, published or 'operator-specific'?

When I asked the CAA author of CAP797 if other locations will be considered for GNSS IAP to AFIS he informed me that it is 'on the back-burner'.

The precedent exists.

I was informed that the minimum AFIS is required 'to integrate the instrument traffic into the visual circuit traffic'. Quite how AFIS can do this without having authority in the air I don't know.

[soaringhigh650]

In the USA, we have ATC to sequence and separate IFR traffic at untowered fields. We also have Class E airspace running down to low levels (700-1200ft) which prevents any non-radio "VFR" flying in IFR conditions.

This system works fine.

[Pace]

ATC Who do not have radar like in Londonderry may assign altitudes and holding procedures but are still reliant on accurate flying and aircraft saying where they are.

ATC almost become verbal managers.

The same can be achieved by communication between aircraft and self management.

There are numerous small airfields who have non published procedures which are used by local pilots who intercommunicate.

Pace

[Contacttower]

You need ATC to decide the 'batting order' when more than one aircraft at a time requests the iap. There may be a 'need' to allocate different altitudes to the first and second aircraft. This is called 'separation' and as such can only be applied by ATC, not FIS.

Indeed but once a regional approach controller, could be an existing LARS service for example, has decided the approach sequence the aircraft can then be transferred to the local A/G or AFIS frequency. Works in France and indeed in the US where regional approach centers clear traffic and then once established the aircraft change to the CTAF for landing.

AUKFISO informed me that GNSS approaches to AFIS exist at Barra and Benbecula. Are these notified, published or 'operator-specific'?

Well during published hours Benbecular has a tower anyway, I guess you would be allowed to fly the approach when just the AFIS in force though since it is published in the AIP...would have to read the full AIP entry though to know for sure whether this was possible. Barra doesn't have an approaches listed in the AIP so I can only assume it only has the operator specific ones.

[wb9999]

How does Barrow manage to have several IAPs with AFIS? I assume they are for BAe aircraft, but they are published in the AIP so could be used by anybody.

I've read previously that aircraft are under radar control of Warton on an IAP into Barrow. So if Barrow can have an IAP with a regional radar service, why not do it across the UK?

[Contacttower]

How does Barrow manage to have several IAPs with AFIS? I assume they are for BAe aircraft, but they are published in the AIP so could be used by anybody.

Yes I have always wondered that myself. It is to my knowledge the only airfield with only an AFIS that has AIP published approaches.

[mad_jock]

I suspect its the ATC side of things blocking it not the pilot side.

[Contacttower]

Well I don't know what exactly the stated reason for not allowing it is...

All I know is that it is allowed in many other countries and causes few problems. If I could fly out of my local airfield, go away for a few days and know that when coming back there would be an approved and legal approach procedure that could get me down in most weather that would relieve a major stress of flying for me.

[mad_jock]

I am just off to fly 5 approaches into FISO airports with 2 ILS's and 1 NDB and 2 LOC approaches. Never had a problem yet. And that's with paying punters in the back.

[Contacttower]

Well exactly MJ...

I'm guessing though this is with either an IAP not available in the AIP or not in the UK...?

[Talkdownman]

approaches into FISO airports with 2 ILS's and 1 NDB and 2 LOC approaches
Avinor.....?

[Warped Factor]

I suspect its the ATC side of things blocking it not the pilot side.

Are you talking CAA ATS Inspectors? For I don't think the average working atco could give a hoot one way or the other.

[Talkdownman]

The Guild might...

[Warped Factor]

Never been a member of that club, but I doubt the majority of their membership could give a hoot one way or the other.

[On Track]

In Australia IFR approaches into Class G airports happen every day of the week. What's the drama?

[chevvron]

The title of this thread is 'Instrument Approaches without ATC'.
It is apparent that in the USA, where some people maintain this happens, that it actually doesn't. The local TRACON or RAPCON handles the Initial and Intermediate Approach phases thereby ensuring there is separation between succeeding aircraft, and transfers the aircraft to unicom or other notified frequency for the airport for the Final Approach phase.
I understand in the UK, (and I stand to be corrected) iaps to Barrow are carried out in this manner, with Warton handling the aircraft initially handing over to Walney Info for the final approach, both these airfields being operated by BAe.
So those who advocate iaps to non ATC airports in this country need to take that into account. If the CAA are prepared to allow this at Barrow, then provided a robust safety case is produced, there would seem to be no reason for it not to happen elsewhere.
A couple of words of warning though:
1. I don't think approach control units inside controlled airspace would be too keen to provide approach services to airports in class G airspace.
2. Airports with approach control units in class G might be reluctant to provide this service as they are often pretty busy anyway.
3. No airport operator would be willing to allow their ATC unit to provide services to a potentially rival airfield, thus 'pinching' revenue from their own airfield, without some sort of remuneration.
4. ATC units anywhere would claim they would need more staff to cope with the extra workload and would want remuneration for this too.
To suggest LARS units could do it is a non-starter. LARS services are provided from existing resources and are 'workload permitting' (apart from Farnborough East and North which are funded by NATS with extra equipment and personnel provided by NATS outside the contract with TAG to provide ATC for Farnborough Airport) and thus the service is not guaranteed, which the CAA would almost certainly require.

[Tinstaafl]

Australia has numerous approaches that are without ATC services. Probably more airfields with approaches but no ATC than airfields with ATC services. At most you get a FIS. Separation is done by the pilots talking amongst themselves.

The UK mantra that approaches *have* to be done with ATC assistance for safety doesn't stand scrutiny.

[chevvron]

Yeah but how many of these airports have iaps that overlap other airports iaps? How many IFR flights per hour land at these airports? Don't forget you have some wide open spaces in Oz which we don't have in the UK.
There's really no comparison.

[soaringhigh650]

A couple of words of warning though:
5. The UK has an extremely poor "can-do" attitude. When people want things done, instead of just going about getting it done, they like to go through several rounds of gold-plated consultations and come up with a list of why it isn't or shouldn't be doable, often boiling down to just moaning, selfishness and greed.

[Contacttower]

The title of this thread is 'Instrument Approaches without ATC'.

Yes I guess not completely accurate, I was not meaning to suggest that the entire process be completed without ATC. Many people on here will be familiar with the situation in the UK and USA and I assumed they would know what I was getting at...

5. The UK has an extremely poor "can-do" attitude. When people want things done, instead of just going about getting it done, they like to go through several rounds of gold-plated consultations and come up with a list of why it isn't or shouldn't be doable, often boiling down to just moaning, selfishness and greed.

Exactly. :ok:

[TCAS FAN]

According to a reliable source in the CAA (they do still exist!) a CAP is to be published later this year to cover the issue.

The UK FISO Association are the ones to talk to (after you've joined up), they are already mapping out a way forward with the intent of sharing resources to reduce costs with such things as a Safety Case.

While not wishing to pre-empt the CAP I would speculate that the aerodrome will need a current CAP 232 compliant survey and keep it current (ie annual check surveys), there may also be additional survey requirements in order to permit descent below 1000 FT above obstacles due to the very limited lateral extent of current visual runway surveys.

[chevvron]

Licensed airfields should already have a 'Type A' survey chart enabling 500ft clearance for non-precision intermediate approaches. From there it is only a short step to the 246ft necessary for an iap. Last I heard, the survey only needs to be done every 5 years to take into account things like tree growth.

[Contacttower]

Very interesting, so there may be movement on this issue...

[chevvron]

WRT Soaring High's '5'; it's the UK CAA who decide on these 'tiers' of consultation; the end user has no choice.

[mad_jock]

To be fair it wouldn't work at most GA airfields in the south mainly due to the mentality of the pilots and the traffic density.

There would have to be a cut off which meant that you had to go VFR as soon as you cloud break. So basically they wouldn't be allowed to use them if the cloud base was above MSA. And even then rules about breaking for an overhead join above circuit Alt.

Most of the fields I use every one goes visual as soon as they can and fits in with the other traffic. Circuit bashers fit in and everyone is happy. When its IMC as long as nobody lies about ETA's it works but having a controller working you doesn't change this.

UK I could see some knob in a microlight getting in the way not talking to anyone. And someone ruffly taking them from behind.

The approaches up north tend to be only used by one aircraft at a time spaced out by sometimes hours mostly by the same company these days.

[cessnapete]

It would work perfectly well at most UK airfields if the procedures used in for example, USA or Australia were used.
First the CAA requirement for Instrument Runway lighting be dropped. Not required at typical GPS app. Wx limits. And of course the current full ATC requirement.
Then it's easy, for example a pilot carrying out a GPS approach at Fairoaks or Blackbushe in IMC.
Farnborough ( or the nearest ATC Facility at other airfields) would control down to their radar MSA and release each aircraft for the GPS approach. The next aircraft is not released for an approach until the FiSO or A/G operator informs Farnborough the first aircraft has landed. In the event of an airfield with just a Safetycom the pilots inform each other when on ground and safe to allow the next aircraft to start the procedure.
Works in other countries which have years of GPS experience, with commercial jets and biz jets etc. not just light aircraft. A safe and routine procedure.

[Good Business Sense]

Most in the CAA, in positions of power, will not say yes to anything - the word yes is a bad career move and is also seen as threat to their pension.

The CAA is in crisis.

[TCAS FAN]

Chevvron

Survey spec, including periodicity, is set out in CAP 232.

Aerodromes with Code 1 or 2 non instrument runways, such as Fairoaks, are only required to be surveyed for production of an Aerodrome Plan (which the AIP Aerodrome Chart + any Parking Docking Chart is produced) and an AGA survey to check for obstacles in the Approach/TOCS/Transitional etc surfaces. Chapter 1 Table 1 refers.

Type A Charts are only required for aerodromes with Performance A aircraft operating for public transport.

Periodicities for Check Surveys following the initial survey are set out in Chapter 1 Table 2, and are annual. I do however know from personal experience that Aerodrome Inspectors do exercise some discretion with Code 1/2 non instrument runway aerodromes, permitting somewhat longer periods between Check Surveys. I do however doubt that they will continue this in the event of an IAP being provided.

Time will tell what CAA may require beyond an AGA Survey, bearing in mind that a Code 1 approach area only extends for 1660 metres from the threshold, and Code 2 2560 metres. A GNSS procedure will of course need to provide obstacle clearance assurance well beyond that.

[chevvron]

iaps at Fairoaks would need to penetrate the Heathrow CTR (yes I know it'll shortly become class C or D instead of class A); can you see SVFR handling traffic on iaps to Fairoaks? Can you see them delegating vaste swathes of 'their' airspace to Farnborough to facilitate this? What m.a.p. could you design for runway 06 without penetrating the CTR outside the present Fairoaks LFA?

[cessnapete]

Yes sorry, bad example Fairoaks on reflection due Lhr proximity. Only practical on 06 perhaps.
Cloud break and circle for 24.
I stand by my comments generally, but it will take years probably in UK due CAA bu....it and intransigence !
I'm only commenting on what takes place routinely and safely in other more GA enlightened parts of the world

[chevvron]

m.a.p. for runway 07 at Blackbushe would also be problematical due to the proximity of Bagshot mast; being the 'dominant obstacle' within 5nm radius, it would mean the approach minima would probably need to be 1005ft amsl ie 759 + 246.

[cessnapete]

If I hit the Bagshot mast (5 miles away and about 350agl) on a G/A from Blackbushe, off a WAAS assisted GPS Approach, that would be the least of my problems!!
It seemed to work OK at Innsbruck and Aspen, with much bigger 'Bagshot Masts' in closer proximity. You just include a waypoint or two in the G/A

[chevvron]

It's not you hitting the mast that's the problem, if you wish a procedure to be designed, all obstructions have to be taken into account to calculate the MDA.

[Talkdownman]

OK, check out the weird EGLK 07 MAP in the UK IAIP:

Runway 07

(1) Climb straight ahead until passing BLC D2.0 or 1,500 ft QNH (whichever is sooner) then turn left to WOD NDB. Maintain VMC (if possible) and remain outside controlled airspace climbing to altitude 2,400 ft. Retain last assigned SSR code and contact Farnborough Radar frequency 134.350 MHz.

Also weird that it doesn't have an associated IAP.

[mm_flynn]

Interestingly when I look at skyvector.com, I see Fairoaks about 7 miles away from Heathrow and 5 miles South of the approach path when landing 09. Whereas, if I look at KEWR (Newark NJ about 75% the traffic of Heathrow ), I see KTEB (Teterboro about 10 times as busy as Fairoaks - mostly IFR) 9 miles away but straight under KEWRs approach path. I would have thought designing the MAPt from KTEB would be quite a bit more difficult than for Fairoaks.

The UK certainly would seem to have a lot of issues in moving forward in the south due to the relatively complex parcelling up of airspace into chunks 'owned' by various agencies cooperating at various levels from marginal to quite good.

[Warped Factor]

Look ever so slightly north of LHR and you'll see Northolt. Look east of LHR and you'll see London City. Anything is possible if the will is there.

[Contacttower]

Well I emailed the CAA and got a very nice email back from someone involved in this area.

Apparently the CAA are preparing a public consultation on this issue and a draft CAP which could pave the way for airfields without a control service to apply for IAP.

Watch this space I guess...

[tmmorris]

Or airfields with an IAP to make controllers redundant.

Call me a cynic...

Tim