Shoreham GPS approach?

[A and C]

What has happend to the GPS approach at Shoreham?

Now that GPS approaches are leagal in the UK I am a little surprized that the Shoreham approach seems to have been discontinued, anyone know why?

[Fuji Abound]

Lack of funding to secure the approval might be the explanation.

As has been reported on another thread the NDB has been out of action for many months now.

It is intersting that commercial operations seem to continue uninterupted - it is surprising how low you can obvioulsy let down over the sea if need arises. :)

[IO540]

The DME is INOP. The NDB is fine.

No idea about the GPS IAP.

[BackPacker]

Article about just this in Flyer, jan 08,, page 13. I'm not going to repeat the whole (excellent) article here, but there are a few points made:

- So far the GPS approaches were trials, to be flown in VMC only. Trial is now over, plates have been withdrawn from the official sources.
- In order to become official, among other things, the airports need to complete paperwork known as the 'safety case'. None of the six airports participating in the trial have finished this paperwork yet, due to various reasons.
- Shoreham had airspace issues, particularly proposed holding points over glider sites.

The other problem that people will likely face is that your GPS installation has to be approved for IFR. Most GA installations are not, so there's a lot of paper to push and money to change hands (but no actual modification to the aircraft or its avionics, normally) before you're legally allowed to fly such an approach, in IMC, for real. Reason is that this requires a change to the POH, which is seen as a major mod to EASA.

[A and C]

The POH ammendment is a paperwork exersise that should cost about £250, as said EASA consider it a "major" mod but they say that about all POH ammendments!

This is a very minor "major" mod!

I will have to buy (or stand in W H Smiths) and read what flyer have to say.

[Fuji Abound]

IO - sorry yes, you are correct.

NDB approaches only then it is.

[IO540]

Unfortunately the 20 has mandatory DME so it cannot be flown at all.

[Fuji Abound]

02 it is, with a low level circuit to land, a better option any way.

[Sir George Cayley]

I had a word with an owner based at Shoreham recently. They told me that initially there had been a lack of enthusiasm from ATC to introduce GPS apps and this led to no effort being made to seek approval.

Apparently, this didn't go down well with the residents and I'm told a word was placed in someone's shell like.

Latest is that Shoreham have now put in a request (to DAP I think) and the process is ongoing.

Feedback from a chap in the hangar whose friend knows someone is that it will happen "in 2008"

So, good news.;)

Sir George Cayley

[niknak]

Sir George,

1) The desire for a GPS approach or otherwise at Shoreham has nothing to do with ATC, it's down to the Airport Management, always was - always has been.... :rolleyes:
2) The Trials held were just that, trials, nothing else.
3) Talks are ongoing with the CAA by many airfields to establish GPS approaches, but before they are approved UK wide a full assessment has to be carried out with regard to the implications.

It will be late 2008 or later before such approaches are made and even then they are likely to be non precision, leading to higher minima, mostly to ensure that those who can cope with such an approach are capable and those that can't don't attempt it.

[chevvron]

Don't hold your breath, you'll still need ATC not FISO for the procedure to be used in earnest.

[A and C]

The outcome of the trial of a system that has been in use for ten or more years in the USA, Canada & a number of other places has proved that the system works in the UK (now thats a surprize.........NOT!).

The CAA have published recomendations for pilot trainning.

So why all the faffing about? we are not talking about PRNAV or WAAS this is a non-precision approach system.

I am trying hard to have any respect for the people who are responsable for implimentation of GPS approaches as they seem to be fighting this each and every step of the way.

Why the delay in introducing what is now a mature system with ten years of use abroad and a trial in the UK, are there realy problems with GPS approaches or is this just a case of the people responsable not being up to the job?

[chevvron]

That's what the CAA intially said about TLS (Transponder Landing System) but when it was actually installed, they said it would have to be evaluated for 5 years before they would approve it for use in IMC; they'll probably say the same about GPS non-p approaches.

[A and C]

I find this all very hard to take !

How come the EASA reagonal office (CAA) at Gatwick can stop the UK having an approach system that is already approved in EASAland ?

[BackPacker]

How come the EASA reagonal office (CAA) at Gatwick can stop the UK having an approach system that is already approved in EASAland ?

Well, they never "stopped" having such a system, as it was never there in the first place. There were trials, to be flown in VMC only. That's where the plates came from.

In order to be flown for real, it's the airports themselves which have some paperwork to do, after which the CAA will grant approval. At least, that's the way I read things.

To the best of my knowledge, you can blame the CAA for being late to the game, you can possibly blame them for setting too high standards wrt. aircraft equipment of the aircraft that were allowed to formally participate in the trial, but I don't think it's fair to blame them, right now, for the delay in the airports providing the necessary paperwork.

[mm_flynn]

I find it difficult to believe that all of the airports that did the work to get the trial approaches designed and approved can't fill in a piece of paper or all have staff shortage problems.

I suspect 'the piece of paper' comes in several lever arch binders and they have lost the will to live when the looked at all of the work they were going to need to do to get these approaches live.

[A and C]

And in the meantime people are flying approaches using a system that has no fail flag is subject to a number of subtle errors.

I keep hearing about safety assesments and the rest of the H & S bull when it comes to GPS approaches and yet we continue to use the NDB approaches that would no doubt not meet the same safety "standards".

The good and great who are delaying the GPS approaches might like to consider the safety issue of NOT getting on with the job of approving the GPS approaches.

I am sick of people using "safety" as an excuse for doing nothing, but in this case not getting on with the job is making things LESS safe.

[matspart3]

The Safety Case process isn't actually that onerous and the key people involved at the CAA have been very helpful in providing the relevant data.

Gloucester's should be up an running early in 2008 and would have been done much sooner if my personal circumstances had been different in the last few months.

[giloc]

The good and great who are delaying the GPS approaches...
Nobody is deliberately delaying the GPS approaches at Shoreham. As a result of feedback from the trial, the Shoreham approaches need to be redesigned. I understand that is happening now, and should be completed early 2008.

[A and C]

I am pleased to hear this however the report in Flyer reported that this was likely to take much longer.

I have had the kit to fly GPS approaches in my aircraft for eleven years now and am getting rather irritated with the lack of progress.

The inital problem was the head in the sand attitude of the flight opps side of the CAA, all the techincal approvals for the aircraft equipment have been in place for years.