Environmental Law: No Visual Approach at GOT

[AAA737300BF]

ESGG
VISUAL APCH PROCEDURE LIMITED DUE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DECISION. ONLY PROPELLER DRIVEN ACFT WITH MTOW 7000 KG OR BELOW IS PERMITTED TO CARRY OUT VISUAL APCH H24. 20DEC07 2300 - PERM (ES/1/A0384/07)

A visual approach often shortens flight time by a few minutes, typical 3-5 minutes.
IMHO a visual approach is one of the best "environmental protection" that exists, as it means the aircraft flies a few minutes less and does not produce noise, co2 emissions etc at all in this time it does not fly.

What do you think?

[fireflybob]

Yes agree 100% - another example of bureacratic nonsense no doubt imposed by those who know nothing about aviation and piloting!

[rubik101]

Except that there will always be some plonkers who arrive at 90 degrees to the centre line at 500' having flown over the local town centre fully configured and terrifying the locals. Hence, no visuals.
GOT is not the only place btw.

[Caudillo]

Environmental here may well refer not to emissions but rather noise pollution. I suspect some inconsiderate bunch who know nothing about aviation and piloting might not want green-minded jet pilots constantly doing approaches over their homes. They'll be first against the wall when the ice caps melt, our consciences are clear.

[fireflybob]

No doubt the airport publishes the usual caveats about a/c flying a visual not descending below the usual glidepath etc so why not just stick to that and take any offenders to task. A blanket no go on visuals seems a bit stupid to me.

[Yeager]

To bad with Scandinavia's worst ATC situated in GOT - we were in general a lot better of doing visuals rather that "serviced". Long live the enviroment.

[BOAC]

I believe it started with "'not below 3000'/less than 10 mile final" which made any advantage marginal most of the time. Many places (EG OSL/LGW have range/alt restrictions which are still advantageous (for as long as they last!). MMX is still an 'OK' place.

Of course, finding a pilot who is prepared to do one these days..........................

[kristofera]

Noise pollution? GOT is situated in the middle of the forest so unless the mooses, deer and hares have complained over the noise I doubt that noise pollution is the cause...

...my guess would instead be weather related; GOT is frequently hidden under a blanket of fog.

So "environment" in this case probably refers to the surrounding environment rather than protecting the environment. Just a guess.

[olepilot]

No surprise! GOT has always been stupid! Hybris!

[bjornhall]

It is indeed to reduce noise, at an airport that does indeed have people living under its approach paths. Even more people living under those areas you would have to fly low over in order to gain anything from making a visual. So no mystery there.

[KrazyKangaroo]

I work the sectors over GOT (124.405, 128.625). We used to give direct 10 mil final but now due to noise have to give 16 mi fi. It comes down to the squeeky wheel getting the oil. From what I understand there is a small town that has complained loudly about the noise and therefore, no visuals and no 10 mi fi. Bad news to follow, expect longer SIDs and changes to arrival routes with the new year.

The environmental issues are an issue that affect us all. It is good to see it being dicussed here as I feel that many pilots blame us (ATC) for inefficient tracking. We don't do it for fun, the sooner you are out of my sector, the better it is for everyone playing the game (fuel, time, congestion).

We have to work under many different environmental (eg ESOS SIDs) and safety constraints (eg FL150 by TRS) but at the end of the day our job and attitude is to help you guys get to where you want to go as quickly and safely as possible.

If it is any consolation we are working on developing a more flexible airspace structure over Sweden.