'Why not go to Lydd?'

[tmmorris]

Recently someone based at Lydd was telling me what a great place it is and how he couldn’t understand why more people didn’t go there.

Today I was planning a trip for tomorrow and the idea was RNAV approach to Shoreham for coffee, then VFR to Redhill for lunch. Shoreham's a bit expensive but I could do with the approach for currency. I rang Shoreham to check but unfortunately they don’t have an approach controller for tomorrow.

No problem, I thought, Lydd is only 20 minutes or so further away and I’ve never been. I checked the website and they wanted £19 for a 'Training approach' and £30 landing fee. Now, everywhere else I go for this sort of thing (Shoreham, Gloucester e.g.) doesn’t charge an approach fee if you go on to land - after all, you’ll probably buy food, fuel etc. Not so at Lydd: because the approach is for currency and not because it’s IMC, it counts as Training so I have to pay both fees. And that’s on top of the extra money to fly further from home. I did point out I was fully qualified (P1 with 'lookout' passenger, not an instructor) and could just have said the flight was IFR but no joy.

So, I decided to do the approach to go around and go straight to Redhill instead. If they had applied the same policy as Shoreham, Lydd would be getting £11 extra in fees and the profit on two sets of coffee and cake. Instead, they are going to make less money. I refuse to believe a PA28 would cause £11 worth of runway damage, still less £30.

Barmy. Still, it answers my question - because it’s in the middle of nowhere and hasn’t thought through its charging policy properly...

[cessnapete]

Why do you need a ‘controller’. to do a practice RNAV approach in good weather? There is no ground equipment to switch on or monitor, and Shoreham is in uncontrolled airspace. Just fly the approach track and altitudes as a visual approach.
Shows what’s wrong with Luddite restrictions in the UK. In the USA and Australia for example, RNAV approaches are routinely carried out IFR/IMC with Unicom only.

[piperboy84]

Why do you need a ‘controller’. to do a practice RNAV approach in good weather? There is no ground equipment to switch on or monitor, and Shoreham is in uncontrolled airspace. Just fly the approach track and altitudes as a visual approach.
Shows what’s wrong with Luddite restrictions in the UK. In the USA and Australia for example, RNAV approaches are routinely carried out IFR/IMC with Unicom only.

I was wondering that myself, why not go bang out some approaches down to either minimums or MATZ boundaries, at either untowered or unmanned or even out of hours civilian or military fields with published instrument approaches. It’s free so you can’t beat that.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I was wondering that myself, why not go bang out some approaches down to either minimums or MATZ boundaries, at either untowered or unmanned or even out of hours civilian or military fields with published instrument approaches. It’s free so you can’t beat that.
You can do that, but you don't get a complete practice approach that way because you don't get to practice the RT.

[piperboy84]

You can do that, but you don't get a complete practice approach that way because you don't get to practice the RT.

It surely would be nice to have the RT, but Im not sure you need that for the approaches flown counting towards maintaining IR currency?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It surely would be nice to have the RT, but Im not sure you need that for the approaches flown counting towards maintaining IR currency?
Ah, but you miss all the banter:

"Going around"

"What are your intentions?"

"Another go at the ILS"

"You only booked one approach"

"Look mate, I didn't keep the needle within half deflection so I had no alternative but to go around. And this is a test, and I'll have to repeat the whole flight if I don't get this ILS done, so can I have another approach please."

(all whilst climbing, reconfiguring, keeping the aircraft the right way up, navigating, and trying to work out whether that's suppressed giggles you're hearing from the examiner)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Did you see the sound mirrors under the downwind leg, erected during WW1 for tracking Zeppelins and Botha bombers across the Channel?

G

[fujii]

£30 landing fee, strewth that’s $52 Australian. Landing fees for a PA28 here are around $12.

[chevvron]

Why do you need a ‘controller’. to do a practice RNAV approach in good weather? There is no ground equipment to switch on or monitor, and Shoreham is in uncontrolled airspace. Just fly the approach track and altitudes as a visual approach.
Shows what’s wrong with Luddite restrictions in the UK. In the USA and Australia for example, RNAV approaches are routinely carried out IFR/IMC with Unicom only.

Simple.
Suppose you're not the only pilot wishing to do this and one or two more aircraft arrive at the same time; somebody needs to be there to decide the 'batting order' and also to integrate any IFR departures which might occur at the same time.
From what I've been told, I understand (may be wrong) that with non towered airfields in the USA, the TRACON controller does all the above whilst you are in Class D/E airspace; don't know how they play it in Oz though.

[Katamarino]

Simple.
Suppose you're not the only pilot wishing to do this and one or two more aircraft arrive at the same time; somebody needs to be there to decide the 'batting order' and also to integrate any IFR departures which might occur at the same time.
From what I've been told, I understand (may be wrong) that with non towered airfields in the USA, the TRACON controller does all the above whilst you are in Class D/E airspace; don't know how they play it in Oz though.

This is correct in the USA for real approaches in IMC. A practice approach in VMC, though, doesn't need anything other than a safety pilot to perform see-and-avoid while the PIC is under the hood. No need to talk to anybody, although best practice would be to self-announce on CTAF.

My airfield has 2 RNAV approaches that anyone can practice whenever they like, and the uncontrolled field 10nm away has an ILS that is free for anyone to use in VMC, no need to talk to any controller.

[piperboy84]

Perhaps not having ATC its even better training, you can have your safety pilot play approach & tower and put you thru living hell. Cancel approach intercept and fly thru final and pick up new approach clearance due to GS failure and set up for localizer minimums etc. Really make you earn that currency.

[rudestuff]

I can (kind of) understand a landing fee, but an approach fee? In uncontrolled airspace? How would that even work? Charge you for talking on the radio? Turn off the ILS? Charging to use RNAV would be blatant fraud..

[chevvron]

Did you see the sound mirrors under the downwind leg, erected during WW1 for tracking Zeppelins and Botha bombers across the Channel?

G
Hate to contradict you Genghis but stories I've read indicate they weren't built until the '30s and were a spectacular failure because they were too sensitive! The slightest sound was concentrated on the microphones, echoed out, then repeated until they had to turn the microphone off.
Then of course radar came on the scene so the project was abandoned.
Bet the RH & DR interfered with it too.

[Simtech]

Think you meant Gotha, not Botha!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I stand corrected, Gotha, and 1920s. Still bloody fascinating things however...

Denge sound mirrors | Sound Mirrors (http://www.andrewgrantham.co.uk/soundmirrors/locations/denge/)

The technology is WW1 so far as I understand it, and I think that a lot of the infrastructure and lessons in its use were passed over to the early radar systems.

G

[tmmorris]

I can (kind of) understand a landing fee, but an approach fee? In uncontrolled airspace? How would that even work? Charge you for talking on the radio? Turn off the ILS? Charging to use RNAV would be blatant fraud..

Interesting thought.

Anyway, they were very nice on the radio and lunch at Redhill was excellent...

[JW411]

rudestuff:

"Charging for RNAV would be blatant fraud".

I tend to agree with you.

Seven years ago Shoreham was selected as one of the trial airfields for making GPS approaches by the CAA and they advertised for suitably-equipped aircraft owners to engage in a trial (which was run, if I remember correctly, by Leeds University).

I volunteered.

Having been a professional pilot for some 50 years, I saw this as a way for the CAA to drag itself into the 21st century and perhaps join the FAA who have had RNAV approaches for years.

At one point in the trials, I had cause to call the chap who was co-ordinating all the paperwork at the CAA and ask him just how many GPS approaches he had actually done?

"None" came the response.

"Right then" said I "get your arse down to Shoreham and we shall do some".

So, we tried to set up a time and a date and then came the next problem.

He couldn't fly before 1700 for the CAA had forbidden him to fly during his working day with me because I didn't have an AOC so therefore he would not be covered by CAA insurance.

So it was that the young man and I went flying and we flew several GPS approaches. He was a very nice young man (who had a PPL) and he spent a lot of time taking photographs of my Garmin 430.

Imagine my astonishment when the RNAV approach for Shoreham was finally approved that it was contingent upon the Shoreham NDB being serviceable for that is what the dinosaurs had decided was to be the MAP!

So what is the bloody point in having an RNAV approach if it depends upon an NDB (or ATC for that matter).

[tmmorris]

That’s one of the things that struck me about the Lydd approach, actually - the Missed Approach is pure RNAV (including an RNAV hold)

[ChickenHouse]

RNAV approach with NDB MAP is a joke, or?

[tmmorris]

Try this, and read note 2 at the bottom:

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-6B17521F6C5260EFC59467326D03888D/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGKA_8-4_en_2016-09-15.pdf

[chevvron]

I stand corrected, Gotha, and 1920s. Still bloody fascinating things however...

Denge sound mirrors | Sound Mirrors (http://www.andrewgrantham.co.uk/soundmirrors/locations/denge/)

The technology is WW1 so far as I understand it, and I think that a lot of the infrastructure and lessons in its use were passed over to the early radar systems.

G

My excuse is the article I read was about 30 years ago (Aeroplane Monthly?) and didn't mention anything about research starting so early, let alone the other sites in the UK where it was tried!
(Could have been tried on the Blackburn Botha though; nobody seemed to have much use for it otherwise.)
I've driven past the one on Malta back in 1991 and never knew it was there!

[memories of px]

Try this, and read note 2 at the bottom:

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-6B17521F6C5260EFC59467326D03888D/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGKA_8-4_en_2016-09-15.pdf
got a 404 not found message for that link.

[Sam Rutherford]

Not entirely on thread, but the Full English at Lydd is spectacular!

[cessnapete]

RNAV approach with NDB MAP is a joke, or?

No joke. Some initial RNAV approaches in UK have NDB as MAP!
CAA must be run by retired navigators who have o comprehension of RNAV.!! My American friend staying with me can't believe it!!
2000+ RNAV/LPV in USA now, many at uncontrolled airfields.

[cessnapete]

For a practice RNAV approach in VMC, you surely do not need an approach controller!
For example if I am landing at Shoreham on a visual approach I can just follow the RNAV profile, coordinating with normal circuit traffic of course.
I don't think a FISO can ban that.

[chevvron]

For a practice RNAV approach in VMC, you surely do not need an approach controller!
For example if I am landing at Shoreham on a visual approach I can just follow the RNAV profile, coordinating with normal circuit traffic of course.
I don't think a FISO can ban that.
Shoreham don't do FISOing, it's either ATC or A/G.
ATC at Shoreham consists of controllers with ADV/ADI ratings (aerodrome control visual or instrument) and APP ratings (approach control procedural); some Shoreham controllers may have both these ratings but some may only have ADV/ADI.
For an aircraft to carry out an iap you need a person overseeing it with an APP rating (yes I am aware there is a proposal to relax this) irrespective of whether it's VMC or IMC.
If it's VMC, it's up to the captain of the aircraft to ensure there is a safety pilot present, but that is of no concern to ATC and has no effect on whether you can do an iap without an APP rated controller.
If Shoreham wish to 'bend' the rules, that is up to them, but in the case mentioned by TMMORRISS, they are obviously playing it by the book, after all if they don't know you, how do they know you're not an inspector from GA Dept at Gatwick trying to catch them out?

[cessnapete]

My usual answer to this problem.
Fly a bit further to Le Touquet. Claim back 88usg of Duty Free fuel. Have a great night and food in town, beats any UK airport cafe. Oh, and do as many RNAV approaches as required -free.

[Steve6443]

My usual answer to this problem.
Fly a bit further to Le Touquet. Claim back 88usg of Duty Free fuel. Have a great night and food in town, beats any UK airport cafe. Oh, and do as many RNAV approaches as required -free.

88 USG??? I'll need a ferry tank fitted to be able to claim that much back :}

[cessnapete]

Cessna 182Q!!

[chemical engineer]

went there thrice. Love it. Overshot the base leg couple of times though. Visited the beach, lighthouse and power station (well from outside). Free landing for me. A friend is subscribed to magazine and gets free landing vouchers once in a while.

[GBEBZ]

Ive only ever been to lydd once... seemed to be a bit out in the middle of no where ... just before a quick 15 min trip to L2K..

But on my return home, at almost 5pm on a friday night, I had a fouled spark plug/mag drop on power checks - and the resident engineer took time out of his locking up, to not only diagnose the problem, clean all my plugs, but to natter and chat for ages. I was very pleased that even so late on a friday afternoon that he was willing to help a non-resident visitor out, and even refused some cash in hand beer money for his trouble!

Ever grateful for that guy.

[A Leron]

I won't be going to Lydd again in a hurry. On the way to Spain VFR last September, we hit unforecast bad weather, such that we needed to divert. Our ETA Lydd was 10 mins before their published opening time. Radio calls to Lydd were fruitless, apart from an assistant who answered but was unable to clear us to do anything. When the controller finally came on the radio about 2 mins before we were due to touch down, he refused a clearance until precisely opening time. In the 10 to 15 mins before our arrival, we'd been scratching around in foul weather with nowhere else to go and subsequently had to stay there waiting for a weather clearance for 3 hours.

We were extremely pleased to be on the ground. But to cap it all, Lydd aren't members of the Strasser scheme so they charged us a (we thought v hefty) landing fee. That's a real disincentive to go there in emergency. If I'd known, we'd have squeezed into Headcorn instead. The controller on duty that day deserved a kick up the *rse for refusing clearance until precisely opening time. We thought a Pan call was not necessary to force the issue and hey - opening a few minutes early if you're there surely isn't a big deal when you know that the inbound is on a weather diversion and is not good looking out of the window. Don't give me 'insurance' as a reason.

How refreshingly nice the refuelling staff were. Shame on that ATC bloke.

Rant over. This is Pprune, so I'm expecting lots of flak, but I tell it how we both felt in the cockpit (and we are both calm and unflappable blokes with plenty of experience).

[CloudHound]

The reason for using an NDB as part of an RNAV IAP in the case of Shoreham is historic. When the CAA trialled RNAV(GNSS) non-precision approaches those aerodromes that took up the offer had their approach designed by the CAA for free.

As a cost cutting exercise the beacon was used instead of a new RNAV waypoint.

There are a number of older LNAV only approaches which are being upgraded to LPV and the opportunity to dispense with ground-based Navaids is part of that work. (But not funded by CAA)

BTW there are plenty of people at CAA who understand RNAV including me when I worked there. Yes there was a preponderance Vulcan and Tornado Navs but they have all retired now.

[cessnapete]

As I don't have an ADF fitted , not now a requirement for IFR. I just use the NDB Waypoint in my certified Jepp GPS RNAV Database. Is that not allowed?

[chevvron]

As I don't have an ADF fitted , not now a requirement for IFR. I just use the NDB Waypoint in my certified Jepp GPS RNAV Database. Is that not allowed?

Whatever happened to 'Course Line Computers'?

[tmmorris]

According to the published AIP chart, no. I’d avoid mentioning it in public if I were you :-)

[India Four Two]

As a cost cutting exercise the beacon was used instead of a new RNAV waypoint.

CloudHound, that's amazing. How much did they save?

Fred, I need an RNAV FAF for Shoreham. What's the lat/long of the NDB and what's the NDB Approach crossing-altitude?

Is there some reason why it would be more complicated than that?

[n5296s]

As a cost cutting exercise the beacon was used instead of a new RNAV waypoint.

Makes perfect sense. The installation costs for those RNAV waypoints are horrific. Just the site survey is a huge undertaking. Then you have to arrange power, access, security... I can see why they'd want to reuse some 1940s technology instead.

[cessnapete]

Surely the Shoreham NDB Lat/Long Waypoint data is already known in the Jepp RNAV database? Didn't Know Jeppeson send out ground surveyors to check all their waypoint data is correct.

For instance if I use the Shoreham NDB as a Waypoint in an IFR flight plan the Lat/Long may be incorrect? Hopefully the CAA will tell Jeppeson!!

[cessnapete]

tmmorris
Too late! For me, and many others I bet!!

PS All OK, colleague at Shoreham just confirmed that the NDB is at the same position as his RNAV database waypoint.