Problems at Shoreham EGKA?

[southdownsflyer]

I hear that Shoreham is having to close for 3 days this month due to ATC staff shortages and will also be going to an 'air/ground' service only? With the amount of instrument traffic this surprises me.

Coupled with the fact that planning is being sought to build commercial properties on the NE corner of the airport as well as a large building project both residential and commercial (Ikea) being built between the airport and Lancing it makes one wonder where this is all going to end.

Those running the operational side of things at Shoreham are being as cagey as hell!

Anyone know more?

Derek

[horatio_b]

Quite an extensive NOTAM detailing the changes applicable until 20th June at the earliest:

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/notamRetrievalByICAOAction.do?method=displayByICAOs&reportType=REPORT&formatType=ICAO&retrieveLocId=EGKA&actionType=notamRetrievalByICAOs

[cessnapete]

What a dogs breakfast UK GA has to endure!
I was refused using the GPS approach track at Shoreham recently in VMC, because no ATC controller available!!!
Then a GPS approach requiring an NDB to legally complete.
In other countries USA, Australia for example a GPS approach can be completed with their version of “Safetycom”
In IMC/IFR nearest ATC eg London, controls to radar MSA or IAP. Then transferred to A/G. Next approach not released by ATC until previous has landed.
Why do we have to reinvent the wheel?

[alex90]

What a dogs breakfast UK GA has to endure!
I was refused using the GPS approach track at Shoreham recently in VMC, because no ATC controller available!!!
Then a GPS approach requiring an NDB to legally complete.
In other countries USA, Australia for example a GPS approach can be completed with their version of “Safetycom”
In IMC/IFR nearest ATC eg London, controls to radar MSA or IAP. Then transferred to A/G. Next approach not released by ATC until previous has landed.
Why do we have to reinvent the wheel?

Its all because the big bosses at the UK CAA like to line their pockets with £50 notes... Making silly choices because they know that in some way or other it'll make them some money.

There is no reason why you need the tower controller to "clear" you for any approach or even landing at GA airports. You just need to make your intentions clear on whatever frequency is in use, and make sure everyone knows what is going on. And similarly to the USA, only 1 plane can be cleared for an approach by ATC (this doesn't have to be LTMA could be Farnborough Radar or any other LARS service) at any one time, thereby ensuring separation. If its VMC, then you can see the silly VFR pilot cutting in front of you, and if its IMC the silly VFR pilot won't be flying, and the approach is all yours! I really don't see what the fuss is about....

I am all for safety, but I disagree with some choices that were made by people who don't appear to have either common sense or the general aviation experience necessary to appropriately deal with its legislation.

(It reminds me a little of a conversation I overheard in a hospital recently, where Foundation Doctors are required to attend 70% teaching sessions to pass the year, but are only rostered to work 40-45% of the teaching days, of which 25% of the time is when they work nights and therefore cannot attend and 20% are their 1 day off per week / annual leave and 10% is their 0 hour days to recover from nights or prepare for nights - the response by the manager was "on teaching days you can sleep in the library, wake up to attend your teaching session and then go back to sleep in the library until your next shift" - because that's what a non-medic 9-5 monday to friday manager thinks is acceptable for their staff, and what they think is really is good for patients - exhausted doctors who were forced to sleep in a library...)

In Christchurch NZ, there had been a massive earthquake, the tower was evacuated, as were other ATC buildings in the country. What happened? All commercial planes, followed the standard procedures, chatted to each other to figure out landing order, and landed safely. Not a single incident... (except a lot of banter on the radio....)

I am still confused why people who don't understand, or don't want to understand GA problems, seem to be in charge of it.

[Planemike]

I am still confused why people who don't understand, or don't want to understand GA problems, seem to be in charge of it.


Yep, bring on the lawyers and bean counters......!! Should sort things out...NOT!!

[maxred]

Its all because the big bosses at the UK CAA like to line their pockets with £50 notes... Making silly choices because they know that in some way or other it'll make them some money.

Yes and welcome to UK Plc, where 99% are stuffed for the precious 1%. Nothing makes any sense. Corporates, PC correctness, Brexit, trial by social media, corrupt banks, lawyers, Chief Execs, Judiciary, why should the CAA be any different? And when you have a nation of sheeple, makes it so easy for the 1%. Stay out the system. Life is much easier....in fact, go non radio, non transponder, non everything....

[alex90]

in fact, go non radio, non transponder, non everything....

I do! I fly some vintage planes that have none of these (or some that have radios, but the battery died on route and the spare can't be reached during flight / the battery lives in the other cockpit) - but it does make life quite difficult. We now live in a modern era of Transponder Mandatory Zones, Terminal Manoeuvring Areas, Control Terminal Areas, Aerodrome Terminal Zones... Where busting airspace is a real possibility if you navigate by sight and suddenly become unsure of your position on an unfamiliar route, (or have strayed a few miles from your anticipated route)...

But even then, I still have to adhere to so much of the UK CAA's nonsense... I still need to pay £121 (+£6 shipping) to add a single line of ink on my licence, leaving me unable to fly for several weeks, and consider myself lucky if they haven't lost or damaged my logbook in the process!

Yep, bring on the lawyers and bean counters......!! Should sort things out...NOT!!
That is why we find it so difficult to interpret the regulations, due to their long-winded never-ending sentences that don't actually say what they mean, spread over a dozen or more clauses, but might cover their arses in the event of legal action...

I am still trying to figure out what this "GA unit" that they put in place back in 2014 is actually doing for us...

[chevvron]

What a dogs breakfast UK GA has to endure!
I was refused using the GPS approach track at Shoreham recently in VMC, because no ATC controller available!!!
Then a GPS approach requiring an NDB to legally complete.
In other countries USA, Australia for example a GPS approach can be completed with their version of “Safetycom”
In IMC/IFR nearest ATC eg London, controls to radar MSA or IAP. Then transferred to A/G. Next approach not released by ATC until previous has landed.
Why do we have to reinvent the wheel?

The Pease Pottage radar, which is fed to Farnborough for LARS East sector, can 'see' Shoreham traffic in the circuit and almost down to ground level as it happens to be positioned where it looks straight through the gap in the South Downs through which the River Adur runs, in fact coverage is so good you could do a 2nm SRA into Shoreham from Farnborough. (Well that's my personal opinion but then I was only a Farnborough controller so who am I to say.)
As for carrying out any type of iap at Shoreham; this needs to be done with a controller who has an approach procedural rating which is valid for Shoreham and not all Shoreham aerodrome controllers have this rating.

[Dan Dare]

You can be sure Shoreham Airport don’t want expensive ATCOs ruining all the pilots' fun, it will have been mandated by the Authority due to complexity or volume of traffic. Unfortunately, like almost everywhere, they are not willing to pay so remain permanently short-staffed - something the Authority aught to remedy if they had any clout about them.

[alex90]

As for carrying out any type of iap at Shoreham; this needs to be done with a controller who has an approach procedural rating which is valid for Shoreham and not all Shoreham aerodrome controllers have this rating.

Exactly my point - I am sure Farnborough LARS (east) could clear planes one at a time to do the published approach, in a similar way to the USA, Farnborough LARS could even charge Shoreham a small "clearance given" fee to Shoreham for having to handle the flight if they felt it was appropriate. I know Shoreham charges £25 (inc vat) per "training" instrument approach (not sure about actual IMC), so couldn't that money go to the controller who offers the service, making it much easier for everyone, and giving a bonus to the controller working the shift handling flights? (even if Farnborough LARS took a commission, it'd still be welcomed I am sure!).

Biggin Hill for instance has a radar screen in the tower, but apparently no controllers with the correct rating to actually use it. All clearances for the IAPs come from (generally) Thames Radar on 132.7 - I am sure there is a financial agreement between Biggin and Thames...

It does work very well! So I don't see why all other airports couldn't join in on similar schemes, Farnborough Radar who already offer so much for free for general aviation could be the prime provider!!

Just a thought....

[Cazalet33]

Yes and welcome to UK Plc, where 99% are stuffed for the precious 1%. Nothing makes any sense. Corporates, PC correctness, Brexit, trial by social media, corrupt banks, lawyers, Chief Execs, Judiciary, why should the CAA be any different?

Speaking as a fully qualified one percenter, I'd like to contradict what MaxRed said.

But I can't.

What he said is true, dammit.

I very sincerely hope that Shoreham doesn't go under. It's a national asset. A treasure.

[Prop swinger]

There will be a lot of confused pilots if Farnborough start guiding people down the River Arun . . .

[Above The Clouds]

Cazalet33;10077191]Speaking as a fully qualified one percenter, I'd like to contradict what MaxRed said.

But I can't.

What he said is true, dammit.

Fully agree with MaxRed


I very sincerely hope that Shoreham doesn't go under. It's a national asset. A treasure.

Sorry but no it isn’t, they jumped on the band wagon years ago screwing every penny from its customers, e.g. how on earth can you justify a £25 charge for a GPS approach that’s outside controlled airspace and costs virtually nothing to run :ugh:

Airports like these deserve what’s coming but it’s a great shame for all their customers to loose such a facility, Blackpool is another example.

The UK general aviation system needs a huge wake up call.

[mikehallam]

Yes, I get them mixed up too even though being resident near the head waters of both the Arun & Adur I ought to know better !

mikehallam.

[chevvron]

There will be a lot of confused pilots if Farnborough start guiding people down the River Arun . . .
Ok I've corrected it now; bear in mind I haven't done LARS East for over 9 years!
Just after I left, I heard the General Manager of Farnborough ATC agreed that Farnborough ATC could do SRAs into Blackbushe but I heard nothing further; obviously it didn't happen but I don't know why(but we did do them on request back in the mid '70s when I first arrived at Farnborough).
If Shoreham requested a service from Farnborough, I'm sure the present GM might consider it, same goes for any other airfield in the LARS areas.
I understand the Walney Island ILS can only be used if the aircraft initially works Warton Radar (Walney being AFIS), so there is a precedent.

[India Four Two]

On this side of the pond, approaches are free and landing fees are rare, so I’m confused by this situation.

Out of interest, I looked up the Shoreham GPS approach plates. If it’s a VMC day, what is to stop someone starting the procedure and then when established on the inbound track, calling up the Tower and requesting a straight-in approach?

[chevvron]

On this side of the pond, approaches are free and landing fees are rare, so I’m confused by this situation.

Out of interest, I looked up the Shoreham GPS approach plates. If it’s a VMC day, what is to stop someone starting the procedure and then when established on the inbound track, calling up the Tower and requesting a straight-in approach?
Provided the pilot does not enter the ATZ until cleared by the tower..who's to know?

[LysanderV8]

Provided the pilot does not enter the ATZ until cleared by the tower..who's to know?


But if there is only an A/G service, which the NOTAMs state, they cannot be stopped from entering the ATZ

[TelsBoy]

If you want to blame anyone, blame EASA that set the increasingly stringent ATC standards and have made the UK CAA little more than a regional branch.


This is becoming a common problem across all airports in the UK, even the largest airports. ATCOs are expensive to train and employ and it takes time. Meanwhile like all skilled industries there is a retirement cliff, where experienced ATCOs are leaving in their droves having done their time and are collecting their pensions. It's not easy to become an ATCO either. Smaller/more remote airfields often have problems recruiting due to lower wages than the bigger units, less promotion prospects, the lure of working at a "prestigious" unit and perhaps most of all, many simply don't want to live in remote areas and want to stick to the big cities (bonkers IMO, so many places can offer such a better quality of live rather than living in over-polluted over-crowded holes full of overpriced houses and pants restaurant chains...)


It's becoming one of the major drivers of Remote Towers (aside from the bigger and real/more obvious reasons).

[ATCO Fred]

If you want to blame anyone, blame EASA that set the increasingly stringent ATC standards and have made the UK CAA little more than a regional branch.


This is becoming a common problem across all airports in the UK, even the largest airports. ATCOs are expensive to train and employ and it takes time. Meanwhile like all skilled industries there is a retirement cliff, where experienced ATCOs are leaving in their droves having done their time and are collecting their pensions. It's not easy to become an ATCO either. Smaller/more remote airfields often have problems recruiting due to lower wages than the bigger units, less promotion prospects, the lure of working at a "prestigious" unit and perhaps most of all, many simply don't want to live in remote areas and want to stick to the big cities (bonkers IMO, so many places can offer such a better quality of live rather than living in over-polluted over-crowded holes full of overpriced houses and pants restaurant chains...)


It's becoming one of the major drivers of Remote Towers (aside from the bigger and real/more obvious reasons).


Telsboy is spot on. NATS changed its training methodologies so there is no longer a pool of ADI rated "resting" NATS trainees for the regionals to recruit from. Couple that with NATS recruiting from the regionals for the first time in many years which has created a conduit for regional airport ATCOs to move into NATS (perceived best employer better T&Cs) and you have a perfect storm for recruitment and retention for the lower end regionals and the GA centric aerodromes. To replace a fully rated ATCO (normally on a 3 month notice period) will take 6-9 months with a rated ATCO (few available) or 18 to 24 months with an ATCA that you sponsor through college and training.

This results in either a capability gap due to the lack of staff or having to stomach paying 10-15% more to replace each ATCO that leaves.

This is market forces . . . . some of the figures I've heard of rumoured % pay-awards that Airports are considering, just to ensure they RETAIN staff, are quite eye watering.

Interesting times ahead . . . . .

Fred

[ShyTorque]

The problem I forsee with a remote radar unit guiding aircraft in to Shoreham is that other aircraft around the airfield might not be using that same radar service. Shoreham has an ATZ; there is no controlled airspace around it. A remote radar unit would have no idea if potentially conflicting traffic was on frequency and would have no way (practical or legal) of ensuring they were. The aircraft being vectored would still have to be given standard separation; the only way to ensure this would be a "deconfliction service" resulting in a lot of "break-offs" from the letdown being attempted.

[alex90]

The problem I forsee with a remote radar unit guiding aircraft in to Shoreham is that other aircraft around the airfield might not be using that same radar service. Shoreham has an ATZ; there is no controlled airspace around it. A remote radar unit would have no idea if potentially conflicting traffic was on frequency and would have no way (practical or legal) of ensuring they were. The aircraft being vectored would still have to be given standard separation; the only way to ensure this would be a "deconfliction service" resulting in a lot of "break-offs" from the letdown being attempted.

It works in many places around the world, including the UK with the likes of Biggin Hill which as you state, the approach goes into "uncontrolled airspace". Thames will generally vector planes for the ILS for runway 21 at Biggin via London City's zone, before returning them to uncontrolled airspace (for around 4nm) until you reach the ATZ. Planes could well fly between the two zones, completely legally without talking to anyone. But with both primary and secondary radar being available to the controller, they can have a "high degree of certainty" that there is no other conflicting traffic.

I don't see how the clearance being given by the controller in the tower is any safer than by the area controller? In some conditions the controller in the tower may not even be able to see the runway in front of him/her, let alone a plane several miles away, and even so, if it isn't being displayed on their radar screen (as would the area controller) how would they know how high the plane is, or even if it is a definite conflict?

[Dan Dare]

You could find that the Area [sic] controller is rather more expensive than the local controller in the tower. Who's going to pay their cut for approach provided by Farnborough when you’re already complaining about the cost of Shoreham ATC approaches?

[alex90]

You could find that the Area [sic] controller is rather more expensive than the local controller in the tower. Who's going to pay their cut for approach provided by Farnborough when you’re already complaining about the cost of Shoreham ATC approaches?

Really!? A Farnborough East (or west?) controller will be more expensive to handle a dozen IFR flights than having the tower manned by at least two equally licensed controllers and their helpers?

As I said in an earlier post - whatever fee is levied (however outrageous), should go to the people offering the service, in this case Farnborough LARS east (or west?).

[ShyTorque]

It works in many places around the world, including the UK with the likes of Biggin Hill which as you state, the approach goes into "uncontrolled airspace". Thames will generally vector planes for the ILS for runway 21 at Biggin via London City's zone, before returning them to uncontrolled airspace (for around 4nm) until you reach the ATZ. Planes could well fly between the two zones, completely legally without talking to anyone. But with both primary and secondary radar being available to the controller, they can have a "high degree of certainty" that there is no other conflicting traffic.

I don't see how the clearance being given by the controller in the tower is any safer than by the area controller? In some conditions the controller in the tower may not even be able to see the runway in front of him/her, let alone a plane several miles away, and even so, if it isn't being displayed on their radar screen (as would the area controller) how would they know how high the plane is, or even if it is a definite conflict?

Alex, I know EGKB really quite well and carry out ILS approaches there on a regular basis; in the distant past I've been required to self position onto the ILS because there was no radar vectoring available. I've also had to carry out self positioned NDB approaches into Shoreham when there was no ATC cover. There are no great problems doing that on an infrequent basis. But this thread is about the situation where there is no local ATC operator and presumably making a let down commonly available. My point was that there would be no way of the remote radar unit coordinating with local traffic if there was no-one in the tower to phone.

[chevvron]

You could find that the Area [sic] controller is rather more expensive than the local controller in the tower. Who's going to pay their cut for approach provided by Farnborough when you’re already complaining about the cost of Shoreham ATC approaches?

I can assure you that Farnborough controllers cost considerably less than controllers at Swanwick whether they are Area or Terminal controllers.
NATS salary banding puts Farnborough on Band 1 (lowest paid) whilst Swanwick controllers are Band 5 (highest paid).

[chevvron]

Really!? A Farnborough East (or west?) controller will be more expensive to handle a dozen IFR flights than having the tower manned by at least two equally licensed controllers and their helpers?

As I said in an earlier post - whatever fee is levied (however outrageous), should go to the people offering the service, in this case Farnborough LARS east (or west?).
I don't know how Shoreham normally operate but they have two control functions, one which requires an ADI/ADV rating (aerodrome control) and the other which requires an APP rating (approach control). If the controller on duty has both ratings and they are both valid, there is nothing apart from traffic loading to stop him/her carrying out both functions at the same time.
I get the impression that the problem at Shoreham is a lack of controllers with an APP rating, however from another forum, I understand 5 controllers have recently left.

[alex90]

But this thread is about the situation where there is no local ATC operator and presumably making a let down commonly available. My point was that there would be no way of the remote radar unit coordinating with local traffic if there was no-one in the tower to phone.

An IAP is always commonly available, (unless they switch off the aids of course! which actually happened to me...) it is the clearance to actually do the IAP which seems to be the main reason why we haven't followed America / NZ / Oz / France and their GNSS / LPV approach at a large number of unmanned GA airfields.

Once established on any procedure, you change to the airfield frequency (be it A/G or A/A or ATS or whatever it may be) and you announce yourself, "G-ABCD established GNSS approach runway 03, 5 miles to run". Thereby informing "local traffic" of where you are, your intentions, and where you are going.

ATC generally only allows 1 clearance per airport at any one time, so you need to close the flightplan / call area ATC to tell them you're on the ground, and not coming back into the system so that the next plane can get a clearance to do the approach.

It works very well elsewhere - why can't it work here?

[chevvron]

The problem I forsee with a remote radar unit guiding aircraft in to Shoreham is that other aircraft around the airfield might not be using that same radar service. Shoreham has an ATZ; there is no controlled airspace around it. A remote radar unit would have no idea if potentially conflicting traffic was on frequency and would have no way (practical or legal) of ensuring they were. The aircraft being vectored would still have to be given standard separation; the only way to ensure this would be a "deconfliction service" resulting in a lot of "break-offs" from the letdown being attempted.

Nothing to stop a 'condition' being inserted in the procedure like:
'When established in the procedure and within x miles from the airfield, standard separation from other Shoreham traffic cannot be guaranteed and pilots are responsible for their own separation from conflicting traffic in the visual circuit '.(or something similar)
The CAA has already stated there is no requirement for an APP unit to attempt to provide separation from transit traffic which is not working them.

[chevvron]

An IAP is always commonly available, (unless they switch off the aids of course! which actually happened to me...) it is the clearance to actually do the IAP which seems to be the main reason why we haven't followed America / NZ / Oz / France and their GNSS / LPV approach at a large number of unmanned GA airfields.

Once established on any procedure, you change to the airfield frequency (be it A/G or A/A or ATS or whatever it may be) and you announce yourself, "G-ABCD established GNSS approach runway 03, 5 miles to run". Thereby informing "local traffic" of where you are, your intentions, and where you are going.

ATC generally only allows 1 clearance per airport at any one time, so you need to close the flightplan / call area ATC to tell them you're on the ground, and not coming back into the system so that the next plane can get a clearance to do the approach.

It works very well elsewhere - why can't it work here?

Why can't it work here?
Because we don't have a blanket of Class E airspace (so all IFR traffic is 'known') covering the country where there is no Class A to D.

[cessnapete]

For those unfamiliar with the overseas procedures described on this thread.
Watch some “Premier I Driver” videos on UTube. A Beech Premier jet owner flies single pilot IFR in and out of several USA airfields some with just A/G comms.
His Base airfield Indy Exec, a large airfield by UK standards with A/G only.
Shows what can be safely done with the right Authority attitudes.

[CloudHound]

Much angst around the provision of qualified persons in the Tower flows from the fact that, once licensed/certificated, the CAA have a say about what you can and can't do.

The requirement to have a licence/certificate for certain operations was removed years ago and recent changes brought about by SERA have further widened the scope to operate from an acceptable landing ground.

Not only Shoreham but any similar UK aerodrome has a choice. Each has to weigh pros and cons before deciding.

Some issues against include the loss of ATZ, loss of certain types of training and loss of flights requiring the use of a licensed/certificated aerodrome. A fascinating issue would be the status of an existing RNAV(GNSS) IAP notified having used CAP1122 for the safety case. As you all know, the tables in that hallow'd CAP include all types of places and ATS (or not).

So, cost savings from staff reductions (Licensing fees, ATC, RFFS & Ops Staff) versus loss of certain income, though offset by increases in other movements.

Not donning tin hat, not ducking behind railway embankment.

[alex90]

Why can't it work here?
Because we don't have a blanket of Class E airspace (so all IFR traffic is 'known') covering the country where there is no Class A to D.

In NZ with surprisingly high volumes of traffic in certain parts, there is no blanket class E, and it works there! I am still baffled by why it cant work, it has nothing to do with "all ifr traffic being known", because all IFR traffic should have transponders and thus should all be known to whatever controller operates whatever area...


For those unfamiliar with the overseas procedures described on this thread.
Watch some “Premier I Driver” videos on UTube. A Beech Premier jet owner flies single pilot IFR in and out of several USA airfields some with just A/G comms.
His Base airfield Indy Exec, a large airfield by UK standards with A/G only.
Shows what can be safely done with the right Authority attitudes.

Or Matt Guthmiller flying IFR in a single engine piston aircraft in and out of uncontrolled airfields.

[eckhard]

I have flown over the less-populated parts of the USA, like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, at FL400 and have heard ‘my’ controller (Salt Lake ARTCC) clearing an aircraft for an approach. I realise that the controller’s workload must be fairly low in those circumstances but it does show what can be achieved.

[ShyTorque]

Nothing to stop a 'condition' being inserted in the procedure like:
'When established in the procedure and within x miles from the airfield, standard separation from other Shoreham traffic cannot be guaranteed and pilots are responsible for their own separation from conflicting traffic in the visual circuit '.(or something similar)
The CAA has already stated there is no requirement for an APP unit to attempt to provide separation from transit traffic which is not working them.

Agreed - but then there is no big advantage in an aircraft with a good IFR certified GPS receiving vectors from the Radar unit in the first place. Just fly the whole procedure under a traffic service while ATC take no responsibility for separation, as per the status quo. Then call on the local frequency before entering the ATZ and hope any local traffic is on frequency and looking out for the aircraft about to pop out of cloud

[ATCO Fred]

Alex, I know EGKB really quite well and carry out ILS approaches there on a regular basis; in the distant past I've been required to self position onto the ILS because there was no radar vectoring available. I've also had to carry out self positioned NDB approaches into Shoreham when there was no ATC cover.

That surprises me as at our unit, when operating without radar, you cannot self position to the NDB due to the lack of the safety range check (and we have DME); you have to do the full procedure.

Interesting . . . . .

fred

[ATCO Fred]

For those unfamiliar with the overseas procedures described on this thread.
Watch some “Premier I Driver” videos on UTube. A Beech Premier jet owner flies single pilot IFR in and out of several USA airfields some with just A/G comms.
His Base airfield Indy Exec, a large airfield by UK standards with A/G only.
Shows what can be safely done with the right Authority attitudes.

I think making like for like comparison between the vast skies of America and the crowded and confused state of UK Glass G airspace is a comparison on volume of airspace and NOT about "right authority attitudes". Even if the authority had the right attitude and instigated a restructuring of UK airspace the GA populous would be up in arms. Anything other than the status-quo is unpalatable.

Just my opinion

Fred

[chevvron]

NOTAMs C1279 (A/G available) and L 1281 (pilots are not to fly iap profiles) published both valid 26 Mar - 20 Jun

[ShyTorque]

That surprises me as at our unit, when operating without radar, you cannot self position to the NDB due to the lack of the safety range check (and we have DME); you have to do the full procedure.

Interesting . . . . .

fred

Is that something to do with the fact that you have your own radar controller (and a military one in Class D very close by)?

[chevvron]

Is that something to do with the fact that you have your own radar controller (and a military one in Class D very close by)?

If you're talking Biggin, the radar controller is shared with City.

[ShyTorque]

No, I think ATCO Fred is elsewhere.

[Talkdownman]

Kidlington, I reckon...

[ATCO Fred]

Sorry . . .was washing my hair :-). Nope. . . MATS2 restriction, when radar shut aircraft can't self position to the NDB approach due lack of positive range check. Potentially, if we had advanced uses of the ATM and that element was covered in the RA . . . we could probably change that.

Fred

[alex90]

I have just done some research into what I was proposing to find out why it wouldn't be approved.

I have been pleasantly surprised that actually CAP1122 does not prohibit the creation of IAP to uncontrolled airfields, nor the creation of IAP to A/G or safetycom without ATS or instrument runways providing that this is not for public transport operations. It does say that applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis (which implies £££), and that it would need to go through several layers of bureaucracy before approval (even more £££). I assume that these two last points are why we don't presently have IAP to more GA airfields... But I am surprised to see that it wasn't forbidden. It look to be "exceptional" circumstances to get that approved though.

I would prefer however, knowing that I am the only one on the IAP until I am on the ground and off the runway, so perhaps a system would need to be setup there... I still think an area controller would be a good idea!

I am not sure if CAP1122 was superseded by an EASA one though... I always struggle to find what CAP was changed to for EASA... Is there a list somewhere?

[cessnapete]

Sorry . . .was washing my hair :-). Nope. . . MATS2 restriction, when radar shut aircraft can't self position to the NDB approach due lack of positive range check. Potentially, if we had advanced uses of the ATM and that element was covered in the RA . . . we could probably change that.

Fred

Why do you need a range check? Even in my light GA aircraft the IFR approved WAAS GPS ( dual fit) does a continuous RAIM in flight check, and knows where it is to an accuracy of tens of metres. Are you not allowed to accept the pilots known position?
I have self positioned to an IAP or NAV aid to an airfield without radar. Glos for instance when radar not available.
(The pilot will have checked GPS coverage for his route from the website prior to flight, and airmanship dictates enroute gross error checks with other available aids.)

[chevvron]

I have just done some research into what I was proposing to find out why it wouldn't be approved.

I have been pleasantly surprised that actually CAP1122 does not prohibit the creation of IAP to uncontrolled airfields, nor the creation of IAP to A/G or safetycom without ATS or instrument runways providing that this is not for public transport operations. It does say that applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis (which implies £££), and that it would need to go through several layers of bureaucracy before approval (even more £££). I assume that these two last points are why we don't presently have IAP to more GA airfields... But I am surprised to see that it wasn't forbidden. It look to be "exceptional" circumstances to get that approved though.

I would prefer however, knowing that I am the only one on the IAP until I am on the ground and off the runway, so perhaps a system would need to be setup there... I still think an area controller would be a good idea!

I am not sure if CAP1122 was superseded by an EASA one though... I always struggle to find what CAP was changed to for EASA... Is there a list somewhere?

One thing you have to do to get an iap approved is produce a 'Safety Case'. The CAA have a habit of rejecting these, but they won't tell you what's wrong with it, they simply say try again.

[alex90]

One thing you have to do to get an iap approved is produce a 'Safety Case'. The CAA have a habit of rejecting these, but they won't tell you what's wrong with it, they simply say try again.

Sorry - for an split second I forgot that the CAA literally just want your money...

[CloudHound]

Alex90,

Thanks for your kind words about CAP1122. It's a shame that the pioneering spirit, within the CAA when we first started to write it, hasn't survived.

For your info there is no EASA AMC/GM to supersede this CAP and it remains a national document, albeit adopted as best practice by a number of European states.

There are virtually no Scheme of Charges figures associated with CAP1122; I recall less than £1000. The real cost is in buying in expertise from IFP designers, safety case authors and Airspace Change Proposal managers. £50,000 outlay with no guarantee of success. That said, money from Europe channeled through the EGNOS promotion fund has helped.

Cessnapete

WAAS enabled receiver equipment goes further than RAIM which is an algorithm derived prediction tool. Did you you know at the start it was calculated on a 'flat Earth' basis so satellite visibility in the valley of a mountainous region wasn't accounted for.

However, Fault Detection and Exclusion (FDE) is what your boxes perform and is an active check in real time, though you need six, I think, satellites in view.

And referring to CAP773 the practice of a gross error check approaching the IAF is described. It's a key pillar that argues against sole means of reference. In other words one should have other Navaids available to help ensure positional verification.

[alex90]

Alex90,

Thanks for your kind words about CAP1122. It's a shame that the pioneering spirit, within the CAA when we first started to write it, hasn't survived.

For your info there is no EASA AMC/GM to supersede this CAP and it remains a national document, albeit adopted as best practice by a number of European states.

There are virtually no Scheme of Charges figures associated with CAP1122; I recall less than £1000. The real cost is in buying in expertise from IFP designers, safety case authors and Airspace Change Proposal managers. £50,000 outlay with no guarantee of success. That said, money from Europe channeled through the EGNOS promotion fund has helped.


Oh you worked on this!? NICE! Finally someone with some sense working on things that matter to us little guys!

Thank you for letting me know - I appreciate this. I knew the (around) £50k figure, which I actually don't think is crazy expensive. It really is a drop of water in the sea when comparing it to the cost of the infrastructure for VOR/DME/ILS approaches, which was why I spent some time trying to find ANY GNSS/LPV approaches, but at the time I believe that there were only a couple, and those were at licensed airfields only. I don't believe that this has changed much for GA.

I have done some GNSS approaches in France and NZ at untowered airfields and thought it incredible, I couldn't believe that the UK wasn't adopting it! From a safety point of view, if nothing else! There have been several crashes in the last few years, mostly highly experienced pilots scud-running / doing home-made approaches to airfields whilst in very marginal conditions. I often wonder had these airfields have GNSS/LPV or other approaches, if these accidents would have happened. (regardless of pilot error / piloting attitude / company pressure or any other factors, having a proper GNSS approach would without any doubt in my mind have reduced the risk quite considerably)

[CloudHound]

I have to agree that there are some a/c types which, being highly automated, can perform an instrument approach from leaving CAS to the missed approach point so long as the pilot doesn't mess with the controls. Some would say that's what the dog was for.

Make access to hi-end a/c systems, make training and ratings affordable and attainable; provide instrument approach procedures to sensible minima and a number of, soon to be dead, people may live.