GPS approaches now legal BUT...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS approaches now legal BUT...
Only at Heathrow and Gatwick! (since 5th June)
AIP Sup 34/07 updated by Sup 11/08 gives full approval for RNAV/GNSS approaches at 6 airports using approved kit, which includes up to date Garmin430/530. Approach plates are included for all 6, and included in current NavData releases for the kit, and are sitting in my 430.
The other 4 airports have all NOTAMed RNAV approaches as not available.
Anyone know why?
This is a rumour network, and I have heard from one 'high up' of considerable resistance from ATCOs. Any possible truth in this, and if so, what possible reason?
Mike.
AIP Sup 34/07 updated by Sup 11/08 gives full approval for RNAV/GNSS approaches at 6 airports using approved kit, which includes up to date Garmin430/530. Approach plates are included for all 6, and included in current NavData releases for the kit, and are sitting in my 430.
The other 4 airports have all NOTAMed RNAV approaches as not available.
Anyone know why?
This is a rumour network, and I have heard from one 'high up' of considerable resistance from ATCOs. Any possible truth in this, and if so, what possible reason?
Mike.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delay after Delay !!
I just don't know how much longer the UK can delay the introduction of GPS approaches and can't understand the reasons for NOTAM's saying that most of these approaches are not avalable.
The introduction of GPs approaches was ment to help the GA sector now that it is getting harder to find an airfield that will except you for an ILS because GA is being priced out of the regonal airports by the low service (sorry low cost) airlines.
Now what do we get........... GPS approaches approved at LHR and LGW !!!!!! hardly a help to GA.
For an aircraft owner who has had the GPS approach kit installed for fourteen years this is becoming a sick joke and typical of he foot dragging head in the sand attitude of the UK aviation authoritys.
Can someone please tell us when we will be able to make a GPS approach at a UK airfield that is avalable to GA?
The introduction of GPs approaches was ment to help the GA sector now that it is getting harder to find an airfield that will except you for an ILS because GA is being priced out of the regonal airports by the low service (sorry low cost) airlines.
Now what do we get........... GPS approaches approved at LHR and LGW !!!!!! hardly a help to GA.
For an aircraft owner who has had the GPS approach kit installed for fourteen years this is becoming a sick joke and typical of he foot dragging head in the sand attitude of the UK aviation authoritys.
Can someone please tell us when we will be able to make a GPS approach at a UK airfield that is avalable to GA?
Could be a number of reasons eg has your destination had a full Type A survey done and a chart published? Without this no iap will be approved, at least not one that terminates below safety altitude. On the other hand there is a backlog of work for people designing these procedures; only a few organisations are authorised for procedure design and they're apparently snowed under!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chevron,
I was only referring to the 6 airports with CAA approved and AIP SUP published RNAV/GNSS approaches.
The 4 which have NOTAMed them as unavailable are NH, BJ, NV, and TE.
Why?
Mike.
I was only referring to the 6 airports with CAA approved and AIP SUP published RNAV/GNSS approaches.
The 4 which have NOTAMed them as unavailable are NH, BJ, NV, and TE.
Why?
Mike.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Landvetter, Sweden
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Satellite approach and departure procedure.
From what I have learned there is a slow, or very slow, approval of GPS-based app-and dep procedures when it comes to regulatory bodies within the EU.
There is also a lot of discussions about what kind of system to use. ADS-B and mode S seems to be the system that EU will approve. But e.g. Russia wants to have the swedish inventor Håkan Lans system which is ADS-B and VDL mode 4. VDL 4 has the possibility to transmit each and every aircraft's position to other aircraft and to ATC. This is very handy specially in the third world countries who doesn't have to invest in expensive equipment like ILS, VOR/DME and radar stations.
Mongolia has installed ADS-B / VDL 4 and there seems to be a lot of interest in Asia for RNP/PBN.
There is also a lot of discussions about what kind of system to use. ADS-B and mode S seems to be the system that EU will approve. But e.g. Russia wants to have the swedish inventor Håkan Lans system which is ADS-B and VDL mode 4. VDL 4 has the possibility to transmit each and every aircraft's position to other aircraft and to ATC. This is very handy specially in the third world countries who doesn't have to invest in expensive equipment like ILS, VOR/DME and radar stations.
Mongolia has installed ADS-B / VDL 4 and there seems to be a lot of interest in Asia for RNP/PBN.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why exactly would atcos object at any of the aforementioned 4 airfields? What difference does it make to them what type of IFR approach an aircraft flies?
What you might be correct in thinking atcos, or perhaps GATCO, may object to is approaches into uncontrolled airfields but that's a totally different subject.
What you might be correct in thinking atcos, or perhaps GATCO, may object to is approaches into uncontrolled airfields but that's a totally different subject.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does this system work with radar sequencing to provide the required landing rate or will it only be used on final approach like ILS?
Is it going to be another flash in the pan like the Concorde "Standard Approach" which the crews soon abandoned in favour of what we called a "hand job"?
Is it going to be another flash in the pan like the Concorde "Standard Approach" which the crews soon abandoned in favour of what we called a "hand job"?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are still waiting for an answer to MikeJ's question.
Some one must know why these approches that are published in the Jepp manual, in the aircraft database, in the UK AIP, the aircraft eqipment is all approved and the flight manual amendments are writen so why oh why are these aproches still NOTAMED as not in use?
I would like to think that there is a good reason for this but it is becoming very hard to see why a system that the biggest aviation nation in the world has been using for years can't work in the UK.
The system works very well only last week I made a GPS aproach in France, proving that it is even safe if a G is painted on the aircraft!
All the bits of the jigsaw are in place but still no GPS approches....... WHY?
Some one must know why these approches that are published in the Jepp manual, in the aircraft database, in the UK AIP, the aircraft eqipment is all approved and the flight manual amendments are writen so why oh why are these aproches still NOTAMED as not in use?
I would like to think that there is a good reason for this but it is becoming very hard to see why a system that the biggest aviation nation in the world has been using for years can't work in the UK.
The system works very well only last week I made a GPS aproach in France, proving that it is even safe if a G is painted on the aircraft!
All the bits of the jigsaw are in place but still no GPS approches....... WHY?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the problem lies with producing a Safety Case which meets the approval of the CAA SRG. Each airfield has to do that to satisfy the Regulator before the approaches are cleared for use.
The problem is that each time the Safety Cases are being rejected, the Regulator won't provide any assistance in identifying what needs to be done to bring them up to approval standards. It's 'not their job' to do so they claim, it's up to the submitter to provide something which satisfies them. But they won't be giving them any clues.
Very helpful ... not !!!
The problem is that each time the Safety Cases are being rejected, the Regulator won't provide any assistance in identifying what needs to be done to bring them up to approval standards. It's 'not their job' to do so they claim, it's up to the submitter to provide something which satisfies them. But they won't be giving them any clues.
Very helpful ... not !!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So are you telling me that it's just that bunch of bitter & twisted ex-navigators from aviation house that keep saying "no" without giving a reason?
If so I would like them to make the safety case for GPS vs NDB approches.
I can't help thinking that there must be a way to take leagal action for delaying the introduction of safer aproaches.
I have often thought that someone who knows a lot about aviation (eg long term pilot with failed medical) should set up a company financed by subscription with the sole aim of making life hard for the CAA in the courts, perhaps this would encourage a more pro active attiude in Aviation House.
If so I would like them to make the safety case for GPS vs NDB approches.
I can't help thinking that there must be a way to take leagal action for delaying the introduction of safer aproaches.
I have often thought that someone who knows a lot about aviation (eg long term pilot with failed medical) should set up a company financed by subscription with the sole aim of making life hard for the CAA in the courts, perhaps this would encourage a more pro active attiude in Aviation House.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition, I am lead to believe that the general issues around establishing the safety (or lack thereof) of the GPS signal-in-space quality,detection and response has not been agreed by the CAA and must be 'reproved' for each approach's safety case.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a a letter to the Minster for transport
It would now seem to be time to use some political leverage to find out why the CAA is dragging it's heals on this issue.
If some of you can get me the evidence and reasons for the delay in GPS approach introduction (by PM if you want to keep your heads down!) I will push this issue via my MP.
It seems very conter productive to dely the introduction of a safer system on "safety" grounds?
If some of you can get me the evidence and reasons for the delay in GPS approach introduction (by PM if you want to keep your heads down!) I will push this issue via my MP.
It seems very conter productive to dely the introduction of a safer system on "safety" grounds?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A & C
The CAA are not dragging their heels.
They have fully approved the RNAV approaches to the 6 airports.
Anyone commenting on this thread should first read AIP SUP 11/08.
It is not to do with safety - this has all been cleared.
My question remains unanswered:
WHY have all 4 airports other than LHR and LGW with CAA fully approved and published GPS approaches NOTAMed them as not available????
I had thought that some PPrune ATCO would know!
Mike.
The CAA are not dragging their heels.
They have fully approved the RNAV approaches to the 6 airports.
Anyone commenting on this thread should first read AIP SUP 11/08.
It is not to do with safety - this has all been cleared.
My question remains unanswered:
WHY have all 4 airports other than LHR and LGW with CAA fully approved and published GPS approaches NOTAMed them as not available????
I had thought that some PPrune ATCO would know!
Mike.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you might be correct in thinking atcos, or perhaps GATCO, may object to is approaches into uncontrolled airfields but that's a totally different subject.
The USA has had these for many years.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I to think it is time that someone was good enough to ell us what the hold up is with starting GPS approaches.
The introduction of this safer form of approach is well overdue.
The introduction of this safer form of approach is well overdue.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Coast, UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no problems with ATCOs - they look a lot safer than NDB approaches!
Here's the story...
The CAA designed these approaches, and trialled them. They were a success.
The CAA said "You can implement them, you need to prove they're safe".
We said "How? You designed them"
CAA said "That's your problem".
So, you try and write a safety case, the CAA won't give you any guidance on what they want. You submit it, and they have a massive backlog of safety cases so it takes them months to read it.
An age later the CAA said "Sorry, thats no good".
We said "OK, Why? What do you want?"
CAA said "We're not going to tell you that, its up to you to figure out what we want".
So, we're basically screwed. Any suggestions here?
MikeJ look at the airports which do and don't have RNAV approaches available. The NATS airports (LL and KK) have them, the other independant airports don't. Does that answer your question?
Here's the story...
The CAA designed these approaches, and trialled them. They were a success.
The CAA said "You can implement them, you need to prove they're safe".
We said "How? You designed them"
CAA said "That's your problem".
So, you try and write a safety case, the CAA won't give you any guidance on what they want. You submit it, and they have a massive backlog of safety cases so it takes them months to read it.
An age later the CAA said "Sorry, thats no good".
We said "OK, Why? What do you want?"
CAA said "We're not going to tell you that, its up to you to figure out what we want".
So, we're basically screwed. Any suggestions here?
MikeJ look at the airports which do and don't have RNAV approaches available. The NATS airports (LL and KK) have them, the other independant airports don't. Does that answer your question?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cb9002,
Your comment would certainly answer the question if it were not for the fact that AIP Sup 11/08 seems to make it clear that the CAA have now fully approved both the aircraft equipment and the procedures for each individual airport. It certainly reads as though S11/08 came into force on 5th June, and with it the procs for LHR and LGW, and left it completely up to each of the other four to NOTAM the availablity. How come not one of them permits it?
Why publish these app. plates unless they have been fully approved???
MikeJ
Your comment would certainly answer the question if it were not for the fact that AIP Sup 11/08 seems to make it clear that the CAA have now fully approved both the aircraft equipment and the procedures for each individual airport. It certainly reads as though S11/08 came into force on 5th June, and with it the procs for LHR and LGW, and left it completely up to each of the other four to NOTAM the availablity. How come not one of them permits it?
Why publish these app. plates unless they have been fully approved???
MikeJ