GPS approaches in the UK.......Soon?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS approaches in the UK.......Soon?
At long last the CAA has started to remove it's head from the sand and start trials of GPS approches in the UK.
I cant think of what new data they hope to obtain from these trials , after all the system has been working in the biggest aviaton market in the world for years and France has published GPS approaches so they should not have to look far for data.
I guess that having held onto the luddite attitude to GPS for as long as the CAA has some trial had to be carried out even if the rest of the world has had the data for 15 years.
I look forward to the publication of the AIC on the subject and the eventual implimentation of GPS approachs, in the meantine I will have to continue flying the mature, error free and accurate NDB approach.
A web site for the trials has been set up but it is not working !
www.gpstrials.leeds.ac.uk
I cant think of what new data they hope to obtain from these trials , after all the system has been working in the biggest aviaton market in the world for years and France has published GPS approaches so they should not have to look far for data.
I guess that having held onto the luddite attitude to GPS for as long as the CAA has some trial had to be carried out even if the rest of the world has had the data for 15 years.
I look forward to the publication of the AIC on the subject and the eventual implimentation of GPS approachs, in the meantine I will have to continue flying the mature, error free and accurate NDB approach.
A web site for the trials has been set up but it is not working !
www.gpstrials.leeds.ac.uk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no time for those who think that they should be alowed to fly an approach with a hand held GPS powerd by the cigar lighter, on the other hand I have also no time at all for an authority that puts the owners of GPS units that are properly instaled IAW the TSO for approaches at a disadvantage.
The fact of the matter is that the CAA took a stance on GPS that was wrong and is now having to about face due to international pressure and all this "trials" business is about the authority face saving.
After most of the world has been using the system for 15 years why do the CAA have to have more data?
The fact of the matter is that the CAA took a stance on GPS that was wrong and is now having to about face due to international pressure and all this "trials" business is about the authority face saving.
After most of the world has been using the system for 15 years why do the CAA have to have more data?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The fact of the matter is that the CAA took a stance on GPS that was wrong and is now having to about face due to international pressure and all this "trials" business is about the authority face saving.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by IO540
For this to be relevant in the UK, with its multitude of GA airfields without a published IAP, the CAA would need to drop their demand for full ATC.
WF.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect IO540's thought was either along the lines of :
1 - its probably class G and self announcing or airfield based FIS/A/G is all that is necessary VFR so why do we need more IFR - particularly given the much lower traffic density on an IMC day.
or
2 - A 'central' agency (i.e. the one provding the RIS, RAS, FIS) could clear each aircraft onto the approach and seperate either via radar or proceedurally - like is done in the US.
The obvious retort is - "who will pay for this extra work at the central facility"
1 - its probably class G and self announcing or airfield based FIS/A/G is all that is necessary VFR so why do we need more IFR - particularly given the much lower traffic density on an IMC day.
or
2 - A 'central' agency (i.e. the one provding the RIS, RAS, FIS) could clear each aircraft onto the approach and seperate either via radar or proceedurally - like is done in the US.
The obvious retort is - "who will pay for this extra work at the central facility"
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and I suspect only VFR enroute
For that one, every country would have to change its legislation to prescribe how a private pilot must navigate. Currently this is not specified; only equipment to be carried is specified.
I don't doubt that Galileo's use for IAPs will require the purchase of a decoding key or card, like Sky TV. There are already adequate parallels for this in Europe, in the form of mandatory GPS database updates for BRNAV flight. But I can't see pilots being shafted on how to navigate en route.
As I've said before, I think all this stuff is irrelevant. The airfields that will get GPS approaches will (in nearly all cases) be ones that already have instrument approaches. OK, the GPS approach may give you a lower MDH than say the existing NDB one, which seems nice.
But - think about it - nothing stops a pilot from turning up there and flying the NDB procedure officially but "checking his progress" using a GPS - just like a lot of smart pilots do already
So, to anybody with the kit that would be required anyway, there is zero gain. The existence of any IAP is good enough for the approach to be flown with the aid of GPS, and utilising the safety features of GPS.
I flew an NDB proc today (in reasonable VMC) using its GPS version in the Jepp database - exceedingly accurate it was too. The RMI wasn't far off, which was a bonus I suppose.
What we won't get is IAPs into airfields without any existing IAP.
Galileo is a waste of money.
For that one, every country would have to change its legislation to prescribe how a private pilot must navigate. Currently this is not specified; only equipment to be carried is specified.
I don't doubt that Galileo's use for IAPs will require the purchase of a decoding key or card, like Sky TV. There are already adequate parallels for this in Europe, in the form of mandatory GPS database updates for BRNAV flight. But I can't see pilots being shafted on how to navigate en route.
As I've said before, I think all this stuff is irrelevant. The airfields that will get GPS approaches will (in nearly all cases) be ones that already have instrument approaches. OK, the GPS approach may give you a lower MDH than say the existing NDB one, which seems nice.
But - think about it - nothing stops a pilot from turning up there and flying the NDB procedure officially but "checking his progress" using a GPS - just like a lot of smart pilots do already
So, to anybody with the kit that would be required anyway, there is zero gain. The existence of any IAP is good enough for the approach to be flown with the aid of GPS, and utilising the safety features of GPS. I flew an NDB proc today (in reasonable VMC) using its GPS version in the Jepp database - exceedingly accurate it was too. The RMI wasn't far off, which was a bonus I suppose.
What we won't get is IAPs into airfields without any existing IAP.
Galileo is a waste of money.
