GPS approaches to uncontrolled airfields?
Guest
Posts: n/a
There seems to be some misunderstanding going on here about ATC and instrument approaches.
The two things fundamentally are different. If you want to get down from above cloud (or whatever) onto a visual approach to a runway, you need an instrument approach procedure. If you want to be separated from all the other aircraft, you need an ATC service. If you want both, you need to go to an airport that has both (and some appropriate airspace).
In the UK, for some reason or other, the two have generally been inextricably linked for many years because of some legislation. This is not always the case elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the CAA - and a good few pilots - seem unable to unlink the two things. Personally, speaking as a controller and sometime IFR GA pilot, I have no problem with the concept of doing instrument approaches to unmanned airports - all I really want is a radio frequency to talk to other traffic and some confidence that we're all going to be sensible.
[Contentious mode on] Frankly, I'd prefer that to doing it at some airfield with a FISO who likes to think he should have been a controller and being surrounded by pilots who don't know what services they should be getting and what their responsibilities are. [OK, back to normal now I've got that off my chest]
Of course, for commercial, passenger-carrying operations my own view is that the aircraft and its approach should be protected by class D or better airspace and the aircraft should be in receipt of an ATC service (both aerodrome and approach control). If I've paid for a ticket with an airline, I think I have a right to accept the same level of protection and service whether I'm flying in or out of Heathrow or some island strip. And that's something else that the CAA doesn't seem to understand!
The two things fundamentally are different. If you want to get down from above cloud (or whatever) onto a visual approach to a runway, you need an instrument approach procedure. If you want to be separated from all the other aircraft, you need an ATC service. If you want both, you need to go to an airport that has both (and some appropriate airspace).
In the UK, for some reason or other, the two have generally been inextricably linked for many years because of some legislation. This is not always the case elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the CAA - and a good few pilots - seem unable to unlink the two things. Personally, speaking as a controller and sometime IFR GA pilot, I have no problem with the concept of doing instrument approaches to unmanned airports - all I really want is a radio frequency to talk to other traffic and some confidence that we're all going to be sensible.
[Contentious mode on] Frankly, I'd prefer that to doing it at some airfield with a FISO who likes to think he should have been a controller and being surrounded by pilots who don't know what services they should be getting and what their responsibilities are. [OK, back to normal now I've got that off my chest]
Of course, for commercial, passenger-carrying operations my own view is that the aircraft and its approach should be protected by class D or better airspace and the aircraft should be in receipt of an ATC service (both aerodrome and approach control). If I've paid for a ticket with an airline, I think I have a right to accept the same level of protection and service whether I'm flying in or out of Heathrow or some island strip. And that's something else that the CAA doesn't seem to understand!
Joined: Feb 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
From: one dot low as usual
Not LATCC. Farnborough are next door. In fact nowadays, if you are on an IFR plan into Blackbushe, LATCC hand you over to Farnborough who "control" you till you are VFR.
Same in and out of Fairoaks who also "share" the standard IFR routes in/out, however London tend to hand you over to Farnborough in the descent out of the TMA so although Farnborough are controlling you, you do become under a radar information service outside of controlled airspace in the final 20-30 miles into Blackbushe/Fairoaks.
Farnborough will only descend you to 1700 feet which is the limit of their radar min safe altitude, any lower you are responsible for your own terrain separation.
Same in and out of Fairoaks who also "share" the standard IFR routes in/out, however London tend to hand you over to Farnborough in the descent out of the TMA so although Farnborough are controlling you, you do become under a radar information service outside of controlled airspace in the final 20-30 miles into Blackbushe/Fairoaks.
Farnborough will only descend you to 1700 feet which is the limit of their radar min safe altitude, any lower you are responsible for your own terrain separation.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Farnborough could provide an approach service to GPS approaches at the various SE airfields, all the way down to Shoreham, and Manston could do Lydd, but under the UK system somebody will have to pay for the service, and it is inconceivable it would be cost effective.
Manston Radar is notamed unavailable most of the time nowadays so perhaps they are running out of funds for the more expensive ATC staff who are authorised to see a radar screen?
It is perfectly easy, and not illegal in a G-reg, to get the contour map out and develop your own GPS approach to any of these airfields. With a generous MDH, say 600ft, it is very easy to do. Just not "official" and because it cannot be inserted into one's GPS database, one needs to be pretty careful how one uses the waypoints.
Manston Radar is notamed unavailable most of the time nowadays so perhaps they are running out of funds for the more expensive ATC staff who are authorised to see a radar screen?
It is perfectly easy, and not illegal in a G-reg, to get the contour map out and develop your own GPS approach to any of these airfields. With a generous MDH, say 600ft, it is very easy to do. Just not "official" and because it cannot be inserted into one's GPS database, one needs to be pretty careful how one uses the waypoints.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
One problem with an iap to Blackbushe is the presence of the Bagshot mast. I did try to work out a rough NDB procedure to runway 25 based on ICAO Doc 8168 a few years ago, but there may be other obstructions on their type 'A' chart which I didn't take into account. Bagshot mast would also affect iaps to runway 07 as it's in the Misssed Approach area.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Can't "almost" any obstruction be handled by having a high enough MDH, perhaps with an offset final approach track? There are a few airports like that, on which every approach is formally a circling approach.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
Once you've got an MDH/OCH, this isn't the end though; a minimum visibilty/RVR must be worked out depending on lighting and visual aids (runway markings) available.
Joined: Feb 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
From: one dot low as usual
One problem with an iap to Blackbushe is the presence of the Bagshot mast
The second (and bigger problem) is the presence of the EGLL control zone. There is no way (except Fairoaks/Denham ATZ's) that they will let you into the zone without controlling you themselves.
The second (and bigger problem) is the presence of the EGLL control zone. There is no way (except Fairoaks/Denham ATZ's) that they will let you into the zone without controlling you themselves.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
From: UK
Quoted in this weeks Flying News. How they do it in the States:
FAA 'Flight Plan' for 2009 Focuses on Safety
and Capacity
This year's forward-looking report from the FAA puts much of its emphasis on advancing safety and improving airspace capacity. The agency wrote that it expects to commission 500 GPS WAAS approaches in 2009, providing lower minimums and safer access to more airports.
Wouldn't we love to have another 500 GPS approaches in Europe?
FAA 'Flight Plan' for 2009 Focuses on Safety
and Capacity
This year's forward-looking report from the FAA puts much of its emphasis on advancing safety and improving airspace capacity. The agency wrote that it expects to commission 500 GPS WAAS approaches in 2009, providing lower minimums and safer access to more airports.
Wouldn't we love to have another 500 GPS approaches in Europe?
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: An island somewhere
The agency wrote that it expects to commission 500 GPS WAAS approaches in 2009
By the end of September 2008, this number included 1,333 semi-precision WAAS LPV procedures with ILS-like minima, exceeding for the first time the number of ILS procedures available throughout the USA.
Nice to see the UK maintaining its historical position at the leading edge of aviation.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
This is why I don't understand the rationale behind putting in an approach approved GPS today.
GPS approaches will remain virtually irrelevant in the UK (and most of Europe) for as long as the CAA requires full ATC, and then (assuming the ATC is exempted) for as long as the airfield gets billed by the nearby radar unit (NATS) for the radar service.
Neither of the above practices is applicable in the USA, which is why they are so far ahead.
GPS approaches will remain virtually irrelevant in the UK (and most of Europe) for as long as the CAA requires full ATC, and then (assuming the ATC is exempted) for as long as the airfield gets billed by the nearby radar unit (NATS) for the radar service.
Neither of the above practices is applicable in the USA, which is why they are so far ahead.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
With a sensible regulatory structure putting GPS Overlay approaches in place would make sense
1 - Over time you could phase out the DMEs (maybe very interesting if OFCOM has their way)
2 - You create a framework to introduce LPV approaches in the near future - saving the megabucks for an ILS in places like Oxford and Lydd that have just sprung for all of the ground based radio kit (you would still need to some extent the ALS).
3 - Basically all airports with an IAP could have a high quality approach to each runway and as soon as EGNOS/WAAS becomes operational they could have a virtual ILS to each runway.
It obviously would be much better if the CAA allowed approaches without based ATC (as in the US and many other countries) this would really open up the utility of GA in the UK.
1 - Over time you could phase out the DMEs (maybe very interesting if OFCOM has their way)
2 - You create a framework to introduce LPV approaches in the near future - saving the megabucks for an ILS in places like Oxford and Lydd that have just sprung for all of the ground based radio kit (you would still need to some extent the ALS).
3 - Basically all airports with an IAP could have a high quality approach to each runway and as soon as EGNOS/WAAS becomes operational they could have a virtual ILS to each runway.
It obviously would be much better if the CAA allowed approaches without based ATC (as in the US and many other countries) this would really open up the utility of GA in the UK.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
It is IMHO inconceivable that EGNOS/Galileo based approaches will be permitted without the EU getting money out of it. Anybody seen the unbelievable revenuw projections for Galileo? They are not going to suddenly going to make this a free GPS network - not for the extra precision signals.
They won't be able to get money out of pilots (difficult since nobody is going to make modified GPS receivers which can receive encrypted signals for which the pilot would purchase the key, Jeppesen-style) but they sure as hell will levy a charge on airports publishing GPS approaches with vertical guidance.
They could levy pilots, by charging a tax on flying the approach, of course. As many countries do already, collected conveniently via Eurocontrol alongside the route charges.
So putting the old ILS on Ebay may take longer than we expect
Also, the bulk of the existing commercial fleet cannot fly GPS approaches and won't be able to for many years. Even PRNAV compliance is many years away if one is looking at anywhere the near the whole of the jet transport (pax and cargo) fleets flying into Europe.
It will happen but many years away.
They won't be able to get money out of pilots (difficult since nobody is going to make modified GPS receivers which can receive encrypted signals for which the pilot would purchase the key, Jeppesen-style) but they sure as hell will levy a charge on airports publishing GPS approaches with vertical guidance.
They could levy pilots, by charging a tax on flying the approach, of course. As many countries do already, collected conveniently via Eurocontrol alongside the route charges.
So putting the old ILS on Ebay may take longer than we expect
Also, the bulk of the existing commercial fleet cannot fly GPS approaches and won't be able to for many years. Even PRNAV compliance is many years away if one is looking at anywhere the near the whole of the jet transport (pax and cargo) fleets flying into Europe.
It will happen but many years away.
Last edited by IO540; 7th November 2008 at 08:21.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Scotland somewhere? Islay?? But only for CAA approved operators, IIRC.
In fact there are loads of airfields without ATC and with IAPs, but the IAPs are confidential and only CAA approved firms can fly them.
In fact there are loads of airfields without ATC and with IAPs, but the IAPs are confidential and only CAA approved firms can fly them.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: My house
I dont understand how you can safely have an IAP with no ATC. If you have no one providing instructions and landing clearances, then you could have someone not visual on the IAP at 1000ft on final, and someone turning in from the circuit in front of them (or am I missing a vital piece of the puzzle?)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I dont understand how you can safely have an IAP with no ATC. If you have no one providing instructions and landing clearances, then you could have someone not visual on the IAP at 1000ft on final, and someone turning in from the circuit in front of them (or am I missing a vital piece of the puzzle?)
There's your answer.
They use a nearby IFR (radar) controller to control the traffic to the IAF. After that, the approach is all yours.
As for mixing with circuit traffic, it's the same problem as in the UK. If you get visual early, you look out for them. If you get visual late, there should not be any circuit traffic because they would be in instrument conditions, which is illegal without a clearance in Class E (which is how it's dealt with in the USA).
Chevvron - you win. Go on, do tell me