GPS approaches to uncontrolled airfields?
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS approaches to uncontrolled airfields?
As previously discussed Shoreham is hopefully to receive the first non-precision GPS approach on November 20th. CAA link here.
However thinking about possible expansion of GPS approaches across the UK something which for me is a real show stopper is this....
The requirements state that an airfield must have:
· A CAA licence.
· A runway meeting the physical characteristics required for an instrument runway – this covers the runway strip width, its clear and graded area, surface markings, holding points and lighting (if used at night). The runway is not required to have an instrument approach system already in place.
· An air traffic control service – not Flight Information Service or air-ground operator.
Is there any likelihood that in the future the CAA will change its attitude to airfields needing full ATC for an approach?
However thinking about possible expansion of GPS approaches across the UK something which for me is a real show stopper is this....
The requirements state that an airfield must have:
· A CAA licence.
· A runway meeting the physical characteristics required for an instrument runway – this covers the runway strip width, its clear and graded area, surface markings, holding points and lighting (if used at night). The runway is not required to have an instrument approach system already in place.
· An air traffic control service – not Flight Information Service or air-ground operator.
Is there any likelihood that in the future the CAA will change its attitude to airfields needing full ATC for an approach?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Try asking them. I know that a few years ago there was a proposal to permit instrument approaches at airports with a FISO but I don't know what happened to the idea. The details used to be on the CAA website - but no longer. The website says you'll have to use a FOI request to find out more info. Spoke to a lady in the ATS department a while back who was dealing with it all but it didn't sound like there was much progress.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some examples of instrument approaches to runways without ATC. I recall there being one at some Scottish island, but as with all such examples this was not a public approach; it was approved (by the CAA) only for a specified commercial operator. There are many such "private" approaches - pick any busy GA airfield with a based commercial operator (say an air ambulance) and with a nearby navaid, and there is probably a private approach there.
The requirement for full ATC is what keeps GPS approaches all but irrelevant, IMHO.
ATC is hugely expensive - of the order of £500k-1M/year just for daytime cover. Whether one likes it or not, most GA airfields would much prefer no ATC because they cannot recover the cost through any extra services. (Same goes for the fire service, BTW).
If the ATC requirement was lifted, GPS approaches could be introduced, US style, at the many GA airfields which are currently unusable in UK's frequent warm front conditions.
But this would require some kind of traffic sequencing to the approach (to the IAF).
One could have self-announcement but this would really grate against the "European way of doing things".
The USA does it by getting a nearby radar controller to schedule the traffic onto the approach. This works fine but in the UK the radar unit would invoice the airfield for the service
For example, Thames Radar invoices Biggin Hill for the radar service - I guess at some flat annual rate which is why the Biggin plate says the procedural approach is not available unless Thames Radar is unavailable - they want to get the maximum value for their money. This billing would make the whole thing totally uneconomic to most GA airfields.
So.... no likely progress.
Another thing about GPS procedures is that you need an approach approved GPS. This is very rare in EASA land although a lot of N-reg planes have one. Until recently, it was an EASA Major Mod but they seem to have issued an exemption recently for the specific case of a flight manual supplement authorising approaches, so it is just some £hundreds now, reportedly.
Whereas with conventional approaches, you can fly them unofficially using an IFR GPS and it doesn't have to be specially approved.
Currently, most (all?) airports that have full ATC already have a conventional IAP, and these IAPs either exist in the GPS databases, and can thus be flown by tracking that "overlay" using the GPS or using the GPS's OBS mode. There is no regulation (for private flight) prohibiting this practice and it is far safer than say flying an NDB approach using the ADF. Airlines do this already - they often fly NP approaches using the FMS navigation but they check the ADF at the top of descent for example, and this is a CAA approved procedure. You are flying the published track but using the GPS for guidance.
So, perversely, the present situation is actually more useful (to the vast majority of private pilots) than the full blown GPS approaches........
At some presentations I went to a while ago, the CAA did say they were examining the issue of approaches without ATC, but nothing happened, and I think nothing can happen unless the funding arrangement (for the scheduling service) is completely changed, or FISOs are authorised to provide a procedural service which is another huge chestnut since they have no authority to "control" airborne traffic.
The requirement for full ATC is what keeps GPS approaches all but irrelevant, IMHO.
ATC is hugely expensive - of the order of £500k-1M/year just for daytime cover. Whether one likes it or not, most GA airfields would much prefer no ATC because they cannot recover the cost through any extra services. (Same goes for the fire service, BTW).
If the ATC requirement was lifted, GPS approaches could be introduced, US style, at the many GA airfields which are currently unusable in UK's frequent warm front conditions.
But this would require some kind of traffic sequencing to the approach (to the IAF).
One could have self-announcement but this would really grate against the "European way of doing things".
The USA does it by getting a nearby radar controller to schedule the traffic onto the approach. This works fine but in the UK the radar unit would invoice the airfield for the service
For example, Thames Radar invoices Biggin Hill for the radar service - I guess at some flat annual rate which is why the Biggin plate says the procedural approach is not available unless Thames Radar is unavailable - they want to get the maximum value for their money. This billing would make the whole thing totally uneconomic to most GA airfields.So.... no likely progress.
Another thing about GPS procedures is that you need an approach approved GPS. This is very rare in EASA land although a lot of N-reg planes have one. Until recently, it was an EASA Major Mod but they seem to have issued an exemption recently for the specific case of a flight manual supplement authorising approaches, so it is just some £hundreds now, reportedly.
Whereas with conventional approaches, you can fly them unofficially using an IFR GPS and it doesn't have to be specially approved.
Currently, most (all?) airports that have full ATC already have a conventional IAP, and these IAPs either exist in the GPS databases, and can thus be flown by tracking that "overlay" using the GPS or using the GPS's OBS mode. There is no regulation (for private flight) prohibiting this practice and it is far safer than say flying an NDB approach using the ADF. Airlines do this already - they often fly NP approaches using the FMS navigation but they check the ADF at the top of descent for example, and this is a CAA approved procedure. You are flying the published track but using the GPS for guidance.
So, perversely, the present situation is actually more useful (to the vast majority of private pilots) than the full blown GPS approaches........
At some presentations I went to a while ago, the CAA did say they were examining the issue of approaches without ATC, but nothing happened, and I think nothing can happen unless the funding arrangement (for the scheduling service) is completely changed, or FISOs are authorised to provide a procedural service which is another huge chestnut since they have no authority to "control" airborne traffic.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no regulation (for private flight) prohibiting this practice and it is far safer than say flying an NDB approach using the ADF. Airlines do this already - they often fly NP approaches using the FMS navigation but they check the ADF at the top of descent for example, and this is a CAA approved procedure. You are flying the published track but using the GPS for guidance.
A small correction IO, when flying an NDB approach, we don't check the ADF at the "top of descent", we monitor it throughout the approach as per a standard NDB approach. The autopilot is connected to the LNAV track, which is derived from the FMC database and the aircraft position is determined by GPS input (much the same as a 430/530 set up). The primary means of navigation is still the ADF and tracking must be monitored throughout the whole approach (as well as monitoring the ident). Normal errors are allowed for the flying of the approach, but as expected the GPS nails the approach with the needles never deviating more than a couple of degrees, therefore within limits for that approach. Technically you're flying the NDB approach but the autopilot is flying a copy of the published approach track with the position fixed by GPS. The CAA don't need to approve it as we're flying a monitored NDB the whole time.
What the CAA have recently approved are RNAV approaches (eg LHR 27L) which do not require monitoring of any ground based aid to complete the approach.
In my SPA IR, I was encouraged to fly the GPS based approaches and monitoring the ADF needles ensuring they stay within limits (which of course they do). The ADF remains therefore the primary means of navigation.
A small correction IO, when flying an NDB approach, we don't check the ADF at the "top of descent", we monitor it throughout the approach as per a standard NDB approach. The autopilot is connected to the LNAV track, which is derived from the FMC database and the aircraft position is determined by GPS input (much the same as a 430/530 set up). The primary means of navigation is still the ADF and tracking must be monitored throughout the whole approach (as well as monitoring the ident). Normal errors are allowed for the flying of the approach, but as expected the GPS nails the approach with the needles never deviating more than a couple of degrees, therefore within limits for that approach. Technically you're flying the NDB approach but the autopilot is flying a copy of the published approach track with the position fixed by GPS. The CAA don't need to approve it as we're flying a monitored NDB the whole time.
What the CAA have recently approved are RNAV approaches (eg LHR 27L) which do not require monitoring of any ground based aid to complete the approach.
In my SPA IR, I was encouraged to fly the GPS based approaches and monitoring the ADF needles ensuring they stay within limits (which of course they do). The ADF remains therefore the primary means of navigation.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The primary means of navigation is still the ADF and tracking must be monitored throughout the whole approach (as well as monitoring the ident).
My Q is: what do you do if the ADF deviates by more than X degrees (what is X)? Do you go around? If you did, you would go around every time thereafter because NDB radiation pattern errors are constant except for the day/night cycle. I am sure you need to be pragmatic about it
I know of NDB approaches where if you fly the GPS inbound precisely (coupled) and watch the RMI, the ADF error rises to some 30 degrees.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what your airline friends mean by "TOD". Do they mean leaving the platform altitude on the approach or the true top of descent from cruise. It's essential to always monitor/identify the ADF signal throughout the approach when using it as the primary means of navigation as there are no fail flags with an ADF receiver. Pretty standard SOP for any airline I would have though. Although the 744 has and electronic ident function on the nav displays (it shows the decoded morse), it's still our SOP to listen to the NDB transmission to promptly detect any failure of the aid. I doubt you could properly identify an NDB from a typical jet TOD point as you'd be 100 miles away. Most NDB's only have 10-25 mile range so how your friends airlines imagine they can or should only identify them at TOD is bizarre (and potentially dangerous). If the NDB failed whilst they were tracking it, how would they ever know?
I've never seen NDB errors of 30 degrees. I've only ever seen them waver when there is a local active CB cell. Short term deviations are acceptable particularly when backed up with a moving map display but if there was a deviation of the order you mention for more than a few seconds, I would certainly go around.
To qualify all of this, I'd say 99% of my jet NDB approaches have been in the sim, not the real world, but we still have SOP's that dictate how they should be flown. If they are the primary approach aid, then tolerances (5 degrees) etc must be adhered to regardless of what a GPS generated map tells us. Some pragmatism is allowed in commercial aviation, but not much. Moving maps tell such a compelling story that it would be easy to be sucked in when something was set up wrongly.
I've never seen NDB errors of 30 degrees. I've only ever seen them waver when there is a local active CB cell. Short term deviations are acceptable particularly when backed up with a moving map display but if there was a deviation of the order you mention for more than a few seconds, I would certainly go around.
To qualify all of this, I'd say 99% of my jet NDB approaches have been in the sim, not the real world, but we still have SOP's that dictate how they should be flown. If they are the primary approach aid, then tolerances (5 degrees) etc must be adhered to regardless of what a GPS generated map tells us. Some pragmatism is allowed in commercial aviation, but not much. Moving maps tell such a compelling story that it would be easy to be sucked in when something was set up wrongly.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One was a 737 pilot and the other was an A340 pilot.
They appear to be flying procedural NDB approaches (outside the UK) so the "TOD" would be the FAF - the start of the final inbound leg on which you are tracking the NDB inbound.
They appear to be flying procedural NDB approaches (outside the UK) so the "TOD" would be the FAF - the start of the final inbound leg on which you are tracking the NDB inbound.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a question then, how far would your airline mates fly with the ADF needle pointing straight ahead once they last identified it at the FAF and "switched off"? I'd suggest this is an extremely dangerous practise.
Can't find a reference but there was a recent serious incident in Africa where the map provided a compelling image and a VOR approach was flown without reference to the raw data and map shift nearly caused the loss of a hull.
I've PM'd you an excerpt from our operations manual on the subject of NDB monitoring.
Can't find a reference but there was a recent serious incident in Africa where the map provided a compelling image and a VOR approach was flown without reference to the raw data and map shift nearly caused the loss of a hull.
I've PM'd you an excerpt from our operations manual on the subject of NDB monitoring.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the PM, FL.
Obviously I am not an airline pilot but I guess the attitude to this must depend on the exact situation, and also on the likelihood of "map shift".
Let's say you have navigated to a standard-ish 4.5D FAF, and you are pretty confident that's where you are. Navaids all checked, including the NDB/ADF. And you are established on the final approach track at the FAF.
There isn't much that can go wrong after that, just by flying the right heading. The distance to run is only 4.5nm minus whatever the distance at which you are supposed to be visual - typically around 2D so you have only 2+nm left to run. Obviously you will have a pretty good idea of the wind by then too. The ICAO procedure design criteria are pretty generous on NDB approaches. It seems over the top to require a constant monitoring of the ADF, during this very short distance and time.
Also, if "map shift" was that common, the whole concept of BRNAV and PRNAV would go out of the window. Planes would be wondering all over the sky. Your INS should be pretty stable for these short periods.
You can get a map shift with a pure GPS system if you are descending between mountains. But not in open terrain. Maybe Kathmandu but that is a VOR approach which should be accurate enough.
The proof of the pudding is in America, where millions of pure-GPS approaches have been flown, by a wide variety of operators ranging from private pilots to jet transports, and they have not identified systematic problems.
Obviously I am not an airline pilot but I guess the attitude to this must depend on the exact situation, and also on the likelihood of "map shift".
Let's say you have navigated to a standard-ish 4.5D FAF, and you are pretty confident that's where you are. Navaids all checked, including the NDB/ADF. And you are established on the final approach track at the FAF.
There isn't much that can go wrong after that, just by flying the right heading. The distance to run is only 4.5nm minus whatever the distance at which you are supposed to be visual - typically around 2D so you have only 2+nm left to run. Obviously you will have a pretty good idea of the wind by then too. The ICAO procedure design criteria are pretty generous on NDB approaches. It seems over the top to require a constant monitoring of the ADF, during this very short distance and time.
Also, if "map shift" was that common, the whole concept of BRNAV and PRNAV would go out of the window. Planes would be wondering all over the sky. Your INS should be pretty stable for these short periods.
You can get a map shift with a pure GPS system if you are descending between mountains. But not in open terrain. Maybe Kathmandu but that is a VOR approach which should be accurate enough.
The proof of the pudding is in America, where millions of pure-GPS approaches have been flown, by a wide variety of operators ranging from private pilots to jet transports, and they have not identified systematic problems.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, Thames Radar invoices Biggin Hill for the radar service - I guess at some flat annual rate which is why the Biggin plate says the procedural approach is not available unless Thames Radar is unavailable - they want to get the maximum value for their money. This billing would make the whole thing totally uneconomic to most GA airfields.
Surely if enough people used it the airfield could simply pass on the cost to the users.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Map shift is very common in non GPS IRS aircraft in countries where ground based aids are few and far between and/or improperly calibrated. My airline regularly suffered from false localiser captures where the IRS based track turned the plane onto the supposed localiser track which was offset to the actual localiser. Quite tricky to spot and it resulted in our SOP being changed so that localiser courses could only be established from a heading, not an RNAV track. This is going now GPS is more common.
Let's say you have navigated to a standard-ish 4.5D FAF, and you are pretty confident that's where you are. Navaids all checked, including the NDB/ADF. And you are established on the final approach track at the FAF.
There isn't much that can go wrong after that, just by flying the right heading. The distance to run is only 4.5nm minus whatever the distance at which you are supposed to be visual - typically around 2D so you have only 2+nm left to run. Obviously you will have a pretty good idea of the wind by then too. The ICAO procedure design criteria are pretty generous on NDB approaches. It seems over the top to require a constant monitoring of the ADF, during this very short distance and time.
What you are suggesting is flying (what is likely to be below the MSA) on an approximate heading with no visual reference nor positively identified ground aid in a direction you cannot be 100% sure of. Sure, 2 miles may not be a problem, and in fact this scenario is common where the NDB is out on the final approach, not on the airfield. During the approach as you pass overhead the beacon, all you can do is maintain a heading and (often) start the final descent whilst the needle is spinning 180 degrees and you're not properly established inbound. But rules is rules. In public transport operations, we don't eyeball anything or carry on another 2 miles without positive guidance because we think we know where we are. Safety records of decent airlines bear out the importance of this very conservative method.
Also, if "map shift" was that common, the whole concept of BRNAV and PRNAV would go out of the window. Planes would be wondering all over the sky. Your INS should be pretty stable for these short periods.
Map shift is usually caused when the a/c has been flying with sole reference to the INS/IRS and then comes within range of the landing airport aids and resets it's position.
You can get a map shift with a pure GPS system if you are descending between mountains. But not in open terrain. Maybe Kathmandu but that is a VOR approach which should be accurate enough.
RAIM is more critical in commercial ops.
The proof of the pudding is in America, where millions of pure-GPS approaches have been flown, by a wide variety of operators ranging from private pilots to jet transports, and they have not identified systematic problems.
We don't fly pure GPS approaches in the 744. We fly RNAV final approaches (eg JFK Canarsie overlay) but this is using the triple IRS system updated with twin GPS positions and a pair of traditional ground aids (from the best resolution DME/DME to VOR/DME and VOR/VOR calculations). We manually set lateral tolerance limits into the FMS and an exceedance of these on the approach (Unable RNP message) means immediate attention with consideration to a go around.
Let's say you have navigated to a standard-ish 4.5D FAF, and you are pretty confident that's where you are. Navaids all checked, including the NDB/ADF. And you are established on the final approach track at the FAF.
There isn't much that can go wrong after that, just by flying the right heading. The distance to run is only 4.5nm minus whatever the distance at which you are supposed to be visual - typically around 2D so you have only 2+nm left to run. Obviously you will have a pretty good idea of the wind by then too. The ICAO procedure design criteria are pretty generous on NDB approaches. It seems over the top to require a constant monitoring of the ADF, during this very short distance and time.
What you are suggesting is flying (what is likely to be below the MSA) on an approximate heading with no visual reference nor positively identified ground aid in a direction you cannot be 100% sure of. Sure, 2 miles may not be a problem, and in fact this scenario is common where the NDB is out on the final approach, not on the airfield. During the approach as you pass overhead the beacon, all you can do is maintain a heading and (often) start the final descent whilst the needle is spinning 180 degrees and you're not properly established inbound. But rules is rules. In public transport operations, we don't eyeball anything or carry on another 2 miles without positive guidance because we think we know where we are. Safety records of decent airlines bear out the importance of this very conservative method.
Also, if "map shift" was that common, the whole concept of BRNAV and PRNAV would go out of the window. Planes would be wondering all over the sky. Your INS should be pretty stable for these short periods.
Map shift is usually caused when the a/c has been flying with sole reference to the INS/IRS and then comes within range of the landing airport aids and resets it's position.
You can get a map shift with a pure GPS system if you are descending between mountains. But not in open terrain. Maybe Kathmandu but that is a VOR approach which should be accurate enough.
RAIM is more critical in commercial ops.
The proof of the pudding is in America, where millions of pure-GPS approaches have been flown, by a wide variety of operators ranging from private pilots to jet transports, and they have not identified systematic problems.
We don't fly pure GPS approaches in the 744. We fly RNAV final approaches (eg JFK Canarsie overlay) but this is using the triple IRS system updated with twin GPS positions and a pair of traditional ground aids (from the best resolution DME/DME to VOR/DME and VOR/VOR calculations). We manually set lateral tolerance limits into the FMS and an exceedance of these on the approach (Unable RNP message) means immediate attention with consideration to a go around.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL - thank you for taking the time to type up all this. I don't think we disagree on anything. Map shift is bound to happen with INS because of the gradual accumulation of errors - even FOGs are not perfect.
However, I did not say
because you are getting continuous guidance with the GPS, and the loss of GPS function is normally pretty obvious. Especially with RAIM, which is anyway mandatory for GPS approaches.
Probably not - the % of IFR traffic is generally too small. At Biggin there is a lot of high value (bizjet) traffic but the average GA airfield would not have enough.
I don't know what Biggin pays but it's probably 5 digits or low 6 digits per year. Any comments from those close to the game?
However, I did not say
What you are suggesting is flying (what is likely to be below the MSA) on an approximate heading with no visual reference nor positively identified ground aid in a direction you cannot be 100% sure of.
Surely if enough people used it the airfield could simply pass on the cost to the users.
I don't know what Biggin pays but it's probably 5 digits or low 6 digits per year. Any comments from those close to the game?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Front of Beyond
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently, most (all?) airports that have full ATC already have a conventional IAP
Brooklands
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to a non-precision approach, such as a NDB approach, the approach aid must be both initially identified and monitored all the time during which it is being relied upon for tracking guidance. Whether this is done manually (i.e. aurally) or automatically is immaterial. However, it must be monitored during the approach, for obvious safety reasons.
In my opinion, your 737 and A340 pilots either misunderstood the question - or are misled in their belief.
JD
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redhill has ATC and no IAP.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Class G context, nobody can "control" traffic.
Therefore, is there a legal obstacle to a FISO providing an "information" service for the purposes of scheduling traffic to the IAF?
In the USA, they deal with this by the IAF being in Class E, which is CAS for IFR and positive ATC control can thus be exercised.
But in the UK, ATC could not control the traffic anyway, even if the billing issues were resolved. All they could provide is a standard radar or procedural service, which any pilot could disobey legally (if he advises ATC of the fact).
And if the UK IAF was in CAS, say some existing Class D, we would then be back to the old problem of ATC sometimes refusing entry into CAS, thus making the airfield sometimes inaccessible to IFR traffic.
Therefore, is there a legal obstacle to a FISO providing an "information" service for the purposes of scheduling traffic to the IAF?
In the USA, they deal with this by the IAF being in Class E, which is CAS for IFR and positive ATC control can thus be exercised.
But in the UK, ATC could not control the traffic anyway, even if the billing issues were resolved. All they could provide is a standard radar or procedural service, which any pilot could disobey legally (if he advises ATC of the fact).
And if the UK IAF was in CAS, say some existing Class D, we would then be back to the old problem of ATC sometimes refusing entry into CAS, thus making the airfield sometimes inaccessible to IFR traffic.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO,
It is not a "European" problem but a UK CAA one. There are GPS approaches at a number of European airports (including Hungary). The CAA are being there normal pathetic, money grabbing selves. See below the Email string I had with a German pal about GPS approaches:
Do the airports concerned (STRAUBING & EGGENFELDEN) have full Air Traffic Control, and are they “licensed”. Can one use the procedure to land at the airports when there is no ATC? I quote the UK CAA proposed approval: “The CAA has approved the use in the UK of RNAV (GNSS) Approach procedures. RNAV (GNSS) 2-Dimensional Non-Precision Approach (NPA) procedures and 3-Dimensional Barometric VNAV (APV Baro VNAV) approach procedures will be authorised only to suitable instrument runways, at appropriately equipped licensed aerodromes with Air Traffic Control (ATC) services.”
Best wishes,
T
"Hi T,
we don't have these term "licensed" for an airfield. For the period of an approach there is an airspace "F" activated, which means traffic advisories for VFR and IFR. The "Tower" has the Information function as for VFR and gives no clearances. The airfield requirements are manned Info Freq and ATIS, besides the approved approach procedure, of course.
best regards
F
So taking the example of Blackbushe.(If it was in Germany). It does not have ATC – it has an Airfield Flight Information Service (AFIS). He is not a controller. He issues advisories – QNH, QFE and traffic info. So reading your email, if Blackbushe was in Germany and the AFIS was working and there was an approved approach procedure one could fly an approved GPS approach?
T
"exactly, Blackbushe is directly comparable to Straubing oder Eggenfelden"
F
It is not a "European" problem but a UK CAA one. There are GPS approaches at a number of European airports (including Hungary). The CAA are being there normal pathetic, money grabbing selves. See below the Email string I had with a German pal about GPS approaches:
Do the airports concerned (STRAUBING & EGGENFELDEN) have full Air Traffic Control, and are they “licensed”. Can one use the procedure to land at the airports when there is no ATC? I quote the UK CAA proposed approval: “The CAA has approved the use in the UK of RNAV (GNSS) Approach procedures. RNAV (GNSS) 2-Dimensional Non-Precision Approach (NPA) procedures and 3-Dimensional Barometric VNAV (APV Baro VNAV) approach procedures will be authorised only to suitable instrument runways, at appropriately equipped licensed aerodromes with Air Traffic Control (ATC) services.”
Best wishes,
T
"Hi T,
we don't have these term "licensed" for an airfield. For the period of an approach there is an airspace "F" activated, which means traffic advisories for VFR and IFR. The "Tower" has the Information function as for VFR and gives no clearances. The airfield requirements are manned Info Freq and ATIS, besides the approved approach procedure, of course.
best regards
F
So taking the example of Blackbushe.(If it was in Germany). It does not have ATC – it has an Airfield Flight Information Service (AFIS). He is not a controller. He issues advisories – QNH, QFE and traffic info. So reading your email, if Blackbushe was in Germany and the AFIS was working and there was an approved approach procedure one could fly an approved GPS approach?
T
"exactly, Blackbushe is directly comparable to Straubing oder Eggenfelden"
F
beerdrinker
The situation in Germany is not quite as clear cut as you suggest. Munich Approach is responsible for the separaion of IFR departures and arrivals from/to Eggenfelden and Straubing. Just because the approach control unit is not sitting at the airfield doesn't mean that there's no ATC. There is however no aerodrome control, just an information service.
That doesn't mean we couldn't learn from the German model in the UK, but if you want to have the equivalent of the situation in Bayern, you need to get LTCC to control approaches into Blackbushe. I doubt that would be arranged as cost effectively as it is with/by the DFS.
The situation in Germany is not quite as clear cut as you suggest. Munich Approach is responsible for the separaion of IFR departures and arrivals from/to Eggenfelden and Straubing. Just because the approach control unit is not sitting at the airfield doesn't mean that there's no ATC. There is however no aerodrome control, just an information service.
That doesn't mean we couldn't learn from the German model in the UK, but if you want to have the equivalent of the situation in Bayern, you need to get LTCC to control approaches into Blackbushe. I doubt that would be arranged as cost effectively as it is with/by the DFS.