CAA,Campaign Against Aviation?
Thread Starter
CAA,Campaign Against Aviation?
THis 'oft' heard phrase appears to be getting more truthful by the day.
Mandatory Slots for relativly minor Display venues.
Like many other people I was unable to bring my vintage a/c to GVFW at Abiningdon recently. I applied for a slot about three weeks before the event but all slots taken. Tried again the week before, same apologetic answer from the organisers, with the explanation that without a full, and expensive, ATC provision, heavy restriction had been applied by the CAA to visitor a/c movements. On the day I managed to get a lift in with a friend who had obtained a slot many weeks before. On arrival we found less movements than some club strips on a normal day, with nothing happening and many arrival gaps in the visitor flow.
Many more a/c could have been safely handled and many potential visitors turned away by the slot requirement.
Forewarned, I booked a slot in good time for the Kemble Air Day. Due to the inflexibility of the slot system I booked a slot each of the two days to allow for the vagaries of the weather etc., as understandably other other pilots did, further restricting the available slots.
Again, on arrival two a/c in circuit, and after landing, large gaps in arrivals when many more visitors could have been handled.
A FISO operation is perfectly capable of handling many more movements than occurred at Kemble. I cannot understand why the CAA impose this restriction. Remember the fateful year when the CAA imposed a full ATC system at Wroughton, chaos, and many air safety incidents before the FISO system hastily restored.
The same system is being imposed at Sywell for the LAA Rally this year, I hope the organisers have a rethink having noted the resulting ineptitude that resulted at the previous mentioned venues.
It also appears that further bureaucracy is currently effecting the UK's largest warbird operation at the height of the Display season. A CAA audit is preventing the issuing of Permits to Fly while a lengthy audit takes place. Many foreign warbirds are able to attend an upcoming large two day event, perversely,not being under the same CAA oversight that is currently preventing the operation of many of the UK contingent.
Air Displays provide the main income from which our hard pressed warbird organisations get their main financial support.
In a previous airline career my Company had many CAA maintenance and operational audits, which took place during the normal airline operation. We were not grounded while the inspections took place. It appears that the smaller UK organisations are handled differently.
UK GPS Approaches, what is happening? More than 1500 hundred approved in USA, Europe, Australia, using the same aircraft equipment and satellites that we use in the UK. Half a dozen or so approved in UK ,all at airports with other landing aids. We need GPS approaches at the smaller airfields, Blackbushe, Fairoaks, Kemble and the like. The CAA require full ATC for an approved GPS App.in the UK, why? In the USA and Australia the FISO system is perfectly adequate, with the nearest IFR ATC Centre to the destination, handing off the approaching a/c at the lowest IFR level, and the FISO system does the rest, even for Air Carrier Operations.
I could go on, the massive financial burden being imposed on our small maintenance organisations, causes a reduction in most pilots flying time, due to the increased costs passed on, and therefore reduces air safety by the lack of piloting recency.
The advent of EASA taking over many previous CAA functions, appears to be resulting in the smaller UK Operators being disappropriatley heavily handled, to provide jobs for the CAA staff remaining.
A legal Cause and Effect remedy should be available in the UK to these, and many other current impositions.
Rant over!!
Mandatory Slots for relativly minor Display venues.
Like many other people I was unable to bring my vintage a/c to GVFW at Abiningdon recently. I applied for a slot about three weeks before the event but all slots taken. Tried again the week before, same apologetic answer from the organisers, with the explanation that without a full, and expensive, ATC provision, heavy restriction had been applied by the CAA to visitor a/c movements. On the day I managed to get a lift in with a friend who had obtained a slot many weeks before. On arrival we found less movements than some club strips on a normal day, with nothing happening and many arrival gaps in the visitor flow.
Many more a/c could have been safely handled and many potential visitors turned away by the slot requirement.
Forewarned, I booked a slot in good time for the Kemble Air Day. Due to the inflexibility of the slot system I booked a slot each of the two days to allow for the vagaries of the weather etc., as understandably other other pilots did, further restricting the available slots.
Again, on arrival two a/c in circuit, and after landing, large gaps in arrivals when many more visitors could have been handled.
A FISO operation is perfectly capable of handling many more movements than occurred at Kemble. I cannot understand why the CAA impose this restriction. Remember the fateful year when the CAA imposed a full ATC system at Wroughton, chaos, and many air safety incidents before the FISO system hastily restored.
The same system is being imposed at Sywell for the LAA Rally this year, I hope the organisers have a rethink having noted the resulting ineptitude that resulted at the previous mentioned venues.
It also appears that further bureaucracy is currently effecting the UK's largest warbird operation at the height of the Display season. A CAA audit is preventing the issuing of Permits to Fly while a lengthy audit takes place. Many foreign warbirds are able to attend an upcoming large two day event, perversely,not being under the same CAA oversight that is currently preventing the operation of many of the UK contingent.
Air Displays provide the main income from which our hard pressed warbird organisations get their main financial support.
In a previous airline career my Company had many CAA maintenance and operational audits, which took place during the normal airline operation. We were not grounded while the inspections took place. It appears that the smaller UK organisations are handled differently.
UK GPS Approaches, what is happening? More than 1500 hundred approved in USA, Europe, Australia, using the same aircraft equipment and satellites that we use in the UK. Half a dozen or so approved in UK ,all at airports with other landing aids. We need GPS approaches at the smaller airfields, Blackbushe, Fairoaks, Kemble and the like. The CAA require full ATC for an approved GPS App.in the UK, why? In the USA and Australia the FISO system is perfectly adequate, with the nearest IFR ATC Centre to the destination, handing off the approaching a/c at the lowest IFR level, and the FISO system does the rest, even for Air Carrier Operations.
I could go on, the massive financial burden being imposed on our small maintenance organisations, causes a reduction in most pilots flying time, due to the increased costs passed on, and therefore reduces air safety by the lack of piloting recency.
The advent of EASA taking over many previous CAA functions, appears to be resulting in the smaller UK Operators being disappropriatley heavily handled, to provide jobs for the CAA staff remaining.
A legal Cause and Effect remedy should be available in the UK to these, and many other current impositions.
Rant over!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I whole heartedly agree with your comments on GPS approaches. Why on earth are the UK reinventing the wheel. Can't we implement the FAA system lock stick and barrel and save a fortune.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA and GPS approaches
While at AeroExpo I approached a CAA man in order to ask about lack of GPS approaches in the UK. The reply was abrupt "what are you talking about - you've got them!". I then pointed out yes, one (Shoreham.)
He agreed, then said "but two more are coming!". (There now?) When I indicated I was underwhelmed by this, the CAA man said [paraphrasing] "tough luck, we have to make a profit and can't tell the airfields what to do". When I asked why not - after all the CAA tell the airfields what to do all the time on many different matters - we parted, not on good terms.
[We also had an exchange regarding how rubbish ADFs/NDBs are for instrument approaches - he agreed that it would never be approved if proposed now "it would be laughed at with its problems" and that GPS - although not infallible - is far more accurate, reliable, easy to interpret... i.e. safer.]
Reflecting on this, perhaps the trouble is that it seems that it costs an airfield a lot to do what has to be done to get an approach sorted, and where is the incentive? (Maybe a Catch 22? Until there are a reasonable number of approaches, little point in an owner spending the money and considerable approval process to get an approved GPS unit in an aircraft. And while there are a relatively small proportion of aircraft with approved GPS units, there's not much point in airfields spending the money to get GPS approaches as the airfield won't get the revenue to make it worthwhile...)
While the CAA may do a good job in many areas I found the CAA attitude [by said individual] pretty disappointing in this regard. From my brief discussion, it seems that GPS approaches ain't going to happen any time soon. [Not even GPS non-precision NDB/DME overlay approaches as the FAA allows by default in the US.]
Anyone have any contacts/experience of lobbying about this? [I.e. to get GPS approaches done and to get a specifically low cost/straightforward approval process for GPS units in different aircraft.]
He agreed, then said "but two more are coming!". (There now?) When I indicated I was underwhelmed by this, the CAA man said [paraphrasing] "tough luck, we have to make a profit and can't tell the airfields what to do". When I asked why not - after all the CAA tell the airfields what to do all the time on many different matters - we parted, not on good terms.
[We also had an exchange regarding how rubbish ADFs/NDBs are for instrument approaches - he agreed that it would never be approved if proposed now "it would be laughed at with its problems" and that GPS - although not infallible - is far more accurate, reliable, easy to interpret... i.e. safer.]
Reflecting on this, perhaps the trouble is that it seems that it costs an airfield a lot to do what has to be done to get an approach sorted, and where is the incentive? (Maybe a Catch 22? Until there are a reasonable number of approaches, little point in an owner spending the money and considerable approval process to get an approved GPS unit in an aircraft. And while there are a relatively small proportion of aircraft with approved GPS units, there's not much point in airfields spending the money to get GPS approaches as the airfield won't get the revenue to make it worthwhile...)
While the CAA may do a good job in many areas I found the CAA attitude [by said individual] pretty disappointing in this regard. From my brief discussion, it seems that GPS approaches ain't going to happen any time soon. [Not even GPS non-precision NDB/DME overlay approaches as the FAA allows by default in the US.]
Anyone have any contacts/experience of lobbying about this? [I.e. to get GPS approaches done and to get a specifically low cost/straightforward approval process for GPS units in different aircraft.]
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of slots for fly-ins, I couldn't agree more. If Popham and Headcorn can handle, routinely, large numbers of aircraft without fuss or trauma (and still create a friendly, relaxed atmosphere that equals somewhere people want to go), there seems to me no need at all to impose slot times for 'events'.
'Tis analagous, perhaps, to the removal of traffic lights: people will sort themselves out better without regulation.
I was having a lovely day until you wound me up, cp.
'Tis analagous, perhaps, to the removal of traffic lights: people will sort themselves out better without regulation.
I was having a lovely day until you wound me up, cp.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Upper Gumtree
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cessnapete is right in his other criticisms, too.
These people are supposed to be administrating the law of the land, and we have a right that it is done in a fair and reasonable manner. Instead, it is totally restrictive and unreasonable. We are promised "lighter touch" regulation each time a new head of CAA is appointed, and instead the promise is forgotten immediately. Many of the requirements seem to be made up by the CAA as they go along.
We see airfields giving up their licences because of all the problems, maintenance organisations having to spend more time on paperwork than on maintaining the aircraft, more and more costs and fees being imposed - one could go on for ever.
Did the parliamentary review of civil aviation not recommend the establishment of an ombudsman so that this "organisation" could be called to account and over-ruled if necessary? What happened to that?
We fly safer and safer, and all we get is less and less appreciation that we do so. Yuk!
These people are supposed to be administrating the law of the land, and we have a right that it is done in a fair and reasonable manner. Instead, it is totally restrictive and unreasonable. We are promised "lighter touch" regulation each time a new head of CAA is appointed, and instead the promise is forgotten immediately. Many of the requirements seem to be made up by the CAA as they go along.
We see airfields giving up their licences because of all the problems, maintenance organisations having to spend more time on paperwork than on maintaining the aircraft, more and more costs and fees being imposed - one could go on for ever.
Did the parliamentary review of civil aviation not recommend the establishment of an ombudsman so that this "organisation" could be called to account and over-ruled if necessary? What happened to that?
We fly safer and safer, and all we get is less and less appreciation that we do so. Yuk!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is more to this than meets the eye.
A lot of it is the way UK is set up... "user pays" "user pays" etc.
Any airfield can have a GPS approach IF
- it pays for the obstacle survey (5 digits) - this will never be recovered from extra traffic
- it has either full ATC (which for daytime only cover costs the bigger part of £1M a year) or pays a nearby radar unit for a radar service, or perhaps a procedural service (which will cost a packet too - this is what e.g. Biggin does with Thames Radar).
- it has an approach suitable runway; any old bit of grass with no lights won't meet ICAO requirements
I don't think there will be any takers except the few airfields which have ATC already. IIRC, all those participating in the trials also have conventional IAPs and the only benefit of GPS IAPs might be the cost saving in the dismantling on NDB/DME navaids.
Of course a GPS IAP is safer than pilots flying DIY GPS approaches, but safety doesn't come into any of this. Money is what matters when you run an airfield.
It works in the USA, and would work in most of the rest of the world, because they have centrally (taxpayer) funded ATC services, so the provision of the radar service doesn't cost the airfield anything. Also, in the USA anyway, the FAA does the obstacle survey and the IAP design for nothing.
The USA also has a clever airspace design, with Class E down to about 1200ft, so any "VFR" or non-radio traffic flying in IMC in the vicinity is illegal because it is IFR and needs an IFR clearance. The FAA busts pilots for this, but in compensation the USA has a much more accessible IR. So the USA hangs together a lot better.
The UK is crippled even before you start, without the CAA being able to do anything about it.
A lot of it is the way UK is set up... "user pays" "user pays" etc.
Any airfield can have a GPS approach IF
- it pays for the obstacle survey (5 digits) - this will never be recovered from extra traffic
- it has either full ATC (which for daytime only cover costs the bigger part of £1M a year) or pays a nearby radar unit for a radar service, or perhaps a procedural service (which will cost a packet too - this is what e.g. Biggin does with Thames Radar).
- it has an approach suitable runway; any old bit of grass with no lights won't meet ICAO requirements
I don't think there will be any takers except the few airfields which have ATC already. IIRC, all those participating in the trials also have conventional IAPs and the only benefit of GPS IAPs might be the cost saving in the dismantling on NDB/DME navaids.
Of course a GPS IAP is safer than pilots flying DIY GPS approaches, but safety doesn't come into any of this. Money is what matters when you run an airfield.
It works in the USA, and would work in most of the rest of the world, because they have centrally (taxpayer) funded ATC services, so the provision of the radar service doesn't cost the airfield anything. Also, in the USA anyway, the FAA does the obstacle survey and the IAP design for nothing.
The USA also has a clever airspace design, with Class E down to about 1200ft, so any "VFR" or non-radio traffic flying in IMC in the vicinity is illegal because it is IFR and needs an IFR clearance. The FAA busts pilots for this, but in compensation the USA has a much more accessible IR. So the USA hangs together a lot better.
The UK is crippled even before you start, without the CAA being able to do anything about it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charges
I was poking around the CAA website trying to find examiner fees a while back and i saw a huge charge for the initiation of GPS approaches, i think it was around 8k, cant find it now but on the previous points, to upgrade to Full ATC is a minimum cost of £10,450 to the CAA plus for a small airfield (say up to 5 ATCO's) you pay £3635. These are just CAA charges, not including the cost to the airfield for training etc.
Page 5 and 6
ORS5 No. 242: Aerodrome Licensing and Aerodrome Air Traffic Services Regulation | Publications | CAA
Im sure there are alot more charges hiding in the system but when you have to pay this amount up front is it really worth it. To the pilots yes, to the guys paying the bills no. There should be an easier way to pull small airports kicking and screaming into the 20th century without making them go bust for the pleasure. (in a sense rather than forcing them!!)
DBB
Page 5 and 6
ORS5 No. 242: Aerodrome Licensing and Aerodrome Air Traffic Services Regulation | Publications | CAA
Im sure there are alot more charges hiding in the system but when you have to pay this amount up front is it really worth it. To the pilots yes, to the guys paying the bills no. There should be an easier way to pull small airports kicking and screaming into the 20th century without making them go bust for the pleasure. (in a sense rather than forcing them!!)
DBB
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't mind so much if there wasn't so much inflexibilitity or some justification for the way Belgrano do things, recent experiences include:
I agree that the CAA don't provide value for money, should delegate far more to approved organisations make the charges for those approvals far more realistic.
I agree that the CAA don't provide value for money, should delegate far more to approved organisations make the charges for those approvals far more realistic.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
many years ago I innocently referred to the FAA as the Federal Aviation Authority and I was very quickly corrected by the FAA Examiner who was conducting my checkride..."it is an administration" he said, "not an authority" ...."They work for us and are here to administer to our needs as pilots"
I now realise what he meant !
Why can't we have a civil aviation administration rather than a bunch of jobsworths who are stuck in the distant past and hanging around just for the pension.
UK is a bit of a joke compared to other more progressive countries but then again if you haven't flown outside the uk then ignorance is bliss !
Why is a a day of ILS in France 12 euro and one ILS to land in UK can be £43 if you are lucky ! not to mention the ignorant bod who grabs the dosh
Boils down to one thing ATTITUDE and the fact that we put up with poor service because we have no other choice
Good posting glad I got that off my chest !!!!
I now realise what he meant !
Why can't we have a civil aviation administration rather than a bunch of jobsworths who are stuck in the distant past and hanging around just for the pension.
UK is a bit of a joke compared to other more progressive countries but then again if you haven't flown outside the uk then ignorance is bliss !
Why is a a day of ILS in France 12 euro and one ILS to land in UK can be £43 if you are lucky ! not to mention the ignorant bod who grabs the dosh
Boils down to one thing ATTITUDE and the fact that we put up with poor service because we have no other choice
Good posting glad I got that off my chest !!!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA International launches new corporate image | CAA News | CAA
I think it shows the focus of the business. New CEO, new Corporate Image, more jargon, more things that appear to distance it yet further from some of us.
'Speaking with Authority'.
I think it shows the focus of the business. New CEO, new Corporate Image, more jargon, more things that appear to distance it yet further from some of us.
'Speaking with Authority'.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new website will also include online booking and payment facilities before the end of the year.
The above is typical of CAA incompetence, also the fact that the new brand is not visible and totally missing from the web statement
Come on CAA, get your act together, you are now getting very embarrassing !!
The above is typical of CAA incompetence, also the fact that the new brand is not visible and totally missing from the web statement
Come on CAA, get your act together, you are now getting very embarrassing !!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statement on the CAA website could have had the link to the new website for CAA International more prominently displayed, but the link is there (just above Notice to Editors), and the new website does exist and does look different to the CAA one. I presume the existing CAA will continue to exist.
http://www.caainternational.com
What the statement doesn't explain is the difference between CAA and CAA International. Yes it's wholly owned, but what is the difference in the target audiences? e.g. how would I know which one to choose?
http://www.caainternational.com
What the statement doesn't explain is the difference between CAA and CAA International. Yes it's wholly owned, but what is the difference in the target audiences? e.g. how would I know which one to choose?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goatface has correctly mentioned the problems regarding GPS approach planning.
From start to finish the paperwork will take around 3 years to pass through all the CAA hoops, plus all the costs involved. Then if you have not got an instrument runway (marked and safeguarded as such) you will end up with an MDH no better than you could achieve visually.
This is all blamed on the never ending march towards European harmonisation but somehow the UK and the CAA in particular have embraced the Single European Sky principle with more relish than our European neighbours.
From start to finish the paperwork will take around 3 years to pass through all the CAA hoops, plus all the costs involved. Then if you have not got an instrument runway (marked and safeguarded as such) you will end up with an MDH no better than you could achieve visually.
This is all blamed on the never ending march towards European harmonisation but somehow the UK and the CAA in particular have embraced the Single European Sky principle with more relish than our European neighbours.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame how aviation is treated and viewed in the UK,
the FAA system has pretty much all the boxes ticked with most American aviators looking at the UK as a leading example of how it should NOT be done with the wrong approach to aviation (and that was from a leading FAA inspector at a FSDO). I'm not saying the Feds have it all right, but at least they move forward at a better pace than the CAA who it would seem cower from new technology.
The truth is, the entire system is now over burdened with legislation, none of which is really clear or makes any real sense.
On another note, why is it that i can contact the FAA in Oklahoma, ask a question and get a prompt reply pointing me to the relevant FAR's with a 'Yes' or 'No' answer with a detailed explanation.... yet I ask the CAA a simple query to which i have to wait weeks for a poor reply that is less clear than mud and contains a simple instruction to look at LASORS which in its-self isn't always clear. I find it frustrating that our governing body, who make and implement the rules, cant offer simple and clear answerers to their own legislation when required.
its a shame, really
the FAA system has pretty much all the boxes ticked with most American aviators looking at the UK as a leading example of how it should NOT be done with the wrong approach to aviation (and that was from a leading FAA inspector at a FSDO). I'm not saying the Feds have it all right, but at least they move forward at a better pace than the CAA who it would seem cower from new technology.
The truth is, the entire system is now over burdened with legislation, none of which is really clear or makes any real sense.
On another note, why is it that i can contact the FAA in Oklahoma, ask a question and get a prompt reply pointing me to the relevant FAR's with a 'Yes' or 'No' answer with a detailed explanation.... yet I ask the CAA a simple query to which i have to wait weeks for a poor reply that is less clear than mud and contains a simple instruction to look at LASORS which in its-self isn't always clear. I find it frustrating that our governing body, who make and implement the rules, cant offer simple and clear answerers to their own legislation when required.
its a shame, really
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: France & UK
Age: 40
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA website is a load of S**T
I am trying to find the official view on cost sharing and have been looking on the CAA website with no bloody luck at all.
Can anyone point me in the direction of where to find an offical view on cost sharing.
Oh and is it me or is the CAA website like a politician (not giving you the stright answer you want)
Thanks
VFR
Can anyone point me in the direction of where to find an offical view on cost sharing.
Oh and is it me or is the CAA website like a politician (not giving you the stright answer you want)
Thanks
VFR
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dorset
Age: 49
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the talk of the Tories looking at vastly reducing Government Quango's maybe now is the time to write to Mr Cameron. He was talking on Radio 4 that such organisations should only enforce policy, not make it..
I guess there is more chance of getting sh*t out of a rocking horse...
I guess there is more chance of getting sh*t out of a rocking horse...
Let us not forget that it is the UK government who dictate that the CAA must recover its cost from the industry that uses the facilities. Whilst other countries provide facilities as public services from the public purse, the UK does not. Maybe a change of Government policy is called for.
When talking to CAA Staff find out what they do, quite often they are just clerks, many of the technical staff have left, either through natural wastage and not replaced, or they have left early because they are so p**d off with the inept and unqualified management from the top down.
When talking to CAA Staff find out what they do, quite often they are just clerks, many of the technical staff have left, either through natural wastage and not replaced, or they have left early because they are so p**d off with the inept and unqualified management from the top down.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggest that we as pilots start creating unofficial GPS non precision approaches to our local airfields (as many do now already ). Stick in a few user created waypoints and decide on a safe minima - then create a sensible missed approach
Pilot power !!
I know that this is not the ideal way to proceed but if used in a non precision manner with sensible minima which we can verify on the map ourselves then it must be better than waiting for the laggards at Belgrano Gatwick to do something pro-active.
Each local airfield could post it on a web with a safety disclaimer that we use it at our own risk
I know that given our UK "elf and safety" culture many of us will find this hard to accept but that is the only way it is going to happen. We need to drag CAA into the present world of aviation.
Pilot power !!
I know that this is not the ideal way to proceed but if used in a non precision manner with sensible minima which we can verify on the map ourselves then it must be better than waiting for the laggards at Belgrano Gatwick to do something pro-active.
Each local airfield could post it on a web with a safety disclaimer that we use it at our own risk
I know that given our UK "elf and safety" culture many of us will find this hard to accept but that is the only way it is going to happen. We need to drag CAA into the present world of aviation.
Thread Starter
GPS App
Belowradar. As you say will probably be the only way to get an approach to many airfields for some time to come. It has been going on for many years.
Operating corporate jets into Oxford some years ago before the ILS, we had to use a wavering old NDB needle and DME which brought you out at minimums offset to the runway. Much easier to use our FAA certified GPS/FMS. Runway thresholds were in the database ,extend the centreline 5 miles and fly that waypoint to the runway. Easy, and more important, safer than the NDB.
(Obviously flown in good weather first and using equipment already certified and used in the USA for GPS App.)
Operating corporate jets into Oxford some years ago before the ILS, we had to use a wavering old NDB needle and DME which brought you out at minimums offset to the runway. Much easier to use our FAA certified GPS/FMS. Runway thresholds were in the database ,extend the centreline 5 miles and fly that waypoint to the runway. Easy, and more important, safer than the NDB.
(Obviously flown in good weather first and using equipment already certified and used in the USA for GPS App.)