Shoreham proposal to downgrade ATC to FISO

[IO540]

Announced recently...

The instrument approaches will also be lost, because the UK CAA makes ATC mandatory for any instrument approach.

[Ryan5252]

Assuming this will have a fairly larger effect on pilot's such as yourself IO who don't necessarily rely on ATC per se but rather the ability to get back in when conditions are IFR? Shirley this will create an extra headache when it comes to flight planning not only for a return trip from Europe but also before you even go you would need to be confident conditions will be suitable for the homeward bound leg?

When is this likely to be effective? I suppose one could always divert to a nearby field with suitable IAPs available? Not knowing the background of the field and the type of aviation which is conducted there it is hard to know what affect this will have but would it be fair to say, if there are a number of IFR touring type pilot's based there (which I imagine given the location so close to the continent this is not unlikely) that they will perhaps consider re-locating to a more suitable field nearby thus endangering the future of yet another UK airport?

Ryan

[TCAS FAN]

A decision no doubt brought upon by a business decision. If it happens maybe another potential supporter to prevail upon ATSD to re-consider provision of instrument approach procedures with AFIS.

As Shoreham is in Class G airspace compliance with ATC instructions outside the ATZ is not mandatory for aircraft not receiving an approach service, so why cannot approach procedures continue with only AFIS?

It would be a straight forward process to write into any AFIS ops manual procedures for sequencing arrivals within the ATZ, which ATSD would have to review and determine their acceptability.

If at the moment an aircraft can overfly the ATZ 50 feet above it without any legal obligation to contact the ATC unit, what is different between that and an AFIS providing the service?

Much better an instrument approach procedure that has been designed using quality controlled survey data and compliant with ICAO Doc 8168 design criteria, rather than a a pilot making up his/her own procedure to break cloud.

[Whopity]

The instrument approaches will also be lost, because the UK CAA makes ATC mandatory for any instrument approach.

There were a number of Scottish airfields with approaches and AFIS!

[Ryan5252]

There were a number of Scottish airfields with approaches and AFIS!

And still are as far as I'm aware - I fly often to Islay and this would be an example - though they are aparently 'secret'

[IO540]

Yes, confidential instrument approaches, approved for the use by a specific company, which paid for the approach design and owns the copyright to it. No kidding.

[Sir George Cayley]

From a friend in a pub who knows someone at the Campaigns brother-in-law, the issues surrounding secret let downs and non ATCO provisions for GPS approaches is 'under review' at the moment.

How long it will take for them to get to where the rest of the world -OK US & Aus - have been for years, Lord knows.

Fingers crossed for all and especially Brighton & Hove International.

Sir George Cayley

[AdamFrisch]

Here we go again. This has been in the workings for ages, but got curtailed. The owners of Shoreham are fattening her up for the slaughter.

They wont stop until every single field in the UK has been developed into a housing estate and every single GA pilot has been eradicated. I just wish that for once a pilot actually owned a field and not some d**khead investor who's constantly looking for a high price sell. I'm buying stocks in Sikorsky. Helicopters are the only things with a future in GA the way things are going...

This leaves Lydd and Manston as the only places with instrument approaches in the coastal region and out of those two, I know which one I'd like to fly into.

Subversive thought IO: could not all pilots based at Shoreham gang together and offer to pay ATCOs salaries? Shared between you, it might not be much of a monthly cost?

[Mickey Kaye]

Out of interest how does it work in the USA.OZ etc

[Whopity]

confidential instrument approaches, approved for the use by a specific company, which paid for the approach design and owns the copyright to it. No kidding.

So what is the safety case for allowing this, whilst denying it elsewhere? We could all have our own private approaches.

[turbine100]

Shoreham's a busy licensed airfield.

The freq's get split when busy and the full time controllers are currently under staffed.

I think if this goes through in Shoreham's situation, it would potentially be a safety issue. They have large numbers of movements at busy times throughout the year and tower / approach services are perfect with proper ATIS.

Today the approach controller was working on his own and was over worked, this was noticeable. In addition had people flying circuits, outside of the ATZ.

One flying school does a lot of IR training, invested a lot of money in equipment and having the services available. helps them and their business.

Some of the Part 145 maintenance organisations will loose the larger AOC operators, who may need work done, before charters the following day. Those companies will not risk flying in IFR conditions into the airport if the correct services are not available, to comply with their own AOC / ops manual requirements.

So they may end up loosing revenue via landing / instrument approaches etc.

If anything at the moment is to go by, it could be worse if downgraded. Any issues the operators, schools and private pilots are seeing or having with ATC; they should be raising these via SMS, MOR or Chirp reports, depending on circumstances etc. In addition to complaining to the airport owners, council and CAA regarding Shoreham airports situation and apply pressure.

[CharlieRomeo]

as far as I was aware the "discreet approaches" at the scottish airfields such as Islay and Tiree are only used by Loganair and the Scottish Air Ambulance.

I've been to Shoreham a couple of times during my hours building many moons ago, and both times was very busy. I think downgrading to FISO would be a bad move.

Shoreham is certainly in my opinion 1 of the best GA airfields in the UK

[englishal]

You need to back up the GPS approach in the IFR GPS dB before it gets wiped by future updates. I wonder how one can do that...?

[IO540]

Out of interest how does it work in the USA.OZ etc

In the USA, ATC is not privatised and the FAA provides an approach controller (somewhere nearby) who schedules the traffic onto the IAP. I think France does the same.

You can do the same in the UK but the approach controller's employer (a private company) will send an invoice to the airfield, which the vast majority of GA airfields would not be able to pay.

Other possible methods are using a non-ATC (i.e. low cost) "man in a hut with a radio" doing the approach scheduling but that cannot be reconciled with the ICAO requirements for ATC being required to "control" traffic i.e. to issue clearances.

Obviously if the powers to be got their heads around the incredibly difficult emotional concept of IFR pilots being able to work with less than formal instructions as to whether the IAP is available, that would change everything. But this horse has been flogged for as long as the G-word has been around.

So what is the safety case for allowing this, whilst denying it elsewhere?

It's called..... ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

Another name for it is "AOC".

We could all have our own private approaches.

We can. You can legally fly DIY IAPs, in a G-reg anyway.

You need to back up the GPS approach in the IFR GPS dB before it gets wiped by future updates. I wonder how one can do that...?

I know of no way to do that. If you stick the database card into a reader, all you see is garbage. It's obviously encrypted somehow, and uses some hardware / nonstandard filing system hack.

Obviously, you can create your own IAP, using user waypoints, i.e. a little standalone flight plan, and when approaching the IAF you just load that flight plan.

Whether it is worth doing this with an existing GPS approach is another matter. The Shoreham GPS approaches don't deliver anything which the old navaid approaches do not, in terms of MDH. All they give you is the ability for the airport to shut down the navaids, which is a big money saving - except the CAA crippled that option by requiring the NDB to be used for the missed approach

At Shoreham, you would fly the 02 using the GPS OBS mode, and optionally circle to land to 20. That's what most pilots going in there "for real" have been doing. You just can't do that on AOC flights.

Shoreham is a super airport, in good condition and with the best ATC I know of in the UK. This is really sad.

[Fuji Abound]

Will this have consequences for night ops?

[S-Works]

You need to back up the GPS approach in the IFR GPS dB before it gets wiped by future updates. I wonder how one can do that...?

By keeping a second card 'frozen' in time with the GPS approach cycle.

However flight under IFR using an IFR GPS with a database more than 28 days out of date is not legal......

[ShyTorque]

Where does it say that? An IFR equipped aircraft doesn't need GPS at all.

[S-Works]

Who said an IFR equipped aircraft needs a GPS?

However if you use a GPS for IFR then the database must be within the 28 day airac cycle.

If you swap the card in an IFR GPS like the Garmin it reboots. Doing that just prior to the start of the procedure would probably not be described as smart.

However as you now need BRNAV for CAS IFR below FL95 and pretty much the only way of getting it in a light aircraft is with a GPS some would argue that an IFR aircraft does need an IFR GPS in reality..........

[Tinstaafl]

To follow on IO540's answer re Oz & US: Australia doesn't require ATC at all to do an instrument approach. A flight information service is provided - but not by someone on the field. FIS is located in one of the cities and handles an area which can include many aerodromes.

The US is typically Class E away from controlled fields but for IFR aircraft that's still controlled airspace. You still have to broadcast your intentions on the aerodrome frequency but that's not hard. At some point you'll have to report cancelling IFR to the controller or after landing to free the airspace for the next IFR aircraft.

IFR pilots in Oz self-separate by talking to each other and arranging who will do what & when. Note that in Oz & US you must be on an IFR flight plan to operate under IFR so continuous comms. with FIS or ATC is necessary. HF is a normal part of ops in Oz, even in GA aircraft.

[IO540]

IFR pilots in Oz self-separate by talking to each other and arranging who will do what & when

That would be the other method for the UK but I gather the regulators find self-sequencing far too much to swallow.

It's all a bit meaningless in the UK if speaking of Class G airports, where no ATC has the power to issue a clearance anyway, outside the ATZ, and all the GPS approach IAFs are well outside the ATZ.

Such a clearance would be meaningless for another reason: VFR traffic, or IFR traffic for that matter, in solid IMC for that matter, could be flying the IAP trajectory as the same time as you have been cleared for it, and they could be non-radio, and they would be 100% legal so long as they break off before they reach the ATZ. They would be reckless allright (although in the PPL you are not taught to avoid Class G airport instrument approach trajectories, so this is just another sleeping dog) but not illegal. The USA deals with the IMC scenario here by having the IAPs in Class E so anybody hanging around there quietly in IMC would be illegal.