EASA screws the use of GPS approaches
Sorry, yes I was aware of the Restricted Type Certificate, which I believe means that you can fit uncertified parts and still use it for training. This could be said to be a step forward in a rather bleak landscape of regulation, but I have not seen any figures as to what the likely annual maintenance costs of an aircraft of a restricted certificate are.
It does make you ask what the EASA rationale is for this if it is not to put clear water betwen "sports" aviation on the one hand and commercial operations on the other. What they appear very uncomfortable with is having a class of aircraft which overlap the two categories of operation. A lot of the root problemis with the categorisation of what is and is not an EASA aircraft.
It does make you ask what the EASA rationale is for this if it is not to put clear water betwen "sports" aviation on the one hand and commercial operations on the other. What they appear very uncomfortable with is having a class of aircraft which overlap the two categories of operation. A lot of the root problemis with the categorisation of what is and is not an EASA aircraft.
G
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely EASA has sufficient resources ?
or well enough resourced to do so...
With a budget of € 107 Million, supplemented by some abused/siphoned off accession funds and regional developement aid across central Europe, I think most of us would be capable of reaching EASA's rulemaking objectives, which are :
- To establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety throughout all the Member States;
- To ensure a high uniform level of environmental protection throughout all the Member States;
- To facilitate the free movement of goods, persons and services;
- To promote cost-efficiency in the regulatory and certification processes;
- To promote Community views regarding civil aviation safety standards and rules throughout the world.
With a budget of € 107 Million, supplemented by some abused/siphoned off accession funds and regional developement aid across central Europe, I think most of us would be capable of reaching EASA's rulemaking objectives, which are :
- To establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety throughout all the Member States;
- To ensure a high uniform level of environmental protection throughout all the Member States;
- To facilitate the free movement of goods, persons and services;
- To promote cost-efficiency in the regulatory and certification processes;
- To promote Community views regarding civil aviation safety standards and rules throughout the world.
But the resources that really matter are the high quality people. There are a few in EASA - but very few.
G
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To facilitate the free movement of goods, persons and services;
To promote cost-efficiency in the regulatory and certification processes
To promote cost-efficiency in the regulatory and certification processes
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis, you probably meant DA20, which is certified according CS-VLA - DA40 is a CS-23 aircraft...
On the VLA subject: I find CS-VLA in present form pretty useless standard, especially if one is trying to build and certify aircraft that would be able to sell. For example, an average Lycontinental in the CS-VLA weight range has a fuel flow of about 20l/h in cruise. If you want to go to places, you need range of about 4 hours + reserves - this means 100 liters of fuel, which makes about 80 kg. Put up 2 people with 90 kg each (after all, it's not 1950 anymore) and you get 180 kg, and adding fuel this gets you to 260kg of load. The CS-VLA limits the maximum takeoff mass to 750kg, which basically gives you 490kg of basic empty mass and I think it's damn hard to make a useful and safe aircraft for "going places" operation that light. This is what made DA20 (until 800kg exemption from CS-VLA, which Diamond got this year) virtually one-seater for most cross-country flights, unless you like to stop every hour or hour and half to refuel. Not to mention that I don't see any practical point in limiting CS-VLA aircraft to night flying. I agree, aicraft must be equipped with similar equipment for night flying (lights, turn coordinator, artificial horizon, etc.) that CS-23 (or common sense for that matter) requires, but to forbid night flights in a brand new full-equipped aircraft just because some EASA bureaucrats failed to adjust the old JAR-VLA standard to the new world - and at the same time, permit night flights in 40 year old spam can, which probably doesn't have half the equipment of a new VLA aircraft, and there's a large posibility that more than half of installed equipment isn't working - just because it's Part 23 certified. That's crap.
Back to the topic: In my opinion, DIY approaches aren't the real solution, ATC in many places around Europe would file a report if you got in under very marginal weather. To add, it would be very suspicious if a single-engine GA aircraft made it to the runway (by flying a DIY GPS approach), when an airliner/business jet flying the same approach you tell ATC you'll be flying couldn't. The main disadvantages of DIY GPS approaches (when there is adequate obstacle clearance) are:
- it increases your workload (especially if you have to put in a lot of waypoints for the approach)
- it's far, far from legal
- you don't have the luxury of published GPS approaches, such as LPV, etc.
- ...
On the VLA subject: I find CS-VLA in present form pretty useless standard, especially if one is trying to build and certify aircraft that would be able to sell. For example, an average Lycontinental in the CS-VLA weight range has a fuel flow of about 20l/h in cruise. If you want to go to places, you need range of about 4 hours + reserves - this means 100 liters of fuel, which makes about 80 kg. Put up 2 people with 90 kg each (after all, it's not 1950 anymore) and you get 180 kg, and adding fuel this gets you to 260kg of load. The CS-VLA limits the maximum takeoff mass to 750kg, which basically gives you 490kg of basic empty mass and I think it's damn hard to make a useful and safe aircraft for "going places" operation that light. This is what made DA20 (until 800kg exemption from CS-VLA, which Diamond got this year) virtually one-seater for most cross-country flights, unless you like to stop every hour or hour and half to refuel. Not to mention that I don't see any practical point in limiting CS-VLA aircraft to night flying. I agree, aicraft must be equipped with similar equipment for night flying (lights, turn coordinator, artificial horizon, etc.) that CS-23 (or common sense for that matter) requires, but to forbid night flights in a brand new full-equipped aircraft just because some EASA bureaucrats failed to adjust the old JAR-VLA standard to the new world - and at the same time, permit night flights in 40 year old spam can, which probably doesn't have half the equipment of a new VLA aircraft, and there's a large posibility that more than half of installed equipment isn't working - just because it's Part 23 certified. That's crap.
Back to the topic: In my opinion, DIY approaches aren't the real solution, ATC in many places around Europe would file a report if you got in under very marginal weather. To add, it would be very suspicious if a single-engine GA aircraft made it to the runway (by flying a DIY GPS approach), when an airliner/business jet flying the same approach you tell ATC you'll be flying couldn't. The main disadvantages of DIY GPS approaches (when there is adequate obstacle clearance) are:
- it increases your workload (especially if you have to put in a lot of waypoints for the approach)
- it's far, far from legal
- you don't have the luxury of published GPS approaches, such as LPV, etc.
- ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good summary, but
However, this would not happen because DIY approaches get used only in places where there is no IAP published at all. I agree that in Germany, one needs to be very careful because some pilot(s) have been done for apparent IMC flight under VFR, near an airport.
Anywhere where an airliner will be going is going to be a proper IAP.
True, but normally you don't need many waypoints. You don't need any more waypoints than for any standard GPS approach i.e. the T-shape.
That depends on where, etc.
LPV doesn't exist yet. I gather there are some trials going on. LPV will be great when it comes, for those who have the latest equipment, but the flight manual supplement is an EASA Major Mod the cost of which (4 figures) will drastically retard its adoption by GA. Also, in the UK, GPS approaches will remain largely irrelevant all the time the CAA requires ATC as mandatory for any IAP.
Back to the topic: In my opinion, DIY approaches aren't the real solution, ATC in many places around Europe would file a report if you got in under very marginal weather. To add, it would be very suspicious if a single-engine GA aircraft made it to the runway (by flying a DIY GPS approach), when an airliner/business jet flying the same approach you tell ATC you'll be flying couldn't.
Anywhere where an airliner will be going is going to be a proper IAP.
The main disadvantages of DIY GPS approaches (when there is adequate obstacle clearance) are:
- it increases your workload (especially if you have to put in a lot of waypoints for the approach)
- it increases your workload (especially if you have to put in a lot of waypoints for the approach)
- it's far, far from legal
- you don't have the luxury of published GPS approaches, such as LPV, etc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was not for the powerful, well organised and well managed US AOPA, and the long precedent in the USA for GA being used for real travel, I would think that their "sports pilot license" (which doesn't need an aviation medical, provided you have not actually failed an aviation medical previously) is a bad idea because it is the thin end of a wedge which might result in exactly that separation, whose eventual outcome is the pushing of all GA into a VFR-only ghetto in which the only viable aviation activity is £100 burger runs or, for a suitably eccentric retired person, flying a microlight from the UK to Kathmandu against all the odds.
One of the greatest challenges in Europe, for supporters of "private IFR", is how to counter the loud cry of the "professional pilot lobby" that everybody sharing the same airspace must have the same papers, and their aircraft must meet the same requirements.
On any closer examination, that requirement has a poor logical basis but it is emotionally very convincing and a lot of people have bought into it, both in ignorance and because it suits the grinding of their particular axes.
The preservation of IFR capability, fully ICAO, is a cornerstone of maintaining utility value in GA, without which it will end up as a farm strip activity.
One of the greatest challenges in Europe, for supporters of "private IFR", is how to counter the loud cry of the "professional pilot lobby" that everybody sharing the same airspace must have the same papers, and their aircraft must meet the same requirements.
On any closer examination, that requirement has a poor logical basis but it is emotionally very convincing and a lot of people have bought into it, both in ignorance and because it suits the grinding of their particular axes.
The preservation of IFR capability, fully ICAO, is a cornerstone of maintaining utility value in GA, without which it will end up as a farm strip activity.
FlyingStone - yes I meant the DA20, but I disagree with you about payloads. Take for example a Grumman AA5: IMC capable, MTOW 998kg, typical empty weight about 670kg - that's 1/3rd payload. (Strangely my 1947 4 seat taildragger which has been happily doing long trips for 64 years quite safely is rather better than that, but I'll work with the Grumman as an example.)
So, at 750kg, using the same fraction, that gives 250kg useable payload. Bang on 2x90kg plus 100 litres, or 5+ hours (with a modern engine such as the 912), of fuel.
For that matter, shave 8kg off the MTOW of a Cessna 152 and you have an IMC/night capable aeroplane that falls into the VLA category, with an exemplary safety record, and 260kg useable payload.
So, sorry, I just don't agree. VLA weight limits are quite capable of delivering safe and capable aeroplanes.
But on the other hand I do agree with you, a VLA+night+IMC code already exists in the USA, could easily exist here, and it is nothing but a bureaucratic piece of sillyness that stops that being validated and used here in a Euro-version.
A general question by the way, one can wade through the AIP of course, but does anybody know of a single list of UK airports with GNSS approaches?
G
So, at 750kg, using the same fraction, that gives 250kg useable payload. Bang on 2x90kg plus 100 litres, or 5+ hours (with a modern engine such as the 912), of fuel.
For that matter, shave 8kg off the MTOW of a Cessna 152 and you have an IMC/night capable aeroplane that falls into the VLA category, with an exemplary safety record, and 260kg useable payload.
So, sorry, I just don't agree. VLA weight limits are quite capable of delivering safe and capable aeroplanes.
But on the other hand I do agree with you, a VLA+night+IMC code already exists in the USA, could easily exist here, and it is nothing but a bureaucratic piece of sillyness that stops that being validated and used here in a Euro-version.
A general question by the way, one can wade through the AIP of course, but does anybody know of a single list of UK airports with GNSS approaches?
G
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the things people in the US are concerned about is GA here going down a similar route - but as it is the idea of GA being a "sport" has not stuck except maybe for specialized areas like gliding and aerobatics
Europe is different because there is not the same tradition of touring to the degree seen in the US and today getting anywhere is cheaper with Ryanair, even if it makes you want to kill something afterwards.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is however the case that on my trips around Europe I see a lot of very nice airports which would not be there if all planes landing were "hang-gliders with a lawn mower on the back" 
IFR GA is what keeps the facilities up, and what keeps the training system going.
Notwithstanding that the vast majority of the pilots never proceed to IFR capability, eliminating this would push GA into farm strips.
I am sure it has been posted, but for a start, and taking "GA" ones only:
Lydd
Shoreham
Gloucestershire
Blackpool??
There are others e.g. Gatwick and Heathrow but they are not relevant to GA.
IFR GA is what keeps the facilities up, and what keeps the training system going.
Notwithstanding that the vast majority of the pilots never proceed to IFR capability, eliminating this would push GA into farm strips.
but does anybody know of a single list of UK airports with GNSS approaches?
Lydd
Shoreham
Gloucestershire
Blackpool??
There are others e.g. Gatwick and Heathrow but they are not relevant to GA.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inverness as well.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP773.pdf
Think it was in 2007/8 I tried it once and it was a PIA because it wasn't in the trimble and the flight conditions that were required meant we could always get in visually and I couldn't justify the additional flight time.
It all came up when they thought they would get EGNOS up and running. Now that hasn't happened so fast it seems to have gone on the back burner.
I can't see european GPS approaches being allowed until the European GPS system is up and running.
UK carries out satellite guided approaches-16/09/1998-Flight International
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP773.pdf
Think it was in 2007/8 I tried it once and it was a PIA because it wasn't in the trimble and the flight conditions that were required meant we could always get in visually and I couldn't justify the additional flight time.
It all came up when they thought they would get EGNOS up and running. Now that hasn't happened so fast it seems to have gone on the back burner.
I can't see european GPS approaches being allowed until the European GPS system is up and running.
UK carries out satellite guided approaches-16/09/1998-Flight International
Not having tried flying one, nor likely to for a little while as nothing I fly currently has a panel mounted GPS, does anybody know why when it's (rightly) shown on NDB/VOR/VDF approaches that aeroplanes turn in curves, apparently aeroplanes flying GNSS approaches can apparently achieve perfect right angled changes in heading?
G
G
This (GNSS) versus This (NDB/DME).
G
(Qualified, but very inexperienced instrument pilot, and never been trained in GNSS approaches.)
G
(Qualified, but very inexperienced instrument pilot, and never been trained in GNSS approaches.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a standard T-shaped GPS/RNAV approach, the waypoint on the "T" where the vertical bar of the T joins the top bar of the T, is a fly-by waypoint.
This is an illustration of a fly-by waypoint:
So, on your Exeter plate, TE081 is a fly-by WP.
BTW, the URL to that Eurocontrol EAD plate will vanish shortly because the company which runs the site changes all the links regularly.
This is an illustration of a fly-by waypoint:
So, on your Exeter plate, TE081 is a fly-by WP.
BTW, the URL to that Eurocontrol EAD plate will vanish shortly because the company which runs the site changes all the links regularly.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingStone - yes I meant the DA20, but I disagree with you about payloads. Take for example a Grumman AA5: IMC capable, MTOW 998kg, typical empty weight about 670kg - that's 1/3rd payload. (Strangely my 1947 4 seat taildragger which has been happily doing long trips for 64 years quite safely is rather better than that, but I'll work with the Grumman as an example.)
So, at 750kg, using the same fraction, that gives 250kg useable payload. Bang on 2x90kg plus 100 litres, or 5+ hours (with a modern engine such as the 912), of fuel.
For that matter, shave 8kg off the MTOW of a Cessna 152 and you have an IMC/night capable aeroplane that falls into the VLA category, with an exemplary safety record, and 260kg useable payload.
So, at 750kg, using the same fraction, that gives 250kg useable payload. Bang on 2x90kg plus 100 litres, or 5+ hours (with a modern engine such as the 912), of fuel.
For that matter, shave 8kg off the MTOW of a Cessna 152 and you have an IMC/night capable aeroplane that falls into the VLA category, with an exemplary safety record, and 260kg useable payload.
Well, anyhow, discussion about VLA weight will most likely be redundant, since the proposal is to lift the MTOM for aircraft certified according to CS-VLA to 890 kg and at least one problem of the standard will likely become history.
I think the additional weight on DA20 (which comes with BEM of ~ 550kg) is due to a bit larger permissible flight load factors, which are +4.4, -2.2 for DA20 and +3.8, -1.52 for AA-5 (I believe due to restrictive Part 23 standards for utility category aircraft). The C152 has quite similar permissible flight load factors, but on the other hand - it's the same weight as DA20 and slower for about one third.
Well, anyhow, discussion about VLA weight will most likely be redundant, since the proposal is to lift the MTOM for aircraft certified according to CS-VLA to 890 kg and at least one problem of the standard will likely become history.
Well, anyhow, discussion about VLA weight will most likely be redundant, since the proposal is to lift the MTOM for aircraft certified according to CS-VLA to 890 kg and at least one problem of the standard will likely become history.
Can you give a reference or link for the 890kg NPA, and has anybody any idea what happened to the night certification proposal?
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night cert cannot be a massive "psychology" issue because VFR-only helicopters can already fly at night (UK night=IFR).
IFR cert is a much bigger barrier, and also involves some actual capability e.g. lightning protection bonding, with embedded conductive sheets in the composite surfaces being needed for both lightning and to conduct away static so your avionics carry on working when flying in IMC.
IFR cert is a much bigger barrier, and also involves some actual capability e.g. lightning protection bonding, with embedded conductive sheets in the composite surfaces being needed for both lightning and to conduct away static so your avionics carry on working when flying in IMC.