GPS approaches in UK?

[n5296s]

It could equally have been Camarillo's GPS approach where they do not have ILS.

Sorry, didn't mean that in a negative way. I was just looking to see what alternatives you'd have and realised you'd only be on the GPS if you'd asked for it explicitly. Though maybe the long term plan is to remove the ILS from airports like Oxnard that have little or no non-GA traffic and rely on WAAS. [removes tinfoil hat]

The whole object of having a GNS let down is that it is a "stand alone" aircraft aid.

This (using the NDB) is doubly nuts. Because even if it's u/s, the GPS knows where it is and can fly you there, and after all you MUST have a functioning GPS. As far as the GPS is concerned it's just some coordinates like any other waypoint.

[JW411]

Sadly being an idiot is not a crime:

That is absolutely correct. I have spent a lifetime trying to teach idiots. I have not tried to put them in compartments for that is not the way the world works.

I have taught people to fly everything from hang gliders to DC-10s.

My biggest challenge was a bunch of pilots from the Far East.

The young first officers were terrified of advising their captains that they were not, perhaps, doing their best.

I used to bang their heads together on Night 1 in the simulator and try to give them a basis of CRM.

One of my biggest triumphs was to get one of my F/Os back on a Captains course. He did a great job so I gave him an "Above the Average" rating. The sh*t immediately hit the fan because none of his seniors had achieved that rating from me.

If Boy Rosalez is still out there, then bloody good luck!

[soay]

Originally Posted by SoCal App

when you have requested another approach, which may be before arriving at or during the hold, they will typically vector you at a specified altitude back a couple of miles outside the FAF to intercept.

Anyone know how ATC handle that at airports where they don't have radar, such as Shoreham (EGKA)?

[IO540]

It then has to be procedural separation only.

At a Class G airport, the concept of "separation" is illusory anyway. Try the ILS into say Lydd, and every so often you will have an airprox with somebody flying through the IAP at the platform altitude

Class G is Class G...

[Fuji Abound]

I am surprised that procedural seperation is so poorly understood. If everyone obeys the rules it works just fine and after all if the radar head is on the field (southend comes to mind) radar is still not much help.

If you dont understand flying an approach in the uk without radar then your training has been remiss.

As to how it is done it really is as simple as stacking traffic in the hold, descending them in the hold sequentially so as each aircraft reaches the bottom of the stack it is cleared for the procedure. The aircraft will land or go missed in which event it will get injected back into the stack at an unoccupied height. Atc will at least know from vdf where the aircraft is in the hold or procedure even if they cant confirm the aircrafts height.

I0540 referred to chimps elsewhere, and without doubt some chimp flying through the iap unannounced has every ability to cause chaos if not disaster but in blighty we struggle to afford to fly these days never mind provide coast to coast radar cover for all and sundry.

[GeeWhizz]

This thread's interesting. Yes I do fly; perhaps not on instruments or GPS often enough. My point initially was that there will invariably be some kind of ATC to provide vectors where notified IAPs exist, GPS or otherwise. Although there probably are exceptions.

As already stated, procedural separation works well but only within certain classes of airspace. Also IO540 mentioned airprox as a real possibility outside CAS, which in my mind lends even more reason to provide an approach radar service for all instrument/GPS arrivals. Although separation my be 'illusory' in class G, at least traffic information could be provided reducing the 'surprise' factor

Ultimately IMO GPS will improve further, the number of procedures will increase and become mainstream, consequently and sadly bring about the total abolition of conventional aids and associated approaches

[IO540]

Also IO540 mentioned airprox as a real possibility outside CAS, which in my mind lends even more reason to provide an approach radar service for all instrument/GPS arrivals.

Sadly, again, you need to discover the reality of flying in the UK.

ATC was privatised some years ago. NATS (or anybody else) is not going to provide a service which costs them money. The only services UK ATC provide are

1) Those they make money on

2) Those which the CAA told them they must provide when they went private (basically ICAO obligations like a FIS; not called the "BS").

GA under 2000kg IFR or under 5700kg VFR does not pay route charges.

The only remaining driver for any kind of service to GA is to keep some kind of a lid on the several hundred serious CAS busts which happen every year and which threaten a GA-airliner midair. This has not happened yet in the UK but has happened elsewhere and statistically is only a matter of time. This is why units such as Farnborough receive funding; they are not doing it as a service to GA.

If ATC was not privatised then we could have the system they have in every other country where e.g. you have a regional approach controller who schedules traffic to IAPs and then you can have gPS approaches to unmanned runways, like they have in the USA, France, and elsewhere. Here, it will never happen because the whole system has been shafted years ago.

DIY approaches is the only way. They are legal in a G-reg but arguably not in an N-reg (ref: FAR 91.175).

Although separation my be 'illusory' in class G, at least traffic information could be provided reducing the 'surprise' factor

Traffic info is nearly useless, because most traffic will not be talking to the unit. If even a significant % of enroute traffic called up London Info, the service would collapse immediately.

We have to accept that flying in the UK is flying on your own, using your own nav (GPS being by far the best) and if you can get a radar service from somebody, that's good. But even then the radar controller is under no obligation to give you info on all conflicting traffic.

[Fuji Abound]

There is little evidence of airprox issues outside CAS in conditions you would be flying an IAP in earnest. The reality is there are few aircraft flying and thankfully most know what they are doing. Yes there is a risk, but statistically it is so small as to not be worth worrying about.

Irrationally I would far rather transponders became mandatory because I am as happy using TCAS for avoidance but I accept that the case for mandatory transponders is very weak given my earlier remarks.

At airports without class D I see so little traffic in IMC conditions that procedural seperation works just fine, and there is no evidence of which I am aware to the contrary. If the volume of traffic were to increase significantly that might change - but I dont think that is going to happen any time soon in the present economic climate.

Frankly based on the evidence I could fly around the UK OCAS in IMC for the rest of my life making a few approaches every day using a procedural service and never have an airprox, so based on that I think you are worrying about a solution to a problem that doesnt exist. All of which means that if someone wants to provide a flight following service OCAS free of charge I will still sign up.

[IO540]

There is little evidence of airprox issues outside CAS in conditions you would be flying an IAP in earnest

Of course; there is hardly any traffic about then.

Also there are no known IMC mid-airs in the UK since about WW2.

IAP practice is the problem.

Irrationally I would far rather transponders became mandatory

I agree, but I don't think it is irrational because there are fairly regular mid-airs in VMC. Lookout doesn't work.

ADS-B would be even better

[Fuji Abound]

I agree, but I don't think it is irrational because there are fairly regular mid-airs in VMC. Lookout doesn't work.

I also agree. I suppose the reason I used the word irrational is because how many mid airs are there in an average year - a couple maybe, there or there abouts. On the one hand it seems to me the cost of fitting out the entire fleet with transponders (on a case by case basis) is not significant (setting aside the usual arguments about power, space and regulatory issues) but the cost of fitting TCAS is significant and probably almost impossible in many aircraft. So in reality at best you would end up with a fleet with at best a few percent having TCAS. Transponders would improve radar visibility, but that is assuming a radar service is available and that primary radar is not.

It is a tough economic argument - is the cost outweighed by the perceived benefit of possibly avoiding a couple of mid airs a year, and owuld it actually avoid those mid airs given the current radar service and lack of TCAS in most aircraft?

Of course for the selfish point of view of anyone flying an aircraft with TCAS we would love to see everyone else flying with a transponder.

[soay]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

Of course for the selfish point of view of anyone flying an aircraft with TCAS we would love to see everyone else flying with a transponder.

Seconded! TCAS makes you aware how poor the eyes are at spotting other aircraft.

There's an article on transponders in the latest issue of Loop. In it, the author (Nick Heard) cites a friend he was flying with who, when asked why he hadn't switched his on, replied "am I supposed to".