GPS approaches in UK?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 748
Likes: 9
From: LFMD
GPS approaches in UK?
I was talking with someone the other day about GPS approaches in the UK (I'm in the US). I was under the impression that there were still very few, but he claimed that they are now widespread. Just wondering what the actual situation is...?
Thanks...
Thanks...
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
No; just a few. Lydd, Shoreham, and a few others.
The UK requirement for mandatory ATC will ensure they continue to mean very little, because nearly all airfields with ATC already have conventional approaches, and you can fly those with any GPS, whereas to fly a proper RNAV/GPS approach you need a GPS installation specifically certified for flying GPS approaches and you need a flight manual supplement stating that.
It's a dreadful waste... but it is unlikely to change because nobody wants to pay for the ATC salaries, and nobody wants to pay for the ATCO desks which would be needed, one way or another, to control the approach traffic to a non-towered airfield.
The UK requirement for mandatory ATC will ensure they continue to mean very little, because nearly all airfields with ATC already have conventional approaches, and you can fly those with any GPS, whereas to fly a proper RNAV/GPS approach you need a GPS installation specifically certified for flying GPS approaches and you need a flight manual supplement stating that.
It's a dreadful waste... but it is unlikely to change because nobody wants to pay for the ATC salaries, and nobody wants to pay for the ATCO desks which would be needed, one way or another, to control the approach traffic to a non-towered airfield.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: England
Blackpool's comes and goes:
Q) EGTT/QGAXX/I/NBO/A/000/999/5346N00302W005
B) FROM: 11/10/01 06:00C) TO: 11/12/31 21:00
E) RNAV(GNSS) IAP RWY 28 AVBL, SUP S24/2008 REFERS.
Anyone know what the procedure is for starting again after a missed approach? The charts for Shoreham and Blackpool just abandon you at the beacon.
Q) EGTT/QGAXX/I/NBO/A/000/999/5346N00302W005
B) FROM: 11/10/01 06:00C) TO: 11/12/31 21:00
E) RNAV(GNSS) IAP RWY 28 AVBL, SUP S24/2008 REFERS.
Anyone know what the procedure is for starting again after a missed approach? The charts for Shoreham and Blackpool just abandon you at the beacon.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
I think the missed for SHM for example is clear, for 02 climb on heading 013 to 1,500 then left turn and back to the beacon or as directed. Hopefully by the time you get back to the beacon ATC will ask your intentions! Dont forget many of the airports with these approaches in the UK have no radar so obvioulsy you are not going to get vectors. More worringly a number also rely on NDBs for the missed so you can have all the juicy GPS kit in the world but you are not legal when you fly the missed without the oldest bit of kit in the world. 
PS Dont delay the climb Truleigh Hill is best avoided.
PS Dont delay the climb Truleigh Hill is best avoided.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
A word of caution; many people 'design' their own GPS approaches without taking into account things like missed approach procedures, other adjacent airfields, and above all factoring in the correct MDA taking into account the lighting or markings available on the landing runway. A list of lighting requirements is available in the UK AIP.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: England
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
Hopefully by the time you get back to the beacon ATC will ask your intentions! Dont forget many of the airports with these approaches in the UK have no radar so obvioulsy you are not going to get vectors.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: UK
Dont forget many of the airports with these approaches in the UK have no radar so obvioulsy you are not going to get vectors.
The notes on the chart at the Supplement for Blackpool above, states that the missed approach shall become a conventional procedure on reaching 2000ft. Is it sensible suggestion that GPS procedures are still relatively new and therefore incomplete? Maybe that's rubbish too.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hang on getting GPS approaches over here was a shocking result in the first place, horrible new fangled things.
I bet someone was chuffed to bits including "not to be flown without NDB"!
Funny think is they now want to save a few pounds by getting rid of all the NDBs (quite rightly) so it will be interesting to see how they redesign the approach.
I bet someone was chuffed to bits including "not to be flown without NDB"!
Funny think is they now want to save a few pounds by getting rid of all the NDBs (quite rightly) so it will be interesting to see how they redesign the approach.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: UK
Absolutely. I'm opposed to chopping NDBs and VORs; there's something aviator-esque not using electronic maps that calculate everything. Alas these aids are being turned off, and it will be interesting how GPS approaches change alongside.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: England
Originally Posted by SoCal App
The missed app procedure simply comprises being sent offshore for a few miles into a GPS hold.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 748
Likes: 9
From: LFMD
So once ATC release you from the hold, where would they route you? It would be a bit risky to go direct to SADDE, with no climb gradient specified, unless you climbed in the hold.
Ordinarily you'd never get to either the hold or SADDE. On the way in I'd expect direct CUDAK, with altitudes as appropriate for the terrain. And if you went missed and wanted to try again (why?) then they'd ask your intentions as soon as you reported missed, and you'd get "climb and maintain 4500, direct CUDAK". (Why 4500? Dunno, but my experience is you usually get multiples of 500 even when the approach would let you go a little lower). (Oxnard has an ILS anyway so unless it was out of service you'd probably never fly the GPS).
I've flown my local GPS (Palo Alto) dozens if not hundreds of times. Even when my route takes me directly past an IAF, I've still been given direct to the intermediate fix (DOCAL). Sometimes even vectored to just outside the FAF (PUDBY).
Many thanks for all the answers.
Last edited by n5296s; 3rd November 2011 at 17:24.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 115
From: UK
Compared to the USA, we in the UK are still very much in the beginning of GNS approaches.
A couple of years ago, a few airfields in UK agreed to take part in GNS approach trials. As one of the inhabitants of one of the chosen few airfields and who had an aircraft with a fitted bit of kit (Garmin 430) and who had a lot of interest in having GNS approaches approved, I volunteered to take part in the trials.
I took part in the trials right from the beginning.
As a professional pilot of getting on for 50 years experience, I was not too happy with the way things were going so I called the Belgrano (the CAA) and asked to speak to the GNS team.
I found myself talking to a very nice chap who, when I started to talk "practicality", admitted that he had never done an RNAV approach in his life.
So; I said "Get your arse down here and we shall go and do some".
The next piece of fascination is that he called me to tell me that he could not fly with me between the hours of 0900 and 1700 because his Lords and Masters in the CAA had told him that "since I did not have an AOC, he would not be covered for insurance if we had an accident between 0900 and 1700".
To give him his due, he asked me if we could fly after 1700 and I was happy to do this. He came along with cameras and videos and went away happy after several approaches having finally seen the ease of making a GNS approach for the first time.
According to the UK University that was involved in collating the results of the GNS trials, I did nearly 10% of the total approaches flown during the trial.
What really p*ssed me off at the end of the day was when my local airfield was finally approved by the CAA for GNS approaches, the let down plate had been modified in one very important fashion.
The MAP (Missed Approach Point) had been changed from a GNS distance from touchdown to to the airfield NDB.
Now this is a nonsense. The whole object of having a GNS let down is that it is a "stand alone" aircraft aid.
Now we have a situation whereby the fact that if the Victorian NDB (which I thought we were getting rid off) is U/S, then we cannot legally do a GNS approach since the MAP cannot be determined according to the CAA!!!!!!!
However, it is a good move from the airport operator's point of view for they can now charge you for the use of their (probably dubious) NDB when doing a GNS approach.
A couple of years ago, a few airfields in UK agreed to take part in GNS approach trials. As one of the inhabitants of one of the chosen few airfields and who had an aircraft with a fitted bit of kit (Garmin 430) and who had a lot of interest in having GNS approaches approved, I volunteered to take part in the trials.
I took part in the trials right from the beginning.
As a professional pilot of getting on for 50 years experience, I was not too happy with the way things were going so I called the Belgrano (the CAA) and asked to speak to the GNS team.
I found myself talking to a very nice chap who, when I started to talk "practicality", admitted that he had never done an RNAV approach in his life.
So; I said "Get your arse down here and we shall go and do some".
The next piece of fascination is that he called me to tell me that he could not fly with me between the hours of 0900 and 1700 because his Lords and Masters in the CAA had told him that "since I did not have an AOC, he would not be covered for insurance if we had an accident between 0900 and 1700".
To give him his due, he asked me if we could fly after 1700 and I was happy to do this. He came along with cameras and videos and went away happy after several approaches having finally seen the ease of making a GNS approach for the first time.
According to the UK University that was involved in collating the results of the GNS trials, I did nearly 10% of the total approaches flown during the trial.
What really p*ssed me off at the end of the day was when my local airfield was finally approved by the CAA for GNS approaches, the let down plate had been modified in one very important fashion.
The MAP (Missed Approach Point) had been changed from a GNS distance from touchdown to to the airfield NDB.
Now this is a nonsense. The whole object of having a GNS let down is that it is a "stand alone" aircraft aid.
Now we have a situation whereby the fact that if the Victorian NDB (which I thought we were getting rid off) is U/S, then we cannot legally do a GNS approach since the MAP cannot be determined according to the CAA!!!!!!!
However, it is a good move from the airport operator's point of view for they can now charge you for the use of their (probably dubious) NDB when doing a GNS approach.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Why would you want to fly an instrument (in this case GPS) approach to begin with? Above/in cloud? Night? You'd be very brave not to receive a radar service, especially if the airport hasn't been granted a class D CTR; procedural control could be exercised without Radar in this sense. Try explaining to your passengers how else can you be separated from other aircraft, known or unknown, or sequenced in the landing pattern?