Instrument Approaches without ATC - could the CAA shift on this?
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
The title of this thread is 'Instrument Approaches without ATC'.
It is apparent that in the USA, where some people maintain this happens, that it actually doesn't. The local TRACON or RAPCON handles the Initial and Intermediate Approach phases thereby ensuring there is separation between succeeding aircraft, and transfers the aircraft to unicom or other notified frequency for the airport for the Final Approach phase.
I understand in the UK, (and I stand to be corrected) iaps to Barrow are carried out in this manner, with Warton handling the aircraft initially handing over to Walney Info for the final approach, both these airfields being operated by BAe.
So those who advocate iaps to non ATC airports in this country need to take that into account. If the CAA are prepared to allow this at Barrow, then provided a robust safety case is produced, there would seem to be no reason for it not to happen elsewhere.
A couple of words of warning though:
1. I don't think approach control units inside controlled airspace would be too keen to provide approach services to airports in class G airspace.
2. Airports with approach control units in class G might be reluctant to provide this service as they are often pretty busy anyway.
3. No airport operator would be willing to allow their ATC unit to provide services to a potentially rival airfield, thus 'pinching' revenue from their own airfield, without some sort of remuneration.
4. ATC units anywhere would claim they would need more staff to cope with the extra workload and would want remuneration for this too.
To suggest LARS units could do it is a non-starter. LARS services are provided from existing resources and are 'workload permitting' (apart from Farnborough East and North which are funded by NATS with extra equipment and personnel provided by NATS outside the contract with TAG to provide ATC for Farnborough Airport) and thus the service is not guaranteed, which the CAA would almost certainly require.
It is apparent that in the USA, where some people maintain this happens, that it actually doesn't. The local TRACON or RAPCON handles the Initial and Intermediate Approach phases thereby ensuring there is separation between succeeding aircraft, and transfers the aircraft to unicom or other notified frequency for the airport for the Final Approach phase.
I understand in the UK, (and I stand to be corrected) iaps to Barrow are carried out in this manner, with Warton handling the aircraft initially handing over to Walney Info for the final approach, both these airfields being operated by BAe.
So those who advocate iaps to non ATC airports in this country need to take that into account. If the CAA are prepared to allow this at Barrow, then provided a robust safety case is produced, there would seem to be no reason for it not to happen elsewhere.
A couple of words of warning though:
1. I don't think approach control units inside controlled airspace would be too keen to provide approach services to airports in class G airspace.
2. Airports with approach control units in class G might be reluctant to provide this service as they are often pretty busy anyway.
3. No airport operator would be willing to allow their ATC unit to provide services to a potentially rival airfield, thus 'pinching' revenue from their own airfield, without some sort of remuneration.
4. ATC units anywhere would claim they would need more staff to cope with the extra workload and would want remuneration for this too.
To suggest LARS units could do it is a non-starter. LARS services are provided from existing resources and are 'workload permitting' (apart from Farnborough East and North which are funded by NATS with extra equipment and personnel provided by NATS outside the contract with TAG to provide ATC for Farnborough Airport) and thus the service is not guaranteed, which the CAA would almost certainly require.
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 6
From: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Australia has numerous approaches that are without ATC services. Probably more airfields with approaches but no ATC than airfields with ATC services. At most you get a FIS. Separation is done by the pilots talking amongst themselves.
The UK mantra that approaches *have* to be done with ATC assistance for safety doesn't stand scrutiny.
The UK mantra that approaches *have* to be done with ATC assistance for safety doesn't stand scrutiny.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
Yeah but how many of these airports have iaps that overlap other airports iaps? How many IFR flights per hour land at these airports? Don't forget you have some wide open spaces in Oz which we don't have in the UK.
There's really no comparison.
There's really no comparison.
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
From: USA
A couple of words of warning though:
Thread Starter
Fly Conventional Gear
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
From: Winchester
The title of this thread is 'Instrument Approaches without ATC'.
Originally Posted by soaringhigh650
5. The UK has an extremely poor "can-do" attitude. When people want things done, instead of just going about getting it done, they like to go through several rounds of gold-plated consultations and come up with a list of why it isn't or shouldn't be doable, often boiling down to just moaning, selfishness and greed.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 138
From: 50+ north
According to a reliable source in the CAA (they do still exist!) a CAP is to be published later this year to cover the issue.
The UK FISO Association are the ones to talk to (after you've joined up), they are already mapping out a way forward with the intent of sharing resources to reduce costs with such things as a Safety Case.
While not wishing to pre-empt the CAP I would speculate that the aerodrome will need a current CAP 232 compliant survey and keep it current (ie annual check surveys), there may also be additional survey requirements in order to permit descent below 1000 FT above obstacles due to the very limited lateral extent of current visual runway surveys.
The UK FISO Association are the ones to talk to (after you've joined up), they are already mapping out a way forward with the intent of sharing resources to reduce costs with such things as a Safety Case.
While not wishing to pre-empt the CAP I would speculate that the aerodrome will need a current CAP 232 compliant survey and keep it current (ie annual check surveys), there may also be additional survey requirements in order to permit descent below 1000 FT above obstacles due to the very limited lateral extent of current visual runway surveys.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
Licensed airfields should already have a 'Type A' survey chart enabling 500ft clearance for non-precision intermediate approaches. From there it is only a short step to the 246ft necessary for an iap. Last I heard, the survey only needs to be done every 5 years to take into account things like tree growth.
Last edited by chevvron; 1st May 2013 at 14:30.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
To be fair it wouldn't work at most GA airfields in the south mainly due to the mentality of the pilots and the traffic density.
There would have to be a cut off which meant that you had to go VFR as soon as you cloud break. So basically they wouldn't be allowed to use them if the cloud base was above MSA. And even then rules about breaking for an overhead join above circuit Alt.
Most of the fields I use every one goes visual as soon as they can and fits in with the other traffic. Circuit bashers fit in and everyone is happy. When its IMC as long as nobody lies about ETA's it works but having a controller working you doesn't change this.
UK I could see some knob in a microlight getting in the way not talking to anyone. And someone ruffly taking them from behind.
The approaches up north tend to be only used by one aircraft at a time spaced out by sometimes hours mostly by the same company these days.
There would have to be a cut off which meant that you had to go VFR as soon as you cloud break. So basically they wouldn't be allowed to use them if the cloud base was above MSA. And even then rules about breaking for an overhead join above circuit Alt.
Most of the fields I use every one goes visual as soon as they can and fits in with the other traffic. Circuit bashers fit in and everyone is happy. When its IMC as long as nobody lies about ETA's it works but having a controller working you doesn't change this.
UK I could see some knob in a microlight getting in the way not talking to anyone. And someone ruffly taking them from behind.
The approaches up north tend to be only used by one aircraft at a time spaced out by sometimes hours mostly by the same company these days.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 35
From: Home
It would work perfectly well at most UK airfields if the procedures used in for example, USA or Australia were used.
First the CAA requirement for Instrument Runway lighting be dropped. Not required at typical GPS app. Wx limits. And of course the current full ATC requirement.
Then it's easy, for example a pilot carrying out a GPS approach at Fairoaks or Blackbushe in IMC.
Farnborough ( or the nearest ATC Facility at other airfields) would control down to their radar MSA and release each aircraft for the GPS approach. The next aircraft is not released for an approach until the FiSO or A/G operator informs Farnborough the first aircraft has landed. In the event of an airfield with just a Safetycom the pilots inform each other when on ground and safe to allow the next aircraft to start the procedure.
Works in other countries which have years of GPS experience, with commercial jets and biz jets etc. not just light aircraft. A safe and routine procedure.
First the CAA requirement for Instrument Runway lighting be dropped. Not required at typical GPS app. Wx limits. And of course the current full ATC requirement.
Then it's easy, for example a pilot carrying out a GPS approach at Fairoaks or Blackbushe in IMC.
Farnborough ( or the nearest ATC Facility at other airfields) would control down to their radar MSA and release each aircraft for the GPS approach. The next aircraft is not released for an approach until the FiSO or A/G operator informs Farnborough the first aircraft has landed. In the event of an airfield with just a Safetycom the pilots inform each other when on ground and safe to allow the next aircraft to start the procedure.
Works in other countries which have years of GPS experience, with commercial jets and biz jets etc. not just light aircraft. A safe and routine procedure.
Last edited by cessnapete; 2nd May 2013 at 07:43.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 138
From: 50+ north
Chevvron
Survey spec, including periodicity, is set out in CAP 232.
Aerodromes with Code 1 or 2 non instrument runways, such as Fairoaks, are only required to be surveyed for production of an Aerodrome Plan (which the AIP Aerodrome Chart + any Parking Docking Chart is produced) and an AGA survey to check for obstacles in the Approach/TOCS/Transitional etc surfaces. Chapter 1 Table 1 refers.
Type A Charts are only required for aerodromes with Performance A aircraft operating for public transport.
Periodicities for Check Surveys following the initial survey are set out in Chapter 1 Table 2, and are annual. I do however know from personal experience that Aerodrome Inspectors do exercise some discretion with Code 1/2 non instrument runway aerodromes, permitting somewhat longer periods between Check Surveys. I do however doubt that they will continue this in the event of an IAP being provided.
Time will tell what CAA may require beyond an AGA Survey, bearing in mind that a Code 1 approach area only extends for 1660 metres from the threshold, and Code 2 2560 metres. A GNSS procedure will of course need to provide obstacle clearance assurance well beyond that.
Survey spec, including periodicity, is set out in CAP 232.
Aerodromes with Code 1 or 2 non instrument runways, such as Fairoaks, are only required to be surveyed for production of an Aerodrome Plan (which the AIP Aerodrome Chart + any Parking Docking Chart is produced) and an AGA survey to check for obstacles in the Approach/TOCS/Transitional etc surfaces. Chapter 1 Table 1 refers.
Type A Charts are only required for aerodromes with Performance A aircraft operating for public transport.
Periodicities for Check Surveys following the initial survey are set out in Chapter 1 Table 2, and are annual. I do however know from personal experience that Aerodrome Inspectors do exercise some discretion with Code 1/2 non instrument runway aerodromes, permitting somewhat longer periods between Check Surveys. I do however doubt that they will continue this in the event of an IAP being provided.
Time will tell what CAA may require beyond an AGA Survey, bearing in mind that a Code 1 approach area only extends for 1660 metres from the threshold, and Code 2 2560 metres. A GNSS procedure will of course need to provide obstacle clearance assurance well beyond that.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
iaps at Fairoaks would need to penetrate the Heathrow CTR (yes I know it'll shortly become class C or D instead of class A); can you see SVFR handling traffic on iaps to Fairoaks? Can you see them delegating vaste swathes of 'their' airspace to Farnborough to facilitate this? What m.a.p. could you design for runway 06 without penetrating the CTR outside the present Fairoaks LFA?
Last edited by chevvron; 2nd May 2013 at 09:14.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 35
From: Home
Yes sorry, bad example Fairoaks on reflection due Lhr proximity. Only practical on 06 perhaps.
Cloud break and circle for 24.
I stand by my comments generally, but it will take years probably in UK due CAA bu....it and intransigence !
I'm only commenting on what takes place routinely and safely in other more GA enlightened parts of the world
Cloud break and circle for 24.
I stand by my comments generally, but it will take years probably in UK due CAA bu....it and intransigence !
I'm only commenting on what takes place routinely and safely in other more GA enlightened parts of the world
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
m.a.p. for runway 07 at Blackbushe would also be problematical due to the proximity of Bagshot mast; being the 'dominant obstacle' within 5nm radius, it would mean the approach minima would probably need to be 1005ft amsl ie 759 + 246.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 35
From: Home
If I hit the Bagshot mast (5 miles away and about 350agl) on a G/A from Blackbushe, off a WAAS assisted GPS Approach, that would be the least of my problems!!
It seemed to work OK at Innsbruck and Aspen, with much bigger 'Bagshot Masts' in closer proximity. You just include a waypoint or two in the G/A
It seemed to work OK at Innsbruck and Aspen, with much bigger 'Bagshot Masts' in closer proximity. You just include a waypoint or two in the G/A
Last edited by cessnapete; 2nd May 2013 at 12:13.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 1
From: On the wireless...
OK, check out the weird EGLK 07 MAP in the UK IAIP:
Runway 07
(1) Climb straight ahead until passing BLC D2.0 or 1,500 ft QNH (whichever is sooner) then turn left to WOD NDB. Maintain VMC (if possible) and remain outside controlled airspace climbing to altitude 2,400 ft. Retain last assigned SSR code and contact Farnborough Radar frequency 134.350 MHz.
Also weird that it doesn't have an associated IAP.
Runway 07
(1) Climb straight ahead until passing BLC D2.0 or 1,500 ft QNH (whichever is sooner) then turn left to WOD NDB. Maintain VMC (if possible) and remain outside controlled airspace climbing to altitude 2,400 ft. Retain last assigned SSR code and contact Farnborough Radar frequency 134.350 MHz.
Also weird that it doesn't have an associated IAP.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Interestingly when I look at skyvector.com, I see Fairoaks about 7 miles away from Heathrow and 5 miles South of the approach path when landing 09. Whereas, if I look at KEWR (Newark NJ about 75% the traffic of Heathrow ), I see KTEB (Teterboro about 10 times as busy as Fairoaks - mostly IFR) 9 miles away but straight under KEWRs approach path. I would have thought designing the MAPt from KTEB would be quite a bit more difficult than for Fairoaks.
The UK certainly would seem to have a lot of issues in moving forward in the south due to the relatively complex parcelling up of airspace into chunks 'owned' by various agencies cooperating at various levels from marginal to quite good.
The UK certainly would seem to have a lot of issues in moving forward in the south due to the relatively complex parcelling up of airspace into chunks 'owned' by various agencies cooperating at various levels from marginal to quite good.