Instrument Approaches without ATC - could the CAA shift on this?
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instrument Approaches without ATC - could the CAA shift on this?
I sent in an email as part of the red tape challenge that highlighted some of the issues that are facing GA and regulations that need changing/scrapping...
I mentioned GPS approaches to airfields without ATC and noticed on the comment page that one or two other pilots had also mentioned this issue of GPS approaches into smaller airfields. Having flown a lot in the US this is something that I have always wished would happen here.
I then read in Pilot recently that Rochester have asked for a GPS approach, but that the CAA turned them down due to the lack of ATC.
If the CAA realised that a lot of airfields and pilots want GPS approaches do you think they would shift their position on this?
I mentioned GPS approaches to airfields without ATC and noticed on the comment page that one or two other pilots had also mentioned this issue of GPS approaches into smaller airfields. Having flown a lot in the US this is something that I have always wished would happen here.
I then read in Pilot recently that Rochester have asked for a GPS approach, but that the CAA turned them down due to the lack of ATC.
If the CAA realised that a lot of airfields and pilots want GPS approaches do you think they would shift their position on this?
Last edited by Contacttower; 30th Apr 2013 at 10:59.
You need ATC to decide the 'batting order' when more than one aircraft at a time requests the iap. There may be a 'need' to allocate different altitudes to the first and second aircraft. This is called 'separation' and as such can only be applied by ATC, not FIS.
Course if you're not flying for PT, there's nothing to stop you designing your own 'private' procedure as mentioned above, but I'm not sure what attitude your insurance company might take to doing this. Correctly designed with a 'bulletproof' missed approach procedure (which most private procedures don't appear to have) then you could ask them. Most self designers seem to be unaware that the minima you use needs to take into account any high obstacles in the 'missed approach area'.
Course if you're not flying for PT, there's nothing to stop you designing your own 'private' procedure as mentioned above, but I'm not sure what attitude your insurance company might take to doing this. Correctly designed with a 'bulletproof' missed approach procedure (which most private procedures don't appear to have) then you could ask them. Most self designers seem to be unaware that the minima you use needs to take into account any high obstacles in the 'missed approach area'.
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does seem very odd that anyone with a current IR, & an aeroplane with necessary equipment can be cleared for an instrument approach at an uncontrolled airport here in the US. We'd be stuck without them.
Yet theyre not allowed in the UK? Nutz.
Yet theyre not allowed in the UK? Nutz.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AUKFISO informed me that GNSS approaches to AFIS exist at Barra and Benbecula. Are these notified, published or 'operator-specific'?
When I asked the CAA author of CAP797 if other locations will be considered for GNSS IAP to AFIS he informed me that it is 'on the back-burner'.
The precedent exists.
I was informed that the minimum AFIS is required 'to integrate the instrument traffic into the visual circuit traffic'. Quite how AFIS can do this without having authority in the air I don't know.
When I asked the CAA author of CAP797 if other locations will be considered for GNSS IAP to AFIS he informed me that it is 'on the back-burner'.
The precedent exists.
I was informed that the minimum AFIS is required 'to integrate the instrument traffic into the visual circuit traffic'. Quite how AFIS can do this without having authority in the air I don't know.
Last edited by Talkdownman; 30th Apr 2013 at 11:49.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the USA, we have ATC to sequence and separate IFR traffic at untowered fields. We also have Class E airspace running down to low levels (700-1200ft) which prevents any non-radio "VFR" flying in IFR conditions.
This system works fine.
This system works fine.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Who do not have radar like in Londonderry may assign altitudes and holding procedures but are still reliant on accurate flying and aircraft saying where they are.
ATC almost become verbal managers.
The same can be achieved by communication between aircraft and self management.
There are numerous small airfields who have non published procedures which are used by local pilots who intercommunicate.
Pace
ATC almost become verbal managers.
The same can be achieved by communication between aircraft and self management.
There are numerous small airfields who have non published procedures which are used by local pilots who intercommunicate.
Pace
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need ATC to decide the 'batting order' when more than one aircraft at a time requests the iap. There may be a 'need' to allocate different altitudes to the first and second aircraft. This is called 'separation' and as such can only be applied by ATC, not FIS.
AUKFISO informed me that GNSS approaches to AFIS exist at Barra and Benbecula. Are these notified, published or 'operator-specific'?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does Barrow manage to have several IAPs with AFIS? I assume they are for BAe aircraft, but they are published in the AIP so could be used by anybody.
I've read previously that aircraft are under radar control of Warton on an IAP into Barrow. So if Barrow can have an IAP with a regional radar service, why not do it across the UK?
I've read previously that aircraft are under radar control of Warton on an IAP into Barrow. So if Barrow can have an IAP with a regional radar service, why not do it across the UK?
Last edited by wb9999; 30th Apr 2013 at 12:53.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does Barrow manage to have several IAPs with AFIS? I assume they are for BAe aircraft, but they are published in the AIP so could be used by anybody.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I don't know what exactly the stated reason for not allowing it is...
All I know is that it is allowed in many other countries and causes few problems. If I could fly out of my local airfield, go away for a few days and know that when coming back there would be an approved and legal approach procedure that could get me down in most weather that would relieve a major stress of flying for me.
All I know is that it is allowed in many other countries and causes few problems. If I could fly out of my local airfield, go away for a few days and know that when coming back there would be an approved and legal approach procedure that could get me down in most weather that would relieve a major stress of flying for me.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just off to fly 5 approaches into FISO airports with 2 ILS's and 1 NDB and 2 LOC approaches. Never had a problem yet. And that's with paying punters in the back.
Last edited by mad_jock; 30th Apr 2013 at 13:30.