Problems at Shoreham EGKA?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry . . .was washing my hair :-). Nope. . . MATS2 restriction, when radar shut aircraft can't self position to the NDB approach due lack of positive range check. Potentially, if we had advanced uses of the ATM and that element was covered in the RA . . . we could probably change that.
Fred
Fred
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just done some research into what I was proposing to find out why it wouldn't be approved.
I have been pleasantly surprised that actually CAP1122 does not prohibit the creation of IAP to uncontrolled airfields, nor the creation of IAP to A/G or safetycom without ATS or instrument runways providing that this is not for public transport operations. It does say that applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis (which implies £££), and that it would need to go through several layers of bureaucracy before approval (even more £££). I assume that these two last points are why we don't presently have IAP to more GA airfields... But I am surprised to see that it wasn't forbidden. It look to be "exceptional" circumstances to get that approved though.
I would prefer however, knowing that I am the only one on the IAP until I am on the ground and off the runway, so perhaps a system would need to be setup there... I still think an area controller would be a good idea!
I am not sure if CAP1122 was superseded by an EASA one though... I always struggle to find what CAP was changed to for EASA... Is there a list somewhere?
I have been pleasantly surprised that actually CAP1122 does not prohibit the creation of IAP to uncontrolled airfields, nor the creation of IAP to A/G or safetycom without ATS or instrument runways providing that this is not for public transport operations. It does say that applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis (which implies £££), and that it would need to go through several layers of bureaucracy before approval (even more £££). I assume that these two last points are why we don't presently have IAP to more GA airfields... But I am surprised to see that it wasn't forbidden. It look to be "exceptional" circumstances to get that approved though.
I would prefer however, knowing that I am the only one on the IAP until I am on the ground and off the runway, so perhaps a system would need to be setup there... I still think an area controller would be a good idea!
I am not sure if CAP1122 was superseded by an EASA one though... I always struggle to find what CAP was changed to for EASA... Is there a list somewhere?
Sorry . . .was washing my hair :-). Nope. . . MATS2 restriction, when radar shut aircraft can't self position to the NDB approach due lack of positive range check. Potentially, if we had advanced uses of the ATM and that element was covered in the RA . . . we could probably change that.
Fred
Fred
I have self positioned to an IAP or NAV aid to an airfield without radar. Glos for instance when radar not available.
(The pilot will have checked GPS coverage for his route from the website prior to flight, and airmanship dictates enroute gross error checks with other available aids.)
I have just done some research into what I was proposing to find out why it wouldn't be approved.
I have been pleasantly surprised that actually CAP1122 does not prohibit the creation of IAP to uncontrolled airfields, nor the creation of IAP to A/G or safetycom without ATS or instrument runways providing that this is not for public transport operations. It does say that applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis (which implies £££), and that it would need to go through several layers of bureaucracy before approval (even more £££). I assume that these two last points are why we don't presently have IAP to more GA airfields... But I am surprised to see that it wasn't forbidden. It look to be "exceptional" circumstances to get that approved though.
I would prefer however, knowing that I am the only one on the IAP until I am on the ground and off the runway, so perhaps a system would need to be setup there... I still think an area controller would be a good idea!
I am not sure if CAP1122 was superseded by an EASA one though... I always struggle to find what CAP was changed to for EASA... Is there a list somewhere?
I have been pleasantly surprised that actually CAP1122 does not prohibit the creation of IAP to uncontrolled airfields, nor the creation of IAP to A/G or safetycom without ATS or instrument runways providing that this is not for public transport operations. It does say that applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis (which implies £££), and that it would need to go through several layers of bureaucracy before approval (even more £££). I assume that these two last points are why we don't presently have IAP to more GA airfields... But I am surprised to see that it wasn't forbidden. It look to be "exceptional" circumstances to get that approved though.
I would prefer however, knowing that I am the only one on the IAP until I am on the ground and off the runway, so perhaps a system would need to be setup there... I still think an area controller would be a good idea!
I am not sure if CAP1122 was superseded by an EASA one though... I always struggle to find what CAP was changed to for EASA... Is there a list somewhere?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry - for an split second I forgot that the CAA literally just want your money...
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Newick
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex90,
Thanks for your kind words about CAP1122. It's a shame that the pioneering spirit, within the CAA when we first started to write it, hasn't survived.
For your info there is no EASA AMC/GM to supersede this CAP and it remains a national document, albeit adopted as best practice by a number of European states.
There are virtually no Scheme of Charges figures associated with CAP1122; I recall less than £1000. The real cost is in buying in expertise from IFP designers, safety case authors and Airspace Change Proposal managers. £50,000 outlay with no guarantee of success. That said, money from Europe channeled through the EGNOS promotion fund has helped.
Cessnapete
WAAS enabled receiver equipment goes further than RAIM which is an algorithm derived prediction tool. Did you you know at the start it was calculated on a 'flat Earth' basis so satellite visibility in the valley of a mountainous region wasn't accounted for.
However, Fault Detection and Exclusion (FDE) is what your boxes perform and is an active check in real time, though you need six, I think, satellites in view.
And referring to CAP773 the practice of a gross error check approaching the IAF is described. It's a key pillar that argues against sole means of reference. In other words one should have other Navaids available to help ensure positional verification.
Thanks for your kind words about CAP1122. It's a shame that the pioneering spirit, within the CAA when we first started to write it, hasn't survived.
For your info there is no EASA AMC/GM to supersede this CAP and it remains a national document, albeit adopted as best practice by a number of European states.
There are virtually no Scheme of Charges figures associated with CAP1122; I recall less than £1000. The real cost is in buying in expertise from IFP designers, safety case authors and Airspace Change Proposal managers. £50,000 outlay with no guarantee of success. That said, money from Europe channeled through the EGNOS promotion fund has helped.
Cessnapete
WAAS enabled receiver equipment goes further than RAIM which is an algorithm derived prediction tool. Did you you know at the start it was calculated on a 'flat Earth' basis so satellite visibility in the valley of a mountainous region wasn't accounted for.
However, Fault Detection and Exclusion (FDE) is what your boxes perform and is an active check in real time, though you need six, I think, satellites in view.
And referring to CAP773 the practice of a gross error check approaching the IAF is described. It's a key pillar that argues against sole means of reference. In other words one should have other Navaids available to help ensure positional verification.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex90,
Thanks for your kind words about CAP1122. It's a shame that the pioneering spirit, within the CAA when we first started to write it, hasn't survived.
For your info there is no EASA AMC/GM to supersede this CAP and it remains a national document, albeit adopted as best practice by a number of European states.
There are virtually no Scheme of Charges figures associated with CAP1122; I recall less than £1000. The real cost is in buying in expertise from IFP designers, safety case authors and Airspace Change Proposal managers. £50,000 outlay with no guarantee of success. That said, money from Europe channeled through the EGNOS promotion fund has helped.
Thanks for your kind words about CAP1122. It's a shame that the pioneering spirit, within the CAA when we first started to write it, hasn't survived.
For your info there is no EASA AMC/GM to supersede this CAP and it remains a national document, albeit adopted as best practice by a number of European states.
There are virtually no Scheme of Charges figures associated with CAP1122; I recall less than £1000. The real cost is in buying in expertise from IFP designers, safety case authors and Airspace Change Proposal managers. £50,000 outlay with no guarantee of success. That said, money from Europe channeled through the EGNOS promotion fund has helped.
Thank you for letting me know - I appreciate this. I knew the (around) £50k figure, which I actually don't think is crazy expensive. It really is a drop of water in the sea when comparing it to the cost of the infrastructure for VOR/DME/ILS approaches, which was why I spent some time trying to find ANY GNSS/LPV approaches, but at the time I believe that there were only a couple, and those were at licensed airfields only. I don't believe that this has changed much for GA.
I have done some GNSS approaches in France and NZ at untowered airfields and thought it incredible, I couldn't believe that the UK wasn't adopting it! From a safety point of view, if nothing else! There have been several crashes in the last few years, mostly highly experienced pilots scud-running / doing home-made approaches to airfields whilst in very marginal conditions. I often wonder had these airfields have GNSS/LPV or other approaches, if these accidents would have happened. (regardless of pilot error / piloting attitude / company pressure or any other factors, having a proper GNSS approach would without any doubt in my mind have reduced the risk quite considerably)
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Newick
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree that there are some a/c types which, being highly automated, can perform an instrument approach from leaving CAS to the missed approach point so long as the pilot doesn't mess with the controls. Some would say that's what the dog was for.
Make access to hi-end a/c systems, make training and ratings affordable and attainable; provide instrument approach procedures to sensible minima and a number of, soon to be dead, people may live.
Make access to hi-end a/c systems, make training and ratings affordable and attainable; provide instrument approach procedures to sensible minima and a number of, soon to be dead, people may live.
