Approach Services
 

When is an approach service not an approach service?

XXXX refers to themselves most of the time as XXXX approach. Informally they have been happy to provide an approach without pre booking in all conditions. They now consider an approach flown in VMC must be a training mission and therefore prebooked. Now I can understand the need to book a slot time at a busy commercial airport which XXXX is not; I can also just about, but only just about, understand the same commercial airport charging a premium for providing an approach service. However I struggle to understand how an airport can "advertise" itself as XXXX approach and then ask have you booked the service. I would add that in this instance the pilot is already instrument rated and whilst therefore the approach was flown to retain currency rather than out of necessity it was not for training in the usual sense.

I would hasten to add, incase any one guesses the airport concerned, the lads and lasses in ATC are great and I have no problem with them implementing a change in policy. The change however just got me thinking on the legality of the policy, aside from the ever creeping threat of commercialism.

Fuji, this is not as straight forward as it might seem. An Approach Control service can provide many elements of that service. The easy ones are the alerting service and flight information service. In practice this is the basic level of service that many approach control units will provide to a VFR flight.

If you're IFR it gets a bit more complicated and depends whether you're inside controlled airspace (CAS) or not and whether the service is provided with or without radar.

I'll deal with the non-radar service first because it sounds like that's what you're talking about. Inside CAS you will be provided with standard separation from other IFR flights that are also inside the controlled airspace. Outside CAS you'll be provided with standard separation from other participating IFR traffic, that is to say, from other IFR aircraft that have asked for a service from the Approach Control Unit and which ATC have agreed to give a service to. This last bit is important because providing a service outside CAS is subject to workload and if you're known to be a training flight they may choose not to provide a service. It's not ideal but in these circumstances airmanship becomes important to ensure that you stay away from the aerodrome by a safe, but undefined, distance. The only thing that I can think of that's laid down is that you cannot enter the aerodrome traffic zone.

If the ATC service is being provided with the aid of radar and outside CAS you have the option of asking for a Radar Advisory Service. This gets to be a very grey area and I don't think that there are easy generic answers.

The standard rules that controllers apply are in the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 Section 1 Chapter 5 which may be of interest.

I had the same thing at a Southern UK airfield. Asked for vectors for a practice ILS, and was asked if I had 'pre-booked'. When I said no, they refused....

Cheers
EA;)

EA

What is a "practice" ILS?

Either you fly the ILS or you don't.

Did you want a RV-ILS for a go-around or a landing?

To clarrify the circumstances the ATZ is not within CAS and cannot provide a radar service. What constitutes a training flight still puzzles me. In this instance the definition would appear to be that any pilot who requests a procedural approach in VMC has become a training flight.

By approach in this instance what I meant was a published procedural approach to land at the airport concerned.

Spitoon - thanks for your comments - Section 1 Chapter 5 doesnt seem to appear in the downloadable version. I would be interested in what is said.

Yea yea....A practice ILS is what I call flying an approach in VFR conditions, under the hood, by sole reference to the instruments. Therefore its a Practice ILS, becasue if I mess it up, I take the hood off and fly a visual approach.

In this case I was rejoining for landing, and requested the ILS instead of the VFR join.

Rgds
EA:)

Now that's a most interesting interpretation of the regulations!! I always though that the key factor was Flight Rules (IFR/VFR) and not flight conditions (IMC/VMC). Anyway, how do they know your flight conditions?

EA

Sounds like a real ILS to me :p Only difference being if you "mess it up" you go visual rather than around. :D

Is there a rule that says you can't name airfields when posting?

So many answers would be much easier if we knew where we were talking about... (Not just this thread)

FTR, I have never been refused RV for an instrument approach when VFR inbound.

Bournemouth even gave me RV for an SRA when both the ILS and NDB were offline in June - VFR inbound.

FF

I fail to see what the problem is?

You want to bimble down XXXX's (EGTC?) ILS. They will only accept that for training purposes after you have prearranged it or if you do it for real and land at the place?

Well for starters it is their ILS and their controllers paid for by XXXX.

Besides the slot issue, pre arranging also means giving your details to them and entering into an agreement that you are going to cough up for the services provided by XXXX.

If you use the ILS for real and land at XXXX they can be pretty sure that you will part with some readies.

I have no difficulties with that concept. Do you?

FD

Well, firstly there is no real mystery, but I guess this might be one of a number of airports.

In fact it is Shoreham.

The best procedural approach available is an NDB / DME.

The aircraft is home based so there is no issue with reneging on the landing fee, even if the approach ends in a missed. The charge for a procedural approach is the same as a regular landing.

Whipping Boy - that is what I thought, partly hence the question.

Now to be fair, I dont beleive for a moment ATC would refuse a non pre booked procedural approach in poor VMC and certainly not in IMC. However it is their interpretation that an approach in VMC even though you maybe operating IFR must by definition be a training flight and despite the ATIS announcing XXXX approach in fact it is really "XXXX possibly with an approach service or possibly just tower - have you pre-booked"

Flyin'Dutch' - OK point taken, it is their approach and their airport and they have to manage the traffic. However I was interested in peoples views on whether it makes sense to offer something for "sale" (which it seems to me you do by calling yourself XXXX approach) when you might not want to sell the goods on offer. Perhaps I am "hearing" too much in the term XXXX approach, albeit at times the airport becomes XXXX tower, when a second controller is not on duty for example, and we all then know an approach services is definitely not available.

Fuji, try this link for MATS Part 1 (2MB).

FA

See where you are coming from but Approach as in XXXX Approach has obviously nowt to do with the approach as in every day lingo.

Since it is your homefield; have you had a chance to ask them the reasons why they deal with these things in this way.

No doubt they can give you chapter and verse of their policy and would be interesting to find out why they do it like this.

Sometimes things which are seemingly without any common sense are very sensible if you know the reasons why!

Lack of communication [sic!] is often the source for frustration and upset.

If you do find out will you let us know.

Curious if nothing else

FD

My feelings generally are that if you're there to shoot some practice approaches you should as a matter of courtesy book in, if that's what ATC require. If they're full, then hard luck - they're full. If you're going there as a destination, however, you should be able to receive whatever service you require - within reason. It's quite understandable that ATC should limit the facilities they provide for training purposes so that they have enough capacity for those who actually want to land there.

Unfortunately that simplistic view is then complicated by not everyone playing by the rules. A little while ago I overheard an IMC student telling his instructor that they couldn't do their training exercise to Cranfield because ATC were booked up with practice approaches. The instructor told him not to worry - they'd get an approach slot by pretending they were going to land there.

So the bottom line is probably that we all need to be reasonable. When the weather is poor ATC services generally bend over backwards to help you out as best they can. Conversely, when we're doing something primarily for training purposes I think we need to cut them a little slack.

And sometimes it all works in our favour anyway - like the last time I wanted a practice radar vectored ILS approach in fine VMC. I was landing at the airport to go into town anyway, but thought I'd ask for it just to keep current. Not only were they happy to provide it, but they halved the standard landing fee as it counted as a training flight!

Slightly off thread, but landing at Shoreham a few years ago in poor weather, I was given excellent service.

The runway in use was 21 and I was unhappy about the NDB/DME approach to this runway because it is a stepped down approach over high ground to the north and was something I had never done before. I explained m,y concern to ATC and was offered the NDB/DME approach to 03, which is over the sea, plus a circle to land on 21.

All no fuss, done for my convenience. When it matters, they come up with the goods! (I am now happy with stepped non-precision approaches, needless to say).

Having worked as a controller at an airport that was favoured by several instrument training organisations I can maybe explain the simple reason for pre-booking.

Operating a procedural approach service with one beacon and routine approaches to a go-around is hard work (and can involve a lot of R/T). And I don't mean hard for the *poor* controller. The rules about where aircraft can go and how far apart the must be can be complex and, in practical terms, it's not normally possible to accommodate more than two aircraft at the same time. Add in a few commercial movements which the airport, quite reasonably, doesn't want delayed and two trainers can really make a mess of things!

If you are VMC and can see the other traffic that you're being separated from it might seem an awful long way away - but that's only because the rules are set that way.

If the controller has radar things get a bit easier because even if you are training and getting what sounds like a procedural service, the controller can watch where you are and bring other aircraft around you at much smaller separations than a procedural service requires.

It would be nice to suggest that you ask to visit a busy procedural approach unit to see how it works but there are so few around. But do try if you get the chance.

And one last thought. When you hear a controller talking about doing approach control with his/her eyes shut they're not bragging, it's just that that's what it feels like! :)

spitoon, I agree, procedural approach is rather 'interesting'. However, that does not get away from the original statement that VMC approaches are assumed to be training approaches. This is a big misconception. In the military we always follow the courteous approach and pre-book our intstument approaches when visiting other airfields. However, if the IFR approach is at your parent airfield there is generally no requirement to pre-book but it is taken as read that any training approach has a relatively low priority,ordinarily taking second place to a 'route' inbound). Nevertheless, if a pilot elects to operate under IFR he should be afforded the appropriate service.

But Whippy, I think you've really only argued my point for me. As a controller, the weather conditions are largely immaterial - an IFR approach is an IFR approach even if it's a lovely sunny day.

You're quite right that any pilot that elects to operate IFR should receive the appropriate service. But if there are two in the hold doing practice approaches and go-arounds below a 'real' IFR approach (no offence intended) how does an expected approach time in, say, 60 minutes suit. If there's only one beacon there are few easy (or, more importantly, quick) ways of getting the trainers out of the way of the 'real' IFR aircraft.

And bear in mind that although you'll always keep a level clear for a go-around, when an aircraft does go-around it will often further limit the available options and extend EATs. Therefore, by booking training flights, the airport is ensuring that ad-hoc arrivals get the appropriate service while accommodating a level of training that can be handled in a sensible manner.

My apologies to Fuji and colleagues for what might appear to be becomming a discourse on ATC procedures. I hope if people have taken the time to read this far it's because it's interesting.

From a personal perspective, I recognise that everyone has to learn and practice their skills and I'll try and make sure that delays are as short as possible. Yes, I'll accept six aircraft for instrument training, but four will simply go round the hold. Without wishing to start a debate about traing schools, your school may be happy to take money off you to fly round the hold but is that good value if you've got holds sorted and want to practice approaches?

I have found this to be a very interesting debate, particularly the contributions from the ATC guys – it is good to see things from your perspective.

To clear a couple of points. I did have an off air chat with ATC. It is the substance of that conversation that I reflected in my initial question. I also do not have a particular problem with booking an approach if that is what is required.

I think there are two issues however. The first is that there seems to be an increasing trend to complicate life unnecessarily. I would never ask for an approach (for currency purpose) if things appeared busy or several other aircraft were in the hold. However when it is quiet there are times when you feel, without having set of with the intention, that it would be useful to fly an approach to land. It takes 10 seconds of air time to make the request and 10 seconds for it to be refused – I have no issue with that. That has previously been the procedure here and at many other airports – in my view very sensible.

Secondly, I was interested for interest sake in the strict regulatory position. As I said previously it still seems to me odd to refer to yourself as offering a service when in fact strictly you are not – in other words if you cannot for whatever reason accommodate any further traffic on the procedural approach say so on the ATIS and provide a “tower” service.

Finally and for the avoidance of any doubt, Shoreham has always provided a first class ATC service. There are a number of occasions when I have had to fly an approach to minimum; the service has unhesitatingly been there, and without pre-booking of course. I make absolutely no criticism of ATC what so ever. My comment is purely to see what views others have on any airport adopting this type of policy.

At Gloucestershire Airport we operate a booking system for training instrument approaches, which is a major part of our business.

We issue 30 minute 'slots' on the whole and half hours. This gives you time to do a join, 1 hold, the approach and missed approach procedure or 2 approaches....or any combination of the abvoe. All Instrument training is PPR and accepted on the basis that, if commercial traffic or arrivals requiring an approach due to weather turn up, the trainers go to the back of the queue. Additional training approaches are accepted if we can fit them in. We do our best, the more approaches we get in, the more money we make...but it'd not always as straightforward as it may seem.

Even if you elect to fly the approach under VFR, thereby removing our obligation to provide standard separation, we're still responsible for regulating the flow into the ATZ and 'sequencing' the traffic safely and expeditiously...and let's be honest...you're doing the approach to 'keep your hand in' i.e. flying predominantly by reference to the instruments and, subsequently not really looking out the window as you should be under VFR, so we'd treat you as IFR anyway

Another potential issue, which judging by your reference to 'Tower' on the ATIS, may apply here is the legal situation. Can't remember the ANO Article number, but the gist is "Providers of air traffic services are to provide an Approach Control Service when Instrument Approach Procedures are notified as in use" (...that's incidentally why you can't legally fly IAP's at a non-ATC airfield.)
If Shoreham don't always have an Approach rated Controller available for duty then the IAP's cannot be used.

There have been rare occasions here, during staff sickness/shortage etc. when we've had to 'withdraw' the Approach service because the ATCO on duty only has a Tower rating.

The 'Black Art' of Procedural Approach Control, particularly outside Controlled Airspace, is great fun....especially at night when everything's IFR!! Pity it's no longer mandatory to hold the Procedural Rating before progressing to Approach Radar...IMHO the newer generation of ATCO's are missing out on a skill which requires you to build a mental picture of the traffic situation. That said, I do get a bit scared when our Radar's u/s....

Hope this drivel makes sense to any non ATC types reading

It does!

TXS

FD