UK GPS approaches
Thread Starter
UK GPS approaches
Hello has anyone used the GPS approaches in Uk yet. I heard they have one in Blackpool and EGBJ. are they of any use? and where else are they approved?
Gloucestershire, Gatwick, Heathrow, Blackpool, Durham Tees Valley, Exeter all have RNAV/GPS Approaches. There may be more....
Here's a comment from another thread on UK GPS Approaches:
"........without splitting too many hairs over this, what the UK calls a GPS Approach (RNAV or RNP .3), doesn't quite qualify with standards in the rest of the world.
The UK GPS approaches do not provide guidance for the missed approach segment. It is either climb straight ahead and ask center for help (Gatwick, Heathrow, etc), or "LCTR required for missed approach" (Gloucester, etc). A good FMS system should be able to provide constant overlay information, but compared to what's going on this side of the Atlantic it looks bush league and half-hearted. If it is any consolation to UK pride, the Norweigans have a similar restriction on their LPV (localizer precision with vertical guidance) precision GPS approaches, and also require conventional navaids for the missed approach segment.
Must be something regulatory over there, and maybe somebody has some explanation. We're busy decommissioning NDB's, Marker Beacons, LCTR's, VOR, Radar etc. here, so designing a new procedure requiring existing ground based navaids seems pointless to us."
Here's a comment from another thread on UK GPS Approaches:
"........without splitting too many hairs over this, what the UK calls a GPS Approach (RNAV or RNP .3), doesn't quite qualify with standards in the rest of the world.
The UK GPS approaches do not provide guidance for the missed approach segment. It is either climb straight ahead and ask center for help (Gatwick, Heathrow, etc), or "LCTR required for missed approach" (Gloucester, etc). A good FMS system should be able to provide constant overlay information, but compared to what's going on this side of the Atlantic it looks bush league and half-hearted. If it is any consolation to UK pride, the Norweigans have a similar restriction on their LPV (localizer precision with vertical guidance) precision GPS approaches, and also require conventional navaids for the missed approach segment.
Must be something regulatory over there, and maybe somebody has some explanation. We're busy decommissioning NDB's, Marker Beacons, LCTR's, VOR, Radar etc. here, so designing a new procedure requiring existing ground based navaids seems pointless to us."
Keeping terminal VORs and associated DME would seem a fair compromise. Enroute reliance on GPS and ground based radar souinds reasonable. I would hate to think there was no backup system even as dependable as GPS is.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yabbut... just because other navaids exist, they shouldn't be required for missed approach procedures. ISTM you either embrace GPS or you don't. Having approaches but no missed procedures seems rather short-sighted, or perhaps just bone-headed. Perhaps the feeling is that GPS is a colonial thing, and the seat of empire can't permit its complete use. 
Yo Gom,
I will quote one of our cousin's comment re GPS....."Never happen, give up going on about it....after all it is an American DOD thing!"
Then.....the Nigerian CAA made it a requirement.
The next comment was...."Well when they go U/S (unserviceable)....we will not repair or replace them!"
The major thing was not to disturb his serviette...as he got very cross.
I will quote one of our cousin's comment re GPS....."Never happen, give up going on about it....after all it is an American DOD thing!"
Then.....the Nigerian CAA made it a requirement.
The next comment was...."Well when they go U/S (unserviceable)....we will not repair or replace them!"
The major thing was not to disturb his serviette...as he got very cross.
If GPS is so reliable, why are the USCG looking at developing LORAN with a sort of DGPS twist as an alternative with similar quoted accuracy?
Crab,
A large part of the Coast Guard budget involved maintaining the LORAN system....it is as much politics as perceived need. Add in the fact all the existing LORAN sites can still be used but would only continue to be used if it can be made as accurate as GPS. Thus if the Coastie's are going to retain that part of their budget they have to be able to compete with GPS.
A large part of the Coast Guard budget involved maintaining the LORAN system....it is as much politics as perceived need. Add in the fact all the existing LORAN sites can still be used but would only continue to be used if it can be made as accurate as GPS. Thus if the Coastie's are going to retain that part of their budget they have to be able to compete with GPS.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reliability is not the issue. If it's reiable enough for flying an approach, it's reliable enough for flying the missed. If it's unreliable, then why allow approaches in the first place? In the US, we're flying precision approaches using GPS, every day, onshore and offshore, fixed and rotary wing, including airliners. i understand that other countries distrust the US government, and I don't blame them, but allowing GPS approaches but not allowing its use for the missed simply makes no sense to me.
Everyone recognizes the need for a backup system, but maintaining thousands of navaids all over the US is very, very expensive, and it's cheaper to use enhanced LORAN for the backup than maintaining, and soon replacing, all those aging, obsolete navaids.
Everyone recognizes the need for a backup system, but maintaining thousands of navaids all over the US is very, very expensive, and it's cheaper to use enhanced LORAN for the backup than maintaining, and soon replacing, all those aging, obsolete navaids.
Maybe - and purely speculation - it's quicker/easier to certify the missed approach if based on a pre-existing ground aid based approved procedure? Just piggy-back it on to a GPS approach and Bob's your mother's brother.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done both the JAR and FAA IR's in the last 6 months I cannot understand why we JAR land persist with outdated NDB, the needle gently meandering +/- 5 degrees of track on finals if you are lucky, and that's without any Coastal/Lightning/any other effect. As well as the potential for short term errors by pushing/pulling the needle in the wrong direction dependant on its orientation.
You have the option of GPS with RAIM Integrity, backcourse ILS, with vertical stepdowns etc. why on earth aren't we using it? Astonishing! Christ my mobile phone is good to about 3 metres these days.
You have the option of GPS with RAIM Integrity, backcourse ILS, with vertical stepdowns etc. why on earth aren't we using it? Astonishing! Christ my mobile phone is good to about 3 metres these days.
Can't answer your question directly, but have you ever considered the clock error required to generate a 200 ft vertical error? Clue - speed of light = 186,000 miles/second
Maybe the regulators took a conservative approach (pardon the pun) to relying purely on GPS.
Maybe the regulators took a conservative approach (pardon the pun) to relying purely on GPS.
Thread Starter
Well at least the UK are using them, we are lucky if we could even get a weather report over here. They really could do with desiging and approving som e GPS approaches in Ireland, and yeah some more airports would be nice too.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS Approach
I may be a little out of date as I haven't flown the route for a while but Penzance heliport has used a Decca/GPS approach for years; I seem to remember carrying out such an approach during my S61 conversion in 1976.
It requires cross-checking against VOR and DME readings from Lands End VOR, the NDB at the heliport and the aircraft weather radar showing the very prominent swimming pool on the Penzance shoreline. Its based on two decision points, at 250' in sight of the water and then visual with the coast. It works very well.
There is a similar simpler approach into St Mary's on Scilly.
It is, or was, company specific and requires a check with a Training Captain
Boslandew
It requires cross-checking against VOR and DME readings from Lands End VOR, the NDB at the heliport and the aircraft weather radar showing the very prominent swimming pool on the Penzance shoreline. Its based on two decision points, at 250' in sight of the water and then visual with the coast. It works very well.
There is a similar simpler approach into St Mary's on Scilly.
It is, or was, company specific and requires a check with a Training Captain
Boslandew
Last edited by Boslandew; 30th Apr 2008 at 21:31. Reason: Spelling
Gomer
You have to remember that you are lucky, you have WAAS in the USA (WAAS being wide area augmentation system, ie a geostationary satellite transmitting differential gps data). With WAAS and a tso 145/6 gps receiver the accuracy and integrity of the data is several orders of magnitude better than without. Here in Europe we still have no WAAS satellite - EGNOS is still under development and only radiating for test purposes. Hopefully it wil be on stream soon and then all we will need to do is to upgrade our equipment to tso145/6 to be able to fly LPV approaches. There is no way you should be flying LPV approaches with tso 129 gps / no WAAS.
There is a GPS NPA published for Inverness (down the road from Aberdeen). Of course it has NPA minima so on some days the ILS is a better bet, but on some days when the weather is not too bad and the radar is off, it offers a more expeditious approach than the full ILS procedure.
HC
You have to remember that you are lucky, you have WAAS in the USA (WAAS being wide area augmentation system, ie a geostationary satellite transmitting differential gps data). With WAAS and a tso 145/6 gps receiver the accuracy and integrity of the data is several orders of magnitude better than without. Here in Europe we still have no WAAS satellite - EGNOS is still under development and only radiating for test purposes. Hopefully it wil be on stream soon and then all we will need to do is to upgrade our equipment to tso145/6 to be able to fly LPV approaches. There is no way you should be flying LPV approaches with tso 129 gps / no WAAS.
There is a GPS NPA published for Inverness (down the road from Aberdeen). Of course it has NPA minima so on some days the ILS is a better bet, but on some days when the weather is not too bad and the radar is off, it offers a more expeditious approach than the full ILS procedure.
HC
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that all of the GPS RNAV approaches that were being trialled in the UK by the CAA have now been withdrawn so you should probably be careful if flying them now! There certainly aren't any in the AIP today.
The approaches at Inverness, Shoreham, Exeter, Gloucestershire, Durham and Blackpool were set up for trials purposes only to be flown in VMC and the trial ended late in '06. It's down to the individual airports now. If they want to reinstate the procedures they need to apply to the CAA with all of the safety assessments, paperwork, etc.
All the best, NM.
The approaches at Inverness, Shoreham, Exeter, Gloucestershire, Durham and Blackpool were set up for trials purposes only to be flown in VMC and the trial ended late in '06. It's down to the individual airports now. If they want to reinstate the procedures they need to apply to the CAA with all of the safety assessments, paperwork, etc.
All the best, NM.
Last edited by NavMonkey; 1st May 2008 at 11:59. Reason: Spulling eror
NM,
Do I understand by your post....there are "no" currently approved GPS approaches in the UK? As in none...zip....zero....nada???
Also....am I right to understand all of the prior approaches were for trial purposes and were limited to VFR/VMC use only and thus never qualified as "GPS Instrument Procedures" as compared to the situation in the USA?
Have not British Operators used GPS for instrument approaches in Nigeria....and approved by Shell Aviation personn
Does Nigeria have WAAS coverage?
Do I understand by your post....there are "no" currently approved GPS approaches in the UK? As in none...zip....zero....nada???
Also....am I right to understand all of the prior approaches were for trial purposes and were limited to VFR/VMC use only and thus never qualified as "GPS Instrument Procedures" as compared to the situation in the USA?
Have not British Operators used GPS for instrument approaches in Nigeria....and approved by Shell Aviation personn
Does Nigeria have WAAS coverage?
believe that all of the GPS RNAV approaches that were being trialled in the UK by the CAA have now been withdrawn so you should probably be careful if flying them now! There certainly aren't any in the AIP today.
Jesus, where do these guys get off?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless - yes, your interpretation of my post is spot on. None of the original 6 GPS approaches that were implemented for the trial are available any longer. The trial was intended to get operational experience primarily amongst the GA crowd with a view to approval. The trial finished in Dec 06, a report was published but as I said its now over to the airport operators to go through the formal process to get approval for them if they want them reactivated.
I understand NATS have been looking at the possibility of some GPS Baro-VNAV type RNAV approaches into EGKK but am not sure of the status - so as far as I am aware right now they are not promulgated.
In short there are *no* public GPS RNAV approach procedures in the UK at present. That is a different matter from saying that UK operators are not approved to fly GPS RNAV approaches overseas, as a number are. Just that there are no promulgated IAP's to UK airports.
Nigeria doesn't have WAAS coverage. If it will get any SBAS coverage that will come from the much delayed EGNOS system. There are plans to expand its service across Africa, but to be honest they have to get it working for Europe first
I understand NATS have been looking at the possibility of some GPS Baro-VNAV type RNAV approaches into EGKK but am not sure of the status - so as far as I am aware right now they are not promulgated.
In short there are *no* public GPS RNAV approach procedures in the UK at present. That is a different matter from saying that UK operators are not approved to fly GPS RNAV approaches overseas, as a number are. Just that there are no promulgated IAP's to UK airports.
Nigeria doesn't have WAAS coverage. If it will get any SBAS coverage that will come from the much delayed EGNOS system. There are plans to expand its service across Africa, but to be honest they have to get it working for Europe first
Now hold on here.....did not some folks tell us there were some GPS approaches in use?
I could have sworn someone said FMS nav units could overlay them on other Non-precision approaches....or is that only on S-92 aircraft flying for a Dutch based oil company?
I could have sworn someone said FMS nav units could overlay them on other Non-precision approaches....or is that only on S-92 aircraft flying for a Dutch based oil company?
Oddly enough, all those approaches are current as far as Jeppesen is concerned. For example, Blackpool RNAV (GNSS) RWY 28, is current on this nav revision cycle and had an original publish date of 24-Aug-07. Typically all the FMS and GPS units maintained through Jeppesen navdata updates would also show it as current. Any operator flying into those airports would expect those approaches to be available today.
The fact that the publish date is after the so-called end to the trial period would imply that we are talking about two different things.
In the US and Canada each RNAV plate typically offers three different limits: the LPV for which WAAS is required, and the VNAV and LNAV which are considered non-precision approaches and do not require WAAS. Waiting for WAAS capability from EGNOS before putting your toe into the pool of RNAV approaches seems like grasping at yet another straw to justify Brit intransigence.
The fact that the publish date is after the so-called end to the trial period would imply that we are talking about two different things.
In the US and Canada each RNAV plate typically offers three different limits: the LPV for which WAAS is required, and the VNAV and LNAV which are considered non-precision approaches and do not require WAAS. Waiting for WAAS capability from EGNOS before putting your toe into the pool of RNAV approaches seems like grasping at yet another straw to justify Brit intransigence.