Instrument approach procedures in uncontrolled airports
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instrument approach procedures in uncontrolled airports
Hi guys!!
I am aware that in some airports in the US, France, etc. there are small airports with VOR/DME, LPV approaches implemented. However, there is not even an AFIS service in such airports.
I assume that in such cases the Air-to-Air frequency (A/A) is used to report the position constantly. I am looking for the regulatory framework (either FAA or ICAO) that described operationally how such procedures shall be flown.
Can anybody give me a clue about the regulatory document I should look for?
Thanks!
I am aware that in some airports in the US, France, etc. there are small airports with VOR/DME, LPV approaches implemented. However, there is not even an AFIS service in such airports.
I assume that in such cases the Air-to-Air frequency (A/A) is used to report the position constantly. I am looking for the regulatory framework (either FAA or ICAO) that described operationally how such procedures shall be flown.
Can anybody give me a clue about the regulatory document I should look for?
Thanks!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,278
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Procedures vary, depending on the rules of the country. In the US, many (most?) non-controlled airfields are in Class E airspace and radar separation is provided from other IFR traffic until landed or cancelling IFR. Once cleared for the approach you will also be cleared to change to the aerodrome's frequency, with a reminder to cancel IFR on the controllers freq. or via phone after landing. Until IFR is cancelled the controller will keep controlled traffic out of the way even though you may no longer be on ATC's frequency.
Meanwhile, you're responsible to communicate on the aerodrome frequency and arrange separation with non-controlled traffic operating at the field. It's much, much easier to do during really crappy weather ie non VMC to below circuit height, than when the weather is VMC at or above the normal circuit altitude. Not too many other aircraft to worry about when the weather is really dismal, and ATC will prevent other IFR aircraft from commencing an approach until you land, cancel IFR or are back being controlled again.
In Australia the vast majority of aerodromes are OCTA. Instead of a controller providing separation, a flight information service for known traffic is provided. You still have to coordinate your own separation from the traffic, including other IFR aircraft who also want to do the approach, and give broadcasts on the aerodrome's frequency to inform traffic that isn't involved with ATS/FS. Usually the first there gets to do the approach first while the others adjust speed & track to avoid a conflict, or everyone stacks in the hold to wait their turn. Lots of broadcasts of intentions & altitudes being left so others can know when they can step down etc.
Not quite a complete lack of FIS as your question asked but somewhat similar. Absent ATS/FIS then give lots of broadcasts of position, altitude & intention, and talk to the other planes that might conflict
Meanwhile, you're responsible to communicate on the aerodrome frequency and arrange separation with non-controlled traffic operating at the field. It's much, much easier to do during really crappy weather ie non VMC to below circuit height, than when the weather is VMC at or above the normal circuit altitude. Not too many other aircraft to worry about when the weather is really dismal, and ATC will prevent other IFR aircraft from commencing an approach until you land, cancel IFR or are back being controlled again.
In Australia the vast majority of aerodromes are OCTA. Instead of a controller providing separation, a flight information service for known traffic is provided. You still have to coordinate your own separation from the traffic, including other IFR aircraft who also want to do the approach, and give broadcasts on the aerodrome's frequency to inform traffic that isn't involved with ATS/FS. Usually the first there gets to do the approach first while the others adjust speed & track to avoid a conflict, or everyone stacks in the hold to wait their turn. Lots of broadcasts of intentions & altitudes being left so others can know when they can step down etc.
Not quite a complete lack of FIS as your question asked but somewhat similar. Absent ATS/FIS then give lots of broadcasts of position, altitude & intention, and talk to the other planes that might conflict
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 25th Oct 2012 at 17:25.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Utilization of instrument approach procedures under IFR without ATC pages 1.5-9/10 for the French procedures.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPath
[quot]eFAA LPV Q&A
LPV Approach FAA[/quote]
Don't believe those have anything pertinent to the OP's question.
[quot]eFAA LPV Q&A
LPV Approach FAA[/quote]
Don't believe those have anything pertinent to the OP's question.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATMaster:
For the U.S. it's covered in the U.S. Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), which is available on the FAA's website for download.
FAA airspace policy requires that flight inspection determine that communications exist with ATC at the IAF. This can either be to the center, an approach control if nearby, or through Flight Service Station, which in turn communicates with the controlling agency (center or approach control, as appropriate.)
If there is no communications capability below the IAF altitude you are required to close your IFR flight plan by landline or wireless telephone. There is a universal telephone number for FSS in the AIM, but pilots who regularly do this at such an airport usually obtain a direct number to the center or approach control that is always answered (in other words, not their business line).
Flight inspection also is required to determine that communications with ATC exist at the missed approach level-off altitude and end point (almost always a published holding pattern in the U.S.)
Hi guys!!
I am aware that in some airports in the US, France, etc. there are small airports with VOR/DME, LPV approaches implemented. However, there is not even an AFIS service in such airports.
I assume that in such cases the Air-to-Air frequency (A/A) is used to report the position constantly. I am looking for the regulatory framework (either FAA or ICAO) that described operationally how such procedures shall be flown.
Can anybody give me a clue about the regulatory document I should look for?
I am aware that in some airports in the US, France, etc. there are small airports with VOR/DME, LPV approaches implemented. However, there is not even an AFIS service in such airports.
I assume that in such cases the Air-to-Air frequency (A/A) is used to report the position constantly. I am looking for the regulatory framework (either FAA or ICAO) that described operationally how such procedures shall be flown.
Can anybody give me a clue about the regulatory document I should look for?
FAA airspace policy requires that flight inspection determine that communications exist with ATC at the IAF. This can either be to the center, an approach control if nearby, or through Flight Service Station, which in turn communicates with the controlling agency (center or approach control, as appropriate.)
If there is no communications capability below the IAF altitude you are required to close your IFR flight plan by landline or wireless telephone. There is a universal telephone number for FSS in the AIM, but pilots who regularly do this at such an airport usually obtain a direct number to the center or approach control that is always answered (in other words, not their business line).
Flight inspection also is required to determine that communications with ATC exist at the missed approach level-off altitude and end point (almost always a published holding pattern in the U.S.)
