[TractorBoy]

It appears that Stapleford are angling after a GPS approach for Runway 21

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/stap ... CP2017.pdf

Rather disturbed by the proposal, given they only grudgingly acknowledge the existence of North Weald in Appendix E - apart from that NW isn't mentioned once, nor even drawn on the maps.

Given NW probably has a similar volume of traffic combined with the fact we're already pretty squeezed due to the Stapleford ATZ (and the fact that their noise abatement circuits are actually outside it!) and Stansted Zone, this is going to be a source of concern. And add in the hold out towards Chelmsford at 2300ft...

Combine that with the fact that we routinely have Warbirds and high-energy ex-military jets operating from the airfield, having a rather large approach area to Stapleford is a disaster waiting to happen.

Thoughts?

Theres an online form if you want to comment

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/staplefordacp

[Ex-FISO]

Licence your airfield and you might get a say.

[James Chan]

North Weald also has IFR —> VFR arrivals and IFR departures to/from the LTMA.

Looking at the area around Stapleford and possibly the highest number of airprox reports in the country, I suspect someone is going to join up all the airspace together at some point making it all controlled.

Might not be a bad thing though.

[Lefty]

North Weald also has IFR —> VFR arrivals and IFR departures to/from the LTMA.

Looking at the area around Stapleford and possibly the highest number of airprox reports in the country, I suspect someone is going to join up all the airspace together at some point making it all controlled.

Might not be a bad thing though.

I tend to agree.
As many of us know, the location of of thier approach path cuts right across the only east - west corridor between the London and Stanstead Zones. I regularly travel that route - fairly frequently in IMC conditions.

The same applies to North Weald, Elstree, Denham and Wycombe Air Park.

We are now aware that Stapleford, Wycombe and Denham have all declared their intention to apply for GNSS approaches. Surely the authorities can’t approve all of these IAP’s in this area without provision of a radar based ATC service to protect all aircraft using this airspace?

NB, it does seem somewhat disingenuous for Stapleford to completely omit the presence of North Weald from their submission, and to list them as “A small airfield” in the list of Consul-tees.

[matspart3]

Hold on, we’ve had a decade or more of moaning on this forum about lack of IAPs at small airfields limiting availability, Stapleford finally puts its head above the parapet (and its hand in its pocket!) and they get criticised. FFS!

[G-BLEW]

Hold on, we’ve had a decade or more of moaning on this forum about lack of IAPs at small airfields limiting availability, Stapleford finally puts its head above the parapet (and its hand in its pocket!) and they get criticised. FFS!

To be fair it's only by one poster (so far), and there's no problem with contrary views.

That said, I personally find it hugely encouraging that Stapleford is working towards this, and would hope that GA airfields would find a way to work together for the good of aviation. There's a dearth of GA instrument approaches around London, and I heartily encourage any new ones.

Ian

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hold on, we’ve had a decade or more of moaning on this forum about lack of IAPs at small airfields limiting availability, Stapleford finally puts its head above the parapet (and its hand in its pocket!) and they get criticised. FFS!

Couldn't agree more!

And maybe the area is so busy that some form of active surveillance would not be a bad idea.

The problem is that we are typically used to CAS in the UK being classA or D only with people having difficulty in transmitting Class D for transits.

I think IAPs to smaller aerodromes using GPS is great and needs to bed supported. It increases safety and usability.

[Lefty]

Hold on, we’ve had a decade or more of moaning on this forum about lack of IAPs at small airfields limiting availability, Stapleford finally puts its head above the parapet (and its hand in its pocket!) and they get criticised. FFS!

Darren, you misunderstand me. I’m all for more IAP’s. I’d love one at my base and I expect I will certainly use these ones.

My comment suggests that having so many overlapping, and uncontrolled IAP’s in the middle of a highly restricted “rat run” is not exactly building “a safe system”.

[mikeblyth]

"in the middle of a highly restricted “rat run” is " Exactly eyes on stalks

[Ben K]

Stapleford Flight Centre (SFC) currently provides instrument training using a ‘good
weather’ training procedure based the Lambourne (LAM) VHF Omni Directional Radio
Range (VOR) that is scheduled to be withdrawn within the next two years. The proposed
instrument approach will allow SFC to continue local instrument approach training
following the withdrawal of the LAM VOR. Without any facility to support instrument
approach training at Stapleford, such as the VOR or the proposed procedure, all
instrument approach training would have to be conducted at an alternative airport
increasing costs.

From page 4 of the above link https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/staplefordacp/ACP/StaplefordACP2017.pdf.

Since the LAM VOR is at Stapleford - won't the introduction of a GPS approach mean that IF traffic will be flying the (broadly) same profile as they've been doing anway?

[CloudHound]

Is LAM one the DVORs that’ll stay or go?

[matspart3]

And maybe the area is so busy that some form of active surveillance would not be a bad idea.

I’ve had surveillance services from Southend, Thames Radar and Farnborough in the vicinity of Stapleford at various times in the past. No reason to think that won’t continue to be the case....

[Ben K]

Is LAM one the DVORs that’ll stay or go?

It's to be withdrawn according to that ACP.

[Dave Phillips]

Wasn’t Farnborough Radar partially established in recognition of the ‘rat-runs’ underneath the London TMA?

PS. Booker’s proposed procedure has a similar effect, shooting-off towards Bovingdon.

[GAFlyer4Fun]

GPS approaches are the only way many airfields can have instrument approaches without having to maintain costly traditional approach aids, helping to keep the approach/landing fees down.

The more airfields that have GPS approaches, the more PPLs might take up the IR(R) etc as they will have more places to use it. Airfield utilisation might increase helping to keep more airfields as active airfields rather than become housing estates and storage facilities.

If North Weald airfield management/schools/pilots have a problem with the Stapleford GPS approach proposals, now would be a good time for NW to submit proposals for their own GPS approaches to help achieve joined up airspace usage in their area.