[GonzoEGLL]

AFAIK the only remote tower operational today is Sundsvall airport in Sweden, which went live in December 2017, and that remote tower is located only 100m away from the old VCR.

I thought Sundsvall controlled Ornskoldsvik 100 miles away?

Doh! Yes, you are quite correct! Had completely forgotten about that. They switched over sometime in 2015.

[Bobcro]

Much as it does now in Norway with centralised digital ATC where controllers are based elsewhere in regional centres and provide control at several different airports. They have a better view of the airfield and more accurate weather. All movements are recorded digitally.

Not quite. I don't believe any airport in Norway has been 'remoted' yet. The plan is to have 15 airports running from the Tower centre in Bodo.

AFAIK the only remote tower operational today is Sundsvall airport in Sweden, which went live in December 2017, and that remote tower is located only 100m away from the old VCR.

Thanks for update, the location of the remote tower at EGTC will be on campus

[Dave W]

Don't forget it depends on...

What does it depend on in other jurisdictions/Nations? Is it the same?

I sometimes think, as an interested reader and uneducated and inexperienced observer of these instrument approach threads that there's a whiff at times of "We can't do that here because we don't do that here."

In other words, it can sometimes feel that capabilities available elsewhere sometimes are rejected out of hand at the outset on these threads because of NIH* Syndrome.

Is that unfair?


*Not Invented Here

[AndyR]

Most places who have adopted LPV around the world work towards a 200’ DA where they can.

The U.K. needs to catch up in many ways before GA dies on its feet. That’s not just schools, it’s GA, both private and commercial.

[AndyR]

Dragging this back to Shoreham, we flew the RNAV back in there tonight. Incredible how we need an approach service to fly it, yet up until minima on the 20 end one is outside the ATZ and in Class G.

Yet when the approach service goes we cannot fly it. It really is bullsh!t. The procedural service covers those aircraft flying the approach, nobody else. Not the bimbler flying through the approach path, not the glider wafting into the way, not the stray paramotor....daft as daft can be.

We were instructed to hold 8 miles west of the IAF in ‘bandit country’ as one was on base when we came on frequency. That’s safe is it? As safe as self announcing and flying them like the sensible grown up pilots most of us are. Either way the onus is on the pilot to avoid traffic, not the procedural approach controller, much as I love them at Shoreham. They will not stop a mid air. How can they?

Too many decision makers in a regulatory role who would benefit from coming up and seeing how it really works.

[ATCO91]

I discussed this with a CAA inspector whilst we were going over CAP1122 and discussing the various FISO units that have applied for IAP's. It would seem that the protection of the approach profile its self wasn't the issue, albeit we already accept that risk. What is causing concern is how the traffic integrates into the visual circuit. A controller would do what they do best and just orbit the circuit downwind and wait for the instrument traffic to pop out of cloud, where as a FISO would not have that ability and would become a spectator (although traffic would be passed im sure).
The example given to me was if the cloud base is 100ft above CCT height, this doesn't leave much time for the IAP traffic and the CCT traffic to get visual with each other, or at least no one has written a coherent argument to satisfy the authority on how this situation would conclude safely. So the problem seems to be within the ATZ rather than on the profile.

[CloudHound]

Circuit sterility has been addressed using an AFISO unit that’s been doing it for years. Still the regulator refuses to approve the safety case.

I go back to the real world in which the low number of approaches, the PPR requirements, the effect of wx on traffic flying VFR and the collaboration between those operating at smaller fields reduces the risk of a mid air collision, in these particular cases, to as low as reasonably practicable.

[Flyin'Dutch']

The example given to me was if the cloud base is 100ft above CCT height, this doesn't leave much time for the IAP traffic and the CCT traffic to get visual with each other, or at least no one has written a coherent argument to satisfy the authority on how this situation would conclude safely. So the problem seems to be within the ATZ rather than on the profile.

Seems a bit of a spurious reason to me.

How does the rest of the world cope?

[Dave Phillips]

Dragging this back to Shoreham, we flew the RNAV back in there tonight.

Should have gone visual.

[Dodo]

I thought the RNAV wasn't available without a functioning ADF for the missed approach and the beacon is shown on the EGKA NOTAMs as U/S.

[Flintstone]

Most places who have adopted LPV around the world work towards a 200’ DA where they can.

The U.K. needs to catch up in many ways before GA dies on its feet. That’s not just schools, it’s GA, both private and commercial.

Not just LPV either. Enhanced Vision Systems for use on a HUD can halve that 200 feet and RVRs. It’s absolutely fantastic. With the EVS off, blind as a bat. With it on the infra-red image will show everything.

Can we use it? Can we ‘eck as like.

[Oldfart]

GNSS approaches are routinely and safely done at hundreds of non ATC airfields in USA. And have done for some years. Traffic sorted out by the pilots when approaching the circuit or our “ATZ”.
Light GA, private Jets and some Comercial flights too.
It just needs some commonsense changes to our Rules.
Send some of our backward Rulemakers to the FAA and just ask how they do it, simple.

[Iceman]

Not just LPV either. Enhanced Vision Systems for use on a HUD can halve that 200 feet and RVRs. It’s absolutely fantastic. With the EVS off, blind as a bat. With it on the infra-red image will show everything.

Can we use it? Can we ‘eck as like.

I designed chips for BAE's hand-flown Cat 3A approach civil HUD back in 2001 and it was certified not long afterwards. And you're still not aloud to use it in the UK ?

I hadn't better mention the electro-optic camera add-on that pipes its image through to the Avidyne IFD screen, useful in night and low-vis approaches. The CAA might try and ban its use .

Iceman

[Flintstone]

Here’s ours, Pro Line Fusion.

Coming to an iPhone near you soon.

[GrahamB]

Send some of our backward Rulemakers to the FAA and just ask how they do it, simple.

They only need to send them as far as Lille.

The last LPV I did into Calais was when there was no FISO on duty. I self-announced in French, had a brief exchange with a pilot doing visual circuits to establish one another's intentions and landed.

No drama.