Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:54 am
#1620240
Wow, looking at that map Europe has really shrunk since I left school.
Blah Blah Blah
"non-instrument runway" - a runway intended for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures or an instrument approach procedure to a point beyond which the approach may continue in VMC
James Chan wrote:I see there are quite a few airspace change proposals (which includes introducing GNSS IAPs) submitted from many smaller airfields here and here.
The backlog continued to build faster than what got completed.
And to stop the pressure building, they have now suspended new applications under CAP1122:
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplic ... il&id=6252
neilmurg wrote:Wasn't this driven by, 'frinstance France offering to pay for GPS approaches to replace the ILS approaches they would no longer pay for,
foxmoth wrote:If these approaches are not authorised it will only lead to a greater number of people designing and flying their own approach, definitely not the way we should be going!
foxmoth wrote:If these approaches are not authorised it will only lead to a greater number of people designing and flying their own approach, definitely not the way we should be going!
Dave Phillips wrote:Somebody has previously highlighted the real issue here - it isn't the magenta line over the ground. The CAA's hand-wringing is to do with the provision of ATC for instrument approaches, something which is currently mandated in the ANO (can't remember the reference). The ATC side of the CAA just cannot get it's (safety?) head around removing the requirement. Personally, I think part of the problem is that under ATSOCAS and lottery UK FIS the UK has traditionally felt obliged to provide variable levels of separation/information in uncontrolled airspace (Class G).
The tail is wagging the dog.
foxmoth wrote:If these approaches are not authorised it will only lead to a greater number of people designing and flying their own approach, definitely not the way we should be going!
chevvron wrote:Yeah but do these people know what they need to take into account when designing their own procedures? People just seem to assume they can use a 3 deg GP and 200ft DH when there might be factors to prevent this, plus they never seem to take obstacles in the missed approach area into account (if they even bother to include a missed approach procedure which most don't)
Whoever is blocking progress at the CAA clearly thinks that self-designed approaches are more appropriate.