[gfry]

Wow, looking at that map Europe has really shrunk since I left school.

[G-JWTP]

It'll be getting smaller soon!

G-JWTP

[CloudHound]

Achieving permission to notify an RNAV(GNSS)IAP using CAP1122 and CAP1616 (or 725 for early adopters) is a multi faceted endeavour.

The applicant has to manage the process themselves since I and my successor moved on. A very important point is that many of the dozen or so stalled applications have passed virtually all the tests needed. The sticking point rests firmly with Air Traffic Standards and staff there refusing to sign off AFISOs, circuit integration and mid air collision risks in Class G.

Changes to international standards removed the runway status from the argument quite a while ago.

"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

For many aerodromes there is no new airspace required and some no problematic airspace issues. So overcoming one sticking point will unlock the safety benefits.

CAP1122 is CAA Policy, ratified by the Board and launched by Grant Shapps at the 2014 Sywell Aero Expo. The back tracking that's occurred since then is not as a result of new safety occurrence data but from a lack of regulatory confidence that change can be permitted.

[G-JWTP]

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

When you think that we are still waiting for the ' Post Implementation Review' of Doncaster Tees Valley CAS.

Are you really surprised?

G-JWTP

[satdja]

The Doncaster CAS Post Implementation Review “CAA PIR assessment” was published on 14 June 2017 and can be found at: http://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industr ... field-PIR/. Not sure about the Durham Tees Valley CAS though.

[GonzoEGLL]

Wasn't this driven by, 'frinstance France offering to pay for GPS approaches to replace the ILS approaches they would no longer pay for,

DGAC getting rid of all their CAT I ILS systems (only keeping the II/III systems) is going to save them enourmous amounts of money.

Unfortunately for those who would like greater numbers of GNSS based approaches, the UK CAA don’t own or maintain airfield ILS systems.

[foxmoth]

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!

[Irv Lee]

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!

One at least springs to mind....

[GrahamB]

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!

I think that is the point that certain people in the CAA always seem to miss. People now have the technology on their tablets to plan and execute a let-down to any runway with more apparent precision and ease than using conventional navaids, but without the safety wrapper that an approved approach with approved kit brings. It's hard to quantify that risk, as understandably most of the data points lie under the surface, so no 'Safety Case' can include it. A more holistic enlightened view is required by those in the CAA within whose gift it is to move things forward.

[Dave Phillips]

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.

[GrahamB]

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.

I agree - my term 'safety wrapper' included an appropriate set of standards and procedures for dealing with no ATC.

[chevvron]

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!

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)

[G-BLEW]

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.

Ian

[Jonzarno]

Whoever is blocking progress at the CAA clearly thinks that self-designed approaches are more appropriate.

I think it’s more likely that they believe that, if someone kills themselves flying one, they won’t be blamed for it.

In the eyes of most bureaucrats it is better to do nothing and annoy the public than to do something, get it wrong, and be blamed for their actions.

[simoon]

The thing is that both 'lack of ATC control' and 'might hit something in class g' conditions already exist....

For example the ILS at Lydd.... mostly OCAS and operated by an approach controller without radar.

As for ATC - Lands End operate 4 x GNSS appoaches with a 'Tower' Controller where you have to book a slot in advance and keep within a time window for the IAF.

How about signing a disclaimer (I wont sue the CAA) in advance to be authorised to carry out the approach?