Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1699851
Genghis the Engineer wrote:That is the general scale and complexity of airfields routinely having GPS approaches, managed from elsewhere, in the USA.


When you say managed from elsewhere, how does that work?

I've never flown GA in the US and am most unlikely ever to do so in the future, so let's say you're flying from X to Y where Y has a GPS approach managed by Z.

Would Z have a radar feed (primary/secondary/both) for Y? Would all those going to Y speak to Z or may some speak to someone else? What about non-radio traffic? What sort of process would follow?

Sorry edited to add.... these approaches presumably need an IR? What proportion of US GA pilots have an IR?
#1699853
Radar is everywhere! ;-)

Well, everywhere with a radar approach anyway. Yes, essentially you speak to a unit with radar who will set you up for the approach (radar vectored or otherwise). Once you're established on final, they'll hand you over to the tower. I assume they have some sort of telephone or electronic contact between the units so when they hand you over to tower it isn't a complete surprise!

If there's no tower, you switch to the aerodrome frequency and make blind calls.
#1699856
PaulB wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:That is the general scale and complexity of airfields routinely having GPS approaches, managed from elsewhere, in the USA.


When you say managed from elsewhere, how does that work?

I've never flown GA in the US and am most unlikely ever to do so in the future, so let's say you're flying from X to Y where Y has a GPS approach managed by Z.

Would Z have a radar feed (primary/secondary/both) for Y? Would all those going to Y speak to Z or may some speak to someone else? What about non-radio traffic? What sort of process would follow?

Sorry edited to add.... these approaches presumably need an IR? What proportion of US GA pilots have an IR?

An IR is mandatory, which requires 1 written, a 2-3 oral exam, and a similar flying course and flight test to EASAland.

Z will have a radar feed for Y. If the aircraft is VMC, they have their own responsibility for see and avoid around Y.

I would expect to be told to change frequency to Y unicom (very like UK's safetycom but grouped for maybe 6-12 airports) about the initial approach fix, and make traffic calls until either I am on the ground or have executed a missed approach. If there is a proper tower I will do the usual tower stuff with them.

I would then *either* call on a landline to cancel my IFR clearance, or go straight back to Z approach on the miss, who will then look after me for that, and either my diversion to alternate, or procedural return to the IAF.

The same incidentally is true if I took a VOR or NDB approach (assuming that you can find an NDB approach still in the USA (they still exist, but rarely.).

G
johnm liked this
#1699880
chevvron wrote:Don't forget the 'initial' and 'intermediate' portions of the iap will be conducted mostly in Class 'E' airspace so IFR separation will be provided against other IFR traffic; it's only the 'final' portion which will be in Class G

At most airports that being surface to 700ft only.

G
#1699973
PaulB wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:That is the general scale and complexity of airfields routinely having GPS approaches, managed from elsewhere, in the USA.


When you say managed from elsewhere, how does that work?

I've never flown GA in the US and am most unlikely ever to do so in the future, so let's say you're flying from X to Y where Y has a GPS approach managed by Z.

Would Z have a radar feed (primary/secondary/both) for Y? Would all those going to Y speak to Z or may some speak to someone else? What about non-radio traffic? What sort of process would follow?

Sorry edited to add.... these approaches presumably need an IR? What proportion of US GA pilots have an IR?


You don't necessarily need radar everywhere, it can all be done procedurally, in Canada for instance you can be speaking to Montreal ATC but you are hundreds of miles north flying into a non controlled airport, the same happens in many different countries.

Its been going on for years, except of course in the UK.

Excuses; But the UK has the busiest airspace in the world, this wouldn't be possible without CAA oversight, ATC, radar, fire service, handling agents, hi viz jackets blah, blah, blah :roll:
Last edited by Lockhaven on Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
#1699976
So, flying into a non-controlled airport somewhere, why do you actually need a clearance from an ATC unit 100 miles away? What does it give you apart from “legal” permission?

I guess that there are rules about how many aircraft can be on any segment of an approach at any time, so in that respect the remote unit can sequence traffic.....

.... but what do I know?
A le Ron liked this
#1699978
PaulB wrote:So, flying into a non-controlled airport somewhere, why do you actually need a clearance from an ATC unit 100 miles away? What does it give you apart from “legal” permission?

I guess that there are rules about how many aircraft can be on any segment of an approach at any time, so in that respect the remote unit can sequence traffic.....

.... but what do I know?


Its not a clearance, its a procedural service advising you of other traffic, wisely other traffic participates so everyone knows were each other is, as always in the UK "legal" "blame" "what if" "unsafe" "not possible" pops up :roll:

Here is one example.


Image
#1699992
Bathman wrote:What dissapoints me its was a year ago that they admitted that they are not very good and yet nothing has changed.
Vey disappointing
And where's the action plan to fix it?
'We plan to have 20/40/80 GPS approaches by 2020/21/22' - 'there will be funding to speed up and reduce the cost and timescale for GPS approaches'
Government? APPG/GA? CAA?
#1699994
Lockhaven wrote:Its not a clearance, its a procedural service advising you of other traffic, wisely other traffic participates so everyone knows were each other is, as always in the UK "legal" "blame" "what if" "unsafe" "not possible" pops up :roll:


So, in that example, why do you need Montreal Center? Why could pilots just tell Wabush what they're doing? Or is it a case, like the UK, that other pilots not talking to Montreal or Wabush (or perhaps not talking to anyone) may be flying through the approach and the Radar unit can advise of those?

Given the fractured structure of ATC in the UK, I just can't see that working or being achievable so we perhaps need to have a different goal that maybe is achievable?

Sorry if I'm being thick here....
#1699995
neilmurg wrote:
Bathman wrote:What dissapoints me its was a year ago that they admitted that they are not very good and yet nothing has changed.
Vey disappointing
And where's the action plan to fix it?
'We plan to have 20/40/80 GPS approaches by 2020/21/22' - 'there will be funding to speed up and reduce the cost and timescale for GPS approaches'
Government? APPG/GA? CAA?


It just takes willingness by the CAA to get on and get the job done, there is no safety case to be made, these type of approaches as I said above operate all around the world with or without ATC, with pilot controlled lighting, out of hours, day and night at un controlled airports.

The problem is the willingness is not there while there is money to be made from screwing small airports for unnecessary costs.