Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1839439
@Flyin'Dutch' I fully understand and respect that we will never see eye to eye on any subject remotely related the the EU and the UK leaving it. It's probably got something to do with our origins.

Two words answer your query, "money" and "control". The variable of "timing" can be added if you like, but that will cover most of it.

I don't intend to be the one that drags this post to political lockdown, so will engage no further.
Nick liked this
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1839440
I know all SBAS use the same protocols for inter-operability. But does the receiver need to make an active choice as to what it uses? Will a WAAS capable device automatically pick up EGNOS, or does that require some coding by (say) Garmin? And how would it chose which to use if multiple augmentation services were available?
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1839446
Will a WAAS capable device automatically pick up EGNOS, or does that require some coding by (say) Garmin?

Yes but, no, but..

There are 4 SBAS systems covering different separate parts of the globe.

WAAS covers USA, Canada and a bit of Mexico
EGNOS covers Europe from Iceland to North Africa
GAGAN covers India
MSAS cover Japan.

So there is no overlap hence the interoperability is a combination of firmware (that's the W) on Garmin) and coding (FAS data block and CRC)
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839451
I can’t believe that the Government would unsubscribe from a system which by definition is ‘Safety Critical’ .

I hope the first GA accident attributable to this omission gets the press coverage it deserves .
By AlanM
#1839453
@PeteSpencer Wow. Because what we need is a “pilot plummets near a school when he could have diverted/stayed at home” story.

Can anyone list all the airfields that will be affected by this? By that, I mean that the runway has an LPV200 and no other approach to the same minima?
Last edited by AlanM on Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1839454
Well they did and I've asked the CAA to examine their risk register.

ICAO downwards has said for many years that a 3D approach is safer than a 2D approach. There is a Council Performance Based Navigation mandate the world is following to implement SBAS approaches to runway ends.

Part of that includes removing ILS from the list of primary precision approach procedures by the end of the next decade - hence the push for satellite based approaches.

If implementing LPV is safer. then taking it away is less safe.
PeteSpencer liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839456
@PeteSpencer they'll just blame pilot error :roll:

Quite where this takes us all is not entirely clear because the overall systems are already set up and the focus is on a growing set of added value and military/security services as well as considering how the vulnerabilities might be addressed.

For the UK to go it alone on this is frankly a bit daft. The role of the 5 eyes might have merit in some aspects because there the issue is all about managing threats from Eastern Europe, China, Indian subcontinent and South America. However co-operation with the Galileo EGNOS programme would get those tools deployed a great deal quicker than the proposed DIY approach and with less reliance on the USA which could well be back in Trump's hands in four years time....
kanga liked this
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1839457
There aren't any LPV200 approaches on the mainland yet. Walney Island is in progress from LPV which has a 250' system minima.

I've compiled this rough list recently
A very quick trawl through the UK AIP. I've only listed CAT A and missed out LNAV/VNAV due time constraints.

Barra 15 LPV 788 LNAV 800
Barra 25 LPV 681 LNAV 830
Barrow 17 LPV 540 LNAV 880
Barrow 35 LPV 300 LNAV 430
Campbeltown 29 LPV 340 LNAV 520
Campbeltown 11 LPV 387 LNAV 830
Cardiff 30 LPV463 LNAV 540
Cardiff RNP 12 LPV 455 LNAV 590
Doncaster 02 LPV 252 LNAV 480
Doncaster 20 LPV 234 LNAV 390
Dundee 09 LPV 444 LNAV 550
Dundee 27 LPV 434 LNAV 680
Exeter 08 LPV 350 LNAV 560
Exeter 26 416 LNAV 630
Kirkwall 09 LPV 349 LNAV 540
Kirkwall 27 LPV 339 LNAV 470
Land's End 07 LPV 860 LNAV 860 (CAP1122 500 rule applied)
Land's End 16 LPV 890 LNAV 890 (CAP1122 500 rule applied)
Land's End 25 LPV 900 LNAV 1040 (CAP1122 500 rule applied)
Land's End 34 LPV 890 LNAV 890 (CAP1122 500 rule applied)
Newcastle 25 LPV 439 LNAV 610
Newcastle 07 LPV 463 LNAV 700
Prestwick 12 LPV 317 LNAV 420
Prestwick 21 LPV 360 LNAV 710
Prestwick 30 LPV 299 LNAV 540
Southampton 02 LPV 395 LNAV 530
Sumburgh 09 LPV 320 LNAV 630
Sumburgh 27 LPV 321 LNAV 730
Sumburgh 15 LPV 457 LNAV 560
Tiree 05 LPV 330 LNAV 680
Tiree 23 LPV 320 LNAV 520
Wick 13 LPV 414 LNAV 440
Wick 31 LPV 414 LNAV 440
Yeovil 09 LPV 580 LNAV 710
Yeovil 27 LPV 540 LNAV 710
AlanM liked this
By AlanM
#1839464
riverrock wrote:Each airport above has had to pay a chunk of money and invest serious time in getting LPV approval.
Do they get their money back?
(some of those also have ILS)


Yes, that is true. I have to say that I am not sure how it works though. We had to pay a lot in procedure design and CAA approval and then get our own TCO EWA.
By IMCR
#1839465
AlanM wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:Y’know, on reflection with the type and amount of flying I now do I’m not gonna miss it one iota . ILSs for IR reval from
now on ! :wink:


ILS’s won’t be around forever - most airfields (if they have one) with it due for replacement in the next 3-10 years is already planning not to have the CAPEX in the Long Term Plan. The cost of design, installation and ongoing maintenance staff is huge.

For an aerodrom operator, compare that with LPV.


What are you suggesting the ILS will be replaced by?
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839471
@IMCR until the feline joined the avians the obvious way forward for someone with LNAV or ILS was an LPV 200 approach which can achieve similar minima to ILS
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10