Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1870012
Call me Mr. Picky, but there are no published LPV minima on the plate, so it's not 'an LPV approach'. It's an RNP approach to whatever minima are published.

LNAV/VNAV minima are on the plate; whether the LPV mimima would have been any different is open to question.

Notwithstanding the EGNOS fiasco, the whole 'RNP approaches to non ATC airports' is a complete white elephant to GA apart from a few privileged operators. A privatised partial ATC system focussed solely on airways traffic is at the root of a lot of what stops the UK becoming TBPITWFG.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1870016
There are no LPV approaches anywhere in the UK now because we have no official access to EGNOS......LPV 200 and 300 available in the channel islands.

From a safety point of view the whole thing is bonkers. With moving map GPS it's perfectly possible to fly a visual circuit in solid IMC and safely descend to 500 ft on final .
By Ibra
#1870034
Of course their RNP proposal submission had LPV minima, it was sent half a decade before “LPV minima loss”, with floor minima set at 500ft OCH, here is the full log

https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/Public ... rea?pID=19

Even if they had LPV minima on plates with LPV annunciated in GPS, there is a nationwide NOTAM to disregard them and fallback on LNAV/VNAV (surprisingly it still use EGNOS) or LNAV, the impact of LPV loss in UK overall for “GA VFR airfields” was/has been always as low as 10ft-50ft as they were getting an LPV500 at best !

The airports I flew in UK that have LPV250/LPV200, will have an ILS as well to the same runway (e.g. Cardiff), so all the talk about “LPV/EGNOS loss” is purely political, well except specialised helicopter operations off airports or urbain areas, where it seems to be life & death question…

Anyway for CAA licences airports with LPV500 with Greece style restrictions (6 slots per day, CAT only), one is still better off turning up at ATZ boundary as VFR in Class G VMC, it’s way more generous and one does not need IAF approach clearance to do that, besides FISO can’t give Approach/Procedural Service neither, it’s “A Basic Service” all the way

Image
Last edited by Ibra on Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:05 pm, edited 15 times in total.
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1870036
For those places that publish LPV minima, e.g., Exeter, Lands End, what, apart from a NOTAM, stops someone flying the approach to LPV minima ?

Iceman 8)
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1870039
Iceman wrote:For those places that publish LPV minima, e.g., Exeter, Lands End, what, apart from a NOTAM, stops someone flying the approach to LPV minima ?

Iceman 8)


The wish not to be prosecuted and end up with a criminal record for breaching the ANO?
Ibra, Ben K liked this
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1870040
Good question Ice.

The signal in space (SiS) will continue to fall on the UK and will be for the time being augmented by EGNOS as the RIMS continue to monitor and feed the network.

Garmin and others will remove the LPV line from their data though.
By Ibra
#1870043
Iceman wrote:For those places that publish LPV minima, e.g., Exeter, Lands End, what, apart from a NOTAM, stops someone flying the approach to LPV minima ?

Iceman 8)


Not much, aside from the ground or obstacles of course, the physical world has not changed and a good signal is out there (LPV plate minima and LPV flag from GPS are removed), however, the violation of LNAV minima may appear in the “planing pack” for destination & alternates: it’s based on TAF ceiling & visibility with load of rules on how to add margins to MDH for 2D approaches but no margins are added to DH for LPV/ILS precision at destination & alternates

For actual flying, only visibility matters to approach (of course common sense with one number in your head to go missed) but I doubt on the LPV with 500ft OCH this makes much difference as it’s no different than planning to land under VFR for all practical purposes, people have landed in these airfields VFR with barely 500ft ceiling for ages, I doubt anyone will stop them now that RNP plates is published? however, one has to be careful on legalities, now there is an instrument runway and it’s RNP minima are legally binding, they define the aerodrome minima per ANO, unlike in old days when it’s PIC who claims they can fly VFR and have ability to see runway end for takeoff or thresholds for landing…

However, with LPV at 200ft vs LNAV at 600ft, with ATC + RVR + ATIS/WX, I think one can discuss more on this fascinating topic :D
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1871204
Cloud down on the deck yesterday as we tried to get to Glenforsa via the normal SE corner of Mull route and up the Sound of Mull. The first time that I’ve not made it there in 20 years. I climbed back up to MSA and diverted to Tiree via their RNP 23 approach. FISO-based and no fuss whatsoever. “Report IF” and “Report FAF” were his only requests. How it should be, non-event and 0-hassle.

We managed to get to Glenforsa on the second try 30 minutes later.

Iceman 8)
Paul_Sengupta, mick w liked this
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1871320
Around 2017, I think the CAA developed Corporate Jitters around IAPs in Class G to non-ATC units.

Many of the CNS/ATM Steering Group wot wrote 1122 had retired leaving no champion in the CAA for the project.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1871345
FISO can't control aircraft in the air but can certainly advise and inform. So having a craft report at IF and FAF means that other craft can be told where the first is and determine how to follow. I can't see why that would be a problem.
By Ibra
#1871361
johnm wrote:I can't see why that would be a problem.


Playing the devil’s advocate, there is the hypothetical scenario where two aircrafts want to land first and just don’t want to give way to each other, then the FISO will not be of much help if they go on a fight :lol:

In places where AirToAir talking is allowed between IFR/VFR or IFR/IFR (US, France, NZ) this “air to air fight” is not an issue, you call on SafetyCom/AutoInfo/CTAF/Unicom while on approach to non-towered airports and fit with everybody already in circuit or approach, there are some priority rules but it’s mostly good manners between gentlemen, just like VFR in non-ATZ airfields

I understand in UK aircrafts don’t talk to each other (or are not supposed to), I never understood why? with exception of SafetyCom in some places…

The only thing where I agree with our regulator is that busy IFR training and exams flights needs ATC or AFIS as minimum (AG is probably not enough), slots, PPR and more oversight, for the rest I don’t see the issue with turning up on frequency and asking for one? or just inform that you are flying the IAP?

In weather, I am happy to give priority to anyone who wants to go first, as long as they can report wind, visibility, ceiling and runway stats, as bonus if they wish me good luck for my turn after they have landed :lol:
Last edited by Ibra on Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:39 pm, edited 8 times in total.