Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1871362
Pilot behaviour is an issue; we ought to be able to rely on pilots following disciplined procedures but frankly we can't.

That said those flying IFR are rather more reliable than those flying VFR because they've been taught the critical importance of procedure compliance.
User avatar
By Trent772
#1871370
So, to allow me to understand this better, can we have GPS approaches to non towered - air/ground airfields ?

Do the airfields themselves determine whether the people who use any published approach are commercial or private ?

What is the point of establishing GPS approaches if the CAA impose restrictions ?
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1871540
You’ll have to direct that question to the CAA. I’m sure Cotswold Airport are as unhappy as pilots about it.

However, the mandatory Post Implementation Review in a year will be an opportunity to challenge that backed up with evidence.

Also the ridiculous 500’ artificial OCH’
User avatar
By Trent772
#1871543
Does this apply to all the RNP approaches you mentioned or just Kemble ?
By Ibra
#1871554
CloudHound wrote:Also the ridiculous 500’ artificial OCH’


I assume 500ft OCH is some MOC on imagined obstacles :lol:

For aerodromes with AFIS (FISO) that is as ridiculous as it can get, especially for real use in weather flying in low ceilings, I think most of us will tend to use higher planning minima than 500ft OCH for ceilings forecasts but once airborne in the aircraft there is zero reason why not to fly down to 250ft for an RNP (subject to real obstacles not the imagined ones) with hand flying or George help, it’s way easier than going elsewhere?

Apparently countries who allow IAP to uncontrolled aerodromes, use the +500ft OCH cutoff when it’s without ATC/AFIS and honestly this does make sense, even it gets pushed higher to circuit height on sunny days with priority to any exiting traffic in the circuit, you can’t come IFR straight-in like a princess in CAVOK without ATC/AFIS while some VFR orbits on base leg or backtrack to the hangar…


But with AFIS (FISO)? I personally did not see this one coming, as in every ICAO country the presence of minimum AFIS in airport does allow straight-in IFR approach bellow 500ft, however, having read AIP GEN1.7 for “filed ICAO differences”, think I can pin point where the mess comes from, it’s 4.5.1.1
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1871575
The 500' rule is applied by the CAA to those legacy CAP1122 applicants where the aerodrome doesn't provide an approach service.

It also used to include "without an Instrument Runway' which was quietly dropped when ICAO then EASA decoupled IAPs from the runway environment.

St Mary's on Isles of Scilly got caught when it was suggested they went the CAP1122 route "to speed things up" and the result was the 500" minima for what was then an NPA.

Have a look at their NDB approach OCH. :twisted: :twisted: :roll:
Ibra liked this