Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
#1544217
ISTR the year when PP was at Bruntingthorpe I and many of the VFR pilots had to scudrun quite a lot to get in, to only a FISO or even an A/G service. I recall a certain SkyGod (IRI) who used to frequent these Forums saying that he had come in IFR, and in IMC until on Approach. I would not have dreamed of asking him how that worked, but had no reason to doubt him.
#1551777
I’m going to stick my neck out here and try to answer some of the queries raised on here, and offer the following:

1. I understand the reasoning behind the HIAL ‘Approved Users’ caveat is twofold:

a. To ensure that aircraft operators using the RNAV IAPs are fully and appropriately equipped for, trained and qualified in the use of, and current in, RNAV operations; it’s probably to ‘protect’ HIAL from any litigious action following any accident that might be attributed to the availability of IAPs, especially at the non-ATC aerodromes*.

b. At the FISO Units, it’s to manage – at a high/coarse level - IFR arrivals (by allocated slot times I suspect) so that the FISOs are not presented with a situation whereby they have to de-conflict (control/separate) or sequence arrivals, which is, of course, outside the privileges of their license.

2. Under their Licence responsibilities, ATCOs at aerodromes with IAPs in Class G airspace are obliged to control (yes, even in Class G outside the ATZ) known IFR traffic to ensure safe, procedural, separation between those aircraft and to participating VFR traffic by the provision of timely traffic information to allow the VFR traffic to see and avoid the IFR traffic (subject to the ‘RotA’**). Clearly, this is only as effective as the level of participation and cooperation between pilots and ATC. Those persons who frequent these boards extolling the ‘virtues’ of ATZ skimming without participating as their ‘legal right’ should perhaps reflect on the increased risk they engender to themselves and others; yes, they are entirely within their ‘rights’, but you still usually end up dead after a mid-air collision.

3. I believe that the Dundee RNAV IAPs are on temporary hold pending the completion of the full CAA Approval process (although the IAP designs may have been approved as being PANS-Ops compliant, the subsequent Flight Validation process – using a formally coded database – may not have been completed the full bureaucratic processes yet). Following the completion of that process, Dundee will nevertheless be in the same position as they are currently with their conventional IAPs in providing procedural approach control services to IFR traffic and participating VFR traffic. However, the continuing availability of Leuchars LARS should not be overlooked in providing an additional surveillance ‘safety net’ over the area; I well remember providing what was effectively a radar approach service to Dundee from Leuchars in days long-gone by (and Teesside – as was, and before it had a real radar – from Leeming too).

*You would have thought that this wouldn’t be necessary; after all there is nothing that requires a pilot to confirm his ability to conduct a conventional IAP (other than holding the appropriate IR). However, the advent of sundry non-approved ‘Apps’ with their easy to interpret tablet presentations may tempt some individuals to ‘have a go’, when such a decision is probably far from wise, may have influenced HIAL’s policy.

**A VFR pilot – snurgling along below 140kts just below a cloud deck - may have right of way under RotA but the aircraft descending on the IAP may be operating under IFR and be fully IMC (iaw his aircraft type’s approach speed) and wholly unable to see and avoid the VFR conflict.