1. Yes
2. Because the requirements for RNP approach are quite high in Europe. It‘s not a cheap thing to establish and operate. Plus there are not so many IFR pilots in Europe so the utility is more limited than in the US.
Malibuflyer wrote:
IFR after an IAP is a different thing: You indeed need an I and a Y FPL. This is not uncommon in training situations when you only do a touch and go after the approach. You typically get the departure clearance during the final segement, but not before starting the apporach (because you typically need to be on the Tower freqency to get the departure clearance).
Thanks, that was my understanding and it seems how it’s done in France, especially near complex airspace where uncontrolled IFR, Y/Z or directs are discouraged, ATC insists on 2*IFR FPL but they may still give departure clearance before approach, in the other hand, in empty places like Lille/Brest, one can just ask out of the blue for his cloud-break and go home
The funny one: I was with another pilot on split comms to expedite things, me on COM2 (check next FPL and departure clearance) and him on COM1 (fly assigned route and getting approach clearance), turns out both of us were talking to the same ATC due with two frequencies, he was doing both Paris Control & Rouen Approach, ATC quickly caught it was the same callsign but we were confused like cockpit muppets for few seconds when he asked both of us to move to approach frequency, this won’t happen when flying alone: one will have to request frequency change or ask current controller for help 
In UK, one can file whatever they wish as long as intention is to “fly approach and leave controlled airspace by nearest exit”…
Malibuflyer wrote:
2. Because the requirements for RNP approach are quite high in Europe. It‘s not a cheap thing to establish and operate.
In particular the requirements of an “instrument runway” and the airport organisation.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Because the requirements for RNP approach are quite high in Europe. It‘s not a cheap thing to establish and operate. Plus there are not so many IFR pilots in Europe so the utility is more limited than in the US.
But if you actually went to all the work to get the approaches as in the two examples I mentioned, why make them so restricted?
Airborne_Again wrote:
in particular the requirements of an “instrument runway” and the airport organisation
How come Switzerland have load of RNP approaches where you finish it VFR or go-around IFR? the underlying runways are not “instrument runway”
I am sure blanket IAP RNP template every +800m runway in EASA land in not that difficult to write? for some scared, you can set M/DH to MSA or MSA-500ft or VFR circuit height or +500ft above VFR circuit height, or watever they are happy with
The problem is usually not runway or technical design of IAP but ATC procedures, environnement impact and lot of instittutional inertia: just look at UK CAA, they are about +3 years to approve the RNP proposal at Southend, it has ILS to both ends and you can fly at 125ft amsl in all axis without hitting anything other than ATC tower
Ibra wrote:
How come Switzerland have load of RNP approaches where you finish it VFR or go-around IFR? the underlying runways are not “instrument runway”
Precisely because you are VFR when you land, not IFR!
Ibra wrote:
How come Switzerland have load of RNP approaches where you finish it VFR or go-around IFR?
Because Switzerland and Austria have things called “mountains”. Therefore the MSA is typically quite high.
Take LOWZ / Zell am See as an example: Yes, it has an RNP approach. But the DH is >> 2000ft. Such an approach would be completely useless in larger parts of Germany and Netherlands, because ATC can clear you lower then that enroute or at least in some transitions.
Who would fly such an “approach” if he can get lower without that?
Malibuflyer wrote:
As long as you fly IFR you will never get into Golf in Germany.
This is exactly the same in the Netherlands. They will not let you descend into G while you’re in controlled airspace. And you cannot depart IFR from any non-controlled airport because it’s prohibited in the AIP.
Normally you also cannot file an I plan out of an uncontrolled airport, the IFPS computer in Brussels will reject it because in the AIP all those airports only have VFR as their “permitted operations”. I think that went wrong for EHTE because the AIP says IFR and VFR are permitted operations, but “IFR only allowed outside UDP BTN 0600-2200 (0500-2100).” probably IFPS doesn’t know about that time limit. It does know about that kind of thing in Lelystad, if you file an I plan there during the day while approach control is closed it will be rejected.
If you do manage to get an I plan anyway like @dutch_flyer did, and call for your clearance they will tell you “maintain VFR at or below 1500ft” and only after you’re airborne and in contact with the radar controller and above 2000ft they will tell you “IFR starts now”. So in their mind you are on a Z plan and absolutely not IFR in class G.
Although legally I think if you depart VFR (to follow the AIP rules for the airport), leave the circuit and then at 1000ft decide “I’m now IFR” you technically are IFR in class G. Not sure there is anything they could do about that without going against SERA?
Ibra wrote:
How come Switzerland have load of RNP approaches where you finish it VFR or go-around IFR? the underlying runways are not “instrument runway”
Switzerland seems less scared of being a bit creative to make things work. They also have instrument procedures with a mandatory visual segment to avoid mountains.
It would really help GA IFR in Europe if things got a bit more similar around these things. There is a case to be made that it becomes safer with less low VFR scud running and more pilots opting to get an IR or basic IR if you put RNP approaches “Swiss style” to many smaller GA airports. Even if the minima are relatively high due to the lack of approach lights you would still create more possibilities to deal with weather.
I guess it’s sensitive topic driven by liability and extra moral hazards that would come from those IFR/VFR IAP introductions? safety-wise I agree it’s nowhere as dangerous as “legal marginal VFR scud run” (for a rough estimation take the ratio of 3min time it takes to fly an IAP IFR vs 1h of low VFR XC at 500ft agl then multiply by the logarithm of your height vs terrain if you are given random choice between 2000ft agl in clouds then quick 500ft DH or cruise at 500ft agl all the time), there also a contradictory belief that maintaining continuous close contact with terrain does increase survival rate? more than 2min bellow MSA hopes and bad luck increases while life expectancy decreases dramatically…
It would be useful to have these IFR/VFR standardised and well taught for going elsewhere unfamiliar rather than getting freestyle or getting caught in the heat of the moment, for going to home-base, people usually have their answer either they are trained or died while ago, as you start mixing elements of (smart, experienced, practical, stupid, idealist, virgin) pilot and the law of large number theory applies
