Should PPL training include NOT flying through instrument approaches in Class E-G?

Emir wrote:

Obviously I fail to see the advantages of flying in uncontrolled space. If you can be more specific than being just happy, it would help me in understanding.

I think there might be a misunderstanding. I don’t see an advantage for the person flying the approach to be in uncontrolled airspace rather than in controlled.
What I do argue is that approaches can be (and have for years) done safely (at least according to accident stats) in G/E airspace. This happens in the UK, the nordics, the US, France (those are some of the countries I know of.
Adding approaches even outside ABCD airspace adds to global safety, and is desirable, even if it’s not practicable to put them into controlled airspace.

As a reply to:
Noe wrote:

So designing an approach would entail mandatory controlled airspace?

You mentioned:
Emir wrote:

Why not? It’s so obvious that I don’t see that any explanation is needed?

Do you think we should refrain from adding new approaches when we can’t put them in D or higher?
Do you also think we should remove the existing approaches in EFG, when passing to D or higher is too expensive / not practicable as disruptive to other GA

I would really really like every runway to have an approach. With time designing this will be much cheaper. I am sure drones are going to make that even cheaper and faster to design. I’ll be really happy for every approach that’s created, but whether it’s in class ABCDEFG, I really don’t care, I’ll be happy to fly them regardless.

Do you think we should refrain from adding new approaches when we can’t put them in D or higher?
Do you also think we should remove the existing approaches in EFG, when passing to D or higher is too expensive / not practicable as disruptive to other GA.

I don’t have definite answers to these questions because I come from the environment where instrument approach equals controled airspace with full service delivered to all aircraft.

I can’t imagine flying instrument approach and looking ouside except looking for runway when approaching minima. Looking out for traffic that possible interferes with approach path without announcing this and/or being aware of this, without radio and transponder is little bit too much for me.

Btw I remember Air crash investigatio case involving some comuter on instrument approach to non-towered airport (in USA), KingAir and some SEP on departure which ended up in runway collision due to communication problems caused by KingAir and SEP crews.

Believe me, the excuse given was always ‘remain clear of controlled airspace due to controller workload’.

I’ve not yet had that with Bristol yet and it’s troubling that you’ve repeatedly had that experience.

The UK CAA has a form for pilots to log denial of transits of controlled airspace. Perhaps you should file some reports?

https://apply.caa.co.uk/CAAPortal/servlet/SmartForm.html?formCode=qau2

I completely agree that if there is routine understaffing that it needs fixing and I believe the CAA are behind that.

However if the airspace is busy for genuine reasons I can fully accept a denial of transit and go around. I think I’d prefer that and properly managed airspace than trying to bumble through (in the case of uncontrolled airspace) and cause an airprox with a few others.

The other thing you may find useful is to look at the timetable of scheduled flights, if published, to get an idea of busier periods of the airport concerned.

Emir wrote:

I can’t imagine flying instrument approach and looking ouside except looking for runway when approaching minima.

You dont HAVE to have your eyes glued to the instruments when doing an approach in VMC, do you?
You don’t even HAVE to do an instrument approach, but it would be nice if it was there anyway, wouldn’t it?

Think about these little airports in croatia? Wouldn’t you be happy if the added an LPV even without touching the controlled airspace? If looking outside is too much, do the approach visually (or instrument with the AP), looking outside. If IMC, then you can keep the eyes inside.

The following are convenience only, and it would be unfair to impose other users to make detours because of that
- avoidance of VRPs (I do it too, see my previous posts about preferring to arrive into LFPN IFR)
- currency (you can’t find a safety pilot, go a class D

Same thing if you want separation in VMC. Go to a controlled airfield if you are not comfortable looking outside. Don’t make the pilots that are have the extra detours & work.

Commercial operations do already operate like this. As stated before, US / France / UK / Nordics. They also do circle to land to minimize routings, and that might venture them off ATZ. Somehow the risk seems to be acceptable to them.

Say you find a farm strip (with a heated hangar you can do work in). Would you not be happy to have your own LPV there? Wouldn’t you
you be pissed if:
- the CAA told you that this wasn’t possible as it would need controlled airspace
- you didn’t want to pay for controllers for that airspace
- it was (logically) being deemed unacceptable to make other pilots avoid the platform altitude of “your” approach

Between the cases of:
A) You can’t have an approach
B) You can have an approach but can only use in IMC
C) You can have an approach, but in VMC, you need to assure your own separation and you don’t have priority over other traffic. They won’t know about your approach either.

Which case do you prefer?

I am really surprised how there is evidence that the current system works (see list of countries above), that people praise the US about how easy flying there, how nice it is to have GPS approaches everywhere, and yet then want to implement measures that go exactly against that.

Flying in class D does not absolve the IFR pilot from see and avoid when in VMC either. Strictly speaking, there is no separation from VFR traffic, even though in practice, that’s what often happens.

It would indeed be a dream to have LPVs everywhere.

As far as I’m aware – Approaches in the USA is contained in Class E airspace or other CAS. So by minimum a controller manages (most of) the approach – they are funded out of things like taxation on AVGAS and a small levy on commercial passenger tickets. If the field is private such as an airpark community then private funds are raised to achieve what’s necessary.

In the UK we pay navigation service charges for the approach to the aerodrome concerned and, if over 2MT IFR or 5.7MT VFR, en-route fees to Eurocontrol. Uptake for LPV’s in the UK remain low as many aerodromes aren’t yet seeing the benefits outweighing the costs for them.

Go to a controlled airfield if you are not comfortable looking outside.

I think everyone should be able to land at the field they prefer. Their ultimate destination may be closer. If you’re flying something that’s a bit higher energy, or where lookout is highly constrained, or there’s simply very high numbers of aircraft of any size (e.g. Van Nuys) in the vicinity, the aerodrome may need to make changes to their ATS and airspace to avoid incidents which would lead to losing their customers. It makes sense to me.

impose other users to make detours

Well managed airspace should not impose that. In the UK, we have also suffered from extensive Class A therefore displacing VFR traffic even when there is nobody inside.

Peter wrote:

much higher standard of pilot training

That seems entirely subjective (not sure which metric you even pick), so not really an “argument” (I don’t see where it even hints to. Do you mean pilots need more babysitting here?). You see the same stupid accidents everywhere, and that’s pretty much the only stats you have. You won’t really find any objective person (that’s the hard part) with a large enough sample size.

Peter wrote:

unified airspace
class E down to low levels
FAA funding
ATC has more leeway
most pilots do not avoid big airports – exact opposite of Europe

How are these relevant for the matter? Anyone can be flying in Class E, without transponder and without radio. Ask Silvaire!
What does FAA funding / More ATC leeway do?

I don’t see how this addresses any of my points and questions above, but I’m happy to Remove the US from the equation. Noe wrote:

Between the cases of:
A) You can’t have an approach
B) You can have an approach but can only use in IMC
C) You can have an approach, but in VMC, you need to assure your own separation and you don’t have priority over other traffic. They won’t know about your approach either.

Wich of the cases do you prefer?