Peter wrote:
In fact EGNOS seems to do so little that most of the time one cannot tell
“Most of the time” is the key here, isn’t it? You don’t want you LPV box to give the required accuracy most of the time. You want it to do it all the time.
Looking for Peter’s 30 Mio number, I found this..
The UK has 125 licensed aerodromes and out of these 69 have at least one instrument approach (surprisingly low given how miserable the weather often is in the UK.)
Anyway, ILS is still the most popular in the UK with 81 runways having an ILS approach available on them. Only 45 runways use LPVs and 20 of those have an ILS as well anyway, but that does leave a few airports where the other option is your old school, much higher minima non-precision approach.
Like poor old EGPL/Benbecula for example, which only has a VOR. A very old VOR which they are really hoping to retire. Or EGHE/St Mary’s which has a timed NDB…
https://ops.group/blog/uk-no-more-lpv-approaches-after-june/
Can’t find any reference to 30Mio though…
One has to be inflating numbers to add VOR & NDB as “runway approaches”, can I suggest “forest & hill approach”? my GoogleMap & SkyDemon seems to do a good job for finding the runway after overflying hill, cliff or forest where those VOR/NDB antenna are located 
These will still benefit from GNSS+SBAS precision & robustness, I think SOP in CAT world is to fly them on RNP overlay with AP ON and monitor VOR/NDB deviations for go-around? or it’s by hand on raw data?
Only 45 runways use LPVs
I’d like to know which ones these are.
Over the years there have been lots of charts (presumably from the EGNOS/Galileo consortium PR team) showing a huge number of LPVs in the UK and most of them were obviously nonexistent. The UK has a load of airports where LPV was “planned” for years (e.g. Shoreham EGKA).
This appears in the last UK AOPA newsletter and shows LPV in Green
EDIT: I have found this list of runways and that is obviously longer
Barra 15 LPV 788 LNAV 800
Barra 25 LPV 681 LNAV 830
Barrow 17 LPV 540 LNAV 880
Barrow 35 LPV 300 LNAV 430
Campbeltown 29 LPV 340 LNAV 520
Campbeltown 11 LPV 387 LNAV 830
Cardiff 30 LPV463 LNAV 540
Cardiff RNP 12 LPV 455 LNAV 590
Doncaster 02 LPV 252 LNAV 480
Doncaster 20 LPV 234 LNAV 390
Dundee 09 LPV 444 LNAV 550
Dundee 27 LPV 434 LNAV 680
Exeter 08 LPV 350 LNAV 560
Exeter 26 416 LNAV 630
Kirkwall 09 LPV 349 LNAV 540
Kirkwall 27 LPV 339 LNAV 470
Land’s End 07 LPV 860 LNAV 860 (CAP1122 500 rule applied)
Land’s End 16 LPV 890 LNAV 890 (CAP1122 500 rule applied)
Land’s End 25 LPV 900 LNAV 1040 (CAP1122 500 rule applied)
Land’s End 34 LPV 890 LNAV 890 (CAP1122 500 rule applied)
Newcastle 25 LPV 439 LNAV 610
Newcastle 07 LPV 463 LNAV 700
Prestwick 12 LPV 317 LNAV 420
Prestwick 21 LPV 360 LNAV 710
Prestwick 30 LPV 299 LNAV 540
Southampton 02 LPV 395 LNAV 530
Sumburgh 09 LPV 320 LNAV 630
Sumburgh 27 LPV 321 LNAV 730
Sumburgh 15 LPV 457 LNAV 560
Tiree 05 LPV 330 LNAV 680
Tiree 23 LPV 320 LNAV 520
Wick 13 LPV 414 LNAV 440
Wick 31 LPV 414 LNAV 440
Yeovil 09 LPV 580 LNAV 710
Yeovil 27 LPV 540 LNAV 710
Some of the above don’t appear in the map above (e.g. Southampton EGHI). But virtually no GA goes to EGHI because they don’t want it (very limited parking), Lands End doesn’t want GA (grass only parking), and so on. Exeter is nice but has an ILS and so do others…
Same point as before.
There is no lobby of any consequence in the UK pushing for LPV (or any other type of GPS) approaches, which is why the rollout was glacial even before this issue.
The only aviation lobby that matters here is the airlines. They use ILS, and that isn’t going to change. ‘Business aviation’ is irrelevant, let alone light GA.
Everything in UK aviation is privatised and done on a ‘user pays’ basis. There is no such thing as aviation infrastructure, and the large number of airfields is simply an historical accident rather than as a result of any policy.
Peter wrote:
I’d like to know which ones these are.
According to AIP-UK. (Only 43, so I may have missed an airport.)
EGCN 02
EGCN 20
EGEC 11
EGEC 29
EGFF 12
EGFF 30
EGGD 09
EGGD 27
EGHC 07
EGHC 16
EGHG 09
EGHG 27
EGHI 02
EGJA 08
EGJA 26
EGJB 09
EGJB 27
EGJJ 08
EGJJ 26
EGNL 17
EGNL 35
EGNT 07
EGNT 25
EGPA 09
EGPA 27
EGPB 09
EGPB 15
EGPB 27
EGPC 13
EGPC 31
EGPI 13
EGPI 31
EGPK 12
EGPK 21
EGPK 30
EGPN 09
EGPN 27
EGPR 15
EGPR 25
EGPU 05
EGPU 23
EGTE 08
EGTE 26
Some of those are not “UK” e.g. EGJA EGJB EGJJ and those three are not affected by this change. They are also GA-friendly airports with plenty of GA activity.
Obviously opinions will vary on this but the vast majority of the UK LPV airports are either used minimally by GA, or they have an ILS, or one would not go there anyway in “instrument wx”. And the +V approach mode remains available.
So yes this is a loss to GA, though perhaps more of a potential future loss especially as a number of GA airfields had LPV approaches “in design” (according to posts on various sites by people who were obviously IAP design consultants and who are quite p1ssed off). OTOH one never knows how viable those may have been e.g. the Sywell IAP (AFIS, not ATC) is limited to six a day!
Peter wrote:
. And the +V approach mode remains available.
with higher minima
+V is not a new approach it’s just is LNAV approach on CFDA? the OCH minima, what matters, is still LNAV minima plus some CDFA x0ft add-on for those who are cautious?
In theory, one can fly LPV minima with LNAV+V and SBAS as it will be always available in the box, but the elephant in the room is getting LPV OCH number published somewhere !
Obstacle clearance on LNAV+V path is never an issue as long as one sticks to the blue side of his LNAV plate by cross-checking distance/altitude or VMC flying, it’s how far you go? surely, not something to try in IMC, especially, if LPV OCH is 200ft higher than LNAV OCH, yes it happens, I think NCYankee pointed few examples where thing are clearly not intuitive for flying 3deg paths lower than LNAV MDH
Airborne_Again wrote:
According to AIP-UK. (Only 43, so I may have missed an airport.)
They might be there, but they aren’t used (without an easy ILS alternative) by anyone who has any lobbying power.
The disgruntled people will be:
1) regional airports who had hoped to save costs in the long run by decommissioning their ILS, now aware that they must keep the ILS indefinitely or lose all airline and private jet traffic;
2) people who design and consult on IAPs for a living;
3) private IFR GA pilots.
None of whom matter, in the grand scheme of things.
