Regarding the use of turbine planes for fight check purposes, I just looked up the web site of Fight Calibration Services which does most of the checks around here. The company is a joint venture of the DFS, Austrocontrol and Skyguide, the ANSPs of Germany, Austria and Switzerland respectively.
They currently use King Airs and Lerajets: https://www.fcs.aero/en/about-fcs/#en-aircraft
Because I have had the chance to have a look inside one of the Lears I can hardly imagine all of that equipment fitting inside a Partenavia. Maybe the Partenavia operators specialise their aircraft, as in having one for ILS and VOR, another one for surveillance radars and so on.
UK still use EGNOS/SoL for LNAV/VNAV minima and CAA plans to keep them on AIP plates (maybe someone thinks we are flying them with Baro instead of SBAS), but EGNOS/SoL will not be available for LPV minima and these will get removed by CAA from AIP plates !
Between us all one needs is OCH from plates on LPV surface, the rest is is just noise as long as one keeps HSI/GS needles between his legs and call that flying LNAV/VNAV 
CharlieRomeo wrote:
I have no clue what a single check& calibration flight costs, but I know for sure that it involves quite a few flight hours of a King Air or Lear, plus the personnel on the ground.
I think they do them with Diamonds and Partenavias now.
The DGAC does not have a separate department to design RNP approaches it does consider applications and will advise and test.
We did it at LFFK and I think including all expenses it came to about £6000 and a lot of time put in by the Town Hall, the 2 maintenance companies and the aircraft owners and club members based here.
There were also discussions with the military whose “R” zone begins at 3000’ and local air traffic control. It just shows that where there’s a will there’s a way.
the UK could have decided to permit LPV operations without the SoL service.
They could, given there is no “service” being provided
It doesn’t cost €30,000 to €60,000 to design and install a GPS approach
It does, unless you can get somebody else to pay it Maybe the DGAC has an in-house department for IAP design, but those people will be on €100k or so (French professional / civil service salary, plus 50% “employer NIC”) and the UK has decided, many decades ago, that the CAA should be self financing. Long may the DGAC cost recovery system last – along with so much else in France.
Getting back to the topic, I think this is an interesting thread because finally we have some real numbers, instead of rumours of an ILS costing a million a year, and similar…
It doesn’t cost €30,000 to €60,000 to design and install a GPS approach, but you do have to have a willing airport owner,an NAA that you can talk to and will advise and volunteers with a lot of patience who a prepared to give up a good deal of time planning and replanning the IAP and paperwork.
Peter wrote:
since Brussels has withdrawn the safety of life certification (that’s a joke, surely?) from the UK, post-brexit.
That’s one way of putting it. The Safety Of Life service was part of the “EU package” so of cause it was “withdrawn” just like everything else pertaining to the EU was “withdrawn”. The UK chose to leave.
Discussions about a new SoL agreement failed for whatever reason. Some say it was because the EU demanded an unreasonable price, other say that the UK on principle wouldn’t accept the European Court of Justice as arbiter for an agreement. Take your pick…
Or the UK could have decided to permit LPV operations without the SoL service.
But the UK seems to be the opposite example where RNAV is rare for that kind of airport, no idea why?
The UK is unlikely to be doing LPV anytime soon, since Brussels has withdrawn the safety of life certification (that’s a joke, surely?) from the UK, post-brexit. The signal is still there but the paper authorisation isn’t
Also GPS approaches aren’t free. Various previous threads – example – but you have to pay some company c. 30k per runway end to design one, and the airport (unless subsidised by the local chamber of commerce, etc) has to look at whether 30k/60k is viable for extra traffic generated.
And in the UK we still have “mandatory ATC” for an approach, with any exceptions being practically useless like having a limit of 6 flights per day.
The way I did experience operations at Croatian airports I doubt anybody is seriously considering cost anyway
One way to look at this is to ask whether an airport is desirable in case of a national emergency. For example it is widely believed that Cherbourg (which is otherwise dead, and is even more dead since they put in the stupid previous day’s PNR requirement which killed off most UK traffic which was probably the majority of their movements) is maintained purely for that reason; there is a nuclear facility nearby. If I was running Croatia I would certainly keep all their airports open, and if they make ends meet from GA income, that’s even better.
Emir wrote:
Today I flew new VOR approach to Losinj LDLO (VOR to RW02).
Having been to Losinj many times I looked at the approach charts many times and never needed them. In the end I realized that we only plan flights to this great place in serious VFR weather or we will plan some other destination.
Emir wrote:
why would anyone install so expensive device
The way I did experience operations at Croatian airports I doubt anybody is seriously considering cost anyway. It is great so many nice people to meet and talk to but from an economic point of view it must be horrible.
CharlieRomeo wrote:
I can imagine that being a major showstopper for smaller airfields contemplating an ILS.
Absolutely, for smaller airfields it makes much more sense to have an LPV/LNAV approach developed. As a foreigner it looks like this has actually happened in France, where there are a lot of RNAV approaches to medium sized airfields that don’t look like they would get commercial traffic. But the UK seems to be the opposite example where RNAV is rare for that kind of airport, no idea why?
