Sorry, I didn’t express myself clearly.
It is an argument for a student to get trained at a French or German ATO rather than a UK one. A very sad position that DfT and CAA have pushed us towards over the years with their policies and lack of capability.
I do think that the regulators are doing a good job with both airlines and grass roots GA but, as ever, those of us in the middle are getting either forgotten or deliberately squeezed.
If there is one part of the regulatory system that is letting us down terribly, it’s AAA. The stupid thing is that, with modern technology we could have instrument approaches everywhere, to AFISO, and even A/G, fields very simply, but there are elements in AAA who just want to make it as unachievable as possible.
I wish the GA Unit, or even another body, could wrest the responsibility from them.
What is AAA?
Sorry, Airspace, Air Traffic Management and Aerodromes
I wish the GA Unit, or even another body, could wrest the responsibility from them.
I think I started to wish this about 10 years ago. Why hasn’t it been done yet? And what’s going on at the DfT these days?
Probably one of the politically acceptable and quickest ways to unlock the present situation (and save face) would be to move forward on a Part-NCO vs CAT type divide so ‘GA approaches’ can be deregulated and introduced rather than trying to bring everything in to CAT safety and assurance standards.
Balliol wrote:
so ‘GA approaches’ can be deregulated
Actually, they are!
This is a stuck record of mine for the last 40 years, and I constantly get ridiculed by the establishment, but I have yet to find a regulation which forbids a private operator from dead-reckoning his way to a farmer’s field or any VFR airfield in zero-zero.
I ask more for completeness than any expectation of answer, but can you think of any such reg?
Legally I think you’re right? I suspect any prosecution of that ilk would have to be down the endangerment route?
However they are not ‘published’ which brings us back to the training / examining problem?
Timothy,
I’ve always looked at that as:
1. to fly in IMC you must be VFR and must fly 1000 ft above the highest obstacle and that is “Except when necessary for take-off or landing” (SERA)
2. takeoff and landing IFR under IMC must be under a published procedure (don’t remember where I got this from? ANO? SERA? PART-NCO?)
3. when performing an approach you must adhere to minima as published by, say, PART-NCO
So, even if I’m wrong with 2), 3) still limits you to some number (can’t be LPV or ILS, so it will be an NPA, so, at least 250ft), not zero.
But, IR(R) manual clearly says that if it is not an IFR airfield with published approached, then do a let down at the nearest airfield and then do a low-level flight to destination.
Just a supposition. Flight academies are booming right now. Maybe they have special arrangements with airports to get the slots they need, then private flyers/students have to find free ones ?
Such a school based in Shoreham takes their pro students regularly to LFAT for approaches. So it must be legal. It is even on youtube. Great initiative btw.
If everything which comes on youtube were 100% legal…. then youtube would be a lonely place I guess…. 
And of course schools will get preferred by airports. That‘s to be expected. I guess that in the UK, where the possibilities are so few, schools often book these slots weeks in advance…
