ESGP recently got an IFR approach. Only to RWY 19, but you have to cancel IFR at DA and as i understand it, continue VFR into into the traffic pattern and land at the active runway.
Are there similar procedures around Europe where you have to cancel IFR in this manner?
Yes. When runways don’t fulful all the requirements of an “instrument runway” (a matter of dimensions, markings, distance to other structures, etc.), then there can’t be an IAP to that runway. Hence, they draw a procedure but which merely leads you into the circuit of the airfield, after which you have to fly VFR. Austria has devised a series of such approaches in recent years. In Germany, there is opposition to this in various places, hence no such approaches in Germany yet.
There are a few in Austria. I haven’t heard about anywhere else.
boscomantico wrote:
Yes. When runways don’t fulful all the requirements of an “instrument runway” (a matter of dimensions, markings, distance to other structures, etc.), then there can’t be an IAP to that runway.
That is also the reason stated by the Swedish CAA, but really I don’t see any safety issues going IFR all the way to the runway if only circling minima are published. As long as you don’t need to go around, there is no operational difference between circling and a VFR traffic circuit.
In the LOAN case there might be airspace or terrain difficulties with a “proper” go-around from the runway threshold, but there are no such issues at ESGP.
Isn’t this a bit like this in France?
If you are required to cancel IFR at the DH, and the DH being 500ft, that has the effect of ensuring that IFR traffic does not get priority over VFR traffic (although that aspect would work even better if the DH was 1000ft 
).
Jonas wrote:
Are there similar procedures around Europe where you have to cancel IFR in this manner?
There are two reasons either no IFR ATC control down to the ground? it’s not an IFR instrument runway due to runway characteritics?
- For the latter, usually the DH will be higher than 500ft to allow you to cancel IFR and fly VFR
- For the former, usually depends if tower have to be manned or two-way RT contact with ATC?
There is really no practical difference in VFR/IFR during visual segments bellow DH where DH is higher than 500ft (straight-in, circle-to-land, low circuit), the only thing one should care about is what to do if they go-missed or go-around: re-join VFR circuit, fly IFR MAP, fly IFR SID?
France mandates VFR circuit integration for IFR traffic when ATC/AFIS are not in the tower, but you are still IFR (there is no cancel IFR, you can fly to your filed DALT on lost comms if no one replies after your go-around !)
PS: my post crossed with Peter’s but you get the idea
The Austrian example is an RNP A vs the Swedish RNP Rwy 19. The two are not exactly the same thing.
My understanding is that an RNP X is used when there is no straight-in approach to a specific runway, which is the case when there are only circling minimums (not to be confused with RNP X Rwy nn, which is used when there are multiple RNP approaches to the same runway).
In the ESGP case, there seems to have been a willingness/desire to provide an official IAP when the Swedish regulations for such wouldn’t allow it due to the runway environment. In other countries, this might have been addressed simply by creating an RNP X with only circling minimums. It is worth noting that Austria also requires cancelling IFR rather than applying circling minimums or making it a visual approach. There is a lot of national variation in the handling of IFR vs VFR as shown by the comments regarding the example of France.
I think there are lot of variations due to many reasons but for sure there are load IFR procedures that are flown as cloud-break rather than instrument approach, practically, in “cloud-break” you can see the ground but you can’t see the runway OR you can’t go straight to/from threshold to land or go-around, whereas in “instrument approach” you can see runway dead ahead AND you can fly straight to/from threshold to land or go-around
How things gets described in AIP plates or flown in practice with/without ATC does not override the facts above, the extra symantics: VFR/IFR, MVL/VPT, circle/circuit, go-around/go-missed, MV(C)/MDH/DH…are usually irrelevant in good VMC days with no traffic but they are nice to know about if one is going for cloud-breaks in low IMC or busy VMC
chflyer wrote:
The Austrian example is an RNP A vs the Swedish RNP Rwy 19. The two are not exactly the same thing.My understanding is that an RNP X is used when there is no straight-in approach to a specific runway, which is the case when there are only circling minimums (not to be confused with RNP X Rwy nn, which is used when there are multiple RNP approaches to the same runway).
From this point of view there is no difference between the LOAN RNP A and the ESGP RNP 19. Both lead to straight-in approaches. IMO, the ESGP approach should also have been named RNP A.
Thanks for all input!
Maybe the procedure was named RNP 19 and not RNP A if they have plans for RNP 01? (There are some unverified rumors).
Is LOAN non-towered?
