Certified aviation and pilots with EASA papers are pretty much protected against such stuff.
Don’t you need your aircraft to be recertified IFR by FOCA to fly some procedures: Sion, Lugano, Samedan…?
I had the impression those approvals are way more than just “crew site check” and use “POH/AFM perf data”? say, a US Mooney will need to be recertified for Swiss for the SID/IGS operations by both FOCA & FAA with AFM/POH updated…if it’s PC12 or PC24, life is easy
Of course with COFA ICAO you can always transit airspace, if there is a permit it’s on everybody
Ibra wrote:
Don’t you need aircraft recertified IFR by FOCA to fly some procedures at Sion, Lugano, Samedan…?
The procedures there are restricted yes, because there is a certain performance necessary primarily for the missed approaches there. These procedures are hardly normal in any sense. AFAIR in Sion it is primarily if you wish to operate down to lower minima that you must demonstrate that the airplane meets performance for the missed approach and they also demand crew training for these. Samedan requires familiaristion training even VFR and Lugano’s IFR procedures is quite “special” anyway.
But that hardly means they could do stuff like that for the whole country.
What has been happening however is that more and more airports need prior qualification and / or training before they may be used. That is something under debate too, as in general this should be the exception and not the rule. However, this is not only used here, there are similar things in force elsewhere too, e.g. in Germany, where some airfields are massively restricted in use (e.g. Wasserkuppe) and France (Altiports and some others which require familiarisation training).
Peter wrote:
It is a crew approval
For Sion, there are two approvals,
- Easy one, “it’s crew approval”, entitles you to IFR procedures but on high minima something like 10km visibility and ceiling above 12kft
- Hard one, it’s “aircraft & crew approval”, you can fly plates minima and you need extra aircraft re-certification by NAA+FOCA
Edit: MD did say something similar….
Ibra wrote:
even certified aircrafts don’t seem to “have what it takes”: in terms of GPS/INS navigation accuracy & SID/IGS gradient performance to cope with the place, they need to get recertified by FOCA for IFR in Switzerland…
Can you elaborate on that?
The story of special airports, that @Ibra happily dances on, has nothing to do with this thread. Nevertheless, it mainly applies to airliners. And no, there are not specific to CHE… plenty of those special airports in France, Italy, Portugal, UK, etc.
A simple info about airport categories here: Airport Categorisation
Special airports, e.g. category C, require aircraft performance and crew training.
A few sessions of sim training and a special airport line check to proficiency are required to get the rating. It is then necessary to maintain current in those by flying a certain amount of times/year, and usually a annual line check on said route.
Believe me, battling wind shears at Mikonos or Funchal, in an unresponsive robotised A320 at MLM, maintaining all FDM parameters, can be more challenging than sailing the daily EHAM or EGKK ILS…
plenty of those special airports in France, Italy, Portugal, UK, etc
I made similar comments on Chambéry (in your Cat C AD) & Cannes in another topic which I think by far are the easiest runways to fly pistons…so not all of the rant is about FOCA
I can see issues with B737/A320 with paying passengers doing approaches in Corsica, Gibraltar, London City, Sion, Lugano…but approach to all these airports is non-event for VFR/IFR in pistons with PPL without any bureaucratic layers (there way more dangerous places out there: most grass strips in UK Pooleys or FFPULM guides)
Ibra wrote:
I think by far are the easiest runways to fly pistons…
To fly an ILS into Chambery you want to have pretty good descent performance and even the RNP for 18 has a 7.8% required descent rate. Not every CAT approved AP is capable of flying that. There is in my view a much better reason for that site specific training in LFLB than elsewhere. Breaking out at minima it is VERY reassuring to see the RWY, I fly into LFLB a lot (which I use as my alternate it’s literally a bit downriver on the Rhone from my home airport and I DO NOT like that missed in IMC one bit…
French licensed airfields listed in AD 1.3-1 of the AIP:
The restricted ones I’ve generally categorised:
Depending on context, PN/PPR varies between the military, DGAC, aéroclub, or local government. The reasons for ‘other’ aren’t listed, but there may be a clue in the VAC e.g. ‘airfield floods at high tide’, ‘unusable after heavy rain’, ‘tall trees on approach’, ‘hump-back runway’, or e.g. it’s obviously in a valley (LFKP), surrounded by obstacles (LFAR), in the middle of town (LFLT).
Capitaine wrote:
it’s obviously in a valley (LFKP)
La Tour du Pin airfield (LFKP) near the famous LTP VOR is also restricted because of the 2 nuclear plants where I personally know of 3 UL crews that got the ver special treat of being escorted by the Puma of the Gendarmerie to Villefranche for infringing on them. It’s the airspace that’s restricted that is driven the airport restrictions. (plus it’s a tricky little strip)
Obviously, there are tricky places because of the laws of physics or restricted zones
However, many airports that live in empty plains have restricted usage, actually no one has a clue why they are restricted? and people just keeps parroting how difficult or special these are, after all “chacun voit midi a sa porte”, there are 5 in Normadie that I visited in last year, I don’t even know why my authorization was approved and on what basis? and why they are restricted?
PS: I noticed most non-CAP airports I visited had LFF- in their names