Australian instrument approach plates online?

[Aussie Andy]

Hi guys,

I have recently passed UK IMC rating, which I think is a bit like a private-IR in Australia. I am interested in looking at some Australian approach plates - are they available online somewhere?

In the UK, the AIS website has the plates for UK instrument aproaches available for free in PDF format, e.g. here is Coventry ILS/DME RWY 23 (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/32BE0805.PDF) for example (you need to register for a password for this site, but this is easy and it is free).

Is there an equivalent in Australia at all?

Thanks,


Andy

Whoops - just found it in something called "DAP 101" here: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/dap/AeroProcChartsTOC.htm

(Answered my own question, but leaving it in place in case someone else is ever searching for this...)

Andy

[fixa24]

andy...
check out Airservices Australia website http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/aip.asp
click "i agree", then look at "departure and approach procedures (DAP)...
Hope thats what your looking for.

Fixa

[Aussie Andy]

Yep, that's the one, thanks.

I have some questions about your wonderful GPS approaches - which we don't (yet!) have over here...

1) There seem to be two sorts of GPS approaches at some fields, e.g. Taree say where there is: RWY 22 RNAV (GNSS) - directs you to the field on a specified track of 213(M) with MDA 640' / Circling Minima 790'
"GPS Arrival" - which seems to allow you to approach from any direction, down to Circling Minima 790' or 1000', depending which direction you approach fromThey seem to both be "non-precision" (i.e. no V-NAV) approaches but the first allows a lower MDA if you are arriving on RWY 22 itself. Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of the "GPS Arrival"?

2) How do the approaches work without ATC (e.g Taree has CTAF)? Can you self-separate during the approach phase, or would say Brisbane Radar or some other agency regulate entry to the procedure to one a/c at a time (as with Class E IFR approaches in the US)?

Cheers,


Andy :ok:

[Arm out the window]

GPS Arrivals are like and often associated with DME Arrivals; both are simply a series of altitude step-downs as you pass various DME or GPS distances from the airfield, and can be for either a specific track, or for a sector (ie tracks to the field within a specified range of bearings). Both also require track guidance, from an NDB or VOR, as an azimuth reference; then when you pass the appropriate distances you can let down to not below the next step altitude. The GPS equipment needs only to be capable of enroute navigation for these.
GPS Non-Precision Approaches are designed to allow for aircraft arriving from various directions to fly through initial approach waypoints depending on the direction they're coming from, and then through the approach waypoints to align with a particular runway direction. They require GPS equipment that has the approaches in its database, and that automatically selects a more accurate navigation mode for the terminal approach segment. I haven't done these, so may be standing to be corrected by cluier individuals...

[swh]

Also DME/GPS arrivals will only be at an airport with a ground aid, where a GPS/NPA can be an an airport without a navaid

:ok:

[Arm out the window]

Re the second question about separation: unless the approaches are in what used to be called 'controlled airspace', at what are now class C or D airfields, and where you would get air traffic controllers sequencing you, it is self-separation, that is, listening out on the appropriate frequencies, sussing out where people are and hopefully ensuring that you're not going to hit them (we're talking about airfields with CTAFs/MBZs in Class G airspace here).
For an NDB, VOR or VOR/DME approach in bad weather if you're not the first one there, this usually entails entering the holding pattern at higher than the commencement height and waiting until the previous aircraft has either got in or completed the missed approach (which may well bring them back to the hold, hence the possible confliction if you just followed them down).
Seems to work well; maybe it's just the big sky little aeroplane theory, but the best thing from my point of view (and that recent proposed airspace changes have tried to remove) is directed traffic information to IFR about other IFR so you're forewarned about who is around when you go anywhere, even if there's no radar. Too expensive though, some silly buggers reckon!

[Aussie Andy]

fixa, arm, swh: thanks guys - all very interesting...

I won't get involved in the NAS politics (did so on another thread some time ago and let's just say on balance I don't think I was helping)...!

Overall I am very envious of how lucky you guys are to have such flexbility for approaches using GPS, and especially to be able to do so outside of controlled airspace..!

The DME/GPS "Arrivals" sound like a really great idea - seems they'd be low cost, relatively simple to implement, and to fly! So with just - say - an ADF and an enroute class GPS receiver (or DME set) for distance information, you can approach to circling from any/some sectors... brilliant! We don't even have "DME Arrivals" around here - I guess that the density of controlled airspace generall precludes this (although I am sure there would be some places where this would work).

OK, so I understand for the GPS Non-Precision Approaches you need a GPS fitted with an Approach Mode and an appropriate database with the procedures in it... I suppose we are talking Garmin 430/530 etc? Do you find rental aircraft typically have these fitted?

Re: the bit about self-directed separation for IMC approaches within MBZ type environments, the problem here again is that airspace is generally pretty tight, e.g. at a number of airfields they can accept you in the hold at maybe 2 discrete levels above which you'd whack into the Class A enroute airspace. Plus the airfields big enough to have approach aids are also typically quite busy with 4~5 people in the VFR in the circuit, simultaneous helicopter circuits, and gliders - sometimes all at the same field - so without an APP controller you'd generally have difficulty slotting in amongst the crowd when it's busy. I think that's why today a number of airfields don't install approach navaids because they'd need to then also provide approach certified ATC services, which increases costs. So I am left wondering whether even when / if we do get GPS approaches we'll be much better off if we aren't able to approach when there is no ATC APP service provided?

Still, enough of our problems (I will start a discussion on this on Private flying which is pretty UK-centric)...! So, seeing as you have such a great environment for GA instrument approaches, I am starting to wonder if it would make sense to see if I could do the Private-IR for GPS approaches when I am home in Australia (August)... but if it takes a lot of time it might not be practical... maybe if I can leverage the IMC training I already have..? But I'll bet there are a bunch of exams to pass etc... the study might spoil the holiday for my wife and kids! Maybe next time :)

Cheers!

Andy :ok:

[Tinstaafl]

I've never understood the UK's aversions to GPS or OCTA approaches. I've worked in Oz, the UK and now the US. The US has airspace that gets just as crowded as the UK but manages both items. I've been unable to find a different accident rate even though the US has much worse terrain & weather (except maybe Shetland... :p ) than the UK and Oz has can have rather limiting alternate options due distance

There are plenty of places in the UK where such things would be a boon eg Shetland, Orkney, anywhere from John O'Groats (sp?) to Edinburgh.

[Aussie Andy]

Tinstaafl: agreed... especailly re- the remote islands you mention. In the rest of the country, I don't think the issue is necessarily to do with how busy the airspace is, but how much of it is given over to Class A at relatively low-level, which is why I wouldn't see the DME/GPS Arrivals working here...

But things are looking up (allegedly) as we hear from our local AOPA (who seem to have a much better reputation and are not as controversial here as it appears they might be than might be the case in Australia?) recently reported that afetr much lobbying, announcements may soon come from UK CAA about possble changes in this area... we shall see..!

Andy

[Bevan666]

Seems to work well; maybe it's just the big sky little aeroplane theory, but the best thing from my point of view (and that recent proposed airspace changes have tried to remove) is directed traffic information to IFR about other IFR so you're forewarned about who is around when you go anywhere, even if there's no radar. Too expensive though, some silly buggers reckon!

The NAS changes will not remove directed traffic information in the terminal area (which is what this example above refers).

Bevan..

[Arm out the window]

Yeah, but they were talking about it, and that's what I was referring to.
Anyway, what I meant to say really was that I think DTI is a must for our kind of self-separation awareness; too many calls are missed if you're not primed to listen out for the traffic - in my opinion!