PDA

View Full Version : No more RNAV approach into YMGT (Margaret River)


Urshtnme
24th Jun 2014, 10:03
It seems that the Augusta Margaret River Shire won't put up the $300,000 into works to meet the CASA minimum requirements to approve the RNAV approach into the airfield. So CASA has shut it down.

The RFDS come into the airfield on a regular basis, now they'll have to wait it out in Busselton, a 45 minute drive from Margaret River.

Anyone else seen this happen at regional airfields?

Jabawocky
24th Jun 2014, 11:08
What work was required?

If it was OK before what changed to make it not OK?

A) If the airfield changed or degraded, fair enough maybe....

B) If a rule or opinion changed.....NOT FUNNY.

What is it about this aviation backwater called Australia. :ugh:

Urshtnme
24th Jun 2014, 11:30
Apparently due to runway approach on RW20, steep runway gradients, cost... that's just a few.

I'm just thinking where this might also lead in the future. No maintenance for the airport, runways become degraded to a stage that will eventually become a massive cost for the Shire so they just leave it to slowly degrade further and further before it becomes completely unusable and eventually the total closure of the runway.

Already the access road is heavily degraded being that it's only a gravel road. Pretty soon it'll only be accessible to 4WD.

P51D
24th Jun 2014, 11:50
YMGT is an ALA and CASA won't allow RNAV approaches into these strips, the airfield has to be Registered. I heard it could cost the Shire $800k so they declined. The Poms CAA evidently allow RNAV's into their equivalent of ALA's but CASA would appear very slow to flow suit.

Urshtnme
24th Jun 2014, 12:24
YMGT was registered, it was an active registered airfield. But as of this week, it's not.

I think the initial cost from the Shire will be $300,000 then the cost of getting it back on the books through CASA will be on top of all that.

Pretty ordinary.

Jabawocky
24th Jun 2014, 12:26
P51D

I am not trying to pick a fight with you, but I have heard that argument before. But it does not make sense.

Atherton is an uncertified aerodrome, just like many others, but it has an RNAV. Albeit for select operators (QLD EMS HELO's) so why is YMGT different.

Double standards and BS ones at that from CASA that results in delivering poor services to the community.

HELLO DICK SMITH
Stop wasting time and effort on holding at Willytown or ADSB and take up a decent noble cause such as this one. Or would you just rather go bush walking with your friends?

Capn Bloggs
24th Jun 2014, 15:08
The Poms CAA evidently allow RNAV's into their equivalent of ALA's but CASA would appear very slow to flow suit.
Fair enough too! Imagine the outcry if some IFR/RFDS came to grief in a CFIT on an RNAV approach because nobody/CASA didn't know an obstacle had appeared.

Register it or stick to growing grapes. Can't even maintain the road in? They don't deserve an RNAV...

JandakotJoe
24th Jun 2014, 15:44
If these small town shires, councils, etc full of self-preserving small-fish VOTE not to expend rate-payer funds on modern infrastructure necessities like an RNAV approach, then they can be held to task on the odd occasion when the services to the ratepayers are suspended such as travel, RFDS coverage, etc due to weather related restrictions coming into play.

And who really cares? The world moves on without them while they are left behind in cuckoo WAville telling each other about the greatest place on Earth and trying not to notice they are being left behind in the sticks.

Hit TOGA, "going around" and back to YPPH, home on the couch in time for Ray Martin's ruddy midday show.

Next......

Delta_Foxtrot
24th Jun 2014, 23:17
Further to Jaba and Bloggs, the CASA ruling that allows IFR approaches to certified and registered aerodromes only is based on the requirement for such aerodromes to have an obstacle monitoring protocol in place. For approaches to unregistered aerodromes for approved operators, the obstacle monitoring is the responsibility of the approved operator.

Urshtnme
24th Jun 2014, 23:33
The obstacles in question are two trees on the northern approach. They've grown over the last ten years and are now right in the way of the approach.

The owner says they are a 'wind break' and does not want to remove them.

That's one of several issues.

Old Akro
25th Jun 2014, 00:08
I don't believe there is a restriction on ALA's having an RNAV approach, but the owner of an ALA bears all the cost of CASA certification and all the responsibility of monitoring - which is enough to scare most airport owners off.

You can just see a rise in " unofficial " approached coming.

Jabawocky
25th Jun 2014, 04:11
You can just see a rise in " unofficial " approached coming.

Akro...how irresponsible of you to suggest such a thing. :=


What you will see if a considerable improvement in weather conditions where the aircraft is visual along a pilot calculated lowest safe (12nm) which is coincidental with the SI approach. :} :ok:

Most days that is what you get anyway on an RNAV, or a DME/GPS Arrival at most locations.

P51D
25th Jun 2014, 07:14
And you wouldn't wanna Jaba. You are right that some ALA's that have big helos going in have RNAV's but they pick a point in space around the middle of the runway, which doesn't suit fixed wing. This is probably why helos are acceptable.

Jabawocky
25th Jun 2014, 08:11
P51, There is probably the answer there for the EMS helo's, and hey it is their gig and if they do the deal, fair enough.

My concern is some pretty dodgy home grown approaches.

That being said, many pilots do not use the full tool kit in their thinking. Depending on the location and terrain, you can calculate a "pilot calculated" lowest safe by using the 12nm GPS rule, and find a route that gets you a better chance of a cloud break, or as I have done use the MSA of a local airport, then get visual and fly back in VMC.

Of course this is noting like a 600-700' AGL MDA, so on a really bad day there is nothing you can do, but how often do you get that? And for PVT ops those days are not common or only the needy or the greedy. So there are options.

Sadly though the demise of local airports and now IA's is not reversing :sad:

thorn bird
25th Jun 2014, 08:25
Hmm, I listen to you guys and I guess we deserve what we get, GA might as well pack it in and leave it to the "PROFESSIONAL's" you know those guys with the four bars who ride in those shiny infuriated primuses. and think their sh..t doesn't stink.

underfire
25th Jun 2014, 08:39
If I may, I have a very good understanding of procedure design, and the costs associated with maintaining a procedure, and the associated obstacle clearance areas, NOTAMS, temp obstructions, etc.

Commercial pays an incredible amount in landing fees for services at an airport.

What does a GA aircraft pay?

A slot is a slot...

Creampuff
25th Jun 2014, 08:48
We get everything for free! (What we pay in income tax, fuel excise, AVGAS levy, GST, airport usage fees, Stamp Duty, Council Rates etc is just for other people’s ****s and giggles….)

P51D
25th Jun 2014, 11:00
Guys, I am in no way supporting local Govts but some realise the value of GA and encourage it because they know that it is business for their town. The RNAV is a fantastic thing and places like Queenstown in NZ, dependent on tourism, have flourished as a result. YMGT is not in the middle of town and the landscape is flat. The Shire also look after Augusta, 50km south, also relatively flat. Govts (State and Federal) should be assisting all of these airports to have RNAV's to at least enable the RFDS to get in under all conditions. CASA has got to see that there is a community benefit, 45 min to Busselton from YMGT and 1 hour from YAUG can be the difference between life and death. I don't blame these Shires although the noise abatement requirements at YMGT is a turn off for GA and simply beggars belief.