Rotting ADF / VOR facilities
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly "Old Akro" has an obvious bee in his bonnet with Airservices.
He's not criticised CASA (Airservices a softer target?), even though as has been said, CASA is the aviation safety and airspace regulator, it's their mandates for GNSS and ADS-B, their approval given to decommission the navaids and amendments to air routes, and their involvement all the way including RAPAC.
And this is their page:
https://www.casa.gov.au/airspace/sta...sked-questions
He's not criticised CASA (Airservices a softer target?), even though as has been said, CASA is the aviation safety and airspace regulator, it's their mandates for GNSS and ADS-B, their approval given to decommission the navaids and amendments to air routes, and their involvement all the way including RAPAC.
And this is their page:
https://www.casa.gov.au/airspace/sta...sked-questions
Personally, I do not understand the brouhaha with regards to the lack of training opportunities for VOR approaches now. IT wouldn't take any great feat to program a user-waypoint at any of the old VOR sites and then, using OBS mode on the GNSS, fly a simulated VOR-approach. There are several ways out there to print your own instrument approach chart for training use, it just requires a little thinking outside the box.
Rather than naysaying "It can't be done", try to find ways to get it done. Whinging on Prune isn't going to bring a VOR back...And for reference, here's the BNN VOR Coverage at 5K and 10K.
Nationwide coverage at 10,000'. Red is ASA, Blue is private. Green is DoD.
Victoria 5,000'.
Victoria 10,000'.
NSW 5,000'.
NSW 10,000'.
Queensland 5,000'.
Queensland 10,000'.
Rather than naysaying "It can't be done", try to find ways to get it done. Whinging on Prune isn't going to bring a VOR back...And for reference, here's the BNN VOR Coverage at 5K and 10K.
Nationwide coverage at 10,000'. Red is ASA, Blue is private. Green is DoD.
Victoria 5,000'.
Victoria 10,000'.
NSW 5,000'.
NSW 10,000'.
Queensland 5,000'.
Queensland 10,000'.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA approves the decommissioning of the navaids in the move to a GPS based navigation airways system but requires NDB/VOR for IR issue. There is one........yes one VOR in the Melbourne basin for VOR approaches.
Like it or not the majority of IR schools are based at Moorabbin. ASA, chronically short staffed (they were warned about this 10 years ago) in an effort to protect their controllers implemented a (ludicrous) booking system for AV, MB & EN. You've now got about 8 schools all trying to use the AV VOR every day. It is now a logistical nightmare trying to complete an instrument nav. Both of these organisations are directly increasing the cost of IR training. Could the management of these backward organisations give a rats arse. They both know that losing GA wouldn't affect their bottom line and that's what it's all about right?
Like it or not the majority of IR schools are based at Moorabbin. ASA, chronically short staffed (they were warned about this 10 years ago) in an effort to protect their controllers implemented a (ludicrous) booking system for AV, MB & EN. You've now got about 8 schools all trying to use the AV VOR every day. It is now a logistical nightmare trying to complete an instrument nav. Both of these organisations are directly increasing the cost of IR training. Could the management of these backward organisations give a rats arse. They both know that losing GA wouldn't affect their bottom line and that's what it's all about right?
Porter, what you say is true. I totally agree.
But it wasn't planned that way and its not all AsA fault. AsA should have argued stronger in the presence of a weak regulator, but they didn't have to, and chose not to. In that sense it was a commercial decision (whether made consciously or not).
But it wasn't planned that way and its not all AsA fault. AsA should have argued stronger in the presence of a weak regulator, but they didn't have to, and chose not to. In that sense it was a commercial decision (whether made consciously or not).
Thread Starter
Clearly "Old Akro" has an obvious bee in his bonnet with Airservices.
He's not criticised CASA (Airservices a softer target?),
He's not criticised CASA (Airservices a softer target?),
Its also AsA (by my half informed speculation) that created the need for cost cutting via aid closure because its costs to maintain & certify ground based aids are I suspect 7 to 10 TIMES higher that equivalent overseas bodies, namely the CAA & FAA.
Also a lot of my beef goes back a couple of years when these closures were first mooted and there was robust discussion at the Victorian RAPAC. The issue of training aids in the Melbourne basin was brought up way back then. Its also when Yarrowee first went out of commission and AsA were supposed to fix it, but for over a year came up with new excuses not to do it. If you go back and read the RAPAC minutes it frankly clear that AsA consciously misled RAPAC in pursuit of its own agenda. There are minutes noting pledges by AsA that a training procedure would be created for the Cowes beacon after the Phillip Island airport refused to pay the extortionist amount of money AsA wanted to re-certify the VOR & NDB approaches. In retrospect this was an outright lie by AsA.
So, this issue has AsA's fingerprints all over it.
And as for KRviator, I assume you are a VFR pilot? Your comments show a lack of understanding of flying aids for NPA currency. Whats required is an NDB and a VOR beacon within approx 20 min flying of Moorabbin that is not at a primary or secondary airport in airspace suitable for airwork between about 1000 ft agl & 4,000ft agl. Melbourne used to have 4. Now it has none. I believe Sydney is a similar situation.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why will a lot of aircraft be declaring fuel emergency? The vast majority of IFR activity is already at those aerodromes and has IRS/INS."
Guess you've never been into Eastern USA when a winter blizzard blows up and there's more heavy metal stacked up than a Mc Airports car park.
If GPS went down in Australia there would be a lot of heavy metal queuing for available ILS's and with our priority system GA would be a long way down the queue with nowhere else to go.
Akro, I agree with your sentiments. Perhaps an NDB or VOR endorsement or whatever the hell their called these days will be something you gain in a simulator, just for the sake of getting a tick in the box. A required redundant waste of money because there will be no ground aids left to do one for real. I hear ASA will soon promolgate the 4D star wars approach. To gain approval will require the force to be with you, tolerances are +/- two dimensions.
Guess you've never been into Eastern USA when a winter blizzard blows up and there's more heavy metal stacked up than a Mc Airports car park.
If GPS went down in Australia there would be a lot of heavy metal queuing for available ILS's and with our priority system GA would be a long way down the queue with nowhere else to go.
Akro, I agree with your sentiments. Perhaps an NDB or VOR endorsement or whatever the hell their called these days will be something you gain in a simulator, just for the sake of getting a tick in the box. A required redundant waste of money because there will be no ground aids left to do one for real. I hear ASA will soon promolgate the 4D star wars approach. To gain approval will require the force to be with you, tolerances are +/- two dimensions.
This whole discussion feels like it's going on in a parallel dimension. Heavy metal going into the capital cities up until 8 odd weeks ago, how many were really doing an RNAV approach vs an ILS or even a VOR/NDB approach. I don't think the situation has changed that much from that perspective surely. I suppose in the chance we have an eastern USA style blizzard, GPS goes down and so does primary and secondary radar then heavy metal may be declaring an emergency but otherwise I can't see that happening really.
For GA aircraft, all bar Archerfield have some sort of aid in the BNN, and whilst archerfield doesn't, Sunny coast and gold coast both do, so hopefully they would be able to handle some of the GA aircraft that are stuck in the blizzard.
Proximity to aids for training is a different matter altogether.
For GA aircraft, all bar Archerfield have some sort of aid in the BNN, and whilst archerfield doesn't, Sunny coast and gold coast both do, so hopefully they would be able to handle some of the GA aircraft that are stuck in the blizzard.
Proximity to aids for training is a different matter altogether.
Originally Posted by Old Akro
And as for KRviator, I assume you are a VFR pilot? Your comments show a lack of understanding of flying aids for NPA currency. Whats required is an NDB and a VOR beacon within approx 20 min flying of Moorabbin that is not at a primary or secondary airport in airspace suitable for airwork between about 1000 ft agl & 4,000ft agl. Melbourne used to have 4. Now it has none. I believe Sydney is a similar situation.
Anyway, last I checked, Mangalore has a VOR approach available and forms part of the BNN, according to OzRunways it is 26mins from Moorabbin. Call it 30 mins. Latrobe Valley has your NDB, and both have GNSS approaches available, leaving a 3D approach is all that you need to finish it off. If you couldn't get your 2D approach renewals out of the way in under 2-2.5 hours I would be surprised, assuming you're reasonably competent at actually flying them.
Thorn bird, what have blizzards got to do with Aus? Yes there would be a lot queueing up but only initially - there would be much holding on the ground, returning/diverting and cancelling of flights.
Nowhere else for GA to go? Around ML: EN, MB, AV all have ILS or instrument approaches. Any number of aerodromes that you could land at visually. VFRs seem to manage it routinely on fairly ordinary weather days.
Nowhere else for GA to go? Around ML: EN, MB, AV all have ILS or instrument approaches. Any number of aerodromes that you could land at visually. VFRs seem to manage it routinely on fairly ordinary weather days.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha, I'm not blaming ASA for anything other Russell employing 600 admin workers, (no net gain in ATC's) to make employee satisfaction levels look better than what they are.
Penguin, there's one VOR that GA can use, one NDB & 2 ILS's. IR training is mainly approaches, enroute time clocking in at around $640 per hour dual is not the point of the training, it's about approaches.
Penguin, there's one VOR that GA can use, one NDB & 2 ILS's. IR training is mainly approaches, enroute time clocking in at around $640 per hour dual is not the point of the training, it's about approaches.
Porter, my reply was specifically addressing TB's GPS constellation failure scenario. As Awol57 says access to navaids for training is a whole different ballgame and I do realise the reduction in available navaids makes life difficult for training.
Why didn't the flying schools offer to pay for maintaining a couple of convenient navaids (CWS or YWE VOR)? For the student paying a fee for training use would have to be cheaper than dead flying time. Say it cost $100,000 a year then a $50 fee per training flight would easily recover the cost and save the student money.
Why didn't the flying schools offer to pay for maintaining a couple of convenient navaids (CWS or YWE VOR)? For the student paying a fee for training use would have to be cheaper than dead flying time. Say it cost $100,000 a year then a $50 fee per training flight would easily recover the cost and save the student money.
Thread Starter
But no matter, now you're talking renewals, not training, they are not the same thing. For training, you don't need the aid. It can be simulated with appropriate use of GNSS.
Anyway, last I checked, Mangalore has a VOR approach available and forms part of the BNN, according to OzRunways it is 26mins from Moorabbin.
And if you'd ever flown the aids at Mangalore, you'd know that the combination of training aircraft there and the funneling effect of VFR traffic flying to the Melboune basin via Mangalore and the Kilmore Gap makes it a dangerous aid to use for currency / training.
Latrobe Valley is the only real aid that is available. Its the only GNSS approach that you can effectively use. But, frankly it has its own difficulties. Its on the flight path for the oil rig choppers, Latrobe valley itself is busy and its getting the bulk of GNSS / ADF / VOR training now. And it adds about 40 minutes flying time to each and every training / currency flight.
Expecting to do the Moorabbin GNSS approach on a nice VFR afternoon like last Sunday and fit with the VFR traffic is either arrogant or foolish. The best you can really do is break at 3nm which is worth pretty much nothing for training or practice. Remember, this is currently the second busiest airport in Australia behind Sydney International.
AsA made undertakings to the Victorian RAPAC that a training procedure would be developed for the Philip Island aid. Based on the cost comparison I can find in the UK, it should cost less than AUD$1,000 per annum to maintain the NDB. Probably the same for the VOR if it is not flight tested (which the FAA have now stopped for many aids).
Why would AsA not do what it promised? Its been told to me that the person who made that undertaking did not have the authority to make it. But that's a weasel answer.
Old Akro, you and I have argued this before and I even showed you proof in the RAPAC minutes.
Airservices made no such commitment. What Airservices did do, was commit to investigating whether a training approach could be developed. But dont let the facts get in the way of you bitching about how you think you've been hard done by.
The result of those enquiries was to find that it is an offence to publish instrument approaches to anywhere other than a registered airport. CASA was not interested in pursuing the idea of an exemption, without which AsA hands were and are tied. It is unfortunate that the records show this issue was never raised at RAPAC again and so this answer never went back to RAPAC.
The records show no promise to deliver an approach was made, only to be investigated.
Before you arc up about the other training approaches, they were published pre revision of the current CASR173. They are currently being tolerated....but not for much longer.
Airservices made no such commitment. What Airservices did do, was commit to investigating whether a training approach could be developed. But dont let the facts get in the way of you bitching about how you think you've been hard done by.
The result of those enquiries was to find that it is an offence to publish instrument approaches to anywhere other than a registered airport. CASA was not interested in pursuing the idea of an exemption, without which AsA hands were and are tied. It is unfortunate that the records show this issue was never raised at RAPAC again and so this answer never went back to RAPAC.
The records show no promise to deliver an approach was made, only to be investigated.
Before you arc up about the other training approaches, they were published pre revision of the current CASR173. They are currently being tolerated....but not for much longer.
Old Akro I get the impression you aren't an industry association rep. attending RAPAC, and instead you are relying on just reading (and your interpretation of) RAPAC minutes?
Assuming it's the former, suffice to say a lot is discussed over the 2-3 hour meetings, and only a succinct synopsis appears against agenda items in minutes. Views are expressed, questions asked and answered and information provided, so the association reps. know the complete picture, because they've been party to the discussions.
Now, what they pass on to those they represent is a matter for them.
As to your comment
In the words of The Castle, Tell him he's dreamin'
Site rental alone could be up to ten times that amount, because few navaids are on fed. government land. A nice little earner for property owners.
And as I said in an earlier post, the requirement for flight testing and other standards and requirements are requirements imposed on Airservices per CASA MOS & regs., not Airservices gilding the lily.
Assuming it's the former, suffice to say a lot is discussed over the 2-3 hour meetings, and only a succinct synopsis appears against agenda items in minutes. Views are expressed, questions asked and answered and information provided, so the association reps. know the complete picture, because they've been party to the discussions.
Now, what they pass on to those they represent is a matter for them.
As to your comment
it should cost less than AUD$1,000 per annum to maintain the NDB. Probably the same for the VOR
Site rental alone could be up to ten times that amount, because few navaids are on fed. government land. A nice little earner for property owners.
And as I said in an earlier post, the requirement for flight testing and other standards and requirements are requirements imposed on Airservices per CASA MOS & regs., not Airservices gilding the lily.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penguin,
It's not the flying training organisations job to own and maintain navaids. They are part of the infrastructure that provides a stream of pilots to the airlines, RFDS, Air Ambulance etc. Bit like roads, providing the infrastructure to facilitate business and social outcomes.
I'm in the states at the moment, have done quite a bit of GA flying this trip. The airways system here is the complete opposite to what's occurring in Australia. Australians have been brainwashed into thinking that 'user pays' is a fair & equitable system. It may be for some things but for infrastructure that the whole community benefits from whether it's direct or indirect, it's not.
It's not the flying training organisations job to own and maintain navaids. They are part of the infrastructure that provides a stream of pilots to the airlines, RFDS, Air Ambulance etc. Bit like roads, providing the infrastructure to facilitate business and social outcomes.
I'm in the states at the moment, have done quite a bit of GA flying this trip. The airways system here is the complete opposite to what's occurring in Australia. Australians have been brainwashed into thinking that 'user pays' is a fair & equitable system. It may be for some things but for infrastructure that the whole community benefits from whether it's direct or indirect, it's not.
For better or worse that's the political road we as a nation have taken. You can make the same comments about most educational facilities, yet they are all having government funding reduced and the students are increasingly expected to fund it.
While it might not be the training organisations' job who else is going to? None of the relevant other parties will pay so the flying schools are left with finding a "benefactor", stumping up or doing without. It might be the rough end of the pineapple but that's the way it is.
While it might not be the training organisations' job who else is going to? None of the relevant other parties will pay so the flying schools are left with finding a "benefactor", stumping up or doing without. It might be the rough end of the pineapple but that's the way it is.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or, if CASA is going to approve the removal of ground based aids how about bringing the instrument rating into the 21 century. Can't have it both ways. I don't care about the aids being removed SO LONG AS the syllabus reflects the airways system. WAAS with VNAV solves all of these issues, at a very low cost. If I'm user paying how about providing what I'm paying for
We've been stooging around PNG under IFR for years and years without any ground based navaids (except for Port Moresby and Madang), and in aircraft fitted with only a single GPS receiver. It's never been a problem operationally. Plan B if the GPS receiver went down whilst in cloud would be to DR navigate to some ocean and then decend until visual, turn around to the coast and continue VFR.