There appear to be very few GNSS LPV approaches in Australia
There are
NO GNSS LPV approches in Australia. LP/LPV approaches requires some form of wide area augmentation (ie SBAS). Some have been developed for the current SBAS trial.
There some GNSS APV (BARO VNAV) approaches in Australia, and more are being progressively rolled out. Refer to Dept website for schedule.
Dick, your CJ3 had BARO/VNAV
capability for over 10 years, but for a majority of that time there were no baro approaches. What you were doing (or rather,
should have been doing) was using your nav system as vertical
advisory (meaning that all minimum descent steps need to be complied with). If you were actually flying them as vertical
guidance (meaning minima descent steps can be ignored like an ILS vs LOC), then you have been flying them illegally. Until that VNAV line of minima appears on the chart then you are not permitted to fly them as guidance.
The main difference between GBAS/SBAS and BARO is the way the minima is determined. GBAS is considered CAT 1 precision. SBAS is certianly close but I am not sure if it is equivalent. Baro, still sits in the non precision space, as a non precision approach with vertical guidance.
Note, the provision of vertical guidance does not mean you have a precision approach.
Space Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) provide augmented GNSS over a wide area. However, the net benefits of an SBAS to the aviation sector alone do not appear to be sufficient to justify the cost.
I note that the report is 5 years old and certainly the departments attitude has changed in that time. However, the statement is still mostly correct. Aviation is a minority user of an SBAS system and the benefits to aviation are no where near as great as some other industry sectors. Take the aviation hat off for a minute....SBAS is Australian national navigation infrastructure (think lane following tech, precision maritime reef navigation, drone postal delivery systems, geo fencing for agriculture). All of these bring far greater benefits to the Aus economy than Aviation. It should be provided and paid for by the Aus Govt...end of story. Aviation is a user, but the cost should be footed by all tax payers, because all taxpayers will be using the system. I believe the report was making an argument against aviation paying for the system, which I support.