As I have not flown the approach in question I went and pulled up the plate on AsA's website (nice feature btw
) and had a quick peruse...and I gotta say I have rarely seen a more boobytrapped approach.
What a load of crap. What boobytraps?
GPSNPA have their faults generally speaking but this particular approach is virtually unflyable as published.
Rubbish, it is flown regularly. Transair only crashed ONCE and did this approach lots of time. CASA flew it recently and reported it as FLYABLE and meeting the criteria.
RAAF conducted an independent check of the approach and it meets the criteria. See the coroner's report.
1/. To have any chance maintaining the published profile(s) you're descending at 400'/nm..at 120KIAS that is 800'/min just for starters. You'd need to fly the entire approach FULLY configured in something like a Metro to have any chance.
Read the profile. 3.5 degrees APCH PATH. Well within Descent Gradient criteria.
2/. If the weather is right on the minima you're to too high to land straight in. At 3nm the profile is 1375'....that is 475' higher than you would be on a normal approach. Even in my Bonanza with gear down and full flap I would need 700'/min all the way to touchdown or >1000'/min down to <500' and then something approaching a normal RoD after that....and I don't fly ANY approach configured that way...well I used to fly the Kathmandu VOR/DME Rwy 02 configured except for final landing flap....from memory the profile for that approach was 400'/nm too but you arrived at a usable MAP and a 10000' runway.
At 2nm/1040' you're still 440' high...no possibility of landing on 12 and you're also 350' below the circling minima.
Who says you have to be able to land from the Missed Approach Point? It is purely a point, if at which you are not visual with your landing environment, you CONDUCT THE PUBLISHED MISSED APPROACH.
If you understand where you will be at the bottom of the approach, before you start it, then there are no surprises. DO YOUR APPROACH PLANNING PROPERLY.
3/. You'd need something like 4nm vis to be able to see the landing environment.. Much rain and you just won't...even if you can vaguely make out the landing threshold through light rain on the windscreen you will need best part of 1000'/min all the way to roundout to make it.
The required vis is 5.0KM due to the high MDA required by the terrain environment.
If the vis is forecast or reported at less than 5KM you are not allowed to do the approach. REF AIP.
Can anybody say "stabilised approach?"
If you fly the published APCH PATH you will have a STABILISED APPROACH all the way to 50ft above the threshold.
That is what all the CFIT studies have advocated and why AsA design the procedures that way.
It is steep but within the criteria.
Airlines demote/sack people for flying as per above.
If I was the CP of a multi crew turbine RPT operation my crews would be banned from flying the runway approach in IMC, period.
It would be;
1/. Captains only approach,
2/. Flown to the circling minima only,
3/. Company profile based on arriving at the circling minima at 2nm..that's 3xdist+800'....all the way from tip over...that keeps you well above all limiting steps, gives a shallower descent flown configured for circling and gives you 1 min level to the MAP to assess the circling area.
4/. If visual over the runway and assured of maintaining visual reference circle left descending to be 1000' established on downwind and a normal 'min weather' circuit from there.
Nice and calm and above all controlled.
Captains route training would be 5 trips (2 at night) with a minimum of three such approaches flown to simulated minimas (minimum 1 at night) (real if the weather is such) under the care and feeding of a training captain and two such approaches flown as recurrent ICUS every 6 mths. FO route training would involve supporting a training captain as he flies the circling approach to simulated minimas 5 times (2 at night).
Any captain reported attempting to fly the runway approach in anger would be busted back to FO for 12mths without even 4 seconds worth of discussion on the matter.
The rwy approach to 30 is no better
There is just NO other way, in my view, to fly that approach with weather anywhere near minimas.
Circling Approaches in near minima conditions increase the possibility of CFITs.
Several major airlines do not allow their crews to conduct circling approaches in some weather conditions.
Your attitude shows that you will say anything to have a go at the authorities but will not directly approach them. Your attitude is also not the way that many other RESPECTED operators allow their crews to operate.
Put your concerns to CASA and stop corrupting the minds of those on PPRUNE with your crap about RNAV (GNSS) approaches.
Fly the published approach after a thorough brief and you will not be putting the lives of yourself and your passengers in jeopardy.
