Rotting ADF / VOR facilities

[Old Akro]

On May 27, AsA in its infinite wisdom turned off a whole range of ground based navigation facilities. Most of which were functioning perfectly at the time of disconnection.

Yesterday, I happened to drive past the now decommissioned Wonthaggi VOR / NDB. Its sitting happily in a dairy farmers paddock. Which led to wonder:

What's happening with all the decommissioned antennae towers, equipment buildings and equipment?

Is it being left to rot? Is it being disassembled and removed? If its not being demolished, who is going to maintain them? Was disassembly & removal costs factored in to the economic case to retire these facilities?

[CaptainMidnight]

Is it being left to rot?Hardly.

We were advised that the equipment will be progressively removed, to be used for spares. Towers, antennas etc. dismantled and sold for scrap. Buildings offered to landowners or dismantled for scrap.

Was disassembly & removal costs factored in to the economic case to retire these facilities? No doubt, and if they were to be retained, the ongoing maintenance costs, cost of replacement/upgrade, ongoing land lease, electricity etc. etc.

NDBs & VORs were offered to the relevant AD owner/shire and flying club(s) to take over responsibility for, but few took up the offer.

[Capn Bloggs]

Getting desperate now, Akro... :=

[Old Akro]

Getting desperate now, Akro...


No, genuine question. The NDB at Wonthaggi is a really nice red brick hut with a pitched roof literally sitting at the top of a hill in a dairy farmers paddock about halfway between Wonthaggi & Loch. It would be typical of government to simply leave old stuff to deteriorate.

Having said that, my rant would be:
1. AsA has removed all the ground based aids used for training and currency in the Melbourne basin. This is clearly in violation of its safety responsibility. I cannot believe that the training and currency benefit does not justify the cost of keeping one NDB / VOR location that is readily accessible from Melbourne for maintenance (eg Cowes or Wonthaggi - both with 1.5 hour drive of Melbourne CDB) since AsA has previously identified Yarrowee (near the residential township of Enfield where many people live & commute to work in Melbourrne) as too remote and dangerous to maintain.


2. The reason (I suspect) that these navaids are too expensive to maintain is the ridiculously high, non commercial rates charged by AsA. Why should an NDB cost any more to maintain than a HAM radio?

So far as I can tell, Australia is the only country that is shutting down ground based navaids in this wholesale manner.

[Peter Pan Pan]

Why should an NDB cost any more to maintain than a HAM radio?


Err.. plenty of reasons really. How about:

-Recurrent flight inspection in an aeropearl king air to validate the coverage and accuracy of the aid
-Redundancy of equipment, backup power supplies etc
-Lease of land for the facility
-Cost of periodic maintenance for instrument approach procedures using the aid

[andrewr]

NDBs & VORs were offered to the relevant AD owner/shire and flying club(s) to take over responsibility for, but few took up the offer.

Not surprising - why would a council or a flying club want to take on the cost of providing aircraft navigation facilities? What benefit do they get from it? Many aircraft using them wouldn't actually land, so even if you try to recoup costs with landing fees you (a) annoy regular users who don't use the aid and (b) don't get much money anyway. Or you get to the situation where councils or airports try to charge aircraft for simply overflying.

It's an unworkable idea put in to give the appearance of offering options.

[Squawk7700]

Shut them down. It's called change. Keep your VOR gauge for the museum or to show to your great grand kids for their show and tell.

Unless one day the satellites all go off-line, we'll be fine.

[Old Akro]

Unless one day the satellites all go off-line, we'll be fine.

Or the US turns dither back on
Or the GPS is jammed (the military can do this and have done it regularly in the past)
Or the aircraft GPS receiver goes U/S. This frequently occurs due to antenna failure.
Or the data card is corrupt
Or there is a RAIM blackout at the wrong time

Up until now, we have always regarded that you need a seperate redundant system. Why does GPS change that? Other than it makes AsA's life easier.

[The name is Porter]

Dear God Almighty (I'm not religious but that sounded dramatic). An NDB, the equivalent of a box brownie camera, and you want to keep them for training? I'm dumping the NDB off my IR PC this year and good riddance. Can me move into the 21st century or do we want to stay in the 20th? The Wrights would laugh at you clowns.

[Old Akro]

Recurrent flight inspection in an aeropearl king air to validate the coverage and accuracy of the aid
-Redundancy of equipment, backup power supplies etc
-Lease of land for the facility
-Cost of periodic maintenance for instrument approach procedures using the aid

Some of this is just a belt & braces approach that is gold plating the system and serving to help build empires within AsA.

AsA charge multiples of what other agencies around the world charge for the same service. The US can install ILS on a runway for about 1/7th the cost of AsA. Why?

I can't find a reference for the maintenance cost of NDB's, but modern NDB's require a building about the size of a phonebox and have centralised monitoring capability.

The FAA are continuing to operate but cease flight testing of many NDB's. Why wouldn't AsA consider this?

[CaptainMidnight]

It's an unworkable idea put in to give the appearance of offering options. What workable option(s) would you suggest, and did you put them to your industry association rep when the navaid rationalisation project was announced some 5 years ago?

Some of this is just a belt & braces approach that is gold plating the systemPeriodic flight testing is mandatory, along with other requirements per CASR.

modern NDB's require a building about the size of a phoneboxDifficult to fit a large wire antenna in a phone box.

There are 130-odd NDBs remaining, including most of the capital city GA ADs.

Too late to complain now - should have been more vocal years ago, although the RAPACs weren't.

[Squawk7700]

What's the difference between the satellites being jammed up or your VOR unit failing or an electrical failure? Nada.

[Captain Dart]

VOR jammed up: use VOR 2 receiver if you have one, or the trusty ADF. Ground station failure? Should be other beacons to divert to.

Electrical system failure: yep, you are up the proverbial creek (not a scenario in Old Akro's post, it was antenna failure). You may be lucky enough to have 2 independent GPS systems with separate antennae to cover an on-board failure if that is what you meant by 'electrical failure'.

Entire or part GPS constellation affected by jamming, solar flare or military activity: use the VOR or ADF...oh, wait...

I suppose that that radar vectors to one of Australia's few ILS somewhere might be an option.

We could always bring back the VDF approach!

[Old Akro]

although the RAPACs weren't

I thought the Victorian RAPAC was pretty vocal. Especially about the lack of training / currency aids in the Melbourne basin. I thought it would be hard for them to have been more vocal. But AsA pretty much pissed on them and directly lied about Yarrowee aid. Then recently CASA have been making statements that essentially say that they don't want to hear dissenting views from RAPAC.

Its the AOPA that have sold us out.

[Old Akro]

not a scenario in Old Akro's post, it was antenna failure

I've had 2 GPS antennae failures, which is why I list it. We use GPS based dataloggers almost daily at work and have regular antennae failures. I regard GPS antennaes as a consumable item.

For as long as I have been flying (since te early 70's) a fundamental tenant is to have redundant systems. But now CASA / AsA seem to be turning their back on this philosophy because its inconvenient for them.

[CaptainMidnight]

a fundamental tenant is to have redundant systems. But now CASA / AsA seem to be turning their back on this philosophy because its inconvenient for them. There is a redundant navaid system - it's called the Backup Navigation Network.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/BNN.pdf

[triadic]

Then recently CASA have been making statements that essentially say that they don't want to hear dissenting views from RAPAC.

Mostly from a Manager that is no longer with CASA. Times are changing.

[Old Akro]

There is a redundant navaid system - it's called the Backup Navigation Network.

Yeah, I was waiting for that. The back up system is actually half reasonable and, I suspect, relies on NDB's more than most people expect. For GA, VOR now has very limited use. But west of the "J - curve" the NDB network is very useful.

I'd argue 4 major points:
1. I think AsA is derelict in its duty by not maintaining an existing aid for training / currency in the Melbourne basin (and probably other capitals)
2. I don't understand why it turned off aids that were working perfectly, rather than leaving them to expire
3. I don't understand why AsA would not do what the FAA has done and leave aids active but cease flight testing them. Specifically, NDB's where I completely fail to see the need for flight testing. Surely these could be pilot monitored?
4. The AsA charge out rate for navaid certification is unconscionable. If it were a private company it would be subject to ACCC scrutiny. Why is there no impulsion for AsA to benchmark its costs with other agencies. Surely they are one of the most expoensive agencies in the world. Australia has less ILS equipped runways than most 3rd world countries. And it seems to me that the key reason is (thanks to AsA & CASA) it costs about 7 times that of America to install one. Can't we get a bunch of yanks on 457 visa's to do it???

[kaz3g]

The NDB at Shepparton will continue to operate and, as a bonus, you can still get a great lunch at the Aeroclub on Saturdays or breakfast on Sundays so drop in...don't just fly over.

Kaz

[thorn bird]

The AsA charge out rate for navaid certification is unconscionable. If it were a private company it would be subject to ACCC scrutiny. Why is there no impulsion for AsA to benchmark its costs with other agencies. Surely they are one of the most expoensive agencies in the world. Australia has less ILS equipped runways than most 3rd world countries. And it seems to me that the key reason is (thanks to AsA & CASA) it costs about 7 times that of America to install one. Can't we get a bunch of yanks on 457 visa's to do it???

Akro,
probably for the same reason we don't have LVP in Australia.
Back in the late sixties our RAAF dominated regulator considered Low Vis procedures were dangerous and not for Australia.

For the same reason they employed a team of surveyors to travel the world surveying airports to set the minima that Quaintass were permitted to operate to.

For the same reason the current RAAF dominated regulator is prepared to piss a half billion dollars up against the wall to foster and promote Australian regulations and probably a billion dollars by the time they have actually finished THEIR reform, by which time there will be no industry left for them to apply to.

For the same reason our primary airports were delivered into the hands of big banks, and our secondaries into the hands of development sharks.

Tax free profits being the imperative, not the public good. The user must pay, and they do, plus the profit. Those who control our airports don't give a fig for the public good or safety, their only interest is profit, which is why our aviation infrastructure has descended to third world status.

Our airport owners say we cannot do anything unless the user pays. Well, the user is and has paid, they are hardly going to contribute more to the airport owners infrastructure to be charged for its use.

It has always been thus, we are right, all the rest of the world is wrong, and man don't we pay for it.

I have spent 50 years in aviation, the rule was always have a backup. Now with the relentless pursuit of PROFIT, safety gets thrown out the window.

Call me a stupid old fart if you like, but I have a very uneasy feeling that CAsA and ASA collusion will come back to bite us one day.

[Plazbot]

"Or the GPS is jammed (the military can do this and have done it regularly in the past)
Or the aircraft GPS receiver goes U/S. This frequently occurs due to antenna failure."

Akro, please quantify 'regularly' and 'frequently' and then show us the statistical proof that these events are more unsafe than the other options. Thanks in advance.

[Old Akro]

"Or the GPS is jammed (the military can do this and have done it regularly in the past)
Or the aircraft GPS receiver goes U/S. This frequently occurs due to antenna failure."

Akro, please quantify 'regularly' and 'frequently' and then show us the statistical proof that these events are more unsafe than the other options. Thanks in advance.
There used to be regular notams about it. Common sites were near Hamilton in VIC & Woomera in SA. GPS is a relatively simple broadcast at relatively weak levels. My understanding is that it is very easy to jam and that all military's have the ability to conduct localised jamming.

Some GPS data that I'm reviewing for a court case at the moment has a 12 tonne Motorhome doing over 160 km/h for 100 seconds. This is from a professional GPS data logger, not a consumer device. I was driving it and it wasn't. Clearly we have 100 seconds of corrupt GPS signal. Most probably it was a disturbed signal from building reflection or tree cover. The area of this disturbance was on the Princes Highway near Pakenham VIC. It doesn't affect my evidence in this instance, but does serve to illustrate the fragility of GPS.

[Old Akro]

There used to be regular notams about it. Common sites were near Hamilton in VIC & Woomera in SA. GPS is a relatively simple broadcast at relatively weak levels. My understanding is that it is very easy to jam and that all military's have the ability to conduct localised jamming.

Some GPS data that I'm reviewing for a court case at the moment has a 12 tonne Motorhome doing over 160 km/h for 100 seconds. This is from a professional GPS data logger, not a consumer device. I was driving it and it wasn't. Clearly we have 100 seconds of corrupt GPS signal. Most probably it was a disturbed signal from building reflection or tree cover. The area of this disturbance was on the Princes Highway near Pakenham VIC. It doesn't affect my evidence in this instance, but does serve to illustrate the fragility of GPS.


By the way, if you are asking why it is less superior than other options, you have completely missed the point.

The pint is that GPS has fallibilities and reliability like other electronic nanvigation AIDS. It requires a back up alternative like other electronic navigation aids.

I've had a GPS antennae fail twice on an aircraft. I've never had an ADF fail.

[Old Akro]

Interestingly, another PPRUNE forum quotes the installed price of a new NDB beacon as between about GBP 30,000 & GBP 40,000 depending on the if power is already available to the site. The equipment component is about GBP 10,000. Thats about $42,000 - $70,000 Aussie installed with antennae towers, the lot! Another commercial company I found in the UK (NATS) conducts annual NDB monitoring that is compliant to the UK CAA requirements for GBP500 or $800 Aussie.

What is AsA's cost? If the UK can have private companies doing this function more cost effectively, why can't we?

[Peter Pan Pan]

UK (NATS) conducts annual NDB monitoring that is compliant to the UK CAA requirements for GBP500 or $800 Aussie.

I find this hard to believe.

The 12 month flight inspection requirements are driven by ICAO Annex 10/Doc 8071, not Airservices Australia "gold plating" the process.

Maybe you could get a service that monitors when the signal goes down for $800, but a flight inspection capable aircraft and crew? No way.

[thorn bird]

Wonder what it is costing to rename all these places they are ripping ground based aids out of...reprinting charts and all the other doc's that go with it.
Sydney is now TESAT....what the hell was wrong with SY...Mudgee, Walget, Jacobs well, etc etc., what the hell was wrong with just leaving them named as they were, at least they were relevant to the place? Is there a prize in ASA for dreaming up the most bizarre names, It even confuses controllers.
No doubt tens of thousands of dollars pissed up against the wall, probably enough to keep a few ground aids going for a few more years.
Bureaucracy and its waste at its best.

[CaptainMidnight]

Interestingly, another PPRuNe forum quotes the installed price of a new NDB beacon as between about GBP 30,000 & GBP 40,000 depending on the if power is already available to the site. The equipment component is about GBP 10,000. Thats about $42,000 - $70,000 Aussie installed with antennae towers, the lot! Another commercial company I found in the UK (NATS) conducts annual NDB monitoring that is compliant to the UK CAA requirements for GBP500 or $800 Aussie.
So why not organise yourself along with some other flying organisations and/or clubs and put an NDB in somewhere?

Wonder what it is costing to rename all these places they are ripping ground based aids out of...reprinting charts and all the other doc's that go with it. Sydney is now TESAT The charts and other documents were a routine release that happens every mid year, so no additional printing cost was involved.

TESAT has been in for some years. At the time the SY VOR was decommissioned the new ID chosen by Airservices at the same coordinates was going to be "SYVOR" for simplicity.

However CASA objected to that, requiring an unrelated waypoint name to be used, hence TESAT.

Don't blame Airservices for everything. CASA has had their sticky fingers over everything. Their Office of Airspace Regulation assesses changes and approves by legislative instruments all air routes and various airspace types each chart and document release.

[thorn bird]

Thanks midnight,
the real villain revealed.
Trust CAsA, couldn't produce anything or allow anything produced that didn't confuse the crap out of everyone.

[zanthrus]

Why didn't ASA tell CASA to f#ck off?:confused:

[alphacentauri]

Because CASA's opinion, always trumps the defendants knowledge of the rules.


The reason why VORSY/SYVOR was not permitted was because someone at CASA had the opinion that a poor, English as second language despatcher, may confuse the waypoint name with the fact that the VOR was still there. This reason was then wheeled out again as the reason for not keeping the navaid id's as the waypoint identifiers.


Of course this is a ridiculous opinion, but after CASA's view has been presented you must now prove it wrong. Never mind the fact that they don't need to prove it correct. And this my friends is why we have a backwater regulator, we have regulation by kneejerk reaction and opinion, we don't have regulation on international guidelines and fact.


Zanthrus.....have you actually told anyone from CASA to f**k off? How did that work out for you?

[zanthrus]

AC I haven't as I am, (like you I imagine) subject to their oversight.

ASA is not since their divorce from Department of Aviation in the late eighties.

Just sayin' CASA are not Gods and they are not always right. They need to told so every now and then as it is the truth.

[Awol57]

ASA is definitely subject to CASA oversight.

[Old Akro]

I find this hard to believe.

The 12 month flight inspection requirements are driven by ICAO Annex 10/Doc 8071, not Airservices Australia "gold plating" the process.

By my reading the CAA in the UK does not require flight testing of NDB's. The FAA has recently announced that it will cease flight testing of NDB's.

My reading of the ICAO Annex is that for NDB's a) it doesn't specify that ALL NDB's must be subject to the review and b) its not at all clear that flight testing is required annually. It actually seems very vague on the recurrent period of flight testing (as opposed to ground monitoring).

So, yes. In my opinion, it does appear that AsA has taken a gold plating approach which has led to unnecessary ground based navaid closure that does compromise flight safety.

And for the poster that doubted GPS jamming. Here is a fresh advisory from the FAA on GPS jamming trials:

https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/06/07/205233/faa-warns-of-gps-outages-this-month-during-mysterious-tests-on-the-west-coast

[Plazbot]

I don't doubt it can be jammed. I doubt whether there is any statistical evidence to say ground based aids are superior.

[CaptainMidnight]

Old Akro you clearly have too much time on your hands.

Instead of wading through ICAO, FAA and CAA documents, try CASA's CASRs and MOS.

You are aware that CASA is the regulator and Airservices is simply a service provider authorised by CASA for various functions, and subject to close scrutiny and audits?

It's CASA regs & MOS's Airservices must comply with, so any "gold plating" you perceive is due to those regs & MOS's.

Rest assured - and logically - Airservices wouldn't be likely to be doing any more or any less than the regs & various MOS's require.

[thorn bird]

Rest assured - and logically - Airservices wouldn't be likely to be doing any more or any less than the regs & various MOS's require.

YUP, and boy don't we pay for it.

Bit like renewable energy. Greenies will not be happy till we are all living in caves struggling to stay warm with a wood fire and animal furs......Oh sorry we are not allowed to cut down trees, besides burning wood releases greenhouse gasses, and killing animals for food and fur is cruel.

[Eyrie]

Old Akro, the backup for a GPS is another GPS. There is lots of interest in keeping the satellites functioning by lots of users, many not even anything to do with aviation.
Your example on the ground isn't a good one. There aren't multiple reflections from nearby buildings when you are flying... I hope.
Glider pilots have been using data loggers for the last 20 years for contest scoring. These use simple commercial grade GPS receivers and usually don't have a to[ of aircraft mounted antenna. I'm not aware of any widespread failures or unhappiness. Most gliders carry two units.
If you are worried, have a second GPS. If worried about the GPS satellite constellation be assured that you can easily get combined GPS/Glonass receivers and even now combined GPS/Glonass/Beidou/Galileo/QZSS/WAAS receivers and if you want precision navigation Differential GPS. Ask any broad acre farmer about that. The commercial chips that do this sell for under $20. You'll soon have about 100 satellites from several independent constellations to do your navigation with.
I only fly day VFR but I have at least 4 GPS units on board. A panel mounted one, two iPads running AvPlan, a phone running Avplan and there are a couple of neat apps that simulate VOR and NDB locations as well as a ILS. These all use GPS data on your phone.

[fujii]

From the U.S government site:

Selective Availability (SA) was an intentional degradation of public GPS signals implemented for national security reasons.

In May 2000, at the direction of President Bill Clinton, the U.S government discontinued its use of Selective Availability in order to make GPS more responsive to civil and commercial users worldwide.

The United States has no intent to ever use Selective Availability again.
In September 2007, the U.S. government announced its decision to procure the future generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS III, without the SA feature. Doing this will make the policy decision of 2000 permanent and eliminate a source of uncertainty in GPS performance that had been of concern to civil GPS users worldwide

[Plazbot]

Take your facts somewhere else. I demand sensational discussion.

[Flying Binghi]

via fujii:
at the direction of President Bill Clinton...

...The United States has no intent to ever use Selective Availability again.
In September 2007, the U.S. government announced its decision to procure the future generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS III, without the SA feature. Doing this will make the policy decision of 2000 permanent and eliminate a source of uncertainty in GPS performance that had been of concern to civil GPS users worldwide

Oh dear, I see the name clinton there. Apparently he did NOT have sex with that woman and hillery said it were all a made up right wing conspiracy to bring down the clintons...:hmm:

BBC News | World | Hillary Clinton defends her husband (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/51010.stm)

Now that we've established the credibility of that 'no intent' at this time, perhaps we can get some facts...

Do we have actual proof of claim ?

Do ASA/CASA have a written guarantee from the U.S that those cargo cult GPS signals will continue to rain down free on Oz airspace ?..:hmm:

And why do the Chinese GPS system have selective availability if the yank system supposedly don't ? What do the astute Chinese know that we don't ?






.

[Old Akro]

I only fly day VFR but I have at least 4 GPS

I only fly IFR and we have 2 x IFR installed GPS plus a panel mount GPS source for the 2 iPads I carry.

But, there are still, antennae failures (I personally have had 2 x Garmin ones fail for TSO panel mount GPS), RAIM holes, potential jamming, GPS engine glitches and interference and satellites that go out of spec.

Your example on the ground isn't a good one. There aren't multiple reflections from nearby buildings when you are flying... I hope.

For me, the critical part of GPS is final approach on a GPS NPA approach. Tell me that an approach at the MDA doesn't have the potential for reflective interference.

I own 8 industrial GPS data loggers, plus my array of aviation GPS units plus a number of external GPS units for laptops. They get used for a variety of purposes including validating civil & military vehicle systems and expert witness evidence in court cases. I have spent many many hours looking at GPS raw data and comparing it with the graphical output. I've got a pretty good handle on its strengths & weaknesses.

One of these weaknesses is that GPS units are basically computers that run triangulation calculations for each position update (typically 1, 5, 10 or 20 times per second) and a lot of the same computer glitches that occur with your laptop happen with GPS units, but the graphical output is designed to mask it. When you examine a raw data string, there is nearly always missing data. Usually its 1 missing point out of 10 in a second (for a 10Hz unit), so it doesn't matter. But it can be more.

Additionally, we still have the case of the KingAir at Mt Hotham where corrupt or false data from an IFR certified panel mount Garmin GPS is accused of being the root cause for a midair near miss. The ATSB is delaying the release date of this report, which is frequently a sign that the report is causing them trouble. The latest revised release date is Dec 2016. This will be a very interesting report.

The issue is that GPS is not infallible and a back up strategy is warranted. AsA along with every other aviation authority has recognised this and AsA like others are leaving a rudimentary network. In Australia this can be pretty much described as being VOR stations at primary airports and in the "J-curve" and NDB beacons west of the J-curve.

We are shutting down ground based beacons more aggressively than other countries on the basis of cost.

The questions are:
1. If AsA was internationally cost competitive in its maintenance / certification costs, how would this affect the decisions about the back-up network?
2. If we are going to keep a ground based network, then wouldn't it follow that AsA has a safety responsibility to provide aids for currency / training in the major population / training centres (eg Melbourne basin?).

[Awol57]

Isn't the MB NDB and AV VOR/DME part of the backup network?

[Old Akro]

Isn't the MB NDB and AV VOR/DME part of the backup network?

Mixing IFR training / currency with possibly the busiest VFR / Ab initio training terminal area in Australia is an outrageously dumb idea that is an accident waiting to happen.

[Awol57]

Not being a Melbournian, a quick look through the decommissioned aids in Vic the only one I can see in the Melbourne basin is Essendon NDB. There were a few other aids that I think may have been close to Melbourne but I am not sure they were associated with an aerodrome. Obviously not being a local I may be completely wrong. Which ones do you think should have been retained?

I also agree that NDB training at MB isn't a wise idea, we certainly didn't do it when I worked at Jandakot, they all had to go to Rottnest (now not an option) or Cunderdin (about 75nm east of Perth). No idea where people went for VOR approaches.

[CaptainMidnight]

Isn't the MB NDB and AV VOR/DME part of the backup network? They are, along with most of the capital city GA airport aids.

Mixing IFR training / currency with possibly the busiest VFR / Ab initio training terminal area in Australia AVV can hardly be called "busy" at the best of times.

Re MB. Aren't the Doom and Gloom merchants saying GA is dying and capital city GA airports are now ghost towns, so movements presumably at MB have died off considerably?

[alphacentauri]

Old Akro, I think some of your comments are misguided. For instance, if you could point out where it is Airservices responsibility to provide navaids for training purposes?
Fact: at a recent ASTRA meeting were representatives from most major flying schools across the country. They were there to push the training navaids agenda and hats off too them. In the same meeting the representatives for Q and Jetstar pretty much told them that airlines were not interested in voluntarily subsidising the costs of training navaids.
The reality is, it is casa's responsibilty to ensure the training environment matches the training requirements. Casa has been present on the entire journey and have approved the decommissioning of these navaids! If the regulator thinks you dont need them, good luck trying to prove otherwise.
But getting on here and trying blames AsA is misguided. Its not their responsibilty, they are there to provide value for money for their customers. And before you start about how you think you are a customer and should have a say.....for the miniscule amount of money you spend....you have an equivalent influence.
It may not be how it should be, but thats the way it is.

[Old Akro]

They are, along with most of the capital city GA airport aids.

AVV can hardly be called "busy" at the best of times.

Re MB. Aren't the Doom and Gloom merchants saying GA is dying and capital city GA airports are now ghost towns, so movements presumably at MB have died off considerably?

Don't mistake the activity at an airport for a measure of the industry. Think about all the closed airports whose flying has moved to airports like Moorabbin.

The latest ASA statistics http://http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Movement-at-Australian-Airports-Financial-2014.pdf show Moorabbin as the second busiest airport in Australia behind Sydney International. In the last 5 years I count 7 ATSB investigations into VFR aircraft proximity events. And you are supporting moving the IFR procedure training from Cowes, Wonthaggi and Yarowee to Moorabbin??? Really??

[CaptainMidnight]

And you are supporting moving the IFR procedure training from Cowes, Wonthaggi and Yarowee to Moorabbin??? Really?? No, that's not what I said nor implied.

What alphacentauri said is spot on.

[thorn bird]

"Its not their responsibilty, they are there to provide value for money for their customers."

errr s'cuse me I always thought they were there to generate KPI bonuses for their directors.

They certainly didn't provide value for money with their ADSB mandate for GA and I take accept ion to the notion that airlines are ASA's only customer.

The airlines were perfectly happy to take GA trained pilots when ever it suited them, I guess these days they don't need to bother, there's cheaper alternatives overseas via the 457 visa.

[Hempy]

And before you start about how you think you are a customer and should have a say.....for the miniscule amount of money you spend....you have an equivalent influence.
It may not be how it should be, but thats the way it is.

Hits the nail on the head.

[andrewr]

airlines were not interested in voluntarily subsidising the costs of training navaids

No there's a joke! Airlines subsidising GA?

The reality is that airlines get a massive subsidies from GA and the taxpayer.

How much does it cost to train a pilot from ab initio to airline standard? How much of that do airlines pay?

Every time a GA business puts money into training a pilot who's ultimate aim is the airlines, to replace someone else who has just left because they're working towards the airlines, that GA business is subsidising the airlines.

Every time a GA aircraft takes the long way around controlled airspace due to RPT aircraft, GA is subsidising airlines.

How much do Airservices/airlines pay in rent for the thousands of cubic miles of airspace they control access to? You can bet this has value to them, but they expect it from the taxpayer for free. What would Australia's controlled airspace look like if Airservices were required to pay rent per cubic mile?

I know that's the way the world works (and it's not necessarily a bad thing, granting CTA to Airservices for free maybe makes sense from a societal point of view), but don't bleat about airlines subsidising GA and expect me to take you seriously.

One thing to remember about "user pays" - it usually means that someone with money and influence has found a way to shift their costs to someone else. I prefer to refer to it as "loser pays".

[LexAir]

One thing to remember about "user pays" - it usually means that someone with money and influence has found a way to shift their costs to someone else. I prefer to refer to it as "loser pays".

Yep - corporate feudalism at work.

[Old Akro]

This is the first paragraph in the "about us" section of the AsA website signed by the CEO



AlphaCentauri is correct that this statement of responsibility does not include navigation aids for training, but in the real world there is no-one else who can operate them (yes, I know there are some privately owned beacons, but they are exceptions). So, its probably a situation that falls into a gap between CASA and ASA. But I would argue that an effective, ethical organisation would do some things beyond its formal scope, just because it's the right and responsible thing to do. And I would also argue that providing the ability for training & currency outside high traffic airports was in the interests of " providing a safe, secure and efficient" airnavigation system.

The other issue is that if the ASA charges were competitive with other international organisations, then there would be no real issue because the marginal cost of keeping a handful of beacons operating around the country would be trivial. I have been unable to find any benchmarking information, but the scraps of information I have found point to ASA charging 7 - 10 times that of other bodies (chiefly the CAA & FAA).

Finally, if you go back and read the RAPAC minutes when the shutting of these aids was first discussed up You will see that a) ASA never used the argument that its responsibility does not include providing training aids and b) it's pretty evident that ASA consciously misled RAPAC. There were promises of reviews and other mechanisms being put in place that ASA clearly never had any intention of honouring. RAPAC is supposed to be the forum for general aviation to raise these concerns and it was minuted in most states RAPAC meetings over an extended period. And frankly, by my reading, ASA just pissed on it.

[alphacentauri]

Old Akro, there is a bigger part of the story you are missing.

With passing of the GNSS equipage mandate, the NAVAID network is not required. In short, nobody should be using ground based NAVAIDS in normal ops.

When the case was first presented to remove part of the existing network (and lets be clear many people wanted to remove ALL of the navaids) it was noted that the IFR training requirements were going to be an issue, primarily because at the time a basic instrument rating needed to have endorsements on NDB. In the negotiations that were had with CASA, they agreed that the basic instrument rating should be with a GNSS endorsement, and the NDB would be an optional extra. With this understanding AsA then proceeded, and were allowed to proceed with, a reduction of ground based navaids.

In this instance the ground based navaids would rarely even be required for training, and then only for those who opted to get an NDB endorsement.

AsA were given assurances multiple times at ASTRA that CASA was going to change the CIR requirements, and then at the 11th hr, they changed their minds. I have heard it was because of one close minded person who was writing PART 61 and we all know how awesome that turned out to be.

So when you argue that AsA was intentionally deceitful, you are wrong, because there was no reason at the time for AsA to provide a strategy to support navaid training. They were advised by the regulator that it wouldn't be an issue, and besides it is not AsA responsibility to communicate CIR training requirements to pilots.

As to this comment There were promises of reviews and other mechanisms being put in place that ASA clearly never had any intention of honouring.

Reviews of what? The backup navaid network has pretty much been set it stone since day 1. I'm not sure who said what, but there was never an intention to review with the aim of keeping more. What you have to remember is that Yarrowee, Wonthaggi and others were primarily enroute aids, they did not facilitate approaches to aerodromes. Enroute aids are unnecessary in a gnss nav world. Yes some bright spark chucked a approach on one of them, but I can tell you that whether AsA decommissioned those aids or not, you were going to lose the approaches anyway. (I've still got the withdrawal request in my email)

Its clear you are not a big fan AsA, hell I work for them and with what we are going through I am not a massive fan either. Its also clear you are using the information you have to form this view, I would argue that you do not have all information.

For thorn bird

I take accept ion to the notion that airlines are ASA's only customer.

You can take exception all you like but its not what I said. Fact is if GA want a seat at the AsA table then they need a collective, united front. Since they don't have it the only representation that gets through is from individual pilots. If all of GA, through a united group, put up an argument to keep more training aids, you probably would have got them. As it was, it was a few individual pilots and a few chief pilots. Hardly enough to convince the dollar holders.

Alpha

[andrewr]

With passing of the GNSS equipage mandate, the NAVAID network is not required.

The problem with GNSS is that it is a fragile system, and heavily software dependent.

CASA and other people in aviation are applying hardware thinking to a software situation. Hardware ideas of redundancy are not sufficient.

There are enough demonstrated and theoretical ways that GPS can be compromised that the simultaneous failure of all GPS units in all aircraft in an area needs to be considered.

If Airservices don't have a plan for how to get aircraft on the ground during peak period on an IFR day where GPS (i.e. GPS approach and ADSB) is unavailable over an entire terminal area - perhaps even unavailable in all of Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane/Adelaide - they aren't doing their job.

The possibility is not unlikely enough to ignore.

[Awol57]

Hence the Backup Navaid Network and Primary and secondary radar at the major airports.

[andrewr]

Presumably using the backup network requires pilots to be trained and preferably current on the aids?

Has a simulation been done to see whether ATC and the backup network has the capacity to cope with a widespread outage affecting all GPS navigation in e.g. the Sydney area?

I guess jets would be OK using e.g. INS navigation and vectors to an ILS, but what about GA aircraft? Do you need to mix GA and RPT jets on the same aids in the backup network?

[Old Akro]

With passing of the GNSS equipage mandate, the NAVAID network is not required.

Anyone who believes this is a fool to himself and a danger to others.

Aviation safety is based on the premise of having redundant systems. 2 magnetos, 2 spark plugs, 2 fuel pumps, 2 engines, 2 pilots, 2 sets of AIP documents (iPad plus paper or 2 x iPad), 2 landing options (destination plus alternate).

Its only when AsA want to save money that this argument arises.

[alphacentauri]

Akro,

Do you actually understand anything I have posted? Or are you so full of rage you aren't actually processing what you are reading?

The Backup Navaid Network is the redundant system for GNSS.

The Backup Navaid Network is not required for normal ops ie GNSS available. Therefore my statement that you called foolish is actually true.

The Backup Navaid Network was developed with consultation of Airlines, Regulator and AOPA.

So now we are down to the only argument you have left. And that is essentially "but AsA could have left a few more navaids for training" No argument here, but that horse has bolted.

[thorn bird]

Back in antiquity, before radar, before transponders, when you could fly without the ever constant fear of being thrown in jail for committing aviation, they had this thing called a DME letdown.
To be able to use DME you had to have it endorsed on your licence. To gain this "endorsement" you had to renew it every six months which added about half an hour to your six monthly IFR renewal about a $150 dollars worth...a lot of money in those days.
Remember those days where every approach was a circling approach because the old DCA considered aligning them with the runway would just encourage pilots to descend below MDA. Now that was Real safety.
A lot of people didnt bother with the endorsement because nobody in their right mind would do one, except in an emergency and in an emergency basically you can do whatever you like.
In this modern world with desk top simulators you can practice letdowns all day for bugger all, jeez my five year old grandson can fly an approach better than I can.
In todays world, where people behind desks in Cantberra attempt to micro manage farts on the flight deck, forget about ground based aids, place all your trust in GPS and if ultimately the doo doo hits the fan, declare an emergency and go letdown on 2RN or 2GB or whatever your local radio station is. If our so called "safety" authority wants to get antsi...tell them to bugger off, your the ones who allowed this to happen, your supposed to consider "Safety" nothing else, you heap enormous costs on industry in the name of safety yet I hear from your officers that they dont care about the costs, not in their brief, yet your prepared to ignore safety in the interests of a few ASA executives KPI bonuses.

I think they would have a hard time in court explaining how you had compromised "Safety".

I really pity those poor coal face controllers who so dilligently look after us every day. When that terrible day arrives and that infallible GPS does go down and all thats left is a very few ILS at the primaries are left, a lot of aircraft declaring fuel emergencies, who decides who lives and who dies?
Well obviously RPT will get priority after all they PAID for it.

[buckshot1777]

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/standard-page/cns-atm-navigation-frequently-asked-questions

[le Pingouin]

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.

[KRviator]

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.
https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7121/27644816906_8d7ac505e8_z.jpg


Victoria 5,000'.
https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7412/27644818466_e246ae6930_z.jpg


Victoria 10,000'.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7748/27579108472_a54e23f5ce_z.jpg


NSW 5,000'.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7364/27579114352_36b5866804_z.jpg


NSW 10,000'.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7347/27069300073_9b7d5b2949_z.jpg


Queensland 5,000'.
https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7498/27644822566_de5fc18d43_z.jpg


Queensland 10,000'.
https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7566/27644818876_50fd0d222a_z.jpg

[The name is Porter]

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?

[alphacentauri]

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).

[Old Akro]

Clearly "Old Akro" has an obvious bee in his bonnet with Airservices.

He's not criticised CASA (Airservices a softer target?),

Fair call. I think some of my rants attack AsA when its a CASA issue. But, the closures are done under AsA's name and they are responsible for the network.

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.

[thorn bird]

"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.

[Awol57]

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.

[KRviator]

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.I'm amused at how you automatically make assumptions simply because what I've said doesn't fit your agenda. 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. 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.

[le Pingouin]

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.

[The name is Porter]

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.

[le Pingouin]

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.

[Old Akro]

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.

Explain to me how you simulate an NDB approach with GNSS?? VOR kind of can, but in both cases the needles do not act in the same way. Part of ground based training is experiencing and understanding effects like scalloping and the vagaries of the ADF needle.

Anyway, last I checked, Mangalore has a VOR approach available and forms part of the BNN, according to OzRunways it is 26mins from Moorabbin.

You're not from Melbourne are you? Getting to Mangalore requires an IFR plan and transiting the Melbourne CTA the preferred route for which is overhead Tullamarine. The controllers used to happily do this, but I find that now its common to be put into a hold or vectored all over the place. Its difficult / circuitous to get to Mangalore IFR otherwise. To get there VFR you need to fly the light aircraft lane.

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.

[alphacentauri]

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.

[CaptainMidnight]

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 it should cost less than AUD$1,000 per annum to maintain the NDB. Probably the same for the VOR 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.

[The name is Porter]

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.

[le Pingouin]

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.

[The name is Porter]

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

[alphacentauri]

What Porter said!! Spot on!!


What we have is 21st century technology, being regulated by 19th century regulation.

[gulliBell]

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.

[dhavillandpilot]

Gullibell

Great in theory but explain how I descend to SL when I'm at Alice Springs, a long way from the ocean

[gulliBell]

Yep. Horses for courses. I'm sure you'd work out a viable plan if faced with that situation. Lots of flat open space out that way, just make sure you don't whack the big rock in the middle of it.

[Allan L]

And the other biggish rocks pretty close to the Alice!

[Derfred]

I guess you could use the Alice Springs VOR.

[thorn bird]

"What we have is 21st century technology, being regulated by 19th century regulation".

That pretty much says it all.

Jusy how do the Americans do it?

We have a miriad of "recency" and "renewal" requirements that require a "cray" computer to keep track of, which burdens an intrument rated pilot with enormous costs. Yet in America apparently one simple recency requirement is required. Just about every American pilot I know has undertaken training to gain an instrument rating, they are encouraged to do so because it makes them safer. Here the cost burden of overregulation positively discourages it.

Are we any safer than the US? debatable, but one thing is for sure, the burden of overregulation is killing our industry.

[ZAZ]

Well on a positive note we are turning the HORSHAM NDB back on for training purposes and were able to negotiate it for a peppercorn.
Did any of you ask if you could takeover your radio aids?
Didn't think so , just like to whinge and whine..
NHILL is next.. cheers

[alphacentauri]

Um...yeah....how are you going to 'train' on the NDB when there are no approaches available to train on?

Nhill will have the same problem....

Having an NDB radiating is one thing...getting it added to the airways network....not going to happen.

[Pinky the pilot]

how are you going to 'train' on the NDB when there are no approaches available to train on?


Are you saying that you don't have any old NDB approach plates laying around anywhere?:confused:

PM me if you don't. I still have an intact set of East/West DAPS dating from June 2010.:}:E:D

[alphacentauri]

Pinky, not quite my point.

Assuming the navaid will not be certified, because if it is, then it needs to be flight inspected and calibrated and operated in accordance with CASR 171, and I doubt Horsham could afford to pay for that.

If its not certified, then can it be used legally for training? Pretty sure it can't be used to get the rating...so whats the use? Are we really considering conducting training to a non certified navaid using photocopies of charts that have been withdrawn for more than 6 months?

How do you publish the NDB frequency of a non certified NDB?

I reckon ZAZ has been misinformed...

Alpha

[Old Akro]

Alpha

If the aid does not have a LANDING approach attached to it, does it still require flight inspection?

There are some navaids which have training procedures. AsA was supposed to have created one for CWS after the Philip Is approach was withdrawn, but... we got the usual inactivity and procrastination and now the aid has been shut down.

The Wonthaggi aid was regularly used for training before it was shutdown. Many of us used the Mudgee approach which is high enough above the terrain to not be any problem.

If AsA had a real commitment to air safety, it would provide some training / currency aids and procedures.

[alphacentauri]

Akro, (first note this is little uncharted territory here, I don't have a definitive answer I am just describing how the regs work)


In order for the navaid to be published under Part 175, it needs to be operating under Part 171, and under Part 171 is where all the operating requirements come from. The regs don't distinguish between navaids with approaches and navaids without. I guess what I am trying to say is either a navaid is part of the airways network or it its not.


If you publish the navaid then the assumption is that it is an available network navigation facility, and can be used as such. In this case, this is not the intention.


I don't see how they are going to make the navaid available without putting it back on the network...and that is going to cost a lot of dollars, this goes way beyond the peppercorn arrangement that was suggested. My guess is that as Air services hasn't pulled it out of the ground yet and it is probably still radiating, so it can be used....until Airservices rip it out of the ground. But it definitely won't be officially available and definitely won't be recommissioned. Its operating on borrowed time.


There are some navaids which have training procedures. AsA was supposed to have created one for CWS after the Philip Is approach was withdrawn, but... we got the usual inactivity and procrastination and now the aid has been shut down.


Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. AsA were not supposed to do any such thing. AsA were asked if it was possible, and under the current regs it was a breach of regulation to provide such an approach. This was advised back to the RAPAC representative along with an indication that we would not be providing such an approach (I have the email). The fact it went no further is an issue, but I can't fix that.


If CASA had a real commitment to air safety, it would provide some training / currency aids and procedures.


There, I fixed it for you. This is not a responsibility of Airservices


Alpha