Removal of DGA approaches
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: in the air
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the technical difference between the two?
ie what is stopping someone from conducting the RNAV approach down to the Straight in MDA and then conducting a "visual circuit".
Seems to be a bit of a grey area where you can call anything a "visual circuit" to circumvent the no circling area and circling approach MDA.
Or am I missing something?
ie what is stopping someone from conducting the RNAV approach down to the Straight in MDA and then conducting a "visual circuit".
Seems to be a bit of a grey area where you can call anything a "visual circuit" to circumvent the no circling area and circling approach MDA.
Or am I missing something?
AIP ENR 1.5 0-3
1.7.2 Restrictions on Visual Circling
Should help you find it
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Land of everlasting thirst
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference.
A Circling Approach is an instrument approach to the circling minima followed by a visual circuit (provided all the parameters are met), to land on the OPPOSITE runway. Airports may have restrictions on this due to terrain, built up areas etc. So Mikewil, your RNAV to the minima then a 'visual' circuit is essentially a circling approach, however these are Non Grata as stated.
If you were to land on the opposite runway and there was an RNAV approach provided, surely this would be your best option in the first place.
A visual approach is an approach with no Nav aid reference.
As far as my cheaper remark is concerned, I have to admit it is cheaper for the provider rather than the user.
A Circling Approach is an instrument approach to the circling minima followed by a visual circuit (provided all the parameters are met), to land on the OPPOSITE runway. Airports may have restrictions on this due to terrain, built up areas etc. So Mikewil, your RNAV to the minima then a 'visual' circuit is essentially a circling approach, however these are Non Grata as stated.
If you were to land on the opposite runway and there was an RNAV approach provided, surely this would be your best option in the first place.
A visual approach is an approach with no Nav aid reference.
As far as my cheaper remark is concerned, I have to admit it is cheaper for the provider rather than the user.
Big difference between a visual circuit and a circling approach is that the circuit is flown in VMC while the circling is not VMC, i.e., it is IMC but with the required minimum visibility.
Big difference between a visual circuit and a circling approach is that the circuit is flown in VMC while the circling is not VMC, i.e., it is IMC but with the required minimum visibility.
For example, If we have 10km visibility below a cloud base of 1000 and the only way to get down below that base is an RNAV to straight in minima, would you be breaking any rules by 'circling' to land on the reciprocal runway?
Clearly this is a breach of the regulations, but one could argue that you are now in VMC and can conduct a visual circuit to the reciprocal runway. Despite having descended way below the circling minima to break clear of cloud.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: in the air
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not always as clear cut as that though.
For example, If we have 10km visibility below a cloud base of 1000 and the only way to get down below that base is an RNAV to straight in minima, would you be breaking any rules by 'circling' to land on the reciprocal runway?
Clearly this is a breach of the regulations, but one could argue that you are now in VMC and can conduct a visual circuit to the reciprocal runway. Despite having descended way below the circling minima to break clear of cloud.
For example, If we have 10km visibility below a cloud base of 1000 and the only way to get down below that base is an RNAV to straight in minima, would you be breaking any rules by 'circling' to land on the reciprocal runway?
Clearly this is a breach of the regulations, but one could argue that you are now in VMC and can conduct a visual circuit to the reciprocal runway. Despite having descended way below the circling minima to break clear of cloud.
In your example if you are in VMC and allowed AND ABLE to operate under VFR, switch to VFR, same as any stage of flight, otherwise I would suggest you must immediately initiate a missed approach.
In the USA, the rules are very clear, but in many cases you would be much closer to the ground at the circling MDA. (they use a different criteria than Australia). I note that NZ has adopted the FAA wording.
It's certainly clear to me what is required. Perhaps if they spent all that money on those farcical new regulations on well designed and modern approaches your question would not arise, which brings us back somewhat to the original topic...
In your example if you are in VMC and allowed AND ABLE to operate under VFR, switch to VFR, same as any stage of flight, otherwise I would suggest you must immediately initiate a missed approach.
Would that argument hold water if you had to justify your actions to the regulator?
"I conducted a full instrument approach to straight in minima then changed to VFR for the remaining 2 minutes of the flight to circumvent IFR circling requirements".
From a practical point of view I don't see much of a problem with it but somehow I don't think CASA would like it too much.
Why not put in a "cloudbreak" RNAV-Z down to the circling MDA only for places where the runway-aligned RNAV-Z takes you well out of the way and wastes a lot of fuel/time?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: in the air
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the logical way of putting it I was trying to get at.
Would that argument hold water if you had to justify your actions to the regulator?
"I conducted a full instrument approach to straight in minima then changed to VFR for the remaining 2 minutes of the flight to circumvent IFR circling requirements".
From a practical point of view I don't see much of a problem with it but somehow I don't think CASA would like it too much.
Would that argument hold water if you had to justify your actions to the regulator?
"I conducted a full instrument approach to straight in minima then changed to VFR for the remaining 2 minutes of the flight to circumvent IFR circling requirements".
From a practical point of view I don't see much of a problem with it but somehow I don't think CASA would like it too much.
Perhaps your example refers to flinders island mentioned.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...LIDG01-146.pdf
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...LIGN01-146.pdf
In an attempt to return again to the original topic, you have effectively lost 2 instrument approaches. My original point is it would be better to have them redrawn as RNAV approaches. I can't imagine its a big job if they just had a circling MDA, as that is essentially what you have now... (or a few more days). I would suggest there is also the opportunity to offer two additional RWY approaches.
The Sector B at Flinders I is about as good example as any, as to why these DGA approaches are not the way forward... However the way forward should not be a step backward which seems to have occurred at Flinders Is...
By way of example here is a similarly constrained airport in the USA... (In class E
)Charts at bottom of the page:
https://www.airnav.com/airport/KHAF
Last edited by vh-foobar; 14th May 2016 at 11:40.
Clearly this is a breach of the regulations, but one could argue that you are now in VMC and can conduct a visual circuit to the reciprocal runway. Despite having descended way below the circling minima to break clear of cloud.
My original point is it would be better to have them redrawn as RNAV approaches. I can't imagine its a big job if they just had a circling MDA, as that is essentially what you have now... (or a few more days). I would suggest there is also the opportunity to offer two additional RWY approaches.
In reality the government should really be making RNAV approaches at every airport and getting RNP approaches made for where RPT jets fly.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania and High Wollemi
Posts: 439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neville,
the last time I had a look most of the rpt jet operations had some sort of GPS approach. There are now at least two companies other than no services that will design for a cost. Places like mines have been paying for them for some time as a risk mitigation for fly in fly out.
the last time I had a look most of the rpt jet operations had some sort of GPS approach. There are now at least two companies other than no services that will design for a cost. Places like mines have been paying for them for some time as a risk mitigation for fly in fly out.
Correct me if I am wrong, but i cant think of a single registered aerodrome that doesn't have at least one gnss approach. Most will have 2 by the end of this month.
There are now at least 5 other organisations certified to provide instrument approaches in Aus.
Yes it would be possible to develop a criteria for gnss guidance arrivals in Australia, criteria only currently exists for conventional azimuth guidance. Note these are not icao procedures. The new critetia would require extensive safety work and testing, again not impossible. The roadblock is casa's insistence that we only design approaches to icao rules. They are not interested in developing any new Australian rules
There are now at least 5 other organisations certified to provide instrument approaches in Aus.
Yes it would be possible to develop a criteria for gnss guidance arrivals in Australia, criteria only currently exists for conventional azimuth guidance. Note these are not icao procedures. The new critetia would require extensive safety work and testing, again not impossible. The roadblock is casa's insistence that we only design approaches to icao rules. They are not interested in developing any new Australian rules
Fellas that's my point why are we paying for it?
Anyone who operates an aircraft in Australia is getting raped. Paying more and more everwhere for less and less. Everyone has their hand in your pocket for no outcome. We are about to lose a whole heap of navaids and what do we get in replacement?
As I said it should be an RNAV approach at every airport and RNP for jet operations plus a few more ILS's.
The powers at be would probably want every single operator to have to their own individual GPS approach that they then have to individually approve for every airport ensuring ongoing fees perpetually for all those involved.
Anyone who operates an aircraft in Australia is getting raped. Paying more and more everwhere for less and less. Everyone has their hand in your pocket for no outcome. We are about to lose a whole heap of navaids and what do we get in replacement?
As I said it should be an RNAV approach at every airport and RNP for jet operations plus a few more ILS's.
The powers at be would probably want every single operator to have to their own individual GPS approach that they then have to individually approve for every airport ensuring ongoing fees perpetually for all those involved.
West Angelas should have approaches within the next 2 months.
As for navaid decommissioning, every location that supported a ground based approach was replaced with an rnav approach. This was some 60 locations across the country, all effective by the end of this month (check sups).
As for navaid decommissioning, every location that supported a ground based approach was replaced with an rnav approach. This was some 60 locations across the country, all effective by the end of this month (check sups).
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: in the air
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not rocket science to come up with some reasonable criteria to translate and redraw them, each quadrant would be good starting point...
A bit sad really, I would be annoyed if I was involved in an operation effected by this.
Last edited by vh-foobar; 15th May 2016 at 11:55.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania and High Wollemi
Posts: 439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From somewhere in the back of my head there was an intent to remove ( stated or not ) circling approaches in favour of runway aligned. Usually the minima is a lot lower than for a circling approach. As for track miles trade off tracking direct to the initial point for the approach from a reasonable distance out. this was also done to provide forced separation and not have everyone tracking over the same point in space at the ARP or NDB.
The initial choice of runway direction was also supposed to address the worst wx situation if air no services could only do an approach for one end.
as for descending on a gps approach to MDA then circling to the other end of the runway may require experience in very low level circuits and not very healthy.
The initial choice of runway direction was also supposed to address the worst wx situation if air no services could only do an approach for one end.
as for descending on a gps approach to MDA then circling to the other end of the runway may require experience in very low level circuits and not very healthy.
Last edited by catseye; 17th May 2016 at 02:14. Reason: initial choice
Except they have not replaced the DGA approaches in any meaningful sense... Flinder Is is an excellent example. Perhaps that's an isolated example.
I would assume CASA are hoping that the airlines pony up for RNP approaches (which has already happened) and everybody else will just have to pay for the additional fuel burn.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 17th May 2016 at 02:20.
Talking of YFLI looking at the Jepp amendment package, ERC 7/8 shows NUNPA as the reference point for all tracks. One would have assumed that the name Flinders Island would have been retained, to help with VFR and IFR traffic separation?
Do not recall anyone mentioning the DGA/GNSS arrivals being removed during any of sessions on navaid rationalisation information sessions?
What about RAPAC, or that just for the VFR weekend warrior brigade?
Do not recall anyone mentioning the DGA/GNSS arrivals being removed during any of sessions on navaid rationalisation information sessions?
What about RAPAC, or that just for the VFR weekend warrior brigade?
