Essendon Runway 26 Plenty Locator approach
Thread Starter
Essendon Runway 26 Plenty Locator approach
During a clean up of very old files I found an IAL chart dated 1977 for a straight in EN runway 26 locator approach using Plenty locator. It gave an MDA of 1050 QNH (790 ft above aerodrome level). Not bad considering that the current EN NDB 26 approach gives an MDA of 960 ft QNH.
It seems to me that the 26 Plenty locator approach is a very handy approach which could be utilised for IFR training because it follows the same track as the ILS. Also there would be no airspace problems that currently exist trying to get ATC to approve the EN NDB approach for training.
Also, as many IFR lighties do not have a glide slope nor marker beacons it means that they can get IFR into EN via PLE legally by simply using the ADF. If EN ILS and/or the outer marker happens to be out of service the PLE locator approach is a good back up approach because once you leave PLE there are no further check points needed before arrival at the MDA.
I wonder why DCA deleted the 26 PLE locator approach in the first place when it was obviously a perfectly good approach aid.
Anyway - have written to Air services to try and get them to show cause why they should not resurrect the PLE approach. Wonder if a reply will be forthcoming. May help if Ppruners who regularly operate into EN could perhaps place some comments (only nice one's, of course) re the above and if favourable they could be forwarded to Air Services for consideration. Unfavourable comments will be deleted of course (naturally).
It seems to me that the 26 Plenty locator approach is a very handy approach which could be utilised for IFR training because it follows the same track as the ILS. Also there would be no airspace problems that currently exist trying to get ATC to approve the EN NDB approach for training.
Also, as many IFR lighties do not have a glide slope nor marker beacons it means that they can get IFR into EN via PLE legally by simply using the ADF. If EN ILS and/or the outer marker happens to be out of service the PLE locator approach is a good back up approach because once you leave PLE there are no further check points needed before arrival at the MDA.
I wonder why DCA deleted the 26 PLE locator approach in the first place when it was obviously a perfectly good approach aid.
Anyway - have written to Air services to try and get them to show cause why they should not resurrect the PLE approach. Wonder if a reply will be forthcoming. May help if Ppruners who regularly operate into EN could perhaps place some comments (only nice one's, of course) re the above and if favourable they could be forwarded to Air Services for consideration. Unfavourable comments will be deleted of course (naturally).
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use to fly the PLE 26 locator approach quite often and found it very inaccurate. If its the one I am thinking of it only used the Plenty Locator and not the Essendon NDB. This would always mean that it was hit and miss in regards to knowing where the runway was when you broke visual due to the fact you were 9nm from the beacon + or - 5 degrees!!!!.
I agree with you in regards to alternative approaches but the bottom line is maybe you shouldn't be up there with out at least a LLZ and markers. I have never flown a lighty without a minimum of LLZ?
Maybe of more serious concern is the reluctance of the Airport management to fix or re-activate the HIAL. If they are true to form then I think you may see that NOTAM issued for a long time yet???
Ice.
I agree with you in regards to alternative approaches but the bottom line is maybe you shouldn't be up there with out at least a LLZ and markers. I have never flown a lighty without a minimum of LLZ?
Maybe of more serious concern is the reluctance of the Airport management to fix or re-activate the HIAL. If they are true to form then I think you may see that NOTAM issued for a long time yet???
Ice.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
NDB approaches at airports where more accurate guidance is available, are things of the distant past.
In the US, you have to pay extra to get an ADF receiver put in the aircraft. GPS is definitely the flavour of the moment and is a standard installation now.
Ice_man is right about the HIAL.
NDB approaches at airports where more accurate guidance is available, are things of the distant past.
In the US, you have to pay extra to get an ADF receiver put in the aircraft. GPS is definitely the flavour of the moment and is a standard installation now.
Ice_man is right about the HIAL.
Time to modernise..... GPS/NPA is the way. MB approach for 35R gets you to 450' on accurate QNH vs 620' on the NDB, and aligned with the runway. At EN a 26 GPS/NPA would fit in with the airspace and provide a safe backup to the ILS. HIAL's are definately needed....I pay my landing fees for them....switch them on!
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus I assume you were "gettin Plenty" back in them days? 
A PLE L approach might be good for IFR training but I wouldve hated to shoot one for real. To the circling min for 34 maybe, but for straight-in 26 with Nature hurling buckets of water in your face Idve rather the ILS.
A PLE L approach might be good for IFR training but I wouldve hated to shoot one for real. To the circling min for 34 maybe, but for straight-in 26 with Nature hurling buckets of water in your face Idve rather the ILS.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1977? Nice to see you have finally got around to doing your amendments.
The PLE locator approach was very inaccurate, and I concur with Strobes-On re the use of less accurate approaches when more accurate guidance is available. Also I think you will find that it was in fact a locator/DME approach, and as the Essendon DME is long gone all the figures change.
I suggest that rather than try to make Airservices show cause why such an approach should not be resurrected, you need to justify why it needs to be - with support from your industry association or representative.
It is worth noting that a GPS approach is to be published for that RWY in the future.
The PLE locator approach was very inaccurate, and I concur with Strobes-On re the use of less accurate approaches when more accurate guidance is available. Also I think you will find that it was in fact a locator/DME approach, and as the Essendon DME is long gone all the figures change.
I suggest that rather than try to make Airservices show cause why such an approach should not be resurrected, you need to justify why it needs to be - with support from your industry association or representative.
It is worth noting that a GPS approach is to be published for that RWY in the future.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the replies. The 1977 PLE Locator approach chart had one minima for DME available and another for straight in with no DME. The difference being 490 ceiling with DME and 790 ceiling without DME.
I agree that GPS is the way to go - although the heads down programming can under certain conditions be an insidious safety hazard. The RFDS Mount Gambier GPS approach accident last year where the aircraft crashed 3 miles short of the runway while on a GPS approach at night - may well have had a programming aspect to it.
The cold facts are that the majority of aircraft used for basic IFR training around Victoria do not have TSO'd GPS because it is a cost few owners can bear. If the owner cannot afford to add a glide slope to his VHF-Nav set then as sure as hell he is not going to afford an expensive GPS whizz-bang black box either.
Add to that the currency requirements of GPS, and you can see why ADF competency will be an important part of IFR training for years to come. If an operator can provide an IFR training aircraft that is cheaper than a competitor then generally he will attract the IFR students. And TSO'd GPS don't come cheap.
If ATC will not approve practice use of the EN 26 NDB approach (utilising EN NDB) - (and their approval is as scarce as hens teeth) - then it becomes just another useless piece of paper in the IAL bundle.
Practice makes perfect in NDB approaches, and if every time an IFR training aircraft is inbound via Plenty the opportunities for practice at ADF tracking from PLE is there on every approach.
I agree that GPS is the way to go - although the heads down programming can under certain conditions be an insidious safety hazard. The RFDS Mount Gambier GPS approach accident last year where the aircraft crashed 3 miles short of the runway while on a GPS approach at night - may well have had a programming aspect to it.
The cold facts are that the majority of aircraft used for basic IFR training around Victoria do not have TSO'd GPS because it is a cost few owners can bear. If the owner cannot afford to add a glide slope to his VHF-Nav set then as sure as hell he is not going to afford an expensive GPS whizz-bang black box either.
Add to that the currency requirements of GPS, and you can see why ADF competency will be an important part of IFR training for years to come. If an operator can provide an IFR training aircraft that is cheaper than a competitor then generally he will attract the IFR students. And TSO'd GPS don't come cheap.
If ATC will not approve practice use of the EN 26 NDB approach (utilising EN NDB) - (and their approval is as scarce as hens teeth) - then it becomes just another useless piece of paper in the IAL bundle.
Practice makes perfect in NDB approaches, and if every time an IFR training aircraft is inbound via Plenty the opportunities for practice at ADF tracking from PLE is there on every approach.
There are tricks with programming GPS's and there is the extra requirement (on top of an approach every 90 days) of flying an approach with the same receiver type within the last 6 months. This is not significantly different than the requirements for flying NDB approaches, assuming the aircraft you fly are equipped with the same GPS receiver types. Then again I know of an airline flying a fleet of piston twins, and they all have different TSOed GPS's installed.
Programming - flying gps approaches means you've done all programming prior to starting the approach. The gps receiver should automatically sequence thru the various approach waypoints. An accident within the FAF would indicate maybe some button pushing due to loss of RAIM or a receiver that didnt arm 2nm from the FAF. Who knows?
Flying the EN NDB. If you operationally require a particular type of approach, you will get it (eventually). (ie if you arrive at EN with cloud base below the MVA, and your aircraft only has an NDB, you'll get to fly the approach, maybe with a bit o holding just for fun). Had to do it twice this year (NDB at hobart and canberra) due to this very reason.
Now for owners with TSO'ed GPS's but refuse to keep the datacard up to date. We should take them out and shoot them!
Bevan..
Programming - flying gps approaches means you've done all programming prior to starting the approach. The gps receiver should automatically sequence thru the various approach waypoints. An accident within the FAF would indicate maybe some button pushing due to loss of RAIM or a receiver that didnt arm 2nm from the FAF. Who knows?
Flying the EN NDB. If you operationally require a particular type of approach, you will get it (eventually). (ie if you arrive at EN with cloud base below the MVA, and your aircraft only has an NDB, you'll get to fly the approach, maybe with a bit o holding just for fun). Had to do it twice this year (NDB at hobart and canberra) due to this very reason.
Now for owners with TSO'ed GPS's but refuse to keep the datacard up to date. We should take them out and shoot them!
Bevan..
