Creating an IFR GPS NPA
Creating an IFR GPS NPA
Say you have a landing strip and decide you want a GPS NPA. Who do you approach and what would be the cost.
Whats the process of designing an approach, obviously some sort of detailed topographical survey to some distance.
Ideas anyone?
Whats the process of designing an approach, obviously some sort of detailed topographical survey to some distance.
Ideas anyone?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Design your own, use the same guidlines......and say nuffink!
Unless you want to invite your mates over .........in which case I reckon you and the DR should be able to do a deal on getting two NPA's done!
Unless you want to invite your mates over .........in which case I reckon you and the DR should be able to do a deal on getting two NPA's done!
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're only planning to kill yourself, I don't suppose it matters how you do it - short of euthanasia, of course! 
But if you want others to be able to use the same approach, there's plenty of mobs in Oz who'll develop the approach for you legally - at a price, of course.
After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch eh!
But, as the FTDK says, you need a decent survey of your aerodrome first, so that accurate THR coordinates can be established, with heights related appropriately to the WGS-84 spheroid and the published THR elevations, of course. Were you also aware that these coords can drift over time?
I thought not. The survey needs to be updated periodically.
But if you want others to be able to use the same approach, there's plenty of mobs in Oz who'll develop the approach for you legally - at a price, of course.After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch eh!
But, as the FTDK says, you need a decent survey of your aerodrome first, so that accurate THR coordinates can be established, with heights related appropriately to the WGS-84 spheroid and the published THR elevations, of course. Were you also aware that these coords can drift over time?
I thought not. The survey needs to be updated periodically.
G'day,
First some legal requirements.
1. In order for you to fly an instrument approach legally, it must be verified and published by the state. Therefore the approach must be validated and published by Airservices Australia as part of DAP. This is why RAAF approaches are unable to be flown by civillians, as the RAAF approaches are not published by the state (AsA)
2. If it is an approach that is not to be made available to the public (ie RNP or privately funded) it still has to be published, but useable info is removed from the plate. Thes approaches are normally the plates that have "For CASA Approved Operators Only"
The above therefore means that theoretically, provided you know the design rules, anybody can design an approach. It must then be handed over to AsA for validation and flight checking, then it will be published and made available to Jeppesen/Garmin for coding etc. Of course AsA and possibly Jepp will charge for this. And they can also refuse to do it.
There used to be a mob in Melbourne (Harts?) with a design certificate and if I recall correctly their going rate for an approach was about 15-25k depending on complexity.
As for accurate survey, the THLD coords and elevs do need to be known. But as far as the coords drifiting over time, this is incorrect. Unless they issue an amendment to the WGS84 datum, which they haven't done since 1984 then the coords don't change. What does change is the magnetic bearing of the inbound tracks, this is why there is a legal requirement to have approaches revalidated every 12 months.
Other things to consider is how to keep track of new obstacles? Who is going to pay for the revalidation every 12 months? Who is going to pay to have amendments published (AsA and Jepp) Who is your approach going to be available to? Do you need approval from the CASA for the approach? Do you need approval from local council?
Thats just off the top of my head. Its been a few years since I was active in the design area, and I am sure there are other things to consider. In short you can make a request to AsA. If they deem it suitable they will probably help you out. If you do it yourself, it can cost alot of money.
BIG QUESTION: Do you really need one??
Cheers
Alpha
First some legal requirements.
1. In order for you to fly an instrument approach legally, it must be verified and published by the state. Therefore the approach must be validated and published by Airservices Australia as part of DAP. This is why RAAF approaches are unable to be flown by civillians, as the RAAF approaches are not published by the state (AsA)
2. If it is an approach that is not to be made available to the public (ie RNP or privately funded) it still has to be published, but useable info is removed from the plate. Thes approaches are normally the plates that have "For CASA Approved Operators Only"
The above therefore means that theoretically, provided you know the design rules, anybody can design an approach. It must then be handed over to AsA for validation and flight checking, then it will be published and made available to Jeppesen/Garmin for coding etc. Of course AsA and possibly Jepp will charge for this. And they can also refuse to do it.
There used to be a mob in Melbourne (Harts?) with a design certificate and if I recall correctly their going rate for an approach was about 15-25k depending on complexity.
As for accurate survey, the THLD coords and elevs do need to be known. But as far as the coords drifiting over time, this is incorrect. Unless they issue an amendment to the WGS84 datum, which they haven't done since 1984 then the coords don't change. What does change is the magnetic bearing of the inbound tracks, this is why there is a legal requirement to have approaches revalidated every 12 months.
Other things to consider is how to keep track of new obstacles? Who is going to pay for the revalidation every 12 months? Who is going to pay to have amendments published (AsA and Jepp) Who is your approach going to be available to? Do you need approval from the CASA for the approach? Do you need approval from local council?
Thats just off the top of my head. Its been a few years since I was active in the design area, and I am sure there are other things to consider. In short you can make a request to AsA. If they deem it suitable they will probably help you out. If you do it yourself, it can cost alot of money.
BIG QUESTION: Do you really need one??
Cheers
Alpha
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Alpha:
This used to be the case but I think you'll find things have changed.
To design an approach in Australia, the designer, and design organisation, must now be certified under CASA Part 173. Although there were a number of organisations in Australia capable of designing approaches previously (using fully qualified and experienced designers) there wasn't enough new design work in Australlia to justify the cost for all these organisations to install and maintain the rigorous QA infrastructure requirements on a full time basis to maintain certification under the new Part 173.
Result? The only organisation that is now certified and approved for designing approaches in Australia is Airserivces Australia, which means no price competition for the industry and long delays for designing or amending approaches. This is a good example of over zealous regulation killing off competition and choice, particularly considering that there has never been a safety issue related to poor procedure design in Australia to the best of anyone's knowledge.
Hart Aviation and, I think, IAS used to be certified but are no longer. Ambidji designs instrument charts but only for international jurisdictions where Part 173 is not applicable. IDS (Brisbane based) design charts for the Australian DOD (?) and Strategic Airspace (Sydney based) is another capable design organisation but its current involvement in procedure design is not known. And there may be others.
provided you know the design rules, anybody can design an approach. It must then be handed over to AsA for validation and flight checking, then it will be published and made available to Jeppesen/Garmin for coding etc.
To design an approach in Australia, the designer, and design organisation, must now be certified under CASA Part 173. Although there were a number of organisations in Australia capable of designing approaches previously (using fully qualified and experienced designers) there wasn't enough new design work in Australlia to justify the cost for all these organisations to install and maintain the rigorous QA infrastructure requirements on a full time basis to maintain certification under the new Part 173.
Result? The only organisation that is now certified and approved for designing approaches in Australia is Airserivces Australia, which means no price competition for the industry and long delays for designing or amending approaches. This is a good example of over zealous regulation killing off competition and choice, particularly considering that there has never been a safety issue related to poor procedure design in Australia to the best of anyone's knowledge.
Hart Aviation and, I think, IAS used to be certified but are no longer. Ambidji designs instrument charts but only for international jurisdictions where Part 173 is not applicable. IDS (Brisbane based) design charts for the Australian DOD (?) and Strategic Airspace (Sydney based) is another capable design organisation but its current involvement in procedure design is not known. And there may be others.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as far as the coords drifiting over time, this is incorrect.
So apart from continental drift which is about 6cm north per year (or roughly 0.01 of a second for those mapping boffins out there), can someone please explain how WGS 84 co-ords of a known position changes over time? (ie the survey was originally conducted in the WGS 84 datum)
Most aviation co-ords are rounded to the nearest decimal of a minute or whole seconds. From my previous mapping experience, the 5 year requirement for resurveys was more about checking relative bearings and re applying an updated magentic variation, as the official magvar EPOCH is updated every 5 years by Geosciences Australia, and thats why revalidation is required.
I know the type A charts are done (or are supposed to be done) every 5 years and they recheck the coords of navaids, thlds etc. But as for the co-ords actually changing, I have never experienced it.
Alpha
Most aviation co-ords are rounded to the nearest decimal of a minute or whole seconds. From my previous mapping experience, the 5 year requirement for resurveys was more about checking relative bearings and re applying an updated magentic variation, as the official magvar EPOCH is updated every 5 years by Geosciences Australia, and thats why revalidation is required.
I know the type A charts are done (or are supposed to be done) every 5 years and they recheck the coords of navaids, thlds etc. But as for the co-ords actually changing, I have never experienced it.
Alpha
Co-ords do not shift...the datum shifts...I think you guys are mixing up going from AGD66 to AGD84 to GDA94. The first two are based on an Australian datum the last one is based on a world datum...the world datum is what the americans use for their GNSS. The only shift in position is/can only be due to seismic or tectonic movement. Like parts off the coast of NZ early this year...they are closer to AUs by about a foot so their co-ordinates have changed as referenced to a local feature.
As for surveying every five years...keeps surveyors in business but all they will found is a shift of 10cm or less....your threshold co-ords are going to move toward the north by less than a foot every five years...as said before magnetic north changes every year by an appreciable amount soooo the likes of any VOR station must be realigned regularly to ensure they are pointing toward magnetic north...Argument...my surveyed points from my seismic days are approximately 56cm north of where I surveyed them in 1984...However, my declared limit of accuracy was +/- 100cm both vertically and horizontally so my surveyed position is still good today if you were looking for oil....BUT the co-ordinates of that position have been shifted some 200m to the NE because of a change of datum.....hope that helps
As for surveying every five years...keeps surveyors in business but all they will found is a shift of 10cm or less....your threshold co-ords are going to move toward the north by less than a foot every five years...as said before magnetic north changes every year by an appreciable amount soooo the likes of any VOR station must be realigned regularly to ensure they are pointing toward magnetic north...Argument...my surveyed points from my seismic days are approximately 56cm north of where I surveyed them in 1984...However, my declared limit of accuracy was +/- 100cm both vertically and horizontally so my surveyed position is still good today if you were looking for oil....BUT the co-ordinates of that position have been shifted some 200m to the NE because of a change of datum.....hope that helps
For argument...whats to stop you putting a user defined waypoint over a known flat area...like the middle of Westernport Bay to let down through the crud down to MSA and then proceed visual to TYA. The legal way is to shoot an approach into PHI and then proceed visual under the crud and over a lot of water at low level to get back to TYA...would this be a reasonable idea?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you want to start AC?
Have you read CASR Part 139 - Aerodromes.
You'll need an airfield that exceeds the requirements for an ALA. Put in some lights, windsocks, runway markings, etc,....you know, all the things a pilot expects to see as he tries to make a safe landing after breaking out of the cloud at 350ft AGL and a mile and a half from the threshold while still in the rain on a dull day with lots of crosswind and turbulence.(just an example boys, don't do the math) You wouldn't want him to land in your neighbours paddock now would you....or worse still take the BBQ packs and beers back to his place.
You'll need to get the runway surveyed and certified as a NON PRECISION APPROACH runway.
You'll need to survey the obstacle and terrain environment, probably out to 5km and publish some OLS data.
Getting your "landing strip" up to scratch will account for the first $4M of your budget to get your $250k aircraft into your backyard whenever you want to .....well almost....sometimes the weather is just too bad for an NPA.
Then you need to read CASR Part 173 - Instrument Flight Procedure Design.
As QSK points out you will need to approach AsA and get a quote for the design. They are the only authorised organisation allowed to design IFR procs in Australia. You will have to supply the survey data. You are probably looking at $50K per runway end just for the design work.
Then you have to have the procedures checked by CASA and flight tested. That's another $5000 per flight hour. (I hope your airfield is close to Canberra to save transit costs.) It takes about 3 hours to do flight check the terrain and obstacles to ensure they match the design data, to ensure the tracks calculated are aligned with the runway, that the distances between waypoints are accurate and to see if the desk top design is actually flyable by the average IFR Joe.
You do have a Command Instrument Rating AC? Your question and comments makes me think that you don't. Add the $30k to your budget to get one, and don't forget the GPS course too.
As your airfield is most likely private then you will have to pay Jeppesen to code your approaches into the navigation database so that your mates can fly the approaches. They are a commercial organisation and having your private airfield in the system won't sell any more Jep sets. Even the EMS heli guys have problems getting Jep to code their data without great cost.
And then you have to maintain surveillance of the obstacle environment (trees do grow too), keep the airfield and facilities up to scratch and join the NOTAM system.
If the good ol' phone company puts up a mobile phone tower nearby.....or wind farm.....or power station......or high tension power lines...or a high rise Casino, and not necessarily nearby either, because the government allows them to do so without your permission, then you will have to get AsA to redesign your approaches and flight test them again.....and then at least once every three years.
You may well have to charge your mates landing fees to share the cost.
Have you got lots of well-healed mates?
Oh, and as you get a bit wiser about airfields with instrument approaches, you can't turn around and say to CASA....."such and such a dump of an airfield has an RNAV approach, why do I have to upgrade mine?"
RNAV and conventional approaches to those dumps of airfields are getting withdrawn if the airfield does not meet the NP runway criteria, as their 3 year check comes up.
Good luck with your project.
Have you read CASR Part 139 - Aerodromes.
You'll need an airfield that exceeds the requirements for an ALA. Put in some lights, windsocks, runway markings, etc,....you know, all the things a pilot expects to see as he tries to make a safe landing after breaking out of the cloud at 350ft AGL and a mile and a half from the threshold while still in the rain on a dull day with lots of crosswind and turbulence.(just an example boys, don't do the math) You wouldn't want him to land in your neighbours paddock now would you....or worse still take the BBQ packs and beers back to his place.
You'll need to get the runway surveyed and certified as a NON PRECISION APPROACH runway.
You'll need to survey the obstacle and terrain environment, probably out to 5km and publish some OLS data.
Getting your "landing strip" up to scratch will account for the first $4M of your budget to get your $250k aircraft into your backyard whenever you want to .....well almost....sometimes the weather is just too bad for an NPA.
Then you need to read CASR Part 173 - Instrument Flight Procedure Design.
As QSK points out you will need to approach AsA and get a quote for the design. They are the only authorised organisation allowed to design IFR procs in Australia. You will have to supply the survey data. You are probably looking at $50K per runway end just for the design work.
Then you have to have the procedures checked by CASA and flight tested. That's another $5000 per flight hour. (I hope your airfield is close to Canberra to save transit costs.) It takes about 3 hours to do flight check the terrain and obstacles to ensure they match the design data, to ensure the tracks calculated are aligned with the runway, that the distances between waypoints are accurate and to see if the desk top design is actually flyable by the average IFR Joe.
You do have a Command Instrument Rating AC? Your question and comments makes me think that you don't. Add the $30k to your budget to get one, and don't forget the GPS course too.
As your airfield is most likely private then you will have to pay Jeppesen to code your approaches into the navigation database so that your mates can fly the approaches. They are a commercial organisation and having your private airfield in the system won't sell any more Jep sets. Even the EMS heli guys have problems getting Jep to code their data without great cost.
And then you have to maintain surveillance of the obstacle environment (trees do grow too), keep the airfield and facilities up to scratch and join the NOTAM system.
If the good ol' phone company puts up a mobile phone tower nearby.....or wind farm.....or power station......or high tension power lines...or a high rise Casino, and not necessarily nearby either, because the government allows them to do so without your permission, then you will have to get AsA to redesign your approaches and flight test them again.....and then at least once every three years.
You may well have to charge your mates landing fees to share the cost.
Have you got lots of well-healed mates?
Oh, and as you get a bit wiser about airfields with instrument approaches, you can't turn around and say to CASA....."such and such a dump of an airfield has an RNAV approach, why do I have to upgrade mine?"
RNAV and conventional approaches to those dumps of airfields are getting withdrawn if the airfield does not meet the NP runway criteria, as their 3 year check comes up.
Good luck with your project.
OZBUSDRIVER,
Nothing really there to stop you...........some would call you foolish..........others might tell you that they have done it before.
There are some logical reasons as to why it would work. But the design of an instrument approach takes a lot more into account than simply tracking to a point and working out how low you can go. What happens if you suffer an engine failure? What is your 'out' option? etc.....it might work 99% of the time.....but that 1% that it doesn't might kill you and your passengers.
What is your insurance company going to do if you have an accident? Instrument procedures are provided by the state (Aust Govt) who accept liability for them. It is for this reason that it is mandated we must use them and only them.
Also the enroute controller is going to have no idea what you are doing, but he will know you are descending below MSA and will ask if you are visual....what is going to be your response??
Just some things to think about........
Alpha
Nothing really there to stop you...........some would call you foolish..........others might tell you that they have done it before.
There are some logical reasons as to why it would work. But the design of an instrument approach takes a lot more into account than simply tracking to a point and working out how low you can go. What happens if you suffer an engine failure? What is your 'out' option? etc.....it might work 99% of the time.....but that 1% that it doesn't might kill you and your passengers.
What is your insurance company going to do if you have an accident? Instrument procedures are provided by the state (Aust Govt) who accept liability for them. It is for this reason that it is mandated we must use them and only them.
Also the enroute controller is going to have no idea what you are doing, but he will know you are descending below MSA and will ask if you are visual....what is going to be your response??
Just some things to think about........
Alpha
Also the enroute controller is going to have no idea what you are doing, but he will know you are descending below MSA and will ask if you are visual....what is going to be your response??
I don't recall ever being asked that question.
Dr
Also the enroute controller is going to have no idea what you are doing, but he will know you are descending below MSA and will ask if you are visual....what is going to be your response??
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of the guy about 8 years ago that when he first got a GPS had a private airstrip in a valley and when it was clouded in would fly overhead on GPS then spin down through the cloud to become visual overhead. To his credit he would call his wife and check conditions and cloudbase first. (true story) A somewhat NPA.
HOT subject!
