Rant about deleted PID NDB/VOR approach
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much doubt it will happen in a hurry, or probably ever.
From the July 2011 RAPAC minutes:
From the July 2011 RAPAC minutes:
Nick Borley provided a brief time frame, which at best would be approximately one year. He mentioned that the process had to fit into Airservices Australia’s work schedule and had to follow the AIRAC cycle. The Chair also mentioned the concerns with regards to ownership of the IAP and the ownership of the obstacle reporting. Until this aspect with regards to allocated responsibilities has not been satisfactory addressed, Airservices Australia, who under normal circumstances would be responsible, would be reluctant to install the IAP.
It's my understanding that CASA set the work schedule for this sort of thing, not Airservices. Airservices is licensed by CASA as a procedure designer, but the program is set by CASA and Airservices work in accordance with that.
Thread Starter
Yes, but at the end of the day our government instrumentalities have collectively acted to degrade safety by removing practice IFR procedures from probably the most used training area in Australia.
Its been on the Air Services Australia worklist since January 2010 - 2 years and 2 months. How long does it take? What are we paying these guys for?
And you aren't actually paying AsA for this service. Airways fees don't cover design of new procedures, or updates to old ones. They are done under contract arrangments with the aerodrome or operator, and they assume the responsibility for obstacle reporting, etc by being a registered aerodrome. If this falls over the procedure is withdrawn.
In short, you want a practice approach at CWS someone is going to have cough up the money for it.
I don't agree with it, but that is the way it is
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift here, but something Old Akro said made me think [a worry, I know!]
Due to the limitations of an aircraft I fly for MECIR renewals, it's easier this time around to fly a VOR in the aircraft and do the rest in a sim. However, we were looking at using a non-airport VOR with an appropriate procedure.
To my amazement, I was told we can't do this "as the candidate will not have an expectation of landing at an airport following the letdown." Duh
Who has done an aircraft NPA/ILS as the sole letdown and not had an engine failure and missed approach??
Thus, the renewal is going to cost a lot more in a different aircraft just so it can be done at an airport with an on-field aid. Is this;
[1] a NSW thing,
[2] general policy, or
[3] yet another single ATO/FOI interpretation?
G'day
Due to the limitations of an aircraft I fly for MECIR renewals, it's easier this time around to fly a VOR in the aircraft and do the rest in a sim. However, we were looking at using a non-airport VOR with an appropriate procedure.
To my amazement, I was told we can't do this "as the candidate will not have an expectation of landing at an airport following the letdown." Duh
Who has done an aircraft NPA/ILS as the sole letdown and not had an engine failure and missed approach??Thus, the renewal is going to cost a lot more in a different aircraft just so it can be done at an airport with an on-field aid. Is this;
[1] a NSW thing,
[2] general policy, or
[3] yet another single ATO/FOI interpretation?
G'day
Feather #3,
Give some consideration to the criteria for accuracy at minima , including the bit about "---- and no unusual maneuvering to land" or words to that meaning, likewise runway visual reference in a circle to land.
As to several other posts, CASA sets the standards, but doesn't dictate any "work schedules" to establish procedures, that's AsA or anybody else with the appropriate Part 173 approvals.
Tootle pip!!
Give some consideration to the criteria for accuracy at minima , including the bit about "---- and no unusual maneuvering to land" or words to that meaning, likewise runway visual reference in a circle to land.
As to several other posts, CASA sets the standards, but doesn't dictate any "work schedules" to establish procedures, that's AsA or anybody else with the appropriate Part 173 approvals.
Tootle pip!!
One other thing to consider is that they are planning to decommission 170 navaids Australia wide within the next 3 yrs. And yes, that does include some navaids at International airports as well as regional.
I would say that persuing publication of practice navaid approaches may fall on deaf ears, because there won't be that many left soon. I haven't seen the list but would think it highly likely that CWS would be on it as it currently serves no purpose other than a departure transition for ML. This can easily be replaced with a waypoint
I would say that persuing publication of practice navaid approaches may fall on deaf ears, because there won't be that many left soon. I haven't seen the list but would think it highly likely that CWS would be on it as it currently serves no purpose other than a departure transition for ML. This can easily be replaced with a waypoint
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other thing to consider is that they are planning to decommission 170 navaids Australia wide within the next 3 yrs. And yes, that does include some navaids at International airports as well as regional.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all this,
what has happened. There are still more than a few uncertified and unregistered aerodromes with instrument approaches.
So what is the real reason for pulling approaches at random?
...If the aerodrome is not a certified or registered one, ALL instrument approaches are being withdrawn ..
So what is the real reason for pulling approaches at random?
Eocvictim, which unregistered aerodrome/s still has an approach?
Pretty sure you will find that only registered airfields have one and if they don't, they are being withdrawn pretty quick smart. The reason is in the regs, as only registered airfields are required to maintain surveillance for obstacles and clear OLS approach areas. Unregistered airfields are not required to do this and the issue is then who carries the blame if an aircraft hits something un notified in the approach?
Pretty sure you will find that only registered airfields have one and if they don't, they are being withdrawn pretty quick smart. The reason is in the regs, as only registered airfields are required to maintain surveillance for obstacles and clear OLS approach areas. Unregistered airfields are not required to do this and the issue is then who carries the blame if an aircraft hits something un notified in the approach?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to list them all but a couple that come to mind, Margaret River (updated Jan 2012), Kataning (updated Aug 2011). Both well after change of regs. Looking at the plates for these there have been some significant changes, so unless the plan is to certify these ADs and they've been given a continuance to retain the original approaches in the interim (that'd be a first) I suspect there is more to it than a simple, "the rules say so".
Thread Starter
Another year and there is still no published approach for the CWS NDB or VOR.
How long does it take? Surely having different people adapting a variety of other procedures is not in the best interests of safety.
Why won't Air Services Australia act in the interests of safety through proficiency and training by publishing a procedure?
How long does it take? Surely having different people adapting a variety of other procedures is not in the best interests of safety.
Why won't Air Services Australia act in the interests of safety through proficiency and training by publishing a procedure?
Might just add some clarification here:
1) Neither PID nor LIL are on our current worklist, not sure where that info comes from.
2) The design of approaches is not free nor funded by airways charges. They are done under contract with the aerodrome. So in effect you are not paying for anything.
3) CASA will not let us publish approaches to non registered aerodromes. This is because the regs require a registered aerodromes to actively monitor the obstacle environment. It is difficult to maintain the integrity of an approach without the aerodrome being registered.
Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
1) Neither PID nor LIL are on our current worklist, not sure where that info comes from.
2) The design of approaches is not free nor funded by airways charges. They are done under contract with the aerodrome. So in effect you are not paying for anything.
3) CASA will not let us publish approaches to non registered aerodromes. This is because the regs require a registered aerodromes to actively monitor the obstacle environment. It is difficult to maintain the integrity of an approach without the aerodrome being registered.
Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Given both of these approaches were to a circling MDA (and in YLIL's case it was 950 ft or so) does anyone really think an obstacle was just going to pop up that would impinge on this?
I think a dose of reality needs to prevail!
I think a dose of reality needs to prevail!
Sorry Akro, responded to a previous post.
Why is this a fault with Airservices? The approach at CWS was withdrawn because PID is unregistered and no party was actively monitoring for obstacles. This came as a directive from CASA. The other reason is that the approach did not meet the straight in criteria in PANS-OPS. Some have pointed to other unregistered aerodromes with approaches. All currently unregistered aerodromes with approaches have registered their intent to register with CASA. The timeframe for this is up to CASA. Nevertheless once they have had enough dragging the chain, they issue Airservices with an instruction to withdraw the procedures
Moving forward, in order to get the approach put in you are looking at approx $15k for flight validation. Who is going to pay for it? Then you have to overcome the issues listed above for Casa to give authority to publish.....then the navaid is being ripped out of the ground in 3 yrs.....put simply, it's not going to happen.
You have to be mindful of the current regulatory climate. CASA have just recruited a stack of new aerodrome inspectors that see the regs as black and white. There is no grey anymore. Add to that recent political issues with CASA and you will find that the appetite for risk....any risk....at CASA is extremely low.
Alpha
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Why is this a fault with Airservices? The approach at CWS was withdrawn because PID is unregistered and no party was actively monitoring for obstacles. This came as a directive from CASA. The other reason is that the approach did not meet the straight in criteria in PANS-OPS. Some have pointed to other unregistered aerodromes with approaches. All currently unregistered aerodromes with approaches have registered their intent to register with CASA. The timeframe for this is up to CASA. Nevertheless once they have had enough dragging the chain, they issue Airservices with an instruction to withdraw the procedures
Moving forward, in order to get the approach put in you are looking at approx $15k for flight validation. Who is going to pay for it? Then you have to overcome the issues listed above for Casa to give authority to publish.....then the navaid is being ripped out of the ground in 3 yrs.....put simply, it's not going to happen.
You have to be mindful of the current regulatory climate. CASA have just recruited a stack of new aerodrome inspectors that see the regs as black and white. There is no grey anymore. Add to that recent political issues with CASA and you will find that the appetite for risk....any risk....at CASA is extremely low.
Alpha
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Bevan, the circling minima only gave you 295ft clearance over the tallest obstacle. Considering an UN-notified twr can be up to 360ft agl, there goes your obstacle clearance and would pose a danger for the approach. How will you know of this obstacle if no one is watching.
You will get your reality when someone smacks into it.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
You will get your reality when someone smacks into it.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Thread Starter
A practice approach (like YWE) was minuted as being on AsA's worklist at RAPAC with (if memory serves) a target completion date. So, what happened?
And the real question is in what universe is $15k a reasonable cost? Especially since a training procedure can be above the grid minima.
At the moment different people use different procedures. Many still use old copies of the PID approach while others select high altitude approaches. How is it safe to be having aircraft flying different procedures on the same beacon.
And the real question is in what universe is $15k a reasonable cost? Especially since a training procedure can be above the grid minima.
At the moment different people use different procedures. Many still use old copies of the PID approach while others select high altitude approaches. How is it safe to be having aircraft flying different procedures on the same beacon.
Why is the Yarrowee VOR approach a VMC only approach even though at the minima, you are still something like 1000'agl. Its not like a developer is going to build a 1000 foot building under it over night.
If you had your own airstrip, how much would it cost to have 2 GPS approaches designed and certified, including area survey etc.
If you had your own airstrip, how much would it cost to have 2 GPS approaches designed and certified, including area survey etc.