Rant about deleted PID NDB/VOR approach
Akro, there has never been a request made to us for a practice training approach. I have no knowledge of it ever being put on the work list. It certainly isn't there now and is not likely to be in the near future.
Gupta, standard rate is 8k for a pair of RNAV approaches. Aerodrone survey will set you back about 5k. Flight validation varies, if you are in WA circa 50k, if in nsw/Vic 15-20k. But you aerodtone must be certified and meet standards in mos 139.....this is not cheap
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Gupta, standard rate is 8k for a pair of RNAV approaches. Aerodrone survey will set you back about 5k. Flight validation varies, if you are in WA circa 50k, if in nsw/Vic 15-20k. But you aerodtone must be certified and meet standards in mos 139.....this is not cheap
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Thread Starter
Akro, there has never been a request made to us for a practice training approach. I have no knowledge of it ever being put on the work list. It certainly isn't there now and is not likely to be in the near future.
At the following meeting (13 October 2011), the minutes were this meeting were accepted as correct with Peter Comarty, Graeme Rogers (chair) and Matt Stein representing CASA and Bob Scott representing Airservices Australia.
Furthermore (without the CWS training IAP) safety concerns were expressed about lack of IAP training facilities in the Melbourne basin at the 18 April meeting 2013 with Graeme Rogers (chair), Owen Richards and Thomas Hawley representing CASA and Kent Quigley representing Airservices Australia.
Once again, these minutes were accepted as correct at the 25 July 2013 meeting with Owen Richards, Cheryl, Allman (chair) and Malcolm McGregor representing CASA and Kent Quigley representing Airservices Australia.
So.....someone is fibbing
In the meantime last week, LTV was U/S, YWE was U/S and CWS has no IAP nor does WON and the PCK NDB has been decommissioned.
No fibbing here mate. Without this pprune thread, I would be non the wiser.
Just because someone involved in RAPAC declares that it will happen does not make it so. I have just had a look at the attendees of all the RAPAC meetings involved in the PID IAP (APR-OCT 2011). There is not a single person on that list that has the authority to approve publication of an IAP at PID...did you actually read the minutes of the discussion that took place? here they are for you, from 28 JUL 2011 meeting
That is the last discussion that took place. There is nowhere in the minutes where anyone agrees that it would be re-instated. The last line of the discussion has never been resolved. As such no IAP will be re-instated. The action was closed.
There is no way that CASA will direct AsA to publish an IAP that breaks all current rules for the publication of the IAP.
Alpha
Just because someone involved in RAPAC declares that it will happen does not make it so. I have just had a look at the attendees of all the RAPAC meetings involved in the PID IAP (APR-OCT 2011). There is not a single person on that list that has the authority to approve publication of an IAP at PID...did you actually read the minutes of the discussion that took place? here they are for you, from 28 JUL 2011 meeting
5.3. PID NDB APP for Training
Previous Minutes:
Graeme Rogers, Chair, provided update. The IAP was withdrawn in accordance with CASA’s policy of no IAP’s to
unregistered or non-certified aerodromes. However the PID IAP will be revised and republished for training purposes in
VMC only.
Discussion:
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.
Previous Minutes:
Graeme Rogers, Chair, provided update. The IAP was withdrawn in accordance with CASA’s policy of no IAP’s to
unregistered or non-certified aerodromes. However the PID IAP will be revised and republished for training purposes in
VMC only.
Discussion:
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.
There is no way that CASA will direct AsA to publish an IAP that breaks all current rules for the publication of the IAP.
Alpha
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick question about Airservices procedures, probably for you alphacentauri. Given this contested training approach is to be installed as a VMC-only procedure, what relevance is there to obstacle reporting?
Akro, what is stopping a group of flying schools from buying a cheap decommissioned NDB and setting it up in an obliging farmer's field, flying approaches to it using any approach plate of your choice? Obviously at a legal height for the circumstances, in Day VMC...
Akro, what is stopping a group of flying schools from buying a cheap decommissioned NDB and setting it up in an obliging farmer's field, flying approaches to it using any approach plate of your choice? Obviously at a legal height for the circumstances, in Day VMC...
Last edited by Oktas8; 5th Oct 2013 at 09:44.
Thread Starter
AlphaCenturi - I didn't mean to accuse you. I was just highlighting that the information I have is in conflict.
While I did read the minutes that you copied, the PID discussion went over a number of meetings and the totality of the discussion gives the clear indication of a commitment to do something. I do not know any of the CASA / ASA people attending, but frankly if they are representing those organisations, then they should be able to speak for them. If they mis- spoke then there is ample opportunity for their respective organisations to review the minutes.
So, it seems to me that someone is being mis-leading.
To respond to OKTAS8, MECIR requires engine failure work. This pretty much dictates that there is a runway at the end in case the shutdown engine doesn't come to life again.
And returning to my original whinge. If Airservices Australia and / or CASA seriously had safety as an objective, then surely they would act to facilitate training and currency. Why not just add 500 ft or 800 ft to the old procedure altitudes and publish it as VMC training only. Surely that doesn't cost $15k?? More like $150 I would have thought.
While I did read the minutes that you copied, the PID discussion went over a number of meetings and the totality of the discussion gives the clear indication of a commitment to do something. I do not know any of the CASA / ASA people attending, but frankly if they are representing those organisations, then they should be able to speak for them. If they mis- spoke then there is ample opportunity for their respective organisations to review the minutes.
So, it seems to me that someone is being mis-leading.
To respond to OKTAS8, MECIR requires engine failure work. This pretty much dictates that there is a runway at the end in case the shutdown engine doesn't come to life again.
And returning to my original whinge. If Airservices Australia and / or CASA seriously had safety as an objective, then surely they would act to facilitate training and currency. Why not just add 500 ft or 800 ft to the old procedure altitudes and publish it as VMC training only. Surely that doesn't cost $15k?? More like $150 I would have thought.
Akro,
I have gone through some of the old correspondence relating to this.
After the RAPAC meeting, there were enquiries made to AsA and CASA about the re-instatment of the procedure as a VFR procedure. Out of these enquiries, 2 issues arose.
1. There was nobody prepared to take reposnsibility for obstacle monitoring (an issue that arose out of the RAPAC)
2. CASA argued that this procedure could be used a cloudbreak procedure in times of bad weather. They issued advice to Airservices that we were not publish a VFR procedure at YPID.
Your argument needs to be directed to CASA. As of the date of that advice, redevelopment of procedures at YPID was ceased.
Alpha
I have gone through some of the old correspondence relating to this.
After the RAPAC meeting, there were enquiries made to AsA and CASA about the re-instatment of the procedure as a VFR procedure. Out of these enquiries, 2 issues arose.
1. There was nobody prepared to take reposnsibility for obstacle monitoring (an issue that arose out of the RAPAC)
2. CASA argued that this procedure could be used a cloudbreak procedure in times of bad weather. They issued advice to Airservices that we were not publish a VFR procedure at YPID.
Your argument needs to be directed to CASA. As of the date of that advice, redevelopment of procedures at YPID was ceased.
Alpha
Oktas8,
Both Airservices and CASA would be negligent if they published a procedure (even VMC) that did not comply with the obstacle protection criteria of the day. If we need to protect for obstacles, then there must be a program to actively monitor for them....well thats the party line anyway. I do see your point.
There is only one civillian organisation in Australia that has an operating certificate for NAVAID's. As a syndicate you can purchase and install an NDB, but you can't turn it on or operate it without a contract to AsA. Funnily enough the military have done a very similar thing with a certain TACAN and ILS installation in WA...it takes you to a nice cattle filled padock
Alpha
Both Airservices and CASA would be negligent if they published a procedure (even VMC) that did not comply with the obstacle protection criteria of the day. If we need to protect for obstacles, then there must be a program to actively monitor for them....well thats the party line anyway. I do see your point.
There is only one civillian organisation in Australia that has an operating certificate for NAVAID's. As a syndicate you can purchase and install an NDB, but you can't turn it on or operate it without a contract to AsA. Funnily enough the military have done a very similar thing with a certain TACAN and ILS installation in WA...it takes you to a nice cattle filled padock
Alpha
Thread Starter
Alphacentauri
Thanks for the homework. I'll back off bagging AsA, but that CASA would take such a decision and without feeding it back to RAPAC is very disappointing.
The CASA argument really displays an amazing detachment from reality.
Firstly, if people want to use a procedure for cloudbreak, there are many alternatives:
1. Flying W468 WON-CWS legally allows you to descend to 2300 ft.
2. Flying CWS to MB on W468 allows descent to 2100 ft.
3. Establishing on the W495 to JACKA legally allows decent to 1600 ft
4. The MB RNAV SB & SC approaches are nearby which would allows descent to 1130 ft at 3 mile then break and go somewhere else before entering the MB control zone.
5. You can find a copy of the old PID approach in most flying schools & simulators. Some may choose to use this (illegally)
6. It is pretty widely known that if you fly due North from CWS (essentially W495 to Waren) that it takes you 15nm up westernport before crossing the coast. I have heard rumors that some pilots use this (illegally).
If pilots want a procedure to achieve cloudbreak, they'll find one. Instead of CASA hiding its head in the sand, why not do the job properly and make a replacement procedure?
I can't recall the MDA from the old PID IAP. Like many other pilots I still have a copy of the old PID procedure. But its in my flight bag which is in an a/c that we left interstate. If I recall correctly the old MDA was about 1,000 ft (I think it was 970 or 980 ft). Add (say) 800 ft to this and it will be not significantly lower than other options - which removes the "cloudbreak" argument.
I should hasten to add that I have / will use WON - CWS to descend to 2300ft. If I don't get a visual break in that 19 mile leg, I do the RWY35 MBSB RNAV to MB. If the weather is really that bad that there are no holes over WesternPort, then a big airport like Moorabbin is a good place to go anyway.
Secondly, the point about monitoring obstructions is ludicrous.
1. Any training procedure will be marked day VMC so, the safety pilot or instructor can look for new obstructions and report them to CASA if something changes.
2. If 500 or 800 ft is added to all the altitudes, it should raise the procedure above any potential new obstructions At Philip Is cannot be buildings due to planning restrictions, so any increase in obstruction height can only be phone towers or tree growth.
As far as I am concerned this is a triumph of bureaucratic laziness over the interests of safety in classic "Yes Minister" style. CASA's intransigence in refusing to establish a training facility in the Melbourne basin is in direct conflict with its stated mission of promoting aviation safety. Its lack of feedback of its decision in in response to an RAPAC minute fails the test of its stated value of communication with stakeholders.
Thanks for the homework. I'll back off bagging AsA, but that CASA would take such a decision and without feeding it back to RAPAC is very disappointing.
The CASA argument really displays an amazing detachment from reality.
Firstly, if people want to use a procedure for cloudbreak, there are many alternatives:
1. Flying W468 WON-CWS legally allows you to descend to 2300 ft.
2. Flying CWS to MB on W468 allows descent to 2100 ft.
3. Establishing on the W495 to JACKA legally allows decent to 1600 ft
4. The MB RNAV SB & SC approaches are nearby which would allows descent to 1130 ft at 3 mile then break and go somewhere else before entering the MB control zone.
5. You can find a copy of the old PID approach in most flying schools & simulators. Some may choose to use this (illegally)
6. It is pretty widely known that if you fly due North from CWS (essentially W495 to Waren) that it takes you 15nm up westernport before crossing the coast. I have heard rumors that some pilots use this (illegally).
If pilots want a procedure to achieve cloudbreak, they'll find one. Instead of CASA hiding its head in the sand, why not do the job properly and make a replacement procedure?
I can't recall the MDA from the old PID IAP. Like many other pilots I still have a copy of the old PID procedure. But its in my flight bag which is in an a/c that we left interstate. If I recall correctly the old MDA was about 1,000 ft (I think it was 970 or 980 ft). Add (say) 800 ft to this and it will be not significantly lower than other options - which removes the "cloudbreak" argument.
I should hasten to add that I have / will use WON - CWS to descend to 2300ft. If I don't get a visual break in that 19 mile leg, I do the RWY35 MBSB RNAV to MB. If the weather is really that bad that there are no holes over WesternPort, then a big airport like Moorabbin is a good place to go anyway.
Secondly, the point about monitoring obstructions is ludicrous.
1. Any training procedure will be marked day VMC so, the safety pilot or instructor can look for new obstructions and report them to CASA if something changes.
2. If 500 or 800 ft is added to all the altitudes, it should raise the procedure above any potential new obstructions At Philip Is cannot be buildings due to planning restrictions, so any increase in obstruction height can only be phone towers or tree growth.
As far as I am concerned this is a triumph of bureaucratic laziness over the interests of safety in classic "Yes Minister" style. CASA's intransigence in refusing to establish a training facility in the Melbourne basin is in direct conflict with its stated mission of promoting aviation safety. Its lack of feedback of its decision in in response to an RAPAC minute fails the test of its stated value of communication with stakeholders.
Last edited by Old Akro; 8th Oct 2013 at 03:52.
