Rant about deleted PID NDB/VOR approach
Thread Starter
Rant about deleted PID NDB/VOR approach
I was about to fly the CWS based YPID VOR procedure on X-Plane. I left my plates at home, so thought I'd just get if from the ASA site. Which is when I remembered that ASA cancelled it some time ago.
I think this is a clear illustration that ASA (or is it CASA or are both in this) are not really concerned with safety. The CWS VOR & NDB beacons would have to be among the most heavily used aids for training in Australia. It is the most accessible station for aircraft based at Moorabbin, Tyabb, Tooradin and probably Lilydale, Coldstream, and possibly even Essendon.
There used to be a procedure that everyone flew. So what will happen now? In order to maintain flying standards / flying proficiency and to conduct training, its an important beacon for most Melbourne based IFR pilots.
It will still be used for training but different schools will find different procedures from other airports to use - or fly the old procedure. So, we used to have aircraft flying known, predictable patterns that helped maintain safe aircraft separation but now its a scattergun of procedures of individual choice.
The rumour mill says that the current owners of Philip Is airport don't want to pay the CASA airport survey costs for the procedure, which is why it was deleted. And that's fair enough, but surely if one of the regulators that we users pay for was intent on providing services that promote safety, they would institute an non-aerodrome approach like exists at Yarrowee?
I can't keep using the old approach forever. Does anyone have current VOR/NDB approaches at suitably high altitudes that works?
I think this is a clear illustration that ASA (or is it CASA or are both in this) are not really concerned with safety. The CWS VOR & NDB beacons would have to be among the most heavily used aids for training in Australia. It is the most accessible station for aircraft based at Moorabbin, Tyabb, Tooradin and probably Lilydale, Coldstream, and possibly even Essendon.
There used to be a procedure that everyone flew. So what will happen now? In order to maintain flying standards / flying proficiency and to conduct training, its an important beacon for most Melbourne based IFR pilots.
It will still be used for training but different schools will find different procedures from other airports to use - or fly the old procedure. So, we used to have aircraft flying known, predictable patterns that helped maintain safe aircraft separation but now its a scattergun of procedures of individual choice.
The rumour mill says that the current owners of Philip Is airport don't want to pay the CASA airport survey costs for the procedure, which is why it was deleted. And that's fair enough, but surely if one of the regulators that we users pay for was intent on providing services that promote safety, they would institute an non-aerodrome approach like exists at Yarrowee?
I can't keep using the old approach forever. Does anyone have current VOR/NDB approaches at suitably high altitudes that works?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats wrong with using the NDB/VOR at MB, EN, LTV, BDG, BLT, MNG, SHT or AV? I used to visited each of those on IR nav ex's. I think I did one NDB at PID before it closed.
Granted it was good to use for those doing an IR in a 172 or PA28 but any of the above are within the scope of any nav from within the Melbourne area.
Granted it was good to use for those doing an IR in a 172 or PA28 but any of the above are within the scope of any nav from within the Melbourne area.
When you live....
Licensed aerodromes
My understanding is that all approaches to non-licensed aerodromes are being withdrawn - it's not the survey that is the issue, it's the cost of keeping the aerodrome going. YLIL RNAV approaches have also been withdrawn, presumably for the same reason.
What should happen, for training etc, is that YPID NDB/VOR approach should be replaced with a CWS non-aerodrome approach like Yarowee - given that the inbound leg of both approaches puts you over water, there is no issue with continuing the descent to minimums (raised to 1360ft) then missed.
Why it should be done eco victim? Sure, there are others around but YPID as a training aid? It's the closest to Melbourne that doesn't involve stooging around in controlled airspace and stuffing other legitimate users.
MB - CTA/noise
EN - CTA/traffic/ML
AV - CTA/traffic
All the others - bloody miles away!
plus PCK - bloody dangerous!
It also serves as a way home for YTYA pilots who could break visual and track up the channel to Tyabb.
Bring back CWS/YPID approaches!
UTR.
What should happen, for training etc, is that YPID NDB/VOR approach should be replaced with a CWS non-aerodrome approach like Yarowee - given that the inbound leg of both approaches puts you over water, there is no issue with continuing the descent to minimums (raised to 1360ft) then missed.
Why it should be done eco victim? Sure, there are others around but YPID as a training aid? It's the closest to Melbourne that doesn't involve stooging around in controlled airspace and stuffing other legitimate users.
MB - CTA/noise
EN - CTA/traffic/ML
AV - CTA/traffic
All the others - bloody miles away!
plus PCK - bloody dangerous!
It also serves as a way home for YTYA pilots who could break visual and track up the channel to Tyabb.
Bring back CWS/YPID approaches!
UTR.
Nunc est bibendum
Does anyone have current VOR/NDB approaches at suitably high altitudes that works?
Grandpa Aerotart
My understanding is that all approaches to non-licensed aerodromes are being withdrawn - it's not the survey that is the issue, it's the cost of keeping the aerodrome going. YLIL RNAV approaches have also been withdrawn, presumably for the same reason.
When you live....
Ummm - well maybe it's going to be? Dunno - just relaying what my source thought about certified aerodromes, obviously not quite correct!
UTR
UTR
Folks,
It's all about aerodrome certification. If the aerodrome is not a certified or registered one, ALL instrument approaches are being withdrawn ---- 'cause that's wot de rools say!!
The thought that a smart change to the rules would allow retention of how many?? Hundreds?? never seems to have been considered.
Tootle pip!!
It's all about aerodrome certification. If the aerodrome is not a certified or registered one, ALL instrument approaches are being withdrawn ---- 'cause that's wot de rools say!!
The thought that a smart change to the rules would allow retention of how many?? Hundreds?? never seems to have been considered.
Tootle pip!!
Grandpa Aerotart
Not doubting you UTR just confused as to the connection - why was an approach safe last month but not this month - especially a GPS RNAV which would have zero maintenance costs?
Sounds like someone at AsA is playing with his willy.
Sounds like someone at AsA is playing with his willy.
why was an approach safe last month but not this month - especially a GPS RNAV which would have zero maintenance costs?
There would have to be some costs associated with even a GPS RNAV for in flight testing and obstacle monitoring.
Places like EN and AV its hard enough to get an ILS approach in let alone stumbling around on the NDB procedures. It would be good if they could issue training/cloud break procedures for both CWS and WON.
Thread Starter
Kerg
Cooma is higher than it needs to be, the missed approach Cowes and it takes slower SE aircraft a fair way South over Bass Straight.
I spent a couple of hours last night in front of the tele with the Jepp books. I was looking for an approach that:
A) does not overfly Cowes
b) starts below 4,000 ft (arbitrary - but why go higher than you need especially because it gets into the MB - FLI route).
c) does not go too far south over water (ie no 2 / 3 min legs South)
d) has better clearance to the restricted airspace than the old procedure
e) does not go below about 1700ft (ie the 220 ft spot height plus 1,500) and definitely above the old height above the aid(1,400 ft)
In order of preference, here is my list:
Tennant Creek NDB - A (use the NDB pattern for VOR as well)
Tamworth NDB-A or VOR-A
Hughendon NDB or VOR RWY12
Winton NDB-RWY12 (use the NDB pattern for VOR as well)
Southern Cross NDB-A (use the NDB pattern for VOR as well)
So far I've invested only 2 hours or so in this. The question still remains; In the interest of safety training, why won't CASA / ASA put in a the small amount of work required to create an non runway procedure by either modifying the old PID procedure or making a new one based on (say) the Tennant Creek one?
Cooma is higher than it needs to be, the missed approach Cowes and it takes slower SE aircraft a fair way South over Bass Straight.
I spent a couple of hours last night in front of the tele with the Jepp books. I was looking for an approach that:
A) does not overfly Cowes
b) starts below 4,000 ft (arbitrary - but why go higher than you need especially because it gets into the MB - FLI route).
c) does not go too far south over water (ie no 2 / 3 min legs South)
d) has better clearance to the restricted airspace than the old procedure
e) does not go below about 1700ft (ie the 220 ft spot height plus 1,500) and definitely above the old height above the aid(1,400 ft)
In order of preference, here is my list:
Tennant Creek NDB - A (use the NDB pattern for VOR as well)
Tamworth NDB-A or VOR-A
Hughendon NDB or VOR RWY12
Winton NDB-RWY12 (use the NDB pattern for VOR as well)
Southern Cross NDB-A (use the NDB pattern for VOR as well)
So far I've invested only 2 hours or so in this. The question still remains; In the interest of safety training, why won't CASA / ASA put in a the small amount of work required to create an non runway procedure by either modifying the old PID procedure or making a new one based on (say) the Tennant Creek one?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Behind a CB near you
Age: 43
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck, i'm with you!!! I fail to see how an approach can be considered unsafe (or whatever they reckon it is) just because the aerodrome at the end of it is not certified or registered.
Sounds like someone at AsA or CASA is conducting a butt covering exercise .... Worried about legal action or copping it in the chops during an accident investigation should someone conduct the approach and prang at the end of it.
Without looking into the rules ..... where does that leave the likes of the RFDS or some other operators who may have specific approaches (RNAV) made up for their own use into some uncertified aerodromes.
Sounds like someone at AsA or CASA is conducting a butt covering exercise .... Worried about legal action or copping it in the chops during an accident investigation should someone conduct the approach and prang at the end of it.
Without looking into the rules ..... where does that leave the likes of the RFDS or some other operators who may have specific approaches (RNAV) made up for their own use into some uncertified aerodromes.
It is not an Airservices issue but CASA, related to MOS 139.
And yes, it is to do with the owners of certified and registered aerodromes being required to have a monitoring system in place, unlike lower aerodrome categories.
Further info, agenda item 5.6: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../vic100422.pdf
139.030 Aerodromes with non-precision approach runways to be
certified or registered
(1) A person must not operate an aerodrome to which subregulation (3)
applies if the aerodrome is not a certified aerodrome or a registered
aerodrome.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
(3) This subregulation applies to an aerodrome that:
(a) is available for public use; and
(b) has a non-precision approach runway.
certified or registered
(1) A person must not operate an aerodrome to which subregulation (3)
applies if the aerodrome is not a certified aerodrome or a registered
aerodrome.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
(3) This subregulation applies to an aerodrome that:
(a) is available for public use; and
(b) has a non-precision approach runway.
Subpart 139.E Obstacles and hazards
139.350 Monitoring of airspace
(1) The operator of a certified aerodrome or a registered aerodrome must
monitor the airspace around the aerodrome for infringement of the
obstacle limitation surfaces by:
(a) any object, building or structure; or
(b) any gaseous efflux having a velocity exceeding 4.3 metres per
second.
(2) The monitoring must be in accordance with the standards set out in
the Manual of Standards.
139.350 Monitoring of airspace
(1) The operator of a certified aerodrome or a registered aerodrome must
monitor the airspace around the aerodrome for infringement of the
obstacle limitation surfaces by:
(a) any object, building or structure; or
(b) any gaseous efflux having a velocity exceeding 4.3 metres per
second.
(2) The monitoring must be in accordance with the standards set out in
the Manual of Standards.
Grandpa Aerotart
Like I said, someone playing with his willy
06 July 2010
CASA strongly recommends that, where terrain permits, NPA procedures be provided as they enhance the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations
CAAP 89P-1(1) Aug 1999 (General 1.3)
CASA strongly recommends that aerodrome operators avail themselves of the benefit of GPS technology
CAAP 89P-1(1) Aug 1999 (General 1.50)
Mr. Kim Jones (CASA, manager Airways & Aerodromes Branch) states in his letter of 12May 2009 “CASR 139.030 could be interpreted to mean that aerodromes without straight in approaches do not have non-precision approach runways and therefore do not need to be registered or certified. However CASR definitions show that this is not the intention of the regulation.”
He then goes on to say that “Regardless of the interpretation of 139 my concern is with CASR173. This CASR regulates the design of instrument approach procedures, with obstacle clearance the primary safety consideration in developing (designing ed.) and maintaining them.”
Now the matter is out in the open.
The procedure was designed by International Air Crewing (IAC) in 1999 who at that time were a CASA approved Procedure Designer. Further the design was thoroughly vetted and test flown in accordance with the procedures of CASR173 and relevant CAAP’s by Ian Mallet of CASA. CASA authorized Air Services publications and Jeppesen to publish the approach plates and the ERSA entry.
Although the original intent was to provide for an NPA approach to an NPA runway RWY18 GPS the approach was truncated at the circling minima and designated as LIL GPS-C pending a new OLS survey for the runway.
This is in accordance with the provisions of CASR 139 MOS 12.5 (allowing for an NPA straight in approach when there is no NPA runway (as at YLIL) but only to a circling minima.)
It should be noted that CASR139 12.8 says that only aerodromes that are certified or registered can have NPA runways. It does NOT say that only certified or registered aerodromes can have an NPA approach.
The very fact that CASR139 12.5 and 12.8 exist prove that it is the intent of the regulation to permit a GPS approach to non certified or registered aerodromes but only to a circling minima.
Turning to the issue with CASR173 which Mr. Jones acknowledges as his prime concern.
CASR 173 and the CAAP’s require Procedure Designers to assess the Obstacle Location Surfaces (OLS) for the approach using published “tall structures” data bases together with a ground survey in the vicinity of the final approach area. This was done in accordance with CASA procedures at the procedure design stage. In addition the Procedure Designer has to accept on-going responsibility for maintaining the safety of the approach in the face of possible penetration of the OLS by development under the OLS.
To assist in maintaining the safety of the approach the aerodrome operator (Lilydale Airfield P/L ) has accepted in writing that it is responsible to advise the Procedure Designer of any threats to the OLS. The operators of YLIL are in a better position than most in monitoring threats and actual construction activity under our OLS because we operate HJ 365 days a year in our circuit area and adjacent training area which encloses the whole of the NPA approach airspace. We are therefore in a good position to meet our obligation to our Procedure Designer to pass on threats to our OLS. There have been threats and they have been dealt with by the aerodrome operator before the OLS was affected.
In March 2006 IAC ceased to be a Procedure Designer and the relevant material for YLIL was handed over to Air Services who are now the Procedure Designers. From that date on, Air Services became the Procedure Designer and became responsible for the on-going maintenance of the NPA procedure for YLIL. Our legal responsibility in regard to the OLS remains with the Procedure Designer. In response to our request in July 2009 Air Services did an air survey of the approach areas.
In summary, The approach for YLIL was designed in accordance with CASR173 and it is maintained in accordance with the CAAPS’s of CASR173.
The debate over the LILYDALE GPS-C is a result of CASA’s assertion that the maintenance requirements for the procedure required under CASR173 can only be met if the aerodrome for which the Procedure was designed is either certified or registered. What about the numerous approaches where there is no aerodrome? Who is legally obligated to monitor the approach surfaces and report to the Procedure Designer? On approaches such as Polo Flat, Warburton, PID, YWE, VRD and several others there is either no aerodrome, or no operator, or if there is an operator there is no arrangement in place to observe threats to an OLS let alone report them.
In the case of YLIL, CASR139 12.5 prohibits an approach in IMC below the circling minima. This reduces the need for security of the final approach surface because the pilot (like a NVFR pilot) is in a position where he can see and decide not to land from the safe height of the circling minima. Because of CAR 92.1(d) the responsibility is placed on the pilot to obtain the necessary information from the Aerodrome Operator to assess whether it is likely to be safe to continue in VMC to land once he reaches the circling minima.
In answer to this CASA has said “what about the pilot who does a practice approach and does not need to seek info from the operator.” Our answer to that scenario is to place a note on the Plate requiring pre-arrangement with the operator before using the approach.
CASA also tried to say that the information to be exchanged under CAR92.1 (d) was confined to the state of the surface of the aerodrome and nothing about the approaches. Anyone who has read CAR92.1(d) will see that that is ridiculous.
We draw the attention of RAPAC that there are clauses in CASR139 permitting agreed exemptions.
And finally.
Between 1969 and 1979 15 people were killed in 3 accidents to aircraft inbound to the Yarra Valley from the North. YLIL is in the foothills of the Great Divide and is the only air port in the area capable of handling cabin class aircraft. Due to the prevailing SW winds cloud frequently builds up on the hills to the North. Inbound VFR pilots should climb over the cloud but if they do then they will be in C airspace. AirServices will usually refuse a clearance over the top to a VFR aircraft. The pilot, being so close to home, is tempted to squeeze between the trees and the cloud.
During the 80’s at least 3 pilots were observed at YLIL removing leaves and branches from their under-carriages. We can assume more of the same has occurred at YMMB.
When GPS approaches became available the owners of YLIL jumped at the chance to add to safety of our customers and the utility of our aerodrome.
There are now 44 IFR aircraft based at YLIL flown by approx 60 IFR pilots. They are now unimpressed with our Regulator.
20 days ago Winter struck. “Special VFR techniques” have had to be used to get back into YLIL on 5 occasions. These have involved flying in decidedly poor visibility under cloud while cleared at “not above 1000ft” over terrain which rises to 1100ft as one tracks from circa PLE towards YLIL.
This is an un-rehearsed activity, the pilot does not know just where he will be vectored. To all but experienced pilots, very familiar with the area, this activity, while legal, is unprofessional and dangerous.
By contrast pilots using the LIL GPS-C could descend to 1010ft using a safe proven procedure (probably rehearsed) which delivers them into familiar terrain (at least for the majority of users).
Any activity which requires great skill and experience and which cannot be rehearsed is prone to accident. This is not what civilian flying should be about.
The Manager Aerodromes & Airways said to me on 23Dec2009 “I am so worried about the continued use of the NPA at Lilydale where someone might hit an obstacle (unknown, un-notified-ed) that I can’t sleep at night.”
I would suggest that there is a negligible chance that such an unknown un-notified obstacle would exist and even less chance that someone would fly into it.
What was even more amazing was his statement that “If I were to agree now to registering YLIL by 29Jan2010 then my (allegedly dangerous) NPA would instantly be OK (presumably safe) and (presumably) he would again be able to sleep at night!
Nevertheless compared to the miniscule chance of an aircraft hitting an object while executing an NPA into non registered YLIL, and in the light of the disasters in the 1970’s and last week’s adventures, the occurrence of another disaster is by comparison almost a certainty.
Of course it will be pilot error, but the coroner will be looking for contributing factors.
I look to the support of RAPAC to persuade CASA to re-instate the GPS NPA-C for Lilydale.
CASA strongly recommends that, where terrain permits, NPA procedures be provided as they enhance the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations
CAAP 89P-1(1) Aug 1999 (General 1.3)
CASA strongly recommends that aerodrome operators avail themselves of the benefit of GPS technology
CAAP 89P-1(1) Aug 1999 (General 1.50)
Mr. Kim Jones (CASA, manager Airways & Aerodromes Branch) states in his letter of 12May 2009 “CASR 139.030 could be interpreted to mean that aerodromes without straight in approaches do not have non-precision approach runways and therefore do not need to be registered or certified. However CASR definitions show that this is not the intention of the regulation.”
He then goes on to say that “Regardless of the interpretation of 139 my concern is with CASR173. This CASR regulates the design of instrument approach procedures, with obstacle clearance the primary safety consideration in developing (designing ed.) and maintaining them.”
Now the matter is out in the open.
The procedure was designed by International Air Crewing (IAC) in 1999 who at that time were a CASA approved Procedure Designer. Further the design was thoroughly vetted and test flown in accordance with the procedures of CASR173 and relevant CAAP’s by Ian Mallet of CASA. CASA authorized Air Services publications and Jeppesen to publish the approach plates and the ERSA entry.
Although the original intent was to provide for an NPA approach to an NPA runway RWY18 GPS the approach was truncated at the circling minima and designated as LIL GPS-C pending a new OLS survey for the runway.
This is in accordance with the provisions of CASR 139 MOS 12.5 (allowing for an NPA straight in approach when there is no NPA runway (as at YLIL) but only to a circling minima.)
It should be noted that CASR139 12.8 says that only aerodromes that are certified or registered can have NPA runways. It does NOT say that only certified or registered aerodromes can have an NPA approach.
The very fact that CASR139 12.5 and 12.8 exist prove that it is the intent of the regulation to permit a GPS approach to non certified or registered aerodromes but only to a circling minima.
Turning to the issue with CASR173 which Mr. Jones acknowledges as his prime concern.
CASR 173 and the CAAP’s require Procedure Designers to assess the Obstacle Location Surfaces (OLS) for the approach using published “tall structures” data bases together with a ground survey in the vicinity of the final approach area. This was done in accordance with CASA procedures at the procedure design stage. In addition the Procedure Designer has to accept on-going responsibility for maintaining the safety of the approach in the face of possible penetration of the OLS by development under the OLS.
To assist in maintaining the safety of the approach the aerodrome operator (Lilydale Airfield P/L ) has accepted in writing that it is responsible to advise the Procedure Designer of any threats to the OLS. The operators of YLIL are in a better position than most in monitoring threats and actual construction activity under our OLS because we operate HJ 365 days a year in our circuit area and adjacent training area which encloses the whole of the NPA approach airspace. We are therefore in a good position to meet our obligation to our Procedure Designer to pass on threats to our OLS. There have been threats and they have been dealt with by the aerodrome operator before the OLS was affected.
In March 2006 IAC ceased to be a Procedure Designer and the relevant material for YLIL was handed over to Air Services who are now the Procedure Designers. From that date on, Air Services became the Procedure Designer and became responsible for the on-going maintenance of the NPA procedure for YLIL. Our legal responsibility in regard to the OLS remains with the Procedure Designer. In response to our request in July 2009 Air Services did an air survey of the approach areas.
In summary, The approach for YLIL was designed in accordance with CASR173 and it is maintained in accordance with the CAAPS’s of CASR173.
The debate over the LILYDALE GPS-C is a result of CASA’s assertion that the maintenance requirements for the procedure required under CASR173 can only be met if the aerodrome for which the Procedure was designed is either certified or registered. What about the numerous approaches where there is no aerodrome? Who is legally obligated to monitor the approach surfaces and report to the Procedure Designer? On approaches such as Polo Flat, Warburton, PID, YWE, VRD and several others there is either no aerodrome, or no operator, or if there is an operator there is no arrangement in place to observe threats to an OLS let alone report them.
In the case of YLIL, CASR139 12.5 prohibits an approach in IMC below the circling minima. This reduces the need for security of the final approach surface because the pilot (like a NVFR pilot) is in a position where he can see and decide not to land from the safe height of the circling minima. Because of CAR 92.1(d) the responsibility is placed on the pilot to obtain the necessary information from the Aerodrome Operator to assess whether it is likely to be safe to continue in VMC to land once he reaches the circling minima.
In answer to this CASA has said “what about the pilot who does a practice approach and does not need to seek info from the operator.” Our answer to that scenario is to place a note on the Plate requiring pre-arrangement with the operator before using the approach.
CASA also tried to say that the information to be exchanged under CAR92.1 (d) was confined to the state of the surface of the aerodrome and nothing about the approaches. Anyone who has read CAR92.1(d) will see that that is ridiculous.
We draw the attention of RAPAC that there are clauses in CASR139 permitting agreed exemptions.
And finally.
Between 1969 and 1979 15 people were killed in 3 accidents to aircraft inbound to the Yarra Valley from the North. YLIL is in the foothills of the Great Divide and is the only air port in the area capable of handling cabin class aircraft. Due to the prevailing SW winds cloud frequently builds up on the hills to the North. Inbound VFR pilots should climb over the cloud but if they do then they will be in C airspace. AirServices will usually refuse a clearance over the top to a VFR aircraft. The pilot, being so close to home, is tempted to squeeze between the trees and the cloud.
During the 80’s at least 3 pilots were observed at YLIL removing leaves and branches from their under-carriages. We can assume more of the same has occurred at YMMB.
When GPS approaches became available the owners of YLIL jumped at the chance to add to safety of our customers and the utility of our aerodrome.
There are now 44 IFR aircraft based at YLIL flown by approx 60 IFR pilots. They are now unimpressed with our Regulator.
20 days ago Winter struck. “Special VFR techniques” have had to be used to get back into YLIL on 5 occasions. These have involved flying in decidedly poor visibility under cloud while cleared at “not above 1000ft” over terrain which rises to 1100ft as one tracks from circa PLE towards YLIL.
This is an un-rehearsed activity, the pilot does not know just where he will be vectored. To all but experienced pilots, very familiar with the area, this activity, while legal, is unprofessional and dangerous.
By contrast pilots using the LIL GPS-C could descend to 1010ft using a safe proven procedure (probably rehearsed) which delivers them into familiar terrain (at least for the majority of users).
Any activity which requires great skill and experience and which cannot be rehearsed is prone to accident. This is not what civilian flying should be about.
The Manager Aerodromes & Airways said to me on 23Dec2009 “I am so worried about the continued use of the NPA at Lilydale where someone might hit an obstacle (unknown, un-notified-ed) that I can’t sleep at night.”
I would suggest that there is a negligible chance that such an unknown un-notified obstacle would exist and even less chance that someone would fly into it.
What was even more amazing was his statement that “If I were to agree now to registering YLIL by 29Jan2010 then my (allegedly dangerous) NPA would instantly be OK (presumably safe) and (presumably) he would again be able to sleep at night!
Nevertheless compared to the miniscule chance of an aircraft hitting an object while executing an NPA into non registered YLIL, and in the light of the disasters in the 1970’s and last week’s adventures, the occurrence of another disaster is by comparison almost a certainty.
Of course it will be pilot error, but the coroner will be looking for contributing factors.
I look to the support of RAPAC to persuade CASA to re-instate the GPS NPA-C for Lilydale.
To answer the original question, this was in the minutes:
Re YLIL. Clearly the aerodrome operator doesn't want to upgrade to registered classification but I haven't read here and elsewhere exactly why - presumably the costs are high?
The IAP for Phillip Island has been submitted to Airservices Procedures Design Group for progression and implemention.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One problem I see with the YWE type of approach is what's happening at BLT - the local flight school is exerting its dominance on the aid so much that it wants all ENR aircraft to be on local BLT QNH for separation purposes due to the high volume of VFR/IFR aircraft transitioning via or air working over the aid. BLT is even establishing its own AWIS for this purpose and obliging ENR aircraft to use it.
I appreciate this is done for safety but requiring ENR aircraft to switch to BLT QNH while transiting YWE on area QNH/frequency is ridiculous. If I am not air working over the aid, why should I be compelled to conform ? Area QNH on area frequency is area QNH. The school does not own the aid and besides it's 14 nm away from BLT. Obviously they are not stopping at the recent amendment for the YWE plate for airwork to be conducted in Day VMC only - just to make it more convenient for their students.
I appreciate this is done for safety but requiring ENR aircraft to switch to BLT QNH while transiting YWE on area QNH/frequency is ridiculous. If I am not air working over the aid, why should I be compelled to conform ? Area QNH on area frequency is area QNH. The school does not own the aid and besides it's 14 nm away from BLT. Obviously they are not stopping at the recent amendment for the YWE plate for airwork to be conducted in Day VMC only - just to make it more convenient for their students.
Thread Starter
Capt. Thanks. I understand that essentially ASA deleted the chart on some sort of instruction from CASA.
But, this makes my question more pertinent because there can be no interdepartmental finger pointing. The Safety Regulator responsible for training, pilot proficiency and safety has deleted 2 approach procedures on aids that must surely be one of the 2 or 3 most heavily used for training & currency in Australia. They could have deleted the leg from the aid to the airport and made a non airport based procedure (like Yarrowee), but it has been removed entirely. I see this as CASA acting detrimentally to safety.
I followed a link to the RAPAC minutes which shows that ASA are at least guilty of extreme tardiness. Deletion of the PID approach has been on the agenda for some years, yet nothing was done. After the approach was deleted, creation of a new airport independent approach was put on ASA's work list in about January 2010. As the Ruddster says " fair shake of the sauce bottle" How long does it take? Once again, there is no visible sign that ASA are acting in the interests of safety rather than Bureaucratic ease.
But, this makes my question more pertinent because there can be no interdepartmental finger pointing. The Safety Regulator responsible for training, pilot proficiency and safety has deleted 2 approach procedures on aids that must surely be one of the 2 or 3 most heavily used for training & currency in Australia. They could have deleted the leg from the aid to the airport and made a non airport based procedure (like Yarrowee), but it has been removed entirely. I see this as CASA acting detrimentally to safety.
I followed a link to the RAPAC minutes which shows that ASA are at least guilty of extreme tardiness. Deletion of the PID approach has been on the agenda for some years, yet nothing was done. After the approach was deleted, creation of a new airport independent approach was put on ASA's work list in about January 2010. As the Ruddster says " fair shake of the sauce bottle" How long does it take? Once again, there is no visible sign that ASA are acting in the interests of safety rather than Bureaucratic ease.
I have no specifc knowledge on that one. I do know that after a procedure is designed they have to schedule a flight test, and I believe a national priority system operates.
I suggest an email to the address on this page (its not a correction but your question will get to the right section):
Airservices Australia - Contacts - Corrections to Aeronautical Charts and Documents
I suggest an email to the address on this page (its not a correction but your question will get to the right section):
Airservices Australia - Contacts - Corrections to Aeronautical Charts and Documents
Thread Starter
I'm going to dredge this up again. Off for the MECIR test again tomorrow and nearly two years since my last rant and there is still no training approach published for Cowes. 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?