BaroVNAVs are coming...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so quick guys
I'm sorry to say that even proline 21 aircraft won't be able to automatically use these new approaches until they are modified to accept the QNH and the temperature via a VHF link from the approved AWIS to the approved aircraft with a properly trained and approved pilot.. Catch my drift !!!!
Groggy
Groggy
I have to wonder that the "whole" purpose of establishment of the BaroVNAV approaches is to meet an ICAO recommendation/requirement to have approaches with vertical guidance at each end of the the runway. I'm pretty sure this is what is happening in New Zealand.
It's a relatively cheap/easy way to achieve the requirement without there being the need for any other infrastructure.
The fact such approaches cannot be used by many users doesn't come into it, so long as the approach is there the requirements have been met.
It's a relatively cheap/easy way to achieve the requirement without there being the need for any other infrastructure.
The fact such approaches cannot be used by many users doesn't come into it, so long as the approach is there the requirements have been met.
Groggy,
Now you've done it ..
Watch for your words to appear in the next CAAP
This will show we are leading the world in introducing new and innovative procedures, (that don't match anywhere else in the world and will cost far more than would be gained in the safety benefit)
Now you've done it ..
Watch for your words to appear in the next CAAP
This will show we are leading the world in introducing new and innovative procedures, (that don't match anywhere else in the world and will cost far more than would be gained in the safety benefit)
Last edited by Agent86; 17th Dec 2016 at 23:19. Reason: SPellink
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Agent 86
Watch for your words to appear in the next CAAP
If realtime QNH and Temp is needed to be piped by VHF into the system then that will throw a spanner in the works... I do note, however that the chart has temperature limits on it. Why is it therefore needed to be piped in automatically?
Bloggs, Can't find the "tongue-in cheek" emoticon, but I would suspect Groggy was using it and I certainly was.
This is from the policy statement https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...baro-vnav.aspx
No mention of "automatic insertion" ..just good old ear-brain-hand coordination.
There is also the list of the proposed airports here http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...tion-Table.pdf
Temp Compensation needed if operating outside the Temp limits (at least that's how it is done elsewhere)
This is from the policy statement https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...baro-vnav.aspx
APV Baro-VNAV operations require accurate aerodrome QNH (not area QNH) and temperature to be available. The QNH and temperature is measured by sensors on an Automatic Weather Station (AWS) and provided to the aircraft through an Aerodrome Weather Information Service (AWIS) with a VHF broadcast capability (referred to as an AWIS-VHF) or through an Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) generally associated with Control Tower operations.
There is also the list of the proposed airports here http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...tion-Table.pdf
Temp Compensation needed if operating outside the Temp limits (at least that's how it is done elsewhere)
When you live....
So now that all these approaches have been published - should they be working yet? Tried my first approach (in VMC) yesterday with a BaroVNAV and nothing happened - Garmin 430W stayed in LNAV only.
The department of infrastructure website doesn't seem to indicate if there is a process to turn it on or do they just work after being designed?
UTR
The department of infrastructure website doesn't seem to indicate if there is a process to turn it on or do they just work after being designed?
UTR
When you live....
Well that'd do it then 
Seems crazy that an approach chart that says "LNAV/VNAV" doesn't work on a GPS who's manual says for "L/VNAV - Lateral Navigation and Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) Approach. Fly to LNAV/VNAV minimums". But who am I to say....
Just went and did some more reading! Based on the policy website, that states:
I then have to wonder how many aircraft in Australia will be BaroVNAV capable and how many of those have suffered a propensity to CFIT over the years.
Stretching the memory, only CFIT on an aircraft of any size would have been Lockhard River - and it had a 155XL on board if I recall. Some discussion on other threads of the RFDS King Air (?) at YMTG - Collins Proline (I assume) wouldn't have been capable.
Who else is likely to get benefit? REX/QLink for YMTG, YMIA etc - all sounds reasonable but doesn't fit the policy description of reducing CFITs. Does fit a policy of reducing landing MDA - but if that's the case - who should be paying?
UTR
Seems crazy that an approach chart that says "LNAV/VNAV" doesn't work on a GPS who's manual says for "L/VNAV - Lateral Navigation and Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) Approach. Fly to LNAV/VNAV minimums". But who am I to say....Just went and did some more reading! Based on the policy website, that states:
The introduction of Approach to Landing Procedures with Vertical Guidance (APV) has been identified by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as an internationally significant measure to reducing accidents involving Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) for all ICAO States.
One of the means of achieving APV is through the implementation of Barometric Vertical Navigation (Baro-VNAV) approach procedures.
One of the means of achieving APV is through the implementation of Barometric Vertical Navigation (Baro-VNAV) approach procedures.
Stretching the memory, only CFIT on an aircraft of any size would have been Lockhard River - and it had a 155XL on board if I recall. Some discussion on other threads of the RFDS King Air (?) at YMTG - Collins Proline (I assume) wouldn't have been capable.
Who else is likely to get benefit? REX/QLink for YMTG, YMIA etc - all sounds reasonable but doesn't fit the policy description of reducing CFITs. Does fit a policy of reducing landing MDA - but if that's the case - who should be paying?
UTR
Short answer is, you need an integrated air data computer to be BaroVnav capable. Your Garmin 430W can fly SBAS VNAV which is currently under trial and hopefully rolled out in a few yrs.
So SBAS supports most light end GA and BaroVNAV supports the higher end market. I dont think S340's are capable and only Proline Kingair. Your arguments around Baro are relevant. Baro does nothing for most of GA and wouldn't have prevented YLHR.
So SBAS supports most light end GA and BaroVNAV supports the higher end market. I dont think S340's are capable and only Proline Kingair. Your arguments around Baro are relevant. Baro does nothing for most of GA and wouldn't have prevented YLHR.
