Creating an approved LNAV approach
Thread Starter
Creating an approved LNAV approach
Possibly a naive question but how would we go about creating and publishing (via Air Services and thus AvPlan and OzRunways etc) an authorised LNAV or LNAV/VNAV approach at a busy ALA where there are currently no navaids?
Obviously there are criteria for waypoint placement with regards to splays and to obstacle clearance but that’s not a difficult task. Being a simple Lat/Long position rather than a navaid means there’s no major expense involved but no doubt being related to aviation there will be some process involved which will make it an expensive and time consuming exercise!
However if it’s a straightforward process it would greatly increase the all-weather viability of this and other airports. Guess it can’t be that easy as airports across the country would no doubt have done it well before this time.
Obviously there are criteria for waypoint placement with regards to splays and to obstacle clearance but that’s not a difficult task. Being a simple Lat/Long position rather than a navaid means there’s no major expense involved but no doubt being related to aviation there will be some process involved which will make it an expensive and time consuming exercise!
However if it’s a straightforward process it would greatly increase the all-weather viability of this and other airports. Guess it can’t be that easy as airports across the country would no doubt have done it well before this time.
Alphacentauri will be along soon, no doubt, with some tips.
This mob:
https://www.idscorporation.com/ids-s...s-australasia/
produce instrument approach charts found in DAP.
This mob:
https://www.idscorporation.com/ids-s...s-australasia/
produce instrument approach charts found in DAP.
.
This mob:
https://www.idscorporation.com/ids-s...s-australasia/
produce instrument approach charts found in DAP.
This mob:
https://www.idscorporation.com/ids-s...s-australasia/
produce instrument approach charts found in DAP.
I presume, if you look hard enough, they a listed/hidden on the CASA website.
Tootle pip!
.
Step 1. Aerodrome must be registered/certified
Step 2. Contract a CASR 173 provider (list on CASA web). Costs should include design and flight validation.
Note 1. Airservices are one of about 5 CASR173 providers.
Note 2. The CASR 173 provider will get them into DAP.
Step 2. Contract a CASR 173 provider (list on CASA web). Costs should include design and flight validation.
Note 1. Airservices are one of about 5 CASR173 providers.
Note 2. The CASR 173 provider will get them into DAP.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the info...sorry to be naive but what’s the CASA definition of a registered/certified airport?
Understand airfields like for example Caboolture have the dashed ‘ALA’ circle status versus say Glen Ines which is a solid circle ‘licenced’ status...are these thus registered/certified versus unregistered/uncertified?
There are so many ALA airports (particularly feeder airports such as Caboolture, Goolwa, Mittagong, Warnervale, Lethbridge and Tyabb servicing new clients escaping the ridiculous charging shenanigans of the likes of Bankstown and Moorabbin) that GPS approaches would be perfect for them.
Understand airfields like for example Caboolture have the dashed ‘ALA’ circle status versus say Glen Ines which is a solid circle ‘licenced’ status...are these thus registered/certified versus unregistered/uncertified?
There are so many ALA airports (particularly feeder airports such as Caboolture, Goolwa, Mittagong, Warnervale, Lethbridge and Tyabb servicing new clients escaping the ridiculous charging shenanigans of the likes of Bankstown and Moorabbin) that GPS approaches would be perfect for them.
There are so many ALA airports (particularly feeder airports such as Caboolture, Goolwa, Mittagong, Warnervale, Lethbridge and Tyabb servicing new clients escaping the ridiculous charging shenanigans of the likes of Bankstown and Moorabbin) that GPS approaches would be perfect for them.
How true, but no chance --- unless it is certified or registered, as those terms are defined.
It is a few years back that CASA pulled the approaches at a number of airfields, much to the disgust of regular users, but nothing of importance, just Air Ambulance, RFDS, aircraft carrying firefighting teams to Victorian fires, that sort of minor irritant to CASA.
Tootle pip!!
PS; A few GNSS procedures do not make it into DAPs, they are proprietary to those who paid for them, and are not available for public use.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told that the reason only registered or certified airfields can have instrument approaches is because of NOTAMS. ALA's like Goolwa cannot issue NOTAMS unless we get CASA approval each and every time, hence why most, if not all, ALA's are PPR (Prior Permission Required). So the reasoning by CASA is that because an ALA cannot issue a NOTAM then a pilot under IFR will not know if there is an issue with the runway etc. and therefore is unsafe*. CASA believe it is safer* for pilots to scud-run into an ALA.
* Safer in this context is synonymous with liability, i.e. If CASA allows approaches into non-registered/non-certified airports then CASA is liable, If a pilot crashes while scud-running its not CASAs fault.
* Safer in this context is synonymous with liability, i.e. If CASA allows approaches into non-registered/non-certified airports then CASA is liable, If a pilot crashes while scud-running its not CASAs fault.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just about NOTAMs
There are also physical differences between an instrument runway and a non instrument runway, in terms of baseline widths for the approach surveys and approach gradients, not to mention the required runway and runway strip widths for an ALA are much narrower than for a registered or certified aerodrome. Mos 139 Part 1 table 7.1-1 refers. In addition protection of the PANs-Ops surfaces is a requirement for a certified aerodrome, not so much for an ALA. So when you are in the soup at a certified aerodrome you are pretty much guaranteed that nothing unexpected, like a windfarm or an NBN tower will have been installed without assessment. My conversation with CASA was that yes, GPS would allow precision approaches to paddocks eventually - IF all the other standards for an instrument runway are met.
Seems crazy that can’t get a GPS approach anywhere considering no ground based equipment needed.
Throw in a higher missed and additional min visibility so can visually look for any white X’s etc, what other NOTAM would stop you landing apart from a closed runway?
Here we go... back in the day we did those ole VFR wet season arrivals
...
Throw in a higher missed and additional min visibility so can visually look for any white X’s etc, what other NOTAM would stop you landing apart from a closed runway?
Here we go... back in the day we did those ole VFR wet season arrivals
...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania and High Wollemi
Posts: 439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not quite right
There are a number of locations where the eventual landing site/strip is not a certified or what called this week. Have a look at
- Cooma/Polo flat,
or some of the earliest helicopter approaches
- Lithgow medical from the east which is a real point in space approach as the pad is around the end of the ridge.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/..._28FEB2019.PDF
- Merriwa medical
- Gosford medical
Or Wolgan Valley
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/..._28FEB2019.PDF
Approach just needs to be managed.
- Cooma/Polo flat,
or some of the earliest helicopter approaches
- Lithgow medical from the east which is a real point in space approach as the pad is around the end of the ridge.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/..._28FEB2019.PDF
- Merriwa medical
- Gosford medical
Or Wolgan Valley
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/..._28FEB2019.PDF
Approach just needs to be managed.
catseye,
The locations you mention have procedures that are for specialised helicopter operations and the procedures are marked "CASA APPROVED OPERATORS ONLY". They are all considered point in space procedures (regardless of whether helipad or landing ground). The approval process places certain requirements on the operator for the use of the procedures.
Lets compare apples with apples. For a fixed wing, LNAV procedure, the aerodrome must be certified or registered.
Wolgan Valley meets the criteria for helipad registration and is operating on an exemption. (Currently there is no allowance for helipad registration under CASR 139. This is coming) Therefore the procedure has no restrictions placed on it.
Alpha
The locations you mention have procedures that are for specialised helicopter operations and the procedures are marked "CASA APPROVED OPERATORS ONLY". They are all considered point in space procedures (regardless of whether helipad or landing ground). The approval process places certain requirements on the operator for the use of the procedures.
Lets compare apples with apples. For a fixed wing, LNAV procedure, the aerodrome must be certified or registered.
Wolgan Valley meets the criteria for helipad registration and is operating on an exemption. (Currently there is no allowance for helipad registration under CASR 139. This is coming) Therefore the procedure has no restrictions placed on it.
Alpha
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not really, indeed, not at all.
Queenstown in NZ would be a good example, having a GNSS PRNAV approach into same was/is a considerable competitive advantage versus those who didn't.
In AU, quite a few mining companies have proprietary procedure that they do not make available for general use.
Nothing to do with safety, as long as you comply with the applicable minima for wherever you are --- even if that is VMC ----- to bust minima is a decision by a PIC to increase risk.
Tootle pip!!
