YATN GPS-RNAV Approach
 

My Garmin GPS database has the waypoints for a GPS-RNAV approach into Atherton (YATN) (ATNNA, ATNNI, ATNND, ATNNI, ATNNF, ATNNM and ATNNH), yet I have never seem such an approach published.

Can anyone tell me why this is so?

An Atherton approach would be really handy - can we expect to see one sometime soon?

R:cool:

When I follow the link on our internal network there is an approach, but is flagged as "limited distribution and available only to emergency services"

Thanx!

I wonder why that is, if its a fully surveyed approach? The proximity to YMBA maybe?

R:cool:

The RNAV Approach was designed by Airservices Procedure designers for QLD Emergency Services, who paid for the service. As such, the plate and updates are only provided to QES and Cairns Approach. They also paid for RNAV approaches to be designed for Mossman Hospital, Tully Hospital etc.

Bit like QANTAS paying Naverus to design the RNP approaches - these are limited distribution as well.

Selling safety related data?
 

Is it right for Airservices to be selling safety related data to some, and witholding this data from everyone else? It's only a matter of time before there is an accident due to not having this information. The lawyers will love that.

You're joking right!! The data on all the hills etc round Atherton is readily available. They designed instrument approaches for QES as they wanted RNAV approaches to places they regularly visit in crap weather and at night - usually Med1.
Pay your money and I'm sure Airservices will design whatever procedure you want. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Buying approaches
 

There are thousands of places that need GPS approaches. Are we going to have to buy them? Where is this heading, and where will it end? Is this another case of a monopoly selling mandatory items?
If this continues, I see many "home made" approaches in the future.

I'm with you bushy!

Seems a bit daft that the waypoints are available (on my GPSMAP296 database anyway), its only a short step to a homemade approach.

There should be a general good here. Whats the value in keeping a surveyed approach secret? If the Feds are not going to fund the Appr then a private mob should only be able to have one officially accepted if it is made public.

Its not as though Qld Emergency Services are in commercial competition with anyone and the public purse will cough up a lot more than the cost of surveying the Appr if they have to go looking for me in the scrub when I smack in while trying to grope my way into YATN.

R:cool:

They need an ILS into Atherton, I fly over the top of the damn thing and still miss it!!! :}

So, are you lot expecting QANTAS to hand over the RNP approaches they paid Naverus to design to Virgin for nothing - get real.
If you so desperately need an RNAV approach into Atherton I'm sure Airservices can get you one for a very cheap price - or is everything in aviation free.

Who paid?
 

Who paid for all the other GPS approaches??? Who will pay for all the new ones that have to be designed? Or wont there be any?
Favouritism?
I think a coroner will be asking these questions one day.

All those that purchase AIP DAP and the amendment service pay for the design of RNAV approaches. I would expect that CASA would have criteria for when an AD/ALA needs an instrument approach designed for it and so the cost of that approach would be shared amongst all.
For ADs that don't meet those criteria an Approach will not be designed unless you want to pay for it. Since QES paid for the one at Atherton (no favouritism - they paid commercial rates) they get to use it.
The coroner may well ask why you elected not to pay for a safer approach to be designed - or do you only want somebody else to pay for it.

Actually, unless they have changed the rules/policy (yet) again, I think you will find that as a rule the AIS data is "owned" by the State(Commonwealth). The documents are published by ASA as a representative of the State and the charges are (or were) those associated with the storage, printing and publishing etc. Those procedures that are commissioned by individual operators are "owned" by that operator and unless they direct otherwise they are not published in the public domain or in the usual AIS documentation. ASA give the impression that it is theirs by stating copyright on the docs and their web page. The editor of the AIP works for ASA but not much text gets changed without a tick from CASA. Don't talk to Jepps about the war they had with ASA a year or so back re use of the data. At that time Aust was not in line with most other countries on such matters. Then again it may have changed?
:ugh:

As for YATN... if it aint VMC....... :cool:

Air Services are not the only certified design company in Australia. There is a private company in Melbourne called Hart Aviation who can and will design a GNSS approach to PANS OPS criteria. They have full CASA design approval and are also a consulting company to the energy industry.

Many GNSS Approaches are privately owned or restricted to certain operators only and these are generally not published for liability reasons, ie, someone using an approach which has been paid for privately and having an accident.

Some mining companies have restricted approaches to FIFO sites in QLD and WA. I'm afraid its a question of user pays.

Privately owned skies?
 

What comes next? Will they sell the ML-SYD air route to Qantas and Virgin? (Maybe they already have) That would earn some big bucks. Thank god they will no longer be controlling the allocation of airspace.

hi bushy,
design work and the procedures are paid for by avcharges. so QF and VB pay for most of the infrastructure that is in place. specials, such as to the mining camps, are paid for by the ad owner, but WILL appear in AIP DAP [see YBRY]. BTW the existing suite of GPS procs were introduced as a pre-cursor to the removal of conventional navaids which is meant to occur by 2015
the reason the medevac procs to hospitals in NQLD [and several in NSW] is limited is that they are not designed to the normal PAN-OPS criteria and cannot be flown without special approval from CASA. there are caveats on how they are flown and the requirements for breaking visual. the operators who have paid for these procedures are ALL medical helicopter ops and the procs are included in their ops manual and ALL pilots must be approved to fly the proc before they do so in IMC.
YATN and YIGM are flown to the airstrips. they are unlicensed fields. CASA precludes the use of the instrument approach to such fields:= due to lack of monitoring and NOTAM services. the MED ops have their own reporting services which are included in their ops manual.
hope this helps:)

Thank you.
 

Hot Buoy-That helps a lot. Restrictions for operational reasons are logical and sensible, and seem to be appropriate in the cases mentioned..
Too often Australian authorities use their powers to give commercial advantage to someone. There is a long and definite history of this sort of thing.