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

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.

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)

It would be reasonable to assume that Grog is either quoting the current rules or paraphrasing them. They are therefore hardly likely "to appear" in the next CAAP. :confused:

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)

I've been Sciolised...again! :{

Thanks for those docs, Agent 86, interesting.

Karratha 550ft down to 350ft. Impressive!

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...up/s17-h15.pdf

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

Garmin 430W is not a BaroVNAV capable system

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

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.