RNAV to dirt strip
 

I know RNAVs are getting way more popular, but how many strips out there that are dirt/grass, have a RNAV?

Probably at lot more than what is published. :E

The old “special VFR” route.

It doesn’t matter the surface type, it’s got to be 139 certified to have an IAP of any type.

St Helens in Tassie

Amazed how many airstrips don’t have RNAV’s, is there a lot of work to get them approved?

Lets face it most modern GA avionics easy to build, not to mention most jet FMGC’s.

Genuinely curious as to any airport that doesn’t have an approach why not?

Because CASA has made it more expensive and onerous to keep an airport Certified under CASR 139, and you need to have Part 139 Certification to have a published IAP

Not always...Because CAsA love exceptions to their instructions, there's a few approaches off WA & QLD (Seabouy, Charlie One, etc) to random points in the ocean for marine pilot transfers. No 139 Certification for the wavetops!

If you read those exemptions, there is quite the burden on the operator (and they are mainly issued to an operator) to manage the risks of unknown obstacles in those approaches.

The key issue is monitoring and management of obstacle limitation surfaces and IAP surfaces to protect the approach so obstacles do not appear in the approach path. System technology is not the issue. Nature and huma beings putting up obstacles are the problem.

As a consequence of Part 139, 4’ shrubs and 2’ too high fences have become quite a lucrative source of busywork finally been exposed for what they are.

If they are only that high then they are very close to the inner edges of the protected surfaces and therefore close to final approach path. It's a pity that people don't read the relevant MOS to be aware of why. The IAP and Obstacle surfaces are consistent with ICAO standards. They are not Australia specific

Australia complies with ICAO SARPs when it’s convenient for the Australian bureaucracy and files a difference with ICAO SARPs when … it’s convenient for the Australian bureaucracy. At least in that regard, Australian bureaucracy is consistent with other countries’ bureaucracies.

The safety consequences of drowning crew with pages of information which do not result in any practical difference to their operations? Safety shmafety.

Meanwhile, for all of the pages of Part 139 and Part 175 and the dozens of strict liability offences, the system still gets a runway closure NOTAM wrong.

(For those who may not be aware of the difference: A closed runway is relevant to a flight crew’s decision-making. A shrub which infringes the OLS by 4’ and a fence which infringes the OLS by 2’ are irrelevant to a flight crew’s decision-making. However, both are given the same prominence and space in the piles of information through which a flight crew is expected to wade.)

Must seem like having to read "War and Peace" prior to each flight. Always loved how areas referred to were given in lat/long and you're expected to plot. They've yet to realise the teletype disappeared quite some years ago, a modern invention prevails, graphics.

It's not past tense. Here's a typical one today:Thank heavens the EFB suppliers have managed to drag themselves beyond the 1990s.

Graphical SIGMETS have been around for a long time, you just have to request the right stuff with your briefing. I agree, the lat/long format is well past its use by date, except for perhaps transmission over HF when pictures can't be sent.

Thanks! I've learnt something new today.

I can't take the credit; I was in the crewroom a few years ago swearing and cussing about having to plot out these cursed Sigmets and a mate whispered over my shoulder "81210 is your friend". :}