Australia's most difficult approach

[FerrariFlyer]

ENR 1.1 - 72 for when everything is working to plan. Failing this (and things always go to plan ) your IFR plan should be in the system and 'they' should be expecting a call from you. Proceed on the flight with the usual calls on the CTAF and raise Centre or Flightwatch as soon as you can after departure.

Sometimes VHF and HF won't work on the ground and its not until you're airborne that you can make contact with ATS. One thing to check in this respect is in ATS availability on the ground. Have a look at YBWX (Barrow Island) and you will see that you cannot raise ATS (Centre) until you are at or above 2000ft. If you can't raise either Centre in the first instance, or Flightwatch failing Centre on VHF, just do a normal departure call when you finally get them whilst you also make the appropriate calls on CTAF.

PS The good old HF can be your saving grace for comms or an absolute pain the back side!

[Big Wave]

.

[Cleanskin]

So what happens if you crash on departure and flight watch/centre have not yet received your departure report? Just because your flight plan is in the system do they automatically start looking for you?
I thought you had to be able to make contact with ATS prior to departure unless someone at base on site has a phone and you have radio contact with your operator.

[sprocket]

All IFR flights require a plan. Normally you would call up "Melb Centre" for example before take off and be issued with a code. I presume out in "no mans" land you would submit a DEP SAR time with your plan, and this could be submitted by SAT phone or other means, as opposed to submitting your plan by radio when in the air. I stand to be corrected.

[FerrariFlyer]

So what happens if you crash on departure and flight watch/centre have not yet received your departure report? Just because your flight plan is in the system do they automatically start looking for you?
I thought you had to be able to make contact with ATS prior to departure unless someone at base on site has a phone and you have radio contact with your operator.

Well then you're just unlucky and you should hope that you have comms with a ground based representative with a land line to ATS.

[Mongrel Dog]

AIP ENR 1.1 40.1

[WhatItTakes]

Thanks very much for the useful information.

Another off topic question...

Take off minima for qualifying twins is the minima for the instrument approach with the highest requirements (if an approach is available) if you plan on returning to the DEP AD post engine failure.

Say you were departing Cairns in a fully equipped twin. The DA for the ILS is only a couple of hundred feet. Yet because the sector A DME or GNSS minima is what it is, the way I read it, you cannot take-off unless the ceiling is above 4500 ft.

A take off minima that's about 4000 ft above the DA seems strange. Am I missing something here?

[Skeeter]

I admit my AIP is not up to date but if you refer to ENR 1.5 Para 4.3.3, then it says: met conditions it must be at or above instrument approach and landing minima for that airport OR such as to allow a visual approach.

EDIT: that was for an aeroplane... Para 4.5 is for helicopter, however the visual approach still counts

[Mongrel Dog]

Also, a GNSS or DME arrival isn't an approach. It's as the name suggests, an arrival.

[Eric Hunt]

You are missing something there.

Look through all the approaches, and find the one with the highest minima - it is NDB-B, circling approach only, MDA 1660'. (Or look for the one with the worst min visibility. Some ATOs expect you to pick the highest altitude AND the worst vis, but AIP says one or the other.)

So, your cloud base has to be above 1660' to launch - unless the twin can climb comfortably enough on 1 engine to get to somewhere that is CAVOK or you know has a better minimum than that. The absolute minimum for takeoff in a twin is to reach Vyse before going into the cloud, (or 500' for a single) and if you know that 20 miles down the road is wide open, and you reckon that no matter what the problem might be, you could keep flying those 20 miles to get there, then go for it.

However, comma, most testing officers would expect you to apply the Worst Minimum rule. The stupid part is that if you are in a single, the AIP talks about being able to fly an approach with one engine out. There aren't many vertical approaches.

[Heli]

The departure minima criteria are seriously stuffed: the application of the highest minima for an approach back to the departure field was never in the original document, and is unique to helicopters. Why?

If that was applied to an aeroplane you would hear the screams in Antarctica. There is absolutely no justification in demanding the worst approach (circling in nearly all cases) if there is a perfectly serviceable ILS or GNSS available.

I'll lay a farthing to Threadneedle Street that most of the big time operators don't apply this anomaly to their departures.

And Eric, it's not just engine performance related. It's a requirement should a critical failure require an immediate return after departure.

[WhatItTakes]

Makes sense, thanks muchly folks.

Mongrel Dog, you wrote 'Also, a GNSS or DME arrival isn't an approach. It's as the name suggests, an arrival.' You know, that's what I thought too. How would you explain this one though...

Taken from CASA's CAAP 178-1 (2)

7.1 Is a DME or GNSS Arrival an NPA?

7.1.1 Yes. A DME or GNSS Arrival is a procedure unique to Australia that provides an NPA to a circling minimum. A DME or GNSS Arrival is designed using the same criteria as used in conventional NPA design.

So is a DGA an NPA or not? CASA says yes.

[Mongrel Dog]

Interesting.

You've taught me something there WhatItTakes.

[WhatItTakes]

Eric, you said 'The absolute minimum for takeoff in a twin is to reach Vyse before going into the cloud'. Rookie question... How do you know what height you're going to hit yvse? Thanks