Why in the name of God does it take over 2 months to replace the ILS. Are these numpties manufacturing each individual screw. Surely the system would be manufactured offsite, templates made for new building/mounting pads, and then new system installed with minimum disruption.
The 33LLZ replacement took only 1 month, and the runway lights 1 month(including new RESA for 15). Now rumours indicate ILS out till NOV or later!!
God knows the accumulated cost of all the recent weather diversions to TL by those unfortunate enough not to have RNP capabilities(some CX, QF, JQ, VB etc)
Admittedly the installers can't control the weather, but do try to hasten things up a bit lads.
not to have RNP capabilities(some CX, QF, JQ, VB etc)
I can only speak for CX, and I can assure you that they have RNP1.
I believe that the problem is that the 15 RNAV approach is not to be used by a Cat D aircraft - I'm guessing the proximity of the hills to the west combined with the currently offset approach for noise.
Bad planning or lack of resources?. Do we still have to pay our AirNav charges? or can we claim costs on Airservices failure to provide a service? I thought only third world international airports didn't have an ILS.
What is it with CNS? Lets hope its quicker than the refurb of the Domestic terminal that has taken 3 years! How long does it take to put up a Bunnings store.....its only a big empty shed like a terminal
OK guys, before we all run around with our aprons over our heads and acting like Bob Nutter and calling for full investigations, a few facts.
Although most of the elements of the ILS are COTS items and come ready to install, it is most definately NOT a plug-and-play system. The civil works associated with the installation need to be completed to strict standards. The tech certing for installers is very stringent. There are only a few techs that are competent to do this work. The cabling installation is critical - the lengths have to be calculated and cut to a fraction of a millimeter. The whole system has to undergo a stringent series of alignments and ground testing folowed by flight testing. It is not a process to be short circuited.
On top of all this, the installation was planned to take place at the driest part of the year to prevent exactly the disruptions that have taken place. Of course Murphy has intervened and unseasonal rain has come at exactly the moment calculated to cause the most disruption to the project.
It is a slur on the guys working on this to compare them to third world countries. They do their work with the utmost skill and pride in what they do. They are working under a lot of schedule pressure already - there are no shortcuts in doing this properly.
As I posted elsewhere, there will be an RNAV Z shortly that includes Cat C & D, but unfortunately it won't be available til after ILS is back. Can someone explain why some of the aircraft (Cat C) are continuing VOR A approach to minima and others from the same company (same type) are stopping at 1500ft or thereabouts?
As far as I am concerned, if I'm cleared for a VOR due to the weather, the Creek Corridor goes out the window. That is only a noise abatement procedure when the weather is fine and beaut.
As for circling at 910, there is nothing to stop a crew overflying for a circuit at 910 if they can't make a comfortable conversion to a oblique left base off the VOR approach, provided they have been trained to do so. Commercially, that is a no-brainer.
The fact that different crews on the same fleet are doing different things (910/1500) points to a lack of confidence in being able to use the real minima - which points to lack of training.
there will be an RNAV Z shortly that includes Cat C & D, but unfortunately it won't be available til after ILS is back.
What is really needed is an RNAV onto 33 for when the LLZ is out. That is hairy at night. But I guess the hills would make an RNAV design difficult.
Whose orifice did you pluck that rumour out of? The ILS is still scheduled for flight testing in about 3 weeks.
The best way I've found to skin this cat is reach the Mapt at 910',...
This is what we expect all cat C aircraft capable of, however the actual experience has been a mixed bag. Some will hit the alt minima prior to 1.7DME, then start to climb prior to the MAPt. Others level off at 1000' or higher as Company SOPs may require them to be stabilized by this level.
With respect to extra costs involved, why are some of the airlines sending flights up (even after direct advice from local ATC that they won't get in), attempt 1 or 2 approaches then head off back south again?
I'm also curious as to whether Qantas & Jetstar made any effort during this inclement weather to replace cat D aircraft with cat C. I realise it must be a logistical nightmare, but is it given any consideration?
Qantas B738s have been flying the RNP(RNAV) approaches into Cairns for 3 years now, so maybe this will hasten the approval request/process for other operators.
Some will hit the alt minima prior to 1.7DME, then start to climb prior to the MAPt.
Understandable if company policy is to not allow visual circling. 910ft at 2.6nm from the threshold (1.7 DME) is around 100ft above the 3° slope (disregarding the bend onto final), which, if you throw in the autopilot flare-to-level, will put you well above the PAPI 3°, requiring some very deft stick-and-rudder work to get back on slope by 500ft.
If I were not permitted to circle, then I'd be using a 3x profile, clipping that 1500ft step, and when I got to 910ft (at 3DME), I'd do a Missed Approach.
Since I am allowed to circle, I'd stay at the circling config, still fly the same profile but if not visual, fly in to the Mapt at 910ft. Get visual early enough? Take landing flap, finish the checklist and land straight-in. Get visual too late for a Straight In? Circle via a left circuit.