Getting in and out of Queenstown

[Cirrusly]

Does anyone know why Air NZ is the only airline that can get in and out of Queenstown when VMC is below average??? I know it's nestled snuggly in between a few mountains but why Air NZ and not the other players???

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

As long as it's not below minima's, why the question???

[Cirrusly]

I'm not sure what the minimas are in NZ but I was recently there and have been there in the past and I have been diverted when travelling on Pac Bro and I have actually seen Air NZ get in from the top of Coronet when the whole valley has been full of cloud and seen the others sent south.

Just bizarre, would like to know what the deal is

[The Hill]

Required navigation performance

[Sqwark2000]

AirNZ have half the 737 fleet and all A320's fitted with RNP Navigation equipment that allows them to operate to minima's well below non-RNP aircraft.

Air NZ's current RNP is 0.11 (req nav performance within 0.11Nm of track)

Jetstar are currently doing "proving" flights to get their RNP qualification. I believe they have an interim approval to RNP 0.3 which still only allows them to the same minima as the VOR/DME approaches. Proving flights incl as much as 300+ approaches in weather better or equal to the VOR/DME minima.

PacBlu's B738's are RNP capable but they are not attempting RNP approval with CAA so they'll be restricted to the VOR/DME minima.

So in answer to your question, AirNZ is the only player because they're the only ones to have completed RNP certification.

S2K

[chockchucker]

So in answer to your question, AirNZ is the only player because they're the only ones to have completed RNP certification.


Wrong. QF's VX series 737-800's have had RNP capability into Queenstown for years.

[slamer.]

Air NZ fly a taylor made curved Naverus RNP-AR app, approved by NZCAA and requiring specific crew training and aircraft approval to minimas (now) of approx 200+ agl.
Other operators are still (for the meantime) using the old cloud break procedure to minimas of around 3000 agl, although they may still be in the proving process of their own RNP-AR using higher minimas for the interim.

[Shrags123]

What a load of BS. Qantas pioneered the Queenstown RNP approaches years ago, and still fly them today. Every one of their B737-800s is RNP capable. They also fly RNP approaches into most of their Australian destinations. Canberra RWY 17 is another good one with an RNP minima far lower than the VOR approach.

[Sqwark2000]

Quite correct. I apologise for forgetting intl QF services. I was merely thinking of domestic operators, hence my complete lack of mention of QF in my earlier post.

S2K

[c100driver]

What a load of BS. Qantas pioneered the Queenstown RNP approaches years ago, and still fly them today.

QF and NZ both pioneered the Queenstown RNP AR operation at about the same time. QF was the first to fly the ZQN approaches due to operating the NG which has a far better RNP capability and they we also the first to be approved to operate below RNP 0.3, while NZ had to upgrade the CL aircraft first and was about 6 months behind in the starting of gathering the required number of approaches.

Both QF and NZ are behind Alaskan and Westjet who were the first to use the full aircraft capability in the North America

Since then QF has really accelerated the RNP program and are way ahead of NZ with the Boeing B738 and the number of RNP operations, while NZ concentrated on the A320 approvals and getting Airbus into the program.

[Tmbstory]

What a glorious location for a few days away from it all.

In the past we used to take the Falcon 10 and 20 into Queenstown, staying at a place that overlooked the lake and the mountain.

A number one spot!

Tmb

[slamer.]

So what minima do QF/jetstar use and how long have they used it for..?

[c100driver]

NZ B737 CL RNP 0.11
NZ A320 RNP 0.11
QF B737 NG RNP 0.11
JQ A320 RNP 0.30

QF and NZ have been approved since 2006/07 for 0.30 at ZQN
QF had 0.11 since 2008, NZ 2010

JQ in phase 3, RNP 0.30 data collection expect lower very soon.

[slamer.]

Thanks .. so QF are down to around 200 agl as well..?

[YBMK Tower]

on a similar maatter , I noticed that ANZ177 i think, NZAA to YBCS diverted to YBTL today. The CS ILS 15 is being replaced so navbl.SCT500 vis 4000m RA. Can ANZ do RNP approaches into CS?

[slamer.]

Depends on the aircraft type.

Shrags123, have a look at the diff between a RNP and RNP-AR app

[c100driver]

Thanks .. so QF are down to around 200 agl as well..?


Not sure of the status of QF (with VH registration) minima for the RNP AR at ZQN, but the ZK tails are limited by CAA to about 400' HAT due to runway and airport limitations - no approach lighting, no runway lights, no runway end identifying strobes, no runway end safety areas, no radar and a 30 meter wide runway.

As it is a CAA approval required I would guess that the QF (with VH tails) are similar?

[slamer.]

OK..so sounds like Air NZ are authorized a bit lower then.

[Shrags123]

QF mainline have RNP AP approval at Queenstown. 300 ft AGL RWY 05. I don't know about Jetconnect.

[topdrop]

Can ANZ do RNP approaches into CS?Not yet - they don't have approval into Cairns - I believe that will be early next year.
They can't do the RNAV-Z approach because that is limited to Cat A & B. There is a new RNAV-Z coming shortly which will include C & D.

[MaxHelixAngle]

Slamer,

I don't believe ANZ RNP 0.11 ZQN minima to be lower than QF. Qantas along with ANZ had the foresight to contract Naverus to construct the RNP app for ZQN. Prior to QF conducting RNP-AR app's the only two airlines to my knowledge to have done them, is WestJet and Alaskan. It was WestJet who pioneered RNP-AR approach construction, partnering with Boeing to do so. In-fact Naverus staff are mostly ex-WestjJet.

Qantas has also had Naverus construct RNP-AR app's into a number of Australian destinations, with the aim of flying more efficient flight paths than a typical 10nm ILS, the QF RNP-AR destinations include CB, CS and others. QF has been lobbying CASA to get on-board and now CASA has contracted Naverus to construct RNP-AR approaches into other Aus destinations that will still be AR but will be available to multiple operators rather the QF proprietary, these are now available into ML, BN ect.

With regard to your question to Shrags, what difference are you referring to? all RNP app's are in-fact RNP-AR in Aus, the delineation being RNAV(GNSS) approaches that are available to TSO 129/145/146 GNSS receivers or certain MMR equipped aircraft to a specified RNP value, for approved operators, all RNAV(GNSS) approaches are constructed to PANSOPS app criteria and not RNP-AR containment.

Cheers,
MHA

[Return to Blocks]

Both QF and ANZ fly the RNP-AR approaches to the same design minima. To Rwy05 that's between 2/3ft, Rwy23 is higher around 6/7 hundred ft. The minima's differ with the RNP used but any RNP operators authorised below 0.3 can get to the same minima. That means that on any day with conditions below the VOR minimas 3/4 thousand ft, QF and ANZ will be more likely to succeed in getting in as they can use the RNP-AR minimas.

However seeing the runway and landing on it are two different matters. As operators become more and more successful in operating direct flights to and from ZQN, more and more people choose to fly with them. The more people the more weight, and in marginal conditions you are often presented with a wet runway.

Here in lies a difference. QF are obliged to confirm to the CASA requirements factoring landing distance by 1.97 on the wet runway. ANZ do not have to operate to this standard enroute and at the point of landing I understand their factoring is only 1.15. This can make QF too heavy to land on a wet runway when ANZ can continue to land.
At the end of the day both QF and ANZ can get to the same minima. From there on, aircraft weights and regulatory requirements make the difference between getting in and missing out.

[slamer.]

Thanks again

Firstly; Air NZ currently do not fly any RNAV/RNP app's into CNS.

As for the diff between RNP and RNP-AR. Although these terms conform to a basic ICAO format there have been some relatively recent changes in designation. It is prob fair to say terminology may diff from state to state, so perhaps I should be a little more careful as the Oz's most likely have their own unique system.

ICAO has recommended all states move from a sensor-based Nav concept (eg GPS) to PBN. (perf based nav)

The PBN concept specifies system perf requirements.

RNP app allows a Nav accuracy of 0.3 (old designation RNAV/GNSS)
RNP-AR APP allows a Nav accuracy of 0.1--0.3 (old desig RNP-SAAAR)

RNP AR

Required Navigation Performance with Authorization Required
(RNP AR) is an enhanced concept of RNP, allowing:

to reduce the ‘RNP’ value below 0.3 Nm (down to 0.1 Nm), and /or
to reduce the obstacle protections (no buffer), and /or
to fly curved flight paths after the Final Approach Fix (FAF)
RNP strictly lower than 1 during missed approach and departureThe RNP AR concept is not limited to approach procedures; it can also apply to missed approaches, Standard Instrument Departure and Engine-Out Standard Instrument Departure procedures.

The testing/proving, procedures and requirements that go into "authorizing" each RNP-AR app are too detailed for me to be bothered going into here. But every app will be evaluated to its own unique parameters.
Some procedures may require extra equipment, documentation, crew training, crew combinations, additional flight planning all on a fleet by fleet or even a/c by a/c basis

As for the minima at ZQN.. 200/300 sounds about the same as ANZ onto R23. Someone may have the exact Air NZ 23 minima...?

[slamer.]

http://s0.2mdn.net/viewad/2596774/DailyNews728x90.gif (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/3a0e/14/e7/%2a/p;223459254;4-0;1;45596748;3454-728/90;36579594/36597472/1;;~sscs=%3fhttp://oasc05134.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/PTNatwonline/transportation/%7BTIME_DATE_STAMP%7D/L12/312557512/Top1/BBN/Default_Penton_ATW_All_Sites/PTN_AirTransport_passback_728.html/32316d726c3079466c56734143674350?http://atwonline.com/news/subscribe/)

Air New Zealand sets RNP first

May 25, 2010


Air New Zealand achieved a world first for Airbus, using RNP level 0.1 for Sydney-Rotorua service on May 22 despite cloud cover down to just 400 ft. The RNP 0.1 value is the lowest level approved by Airbus and authority to operate below RNP 0.3 had just been granted to ANZ the previous day. Without the technology, NZ978 would have had to divert to Auckland, causing significant disruption to the inbound passengers and also to the outbound passengers scheduled to depart from Rotorua to Sydney the same afternoon.
ANZ pioneered RNP for the A320, initially to get into Queenstown, which is surrounded by mountains. According to Performance Based Navigation Project Manager Philip Kirk, RNP was introduced on six of ANZ's 737s three years ago for use into Queenstown, with the initiative so successful that it was extended to the airline's A320s, making ANZ the first carrier in the world to have an entire A320 fleet RNP-enabled. "RNP has proved to be a huge benefit to customers and the airline with excellent reliability into Queenstown through some very challenging weather conditions over the past few years," Kirk said.

[XPT]

Does anyone know how do we get numbers on number of days ZQN is closed or partially closed or diversions occur ?

Alternate used to be IVC but think it's now DUD.

Can anyone confirm & why the change as IVC is around 100kms closer by road.

[c100driver]

Air NZ ZQN diversions and CCLD flights prior to RNP AR was about 70 per year, and once RNP AR 0.30 qualified that dropped to 16 per year and mainly due to low cloud, fog and or wind. With the lower RNP AR to 0.1 that is looking like down to about 4 to 6 so far with fog and wind.

Air NZ operate about 6 jetflights a day in winter and up to 9 a day in the summer peak.

[DomeAir]

MHA

Some great points you made but as to who developed it first, that accolade goes to Alaska Airlines and the co-founders of Naverus (the extract below was taken from the Naverus website). Westjet was Naverus' first customer and several of the employees are ex Alaska/Horizon with a few Westjet folks as well.

DA

"The founders of Naverus pioneered the development and certification of the world's first RNP procedures—the Gastineau Channel approach and departures—which are still flown by Alaska Airlines today.

Beginning in 1992, Captain Steve Fulton led the Alaska Airlines team that deployed more than 30 RNP procedures in southeast Alaska. Alaska's first landing using RNP occurred in 1996 in Juneau, Alaska.

In February 2003, Fulton, along with Alaska Airlines Captain Hal Andersen and high-tech entrepreneur Dan Gerrity, founded Naverus to provide PBN solutions around the world."

[c100driver]

Can anyone confirm & why the change as IVC is around 100kms closer by road

DUD has gear to handle A320 and B737 while IVC has only B737 gear.

[framer]

ANZ do not have to operate to this standard enroute and at the point of landing I understand their factoring is only 1.15
Pretty sure you mean 1.67 yeah? Otherwise I won't be paxing with them ha ha

[27/09]

Yep, Framer you're right with the 1.67 which is a CAA requirement, I think Return to Blocks has it wrong.

[MaxHelixAngle]

Domeair,

Many thanks for clearing that up. It would seem I had Westjet and Alaskan airlines roles in RNP implementation the wrong way round.

Slamer,

As per ICAO there is only one RNP approach (thus far reserved in ICAO doc 8168 Vol 1). RNAV(GNSS) approaches including approaches with and without vertical guidance are constructed to PANSOPS or TERPS criteria (PANSOPS detailed in doc 8168 Vol2). RNP approach design is a very different beast with numerous advantages over traditional approach design, including protection of the missed approach after a go-around from below DA, a very big step forward in my opinion. The push forward by ICAO to PBN has been slowly moving forward for a few years and is mainly centred around the en-route and terminal phases of flight.

Regards,
MHA

[reynoldsno1]

The design of RNP AR approaches is quite different from anything in PANS OPS - the design criteria are prescribed in their own manual and are based on the FAA SAAAR criteria.

The RNP criteria originally specified in PANS OPS are obsolete and bear little resemblance to RNP AR criteria. They are retained solely to support existing procedures. These have now been removed in NZ and replaced by RNAV(GNSS) with baro-VNAV.

The QN procedures were first developed for QF 737-800s, but that does not mean all 737-800s are equal. The authorisation actually specifies the software update version for the FMS.

[MaxHelixAngle]

The design of RNP AR approaches is quite different from anything in PANS OPS - the design criteria are prescribed in their own manual and are based on the FAA SAAAR criteria
Yes.

The RNP criteria originally specified in PANS OPS are obsolete and bear little resemblance to RNP AR criteria.
There is no RNP approach design or ops specs in ICAO Doc 8168 (PANSOPS)

These have now been removed in NZ and replaced by RNAV(GNSS) with baro-VNAV.
RNAV(GNSS), previously called by many names, is not and never was RNP. By RNP philosophy, it cant be, it is designed and dependent on a particular sensor (GNSS) and not PBN.

Cheers,
MHA

[c100driver]

These have now been removed in NZ and replaced by RNAV(GNSS) with baro-VNAV.


I think you mean the RNAV RNP approaches have now been replaced with RNAV(GNSS). They were only ever published for AKL WLG CHC and DUD for the jet operators. Because the GA machine did not have a statement of ANP capability in the AFM they could not use them.

The first RNP approaches in NZ were niether fish nor fowl and did not really meet any specific requirements hence they were removed and replaced with RNAV(GNSS).

[reynoldsno1]

[QUOTE] There is no RNP approach design or ops specs in ICAO Doc 8168 (PANSOPS)

They are still in Edition 5 Volume 2 Part III Section I Chapter 7 with the caveat previously mentioned.

RNAV(GNSS), previously called by many names, is not and never was RNP. By RNP philosophy, it cant be, it is designed and dependent on a particular sensor (GNSS) and not PBN.


RNAV(GNSS) approach procedures meet the PBN navigation specifications for RNP APCH and are designed as such. RNAV(GNSS) SID & STAR meet the PBN navigation specifications for Basic RNP-1. Because they are not named as RNP does not mean they do not meet the PBN specifications for an RNP system.

PBN provides a distinction between RNAV and RNP specifications. The difference is RNP requires onboard performance and integrity monitoring. A basic GNSS TSO C129 receiver is required to have a RAIM capability, which satisfies this requirement.