Gold Coast needs an ILS [Archive]

Jabawocky

27th Jan 2012, 01:18

GOLD COAST (YBCG) RAIM GPS RAIM PREDICTION 261400 YBCG TSO-C129 (AND EQUIVALENT) FAULT DETECTION NO GPS RAIM FD OUTAGES FOR NPA TSO-C146A (AND EQUIVALENT) FAULT DETECTION NO GPS RAIM FD OUTAGES FOR NPA FAULT DETECTION AND EXCLUSION 01261433 TIL 01261439 01270855 TIL 01270904 01271429 TIL 01271435 01280851 TIL 01280859 01281425 TIL 01281431 01290847 TIL 01290855 GPS RAIM FDE UNAVBL FOR NPA METAR SPECI YBCG 270200Z AUTO 12013KT 6000 // SCT007 BKN013 OVC053 24/22 Q1012 RMK RF00.2/020.6 TAF TAF AMD YBCG 270003Z 2700/2724 10012KT 5000 LIGHT RAIN BKN006 BKN012 OVC025 FM270300 09016KT 8000 LIGHT RAIN BKN015 OVC030 TEMPO 2700/2724 3000 SHOWERS OF RAIN BKN008 INTER 2700/2724 2000 HEAVY RAIN BKN006 RMK T 24 25 25 24 Q 1012 1011 1011 1012 ATIS ATIS YBCG I 270106 APCH: EXP INSTRUMENT APCH RWY: 14 SFC COND: WET + WIND: 110/12 MAX XW 8KTS + VIS: REDUCING TO 4000M IN RA CLD: FEW005 BKN010 OVC020 + TMP: 24 QNH: 1012

And they keep on missing :}

yes a RNP might be a good option, I just figured that some folk might not cope with that concept.............They could use the AirAsiaX dive'n'drive sea level approach as demonstrated abely on multiple occasions....

UTR

And not so abley at times either.....although they have not hit anything yet! :sad:

Nulli Secundus

27th Jan 2012, 01:25

"The cost of installing an ILS is huge"
How much?

How much as a proportion of the asset value?

How much as a proportion of lost revenue due diversions etc. over the years ahead.

Come on, let's make Australian aviation an easy place to do business! This is a wealthy country. Its not a cost........ its an investment in efficiency & the future. No different to ports, rail or road upgrades.

mostlytossas

27th Jan 2012, 01:42

What would you want an ILS at any Queensland airport for?
After all it's beautiful one day, perfect the next isn't it? Or so the blurb goes..........
Meanwhile it is back to the cricket with 8 octas of blue in Adelaide.........;)

RAD_ALT_ALIVE

27th Jan 2012, 03:08

London City does have a high angle glideslope ILS capability sure - but it is limited to a very few types of jet equipment and some turbo props. There are no (as far as I know) B737s or A320s capable of using it. There is a special 'steep approach' mod for A318s available that allows BA to use it. I don't know what ERJ/CRJ types (if any) can use it, but there is a great youtube vid showing a 'memorable' landing there by a BAe146/RJ, so I guess they use it too.

As for MEL/SYD not having autoland capability - well that's just nonsense too. Unless the reference was meant to be to CATII/III, most ILS equipped runways in Australia used by airlines can be used for autolands. And MEL even has CATIIIa capability on RWY 16.

But back to the case in point - OOL - QF developed a couple of RNP approaches there a few years back. I'd guess that they're using them to advantage when they go in there on crappy days. So, yes it is frustrating that airport operators don't spend money on infrastructure, but it is just as frustrating that airlines don't spend money on sophisticated equipment options and training that would permit them to use low-minima RNP at non-ILS airports.

Otherwise, just follow Xanadu - if they can, anyone can...:sad:

Transition Layer

27th Jan 2012, 03:37

Maybe just a good RNP AR approach would work

You mean the very same ones we QF drivers carry around in our Jepp charts and are approved to fly. Haven't had a close look at the Cooly charts but I'm pretty sure the minima would be in the order of 250-300' for a 0.30 RNP approach.

Too bad the QF Group considers Cooly a 'leisure' market and thus has 100% of flights operated by the Orange Star. Maybe on sh1tty days like today QF could pick up a bit of slack and run the 738s up there. Would be a good PR stunt if QF were the only ones getting in while everyone else is on the bus to/from Brissy.

As RAD_ALT_ALIVE says, you can whinge all day about the lack of infrastructure, but the reality is that the airlines involved should pull their fingers out and get RNP-AR approved and move into the 21st century.

Popgun

27th Jan 2012, 03:49

pretty sure the minima would be in the order of 250-300' for a 0.30 RNP approach.

RNP 0.30

RWY 14 = 429' / 2200m and RWY 32 = 353' / 1800m

Jetstar drivers apparently issued with the approach plates...but yet to be trained. :ugh:

Slasher

27th Jan 2012, 04:08

OOL was always a bitch of a place in the Wet and it looks like nothin's changed.

Jabawocky

27th Jan 2012, 04:18

P-Dubby :ok:

Yep he did a lot of track miles there.

I wonder what the minima looked like the time he did land :suspect:

Capt Kremin

27th Jan 2012, 05:12

A bit off topic...

Back in the day when we could have pax on the flight deck, I had the CSM make an offer, and she came back and told me that the chair of the group that wanted all approaches banned on 32 wanted to come up so he could watch an approach on to said RWY, presumably in order to solidify his case.

I took great pleasure in telling her to refuse him, but also to inform him that if he and his group got their way, we would be diverting to BNE as I spoke due to excessive tailwinds.....

Fieldmouse

27th Jan 2012, 05:19

A quick look at the Masterplan, (Google), says lots about retail and carparks, nothing about navaids.
Problem 1 is who antes up for it, but before that you have problem number 2 which is the sheer cost of the HIALS that make an ILS worthwhile, which is why Wagga and Tamworth have LIRL and MIRL only.
Problem number 3 is you are up for a whole new D.A for an ILS with all the joy that that will bring.
Problem number 4 is getting Airservices to organise the whole shooting match because whoever pays for it, they are the only guys who can tinker with one in this country.
Oh for the good old days when the Department of AVIATION would see an operational need, do the math, do the damn work, and fund it from the fuel tax that was used to support aviation infrastructure this country. Sigh................. 32 years......so much anger.............

Alloyboobtube

27th Jan 2012, 05:20

The Government needs to take a stand and use compulsory acquisition to gain ownership and control of all infrastructure , especially Airports....

Fieldmouse

27th Jan 2012, 05:33

We need a system where a dedicated government department has people on the ground working for the promotion of aviation. Then this fully industry funded department would be capable of supporting a moderate capital budget. They could assess and act on infrastructure needs based on input from specialist field staff and industry representatives.

I would call it The Department of Civil Aviation or something like that. Reckon it'd work.

Capn Bloggs

27th Jan 2012, 07:51

I would call it The Department of Civil Aviation or something like that.
Charlie Jones should be the Dept Head.

clear to land

27th Jan 2012, 16:29

Why not use an RNP of 0.15-which all modern Boeings can do (not sure about the AB-ours can't use less than .30)-with the reduction in minima such an approach could accord?

framer

27th Jan 2012, 20:55

maggot

27th Jan 2012, 21:30

Why not use an RNP of 0.15-which all modern Boeings can do (not sure about the AB-ours can't use less than .30)-with the reduction in minima such an approach could accord?

Because you have to take your crews off line and put them in the simulator and that costs money. Because the regulator has to take a long hard look at your books and the training you plan to provide. Because you have to have the resources to develop the training material and many airlines are resource poor as they try to emulate safety on the smell of an oily rag.

as to what 'clear to land' was getting at, a .15 RNP approach could easily be made if the designers could get a better minima from it (and also a .10). There is no additional training to this level than from training for a .3 RNP app. (as opposed to an RNAV GNSS...)

but yeah, certain airlines don't want to sack up and pay for it...

ozbiggles

27th Jan 2012, 22:26

There is also probably a reluctance to have a ILS there because it would mean a 10 mile final over the built up area.
They would probably rather have an increased risk of a CFIT accident there than deal with the adverse PR and cost.
Welcome to the error ...I mean era of low cost aviation in Australia.All good fun until someone loses an eye

34R

27th Jan 2012, 22:33

Just open a mine near the airport. Problem solved :ok:

Wally Mk2

27th Jan 2012, 22:42

'34R' actually that's a valid point & well put:ok:

Like all things in life change as in an ILS for OOL for Eg means such niceties only ever happen when either one of two things occur.Someone dies or in the case of a heavy plane many die (shut the gate after the horse has bolted!!!...typical Aussie response) or there's money involved meaning somebody is gunna make lots of $$$$$ (inc the Govt) from an idea as '34R' suggested.
So until we have bodies scattered all over the country side around Cooly then it's all we can expect.....welcome to Australia !!!:ugh:

Wmk2

Dehavillanddriver

27th Jan 2012, 23:13

An ILS only gets you one runway end.

A GLS will provide ILS minimas and cover all runway ends.

It is cheaper and more effective and can eventually do curved approaches, thereby avoiding the terrain.

blueloo

28th Jan 2012, 00:16

A GLS would be great - but the airlines will be very reluctant (like the airports) to spend the dollars on retrofitting jets.

So that leaves new order jets being the main users....and given that some airlines hang on to their existing jets for 20+ years, the technology will not be of great benefit for a while.

An ILS on the other hand.......

neville_nobody

28th Jan 2012, 01:57

Why not an ILS with the intercept at 5 miles. The STAR could run over the coast and come in on a 30 degree intercept. That with some sort of HIAL/HIRL would get you in 99/100. However I think the hills there may cause a problem with terrain infringement.

It's awesome in Australia how Airports fork out millions on carparks and flash terminals but aren't interested in putting anything into aviation infrastructure.......which is the whole point of an airport in the first place.

So until we have bodies scattered all over the country side around Cooly then it's all we can expect.....welcome to Australia

Unfortunately that is so true. Whilst not wanting to wish it upon anyone a major accident into a hill or a high rise is what is required to shake up CASA and the government. Trying to justify why heavy jets are doing non precision approaches in heavy rain manoeuvring at 4 miles dodging buildings and hills would be an interesting testimony to hear in a Royal Commission. As the Gold Coast keeps expanding the airport is only going to get busier with bigger aircraft using it.

Selcalmeonly

28th Jan 2012, 09:51

I think the RNP .15 approach is the way to go. The costs involved seem like a no brainer expense when you consider the potential and safety advantages. OOL was always a problem in bad weather and nothing has changed in 35 years (to my knowledge) except there are probably more obstacles in the airspace. Surely someone has conducted a risk analysis on the place!

601

28th Jan 2012, 12:07

Meanwhile it is back to the cricket with 8 octas of blue in Adelaid

Well it is your dry season and our wet season.

As for the building of infrastructure by airport owners, you only have to look at the financial report for Brisbane 2009 (http://bne.com.au/files/pdf/Annual%20Report/financial_report/BAC_2009_Financials.pdf). Revenue from aeronautical revenue $135,767,000.00. Non-aeronautical $216,892,000.00.

So where are you going to invest capital?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

28th Jan 2012, 12:14

AAAh Mr Fieldmouse'....

'Tis only just a wee bit over 12/12/1991 when 'Uncle Dick' started the move to get rid of 'Good Ole Flight Service'.....

Because HE didn't like it and saw it as a 'Duplication' of services.

Never mind that it took until 15.12.2000 to actually accomplish the task - when 'Uncle Dick' was Looong Goone!!

19 years for what???

And now, you ask for 'infrastructure based on 'NEED'???

WE USED TO HAVE THAT!!!

An 'Australian' system developed for Australia...by evolution!
And NEED!

NO MORE!! The beancounters are well and truly into it now...and is that an IMPROVEMENT???

NOT :mad: LIKELY!!!

Has your 'Safety Been Enhanced and Has It Cost You Less'..???

NOPE!! :mad: AND MOI EITHER!!!

p.s.

Thanks again for the 'redundo' Uncle Dick'.......

Fieldmouse

28th Jan 2012, 22:16

But the demise of aviation infrastructure pre dates the Dick Smith slash and burn. The ALOP process in the mid 80's guaranteed that the government was only interested in the big ticket airports that were handed to the FAC. The department then became a business, not a service, and the rest of aviation was allowed to go hang - 'market forces' were to be allowed to dictate growth and for 'growth' read 'any f@#$ing interest' at all from government.

At least when we had a department that gave a rat's, you wouldn't have had the Q400 introduction disaster where the damn thing didn't fit the standards that most of it's destination ports were built to, and the damn thing is a regional runway destroyer. Decisions like that can't be left in the hands of the airline company beancounters who just get a woody over the $per pax km.

Decisions like that, just like the decisions over national radar coverage and an ILS for a major port like Gold Coast, are national infrastructure decisions and need to be treated as such....But there's no-one who cares.

Thank god this lot weren't in power in the early 1900's. The F#$%ing northern railway out of Sydney woulda terminated at Hornsby.

Howard Hughes

28th Jan 2012, 23:53

As for the building of infrastructure by airport owners, you only have to look at the financial report for Brisbane 2009. Revenue from aeronautical revenue $135,767,000.00. Non-aeronautical $216,892,000.00.

So where are you going to invest capital?
Without the aeronautical component, that car parks would be empty!;)

Jabawocky

29th Jan 2012, 01:12

Howie:ok: but, you know that, I know that, and most in pprune land know that.........but the bean counters lawyers and those with their nose in the trough don't seem to.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

29th Jan 2012, 01:16

Yes Mr 'Fieldmouse', that is true....

'The Local Ownership Plan' was nothing more than a money grab by the Govmint of the time sellling off / Leasing out of many Commonwealth Govt owned facilities paid for by the 'Hard Working Families of Aust' = taxpayer!

Now we, the taxpayer, pay again 'thru the nose' to use what are / were essentially, OUR facilities!!

G'Day Howard - I haven't been to Cooly for a fair while, but if its anything like the other airports, then the runways are simply 'in the way' of some real revenue making from the Real Estate / 'non-aeronautical revenue'.....

e.g. Look at the huge industrial parks now surrounding those 'damned runways' at YPPH, and YPJT, as well as at every other major airport in the country.

What happened to the 'Aviation' component / use for Airports???

YSBK doesn't even have a North/South strip any more.....
11/29 is ALL they've got!

I know I know....cup of tea, a bex, and a good.....:{

Cheers:ok::ok:

Doesn't look too good for yas gettin' ya ILS at Cooly then???
:yuk::yuk:

Dog One

29th Jan 2012, 10:38

A normal ILS would have a DA about the equilavent of the RNAV approaches on RW14. The problem being the hill to the north of the runway. When landing 14, you get visual at the minima, but because of the hill, the approach is offset, and in reduced visibility, the runway threshold is very hard to see (even with the strobes), and in manoeuvring to final, it is possible to have the approach become unstable, which under most SOP's means a missed approach. It may be possible to get a ILS on 32 with an overshoot similar to the 32 RNAV approach, but a ten mile ILS straight in over the coastal noise sensitive areas would cause the locals to mutiny!

neville_nobody

29th Jan 2012, 10:44

Why not move the airport? The current locations value would be significant if you developed it. Not sure where is suitable for a new airport though.....

Alternatively buiding a set of decent approach lights on 14 may help the cause

Flying Binghi

29th Jan 2012, 12:29

.

Yous lot are imagining things... needing an ILS due to rain...:rolleyes:

Our racial stirring Prime Muppet and her muny grubbing climate adviser told us it would never rain again - they had scientific proof...:hmm:

------------------------------------------------------

"...We are committed to a sustainable, triple bottom line philosophy..."

Gold Coast Airport » Community (http://goldcoastairport.com.au/community/)

.

18-Wheeler

29th Jan 2012, 22:40

Yous lot are imagining things... needing an ILS due to rain...

Agreed.
I flew in & out of there for a couple of decades, hardly ever needed to do an approach and if you did a plain VOR.DME would easily get you low enough.
An ILS would be a big waste of money.

ozbiggles

30th Jan 2012, 10:34

Well you must be a better pilot than most of the crews on the numerous diverts to Brisbane in the last 12 months from the GC.
And of course the stats on the increase safety of a ILS (or GLS) vs a non aligned approach aren't worth listening too, it would just be a waste of money.....
A few wheels short of a undercarriage in this case?

601

30th Jan 2012, 10:35

Without the aeronautical component, that car parks would be empty!
I know that and you know that, but the beancounters, they only know the bottom line

Tinstaafl

30th Jan 2012, 16:55

If an ILS to Rwy 14 isn't possible due to the hill on final then perhaps an offset ILS or even a Localiser type Directional Aid would work. Can't recall them being used in Oz when I was there but they're used here in the US.

piston broke again

30th Jan 2012, 20:30

Offset ILS's can be implemented to avoid terrain impinging into the splay but may be a bit harder in this instance (Phuket a good example, albeit a 1.4 degree offset). The DA wouldn't be a whole lot less than your average VOR or RNAV but at least the visibility requirement would be better, which is the main reason for go-arounds at Goldy.

mudpig

30th Jan 2012, 20:44

Hey Jabawocky you're famous. They quoted you on the front page of today's
Gold Coast Bulletin.

MR MACH

30th Jan 2012, 21:15

It is obvious that no one has any idea of the process to have an ILS installed at an airport.

It has nothing to do with the airport operator.

The board of Airline Representatives (for that airport) ask Airservices what an ILS installation would cost.

Airservices do the terrain appraisal and costing (installation, lighting, ongoing maintenance, calibration). Lighting is a big cost.

The airlines are told what the increase in air service charges will be for the ILS installation. The airline beancounters then determine whether the installation is cost effective. They then inform the Board of Airline Representatives whether they want to go ahead with the installation.

So the airlines determine whether they want the ILS. Simple as that.

It has to be this way as it is a user pays system - can you imagine if a CAT III system was installed at say Alice Springs without the airlines approval they would go ballistic over the cost?

Jabawocky

30th Jan 2012, 21:24

It is the media after all......desperate for expert opinion.:}

Just proves a point really:uhoh:

PPRUNE is a valuable source of knowlege after all:E

mudpig

30th Jan 2012, 21:36

Who says you can't trust Ppruners?
Isn't that right Mr Aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas?

18-Wheeler

30th Jan 2012, 21:56

Well you must be a better pilot than most of the crews on the numerous diverts to Brisbane in the last 12 months from the GC.

I can only make a statement based on my experiences there and as I said, I didn't have to do an approach there very often. Maybe I was lucky and the other crews last year weren't.

And of course the stats on the increase safety of a ILS (or GLS) vs a non aligned approach aren't worth listening too, it would just be a waste of money.....

Again not my problem if the crews can't fly a VOR/DME approach accurately enough. I didn't find them difficult at all, in any aeroplane.

A few wheels short of a undercarriage in this case?

If you want to trade personal insults about user names to establish credibility about comments, then you have already lost the argument.

megle2

30th Jan 2012, 22:16

The man on ABC radio says agreement reached with ASA, work is now to start on the planning for the ILS

ozbiggles

31st Jan 2012, 00:00

In your own words you have no problem at all in flying a VOR/DME approach and hats off to you. Most pilots don't.
There is plenty of evidence out there that some pilots/airlines do.
One recently to the Melbourne VOR 34 and a few stories regarding the CG Vor of late.
The numbers are in, there is no doubt ILS vs VOR, ILS wins hands down on the safety case(no surprises there). If the traffic/conditions warrants it then common sense dictates.....and that is where the argument is lost when airline bean counters are put in the mix. Thank you to Mr Mach for explaining the process.
If we can't convince the public/bean counters that an extra dollar on your ticket is worth it for a safer day then well no wonder the smart people in aviation put their money in the airport car parks and not the airlines.

maggot

31st Jan 2012, 02:24

The man on ABC radio says agreement reached with ASA, work is now to start on the planning for the ILS

Really? Why? As someone has pointed out earlier, any ILS system on 14 couldn't be a standard one thus negating it's effectiveness :ugh: WOFTAM.
RNP app. the tech is proven and readily available and can have complex curved apps for noise and hill avoidance - roll out on finals 350-400' and you're in.

maggot

31st Jan 2012, 03:36

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but the RNP approaches do exist for CG, and have existed for some years.

These are not published in the AIP/DAP package as they were proprietary - i.e. developed by a third party provider for individual companies under licence.

ANZ use them. And JQ were using them very occasionally a while back. I am told the reason JQ no longer use them is crew training currency, and aircraft validity (which I guess comes down to keeping the crew and the FMS current - correct me if I am wrong by all means.)

Whilst RNP approaches are in widespread use at YBBN (QF and ANZ), where an ILS exists,(and is often crew preferred over the RNP), they are strangely not in common use at CG - where they would be quite useful in the weather conditions over the past couple of summers.

which is precisely my point, the tech is out there! I think the 320s have a few limitations in this regards but virgin should be all over it!

Capn Bloggs

31st Jan 2012, 03:56

If you have the company resources to manage it (it's not just GPS NPA on steroids), RNP-AR is the way to go for the latest jets. But if an ILS is an option ("work is now to start on the planning for the ILS") it would be a better overall solution; everybody can use it with no extra training or cost (apart from the airport fees).

mumag

31st Jan 2012, 04:59

They certainly are:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s10-h39.pdf

There can't be many using them though given the number of go-arounds and diversions to BN we get here.

Flava Saver

8th Feb 2012, 15:03

Well bugger me!

Anna Bligh confirmed that the Gold Coast will be receiving a $10 million dollar ILS this year. (Source-Gold Coast Bulletin 8th Feb 2012). :D

chuboy

8th Feb 2012, 21:31

I wonder if that coincides with Scoot entering the playing field?

Wally Mk2

8th Feb 2012, 23:08

.............bloody hell $10 Mill for an ILS!!! That's nuts! For the life of me in this day & age where modern techno stuff is rampant we can't have a Sat/GPS App that takes us down to the same Min as an ILS.:ugh:

Wmk2

Capn Bloggs

8th Feb 2012, 23:30

For the life of me in this day & age where modern techno stuff is rampant we can't have a Sat/GPS App that takes us down to the same Min as an ILS.
It is, Wally. Give me a timeline and cost for your fleet to be RNP-AR equipped and approved and you'll probably find the $10m isn't looking too bad spread amoungst the 5 million-odd inbound pax movements per year. :ok:

neville_nobody

8th Feb 2012, 23:39

IF (and it's a big if) airports were run properly in this country you could fund any infrastructure by a small one year passenger tax to improve services.

The ILS could be easily funded by a ticket tax and then removed after one year.
A small price to pay to enable people to actually get where they need to go.
The reality is the people who run airports in this country are not interested in aviation.

Anyone have any idea how this ILS will work? I assume it will be on 14 but from discussions on here the minima isn't going real low.

Fieldmouse

9th Feb 2012, 00:06

Only up for $2m to replace ours shortly. The $10m will largely be for the D.A that has to go in and for the ILS Cat (insert number here) lighting they put in.

alphacentauri

20th Mar 2012, 06:27

You guys really do need to be careful what you wish for.

Yes a Gold Coast ILS is coming.......but you will never guess what runway they want to put it on :ugh::ugh:

You guys are happy to fly an ILS down to minima, and then have to circle to land or accept a large tailwind in marginal conditions aren't you? The people making the proposal seem to think this is fine.

We all know the marginal weather comes when a NORTHERLY is blowing!!!

I have an overwhelming sense of value for money :ok::ok:

Stationair8

20th Mar 2012, 06:34

Lovely, relative short runway with a tailwind on a wet night or the circling approach on a wet night!

Goat Whisperer

20th Mar 2012, 06:49

An ILS on 32 wouldn't be much fun, with the displaced threshold not a lot of LDA for landing with a tailwind.

b55

20th Mar 2012, 07:06

JFC! Even Sheridan, Wyoming, USA has an ILS, FGS! Never heard of it you say???! BECAUSE "NO ONE" GOES THERE!!! And many more places like it too with an ILS. This country needs to get its head out of its ass when it comes to serious flying conditions. "It'll do" just isn't good enough for that 10% of serious bad weather flying. Lockhart River wasn't BIG ENOUGH it seems for the vast majority of the public. One day this country will get what it has been waiting for. God, I hope not.* Gold Coast two ILS's, at least one for CFS, MC, Gla, RK, Mk, 2 for TL and CS( too many go arounds there the last few days onto Rwy 33.) and a few more CATII(III) as well.
*Day off and a few reds already.

Mr.Buzzy

20th Mar 2012, 13:10

Cheer up chaps.....at least we can drink the water here!

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbbzzzzzzzz

neville_nobody

20th Mar 2012, 15:09

In the US airports are generally owned by a city or municipal council and is provided as a community facility, not as a way of spinning money. It benefits the WHOLE town to have a good airport. In Australia some genius thought it would be a good idea to sell off all the airports and to run them as a private business as a result we get carparks factories and fast food outlets built overnight but things like ILS aerobridges and terminals are not built because they are to expensive.

If they are really going to build 32 ILS in OOL that would have to show how much the people who are running the airport know about aviation

teresa green

20th Mar 2012, 21:38

And add some bloody arms whilst your at it. With the GC storms and unpredicable WX, having PAX standing around like saturated cattle is not a good look. I was flying into OOL in the sixties, the PAX go wet then, and still they get wet. Last week they had to bring mops onto the aircraft to at least dry it up the front, near the galley, time to grow up OOL if you want to go fully international or indeed grow. A ILS AND some arms please.

Fieldmouse

20th Mar 2012, 22:56

In the US airports are generally owned by a city or municipal council and is provided as a community facility, not as a way of spinning money. It benefits the WHOLE town to have a good airport.

Also much easier to run the airport as a community facility when the good old FAA antes up the $3million for the runway overlays when they are due and pays for the new aprons, and the fire service, and security............... We don't have a lot to learn from them because we used to do it too, we just lost our way. :(

Blocker

21st Apr 2012, 02:49

As one of the locals living on the extended centreline of Runway 32, I am very interested in this topic. Has there been any more news about whether the proposed ILS is going ahead, and if so, which end it will be?

I am definitely not an expert, but I can't understand why RNP isn't more widely used for situations like this - with farmland and ocean on either side of us, it seems (to me) that an ILS is not the best solution. Happy to hear the arguments for and against though.

missy

21st Apr 2012, 06:26

Consider this.

MILLIONS of dollars are being poured into a three-phase upgrade of the Gold Coast Airport to make it one of the most technologically advanced in the country when it comes to landing safely.

First cab off the rank is new high-intensity runway lighting that allows pilots to see the runway from great distances, even during bad weather.

The upgrade has already proved successful, with planes able to land in heavy rain after the installation in February when they would in the past have diverted to Brisbane.

The 130 lights along 30km of cable are 12,000 candela -- up from the old lighting's dim 600 candela.

Progress has also stepped up between airlines and airport bosses who are locked in discussions with Air Services Australia about the installation of a vital instrument landing system worth between $5 million and $6 million.

Blocker

21st Apr 2012, 07:41

Yes, I read that in the paper a couple of weeks ago. The same article goes on to say:

"Airlines, including Jetstar, are also using Gold Coast Airport to trial satellite-based navigation technology known as Required Navigation Performance. It gives pilots a clear, narrow flight path, allows planes to travel on a direct route, saving fuel, and can safely guide planes around cloud-shrouded mountains, through valleys and on to the ground safely during low visibility and bad weather. Airport boss Paul Donovan said the airport was already RNP-capable, meaning it would habe the option to operate both ground-based and satellite-based tchnology."

So I am still none the wiser - which end are they talking about, and why do they need an ILS if they could use RNP instead?

neville_nobody

21st Apr 2012, 08:48

So I am still none the wiser - which end are they talking about, and why do they need an ILS if they could use RNP instead?

ILS has broader reach of aircraft. Everything from a C150 through to a B747 can fly an ILS and will become operational the day they sign it out.

RNP however is only really limited to new generation jets and require much more pilot training and recurrency, (read money spent by the airlines) and may not be that popular with airline accountants.

alphacentauri

21st Apr 2012, 08:48

Many more aircraft can use an ILS, than can use RNP-AR. That's why they are pursuing the ILS option.

I believe it is to be installed to service approaches on RWY 14

Maisk Rotum

21st Apr 2012, 18:08

You can bet that it will never happen. Modern RPT jets can be RNP APP approved easily, although at a cost to the individual airline. GC airport investing in an ILS will cost them. Easy to see which way this will go. The problem is the Gold Coast region is in dire need of the inbound tourist dollars to bail them out of the recession that exists there. Any airline in Asia looking at a new destination such as OOL will have a look at the facilties and ask, "How much will it cost us for a diversion (or incident) as our crews can only use the VOR approach". With Ozs high cost of even breathing the air, they will move to the next project. Witness Air Asia's recent performance.

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2012, 00:38

Modern RPT jets can be RNP APP approved easily, although at a cost to the individual airline. GC airport investing in an ILS will cost them.
So you've done a cost-benefit analysis on say a half a dozen airlines individually getting RNP-AR approvals (and maintaining their currency) verses plopping in a ILS, not to mention the smaller operators that don't have a hope of ever attaining RNP-AR capability?

After the recent shenanigans, it's pretty obvious the evidence is now overwhelming for some sort of precision approach, and GC certainly wouldn't be putting in an ILS gratis. They'd up the landing fees. But why's that different with any other piece of infrastructure? Service providers the economy-over upgrade equipment/services and then charge for it.

Tankengine

22nd Apr 2012, 00:44

Any ILS lovers work out how long the LDA will be for the GS displaced threshold to cater for the hill to the North?:hmm:
RNP can do a curved approach at greater than 3degrees.:ok:

alphacentauri

22nd Apr 2012, 00:54

An ILS can also have greater than 3 gp. And there will probably not be a reduction in LDA for a standard ILS installation. The ils installation generally doesn't affect runway length. The hill will only affect da. If the hill doesn't impact on the current OLS, there shouldn't be a displaced thld.

At least on the current figures currently being kicked around.

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2012, 01:03

Any ILS lovers work out how long the LDA will be for the GS displaced threshold to cater for the hill to the North?
The VOR has a slope of 3.07°. Given the tracking tolerances of an ILS, I suspect the glideslope wouldn't need to be more than that.

ASX200

23rd Apr 2012, 11:52

KTM has an ILS starts at 6 degress so no reason not to have one on the Gold Coast

Flava Saver

28th Apr 2012, 05:54

An ILS would of been nice today! Missed approaches and diversions again...:hmm:

Maisk Rotum

28th Apr 2012, 17:03

Bloggs; "So you've done a cost-benefit analysis on say a half a dozen airlines individually getting RNP-AR approvals".

No, I havn't, and you know that-so what is your point?

What I am saying is I don't believe it will happen because the airport would ideally like to pass the technology/infrastucture over to the airlines to save them money. As far as "the smaller operators that don't have a hope of ever attaining RNP-AR capability" go, I am sure they couldn't care less about them. Landing fees and revenue in the pax terminal (primarily the latter) are what counts. (A aircraft that holds ten or so is not high on the list for improving infrastucture/safety for the bean counters at GCAPL). It makes sense for domestic airlines to be RNP APP approved (not just for OOL)- GCAPL knows that.

What I was saying however, is that it will be a shame if they don't install one, as it will deter potential new international airlines. International airline execs don't want/need the hassle of sending their shiny new Boeingbus to a regional, infrastucture deficient airport in Australia only to have it divert because someone forgot/chose to not install an ILS there. The Gold Coast city/region doesn't need that-it will hurt the economy.

My bet is that it they won't install an ILS. I just hope they install some HIALS to lower the visibility minima. That in conjunction with RNP approaches will be a massive improvement. No use being at 250 feet in driving rain or scud if you can't see some really bright approach lights as well as the recently installed "high-intensity runway lighting that allows pilots to see the runway from great distances, even during bad weather."

NB. I acknowledge it will be impossible to install HIALS on 14 due to current land use but maybe they could buy some land off farmer Joe for the 32 end. His cows could still eat grass around the posts.

Oh and here is a cynical thought. On the day I was stuck in that terminal for hours due to diversions there were thousands of people in the terminal. About threefold the usual number- all spending at the retail and food outlets. Did GCAPL total revenue go down that day because there were less aircraft movements? Not so sure.

c100driver

28th Apr 2012, 18:14

Let me see,

Qantas = RNP AR cleared to .10 for the B737 NG, possibly for the B767 and .1 for the B787
Jet star = RNP AR cleared to .30 but shortly to .10 if not already on the A320. B787 will be .10
Air NZ = RNP AR .10 for the A320, .11 for the B737 CL, B777 on the way from .30 down to .10, B787 .10 out of the box.
Virgin = not RNP AR yet but will have initial flights underway by the end of the year on the B737 NG, not sure of the capability of the E190.

Those four carriers are responsible for what 95% of all GC jet operations? I doubt that they will be willing to pay for an installation they they don't need. When the airport company come cap in hand to those airline for the cash to pay for the new ILS I would be willing to bet they will tell them to find the money from someone else!

Blocker

28th Apr 2012, 22:05

MR, there aren't many "farms" on the 32 approach - it is built-up all the way from the coast. Not high-rise like the northern end, but densely populated residential areas nonetheless. Haven't seen cows in Banora Point for a long time.

C100driver, I understood it was GCAL that was pushing for the installation of an ILS? My guess it is mainly for the asian carriers, seeing as the domestic carriers are (or soon will be) RNP capable, as you pointed out. I also thought AA was paying for it - do they recoup the cost from the airlines? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to work out how it all works.

slim pickings

28th Apr 2012, 22:51

Gladstone's getting one.

http://www.gladstone.qld.gov.au/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=a0398a6a-b6f9-4239-ae38-7a6b7a747713&groupId=1570002

alphacentauri

29th Apr 2012, 01:26

C100driver,

Big difference in being authorised to conduct RNP-AR and having crew/aircraft qualified/current to fly them.

Of the 4 airlines you listed:
QANTAS - don't currently fly to Gold Coast in aircraft that are RNP certified
VIRGIN - Not currently RNP certified.
That leaves....
Jetstar - Not currently flying RNP at Gold Coast (not sure why)
AirNZ - Maybe certified but don't have access to the Naverus plates paid for by QANTAS.

So that leaves one airline currently able to perform RNP at Gold Coast (Jetstar). I would think that a broader solution to cater for all of the other users of Gold Coast, and the significant GA fleet operating from there, is an ILS.

...and yes Gladstone is getting one :ok:

Blocker

29th Apr 2012, 04:35

Qantas don't fly to Gold Coast at all ...

Capn Bloggs

29th Apr 2012, 05:54

Bloggs; "So you've done a cost-benefit analysis on say a half a dozen airlines individually getting RNP-AR approvals".

No, I havn't, and you know that-so what is your point?
I thought you had because it appears, from your posts, you have already decided that RNP-ARs (and their setup and ongoing costs) were cheaper than an ILS.

My point is: if you're (either GCAL or the airlines) going to potentially fork out a few mill for a piece of infrastructure/capability, then you do a study to find out what is the most cost-effective way of doing it; either RNP-ARs or an ILS.

Capn Bloggs

29th Apr 2012, 06:30

...and yes Gladstone is getting one
Which runway (and yes, I know there are hills to the NW:E)?

alphacentauri

29th Apr 2012, 08:18

RWY 10....I think the plan is to have it operational for the next wet season

Capn Bloggs

29th Apr 2012, 08:27

RWY 10....I think the plan is to have it operational for the next wet season
Excellent. We need that mob running a couple of other airports around the place... :ok:

Flava Saver

29th Apr 2012, 10:24

I must say it s&@ts me no end that we operate multi million dollar airliners with the traveling public into places where airport operators, councils, government refuse to spend the money to upgrade the infrastructure. Sunshine Coast, Ballina are two glaringly obvious places that expect the Jetstars & Virgins to service their communities, but haven't made their airports up to scratch.

Wishful thinking but if the CEO's (JB's & DH's) got together and issued an ultimatum to certain ports that if they haven't upgraded the facility, (runways, aprons, nav aids) by a certain date, they will withdraw from the port. The public uproar and tourism implications would be horrendous... But no, our airlines accept the diversions and expenses involved because of this.

And another thing. It's 2012 yet Hobart & the likes in this country are still procedural & non radar. What an effin joke. Rant over.

Mick.B

2nd Feb 2013, 09:11

The mind boggles.

ILS ready but passengers still waiting Local Gold Coast News | goldcoast.com.au | Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia (http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/01/23/445924_gold-coast-news.html)

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Jenna Talia

2nd Feb 2013, 13:29

My understanding is that an ILS would not have made any difference as the issue was one of exceeding cross wind limitations on the wet runway. Although I agree, an ILS is definitely required.

teresa green

2nd Feb 2013, 19:27

And why they did not put in one or two arms at least is beyond me. Nothing like a bunch of soggy PAX gathering around the bottom of the steps, and followed by a engineer with a mop. I really believed when they did the reno's they would have worked that one out. I should have known better.

alphacentauri

2nd Feb 2013, 21:55

Just what I have heard around the traps...

Original recommendation was to install it to service approaches onto rwy 14. This means equipment to be installed at southern end of airfield. When the bypass was built they relocated a rare frog/bird habitat to the area that is now needed for ils installation. Gold Coast airport wanted to install it at other end (ie to service rwy 32 approaches).

There was a stalemate, then winter and fair weather came. It was all forgotten about.

Now bad weather has come and an election has been announced, and everybody remembers an ils was promised.

There is a meeting on Friday to decide which end will get it, and ad I heard last week it could be both ends.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

neville_nobody

2nd Feb 2013, 22:44

Reading between the lines I think the reference to both ends of the runway is only one ILS. The LLZ at one end and the glideslope at the TDZ. I doubt they are going to fork out $20 Mil to build one at each end.

However the ILS is useless if they don't erect any approach lighting with it. No point being at the minima on slope and still not seeing anything. The problem at the OOL is the viz not the cloud base.

worked to death

3rd Feb 2013, 20:41

I don't know about useless. A 200 DA is bound to be better than a 779 MDA for many approaches. It might not be perfect however it would allow more people to catch sight of the the runway environment with or without approach lighting.

Wally Mk2

3rd Feb 2013, 22:44

I tend to agree with 'Nev' in some ways that an ILS isn't anywhere near as useful unless it has HIALS, that's why they have HIALS as you may actually not be in cloud at the Min but the rain is so heavy that fwd viz especially at night is next to zero unless there is something to spot IE the bright lights well b4 the black bit. Remember it's cloud & Viz that need to be addressed:-)
I'd like a dollar for every time I've only seen the lights at or about the Min & if it wasn't for them then I'd be an expert at missed App's:-)

HUD's (yes I know they exist) is what the next gen of Transport Cat A/C need in color that simply replaces what we humans can't see due restricted visibility.
I can just see it (pun not intended) now doing the VOR 14 at Cooly in zero Viz but having a clear almost animated view of the world outside whilst we break off at the Min to align the Rwy all the time still 'seeing' that nasty hill to the Nth of the drome all in what looks like 3D:-)

The whole idea of any Inst Appr is to get Visual to land & it's about tricking the human eyes/mind as the Rwy is still there it's just that we can't see it:-).
We put man on the Moon well over 40 yrs ago with something like a Commodore 64K computer but yet we still have advanced stuff all in aviation in some ways!

Wmk2

The Green Goblin

4th Feb 2013, 00:15

Now that most forward thinking airlines are using RNP AR approaches into the goldy is an ILS required?

HIALs would be handy, but an ILS?

Transition Layer

4th Feb 2013, 01:38

Wally,

If you were flying an aircraft equipped with a HUD, why the hell would you be doing a VOR approach?

As Green Goblin says, RNP-AR is the way forward. It's not perfect, but it's probably the most sensible option for somewhere like Cooly. Why go to the lengths of installing and maintaining an ILS for a minima around 220' AGL, when you can get to 250' AGL off an RNP? Similar vis requirements for both approaches, assuming no HIALS.

Seems a no-brainer to me!

Capn Bloggs

4th Feb 2013, 03:31

RNP-AR is the way forward.... Seems a no-brainer to me!
I think this was covered earlier in the thread. Do a cost-benefit analysis on RNP-AR for all as opposed to an ILS for all.

The Green Goblin

4th Feb 2013, 03:36

Bloggs, the majority of the major airlines that would be affected by the diversions have RNP AR. I'm sure Virgin are not too far off getting them, don't know about Tiger, they can't even do managed NPA's.

When the majors miss out, that makes the headlines. A couple of turboprops or GA type aircraft don't.

Once RNP AR is supported by industry there will be lots of these style approaches and the industry will be far safer as a result.

maggot

4th Feb 2013, 03:42

I think this was covered earlier in the thread. Do a cost-benefit analysis on RNP-AR for all as opposed to an ILS for all.

was covered but i'm far from convinced. An ILS for all on one runway or RNP-AR on any runway you need... perfect for hammo, mackay - the list goes on...

Transition Layer

4th Feb 2013, 04:13

Bloggs,

I'm with maggot - not convinced. Unless we're talking about the need for CATIII approaches in heavy fog (not likely at Cooly), RNP-AR is the future and seems to make more financial sense.

That beloved DC-9 of yours (and the crews that fly them) will get with the times eventually! Heck, you might even be able to do the RNAV-Z onto 21 in PH next time the ILS is out! :p

Capn Bloggs

4th Feb 2013, 04:22

Heck, you might even be able to do the RNAV-Z onto 21 in PH next time the ILS is out!
You big bully TL. You know how to hit where it hurts! :ouch:! :ok:

alphacentauri

4th Feb 2013, 07:29

Part of the reason for installation of the ils is the aerodrome operator wants to attract a lot more international traffic. Apparently without the ils they are not interested in coming. This is also part of the reason they seem to want to install 2 ils's.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Wally Mk2

4th Feb 2013, 12:52

'Trany' my idea of a HUD's was that it could/would be needed as a supplement to an App, to aid in the 'visual' aspect of any App,not used as a stand alone device, that's what I was alluding to:-).
As mentioned elsewhere here an ILS would be needed as it's an acceptable std world wide as a precision App & seeing as Cooly is an international drome (albeit almost a backward one) that's what we have to do to be like the real world outside the Aussie barbwire way of thinking:-)

Wmk2

neville_nobody

4th Feb 2013, 21:17

Interesting that these international carriers find unacceptable what everyone in Australia has to put up with on a daily baisis. Maybe the Oz carriers should get a bit more proactive on the standard of Australian RPT Aerodromes. It would appear that CASA is happy to approve anything.

maggot

4th Feb 2013, 21:21

nev, big difference for a dash 8 crew going in somewhere like that 5 times a day compared to an overseas heavy crew once every 6 months (maybe), strange accents, strange body clock ...

Capn Bloggs

5th Feb 2013, 02:51

nev, big difference for a dash 8 crew going in somewhere like that 5 times a day
Precisely my point, mag. Dash 8 will never be RNP-AR approved.

maggot

5th Feb 2013, 03:42

Precisely my point, mag. Dash 8 will never be RNP-AR approved.

my point was in reference to another post on airport 'marketability' to o/s carriers. The biggest impacts during these weather events are the jets diverting/cancelling are displacing large amounts of pax everywhere so they are the ones that really need looking after, services wise (not to understate the importance of the turbo prop networks). RNP-AR does it fine, both runways. And many more.
In any case, someone alluded to the wet x-wind being the biggest problem - how does that stack up? Haven't been in there for ages.

FYSTI

5th Feb 2013, 05:26

maggot, the question is how many of these carriers do RNP-AR. It doesn't appear to be a "standard equipment" as is the ILS for all operators.

There are also some subtleties with the RNP-AR. The minima's are quite different with the terrain.
YBCG RWY 14
RNP 0.10 285' (264) / 1400m
RNP 0.15 429' (408) / 2200m
RNP 0.30 434' (413) / 2300m

RWY 32
RNP 0.10 263' (250) / 1300m
RNP 0.20 287' (274) / 1400m
RNP 0.30 320' (307) / 1600m

My understanding (open to correction) is that the A320 is only capable of RNP 0.20, however has approval to operate to RNP 0.15 & that current Airbus models won't be able to ever get RNP 0.10.

Recently, the wet xwind was one factor, however the cloud base was 300' and the vis hovering around ~2000m. Two A320's ahead of us missed out for RWY14 (assumed using the RNP 0.15 minima) and we got in visual at the 0.10 minima with the required vis in moderate rain, TWR reported crosswind at 25kts and FMC 23Kts at touchdown.

I might add that both the TAF and TTF indicated conditions above the alternate criteria, forcing diversions for another 4 or 5 aircraft arriving at the same time without ever becoming visual, so the xwind was a moot point.

RNP-AR is better than the a non-precision approach, but not to the same standard as an ILS. It very much depends upon the RNP that you can actually use. Without much terrain around, there isn't much in it. As soon as you get terrain close to the field, the approach minima becomes very sensitive to what your aircraft is capable of, and what you actually have for the ANP (mostly 0.02, but up to 0.08). Cairns RWY 33 is a classic, with a RNP of 0.10 of 333', RNP 0.20 of 494' and RNP 0.30 of 789'. With an ANP of 0.08, I wouldn't start a RNP 0.10 approach.

GLS, now that is a different story...

c100driver

5th Feb 2013, 06:36

FYSTI

I think you may need to do a little more research. The A320 is capable of certification down to .10 but there are some software mods required.

Air NZ operate to that in ZQN with both the domestic A320 and the much older (almost 10 years old now) regional A320. They were infact the first A320 operator with RNP approval below .30

One of the assumptions here regarding the ILS is the minima will be 200 feet. If you take NZWN with a modern ILS installation it's minima it 300 feet on 16 and between 300 and 450 feet depending on NAV fit and CAA approval for 34. The 16 minima is based on lighting issues and the 34 minima is a missed approach and lighting issue. I don't know the design parameters for CG but will it meet certification for 200 ft AGL? I don't know the answer to that one, anybody here with the information?

FYSTI

5th Feb 2013, 07:11

c100, appreciate the clarification regarding the A320 RNP capability. That leads to the next question, what is the lowest current RNP-AR approval for Australian based A320 operators?

Back to the original point about an ILS vs RNP-AR solving the issue in the case of the Gold Coast, the RNP-AR is really only of benefit instead of an ILS if the operator is RNP 0.15 capable or below. From you comments about NZWN, you imply that operation is dependant upon more than just the lowest capability of the FMS, there are other issues to the lowest RNP value usable by each operator.

alphacentauri

5th Feb 2013, 10:35

Lowest RNP certification in Oz is 0.1. Pretty sure QANTAS and Jetstar are both certified to this value.

Derivation of an ils DA is independant of runway lighting, and is only concerned with the obstacle environment. Lighting only affects visibilty required.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Capt Fathom

5th Feb 2013, 11:15

Some ILS minimas are based purely on approach lighting, or lack there of.

alphacentauri

5th Feb 2013, 19:07

Not in Australia

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

alphacentauri

5th Feb 2013, 19:09

Neither Pans-ops or the Mos says anything about adjusting ils minima for lighting.

Its a myth

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

topdrop

5th Feb 2013, 19:33

So it's a myth that the vis minima on Cairns 15 ILS goes from 1.2Km to 1.5Km when HIALs are not available.

alphacentauri

5th Feb 2013, 19:51

The VISIBILITY is affected

The MINIMA is not

Lighting only affects the published visibility, it has nothing to do with the minima

Bula

5th Feb 2013, 21:06

And here I was thinking that visibility was part of the minima criteria.... :rolleyes:

AERODROME METEOROLOGICAL MINIMA (Ceiling and Visibility Minima) — The minimumheights of cloud base (ceiling) and minimum values of visibility which are prescribed in pursuanceof CAR 257 for the purpose of determining the usability of an aerodrome either for take-off orlanding.

MINIMUM ALTITUDE — The minimum altitude for a particular instrument approach procedure is the altitude at which an aircraft shall discontinue an instrument approach unless continual visual reference to the ground or water has been established and ground visibility is equal to or greater than that specified for landing. (Applicable to DA/MDA on procedures designed to an earlier edition of PANS-OPS, Document 8168.)

.............

Anyway it's crazy. JQ can operate to 0.1 RNP minima in ZQN, but are still restricted by the regulator to 0.3 RNP in Aus.

Capn Bloggs

5th Feb 2013, 21:21

Topdrop and Bula, read Alpha's posts. He said:

Derivation of an ils DA is independant of runway lighting, and is only concerned with the obstacle environment.
ILS DA is not affected by lighting. :=

FYSTI

5th Feb 2013, 21:27

JQ can operate to 0.1 RNP minima in ZQN, but are still restricted by the regulator to 0.3 RNP in Aus.
Thank you - this is why the RNP-AR is not an instead of an ILS drop in replacement for aerodromes with a traffic volume that can support the cost of the installation on a reasonable basis, which is the case in the Gold Coast given its terrain & frequent poor weather in summer.

Bula

5th Feb 2013, 21:37

Especially given the WB contingent into YBCG. It needs an ILS.

Is it possible on R14 with a 150' obstacle at 1.5nm? Steeper GS perhaps?

I don't believe the A330 or B777 are RNP-AR airframes. Though the 787 is approved straight out of the shrink wrap.

The Green Goblin

6th Feb 2013, 00:57

Anyway it's crazy. JQ can operate to 0.1 RNP minima in ZQN, but are still restricted by the regulator to 0.3 RNP in Aus.

Everytime you do an RNP AR approach, you submit paperwork regarding the performance of the aeroplane etc etc.

The technical Pilots pull the data from the approach and use it for stat building to support the case of reducing the RNP value.

Queenstown has been operating for some time, hence the RNP 0.1 approach criteria. RNP AR in Australia for Jetstar is relatively new. It will take lots of approaches and proven equipment reliability, plus ongoing simulator training and data assessment before the regulator will give approval for reduction.

It's just like ETOPS. The aircraft may come out of the box with the approval, however the operator has to build their experience before increased approval is given by the regulator.

Capt Fathom

6th Feb 2013, 01:42

Neither Pans-ops or the Mos says anything about adjusting ils minima for lighting.

Its a myth

Then why are the minimas in SYD on rwys 34L & 34R 250'. There are no approach lights.

I doubt there is a obstacle problem (over the water).

Maybe the minimas are raised to coincide with the vis that is required?

Hence my statement re lights and minimas. :confused:

alphacentauri

6th Feb 2013, 04:28

The visibility is something that is calculated for publication after a DA has been derived.

You can't calculate a visibility requirement if you don't know the MDA/DA. Once the visibility required is calculated there is then an adjustment for HIAL (if there are any). So no, the DA is not adjusted to meet a visibility requirement.

Again the DA is calculated solely based on the obstacle environment. Once the DA has been sorted, then a visibility required is calculated.

As for the Sydney ILS's there is an allowance for 200ft shipping passing to pass through the final approach area. It appears this is why the minima is as it is.

c100driver

6th Feb 2013, 06:29

Yes the triple 7 is RNP AR approved down to .10 and suspect that the A330 is also capable but like the A320 may need a software update to activate the RNP specific capability.

QSK?

7th Feb 2013, 03:37

In response to previous comments in this thread regarding GP elevation, the ICAO recommendation for a standard ILS is that the GP elevation should not exceed 3.5° for CAT 1 ILS ops.

However, where States have a need to implement GPs exceeding the recommended 3.5° elevation angle (non-standard ILS), ICAO recommends that the approach charts be annotated accordingly and the relevant regulator restrict use of the ILS facility to approved operators and aircraft.

If a non-standards ILS was installed at OOL, it's use would be restricted to only a few operators who have the necessary CASA approval. That fact alone probably undermines the cost/benefit argument for an ILS.

Capn Bloggs

7th Feb 2013, 03:58

If a non-standards ILS was installed at OOL, it's use would be restricted to only a few operators who have the necessary CASA approval. That fact alone probably undermines the cost/benefit argument for an ILS.
It's a bit hard to see if the RNPs (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s12-h08.pdf) are exactly aligned with the runway or whether there are limiting obstacles further out, but the slopes are only 2.9°.

alphacentauri

7th Feb 2013, 05:30

A 3 degree gp for ils can be done at both ends. Its not an issue.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

neville_nobody

7th Feb 2013, 05:52

A 3 degree gp for ils can be done at both ends. Its not an issue.

Don't the hills and buildings get in the way on 14?

alphacentauri

7th Feb 2013, 06:52

In short...no

megle2

9th Feb 2014, 09:37

Today's press say the ILS is another year away

Capn Bloggs

9th Feb 2014, 10:58

Up the coast a bit, the GLA 10 ILS is in and being tested. :D

falconx

9th Feb 2014, 15:29

Who paid for that? Santos? To ensure their workers get in...

neville_nobody

10th Feb 2014, 03:22

Sounds like the NIMBY's are at it again with the local members voicing opposition.

Are the A330's not able to do the RNP?

Given the Coast's population, tourism dependance, and the difficulties just getting a basic ILS installed, is it time to build a proper airport somewhere else?

LONG-suffering airline passengers and pilots are facing more further potentially dangerous delays in getting an all-weather landing system at Gold Coast Airport.

Flights into Coolangatta are diverted to Brisbane in bad weather because of the lack of an Instrument Landing System (ILS) which allows pilots to land aircraft safely.

The absence of an ILS has become an embarrassment for Australia's sixth busiest airport, especially because small regional airports including such as Proserpine, Mildura and Wagga Wagga already have the system.

Last month, plane-load of Japanese tourists and returning Australians holidaymakers due fly in to in Coolangatta at 6.25am did not arrive until 3pm because their Jetstar flight was diverted to Brisbane.

"It's a total debacle,'' one passenger fumed at the time.

The former federal Labor government pledged $10 million to install the ILS and the Abbott Government has committed to the project but sources told The Sunday Mail said the system was now unlikely to be in place until the middle of next year.

The latest delay is s are believed to be a result of several factors including have been caused by factors including opposition from central Gold Coast residents who would be in the airport flight path when the ILS is used.

In addition, state MP for Burleigh Michael Hart, a former aircraft engineer, has questioned the effectiveness of the system and Mermaid Beach MP Ray Stevens is lobbying against the flight path on behalf of his constituents.

Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce president Gail O'Neill said the ILS was "long overdue".

"It's very disappointing to hear of yet another delay. This has been going on for years,'' she said. "We're a tourism town and we should be servicing our tourists. We shouldn't be diverting them to Brisbane and putting them on buses.''

Australian Federation of Air Pilots spokesman Simon Lutton said pilots wanted safety improvements at Gold Coast.

"Any upgrade or improvements to navigation aids and resources would certainly be welcomed by pilots,'' he said.

A THREE-year campaign to bring a $10 million instrument landing system to the Gold Coast could be derailed by some of the city's richest residents who don't want planes flying over their houses for just 60 days of the year.

The ILS will allow planes to land in all weather conditions and fly as low as 60m.

The proposed ILS flight path would take planes over Southport, Surfers Paradise, Broadbeach and Mermaid Beach and is expected to be used for five per cent of landings in low-visibility situations.

More than $10 million was committed to the project by the former Labor government in May after years of lobbying and a growing number of Gold Coast bound flights being delayed each December and January.

However, some Mermaid Beach residents and politicians don't want it at all.
Mermaid Beach Community Association president Alf Vocker, an LNP member, said he was "utterly opposed" to the plan and would take the matter directly to Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

"Mermaid Beach is a high residential area and the last thing we want is to become another Currumbin," he said.

"Our residents are utterly opposed and we will protest any move to put us under a flight path because we cannot seen any reason for it.

"We have a lot of high-pressure people here as far as the Federal Government is concerned and we will bring the pressure to the MPs themselves including Tony Abbott who I know personally."

Mermaid Beach MP Ray Stevens is leading a campaign against the proposed flight path which crosses through his electorate.

Mr Stevens demanded federal MPs Steven Ciobo and Karen Andrews exert their influence in Canberra to prevent the plan from becoming a reality.

He said the proposed flight path was not suitable given the area's high-density population.

``I will be asking for our MPs to support the limitation of this flight path use to periods of bad weather only rather than all through the year,'' he said.

``It is incumbent upon the federal member to have a pragmatic and reasonable solution for our residents given this is a system which would likely only see use 60 days in a year.

``We must be clear the residents of this area do not want planes going over their houses when it is not necessary.''

LS systems are already installed in capital city airports as well as at Townsville, Wagga Wagga, Launceston and Cairns, all of which bring in fewer aircraft and visitors than Gold Coast, which is the sixth busiest airport in the country.

Community consultation is expected to be held through the Christmas period.

Mr Ciobo has been involved in negotiations and said living under a flight path was one of the realities of living in a city with a growing population,

``It is my understanding that around five per cent of arrivals will actually use the system primarily in low-vision situations,'' he said.

``Frankly this is what happens when you live in a city of more than half a million people and I say that as someone who lives under what will be the flight path.

``We need this system to keep the city growing and continue to be an international destination and I think the impact will barely register.''

The existing flight path is primarily offshore and only crosses the coastline at Currumbin.

Gold Coast Airport boss Paul Donovan said residents would get to have their say.

``It will go out to consultation and everyone will get to see what it is and have their say,'' he said.

``It is a bit early for anyone to comment on the system until after it has gone before the public but ultimately the number of flights which would use it would be minimal.''

UnderneathTheRadar

10th Feb 2014, 04:05

The absence of an ILS has become an embarrassment for Australia's sixth busiest airport, especially because small regional airports including such as Proserpine, Mildura and Wagga Wagga already have the system.

1 out of 3 ain't bad....

Capn Bloggs

10th Feb 2014, 05:13

Don't forget Albany... :ok:

717tech

10th Feb 2014, 09:50

Might have to give Jepessen a call tomorrow, I seem to be missing my ILS charts for Mildura and Proserpine. :ugh:

Normasars

10th Feb 2014, 10:10

Well you won't find them in the Yellow Pages or online if you spell it like that!

chuboy

13th Feb 2014, 08:17

Instrument landing system to be installed at Gold Coast Airport by June 2015 | Gold Coast Bulletin (http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/instrument-landing-system-to-be-installed-at-gold-coast-airport-by-june-2015/story-fnj94idh-1226824061377)

alphacentauri

13th Feb 2014, 10:10

As a person close on this project. I'm still not completely convinced it's going to happen.

As the link above says....2 flights all summer have diverted to Brisbane....I'll repeat the number again. ..2. Do you really think the minister is going to give his backing to something that costs so much, yet provides so little?

Consider that public criteria rnp will be available at Gold Coast before the ils is operational. And the emo minima is only about 100-150ft higher than an ils. If those 2 diversions would have arrived off an rnp....well....what's the point.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

alphacentauri

13th Feb 2014, 10:12

.....and if there really is no point. Then you are just stirring up and pissing off the locals for no reason.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

underfire

13th Feb 2014, 11:15

The tailored (private) RNP at Gold Coast has worked fine for years..

Min is higher due to obstacles in the missed...and WAY too much emphasis has been placed on 250 vs 350 HAT of ILS vs RNP.

EDIT: Looking at the public RNP, and the other procedures, I think perhap reviewing the obstacles in the flightpath to get the min down would be much more cost effective.

Calvin Hops

13th Feb 2014, 11:21

OOL doesn't really need an ILS...just cOOL and sound approach procedures using GPS/RNP or well constructed VOR approaches.

Many airlines have been flying to Kathmandu using the VOR 02 approach in a more challenging environment lately with nary a problem. I have flown there a couple of times a year and most operators going in there have done so safely and efficiently. Good preparation and focussed flying needed though.

Godspeed and fly safe.:)

ad-astra

13th Feb 2014, 19:15

2 flights all summer have diverted to Brisbane....I'll repeat the number again. ..2.

The financial cost and safety costs to the Airlines and ultimately the travelling public of not having a precision approach aid warrants the installation of an ILS.

Along with your two repeat two flights ;

How many flights have carried significantly more fuel than they should have to out last significant weather conditions?
How many flights have carried out more than one non precision approach to become visual some at night with the tower closed.
How many flights have been cancelled due to the weather forecast/actual conditions not being suitable for a non precision approach.
How many flights have had to use Brisbane alternates further up or down the coast because OOL lacks a precision approach aid?

Someone 'close on the project' should talk to some pilots, some flight planning officers and some Airline executives to see if those "two repeat two" diversions stack up against the safe, efficient, and financially viable expectations that we all have for OOL.

alphacentauri

14th Feb 2014, 00:48

So what is the financial and safety cost?

There is no safety cost. There may be a safety benefit. But when the aircraft are getting vertical guidance via RNP, what is the extra safety benefit that an ILS will deliver? There is also an implication that the current procedures are unsafe, I do not agree with this. They may be less efficient.

Financial, I can't argue with that. But you would have to answer the questions below to compare apples with apples.

How many flights have carried significantly more fuel than they should have to out last significant weather conditions?
How many flights have carried out more than one non precision approach to become visual some at night with the tower closed.
How many flights have been cancelled due to the weather forecast/actual conditions not being suitable for a non precision approach.
How many flights have had to use Brisbane alternates further up or down the coast because OOL lacks a precision approach aid?

Can you answer these questions?

Someone 'close on the project' should talk to some pilots, some flight planning officers and some Airline executives to see if those "two repeat two" diversions stack up against the safe, efficient, and financially viable expectations that we all have for OOL.

Why do you assume I haven't? Ad-astra I like the idea of an ILS. So do you it appears. You clearly seem to think that an ILS is essential for Safety and Efficiency at Gold Coast and on face value you are probably right. Currently, the airlines don't support that view. They would rather we develop RNP.

underfire

14th Feb 2014, 02:25

With the ILS, what would the minima be?

How much less than the current RNP? probably not much with that obstacle rich environment.

The ILS is not going to help very much with the typical ceiling out there.

An RNP turn to 3nm short final would work wonders. (RNP turn in the missed as well)

Capn Bloggs

14th Feb 2014, 03:48

We've been through the RNP thing before on this thread. Too bloody hard unless you've got deep pockets (I wonder how much all the RNPs around Aus have cost QF?). Spread the love, put in a simple, safe ILS that everybody can use.

alphacentauri

14th Feb 2014, 04:03

The icao rnp coming later this year aren't being designed for or funded by anyone specific. They certainly aren't going to cost 3 mil, and they aren't going to annoy 70000 homes that currently dont have a flightpath overhead.

Win, win situation.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

neville_nobody

14th Feb 2014, 04:04

As the link above says....2 flights all summer have diverted to Brisbane....I'll repeat the number again. ..2. Do you really think the minister is going to give his backing to something that costs so much, yet provides so little

Are you serious??:ugh: If that's the thinking in government no wonder the airport is a basket case.

The summer previous they were having days where only a handful of flights landed. BNE was having 60 min traffic holding plus tempos! So we now have to wait for the next spell of wet weather and scheduled chaos, then we can repeat all this line of inquiry all over again?

Love to know what Scoot and Air Asia think of this. Don't think they were too impressed in flying to BNE then chartering buses to OOL.

Bizarre line of thinking for a tourist town.

The ILS is not going to help very much with the typical ceiling out there.

A runway aligned ILS with HIALS will solve everything. Cloud base is not the problem it is heavy rain and the current distance from the threshold you have to start the MAP.

The RNP works but is a extra burden and limits the airport's availability.

Capn Bloggs

14th Feb 2014, 04:31

They certainly aren't going to cost 3 mil
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the total cost to operators will be in excess of that in terms of aircraft capability management and crew training and currency. RNP-ARs are not a GPS NPA, operational approvals-wise.

underfire

14th Feb 2014, 05:35

neville_nobody

14th Feb 2014, 06:32

The current rules allow for one turn to final under APCH...so it doesnt have to be the AR cost to the airline.
Or, pretty simple, put in the 'T', let the ac make the turn. No harm , no foul

However I don't think you can do that at 3-4 miles from the threshold at a few hundred feet which is what is required here.

Capn Bloggs

14th Feb 2014, 06:43

The current rules allow for one turn to final under APCH
But the minima would be nowhere near an -AR or ILS, would it?

underfire

14th Feb 2014, 21:12

You would have to look at the approach/missed to see where the obstacles are. Public RNP AR/APCH is 0.3 RNP. RNP 0.1 do pretty well, but that is more expensive for the airline.

Couple of key factors for the turn location:
1. FROP at 500 feet
2. 30 seconds of stabilized flight before minima
3. Min 250 HAT for minima.

Theoretically, you can have a 2nm short final. (Ask WJ in Canada!) That close in, with FAS, the turns can be pretty tight, 2nm radius for 737. Perhaps only a quarter delta turn could get you in there nicely. That may get you around that tower(s) on final to RW14, not sure about RW34.

With the public RNP, you could have a 15 degree angle point at 2 miles. Up to 15 degrees is not considered a turn. I see they have a 12 degree angle, so its a tight one. That may also get you past those towers. or, move the towers!

I beleive the cost for an ILS is about $2Million per runway end.

thorn bird

14th Feb 2014, 21:42

If the locals dont want an airport, why not just close it, flog the vacant real estate to the chinese, hell they would probably buy the lot when property prices collapse and unemployment goes through the roof.

alphacentauri

14th Feb 2014, 23:39

Just some info, to add depth to the discussion.

1. Gold Coast are not putting in hial for 14 approaches. They don't have the real estate for it. Unfortunately, this doesn't help. As has been stated the problem at Goldy is vis more than cloud base.

2. The current Naverus rnp approaches for Qantas have a roll out point at 2 mm from threshold, with rd turn before it. The icao ones coming later in the yr will be same.

3. There have been rwy aligned rnavs already designed for 14. Final at 5nm with 10-15Â° turn. The designs have been floating around for 3yrs, but can't be implemented due noise issues. If ils gets approved, then new rnavs will come.

4. Thankfully the terrain environment to the south will not have a bad impact on rnp-at missed approach.

5. Generally rnp minima is about 100-150ft higher than ils, and about 100ft lower than rnav. The difference at Goldy will be Currumbin hill and how accurate survey data we can get.

6. I didn't say it wasn't going to happen. But there is a long journey still to go, as technology develops there might not be a need for one. Gbas is about to go live at yssy. Gbas would allow us to solve a lot of problems at the Gold Coast.

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

alphacentauri

14th Feb 2014, 23:42

Excuse my typing, I'm on an iPhone and autocorrect doesnt come with an aviation acronym dictionary

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Capn Bloggs

14th Feb 2014, 23:57

Excuse my typing, I'm on an iPhone and autocorrect doesnt come with an aviation acronym dictionary

Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
It spelt "Android" correctly! :D :}

with rd turn before it
Do you mean RF turn? I'm havung trouble keeping up with the designer language you and underfire are using.

underfire

15th Feb 2014, 00:18

Yes that is what he means, an RF turn to a short final.
If I remember the design correctly, the Naverus criteria goes down to 0.10/0.15 RNP AR. The FAF is at the beginning of the turn, not the end.
Not sure how ICAO would look at that, but an exemption is always possible for the National Carriers, difficult for international carriers.

FROP-final rollout point, end of the turn, tangent to final.

RNP APCH the 'T' configs you see. (now one coded turn allowed)

ILS min 200' HAT (height above threshold)

RNP min 250' HAT

Capn Bloggs

15th Feb 2014, 00:26

difficult for international carrier.
That will always be the sticking point. Air Asia doing RNP-ARs? Since the national carrier is about to become extinct :}, I think the overseas market/carriers will be the driver for what goes in...

underfire

15th Feb 2014, 01:57

Well, thats not exactly the point. It is somewhat convoluted.

Exemptions to the standards are easy for CASA to grant within their area of pervue. ASA and CASA have control over the National Carriers.
When International Carriers get involved, per the Chicago Convention, the airport and procedures must meet ICAO standards. Exemptions to these standards are not as easy, as the ICAO stds are, well, lets say, crazy talk anways!

AUS tried to argue the RNP missed to stay the same RNP level as the approach, ie 0.3 RNP approach = 0.3 RNP missed containment areas. (ie ICAO containment assumes the world falls apart when you go missed, and the RNP containment goes from 2x 0.3 RNP or 0.6nm, to 2RNP or 2nm wide.)
Probably still hear the screams....(poor Dirk)

neville_nobody

15th Feb 2014, 02:59

1. Gold Coast are not putting in hial for 14 approaches. They don't have the real estate for it. Unfortunately, this doesn't help. As has been stated the problem at Goldy is vis more than cloud base

Surely there is enough room there to put some sort of lighting in. You have the runway and some open space there at the end. Without that it makes the whole thing a bit pointless as the you will be in the situation where the DA is low enough but the rain puts the viz is below the minima.

I suggested earlier on in this thread as to why they can't do a RNAV STAR that leads you right into an abbreviated ILS at 5 miles?

That will get you away from the houses and the hills and will be available for all.

alphacentauri

15th Feb 2014, 03:41

They need 450m at least for hial, this will help vis minima. Max benefit is obtained by putting in standard 900m. As I said, gold coast doesn't have the room. There are no plans for it's installation.

We looked at an rnav star to late ils option. It isn't ideal for 2 main reasons. a) I need to provide at least 2nm on loc before gp intercept. This pushes intercept out to 7nm. For a 5nm join, you wouldn't intercept gp until 3nm. Initial airline feedback was that it would be too close. b) There needs to be a nav mode change from rnav to loc at only 5nm out. Again this was argued to be too close. I think it would work, but it would involve an amount of training and trial.....with gbas though....it's a lot more possible

Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Capn Bloggs

15th Feb 2014, 03:58

For a 5nm join, you wouldn't intercept gp until 3nm. Initial airline feedback was that it would be too close. b) There needs to be a nav mode change from rnav to loc at only 5nm out. Again this was argued to be too close. I think it would work, but it would involve an amount of training and trial
Yes, 5nm is too close. Only a minor hiccup capturing the LLZ will prevent GS capture and the whole approach rapidly turns to worms. Besides, you can't descend below the local MSA (at least 1500ft? coming in over the water towards terrain) until you've captured the LLZ; you'd be above the GS by then.

underfire

15th Feb 2014, 11:29

GBAS could be more feasible. The cost to put in GBAS is about equal to an ILS for each runway end, so cost would be a wash.

I would like to see the GBAS approach procedures (and departures) re-thought in the criteria.

First off, there is no reason it should not be CAT III at this point in the game.

CAT I, and 250 HAT, following ILS criteria is not where GBAS should be at this point in time.

RNP transition from the STAR to GBAS 0.1 CAT III final is where this should be at. ASA as 50% owner of SmartPath should have the system at every airport in AUS, and should be dictating the criteria to ICAO.

Derfred

16th Feb 2014, 14:14

That's strange... I've been told GBAS is orders of magnitude cheaper than ILS.

underfire

16th Feb 2014, 20:34

GBAS system costs about the same as 2 ILS runway ends.

You get 26 ends with the GBAS system.

With each ILS, its about $50K/year for maintenence. GBAS is little to nothing per year.

1Charlie

18th Feb 2014, 09:26

There must be room for HIALS on 32. The displaced threshold is about 600m!

Capn Bloggs

18th Feb 2014, 10:41

There must be room for HIALS on 32
Do you need an ILS on 32?

neville_nobody

19th Feb 2014, 10:24

Well it sounds like there aren't many options available. :(

Airservicess' website says that the GBAS is the ILS replacement, yet it doesn't seem to be catching on anywhere. People are building replacement ILS's not GBAS systems.

After reading this it sounds like yet another aviation infrastructure project that will meander on forever with no decisions being made because it's all to hard.

Guess the RNP is the best of a bad choice.

underfire

26th Feb 2014, 21:38

2. The current Naverus rnp approaches for Qantas have a roll out point at 2 mm from threshold, with rd turn before it. The icao ones coming later in the yr will be same.

Careful on this one. The FAF is at the beginning of the turn, not the end. There are many combinations of ac/fms types that will not allow a turn inside the FAF.

Bringing in the FAF close has its own issues as well. While some FMS models will taper the ROC, others will hard lock the 500' ROC at the FAF.
This is why on some approaches with the A320, the HW ac does fine, (HW uses 400' ROC at the FAF), the Thales box will prox warn....

Lots of flight vals with different equippage must be done for the ICAO procedures.

Philthy

27th Feb 2014, 05:08

You get 26 ends with the GBAS system.

IF you've got 26 runway ends within the coverage area, no?

roulette

27th Feb 2014, 07:41

You get 26 ends with the GBAS system.

IF you've got 26 runway ends within the coverage area, no?

Exactly! GBAS coverage is defined by area, not the number of RWY ends.
Essentially each installation will have defined coverage and maximum use areas, some of which may be dependent on the installation itself, what's contracted for by the purchaser, terrain, non-resolvable multipath/interference issues, etc.

But it's not the ultimate solution yet - mainly because of the limited number of aircraft/FMSs that can fly GBAS and the limited number of certified systems (and hence supplier & cost options).

A useful summary can be found on GNSS Frequently Asked Questions - GBAS (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/faq/laas/)
OK, it's the FAA, but it gives a reasonable overview of what's relevant globally and thereby what's available to Oz.

I reckon it's definitely the way of the future - but there's a ways to go yet before it will outdo other solutions (mainly due to cost and breadth of usability) - even given that the annual maintenance costs are completely negligible compared with ILS.

Eventually I suspect you'll find that RNPx (AR or not) APCHs and DEPs will interface with GLS in the final stages of APCH and early stages of DEP. Even now, in some places, there are RNPx (sometimes AR) APCHs being joined to ILS Cat X finals to achieve lower minima than might be otherwise available if using only RNP AR. Not yet documented by ICAO, but it's being done.

underfire

27th Feb 2014, 21:21

It is defined by the number of channels.

It is a VHF transmission, so there are no multi-path issues. That is how you can have APP and DEP on the same runway end.

Remember, GBAS system broadcasts a correction factor for the onboard system, that augments GPS. The signal also includes the information on the procedure for the aircraft to follow.

It is not a beam, just a signal.

If there is a terrain interference issue, another broadcast ant can be set up.

Yes there are already RNP to GBAS final approach procedures which are seemless to the ac. APCH to ILS is not seemless to the ac or the operator, and are very difficult to control.

All aircraft from Airbus and Boeing have had GBAS as a standard, at no cost option for the last 4 years. You just have to ask.

There are a few places that are currently using CAT III GBAS procedures with no issues.

roulette

28th Feb 2014, 08:45

@Underfire, regardless of number of channels and number of approaches &/or departures supported, each GBAS system is still limited by the physical area of coverage and maximum use areas for the installed system. So if you have aerodromes sufficiently close and dependent on runway alignment, one GBAS system could in fact support multiple aerodromes.

The multipath I was talking about may or may not influence how the GBAS system is set up (on the ground) and ultimately the maximum areas of use. Ditto for terrain. This has nothing to do with the VHF transmission of the procedures to the aircraft.

Acknowledge your comment re difficulties in transitioning GNSS to ILS - mainly because the boxes weren't originally set up to handle the transitioning from one nav system to another in that fashion (different integrities, different ways of handling the nav tolerances and so forth, transitioning of CDI, etc.

Re aircraft options, obviously bigjet world is centred on Airbus and Boeing, but there are a lot of RPT aircraft that come from other manufacturers (not to mention legacy systems :}) - hence the comment about current limited applicability of GBAS as far as users (operators) go.

scrubba

1st Mar 2014, 04:16

Roulette,

You said:
The multipath I was talking about may or may not influence how the GBAS system is set up (on the ground) and ultimately the maximum areas of use. Ditto for terrain. This has nothing to do with the VHF transmission of the procedures to the aircraft.

What "multipath" problems are you referring to?

As for your "limited applicability of GBAS as far as users (operators) go" how is that different from RNP for legacy aircraft? Surely we have to start somewhere and these systems will exist in parallel for a long time until one or the other gains the ascendancy in operator choice?

underfire

4th Mar 2014, 21:05

Rou,

Yes, I am curious what multi-path issues you are thinking about.

In regards to one system serving mutliple aerodromes, I would have to ponder that.
Currently, the system needs at least 3 ant, and 4 is optimal, placed as far apart as possible, but still within a certain zone. These feed the unit, which is balancing all of the GPS signals, but several other factors in the accuracy. Atmospheric conditions are considered, # of sats, etc, nothing new there.

The information from the ant is fed to a single ground unit, which then balances the data based on the location of the ground unit. The correction factor is based on this location, and the advertised accuracy of the GBAS system is based on this location.

That being said, the system accuracy is tested for the aerodrome and associated runway ends. I am not aware of any locations where the accuracy of the broadcast has been tested for points on aerodromes nearby. It was never meant to be wide area augmentation.

Internally, I am not sure of the grid size or what method the GBAS system uses in its determination relative to the geiod. That would be the issue with trying to expand the system to other aerodromes.

This not only relates to the GBAS system, but has a correlation to the particular avionics as well. If you get too far outside the grid or lookup function of the onboard GPS, accuracy will degrade or potentially disco.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: Just noting that aviation needs to get out of the 'lowest common denominator' factor when providing systems at an aerodrome. There have always been casualties of evolution.