Gold Coast ILS [Archive]

Chocks Away

21st Apr 2015, 17:13

Nice thinking M-Dot but not all International carriers have the CASA GPS APP approval but can slip down an ILS tomorrow. Things are changing quickly though. Domestically? Yep agreed but the good coin is from the foreign carriers who would pay larger sums based on Pax/Ldg weight.
The ILS in Cooly has been a basket case for awhile now. Ideally it would be from the south if not for the "Rich & Famous" (read egocentric) living South under the approach, plus the 2 spot heights infringing ILS terrain clearance. It may have to be offset like the VOR.
In from the North is doubtful, as a visual segment to align with rwy centrelink would still be needed once inside the hill as per current ops.
A curved App like Queenstown? Now we're talking but that requires RNP AR (Approval Required) and an RNAV or GPS RNP down to 0.1 which entails a lot of training.
Would personally like to see an ILS there and accordingly am very keen to see what evolves, if anything. Just my 2 cents worth anyway.

Happy Landings:ok:

alphacentauri

21st Apr 2015, 23:04

Chocks,

Ideally it would be from the south if not for the "Rich & Famous" (read egocentric) living South under the approach, ....

Um Really? The prevailing weather is E-SE, so wouldn't it ideally have to be from the north? The Gold Coast airport master plan for the ILS installation has a fairly extensive weather analysis to resolve which runway it needs to go on. An ILS from the south would ultimately help nobody...

....plus the 2 spot heights infringing ILS terrain clearance. It may have to be offset like the VOR.

Terrain to the south is relatively flat, there are no infringing spot heights and this isn't the reason the VOR is offset. The VOR is offset because the VOR is not aligned with the centreline.

In from the North is doubtful, as a visual segment to align with rwy centrelink would still be needed once inside the hill as per current ops.

The concept procedure has already been designed to be runway aligned from the north. No visual segment required and Currumbin Hill has no impact on DA. The most penalising issue will be lack of approach lighting...

There are already public criteria, curved approach paths to RWY 14 at Gold Coast. Authorisation Required is a bit of a red herring, it is becoming so common place now that I expect in the near future that requirement will be dropped from the approach. The evolution of RNP will follow the evolution of GNSS approaches. Everyone was very cautious in the beginning, but see as of next year it will be the only way to meet the PBN classification for navigation in Australia.

I think the GC ILS will die a long slow death....domestic airlines don't need/want it, and more internationals will be able to fly RNP soon. Balance that against exposing 85000 homes to 'new' aircraft noise and the politics of aircraft noise will trump the ILS

Alpha

speedtaper

21st Apr 2015, 23:27

Gold Coast Draft ILS Procedure (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-2-Draft-ILS-Procedure-Plate.pdf)

spinex

21st Apr 2015, 23:35

A lot of the local chatter has centred on the disclosure by airport talking heads; that the ILS approach would be used in all conditions by many carriers, and not just in poor visibility. The explanation being that the carrier's SOPs require that they use whatever aids are available. Anyone in the know care to comment?

It doesn't really impact me, being well away from the approach path, but I do have some sympathy for people who up to now have seen aircraft turning out over the sea if they cared to look, but will now have aircraft noise overhead 365 days a year, for the sake of 50 flights per year which divert due vis. (ASA figures apparently) A bit like amputating the foot for the sake of an ingrown toenail imo.

neville_nobody

22nd Apr 2015, 01:08

for the sake of 50 flights per year which divert due vis. (ASA figures apparently) A bit like amputating the foot for the sake of an ingrown toenail imo.

Except that those 50 are not averaged over 365 days usually when it's bad it's really bad with whole days of flying cancelled. For a so-called tourist town the airport is a disgrace in terms of infrastructure, no aerobridges no approach lighting, no HIRL, no ILS.

If you want tourism people have to be able to get there 365 days a year.

In simple terms a ILS with HIRL/HIALs will solve all the problems associated with getting into OOL as there is usually not a problem with getting out of the cloud.

The whole thing is so typically Australian, we procrastinate for ten years making a whole host of excuses of why a basic ILS cannot be built in large city airport, then just watch as soon as there is an accident they'll put up an ILS in a few weeks. Nothing like a reactionary culture.

Hopefully if they do build it it will come with HIAL/HIRL otherwise it's no going to solve the problem.

VH-ABC

22nd Apr 2015, 01:15

For those minds smarter than mine, would a London City style approach (5.5 degree path) help out the noise for Rwy 14?

Keg

22nd Apr 2015, 06:04

Not with the aircraft types that are operating in/ out of OOL.

Roj approved

22nd Apr 2015, 06:51

GLS and some improved approach lighting to CAT 1 would do for the non RNP folks

Chocks Away

22nd Apr 2015, 10:07

Thanks for the input Alpa' but just calm down a little ;)
I am well aware of the navaid position not being aligned with the runway, as I've had the pleasure of flying many types in/out of there, from the biggest type to the smallest... in all manner of weather conditions.
"The concept procedure has already been designed" - nice work. I didn't think there was terrain clearance to fully align on a 3' glide slope, especially with Currumbin hill. The beautiful people on the Isle of Capri won't be happy:p
Neville is spot on the money too! :ok:
OOL needs to develope to meet demand and the current facilities have been stretched for too long now. Both the Terminal and approaches need more. Time to change management :}
(Running for the bunker now:})

Fliegenmong

22nd Apr 2015, 12:44

Both the Terminal and approaches need more

No arguement here.....from somone who can remember when the TAA / Ansett terminal was manned solely by porters named 'Ted'...and the TAA / Ansett terminal was a ramshackle wind riddled shell of what it is now...but the terminal as it is now ....so vastly different....yet managing to hold on to that legacy af ineptitude.....exemplary stuff really........leats bug out to BNE

thorn bird

22nd Apr 2015, 21:06

"Except that those 50 are not averaged over 365 days usually when it's bad it's really bad with whole days of flying cancelled. For a so-called tourist town the airport is a disgrace in terms of infrastructure, no aerobridges no approach lighting, no HIRL, no ILS".

I didn't think airport owners were required to spend money on airport infrastructure, only on car parks and shopping center's.

Part of the privatization process.

If the tax payer stumped up the money for anything that could actually be useful for aviation or improved safety the airport owners would just up their charges.

Maybe the answer is to invite the military to open a base there, Wagga has an ILS and Tamworth....Sorry, bad idea, no space available because of all the non aviation infrastructure.

Chocks Away

23rd Apr 2015, 18:12

I didn't think airport owners were required to spend money on airport infrastructure, only on car parks and shopping center's.
Part of the privatization process.

Interesting point Thorn Bird.
To what extent are Airservice Aust involved?
I would have thought as a private owner one would try to value-add to what was on offer there, to attract pax flow & activity (hence $).

hoss

23rd Apr 2015, 21:33

Like all things retro, consider an Instrument Guidance System (IGS). Currumbin hill would be perfect for the checkerboard and the procedure will be known as "The Tugun Turn".

Problem solved😛

hoss

23rd Apr 2015, 23:15

....and 'special briefing', wings level by the airport fence.

spinex

24th Apr 2015, 09:00

hoss; "Like all things retro, consider an Instrument Guidance System (IGS). Currumbin hill would be perfect for the checkerboard and the procedure will be known as "The Tugun Turn".

Ooh, yes please!

Here's a local pollie's take on it.
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/Carling113/hart_zpstka0ujrt.jpg

underfire

3rd May 2015, 21:18

Interesting letter.

altho....RNP to ILS :eek:

Snakecharma

3rd May 2015, 22:52

I still can't understand why they didn't install a GLS to cover both runway ends and also provide curved approaches.

An ILS costs more and only serves one runway end.

spinex

7th Jun 2015, 09:37

Had to stifle a smile - watching an airport talking head sagely tell the ABC that there was no way they could agree to residents request and have a typical aircraft to fly the proposed approach path to allow them to gauge the likely noise impact. Reason given; it would impact the timing of other flights approaching the airport at the time. Tell that one to pilots endlessly flying racetrack patterns at peak arrival times at Brissie.

spocky

24th Jun 2015, 08:56

When I listen to this argument go back and forth between residents/pollies and the Goldie Airport Corp I've come to the conclusion this is only about money for the Airport itself. Their reasoning is that they want to be competitive to Brisbane by enabling aircraft to land when the weather is inclement.. yep I get that. They also want to encourage the asian carriers to fly in. The Asian carriers can't or don't want to do RNP approaches for reasons that I don't know. I'm presuming they aren't the capable of RNP at this stage. Will they be in the future ??? If thats the case the ILS will be a waste of money.
The residents are beside themselves with the increase in noise as ASA intend to leave the ILS operational 24/7. ASA won't do any "try before you buy" trials.

In my view, on the rare days that the wx is continually lower than the RNP/GNSS/VOR minimas use it then. This will minimise the effect on residents affected from this new flightpath.

Spocky

coaldemon

25th Jun 2015, 09:25

Since when has the Gold Coast Airport been 24 hours? :rolleyes:

Tankengine

25th Jun 2015, 09:40

30 years at least! :rolleyes:

Undercover Brother

25th Jun 2015, 11:19

Word in the street is Airservices approached multiple domestic operators with the request of simulating an ILS approach into CG, but operators were unable/unwilling to comply.

Fliegenmong

25th Jun 2015, 13:09

Good Old OOL saw some different AC this week...:ok:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/coghilla/sets/72157654687093236

chuboy

26th Jun 2015, 00:13

Yes... Brisbane and Cooly do have a rather symbiotic relationship. Not very often that you can't land at either... though that's the point of an alternate I suppose.

Still, an ILS on 14 would reduce the need for diversions in conditions that would be routine landings elsewhere. I was annoyed to read the propaganda that the ILS would end up being used all the time, as if the 90% of flights arriving from the South have nothing better to do with their fuel than burn it. What's a dozen or two track miles between friends?

The punters end up paying for it one way or the other. At least if the weather is rainy and the flight is diverted the pax get to disembark through an airbridge :}

spocky

26th Jun 2015, 03:48

Chuboy, I would think that pilots being pilots would use the ILS especially if they're tired. The usage rate of the iLS will start of as a trickle and end up in a flood.

The bit that interests me (amongst other things about this project) is what will be the ILS minima for this particular airport. From what I understand the RNP is limited in its minima by terrain. Would the ILS not be as restricted ??

c100driver

26th Jun 2015, 06:04

The RNP minima would be limited by the choice of RNP. Public RNP AR have different design criteria than that of a tailored RNP AR, but the tailored version would probably limit the aircraft types that could use the approach.

coaldemon

27th Jun 2015, 13:54

Two different design criteria between RNP Propriety and RNP ICAO. At least get that straight. As for the ILS it won't be the three majors asking for the full approach as it will add ten miles to the approach from the south. It will only be when conditions go down visibility wise. Ceiling is never a major issue only Visibility.

tail wheel

27th Jun 2015, 21:01

Council to slam planned ILS system | Gold Coast Bulletin (http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/council-committee-recommends-rejecting-the-airports-proposed-ils-instrument-landing-system/story-fnj94idh-1227411623497)

Council rejects ILS approval:

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/lifestyle/council-could-quash-gold-coast-dreams-of-becoming-an-international-flight-hub-after-rejecting-ils/story-fnjdow5o-1227416943451

Flava Saver

20th Jul 2015, 04:10

Sunday Mail July 19th

"A CONTROVERSIAL new aircraft landing system and flight path proposed for Gold Coast Airport has been dealt what could be a fatal blow, with Qantas and Jetstar shooting down the plan.

Airport bosses want the $10 million instrument landing system (ILS) to allow planes to land in bad weather and avoid diversions to Brisbane, inconveniencing tourists and locals alike.

But the system would require a new flight path over the heavily populated northern Gold Coast, affecting thousands of residents.

Residents have rallied against the ILS, and the Gold Coast City Council last month voted against it in the face of growing public outcry.

Now the Qantas/Jetstar group has added its powerful voice to the chorus of opposition against the ILS.

Qantas Group head of safety and compliance Mark Cameron has written to Gold Coast Airport boss David Collins saying the national carrier does not support the proposal.

In the letter seen by The Sunday Mail, Mr Cameron says the cost of the system does not justify the benefits and better alternatives exist.

He warns that “in all likelihood, the technology will be superseded before its useful life has expired”.

Gold Coast-based Abbott government MP Steven Ciobo, who originally supported the ILS but is now a vocal critic, said Qantas’ lack of support was another nail in the coffin for what he described as a second-rate landing system based on 1970s technology.

“Thousands and thousands of Gold Coast residents do not support the ILS, the Gold Coast City Council does not support the ILS and now Australia’s major carrier does not support it,’’ he said.

Mr Ciobo said ILS backers had sought to portray it as a safety necessity.

“Yet here we have the head of safety of the world’s safest airline saying we do not need it,’’ he said.

Federal transport minister Warren Truss will make a decision on the ILS later this year after considering about 4000 submissions and feedback from Airservices Australia.

ILS supporters argue aircraft diversions cost the Gold Coast about $2.5 million a year and affect 8000 passengers. They say noise effects would be minimal."

Derfred

21st Jul 2015, 05:33

Curved RNP onto GLS is starting to sound like the solution...

Transition Layer

21st Jul 2015, 05:47

Definitely a bit of a ploy by Qantas here.

With both Qantas and Jetstar utilising RNP approaches into the Goldy for quite a while now, and Virgin (and Tiger) still yet to be RNP-AR approved, it currently gives them a commercial advantage which would most likely disappear should an ILS be installed.

Angle of Attack

21st Jul 2015, 07:51

Atm Qantas 737 can use a DA of 393ft as a minima on Rwy 14 so not far off an ILS type minima now. Definitely a ploy by QF/JQ as they won't have an advantage as they do now when the weather is down. Surely Virgin is looking at RNP-AR approaches are they? They offer ILS type minima to pretty much any airport even CTAF'S. It's not that their aircraft are not capable... When the weather is down they pay their due, only a year ago just got visual in Mount ISA at 340ft agl minima during a dust storm, no one else was getting in. The future technology is gearing towards RNP curved approaches with auto land to Cat 3 conditions, probably happen in 10 years or so. Pretty much any airport will be able to be used auto land as long as they have a published approach, and it won't be GLS, it will be a really cheap GPS augmentor installed for a price tag of a few thousand dollars at the airport. That's where technology is heading.

Southern01

21st Jul 2015, 08:33

Pretty sure Virgin is already approved RNP-AR approaches to RNP 0.3 minima

alphacentauri

21st Jul 2015, 10:37

Curved RNP onto GLS is starting to sound like the solution...

Agree, but the technology is not mature enough to offer that as a solution just yet. Offset RNAV to ILS has/is being considered, but it too is a developing approach standard.

There are 2 main outstanding issues. The vertical guidance from a RNP/VNAV (ie baro) approach generally doesn't match up with a a geometric vertical path (ILS/GP). Second point, there needs to be a nav mode change from RNAV to ILS. It is proposed this nav change needs to occur at 3-5nm or 1000-1500ft. Feedback from airlines is that this too close to the stabilised approach gate and may cause problems.

I don't see any of this as show stoppers, but the methodology is in its infancy

Pretty sure Virgin is already approved RNP-AR approaches to RNP 0.3 minima

Correct

neville_nobody

21st Jul 2015, 11:12

I thought part of the justification for a ILS was for international traffic. If OOL cancels the ILS forever where does that leave the Asian carriers whom it appears do not do AR?
One thing that must be on Trust's mind is if a international carrier ploughs into the hills what are the legal ramifications for him if he knocks back the ILS because you can bet your life that if they do prang one they will be going after the airport or government for lack of infrastructure.

Agreed on QF very cunning move on their behalf as they have the lower minima than everyone else.

Transition Layer

21st Jul 2015, 14:41

Pretty sure Virgin is already approved RNP-AR approaches to RNP 0.3 minima

Didn't realise that. Have never heard them doing an RNP approach anywhere it makes sense to do so (05 ADL, 19 BNE, 15 CNS, 34 MEL etc).

alphacentauri

21st Jul 2015, 21:27

Just to clarify....

There are 2 types of RNP-AR approaches in Australia. The type that QANTAS/Jetstar have been using for some time are designed by GE/Naverus to a non ICAO proprietary criteria and normally tailored for a specific aircraft type. The other is designed by Airservices to an ICAO criteria, these are also considered to be 'public' rnp-ar. The plan is to replace the GE procedures with Airservices ones.

At the Gold Coast this transition has already occurred and now there is no minima advantage for Qantas. All rnp approved domestic carriers can fly the new procedure. There is no support from domestic airlines for an ILS.

From an operational viewpoint the argument is not for better minima. The arguement has always been for runway alignment and better visibility, which the RNP delivers.

The only outstanding issue are the internationals....most of which are RNP capable but not trained for. This is the only valid reason left for persuing an ils installation. Consider that it may be better to spend the money in crew training......just a thought.

Southern01

22nd Jul 2015, 00:48

Didn't realise that. Have never heard them doing an RNP approach anywhere it makes sense to do so (05 ADL, 19 BNE, 15 CNS, 34 MEL etc).

As mentioned Virgin only fly the publicly available RNP-AR approaches published by Airservices. At present these are limited to Gold Coast RWY14, Maroochy RWY 18 and Ballina RWY 06 & 24. I'd presume operation to available minima with RNP <0.3 will occur with CASAs approval.

Visual Procedures

22nd Jul 2015, 03:10

The only outstanding issue are the internationals....most of which are RNP capable but not trained for. This is the only valid reason left for persuing an ils installation. Consider that it may be better to spend the money in crew training......just a thought.

As an 'international', who doesn't have Cooly as a destination yet, I can tell you the training is done. We fly RNP-AR to 0.11 around the world. (Don't get me started on Australia and its insistence on 0.10 and the merry go round of confusion its caused back here in the pit.)

Looking through the available charts, the only RNAV available to us at Cooly is the RNAV (GNSS) Z. As I said, Cooly is still just an alternate, but other airports classed as alternates in other parts of the world, have full RNP-AR charts. We have the RNP AR for MEL, so its not an Oz issue completely.

My longwinded point is as far as internationals go, the airlines are approved, the crews are trained, but there is no state (Airservices) approach available to us.

More finger pointing needed at Airservices me thinks..

alphacentauri

22nd Jul 2015, 03:27

The Airservices RNP-AR approach is available at Gold Coast....I published it.

Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne are soon to follow

spinex

25th Jan 2016, 00:23

Well there you have it; No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin (http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/gold-coast-airport-ils-approved/news-story/8747a20d551e695ec64d125e60c8fce7)

Of course it would probably not be a good idea to hold one's breath, waiting for the first airliner to come whistling down the length of beachfront. Still lots of room for back-flips, EIS, rare frogs, traditional owners and the usual govt. obfustication to derail things.:8

neville_nobody

25th Jan 2016, 00:35

Interesting that QF are lobbying for a reduction of the ILS minima yet lobbying against an ILS in OOL. Go figure that one out.

Troo believer

25th Jan 2016, 01:53

Visual Procedures, Qantas was the first airline outside of North America and the third airline in the World to be approved to fly RNP approaches. Who do you think developed them for Queenstown? Must be ten years ago and way ahead of any airline from the ME. Alaskan were first followed by West Jet then Qantas. The Naverus approaches leave the CASA ones for dead as far as accuracy and lower minima. The best one is still the RNP 19 in Townsville. Very pretty to watch!

porch monkey

25th Jan 2016, 02:40

Yes they may be well and good, but they're useless to anyone else as they are not available to anyone else.

Troo believer

25th Jan 2016, 04:18

Do you think Qantas gets it for free. They paid for the development and certification of the whole process. Paid for their own proprietary approaches. if you want it and can justify it commercially then go ahead and pay for RNP capability. Simple

morno

25th Jan 2016, 05:37

Precisely. Until they're widely available like current RNAV approaches, then they're useless. What's the point in only having very specific approaches which requires CASA approval.

morno

Troo believer

25th Jan 2016, 08:12

The Air Services Australia RNP AR approaches are available for any operator if you are approved to fly them. Does your aircraft meet the navigation requirements. Has the crew been trained to fly them. Does the company have the software integrity that meets CASA requirements? It's not an NDB or VOR. Do some more research. They are available to any operator that meets the Operational Specifications. Sheesh!

morno

25th Jan 2016, 08:18

So Qantas wasted their money then?

Lookleft

25th Jan 2016, 10:39

No morno Qantas did not waste their money. If they are still using te Naveraes charts they are the only airline that can land at OOL when the vis is at 3km. JQ were using tailored charts then for some bizarre reason went to the Airservices charts and now have to divert when there is a heavy shower. QF saw the commercial advantage of RNP long before any other Oz airline knew what the letters stood for. It's no wonder that the 737 Fleet Manager at the time is now the QF CP.

Toluene Diisocyanate

25th Jan 2016, 22:36

If they are still using te Naveraes charts they are the only airline that can land at OOL when the vis is at 3km.

Not quite. Other airlines are currently approved to 500'/2.7k vis :8

porch monkey

25th Jan 2016, 22:54

OMG!!! Say it isn't so!:eek:

Lookleft

25th Jan 2016, 23:25

Would you care to name them TD and what RNP they are approved to? I'm thinking you are not talking about a domestic operator. I'm not sure what QF is approved to but as DJ have only justed started down the RNP path and JQ don't have .11 approval then the QF domestic commercial advantage is still relevant.

spinex

26th Jan 2016, 00:17

Latest update, estimated to be live, end of 2017.
No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin (http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/federal-government-approves-gold-coast-instrument-landing-system-despite-community-campaign/news-story/459312d120335c44a8b9d59db3e4b7ae)

I have to say; as a local resident with an aviation interest and unaffected by the flight path, the airport's management have done a spectacularly crap job of selling the ILS. They quite happily went along with the original public perception that the ILS would only be turned on when aircraft would otherwise consider diverting. Once the public realised that they were being told porkies and demanded answers, management have been caught out in a series of fumbles, eg putting up diversion stats that pre-dated the availability of the RNP, thus making it look as if the existing issue was worse than it in fact is; nett result being that there is a perception that the airport is hiding something and is not to be trusted. #PRfail

Troo believer

26th Jan 2016, 02:18

Derfred

26th Jan 2016, 02:37

QF:
RWY14: 393' (372'HAT)/2.2km
RWY32: 285' (272'HAT)/1.6km

porch monkey

26th Jan 2016, 02:48

VA currently operate to .1 on ICAO RNP approaches.

Fliegenmong

26th Jan 2016, 04:20

Yeah I'm from around these parts SPINEX, same, I'm unaffected....but the way they handled it was atrocious!

Toluene Diisocyanate

26th Jan 2016, 10:04

VAA are approved to the aforementioned minima, Lookleft. Based on an RNP of 0.11 :)

Snakecharma

26th Jan 2016, 11:33

The use of tailored RNP charts was an expensive proposition - millions per year in licensing fees. Not sure these days but last time I looked it was difficult, if not impossible to justify on the basis of the savings you would make by avoiding diversions. It might be all different with Naverus being taken over by GE, I don't know.

The charts had a significant fee for access each month and given the significant training impost I couldn't see the value in it. Still don't quite frankly.In Queenstown definitely, but not too many other places...

Yes it is great having the capability but do you really get value for your money in an environment where every capability had to fight for funding? I suspect not but I think it got to the point where in order to "keep up with the jones" (or perhaps keeping up with Alex😄) it needed to be done.

amberale

26th Jan 2016, 23:01

As I recall one of the perceived advantages of RNP was with departures.
Much higher payloads out of places like CS due to engine failure/terrain avoidance.
Coin counters in QF thought the shorter tracks on some STARS into BN would save track miles and $ but it makes little difference if everyone is holding.

Snakecharma

27th Jan 2016, 02:40

The RNP departure ex cairns, if I remember correctly, went straight ahead up the valley - it is some time ago and my memory is getting dodgier by the day.

If I recall the RNP departures stopped not all that long after they started due to the noise abatement issues.

But as I say my memory is hazy to say the best

Jonno_aus

28th Jan 2016, 06:03

Non-pilot but worked in and around CNS for many years.

QF trialled the RNP departures I believe? I recall they banked a little left then seemed to follow Trinity Inlet and up the valley.

From memories, it seemed quite a bit quieter near the city as opposed to the current 120 degree turn.

Recal also people complaining over the 'increased' noise from the new departure.

Yet approaches from the south fly right over the city. Confusing.

Capn Bloggs

28th Jan 2016, 08:21

Yet approaches from the south fly right over the city. Confusing.
Not confusing, moronic. Bit like the clowns here who put in thousands of noise complaints as we went over them at 5000ft+ at Idle...

topdrop

28th Jan 2016, 10:18

QF trialled the RNP departures I believe? I recall they banked a little left then seemed to follow Trinity Inlet and up the valley.
From memories, it seemed quite a bit quieter near the city as opposed to the current 120 degree turn.
Recal also people complaining over the 'increased' noise from the new departure.
Yet approaches from the south fly right over the city. Confusing. Yep, RNP SID was left turn over inlet up the valley and was separated with the parachute area at Edmonton. There was really only one complainant, because they could see the jet from their balcony, it must be noisier than the SWIFT SID. This person was good at getting the complaints into the press and in the end QF gave up. If the procedure had gone straight ahead behind the apartment complex, there probably wouldn't have been any noise complaints as they wouldn't have seen the aircraft.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Fliegenmong

21st Aug 2017, 03:48

Ah...so the ILS at Cooly is going in anyway then??

No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin (http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/tweed-shire-mayor-katie-milne-wants-ils-work-to-stop-immediately-at-gold-coast-airport/news-story/d107a780ef0f9c53adf19d96d0e01e17)

zanthrus

21st Aug 2017, 04:43

Put the ILS in. Screw the Nimbys! Let them paddle their canoes next time they want to fly somewhere on holiday.

ZZOOTT56

21st Aug 2017, 16:31

A GLS approach would be simpler and less expensive than an ILS and achieve same results

alphacentauri

23rd Aug 2017, 00:38

...and can only be used by less than half the traffic into the Gold Coast

Fliegenmong

10th Oct 2018, 10:27

So here we are at the end of 2018...and the below Notam is current..NEW ILS (LOCALISER, GLIDE PATH AND DME) UNDER TEST. NIL IDENT
RADIATING INTERMITTENTLY ON TEST
DO NOT USE FALSE INDICATIONS POSSIBLE
LLZ FREQ 111.1MHZ
GP FREQ 331.7 MHZ
DME RECEIVER FREQ 1072 MHZ
DME TRANSMITTER FREQ 1009 MHZ
FROM 09 202230 TO 11 300600

So....where is the midddle marker located for this installation?

Capn Bloggs

10th Oct 2018, 14:29

So....where is the midddle marker located for this installation?
What do you want a middle marker for?

maggot

10th Oct 2018, 21:51

What do you want a middle marker for?
To remind me to turn the marker audio off

neville_nobody

11th Oct 2018, 00:41

I am still entirely bewildered in the age of GPS, GLS and RNP approaches that they're installing an ILS...

Does anyone know what / if any certification requirements are needed for a GLS vs an ILS? Perhaps an ILS is actually the more cost effective solution.

The report says that GBAS would be unable to provide a curved approach and will have the same approach path as the ILS. Since the ILS is available to all aircraft it is the preferred option. RNP aircraft still are diverting now with the current RNP minima.

As for the middle marker it will probably be a DME fix off the ILS DME, same as 16L in Sydney.

Anyway we are finally moving into the 20th century so hopefully this will ease the pain at OOL for everyone.

Derfred

11th Oct 2018, 02:20

Presumably Air Asia don’t have GLS...

Sparrows.

11th Oct 2018, 11:43

Presumably Air Asia don’t have GLS...

Neither do Jetstar and Tiger

swh

11th Oct 2018, 12:47

I'll bite.
The A320 isn't as capable as a 737 Ng. Correct me if I'm wrong. We have minima for 3 different RNPs in QF. They are .1,.2and .3. Often you can see an ANP of 0.02. That's a statistical containment of 95% accuracy within 0.02 of a nm.

The A320 is capable of RNP-AR and GLS, they are customer options like on the 737NG. GLS is standard on 747-8, 787, A350 and is an option on A320/neo, 737NG/MAX, A330, A340, A380.

The 757, 767, 777 are not capable of GLS, the 77X will be.