Mildura Airport ILS - Wrong Way?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Is the Mildura ILS being built at the 'wrong' end..?

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/pilots-question-location-of-4m-landing-system-upgrade-at-mildura-airport/ar-BB17olH4?ocid=msedgdhp

Cheers (?)

[neville_nobody]

How very Australian.

[George Glass]

Real question is why are they bothering with ILS. Should be GLS in both directions.

[Servo]

Hahahahaha. Typical. Geez this country and all the politicians in it are useless. What a waste of $2 million plus. Morons.

[Fieldmouse]

If its going in as a training aid it needs to accomodate the highest use runway direction. If it's going in as a Cat 1 that is actually useful it needs about $3 million worth of additional lights. It appears to be neither. Would it have helped back when Qantas and Virgin were running on fumes? If so, goodo and may save someones skin in the future.

[brokenagain]

Real question is why are they bothering with ILS. Should be GLS in both directions.

If one of the main beneficiaries is a local flying school, can your average bug smasher even fly a GLS approach?

[George Glass]

If one of the main beneficiaries is a local flying school, can your average bug smasher even fly a GLS approach?

Cockpit presentation is exactly the same as ILS. Easy as . All you need is a multi mode receiver. ILS will be a back up navaid in 10 years time.

[neville_nobody]

If one of the main beneficiaries is a local flying school, can your average bug smasher even fly a GLS approach?

No that's why it has to be a ILS.

All you need is a multi mode receiver.

And how much does that cost and how much weight will it add??

The other issue with the ILS being at the other end will be opposite direction traffic problems. ie aircraft landing into wind with people doing practice ILS's on the other end with the tailwind.

[George Glass]

Typical of Australian aviation to spend millions on an installation just as it is becoming obsolete.
GBAS , GLS and RNP are the future. Training new pilots to fly an ILS only is as useful as an NDB approach.
But , of course , this is Australia. Sigh............

[spektrum]

What is wrong with pprune? In one thread you all bash the decommissioning of ground based aids then in the next you scoff at an ILS being put in.

[George Glass]

What is wrong with pprune? In one thread you all bash the decommissioning of ground based aids then in the next you scoff at an ILS being put in.

?

Not me.

Have flown hundreds of GLS and RNP approaches. They are the best thing since sliced bread , especially in remote areas outside conventional navaid coverage. Spending millions on an ILS is idiotic.

[neville_nobody]

Have flown hundreds of GLS and RNP approaches. They are the best thing since sliced bread , especially in remote areas outside conventional navaid coverage.

I 100% agree. But the cost of that technology is greater than the purchase price of your average small aircraft. F100's/EMB 120's/SAAB 340 don't do RNP/GLS approaches either and they are a significant number of aircraft on the Australian Register flying to remote areas.

[VH DSJ]

?

Not me.

Have flown hundreds of GLS and RNP approaches. They are the best thing since sliced bread , especially in remote areas outside conventional navaid coverage. Spending millions on an ILS is idiotic.


Have to agree with George there, RNP approaches are the way to go for the future. I've flown a handful albeit in VMC and it was nice to watch a curved approach between terrain down close to an ILS cat 1 minima. As for GLS, aren't QF the only operator approved to fly a GLS approach at the moment?

[Turnleft080]

Mildura Airport management has decided to install the ILS on what it calls the "Adelaide end" of its main runway, even though weather conditions suggest the equipment would be more useful at the opposite end.

So what do they call the other end of the runway, "The Canberra end". So if you win the toss, which end are you going to kick.
Just imagine if Dick kept writing "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" what number edition would be up too.

[krismiler]

Which runway to install an ILS on can be influenced by a number of factors such as average wind, noise sensitive area and protection of the signal out to the specified angles and distances. The missed approach procedure may be a factor as well, At some airports, such as Phuket, the localiser can't be lined up with the runway because it ends in the sea and is situated at the side of the runway before the end instead. A slightly offset approach with a higher minima is required, 1.4' offset with a D/H 458 feet agl for CAT C aircraft rather than a typical 200 feet agl D/H.

In Cairns, the ILS often goes out during a cyclone due to it going underwater.

Like most things in aviation, it's a compromise.

[George Glass]

Which runway to install an ILS on can be influenced by a number of factors such as average wind, noise sensitive area and protection of the signal out to the specified angles and distances. The missed approach procedure may be a factor as well, At some airports, such as Phuket, the localiser can't be lined up with the runway because it ends in the sea and is situated at the side of the runway before the end instead. A slightly offset approach with a higher minima is required, 1.4' offset with a D/H 458 feet agl for CAT C aircraft rather than a typical 200 feet agl D/H.

In Cairns, the ILS often goes out during a cyclone due to it going underwater.

Like most things in aviation, it's a compromise.

Which is why we invented RNP.........
The original QF RNP charts had curved approaches down to 200’ . Everywhere. Then the geniuses at AirServices decided that it was no good having QF only doing these special approaches. Generic, all type , all operator approaches were the solution! Minima shot up to around 700’.
Useless. The technology is way ahead of the regulators. Cat 3 GLS has been demonstrated . ILS installations will soon be stranded assets.

[brokenagain]

Which is why we invented RNP.........
The original QF RNP charts had curved approaches down to 200’ . Everywhere. Then the geniuses at AirServices decided that it was no good having QF only doing these special approaches. Generic, all type , all operator approaches were the solution! Minima shot up to around 700’.
Useless. The technology is way ahead of the regulators. Cat 3 GLS has been demonstrated . ILS installations will soon be stranded assets.

Which is great in theory in your jet but still useless to the predominate users of the airfield, Saab’s, Dashes and GA.

[George Glass]

Which is great in theory in your jet but still useless to the predominate users of the airfield, Saab’s, Dashes and GA.

Operators comply with the regulations that they have to comply with. Nothing more , nothing less . And they hate spending money . And regulators hate change. But fact is that price of Multimode Receivers is plummeting as they become common everywhere else in the world but Australia. They will be standard in the not too distant future. Spending millions on an ILS is idiotic. Australia leading from behind , as usual.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'History' repeating itself......... It reminds me of 'de good ole days' when the FSU that USED to be there was built......

Apparently, during construction, the foreman or whoever, got his N mixed up with his S, or L with R, or whatever, and the pad for the building was installed - the wrong way around.

So they simply finished the construction, including the internal fit- out, and the MET had had the nice look out over the RWYS, whilst the FSO viewed the carpark and the lawn where the 'Stevenson Screen' was.!

(Yeah, I am acutely aware that 'we' were not supposed to look out of the window anyway - but in locations where 'we' could, it certainly assisted in the occasional emergency... e.g. Dubbo (Upstairs) Derby (Upstairs), KAL - ground floor but BIG window installed especially....)

Cheeerrrrssss (?):eek:

[TBM-Legend]

I say dust off DME [A] and be all Australian. We know best in all things aviation. Just read PPRUNE..

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Wonder who is going to maintain it? Airservices normally maintain navaids. Also, if they are going to charge you $55 a time to use it, how will they know if you used it or not, or will it be assumed that if you are on an IFR plan and approach from the "Adelaide end" you used it (even if you did not)?

[27/09]

GBAS isn't a practical option for most non heavy jet operators but SBAS is and I believe it is belatedly on its way to this part of the world. Not before time.

[PaulH1]

Wrong way round or upside down!

[megan]

Easy lads, break out at 200' with a 40 knot westerly, visual circuit at 200', and bingo land 27. :hmm:

[lucille]

The article states users will be charged $55 every time they make an “ILS landing”.... whatever one of those is. I’m trying to get my head around how they will know that their prized new ILS is being “used”. Does this mean you only get charged if met. conditions are below non precision minima? Or does an inbound call now have to include reading out your credit card number to allow someone to turn on the GP transmitter? And what if you do a missed approach and come back for another one do you get charged $110 for using it twice? Do training aircraft who make multiple practise ILS approaches with GAs and never actually land on 27 get to use it for free?

Conundrums of The Swamp.

[clark y]

Maybe they just want to do lots of LOC backcourse training.

[DirectAnywhere]

The article states users will be charged $55 every time they make an “ILS landing”.... whatever one of those is. I’m trying to get my head around how they will know that their prized new ILS is being “used”. Does this mean you only get charged if met. conditions are below non precision minima? Or does an inbound call now have to include reading out your credit card number to allow someone to turn on the GP transmitter? And what if you do a missed approach and come back for another one do you get charged $110 for using it twice? Do training aircraft who make multiple practise ILS approaches with GAs and never actually land on 27 get to use it for free?

Conundrums of The Swamp.

They’ll turn it off and leave it turned off until someone requests it be turned on for a practice ILS and then pay someone $30 an hour to flick the switch and take note of the rego at 200’. ERSA to read “Switching person only available 9.30-4.30 Mon -Thurs and 10-3 on Friday. ILS not available in IMC, for early morning arrivals in fg or br, or on weekends”. Simples. The Australian Way.

[Sunfish]

I predict advances in location technology and autopilot logic will make ILS and the whole panoply of IFR operations redundant in a few years. Assuming straight forward design of the approach, any experimental bug smasher will have the capability-whether CASA and Airservices approves it or not. This phenomenon is called “being overtaken by disruptive technology”.

Anecdotally I’m told that some in the RV community already toy with IMC conditions without any approvals.

[hoss58]

'History' repeating itself......... It reminds me of 'de good ole days' when the FSU that USED to be there was built......

Apparently, during construction, the foreman or whoever, got his N mixed up with his S, or L with R, or whatever, and the pad for the building was installed - the wrong way around.

So they simply finished the construction, including the internal fit- out, and the MET had had the nice look out over the RWYS, whilst the FSO viewed the carpark and the lawn where the 'Stevenson Screen' was.!

(Yeah, I am acutely aware that 'we' were not supposed to look out of the window anyway - but in locations where 'we' could, it certainly assisted in the occasional emergency... e.g. Dubbo (Upstairs) Derby (Upstairs), KAL - ground floor but BIG window installed especially....)

Cheeerrrrssss (?):eek:


Hi Griffo. Yep the view of the stevenson screen was truly a magnificent sight but my wife (not an FSO) and i enjoyed a great six years there.

And for what its worth based on my time there RWY 27 was used significantly more than RWY 09.

Fly safe and play hard (when you can)

Cheers Hoss 58

[Lookleft]

Anecdotally I’m told that some in the RV community already toy with IMC conditions without any approvals.

Anyone who "toys" with IMC is likely to have their toys smashed when they discover that IMC is not to be played with.

[Servo]

Easy lads, break out at 200' with a 40 knot westerly, visual circuit at 200', and bingo land 27. :hmm:

Thats what the brains trust at Virgin flight standards will have you do. Single engine and the offsider incapacitated.

[VH DSJ]

Paying for a practice ILS is nothing new. I vaguely remember Essendon and Avalon charging GA aircraft for practice ILS's about 15 years ago (probably still the case now). Of course it's much easier to track who's doing the ILS when operating in CTA and charge them accordingly. I'd imagine in class G, you'd have someone listening on the CTAF frequency for inbound calls with a cash register till beside them.

[On eyre]

Paying for a practice ILS is nothing new. I vaguely remember Essendon and Avalon charging GA aircraft for practice ILS's about 15 years ago (probably still the case now). Of course it's much easier to track who's doing the ILS when operating in CTA and charge them accordingly. I'd imagine in class G, you'd have someone listening on the CTAF frequency for inbound calls with a cash register till beside them.

Tell ‘em you’re doing the RNAV 09 (and have the ILS on as well) - they would both align pretty well 🤪

[Alpine Flyer]

GBAS , GLS and RNP are the future. Training new pilots to fly an ILS only is as useful as an NDB approach.
But , of course , this is Australia. Sigh............
They are If only because you don’t need transmitter hardware to publish new approaches but ILS isn’t going to disappear anytime soon and needs to be trained. I fly around Europe and have a single Alpine airport where RNP is required for the approach.

[George Glass]

They are If only because you don’t need transmitter hardware to publish new approaches but ILS isn’t going to disappear anytime soon and needs to be trained. I fly around Europe and have a single Alpine airport where RNP is required for the approach.

GLS in a Boeing is almost identical to an ILS with almost no training differences , except that it is a whole lot better . No beam interference and one station covers up to 30nm radius . And Cat III will be certified soon . Cost might be an issue now but I’ll bet there will be cheap MMRs for GA aircraft sooner rather than later.
If you had the choice why would you spend money on an ILS ?

[Capt Fathom]

Mildura doesn't need an ILS. Qantas and Virgin proved that! :E

[Chris2303]

I slight drift here but anybody tell me what the approach was at NZQN pre RNP?

Copy of a chart would be of interest

[George Glass]

Don’t have a chart but from memory it was a VOR/DME with a 5.4% gradient and a stupidly high minima. Not for the faint hearted.

[neville_nobody]

GLS in a Boeing is almost identical to an ILS with almost no training differences, except that it is a whole lot better . No beam interference and one station covers up to 30nm radius . And Cat III will be certified soon . Cost might be an issue now but I’ll bet there will be cheap MMRs for GA aircraft sooner rather than later.
If you had the choice why would you spend money on an ILS ?

Problem with that argument is that the technology is already 25 years old and the CAT III was supposed to be around in the mid 2000s. Now here we are in 2020, with only late model airliners fitted with the equipment and the Nav Aids only found in Sydney and Melbourne I think you will be waiting a long time for your cheap GA unit.

[George Glass]

The fact that Cat III doesn’t exist in Australia and that Cat II has only been introduced in the last couple of years has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with bureaucratic inertia and stupidity. The argument from AirServices and CASA for twenty years was that weather and traffic didn’t justify Cat II in Sydney and Melbourne. Until it did. We never lead. We are never proactive. Would be nice if just once we did something innovative. Do a google search and you’ll find that the anticipated market for MMRs is huge. Just not in Australia........

[brokenagain]

The fact that Cat III doesn’t exist in Australia

Except in Perth and Melbourne. :rolleyes:

[deja vu]

'History' repeating itself......... It reminds me of 'de good ole days' when the FSU that USED to be there was built......

Apparently, during construction, the foreman or whoever, got his N mixed up with his S, or L with R, or whatever, and the pad for the building was installed - the wrong way around.

So they simply finished the construction, including the internal fit- out, and the MET had had the nice look out over the RWYS, whilst the FSO viewed the carpark and the lawn where the 'Stevenson Screen' was.!

(Yeah, I am acutely aware that 'we' were not supposed to look out of the window anyway - but in locations where 'we' could, it certainly assisted in the occasional emergency... e.g. Dubbo (Upstairs) Derby (Upstairs), KAL - ground floor but BIG window installed especially....)

Cheeerrrrssss (?):eek:
Yes the good old days. Its almost 40 years ago since I flew in GA in Aus. but fondly remember the FSUs around the country . Do they still exist? Spent many nights shacked up in FSO or Groundsmen DCA houses when caught out, ranging from King Island to Horn Island. Great guys all.

[ANCIENT]

I think you will find it needs a bit more than a new MMR. Airbus quote to install GLS in A320 is around $1million.
Suggest the future for most operators will be LPV once our Australian SBAS WAAS is commissioned. Flying an ILS, GLS, LPV and even LNAV+V all require the same skill set. ILS really is a creature of the past.

[Sunfish]

Look left: Anecdotally I’m told that some in the RV community already toy with IMC conditions without any approvals.
Anyone who "toys" with IMC is likely to have their toys smashed when they discover that IMC is not to be played with.


We are in furious agreement.

[kiwi grey]

Typical of Australian aviation to spend millions on an installation just as it is becoming obsolete.
GBAS , GLS and RNP are the future. Training new pilots to fly an ILS only is as useful as an NDB approach.
But , of course , this is Australia. Sigh............

Actually, no
SBAS is the present, not the future ... in North America, in Europe and in Japan
Why the hell Australia and NZ didn't do a deal with Japan when they put up their WAAS / EGNOS equivalent MSAS is incomprehensible to me.
All QANTAS & Air NZ long range aircraft ought to be already fitted for this technology so they can fly into Europe, North America and Japan.
It would surely have been a relatively small expense to extend coverage into the southern hemisphere

[George Glass]

Actually, no
SBAS is the present, not the future ... in North America, in Europe and in Japan
Why the hell Australia and NZ didn't do a deal with Japan when they put up their WAAS / EGNOS equivalent MSAS is incomprehensible to me.
All QANTAS & Air NZ long range aircraft ought to be already fitted for this technology so they can fly into Europe, North America and Japan.
It would surely have been a relatively small expense to extend coverage into the southern hemisphere

SBAS is on trial in Australia and is expected to be approved in 2025 or thereabouts.
Dont know whether it is ever expected to deliver Cat III though.

[ANCIENT]

I thought the thread was about an ILS in Mildura not CAT 111 in Europe. The expense of CAT111 or even CAT 11 is hard to justify for all but scheduled operations.

[George Glass]

Except in Perth and Melbourne. :rolleyes:

Mea cupola. You are , of course , correct. I’d forgotten they had finally certified it . I’m only good for Cat II.

[George Glass]

I thought the thread was about an ILS in Mildura not CAT 111 in Europe. The expense of CAT111 or even CAT 11 is hard to justify for all but scheduled operations.

There was a notable incident a few years ago involving QF and Virgin B737s that diverted to Mildura due unforecast fog in Adelaide. Unfortunately Mildura was just as bad. Thanks BOM ! That it didn’t result in a hull lose was due to the reliability of the GPS approach. I suspect it is the main reason that ILS is even being contemplated. And if it does go ahead CAT I wont do it . On the day the fog was below CAT I minima. If your going to do it , do it properly.

[Capn Bloggs]

There was a notable incident a few years ago involving QF and Virgin B737s that diverted to Mildura due unforecast fog in Adelaide. Unfortunately Mildura was just as bad. Thanks BOM ! That it didn’t result in a hull lose was due to the reliability of the GPS approach. I suspect it is the main reason that ILS is even being contemplated. And if it does go ahead CAT I wont do it . On the day the fog was below CAT I minima. If your going to do it , do it properly.
Cat 3 at Mildura? Seriously? By the looks of it, it's being put in to make the place attractive for training. By all means, put it on the most appropriate runway for the bad weather, but thinking it should be Cat 3 is being delusional.

In any case, just make Adelaide Cat 3. Fog problem solved.

[George Glass]

Cat 3 at Mildura? Seriously? By the looks of it, it's being put in to make the place attractive for training. By all means, put it on the most appropriate runway for the bad weather, but thinking it should be Cat 3 is being delusional.

In any case, just make Adelaide Cat 3. Fog problem solved.

I simply repeat that the technology already exists for Cat I minima via RNP. There is no need for expensive ground aids. The biggest cost will be lighting. Anybody who has flown an auto land knows that getting off the runway is the biggest problem. Cat III via SBAS or GLS will absolutely become affordable everywhere sooner rather than later. All that is required is the political and bureaucratic will. Wasting money on an ILS is idiotic.
The way things are going in aviation at the moment it might all be academic however.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Wasting money on an ILS
The council won't be planning to waste money. It will only have been approved to spend the money on it if someone has made the case that they can make money out of it. Any way, this isn't about the airlines, this is about attracting and keeping the training school.

[triadic]

Posted this on the other thread about the flying school at MQL before I was aware of this thread....
...
Well the MRCC approved the additional $$ for the ILS at a meeting this past week.
I cannot believe it is proposed to be on runway 09 and not 27.

The prevailing wind at MQL is from the W/SW and runway 27 is used around 90% of the time by the RPT operators due to the wind. An ILS on 09 would not be any advantage when there is fog, as in the early morning you would be landing into the sun which is not very conducive to making the most out of what visibility there may be. As a result of this decision it seems that the installation of the ILS is for the prime benefit of the flying school training operations and not for assisting RPT and other operators to land when the weather is poor such as in a dust storm which occur when there is a wind from the W or SW and certainly not suitable for an ILS with a 20+kt tailwind.

Having an ILS on 09 will by its nature and use by the flying school generate traffic issues in the circuit and cause delays to other operators. The additional time for a backtrack for a departure 09 or to wait for a gap in the traffic for enter and backtrack for a 27 departure will be a significant inconvenience and cost to the RPT operators especially.

Not owning the land required is a petty excuse for not using 27. There are a number of ways this could be accommodated, especially when the budget is m$4 and the extra land would be a very small percentage of the total cost and give significant operational benefits.

Where is the common sense in this equation?

One has also have to ask what the value of an ILS will be over its expected life. The new runway at the Sunshine Coast is jet capable and does not have an ILS, but GPS based approaches that everyone seems happy about. Why cant the proponents of this waste of money think into the future and consider something similar and spend the money more wisely? It may well be better suited to runway 18 or a paddock somewhere! If it is needed for the school then perhaps they should make a significant contribution?

One must also ask what or who is driving this proposal.......

And yes, many of us mourn the loss of FS - those were the days.

[Rod Con]

The obvious choice for an ILS would be 27 for all the reasons previously mentioned and of course most of the inbound RPT and Air Ambulance traffic is from the south east. But I can’t help wondering if the Airport management, Board and MRCC councillors are confused as to the actual approach direction for the proposed ILS. Most of them probably have no idea what an ILS is or what 09 or 27 mean. If it was planned for 27 the Localiser antenna would be at the 09 end where they own more land beyond the airport boundary, the 27 threshold is closer to the road and land they don’t own. Maybe they don’t understand their own plans.

[captainsushi]

Fair to say that the reason an ILS has been approved is for the IAA t train their students. The council has been brainwashed to parrot the term that it is related to safety. I wish they would be honest and just come out and say that the IAA is the main customer for the ILS and other users will benefit in inclement weather. Be honest and stop the spin.

[cogwheel]

It is understood that the major RPT operators serving MQL have not been fully consulted on this proposal and do not support the runway 09 option. The excuse that it would cost more due to extra land needed is not relevant considering the overall cost and the operational use that would result by having it on 27.

[machtuk]

Imagne the amount if A/C that got to the minima (on any APP) and kept sliding on down till visual? Must be zillions of times world wide!

[cogwheel]

It seems that one of the major points against 27 is that the GP aerial would (for the existing runway configuration) be within the flight strip of 18/36. This could only be fixed by extending 09/27 to the E towards the highway (bringing the GP aerial E of the 18/36 flight strip), which may not work, providing a displaced threshold on 27 so the GP aerials are west of 18/36, or closing 18/36 which is not likely. It is also understood that a parallel taxiway is in the wind so as to reduce the need to backtrack and the associated delays (more $$’s).
It would be good if all of these options were put on the table so that industry could understand the thinking of the proponents of the ILS.

[jmmoric]

On the argument for or against ILS.

Sure the GLS is the future, or even the LPV, once there's SBAS coverage, until then LNAV/VNAV or LNAV..... why don't you have SBAS coverage?

But considering the cost of an ILS, versus changing every single aircraft already out there to fly LPV, there's still very much an economic benefit in setting up an ILS.

[Rod Con]

It seems that one of the major points against 27 is that the GP aerial would (for the existing runway configuration) be within the flight strip of 18/36.

A quick look at Google maps would confirm that theory, this wasn’t really thought about properly, quick decisions for the benefit of politicians eager to please someone.

[Derfred]

GLS CAT III would have been certified several years ago if the FAA was interested.

A cursory search on the internet will illustrate that while the FAA have pretended to be slightly interested, they really never have been. Perhaps this is “supply and demand” capitalism at it’s finest.

Current FAA policy is that they are not interested in FAA GLS installations. Private airports may install GLS at their own expense. A small few have.

This is why GLS has not become the “go-to” approach for the future that commonsense dictated that it should. This is why many IFR aircraft manufacturers are not even installing GLS capabilities as standard equipment. Boeing, to their credit, have been offering GLS capable equipment as a “no-cost option” for many years now. My fleet has it on all B737’s since 2002. Airbus, not so much? I think the latest Airbus types might have it: I think the A380’s do. Maybe A350’s. Can anyone confirm? Latest bizjets?

From a technical perspective, any new aircraft fitted with GPS and ILS should be able to achieve GLS standard without further complications. The data is there, and the antennas are there. The only complication is CPU processing, presentation, and certification. But this is aviation, right?

Australia chose to install their first GLS in Sydney! Great... an airport that already had 6 ILS’s. Ok, maybe it was a proof of concept test rig. Fine. Next installation: Melbourne. Also not helpful for aviation, other than a lower viz for runway 34, which is rarely helpful in practice. It was, however, a useful demonstration of the power of the GA community when it had a small impact on airspace over Port Phillip Bay.

The whole point of GLS is to provide a cheap and certified accurate precision approach to an airport without the need for local antenna installations for localizer and glideslope. And once you have it for one runway, you can have it for all runways, even including other runways at other airports within a certain radius.

It HAS to be the future... but it seems the future is a long way away.

[neville_nobody]

The whole point of GLS is to provide a cheap and certified accurate precision approach to an airport without the need for local antenna installations for localizer and glideslope. And once you have it for one runway, you can have it for all runways, even including other runways at other airports within a certain radius.

If noone has the equipment to use the technology then it is useless regardless of how good it is. The problem in Australia is that the places where it is most useful, country areas, none of the aircraft flying in there are ever going to be capable. Unless the government wants to pay to retro-fit every SAAB, Dash-8, Brasilia, F-100, F-50 and all GA charter aircraft with a GLS receiver and pay for the charts what's the point of it?

Just because something is a great technological achievement doesn't mean that it is necessary. You would be much safer, and have a more pleasant driving experience in a $180 000 motor car but I bet you don't have one. I'll bet you probably don't even own one half that value.

[Strainer]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x960/f2e4a8ce_9e80_490b_9c45_7a62c03e6c50_9e2a5c603390a30506b351f bedaf163225f94783.jpeg

[triadic]

Little to argue about in that article, however there is no mention of the prevailing winds (from the west/southwest) and the fact that QL & Rex use 27 for almost 90% of their arrivals. No mention of the flying school operations and what strain that will place on circuit operations and arrivals and departures of RPT aircraft such as when the school are using the ILS and RPT need to backtrack and depart.

[LexAir]

When Bill Burke was CEO at MIA he had a plan to build a light aircraft taxiway to the threshold of both 27 and 09 to avoid backtracks.

[Rod Con]

Mildura Airport seem to have confirmed on FB that the ILS will go ahead on 09.

There has been much confusion with the way they have described it as being installed “on the Adelaide end” but it seems clear now the ILS will be 09 with the installation of the localiser on the other end.

As Cogwheel previously pointed out it is fairly obvious that without extending the runway the Glide Slope Antenna would be within or too close to the 18/36 flight strip if the ILS was on 27

Seems like an enormous stuff up by MAPL that they have kept quiet until the funding was passed.

Any advantage of reduced visibility minima will be lost when landing into the sun on misty mornings and training aircraft will be going in the opposite direction to most of the inbound RPT.

[triadic]

When Bill Burke was CEO at MIA he had a plan to build a light aircraft taxiway to the threshold of both 27 and 09 to avoid backtracks.

Maybe so, but it is the RPT aircraft that do most of the backtracking and any proposed taxiway should be suitable for at least the D8 and Saab types. I don't think we will see a 737 there again for some time? It is already a problem for the RPT's when the school are out doing circuits on any runway, especially with their poor English skills!
The ILS could be aligned with 27, but it will be at a cost that obviously they don't want to entertain when it is there in the first place for the flying school as history shows that it is not needed, especially on 09.

[neville_nobody]

Mildura Airport seem to have confirmed on FB that the ILS will go ahead on 09.


As well as losing the advantage of a lower minima has the flying school budgeted for the amount of missed approaches and holding that is going to have to be done? They will have to give way to every single departure and arrival every time the wind favours 27. In IMC it's going to be a nightmare as they will have to hold away from the IAF as it conflicts with the MAP on 27, then give way to the arrivals then fly back to the IAP to then start their ILS. I would love to see how the safety case got through on this one. Just goes to show what a waste of time all the paperwork is when applying for infrastructure projects.

[triadic]

Is there a "safety case" or "risk analysis"... would be interesting to see and who it was conducted by. A significant factor would also be use of English (?) by the students.

[neville_nobody]

Is there a "safety case" or "risk analysis"... would be interesting to see and who it was conducted by. A significant factor would also be use of English (?) by the students.

There would have to be one done for the airport as they have received government funding. If you remember what a saga the Gold Coast ILS was and that was needed and on a into wind runway!! You could try and get YMIA paperwork through Freedom of Information but I don't know what the criteria is for that to be released. I don't think English proficiency is so much an issue for IFR training as there will always be an instructor in the aircraft for that.