Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Gold Coast needs an ILS

Old 27th Jan 2012, 06:12
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,170
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.....
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 06:19
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 57
Posts: 150
Don't hold your breath.

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.............
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 06:20
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 60
The Government needs to take a stand and use compulsory acquisition to gain ownership and control of all infrastructure , especially Airports....
Alloyboobtube is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 06:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 57
Posts: 150
Not compulsory aquisition

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.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 08:51
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,872
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse
I would call it The Department of Civil Aviation or something like that.
Charlie Jones should be the Dept Head.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 17:29
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: A long way from home with lots more sand.
Age: 51
Posts: 417
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?
clear to land is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 21:55
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,767
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.
framer is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 22:30
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by framer
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...
maggot is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 23:26
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 584
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
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2012, 23:33
  #30 (permalink)  
34R
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 48
Posts: 189
Just open a mine near the airport. Problem solved
34R is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2012, 00:13
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 570
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.
Dehavillanddriver is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2012, 01:16
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 13
Posts: 1,517
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.......
blueloo is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2012, 02:57
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,380
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.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2012, 10:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On track to somewhere good!
Posts: 36
RNP

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!
Selcalmeonly is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2012, 13:07
  #35 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 1,066
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. Revenue from aeronautical revenue $135,767,000.00. Non-aeronautical $216,892,000.00.

So where are you going to invest capital?
601 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2012, 13:14
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 78
Posts: 2,739
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 LIKELY!!!

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

NOPE!! AND MOI EITHER!!!

p.s.

Thanks again for the 'redundo' Uncle Dick'.......
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2012, 23:16
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 57
Posts: 150
Griffo - partial credit and I agree totally

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 [email protected]#$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.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2012, 00:53
  #38 (permalink)  
Sprucegoose
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 55
Posts: 3,490
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!
Howard Hughes is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2012, 02:12
  #39 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,878
Howie 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.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2012, 02:16
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 78
Posts: 2,739
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

Doesn't look too good for yas gettin' ya ILS at Cooly then???
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.