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

Gold Coast needs an ILS

Old 3rd Feb 2013, 20:41
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Age: 55
Posts: 11
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.
worked to death is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 00:15
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,901
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?
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 01:38
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 1,304
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!

Last edited by Transition Layer; 4th Feb 2013 at 01:40.
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 03:31
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,923
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.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 03:36
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,901
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.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 03:42
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by Capt Bloggs
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...
maggot is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 04:13
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 1,304
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!
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 04:22
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,923
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! !
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 07:29
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
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
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 21:17
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,408
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.

Last edited by neville_nobody; 4th Feb 2013 at 21:18.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 21:21
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
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 ...
maggot is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 02:51
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,923
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.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 03:42
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
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.
maggot is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 05:26
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
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...
FYSTI is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 06:36
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South
Posts: 636
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?
c100driver is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 07:11
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
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.
FYSTI is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 10:35
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
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
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 11:15
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,462
Some ILS minimas are based purely on approach lighting, or lack there of.
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 19:07
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
Not in Australia


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 19:09
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
Neither Pans-ops or the Mos says anything about adjusting ils minima for lighting.

Its a myth


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
alphacentauri 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.