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

Gold Coast needs an ILS

Old 5th Feb 2013, 20:33
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 517
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.
topdrop is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 20:51
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
The VISIBILITY is affected

The MINIMA is not

Lighting only affects the published visibility, it has nothing to do with the minima
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 22:06
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 477
And here I was thinking that visibility was part of the minima criteria....

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.

Last edited by Bula; 5th Feb 2013 at 22:11.
Bula is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 22:21
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,872
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.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 22:27
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Bula
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.
FYSTI is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 22:37
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 477
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.
Bula is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2013, 01:57
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,904
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.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2013, 02:42
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,439
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.
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 6th Feb 2013, 05:28
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
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.

Last edited by alphacentauri; 6th Feb 2013 at 05:29.
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2013, 07:29
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South
Posts: 636
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.
c100driver is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 04:37
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 637
GP Elevation

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.
QSK? is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 04:58
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,872
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 are exactly aligned with the runway or whether there are limiting obstacles further out, but the slopes are only 2.9.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 06:30
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
A 3 degree gp for ils can be done at both ends. Its not an issue.


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 06:52
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,384
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?
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2013, 07:52
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
In short...no
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2014, 10:37
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 852
Today's press say the ILS is another year away
megle2 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2014, 11:58
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,872
Up the coast a bit, the GLA 10 ILS is in and being tested.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2014, 16:29
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth
Posts: 301
Who paid for that? Santos? To ensure their workers get in...
falconx is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2014, 04:22
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,384
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.''
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2014, 05:05
  #140 (permalink)  
When you live....
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: 0.0221 DME Keyboard
Posts: 918
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....
UnderneathTheRadar 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.