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

Gold Coast needs an ILS

Old 15th Feb 2014, 00:39
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
Just some info, to add depth to the discussion.

1. Gold Coast are not putting in hial for 14 approaches. They don't have the real estate for it. Unfortunately, this doesn't help. As has been stated the problem at Goldy is vis more than cloud base.

2. The current Naverus rnp approaches for Qantas have a roll out point at 2 mm from threshold, with rd turn before it. The icao ones coming later in the yr will be same.

3. There have been rwy aligned rnavs already designed for 14. Final at 5nm with 10-15° turn. The designs have been floating around for 3yrs, but can't be implemented due noise issues. If ils gets approved, then new rnavs will come.

4. Thankfully the terrain environment to the south will not have a bad impact on rnp-at missed approach.

5. Generally rnp minima is about 100-150ft higher than ils, and about 100ft lower than rnav. The difference at Goldy will be Currumbin hill and how accurate survey data we can get.

6. I didn't say it wasn't going to happen. But there is a long journey still to go, as technology develops there might not be a need for one. Gbas is about to go live at yssy. Gbas would allow us to solve a lot of problems at the Gold Coast.


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 00:42
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
Excuse my typing, I'm on an iPhone and autocorrect doesnt come with an aviation acronym dictionary


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 00:57
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,875
Originally Posted by Alfa
Excuse my typing, I'm on an iPhone and autocorrect doesnt come with an aviation acronym dictionary


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
It spelt "Android" correctly!

with rd turn before it
Do you mean RF turn? I'm havung trouble keeping up with the designer language you and underfire are using.

Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 15th Feb 2014 at 01:01. Reason: Question added
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 01:18
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 35
Yes that is what he means, an RF turn to a short final.
If I remember the design correctly, the Naverus criteria goes down to 0.10/0.15 RNP AR. The FAF is at the beginning of the turn, not the end.
Not sure how ICAO would look at that, but an exemption is always possible for the National Carriers, difficult for international carriers.

FROP-final rollout point, end of the turn, tangent to final.

RNP APCH the 'T' configs you see. (now one coded turn allowed)

ILS min 200' HAT (height above threshold)

RNP min 250' HAT
underfire is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 01:26
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,875
difficult for international carrier.
That will always be the sticking point. Air Asia doing RNP-ARs? Since the national carrier is about to become extinct , I think the overseas market/carriers will be the driver for what goes in...
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 02:57
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 35
Well, thats not exactly the point. It is somewhat convoluted.

Exemptions to the standards are easy for CASA to grant within their area of pervue. ASA and CASA have control over the National Carriers.
When International Carriers get involved, per the Chicago Convention, the airport and procedures must meet ICAO standards. Exemptions to these standards are not as easy, as the ICAO stds are, well, lets say, crazy talk anways!

AUS tried to argue the RNP missed to stay the same RNP level as the approach, ie 0.3 RNP approach = 0.3 RNP missed containment areas. (ie ICAO containment assumes the world falls apart when you go missed, and the RNP containment goes from 2x 0.3 RNP or 0.6nm, to 2RNP or 2nm wide.)
Probably still hear the screams....(poor Dirk)
underfire is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 03:59
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,385
1. Gold Coast are not putting in hial for 14 approaches. They don't have the real estate for it. Unfortunately, this doesn't help. As has been stated the problem at Goldy is vis more than cloud base
Surely there is enough room there to put some sort of lighting in. You have the runway and some open space there at the end. Without that it makes the whole thing a bit pointless as the you will be in the situation where the DA is low enough but the rain puts the viz is below the minima.

I suggested earlier on in this thread as to why they can't do a RNAV STAR that leads you right into an abbreviated ILS at 5 miles?

That will get you away from the houses and the hills and will be available for all.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 04:41
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
They need 450m at least for hial, this will help vis minima. Max benefit is obtained by putting in standard 900m. As I said, gold coast doesn't have the room. There are no plans for it's installation.

We looked at an rnav star to late ils option. It isn't ideal for 2 main reasons. a) I need to provide at least 2nm on loc before gp intercept. This pushes intercept out to 7nm. For a 5nm join, you wouldn't intercept gp until 3nm. Initial airline feedback was that it would be too close. b) There needs to be a nav mode change from rnav to loc at only 5nm out. Again this was argued to be too close. I think it would work, but it would involve an amount of training and trial.....with gbas though....it's a lot more possible


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 04:58
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,875
For a 5nm join, you wouldn't intercept gp until 3nm. Initial airline feedback was that it would be too close. b) There needs to be a nav mode change from rnav to loc at only 5nm out. Again this was argued to be too close. I think it would work, but it would involve an amount of training and trial
Yes, 5nm is too close. Only a minor hiccup capturing the LLZ will prevent GS capture and the whole approach rapidly turns to worms. Besides, you can't descend below the local MSA (at least 1500ft? coming in over the water towards terrain) until you've captured the LLZ; you'd be above the GS by then.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 12:29
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 35
GBAS could be more feasible. The cost to put in GBAS is about equal to an ILS for each runway end, so cost would be a wash.

I would like to see the GBAS approach procedures (and departures) re-thought in the criteria.

First off, there is no reason it should not be CAT III at this point in the game.

CAT I, and 250 HAT, following ILS criteria is not where GBAS should be at this point in time.

RNP transition from the STAR to GBAS 0.1 CAT III final is where this should be at. ASA as 50% owner of SmartPath should have the system at every airport in AUS, and should be dictating the criteria to ICAO.
underfire is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2014, 15:14
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5
That's strange... I've been told GBAS is orders of magnitude cheaper than ILS.
Derfred is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2014, 21:34
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 35
GBAS system costs about the same as 2 ILS runway ends.

You get 26 ends with the GBAS system.

With each ILS, its about $50K/year for maintenence. GBAS is little to nothing per year.
underfire is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2014, 10:26
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: at the computer
Posts: 153
There must be room for HIALS on 32. The displaced threshold is about 600m!
1Charlie is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2014, 11:41
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,875
There must be room for HIALS on 32
Do you need an ILS on 32?
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2014, 11:24
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,385
Well it sounds like there aren't many options available.

Airservicess' website says that the GBAS is the ILS replacement, yet it doesn't seem to be catching on anywhere. People are building replacement ILS's not GBAS systems.

After reading this it sounds like yet another aviation infrastructure project that will meander on forever with no decisions being made because it's all to hard.

Guess the RNP is the best of a bad choice.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 22:38
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 35
2. The current Naverus rnp approaches for Qantas have a roll out point at 2 mm from threshold, with rd turn before it. The icao ones coming later in the yr will be same.
Careful on this one. The FAF is at the beginning of the turn, not the end. There are many combinations of ac/fms types that will not allow a turn inside the FAF.

Bringing in the FAF close has its own issues as well. While some FMS models will taper the ROC, others will hard lock the 500' ROC at the FAF.
This is why on some approaches with the A320, the HW ac does fine, (HW uses 400' ROC at the FAF), the Thales box will prox warn....

Lots of flight vals with different equippage must be done for the ICAO procedures.
underfire is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 06:08
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
You get 26 ends with the GBAS system.
IF you've got 26 runway ends within the coverage area, no?
Philthy is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 08:41
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Aloft
Posts: 39

You get 26 ends with the GBAS system.
IF you've got 26 runway ends within the coverage area, no?
Exactly! GBAS coverage is defined by area, not the number of RWY ends.
Essentially each installation will have defined coverage and maximum use areas, some of which may be dependent on the installation itself, what's contracted for by the purchaser, terrain, non-resolvable multipath/interference issues, etc.

But it's not the ultimate solution yet - mainly because of the limited number of aircraft/FMSs that can fly GBAS and the limited number of certified systems (and hence supplier & cost options).

A useful summary can be found on GNSS Frequently Asked Questions - GBAS
OK, it's the FAA, but it gives a reasonable overview of what's relevant globally and thereby what's available to Oz.

I reckon it's definitely the way of the future - but there's a ways to go yet before it will outdo other solutions (mainly due to cost and breadth of usability) - even given that the annual maintenance costs are completely negligible compared with ILS.

Eventually I suspect you'll find that RNPx (AR or not) APCHs and DEPs will interface with GLS in the final stages of APCH and early stages of DEP. Even now, in some places, there are RNPx (sometimes AR) APCHs being joined to ILS Cat X finals to achieve lower minima than might be otherwise available if using only RNP AR. Not yet documented by ICAO, but it's being done.

Last edited by roulette; 27th Feb 2014 at 08:47. Reason: minor refinement
roulette is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 22:21
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 35
It is defined by the number of channels.

It is a VHF transmission, so there are no multi-path issues. That is how you can have APP and DEP on the same runway end.

Remember, GBAS system broadcasts a correction factor for the onboard system, that augments GPS. The signal also includes the information on the procedure for the aircraft to follow.

It is not a beam, just a signal.

If there is a terrain interference issue, another broadcast ant can be set up.

Yes there are already RNP to GBAS final approach procedures which are seemless to the ac. APCH to ILS is not seemless to the ac or the operator, and are very difficult to control.

All aircraft from Airbus and Boeing have had GBAS as a standard, at no cost option for the last 4 years. You just have to ask.

There are a few places that are currently using CAT III GBAS procedures with no issues.

Last edited by underfire; 27th Feb 2014 at 22:41.
underfire is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2014, 09:45
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Aloft
Posts: 39
@Underfire, regardless of number of channels and number of approaches &/or departures supported, each GBAS system is still limited by the physical area of coverage and maximum use areas for the installed system. So if you have aerodromes sufficiently close and dependent on runway alignment, one GBAS system could in fact support multiple aerodromes.

The multipath I was talking about may or may not influence how the GBAS system is set up (on the ground) and ultimately the maximum areas of use. Ditto for terrain. This has nothing to do with the VHF transmission of the procedures to the aircraft.

Acknowledge your comment re difficulties in transitioning GNSS to ILS - mainly because the boxes weren't originally set up to handle the transitioning from one nav system to another in that fashion (different integrities, different ways of handling the nav tolerances and so forth, transitioning of CDI, etc.

Re aircraft options, obviously bigjet world is centred on Airbus and Boeing, but there are a lot of RPT aircraft that come from other manufacturers (not to mention legacy systems ) - hence the comment about current limited applicability of GBAS as far as users (operators) go.
roulette 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.