Gold Coast needs an ILS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why they did not put in one or two arms at least is beyond me. Nothing like a bunch of soggy PAX gathering around the bottom of the steps, and followed by a engineer with a mop. I really believed when they did the reno's they would have worked that one out. I should have known better.
Just what I have heard around the traps...
Original recommendation was to install it to service approaches onto rwy 14. This means equipment to be installed at southern end of airfield. When the bypass was built they relocated a rare frog/bird habitat to the area that is now needed for ils installation. Gold Coast airport wanted to install it at other end (ie to service rwy 32 approaches).
There was a stalemate, then winter and fair weather came. It was all forgotten about.
Now bad weather has come and an election has been announced, and everybody remembers an ils was promised.
There is a meeting on Friday to decide which end will get it, and ad I heard last week it could be both ends.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Original recommendation was to install it to service approaches onto rwy 14. This means equipment to be installed at southern end of airfield. When the bypass was built they relocated a rare frog/bird habitat to the area that is now needed for ils installation. Gold Coast airport wanted to install it at other end (ie to service rwy 32 approaches).
There was a stalemate, then winter and fair weather came. It was all forgotten about.
Now bad weather has come and an election has been announced, and everybody remembers an ils was promised.
There is a meeting on Friday to decide which end will get it, and ad I heard last week it could be both ends.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Reading between the lines I think the reference to both ends of the runway is only one ILS. The LLZ at one end and the glideslope at the TDZ. I doubt they are going to fork out $20 Mil to build one at each end.
However the ILS is useless if they don't erect any approach lighting with it. No point being at the minima on slope and still not seeing anything. The problem at the OOL is the viz not the cloud base.
However the ILS is useless if they don't erect any approach lighting with it. No point being at the minima on slope and still not seeing anything. The problem at the OOL is the viz not the cloud base.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Age: 59
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with 'Nev' in some ways that an ILS isn't anywhere near as useful unless it has HIALS, that's why they have HIALS as you may actually not be in cloud at the Min but the rain is so heavy that fwd viz especially at night is next to zero unless there is something to spot IE the bright lights well b4 the black bit. Remember it's cloud & Viz that need to be addressed:-)
I'd like a dollar for every time I've only seen the lights at or about the Min & if it wasn't for them then I'd be an expert at missed App's:-)
HUD's (yes I know they exist) is what the next gen of Transport Cat A/C need in color that simply replaces what we humans can't see due restricted visibility.
I can just see it (pun not intended) now doing the VOR 14 at Cooly in zero Viz but having a clear almost animated view of the world outside whilst we break off at the Min to align the Rwy all the time still 'seeing' that nasty hill to the Nth of the drome all in what looks like 3D:-)
The whole idea of any Inst Appr is to get Visual to land & it's about tricking the human eyes/mind as the Rwy is still there it's just that we can't see it:-).
We put man on the Moon well over 40 yrs ago with something like a Commodore 64K computer but yet we still have advanced stuff all in aviation in some ways!
Wmk2
I'd like a dollar for every time I've only seen the lights at or about the Min & if it wasn't for them then I'd be an expert at missed App's:-)
HUD's (yes I know they exist) is what the next gen of Transport Cat A/C need in color that simply replaces what we humans can't see due restricted visibility.
I can just see it (pun not intended) now doing the VOR 14 at Cooly in zero Viz but having a clear almost animated view of the world outside whilst we break off at the Min to align the Rwy all the time still 'seeing' that nasty hill to the Nth of the drome all in what looks like 3D:-)
The whole idea of any Inst Appr is to get Visual to land & it's about tricking the human eyes/mind as the Rwy is still there it's just that we can't see it:-).
We put man on the Moon well over 40 yrs ago with something like a Commodore 64K computer but yet we still have advanced stuff all in aviation in some ways!
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 3rd Feb 2013 at 22:46.
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!
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.
RNP-AR is the way forward.... Seems a no-brainer to me!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
! 
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
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Trany' my idea of a HUD's was that it could/would be needed as a supplement to an App, to aid in the 'visual' aspect of any App,not used as a stand alone device, that's what I was alluding to:-).
As mentioned elsewhere here an ILS would be needed as it's an acceptable std world wide as a precision App & seeing as Cooly is an international drome (albeit almost a backward one) that's what we have to do to be like the real world outside the Aussie barbwire way of thinking:-)
Wmk2
As mentioned elsewhere here an ILS would be needed as it's an acceptable std world wide as a precision App & seeing as Cooly is an international drome (albeit almost a backward one) that's what we have to do to be like the real world outside the Aussie barbwire way of thinking:-)
Wmk2
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.
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 ...
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Precisely my point, mag. Dash 8 will never be RNP-AR approved.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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
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?
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?
