Gold Coast needs an ILS
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 21:11.
Topdrop and Bula, read Alpha's posts. He said:
ILS DA is not affected by lighting.
Derivation of an ils DA is independant of runway lighting, and is only concerned with the obstacle environment.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Neither Pans-ops or the Mos says anything about adjusting ils minima for lighting.
Its a myth
Its a myth
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.
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.
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 04:29.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.