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

Gold Coast ILS

Reply

Old 20th Apr 2015, 07:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Gold Coast ILS

Quite a bit on news regarding ILS at Gold Coast. As usual, news promotes it as increased flights vs increased safety or access due to weather.
underfire is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2015, 09:59
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Left base, RWY01
Posts: 155
Gold Coast ILS

There will be anti-noise petitions galore from residents from Palm Beach south to Currumbin....so those people wouldn't mind a bit when the homebound flight they are on misses out and diverts to Sydney or Canberra or Rockhampton because there ISN'T a precision runway approach.....
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2015, 10:35
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,303
which is perversely odd, because the noise off a missed vor appr is louder than a successful ils appr.
waren9 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2015, 11:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 233
I loved the bit of footage I briefly saw on the news. Resident saying how bad the aircraft noise will be whilst there was a the sound of a car doing a burnout in the background
maverick22 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2015, 12:36
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: L'Alpe D'Huez
Posts: 91
Why?

Not needed and I would questions why?

Apart from major capital cities where CAT3 needed for international alternate requirements, I see the future of precision approaches for aerodromes such as OOL being GPS based.

OOL RWY32 (proprietary) RNP 0.3 gets you down to 300ft. It's great stuff.
m-dot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th Apr 2015, 13:13
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 109
If the pollies want to splash the cash for an ILS, i say hell yeah, do it! Not every aircraft can do RNP to the best possible minima.

I reckon all Aussie domestic drivers that frequent OOL should fill in the consultation form and give it a thumbs up!
Flava Saver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2015, 02:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: no fixed address
Posts: 145
Definitely needed. To aid in the noise issue, maybe it could only get used when actually needed due to crud weather... The rest of the time use the visual approach which joins over the river mouth. If that sounds like a waste of money, it would barely scratch the surface in the " Wasting of money" stakes which happens on a daily basis in Australia.

Levy the punter 50 cents per ticket, happy days.
VH-ABC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2015, 18:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,045
Nice thinking M-Dot but not all International carriers have the CASA GPS APP approval but can slip down an ILS tomorrow. Things are changing quickly though. Domestically? Yep agreed but the good coin is from the foreign carriers who would pay larger sums based on Pax/Ldg weight.
The ILS in Cooly has been a basket case for awhile now. Ideally it would be from the south if not for the "Rich & Famous" (read egocentric) living South under the approach, plus the 2 spot heights infringing ILS terrain clearance. It may have to be offset like the VOR.
In from the North is doubtful, as a visual segment to align with rwy centrelink would still be needed once inside the hill as per current ops.
A curved App like Queenstown? Now we're talking but that requires RNP AR (Approval Required) and an RNAV or GPS RNP down to 0.1 which entails a lot of training.
Would personally like to see an ILS there and accordingly am very keen to see what evolves, if anything. Just my 2 cents worth anyway.

Happy Landings
Chocks Away is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 00:04
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 386
Chocks,

Ideally it would be from the south if not for the "Rich & Famous" (read egocentric) living South under the approach, ....
Um Really? The prevailing weather is E-SE, so wouldn't it ideally have to be from the north? The Gold Coast airport master plan for the ILS installation has a fairly extensive weather analysis to resolve which runway it needs to go on. An ILS from the south would ultimately help nobody...

....plus the 2 spot heights infringing ILS terrain clearance. It may have to be offset like the VOR.
Terrain to the south is relatively flat, there are no infringing spot heights and this isn't the reason the VOR is offset. The VOR is offset because the VOR is not aligned with the centreline.

In from the North is doubtful, as a visual segment to align with rwy centrelink would still be needed once inside the hill as per current ops.
The concept procedure has already been designed to be runway aligned from the north. No visual segment required and Currumbin Hill has no impact on DA. The most penalising issue will be lack of approach lighting...

There are already public criteria, curved approach paths to RWY 14 at Gold Coast. Authorisation Required is a bit of a red herring, it is becoming so common place now that I expect in the near future that requirement will be dropped from the approach. The evolution of RNP will follow the evolution of GNSS approaches. Everyone was very cautious in the beginning, but see as of next year it will be the only way to meet the PBN classification for navigation in Australia.

I think the GC ILS will die a long slow death....domestic airlines don't need/want it, and more internationals will be able to fly RNP soon. Balance that against exposing 85000 homes to 'new' aircraft noise and the politics of aircraft noise will trump the ILS

Alpha
alphacentauri is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 00:27
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gallangowan
Posts: 10
Gold Coast Draft ILS Procedure
speedtaper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 00:35
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEQ
Age: 49
Posts: 448
A lot of the local chatter has centred on the disclosure by airport talking heads; that the ILS approach would be used in all conditions by many carriers, and not just in poor visibility. The explanation being that the carrier's SOPs require that they use whatever aids are available. Anyone in the know care to comment?

It doesn't really impact me, being well away from the approach path, but I do have some sympathy for people who up to now have seen aircraft turning out over the sea if they cared to look, but will now have aircraft noise overhead 365 days a year, for the sake of 50 flights per year which divert due vis. (ASA figures apparently) A bit like amputating the foot for the sake of an ingrown toenail imo.
spinex is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 02:08
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,232
for the sake of 50 flights per year which divert due vis. (ASA figures apparently) A bit like amputating the foot for the sake of an ingrown toenail imo.
Except that those 50 are not averaged over 365 days usually when it's bad it's really bad with whole days of flying cancelled. For a so-called tourist town the airport is a disgrace in terms of infrastructure, no aerobridges no approach lighting, no HIRL, no ILS.

If you want tourism people have to be able to get there 365 days a year.

In simple terms a ILS with HIRL/HIALs will solve all the problems associated with getting into OOL as there is usually not a problem with getting out of the cloud.

The whole thing is so typically Australian, we procrastinate for ten years making a whole host of excuses of why a basic ILS cannot be built in large city airport, then just watch as soon as there is an accident they'll put up an ILS in a few weeks. Nothing like a reactionary culture.

Hopefully if they do build it it will come with HIAL/HIRL otherwise it's no going to solve the problem.
neville_nobody is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 02:15
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: no fixed address
Posts: 145
For those minds smarter than mine, would a London City style approach (5.5 degree path) help out the noise for Rwy 14?
VH-ABC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 07:04
  #14 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,182
fish

Not with the aircraft types that are operating in/ out of OOL.
Keg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 07:51
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 134
GLS and some improved approach lighting to CAT 1 would do for the non RNP folks
Roj approved is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 11:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,045
Thanks for the input Alpa' but just calm down a little
I am well aware of the navaid position not being aligned with the runway, as I've had the pleasure of flying many types in/out of there, from the biggest type to the smallest... in all manner of weather conditions.
"The concept procedure has already been designed" - nice work. I didn't think there was terrain clearance to fully align on a 3' glide slope, especially with Currumbin hill. The beautiful people on the Isle of Capri won't be happy
Neville is spot on the money too!
OOL needs to develope to meet demand and the current facilities have been stretched for too long now. Both the Terminal and approaches need more. Time to change management
(Running for the bunker now)
Chocks Away is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 13:44
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 3
Both the Terminal and approaches need more

No arguement here.....from somone who can remember when the TAA / Ansett terminal was manned solely by porters named 'Ted'...and the TAA / Ansett terminal was a ramshackle wind riddled shell of what it is now...but the terminal as it is now ....so vastly different....yet managing to hold on to that legacy af ineptitude.....exemplary stuff really........leats bug out to BNE
Fliegenmong is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 22:06
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,289
"Except that those 50 are not averaged over 365 days usually when it's bad it's really bad with whole days of flying cancelled. For a so-called tourist town the airport is a disgrace in terms of infrastructure, no aerobridges no approach lighting, no HIRL, no ILS".

I didn't think airport owners were required to spend money on airport infrastructure, only on car parks and shopping center's.

Part of the privatization process.

If the tax payer stumped up the money for anything that could actually be useful for aviation or improved safety the airport owners would just up their charges.

Maybe the answer is to invite the military to open a base there, Wagga has an ILS and Tamworth....Sorry, bad idea, no space available because of all the non aviation infrastructure.
thorn bird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Apr 2015, 19:12
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,045
I didn't think airport owners were required to spend money on airport infrastructure, only on car parks and shopping center's.
Part of the privatization process.
Interesting point Thorn Bird.
To what extent are Airservice Aust involved?
I would have thought as a private owner one would try to value-add to what was on offer there, to attract pax flow & activity (hence $).
Chocks Away is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Apr 2015, 22:33
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Ponderosa
Age: 46
Posts: 777
Spice it up

Like all things retro, consider an Instrument Guidance System (IGS). Currumbin hill would be perfect for the checkerboard and the procedure will be known as "The Tugun Turn".

Problem solved😛
hoss is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service