Mildura Airport ILS - Wrong Way?
The fact that Cat III doesn’t exist in Australia
'History' repeating itself......... It reminds me of 'de good ole days' when the FSU that USED to be there was built......
Apparently, during construction, the foreman or whoever, got his N mixed up with his S, or L with R, or whatever, and the pad for the building was installed - the wrong way around.
So they simply finished the construction, including the internal fit- out, and the MET had had the nice look out over the RWYS, whilst the FSO viewed the carpark and the lawn where the 'Stevenson Screen' was.!
(Yeah, I am acutely aware that 'we' were not supposed to look out of the window anyway - but in locations where 'we' could, it certainly assisted in the occasional emergency... e.g. Dubbo (Upstairs) Derby (Upstairs), KAL - ground floor but BIG window installed especially....)
Cheeerrrrssss (?)
Apparently, during construction, the foreman or whoever, got his N mixed up with his S, or L with R, or whatever, and the pad for the building was installed - the wrong way around.
So they simply finished the construction, including the internal fit- out, and the MET had had the nice look out over the RWYS, whilst the FSO viewed the carpark and the lawn where the 'Stevenson Screen' was.!
(Yeah, I am acutely aware that 'we' were not supposed to look out of the window anyway - but in locations where 'we' could, it certainly assisted in the occasional emergency... e.g. Dubbo (Upstairs) Derby (Upstairs), KAL - ground floor but BIG window installed especially....)
Cheeerrrrssss (?)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find it needs a bit more than a new MMR. Airbus quote to install GLS in A320 is around $1million.
Suggest the future for most operators will be LPV once our Australian SBAS WAAS is commissioned. Flying an ILS, GLS, LPV and even LNAV+V all require the same skill set. ILS really is a creature of the past.
Suggest the future for most operators will be LPV once our Australian SBAS WAAS is commissioned. Flying an ILS, GLS, LPV and even LNAV+V all require the same skill set. ILS really is a creature of the past.
Look left:
We are in furious agreement.
Anecdotally I’m told that some in the RV community already toy with IMC conditions without any approvals.
Anyone who "toys" with IMC is likely to have their toys smashed when they discover that IMC is not to be played with.
Anyone who "toys" with IMC is likely to have their toys smashed when they discover that IMC is not to be played with.
SBAS is the present, not the future ... in North America, in Europe and in Japan
Why the hell Australia and NZ didn't do a deal with Japan when they put up their WAAS / EGNOS equivalent MSAS is incomprehensible to me.
All QANTAS & Air NZ long range aircraft ought to be already fitted for this technology so they can fly into Europe, North America and Japan.
It would surely have been a relatively small expense to extend coverage into the southern hemisphere
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, no
SBAS is the present, not the future ... in North America, in Europe and in Japan
Why the hell Australia and NZ didn't do a deal with Japan when they put up their WAAS / EGNOS equivalent MSAS is incomprehensible to me.
All QANTAS & Air NZ long range aircraft ought to be already fitted for this technology so they can fly into Europe, North America and Japan.
It would surely have been a relatively small expense to extend coverage into the southern hemisphere
SBAS is the present, not the future ... in North America, in Europe and in Japan
Why the hell Australia and NZ didn't do a deal with Japan when they put up their WAAS / EGNOS equivalent MSAS is incomprehensible to me.
All QANTAS & Air NZ long range aircraft ought to be already fitted for this technology so they can fly into Europe, North America and Japan.
It would surely have been a relatively small expense to extend coverage into the southern hemisphere
Dont know whether it is ever expected to deliver Cat III though.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a notable incident a few years ago involving QF and Virgin B737s that diverted to Mildura due unforecast fog in Adelaide. Unfortunately Mildura was just as bad. Thanks BOM ! That it didn’t result in a hull lose was due to the reliability of the GPS approach. I suspect it is the main reason that ILS is even being contemplated. And if it does go ahead CAT I wont do it . On the day the fog was below CAT I minima. If your going to do it , do it properly.
Originally Posted by George G
There was a notable incident a few years ago involving QF and Virgin B737s that diverted to Mildura due unforecast fog in Adelaide. Unfortunately Mildura was just as bad. Thanks BOM ! That it didn’t result in a hull lose was due to the reliability of the GPS approach. I suspect it is the main reason that ILS is even being contemplated. And if it does go ahead CAT I wont do it . On the day the fog was below CAT I minima. If your going to do it , do it properly.
In any case, just make Adelaide Cat 3. Fog problem solved.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat 3 at Mildura? Seriously? By the looks of it, it's being put in to make the place attractive for training. By all means, put it on the most appropriate runway for the bad weather, but thinking it should be Cat 3 is being delusional.
In any case, just make Adelaide Cat 3. Fog problem solved.
In any case, just make Adelaide Cat 3. Fog problem solved.
The way things are going in aviation at the moment it might all be academic however.
Wasting money on an ILS
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted this on the other thread about the flying school at MQL before I was aware of this thread....
...
Well the MRCC approved the additional $$ for the ILS at a meeting this past week....
I cannot believe it is proposed to be on runway 09 and not 27.
The prevailing wind at MQL is from the W/SW and runway 27 is used around 90% of the time by the RPT operators due to the wind. An ILS on 09 would not be any advantage when there is fog, as in the early morning you would be landing into the sun which is not very conducive to making the most out of what visibility there may be. As a result of this decision it seems that the installation of the ILS is for the prime benefit of the flying school training operations and not for assisting RPT and other operators to land when the weather is poor such as in a dust storm which occur when there is a wind from the W or SW and certainly not suitable for an ILS with a 20+kt tailwind.
Having an ILS on 09 will by its nature and use by the flying school generate traffic issues in the circuit and cause delays to other operators. The additional time for a backtrack for a departure 09 or to wait for a gap in the traffic for enter and backtrack for a 27 departure will be a significant inconvenience and cost to the RPT operators especially.
Not owning the land required is a petty excuse for not using 27. There are a number of ways this could be accommodated, especially when the budget is m$4 and the extra land would be a very small percentage of the total cost and give significant operational benefits.
Where is the common sense in this equation?
One has also have to ask what the value of an ILS will be over its expected life. The new runway at the Sunshine Coast is jet capable and does not have an ILS, but GPS based approaches that everyone seems happy about. Why cant the proponents of this waste of money think into the future and consider something similar and spend the money more wisely? It may well be better suited to runway 18 or a paddock somewhere! If it is needed for the school then perhaps they should make a significant contribution?
One must also ask what or who is driving this proposal.......
And yes, many of us mourn the loss of FS - those were the days.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Outback
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The obvious choice for an ILS would be 27 for all the reasons previously mentioned and of course most of the inbound RPT and Air Ambulance traffic is from the south east. But I can’t help wondering if the Airport management, Board and MRCC councillors are confused as to the actual approach direction for the proposed ILS. Most of them probably have no idea what an ILS is or what 09 or 27 mean. If it was planned for 27 the Localiser antenna would be at the 09 end where they own more land beyond the airport boundary, the 27 threshold is closer to the road and land they don’t own. Maybe they don’t understand their own plans.
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Mildura
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair to say that the reason an ILS has been approved is for the IAA t train their students. The council has been brainwashed to parrot the term that it is related to safety. I wish they would be honest and just come out and say that the IAA is the main customer for the ILS and other users will benefit in inclement weather. Be honest and stop the spin.
It is understood that the major RPT operators serving MQL have not been fully consulted on this proposal and do not support the runway 09 option. The excuse that it would cost more due to extra land needed is not relevant considering the overall cost and the operational use that would result by having it on 27.
It seems that one of the major points against 27 is that the GP aerial would (for the existing runway configuration) be within the flight strip of 18/36. This could only be fixed by extending 09/27 to the E towards the highway (bringing the GP aerial E of the 18/36 flight strip), which may not work, providing a displaced threshold on 27 so the GP aerials are west of 18/36, or closing 18/36 which is not likely. It is also understood that a parallel taxiway is in the wind so as to reduce the need to backtrack and the associated delays (more $$’s).
It would be good if all of these options were put on the table so that industry could understand the thinking of the proponents of the ILS.
It would be good if all of these options were put on the table so that industry could understand the thinking of the proponents of the ILS.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the argument for or against ILS.
Sure the GLS is the future, or even the LPV, once there's SBAS coverage, until then LNAV/VNAV or LNAV..... why don't you have SBAS coverage?
But considering the cost of an ILS, versus changing every single aircraft already out there to fly LPV, there's still very much an economic benefit in setting up an ILS.
Sure the GLS is the future, or even the LPV, once there's SBAS coverage, until then LNAV/VNAV or LNAV..... why don't you have SBAS coverage?
But considering the cost of an ILS, versus changing every single aircraft already out there to fly LPV, there's still very much an economic benefit in setting up an ILS.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Outback
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that one of the major points against 27 is that the GP aerial would (for the existing runway configuration) be within the flight strip of 18/36.