Mildura Airport ILS - Wrong Way?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLS CAT III would have been certified several years ago if the FAA was interested.
A cursory search on the internet will illustrate that while the FAA have pretended to be slightly interested, they really never have been. Perhaps this is “supply and demand” capitalism at it’s finest.
Current FAA policy is that they are not interested in FAA GLS installations. Private airports may install GLS at their own expense. A small few have.
This is why GLS has not become the “go-to” approach for the future that commonsense dictated that it should. This is why many IFR aircraft manufacturers are not even installing GLS capabilities as standard equipment. Boeing, to their credit, have been offering GLS capable equipment as a “no-cost option” for many years now. My fleet has it on all B737’s since 2002. Airbus, not so much? I think the latest Airbus types might have it: I think the A380’s do. Maybe A350’s. Can anyone confirm? Latest bizjets?
From a technical perspective, any new aircraft fitted with GPS and ILS should be able to achieve GLS standard without further complications. The data is there, and the antennas are there. The only complication is CPU processing, presentation, and certification. But this is aviation, right?
Australia chose to install their first GLS in Sydney! Great... an airport that already had 6 ILS’s. Ok, maybe it was a proof of concept test rig. Fine. Next installation: Melbourne. Also not helpful for aviation, other than a lower viz for runway 34, which is rarely helpful in practice. It was, however, a useful demonstration of the power of the GA community when it had a small impact on airspace over Port Phillip Bay.
The whole point of GLS is to provide a cheap and certified accurate precision approach to an airport without the need for local antenna installations for localizer and glideslope. And once you have it for one runway, you can have it for all runways, even including other runways at other airports within a certain radius.
It HAS to be the future... but it seems the future is a long way away.
A cursory search on the internet will illustrate that while the FAA have pretended to be slightly interested, they really never have been. Perhaps this is “supply and demand” capitalism at it’s finest.
Current FAA policy is that they are not interested in FAA GLS installations. Private airports may install GLS at their own expense. A small few have.
This is why GLS has not become the “go-to” approach for the future that commonsense dictated that it should. This is why many IFR aircraft manufacturers are not even installing GLS capabilities as standard equipment. Boeing, to their credit, have been offering GLS capable equipment as a “no-cost option” for many years now. My fleet has it on all B737’s since 2002. Airbus, not so much? I think the latest Airbus types might have it: I think the A380’s do. Maybe A350’s. Can anyone confirm? Latest bizjets?
From a technical perspective, any new aircraft fitted with GPS and ILS should be able to achieve GLS standard without further complications. The data is there, and the antennas are there. The only complication is CPU processing, presentation, and certification. But this is aviation, right?
Australia chose to install their first GLS in Sydney! Great... an airport that already had 6 ILS’s. Ok, maybe it was a proof of concept test rig. Fine. Next installation: Melbourne. Also not helpful for aviation, other than a lower viz for runway 34, which is rarely helpful in practice. It was, however, a useful demonstration of the power of the GA community when it had a small impact on airspace over Port Phillip Bay.
The whole point of GLS is to provide a cheap and certified accurate precision approach to an airport without the need for local antenna installations for localizer and glideslope. And once you have it for one runway, you can have it for all runways, even including other runways at other airports within a certain radius.
It HAS to be the future... but it seems the future is a long way away.
The whole point of GLS is to provide a cheap and certified accurate precision approach to an airport without the need for local antenna installations for localizer and glideslope. And once you have it for one runway, you can have it for all runways, even including other runways at other airports within a certain radius.
Just because something is a great technological achievement doesn't mean that it is necessary. You would be much safer, and have a more pleasant driving experience in a $180 000 motor car but I bet you don't have one. I'll bet you probably don't even own one half that value.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little to argue about in that article, however there is no mention of the prevailing winds (from the west/southwest) and the fact that QL & Rex use 27 for almost 90% of their arrivals. No mention of the flying school operations and what strain that will place on circuit operations and arrivals and departures of RPT aircraft such as when the school are using the ILS and RPT need to backtrack and depart.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Outback
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mildura Airport seem to have confirmed on FB that the ILS will go ahead on 09.
There has been much confusion with the way they have described it as being installed “on the Adelaide end” but it seems clear now the ILS will be 09 with the installation of the localiser on the other end.
As Cogwheel previously pointed out it is fairly obvious that without extending the runway the Glide Slope Antenna would be within or too close to the 18/36 flight strip if the ILS was on 27
Seems like an enormous stuff up by MAPL that they have kept quiet until the funding was passed.
Any advantage of reduced visibility minima will be lost when landing into the sun on misty mornings and training aircraft will be going in the opposite direction to most of the inbound RPT.
There has been much confusion with the way they have described it as being installed “on the Adelaide end” but it seems clear now the ILS will be 09 with the installation of the localiser on the other end.
As Cogwheel previously pointed out it is fairly obvious that without extending the runway the Glide Slope Antenna would be within or too close to the 18/36 flight strip if the ILS was on 27
Seems like an enormous stuff up by MAPL that they have kept quiet until the funding was passed.
Any advantage of reduced visibility minima will be lost when landing into the sun on misty mornings and training aircraft will be going in the opposite direction to most of the inbound RPT.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Bill Burke was CEO at MIA he had a plan to build a light aircraft taxiway to the threshold of both 27 and 09 to avoid backtracks.
The ILS could be aligned with 27, but it will be at a cost that obviously they don't want to entertain when it is there in the first place for the flying school as history shows that it is not needed, especially on 09.
Mildura Airport seem to have confirmed on FB that the ILS will go ahead on 09.
As well as losing the advantage of a lower minima has the flying school budgeted for the amount of missed approaches and holding that is going to have to be done? They will have to give way to every single departure and arrival every time the wind favours 27. In IMC it's going to be a nightmare as they will have to hold away from the IAF as it conflicts with the MAP on 27, then give way to the arrivals then fly back to the IAP to then start their ILS. I would love to see how the safety case got through on this one. Just goes to show what a waste of time all the paperwork is when applying for infrastructure projects.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 18th Aug 2020 at 07:37.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a "safety case" or "risk analysis"... would be interesting to see and who it was conducted by. A significant factor would also be use of English (?) by the students.
Is there a "safety case" or "risk analysis"... would be interesting to see and who it was conducted by. A significant factor would also be use of English (?) by the students.
