Howie:ok: but, you know that, I know that, and most in pprune land know that.........but the bean counters lawyers and those with their nose in the trough don't seem to.

Yes Mr 'Fieldmouse', that is true....

'The Local Ownership Plan' was nothing more than a money grab by the Govmint of the time sellling off / Leasing out of many Commonwealth Govt owned facilities paid for by the 'Hard Working Families of Aust' = taxpayer!

Now we, the taxpayer, pay again 'thru the nose' to use what are / were essentially, OUR facilities!!

G'Day Howard - I haven't been to Cooly for a fair while, but if its anything like the other airports, then the runways are simply 'in the way' of some real revenue making from the Real Estate / 'non-aeronautical revenue'.....

e.g. Look at the huge industrial parks now surrounding those 'damned runways' at YPPH, and YPJT, as well as at every other major airport in the country.

What happened to the 'Aviation' component / use for Airports???

YSBK doesn't even have a North/South strip any more.....
11/29 is ALL they've got!

I know I know....cup of tea, a bex, and a good.....:{

Cheers:ok::ok:

Doesn't look too good for yas gettin' ya ILS at Cooly then???
:yuk::yuk:

A normal ILS would have a DA about the equilavent of the RNAV approaches on RW14. The problem being the hill to the north of the runway. When landing 14, you get visual at the minima, but because of the hill, the approach is offset, and in reduced visibility, the runway threshold is very hard to see (even with the strobes), and in manoeuvring to final, it is possible to have the approach become unstable, which under most SOP's means a missed approach. It may be possible to get a ILS on 32 with an overshoot similar to the 32 RNAV approach, but a ten mile ILS straight in over the coastal noise sensitive areas would cause the locals to mutiny!

Why not move the airport? The current locations value would be significant if you developed it. Not sure where is suitable for a new airport though.....

Alternatively buiding a set of decent approach lights on 14 may help the cause

.

Yous lot are imagining things... needing an ILS due to rain...:rolleyes:


Our racial stirring Prime Muppet and her muny grubbing climate adviser told us it would never rain again - they had scientific proof...:hmm:


------------------------------------------------------

"...We are committed to a sustainable, triple bottom line philosophy..."

Gold Coast Airport » Community







.

Agreed.
I flew in & out of there for a couple of decades, hardly ever needed to do an approach and if you did a plain VOR.DME would easily get you low enough.
An ILS would be a big waste of money.

Well you must be a better pilot than most of the crews on the numerous diverts to Brisbane in the last 12 months from the GC.
And of course the stats on the increase safety of a ILS (or GLS) vs a non aligned approach aren't worth listening too, it would just be a waste of money.....
A few wheels short of a undercarriage in this case?

I know that and you know that, but the beancounters, they only know the bottom line

If an ILS to Rwy 14 isn't possible due to the hill on final then perhaps an offset ILS or even a Localiser type Directional Aid would work. Can't recall them being used in Oz when I was there but they're used here in the US.

Offset ILS's can be implemented to avoid terrain impinging into the splay but may be a bit harder in this instance (Phuket a good example, albeit a 1.4 degree offset). The DA wouldn't be a whole lot less than your average VOR or RNAV but at least the visibility requirement would be better, which is the main reason for go-arounds at Goldy.

Hey Jabawocky you're famous. They quoted you on the front page of today's
Gold Coast Bulletin.

It is obvious that no one has any idea of the process to have an ILS installed at an airport.

It has nothing to do with the airport operator.

The board of Airline Representatives (for that airport) ask Airservices what an ILS installation would cost.

Airservices do the terrain appraisal and costing (installation, lighting, ongoing maintenance, calibration). Lighting is a big cost.

The airlines are told what the increase in air service charges will be for the ILS installation. The airline beancounters then determine whether the installation is cost effective. They then inform the Board of Airline Representatives whether they want to go ahead with the installation.

So the airlines determine whether they want the ILS. Simple as that.

It has to be this way as it is a user pays system - can you imagine if a CAT III system was installed at say Alice Springs without the airlines approval they would go ballistic over the cost?

It is the media after all......desperate for expert opinion.:}

Just proves a point really:uhoh:

PPRUNE is a valuable source of knowlege after all:E

Who says you can't trust Ppruners?
Isn't that right Mr Aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas?

I can only make a statement based on my experiences there and as I said, I didn't have to do an approach there very often. Maybe I was lucky and the other crews last year weren't.



Again not my problem if the crews can't fly a VOR/DME approach accurately enough. I didn't find them difficult at all, in any aeroplane.




If you want to trade personal insults about user names to establish credibility about comments, then you have already lost the argument.

The man on ABC radio says agreement reached with ASA, work is now to start on the planning for the ILS

In your own words you have no problem at all in flying a VOR/DME approach and hats off to you. Most pilots don't.
There is plenty of evidence out there that some pilots/airlines do.
One recently to the Melbourne VOR 34 and a few stories regarding the CG Vor of late.
The numbers are in, there is no doubt ILS vs VOR, ILS wins hands down on the safety case(no surprises there). If the traffic/conditions warrants it then common sense dictates.....and that is where the argument is lost when airline bean counters are put in the mix. Thank you to Mr Mach for explaining the process.
If we can't convince the public/bean counters that an extra dollar on your ticket is worth it for a safer day then well no wonder the smart people in aviation put their money in the airport car parks and not the airlines.

Really? Why? As someone has pointed out earlier, any ILS system on 14 couldn't be a standard one thus negating it's effectiveness :ugh: WOFTAM.
RNP app. the tech is proven and readily available and can have complex curved apps for noise and hill avoidance - roll out on finals 350-400' and you're in.

which is precisely my point, the tech is out there! I think the 320s have a few limitations in this regards but virgin should be all over it!

If you have the company resources to manage it (it's not just GPS NPA on steroids), RNP-AR is the way to go for the latest jets. But if an ILS is an option ("work is now to start on the planning for the ILS") it would be a better overall solution; everybody can use it with no extra training or cost (apart from the airport fees).

YBCG RNP
 

They certainly are:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...up/s10-h39.pdf

There can't be many using them though given the number of go-arounds and diversions to BN we get here.

Well bugger me!

Anna Bligh confirmed that the Gold Coast will be receiving a $10 million dollar ILS this year. (Source-Gold Coast Bulletin 8th Feb 2012). :D

I wonder if that coincides with Scoot entering the playing field?

.............bloody hell $10 Mill for an ILS!!! That's nuts! For the life of me in this day & age where modern techno stuff is rampant we can't have a Sat/GPS App that takes us down to the same Min as an ILS.:ugh:


Wmk2

It is, Wally. Give me a timeline and cost for your fleet to be RNP-AR equipped and approved and you'll probably find the $10m isn't looking too bad spread amoungst the 5 million-odd inbound pax movements per year. :ok:

IF (and it's a big if) airports were run properly in this country you could fund any infrastructure by a small one year passenger tax to improve services.

The ILS could be easily funded by a ticket tax and then removed after one year.
A small price to pay to enable people to actually get where they need to go.
The reality is the people who run airports in this country are not interested in aviation.

Anyone have any idea how this ILS will work? I assume it will be on 14 but from discussions on here the minima isn't going real low.

The ILS won't cost $10 million
 

Only up for $2m to replace ours shortly. The $10m will largely be for the D.A that has to go in and for the ILS Cat (insert number here) lighting they put in.

You guys really do need to be careful what you wish for.

Yes a Gold Coast ILS is coming.......but you will never guess what runway they want to put it on :ugh::ugh:

You guys are happy to fly an ILS down to minima, and then have to circle to land or accept a large tailwind in marginal conditions aren't you? The people making the proposal seem to think this is fine.

We all know the marginal weather comes when a NORTHERLY is blowing!!!

I have an overwhelming sense of value for money :ok::ok:

Lovely, relative short runway with a tailwind on a wet night or the circling approach on a wet night!

An ILS on 32 wouldn't be much fun, with the displaced threshold not a lot of LDA for landing with a tailwind.

JFC! Even Sheridan, Wyoming, USA has an ILS, FGS! Never heard of it you say???! BECAUSE "NO ONE" GOES THERE!!! And many more places like it too with an ILS. This country needs to get its head out of its ass when it comes to serious flying conditions. "It'll do" just isn't good enough for that 10% of serious bad weather flying. Lockhart River wasn't BIG ENOUGH it seems for the vast majority of the public. One day this country will get what it has been waiting for. God, I hope not.* Gold Coast two ILS's, at least one for CFS, MC, Gla, RK, Mk, 2 for TL and CS( too many go arounds there the last few days onto Rwy 33.) and a few more CATII(III) as well.
*Day off and a few reds already.

Cheer up chaps.....at least we can drink the water here!

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbbzzzzzzzz

In the US airports are generally owned by a city or municipal council and is provided as a community facility, not as a way of spinning money. It benefits the WHOLE town to have a good airport. In Australia some genius thought it would be a good idea to sell off all the airports and to run them as a private business as a result we get carparks factories and fast food outlets built overnight but things like ILS aerobridges and terminals are not built because they are to expensive.

If they are really going to build 32 ILS in OOL that would have to show how much the people who are running the airport know about aviation

And add some bloody arms whilst your at it. With the GC storms and unpredicable WX, having PAX standing around like saturated cattle is not a good look. I was flying into OOL in the sixties, the PAX go wet then, and still they get wet. Last week they had to bring mops onto the aircraft to at least dry it up the front, near the galley, time to grow up OOL if you want to go fully international or indeed grow. A ILS AND some arms please.

Neville
 

Also much easier to run the airport as a community facility when the good old FAA antes up the $3million for the runway overlays when they are due and pays for the new aprons, and the fire service, and security............... We don't have a lot to learn from them because we used to do it too, we just lost our way. :(

Any updates?
 

As one of the locals living on the extended centreline of Runway 32, I am very interested in this topic. Has there been any more news about whether the proposed ILS is going ahead, and if so, which end it will be?

I am definitely not an expert, but I can't understand why RNP isn't more widely used for situations like this - with farmland and ocean on either side of us, it seems (to me) that an ILS is not the best solution. Happy to hear the arguments for and against though.

Consider this.

Yes, I read that in the paper a couple of weeks ago. The same article goes on to say:

"Airlines, including Jetstar, are also using Gold Coast Airport to trial satellite-based navigation technology known as Required Navigation Performance. It gives pilots a clear, narrow flight path, allows planes to travel on a direct route, saving fuel, and can safely guide planes around cloud-shrouded mountains, through valleys and on to the ground safely during low visibility and bad weather. Airport boss Paul Donovan said the airport was already RNP-capable, meaning it would habe the option to operate both ground-based and satellite-based tchnology."

So I am still none the wiser - which end are they talking about, and why do they need an ILS if they could use RNP instead?

ILS has broader reach of aircraft. Everything from a C150 through to a B747 can fly an ILS and will become operational the day they sign it out.

RNP however is only really limited to new generation jets and require much more pilot training and recurrency, (read money spent by the airlines) and may not be that popular with airline accountants.

Many more aircraft can use an ILS, than can use RNP-AR. That's why they are pursuing the ILS option.

I believe it is to be installed to service approaches on RWY 14