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).