You can bet that it will never happen. Modern RPT jets can be RNP APP approved easily, although at a cost to the individual airline. GC airport investing in an ILS will cost them. Easy to see which way this will go. The problem is the Gold Coast region is in dire need of the inbound tourist dollars to bail them out of the recession that exists there. Any airline in Asia looking at a new destination such as OOL will have a look at the facilties and ask, "How much will it cost us for a diversion (or incident) as our crews can only use the VOR approach". With Ozs high cost of even breathing the air, they will move to the next project. Witness Air Asia's recent performance.

So you've done a cost-benefit analysis on say a half a dozen airlines individually getting RNP-AR approvals (and maintaining their currency) verses plopping in a ILS, not to mention the smaller operators that don't have a hope of ever attaining RNP-AR capability?

After the recent shenanigans, it's pretty obvious the evidence is now overwhelming for some sort of precision approach, and GC certainly wouldn't be putting in an ILS gratis. They'd up the landing fees. But why's that different with any other piece of infrastructure? Service providers the economy-over upgrade equipment/services and then charge for it.

Any ILS lovers work out how long the LDA will be for the GS displaced threshold to cater for the hill to the North?:hmm:
RNP can do a curved approach at greater than 3degrees.:ok:

An ILS can also have greater than 3 gp. And there will probably not be a reduction in LDA for a standard ILS installation. The ils installation generally doesn't affect runway length. The hill will only affect da. If the hill doesn't impact on the current OLS, there shouldn't be a displaced thld.

At least on the current figures currently being kicked around.

The VOR has a slope of 3.07°. Given the tracking tolerances of an ILS, I suspect the glideslope wouldn't need to be more than that.

KTM has an ILS starts at 6 degress so no reason not to have one on the Gold Coast

An ILS would of been nice today! Missed approaches and diversions again...:hmm:

Bloggs; "So you've done a cost-benefit analysis on say a half a dozen airlines individually getting RNP-AR approvals".

No, I havn't, and you know that-so what is your point?

What I am saying is I don't believe it will happen because the airport would ideally like to pass the technology/infrastucture over to the airlines to save them money. As far as "the smaller operators that don't have a hope of ever attaining RNP-AR capability" go, I am sure they couldn't care less about them. Landing fees and revenue in the pax terminal (primarily the latter) are what counts. (A aircraft that holds ten or so is not high on the list for improving infrastucture/safety for the bean counters at GCAPL). It makes sense for domestic airlines to be RNP APP approved (not just for OOL)- GCAPL knows that.

What I was saying however, is that it will be a shame if they don't install one, as it will deter potential new international airlines. International airline execs don't want/need the hassle of sending their shiny new Boeingbus to a regional, infrastucture deficient airport in Australia only to have it divert because someone forgot/chose to not install an ILS there. The Gold Coast city/region doesn't need that-it will hurt the economy.

My bet is that it they won't install an ILS. I just hope they install some HIALS to lower the visibility minima. That in conjunction with RNP approaches will be a massive improvement. No use being at 250 feet in driving rain or scud if you can't see some really bright approach lights as well as the recently installed "high-intensity runway lighting that allows pilots to see the runway from great distances, even during bad weather."

NB. I acknowledge it will be impossible to install HIALS on 14 due to current land use but maybe they could buy some land off farmer Joe for the 32 end. His cows could still eat grass around the posts.

Oh and here is a cynical thought. On the day I was stuck in that terminal for hours due to diversions there were thousands of people in the terminal. About threefold the usual number- all spending at the retail and food outlets. Did GCAPL total revenue go down that day because there were less aircraft movements? Not so sure.

Let me see,

Qantas = RNP AR cleared to .10 for the B737 NG, possibly for the B767 and .1 for the B787
Jet star = RNP AR cleared to .30 but shortly to .10 if not already on the A320. B787 will be .10
Air NZ = RNP AR .10 for the A320, .11 for the B737 CL, B777 on the way from .30 down to .10, B787 .10 out of the box.
Virgin = not RNP AR yet but will have initial flights underway by the end of the year on the B737 NG, not sure of the capability of the E190.

Those four carriers are responsible for what 95% of all GC jet operations? I doubt that they will be willing to pay for an installation they they don't need. When the airport company come cap in hand to those airline for the cash to pay for the new ILS I would be willing to bet they will tell them to find the money from someone else!

MR, there aren't many "farms" on the 32 approach - it is built-up all the way from the coast. Not high-rise like the northern end, but densely populated residential areas nonetheless. Haven't seen cows in Banora Point for a long time.

C100driver, I understood it was GCAL that was pushing for the installation of an ILS? My guess it is mainly for the asian carriers, seeing as the domestic carriers are (or soon will be) RNP capable, as you pointed out. I also thought AA was paying for it - do they recoup the cost from the airlines? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to work out how it all works.

Gladstone's getting one.

http://www.gladstone.qld.gov.au/c/do...roupId=1570002

C100driver,

Big difference in being authorised to conduct RNP-AR and having crew/aircraft qualified/current to fly them.

Of the 4 airlines you listed:
QANTAS - don't currently fly to Gold Coast in aircraft that are RNP certified
VIRGIN - Not currently RNP certified.
That leaves....
Jetstar - Not currently flying RNP at Gold Coast (not sure why)
AirNZ - Maybe certified but don't have access to the Naverus plates paid for by QANTAS.

So that leaves one airline currently able to perform RNP at Gold Coast (Jetstar). I would think that a broader solution to cater for all of the other users of Gold Coast, and the significant GA fleet operating from there, is an ILS.


...and yes Gladstone is getting one :ok:

Qantas don't fly to Gold Coast at all ...

I thought you had because it appears, from your posts, you have already decided that RNP-ARs (and their setup and ongoing costs) were cheaper than an ILS.

My point is: if you're (either GCAL or the airlines) going to potentially fork out a few mill for a piece of infrastructure/capability, then you do a study to find out what is the most cost-effective way of doing it; either RNP-ARs or an ILS.

Which runway (and yes, I know there are hills to the NW:E)?

RWY 10....I think the plan is to have it operational for the next wet season

Excellent. We need that mob running a couple of other airports around the place... :ok:

I must say it s&@ts me no end that we operate multi million dollar airliners with the traveling public into places where airport operators, councils, government refuse to spend the money to upgrade the infrastructure. Sunshine Coast, Ballina are two glaringly obvious places that expect the Jetstars & Virgins to service their communities, but haven't made their airports up to scratch.

Wishful thinking but if the CEO's (JB's & DH's) got together and issued an ultimatum to certain ports that if they haven't upgraded the facility, (runways, aprons, nav aids) by a certain date, they will withdraw from the port. The public uproar and tourism implications would be horrendous... But no, our airlines accept the diversions and expenses involved because of this.

And another thing. It's 2012 yet Hobart & the likes in this country are still procedural & non radar. What an effin joke. Rant over.

The mind boggles.

ILS ready but passengers still waiting Local Gold Coast News | goldcoast.com.au | Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

My understanding is that an ILS would not have made any difference as the issue was one of exceeding cross wind limitations on the wet runway. Although I agree, an ILS is definitely required.

And why they did not put in one or two arms at least is beyond me. Nothing like a bunch of soggy PAX gathering around the bottom of the steps, and followed by a engineer with a mop. I really believed when they did the reno's they would have worked that one out. I should have known better.

Just what I have heard around the traps...

Original recommendation was to install it to service approaches onto rwy 14. This means equipment to be installed at southern end of airfield. When the bypass was built they relocated a rare frog/bird habitat to the area that is now needed for ils installation. Gold Coast airport wanted to install it at other end (ie to service rwy 32 approaches).

There was a stalemate, then winter and fair weather came. It was all forgotten about.

Now bad weather has come and an election has been announced, and everybody remembers an ils was promised.

There is a meeting on Friday to decide which end will get it, and ad I heard last week it could be both ends.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Reading between the lines I think the reference to both ends of the runway is only one ILS. The LLZ at one end and the glideslope at the TDZ. I doubt they are going to fork out $20 Mil to build one at each end.

However the ILS is useless if they don't erect any approach lighting with it. No point being at the minima on slope and still not seeing anything. The problem at the OOL is the viz not the cloud base.

I don't know about useless. A 200 DA is bound to be better than a 779 MDA for many approaches. It might not be perfect however it would allow more people to catch sight of the the runway environment with or without approach lighting.

I tend to agree with 'Nev' in some ways that an ILS isn't anywhere near as useful unless it has HIALS, that's why they have HIALS as you may actually not be in cloud at the Min but the rain is so heavy that fwd viz especially at night is next to zero unless there is something to spot IE the bright lights well b4 the black bit. Remember it's cloud & Viz that need to be addressed:-)
I'd like a dollar for every time I've only seen the lights at or about the Min & if it wasn't for them then I'd be an expert at missed App's:-)

HUD's (yes I know they exist) is what the next gen of Transport Cat A/C need in color that simply replaces what we humans can't see due restricted visibility.
I can just see it (pun not intended) now doing the VOR 14 at Cooly in zero Viz but having a clear almost animated view of the world outside whilst we break off at the Min to align the Rwy all the time still 'seeing' that nasty hill to the Nth of the drome all in what looks like 3D:-)

The whole idea of any Inst Appr is to get Visual to land & it's about tricking the human eyes/mind as the Rwy is still there it's just that we can't see it:-).
We put man on the Moon well over 40 yrs ago with something like a Commodore 64K computer but yet we still have advanced stuff all in aviation in some ways!

Wmk2

Now that most forward thinking airlines are using RNP AR approaches into the goldy is an ILS required?

HIALs would be handy, but an ILS?

Wally,

If you were flying an aircraft equipped with a HUD, why the hell would you be doing a VOR approach?

As Green Goblin says, RNP-AR is the way forward. It's not perfect, but it's probably the most sensible option for somewhere like Cooly. Why go to the lengths of installing and maintaining an ILS for a minima around 220' AGL, when you can get to 250' AGL off an RNP? Similar vis requirements for both approaches, assuming no HIALS.

Seems a no-brainer to me!

I think this was covered earlier in the thread. Do a cost-benefit analysis on RNP-AR for all as opposed to an ILS for all.

Bloggs, the majority of the major airlines that would be affected by the diversions have RNP AR. I'm sure Virgin are not too far off getting them, don't know about Tiger, they can't even do managed NPA's.

When the majors miss out, that makes the headlines. A couple of turboprops or GA type aircraft don't.

Once RNP AR is supported by industry there will be lots of these style approaches and the industry will be far safer as a result.

was covered but i'm far from convinced. An ILS for all on one runway or RNP-AR on any runway you need... perfect for hammo, mackay - the list goes on...

Bloggs,

I'm with maggot - not convinced. Unless we're talking about the need for CATIII approaches in heavy fog (not likely at Cooly), RNP-AR is the future and seems to make more financial sense.

That beloved DC-9 of yours (and the crews that fly them) will get with the times eventually! Heck, you might even be able to do the RNAV-Z onto 21 in PH next time the ILS is out! :p

You big bully TL. You know how to hit where it hurts! :ouch:! :ok:

Part of the reason for installation of the ils is the aerodrome operator wants to attract a lot more international traffic. Apparently without the ils they are not interested in coming. This is also part of the reason they seem to want to install 2 ils's.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

'Trany' my idea of a HUD's was that it could/would be needed as a supplement to an App, to aid in the 'visual' aspect of any App,not used as a stand alone device, that's what I was alluding to:-).
As mentioned elsewhere here an ILS would be needed as it's an acceptable std world wide as a precision App & seeing as Cooly is an international drome (albeit almost a backward one) that's what we have to do to be like the real world outside the Aussie barbwire way of thinking:-)



Wmk2

Interesting that these international carriers find unacceptable what everyone in Australia has to put up with on a daily baisis. Maybe the Oz carriers should get a bit more proactive on the standard of Australian RPT Aerodromes. It would appear that CASA is happy to approve anything.

nev, big difference for a dash 8 crew going in somewhere like that 5 times a day compared to an overseas heavy crew once every 6 months (maybe), strange accents, strange body clock ...

Precisely my point, mag. Dash 8 will never be RNP-AR approved.

my point was in reference to another post on airport 'marketability' to o/s carriers. The biggest impacts during these weather events are the jets diverting/cancelling are displacing large amounts of pax everywhere so they are the ones that really need looking after, services wise (not to understate the importance of the turbo prop networks). RNP-AR does it fine, both runways. And many more.
In any case, someone alluded to the wet x-wind being the biggest problem - how does that stack up? Haven't been in there for ages.

maggot, the question is how many of these carriers do RNP-AR. It doesn't appear to be a "standard equipment" as is the ILS for all operators.

There are also some subtleties with the RNP-AR. The minima's are quite different with the terrain.
YBCG RWY 14
RNP 0.10 285' (264) / 1400m
RNP 0.15 429' (408) / 2200m
RNP 0.30 434' (413) / 2300m

RWY 32
RNP 0.10 263' (250) / 1300m
RNP 0.20 287' (274) / 1400m
RNP 0.30 320' (307) / 1600m

My understanding (open to correction) is that the A320 is only capable of RNP 0.20, however has approval to operate to RNP 0.15 & that current Airbus models won't be able to ever get RNP 0.10.

Recently, the wet xwind was one factor, however the cloud base was 300' and the vis hovering around ~2000m. Two A320's ahead of us missed out for RWY14 (assumed using the RNP 0.15 minima) and we got in visual at the 0.10 minima with the required vis in moderate rain, TWR reported crosswind at 25kts and FMC 23Kts at touchdown.

I might add that both the TAF and TTF indicated conditions above the alternate criteria, forcing diversions for another 4 or 5 aircraft arriving at the same time without ever becoming visual, so the xwind was a moot point.

RNP-AR is better than the a non-precision approach, but not to the same standard as an ILS. It very much depends upon the RNP that you can actually use. Without much terrain around, there isn't much in it. As soon as you get terrain close to the field, the approach minima becomes very sensitive to what your aircraft is capable of, and what you actually have for the ANP (mostly 0.02, but up to 0.08). Cairns RWY 33 is a classic, with a RNP of 0.10 of 333', RNP 0.20 of 494' and RNP 0.30 of 789'. With an ANP of 0.08, I wouldn't start a RNP 0.10 approach.

GLS, now that is a different story...

FYSTI

I think you may need to do a little more research. The A320 is capable of certification down to .10 but there are some software mods required.

Air NZ operate to that in ZQN with both the domestic A320 and the much older (almost 10 years old now) regional A320. They were infact the first A320 operator with RNP approval below .30

One of the assumptions here regarding the ILS is the minima will be 200 feet. If you take NZWN with a modern ILS installation it's minima it 300 feet on 16 and between 300 and 450 feet depending on NAV fit and CAA approval for 34. The 16 minima is based on lighting issues and the 34 minima is a missed approach and lighting issue. I don't know the design parameters for CG but will it meet certification for 200 ft AGL? I don't know the answer to that one, anybody here with the information?