|
c100, appreciate the clarification regarding the A320 RNP capability. That leads to the next question, what is the lowest current RNP-AR approval for Australian based A320 operators?
Back to the original point about an ILS vs RNP-AR solving the issue in the case of the Gold Coast, the RNP-AR is really only of benefit instead of an ILS if the operator is RNP 0.15 capable or below. From you comments about NZWN, you imply that operation is dependant upon more than just the lowest capability of the FMS, there are other issues to the lowest RNP value usable by each operator. |
Lowest RNP certification in Oz is 0.1. Pretty sure QANTAS and Jetstar are both certified to this value.
Derivation of an ils DA is independant of runway lighting, and is only concerned with the obstacle environment. Lighting only affects visibilty required. Posted from Pprune.org App for Android |
Some ILS minimas are based purely on approach lighting, or lack there of.
|
Not in Australia
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android |
Neither Pans-ops or the Mos says anything about adjusting ils minima for lighting.
Its a myth Posted from Pprune.org App for Android |
So it's a myth that the vis minima on Cairns 15 ILS goes from 1.2Km to 1.5Km when HIALs are not available.
|
The VISIBILITY is affected
The MINIMA is not Lighting only affects the published visibility, it has nothing to do with the minima |
And here I was thinking that visibility was part of the minima criteria.... :rolleyes:
AERODROME METEOROLOGICAL MINIMA (Ceiling and Visibility Minima) — The minimumheights of cloud base (ceiling) and minimum values of visibility which are prescribed in pursuanceof CAR 257 for the purpose of determining the usability of an aerodrome either for take-off orlanding. MINIMUM ALTITUDE — The minimum altitude for a particular instrument approach procedure is the altitude at which an aircraft shall discontinue an instrument approach unless continual visual reference to the ground or water has been established and ground visibility is equal to or greater than that specified for landing. (Applicable to DA/MDA on procedures designed to an earlier edition of PANS-OPS, Document 8168.) ............. Anyway it's crazy. JQ can operate to 0.1 RNP minima in ZQN, but are still restricted by the regulator to 0.3 RNP in Aus. |
Topdrop and Bula, read Alpha's posts. He said:
Derivation of an ils DA is independant of runway lighting, and is only concerned with the obstacle environment. |
Originally Posted by Bula
JQ can operate to 0.1 RNP minima in ZQN, but are still restricted by the regulator to 0.3 RNP in Aus.
|
Especially given the WB contingent into YBCG. It needs an ILS.
Is it possible on R14 with a 150' obstacle at 1.5nm? Steeper GS perhaps? I don't believe the A330 or B777 are RNP-AR airframes. Though the 787 is approved straight out of the shrink wrap. |
Anyway it's crazy. JQ can operate to 0.1 RNP minima in ZQN, but are still restricted by the regulator to 0.3 RNP in Aus. The technical Pilots pull the data from the approach and use it for stat building to support the case of reducing the RNP value. Queenstown has been operating for some time, hence the RNP 0.1 approach criteria. RNP AR in Australia for Jetstar is relatively new. It will take lots of approaches and proven equipment reliability, plus ongoing simulator training and data assessment before the regulator will give approval for reduction. It's just like ETOPS. The aircraft may come out of the box with the approval, however the operator has to build their experience before increased approval is given by the regulator. |
Neither Pans-ops or the Mos says anything about adjusting ils minima for lighting. Its a myth I doubt there is a obstacle problem (over the water). Maybe the minimas are raised to coincide with the vis that is required? Hence my statement re lights and minimas. :confused: |
The visibility is something that is calculated for publication after a DA has been derived.
You can't calculate a visibility requirement if you don't know the MDA/DA. Once the visibility required is calculated there is then an adjustment for HIAL (if there are any). So no, the DA is not adjusted to meet a visibility requirement. Again the DA is calculated solely based on the obstacle environment. Once the DA has been sorted, then a visibility required is calculated. As for the Sydney ILS's there is an allowance for 200ft shipping passing to pass through the final approach area. It appears this is why the minima is as it is. |
Yes the triple 7 is RNP AR approved down to .10 and suspect that the A330 is also capable but like the A320 may need a software update to activate the RNP specific capability.
|
GP Elevation
In response to previous comments in this thread regarding GP elevation, the ICAO recommendation for a standard ILS is that the GP elevation should not exceed 3.5° for CAT 1 ILS ops.
However, where States have a need to implement GPs exceeding the recommended 3.5° elevation angle (non-standard ILS), ICAO recommends that the approach charts be annotated accordingly and the relevant regulator restrict use of the ILS facility to approved operators and aircraft. If a non-standards ILS was installed at OOL, it's use would be restricted to only a few operators who have the necessary CASA approval. That fact alone probably undermines the cost/benefit argument for an ILS. |
If a non-standards ILS was installed at OOL, it's use would be restricted to only a few operators who have the necessary CASA approval. That fact alone probably undermines the cost/benefit argument for an ILS. |
A 3 degree gp for ils can be done at both ends. Its not an issue.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android |
A 3 degree gp for ils can be done at both ends. Its not an issue. |
In short...no
|
Today's press say the ILS is another year away
|
Up the coast a bit, the GLA 10 ILS is in and being tested. :D
|
Who paid for that? Santos? To ensure their workers get in...
|
Sounds like the NIMBY's are at it again with the local members voicing opposition.
Are the A330's not able to do the RNP? Given the Coast's population, tourism dependance, and the difficulties just getting a basic ILS installed, is it time to build a proper airport somewhere else? LONG-suffering airline passengers and pilots are facing more further potentially dangerous delays in getting an all-weather landing system at Gold Coast Airport. Flights into Coolangatta are diverted to Brisbane in bad weather because of the lack of an Instrument Landing System (ILS) which allows pilots to land aircraft safely. The absence of an ILS has become an embarrassment for Australia's sixth busiest airport, especially because small regional airports including such as Proserpine, Mildura and Wagga Wagga already have the system. Last month, plane-load of Japanese tourists and returning Australians holidaymakers due fly in to in Coolangatta at 6.25am did not arrive until 3pm because their Jetstar flight was diverted to Brisbane. "It's a total debacle,'' one passenger fumed at the time. The former federal Labor government pledged $10 million to install the ILS and the Abbott Government has committed to the project but sources told The Sunday Mail said the system was now unlikely to be in place until the middle of next year. The latest delay is s are believed to be a result of several factors including have been caused by factors including opposition from central Gold Coast residents who would be in the airport flight path when the ILS is used. In addition, state MP for Burleigh Michael Hart, a former aircraft engineer, has questioned the effectiveness of the system and Mermaid Beach MP Ray Stevens is lobbying against the flight path on behalf of his constituents. Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce president Gail O'Neill said the ILS was "long overdue". "It's very disappointing to hear of yet another delay. This has been going on for years,'' she said. "We're a tourism town and we should be servicing our tourists. We shouldn't be diverting them to Brisbane and putting them on buses.'' Australian Federation of Air Pilots spokesman Simon Lutton said pilots wanted safety improvements at Gold Coast. "Any upgrade or improvements to navigation aids and resources would certainly be welcomed by pilots,'' he said. A THREE-year campaign to bring a $10 million instrument landing system to the Gold Coast could be derailed by some of the city's richest residents who don't want planes flying over their houses for just 60 days of the year. The ILS will allow planes to land in all weather conditions and fly as low as 60m. The proposed ILS flight path would take planes over Southport, Surfers Paradise, Broadbeach and Mermaid Beach and is expected to be used for five per cent of landings in low-visibility situations. More than $10 million was committed to the project by the former Labor government in May after years of lobbying and a growing number of Gold Coast bound flights being delayed each December and January. However, some Mermaid Beach residents and politicians don't want it at all. Mermaid Beach Community Association president Alf Vocker, an LNP member, said he was "utterly opposed" to the plan and would take the matter directly to Prime Minister Tony Abbott. "Mermaid Beach is a high residential area and the last thing we want is to become another Currumbin," he said. "Our residents are utterly opposed and we will protest any move to put us under a flight path because we cannot seen any reason for it. "We have a lot of high-pressure people here as far as the Federal Government is concerned and we will bring the pressure to the MPs themselves including Tony Abbott who I know personally." Mermaid Beach MP Ray Stevens is leading a campaign against the proposed flight path which crosses through his electorate. Mr Stevens demanded federal MPs Steven Ciobo and Karen Andrews exert their influence in Canberra to prevent the plan from becoming a reality. He said the proposed flight path was not suitable given the area's high-density population. ``I will be asking for our MPs to support the limitation of this flight path use to periods of bad weather only rather than all through the year,'' he said. ``It is incumbent upon the federal member to have a pragmatic and reasonable solution for our residents given this is a system which would likely only see use 60 days in a year. ``We must be clear the residents of this area do not want planes going over their houses when it is not necessary.'' LS systems are already installed in capital city airports as well as at Townsville, Wagga Wagga, Launceston and Cairns, all of which bring in fewer aircraft and visitors than Gold Coast, which is the sixth busiest airport in the country. Community consultation is expected to be held through the Christmas period. Mr Ciobo has been involved in negotiations and said living under a flight path was one of the realities of living in a city with a growing population, ``It is my understanding that around five per cent of arrivals will actually use the system primarily in low-vision situations,'' he said. ``Frankly this is what happens when you live in a city of more than half a million people and I say that as someone who lives under what will be the flight path. ``We need this system to keep the city growing and continue to be an international destination and I think the impact will barely register.'' The existing flight path is primarily offshore and only crosses the coastline at Currumbin. Gold Coast Airport boss Paul Donovan said residents would get to have their say. ``It will go out to consultation and everyone will get to see what it is and have their say,'' he said. ``It is a bit early for anyone to comment on the system until after it has gone before the public but ultimately the number of flights which would use it would be minimal.'' |
The absence of an ILS has become an embarrassment for Australia's sixth busiest airport, especially because small regional airports including such as Proserpine, Mildura and Wagga Wagga already have the system. |
Don't forget Albany... :ok:
|
Might have to give Jepessen a call tomorrow, I seem to be missing my ILS charts for Mildura and Proserpine. :ugh:
|
Well you won't find them in the Yellow Pages or online if you spell it like that!
|
|
As a person close on this project. I'm still not completely convinced it's going to happen.
As the link above says....2 flights all summer have diverted to Brisbane....I'll repeat the number again. ..2. Do you really think the minister is going to give his backing to something that costs so much, yet provides so little? Consider that public criteria rnp will be available at Gold Coast before the ils is operational. And the emo minima is only about 100-150ft higher than an ils. If those 2 diversions would have arrived off an rnp....well....what's the point. Posted from Pprune.org App for Android |
.....and if there really is no point. Then you are just stirring up and pissing off the locals for no reason.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android |
The tailored (private) RNP at Gold Coast has worked fine for years..
Min is higher due to obstacles in the missed...and WAY too much emphasis has been placed on 250 vs 350 HAT of ILS vs RNP. EDIT: Looking at the public RNP, and the other procedures, I think perhap reviewing the obstacles in the flightpath to get the min down would be much more cost effective. |
OOL doesn't really need an ILS...just cOOL and sound approach procedures using GPS/RNP or well constructed VOR approaches.
Many airlines have been flying to Kathmandu using the VOR 02 approach in a more challenging environment lately with nary a problem. I have flown there a couple of times a year and most operators going in there have done so safely and efficiently. Good preparation and focussed flying needed though. Godspeed and fly safe.:) |
2 flights all summer have diverted to Brisbane....I'll repeat the number again. ..2. The financial cost and safety costs to the Airlines and ultimately the travelling public of not having a precision approach aid warrants the installation of an ILS. Along with your two repeat two flights ; How many flights have carried significantly more fuel than they should have to out last significant weather conditions? How many flights have carried out more than one non precision approach to become visual some at night with the tower closed. How many flights have been cancelled due to the weather forecast/actual conditions not being suitable for a non precision approach. How many flights have had to use Brisbane alternates further up or down the coast because OOL lacks a precision approach aid? Someone 'close on the project' should talk to some pilots, some flight planning officers and some Airline executives to see if those "two repeat two" diversions stack up against the safe, efficient, and financially viable expectations that we all have for OOL. |
So what is the financial and safety cost?
There is no safety cost. There may be a safety benefit. But when the aircraft are getting vertical guidance via RNP, what is the extra safety benefit that an ILS will deliver? There is also an implication that the current procedures are unsafe, I do not agree with this. They may be less efficient. Financial, I can't argue with that. But you would have to answer the questions below to compare apples with apples. How many flights have carried significantly more fuel than they should have to out last significant weather conditions? How many flights have carried out more than one non precision approach to become visual some at night with the tower closed. How many flights have been cancelled due to the weather forecast/actual conditions not being suitable for a non precision approach. How many flights have had to use Brisbane alternates further up or down the coast because OOL lacks a precision approach aid? Someone 'close on the project' should talk to some pilots, some flight planning officers and some Airline executives to see if those "two repeat two" diversions stack up against the safe, efficient, and financially viable expectations that we all have for OOL. |
With the ILS, what would the minima be?
How much less than the current RNP? probably not much with that obstacle rich environment. The ILS is not going to help very much with the typical ceiling out there. An RNP turn to 3nm short final would work wonders. (RNP turn in the missed as well) |
We've been through the RNP thing before on this thread. Too bloody hard unless you've got deep pockets (I wonder how much all the RNPs around Aus have cost QF?). Spread the love, put in a simple, safe ILS that everybody can use.
|
The icao rnp coming later this year aren't being designed for or funded by anyone specific. They certainly aren't going to cost 3 mil, and they aren't going to annoy 70000 homes that currently dont have a flightpath overhead.
Win, win situation. Posted from Pprune.org App for Android |
As the link above says....2 flights all summer have diverted to Brisbane....I'll repeat the number again. ..2. Do you really think the minister is going to give his backing to something that costs so much, yet provides so little The summer previous they were having days where only a handful of flights landed. BNE was having 60 min traffic holding plus tempos! So we now have to wait for the next spell of wet weather and scheduled chaos, then we can repeat all this line of inquiry all over again? Love to know what Scoot and Air Asia think of this. Don't think they were too impressed in flying to BNE then chartering buses to OOL. Bizarre line of thinking for a tourist town. The ILS is not going to help very much with the typical ceiling out there. The RNP works but is a extra burden and limits the airport's availability. |
They certainly aren't going to cost 3 mil |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.