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:

ILS DA is not affected by lighting. :=

Thank you - this is why the RNP-AR is not an instead of an ILS drop in replacement for aerodromes with a traffic volume that can support the cost of the installation on a reasonable basis, which is the case in the Gold Coast given its terrain & frequent poor weather in summer.

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.

Everytime you do an RNP AR approach, you submit paperwork regarding the performance of the aeroplane etc etc.

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.

Then why are the minimas in SYD on rwys 34L & 34R 250'. There are no approach lights.

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.

It's a bit hard to see if the RNPs are exactly aligned with the runway or whether there are limiting obstacles further out, but the slopes are only 2.9°.

A 3 degree gp for ils can be done at both ends. Its not an issue.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Don't the hills and buildings get in the way on 14?

In short...no