Gold Coast needs an ILS
 

This morning the Gold Coast has rain and low cloud SCT/BKN005 depending on the moment, rain showers and vis down to 3-4000 and there are Air NZ, VA couple of JQ's holding all over the joint doing multiple approaches, none of which have landed, a Tiger having a go right now and will be next to Brisbane for sure, all for the want of a proper bit of infrastructure.

The follow on effect is there are several JQ and VA and others now getting holds and vectors out to sea to accomodate the diverting Goldies that have burnt up tonnes of fuel out off Kingscliff :ugh:

Yep as I type this GoCat964 missed, and another Virgin waiting to have a go but decided against it and off to Brissy to beat the Tiger who will now be behind. Either cunning plan or low on "stay and play" fuel.:E

What a disgrace.:=

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/a.../photoYBCG.png
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/a...RAD27-1-12.jpg

They could use the AirAsiaX dive'n'drive sea level approach as demonstrated abely on multiple occasions....

UTR

I find it hard to believe that the Gold Coast has not had an ILS put in before Wagga Wagga has:rolleyes:, with all the International & domestic jet traffic.:ugh: Rex must have some political pull With John Sharp in the Ivory tower.

Maybe it is a terrain problem?

Maybe just a good RNP AR approach would work.

Terrain is possiby an issue, but remember London City has an ILS at both ends AND overcomes obstacle clearance with something like a 6 degree glideslope. And just to add a thought on aviation infrastructure (or lack of), surely the same argument holds true for providing an auto land capability in at least SY & ML?

For such a wealthy country, we really fall short on investing in our own transport assets.

RNP down to 250' or so should do it - as c100 pointed out...

Agreed Nulli. For all the power the 'green' lobby has, e.g. those stupid 'long life' light bulbs, huge wind farms that have debatable return on all the energy invested in their manufacture and maintenance and, of course, the carbon tax scam: how much aviation fuel has been burnt into the atmosphere over the years through holding and diversion from Australian airports with almost third world approach facilities?

..............now now 'darty' we can't have anyone coming on here making sense:E
We have to have Govt stupidity otherwise there would be no need for a Govt in the first place & lots of Govt jobs wouldn't exist, oh how one can dream!!

An ILS at Goldy? I'd like to see that!

Trouble is even with an ILS there would be many times that an A/C would still miss out as it's often the Vis that precludes a Ldg not so much the cloud base.
I've made a few App's into that go forsaken place & been clear of cloud but couldn't see a foot in front of me due very heavy H2o!
Still we live in Oz where the word backwards is a way of life when it comes to aviation !:ugh:



Wmk2



Wmk2

Big difference in what you'll see at 800' at the bottom of a non runway aligned VOR approach, compared to 200' at the bottom of an ILS with a nice big fat set of HIALS bang in front of you... Regardless of the H2O Wally.

It has always been a terrain problem, aka that ****e of a hill at the northern end or they would have had a ILS years ago. The Goldie has always been a battle especially this time of the year, and I did more go arounds here than anywhere else over the years, and it is a absolute **** of a place at night when you are in Stormy WX. Cannot see it changing.

That is very true but a runway aligned RNAV approach to runway 32 will get you down to 737' agl.

The cost of installing an ILS is huge and the ongoing calibration checks are also costly. Better to cost shift to airlines who bear the cost of the holding diversions etc. That is business at work for you. That is why airports should be government owned infrastructure, like roads and ports.

If more work could be done to get the RNAV minima down to 450'agl as used at some airfields that would help. Is it survey or terrain issues?

RNP 0.11 the key...
 

The RNAV (RNP) RWY 14 Approach gets you down to about 370'...required vis 1900m. (RWY 32 RNP gets you down to about 260' / 1300m)

Being centreline-aligned and on-slope at that height would mean you'd get in on most occasions, including over the last few days when some of those heavy rain showers has sent the visibility way down...

Now if only we could get everyone trained up in order to make this a reality. As slow as the progress (no KPI bonuses on offer) is on that score, I think its more likely to happen than Queensland Airports, the State or Federal governments coming up with several million dollars for 'nasty' aviation infrastructure. :ugh:

Most airports in Africa are better served than what we have on offer here in Australia.

PG

PS. and while we're at it...can we please get the :mad: owners of Ballina airport to spend some dosh on their airport. FFS, what a disgrace...even some cheap runway end strobes would be a huge help in trying to get into this sub-standard, GA field!!! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

And they keep on missing :}

yes a RNP might be a good option, I just figured that some folk might not cope with that concept.............And not so abley at times either.....although they have not hit anything yet! :sad:

"The cost of installing an ILS is huge"
How much?

How much as a proportion of the asset value?

How much as a proportion of lost revenue due diversions etc. over the years ahead.

Come on, let's make Australian aviation an easy place to do business! This is a wealthy country. Its not a cost........ its an investment in efficiency & the future. No different to ports, rail or road upgrades.

What would you want an ILS at any Queensland airport for?
After all it's beautiful one day, perfect the next isn't it? Or so the blurb goes..........
Meanwhile it is back to the cricket with 8 octas of blue in Adelaide.........;)

London City does have a high angle glideslope ILS capability sure - but it is limited to a very few types of jet equipment and some turbo props. There are no (as far as I know) B737s or A320s capable of using it. There is a special 'steep approach' mod for A318s available that allows BA to use it. I don't know what ERJ/CRJ types (if any) can use it, but there is a great youtube vid showing a 'memorable' landing there by a BAe146/RJ, so I guess they use it too.

As for MEL/SYD not having autoland capability - well that's just nonsense too. Unless the reference was meant to be to CATII/III, most ILS equipped runways in Australia used by airlines can be used for autolands. And MEL even has CATIIIa capability on RWY 16.

But back to the case in point - OOL - QF developed a couple of RNP approaches there a few years back. I'd guess that they're using them to advantage when they go in there on crappy days. So, yes it is frustrating that airport operators don't spend money on infrastructure, but it is just as frustrating that airlines don't spend money on sophisticated equipment options and training that would permit them to use low-minima RNP at non-ILS airports.

Otherwise, just follow Xanadu - if they can, anyone can...:sad:

You mean the very same ones we QF drivers carry around in our Jepp charts and are approved to fly. Haven't had a close look at the Cooly charts but I'm pretty sure the minima would be in the order of 250-300' for a 0.30 RNP approach.

Too bad the QF Group considers Cooly a 'leisure' market and thus has 100% of flights operated by the Orange Star. Maybe on sh1tty days like today QF could pick up a bit of slack and run the 738s up there. Would be a good PR stunt if QF were the only ones getting in while everyone else is on the bus to/from Brissy.

As RAD_ALT_ALIVE says, you can whinge all day about the lack of infrastructure, but the reality is that the airlines involved should pull their fingers out and get RNP-AR approved and move into the 21st century.

RNP 0.30

RWY 14 = 429' / 2200m and RWY 32 = 353' / 1800m

Jetstar drivers apparently issued with the approach plates...but yet to be trained. :ugh:

OOL was always a bitch of a place in the Wet and it looks like nothin's changed.

P-Dubby :ok:

Yep he did a lot of track miles there.

I wonder what the minima looked like the time he did land :suspect:

A bit off topic...


Back in the day when we could have pax on the flight deck, I had the CSM make an offer, and she came back and told me that the chair of the group that wanted all approaches banned on 32 wanted to come up so he could watch an approach on to said RWY, presumably in order to solidify his case.

I took great pleasure in telling her to refuse him, but also to inform him that if he and his group got their way, we would be diverting to BNE as I spoke due to excessive tailwinds.....

Don't hold your breath.
 

A quick look at the Masterplan, (Google), says lots about retail and carparks, nothing about navaids.
Problem 1 is who antes up for it, but before that you have problem number 2 which is the sheer cost of the HIALS that make an ILS worthwhile, which is why Wagga and Tamworth have LIRL and MIRL only.
Problem number 3 is you are up for a whole new D.A for an ILS with all the joy that that will bring.
Problem number 4 is getting Airservices to organise the whole shooting match because whoever pays for it, they are the only guys who can tinker with one in this country.
Oh for the good old days when the Department of AVIATION would see an operational need, do the math, do the damn work, and fund it from the fuel tax that was used to support aviation infrastructure this country. Sigh................. 32 years......so much anger.............

The Government needs to take a stand and use compulsory acquisition to gain ownership and control of all infrastructure , especially Airports....

Not compulsory aquisition
 

We need a system where a dedicated government department has people on the ground working for the promotion of aviation. Then this fully industry funded department would be capable of supporting a moderate capital budget. They could assess and act on infrastructure needs based on input from specialist field staff and industry representatives.

I would call it The Department of Civil Aviation or something like that. Reckon it'd work.

Charlie Jones should be the Dept Head.

Why not use an RNP of 0.15-which all modern Boeings can do (not sure about the AB-ours can't use less than .30)-with the reduction in minima such an approach could accord?

Because you have to take your crews off line and put them in the simulator and that costs money. Because the regulator has to take a long hard look at your books and the training you plan to provide. Because you have to have the resources to develop the training material and many airlines are resource poor as they try to emulate safety on the smell of an oily rag.

as to what 'clear to land' was getting at, a .15 RNP approach could easily be made if the designers could get a better minima from it (and also a .10). There is no additional training to this level than from training for a .3 RNP app. (as opposed to an RNAV GNSS...)

but yeah, certain airlines don't want to sack up and pay for it...

There is also probably a reluctance to have a ILS there because it would mean a 10 mile final over the built up area.
They would probably rather have an increased risk of a CFIT accident there than deal with the adverse PR and cost.
Welcome to the error ...I mean era of low cost aviation in Australia.All good fun until someone loses an eye

Just open a mine near the airport. Problem solved :ok:

'34R' actually that's a valid point & well put:ok:

Like all things in life change as in an ILS for OOL for Eg means such niceties only ever happen when either one of two things occur.Someone dies or in the case of a heavy plane many die (shut the gate after the horse has bolted!!!...typical Aussie response) or there's money involved meaning somebody is gunna make lots of $$$$$ (inc the Govt) from an idea as '34R' suggested.
So until we have bodies scattered all over the country side around Cooly then it's all we can expect.....welcome to Australia !!!:ugh:


Wmk2

An ILS only gets you one runway end.

A GLS will provide ILS minimas and cover all runway ends.

It is cheaper and more effective and can eventually do curved approaches, thereby avoiding the terrain.

A GLS would be great - but the airlines will be very reluctant (like the airports) to spend the dollars on retrofitting jets.

So that leaves new order jets being the main users....and given that some airlines hang on to their existing jets for 20+ years, the technology will not be of great benefit for a while.


An ILS on the other hand.......

Why not an ILS with the intercept at 5 miles. The STAR could run over the coast and come in on a 30 degree intercept. That with some sort of HIAL/HIRL would get you in 99/100. However I think the hills there may cause a problem with terrain infringement.

It's awesome in Australia how Airports fork out millions on carparks and flash terminals but aren't interested in putting anything into aviation infrastructure.......which is the whole point of an airport in the first place.

Unfortunately that is so true. Whilst not wanting to wish it upon anyone a major accident into a hill or a high rise is what is required to shake up CASA and the government. Trying to justify why heavy jets are doing non precision approaches in heavy rain manoeuvring at 4 miles dodging buildings and hills would be an interesting testimony to hear in a Royal Commission. As the Gold Coast keeps expanding the airport is only going to get busier with bigger aircraft using it.

RNP
 

I think the RNP .15 approach is the way to go. The costs involved seem like a no brainer expense when you consider the potential and safety advantages. OOL was always a problem in bad weather and nothing has changed in 35 years (to my knowledge) except there are probably more obstacles in the airspace. Surely someone has conducted a risk analysis on the place!

Well it is your dry season and our wet season.

As for the building of infrastructure by airport owners, you only have to look at the financial report for Brisbane 2009. Revenue from aeronautical revenue $135,767,000.00. Non-aeronautical $216,892,000.00.

So where are you going to invest capital?

AAAh Mr Fieldmouse'....

'Tis only just a wee bit over 12/12/1991 when 'Uncle Dick' started the move to get rid of 'Good Ole Flight Service'.....

Because HE didn't like it and saw it as a 'Duplication' of services.

Never mind that it took until 15.12.2000 to actually accomplish the task - when 'Uncle Dick' was Looong Goone!!

19 years for what???

And now, you ask for 'infrastructure based on 'NEED'???

WE USED TO HAVE THAT!!!

An 'Australian' system developed for Australia...by evolution!
And NEED!

NO MORE!! The beancounters are well and truly into it now...and is that an IMPROVEMENT???

NOT :mad: LIKELY!!!

Has your 'Safety Been Enhanced and Has It Cost You Less'..???

NOPE!! :mad: AND MOI EITHER!!!

p.s.

Thanks again for the 'redundo' Uncle Dick'.......

Griffo - partial credit and I agree totally
 

But the demise of aviation infrastructure pre dates the Dick Smith slash and burn. The ALOP process in the mid 80's guaranteed that the government was only interested in the big ticket airports that were handed to the FAC. The department then became a business, not a service, and the rest of aviation was allowed to go hang - 'market forces' were to be allowed to dictate growth and for 'growth' read 'any f@#$ing interest' at all from government.

At least when we had a department that gave a rat's, you wouldn't have had the Q400 introduction disaster where the damn thing didn't fit the standards that most of it's destination ports were built to, and the damn thing is a regional runway destroyer. Decisions like that can't be left in the hands of the airline company beancounters who just get a woody over the $per pax km.

Decisions like that, just like the decisions over national radar coverage and an ILS for a major port like Gold Coast, are national infrastructure decisions and need to be treated as such....But there's no-one who cares.

Thank god this lot weren't in power in the early 1900's. The F#$%ing northern railway out of Sydney woulda terminated at Hornsby.

Without the aeronautical component, that car parks would be empty!;)