....and 'special briefing', wings level by the airport fence.

Ooh, yes please!

Here's a local pollie's take on it.
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/...pstka0ujrt.jpg

Interesting letter.

altho....RNP to ILS :eek:

I still can't understand why they didn't install a GLS to cover both runway ends and also provide curved approaches.

An ILS costs more and only serves one runway end.

Had to stifle a smile - watching an airport talking head sagely tell the ABC that there was no way they could agree to residents request and have a typical aircraft to fly the proposed approach path to allow them to gauge the likely noise impact. Reason given; it would impact the timing of other flights approaching the airport at the time. Tell that one to pilots endlessly flying racetrack patterns at peak arrival times at Brissie.

When I listen to this argument go back and forth between residents/pollies and the Goldie Airport Corp I've come to the conclusion this is only about money for the Airport itself. Their reasoning is that they want to be competitive to Brisbane by enabling aircraft to land when the weather is inclement.. yep I get that. They also want to encourage the asian carriers to fly in. The Asian carriers can't or don't want to do RNP approaches for reasons that I don't know. I'm presuming they aren't the capable of RNP at this stage. Will they be in the future ??? If thats the case the ILS will be a waste of money.
The residents are beside themselves with the increase in noise as ASA intend to leave the ILS operational 24/7. ASA won't do any "try before you buy" trials.

In my view, on the rare days that the wx is continually lower than the RNP/GNSS/VOR minimas use it then. This will minimise the effect on residents affected from this new flightpath.

Spocky

Since when has the Gold Coast Airport been 24 hours? :rolleyes:

30 years at least! :rolleyes:

Word in the street is Airservices approached multiple domestic operators with the request of simulating an ILS approach into CG, but operators were unable/unwilling to comply.

Good Old OOL saw some different AC this week...:ok:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/coghil...57654687093236

Yes... Brisbane and Cooly do have a rather symbiotic relationship. Not very often that you can't land at either... though that's the point of an alternate I suppose.

Still, an ILS on 14 would reduce the need for diversions in conditions that would be routine landings elsewhere. I was annoyed to read the propaganda that the ILS would end up being used all the time, as if the 90% of flights arriving from the South have nothing better to do with their fuel than burn it. What's a dozen or two track miles between friends?

The punters end up paying for it one way or the other. At least if the weather is rainy and the flight is diverted the pax get to disembark through an airbridge :}

Chuboy, I would think that pilots being pilots would use the ILS especially if they're tired. The usage rate of the iLS will start of as a trickle and end up in a flood.

The bit that interests me (amongst other things about this project) is what will be the ILS minima for this particular airport. From what I understand the RNP is limited in its minima by terrain. Would the ILS not be as restricted ??

The RNP minima would be limited by the choice of RNP. Public RNP AR have different design criteria than that of a tailored RNP AR, but the tailored version would probably limit the aircraft types that could use the approach.

Two different design criteria between RNP Propriety and RNP ICAO. At least get that straight. As for the ILS it won't be the three majors asking for the full approach as it will add ten miles to the approach from the south. It will only be when conditions go down visibility wise. Ceiling is never a major issue only Visibility.

Council to slam planned ILS system | Gold Coast Bulletin

Council rejects ILS approval:

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/...-1227416943451

Sunday Mail July 19th

"A CONTROVERSIAL new aircraft landing system and flight path proposed for Gold Coast Airport has been dealt what could be a fatal blow, with Qantas and Jetstar shooting down the plan.

Airport bosses want the $10 million instrument landing system (ILS) to allow planes to land in bad weather and avoid diversions to Brisbane, inconveniencing tourists and locals alike.

But the system would require a new flight path over the heavily populated northern Gold Coast, affecting thousands of residents.

Residents have rallied against the ILS, and the Gold Coast City Council last month voted against it in the face of growing public outcry.

Now the Qantas/Jetstar group has added its powerful voice to the chorus of opposition against the ILS.


Qantas Group head of safety and compliance Mark Cameron has written to Gold Coast Airport boss David Collins saying the national carrier does not support the proposal.

In the letter seen by The Sunday Mail, Mr Cameron says the cost of the system does not justify the benefits and better alternatives exist.

He warns that “in all likelihood, the technology will be superseded before its useful life has expired”.

Gold Coast-based Abbott government MP Steven Ciobo, who originally supported the ILS but is now a vocal critic, said Qantas’ lack of support was another nail in the coffin for what he described as a second-rate landing system based on 1970s technology.

“Thousands and thousands of Gold Coast residents do not support the ILS, the Gold Coast City Council does not support the ILS and now Australia’s major carrier does not support it,’’ he said.

Mr Ciobo said ILS backers had sought to portray it as a safety necessity.

“Yet here we have the head of safety of the world’s safest airline saying we do not need it,’’ he said.

Federal transport minister Warren Truss will make a decision on the ILS later this year after considering about 4000 submissions and feedback from Airservices Australia.

ILS supporters argue aircraft diversions cost the Gold Coast about $2.5 million a year and affect 8000 passengers. They say noise effects would be minimal."

Curved RNP onto GLS is starting to sound like the solution...

Definitely a bit of a ploy by Qantas here.

With both Qantas and Jetstar utilising RNP approaches into the Goldy for quite a while now, and Virgin (and Tiger) still yet to be RNP-AR approved, it currently gives them a commercial advantage which would most likely disappear should an ILS be installed.

Atm Qantas 737 can use a DA of 393ft as a minima on Rwy 14 so not far off an ILS type minima now. Definitely a ploy by QF/JQ as they won't have an advantage as they do now when the weather is down. Surely Virgin is looking at RNP-AR approaches are they? They offer ILS type minima to pretty much any airport even CTAF'S. It's not that their aircraft are not capable... When the weather is down they pay their due, only a year ago just got visual in Mount ISA at 340ft agl minima during a dust storm, no one else was getting in. The future technology is gearing towards RNP curved approaches with auto land to Cat 3 conditions, probably happen in 10 years or so. Pretty much any airport will be able to be used auto land as long as they have a published approach, and it won't be GLS, it will be a really cheap GPS augmentor installed for a price tag of a few thousand dollars at the airport. That's where technology is heading.

Pretty sure Virgin is already approved RNP-AR approaches to RNP 0.3 minima