Agree, but the technology is not mature enough to offer that as a solution just yet. Offset RNAV to ILS has/is being considered, but it too is a developing approach standard.

There are 2 main outstanding issues. The vertical guidance from a RNP/VNAV (ie baro) approach generally doesn't match up with a a geometric vertical path (ILS/GP). Second point, there needs to be a nav mode change from RNAV to ILS. It is proposed this nav change needs to occur at 3-5nm or 1000-1500ft. Feedback from airlines is that this too close to the stabilised approach gate and may cause problems.

I don't see any of this as show stoppers, but the methodology is in its infancy

Correct

I thought part of the justification for a ILS was for international traffic. If OOL cancels the ILS forever where does that leave the Asian carriers whom it appears do not do AR?
One thing that must be on Trust's mind is if a international carrier ploughs into the hills what are the legal ramifications for him if he knocks back the ILS because you can bet your life that if they do prang one they will be going after the airport or government for lack of infrastructure.

Agreed on QF very cunning move on their behalf as they have the lower minima than everyone else.

Didn't realise that. Have never heard them doing an RNP approach anywhere it makes sense to do so (05 ADL, 19 BNE, 15 CNS, 34 MEL etc).

Just to clarify....

There are 2 types of RNP-AR approaches in Australia. The type that QANTAS/Jetstar have been using for some time are designed by GE/Naverus to a non ICAO proprietary criteria and normally tailored for a specific aircraft type. The other is designed by Airservices to an ICAO criteria, these are also considered to be 'public' rnp-ar. The plan is to replace the GE procedures with Airservices ones.

At the Gold Coast this transition has already occurred and now there is no minima advantage for Qantas. All rnp approved domestic carriers can fly the new procedure. There is no support from domestic airlines for an ILS.

From an operational viewpoint the argument is not for better minima. The arguement has always been for runway alignment and better visibility, which the RNP delivers.

The only outstanding issue are the internationals....most of which are RNP capable but not trained for. This is the only valid reason left for persuing an ils installation. Consider that it may be better to spend the money in crew training......just a thought.

As mentioned Virgin only fly the publicly available RNP-AR approaches published by Airservices. At present these are limited to Gold Coast RWY14, Maroochy RWY 18 and Ballina RWY 06 & 24. I'd presume operation to available minima with RNP <0.3 will occur with CASAs approval.

As an 'international', who doesn't have Cooly as a destination yet, I can tell you the training is done. We fly RNP-AR to 0.11 around the world. (Don't get me started on Australia and its insistence on 0.10 and the merry go round of confusion its caused back here in the pit.)

Looking through the available charts, the only RNAV available to us at Cooly is the RNAV (GNSS) Z. As I said, Cooly is still just an alternate, but other airports classed as alternates in other parts of the world, have full RNP-AR charts. We have the RNP AR for MEL, so its not an Oz issue completely.

My longwinded point is as far as internationals go, the airlines are approved, the crews are trained, but there is no state (Airservices) approach available to us.

More finger pointing needed at Airservices me thinks..

The Airservices RNP-AR approach is available at Gold Coast....I published it.

Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne are soon to follow

Well there you have it; No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin

Of course it would probably not be a good idea to hold one's breath, waiting for the first airliner to come whistling down the length of beachfront. Still lots of room for back-flips, EIS, rare frogs, traditional owners and the usual govt. obfustication to derail things.:8

Interesting that QF are lobbying for a reduction of the ILS minima yet lobbying against an ILS in OOL. Go figure that one out.

Visual Procedures, Qantas was the first airline outside of North America and the third airline in the World to be approved to fly RNP approaches. Who do you think developed them for Queenstown? Must be ten years ago and way ahead of any airline from the ME. Alaskan were first followed by West Jet then Qantas. The Naverus approaches leave the CASA ones for dead as far as accuracy and lower minima. The best one is still the RNP 19 in Townsville. Very pretty to watch!

Yes they may be well and good, but they're useless to anyone else as they are not available to anyone else.

Do you think Qantas gets it for free. They paid for the development and certification of the whole process. Paid for their own proprietary approaches. if you want it and can justify it commercially then go ahead and pay for RNP capability. Simple

Precisely. Until they're widely available like current RNAV approaches, then they're useless. What's the point in only having very specific approaches which requires CASA approval.

morno

The Air Services Australia RNP AR approaches are available for any operator if you are approved to fly them. Does your aircraft meet the navigation requirements. Has the crew been trained to fly them. Does the company have the software integrity that meets CASA requirements? It's not an NDB or VOR. Do some more research. They are available to any operator that meets the Operational Specifications. Sheesh!

So Qantas wasted their money then?

No morno Qantas did not waste their money. If they are still using te Naveraes charts they are the only airline that can land at OOL when the vis is at 3km. JQ were using tailored charts then for some bizarre reason went to the Airservices charts and now have to divert when there is a heavy shower. QF saw the commercial advantage of RNP long before any other Oz airline knew what the letters stood for. It's no wonder that the 737 Fleet Manager at the time is now the QF CP.

Not quite. Other airlines are currently approved to 500'/2.7k vis :8

OMG!!! Say it isn't so!:eek:

Would you care to name them TD and what RNP they are approved to? I'm thinking you are not talking about a domestic operator. I'm not sure what QF is approved to but as DJ have only justed started down the RNP path and JQ don't have .11 approval then the QF domestic commercial advantage is still relevant.

Latest update, estimated to be live, end of 2017.
No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin

I have to say; as a local resident with an aviation interest and unaffected by the flight path, the airport's management have done a spectacularly crap job of selling the ILS. They quite happily went along with the original public perception that the ILS would only be turned on when aircraft would otherwise consider diverting. Once the public realised that they were being told porkies and demanded answers, management have been caught out in a series of fumbles, eg putting up diversion stats that pre-dated the availability of the RNP, thus making it look as if the existing issue was worse than it in fact is; nett result being that there is a perception that the airport is hiding something and is not to be trusted. #PRfail

I'll bite.
The A320 isn't as capable as a 737 Ng. Correct me if I'm wrong. We have minima for 3 different RNPs in QF. They are .1,.2and .3. Often you can see an ANP of 0.02. That's a statistical containment of 95% accuracy within 0.02 of a nm.

QF:
RWY14: 393' (372'HAT)/2.2km
RWY32: 285' (272'HAT)/1.6km

VA currently operate to .1 on ICAO RNP approaches.

Yeah I'm from around these parts SPINEX, same, I'm unaffected....but the way they handled it was atrocious!

VAA are approved to the aforementioned minima, Lookleft. Based on an RNP of 0.11 :)

The use of tailored RNP charts was an expensive proposition - millions per year in licensing fees. Not sure these days but last time I looked it was difficult, if not impossible to justify on the basis of the savings you would make by avoiding diversions. It might be all different with Naverus being taken over by GE, I don't know.

The charts had a significant fee for access each month and given the significant training impost I couldn't see the value in it. Still don't quite frankly.In Queenstown definitely, but not too many other places...

Yes it is great having the capability but do you really get value for your money in an environment where every capability had to fight for funding? I suspect not but I think it got to the point where in order to "keep up with the jones" (or perhaps keeping up with Alex😄) it needed to be done.

As I recall one of the perceived advantages of RNP was with departures.
Much higher payloads out of places like CS due to engine failure/terrain avoidance.
Coin counters in QF thought the shorter tracks on some STARS into BN would save track miles and $ but it makes little difference if everyone is holding.

The RNP departure ex cairns, if I remember correctly, went straight ahead up the valley - it is some time ago and my memory is getting dodgier by the day.

If I recall the RNP departures stopped not all that long after they started due to the noise abatement issues.

But as I say my memory is hazy to say the best

Cairns 15 departure
 

Non-pilot but worked in and around CNS for many years.

QF trialled the RNP departures I believe? I recall they banked a little left then seemed to follow Trinity Inlet and up the valley.

From memories, it seemed quite a bit quieter near the city as opposed to the current 120 degree turn.

Recal also people complaining over the 'increased' noise from the new departure.

Yet approaches from the south fly right over the city. Confusing.

Not confusing, moronic. Bit like the clowns here who put in thousands of noise complaints as we went over them at 5000ft+ at Idle...

Yep, RNP SID was left turn over inlet up the valley and was separated with the parachute area at Edmonton. There was really only one complainant, because they could see the jet from their balcony, it must be noisier than the SWIFT SID. This person was good at getting the complaints into the press and in the end QF gave up. If the procedure had gone straight ahead behind the apartment complex, there probably wouldn't have been any noise complaints as they wouldn't have seen the aircraft.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Ah...so the ILS at Cooly is going in anyway then??

No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin

Put the ILS in. Screw the Nimbys! Let them paddle their canoes next time they want to fly somewhere on holiday.

A GLS approach would be simpler and less expensive than an ILS and achieve same results

...and can only be used by less than half the traffic into the Gold Coast

So here we are at the end of 2018...and the below Notam is current..NEW ILS (LOCALISER, GLIDE PATH AND DME) UNDER TEST. NIL IDENT
RADIATING INTERMITTENTLY ON TEST
DO NOT USE FALSE INDICATIONS POSSIBLE
LLZ FREQ 111.1MHZ
GP FREQ 331.7 MHZ
DME RECEIVER FREQ 1072 MHZ
DME TRANSMITTER FREQ 1009 MHZ
FROM 09 202230 TO 11 300600

So....where is the midddle marker located for this installation?

What do you want a middle marker for?

To remind me to turn the marker audio off