Gold Coast ILS
 

Quite a bit on news regarding ILS at Gold Coast. As usual, news promotes it as increased flights vs increased safety or access due to weather.

Gold Coast ILS
 

There will be anti-noise petitions galore from residents from Palm Beach south to Currumbin....so those people wouldn't mind a bit when the homebound flight they are on misses out and diverts to Sydney or Canberra or Rockhampton because there ISN'T a precision runway approach.....

which is perversely odd, because the noise off a missed vor appr is louder than a successful ils appr.

I loved the bit of footage I briefly saw on the news. Resident saying how bad the aircraft noise will be whilst there was a the sound of a car doing a burnout in the background :}

Why?
 

Not needed and I would questions why?

Apart from major capital cities where CAT3 needed for international alternate requirements, I see the future of precision approaches for aerodromes such as OOL being GPS based.

OOL RWY32 (proprietary) RNP 0.3 gets you down to 300ft. It's great stuff.

If the pollies want to splash the cash for an ILS, i say hell yeah, do it! Not every aircraft can do RNP to the best possible minima.

I reckon all Aussie domestic drivers that frequent OOL should fill in the consultation form and give it a thumbs up! :D:ok:

Definitely needed. To aid in the noise issue, maybe it could only get used when actually needed due to crud weather... The rest of the time use the visual approach which joins over the river mouth. If that sounds like a waste of money, it would barely scratch the surface in the " Wasting of money" stakes which happens on a daily basis in Australia.

Levy the punter 50 cents per ticket, happy days.

Nice thinking M-Dot but not all International carriers have the CASA GPS APP approval but can slip down an ILS tomorrow. Things are changing quickly though. Domestically? Yep agreed but the good coin is from the foreign carriers who would pay larger sums based on Pax/Ldg weight.
The ILS in Cooly has been a basket case for awhile now. Ideally it would be from the south if not for the "Rich & Famous" (read egocentric) living South under the approach, plus the 2 spot heights infringing ILS terrain clearance. It may have to be offset like the VOR.
In from the North is doubtful, as a visual segment to align with rwy centrelink would still be needed once inside the hill as per current ops.
A curved App like Queenstown? Now we're talking but that requires RNP AR (Approval Required) and an RNAV or GPS RNP down to 0.1 which entails a lot of training.
Would personally like to see an ILS there and accordingly am very keen to see what evolves, if anything. Just my 2 cents worth anyway.

Happy Landings:ok:

Chocks,

Um Really? The prevailing weather is E-SE, so wouldn't it ideally have to be from the north? The Gold Coast airport master plan for the ILS installation has a fairly extensive weather analysis to resolve which runway it needs to go on. An ILS from the south would ultimately help nobody...

Terrain to the south is relatively flat, there are no infringing spot heights and this isn't the reason the VOR is offset. The VOR is offset because the VOR is not aligned with the centreline.

The concept procedure has already been designed to be runway aligned from the north. No visual segment required and Currumbin Hill has no impact on DA. The most penalising issue will be lack of approach lighting...

There are already public criteria, curved approach paths to RWY 14 at Gold Coast. Authorisation Required is a bit of a red herring, it is becoming so common place now that I expect in the near future that requirement will be dropped from the approach. The evolution of RNP will follow the evolution of GNSS approaches. Everyone was very cautious in the beginning, but see as of next year it will be the only way to meet the PBN classification for navigation in Australia.

I think the GC ILS will die a long slow death....domestic airlines don't need/want it, and more internationals will be able to fly RNP soon. Balance that against exposing 85000 homes to 'new' aircraft noise and the politics of aircraft noise will trump the ILS

Alpha

A lot of the local chatter has centred on the disclosure by airport talking heads; that the ILS approach would be used in all conditions by many carriers, and not just in poor visibility. The explanation being that the carrier's SOPs require that they use whatever aids are available. Anyone in the know care to comment?

It doesn't really impact me, being well away from the approach path, but I do have some sympathy for people who up to now have seen aircraft turning out over the sea if they cared to look, but will now have aircraft noise overhead 365 days a year, for the sake of 50 flights per year which divert due vis. (ASA figures apparently) A bit like amputating the foot for the sake of an ingrown toenail imo.

Except that those 50 are not averaged over 365 days usually when it's bad it's really bad with whole days of flying cancelled. For a so-called tourist town the airport is a disgrace in terms of infrastructure, no aerobridges no approach lighting, no HIRL, no ILS.

If you want tourism people have to be able to get there 365 days a year.

In simple terms a ILS with HIRL/HIALs will solve all the problems associated with getting into OOL as there is usually not a problem with getting out of the cloud.

The whole thing is so typically Australian, we procrastinate for ten years making a whole host of excuses of why a basic ILS cannot be built in large city airport, then just watch as soon as there is an accident they'll put up an ILS in a few weeks. Nothing like a reactionary culture.

Hopefully if they do build it it will come with HIAL/HIRL otherwise it's no going to solve the problem.

For those minds smarter than mine, would a London City style approach (5.5 degree path) help out the noise for Rwy 14?

Not with the aircraft types that are operating in/ out of OOL.

GLS and some improved approach lighting to CAT 1 would do for the non RNP folks

Thanks for the input Alpa' but just calm down a little ;)
I am well aware of the navaid position not being aligned with the runway, as I've had the pleasure of flying many types in/out of there, from the biggest type to the smallest... in all manner of weather conditions.
"The concept procedure has already been designed" - nice work. I didn't think there was terrain clearance to fully align on a 3' glide slope, especially with Currumbin hill. The beautiful people on the Isle of Capri won't be happy:p
Neville is spot on the money too! :ok:
OOL needs to develope to meet demand and the current facilities have been stretched for too long now. Both the Terminal and approaches need more. Time to change management :}
(Running for the bunker now:})

Both the Terminal and approaches need more

No arguement here.....from somone who can remember when the TAA / Ansett terminal was manned solely by porters named 'Ted'...and the TAA / Ansett terminal was a ramshackle wind riddled shell of what it is now...but the terminal as it is now ....so vastly different....yet managing to hold on to that legacy af ineptitude.....exemplary stuff really........leats bug out to BNE

"Except that those 50 are not averaged over 365 days usually when it's bad it's really bad with whole days of flying cancelled. For a so-called tourist town the airport is a disgrace in terms of infrastructure, no aerobridges no approach lighting, no HIRL, no ILS".

I didn't think airport owners were required to spend money on airport infrastructure, only on car parks and shopping center's.

Part of the privatization process.

If the tax payer stumped up the money for anything that could actually be useful for aviation or improved safety the airport owners would just up their charges.

Maybe the answer is to invite the military to open a base there, Wagga has an ILS and Tamworth....Sorry, bad idea, no space available because of all the non aviation infrastructure.

Interesting point Thorn Bird.
To what extent are Airservice Aust involved?
I would have thought as a private owner one would try to value-add to what was on offer there, to attract pax flow & activity (hence $).

Spice it up
 

Like all things retro, consider an Instrument Guidance System (IGS). Currumbin hill would be perfect for the checkerboard and the procedure will be known as "The Tugun Turn".

Problem solved😛

....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