More damage to Aussie GA ILS training
Thread Starter
More damage to Aussie GA ILS training
This is a rumour network and there is a rumour around that the Bankstown flying schools are having difficulty in getting ILS training at Richmond and Williamtown.
It appears the ILS at Richmond is going to be closed until about June. Could that be true? At Williamtown, schools in the Hunter Valley are having difficulty in getting approval or possibly the ILS is also undergoing service. It also appears there are problems in getting approval to do a practice ILS at Nowra.
It was claimed that one school had to fly students to Wagga to do an ILS – with all the added cost.
It appears the ILS at Richmond is going to be closed until about June. Could that be true? At Williamtown, schools in the Hunter Valley are having difficulty in getting approval or possibly the ILS is also undergoing service. It also appears there are problems in getting approval to do a practice ILS at Nowra.
It was claimed that one school had to fly students to Wagga to do an ILS – with all the added cost.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While this may make for a good scoop. Im not sure what the intent is. Dick, are you suggesting that the military is at fault for not providing training opportunities for GA aircraft? The other options are the government (airservices) are not providing adequate facilities to train with. Or the private sector are unable to come up with their own funds to privately build one.
I agree that appropriate facilities and opportunities are required for a GA sector to flourish. I dont think defence should foot the bill or have a requirement to fulfill that need as a priority.
I agree that appropriate facilities and opportunities are required for a GA sector to flourish. I dont think defence should foot the bill or have a requirement to fulfill that need as a priority.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It goes in cycles, when they realise their ATC is **** they start letting more civilian aeroplanes in for a while for practise with more than one aeroplane at a time in their expansive restricted areas, they get cocky again then it winds down. The military is run by the government, and publicly funded. Someone with the authority should tell them to share their toys everyone pays for.
Sydney have slots available, but they are quite firm that no missed approaches will be tolerated, hence an expensive landing fee payable.
Nowra are a joke, you cant even get in there for navaid work when the restricted areas arent active.
Richmond ILS out until 2 June.
Williamtown forget it, out until mid-April.
Canberra ATC are great, usually helpful and always professional. Very useable online booking system for navaid training, but if 17 is in use 35 ILS very unlikely.
Sydney have slots available, but they are quite firm that no missed approaches will be tolerated, hence an expensive landing fee payable.
Nowra are a joke, you cant even get in there for navaid work when the restricted areas arent active.
Richmond ILS out until 2 June.
Williamtown forget it, out until mid-April.
Canberra ATC are great, usually helpful and always professional. Very useable online booking system for navaid training, but if 17 is in use 35 ILS very unlikely.
"The military is run by the government, and publicly funded. Someone with the authority should tell them to share their toys everyone pays for."
Oh that's funny. So should we all be allowed to take a tank out for a spin, what about bunny hunting with a mortar, and I reckon I could probably start a Hornet and go up for some aeros. The military own and fund the resources, and as mentioned previously, its not there to solve the problems of GA.
Airservices is also government funded, and it is THEY who should be supplying the infrastructure. It is their role to provide these facilities, and as such they will then cost recover. But to blame the military for not covering Airservice's shortfalls - there is your joke my friend.
Oh that's funny. So should we all be allowed to take a tank out for a spin, what about bunny hunting with a mortar, and I reckon I could probably start a Hornet and go up for some aeros. The military own and fund the resources, and as mentioned previously, its not there to solve the problems of GA.
Airservices is also government funded, and it is THEY who should be supplying the infrastructure. It is their role to provide these facilities, and as such they will then cost recover. But to blame the military for not covering Airservice's shortfalls - there is your joke my friend.
The military own and fund the resources, and as mentioned previously, its not there to solve the problems of GA.
Are you serious, or just seriously deluded?? The military fund their resources??
There is absolutely not justification for the amount of military restricted airspace in Australia, for starters, and no justification for the restrictions on the use of navaids for practice, given the rarity of military movements at all but a few bases, and even at these, it is hardly high tempo.
The approach of the services here, compared to, say, the UK, US or Canada says something, and it is not good, about their psychological attitude to the Australian civilians that fund them.
The restrictions at Nowra top the lot, given that the navy has nothing to fly but a handful of helicopters -- if they have one serviceable.
Tootle pip!!
Trevor TL
AIRSERVICES is NOT funded by the Government. It is a full cost recovery GBE and is required to return a dividend to the Government. It will only invest in facilities its major funding customer base (airlines) is prepared to pay for.
AIRSERVICES is NOT funded by the Government. It is a full cost recovery GBE and is required to return a dividend to the Government. It will only invest in facilities its major funding customer base (airlines) is prepared to pay for.
Thread Starter
Stu2d2, you ask me Im not sure what the intent is. The intent is quite clear in the heading of the thread. It says, More damage to Aussie GA ILS training. Surely that is self-explanatory.
Yes, it is interesting that the military has an ILS at a place like Nowra. It is being paid for by Australian taxpayers, but it is very difficult for general aviation to use this.
This is a classic case of the Government (probably unintentionally) contributing to the destruction of general aviation. What do others think?
Yes, it is interesting that the military has an ILS at a place like Nowra. It is being paid for by Australian taxpayers, but it is very difficult for general aviation to use this.
This is a classic case of the Government (probably unintentionally) contributing to the destruction of general aviation. What do others think?
User pays. Why don't the flying schools invest in one at a convenient aerodrome that's not used by large volumes of commercial traffic. Charge $100 a pop (3 for $200) (or whatever fraction of an hours instrument training time) and recover costs in fairly quick order. Would GLS be an option?
Dick,
If you recall, the ILS in Nowra was installed as a civilian project, for expected civilian demand, in part generated by the growing general population of the NSW south coast drawing airline services, and in part by the planned aviation centered industrial park planned to be on the aerodrome boundary.
The navy attitude to the use of their runway resulted in several big multinationals that were going to build largely defense related industry projects at the site pulling the plug, when firmly informed that they could not expect to have regular access by air.
Result, all that remains is an ILS that navy basically can't use, and never needed.
Amazingly, the Liberal then member for the area supported the navy. Another own goal and still some of the highest unemployment rates in NSW, all these years later.
Tootle pip!!
If you recall, the ILS in Nowra was installed as a civilian project, for expected civilian demand, in part generated by the growing general population of the NSW south coast drawing airline services, and in part by the planned aviation centered industrial park planned to be on the aerodrome boundary.
The navy attitude to the use of their runway resulted in several big multinationals that were going to build largely defense related industry projects at the site pulling the plug, when firmly informed that they could not expect to have regular access by air.
Result, all that remains is an ILS that navy basically can't use, and never needed.
Amazingly, the Liberal then member for the area supported the navy. Another own goal and still some of the highest unemployment rates in NSW, all these years later.
Tootle pip!!
L1-L5 GPS augmentation signals being tested in AUstralia.
INMARSAT launched with a bent pipe transponder payload. Two year test and evaluation period. Accuracy down to less than 1m....
Dick, time to start beating up the polies to ensure this becomes FREELY available. It isn't just aviation but autonomous car technology and a huge host of other technologies...
How many space based 3D approaches could you get designed for the price of one ILS installation?
INMARSAT launched with a bent pipe transponder payload. Two year test and evaluation period. Accuracy down to less than 1m....
Dick, time to start beating up the polies to ensure this becomes FREELY available. It isn't just aviation but autonomous car technology and a huge host of other technologies...
Research has shown that the widespread adoption of improved positioning technology has the potential to generate upwards of $73 billion of value to Australia by 2030
Read more: http://criticalcomms.com.au/content/...#ixzz59to5rAYe
Read more: http://criticalcomms.com.au/content/...#ixzz59to5rAYe
This is what happens when nobody asks aviation what augmentation would do.
One guesses the authors of this article only talked to two people at AirNoServices and Lockheed Martin
202.2.9 Aviation
Global Navigational Satellite Systems (GNSS) are increasingly being used in all sectors of the aviation industry as an aid to navigation. Regulatory authorities have acknowledged this trend and incorporated GNSS in regulatory policy and procedures.
Aircraft navigation does not generally require high position accuracy for lateral guidance. The accuracy available from stand-alone GNSS when operating properly is sufficient for most situations.
Integrity is more important with around 4 nautical miles required over ocean, 2 nautical miles over land and 0.3 nautical miles required for non-precision approaches. Precision approaches require integrity of around 40 metres.
Higher levels of vertical positional accuracy are required for precision approaches and landings.
There are two navigation technologies that can be used in precision approaches • Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) that broadcast a flight path from radio beacons on the airstrip that are received by an ILS receiver in the cockpit • Ground Based Augmentation Systems (GBAS) that provide augmented GNSS at airports.
GBAS could deliver savings in fuel costs if installed at all major Australian airports. However, other landing systems, including ILS, deliver similar savings. Accordingly little net benefit for airlines in lower fuel costs could be claimed for GBAS.
GBAS would deliver cost savings for infrastructure at airports compared to ILS. However ILS is to be maintained for the time being as not all aircraft are GBAS equipped.
Savings in capital costs to replace terrestrial navigation aids of around $119 spread are possible with RAIMS1 capable GNSS.
Space Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) provide augmented GNSS over a wide area. However, the net benefits of an SBAS to the aviation sector alone do not appear to be sufficient to justify the cost.
Global Navigational Satellite Systems (GNSS) are increasingly being used in all sectors of the aviation industry as an aid to navigation. Regulatory authorities have acknowledged this trend and incorporated GNSS in regulatory policy and procedures.
Aircraft navigation does not generally require high position accuracy for lateral guidance. The accuracy available from stand-alone GNSS when operating properly is sufficient for most situations.
Integrity is more important with around 4 nautical miles required over ocean, 2 nautical miles over land and 0.3 nautical miles required for non-precision approaches. Precision approaches require integrity of around 40 metres.
Higher levels of vertical positional accuracy are required for precision approaches and landings.
There are two navigation technologies that can be used in precision approaches • Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) that broadcast a flight path from radio beacons on the airstrip that are received by an ILS receiver in the cockpit • Ground Based Augmentation Systems (GBAS) that provide augmented GNSS at airports.
GBAS could deliver savings in fuel costs if installed at all major Australian airports. However, other landing systems, including ILS, deliver similar savings. Accordingly little net benefit for airlines in lower fuel costs could be claimed for GBAS.
GBAS would deliver cost savings for infrastructure at airports compared to ILS. However ILS is to be maintained for the time being as not all aircraft are GBAS equipped.
Savings in capital costs to replace terrestrial navigation aids of around $119 spread are possible with RAIMS1 capable GNSS.
Space Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) provide augmented GNSS over a wide area. However, the net benefits of an SBAS to the aviation sector alone do not appear to be sufficient to justify the cost.
There appear to be very few GNSS LPV approaches in Australia. Seems the ideal solution instead of ILS. No ground infrastructure required at all. Becoming the norm elsewhere. Many thousands in operation throughout USA many at uncontrolled rural airfields.
Thread Starter
Cessna pete. Can you provide more info?
My CJ3 had fully coupled Baro Vnav approaches for over ten years.
Now we seem to have introduced a small number of Baro Vnav special approaches at places like Canberra.
In that case what was I doing in the past ten years?
Is I correct in believing the only advantage of GBAS over Baro V nav is a 100’ lower minima in some cases?
Aircraft like the current Sirius have fully coupled Baro Vnav as standard from what I am told!
My CJ3 had fully coupled Baro Vnav approaches for over ten years.
Now we seem to have introduced a small number of Baro Vnav special approaches at places like Canberra.
In that case what was I doing in the past ten years?
Is I correct in believing the only advantage of GBAS over Baro V nav is a 100’ lower minima in some cases?
Aircraft like the current Sirius have fully coupled Baro Vnav as standard from what I am told!