ILS under consideration for OOL

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

knasty

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Posts
912
According to Nine GC news tonight. Is this new(s)? Main issue is approach from the north would be straight down the coast rather than (mostly) over the water. How often is ILS required at OOL? Must be enough to make them consider it.
 
I would be surprised if it happens, cost over RNAV is huge for little gain in terms of the number of landings it would allow over what is being achieved now.
 
Qantas and Jetstar both have RNAV capability, so it's just the internationals and VA who would benefit from an ILS.
 
LiamR said:
Qantas and Jetstar both have RNAV capability, so it's just the internationals and VA who would benefit from an ILS.
Click to expand...

VA have been RNAV approved since 2012 CASA 45/12 and 186/13 refers
 
The report made it sound like the public consultation was the only hurdle. Only time will tell.
 
Not all aircraft are RNAV RNP approach capable or even RNAV capable. For example, i believe the VA ATRs are not RNAV capable (not relevant to OOL but nonetheless). Further, overseas operators may not necessarily be RNAV approach approved in Australian airspace.

They just put one in at Gladstone, so i don't see how they couldn't justify the cost of one at OOL.
 
Boris spatsky said:
Not all aircraft are RNAV RNP approach capable or even RNAV capable. For example, i believe the VA ATRs are not RNAV capable (not relevant to OOL but nonetheless). Further, overseas operators may not necessarily be RNAV approach approved in Australian airspace.

They just put one in at Gladstone, so i don't see how they couldn't justify the cost of one at OOL.
Click to expand...


Mind you the ILS at GLT was paid for by private enterprise.
 
True, but i guess the airport corp or govt might chip in for OOL based on cost to tourism of diversions in bad weather??
 
Any idea what the costs are?
 
Boris spatsky said:
Not all aircraft are RNAV RNP approach capable or even RNAV capable. For example, i believe the VA ATRs are not RNAV capable (not relevant to OOL but nonetheless). Further, overseas operators may not necessarily be RNAV approach approved in Australian airspace.

They just put one in at Gladstone, so i don't see how they couldn't justify the cost of one at OOL.
Click to expand...
Sorry Boris spatsky but you believe wrong. The ATR is RNAV capable and the pilots are trained but there is an issue with CASA and paperwork which should not be difficult to overcome and is being worked on.

The RNAV approach is the way forward and have now been around for many years now. I just checked and my licence was signed up for RNAV in June 2000. (called GPS/NPA in this days)

As markis10 says the difference between and ILS and RNAV minima is small and if the needed the addition of a differential station resolves even that difference. The cost of a differential station is small when compared to an ILS and also can solve the problem mentioned in post #1 of flying over building or flying over the water that was mentioned here. (i.e. an RNAV approach can turn corners)
 
I think there is some confusion with terminology here. The 'RNP' approaches that have similar minimas to an ILS are RNP AR approaches and different to the RNAV GNSS approaches that used to be called GPS NPA. All you need to fly an GNSS approach is an approved GPS. The RNP AR approaches (which provide vertical and lateral guidance) are based on the PBN status of the aircraft. The minima is based on the PBN. Currently at OOL there are propriety RNP AR approaches that are only available to QF, JQ and Air New Zealand (BNE on the other hand has multi variant design (MVD) approaches that are available to anyone with appropriate approval). The minima for 0.3 PBN is around 430 ft and 2000 m (runway 14) and around 350 ft and 2000 m for runway 32 (this reduces to around 250 ft at 0.1 for runway 32, not sure for runway 14). The minima for the RNAV GNSS and the VOR is around 700 ft and 4000 m. The proposed ILS will have a minima of around 250 ft and 1500 m.

For what it's worth, last week was the first time I have seen an RNP AR approach divert to BNE because it couldn't get in at Cooly. It was Jetstar.

The RTF for the approaches are similar, it is all to do with the suffix eg RNAV Z are the GNSS approaches, and RNAV M or P (OOL specific) for the RNP AR approaches.
 
iRobbo said:
I The proposed ILS will have a minima of around 250 ft and 1500 m.

For what it's worth, last week was the first time I have seen an RNP AR approach divert to BNE because it couldn't get in at Cooly. It was Jetstar.

The RTF for the approaches are similar, it is all to do with the suffix eg RNAV Z are the GNSS approaches, and RNAV M or P (OOL specific) for the RNP AR approaches.
Click to expand...

Currubin hill might affect those minimas, and the lack of HIAL won't help (its not being installed), the ICAO RNP approaches coming in later this year will not be dissimilar to the current Naverus ones with a rollout at threshold -2nm. With the ICAO approaches coming in and GBAS going live in Sydney, I reckon the horse has bolted, which probably means it will happen :D.
 
Of course, nothing surer!

For International traffic though, it would be attractive.
 
Struggling to Redeem Your Frequent Flyer Points?
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

Total: 811 (members: 7, guests: 804)
Back
Top