|
|
Post by lesmcs on Oct 25, 2010 16:12:08 GMT 1
Is there anymore up to date information regarding dates of when Liverpool maybe able to offer full CAT 111 landings/ takeoffs.
With the onset of winter upon us is it likely it will become operational before the end of this year?
I know a while ago the latest was the approach lighting was being upgraded.
Regards
Les Mcs ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by northbynorthwest on Oct 31, 2010 4:50:45 GMT 1
This whole procedure is taking an inordinate amount of time. Does anyone have any inside scoop on why this is the case? As an aside, can anyone explain why it is notam'd that in CAT II conditions, aircraft need to use a "Follow Me" car while taxying?
|
|
|
|
Post by Beemer on Oct 31, 2010 8:21:34 GMT 1
I noticed yesterday in the compound on the GA road a stack of yellow steel lighting posts. These are hinged at the bottom for easy access to change bulbs when neccessary and the concrete bases for the posts appear to be on-going. Regards Beemer.
|
|
|
|
Post by bustcapl on Nov 3, 2010 20:58:15 GMT 1
Bit of lurker on here but I follow people's post with interest.
What I do not understand is that there does not appear to be a single person who can ever answer the CATIII question properly.
Forgive me, this is not a dig but is there seriously not anyone who can tell when (or find out at a NWAN meeting (do these still happen?)) LPL should be fully CATIII compliant.
I mean seriously this has been going on for 2 years now and is like watching paint dry.
It would be nice to hear what is actually going on before the November fog rolls in and we are lambasting diversions and cancellations
Look forward to hearing from some well informed posters soon!
Trevor Caplis
|
|
|
|
Post by bustcapl on Dec 6, 2010 9:47:49 GMT 1
Bit of lurker on here but I follow people's post with interest. What I do not understand is that there does not appear to be a single person who can ever answer the CATIII question properly. Forgive me, this is not a dig but is there seriously not anyone who can tell when (or find out at a NWAN meeting (do these still happen?)) LPL should be fully CATIII compliant. I mean seriously this has been going on for 2 years now and is like watching paint dry. It would be nice to hear what is actually going on before the November fog rolls in and we are lambasting diversions and cancellations Look forward to hearing from some well informed posters soon! Trevor Caplis first big day of divesrions - still noone able to provide an answere about the worlds longest CATIII installation. Can anyone help!? |
|
bartt
Junior Member
Posts: 56 
|
Post by bartt on Dec 6, 2010 14:12:40 GMT 1
Because it's a project still ongoing with the CAA. I think the main issue is the mound and lane. They aren't taking there time for the fun of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Dec 6, 2010 18:24:09 GMT 1
"I think the main issue is the mound and lane" ?
Could anyone explain why that should possibly be a problem with a development of this sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldyman26 on Dec 6, 2010 18:24:25 GMT 1
Because it's a project still ongoing with the CAA. I think the main issue is the mound and lane. They aren't taking there time for the fun of it. What is the issue with the mound, are we seen as a security threat. Will the lane etc ever be closed to the public. I presume it isn't a private road, so the only way to enforce it would be making it a no stopping zone, however I wouldn't think this would be something that is policed. Do we think, if ever, will this happen. Are we classed as being to close to the action. |
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Dec 6, 2010 19:47:19 GMT 1
Although the BAW Boeing 777 landing crash at Heathrow was a combination of circumstances unlikely to repeat, it has a sent a scare through airports/CAA (as the governing authority). That 'crash landing' was totally survivable because it happened on mowed flat land and within the airport boundary. At Liverpool it would have been in scrub-land behind the mound - that has alot of 'high ups' in the airport industry worried, as it is not only at Liverpool that there are obstructions and public around the undershoot area.
From outside it (rightly or wrongly) it does seem to me, reading reports on this forum, that the CAA keep on moving the 'goal-posts' for LJLA. You can have Cat.III if you replace the beam transmitting equipment..... Oh, now you've done that if you still want Cat.III you need to modify the in-runway lighting..... Oh, now you've done that, for Cat.III you need to change the threshold markings..... Oh, now you have done that, for Cat.III the approach lighting is not to the latest specs and wiring needs renewing after 45 years..... Oh, now you've done that we are not happy about the traffic or the road across the undershoot, so you will have put in full traffic lights..... Oh and while we are at it just why is that large truck able to park there?.
I could be quite wrong, but that is the way (from outside) that it appears to me. If so, it must be really fustrating for the Airport Management - who we keep knocking on the subject!!
To Baldyman, I would point out that unfortunately, while the road between the warning red lights is marked as double yellow line 'no parking/no waiting' zone - it is a rare trip down to the '27 mound' there that one does not pass a vehicle parked beside the marked zone. A fact regularly ignored by both Merseyside and Cheshire Police patrols, although Airport Security occasionally request drivers to move on from the 'Crash Gate' zone.
I once (a good few year ago now) watched a tall 'Luton' van parked on the centreline, with a ladder on the side and the driver's kids sat on the roof!! What an unthinking ........ placing not only aircraft, but his own family in a high risk situation! His reply was that it was cheaper than Alton Towers! Regretably a single idiot counts against hundreds who obey the road markings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2010 20:39:29 GMT 1
Having had more than my fair share of dealings with the CAA, Viscount, I'd say that your suggestion is right on the money. It echoes my own experiences to a 'T'.
I doubt if even the mighty CAA could insist that every major airport in the UK has a 'crash zone' next to the threshold, but it is quite possible that they are insistent on making a point. I would imagine the relevant documents are doing the rounds of the CAA, lawyers, local planning authorities, police and VAS. I think everyone can imagine what a slow merry-go-round that must be!
|
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Dec 6, 2010 21:53:37 GMT 1
I presume planning permission would have to be obtained for this, in which case the application should be available on the net for public viewing on the appropriate Council Planning Department Web site.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronturner on Dec 7, 2010 10:33:04 GMT 1
A very interesting summing up by Viscount. I can well imagine the scenario as I suffered from this type of thing several times in my working life. (Not aviation..but the same sort of nonsense.) We brought out innovative telecommunication products which were usually ahead of their time. The approval authorities in UK could find all sorts of reasons to deny us approval for products which we could sell in large numbers as exports, and in the meantime, our UK competitors with less advanced products could have the home market to themselves.
Closer to the subject, about two years ago, I investigated the need to ferry my '172 to UK from France for some work. It was technically out of its CoA by a couple of days and under new regulations, individual engineers can no longer grant a ferry permit in their own right. I had to ask the CAA for a ferry permit and they agreed to do this providing the carried out a survey of the aeroplane at a cost not exceeding £147,000. (Yes that's right.) As you can imagine I told them what to do with their suggestion and solved the problem by giving work to a French organisation instead of a UK one.
|
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Dec 7, 2010 11:14:21 GMT 1
As I understand it, nth hand - so my information could well be incomplete at best, totally confused at worse, the immediate current future for Dungeon Lane is for fully enforcable road (red/amber/green) traffic lights to replace the current twin red flashing lights across the threshold section. Further into the future options seems to include a new road further out from the threshold, or gating the Lane at the GA road junction, so limiting vehicle traffic to just ATC, residents of the 3 properties, farmers etc. To me both these solutions are less than ideal though in terms of cost or workability.
Bear in mind this post is based on hearsay/rumour not official Airport policy/planning. It is clear though that the days of vehicle access across the short finals/undershoot area is limited, which is not new news as must be at least 2 years since the closing of Dungeon Lane was first discussed in the days of the former xsorbit forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by LPL on Dec 7, 2010 11:20:10 GMT 1
Under the Masterplan the road will be shut and a new one constructed to link with the Eastern Access road.
|
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Dec 7, 2010 12:08:44 GMT 1
LPL, what you say is true and have been in the public domain for some time. The main problem is that on the map I have here, the masterplan road connects to the current terminal complex and remains north of the extended centreline, so is no answer to the problem of routing a road to service the Tower and residental properties south of the runway to replace the current lane across the threshold. The early 1990s Chris Preece/BAe plans had a road connecting the Expressway to terminal complex south of the existing runway, but these really grand plans have long been superceeded.
|
|
