|
|
Post by LPL on Dec 7, 2010 13:39:07 GMT 1
The road I am referring to is not the same ('remains north of the extended centreline') as the one your are looking at.
The new road I am referring to connects the ATC tower and what, hopefully be a cargo complex'. This road skirts the new southern airport boundary before turning north to roughly where Baileys Lane/Hale Road merge. Baileys lane will no longer exist. The new sothern airport access road will then will connect with the new Eastern Access road which connects Hale Road with the Speke/Ford road.
There will be no residential properties south of the runway in the Masterplan, its all airport related buildings.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronturner on Dec 8, 2010 13:16:28 GMT 1
Another consideration. The eventual arrival of Cay III will not automatically enable every scheduled arrival, because, as far as I know, not only must the ground facility exist, but so must the airborne electronics and ALL of the flight crew must be licenced, and current for Cat III on the type of aeroplane they are flying. This might sound obvious, but in fact not all aircrew are so qualified, especially many of the people occupying the right hand seat, and it is the reason why flights are sometimes diverted for apparently inexplicable reasons. The operators never mention that the flight has been diverted because of an "inexperienced" crew. Imagine the effect on passenger morale if they did.
Maybe there is an expert out there who can confirm this or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by LPL on Dec 8, 2010 13:22:21 GMT 1
I am not an expert but you need the airfield, lighting, aircraft and pilots to be rated CAT III.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronturner on Dec 9, 2010 12:37:07 GMT 1
To save hijacking this thread by going off on a tangent, I have posted an Item under "non aviation" as a follow up to my earlier posting about bureaucratic stupidity
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2010 10:13:53 GMT 1
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!! It's not a case of moving the goalposts, all the requirements are laid out in CAP168 Licensing Of Aerodromes. One can only assume that something somewhere does not comply fully with this criteria and a compromise is being sort. |
|
|
|
Post by andyh on Feb 5, 2011 17:11:35 GMT 1
Not quite linked to CAT III (though who knows these days) but RWY 27 is about to get shorter. The declared length is reducing by 1 metre, to 2285m, from 11 Feb. Rwy 09 is getting even shorter at 2222m...
|
|
|
|
Post by cambrian5619 on Feb 5, 2011 17:48:45 GMT 1
Does anybody the reason for the reductions in the runway lengths?
|
|
|
|
Post by owensy on Feb 5, 2011 19:18:52 GMT 1
Does anybody the reason for the reductions in the runway lengths? Its cold! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Feb 5, 2011 20:30:04 GMT 1
My 2006 Airfield Guide shows Liverpool's avialable runway lengths as:
09 Take-off Run avialable (TORA) 2286m
09 LANDING Distance aviable (TDA) 2225m
27 TORA 2286m
27 TDA 2286m
The new figures for 09 of 2222m and 27 of 2285m are not a great revision, not massive changes, especially if expressed as a percentage of total length.
Suspect (speculation on my part) these revisions could be due to the repainting last summer of the threshold markings. Maybe even just more accurate metres measurement, rather than a conversion from Imperial!?
But why is the landing length available on 09 less than that for 27. After all there are no obstructions at the 09 end, being the river end of the runway.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyspeke on Feb 6, 2011 10:23:35 GMT 1
I hear there is not to be CATIII ILS.
The benefit does not justify the cost.
Very disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beemer on Feb 6, 2011 10:37:16 GMT 1
I hear there is not to be CATIII ILS. The benefit does not justify the cost. Very disappointing. Which I believe is good news, from a spotter/photographers point of view, that the mound will remain for the forseeable future. Regards Beemer. |
|
|
|
Post by LPL on Feb 6, 2011 11:41:30 GMT 1
I hear there is not to be CATIII ILS. The benefit does not justify the cost. Very disappointing. At present, thats the case. |
|
|
|
Post by davel on Feb 7, 2011 10:10:38 GMT 1
Also there won't be an extention to the runway either, due to cost. The powers that be are relying on the roll-out of the B787 to help with longer routes. They believe that with that aircraft the only areas that are not available from the existing runway are South Africa, Australasia and the South of South America. This is assuming that airlines order them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beemer on Feb 25, 2011 10:09:57 GMT 1
I am reliably informed that the CAT III is now back on track and will now go ahead. Regards Beemer.
|
|
bartt
Junior Member
Posts: 56 
|
Post by bartt on Feb 25, 2011 11:45:21 GMT 1
Cat III is under discussion again, could go either way!
|
|
