|
|
Post by davel on Mar 3, 2011 15:58:48 GMT 1
According to the ATC manager CAT111 will not go ahead until Dungeon Lane is closed and the mound removed due to concerns expressed by the CAA on vehicle parking interfering with the signal, also that some equipment will need to be located more or less in the vicinity of the existing carriageway of Dungeon Lane.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldyman26 on Mar 4, 2011 10:24:41 GMT 1
Will the addition of CAT111 change the airport in drastic ways, i.e is it the case that money could be spent elsewhere, or is it an airline stipulation that an airport must have CAT111 capability, I think I am still not getting this CAT111 thing
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryanairflyer on Mar 4, 2011 10:34:16 GMT 1
Would it not be a waste to complete the CAT 111 modification and not extend the runway at the same time as per the masterplan and world cargo discussions? Surely better to kill two birds with one stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by harbourcotter on Mar 4, 2011 10:50:21 GMT 1
A fair point, but if there is a runway extension, it would be several years down the line as there would almost certainly be a public enquiry etc. long term cost savings (if extension built) but in the short term no cat III. Additionally, all Government parties over the last couple of decades have been anti-Liverpool whilst they build up Manchester. They would certainly not look favourably at something like this which could upset the status quo.
Also, why is lpl so affected by fog nowadays? It used to be known as the most fog free airport in the Country, we cant say that anymore. Does Merseyside have its own micro-climate that is being affected by climate change more than anywhere else?
|
|
|
|
Post by LPL on Mar 4, 2011 11:57:48 GMT 1
Also, why is lpl so affected by fog nowadays? It used to be known as the most fog free airport in the Country, we cant say that anymore. Does Merseyside have its own micro-climate that is being affected by climate change more than anywhere else? The airport is a victim of Global Becalming  |
|
|
|
Post by dalten1 on Mar 5, 2011 10:26:27 GMT 1
Re: baldyman26 comments.
It depends how much you value losing whole parts of a days
flight programmes and the disruption to customers so caused.
Re: Runway extension.
The major structure of an ILS installation is the localiser array.
These have become smaller over the years but are still substantial. This would not be affected by a runway extension, at least on 27 the CatIII runway.
The 09 LLZ would have to be outside the present airfield boundary, but so would the extension.
What would need to move is the Glidepath aerial to alongside any new threshold introduced. Also there are far field monitors to check the integrity of the signals being transmitted.
We now have two major operators that can continue operations under CatIII conditions. This was not the case years ago when LPL was at the forefront of the 'Blind Landing' revolution. Not Now. All LPL's major competitors have CatIII. It does not stop
all diversions but it negates many of them.
Hope that gives a little insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfp on Mar 16, 2011 19:21:00 GMT 1
See Airport web-site for press release (16 March 2011) on lighting for CAT III.
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolman1 on Mar 16, 2011 21:54:03 GMT 1
So some 230 new lights have been installed over a considerable period, have they?. I'm surprised some of our regular Mound users didn't notice. And who is this Dewhurst fellow who was in charge? He didn't run the butchers shop in St Mary's Road, did he?
|
|
|
|
Post by evoant on Mar 16, 2011 23:36:47 GMT 1
The majority of the work was done through the night and the GA carpark was used as the contractors depot. Large containers and a portable office sat on the carpark site during the time of installation.
|
|
|
|
Post by RICEY on Mar 17, 2011 2:01:00 GMT 1
if you think about dungeon lane can only be closed so far as the ATC guys still have to get round to the tower and if they live close by they wouldnt want to have to drive into hale just got come back on themselves
|
|
|
|
Post by dalten1 on Mar 17, 2011 14:59:32 GMT 1
if you think about dungeon lane can only be closed so far as the ATC guys still have to get round to the tower and if they live close by they wouldnt want to have to drive into hale just got come back on themselves When I worked at LJLA, I had to get from the old North Airfield to the old remote Met. office site. We did this entirely within the airfield boundary. They only need to enclose the tower within the perimeter fence and the need to use Dungeon Lane would be eliminated. I don't know if the old farm property is still occupied, but if it is, they would be affected. |
|
|
|
Post by Beemer on Mar 17, 2011 17:30:10 GMT 1
So some 230 new lights have been installed over a considerable period, have they?. I'm surprised some of our regular Mound users didn't notice. And who is this Dewhurst fellow who was in charge? He didn't run the butchers shop in St Mary's Road, did he? With respect to you liverpoolman 1, but it has been covered well by regular mound users over the past few months including my Reply #2 on this thread alone. Regards Beemer. |
|
|
|
Post by bustcapl on Apr 12, 2011 19:45:45 GMT 1
so can we confirm given the press release in March that LPL airport now is CATIII equipped?
"The new approach lights will ensure that appropriate aircraft can continue to land in Category III landing conditions, which are associated with poor visibility.
The work was carried out by Airfield lighting experts Edward Dewhurst Ltd who completed the job despite the severe winter weather experienced in early December"
The comment continue to land in CATIII conditions is a bit false is it not.
Rgds
Trevor Caplis
|
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Apr 12, 2011 21:57:56 GMT 1
The part about ATC operatives having to get to the tower seems to be a bit misleading to me, Why can`t the trip to the tower be made possible from within for the confines of the airfeild boudary. Perhaps park the atc officers cars at the old tower area and make use of an airfield vehicle with lights and radio to make the trip across the airfield to the new (ish) tower. It happens all the time on military stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by evoant on Apr 12, 2011 22:56:37 GMT 1
Perhaps park the atc officers cars at the old tower area and make use of an airfield vehicle with lights and radio to make the trip across the airfield to the new (ish) tower. It happens all the time on military stations. If only it was that easy. It would cost too much in having security officers controlling the gates that the ATC staff would enter and exit to and from the airfield. Military will have different rules to commercial airports i would guess. |
|
