CAT 111 Update?

[Biggles]

I know this is all hypothetical, but why would security be required to patrol gates which effectively be within the enclosed boundary of the actual airfield which I guess they already patrol anyway don`t they ?

[evoant]

If ATC staff enter the airport (airside) from the outside (landside) they will need to be security screened. There is no security checkpoint at the old tower. They would need to park in the usual staff carpark and go through the normal airfield access gate which is by the fuel farm

[viscount]

Not looked back onto the previous side to see quite how this debate started.

The geography of the LJLA site is such that for much of the runway length the airfield security fencing encloses a long but narrow site. As a result in order to enable sufficient height for the control tower it has to be set back outside of the airport security boundary, effectively in the agricultural fields. This works to the advantage of ATC staff as they control their own gated compound security, have their sole use secure adjacent car parking and building entry security as they are the only site tennants.

If the tower (strictly a Visual Control Room and Control Centre) was inside the airport boundary fencing, then they would be treated as 'airside' staff and have to park some distance from their workplace, clear the full passenger security check before every shift (no liquids, metal belts, shoe checks etc etc), what a time-waster. True, while there is a long access drive around Dungeon/Bailey's Lane past the 27 threshold, this is way preferable I would argue than having to access the VCR Tower via the Terminal Building and going through 'airside' security checks prior to each shift, then increasing dramatically the risk inherant with any cross-runway ground traffic.

Thats my view from outside observation anyhow. If I've missed the point of the discussion, well thats nothing new!

[Deleted]

That makes perfect sense to me, Viscount. Clearing security in the terminal and driving round to the tower in an airfield vehicle would make no real sense.

[Biggles]

Viscount thanks for detailed input.

So as I read it, at MCR and other major international airports like LHR having a tower inside the airport boundary etc all ATC staff are subject to clear the full passenger security check before every shift (no liquids, metal belts, shoe checks etc etc), I was unaware of that fact.

[dalten1]

Re: ATC access.
It would appear my earlier posting has not been read, reading some comments, so I will expand.
In the old days we had to drive from the old terminal all the way to the south airfield to access the remote met building. That was before the enhanced security so I will move nearer the time.
I finished my ATC career at Gatwick and we had to endure the exact problems that your writers are commenting on.
We got no privileged treatment. We had to do everything that passengers have to endure but this wasn't once or twice a year, this was every duty say two hundred times a year, more if we had to regularly leave the secure area. Our cars where parked some distance from the tower in a regular staff car park and we had more workers than LJLA.
To facilitate the access to the LJLA tower from airside would involve extending the perimeter fence around the tower. No great problem as I believe the airport owns all the land anyway and something that will have to happen in the future anyway should the traffic increase as hoped at the airport. There are enough gaps in runway traffic to accomodate vehicles crossing.
I am sure, as Viscount says, that others may disagree.
Lets hear from ATC forum members.

[Beemer]

I noticed on our visit to Schipol with the ATC that their tower is outside the airport boundary and no security checks were required. Regards Beemer.

[Deleted]

The requirement for full screening only applies if the individual needs to enter the Restricted Zone. This normal covers the terminal airside and the aprons used for passenger transport. I don't know what the set up is at Liverpool, but I would imagine this would mean that ATC staff would have to be security screened when leaving work as well as they would have left the Restricted Zone and need to renter it in order to leave the airfield northside.

[mokum1]

assuming the closure of dungeon lane goes ahead & we finally get cat 111 up & running, does anyone know the RVR minima for easy,ryanair & wizzair ? also would we have the full a/b/c for suitably equipped aircraft ? can't remember if cat111C is the top of the range so to speak .

[baldyman26]

I remember a post on another thread saying plans had been submitted for Dungeon lane to finally close. Does anybody have an update at all.

[andyh]

The planning application has now been registered with Halton BC with a decision due by the end of August. It looks as though Dungeon Lane will be closed just south of the access to the GA Centre but pretty much the whole of the open land between Dungeon Lane and Baileys Lane will be fenced off.

The report that accompanies the application confirms that the changes, as well as making the airport compliant with CAA requirements on security fencing, will remove any remaining obstacles to CATIII ops on Rwy 27. Interestingly it also mentions provision being made for the future relocation of the 09 localised so that the ILS on that runway can be upgraded from CATI.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 22:43:13 GMT 1 mokum1 said:

can't remember if cat111C is the top of the range so to speak .

Theoretically Cat IIIc is the top of the range. However, as it has no decision height or RVR minima, it requires a taxi guidance system, which at the moment does not exist and hence is not in operation anywhere.

[baldyman26]

Right, I'm losing this slightly. The roads and area around the mound are being closed off to facilitate Cat III or for security reasons.

If you look around the country, other airports such as Newcastle, East Midlands all have major or minor roads running accross each end of the runway. Are these airports not Cat III and seeing they have these roads are not capable of being CAT III.

My point is are Liverpool upgrading because they want a commercial advantage, or because they have to. Yes I am talking from a spotter point of view because I don't want to lose the mound, but I just can't see a reason for CAT III.

[dalten1]

baldyman26
As you say you are talking as a spotter.
If you are a passenger who may be diverted 100's of miles because your flight can't land at lpl you would think differently.
As I have commented in the past, lpl was at the forefront of the "Blind Landing" revolution, but has now slipped behind.
All the major hub and regional airports now have CatIII a or b capability. hence the reduction in diversions. CatIIIc will not be approved in the near future due to the problem of rescue teams reaching aircraft in potentially zero visibility.
Most operators from lpl have Cat III certificaion but can't use it.
I think there are some technical problems delaying the certification of Cat III at lpl ,not withstanding the road problem.
It is something to do with beam deflections from buildings or other obstructions in the area, similar to the windshear problems due to the closeness of the river bank to the 27 threshold in certain wind situations.
I could go on but won't.
Rgds.

[baldyman26]

How many instances of wether issues has caused a divert in recent times. Do we have them numbers available. I would be interested to see how justifiable CAT III really is (at the moment), or is it purely a demand from the airlines?