|
|
Post by LPL on Jun 27, 2012 15:26:33 GMT 1
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? Last year for Liverpool it was 45 movements, MAN was 16. |
|
|
|
Post by baldyman26 on Jun 27, 2012 15:58:55 GMT 1
Oh ok I never knew it was that many, I'm not disputing that we should have CAT III, I just don't fully understand the importance and implementation of it. As always though the answers are found here..Thanks , and I've just realised this is my 100th post  |
|
|
|
Post by andyh on Jun 27, 2012 20:34:00 GMT 1
This application is not just about getting CATIII up and running (which by the way has nothing to do with windshear) but is essential for the airport to comply with the requirements of its regulator - the CAA - in respect of security and compliance with the regulations on Runway End Safety Areas. Vehicles parking on the mound interfere with the ILS glide slope signal and Dungeon Lane represents a hazard in the event of an aircraft overshooting 09 or landing short of 27.
Yes other airports have roads running near the threshold but none anywhere near as close as at LPL. They also don't have the problem of stationary traffic on those roads. Where roads do run close the runway in question tends to have a displaced threshold - so I guess you could advocate reducing the runway length at LPL as a means of solving the problem, but that would be operational madness in my opinion.
In terms of the case for CATIII the supporting documents to the application point out that the airport is the busiest in the UK without CATIII which effectively places it at a commercial disadvantage.
Hope this helps
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by mokum1 on Jun 27, 2012 23:08:18 GMT 1
In terms of the case for CATIII the supporting documents to the application point out that the airport is the busiest in the UK without CATIII which effectively places it at a commercial disadvantage. CATIII is a necessity to keep lpl on a par with it's competitors. mol would not be a happy bunny if his planes were diverted away due to us not having CATIII. don't give the airlines any reason to further reduce based aircraft numbers. incidently what is the minima at present ? is it RVR's of 300 150 150 for CATII which would be reduced to 75m with CATIII ? bit out of touch with latest O/P's |
|
|
|
Post by dalten1 on Jun 28, 2012 8:45:07 GMT 1
andyh. Just a quick response. I only mentioned the windshear as a side issue. I know it has nothing to do with the CatIII debate. Rgds. This application is not just about getting CATIII up and running (which by the way has nothing to do with windshear) but is essential for the airport to comply with the requirements of its regulator - the CAA - in respect of security and compliance with the regulations on Runway End Safety Areas. Vehicles parking on the mound interfere with the ILS glide slope signal and Dungeon Lane represents a hazard in the event of an aircraft overshooting 09 or landing short of 27. Yes other airports have roads running near the threshold but none anywhere near as close as at LPL. They also don't have the problem of stationary traffic on those roads. Where roads do run close the runway in question tends to have a displaced threshold - so I guess you could advocate reducing the runway length at LPL as a means of solving the problem, but that would be operational madness in my opinion. In terms of the case for CATIII the supporting documents to the application point out that the airport is the busiest in the UK without CATIII which effectively places it at a commercial disadvantage. Hope this helps Andy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 11:00:32 GMT 1
baldyman26 CatIIIc will not be approved in the near future due to the problem of rescue teams reaching aircraft in potentially zero visibility. Rgds. CatIIIc will not be approved in the near future because there is method of providing taxi clear guidance in zero visibility. The rescue asspect is not an issue, we already practise guiding rescue vehicles in zero visibility (put a blindfold on the driver or black out the windscreen) using the surface movement radar. |
|
|
|
Post by andyh on Jul 2, 2012 12:54:55 GMT 1
The info I have seen makes reference to 50m visibility which suggests CATIIIb
|
|
|
|
Post by bustcapl on Nov 4, 2015 22:26:04 GMT 1
Is this still planned?
|
|
