Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 26
#1591485
Jonzarno wrote:I would prefer that to an ILS with visual manoeuvring, especially at night.

Also, ISTR that there are some commercial operators that prohibit ILS/VM at night. Have I remembered that right?


I don't remember anyone turning down a VM, certainly they preferred straight in though
#1591486
Jonzarno wrote:
Also on runway 03 integrating a stream of visual manoeuvring ILS traffic into a visual circuit is challenging to say the least


Aren’t they introducing a GPS approach for 03?


True, I would imagine that would bring it's own challenges
#1591531
CloudHound wrote:The GPS instrument approach procedure to 03 will LNAV, which means non-precision with lateral guidance.


Would this be the proposed approach that routes through class G at 2,000 ft overhead the M25/23 junction? Surely the CAA will not be stupid enough to approve it, and if they did, would any sensible pilot be prepared to fly it?
Hawkwind liked this
#1591538
QSD wrote:
CloudHound wrote:The GPS instrument approach procedure to 03 will LNAV, which means non-precision with lateral guidance.


Would this be the proposed approach that routes through class G at 2,000 ft overhead the M25/23 junction? Surely the CAA will not be stupid enough to approve it, and if they did, would any sensible pilot be prepared to fly it?


especially as the M25/M23 junction is a VRP for Redhill,
#1592614
Well, at least Biggin hasn’t done a delusional Farnborough and imposed a minimum £582 landing fee even when they are operating at about 50% of planning permission capacity.

But as Farnborough and others have got away with it, who knows what could happen in a few years time.....
#1592626
light GA lacks a strong voice to put across the business case


And here lies the nub of the problem.

"Money? There is no money. Or not the money I want anyway."

- The smaller aerodromes cannot be bothered because they see selling it off to land developers is “better”.

- The larger aerodromes cannot be bothered because they'd rather not take any "non-profitable" traffic anymore.

There’s something fundamentally wrong if a strong business case is the only thing that makes some aerodrome owners/operators listen.

The underlying planning legislation / political sphere ultimately needs fixing, and very badly too.
#1592655
James Chan wrote:
light GA lacks a strong voice to put across the business case


And here lies the nub of the problem.

"Money? There is no money. Or not the money I want anyway."

- The smaller aerodromes cannot be bothered because they see selling it off to land developers is “better”.

- The larger aerodromes cannot be bothered because they'd rather not take any "non-profitable" traffic anymore.

There’s something fundamentally wrong if a strong business case is the only thing that makes some aerodrome owners/operators listen.

The underlying planning legislation / political sphere ultimately needs fixing, and very badly too.


So you expect airfields to exist. Without a sound business case, the only way to run an airfield without making a "profit" is for that airfield to be "state" owned - local council, government. Can see the Tory party supporting that nor the left (whoever they are now).
#1592659
I'm not saying they should be run at a loss, nor necessarily nationalisation.

I'm calling for better infrastructure regulation.
Last edited by James Chan on Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
#1592660
Bob Upanddown wrote:So you expect airfields to exist. Without a sound business case, the only way to run an airfield without making a "profit" is for that airfield to be "state" owned - local council, government. Can see the Tory party supporting that nor the left (whoever they are now).


Not necessarily, it could be owned by a private individual who wants to run an airfield, which may not leave any "profit" after taking a personal salary. It could also be owned by a group of individuals who want to base their aeroplanes there.

The problem is airfields being given planning permission for a change of use to housing or industrial, where property firms can buy them expecting a profit by closing them and building houses on them.

The profitability probably isn't helped by local authorities wanting to tax them heavily.
#1592661
CloudHound wrote:The issues surrounding the approach have been debated here and elsewhere. I don’t think there’s any chance of major revisions now.


It'll get fixed as soon as there's a series of RAs from the TCAS aboard aircraft demanding a Deconfliction Service while flying the procedure in VMC.

Sadly the "fix" may well be to shut Redhill and turn it into a housing estate. :oops:
#1592662
Bob Upanddown wrote:... Without a sound business case, the only way to run an airfield without making a "profit" is for that airfield to be "state" owned - local council, government. Can see the Tory party supporting that nor the left (whoever they are now).


Staverton is jointly owned by 2 LAs, and run (as required since '80s when LAs were forbidden from running enterprises directly) by a company in which the 2 LAs are the only and equal shareholders. It is profitable, but could probably be run so as to yield a greater apparent short-term profit (eg sacrifice all but one runway for non-aviation industrial units ?) or sold for a probably large one-off capital sum for redevelopment as warehouses or houses. Of course, it would be easy to run for a few years in a way which could prove to some tame 'consultant' that it was 'unviable'. :roll:

Opposition (often vocal) in the 4 LAs involved (Gloucester and Cheltenham as owners, Tewkesbury in whose land it lies, and Gloucestershire County as the senior 'planning authority') comes from precisely the extremes of the political 'wings' outlined above: 'right'-wingers who say that LAs should not run anything which they are not required by statute to run, and then outsourced to the maximum possible extent; and 'left'-wingers who say that GA just represents the interests of the wealthy, and the land should be used for something of obvious social use eg low-cost housing. Fortunately, there is a sensible, non-Partisan, centre in all 4 LAs whose Councillors recognise the massive economic, employment, and training/education value the airport brings to or keeps in their communities. :thumright:
Kittyhawk liked this
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 26