Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:02 pm
#1591475
The GPS instrument approach procedure to 03 will LNAV, which means non-precision with lateral guidance.
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?
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?
CloudHound wrote:The GPS instrument approach procedure to 03 will LNAV, which means non-precision with lateral guidance.
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?
light GA lacks a strong voice to put across the business case
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.
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).
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.
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).