Airport.

[Banker]

18 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Read the thread. It was originally to be done pre covid and got put back.

Doesn’t mean it’s 5 years out of date 

thomas response on ILS to comment on it

Do you have the new ILS specifications, and how do they compare with current ones? I would be surprised if ILS technology was same now as 20 years ago, even if CAT status depends on other factors.

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Banker

[John Wright]

14 minutes ago, Banker said:

Doesn’t mean it’s 5 years out of date 

thomas response on ILS to comment on it

Do you have the new ILS specifications, and how do they compare with current ones? I would be surprised if ILS technology was same now as 20 years ago, even if CAT status depends on other factors.

 

You’re missing the point. Like anything mechanical and electrical it has a designed/recomendad maximum lifespan, even if it’s well maintained.

The current one is at end useful life and cost of maintenance/repairs, and the cost and inconvenience of breakdown, plus safety considerations mean replacement is overdue.

Not sure if there are CAA guidelines.

ILS life won’t be aircraft landing numbers dependent, but it will be affected by the location, atmospheric conditions, salt in air, antifreeze sprayed on runway. It’s a hostile environment.

My understanding is that expected operating lifespan is 15 years and we are at 20.

I don’t think radio beam technology has changed much. There’ll have been design tweaks.

[madmanxpilot]

40 minutes ago, Banker said:

Doesn’t mean it’s 5 years out of date 

thomas response on ILS to comment on it

Do you have the new ILS specifications, and how do they compare with current ones? I would be surprised if ILS technology was same now as 20 years ago, even if CAT status depends on other factors.

 

That seems like an attempt to justify him having called it an upgrade rather than a replacement. The response to his question seems to be more on point:

 

From an operational point of view there will be no difference using this new ILS rather than the old one. You will still need 1000m visibility to commence an approach, and you must be able to see the approach lights or runway by 200 feet. Pilots don’t need to know anything else.

[madmanxpilot]

25 minutes ago, John Wright said:

You’re missing the point. Like anything mechanical and electrical it has a designed/recomendad maximum lifespan, even if it’s well maintained.

The current one is at end useful life and cost of maintenance/repairs, and the cost and inconvenience of breakdown, plus safety considerations mean replacement is overdue.

Not sure if there are CAA guidelines.

ILS life won’t be aircraft landing numbers dependent, but it will be affected by the location, atmospheric conditions, salt in air, antifreeze sprayed on runway. It’s a hostile environment.

My understanding is that expected operating lifespan is 15 years and we are at 20.

I don’t think radio beam technology has changed much. There’ll have been design tweaks.

Again, exactly correct.

[Roger Mexico]

52 minutes ago, Banker said:

Doesn’t mean it’s 5 years out of date 

Earlier this week I pointed out that Jersey were also engaging in ILS replacement (I'd have thought that would be enough for you) and in the link their Head of Air Navigation Services explained:

 “This is routine replacement of a system which is well beyond its original design life. The ILS is used by most aircraft and is of particular importance in poor weather, as it allows aircraft to land in visibility as low as 450 metres, depending on the aircraft type. This is critically important for island connectivity during periods of fog.”

The ILS for runway 08, serving planes arriving from the west, is not yet due to be replaced. Some of the spares from the system that is being replaced will be kept for use on this ILS until it is due for updating or is superseded by newer technology.

The work to replace the ILS on runway 26 will take up to six weeks, and during that time, when the wind does not allow the use of runway 08, pilots will land using primarily visual or LPV 200 Satellite based approaches.

Presumably ours is being done similarly (and quite possibly by the same people).

[John Wright]

19 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Earlier this week I pointed out that Jersey were also engaging in ILS replacement (I'd have thought that would be enough for you) and in the link their Head of Air Navigation Services explained:

 “This is routine replacement of a system which is well beyond its original design life. The ILS is used by most aircraft and is of particular importance in poor weather, as it allows aircraft to land in visibility as low as 450 metres, depending on the aircraft type. This is critically important for island connectivity during periods of fog.”

The ILS for runway 08, serving planes arriving from the west, is not yet due to be replaced. Some of the spares from the system that is being replaced will be kept for use on this ILS until it is due for updating or is superseded by newer technology.

The work to replace the ILS on runway 26 will take up to six weeks, and during that time, when the wind does not allow the use of runway 08, pilots will land using primarily visual or LPV 200 Satellite based approaches.

Presumably ours is being done similarly (and quite possibly by the same people).

And there is the difference, Jersey has the satellite system ( GPS ). Why Ronaldsway doesn’t is inexplicable.

[madmanxpilot]

A close friend of mine with skin in the game spoke to someone with a degree of responsibility for Jersey’s Airport earlier today.

Jersey introduced these LVP200 procedures knowing that at some point the ILS would be out of service during it’s replacement, and ultimately withdrawn permanently.

LVP200 is basically a GPS approach, but it makes use of a European System called EGNOS (European Geostationary Satellite Overlay Service) to improve the accuracy of the basic GPS signal to allows for approaches to the same minima as CAT1 ILS. Obviously here, that would still mean 1000 metres visibility required as the approach lights are basic. EGNOS is a Space based augmentation system - or SBAS in the aviation jargon.

The important word in there is European. Since Brexit, the UK and crown dependencies have lost the right to use this EGNOS system, so Jersey have entered into an agreement with the EU to allow them to use it. I don’t know how much this costs, but I’ve asked the question.

Without the EGNOS system, the GPS approach minima will be a little bit higher (300 feet) , but still a lot lower than the NDB minima of 810 MDA that crews are having to work With at the moment.

I was told that the design of these approaches was undertaken by a firm called Osprey - who also do work for NATS apparently - and cost £70K. It  took a few months from the start of the design to them being flight tested and approved by the CAA.

Jersey are withdrawing the ILS for 08 permanently because there is no advantage over these LPV200 approaches, and the ILS for 26 will be withdrawn when it comes to the end of it’s service life.

Now, hindsight shouldn’t have been needed here. If our Airport Management had the foresight (or appreciation of the problems having no ILS was going to cause) to act in the same way as their counterparts in Jersey, we would have been able to prevent most of the recent cancellations. You can bet your bottom dollar the £70K price tag of design of these GPS approaches will have been a fraction of the combined cost to people and businesses in the last week due to the disruption.

I was also informed that Jersey considered GBAS (ground based augmentation system) which has the potential to improve the accuracy of the GPS approaches even further, allowing for CAT2 and potentially CAT3 minima. However, they realised that their customer airlines can’t use GBAS so have shelved the idea.

I am led to believe that the current AIrport Director on the IOM is keen to have GBAS, which in the future will definitely be the way to go, I just hope he realises that the airlines can’t use it - yet.

[Moghrey Mie]

4 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

A close friend of mine with skin in the game spoke to someone with a degree of responsibility for Jersey’s Airport earlier today.

Jersey introduced these LVP200 procedures knowing that at some point the ILS would be out of service during it’s replacement, and ultimately withdrawn permanently.

LVP200 is basically a GPS approach, but it makes use of a European System called EGNOS (European Geostationary Satellite Overlay Service) to improve the accuracy of the basic GPS signal to allows for approaches to the same minima as CAT1 ILS. Obviously here, that would still mean 1000 metres visibility required as the approach lights are basic. EGNOS is a Space based augmentation system - or SBAS in the aviation jargon.

The important word in there is European. Since Brexit, the UK and crown dependencies have lost the right to use this EGNOS system, so Jersey have entered into an agreement with the EU to allow them to use it. I don’t know how much this costs, but I’ve asked the question.

Without the EGNOS system, the GPS approach minima will be a little bit higher (300 feet) , but still a lot lower than the NDB minima of 810 MDA that crews are having to work With at the moment.

I was told that the design of these approaches was undertaken by a firm called Osprey - who also do work for NATS apparently - and cost £70K. It  took a few months from the start of the design to them being flight tested and approved by the CAA.

Jersey are withdrawing the ILS for 08 permanently because there is no advantage over these LPV200 approaches, and the ILS for 26 will be withdrawn when it comes to the end of it’s service life.

Now, hindsight shouldn’t have been needed here. If our Airport Management had the foresight (or appreciation of the problems having no ILS was going to cause) to act in the same way as their counterparts in Jersey, we would have been able to prevent most of the recent cancellations. You can bet your bottom dollar the £70K price tag of design of these GPS approaches will have been a fraction of the combined cost to people and businesses in the last week due to the disruption.

I was also informed that Jersey considered GBAS (ground based augmentation system) which has the potential to improve the accuracy of the GPS approaches even further, allowing for CAT2 and potentially CAT3 minima. However, they realised that their customer airlines can’t use GBAS so have shelved the idea.

I am led to believe that the current AIrport Director on the IOM is keen to have GBAS, which in the future will definitely be the way to go, I just hope he realises that the airlines can’t use it - yet.

Our airport directors change so often they probably don't have time to settle down and study these things. And I think the last one was more familiar with cafes than runways.

[madmanxpilot]

1 minute ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Our airport directors change so often they probably don't have time to settle down and study these things. And I think the last one was more familiar with cafes than runways.

True, 😂, but It would take five minutes for somebody who understands the issue to explain it, in layman’s terms if required.
 

Of course, they’d have to be asked to do so first.

[finlo]

8 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

A close friend of mine with skin in the game spoke to someone with a degree of responsibility for Jersey’s Airport earlier today.

Jersey introduced these LVP200 procedures knowing that at some point the ILS would be out of service during it’s replacement, and ultimately withdrawn permanently.

LVP200 is basically a GPS approach, but it makes use of a European System called EGNOS (European Geostationary Satellite Overlay Service) to improve the accuracy of the basic GPS signal to allows for approaches to the same minima as CAT1 ILS. Obviously here, that would still mean 1000 metres visibility required as the approach lights are basic. EGNOS is a Space based augmentation system - or SBAS in the aviation jargon.

The important word in there is European. Since Brexit, the UK and crown dependencies have lost the right to use this EGNOS system, so Jersey have entered into an agreement with the EU to allow them to use it. I don’t know how much this costs, but I’ve asked the question.

Without the EGNOS system, the GPS approach minima will be a little bit higher (300 feet) , but still a lot lower than the NDB minima of 810 MDA that crews are having to work With at the moment.

I was told that the design of these approaches was undertaken by a firm called Osprey - who also do work for NATS apparently - and cost £70K. It  took a few months from the start of the design to them being flight tested and approved by the CAA.

Jersey are withdrawing the ILS for 08 permanently because there is no advantage over these LPV200 approaches, and the ILS for 26 will be withdrawn when it comes to the end of it’s service life.

Now, hindsight shouldn’t have been needed here. If our Airport Management had the foresight (or appreciation of the problems having no ILS was going to cause) to act in the same way as their counterparts in Jersey, we would have been able to prevent most of the recent cancellations. You can bet your bottom dollar the £70K price tag of design of these GPS approaches will have been a fraction of the combined cost to people and businesses in the last week due to the disruption.

I was also informed that Jersey considered GBAS (ground based augmentation system) which has the potential to improve the accuracy of the GPS approaches even further, allowing for CAT2 and potentially CAT3 minima. However, they realised that their customer airlines can’t use GBAS so have shelved the idea.

I am led to believe that the current AIrport Director on the IOM is keen to have GBAS, which in the future will definitely be the way to go, I just hope he realises that the airlines can’t use it - yet.

You just know we'd get stung for millions and end up with a Tom Tom!

[John Wright]

47 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Again, exactly correct.

Weird how some people posting here either don’t read or, if they do, don’t comprehend.

[mad_manx]

Cannot blame the airport but  more an issue with baggage handling  

Several people I know have had bags missing  over the last few days after connecting at LHR to other airlines ( including loganair to the IOM  )

Looks like there are major baggage handling issues  for transit luggage at LHR..

So if there is enough time it's better to do a short check in of the bags to LHR , collect  them and checking  them again to the next flight..

[Dirty Buggane]

2 hours ago, asitis said:

Can't say as I'm surprised, let's be honest, Reynolds splurged a massive amount of money on the facility over the past few years without achieving anything at all. 

Thomas had splurged over 5 million words and driveled shite for 8 years and not achieved anything worth while since a bunch of pricks got him elected.

[SuperHans]

1 hour ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Thomas had splurged over 5 million words and driveled shite for 8 years and not achieved anything worth while since a bunch of pricks got him elected.

He’s defending it all very poorly at the moment. 

[Non-Believer]

33 minutes ago, SuperHans said:

He’s defending it all very poorly at the moment. 

He's merely following the well-worn trail of DOI Ministers and members before him, all who have been made mugs of by this Dept and more than one who has burned their political career on it. Gawne, Skelly, Harmer, Baker, Crookall. All lambs to the slaughter.

The Dept as it currently stands is unmanageable and revels in being so.