Well the MRCC approved the additional $$ for the ILS at a meeting this week.
Would you believe it is proposed to be on runway 09 and not 27.
The obvious choice for an ILS would be 27 for all the reasons previously mentioned and of course most of the inbound RPT and Air Ambulance traffic is from the south east. But I can’t help wondering if the Airport management, Board and MRCC councillors are confused as to the actual approach direction for the proposed ILS. Most of them probably have no idea what an ILS is or what 09 or 27 mean.
If it was planned for 27 the Localiser antenna would be at the 09 end where they own more land beyond the airport boundary, the 27 threshold is closer to the road and land they don’t own. Maybe they don’t understand their own plans.