Originally Posted by
TCAS FAN
Rivet Joint
An ILS on 02 would be of dubious value due to the hill south of the airport. The resultant approach minima with the current 02 threshold wouldn't be anywhere near what is available on 20. The other issue is where would a localiser antenna be sited? Unless SOU could takeover the rail yard at the north end, a localiser inside the current boundary would impact on the ability to put in a useful 20 starter strip/runway extension.
An ideal solution to 02 would have been an MLS approach, which could have offered a curved approach to avoid some of the impact of the hill. Also much more stable than an ILS, and not requiring the expense of six monthly flight checks. Although intended to replace ILS, MLS was not universally liked and therefore never took off.
GPS/GNSS approaches are the way to go, as time goes by they will eventually offer CAT 3 minima, although not at SOU. Virtually no ground based equipment to purchase and maintain, so little capital expenditure for the bean counters to worry about, simples!
I'm currently involved in a long term project using GPS approaches which enables us to routinely land an aircraft on a 900mm centreline, on the touchdown zone, every time!
I've had a previous rant about GPS/GNSS approaches on the previous SOU thread. UK airports with no scheduled public transport flights have used them for years (Shoreham and Gloucestershire/Staverton being examples, with Halfpenny Green and Hverfordwest apparently due to shortly follow them).
Why in the 21st century is SOU screwing around with offset NDB and VOR/DME approaches for 02? Especially with the SAM VOR/DME known to have short time life expectancy.
Contrary to previous comment made in response to my past rant about GPS/GNSS approaches, alleging that specialised survey data was required, IMHO as both 02 & 20 already have non-precision instrument procedures, SOU already have the survey data necessary to support GPS/GNSS approaches for both runways. They also have the protection of controlled airspace for aircraft flying approaches, a luxury the previous mentioned airports do not have, and therefore needed to pay some for an expensive Safety Case to prove adequate risk mitigation.
NATS are desperate to retain the SOU contract, they have the ability to design GPS/GNSS approaches, time for SOU to squeeze them, again!
Great informative post as useual TCAS FAN. Clearly these obstacles are not going away anytime soon. Although saying that, LCY has the whole of Canary Wharf to circumnavigate. I think the real elephant in the room that prevents the likes of Vueling, Easy, Volotea from testing more than the odd route is the limited number of stands and associated infrastructure (tugs, stairs etc). SOU needs to speculate to accumulate but of course we all know they won't. Easy and even Ryanair have seemingly endless aircraft on order looking for somewhere to park and they will freely base them at numerous backwaters across Europe. Why would they not park one or a couple at an airport based in one of the most affluent counties in the country? They are not going to knock on SOU's door, the airport needs to give them the tools to make it happen. The long in the tooth MD is probably still dining off the fact Easy have announced one route when someone more dynamic would be seizing the opportunity to turn it into something far better to shout about.