GUERNSEY
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Under Red One
Age: 76
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just found a webcam of eastern apron at GCI, it scrolls thro about 7 views, from Mail plane - looking west towards main apron to the Water tower to the east. Find it at Home | Aiglle Flight Support. Picture good quality and can be dragged to full screen on iPad without significant degradation.
Last edited by cobopete; 24th May 2017 at 15:48. Reason: More info
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Under Red One
Age: 76
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway Extension plans
The possibility of extending the runway has got back on the agenda, with a States debate planned for later this year....thus making the use of small Airbus and 737 at full loads possible and new routes and destinations following (perhaps). I was under the impression that scope for the extension at the western end was made when the runway was shifted west to provide sufficient safety run off during the Lagan upgrade. However the latest info I have seen is to extend to east by filling in the valley, and with huge earth works. Is this really planned and if so can anyone explain the logic for it (aside from keeping the St Peters and Torteval politicos on-side?).
PS Do you also find it sad that all press reports emphasise the proposed length would be longer than Jerseys'.
PS Do you also find it sad that all press reports emphasise the proposed length would be longer than Jerseys'.
Apart from the cost of filling in the valley, I think that the logical way to go would be east. If you extend to the west you run into the St.Peter's village area. Not that the extension would run into the village, but the a/c would be extremely low passing over it. It might well result in St.Peter's church having to be demolished. Also, the land slopes down from the 09 threshold area, so a lot of leveling would have to take place. Perhaps the cost of compulsory purchase, leveling & social disruption would be greater than filling in the valley !
Having said that, the elevation of the 27 threshold is, from memory, considerably higher than the road to the east of it, & even more so than the valley & surrounding land - a pretty daunting challenge to fill it in. I suppose that the water tower would have to go too.
I am pretty sceptical about this project. Some Guernsey politicians seem to think that all they have to do to expand air services & increase visitor numbers, is to extend the r/w. I would suggest that, if the demand for new routes actually exists, then the existing operators would already be operating them with their existing equipment. Why would a longer r/w, of itself, provide the impetus for new routes ?
Then there is the hope that EZY would be encouraged to operate low cost routes (primarily Gatwick). If they were, that would be the end of AUR ; because they couldn't compete with EZY -unless the States were to subsidise them even more ! Why would the States spend tens of millions on the extension, encourage EZY to operate, & then watch their multi million investment in AUR go down the pan ?
Having said that, the elevation of the 27 threshold is, from memory, considerably higher than the road to the east of it, & even more so than the valley & surrounding land - a pretty daunting challenge to fill it in. I suppose that the water tower would have to go too.
I am pretty sceptical about this project. Some Guernsey politicians seem to think that all they have to do to expand air services & increase visitor numbers, is to extend the r/w. I would suggest that, if the demand for new routes actually exists, then the existing operators would already be operating them with their existing equipment. Why would a longer r/w, of itself, provide the impetus for new routes ?
Then there is the hope that EZY would be encouraged to operate low cost routes (primarily Gatwick). If they were, that would be the end of AUR ; because they couldn't compete with EZY -unless the States were to subsidise them even more ! Why would the States spend tens of millions on the extension, encourage EZY to operate, & then watch their multi million investment in AUR go down the pan ?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As everything's gone a bit quiet, just thought I'd ask a question of those of you in the know... I visited Guernsey last month and while loitering suspiciously at the 27 threshold with my camera, I noticed that most aircraft, even the ones arriving from the UK, seemed to intercept the localiser from the south. Any reason behind this?
)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha, indeed it might be to avoid Dr. No's SAMs on Brecqhou. 
Joking aside, I did wonder if there was something unusual happening the day I was there (it was the evening after the Battle of Britain display coincidentally) but I had a look on FR24 this morning and watched an ATR arriving from Gatwick and it also took a 'dip' to the south before lining up.
Apologies for what might seem a trivial question. Just taking advantage of the fact that there's not much going on on the thread
Joking aside, I did wonder if there was something unusual happening the day I was there (it was the evening after the Battle of Britain display coincidentally) but I had a look on FR24 this morning and watched an ATR arriving from Gatwick and it also took a 'dip' to the south before lining up.
Apologies for what might seem a trivial question. Just taking advantage of the fact that there's not much going on on the thread
Last edited by jensdad; 3rd Oct 2017 at 13:25. Reason: Don't know my AAMs from my SAMs
I've been "out of the loop" for 10 years, now - so I don't know what local procedures might have been adopted. There may have been a "one off" occurrence which required vectoring to position a/c onto the ILS from the south. Certainly, Wycombe is correct to mention the need to avoid overflying Sark below 2000', but Guernsey Approach can usually position a/c onto the 27 ILS & still keep a/c over Sark above that height. I am presuming that we are talking about 27. Jersey would not want Guernsey going too far south of the 27 LOC on a frequent & regular basis (because that would infringe Jersey's airspace & vectoring). So, I am at a loss to explain why
you should have observed what you did.
you should have observed what you did.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your local knowledge, kcockayne and Wycombe
Might just be a series of 'one-off's' as you say. The ATR72 I followed on FR24 this morning - AUR603 was the one I tracked - went directly overhead Sark on it's journey south so I'm guessing it's nothing to do with that. On the evening after the BoB display there were several arrivals that went south of the centreline so that may have been something to do with airspace restrictions still in place.
Might just be a series of 'one-off's' as you say. The ATR72 I followed on FR24 this morning - AUR603 was the one I tracked - went directly overhead Sark on it's journey south so I'm guessing it's nothing to do with that. On the evening after the BoB display there were several arrivals that went south of the centreline so that may have been something to do with airspace restrictions still in place.
Should help, in a small way, to satisfy the apparent call for more air routes from the Guernsey public. But, such new routes will always be somewhat limited in their scope.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice to see Loganair try Glasgow-Guernsey again for S18. Think it was 'Airline of Britain' time when they specifically last tried it. Niche and low numbers but welcome none the less
