Southampton-2
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!
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!
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 27th Sep 2017 at 10:24. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
Excellent analysis of a very dissapointing Southampton landing aids situation.I suspect little will change!
Moving away from this,there appears to be no further developments from easy jet re : Southampton Sun routes or anything else ( Easy later Summer announcement today). Apart from Volotea Majorca/Ibiza continued flights and Flybe,is Southampton going to progress to other routes in 2018?
Excellent analysis of a very dissapointing Southampton landing aids situation.I suspect little will change!
Moving away from this,there appears to be no further developments from easy jet re : Southampton Sun routes or anything else ( Easy later Summer announcement today). Apart from Volotea Majorca/Ibiza continued flights and Flybe,is Southampton going to progress to other routes in 2018?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure Volotea are returning next summer as on checking their website, no flights are loaded for SOU although all other summer routes on their network are present, even Cork to Verona!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the doghouse (usually)
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly they didn't announce this summer's Ibiza route until November last year, so it seems a little early to have their schedule finalised this time round. Hopefully the flights will be loaded soon. If TOM are selling seats then that's a good sign. It would seem like a big drop to go from five seemingly successful flights to two destinations per week one summer, to nothing at all the next.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropping these routes would only suggest that some other carrier is taking over because as you mention, they were popular this summer and the majority of time full
Last edited by stewyb; 27th Sep 2017 at 18:41.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 42
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: worcester
Age: 50
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volotea 2018
Interesting to see that volotea have loaded the calendar down to September 2018 sou to ibz but no bookable dates ,on the drop down for Majorca only goes as far as this October 2017 .
It was this week last year they were put on sale for this year ,so perhaps they will go on sale very shortly
It was this week last year they were put on sale for this year ,so perhaps they will go on sale very shortly
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
River Joint
It's difficult to see how more stands could be built, especially with the constrained space at the airport.
OK I can see the existing stands being enlarged,but to the detriment of fewer stands thus causing further problems with parking aircraft.
Maybe Easy and Ryanair can park there aircraft at Hurn,if MAG get there act together?
In the meantime it's the same old story to continue at Southampton.
It's difficult to see how more stands could be built, especially with the constrained space at the airport.
OK I can see the existing stands being enlarged,but to the detriment of fewer stands thus causing further problems with parking aircraft.
Maybe Easy and Ryanair can park there aircraft at Hurn,if MAG get there act together?
In the meantime it's the same old story to continue at Southampton.
Buster the Bear
A specific "approval" to fly a GNSS approach is not required. It is recognised by ICAO, and thereby as a Contracting State the UK accepts it as a permitted method of flying Instrument Approach Procedure. Given an alternative of an NDB or GNSS instrument approach procedure its no contest which one I'd fly.
Why are GA airfields paying to have GNSS approaches? Maybe because they are a cost effective method of providing an accurate IAP with little or no ground equipment to maintain?
All that is required, apart from SOU getting their act together and paying for the procedure design and CAA acceptance, are aircraft that are suitably equipped and crews that are suitably trained.
All, current generation of public transport aircraft are GPS enabled.
A specific "approval" to fly a GNSS approach is not required. It is recognised by ICAO, and thereby as a Contracting State the UK accepts it as a permitted method of flying Instrument Approach Procedure. Given an alternative of an NDB or GNSS instrument approach procedure its no contest which one I'd fly.
Why are GA airfields paying to have GNSS approaches? Maybe because they are a cost effective method of providing an accurate IAP with little or no ground equipment to maintain?
All that is required, apart from SOU getting their act together and paying for the procedure design and CAA acceptance, are aircraft that are suitably equipped and crews that are suitably trained.
All, current generation of public transport aircraft are GPS enabled.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard for next Summer 18 on sale at the moment
Thomson - TUI
Palma on Sat and Tue using Volotea ( they have also loaded but not on sale , Sun and Thu which are the Flybe departure days using DH8 and 195 respectively )
Ibiza on Thu using Volotea
Mahon on Sat using a Flybe DH8 charter
Alicante , Malaga , Verona and Faro are all loaded but not on sale , again all corresponds with Flybe departure days
Thomas Cook
Palma on Thu and Sun using the schedule flights of Flybe
Volotea have withdrawn the Ibiza schedule from sale they shared with Thomson
Thomson - TUI
Palma on Sat and Tue using Volotea ( they have also loaded but not on sale , Sun and Thu which are the Flybe departure days using DH8 and 195 respectively )
Ibiza on Thu using Volotea
Mahon on Sat using a Flybe DH8 charter
Alicante , Malaga , Verona and Faro are all loaded but not on sale , again all corresponds with Flybe departure days
Thomas Cook
Palma on Thu and Sun using the schedule flights of Flybe
Volotea have withdrawn the Ibiza schedule from sale they shared with Thomson
Last edited by MARKEYD; 28th Sep 2017 at 15:35.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's strange that every time I arrive into SOU my aircraft always does a full circle before landing, is this due to arrival altitude limits due proximity to London area control?
Also the departures terminal at SOU is shockingly small and uncomfortable - they really need to build a brand new two story terminal with air-bridges on the other side of the airfield if they are to reach 3m - the current terminal cannot take more simultaneous flights at peak times.
Also the departures terminal at SOU is shockingly small and uncomfortable - they really need to build a brand new two story terminal with air-bridges on the other side of the airfield if they are to reach 3m - the current terminal cannot take more simultaneous flights at peak times.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 4,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. I am aware of three airlines that whilst they might have approval to operate GNSS approaches will not do so, the reason being a 'crew training and approval' issue. That is not to say that if such an approach was available, airlines would not upgrade their crew to fly them. BA are doing them very regularly into Heathrow.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see that " Lolo flights " are back again advertising peak flights on a Tuesday during July / Aug to Skiathos of all places using Flybe !!
They say they are also looking at flights to Croatia / Greece and other obscure places during the summer months
No indication at the moment as to what aircraft they plan to use for this little adventure
They say they are also looking at flights to Croatia / Greece and other obscure places during the summer months
No indication at the moment as to what aircraft they plan to use for this little adventure
shamrock7seal
The reason for the orbit is a lack of controlled airspace for the Solent CTA. IFR arrivals from the north have to stay above FL65 until about 12 miles from touchdown, far above the normal 3 degree glidepath for a 20 arrival. The result is a 360 degree turn to allow sufficient time for the aircraft to lose the excess height. What we used to call a "Winchester 2 arrival" - 'cos you got to see Winchester twice on the way in!
The nett result is extra fuel burn and yet more Co2 into the atmosphere and cost to the airlines.
Thought that environmental protection was/is part of the past & present airport operator's operating ethos?
So why cannot sufficient controlled airspace be provided for the Solent CTA? The original excuse was that there was a considerable amount of test flying at Dunsfold and Farnborough that required to have unimpeded transit to/from the west for air tests. How long ago did BAe move out of Dunsfold and MOD/ETPS move out of Farnborough?
During the Olympics temporary controlled airspace was provided to avoid having to fly the orbits, why not now as a permanent measure? Time for the airport operator (with NATS help) to kick off an Airspace Change Proposal to get the airspace needed? I would suggest that extension of the Solent CTA has more credibility than the recent outrageous airspace change proposals for Farnborough to provide controlled airspace to protect the multi millionaires who chose to use it for their private jets rather than take a schedule flight.
The reason for the orbit is a lack of controlled airspace for the Solent CTA. IFR arrivals from the north have to stay above FL65 until about 12 miles from touchdown, far above the normal 3 degree glidepath for a 20 arrival. The result is a 360 degree turn to allow sufficient time for the aircraft to lose the excess height. What we used to call a "Winchester 2 arrival" - 'cos you got to see Winchester twice on the way in!
The nett result is extra fuel burn and yet more Co2 into the atmosphere and cost to the airlines.
Thought that environmental protection was/is part of the past & present airport operator's operating ethos?
So why cannot sufficient controlled airspace be provided for the Solent CTA? The original excuse was that there was a considerable amount of test flying at Dunsfold and Farnborough that required to have unimpeded transit to/from the west for air tests. How long ago did BAe move out of Dunsfold and MOD/ETPS move out of Farnborough?
During the Olympics temporary controlled airspace was provided to avoid having to fly the orbits, why not now as a permanent measure? Time for the airport operator (with NATS help) to kick off an Airspace Change Proposal to get the airspace needed? I would suggest that extension of the Solent CTA has more credibility than the recent outrageous airspace change proposals for Farnborough to provide controlled airspace to protect the multi millionaires who chose to use it for their private jets rather than take a schedule flight.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MARKEYD
Interesting to see that " Lolo flights " are back again advertising peak flights on a Tuesday during July / Aug to Skiathos of all places using Flybe !!
They say they are also looking at flights to Croatia / Greece and other obscure places during the summer months
No indication at the moment as to what aircraft they plan to use for this little adventure
They say they are also looking at flights to Croatia / Greece and other obscure places during the summer months
No indication at the moment as to what aircraft they plan to use for this little adventure
Not the best impression for potential customers either when have flybe written as the operator in the search but the Air Europa logo instead
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shamrock7seal
It's true that when I arrived back from Ibiza in June on a 717,we had to que outside the terminal to pass customs,indeed if there had been another 100+ seater arrival then it would have been chaotic.
Any further passenger increases will just underline Southampton terminal problems,the only way I think could improve capacity would be to build up,otherwise it's problems ahead!
It's true that when I arrived back from Ibiza in June on a 717,we had to que outside the terminal to pass customs,indeed if there had been another 100+ seater arrival then it would have been chaotic.
Any further passenger increases will just underline Southampton terminal problems,the only way I think could improve capacity would be to build up,otherwise it's problems ahead!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks TCAS FAN for the explanation of the orbit before landing, I can't think of any other airport in the U.K. That has this 'problem' which must be uncomfortable during stormy weather!
RW20 - will be interesting to see the easyJet A320's with 180 pax squeezing in there.
RW20 - will be interesting to see the easyJet A320's with 180 pax squeezing in there.
