Cannes LFMD Mandatory training [Archive]

CL300

17th May 2010, 17:47

To my understanding, only the pilot named on the FPL is checked against the database, therefore i would say only the PIC. but as said above it does not impact too much to do it.

as for the disclaimer, Cannes Airport is controlled by SA ACA, a private consortium, not DGAC or DSNA, as a consequence, if DSNA is changing the approach or a mistake is done on a track ( due to magnetic variation for example), then they are not liable. But the essence of this training is to give heads up on this particular circle to land ( altitudes, tracks, speeds, configuration, etc..)
the next AIP will give the same type of informations, along with the address of the site. A little update on the email sent will now include a link in order to be able to download the briefing, if it was not able to do so at time of completion.
This is a version 1 of the training, so critics are welcomed...

733driver

17th May 2010, 22:22

Just a couple of points.

I don't think I like the wording "reverse above idle only in case of emergency - report to be filed". What's wrong with "for safety reasons only"? If I land on a wet runway in Cannes and the runway may be slippery after a long period without rain I will use reversers early on in the landing roll. That's where they are most effective as we all know. No point in waiting to see if wheel braking will be sufficient...
Yes, normally landing performance is not based on the use of reverse thrust but we are talking everyday real life here and not test pilot activities. Not all landings in Cannes are factored, either.

The other point is clean config on downwind. I think for some faster typpes it would make sense to allow first stage of slats/flaps to bring the nose down for imroved visibility and slower speeds. Clean is not a typical configuartion for a circle and it's not really trained that way. I do understand that the 1800' circling is not a standard circling approach, though.

I just think the emphasis should be on track awareness and noise awareness, keeping the noise to a minimum as operationally required.

But don't tell us not to use reverse above idle or extend flaps on downwind.

Just my opinion, though.

CL300

18th May 2010, 05:00

At the beginning, Cannes had to be a Category B airport for Eu-Ops operators, for these operators, at the weight they have to operate into Cannes ( factored landing and even SLO), for all types from VLJ to Falcon 900 through CL604, 160 kt clean was proven OK. Now the training incitates pilot not to drop the gear 3.5 Nm off the sea, flaps approach and travel like this for all the downwind leg exposing a lot of the community to undue noise.
In truth the hi resolution cameras that look at the planes in downwind cannot always spot one notch of flaps, but can see the gear every time.. ;-)

The fact to tell, keep the noise to a minimum is very well a personal appreciation, we interviewed pilots pulling full reverse to exit at first taxiway, they said : we do it because we can.., or this was for safety reasons; this is not acceptable.This is why during the last 3 years we tuned, with the help of some operators, this briefing to encompass all the requirements ( DGAC, green lobby, operators).
As for the reverse on landing, i do not think that the "green jackets" will log you on on a wet runway, but like in Nice , no reverses beyond idle. On the latest types , the fact to select the reverses, is setting the FCU in a higher ground idle, as for the old types, soon a list of unwanted planes will be published.

This briefing was tested among around 1000 pilots over 3 years and increased the compliance of tracks and noise from 15% compliant to 90% compliant, just for a piece of paper. Non compliant tracks/ noise were a consequence of people whom did not bother ( mainly).
So , and in short, if you want to be able to operate at cannes without too much hurdles ( more slots etc...) in the coming future, we all need to help and to try to follow these guidelines.

We are working for new departures one to the North, and one to the south with a level off at 3000 ft. this is for November.. as well as on new type of approaches... Stay tuned..

Trim Stab

18th May 2010, 09:37

CL300

Why the ban on exiting at B and C? I don't see how continuing to the end of the runways before exiting helps the environment.

What are the penalties for non-compliance to any of the requirements?

First.officer

18th May 2010, 09:50

CL300,

Firstly, many thanks for the post.......gave the opportunity for all at my company to register so all good on that point !! :ok:

With regard to improvement on the brief, personally looked very good but was thinking that with the use of the photos, maybe a complete plan view with the LUXUS and PIBON marked and the whole procedure from the break off onto a track of 027 might be helpful, as from the pictures it can appear a little muddled - other than that all good !

F/O

CL300

18th May 2010, 11:00

The ban was put in place in order to incitate pilots not to go full reverses.
the plan view is already on the jeppessen, the pictures were selected for the 'key points' of the procedure.

Financial penalties are under study, not for the facts but for the amount....:uhoh:

edit : 'report to be filed' it a bit like an ASR or an MOR in doubt file one. This is not punitive, this is just to be able to justify to the environmental commission, that indeed this aircraft used full reverse, not to exit B , but because it lost the brakes....Now , you can try to sneak around, but believe me, you might try an succeed once, but not twice, if noone is releasing your aircraft after your "brake failure" or that you taxi to the ramp with "no brakes" and depart again with "no problems"; you will be followed by a nice letter.
A fully trained team is looking into everything, from noise to tracks to behaviour, during this summer, you might even have your track printed after landing as well as your noise footprint....
Keep the place open, keep the restrictions out, we, pilots are the ultimate responsible of this, no one else..:ok:

Trim Stab

18th May 2010, 13:10

Can't you make a dispensation for certain aircraft to exit via B and C? We don't even have reverse thrust (CJ2) so we are not going to be tempted to use it if we do exit before the end of the runway...

Perhaps you could exclude aircraft without thrust reversers from this rule?

Making us taxi all the way to the end of 17, then all the way back (crossing the secondary runway in the process) is not going to be very helpful to environmental impact.

G-SPOTs Lost

18th May 2010, 14:43

It would also be helpful to have LUXUS and PIBON finally approved into FMS databases, its not in mine (Type C680) and only the Aerad charts have the lat and long published on the plate NOT jepps.

The aircraft is RNP 0.3 capable and will do a great VNAV/LNAV job if we had the data.

DO you have a link to a French AIS site with official data for PIBON/LUXUS.

As well as instigating hi res cameras and compliance police maybe LFMD should have spoken to Jepps, everybody can enter a pilot waypoint in a GPS/FMS, You cant reference it from another waypoint either.

Trim Stab

18th May 2010, 15:04

We have LUXUS and PIBON in all the IFR aircraft I fly - one with Rockwell Collins FMS3000, one with Universal Avionics UNS1-B, and the other G1000.

CL300

18th May 2010, 16:38

In september 3 years ago, we had jeppessen to have Luxus and Pibon to be made visible in all databases, you are the first one to come with this issue, Collins , universal and Honeywell as well as Garmin were contacted and confirmed that these points were accessible. This is the reason why the coordinates were removed from the briefing.
They are located on the enroute Rnav waypoints publication :

https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/PDF_AIPparSSection/AIP%20FRANCE/ENR/4/1006_ENR-4.3.pdf

but be cautious these are not in decimal, but sexagesimal...Your provider should be giving you access to these points

As for exit on the middle taxiways, for the time being this is not really negotiable at the moment. Common sense will prevail, it is on the agenda, but winning a war goes through small battles, but I would rather give the middle taxyway exit against no limitation on movements...

G-SPOTs Lost

18th May 2010, 20:08

We're PRNAV approved and the FMS data we subscribe to is PRNAV compliant, the problem being is that its a VFR procedure and the points are not referenced to anywhere. I've checked the database again this afternoon and there does seem to be a sensible shaped approach but the waypoints are not called Pibon/Luxus.....

Much simpler just to ask Jepps to stick the lat/long on the plate.

The data is certified but I'd rather just create a waypoint with the lat/long supplied to be sure instead of creating a point called PD*12JMD07 and hoping its the right one.

Lets keep it simple - if you are part of a user group at LFMD CL300 please investigate the chances of asking Jepps to pony up a lat long

Trim Stab

18th May 2010, 20:21

is that its a VFR procedure and the points are not referenced to anywhere

It's not a VFR procedure - it is circling with prescribed flight tracks which is an IFR procedure.

FWIW, the coordinates of LUXUS and PIBON are (from up to date Flitestar)

LUXUS N43 32.9 E 6 59.5
PIBON N43 35.9 E 6 59.0

Hope that helps.

flybypilot

18th May 2010, 20:27

I dont have LUXUS or PIBON in my Collins FMS and its basically brand new and fully up-to-date. FMS6000 and FMS3000.

Now with the Lat/Long can program them in!

CL300

18th May 2010, 20:45

I will follow up, we surveyed around 200 planes and all of them got these two points in their database.
Everyone is using Jeppesen as a provider for the database ?

G-SPOTs Lost

19th May 2010, 05:53

Quote:
is that its a VFR procedure and the points are not referenced to anywhere

It's not a VFR procedure - it is circling with prescribed flight tracks which is an IFR procedure.

FWIW, the coordinates of LUXUS and PIBON are (from up to date Flitestar)

LUXUS N43 32.9 E 6 59.5
PIBON N43 35.9 E 6 59.0

Hope that helps.

Dave, technically correct. But at 1800ft reducing to 1500ft over rising ground lets agree that its a VMC procedure, or at least should be by the time you get downwind....

Besides what if you were flying there IFR in an aircraft which only has "standard" equipment with no GPS equipment at all? - perfectly possible.

So there you are, inbound IFR in your Piper Cherokee with your FM Immune KNS80 you fly the localiser to the 3.0 mile point or whatever it is and then you have a track to fly and a prescribed distance referenced from nowhere so its a wind corrected heading and your stopwatch. Not the best recipe for accuracy especially with somebody with a microphone and hi res camera looking up at you.

I like Cannes and I appreciate its a finite resource and its important that we manage noise properly, but isn't it nealry always the case that the simplest fixes are the best? Have Jepps put the lat and long on the plate (As Aerad do) and everyones a winner.

Thanks for the LAT/LONG when I get busted on arrival I'll tell the guy from the DGAC I got them off prune :ok: :}

PS in the 680 its worldwide data provided by a joint venture with Honeywell/Jeppesen called INDS, we use the same data as G450/G550/Falcon 2000/900 easy's

CL300

19th May 2010, 06:46

we worked with INDS , and our Falcons Easy and Classic, DO have Luxus and Pibon in the databases, in fact they were in the database but as enroute waypoints, they just move the points to another part of the database. It looks like that you have on your EPIC platform the circle to land depicted, which is not the case on the falcons. ( procedure stops at obota)

I will chase up with Cessna and honeywell on this, but if you have access to a tech rep on the sovereign it is worth a call.

As for the tracks, you can loose sight of the airport during the circle to land, but not from the ground, but you can only leave mda when in view of the landing threshold. As said on the briefing, if the weather is not great you should ask for a normal circle to land, descend to the minimas depicted on the first page of the Jepps, and THEN this is a full visual, and have to keep the airport in sight therefore you will be unable to fly the tracks..

We are working on a better approach on 35 ( not circle to land), the problem there is , is that the final segment is not in accordance with Pan-ops4; this is why you do not have a LLZ DME 35 approach, but a circle to land ALL runways (except 04). So this is WIP...first things first...

Trim Stab

19th May 2010, 07:48

DO have Luxus and Pibon in the databases, in fact they were in the database but as enroute waypoints, they just move the points to another part of the database. It looks like that you have on your EPIC platform the circle to land depicted, which is not the case on the falcons. ( procedure stops at obota)

The circle to land procedure is not in any of the FMS's that I use (Collins, Universal, Garmin) - just the LUXUS and PIBON waypoints. So we just add in LUXUS and PIBON after the 3.0 mile point.

One oddity on the UNS1-B is that the aircraft does as it is told until LUXUS, but rather than then turning to PIBON as programmed, it continues the turn to the left until I chicken out, so we fly LUXUS-PIBON by hand now. No problem, but it would be better if the circling to land procedure was part of the database.

BizJetJock

19th May 2010, 08:19

for all types from VLJ to Falcon 900 through CL604, 160 kt clean was proven OK

Don't know who you spoke to, but a 604/605 at the max weight permitted for landing on 17 (EU-OPS requirements) most certainly cannot do 160 kts clean. The minimum manoevering speed is 170 and normal recommendation is 180.
At 160 knots we would normally have flap 30, although this is a perfectly acceptable and regularly used gear up configuration.

Maybe you need to speak to some operators who actually know what the AFM says.

OK, I'll grovel now.
Should have done the brief before responding to what was written on the thread. I see it says speed not less than min clean or 160, so no prob with 604 being a bit faster.:oh:

flybypilot

19th May 2010, 09:57

My database comes from the Rockwell Collins website but I will see who the database manufacturer is!

CL300

19th May 2010, 10:39

We found that depending on the type Citation Excel vs XLS+ or NZ2000 FMS, the insertion of the waypoints are different, ie some types are inserting LUXUS as a fly over point, which leads to some weird tracks.
example :

http://www.lfmd.org/pprune/pprune.jpg
It is worth checking how it behaves, otherwise if you look far back to the north , you cannot miss the big white patch, and you are on track...

dan1165

19th May 2010, 12:10

"At 160 knots we would normally have flap 30" .

Sorry on 604/5 at 160 kt , flaps 20° ;)

G-SPOTs Lost

19th May 2010, 13:00

CL300

As I proposed simply ask Jepps to put the lat/long on the plate, its not as if its a PRNAV procedure.

The waypoints in my FMS also depict Pibon and Luxus at circling altitude not the 1800/1500. I also cant modify an approach.

Personally I'd rather just plug them in as a pilot waypoint and build my arrival

CL300

19th May 2010, 13:57

Actually the 1500 ft was put in , in order to prevent ( fingers crossed) to have people descending too low during the turn. ( we have some inteersting figures ;-( )

Now it is a circle to land, the briefing is to give awareness to people, and if everyone is doing a little, we will be better off, for the next phase ....

So like the briefing says : Fly the downwind properly on track and clean; Do not short cut to the airport ( fly a curve not a base); no reverses, vacate at the end..160kt /1000ft/min on departure ( thrust reduction) .If 90+ % of the planes coming in do that... well I and a lot of people will be happy !

keithskye

19th May 2010, 14:09

I just went back and read the earlier posts, which I had not done previously, and I want to throw in my 2 pence/cents worth...

Regarding speed for the approach over Luxus and Pibon: it cannot be done at 160kts clean in the 604 at the heavier weights I normally am at on arrival, so I am usually flying it at 180 clean or 160 with flaps 20, then leaving Pibon, I put the gear down and flaps 30, with full flaps going down once clear of the last hill (or more importantly, the houses on the last hill, since they are most likely to complain of noise). If I'm arriving at 34,000, I can slow to 160 clean, but that is actually a more noisy configuration (high AOA). I've been lucky enough to be part of some noise tests in the Challenger, Gulfstream and Hawker series of airplanes, and we found that approach flaps and slightly higher than min speed was less noisy than at min speed clean.

As for navigating the circle to land with prescribed tracks, Luxus and Pibon are in our Rockwell Collins FMS database, and they are also in the Honeywell databases in a 601 and G-IV I fly (obviously I don't bring the G-IV into Cannes, though). It's a simple procedure to build the prescribed track by adding the waypoints to the tail end of the LOC 35 approach, in front of the start of the missed app. Be sure to make PIBON a flyover waypoint or your steering cues will have you turning inbound long before you get to PIBON. I input RW17 as a waypoint, extend a centerline with a fix abeam PIBON, and it all works quite well even on autopilot. I usually take over and fly the rest of the approach manually as I am coming up on PIBON. I use idle reverse normally (or half reverse if I'm heavy), immediately on touchdown and usually have the reversers stowed by just past midfield (unless the runway is wet, then I use what I need for as long as I need it).

I have been flying into this airport about once a week on average, for almost 3 years. Basically, just fly the minimum safe speeds and configuration for the aircraft you operate, and with an eye to reducing noise as much as possible. That is the best that you or anyone else can do.

Keith

FlatTwin

19th May 2010, 16:55

"At 160 knots we would normally have flap 30" .

Sorry on 604/5 at 160 kt , flaps 20° http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif ~~~~

This varies with who is flying and the conditions.

FT
(A 604/605 instructor)

Cowboy-76

19th May 2010, 20:47

CL300

20th May 2010, 05:47

I went through the minutes of the working groups, Since the waypoints were confirmed accessible in the FMS/NMS databases the coordinates were removed from the Jepps Charts, and will be from the french charting as well.
The reason is to prevent insertion error at this stage.
Honeywell and INDS confirmed that from their side the points are active in all master databases; it is down to the plane manufacturer. G-Spot & flyby ; i do not know about your specific plane configuration, but I spoke yesterday to Sovereign and Collins equipped cessna pilots , they have the points in the database.

As for the approach in the database, Collins is leader on this, but we are working on declassifying the approaches ( as per Pan-Ops standard) in order to have no more Circle to land but approaches for each runway ( 35 & 17), then they will be codable and accessible directly; otherwise we have to wait for the next iteration of avionics and DSNA to comply with the latest classification ( scheduled November)

Trim Stab

20th May 2010, 09:34

CL300

As I proposed simply ask Jepps to put the lat/long on the plate, its not as if its a PRNAV procedure.

If you are still looking for an official source for the coordinates of LUXUS and PIBON, they are published in the French SIA approach cards - just type in LFMD then look at the IAC cards.

https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/html/frameset_aip_fr.htm

G-SPOTs Lost

20th May 2010, 10:54

PIBON and LUXUS are in the database on our Citation 680 Sovereign (Honeywell Epic) and our CJ2+ (Collins FMS3000)

We just add the waypoints manually to the flight plan after the approach segment then use it as a reference whilst flying it on the Heading Bug so the aircraft does not try and short cut the waypoints.

But I do agree it would be nice if the whole circle procedure was added to the list of approaches in the FMS database so that we dont need to add the waypoints manually at a busy time in the flight.

Hmmmm Interesting, I've been PIC every time our 680 has flown so maybe somebody added them as user w/points into your 680 Possible?

I'll go interogate my FMS one more time this time with a screwdriver :E

PS thanks Richard - was a bit tongue in cheek regarding the validity of the lat/longs :ok:

ericthepilot

25th May 2010, 10:28

Are you allowed to land with a Gulfstream 4 in Mandelieu Cannes ?
Tx!

CL300

25th May 2010, 12:34

No GLF4 at Cannes , airport is limited to 22 tons MTOW.....

Any Falcon 900EX ? :suspect:

CL300

27th May 2010, 18:27

NBAA,EBAA, some handling companies ( like Universal), some USA operators are concerned about the Mandatory Briefing prior operating in Cannes. Since this came from readers of pprune, I do reply here, an email will be send to them via NBAA i suppose.

The email should be something like : We have to congratulate ourselves for the reaction of the aviation community to this event. Actually, without increasing the operational constraints, Aéroport Cannes-Mandelieu, the Airport operator, managed to unite the energies and to automate, in this regard to make mandatory, (the upcoming Sup AIP will emphasize this) a briefing applicable to everyone.
This briefing is mandatory, because the airport operator decided to do so, this briefing exists in order to try to firewall the operators/pilots against consequences (like fines) when the environmental body (ACNUSA) will rule the nuisances.
It is a fine border between recommended and mandatory, shifting discussions from limitations to globalization of movements, increase the rate of arrival, get a plane like the Falcon 7X to become from a no-go to a may-be, is in perspective of this small hurdle, a victory towards bizjets freedom.
The personal data collection, ( datafile is compliant with the French authorities regulation) is necessary in order to make people realize the need to adhere as close as possible to the environmental necessities of the airport, all this is already published in the official IAC or in Jeppesen; but also a necessity in order to have a good quality of service.
This briefing is the result of three years of discussions, with all the actors, it has been tested for many months among a widespread population of pilots, and today is an acceptable solution to the various requests from the numerous commissions.
So, yes this briefing is mandatory, and no, there is no sanctions if not completed; however the sanctions (fines) will exist , not on the briefing by itself, but on the consequences if the operational guidelines are not followed.

Truly yours

What it is meant to say ( I am lucky I have the french version ;-) ) is the following :
Do the briefing now, because it will become mandatory as soon as the Sup AIP will be published; since handling is mandatory at Cannes, so the Briefing.
Be aware that a third party is coming into play (ACNUSA), totally independant from the Airport operator or DGAC ( read FAA or CAA or whatever), this means that all neighbourhood complaints will be analysed and queried, leadind to fines ( from a simple warning to a ban, with in between some penalties up to 20000€). The accessibilty is at a small price compare to what we can ( could or will ) face if no improvement of the flying behaviour.

More than one thousand pilots did complete the briefing already, a clear difference in noise among the communities is already noted, thank you to keep up the good work !

Capn Kangaroo

27th May 2010, 19:56

Perhaps you could exclude aircraft without thrust reversers from this rule?

Making us taxi all the way to the end of 17, then all the way back (crossing the secondary runway in the process) is not going to be very helpful to environmental impact.

I only reply because this is in a GA / etc part of the forum ....

I suspect someone bimbling along at a minimum of 160kts in a PA28 or even an SR20 could be difficult (80kts would be pushing it some days), and then having landed and stopped within the first 400m or so of the runway only then having to taxi all the way to the end is going to cause all manner of problems ...

Yes, I understand why they're doing this, but suspect that there needs to be some exception for aircraft not able to comply/not directly targetted (or are you banning potentially all single engine IFR/VFR traffic?)

CL300

28th May 2010, 05:36

There is so little approaches per hour available in Cannes ( 4 for the time being), and the weather is usually good , that SE or light twins are not common in IFR ( except flying schools); anyway those are able to exit the middle taxyway.
The reason on not exiting at middle taxiway for jets if due to the noise generated on the neighbourhood just opposite AND thisis to incitate, not to use reverses upon landing.

As for the departure, this is max 160 kt AND 1000 ft/min, this would require a thrust reduction at around 400 ft. A picturewith the microphome implementation will be posted as soon as i can.

The Mad Russian

28th May 2010, 09:26

If anyone is interested in CL 605 (same for a 4) manoeuvring speeds, seeing as it probably one of the more demanding types operated into Cannes, here they are:

Based on a 31000 ldg wt (27600 BOW + 1000 payload + 2500 fuel reserves) normal 'ish' for Cannes.

FCOM states that for full manoeuvre (that's stated as 30 degs + 10 degs over bank in the Bombardier FCOM) add 10 kts to the adequate manoeuvre approach speeds, so Flaps 0 degs = Verf 45 + 40 kts. I think we'd all agree that full manoeuvre margin capability is a good idea over those hills around Cannes.

So Vref 45 at 31000 lbs = 119kts +40kts = 159 kts for Flap 0 (clean), this will give you 45 degs of bank, then the stick shaker (1.07 x reference stall speed).

So 31000 lbs is OK at 160 kts clean, any heavier and you'll need Flap 20 out to get down to 160kts. Flap 20 reduces the reference stall speed by approx 9kts at these sorts of weights.

These people who write these regulations do need to understand the basic characteristics of the aircraft operating into their airfield. I guess on the day the Commander will configure the aircraft as required for a safe operation.

The same with thrust reverse higher than idle detent, if they are needed for a safe operation, I.E. for brake cooling limitations (short turn around time) or the runway surface state, then that's the requirement to operate safely.

CL300

28th May 2010, 10:55

So therefore, 160 Kts clean , straight and level is not an issue. Since you start to configure at Pibon, you will increase your margin, and the bank angle is somewhere around 22° for 150 Kias; all good then..
Issue being the "private" Ops or people keeping the numbers for max gross.
The 2000 EXy max gross has a green dot of 181, but for the weight it operates in Cannes EU-Ops it is 156;
The best figures are always the Vref + , they give better awareness of the maneuvering capability..

Peopke whom wrote the recommandations DO understand how planes are flown, and surveyed 32 types of planes operating in Cannes, and asked the crews of their MLM and speed associated with it.
The flight test directorate gave the green light on it; now people can start to arguing about the inconsistence with their Sops or else; but this is why the briefing is for; a basis for Cat B briefing for EU-OPS operator, or something to put in the Ops-specs for the other, or best practices for the remaining of the crowd.
IF this does not work, a step forward will be done, and then anything can happen, from flight restrictions to Simulator training prior operating or worse..

G-DAVE

28th May 2010, 19:19

Seems funny that all this talk about procedures to reduce the noise impact on the surrounding area, especially exiting the runway at the end to reduce noise even at idle speed, yet in the last couple of visits I have witnessed Mirages of the French Air Force doing `beat up's` at full power!

Cannes airport brings in 10s of millions of Euros per year to the local area, yet restricts movements to a few per hour (when the ATC aren't on strike), the majority of which have a (relatively) low noise footprint.

Only in F........ no can't say that!

CL300

29th May 2010, 06:01

G-DAVE,
I am not going to go into a detailled explanation of your own vision of Cannes Airport, being member of the commissions for 10 years now; the only thing I can say is that your view is highly biased.
Nethertheless a little summary :
We were very close to shutdown in 2000; did you know that ? Yes shutdown, finished, like Frejus next door...
We had to make compromises, among them we had to accept an innaceptable so called " IFR" approach, which is a circle to land with minimas and way of flying it which are the opposite of what we do normally. It took 10 years, and the last 3 years on frantic meeting schedule, in order to publish officially something for the crew to be able to decipher what DGAC wanted to say on the approach charts.
We had to negociate every word with the "greens", the town hall mayors, the DGAC, the DSNA, the ministry of transport etc. Pros and cons.
We managed to shift some big operationnal constraints towards a more realistic analysis of the issues; we have an airspace redesign coming up in order to increase capacity; and for your own knowledge, there is no ATC disruption at Cannes. When you see in the slot the regulation LFMDA02 coming, this is due to more arrival than the airspace can handle.
I do not know if you are proficient in airspace constraints and design, but with today's scheme , there is only 4 arrivals per hour available.
Mirage and Rafale... French airspace is owned by military from ground to infinite; civilans got letter of Authorisation to operate in this, so if a Air Force manoeuver is due, then you have the Air Force flying , full stop. There is NO Mirage or else landing at Cannes.
So yes Cannes airport needs your help , pilots , in order to adhere to the briefing; i (we) am fighting to get as less restrictions as possible, but as said in earlier posts there is compromises, and if vacating at the end of the runway is getting in a Falcon 7X, or legally the 900EX, increase the rate of Arrival to 6 and so on, then yes I think that should be done.
But we cannot do it alone, we need the participation of everyone; as a professional pilot, you should fight to follow this briefing to the dot; and you should be proud if you make it 100%; cutting the corners , knowing that you will jeopardize the future of the place is criminal and :mad: .
I can see already a lot of planes that fly clean to Pibon, when they used to have the gear down, this is an improvement; soon we will meet everyone with its track and noise foot print upon landing; this will be good ( i think) and enjoyable.
Do not try to justify your shortfalls by bitching on the regs; if you cannot make it, then i can assure you that a lot are able to be right on track and config, ( any type landing); it is time to start to work on your skills... :cool:

G-DAVE

29th May 2010, 19:46

CL300,

You seem to have taken offence to my rather tounge in cheek post.

I am a regular into Cannes as my company is a based operator. I have always kept it clean, followed the prescribed tracks, and vacated at the end.

I am a fan of the airport, it's procedures and the staff. I am often there and would be happy to meet up and discuss the operating procedures and may be able to give some input in how to reduce the impact to the 'greens' and maximise the potential of the airport.

CL300

30th May 2010, 05:56

Based there... How come i am alone in all meetings ??? :eek: :)

I am 5 minutes away from the field... anytime !! I am sure we know each other, at least the face ....I have the feeling that today is going to be very quiet and cloudy...

galaxy flyer

1st Jun 2010, 02:37

CL300

Actually, I think your description of LFMD pretty much proves G-DAVE's "tongue in cheek" posting. It is absolutely absurd that an airport important to the local economy would be nearly closed by the ingrates that benefit from its existence. 4, count em 4, movements per hour of Stage 4 bizjets and everyone is on the warpath to close the place? And the people who fly in on the jets are probably leading the opposition. Yes, G-DAVE only in F....

PS, I have been there, fell that as a pilot, it is my responsibility to follow the local procedures, be quiet and efficient. I do so, but still think it all quite silly

And why, in this age, is French airspace all controlled by the military? Is that so, it isn't across most of Europe. Yes, there are lots of military airspace and OAT routes, but not total control.

GF