Northolt issues for business aviation
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to pop my tuppence in as I'm not sure that this is a question of our interpretation of safety (that's the CAA's job, and the rules should be common for all businesses.)
AS a charter operator we get a huge amount of enquiries that ask for "any London airport", to this end I think if NHT was not an option the traffic would migrate to other London airports with Biggin getting a fair share (not so convinced that OXF's LDA makes it a particularly likely alternative for the AOC Ops, and of course it is almost in the Midlands). I think FAB and LCY may do well out of BQH and OXF's expenditure.
On the other hand, there is a question of what is right and correct. If the CAA allowed just one AOC holder to use unfactored landing and take-off distances then the rest of us would be up in arms - especially if that one operator was government funded by our taxes and publicised as non-profit making. I think it is totally appropriate that BQH and OXF have raised the question of fairness. It's simply a surprise to me that FAB and other Londonesque airports haven't put their hands in their pockets.
PB
AS a charter operator we get a huge amount of enquiries that ask for "any London airport", to this end I think if NHT was not an option the traffic would migrate to other London airports with Biggin getting a fair share (not so convinced that OXF's LDA makes it a particularly likely alternative for the AOC Ops, and of course it is almost in the Midlands). I think FAB and LCY may do well out of BQH and OXF's expenditure.
On the other hand, there is a question of what is right and correct. If the CAA allowed just one AOC holder to use unfactored landing and take-off distances then the rest of us would be up in arms - especially if that one operator was government funded by our taxes and publicised as non-profit making. I think it is totally appropriate that BQH and OXF have raised the question of fairness. It's simply a surprise to me that FAB and other Londonesque airports haven't put their hands in their pockets.
PB
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
How safe PAR approaches?
Compared to what? An instrument approach in uncontrolled airspace, for example at airfields such as at Oxford and Biggin Hill?
Compared to what? An instrument approach in uncontrolled airspace, for example at airfields such as at Oxford and Biggin Hill?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAR approaches only require you to be able to fly a plane and have a working pair of ears. You are told of the deviation and the correction needed in heading and your position relative to the slope, what the hell else do you need?
Oh I guess a coupled approach should be mandatory now. Jeez really I do wonder
I did these during my PPL and even a speechless one with simulated gyro failure. My instructor was a funny guy.
D and F
Oh I guess a coupled approach should be mandatory now. Jeez really I do wonder
I did these during my PPL and even a speechless one with simulated gyro failure. My instructor was a funny guy.
D and F
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
I once overheard an (obviously ATPL qualified) airline pilot decline the offer of a PAR approach when the ILS went U/S. He said that the aircraft wasn't PAR equipped and he diverted to another country! 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline pilot decline the offer of a PAR approach
I wonder if that might be our friend SOP Monkey.
Excellent Professional, no-risk, minimum chaos decision that!!
Luxury........We used to dreeeeeeeeem of PAR approaches!!
Jez
Excellent Professional, no-risk, minimum chaos decision that!!
Luxury........We used to dreeeeeeeeem of PAR approaches!!
Jez
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tommoutrie : just dial in a hookey GPS RNAV approach into Northolt and listen to the bloke say On Speed, On Glide, On Centreline all the way down.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How safe PAR approaches?
Used to fly in to Northolt on regular civil flights and a PAR was a most welcome event especially with that calming female voice, your on GP on GS
Over the years a most memorable PAR approach was during an emergency with no options left flying in to Sonderstrom Fiord during the time when the USAF operated the airfield, single engine jet, all sorts of failures in progress, weather down to minimums
and a very nice female controller talked me down to touch down in white out conditions, had a few beers that night
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
Well, I'm actually already convinced about the value of the PAR approach. I was responding to a previous post.
I flew my first PAR in the 1970s (RAF jet training) and seeing that the aircraft I flew afterwards had no ADF or ILS, until the end of the second decade of my military service, we routinely flew them and had to fly a certain number every month for currency.
I flew my first PAR in the 1970s (RAF jet training) and seeing that the aircraft I flew afterwards had no ADF or ILS, until the end of the second decade of my military service, we routinely flew them and had to fly a certain number every month for currency.
I did a PAR into Northolt once and another time into Norwich I think. Very relaxed, no probs at all. If a pilot can't fly a PAR without regular practice then they really can't fly an aircraft!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the noise about Northolt's non compliance with civilian minima and regulations has hit the headlines all over again:
Queen's airfield is not safe for planes, secret MoD files show - Telegraph
and a piece today about possible airline use - but only with significant changes (but nothing the airlines operate will happily use a 1199m LDA runway!):
BTNews: The Business Travel News
and just seen this site where the Mott McDonald report on the airport's non-compliances can be downloaded after a Freedom of Information request unearthed it from the bowels of the MOD - the above mentioned 'secret MOD files'.
www.wikinortholt.com
Clearly, with over 90% civil use, but non-compliance with civil standards, something's going to change. Don't think business aviation will continue to be a user if the runway goes down to say Code 2B standards, just King Airs and the odd M2 or Mustang perhaps!
Queen's airfield is not safe for planes, secret MoD files show - Telegraph
and a piece today about possible airline use - but only with significant changes (but nothing the airlines operate will happily use a 1199m LDA runway!):
BTNews: The Business Travel News
and just seen this site where the Mott McDonald report on the airport's non-compliances can be downloaded after a Freedom of Information request unearthed it from the bowels of the MOD - the above mentioned 'secret MOD files'.
www.wikinortholt.com
Clearly, with over 90% civil use, but non-compliance with civil standards, something's going to change. Don't think business aviation will continue to be a user if the runway goes down to say Code 2B standards, just King Airs and the odd M2 or Mustang perhaps!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though they've now got Lytag arrestor beds at each end, they're not supposed to be included in any runway end safety areas (RESA) which means the true landing distance available is notably less than what is published in civil terms. It was in 1996 that the Learjet coming off the end forced them to put in the beds:
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/File:LJ25_RE_Norholt_UK_1996.jpg[/IMG]
Add to that the number of obstacles penetrating the approach surfaces and the runway really has to be shortened in terms of declared distances for civil use.
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/File:LJ25_RE_Norholt_UK_1996.jpg[/IMG]
Add to that the number of obstacles penetrating the approach surfaces and the runway really has to be shortened in terms of declared distances for civil use.
Not to mention the MoD are too tight to put in a proper EMAS which might make all the difference in terms of safety!
I understand that the Typhoons operating in and out of there during the Olympics were operating on exceptionally tight margins too.
I understand that the Typhoons operating in and out of there during the Olympics were operating on exceptionally tight margins too.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes EMAS beds would be much better, but hideously expensive. Trouble is they still can't be part of the proper RESA, they're just an additional safety measure.
MOD looked at that some time ago, but decided extortionate cost overruled enhanced safety in that instance.
They should put EMAS in and shorten the declared distances (LDA in particular) to get sensible RESAs and reduce the obstacle issues, but that will inevitably reduce the size/weight of business aircraft that can get in, at least only those with exceptional field performance, specifically landing performance.
The day may come when it's only turboprops and the lightest of jets able to get in.
I see there's a lot of banter still about the use by the likes of Flybe instead of business aviation to save London from a third LHR runway and those slots be reserved for regional connectivity to/from London. Thing is, they would only be able to use old Dash-8s or even Dash-7s. It would be a bit like Plymouth operations of old.
MOD looked at that some time ago, but decided extortionate cost overruled enhanced safety in that instance.
They should put EMAS in and shorten the declared distances (LDA in particular) to get sensible RESAs and reduce the obstacle issues, but that will inevitably reduce the size/weight of business aircraft that can get in, at least only those with exceptional field performance, specifically landing performance.
The day may come when it's only turboprops and the lightest of jets able to get in.
I see there's a lot of banter still about the use by the likes of Flybe instead of business aviation to save London from a third LHR runway and those slots be reserved for regional connectivity to/from London. Thing is, they would only be able to use old Dash-8s or even Dash-7s. It would be a bit like Plymouth operations of old.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chobham
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been reading bits of that Mott MacDonald report from 2012 where they concisely state that the non-compliance issues are sufficient to state that Northolt could not be licensed in its current form and that the runway is unsuitable for any commercial operations, even if it remained under Government control.
I actually think it’s a disgrace that the MOD consciously deemed it necessary to hide this report from any other third parties, including the CAA. ‘Best keep this one quiet for now and just stick with the status quo and not rock the boat’ is no doubt the course they took.
So, what happens now? The lack of adequate runway end safety areas and the considerable number of significant obstacles infringing the obstacle limitation surfaces must mean the CAA will have to revise their AIP entry with new declared lengths, even though the MOD will probably stick to their current figures. Not sure if you could have two sets of declared lengths though, one for the military and another for the civilian users? Very much doubt that is possible, or safe.
If the landing distance on RWY 25 went down to the recommended 1,354m from the current 1,684m, that’s pretty significant. Notice that the report also saw that the runway friction levels were below the maintenance planning level, so not only is the ‘real’ available landing distance dramatically shorter, the runway surface friction characteristics when wet are also poor. If you undershoot on RWY25 or come off the other end, those Lytag beds are far from ideal – evidence is that they don’t always retard aircraft at all speeds, aircraft can skip across them, they soak up fuel and pose an increased risk of fire. The fire tenders can’t access them either.
When you’ve got to land in the same direction as Heathrow’s runways you’re going to have tailwind conditions on a regular basis and with the shortened runway that’s just not acceptable. Add to that the need for PAR approaches on RWY07 and the turn onto final approach at 4 miles and it’s all too tight.
With over 300 obstacles infringing the OLS, according to the Mott MacDonald report, some very significant and immovable, none apparently lit, why does the AIP entry only identify a handful of those?
It all stinks. Add to this RFFS inadequacies, military ATC procedures, low PCN bearing strengths of runway and taxiways, inadequate runway markings and lighting and proximity to Heathrow and overall misleading AIP data, how on earth have they got away with the status quo with over 90% civil aviation usage?
I actually think it’s a disgrace that the MOD consciously deemed it necessary to hide this report from any other third parties, including the CAA. ‘Best keep this one quiet for now and just stick with the status quo and not rock the boat’ is no doubt the course they took.
So, what happens now? The lack of adequate runway end safety areas and the considerable number of significant obstacles infringing the obstacle limitation surfaces must mean the CAA will have to revise their AIP entry with new declared lengths, even though the MOD will probably stick to their current figures. Not sure if you could have two sets of declared lengths though, one for the military and another for the civilian users? Very much doubt that is possible, or safe.
If the landing distance on RWY 25 went down to the recommended 1,354m from the current 1,684m, that’s pretty significant. Notice that the report also saw that the runway friction levels were below the maintenance planning level, so not only is the ‘real’ available landing distance dramatically shorter, the runway surface friction characteristics when wet are also poor. If you undershoot on RWY25 or come off the other end, those Lytag beds are far from ideal – evidence is that they don’t always retard aircraft at all speeds, aircraft can skip across them, they soak up fuel and pose an increased risk of fire. The fire tenders can’t access them either.
When you’ve got to land in the same direction as Heathrow’s runways you’re going to have tailwind conditions on a regular basis and with the shortened runway that’s just not acceptable. Add to that the need for PAR approaches on RWY07 and the turn onto final approach at 4 miles and it’s all too tight.
With over 300 obstacles infringing the OLS, according to the Mott MacDonald report, some very significant and immovable, none apparently lit, why does the AIP entry only identify a handful of those?
It all stinks. Add to this RFFS inadequacies, military ATC procedures, low PCN bearing strengths of runway and taxiways, inadequate runway markings and lighting and proximity to Heathrow and overall misleading AIP data, how on earth have they got away with the status quo with over 90% civil aviation usage?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moderator- I wonder if this thread is now in the correct section?
Maybe more appropriate in the 'Airport/Airlines' section given that regional carriers like Flybe and others are purporting to be ''interested in NHT'' from an air transport perspective .
Maybe more appropriate in the 'Airport/Airlines' section given that regional carriers like Flybe and others are purporting to be ''interested in NHT'' from an air transport perspective .
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the CAA can't be bothered to impose any additional limitations on operators using NHT:
The Battle of London - London Biggin Hill Airport versus London Northolt Airport - CJI Main Site
There's clearly a whole bunch of non-compliances and infringements there and yet it's deemed to be O.K. to use the airfield with the current MAA (military) numbers without any adjustment or factoring for equivalent civil compliance were it to be a licensed airport. And yet it's fundamentally a civil airport - 95% civilian use.
Business aviation operators don't want to lose access were the runway usable or declared lengths reduced to what they should be for civil use, whilst the CAA have no ability to tell the MOD what to do at the airport and don't deem it unsafe enough to impose any constraints on civil use.
I would suggest that if a considered opinion of a specialist airport safety outfit such as Mott MacDonald says as a minimum, some 300m plus should be taken off the LDA (landing distance) for 'safe' use, then somebody somewhere is turning a blind eye to the whole matter - all too difficult with no precedent in the UK in terms of how to deal with the issue. That makes one hell of a difference to a larger, heavier business jet on a wet runway with known poor friction characteristics.
The Battle of London - London Biggin Hill Airport versus London Northolt Airport - CJI Main Site
There's clearly a whole bunch of non-compliances and infringements there and yet it's deemed to be O.K. to use the airfield with the current MAA (military) numbers without any adjustment or factoring for equivalent civil compliance were it to be a licensed airport. And yet it's fundamentally a civil airport - 95% civilian use.
Business aviation operators don't want to lose access were the runway usable or declared lengths reduced to what they should be for civil use, whilst the CAA have no ability to tell the MOD what to do at the airport and don't deem it unsafe enough to impose any constraints on civil use.
I would suggest that if a considered opinion of a specialist airport safety outfit such as Mott MacDonald says as a minimum, some 300m plus should be taken off the LDA (landing distance) for 'safe' use, then somebody somewhere is turning a blind eye to the whole matter - all too difficult with no precedent in the UK in terms of how to deal with the issue. That makes one hell of a difference to a larger, heavier business jet on a wet runway with known poor friction characteristics.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is really a piss contest.. If NHT is not safe, then Bizet shall stop flying all at once to Africa, China, South America, Russia, etc.... and even some airfields in USofA ...
Have a break, have a KitKat... As long as there is no scheduled movement and "public" traffic in and out a MILITARY base, they can rule whatever they like. Operators have just have to make the numbers to work.
All too much politics and bureaucrats behind this, just let the planes to take off and land like they are doing it for what ? how long NHT and the 125 ? Cannot remember, late 80's I landed there ( I was based in Hatfield, another massacre from aviation idiots), so please, let our airports open, and let these firms to study a sixth runway in LHR...Or to stick with ICAO phraseology... How about that ?
Have a break, have a KitKat... As long as there is no scheduled movement and "public" traffic in and out a MILITARY base, they can rule whatever they like. Operators have just have to make the numbers to work.
All too much politics and bureaucrats behind this, just let the planes to take off and land like they are doing it for what ? how long NHT and the 125 ? Cannot remember, late 80's I landed there ( I was based in Hatfield, another massacre from aviation idiots), so please, let our airports open, and let these firms to study a sixth runway in LHR...Or to stick with ICAO phraseology... How about that ?