What the ####s happening at Oban?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North South,
I take your points, but I was merely saying that cloud type procedures do exist. It is quite clear to me that getting any form of instrument approach would be a) very difficult due to the terrain and b) costly to the point where the landing fees would become prohibitive. I think the money would better spent on maintaining the existing real estate and maybe looking for someone to set up a charter business (scenic flights etc).
Clearfinalsno1,
Descending over the sea IFR only gets you to 1500' (MSA over the water) so a GPS approach would not be much use either. You need radar to descend further and at that point it becomes a multi crew operation.
I take your points, but I was merely saying that cloud type procedures do exist. It is quite clear to me that getting any form of instrument approach would be a) very difficult due to the terrain and b) costly to the point where the landing fees would become prohibitive. I think the money would better spent on maintaining the existing real estate and maybe looking for someone to set up a charter business (scenic flights etc).
Clearfinalsno1,
Descending over the sea IFR only gets you to 1500' (MSA over the water) so a GPS approach would not be much use either. You need radar to descend further and at that point it becomes a multi crew operation.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
boomerangben:
Probably nitpicking but my point was that what many people think of as cloudbreak procedures are actually aerodrome approaches, i.e. conventional IAPs except that they are not aligned with the runway. There are a few of those around - Sumburgh, Islay for example as well as Stornoway. The point I was making is that I don't believe even that's possible at Oban because unless you put the NDB somewhere off-aerodrome to the south, the hill north of the airfield would make the MSA 1200 or 1300 feet which is pretty useless.
The sort of cloudbreak procedure I was thinking of was something along these lines:
http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dscgi/d...KVG_NDB_MY.pdf
Not sure if the Danes have approved any commercial operators to use that procedure but I have a suspicion that the CAA here would have kittens at the prospect of a Jetstream hunting around in the murk at 1000ft or less with the Capt and FO debating which headland is the right one to fly round to reach the airfield.
NS
Probably nitpicking but my point was that what many people think of as cloudbreak procedures are actually aerodrome approaches, i.e. conventional IAPs except that they are not aligned with the runway. There are a few of those around - Sumburgh, Islay for example as well as Stornoway. The point I was making is that I don't believe even that's possible at Oban because unless you put the NDB somewhere off-aerodrome to the south, the hill north of the airfield would make the MSA 1200 or 1300 feet which is pretty useless.
The sort of cloudbreak procedure I was thinking of was something along these lines:
http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dscgi/d...KVG_NDB_MY.pdf
Not sure if the Danes have approved any commercial operators to use that procedure but I have a suspicion that the CAA here would have kittens at the prospect of a Jetstream hunting around in the murk at 1000ft or less with the Capt and FO debating which headland is the right one to fly round to reach the airfield.
NS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth
I'm guessing that you've not flown the Vagar procedure, but it is routinely used by BAe146 and Boeing 737 aircraft and far from "groping around at 1000 feet", the procedure is safe despite the terrain. The major issue is normally the turbulence. The cloudbreak procedure is not used when visibility below cloud would preclude a safe VFR approach.
Bad weather at Oban, somewhat similarly to Vagar tends to fall into two categories.
- Poor vis with precipitation.
- Low Cloud with good visibility undeath.
In the first case, no form of approach is likely to be possible and this will be an operational issue for the airport.
In the second case, a cloud-break procedure will make it possible to operate into the airport, subject to the cloud layer not being below (say) 1500 feet. Not ideal, but better than having to cancel flights simply because you can't get to VMC from the Advisory Route without busting MSA.
I think you are too quick to dismiss the value of such a cloud-break procedure, and too quick to assume the reaction that such a procedure is likely to receive from the CAA/DAP.
2D
I'm guessing that you've not flown the Vagar procedure, but it is routinely used by BAe146 and Boeing 737 aircraft and far from "groping around at 1000 feet", the procedure is safe despite the terrain. The major issue is normally the turbulence. The cloudbreak procedure is not used when visibility below cloud would preclude a safe VFR approach.
Bad weather at Oban, somewhat similarly to Vagar tends to fall into two categories.
- Poor vis with precipitation.
- Low Cloud with good visibility undeath.
In the first case, no form of approach is likely to be possible and this will be an operational issue for the airport.
In the second case, a cloud-break procedure will make it possible to operate into the airport, subject to the cloud layer not being below (say) 1500 feet. Not ideal, but better than having to cancel flights simply because you can't get to VMC from the Advisory Route without busting MSA.
I think you are too quick to dismiss the value of such a cloud-break procedure, and too quick to assume the reaction that such a procedure is likely to receive from the CAA/DAP.
2D
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The procedure may well be feasible, but there are other factors that mean this is just pie-in-the-sky.
Firstly, runway length.
Secondly, a wacking great big hill just to the north.
How could a missed approach procedure be designed safely? (One that actually has a realistic DA/MDA)
Oban is a wonderful place in good conditions, but when the weather is bad operating in these areas can be distinctly unfunny. Subjecting passengers to this, would be inadvisable IMHO.
This is forgetting one salient point, are there other methods other than air transport to getting people across from the islands? Even if there aren't, the locals are very used to being socked in due to weather and are likely to be the most forgiving if you were only to run it as a VFR service. After all the great cost of making this an IFR service has to be absorbed by someone.
Firstly, runway length.
Secondly, a wacking great big hill just to the north.
How could a missed approach procedure be designed safely? (One that actually has a realistic DA/MDA)
Oban is a wonderful place in good conditions, but when the weather is bad operating in these areas can be distinctly unfunny. Subjecting passengers to this, would be inadvisable IMHO.
This is forgetting one salient point, are there other methods other than air transport to getting people across from the islands? Even if there aren't, the locals are very used to being socked in due to weather and are likely to be the most forgiving if you were only to run it as a VFR service. After all the great cost of making this an IFR service has to be absorbed by someone.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway length at Oban is not an issue for Jetstreams, although of course, we are yet to see what length the Council is looking to licence.
Missed approaches are irrelevant. Contrary to the implication behind NorthSouth's post, any procedure is likely to be an IFR cloud-break procedure, terminating in a VFR approach (note, VFR not VMC), in very much the manner described in the Vagar example. Unless the conditions are sufficient to permit VFR ops below cloud, the procedure would not be available.
Talk of Cost and Airline Operations in the Scotish Isles is always uncomfortable. I suppose we should not be surprised by the large number of lavish and unnecessary airfields in the region, supported by European Money. It would be a mistake to judge what may happen at Oban against any conventional Commercial yardstick.
2D
Missed approaches are irrelevant. Contrary to the implication behind NorthSouth's post, any procedure is likely to be an IFR cloud-break procedure, terminating in a VFR approach (note, VFR not VMC), in very much the manner described in the Vagar example. Unless the conditions are sufficient to permit VFR ops below cloud, the procedure would not be available.
Talk of Cost and Airline Operations in the Scotish Isles is always uncomfortable. I suppose we should not be surprised by the large number of lavish and unnecessary airfields in the region, supported by European Money. It would be a mistake to judge what may happen at Oban against any conventional Commercial yardstick.
2D
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can a missed approach be irrelevant? If for some reason we couldn't land at Oban and need to divert, what do we do then? Fly VFR back to the beginning of the procedure and then climb?
A missed approach preocedure has to be designed to take into account all sorts of issues, Single engine climb performance being one of them.
There are just too many issues here for me to feel comfortable with.
The scottish islands do have a very expensive set of airfields, b ut they aren't there to serve a commercial need, but a social one. There are other ways of dealing with Oban and the routes specified, than lobbing large sums of money at something that is technically very, very difficult. Not to mention potentially dodgy.
I have no doubt however that the CAA would never licence any approach that wasn't totally inline with safe practices, but it's not them I'm worried about. Oban could turn into a huge white elephant under these plans and the risk is that either the tax payer soaks up the cost. (They are for the "improvements.") or it will just be forgotten about when a change of government comes along and cost cutting becomes an issue.
A missed approach preocedure has to be designed to take into account all sorts of issues, Single engine climb performance being one of them.
There are just too many issues here for me to feel comfortable with.
The scottish islands do have a very expensive set of airfields, b ut they aren't there to serve a commercial need, but a social one. There are other ways of dealing with Oban and the routes specified, than lobbing large sums of money at something that is technically very, very difficult. Not to mention potentially dodgy.
I have no doubt however that the CAA would never licence any approach that wasn't totally inline with safe practices, but it's not them I'm worried about. Oban could turn into a huge white elephant under these plans and the risk is that either the tax payer soaks up the cost. (They are for the "improvements.") or it will just be forgotten about when a change of government comes along and cost cutting becomes an issue.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The missed approach is irrelevant because the approach will not be an instrument approach, it will be a VFR approach.
The Cloudbreak procedure will have its own MDA and MAP which in this instance will probably consist of a a DME from the NDB on an outbound or inbound track. Failure to break cloud by the MAP will result in a climb back into the associated holding pattern.
However, once cloud is broken, the pilot will continue under VFR and land in the normal way - there will be no additional missed approach. Operators will be expected to define in their own ops manuals what they will do in the event that they fail to maintain VMC once the cloudbreak is complete. Ordinarily, this will consist of an urgent climb to MSA.
The advantage of this approach is that the runway can be licensed as a visual runway - which is considerably cheaper than the alternatives, and gets around some of the issues being trotted out on this thread.
All of the small HIAL airports are White Elephants, if you judge them by any commercial standards. Fortunately, they are subsidised largely by EU Money. Oban is unlikely to be any different. It *will* be a white elephant, but it would be a bold person that claims that this particular elephant is any whiter or larger than any of the others in that neck of the woods.
2D
The Cloudbreak procedure will have its own MDA and MAP which in this instance will probably consist of a a DME from the NDB on an outbound or inbound track. Failure to break cloud by the MAP will result in a climb back into the associated holding pattern.
However, once cloud is broken, the pilot will continue under VFR and land in the normal way - there will be no additional missed approach. Operators will be expected to define in their own ops manuals what they will do in the event that they fail to maintain VMC once the cloudbreak is complete. Ordinarily, this will consist of an urgent climb to MSA.
The advantage of this approach is that the runway can be licensed as a visual runway - which is considerably cheaper than the alternatives, and gets around some of the issues being trotted out on this thread.
All of the small HIAL airports are White Elephants, if you judge them by any commercial standards. Fortunately, they are subsidised largely by EU Money. Oban is unlikely to be any different. It *will* be a white elephant, but it would be a bold person that claims that this particular elephant is any whiter or larger than any of the others in that neck of the woods.
2D
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I wouldn't be happy with any procedure that was as lax as to simply climb to MSA without any form of horizontal guidance. Especially in the Oban area!
I think what you are proposing 2D is probably the only possible way that you could have any form of semi-IFR procedure. It is still VMC necessary and cannot sustain a daily service, but it would at least be some form of help.
An NDB in that area would be subject to so many errors that it would be virtually useless. Maybe the CAA could trial a GPS approach for use! It would be the perfect proving ground as basically not much else would work, and if ti was successful, then it should work anywhere!
I think what you are proposing 2D is probably the only possible way that you could have any form of semi-IFR procedure. It is still VMC necessary and cannot sustain a daily service, but it would at least be some form of help.
An NDB in that area would be subject to so many errors that it would be virtually useless. Maybe the CAA could trial a GPS approach for use! It would be the perfect proving ground as basically not much else would work, and if ti was successful, then it should work anywhere!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys
I think you are too quick to dismiss the value of such a cloud-break procedure, and too quick to assume the reaction that such a procedure is likely to receive from the CAA/DAP
I take your point re an Oban cloudbreak procedure pointed at the airfield (i.e. an aerodrome approach) with, say, an MDH of 1300ft being better than nothing. But a commercial operator will need some guarantee that a very high proportion of schedules will get in. I don't believe an MDH that high will do the job, particularly when it ends with a circling approach which by my reckoning could only be made to runway 01. We're not just dealing here with whether they can design a procedure to ICAO/DAP criteria. We're also dealing with CAA Flight Ops approval for an AOC holder.
NS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth. I think you need to consider two points.
1) A commercial operator contemplating Oban is not going to be able to guarantee reaching his destination with quite the same frequency as a CAT IIIb operator contemplating Heathrow. Flying in light commercial types around the Highlands and Islands is not a particularly dependable service now, and Oban will be no worse than many of the other established fields that either lack IAPs altogether, or rely on rather unusual IAPs. The standards that your replies envisage a commercial operator will apply to Oban are not those that are already applied by the existing operator base - who are after all the most likely user of Oban, post-modernisation.
2) Don't overlook the fact that in order to overcome the limitations of flying in that neck of the woods, the CAA has already approved a number of unusual ops practices that do not commonly see the light of day elsewhere. Amongst the more obvious is the dispensation for the commercial flights of a named operator to fly IAPs into places like Islay without Air Traffic Control.
2D
1) A commercial operator contemplating Oban is not going to be able to guarantee reaching his destination with quite the same frequency as a CAT IIIb operator contemplating Heathrow. Flying in light commercial types around the Highlands and Islands is not a particularly dependable service now, and Oban will be no worse than many of the other established fields that either lack IAPs altogether, or rely on rather unusual IAPs. The standards that your replies envisage a commercial operator will apply to Oban are not those that are already applied by the existing operator base - who are after all the most likely user of Oban, post-modernisation.
2) Don't overlook the fact that in order to overcome the limitations of flying in that neck of the woods, the CAA has already approved a number of unusual ops practices that do not commonly see the light of day elsewhere. Amongst the more obvious is the dispensation for the commercial flights of a named operator to fly IAPs into places like Islay without Air Traffic Control.
2D
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys
Oban will be no worse than many of the other established fields that either lack IAPs altogether, or rely on rather unusual IAPs
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys
Don't overlook the fact that in order to overcome the limitations of flying in that neck of the woods, the CAA has already approved a number of unusual ops practices that do not commonly see the light of day elsewhere
NS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the only point on which we are disagreeing is the possibility that a cloud-break procedure can be established for Oban's use.
I believe that it probably could be, you seem to think that such a thing would be impossible, largely because there have been few other examples in the UK in recent times.
My view is that even were such a procedure not to appear, it is unlikely to affect the primarily VFR traffic which will serve Oban and nearby strips.
To have such a procedure available for IFR flights will not fundamentally change Oban's desirability (or otherwise) as a destination for Commercial ops, but there are occasions when it will help.
2D
I believe that it probably could be, you seem to think that such a thing would be impossible, largely because there have been few other examples in the UK in recent times.
My view is that even were such a procedure not to appear, it is unlikely to affect the primarily VFR traffic which will serve Oban and nearby strips.
To have such a procedure available for IFR flights will not fundamentally change Oban's desirability (or otherwise) as a destination for Commercial ops, but there are occasions when it will help.
2D
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sensible procedure would make Oban more attractive to GA not less, the only thing is, is that any procedure is liable to be Operator specific just like the Loganair operations.
I still don't think it's worth doing, or ever going to be particularily safe, but I'll wait and see.
I still don't think it's worth doing, or ever going to be particularily safe, but I'll wait and see.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless ATC is established at Oban, any IAP will certainly not be available to GA.
However, a new runway and facilities at the cost of Paul K and his excellent hospitality and "open-all-hours" approach... that is a tough trade-off for the average GA punter - less so for a commercial operator.
2D
However, a new runway and facilities at the cost of Paul K and his excellent hospitality and "open-all-hours" approach... that is a tough trade-off for the average GA punter - less so for a commercial operator.
2D
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 2Donkeys
I think the only point on which we are disagreeing is the possibility that a cloud-break procedure can be established for Oban's use...My view is that even were such a procedure not to appear, it is unlikely to affect the primarily VFR traffic which will serve Oban and nearby strips
NS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are these Council Plans published? Your information is obviously better than mine.
I have seen only the vaguest of indications as to what the nature of the traffic is that the Council expects, beyond the simple VFR-only local hoppers.
I have seen only the vaguest of indications as to what the nature of the traffic is that the Council expects, beyond the simple VFR-only local hoppers.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Best places to look are:
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/
http://www.hie.co.uk/aie and
http://www.hitrans.org.uk/
but it's a bit of a slog searching through all of that. I can send you the key reports if you like - pm me.
Another indication of the council's view is in the letter to NATMAC re the creation of an ATZ at Oban. DAP says they were told by the Council that scheduled services at Oban would lead to "an immediate tripling of movements". This implies about 9500 ATMs a year which is way in excess of the single Islander operation required for VFR-only flights to Coll & Colonsay.
NS
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/
http://www.hie.co.uk/aie and
http://www.hitrans.org.uk/
but it's a bit of a slog searching through all of that. I can send you the key reports if you like - pm me.
Another indication of the council's view is in the letter to NATMAC re the creation of an ATZ at Oban. DAP says they were told by the Council that scheduled services at Oban would lead to "an immediate tripling of movements". This implies about 9500 ATMs a year which is way in excess of the single Islander operation required for VFR-only flights to Coll & Colonsay.
NS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the links. I am familiar with those websites.
I think the bottom line is that we are all inferring a certain amount about the plans for Oban, in the absence of anything particularly concrete written down. That is why I hesitate at this stage in being too critical.
In reality, as aviators, we know that "new Oban" will essentially be a FISO or A/G VFR field with a nice runway and the usual over-engineered HIAL brick terminal building and control tower. Lots of part-time jobs for locals as firemen, shopkeepers, sandwich makers.
It will be visited by Cessna 406 aircraft, Islanders, Military Helicopters and GA, as well as receiving the odd private charter from "down south".
To assist in marginal weather, a cloudbreak procedure may be available, if the cost-benefit of flight-checking it can be justified against the relatively high minima that will inevitably be associated with it.
The only real likely GA Gripes will be:
a) That Paul K, an all round nice guy with a unique flair for looking after the GA community, will have been partially removed
b) That HIAL tends to be associated with restrictive opening hours and excessive admin.
2D
I think the bottom line is that we are all inferring a certain amount about the plans for Oban, in the absence of anything particularly concrete written down. That is why I hesitate at this stage in being too critical.
In reality, as aviators, we know that "new Oban" will essentially be a FISO or A/G VFR field with a nice runway and the usual over-engineered HIAL brick terminal building and control tower. Lots of part-time jobs for locals as firemen, shopkeepers, sandwich makers.
It will be visited by Cessna 406 aircraft, Islanders, Military Helicopters and GA, as well as receiving the odd private charter from "down south".
To assist in marginal weather, a cloudbreak procedure may be available, if the cost-benefit of flight-checking it can be justified against the relatively high minima that will inevitably be associated with it.
The only real likely GA Gripes will be:
a) That Paul K, an all round nice guy with a unique flair for looking after the GA community, will have been partially removed
b) That HIAL tends to be associated with restrictive opening hours and excessive admin.
2D
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I think there's more reason to be concerned. The whole project is immensely expensive and has to be funded by someone. The council only approved its financial contribution on the proviso that HIAL takes over the operation of Oban after the first year. The viability of any of the planned routes out of Oban is also dependent on them getting PSO support. Both of those are highly dependent on the attitude of the Scottish Executive which so far has made no commitment to additional funding nor to the proposed extension of PSO status to every scheduled route in the Highlands and Islands. The Council has also done no serious prior consultation with the CAA on the vaibility of licensing any of the three airfields. The net result is that there is a serious risk of running out of money. A future council may well decide that the only way to recoup the wasted spending is to sell the airfield.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be right to be concerned, but I doubt it.
It is worth reflecting that not a single HIAL Airport runs at a profit. The four worst-case airports all individually lost more last year than the entire Oban Airport development budget.
Passing another loss-making Scottish airport onto HIAL (and a small one at that), is not fundamentally going to change the equation. HIAL provides a simple cocoon into which such costs can be passed, to be balanced by subsidies received from all an sundry.
2D
It is worth reflecting that not a single HIAL Airport runs at a profit. The four worst-case airports all individually lost more last year than the entire Oban Airport development budget.
Passing another loss-making Scottish airport onto HIAL (and a small one at that), is not fundamentally going to change the equation. HIAL provides a simple cocoon into which such costs can be passed, to be balanced by subsidies received from all an sundry.
2D