Name (shame) the airport & make them improve!!!!
 

Milan Malpensa

Runway 17R hold point.
Has only combined CATII-CATIII hold point indication.
It is only a very short taxi from Terminal 2 to this runway so much head down checking to be carried out in the taxi.
Should you taxi beyond, in say 800 metres vis.,at night,when low vis procedures not in force, looking for CAT I hold point, you would already be entering the runway!!!
On questioning the reason for not including a CAT I hold point indication they will tell you that there is no space for a second hold point. Now Milan Airport Authority, why can,t you just add CAT I to the sign & maybe save a few lives- maybe those of your own wives & children!!!! :confused: :confused: :confused:

Yes but this would constitute thinking!

I cant beleive you have to pay a $10 airport improvement tax at Vancouver! Where is my money going!!!!!!!!!!!
:cool: :cool: ;) :cool: :cool:

Compton Abbas

Did a roller there in a bulldog once. Grass runway and tree hazards in over/undershoot aside, the bar needs to be significantly bigger for any credibility.

Timehri International Airport

Yaw String If unsure of position or unfamiliar with an airfield suggest doing checks while stationary. ;) ;) ;)

WRT Malpensa - I don't know the place but the ICAO Standard signage for a runway holding position leading onto a precision instrument runway where there is only one holding position (which seems to be what you describe) does not include 'CAT II/III' but looks like the sign used for a visual or non-precision runway and just says 'A 27' or whatever. See ICAO Annex 14 - Figure 5-25 on page 92 illustrates it nicely.

NLACG,
Thanks for your imput as was a serious post that had turned silly.
Westman,whilst your advice is undoubtedly correct & I thank you for it we are talking about the lowest common denominator & the danger of ambiguity that Malpensa should address.

Yawstring

Suggest you file an MOR. If NLACG is correct the signs do not comply with ICAO spec.

It is generally accepted that ICAO Specifications for signage fall short of what is needed at most modern airports nowadays.

Paris CDG have had to improve substantially in what they had originally when running pairs or parallel runways with one remote from the terminal, just in order to reduce the substantial number of runway incursions they were experiencing.

Dublin has also had significant problems, but Aer Rianta refused to see the problem for quite some time until various airport users, Aer Lingus included, as well as the IAA had a major go at them.

It is no longer sufficient for an airport to state that they conform to ICAO specifications. They must also demonstrate a proactive approach to safety in their operations and infrastructure. If they actually fall short of ICAO specs, then their licence should be suspended.

Agree with HM that ICAO Standards fall short in some areas but in the Milan example I think the ICAO Standard is the best solution.

Also agree that a proactive approach to safety is needed but it's important that the solutions that may be found when being pro-active are not misleading or able to be confused with what is done elsewhere in the world. Imagine if, for example, Milan went through some thought process that lead them to make a positive decision to use the CAT II/III sign (perhaps without even asking pilots whether this is a good idea).

Pro-active yes, but ICAO whenever possible.

Darwin International, NT Australia.

I may only be new to the industry and only fly little planes, but having the taxiway identifications marked on the ground like every other major airport might just help. People with bad short term memory, and an even shorter attention span might just be saved som bother and embarrassment on the radio.

Istanbul...the standard of English by ATC is abysmal; when clarification of butchered communication is requested, anger and even quicker, more mangled com is the response. Also, clearance to the short runway at the last minute (around 7000', usually with tailwind) is given (& we tanker fuel, making performance critical). Insistance on long runway (36) results in 30 min hold. Ground control, tower, & radar all BAD.