Wilmington Cat 2's

[DC8CRIVER]

Is there any truth to the rumor that one of the ILN CAT II ILS's (22L?) is out of tolerance and may be decertified by the FAA during this fall's recertification inspections.

Also are all the ILS's privately owned and, if so, who maintains them?

Probably just bullshot rumors like I said, but thought someone here might know ...

8

 

[DC-9er]

wouldn't be surprised if 22L/4R got shut down completely. We certainly don't need two runways any more.

 

[shooter]

FDC for 22L is due to the missed approach procedure. Have not heard anything about problems with the ILS being part of the reason for the FDC.

That being said I agree with DC9er, this airpark does not need two runways any more.

 

[nitefr8dog]

Is there any truth to the rumor that one of the ILN CAT II ILS's (22L?) is out of tolerance and may be decertified by the FAA during this fall's recertification inspections.

Also are all the ILS's privately owned and, if so, who maintains them?

Probably just bullshot rumors like I said, but thought someone here might know ...

8

DHL ownes the airport, ILS's, buildings's etc.

 

[DC8CRIVER]

Thanks.

You are correct about the missed procedure. I've had clarification that the ILN VOR problems that have been around for a really loooong time are the problem. Or perhaps more correctly, the lack of money to fix the thing is the problem.

Safety - at (almost) any cost!

8

 

[nitefr8dog]

Thanks.

You are correct about the missed procedure. I've had clarification that the ILN VOR problems that have been around for a really loooong time are the problem. Or perhaps more correctly, the lack of money to fix the thing is the problem.

Safety - at (almost) any cost!

8

DHL does not own the VOR that still belongs to the FAA. The FAA has been slow to fix the VOR at times and yes that is probably do to money.

 

[Colonel Savage]

Is the private control tower still needed? We used the unicom freq long ago.

 

[shooter]

Is the private control tower still needed? We used the unicom freq long ago.

I think the FAA would have a hard time signing off the airport without the tower as long as DHL is still there. Dayton has always controlled the airspace through the tower in ILN as their eyes for takeoff and landings.

 

[Fly Astar Jets]

I think the FAA would have a hard time signing off the airport without the tower as long as DHL is still there. Dayton has always controlled the airspace through the tower in ILN as their eyes for takeoff and landings.

"Dayton", "control" and "airspace" in the same sentence? Thanks for the laugh Shooter.

 

[nitefr8dog]

Is the private control tower still needed? We used the unicom freq long ago.

I think there would be some issue with doing cat II ILS's over unicom. I would hate to do a autoland cat 3 and findout the aircraft in front of me was still on the runway.

 

[Colonel Savage]

We had the Cat II up and operating at the time. Dayton would clear us for the approaches (ILS 22/VOR 04), we must have cancelled IFR on the ground, but it's been so long ago I can't remember specificly what the procedures were.

 

[scarface]

You could also cancel in the air with landing assured, if I recall correctly.

 

[scarface]

Cancelling in the air avoided the possibility of a go around if the guy in front of you was slow to call clear; Dayton lost track of you about 400 ft. agl and you cancelled on Dayton. That was back in the 22/4 only runway that was 9000 feet long and 4 was VOR only. Believe it or not the system worked quite well.

 

[Colonel Savage]

Canceling in the air is OK if you're VFR, but on a Cat II down to mins, canceling on the ground after clearing the runway was the senario I was refering to.

 

[nitefr8dog]

Cancelling in the air avoided the possibility of a go around if the guy in front of you was slow to call clear; Dayton lost track of you about 400 ft. agl and you cancelled on Dayton. That was back in the 22/4 only runway that was 9000 feet long and 4 was VOR only. Believe it or not the system worked quite well.

"We" also had Emery land on top of us in a DC8 and rip the tail off of 908AX. Still seems like a bad situation in CAT II weather.

 

[FastHap]

"We" also had Emery land on top of us in a DC8 and rip the tail off of 908AX. Still seems like a bad situation in CAT II weather.

Wasn't that @ Stewart in NY??

 

[Colonel Savage]

Wasn't that @ Stewart in NY??

Yes, it was. 20 Aug 1987:

"The weather was deteriorating as Airborne Express Flight 124 (DC-9-31 N908AX) and Rosenbalm Flight 074 (DC-8-63 N951R) were on successive arrivals for an ILS runway 9 approach at Newburgh-Stewart Airport, NY (SWF). Flight 124 was cleared for the approach and landing. After landing, the Local Controller instructed flight 124 to back taxi on the runway and report when clear of the runway. Flight 074 was then cleared for the ILS runway 9 approach. After contacting the tower, the crew were instructed to reprot at the Outer Marker. Near the OM, the ctew attempted to advize the Local Controller, who was in a lengthy transmission, that they were inside the OM. This transmission was not receieved by the Local Controller. When the Local Controller finished transmitting, the flight crew didn't attempt to alert the Local Controller of their position, nor did they receive a landing clearance. Subsequently, the two aircraft converged as Flight 074 was flaring to land and Flight 124 was exiting the runway. Both crews tried to avoid a collision, but the wing of the DC-8 freighter hit the empennage of the DC-9."

 

[freightdogfred]

"We" also had Emery land on top of us in a DC8 and rip the tail off of 908AX. Still seems like a bad situation in CAT II weather.

Well actually, it was RAX...(Rosenbalm aviation) And it was in KSWF, not ILN...
And it was Cat I not Cat II
And...well that's one captain who won't ever dally back taxiing on an active runway that another aircraft has been cleared to land on.

 

[scarface]

I don't think he was dallying and the accident resulted in Airborne requiring at least one mile visibility to back taxi.

 

[nitefr8dog]

Well actually, it was RAX...(Rosenbalm aviation) And it was in KSWF, not ILN...
And it was Cat I not Cat II
And...well that's one captain who won't ever dally back taxiing on an active runway that another aircraft has been cleared to land on.

I think the point of the discussion was the hazards of operating in uncontrolled airports in IFR conditions. What color the fluids where that ended up on the ground after 908 had the tail ripped off was not really important. TIC

 

[erichartmann]

I think the point of the discussion was the hazards of operating in uncontrolled airports in IFR conditions. What color the fluids where that ended up on the ground after 908 had the tail ripped off was not really important. TIC

If you say so. What happened at SWF was not uncontrolled airspace, just non-radar if memory serves. Even so, the system broke down. Had Rosy called the twr at the marker as instructed (or even a bit inside) they would have been told to go around. They didn't, and the result is history. Nobody was hurt, thank (insert your choice of deity), and so now there are some amusing stories we can all chuckle about.

What we used to do at ILN was fly the approach, cancel in the air if landing was assured (i.e. runway in sight) or on the ground (and clear of the runway in CAT II) otherwise. Dayton would not let the next aircraft in line past the FAF (or GSI point) until the preceeding aircraft had cancelled, either in the air (which in turn meant the vis was good enough to see an aircraft still on the runway and miss) or on the ground and clear of the runway. I can't see why they wouldn't let us go back to that.

 

[nitefr8dog]

If you say so. What happened at SWF was not uncontrolled airspace, just non-radar if memory serves. Even so, the system broke down. Had Rosy called the twr at the marker as instructed (or even a bit inside) they would have been told to go around. They didn't, and the result is history. Nobody was hurt, thank (insert your choice of deity), and so now there are some amusing stories we can all chuckle about.

What we used to do at ILN was fly the approach, cancel in the air if landing was assured (i.e. runway in sight) or on the ground (and clear of the runway in CAT II) otherwise. Dayton would not let the next aircraft in line past the FAF (or GSI point) until the preceeding aircraft had cancelled, either in the air (which in turn meant the vis was good enough to see an aircraft still on the runway and miss) or on the ground and clear of the runway. I can't see why they wouldn't let us go back to that.

Thanks for clearing that up all knowing Eric, your opinion as to if it is safe or not. (non radar) I for one would take radar and a tower any nite over non radar and not having a tower which was the point of this discussion. But you are the expert. Believe it or not some of us have also operated in those environments.

 

[erichartmann]

Thanks for clearing that up all knowing Eric, your opinion as to if it is safe or not. (non radar)

There you go again doggy, making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I didn't express any opinon as to the respective safety of a radar vs non-radar operation. I simply suggested we could go back to the way we used to operate. A number of under or lightly utilized airports still operate that way.

I for one would take radar and a tower any nite over non radar and not having a tower which was the point of this discussion.

You might want to re-read the start of the thread.

But you are the expert.

Thanks for the vote of confidence but I was simply doing what everyone else here does, putting in my .02 worth.

Believe it or not some of us have also operated in those environments.

No doubt.