• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

Wilmington Cat 2's

DC8CRIVER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Posts
153
Total Time
2
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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Posts
59
Total Time
10000
wouldn't be surprised if 22L/4R got shut down completely. We certainly don't need two runways any more.
 

shooter

Call me the Tumblin' Dice
Joined
May 13, 2006
Posts
7,941
Total Time
jail?
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.
 
Last edited:

nitefr8dog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Posts
450
Total Time
9000
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

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Posts
153
Total Time
2
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Posts
450
Total Time
9000
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

Southern style...
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
1,271
Total Time
NoTime
Is the private control tower still needed? We used the unicom freq long ago.
 

shooter

Call me the Tumblin' Dice
Joined
May 13, 2006
Posts
7,941
Total Time
jail?
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

Fly ATI Jets
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Posts
218
Total Time
Yep.
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. :D
 

nitefr8dog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Posts
450
Total Time
9000
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

Southern style...
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
1,271
Total Time
NoTime
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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Posts
257
Total Time
22,300
You could also cancel in the air with landing assured, if I recall correctly.
 

scarface

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Posts
257
Total Time
22,300
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

Southern style...
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
1,271
Total Time
NoTime
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Posts
450
Total Time
9000
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.
 

Colonel Savage

Southern style...
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
1,271
Total Time
NoTime
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

Malcontent
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Posts
990
Total Time
Mucho
"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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Posts
257
Total Time
22,300
I don't think he was dallying and the accident resulted in Airborne requiring at least one mile visibility to back taxi.
 

nitefr8dog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Posts
450
Total Time
9000
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
 
Top