Last week-end a friend of mine and his wife flew Allegiant. Not one complaint. On time flights, Sanford drive to Orlando was easy, car rental agencies at Sanford were close to the gates, etc.
Looks like Allegiant is the complete opposite PanAm when they flew out of ORH. The only delays to date have not been the fault of Allegiant but due to weather, which again would have been negated if we had Category 3 Landing equipment.
Charley Farley e-mailed me this link today from a newspaper in Myrtle Beach. The gist of it was that Myrtle Beach Airport applied for a grant to the FAA' AIP program to get snow removal equipment. It sounds funny at first, snow removal equipment at Myrtle Beach??? What makes it funnies is that they received it.!!!
The ironic thing is I remember an RFP from the City Purchasing department department for snow removal equipment, I hope we applied for the same grant monies as Myrtle Beach to purchase this equipment. More importantly it makes me think that there must be a way to secure grant monies from the FAA to improve ORH landing system to a Category 3.
WRRB/Telegram District City Council Forum 10/18
-
This forum is for all district council candidates; all candidates are here
today. Format: 14 total questions, 4 questions across districts (for all
candida...
6 months ago
10 comments:
Hi,
I have heard all this talk about ORH trying to get a CAT III ILS. I believe the problem with the airport is not limited to the fact that it has the most basic ILS, but more so to it being at 1000' above sea level. This results in celings being much lower at ORH than they are at surrounding airports. For example, if there is a cloud deck at 1200' an airport anywhere else around the city could have at least 4-500' celings, more that enough for a CAT I ILS, whereas at ORH the celings would be at 200'. Im obviously not saying the airport should be moved, but what im getting at is that even a basic CAT IIIa ILS can not land in 0/0 (fogged in) conditions. I am assuming that the 8 million required for the new approach system is for the CAT IIIa, however, while an improvement, it still may not be enough.
Also, if anyone knows, will the 8 million cover the cost of putting the system on both ends of Runway 11-29? Wouldnt make sense to have it on just one side.
Matt
I know currently that the full approach system is on runway 11. 29 has a glide slope with limited capbilities because of the sharp drop in terrain off the approach end. While it will be easy to upgrade the system for 11, that doesnt do any good when conditions are poor and winds are out of the west (favorable to runway 29). Though I have not done any instrument flying out of ORH, id say a good 95% of my flights have departed from either runway 29 or 33 as winds were almost always out of the west/northwest. It seems to me that that would tend to be the same during Instrument conditions.
Matt
What we need is to pay a $100,000 consultant to tell is which way the wind is blowing.
Good comments today.. That is the purpose of the blog.. Even you Charley ..
These are all good questions. Matt, you are right the airport is in the wrong location, but there is nothing we can do about that now.
Nobody can doubt the Category 3 Landing System would be a huge improvement. The FAA has grant monies via their AIP program to be disbursed and we need to go after not versus burdening the tax-payers.
I find it amazing that Myrtle Beach received grant monies for snow removal equipment. Seriously think about that!!!
Good to see THREE people having an intelligent discussion about the benefits of ORH. How does sarcasm help advance the cause? Steve, Matt, I can ask around as to whether the $8M would upgrade both ends, or just 29. It could be that regulations require both directions to be equipped. If anyone else here needs to know the wind direction, stick your head out your anonymous window and count to 100,000.
It's my understanding that the $8M cost, funds that could be reimbursed to the city, is for one-one ONLY, and it is years away. The cost to equip two-nine is significantly MORE, since it would require towers/beacons in populated regions, and is also years away. Discussions are ongoing. Also, remember that just b/c an airport has an enhanced ILS does not mean that an aircrew/airplane has been similarly equipped/trained. That is up to the carrier.
I meant to include that point earlier about the aircraft/crew. potentially a CAT IIIc could be installed which would allow aircraft to land themselves in 0/0 without any crew input. While that would be all well and good, the older planes, such as those flown by Allegiant, are not equipped to fly a CAT IIIc approach. This just reiterates the point that while a CAT III upgrade will be a definite improvement, weather will forever plague ORH
Matt
Wow tons of comments on this issue.
You can make it last longer on the new AirAlliance Message Board:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/AirAlliance/index.php
For an ILS system to work properly there needs to be several components located off airport property. The first components are the marker beacons, outer, middle, and inner. The outer marker has to be located somewhere between 3 and 6 miles away from the runway threshold. the middle marker around 2 miles out, and the inner marker less than a mile. Height of the tower for these beacons is not really important as long as they can broadcast an un obstructed signal. The problems for runway 29 are the rabbit lights close to the field that "run" to the runway from several hundred feet out. These I believe would post the most problem for ORH as the towers would have to be very tall
Matt
Steve, I'm sorry, but I don't know what "years away" means. Don't know if these enhancements are part of the Master Plan, either. Discussions ARE underway, though. Matt, your points illustrate the difficulties pretty well. That's my understanding of the problem: that drop-off at the end of two-nine into the city and the required height of towers approaching a runway that is at 1009'.
Post a Comment