Musings on KCDW, ILS, and WAAS

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:

I wouldn't worry about this happening at CDW for a couple of reasons...
One, they don't have a long enough runway to support some of the jets that
land at MMU and TEB... and in the short term, I know of no plans to create
one.

For some reason, MacDan had the hope that 22 would be extended as a part of
the repaving. For whatever other reason, this didn't occur.

Second, the airspace around CDW, when 4/22 is open (right now it's
closed for repaving), is typically configured so that planes can only
depart and arrive on runways 22 and 27. They never, ever use runway 9
unless the wind is blowing a good gale force straight down runway 9... The
reason is because if they did, planes would be streaming in directly in
the path of MMU's approach for runway 23. Runway 4 does get used, but only
if the winds absolutely require it.

Is it really likely that 23 and 9 would be in use concurrently? I'd not
think so. But I suppose the MMU ILS-23 Circle to whatever could be in use
at the same time as a circling approach at CDW to 9. I don't recall the
distance between runway 9 and the MM (?) beacon that is one of the fixes on
the ILS-23, though.

If they created an ILS or WAAS approach for 22, there would be more
traffic to contend with, and that would screw up the already busy approach
routes going into EWR and TEB. The ATIS regularly says "caution planes
descending from 3000 to 2000 into Teterboro" when they're handling a heavy
load, and I don't think that adding planes to that mix would help matters
much. I could be wrong, but that's my impression judging by the way things
typically work there.

Shrug Perhaps this is a part of why CDW wasn't upgraded. Perhaps not.
Note that the approach for TEB just north of CDW is the VOR-DME-A. As
such, it could be moved (or "replaced" is more accurate, I suppose).

I have no idea, though, how such decisions are made, or even by whom.

- Andrew