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

Hi Andrew,

As others have said, I wouldn't worry too much about a squeeze at CDW if
they're not going to increase the length of 4/22. When will they be
finished paving that thing anyway? Besides, it doesn't look like they have
much room to grow hangars unless they wipe out the middle tiedown area.

If anything, the smaller airports in the area are more likely to be
affected, e.g. N07. For example, the NDB or GPS 01 approach at N07 has been
NOTAM'd out for several months now. The NDB (in this case MOREE) is working
fine (you get vectors to it southbound when departing IFR) but even if it
wasn't, that shouldn't be a reason to NOTAM out the GPS. The rumor is that
ATC just doesn't want to deal with it since the approach starts over MOREE
which happens to be the MM for MMU 23. Not that any of the approaches to
N07 are terribly useful (the MDA is pattern altitude), but I expect the
southbound approaches will disappear altogether.

cheers,
mark

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
I fly primarily out of CDW in Northern NJ. Although I'm not "plugged in"
with the various machinations at the airport, there's some trickle down.
Accuracy, of course, is completely suspect. So have a large grain of salt
at the ready.

What I "heard" was that Mac Dan had been hoping for a runway extension and
the addition of a glideslope to the existing localizer. This would have
improved their charter business somehow (although I'm not familiar with
the
relevant FAR parts so I don't know how).

Unfortunately for them, the current work on 4/22 includes neither
lengthening nor ILS. The best approach will remain a localizer.

In retrospect, I was kind of glad this occurred while wearing my selfish
hat. Both TEB and MMU are becoming increasingly unfriendly to we 100LL
burners. Pushing more charter business at CDW would, I imagine, cause the
same thing to occur there. So the lack of the glideslope is, I thought,
good for some of us.

But I just read the article on WAAS and precision GPS approaches in the
current IFR. Now, I wonder...

Once this sort of thing really comes online, how will that impact MacDan's
charter business? If a WAAS-based precision approach is put in at CDW,
won't that do whatever the glideslope would have done for their business?
And might that not cause CDW to become less "spam can" friendly, as has
been occurring with TEB and MMU?

I find myself wondering if WAAS is going to end up a Bad Thing for at
least
some of us.

Anyone with information or opinions on this subject? I'd love to know,
for
example, what difference the glideslope would made to the charter
business,
and if that same difference occurs with a precision GPS approach.

- Andrew

Mark Astley wrote:

As others have said, I wouldn't worry too much about a squeeze at CDW if
they're not going to increase the length of 4/22. When will they be
finished paving that thing anyway?

Some time between December and when the sun dies out. Maybe.

Actually, every time I think to, I ask ground this question as I taxi back
to the RN tie-down. The latest I've heard is "maybe January", but they
typically complain that they've no better information that we do.

I'd feel better about it if I saw more people working there more often.
I've heard stories about the *army* that repaved Linden's 9/27. Where's
our army? At lunch?

[...]
If anything, the smaller airports in the area are more likely to be
affected, e.g. N07. For example, the NDB or GPS 01 approach at N07 has
been
NOTAM'd out for several months now. The NDB (in this case MOREE) is
working fine (you get vectors to it southbound when departing IFR) but
even if it
wasn't, that shouldn't be a reason to NOTAM out the GPS. The rumor is
that ATC just doesn't want to deal with it since the approach starts over
MOREE
which happens to be the MM for MMU 23.

I don't know. I've been given the NDB-A into CDW (when I request it), which
also starts at MOREE.

Not that any of the approaches to
N07 are terribly useful (the MDA is pattern altitude), but I expect the
southbound approaches will disappear altogether.

My favorite of all FBOs I've ever visited is LPA at Lincoln Park. They also
have nice aircraft (newish 172s) for rent. But the lack of real IFR
utility at the airport kept me from becoming a regular there.

- Andrew

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:

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.

Runway 9 is also rarely used because the wind rarely blows from the east
or southeast. I flew out of MMU for a few years and can't recall ever
using then-runway 12. Ever. Winter winds are mostly northwest and
summer winds (cue Sinatra, as long as we're talking about North Jersey)
are mostly southwest. The following poster is right, though, if the
wind is strong enough for CDW to be using 9, MMU is probably landing on 5.