What “adaptation” is required?
Marking parking spots with paint and changing airport documentation.
Which is obviously almost zero effort in relation to the subsequent return over many years, which would also require nearly zero effort to collect.
It’s hard to imagine anybody being quite that lazy so the next logical possibility is that they are locked in place by obscure local ‘regulatory’ issues (e.g. government stupidity or corruption) that prevents them from either providing a useful service or making money.
Marking spots is the problem. They mark them for a 747. This is the European problem.
Marking spots is the problem. They mark them for a 747.
Marking can be done in conditional way with multiple options but obviously it’s too much hassle for some people.
When we got our GNSS approach at LFFK we lost a lot of our normal parking space.
This is because ICAO set limits on the distance the holding points need to be from the runway, depending on the type of approach.
There are also restrictions on distance from taxiway etc depending on the category of aircraft expected. All this does use up a lot of space which appears useless when there is no traffic around.
gallois wrote:
This is because ICAO set limits on the distance the holding points need to be from the runway, depending on the type of approach.
There are also restrictions on distance from taxiway etc depending on the category of aircraft expected.
@gallois, I think the word used is “should” not “must” for the distances from the centerline. I think mitigation was that you have to raise the DH by 30-50(?) feet if you don’t follow that rule, but otherwise it is usually just a CYA from an xAA, AFAIK.
