Please ignore my lack of detailed knowledge of TERPS type stuff but
are there any US airports with GPS approaches where there are
buildings inside the lateral protected zone? Supposedly if an airport
does not meet such criteria there may be a way to get a waiver using
some sort of mitigation...perhaps highers minimums or similar.

Ron Lee

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

> Please ignore my lack of detailed knowledge of TERPS type stuff but
> are there any US airports with GPS approaches where there are
> buildings inside the lateral protected zone? Supposedly if an airport
> does not meet such criteria there may be a way to get a waiver using
> some sort of mitigation...perhaps highers minimums or similar.

Not a waiver, higher minimums.

Conway, Arkansas - CWY - has a building in the protected zone and has a GPS
approach from the East. The runway threshold has been displaced
significantly for both VFR and IFR arrivals - the VFR guys just try not to
hit the building and use all the runway. The actual encroachment is
supposedly less than a foot laterally and he built the building before the
city owned the airport and extended the runway.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> Please ignore my lack of detailed knowledge of TERPS type stuff but
>> are there any US airports with GPS approaches where there are
>> buildings inside the lateral protected zone? Supposedly if an airport
>> does not meet such criteria there may be a way to get a waiver using
>> some sort of mitigation...perhaps highers minimums or similar.
>
> Not a waiver, higher minimums.

"Jim Carter" > wrote:

>Conway, Arkansas - CWY - has a building in the protected zone and has a GPS
>approach from the East. The runway threshold has been displaced
>significantly for both VFR and IFR arrivals - the VFR guys just try not to
>hit the building and use all the runway. The actual encroachment is
>supposedly less than a foot laterally and he built the building before the
>city owned the airport and extended the runway.
>

Thanks. Do you mean CWS? I had a good talk with the airport manager
and got some information that will be helpful. Other airports that
fit this situation would also be useful.

Ron Lee

Yep - CWS - my bad. I didn't pull the plate just responded from memory. I'm
pretty sure it used to be CWY years ago, but I believe they changed it a
while back. Kind of like the old habit call Boeing Tower when at King County
in Seattle, or Riverside Tower at the Jones airport in Tulsa. Old habits die
hard.

Did you notice that the threshold is displaced 1643' ? That's a heck of an
impact from a very small encroachment.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Carter" > wrote:
>
>>Conway, Arkansas - CWY - has a building in the protected zone and has a
>>GPS
>>approach from the East. The runway threshold has been displaced
>>significantly for both VFR and IFR arrivals - the VFR guys just try not to
>>hit the building and use all the runway. The actual encroachment is
>>supposedly less than a foot laterally and he built the building before the
>>city owned the airport and extended the runway.
>>
>
> Thanks. Do you mean CWS? I had a good talk with the airport manager
> and got some information that will be helpful. Other airports that
> fit this situation would also be useful.
>
> Ron Lee

> Did you notice that the threshold is displaced 1643' ? That's a heck of an
> impact from a very small encroachment.

That's a three degree slope off of 86 feet.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim Carter" > wrote:

>Yep - CWS - my bad. I didn't pull the plate just responded from memory. I'm
>pretty sure it used to be CWY years ago, but I believe they changed it a
>while back. Kind of like the old habit call Boeing Tower when at King County
>in Seattle, or Riverside Tower at the Jones airport in Tulsa. Old habits die
>hard.
>
>Did you notice that the threshold is displaced 1643' ? That's a heck of an
>impact from a very small encroachment.

I was told there is/was an antenna there as well which may have played
more of a role in the displacement. I should learn much more with
time about the process.

Ron Lee