Musings on KCDW, ILS, and WAAS

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[David Megginson]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> 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.

I'm curious about the ways in which KTEB is unfriendly. I've seen postings
about how controllers can be terse with pilots, but that's typical in busy
situations everywhere. I know that the gas is a bit expensive as well, but
my little Warrior doesn't burn much. Are there other problems? Is it only
VFR planes that have problems, or is there a perceived discrimination
against IFR small planes as well?

When I flew down for a meeting in Manhattan last spring, I landed at
Caldwell/KCDW. I agree that it's a nice, friendly little airport (for
example, when I was doing a preflight just before 11:00 pm, the tower
controller saw me and called me on the radio as soon as I started the
engine, just to make sure I knew the tower was shutting down). However, it
was about 1.5 hours away from midtown Manhattan by road, not only during the
afternoon, but during the late evening (light traffic) as well. Ouch! It
felt like I'd ended up landing half way to Chicago. I spent nearly as long
driving in and out as I did flying down from Canada (and the car and driver
to get into town cost more than my fuel for the trip down). I've
pretty-much decided to try KTEB next time, just to be closer to town.


All the best,


David

[Andrew Gideon]

David Megginson wrote:

> I'm curious about the ways in which KTEB is unfriendly. I've seen
> postings about how controllers can be terse with pilots, but that's
> typical in busy
> situations everywhere. I know that the gas is a bit expensive as well,
> but
> my little Warrior doesn't burn much. Are there other problems? Is it
> only VFR planes that have problems, or is there a perceived discrimination
> against IFR small planes as well?

Perhaps "unfriendly" conveys the wrong impression. TEB's ATC, for example,
has never been anything but completely helpful to me - even when I was new
to the airport and...a little troublesome (ie. I once asked for a
progressive to Million Air - the big building with the "Million Air" sign
right before me {8^).

But the pricing for tie-downs and operations has been increasing, with the
"break" given to "spam cans" dropping.

That's really how I meant "unfriendly". For transients, I expect that these
are much less significant.

> When I flew down for a meeting in Manhattan last spring, I landed at
> Caldwell/KCDW. I agree that it's a nice, friendly little airport (for
> example, when I was doing a preflight just before 11:00 pm, the tower
> controller saw me and called me on the radio as soon as I started the
> engine, just to make sure I knew the tower was shutting down). However,
> it was about 1.5 hours away from midtown Manhattan by road, not only
> during the
> afternoon, but during the late evening (light traffic) as well. Ouch!

That seems high for "light traffic", but it may merely be that your
definition and mine are a little different. Still, 90 minutes to midtown
during the day or evening is quite possible.

> It felt like I'd ended up landing half way to Chicago. I spent nearly as
> long driving in and out as I did flying down from Canada (and the car and
> driver
> to get into town cost more than my fuel for the trip down). I've
> pretty-much decided to try KTEB next time, just to be closer to town.

It is definitely closer. But traffic can bite just as hard, as you're still
traveling by car. A nice alternative - that I've never tried, as one of my
goals in life is to avoid NYC as much as possible - would be the Little
Falls train station near CDW. You'd need a ride there, but the FBO might
oblige or a short cab trip would work.

But this requires advance planning to work it into your schedule...and some
luck to *keep* it in your schedule.

Or, from either TEB or CDW, ride the bus. They get their own lanes during
rush periods.

Another alternative is Linden, which is just a short cab ride from the PATH
train into the city. Unlike the Little Falls train, this runs constantly
and frequently. But Linden is a "mostly VFR" airport. It has only a GPS
approach, and it can take a *long* time to be cleared for an IFR departure
if you're using runway 9.

- Andrew

[Peter R.]

David Megginson ) wrote:

> I'm curious about the ways in which KTEB is unfriendly. I've seen postings
> about how controllers can be terse with pilots, but that's typical in busy
> situations everywhere. I know that the gas is a bit expensive as well, but
> my little Warrior doesn't burn much. Are there other problems? Is it only
> VFR planes that have problems, or is there a perceived discrimination
> against IFR small planes as well?

I've been into Teterboro four times over the last few months in a C172.
Granted, I was flying with the Angel Flight callsign on one leg of the
flight (either approaching or departing), but the other 50% of the time I
was using my tail id. Oh, and I have only used Signature there, not
MillionAir.

In my experiences with the controllers (both NY approach and the TEB
controllers), I found that if you are able to execute their requests and
respond back without sounding flustered, able to keep your speed up right
to the numbers, and able to know exactly where you are on the ground, the
controllers treat you with the same outward respect as the large corporate
jets. Study the taxi diagram and the TETERBORO 5 departure procedure ahead
of time.

IMO, the most unfriendly aspect when compared to other airports is simply
the cost of fuel and parking. But, if you subscribe to the "time is
money" adage, then even the added costs beat the time spent commuting in
from CDW.

--
Peter















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[David Megginson]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Or, from either TEB or CDW, ride the bus. They get their own lanes during
> rush periods.

Thanks -- I've had a few other people recommend the bus as well. From what
I've heard, it's quite cheap to take a Manhattan cab from midtown to KTEB,
but ridiculously expensive to take a NJ cab (or car and driver) from KTEB
into midtown. I'd probably take the bus into the Port Authority, then take
a cab back.


All the best,


David

[Maule Driver]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> 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?
>
What makes an airport less span can friendly? Tangibles like prices and
possibly policies. Or intangibles like perceived attitudes and ?

I'm not challenging the assertion, just asking.

I flew out of CDW some years ago and have visited on occassion. It has
location. It seems to lack decent runways and facilities for the jet crowd.
Don't know about TEB but MMU never seemed to welcome light GA. When I was
training at CDW, we just didn't go to MMU. I've heard since that they have
discouraging fee practices. After flying in NJ for years I feel like I fell
into aviation heaven down here in NC where it seems every county in the
state has a 5-6,000 foot runway with ILS - or they are currently expanding
to that standard. Some of them are busy, and some just sit there for your
consideration.

I've stopped avoiding busy and/or large airports when they are the most
convenient landing spot. And more often than not, I've found them to be
good light GA travel stops. Not sure I'd want to be based at some of them.
The only tangible factor is 100ll prices.

I'

[Andrew Gideon]

Maule Driver wrote:

> I'm not challenging the assertion, just asking.

I really should have been more clear. Sorry. I meant price.

[...]
> Don't know about TEB but MMU never seemed to welcome light GA. When I was
> training at CDW, we just didn't go to MMU. I've heard since that they
> have
> discouraging fee practices.

As I understand it, MMU has had an operation fee for a while. However,
there was something "funny" about it. Like, perhaps you could do multiple
approaches and be charged for only one "operation"?

But they were still, supposedly, reasonably priced for tie-downs and such.
Recently, however, this has apparently changed. It's one of the factoids
about which I'm very unclear. Perhaps someone based at MMU here can
provide more details (or tell me that I'm mistaken).

> After flying in NJ for years I feel like I
> fell into aviation heaven down here in NC where it seems every county in
> the state has a 5-6,000 foot runway with ILS - or they are currently
> expanding
> to that standard. Some of them are busy, and some just sit there for your
> consideration.

So...how many counties do you have?

- Andrew

[Maule Driver]

"Andrew Gideon" > > > After flying in NJ for years I feel
like I
> > fell into aviation heaven down here in NC where it seems every county in
> > the state has a 5-6,000 foot runway with ILS - or they are currently
> > expanding
> > to that standard. Some of them are busy, and some just sit there for
your
> > consideration.
>
> So...how many counties do you have?
>
I'm exaggerating... a lot. But it doesn't seem that way sometimes. I
watched KEXX Lexington County rip up the runway, turn it and grow it (thanks
NASCAR). No ILS though since KRUQ Rowan County is 10 miles down the road.
KTTA Sanford/ Lee County abandoned theirs and put up a new ILS equipped
6,000 footer. Still looks like it serves a pine forest. KTDF Person Co.
just lengthened and put in an ILS. That's my favorite practice approach.
KJNX Johnston County has 5500 and an ILS - probably for the nameless hangar
at one end of the airport (CIA?). KVUJ Stanley County - I fell in there one
day for passenger relief (there's no other reason to go there). Cheap gas
and nice runway and all but it's too long. So they have a short parallel
runway for Nat Guard C130 short field work or something - thankyou again US
Gov. KSVH Statesville north of Charlotte is getting ready to lengthen for
Lowe's new HQ I guess.

There are lots of counties in between I guess. But I'm still amazed at the
growth and expansion after living in Jersey where it seems all GA airports
were endangered. Of course there's a lot more stuff in Jersey and
suprisingly little down here in NC.

Thanks for an excuse to ramble.

[David Reinhart]

I think it's mostly attitude, but the price of landing fees and avgas can figure
into it, too.

Dave Reinhart


Maule Driver wrote:

> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> > 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?
> >
> What makes an airport less span can friendly? Tangibles like prices and
> possibly policies. Or intangibles like perceived attitudes and ?
>
> I'm not challenging the assertion, just asking.
>
> I flew out of CDW some years ago and have visited on occassion. It has
> location. It seems to lack decent runways and facilities for the jet crowd.
> Don't know about TEB but MMU never seemed to welcome light GA. When I was
> training at CDW, we just didn't go to MMU. I've heard since that they have
> discouraging fee practices. After flying in NJ for years I feel like I fell
> into aviation heaven down here in NC where it seems every county in the
> state has a 5-6,000 foot runway with ILS - or they are currently expanding
> to that standard. Some of them are busy, and some just sit there for your
> consideration.
>
> I've stopped avoiding busy and/or large airports when they are the most
> convenient landing spot. And more often than not, I've found them to be
> good light GA travel stops. Not sure I'd want to be based at some of them.
> The only tangible factor is 100ll prices.
>
> I'

[Guy Elden Jr.]

I fly only out of CDW these days since Century moved from MMU last year. I
agree, MMU is very GA unfriendly, and it's due to two things:

1) The developers of the airport have the SWEETEST government deal you
could ask for ... they pay $100k a year to the city of Morristown (I think,
not sure if any of that goes to the county or state) for the rights to
develop the airport, pretty much at will. For the next 99 years (give or
take a few, I don't know all the details).

2) Signature is it. If you're transient, you go to them, or you don't get
gas. As a result, they abuse their monopoly power significantly... it's one
of the few places I know of where Jet-A regularly costs _less_ than 100LL.
And the last time I checked, it was around $3.50 for 100LL.

Also, there's a landing fee... $10, but it's only charged on a daily
basis... so you go for some practice touch & goes, and you only pay the $10
once per day.

I don't know if anybody in the gov't around there has wised up to what's
going on at the airport, but I'm pretty sure the surrounding communities are
none too pleased with the almost constant pace of jet traffic in and out of
there, starting at 7am and lasting well into the evening.

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.
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.

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.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[Mark Astley]

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
>

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[Mateo]

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.