Runways on runways

[thing]

A question regarding runways that are marked on top of bigger and wider runways.

I was at a very friendly location yesterday, first visit. The runway is marked out very clearly on top of what is obviously a much longer and wider original runway. Being as it ws my first departure from there I like to make sure I'm doing it right, so I inwardly digested the information on the clubhouse notice board re departing. It called for a taxi down the edge of the marked runway (bags of room) to a holding point and do your engine run up there before departure. While I was there running the engine a call came from an a/c on finals asking me to clear the runway as they were on finals. My immediate thought being 'I'm not on the runway, the runway is marked out and a fair way over yonder.' I did however taxi onto the grass and cleared the actual tarmac bit. It was not a problem whatsoever, all very friendly but it set me thinking (always dangerous).

When is a runway not a runway? Think of somewhere like Fenland or Breighton where the taxiway is simply the wider bit of the runway, the runway itself being marked, much as the situation yesterday. You can't taxi off of Fenlands taxi strip because you will be in a ditch. So what is the actual definition of a runway and when are you actually on it?

[funfly]

I would have expected final checks to have been done a little back from the runway edge and the wait to be not on the runway itself but at a holding point.

I've been at a holding point for a runway at Manchester that was part down the main runway (as I was in a GA aircraft) and the big birds quite happily landing on the main runway way before where I was.

Edited to ask, were you actually on the 'large' runway holding for what you thought was the active but narrower runway? If a runway is inactive it will be clearly marked (X) visible from the air.

[thing]

I was on the 'large' inactive bit of the runway off to the side, where in fact I was supposed to be. As I say, it wan't a problem I just thought it was a bit confusing....and then as I was lining up and called 'G**** lining up and taking off' there was a little voice popped up on the radio saying 'Are you on the grass or the hard?'...:)

the wait to be not on the runway itself but at a holding point.

There isn't an actual taxiway to the end of the runway, the taxiway is the runway, but not the marked runway....confusing innit?

[DeltaV]

thing, based only on your post and on the understanding that you were correctly observing the club procedures I'd opine that you would have been in the right to reply stating that you were clear of the runway and not move. Without knowing the field in question I'd even go as far as to say that if it was a 'non radio' field with safety com being used you'd have been perfectly entitled to keep quite, stay put and let the other guy decide what to do.

That all said getting yourself further away from someone who might not be as on the ball as yourself sounds like a good 'self preservation' move. Just because someone else isn't up to scratch and is being stupid doesn't mean you have to play his game.

[Sir George Cayley]

Was the aerodrome licensed by the CAA under CAP168 Aerodrome Licensing? If yes then there is a strip around the marked/declared runway beyond which you hold.

If not tell 'em to go ........

Or retreat to a safe distance :ok:

SGC

[funfly]

Safety must come first.

There must have been a reason why the full width was not in use.

Therefore the call should have been;

"Aircraft landing, I understand that the full width of the runway is not in use"

Edited to say that it was still a sensible move to get yourself clear.

[thing]

I did take the retreat to a safe distance ploy, discretion being the better part of valour etc. As I must repeat, it was all very friendly and not officious and it's certainly a place I will return to. It just raised the question of runways that are on runways and the procedures thereof.

[md 600 driver]

Thing
Surely at BREIGHTON the grass is the runway and the hard bit is the taxiway !

[150 Driver]

I think that I know the airfield in question (if not one very much like it).

The approach of refusing to move, that you are not on the runway because you are not on the marked bit is IMO completely legally correct, but . . .

(a) try explaining to St Peter (or whatever variant you have) that you shouldn't be meeting him because the law says the guy who landed on you shouldn't have done

(b) if it's a friendly place full of friendly people there's no harm in being friendly back, even if the guy landing might in your eyes be a complete muppet.

It's possible that for whatever reason the landing aircraft (which has right of way anyway) needed the wider area, he might have had a possible landing gear problem, it might have been a taildragger with the possibility of ground looping etc etc.

Its always worth remembering that there is always someone less knowledgeable and experienced than ourselves and if by acting the way you did you made it a safe and pleasant experience then where's the harm in that:)

[thing]

Surely at BREIGHTON the grass is the runway and the hard bit is the taxiway ! Indeed but you get my drift, the taxiway is next to the runway and not seperated by another bit of grass/ground. You can happily taxi down for say 11 at Breighton (which is grass for the last bit!!) with aircraft landing. It's all the same bit of grass.

150 Driver:

If I may say it yet again, it was an excellent visit, the pub (you obviously know which one!) is excellent, the people were friendly to me and my partner and I will recommend a visit to said airfield to all of my friends. It was just a question about runways. I think the landing aircraft was an instructional or taster flight, I'm only guessing here. Lady on the radio. There was absolutely no problem moving onto the grass. Maybe the poster in the clubhouse may be better reading something like 'Taxi to the end of the runway and then onto the grass for power checks' and that would solve everything.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can think of a few places that meet the description, but it doesn't really matter where it was.

It's not unusual to mark a much smaller runway on a large old runway. The reasons are straightforward enough - the full bigger runway isn't needed, and would cost a fortune to maintain, so they mark as much as they actually need, and maintain that bit properly. The rest is manoeuvring area. Taxiways might be marked, but usually they're not.

So, if you're on the marked runway, it's a runway. If you're not (but on the big old runway) take care as there are probably potholes, but the etiquette is basicallly the same as if it was all a big grass field with a runway marked - taxi as per commonsense and local instructions, stay off the marked runway until it's appropriate to enter it. Do your run-ups where you aren't in anybody's way (or where told to, if there are local instructions about it).

If you were well off to the side of the marked runway, then the aeroplane landing was incorrect. On the other hand, he could have had any number of reasons for needing a bit of elbow room, so your amiably moving further out of the way, so long as it didn't take you anywhere unsafe for your aeroplane, was aeronautical good sense and manners in my opinion.

G

[150 Driver]

Thing, sorry, wasn't having a go at you :O All I was trying to say was that I think you'd have been right legally if you had chosen to do nothing, but all credit for being sensible.

[Mach Jump]

...say 11 at Breighton...:=

Hate to seem picky, but I think the runway at Breighton is now 10/28.

£1 donation to Cancer Research if you say '11', or '29' now!


MJ:ok:

Ps. You did the right thing for all the right reasons, Thing.

[thing]

Mmm, Pooleys suggests you are correct however inspecting the logbook reveals I haven't been there since Sep last year so fair error! :ok:

[cambioso]

Why the anonymity as to where this place is?
Sounds a great place to visit.
Don't be shy!
Jez

[Talkdownman]

Cambioso, maybe it's Block 85...

[FleetFlyer]

We should make a game of this, the first person to guess correctly wins. It'll be like a variation on Mornington Crescent.
I'll start with..

Old Buckenham!

[Talkdownman]

OK, then, Bedford.
(Just padding it out…)

[bartonflyer]

Castle Kennedy fits the description of runway within a runway, but has no radio!

Nice cafe in the castle grounds though :)

[Flyingmac]

Overpriced.

[Crash one]

Eshott? Avoid the carpet bombed areas.

[PTR 175]

Newquay aka RAF St Mawgan is a good example of this. According to the original plan this was done to save cost. I suggest this is the reason why it is done elsewhere.

[PA28181]

£1 donation to Cancer Research if you say '11', or '29' now!

Only a quid, then I saw the location:)

[150 Driver]

I guessed at Enstone.

I've heard by the way that the rubble heaps that spoilt the approach/take off path at Old Buck have been done away with, something to do with a new owner next door.

[thing]

I guessed at Enstone.


You chose....wisely.

Big thanks to Paul for running me and my buddy down the pub; he suggested the steak and hooky pie so we decided to have that and were not disappointed. In fact I was forced to have treacle pudding for afters and that was just superb. I nearly had another but conscious of weight and balance I resisted.

Great place, we will return.

[funfly]

I used to fly gliders at Enstone, wow that's a long time ago. Used to be a chap called Fred who taught me - is he still around? always flew in weliington boots. He used to carry a spanner as he sat behind you in case thew student 'froze'.

[150 Driver]

When I win the Euro Lottery I'll be seeing a lot more of Enstone - would love to have even part ownership of one of the Spitfire replicas they plan to have a squadron of.

[TheOddOne]

Assume a runway has a declared length of 800 metres. If it were a licensed aerodrome, then this would make it a Code 2 runway. The runway itself would be 23 metres wide, enclosed in a strip 80 metres wide (40 metres each side of the centreline.) The holding point would be at least 40 metres from the runway centreline. The 80 metre strip should be completely free of any upstanding obstructions. You also need to consider a fan-like area sloping up from the beginning and the end of the runway, and another slope to the sides, all detailed in CAP168. Of course plenty of unlicensed aerodromes aren't fully compliant with these basic dimensions and operate perfectly safely. However, if you're looking for some numbers, there they are...
If that runway re-declared at 799 metres, then the numbers reduce somewhat...

TOO

[thing]

Interesting, always wondered why runways have weird declared lengths. One of the places I fly from is Gamston which has a declared length of 1199 mtrs on a runway of 1683 mtrs.
Probably why Old Wardens extension is 150 mtrs as well.

150: there's one in the shed just being built at the moment, Paul is quite passionate in his aims and what he wants them to represent. Good on him I say.

[phiggsbroadband]

.
Could it be Netherthorpe?
I was waiting at the intersection for a plane to land on 06, when two of the local fliers overtook me and taxied up the side of 06 in the face of the incoming traffic.. Apparently the width of the grass is big enough for it to be used as a taxiway.


http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-C902114B6718F57F50EE29572B107479/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGNF_2-1_en_2010-06-03.pdf
.

[Mach Jump]

Apparently the width of the grass is big enough for it to be used as a taxiway.

I doubt it. I think they just do.;)


MJ:ok:

[thing]

Netherthorpe is a law unto itself. I've been once, never again.

[mikehallam]

Henstridge ?

[Mattyfab]

What's wrong with Netherthorpe, that's were I am learning to fly lol??:O

[Pull what]

Interesting, always wondered why runways have weird declared lengths. One of the places I fly from is Gamston which has a declared length of 1199 mtrs on a runway of 1683 mtrs.
Probably why Old Wardens extension is 150 mtrs as well. One of the reasons that runways have displaced thresholds is because of approach onstructions which may be why 03 at Gamston has. AD 2-10 shows it has trees on the approach. Note Pooleys quide doesnt show approach obstructions another reason for using the official AIP for flight planning!

At a licensed airfield there must at least be a pattern A holding point for each runway at a safe distance from that runway. Technically if you taxy over that its a runway incursion, so you can consider any area the other side(runway side) of a holding point as the runway. Even a strip alongside the main marked runway is technically still the runway and after landing you have not technically cleared the the runway until you have cleared the pattern A holding point.

At an unlicensed airfield who knows!

Running up on old non maintained tarmac may damage your prop, something to consider if on a loose surface.

To my mind its always safer and wiser to face the approach for runups. We/I ban turning into wind below 20 knots and below 20 degrees temp

[Steve6443]

I'll go for Dunkeswell when 35 was in use......

damn, answer already given ;-)

[thing]

What's wrong with Netherthorpe, that's were I am learning to fly lolI followed a mate in who was dropping off an aircraft for service. We sat and had one of the breakfast rolls in the caff, very good it was too, and while we were gazing out of the window in around two minutes, and I'm not exaggerating, a 152 took off one way on the long runway, one took off the other way and then a Moth took off on the cross runway.

Bit too scary for me, call me a wuss if you must. My head must have looked like that bird on the Exorcist when I took off, talk about eyes on a swivel.

[POBJOY]

As i recall when we licensed Perranporth (normal RAF size runways) we would have had to 'improve both grass edges to a point that an aircraft could 'run off' without collapsing is legs.As one side was under plough we went for an 'inset offset lic runway with one grass edge and the other usable tarmac. This left a wide band on one side however it was still part of the 'safety strip' therefore could not be obstructed.We also improved the grass edged part to form an unlicensed grass strip 600m x 15m. If we had not needed the lic we could just operate as we wished to suit our own needs. I suggest that an aircraft taxying or holding on the safety strip would constitute an obstacle therefore the lic would be void at that time.If the landing machine did not require a lic runway then this would not preclude its use.Despite providing 2x lic tarmac and 1x ul tarmac runway plus 3 smooth grass strips some visitors still complained about a landing fee and then of course we still had to battle with the local Council just to stay open.Ah the joys of GA;and i have to say that during all this the CAA lic dept were a pleasure to deal with and a constant help to defeat the bad guys at Carrick Dis Council.

[The Ancient Geek]

As a matter of vague interest, why was 01/19 never licenced ?.
It is a tad short but it looks usefull for when the wind is NW to N, these tend to be quite strong in winter.

[Mark 1]

I guessed at Enstone too. It does give rise to some confusion in interpreting the rules.
So strictly according to CAP393:
'runway' means an area, whether or not paved, which is provided for the take-off
or landing of aircraft.
and
a flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an
aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway.

The area provided for t/o and landing at Enstone is that which is marked up on part of the old runway. So my understanding is that only that area need be vacant to legally land or take off.

However the space on the old tarmac north of the marked strip doesn't leave a lot of margin for clearance, especially when motor gliders have their wing tips nudging the edge of the strip.

So good airmanship would suggest adding a margin to the sides and ends of the strip when it is being used.

Be careful where you vacate though as there have been incidents with aircraft fouling on the fence of the Northside grass runway or catching on broken drain covers on the south edge of the runway.

[turbroprop]

Manston must have been the most extreme case. Mega wide runway from the war and approx only a quarter of its width required to make a normal runway. The illusion was to make the inset runway look very small.

[POBJOY]

No Need as it never stopped it being used when required.
Its surface was such that for it to be licenced it was not cost effective; but quite sat for use when the wind suited.