Originally Posted by
commit aviation
TCAS FAN. The airport may well be talking with their CAA aerodrome inspector behind the scenes. The formal submission of the CAP791 to the development team often happens just before the work commences. The safety case needs input from the contractor so difficult to produce it a long way in advance.
You are correct regarding AIP updates - they take a while to work through the system so may even precede the approval.
Not just a ground survey but a flight survey required too and I would suspect some kind of impact assessment on ATC services. If memory serves me, that's no less than three different CAA inspectorates.
The CAP 791 process certainly does not happen shortly before work commences. Although, in accordance with CAP 791 criteria this is a "major" development, it is a very small scale project when compared with LHR's third runway, which also falls into the same classification!
While the designated CAA Aerodrome Inspector will be involved, the Aerodrome Development Team will manage the approvals process.
The CAP 791 process is set out in three stages Compliance, Control and Completion.
Assuming that an April start is still planned, IMHO on 1 February the first stage,
Compliance, should by now be done and dusted. This describes the project and requires evidence to show that the development complies with all design and regulatory requirements.
Control, requires evidence to show that the project can be safely managed, especially as the runway will remain in use throughout the project. If not already completed and signed off by CAA, it should be shortly to enable NATS AIM to compile the AIP Supplement to publish in March.
Completion, requires the aerodrome operator to convince the CAA that the completed project is fit for purpose, in accordance with the design submitted/approved in the Compliance stage.
Prior to submitting the Completion documents to CAA, as mentioned in an earlier post, the extension will need to be surveyed to confirm such issues as dimensions and levels, together with details necessary to update the CAA required "Aerodrome Plan". In order to bring the extension into the earliest possible operational use scheduling of the surveyors is critical. As soon as the paint markings are completed they need to be onsite.
It will not be possible to complete AIP updates until the surveyors complete work on the "as built" development, compile a Report, and have it approved by NATS AIM.
The "flight survey" mentioned will be a flight check of the new lighting. Given that it is only a 164 metres extension lighting changes should consist of a new couple of pairs of elevated runway edge lights, insetting of RWY 20 approach lighting (about six lights?), addition of runway centreline lights, RWY 02 end-of-runway lights and turning area blue edge lights. The current RWY 20 threshold and PAPIs will be unchanged.
Lighting flight checks are normally carried out by the aircraft that conducts the navaid flight checks. As SOU has an ILS navaid flight checks are carried out every six months. It is accordingly possible that the subsequent navaid flight check could be brought forward to accommodate the lighting check. Worst case will be a supplementary lighting flight check,
ATC impact, negligible. Apart from the frustration of having to increase spacing between an arrival and a 20 departure, due to the increased backtrack (assuming that the TWY A "missing link" doesn't happen), a minor change to ATC's MATS Part 2 may be necessary. If it does this can be approved before project completion.
We can now but wait as to what AGS are going to reveal at Friday's Airport Consultative Committee meeting. Maybe then it can be ascertained if the project is on schedule.