Originally Posted by
Musket90
Thanks TCAS - I assume the RESA requirements during the work would have been checked by CAA in the approval process (which presumably they have). I think any temporary impact on approach lights could be covered by Notam. Stansted seems to be doing this for any lighting downgrade during their present runway work..
The RESA requirements are continuously in force to reduce the possibility of damage to an aircraft in the event of an overrun or undershoot.
Protection in the event of an overrun or undershoot is provided firstly by a "runway strip" which extends 60 metres beyond the end of the runway available for take-off, and before the threshold, ie the earliest point available for landing. Secondly by a RESA which extends for a further minimum of 90 metres beyond the strip end.
SOU has a standard 60 metres strip end and the minimum 90 RESA for both runways.
The project plan submitted to CAA will have to demonstrate how the strip end and RESA are going to be safeguarded. If one or both cannot, the runway declared distances will need to be temporarily reduced.
Reduction of RWY 20 declared distances, involving a reduced LDA, is not really an option as, due to the insetting of a temporary threshold (which is already 45 metres inset from the north end of the runway) it will prevent use of a ILS IAP and will require the expense of provision of temporary PAPIs. Apart from this it will reduce the LDA which could be unacceptable to current scheduled operators, particularly Loganair, KLM and City Flyer.
Any reduction of RWY 20 LDA would impact on RWY 02 TORA/ASDA and LDA.
Consequently I am waiting with interest to see how AGS are going to manage the strip end and RESA issue, which should be revealed in the AIP Supplement.
If it will not be possible to ensure approach lighting for RWY 20 during the project this will require a temporary raising of approach minima for RWY 20, but as we are looking at the weather during summer months this may be tolerable.