I'm back!
Firstly the document produced is intended to be the outline of a master plan for airport growth and development over the next 25 (not 30) years. The document is stated to be a draft, put out for consultation to "stakeholders", ie those who have an interest in airport growth/development. A stakeholder includes local authorities and those who live around the airport.
I do not consider myself an airport operational expert, but I know a man who is, and have consequently sought advice.
As indicated in my first response, what has been produced is essentially something that has been put together in an attempt to ameliorate the previous lack of long term planning by BAA, who have been operating the airport for more than 10 years.
This lack of forsight has included their reluctance to purchase the freehold of land in the southwest corner of the airport, at the time that they bought the airport. This land now includes the Royal Mail building. Nett result, nowhere to extend the current terminal building, or provide a cost effective apron extension. Hence the prospect of a second terminal, with all the cost of duplicating facilities, duplicating staff and last but not least, potentially horrific surface transport problems.
When they did develop the airport site, which I do not dispute was long overdue, they ended up building a multi-story car park right next to the eastern section of the apron, which stopped any apron development to lengthen aircraft parking stands to accomodate larger aircraft. The Stands in question are 6-12, which are considerably shorter than the original Stands 1-5, in the cul-de-sac. I say "original" as Stand 1 was subsequently restricted in size due to new building work in its vicinity. Sanction for the current car park was given by senior management staff, against the professional advice of operational staff. Nett result, the arrival next year of 5 Embraer 195s and currently not enough room to park them! Due to their length, which is around three metres longer than a Dash 8 Q400, they are too long to fit on Stands 6-12. Unless it is possible to modify these stands, it will mean angling them across the apron, loosing one possibly two stands in the process. From what I have seen recently, there are frequently 12 night stoppers, should be fun with 10 Stands!
As picked up by one response, the current "Achilles heal" is the runway. When the airport was to be developed by BAA, they entered into what is known as a "Section 106 Agreement" with local planning authorities. This contains a number of environmental and other planning constraints which the airport voluntarily signed up to. By showing a willingness to sign up, the overall planning process was most probably speeded up.
Contained in the Section 106 Agreement are undertakings to limit night flights, thereby removing any chance of SOU becoming a 24/7 airport. Also contained therein, and mentioned in the 25 year draft plan, are constraints on noisy first generation jets (which were banned), training flights (limited to 10500 movements per year) and helicopter movements (limited to 7500 per year). With one flying club priced out and moved to Lee on Solent, and the other with the axe hanging over it, training flights should end up as almost nil. As for helicopter movements, doubt if there have ever been, or will be more than 750 per annum.
The Section 106 Ageement places restrictions on the runway. It cannot be re-aligned more than 5 degrees from the existing, and should not be extended. However (which seems to have been overlooked by previous Airport MDs), there is provision for the airport to in future apply for planning consent to extend the runway, but any application should not cause the runway to be in excess of 2000 metres. If anyone doubts it, obtain a copy of the Agreement, page 13, para 1.6.1 (a) refers.
The draft 25 year plan indicates the possibility of a starter strip at the north end of the runway, up to the existing northern boundary. Scaling this off the drawings contained in the document this looks to be around 150 metres. The starter strip is a contingency measure to allow for the CAA enforcing the current recommended "Runway End Safety Area" (RESA) requirement of 240 metres. The airport currently only has the minimum mandatory 90 metres, which has caused the restricted TORA on runway 20, resulting in a TORA less than the runway published length. A RESA is intended as a safety buffer to minimise the chances of damage to an aircraft overrunning/undershooting the runway. It may be of interest to note that the recommended extended RESA was partially the result of the Citation ending up on the M27 many years ago, albeit that the aircraft landed with a tailwind well in excess of its limit, on a wet runway.
The starter strip issue, according to the draft plan is to ensure that runway "declared distances" are preserved. As with the restricted TORA on 20, the LDA is also restricted, firstly by a displaced threshold, and secondly by the overshoot RESA.
This is where the proverbial plot appears to have been lost. If the 20 LDA is to be retained, in the event of a 240 metre overshoot RESA being implemented for 20, the current threshold (currently inset around 50 metres) will need to go north by 150 metres, placing it around 50 metres from the northern boundary fence. The presence of the fence alone will prevent this. To protect approaching aircraft there needs to be an obstacle free area extending out from a point 60 metres before the threshold, at a slope of 1:50. To permit the new threshold, the fence must go, no road can be constructed (funny but BAA always insisted previously that any road must be in a tunnel) and the rail marshalling yard plus large sheds will need flattening. Nothing in the draft about that, especially as the road linking the new terminal with the rest of the airport is shown running between the fence and the marshalling yard.
Adoption of a "scorched earth" policy north of the runway is also required to provide the 240 metre undershoot RESA, again overlooked. The RESA would of course be part of the existing marshalling yard, which the draft does not show as "Land in control of BAA".
Assuming that "Operation Scorched Earth" can be implemented, one further major improvement will result. It should then be possible to caterogise the ILS to at least CAT 1. From personal experience, it isn't funny having to divert out with a visibility of 1800 metres, because I cannot get visual with a 200 FT cloud base, due to the current mimima imposed by an un-caterogised ILS. I cannot even fly an approach with less than 800 metres RVR, when I should be able to at least try one with the CAT 1 550 RVR metres limit. This is one for aircraft operators to start making noises to BAA about.
"Eyeinthe sky"suggested that the M27 can be bridged. Theoretically this may be possible, but the road level would need to be dropped as high sided vehicles on the motorway are already a take-off obstacle for 20. Additionally, as the road already slopes down from Junction 5, an increased gradient may not be acceptable. If the M27 could be "cut and covered" it would solve the 20 overshoot/02 undershoot extended RESA problem, but would be of no value for 20 take-offs due to the obstacles posed by the trees and hill south of the M27. Additionally, SOU already has a CAA waiver from obstacle clearance requirements on the approach to 02, long term this needs to be resolved by the 02 threshold moving north, ie extending the runway northwards. Back to Operation Scorched Earth!
The draft promises a fuller version of the plan in December 2005, after completion of the consultation process. Hopefully the new version will show an increased area of land "in control of BAA" to protect their main asset, ie Runway 02/20.