Displaced Thresholds.

[ac500u]

Lanfranc,

There is much more to sound arguments / discussion than sarcasm, which you seem to enjoy.

You made several statements in your article, I asked you to verify their location, and you returned with sarcasm.

Is that the sound argument you were referring to?

Again, please point out the 'many, many references specifically prohibiting it' that you mentioned in your post.

It's very simple, you point them out, and I'm dead wrong.

It's doesn't seem like a difficult argument to win (if your correct).


Spitoon, I more clearly see your point, however, tend in this instance to disagree. Would you as an ATC advise anything under your control to cross any portion of a 2500ft strip, when an aircraft is landing? Not from a legal point, but practically? Imagine if it was uncontrolled, what would stop a vehicle from crossing that portion? Nothing really, but that's why we keep our eyes peeled for obstacles on landing, whether aircraft, vehicles, animals, or debris.

Again from a practical point of view. There are many aircraft which land on this runway everyday. Well, not that many, maybe 20-30 landings a day. Every single one of them touch down before the displaced threshold. They are aircraft of several countries, with pilots of several nationalities. Do you suggest that we all land before because we are all reckless? and we all constantly endangerous the lives of our passengers? I'm not saying that because everyone does it, that it's legal, but I am saying that everyone does it because it is safer.

It seems everyone is getting bothered by this. I think that everyone is seeing this from an airliner point of view as Lanfranc is. There is a world of difference between flying a A320, and a light aircraft. I've landed light aircraft on frozen lakes, beaches, and 700ft bushstrips. I still can't grasp how landing 200 ft before a strip of paint on a excellent piece of concrete is inherently unsafe. Again, that's from a practical point of view, not a legal one.

I see the practical and legal arguments as two completely different things.

I personally cannot agree that in this instance it is practically unsafe.

I would be glad to admit that it might not be 'legal' as defined by local regulations. I just can't find anywhere where it clearly states this position.

It might be 'clutching at straws' like you suggest, but I believe that can be viewed both ways. I think saying that anything is illegal with out there being a specific law, is somewhat clutching as well.