Is LCY a class 2 or 3 aerodrome??
Moderator please move me else where if appropriate!
Google Earth ruler (measuring tool) accuracy when you zoom in on high definition areas is +/- 0.101%, in other words “very accurate”. This I have validated on numerous UK airports, cross referenced to the UK AIP data and CAP168. Everything looks kosher until you start studying LCY.
I must stress that I have the greatest respect and acknowledge the skill and professionalism of all the operators/pilots who fly in and out of LCY. I have used the airport many times and I personally have no concern or issue with it. This posting is an attempt to stimulate discussion and debate, not stir a pot of poop!
I understand that LCY is a “unique” facility, facing numerous physical and environmental challenges, but with the introduction of larger aircraft using the airport (Q400 and maybe soon A318) it would appear that many rules and regulations as stipulated in CAP168 chapter 3 and 4 (aerodrome physical characteristics) are being “interpreted differently”. These rules within CAP168 have been carefully developed for a reason, primarily safety!
My observations of LCY has lead me to ask some questions? Is precedent being set? Does this now more accurately reflect the technology, skill and procedures in modern commercial air travel? Does CAP168 (some sections) need to be updated?
Some of my observations are:
- Hold point distance to centre line of runway is 60m this is OK for a class 2 aerodrome with a CAT 1 precision approach.
- Class 2 aerodrome definition is; an aerodrome with a TODA or ASDA (whichever is the greater) more than 800m but less than 1200m. LCY data from AIP is ASDA of 1319m both rwy. 10 & 28 and TODA of 1319m rwy. 10 and 1385m rwy. 28. By definition LCY should be a class 3 aerodrome (I do note that in CAP168, it is at the “discretion” of the CAA with communication with the aerodrome operator to establish the class number also the declared TORA is 1199m).
- The wingspan of Q400 and A318 being 28.42m and 34.10m respectively, then the apron taxiway centre line to “object” at LCY between hold Y and C should be 28.5m (Chapter 3 Table 3.4 CAP168), not the 22.5m as on Google earth. This means it is very tight if taxing past the stands and if the master plan is implemented aircraft will be nose in (push back) to the stand, then it will be even tighter.
- For class 2 aerodromes with a visual, non precision approach, the horizontal clear surface area is 75m either side of runway centerline (Chapter 3 section 4.3.3 CAP168) then a transitional slope of 1:5 (Chapter 4 section 4.3 of CAP168). LCY does not comply, there is a CAT 1 precision approach on both rwy 10 and 28, and also noted above LCY should be a class 3 aerodrome. With all this in mind, how else can an A318 fit nose in to a stand when the 5 new ones are built over the dock to the east?
- The current LCY apron and future parallel taxiway to hold L and M has (will have) a centerline to runway centre line separation of 87m this is fine for Code letter B aircraft (wingspan less than 24m) on a CAT 1 or 2 runway, but many commercial aircraft using LCY (exceptions; Do 226/328, Twin Otter, J41, ERJ 134, Saab 340 and Shorts 360) have a wingspan that infringes on these regulations. The scenario of two A318s with a nominal tip to tip separation of 52.9m with approach speeds of greater than 120 knots is (I believe) of concern. Does this mean the taxiway will be sterile when the larger aircraft are operating? How will LCY maintain the very high hourly movement rate?
Again I hope that this stimulates discussion because I believe that LCY could be the most advanced, optimized and efficient airport in the U.K. My wish is that LCY accelerate the proposed development (it gets real crowded sometimes) but to satisfy my curiosity; could you forum members (pilots, ATC, operations etc), who would have vast more skill and knowledge than me, offer your input.
Thank you.