SOUTHAMPTON

[TCAS FAN]

Rivet Joint/Destinationsky

Life is too short for me go into great detail.

From my recollection both the rail sheds (at the north end) and trees (at the south end) were (and probably still are) take-off performance limiting for most public transport flights(eg E145 /E170 /E195/B737).

You must appreciate that the rail sheds and the trees were there before the hard runway was put down (circa 1965). Consequently its not a case of sanctioning their presence.

In respect of 02 the situation was worse until I identified a large number of redundant poles in the rail yard and persuaded the MD to cough up the money to fund their removal, as the yard operator was not about to do so. That was worth a few tonnes extra take-off weight for the then operation of BACX E145s. As normal at SOU, the MD and Ops Director got the credit for that!

In respect of 20, tree (s) in or adjacent to "Marhill Copse" are the culprits. Prior to my retirement I tried repeatedly to have them reduced. The Local Planning Authority (Southampton City) either would not, or could not, agree to their removal/reduction. The airport operator did not appear to have the stomach for a fight to challenge the LPA.

I'm not sure if it is still the case, but the offending trees were/are too close to the end of the runway to give time to turn and take advantage of the better obstacle environment offered by the optional offset Type A Chart, to increase optimum take-off weights for the length of TORA. Solve that one and its worth a few extra tonnes of take-off weight.

Landing weights are also restricted by the current LDAs, caused by the displaced thresholds. RWY 20 is inset due to obstacles which penetrate protected approach surfaces. Furthermore, the current threshold should be further inset (which would kill the airport operationally) to fully comply with CAP 168 precision runway obstacle clearance criteria. How does it state of affairs arise? Answer, a waiver issued many years ago by CAA, which successive airport operators have clung on to.

RWY 02 threshold is primarily inset to provide a safety buffer from the M27 (ie provision of a RESA). However, RWY 02 operates under another long standing waiver from CAA. The approach path should be protected (IAW CAP 168) as a Code 3 Instrument Runway, simply put it cannot, due to multiple penetrations of the normal approach surface caused by trees and buildings on the hill.

As previously noted by many contributors, without some considerable investment nothing is going to significantly change at SOU. Unless maybe an airline operator comes along with something with considerably better performance figures to carry around 100+ PAX, 2000 miles or greater! Cs300 anyone?