SOUTHEND - 2
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Southend
Age: 69
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
runway extension
The current situation is tha the contractors have been stopped from working on the runway extension, this is since it is alleged an aircraft tried to land on the new part. Work was due to be completed by the end of Oct but that seems unlikely now. Work on the aprons and taxiways moves on at a pace with much of it nearly complete. More work at night this week will see most of it done.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Southend
Age: 69
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
runway extension
On the day it happened all work was suspended and if you look at the photo you will see several concrete strips are unfinished. This was alleged to have been stopped by the CAA and in fact all work stopped air side until last week. there is still a quantity of concrete to be placed followed by the tarmac wearing course and the gap has not yet been filled at the end of the existing runway. The aircraft avoided actually landing but no details have emerged of the actual incident.
If the crosses have been there since at least 7 October it's hard to believe that the extension could have been mistaken for an operational part of the runway only a couple of days ago.
Having looked at the photo of the extension, I consider it highly unlikely that any pilot would attempt to land on the extension in its present state, even before the white crosses were in place.
A much more plausible scenario is that an aircraft flew too shallow an approach to the existing threshold and in so doing caused concern to the contractors. If the CAA became involved of course they could require a pause in the construction process to enable safety procedures to be reviewed.
A much more plausible scenario is that an aircraft flew too shallow an approach to the existing threshold and in so doing caused concern to the contractors. If the CAA became involved of course they could require a pause in the construction process to enable safety procedures to be reviewed.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airportbuilder... I'm sorry but I believe you have been fed some incorrect information.
There have not been any incidents of Aircraft mistaking the new extension for the threshold.
There have not been any incidents of Aircraft mistaking the new extension for the threshold.
Aer Arann
Aer Arann have published their Winter 2011/12 timetable and the WAT-SEN remains much as now, with just the Saturday evening rotation being dropped. Weekday morning arrivals SEN seem to be 30 minutes earlier at 0855.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetisfaction Update
Just heard today that Jetisfaction have postponed the start of the Southend to Munster-Osnabruck route due to "operational reasons", BUT they insist that this is a minor set back and that they are to confirm a new launch date later on (no mention of when this will be).
Southend Airport runway protesters arrested
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southend
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as the public footpath crosses the airfield, they will not be able to stop this kind of action. How this will affect Easy Jet in the future god knows. But heard at a recent Southend users meeting from the Airport management staff, there is nothing we can do, any way there are other airports with footpaths running across them. When challenged on this ''go ahead and name them'' a quick change off subject happened.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports & Public Right of Ways
Sumburgh, Kemble & North Weald are just a few airfields that spring to mind with roads/public rights of way running through (across runways)!! All use(d) traffic lights to control vehicles & people crossing the runway ends (& obviously sharp eyed ATS personnel)!!
HeliAl
I think you're being somewhat alarmist and your description "...as long as the public footpath crosses the airfield ..." hardly fits the facts. It is only a 20m length of the path where it crosses taxiway D which is unfenced.
Even if it proved impossible to close that section of the footpath by re-routing it along Aviation Way, and I'm not sure you're correct in suggesting that is the case, it shouldn't be beyond technology to set up a system which satisfactorily safeguards the runway strip from pedestrian incursions.
I think you're being somewhat alarmist and your description "...as long as the public footpath crosses the airfield ..." hardly fits the facts. It is only a 20m length of the path where it crosses taxiway D which is unfenced.
Even if it proved impossible to close that section of the footpath by re-routing it along Aviation Way, and I'm not sure you're correct in suggesting that is the case, it shouldn't be beyond technology to set up a system which satisfactorily safeguards the runway strip from pedestrian incursions.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southend
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alarmist probably a little, but the matter has been there for several years and the airport have said that they cannot get it closed. They are trying to promote the airport as an international gateway. The fencing along side the northern boundary is poorly defined and for at least 250m the footpath runs inside the airfield boundary only defended by a ditch, and often the local horse trader pegs and ties on feeding leads, ponies on the track causing walkers to divert around the animals.
Although part of the foot path is across the 20m section of taxiway.Often spotters go walk about unchallenged, I'm sure this will change, but it takes an incident like the runway incursion to sort it out.
Just a point of discussion
Although part of the foot path is across the 20m section of taxiway.Often spotters go walk about unchallenged, I'm sure this will change, but it takes an incident like the runway incursion to sort it out.
Just a point of discussion
HeliAl
Please correct me if I'm wrong as it's a very long time since I've walked that footpath, but the "ditch" on the south side of the path that you mention is in fact a stream with an almost vertical 15ft bank on the opposite bank isn't it? Presumably this is thought to present a fairly effective barrier.
I see that planning consent was granted in May 2008 for a 2.4m fence along the north side of the path as far as Taxiway D with a similar fence on the path's south side beyond that point, where just the stream exists without the bank. So it does seem to me that only where the footpath crosses the 20m width of the Taxiway is at issue here as far as security is concerned.
Please correct me if I'm wrong as it's a very long time since I've walked that footpath, but the "ditch" on the south side of the path that you mention is in fact a stream with an almost vertical 15ft bank on the opposite bank isn't it? Presumably this is thought to present a fairly effective barrier.
I see that planning consent was granted in May 2008 for a 2.4m fence along the north side of the path as far as Taxiway D with a similar fence on the path's south side beyond that point, where just the stream exists without the bank. So it does seem to me that only where the footpath crosses the 20m width of the Taxiway is at issue here as far as security is concerned.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 53
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last month I mentioned scanning an article from a local magazine. Sorry I didn't get round to it. but you can read it here, pages 12 and 13.
http://thisisyouressex.com/images/th...ctober2011.pdf
This month there is another article (its a monthly feature) and the magazine is available online now so you can see the progress also on pages 12 and 13.
http://thisisyouressex.com/images/th...vember2011.pdf
pdf reader required.
http://thisisyouressex.com/images/th...ctober2011.pdf
This month there is another article (its a monthly feature) and the magazine is available online now so you can see the progress also on pages 12 and 13.
http://thisisyouressex.com/images/th...vember2011.pdf
pdf reader required.