LUTON - 6
Just as well, as I'm sure I saw under-powered or heavily-laden piston aircraft descend before gaining altitude in the distant past!
I recall 1-11's appearing to do the same launching off 26 in the 70's.....boy that water injection on the Speys made some noise!
I recall 1-11's appearing to do the same launching off 26 in the 70's.....boy that water injection on the Speys made some noise!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect this is all down to the CAA licence, not changing things, fire cover, runway width, hours of operation, etc. etc. If they ever did want to extend, and that option seems to have been killed, then they would have been forced to use RESA "recommendations".
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Luton has 90m RESAs, or certainly did when I was there. What has changed?
LGS - You mean Take-off Distance (TODA), the maximum of which is 1½ times the TORA which is possible at Luton as there is not a significant obstacle in the way.
LGS - You mean Take-off Distance (TODA), the maximum of which is 1½ times the TORA which is possible at Luton as there is not a significant obstacle in the way.
Vintage ATCO
Thanks for that information.
I did think it strange that LTN didn't have the minimum mandated (not "recommended" Pabely, but obligatory) 90m but I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the UK AIP 'Runway Physical Characteristics' section. Presumably at both ends the RESAs are situated beyond the paved surface (rather than being the last 90m of paved surface at each end) as it's difficult to see if there is sufficient level ground immediately beyond the runway ends on the Type A chart.
With the steeply sloping land beyond that I should think they have thought long and hard each year as to whether the 'minimum' 90m is really appropriate nowadays.
Thanks for that information.
I did think it strange that LTN didn't have the minimum mandated (not "recommended" Pabely, but obligatory) 90m but I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the UK AIP 'Runway Physical Characteristics' section. Presumably at both ends the RESAs are situated beyond the paved surface (rather than being the last 90m of paved surface at each end) as it's difficult to see if there is sufficient level ground immediately beyond the runway ends on the Type A chart.
With the steeply sloping land beyond that I should think they have thought long and hard each year as to whether the 'minimum' 90m is really appropriate nowadays.
No one likes us, we don't care...
Luton Airport voted the UK
Hertfordshire residents don't like us either...
Luton Airport expansion application due this autumn - News - The Comet
Luton Airport voted the UK
Hertfordshire residents don't like us either...
Luton Airport expansion application due this autumn - News - The Comet
Last edited by Dannyboy39; 22nd Aug 2012 at 08:21.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice if Luton won awards for the right reasons but it doesn't stop passengers heading for the airport.
Many companies providing services at the airport only seem to employ Eastern Europeans now as they are cheap labour. I don’t blame the staff for feeling exploited and fed up but they can always go home if they don’t like it here and feast on cabbage once again.
Many companies providing services at the airport only seem to employ Eastern Europeans now as they are cheap labour. I don’t blame the staff for feeling exploited and fed up but they can always go home if they don’t like it here and feast on cabbage once again.
Last edited by LTNman; 22nd Aug 2012 at 09:12.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the steeply sloping land beyond that I should think they have thought long and hard each year as to whether the 'minimum' 90m is really appropriate nowadays.
While the land drops away more gently at the 26 end I think that end is clear of any obstacles a lot further out than in the direction of the M1.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: MIA-IBZ
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think the general public care about the poll? And who will remeber it in time for booking the next holiday. Most will just book if the price is right and if the flights match to the dates the pax wants. Its things like the 05:30-06:30 mad rush at the round about that will make pax thing twice.
fr-
fr-
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North of Watford
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
El Al at LTN
What's surprising, Fairdealfrank, is that El Al have any pax left at all, having practically gifted the route to easyJet last winter. Glad to hear they intend to do more this year.
The other winner for them is the LTN schedule - middle-of-day compared to poor timings out of LHR.
The other winner for them is the LTN schedule - middle-of-day compared to poor timings out of LHR.
Last edited by Victor Oscar; 22nd Aug 2012 at 18:48.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North of Watford
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY015 problems on 18th
Yes, Lee Baker Street, I heard that sound - sudden 'turboprops' - after having just seen an easyJet A319! Knew instantly something was very wrong. Glad all worked out well and hope the pax weren't too worried by it. It must have sounded loud in the cabin. Caused by a bird strike.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I did think it strange that LTN didn't have the minimum mandated (not "recommended" Pabely, but obligatory) 90m but I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the UK AIP 'Runway Physical Characteristics' section. Presumably at both ends the RESAs are situated beyond the paved surface (rather than being the last 90m of paved surface at each end) as it's difficult to see if there is sufficient level ground immediately beyond the runway ends on the Type A chart.
At the end of the day it comes down to Safety Management and what is reasonably practical. We use to (and I am sure they still do) think long and hard about stuff like this and apply a bit of logic and science, not a wet finger in the air as appears to be advocate by a few here.
All best
Last edited by vintage ATCO; 23rd Aug 2012 at 06:41. Reason: getting the punctuation right
Vintage ATCO
The SEN RESA figures are given in the UK AIP.
I'm just a bit puzzled by your apparent assertion that "wherever practical and reasonable" (in terms of suitable land available beyond the runway end) seems to be the overriding factor, rather than the potential consequences of not having something more than the mandatory 90m when you have a cliff at the end of your runway. It seems to me that it has simply been accepted by all concerned that the negative commercial consequences of reducing declared distances to provide an increase to the length of the RESA are too great to merit consideration.
I don't understand your remark of "a wet finger in the air." That phrase could be used to describe a point of view from someone without the technical/commercial knowledge to put forward his views, but I cannot see where that applies to any of the comments posted on this subject.
The SEN RESA figures are given in the UK AIP.
I'm just a bit puzzled by your apparent assertion that "wherever practical and reasonable" (in terms of suitable land available beyond the runway end) seems to be the overriding factor, rather than the potential consequences of not having something more than the mandatory 90m when you have a cliff at the end of your runway. It seems to me that it has simply been accepted by all concerned that the negative commercial consequences of reducing declared distances to provide an increase to the length of the RESA are too great to merit consideration.
I don't understand your remark of "a wet finger in the air." That phrase could be used to describe a point of view from someone without the technical/commercial knowledge to put forward his views, but I cannot see where that applies to any of the comments posted on this subject.
Last edited by Expressflight; 23rd Aug 2012 at 07:45. Reason: spelling
This is the most laughable politicial argument I've ever heard from an anti-expansion group (from HALE):
"Luton Borough Council has been accused of milking the airport for cash"
Do these people live in a parallel universe to normal people. Or even have a modicum of common or business sense? Bravo LLAOL/LBC.
"Luton Borough Council has been accused of milking the airport for cash"
Do these people live in a parallel universe to normal people. Or even have a modicum of common or business sense? Bravo LLAOL/LBC.
I'm not wishing to extend this discussion too far, but my meaning was that you were suggesting that the phrase "It is recommended that RESAs extend to at least 240m ..... wherever practical and reasonable" (which I know full well comes from CAP 168) has been used to avoid consideration of reducing declared distances.
In a case where the potential seriousness of an overrun is considerable there must be an argument for providing a RESA longer than the absolute minimum. For example, SEN had a RESA on 06 of 90m before the runway extension was carried out. Because there is a railway line beyond the end of that RESA it was decided to increase it to 150m by effectively moving the end of ASDA on 06 an additional 60m to the South-West.
Incidentally, CAP 168 does include the suggestion of "publishing the RESA provision in the AIP" in cases where a longer RESA might be desirable but could only be achieved by a reduction in declared distances. One could be excused for thinking that LTN might fit that description.
In a case where the potential seriousness of an overrun is considerable there must be an argument for providing a RESA longer than the absolute minimum. For example, SEN had a RESA on 06 of 90m before the runway extension was carried out. Because there is a railway line beyond the end of that RESA it was decided to increase it to 150m by effectively moving the end of ASDA on 06 an additional 60m to the South-West.
Incidentally, CAP 168 does include the suggestion of "publishing the RESA provision in the AIP" in cases where a longer RESA might be desirable but could only be achieved by a reduction in declared distances. One could be excused for thinking that LTN might fit that description.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 89 at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP168.PDF explains all.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite agree with you Dannyboy. A brand new leisure centre has just been opened in Luton I here including a 50 metre swimming pool thanks to the 9.5 million passengers who use the airport at the moment. Also Luton has one of the lowest Councl Tax rates in the country. Practically everybody I talk too about going through an airport are not that really interested in shopping except for a paper, book etc plus a coffee, sandwich etc. and just want as smooth throughput as is possible these days.
And to think I worked on the Comet newspaper not that long ago - all the staff used Luton though -convenient!
And to think I worked on the Comet newspaper not that long ago - all the staff used Luton though -convenient!