BRISTOL - 4
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bah
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EWR
On another site there is a post covering the announcement of UA substituting B767s for B757s to Spain & Germany this coming winter, leaving 4 x 757 frames spare
Could this be usable for BRS, one post suggests BRS service com S16
The other point raised is that BRS mgmnt is actively looking at extending
the runway - is this possible?
Could this be usable for BRS, one post suggests BRS service com S16
The other point raised is that BRS mgmnt is actively looking at extending
the runway - is this possible?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: davenport IA
Age: 69
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brs runway
it would be possable to extend runway, except 2 problems. to the east the land is common ground and cant see eating into that. lots of ppl would be kicking off.
to the west the runway falls away very much.it would be possable if present runway flattened out to make up the ground.only other way is to put runway on stilts similar to the runway in ace. either way i think groups of protesters would kick off and things would take years to sort out.
the problem is brs is in a green belt situation.
to the west the runway falls away very much.it would be possable if present runway flattened out to make up the ground.only other way is to put runway on stilts similar to the runway in ace. either way i think groups of protesters would kick off and things would take years to sort out.
the problem is brs is in a green belt situation.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: davenport IA
Age: 69
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stilts
Runway in ACE (Arrecife, Lanzarote) is not on stilts, you are thinking of FNC (Funchal, Madeira).
you are so correct wycombe.ty for correcting me.getting old thats my prob.
you are so correct wycombe.ty for correcting me.getting old thats my prob.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think main point in the BRS runway discussion is "Is it actually needed?"
A runway extension wouldn't be a cheap thing to do. Would the benefit of a single daily flight to say DXB really be worth it?
I think it's a case of what Airlines have suitable aircraft for BRS runway, rather than what Airlines do we want and how much do we need to change for them?
The 787 has the capability of using BRS runway, it's the taxiways that are the issue.
BRS needs to plan for the future where aircraft will have much better capabilities. 757s won't be around much longer. 787's and 350's will likely be improved.
Don't forget the Central extension, Eastern extension due to be completed soon and the Western extension due to get the go ahead. I can't imagine there's much money left in the pot at the moment.
A runway extension wouldn't be a cheap thing to do. Would the benefit of a single daily flight to say DXB really be worth it?
I think it's a case of what Airlines have suitable aircraft for BRS runway, rather than what Airlines do we want and how much do we need to change for them?
The 787 has the capability of using BRS runway, it's the taxiways that are the issue.
BRS needs to plan for the future where aircraft will have much better capabilities. 757s won't be around much longer. 787's and 350's will likely be improved.
Don't forget the Central extension, Eastern extension due to be completed soon and the Western extension due to get the go ahead. I can't imagine there's much money left in the pot at the moment.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway
yeo valley has summed up the difficulties, both technical and environmental, that would ensue was serious consideration given to extending the runway.
The airport went into the issue in considerable detail in its master plan, providing five scenarios from doing nothing to extending the runway completely onto Felton Common which for those unfamiliar with the area is at the eastern end of the airfield. The best option for retaining an extended runway fully within existing airport land would be an extension of 389 metres but even here the localiser and possibly approach lighting would need to be repositioned onto the Common with the airport taking control of a 240 metre x 150 metre area of the Common.
The master plan doesn't indicate the length of extension that would be gained by extending the runway fully onto the Common but it would clearly be considerably more than 389 metres. The A 38 would have to be put in tunnel under the runway for about 150 metres.
Felton Common has been designated a Local Nature Reserve by the local authority under the relevant legislation which would be a serious obstacle to overcome let alone the enormous environmental objections that would undoubtedly pour forth.
The master plan conclusion was that any improvement in performance that might be achieved would be 'relatively small in comparison with the costs and potential environmental impact'. However, the issue will be 'kept under review' in subsequent master plans.
At no stage has an extension to the west been contemplated in the master plan. As has been said, because of the falling ground this would almost certainly necessitate an elevated section of runway on 'stilts'. Even if it was technically feasible there might still be an issue with Cat3 ILS which is not used on 09 because of the topography and I don't know that an extended elevated runway would improve this situation.
With hindsight when Bristol City Council moved its airport from Whitchurch to Lulsgate in the 1950s because the former had become too small for the larger aircraft then coming into service it was creating a similar problem for future generations.
Given what has been achieved at Lulsgate with all its physical disadvantages it's not unreasonable to speculate what might be the position now with a larger and better situated airport site. That will apply to a number of airports of course with LBA one that instantly comes to mind. It suffers many of the physical and weather limitations that beset BRS.
I don’t know whether the cost of building the runway would be a block if the owners thought it necessary. As caaardiff mentions, tens of millions have been spent and are being spent on infrastructure improvements, with more in the pipeline after the western terminal extension which seems the next thing that’s going to be built after the current building of the eastern terminal extension is completed.
Probably the best hope is that aircraft such as the B 787 and the A 350 will be able to use the airport on long haul (probably mainly charter) without much if any load penalty. The master plan, whilst recognising that long haul scheduled routes would not be great in number, expressed the view that aircraft like the 787 and 350 would play a part in improving the long haul network.
The Lulsgate site could not be extended in size without intruding into the surrounding Green Belt. Furthermore, the airport's current planning permissions limit passenger throughout to 10 mppa which could easily be reached in the next five to ten years.
The airport went into the issue in considerable detail in its master plan, providing five scenarios from doing nothing to extending the runway completely onto Felton Common which for those unfamiliar with the area is at the eastern end of the airfield. The best option for retaining an extended runway fully within existing airport land would be an extension of 389 metres but even here the localiser and possibly approach lighting would need to be repositioned onto the Common with the airport taking control of a 240 metre x 150 metre area of the Common.
The master plan doesn't indicate the length of extension that would be gained by extending the runway fully onto the Common but it would clearly be considerably more than 389 metres. The A 38 would have to be put in tunnel under the runway for about 150 metres.
Felton Common has been designated a Local Nature Reserve by the local authority under the relevant legislation which would be a serious obstacle to overcome let alone the enormous environmental objections that would undoubtedly pour forth.
The master plan conclusion was that any improvement in performance that might be achieved would be 'relatively small in comparison with the costs and potential environmental impact'. However, the issue will be 'kept under review' in subsequent master plans.
At no stage has an extension to the west been contemplated in the master plan. As has been said, because of the falling ground this would almost certainly necessitate an elevated section of runway on 'stilts'. Even if it was technically feasible there might still be an issue with Cat3 ILS which is not used on 09 because of the topography and I don't know that an extended elevated runway would improve this situation.
With hindsight when Bristol City Council moved its airport from Whitchurch to Lulsgate in the 1950s because the former had become too small for the larger aircraft then coming into service it was creating a similar problem for future generations.
Given what has been achieved at Lulsgate with all its physical disadvantages it's not unreasonable to speculate what might be the position now with a larger and better situated airport site. That will apply to a number of airports of course with LBA one that instantly comes to mind. It suffers many of the physical and weather limitations that beset BRS.
I don’t know whether the cost of building the runway would be a block if the owners thought it necessary. As caaardiff mentions, tens of millions have been spent and are being spent on infrastructure improvements, with more in the pipeline after the western terminal extension which seems the next thing that’s going to be built after the current building of the eastern terminal extension is completed.
Probably the best hope is that aircraft such as the B 787 and the A 350 will be able to use the airport on long haul (probably mainly charter) without much if any load penalty. The master plan, whilst recognising that long haul scheduled routes would not be great in number, expressed the view that aircraft like the 787 and 350 would play a part in improving the long haul network.
The Lulsgate site could not be extended in size without intruding into the surrounding Green Belt. Furthermore, the airport's current planning permissions limit passenger throughout to 10 mppa which could easily be reached in the next five to ten years.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Nether Region
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 787 has the capability of using BRS runway
Join Date: May 2007
Location: davenport IA
Age: 69
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
runway
what a shame when they extended the runway back in the 60s they didnt take the tump off the runway. put winters lane in a tunnel and the soil and rock used to fill the fall away from the end of the western end of runway. back then it would not have had any objections from any group you care to think of.
that way runway could have been longer and not cost a lot in filling the fall away.also the runway would have been level the whole length.
hindsight is a wonderfull thing,back then who would have thought that airport would have been so successfull as it is now.
that way runway could have been longer and not cost a lot in filling the fall away.also the runway would have been level the whole length.
hindsight is a wonderfull thing,back then who would have thought that airport would have been so successfull as it is now.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.....I won't mention the F-word. I do wonder what they'll do at 10 million. There is a geographical limit on expansion at BRS. In sixty years time people will be questioning why didn't they do the obvious current unknown in 2015! In my book build a severn barrage that could generate 10% of the nations power and put a runway on top.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expansion of the BRS site
We seem to agree that hindsight is an exact science - well almost because there will always be those who disagree as to what should be done or should have been done.
In fairness to those 'in power' in the 50s and 60s when the airport was moved to Lulsgate and later saw the runway extended, no-one could possibly have imagined then that the sleepy little rural field that handled just 59,000 passengers in 1961 (CAA stats) would be seriously concerned about the prospect of an enforced limit of 10 million passengers per year half a century later.
Even the late Les Wilson, the airport MD who was a local airport legend in his own lifetime and who was Mr Bristol Airport personified, would have been staggered at the level the airport has reached.
I have some brochures and BRS newspapers of the early 1990s when Les was telling everyone how much a new terminal building was going to be needed. In 1992 when BRS was around 1 mppa Les was saying that in ten years time the passenger throughput would be 2 mppa and the old terminal would not cope. There were more than a few who believed that Les was being hopelessly over optimistic in his forecast.
Even he could not have imagined that in that ten years time BRS would be over 3 mppa and over 6 mppa within another five years. Sadly, he was killed in a road accident in 1995 before he saw any of the fruits of his endeavours over so many years.
That's still the difficulty. None of us knows what will be the aviation scene a quarter of a century or a half a century from now.
In the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and first half of the 90s the airport was owned by the Bristol City Council that had little money (and precious little appetite) for spending on airport improvements. Now that BRS is in private hands its shareholders aren't going to speculate incautiously on hugely expensive schemes that might turn out to be white elephants in the future.
My own view is that, given their poor hand in terms of the site, those running BRS have performed miracles in reaching its present level. It seems that they haven't finished yet although that 10 mppa barrier will undoubtedly lead to ructions if an attempt is made to have it removed sometime in the future.
In fairness to those 'in power' in the 50s and 60s when the airport was moved to Lulsgate and later saw the runway extended, no-one could possibly have imagined then that the sleepy little rural field that handled just 59,000 passengers in 1961 (CAA stats) would be seriously concerned about the prospect of an enforced limit of 10 million passengers per year half a century later.
Even the late Les Wilson, the airport MD who was a local airport legend in his own lifetime and who was Mr Bristol Airport personified, would have been staggered at the level the airport has reached.
I have some brochures and BRS newspapers of the early 1990s when Les was telling everyone how much a new terminal building was going to be needed. In 1992 when BRS was around 1 mppa Les was saying that in ten years time the passenger throughput would be 2 mppa and the old terminal would not cope. There were more than a few who believed that Les was being hopelessly over optimistic in his forecast.
Even he could not have imagined that in that ten years time BRS would be over 3 mppa and over 6 mppa within another five years. Sadly, he was killed in a road accident in 1995 before he saw any of the fruits of his endeavours over so many years.
That's still the difficulty. None of us knows what will be the aviation scene a quarter of a century or a half a century from now.
In the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and first half of the 90s the airport was owned by the Bristol City Council that had little money (and precious little appetite) for spending on airport improvements. Now that BRS is in private hands its shareholders aren't going to speculate incautiously on hugely expensive schemes that might turn out to be white elephants in the future.
My own view is that, given their poor hand in terms of the site, those running BRS have performed miracles in reaching its present level. It seems that they haven't finished yet although that 10 mppa barrier will undoubtedly lead to ructions if an attempt is made to have it removed sometime in the future.
There is no need and no appetite to extend the runway.
A multi-storey car park, hotel and terminal extension are more urgent and beneficial investments.
Long haul regional flying is a financially forlorne activity that for some reason certain airports become obsessed with. It must be vanity over sanity.
WWW
A multi-storey car park, hotel and terminal extension are more urgent and beneficial investments.
Long haul regional flying is a financially forlorne activity that for some reason certain airports become obsessed with. It must be vanity over sanity.
WWW
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to a short item in the local paper an engine warning light came on during approach. Perfectly safe landing and engineers later checked the aircraft.
A company spokesman is quoted saying that initial indications were that the light was a false warning.
A company spokesman is quoted saying that initial indications were that the light was a false warning.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Smoke billowing out" vs "false warning"....... Hmmmm
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: South Wales
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may actually find it was a couple. EZY BFS and BMI BRU both diverted to CWL around the time of the incident. Passengers dis-embarked and as far as i'm aware continued the flight to BRS with passengers around an hour later.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: davenport IA
Age: 69
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brs to cwl diverts
the 2 diverts into cwl from brs was correct.
the planes returned to brs with the pax as well.
it was not a major delay in landing into brs,i was suprised they never had much holding fuel on the 2 that diverted.perhaps early days with runway shut,till they knew how things were with the affected aircraft.
apart from the 2 diverts everything else got into brs ok.
the planes returned to brs with the pax as well.
it was not a major delay in landing into brs,i was suprised they never had much holding fuel on the 2 that diverted.perhaps early days with runway shut,till they knew how things were with the affected aircraft.
apart from the 2 diverts everything else got into brs ok.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Up where the air is clear... ish
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial aircraft will not carry sufficient fuel to cover every eventuality - it would be financially unviable given that the complete closure of a runway is, fortunately, uncommon. However, fortune does mean that once closed, it is rarely easy for the authorities to advise inbound aircraft how long the runway is likely to be u/s. Aircraft commanders will therefore divert instantly if there is any ambiguity whatsoever.