SOUTHAMPTON
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up in the clouds
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the facts currently point to it being a hard fix but at the end of the day an airport being closed for a full day because of some fog is pathetic. Fog is predicted tomorrow which means two days where time stands still and the airport just doesn't function. Yes SOU is not LHR but it is also not some dirt strip out in Timbuktu. The airport is hugely important to the local economy and if some trees need to be cut down to increase the environment in which it can operate safely then the local authority should be facilitating that. If the shed near the railway works is too tall then it shouldn't have been given permission. All buildings of any relevant height are assessed prior to permission being granted. Someone messed up there or maybe the airport didn't have the foresight to think that down the line that would be an obstacle for its growth. I suspect the latter. We are talking about people who built a car park so close to their runway that it affects their operations. I mean you seriously couldn't make it up! What's key to our business? The runway and stands where the aircraft which are the defining feature of our business depend on. No, the car park which makes us a few quid in the short term is more important. That's what grates the most for me personally, the sheer lack of ambition and short sightedness that is constantly undermining the growth of their business. I am sorry but it cannot be a coincidence that the grinning goon has been in charge throughout. Some change is much needed but the nature of a pension fund is that they want a safe investment. It doesn't matter the the returns are small as long as they are dependable. It's a shame someone did not step in when it was up for sale who would have speculated to accumulate. If someone is willing to spend 50mil at BOH then we should expect the same for SOU. Can you imagine what could be achieved at SOU with that sort of money.
In reference to your comments regarding buildings, there are currently no buildings in close vicinity to the airport that affect it's operations or could be seen as performance limiting. The railway sheds do not affect the operation as they are not tall enough; the only affect being wake turbulence on particularly windy days but nothing that could be deemed as a hazard. The sheds have never been on airport land so you cannot criticize the airport for their location. The safeguarding process is well documented and audited by the CAA so no buildings have slipped through the net and nobody has messed up.
Secondly, the car park does not limit the operation of the runway? I'm particularly intrigued by this comment as I cannot understand how it does affect the runway?! Perhaps you could expand?
Lastly, you mention trees. You seem to think that you can get the local authority involved to cut them down? Nope, again, a very short sighted view. Most of the trees that could be deemed as performance limiting are on private land. The local authority has no jurisdiction about those ones so engagement is required with the landowner, and in the case of Marhill copse just to the South, who owns that?! Southampton City Council don't! Then there is the costs associated with the tree reduction, not only the cost of lopping but the compensation required - you are talking thousands... per tree. Having been involved in tree reduction at 2 airports, you can take that as fact. It has just taken 4 months to remove 3 trees at my current airport....
It's about time that you laid your grudge to rest... failing that, put all of your comments and suggestions in writing and address them to "The grinning goon, Southampton Airport, SO18 2NL" Do something positive with your negativity rather than sitting behind a keyboard moaning.
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?
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?
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 5th Jan 2017 at 19:35.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
Thank you once again for your detailed analysis of t/o and landing restrictions at the airport.
Would I be right in saying that Volotea must have load restrictions on there up and coming A319 flights to Palma?.If this is correct then surely flights to the "Med" in the future are unrealistic.
Thank you once again for your detailed analysis of t/o and landing restrictions at the airport.
Would I be right in saying that Volotea must have load restrictions on there up and coming A319 flights to Palma?.If this is correct then surely flights to the "Med" in the future are unrealistic.
RW20
Not really my area of expertise, but from memory the early A319s required around 2000 metres TORA (with no limiting obstacles in the take-off/climb area-ie probably not SOU) for an airport at sea level and +15C to operate at max take-off weight, giving around a 4-5 hours endurance (ie 2000+ miles). So with a 2.5 hour sector to the Med', limited baggage allowance (charter flight) and no freight, may be able to operate with a full passenger load out of SOU. Anyone from Servisair SOU out there to elaborate?
Not really my area of expertise, but from memory the early A319s required around 2000 metres TORA (with no limiting obstacles in the take-off/climb area-ie probably not SOU) for an airport at sea level and +15C to operate at max take-off weight, giving around a 4-5 hours endurance (ie 2000+ miles). So with a 2.5 hour sector to the Med', limited baggage allowance (charter flight) and no freight, may be able to operate with a full passenger load out of SOU. Anyone from Servisair SOU out there to elaborate?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN: Thanks for the informed post. Sheds a lot of light on the limitations. I am not surprised at all that the MD claimed credit. If you read the article posted recently, he was directly quoted as claiming credit for the improvements to the highways and the train station (nothing to do with the airport). I do not want to harp on about the man, but he was apparently in charge of development at the time the master plan came out in 2005, and over 10 years later not a single thread of its content has ever materialised. you would think that the so called author of a master plan then becoming the MD would have resulted in at least some of it coming to fruition? It is a kid in a sweet shop situation is it not? I think what sums it up is that if the man had any ambition arguably he would have moved on to a larger airport by now, and yet he has hung around for over 10 years. As far as I am concerned, regardless of any recession, the airport has not moved on at all since 2005.
destinationsky: My back story is completely irrelevant, the beauty of living in a democracy is that you can have an opinion regardless. I would like nothing more than for SOU to grow and to start serving its affluent catchment like it should. I got my wires crossed and was referring to the VOR rather than the ILS. There was an article some time ago about 02 being served by a GPS system as an ILS would be a retrograde step (yeah right, more like SOU preferring the cheaper option). Of course nothing has materialised since, hence my intrigue as to whether the VOR has been removed with nothing being installed in its place. The car park means that larger aircraft cannot utilise the stands that run parallel with the runway. If they did then their tails would affect the runways operational ability. This is a huge factor, as it means SOU can only really handle 2 large aircraft at once on the stands opposite the royal mail building (another screw up by the airport selling that land to them). I have mentioned the CS100/CS300 previously, as does TCAS FAN. I believe EZY could and should buy a load of these as their cheap tickets and strong focus on being as much about business routes as they are leisure, would be a match made in heaven with the affluent South East. Anyone who has flown out of SOU would choose it over LGW every day of the week if the costs stacked up. I have no grudge, as a local who relies on the airport for both business and leisure I would quite like for it to finally kick on after all this time!
destinationsky: My back story is completely irrelevant, the beauty of living in a democracy is that you can have an opinion regardless. I would like nothing more than for SOU to grow and to start serving its affluent catchment like it should. I got my wires crossed and was referring to the VOR rather than the ILS. There was an article some time ago about 02 being served by a GPS system as an ILS would be a retrograde step (yeah right, more like SOU preferring the cheaper option). Of course nothing has materialised since, hence my intrigue as to whether the VOR has been removed with nothing being installed in its place. The car park means that larger aircraft cannot utilise the stands that run parallel with the runway. If they did then their tails would affect the runways operational ability. This is a huge factor, as it means SOU can only really handle 2 large aircraft at once on the stands opposite the royal mail building (another screw up by the airport selling that land to them). I have mentioned the CS100/CS300 previously, as does TCAS FAN. I believe EZY could and should buy a load of these as their cheap tickets and strong focus on being as much about business routes as they are leisure, would be a match made in heaven with the affluent South East. Anyone who has flown out of SOU would choose it over LGW every day of the week if the costs stacked up. I have no grudge, as a local who relies on the airport for both business and leisure I would quite like for it to finally kick on after all this time!
Last edited by Rivet Joint; 5th Jan 2017 at 19:43.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN and RIVET JOINT
Wasn't a GPS Baro VNAV approach proposed for 02,indeed didn't Aurigny islander trial this approach?
It's time the airport management implemented upgrades for approach aids and lighting, especially with increases in revenue with extra pax!
Wasn't a GPS Baro VNAV approach proposed for 02,indeed didn't Aurigny islander trial this approach?
It's time the airport management implemented upgrades for approach aids and lighting, especially with increases in revenue with extra pax!
RW20
I'm with you on the RNAV/ GNSS approaches. The subject of one of my previous rants, asking why in this century SOU does not have them - ask Shoreham's users what they use, an NDB or GNSS approach!
As for the radar, SOU has a dual system, primary radar (ie a system which detects aircraft using reflected radar pulses) and a Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) which uses data from an aircraft's transponder (ie the squawk).
In the event of a failure or temporary withdrawal of one system (eg for maintenance), the other can be used, albeit with limitations. Haven't see the current NOTAM, which may specify an unserviceability or maintenance withdrawal.
I'm with you on the RNAV/ GNSS approaches. The subject of one of my previous rants, asking why in this century SOU does not have them - ask Shoreham's users what they use, an NDB or GNSS approach!
As for the radar, SOU has a dual system, primary radar (ie a system which detects aircraft using reflected radar pulses) and a Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) which uses data from an aircraft's transponder (ie the squawk).
In the event of a failure or temporary withdrawal of one system (eg for maintenance), the other can be used, albeit with limitations. Haven't see the current NOTAM, which may specify an unserviceability or maintenance withdrawal.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN: do you think the removal of some of the Ford buildings would have improved the situation at all?
Does anyone know why the GVA flight was diverted? Not the first time an early afternoon flight has been diverted.
Does anyone know why the GVA flight was diverted? Not the first time an early afternoon flight has been diverted.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
With the reduction of flights on the Sun routes by Flybe,surely unless we get new routes as suggested by stewyb the annual passenger figures are going to hover around 2m for a while yet?
With the reduction of flights on the Sun routes by Flybe,surely unless we get new routes as suggested by stewyb the annual passenger figures are going to hover around 2m for a while yet?