SOUTHEND - 3 The new beginning
LTNman
The relationship between runway length and declared distance may not be obvious because it is not one of physical dimensions. It is legislative, or, one might even say, bureaucratic.
SEN is Code 3C status by virtue of its less than standard runway width. This brings in the other requirements of a Code 3C airport, and amongst these is a maximum TODA of 1799m. The total paved runway surface at SEN is 1991m so one would expect the "real" TODA to be something in this region (unless of course there are obstacles outside the airfield boundary that cause it to be reduced - a close evaluation of the airfield data would be needed).
I believe that national authorities have the authority to grant a 10% increase though I seem to recall a discussion on pprune a couple of years ago where it was suggested the UK CAA are unwilling to permit such alleviations. As a point of interest the original quoted distance of the paved surface was 1979m, which is exactly 1799m plus 10%.
As regards the caution on the airport website, I suspect it is no more than the airport covering itself. I find it hard to believe any code C aircraft would have a problem at SEN. Remember that it has been used for years for maintenance purposes by A321, 738 and 757, the latter being Code D.
The relationship between runway length and declared distance may not be obvious because it is not one of physical dimensions. It is legislative, or, one might even say, bureaucratic.
SEN is Code 3C status by virtue of its less than standard runway width. This brings in the other requirements of a Code 3C airport, and amongst these is a maximum TODA of 1799m. The total paved runway surface at SEN is 1991m so one would expect the "real" TODA to be something in this region (unless of course there are obstacles outside the airfield boundary that cause it to be reduced - a close evaluation of the airfield data would be needed).
I believe that national authorities have the authority to grant a 10% increase though I seem to recall a discussion on pprune a couple of years ago where it was suggested the UK CAA are unwilling to permit such alleviations. As a point of interest the original quoted distance of the paved surface was 1979m, which is exactly 1799m plus 10%.
As regards the caution on the airport website, I suspect it is no more than the airport covering itself. I find it hard to believe any code C aircraft would have a problem at SEN. Remember that it has been used for years for maintenance purposes by A321, 738 and 757, the latter being Code D.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The total paved runway surface at SEN is 1991m so one would expect the "real" TODA to be something in this region (unless of course there are obstacles outside the airfield boundary that cause it to be reduced -
Last edited by LTNman; 6th Oct 2012 at 23:55.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My idea of a fun train ride would be going passed at that distance the rear end of an A319 holding full throttle on the brakes 
Maybe I wouldn't be saying that after the derailment
Maybe I wouldn't be saying that after the derailment
What did I say yesterday about opinions being dressed up as facts?
PitR's (quite)
If you took the time to look at the Type A and ICAO Aerodrome Charts you would see that the 24 threshold lies some 900' from the railwayline, so you're estimation is only out by a factor of eight. Equally, on 06 the ASDA stops at the 24 threshold so there is a distance of 800' of pavement beyond that. The runway length of 6,000' itself has no greater safety implications than does, say, that at LTN because at any airfield there will be ops which require the full available length, whether it be 5,000' or 10,000', because of larger aircraft being operated from the longer runways. What you are describing as 'runway' is in fact the end of the paved RESA, which few airfileds have (it usually being grass), and your first paragraph is utter rubbish.
The other airfield operational notes you quote are correct and everyone knows about the church and its infringement of the runway strip. Can you quote me any airline that, having carried out its safety assessment for SEN, has declined to operate there? I understand that Monarch, for example, have carried out detailed studies for SEN for both ops and diversions and found it commercially viable for the A320 to Mediterranean destinations
The width of taxiway C has no implications for operational safety and is I believe to be widened in due course. A Control Zone has been applied for, the fact being that you cannot apply until you can demonstrate that the volume and mix of traffic merits one.
Regarding your suggestion that SEN was considered a "legacy airport" by the CAA, that is not correct. Had they not extended the runway that may have been the case but doing so meant that a completely new safety case had to be presented and that was very thoroughly examined by the CAA before being approved. Now if you were talking about LTN having a very short RESA (only the ICAO minimum) with steeply sloping land beyond it, then that is a case of "legacy airport" status prevailing as no such arrangement would be likely to be allowed today for an extended runway. I assume you are not also suggesting that LTN ".... is a marginal airport when it comes to safety"?
I'm off on holiday today to forget about all things aviation for a while so happy posting to you all. When I get back I look forward to working with the next operator who has serious plans for SEN.
PitR's (quite)
If you took the time to look at the Type A and ICAO Aerodrome Charts you would see that the 24 threshold lies some 900' from the railwayline, so you're estimation is only out by a factor of eight. Equally, on 06 the ASDA stops at the 24 threshold so there is a distance of 800' of pavement beyond that. The runway length of 6,000' itself has no greater safety implications than does, say, that at LTN because at any airfield there will be ops which require the full available length, whether it be 5,000' or 10,000', because of larger aircraft being operated from the longer runways. What you are describing as 'runway' is in fact the end of the paved RESA, which few airfileds have (it usually being grass), and your first paragraph is utter rubbish.
The other airfield operational notes you quote are correct and everyone knows about the church and its infringement of the runway strip. Can you quote me any airline that, having carried out its safety assessment for SEN, has declined to operate there? I understand that Monarch, for example, have carried out detailed studies for SEN for both ops and diversions and found it commercially viable for the A320 to Mediterranean destinations
The width of taxiway C has no implications for operational safety and is I believe to be widened in due course. A Control Zone has been applied for, the fact being that you cannot apply until you can demonstrate that the volume and mix of traffic merits one.
Regarding your suggestion that SEN was considered a "legacy airport" by the CAA, that is not correct. Had they not extended the runway that may have been the case but doing so meant that a completely new safety case had to be presented and that was very thoroughly examined by the CAA before being approved. Now if you were talking about LTN having a very short RESA (only the ICAO minimum) with steeply sloping land beyond it, then that is a case of "legacy airport" status prevailing as no such arrangement would be likely to be allowed today for an extended runway. I assume you are not also suggesting that LTN ".... is a marginal airport when it comes to safety"?
I'm off on holiday today to forget about all things aviation for a while so happy posting to you all. When I get back I look forward to working with the next operator who has serious plans for SEN.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I went to school a runway length of 1,856m equated to some 6,089ft
Last edited by Pain in the R's; 7th Oct 2012 at 08:07.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expressflight talks about Luton. Seems to me that airport has quite a few more feet of grass at the end of the runway regardless of the RESA figure.
Didn't an excecutive jet come off the end of Luton's 7,086ft runway a couple of years ago? Wouldn't have been a problem at Stansted but would have been bad news if it had landed at Southend and hit the railway.
Now if you were talking about LTN having a very short RESA (only the ICAO minimum)
Didn't an excecutive jet come off the end of Luton's 7,086ft runway a couple of years ago? Wouldn't have been a problem at Stansted but would have been bad news if it had landed at Southend and hit the railway.
Last edited by Pain in the R's; 7th Oct 2012 at 08:07.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PainInDeArse,
Which, just as an example, is longer than the length and TORA at Southampton, for an aircraft to land short or go off the end and hit one of the circa eight trains per hour that pass by SEN would have to be one hell of a shot but for an aircraft to land short or go off the end at SOU, it wouldn't be one hell of a shot at all to hit just some of the hundreds of vehicles per minute that pass by the end of the runway on the M27 motorway!
And there is a track record of airliner(s) on motorway(s) in UK ... a BD B737-400 @ EMA springs to mind.
So why are you singling out SEN ... did they turn you down for a job or similar?
Which, just as an example, is longer than the length and TORA at Southampton, for an aircraft to land short or go off the end and hit one of the circa eight trains per hour that pass by SEN would have to be one hell of a shot but for an aircraft to land short or go off the end at SOU, it wouldn't be one hell of a shot at all to hit just some of the hundreds of vehicles per minute that pass by the end of the runway on the M27 motorway!
And there is a track record of airliner(s) on motorway(s) in UK ... a BD B737-400 @ EMA springs to mind.
So why are you singling out SEN ... did they turn you down for a job or similar?
Take a look at the Type A chart for LTN and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Note that I'm not suggesting that LTN is unsafe, only that it does have hazards at the end of its runway as do many others such as LCY and SOU to name but two. Generous length Stopways and RESAs, such as now exist at SEN, help mitigate the consequences of any undershoot or overrun. If all airfields could have 2,000' of flat grassland each end of their runways that would obviously be ideal, but they haven't so don't single out SEN in that respect as it is now considerably better than many.
People with an 'agenda' often make criticisms of aspects which don't stand up to examination and this is a case in point.
Note that I'm not suggesting that LTN is unsafe, only that it does have hazards at the end of its runway as do many others such as LCY and SOU to name but two. Generous length Stopways and RESAs, such as now exist at SEN, help mitigate the consequences of any undershoot or overrun. If all airfields could have 2,000' of flat grassland each end of their runways that would obviously be ideal, but they haven't so don't single out SEN in that respect as it is now considerably better than many.
People with an 'agenda' often make criticisms of aspects which don't stand up to examination and this is a case in point.
PitR
There can hardly have been a clearer illustration of the point made by expressflight yesterday than your recent posting. Couched in the language it was, your post #1024 was not just inaccurate, it was downright irresponsible.
Surely we are all aware that these forums are open to public scrutiny and that it is not unknown for lazy journalists to make use of pprune in the mistaken belief that all people who post on here must be aviation experts.
And as your post #1027 confirms , you just don't get it, do you ?
I hope the mods are taking note. Meanwhile, the "ignore" button is a useful facility and I commend its use to all those who are fed up with the trashing of this thread by trolls.
There can hardly have been a clearer illustration of the point made by expressflight yesterday than your recent posting. Couched in the language it was, your post #1024 was not just inaccurate, it was downright irresponsible.
Surely we are all aware that these forums are open to public scrutiny and that it is not unknown for lazy journalists to make use of pprune in the mistaken belief that all people who post on here must be aviation experts.
And as your post #1027 confirms , you just don't get it, do you ?
I hope the mods are taking note. Meanwhile, the "ignore" button is a useful facility and I commend its use to all those who are fed up with the trashing of this thread by trolls.
Last edited by Tagron; 7th Oct 2012 at 08:46.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well SEN are a similer runway length to BLK. Which can handle 737s. 757s and 737/800...Not to forget the A320 I flew to Malaga in with Monarch from BLK.(full).
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 7th Oct 2012 at 18:33.
OLT is rumoured to be about to pull capacity from the DRS-SEN route for the winter season.
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 7th Oct 2012 at 17:29.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 757 may be Code D but it could take off from my garden! Lets put it this way: it was able to fly SOU-TFS direct with little or no restrictions when almost all other Code C aircraft struggle to make it past AGP/FAO! And SOU's declared runway distance is 1723m vs 1799m @ SEN.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davidjohnson - yes, in the meantime the route reduction has been picked up by some German media, even though the flights currently remain bookable, as you observed as well...
aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community
OLT currently plans to do the full planned schedule from April onwards.
aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community
OLT currently plans to do the full planned schedule from April onwards.
insuindi - you're absolutely right. OLT website has been updated.
Flights on Southend-Dresden now on sale only during school holiday periods. Southend-Saarbrucken is suspended from early Nov to late March.
Slightly disappointing that when the Saturday SEN-SCN flights resume in March they depart at 0715 given that the first train from London arrives at 0632 making train connections extremely tight and desk check-in / luggage drop-off impossible unless either a) you spend the night near Southend or b) Stobart arrange some means of early morning London-Southend transport between now and spring.
While Essex-originating traffic may be able to substantially support Easyjet flights to the Med, I imagine that any leisure-focussed Saarbrucken traffic will be spread across London rather than just Essex, with people in Saarbrucken wanting to visit London rather than Essex. This may encourage leisure travellers to fly between Heathrow/Gatwick and Luxembourg with associated 1h15 bus ride to Saarbrucken instead.
At the risk of thread drift, OLT's routes to Budapest, Milan and Paris are also going school-holidays-only, which suggests rather more time on the ground for aircraft than might perhaps have been previously supposed. Perhaps less than ideal, but other LCCs seem quite happy to do offpeak groundings and it's better not to fly if ticket revenues won't cover fuel+landing fees.
Flights on Southend-Dresden now on sale only during school holiday periods. Southend-Saarbrucken is suspended from early Nov to late March.
Slightly disappointing that when the Saturday SEN-SCN flights resume in March they depart at 0715 given that the first train from London arrives at 0632 making train connections extremely tight and desk check-in / luggage drop-off impossible unless either a) you spend the night near Southend or b) Stobart arrange some means of early morning London-Southend transport between now and spring.
While Essex-originating traffic may be able to substantially support Easyjet flights to the Med, I imagine that any leisure-focussed Saarbrucken traffic will be spread across London rather than just Essex, with people in Saarbrucken wanting to visit London rather than Essex. This may encourage leisure travellers to fly between Heathrow/Gatwick and Luxembourg with associated 1h15 bus ride to Saarbrucken instead.
At the risk of thread drift, OLT's routes to Budapest, Milan and Paris are also going school-holidays-only, which suggests rather more time on the ground for aircraft than might perhaps have been previously supposed. Perhaps less than ideal, but other LCCs seem quite happy to do offpeak groundings and it's better not to fly if ticket revenues won't cover fuel+landing fees.
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 8th Oct 2012 at 13:10.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody get their hopes high about OLT flights from Southend.
That is because OLT now seem to be flying from Luton. Well, according to the English translation!
Check their website. On the Schedule page, with the website in German, it says London-Southend (SEN) however if you can translate the page into English, it misteriously changes to London-Luton (LTN)!!!
That is because OLT now seem to be flying from Luton. Well, according to the English translation!
Check their website. On the Schedule page, with the website in German, it says London-Southend (SEN) however if you can translate the page into English, it misteriously changes to London-Luton (LTN)!!!
Last edited by FRatSTN; 8th Oct 2012 at 16:13.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is because OLT now seem to be flying from Luton
Last edited by LTNman; 8th Oct 2012 at 17:45.