SOUTHEND 5
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Westcliff-on-Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you please all calm down? I would imagine that by now the Mod's "lets close this thread down" fingers are getting extremely itchy. Remember, it's bickering and unpleasantness that got Southend 4 closed down. Please, just sit back and wait and see. Thank you in anticipation!
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Westcliff-on-Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Echo....
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you cannot stand the heat Harry get out of the kitchen. Plus we spell criticise with an 'S' not a z in the UK thank you
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. It's the UK just as it's the USA and used to be the USSR. Pedantry rules OK.
And we could argue for ever when the word Great could be last used without irony to describe a country with our economy.
Please return to the thread topic.
And we could argue for ever when the word Great could be last used without irony to describe a country with our economy.
Please return to the thread topic.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£3 million eh? They are certainly working on a very large area. The northern apron is being extended by 10 metres along its length. Several new stands will be created. Just as importantly the taxiways will be strengthened and re-surfaced.
Bravo is being rebuilt as a CAT C width taxiway along the centreline of the existing Bravo, which was previously runway 15/33. I don't think Charlie is included for rebuild or re-alignment at this stage, apart from where Charlie forms part of the North and South aprons which are being completely rebuilt and extended in area as Barling Magna says.
This is certainly a more extensive (and expensive) project than I had expected to see.
This is certainly a more extensive (and expensive) project than I had expected to see.
No, I don't think so in normal ops but possibly with specific ATC approval in the event of a problem with both Alpha and Bravo (unlikely though).
Last edited by Expressflight; 24th Mar 2017 at 14:12. Reason: Modified opinion.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That seems like a big backtrack then when Taxiway Charlie would have doubled the runway capacity. Wonder if there are reasons why it can't be widened or whether it was down to cost?
I think there was a plan drawn up a while back to realign Charlie by straightening and widening it so that it would join the runway some 700m north-east of the 05 threshold. That would still require a fair backtrack distance but there is insufficient land to extend Charlie parallel to the runway all the way to the 05 threshold without infringing the strip width. That realignment may perhaps be done at a later date but I have no direct knowledge of that being the case.
The only taxiway with a width below the normal minimum is Echo, which provides access for light aircraft only on the north side. All the other taxiways (including Charlie) have a published width of 15m, which is the standard minimum for a Category C airport and as such is suitable for (e.g.) A320 and B737. I seem to recall reading that it was concerns over the condition of the taxiway and the bearing strength which gave rise to the restriction on larger aircraft on Charlie. Perhaps someone closer to the action could comment.
If Charlie is not to be strengthened west of the North/South apron maybe that is because closing the taxiway in its entirety from the runway through the apron would be operationally too difficult in conjunction with the other ongoing works. It would for example close off access for Jota and Avionicare to their hangars, and to the temporary parking for the FBO.
So that might be a later project. Or they could decide instead to go for a realignment such as suggested by Expressflight, presumably at much increased cost and depending how traffic developed. In that case I would have thought it would require full planning permission and not be passed under the umbrella of permitted development.
If Charlie is not to be strengthened west of the North/South apron maybe that is because closing the taxiway in its entirety from the runway through the apron would be operationally too difficult in conjunction with the other ongoing works. It would for example close off access for Jota and Avionicare to their hangars, and to the temporary parking for the FBO.
So that might be a later project. Or they could decide instead to go for a realignment such as suggested by Expressflight, presumably at much increased cost and depending how traffic developed. In that case I would have thought it would require full planning permission and not be passed under the umbrella of permitted development.
Last edited by Tagron; 24th Mar 2017 at 18:38. Reason: Punctuation
SARF - could you perhaps envisage a scenario in 5 years time when Gatwick, Luton and Stansted are so busy and peak time slots are scarce, that there are rather more airlines serving Southend ? I believe Stobart's massive investment was probably about 5 or 10 years too early, but just like City airport, its white elephant days will end and that the airport will eventually come good
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Stobart's massive investment was probably about 5 or 10 years too early, but just like City airport, its white elephant days will end and that the airport will eventually come good
I read a recent suggestion of extending SEN's runway when the current runway length is already longer than the declared distances, SEN's handicap remains it's runway width (and the church) whereas, besides LCY, it is the only LON (designated) airport that can't accept wide-bodies so it shall remain a short-haul destination airport only.