SOUTHEND 5
tws123
The EasyJet A320 uses the CFM56 5B4/3. The Wizzair aircraft has the IAE V2527 A5. Both are rated at 27000lbs thrust/120kn according to published data.
The additional AMS services sound like extra capacity for the school midterm holiday period. Its not uncommon for airlines to put on extra capacity at this time.
DC3 Dave
The Airbus FMA indicates the technical status of the aircraft and has no connection with the approval status of the runway.
planedrive
We can certainly agree there is no LTS approval at SEN. The question I am asking is whether there is approval for standard Cat 1 autoland, given, as you point out, the narrow runway. Is there a published Airbus limitation that precludes all autoland on less than standard width runway, i.e. not just Cat2/3 ?
The EasyJet A320 uses the CFM56 5B4/3. The Wizzair aircraft has the IAE V2527 A5. Both are rated at 27000lbs thrust/120kn according to published data.
The additional AMS services sound like extra capacity for the school midterm holiday period. Its not uncommon for airlines to put on extra capacity at this time.
DC3 Dave
The Airbus FMA indicates the technical status of the aircraft and has no connection with the approval status of the runway.
planedrive
We can certainly agree there is no LTS approval at SEN. The question I am asking is whether there is approval for standard Cat 1 autoland, given, as you point out, the narrow runway. Is there a published Airbus limitation that precludes all autoland on less than standard width runway, i.e. not just Cat2/3 ?
Last edited by Tagron; 28th Apr 2017 at 15:39. Reason: typo
Is there a published Airbus limitation that precludes all autoland on less than standard width runway, i.e. not just Cat2/3 ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: W. Midlands
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomorrow is a significant day in the history of the airport. A lot depends on the success or otherwise of the new routes. Regardless of all doubts raised over the last few months, I would like to think everyone wishes all those involved the very best as the first flight to CGN departs.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
LSA LTS CAT I
Tagron/planedrive/Double Hydco
Thanks for your inputs on this issue. The point that I was trying to make was that, perhaps, LSA could promote that a LTS CAT 1 capability exists (if indeed it does!) within the airport’s infrastructure to other operators that may be able to utilise the improvement in RVR minima that might accrue when sea fog affects the airport; prior posts on this forum suggest that RVR minima (due sea fog susceptibility) are more relevant than cloud-base to operations at LSA. Clearly however, this advantage is not available to operators of Airbus equipment for the reasons subsequently outlined (and unknown to me) by planedrive and Double Hydco. However, it should be noted that these restrictions are airframe (specifically Airbus) and Operator (specifically Ezy) related and may not be applicable to other equipment or operators.
I have trawled my browsing history and can’t now find the other references that led me to the Jeppy document I referenced as the latter was clear and concise in comparison with the others, which is why I bookmarked that one; sorry. However, the basic source material is clearly an EU/EASA sponsored regulation.
To back-up my ‘signal quality’ contention a little more, within the UK all Civil CAT I ILS installations are deemed (unless promulgated otherwise) to be capable of providing the required quality of beam structure to enable auto-coupled approaches to be continued below the minimum CAT I Decision Height, subject to the appropriate visual references being achieved at the CAT I limits.
Now, my reasoning went: if ‘normal’ CAT I tolerances allow that capability, then if an ILS installation is commissioned and subsequently maintained to CAT IIIA tolerances (and of course the CAT IIIA limits are far tighter), then presumably it follows that one could conduct an approach to an RVR limit slightly less than the CAT I system limit, supported by a superior ILS signal quality, without compromising safety, which I though was the whole purpose of the LTS CAT I ‘option’. In sum, the CAT IIIA signal has a far better capability of delivering the appropriately equipped and crewed aircraft accurately to the touchdown environment, always provided that the LTS CAT I RVR limits/DH are not busted.
With respect to the 3.5° glideslope on RW05, I’m aware of the CAT II/III requirement to employ only a 3° glideslope. Notwithstanding that, given the previous provision to use an autocoupled CAT I ILS to below CAT I minima, then this must include all CAT I glideslopes above 3° up to a maximum of 3.5° of which there are a number within the UK. Consequently, conducting an autocoupled approach to below CAT I minima (subject to required visual references being achieved at DH) on glidepaths above 3° is currently permitted. However, I fully agree that it might be prudent to examine glideslope angles above 3° rather more carefully on a case by case basis.
To be clear, I’m NOT advocating conducting inappropriate ‘CAT III’ operations; heaven forbid! However, subject to suitable ground infrastructure, aircraft fits and recurrent training validity, then it seems entirely reasonable for an approach to be continued in the slightly lower RVR conditions with the expectation that the aircraft will be delivered to a position where a safe landing can be effected. I only intended to stimulate thought and debate here – I suspect that LSA will have got the ‘Horse’s mouth word’ from the Regulator, but of course we’re not privy to what that might have been!
Thanks for your inputs on this issue. The point that I was trying to make was that, perhaps, LSA could promote that a LTS CAT 1 capability exists (if indeed it does!) within the airport’s infrastructure to other operators that may be able to utilise the improvement in RVR minima that might accrue when sea fog affects the airport; prior posts on this forum suggest that RVR minima (due sea fog susceptibility) are more relevant than cloud-base to operations at LSA. Clearly however, this advantage is not available to operators of Airbus equipment for the reasons subsequently outlined (and unknown to me) by planedrive and Double Hydco. However, it should be noted that these restrictions are airframe (specifically Airbus) and Operator (specifically Ezy) related and may not be applicable to other equipment or operators.
I have trawled my browsing history and can’t now find the other references that led me to the Jeppy document I referenced as the latter was clear and concise in comparison with the others, which is why I bookmarked that one; sorry. However, the basic source material is clearly an EU/EASA sponsored regulation.
To back-up my ‘signal quality’ contention a little more, within the UK all Civil CAT I ILS installations are deemed (unless promulgated otherwise) to be capable of providing the required quality of beam structure to enable auto-coupled approaches to be continued below the minimum CAT I Decision Height, subject to the appropriate visual references being achieved at the CAT I limits.
Now, my reasoning went: if ‘normal’ CAT I tolerances allow that capability, then if an ILS installation is commissioned and subsequently maintained to CAT IIIA tolerances (and of course the CAT IIIA limits are far tighter), then presumably it follows that one could conduct an approach to an RVR limit slightly less than the CAT I system limit, supported by a superior ILS signal quality, without compromising safety, which I though was the whole purpose of the LTS CAT I ‘option’. In sum, the CAT IIIA signal has a far better capability of delivering the appropriately equipped and crewed aircraft accurately to the touchdown environment, always provided that the LTS CAT I RVR limits/DH are not busted.
With respect to the 3.5° glideslope on RW05, I’m aware of the CAT II/III requirement to employ only a 3° glideslope. Notwithstanding that, given the previous provision to use an autocoupled CAT I ILS to below CAT I minima, then this must include all CAT I glideslopes above 3° up to a maximum of 3.5° of which there are a number within the UK. Consequently, conducting an autocoupled approach to below CAT I minima (subject to required visual references being achieved at DH) on glidepaths above 3° is currently permitted. However, I fully agree that it might be prudent to examine glideslope angles above 3° rather more carefully on a case by case basis.
To be clear, I’m NOT advocating conducting inappropriate ‘CAT III’ operations; heaven forbid! However, subject to suitable ground infrastructure, aircraft fits and recurrent training validity, then it seems entirely reasonable for an approach to be continued in the slightly lower RVR conditions with the expectation that the aircraft will be delivered to a position where a safe landing can be effected. I only intended to stimulate thought and debate here – I suspect that LSA will have got the ‘Horse’s mouth word’ from the Regulator, but of course we’re not privy to what that might have been!
I'm sonewhat dubious as to whether pax figures on a bank holiday is likely to be representative of long term demand. Perhaps pax figures in a couple of days time or next weekend might give a better idea ?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Essex
Age: 63
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but how good it would be if the airport owned the area now taken by the retail park. Gridlock at the airport roundabout today caused by slow-moving shopping centre entries / exits. A really silly development next to an airport BUT - must admit - things were very different when it was built.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They recently put in an additional lane off the Harp House roundabout for traffic heading into the airport. However, in the long term I think that junction (and the main roundabout) will need a much better solution, especially with the expected increase in traffic from new housing and the airport.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One possible solution would be an entrance only slip road to the retail park off Rochford Road (between the roundabout and Warners Bridge). The existing entrance / exit could then be made exit only.