Southend-2
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry forgot to say.
I'm not rubbing my hands in glee or anything else. When I fly short haul I fly EZY more than any other airline and this adds up to a huge amount of EZY flights every year. On average I flew EZY every 9 days last year. I fly short haul with other operators and long haul. Whilst it's difficult to compare long haul and short haul standards of service, EZY make my top 3 overall.
I like EZY and their onboard service, their pricing strategy, their route network, and above all else, their crew who are the unsung heroes of the whole operation.
I don't want EZY to throw pax of their aircraft due to op restrictions and I hope it never happens. I was just reporting on a rumour network what I was told.
I'm not rubbing my hands in glee or anything else. When I fly short haul I fly EZY more than any other airline and this adds up to a huge amount of EZY flights every year. On average I flew EZY every 9 days last year. I fly short haul with other operators and long haul. Whilst it's difficult to compare long haul and short haul standards of service, EZY make my top 3 overall.
I like EZY and their onboard service, their pricing strategy, their route network, and above all else, their crew who are the unsung heroes of the whole operation.
I don't want EZY to throw pax of their aircraft due to op restrictions and I hope it never happens. I was just reporting on a rumour network what I was told.
Looks like temperatures at SEN will hit 30c next Tuesday and Wednesday. Heard on the grapevine that Easyjet will be telling the last 15 pax to arrive at the check in desk that they won't be flying on those days due to operational restrictions. Not sure which flights are affected by this but assume it will be the A320 flights. Can anyone confirm the schedule
for the A320s next Tuesday and Wednesday?
for the A320s next Tuesday and Wednesday?
I honestly don't know which aircraft type (319 or 320) was potentially subject to the restriction, other than it was EZY and not FR.
I too would like to see how the 738s perform, especially given they seem to have the SFP mod. Their larger payload would suggest a greater propensity to restrictions on 23 on a hot and humid day but maybe the SFP brings improvements over the 319/320. Only time and experience will tell.
Of course, a 05 departure should avoid any restrictions but again, only time will tell. Let's see what happens next week.
In retrospect was it wise for Stobart to restrict the declared distances on the runway? And could they now increase those declared distances to allow unrestricted ops on hot and humid days? As far as I could tell, limiting the declared distances was a cost saving measure centred on RFFS resources.
I too would like to see how the 738s perform, especially given they seem to have the SFP mod. Their larger payload would suggest a greater propensity to restrictions on 23 on a hot and humid day but maybe the SFP brings improvements over the 319/320. Only time and experience will tell.
Of course, a 05 departure should avoid any restrictions but again, only time will tell. Let's see what happens next week.
In retrospect was it wise for Stobart to restrict the declared distances on the runway? And could they now increase those declared distances to allow unrestricted ops on hot and humid days? As far as I could tell, limiting the declared distances was a cost saving measure centred on RFFS resources.
The determining factor of RFFS category is not in any way connected with runway length (as far as I am aware). but is a function of the length of the fuselage of aircraft using an airport regularly. . So for A320 operations (fuselage length 37.75m) RFF6 was adequate but for the B738 (39.47m) was required, 39m being the changeover point. So SEN has equipped and operated to RFF7 since the start of Ryanair ops.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the forecasts that I can find predict a maximum temperature at SEN of 26c on Tuesday then 25 & 24 on Wednesday and Thursday. It is Central London where 30c is forecast. It is a not uncommon situation for inland areas to be hotter than the coast because the coast is cooled by the north easterly breezes coming off the North Sea, and NE winds are forecast to predominate all next week. On that basis I would suggest that performance problems are unlikely to arise.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was hardly Stobart's choice to restrict the runway declared distances. The reason was regulatory, ICAO policy as implemented by UK CAA. Because of the narrow runway the airport was designated as Code 3C status a requirement of which was that the maximum declarable TODA was 1799m. That compares with the total length of paved runway available which is more like 1990m including stopways and clearways. However even if the regulatory constraint could be alleviated any performance advantage would seem to be apply only to RW05. The issue with RW23 is the rising ground to the south west of the airport which affects the Second Segment Climb segment and the One Engine Inoperative obstacle clearance climb gradient This appears to be the controlling issue in the RTOW calculation in the heavier weight take offs from RW23. In this case there would be no benefit from increasing the declared distances as the obstacle clearance limitation would remain.
The determining factor of RFFS category is not in any way connected with runway length (as far as I am aware). but is a function of the length of the fuselage of aircraft using an airport regularly. . So for A320 operations (fuselage length 37.75m) RFF6 was adequate but for the B738 (39.47m) was required, 39m being the changeover point. So SEN has equipped and operated to RFF7 since the start of Ryanair ops.
The determining factor of RFFS category is not in any way connected with runway length (as far as I am aware). but is a function of the length of the fuselage of aircraft using an airport regularly. . So for A320 operations (fuselage length 37.75m) RFF6 was adequate but for the B738 (39.47m) was required, 39m being the changeover point. So SEN has equipped and operated to RFF7 since the start of Ryanair ops.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There’s not many days when the heat causes a problem.
When there is little prevailing wind Southend will pick up an easterly breeze at the hottest part of the day from early afternoon onwards. The early morning rush hour will never be affected
When there is little prevailing wind Southend will pick up an easterly breeze at the hottest part of the day from early afternoon onwards. The early morning rush hour will never be affected
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sound like total rubbish. There are many standard width runways (150ft) that are shorter than Southend. The painful truth is that Southend is marginal for both easyjet and Ryanair. If fog doesn't get passengers in the winter then the summer heat will. Just call it a double wammy. What was the story with the protruding church? I know that affects the runway but I can't remember how.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend is marginal for both easyjet and Ryanair.
LTNman
I remember that accident very well; Sunday 9th October 1960 around lunchtime. Aquaplaning was the cause on that occasion. As you say, the paved surface is of much greater length nowadays; no RESAs in those days, and the newly grooved runway seems to be performing well according to a few RYR crew that I've heard from.
No doubt you also remember the Aer Turas DC-7 that spectacularly overran the runway at LTN many years ago.
I remember that accident very well; Sunday 9th October 1960 around lunchtime. Aquaplaning was the cause on that occasion. As you say, the paved surface is of much greater length nowadays; no RESAs in those days, and the newly grooved runway seems to be performing well according to a few RYR crew that I've heard from.
No doubt you also remember the Aer Turas DC-7 that spectacularly overran the runway at LTN many years ago.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be the only one not to know about this website until a few minutes ago. Have a look in the history section for the prangs and everything SEN.
http://saadonline.uk/
http://saadonline.uk/
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sound like total rubbish. There are many standard width runways (150ft) that are shorter than Southend. The painful truth is that Southend is marginal for both easyjet and Ryanair. If fog doesn't get passengers in the winter then the summer heat will. Just call it a double wammy. What was the story with the protruding church? I know that affects the runway but I can't remember how.
Perhaps someone more technical can explain why this is (supposedly) the case?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scoping report makes no mention of why the runway can't be made wider but it is still a very interesting read
https://saeninfo.files.wordpress.com...report_v03.pdf
https://saeninfo.files.wordpress.com...report_v03.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sound like total rubbish. There are many standard width runways (150ft) that are shorter than Southend. The painful truth is that Southend is marginal for both easyjet and Ryanair. If fog doesn't get passengers in the winter then the summer heat will. Just call it a double wammy. What was the story with the protruding church? I know that affects the runway but I can't remember how.
Between them, easyjet and Ryanair have 7 aircraft based at SEN. Their choice. Nobody held a gun to their heads.
The boundary wall of the church is 49m from the runway centre line, the church spire 105m. Stobart have just spent 10 million on resurfacing the runway, If they wanted to widen it (assuming that is possible) they would probably have to spend that amount times ??? so I don't think it's going to happen. Unless, of course, Warwick Brady is willing to forgo any future bonus.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have dispensation , as a licenced runway needs 75m from runway centreline to a holding point. 49m is ridiculously close and the runway is narrower than a standard. A runway excursion could end up with an impact with that wall. When you look at it on Google Earth, I am surprised the CAA permit commercial movements. As for the spire in poor weather.......! If I applied to build a wall 49m from the runway at Luton, I know what the answer would be (ignoring who owns the land).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have dispensation , as a licenced runway needs 75m from runway centreline to a holding point. 49m is ridiculously close and the runway is narrower than a standard. A runway excursion could end up with an impact with that wall. When you look at it on Google Earth, I am surprised the CAA permit commercial movements. As for the spire in poor weather.......! If I applied to build a wall 49m from the runway at Luton, I know what the answer would be (ignoring who owns the land).
4 5 WARNINGS a) It is a condition of operating at the airport that the operator accepts that St. Laurence Church and graveyard are permanent obstacles within the runway instrument strip and that they take account of them to the extent necessary to ensure a safe operation. Operators must refer to the airport conditions of use, and the pilots briefing pack on the LSACL website. Church roof is at 78 ft amsl at 94 m from runway centre-line, spire at 114 ft amsl, 105 m from runway centre-line at approximately 200 m north-east of Runway 05 threshold, lit with a single red obstacle light. Frangible fence around Church graveyard up to 9 ft agl (56 ft amsl), at closest 49 m from Runway centre-line. Operators should refer to obstacle data at AD 2.10 and charts at AD 2.24
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is not "dispensation" a single word for "we will turn a blind eye and hope for the best" Dispensation must have been granted for historical reasons but rules are made for good reasons. Fortunate that this Britannia 757 in the second photo didn't land at Southend. Seems to me that safety is and has been compromised at Southend for years. Short narrow Cat 1 runway runway with a church well inside the safety zone with both Ryanair and Easyjet flying on their limits but as the poster above has stated Stobart exonerates itself by saying we take no responsibility if anything happens despite the breach of safely rules as we have an exemption.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would hope aircraft wouldn’t be attempting to land at SEN in the conditions present at Girona that night. Also worth noting the 757 could just as easily have skidded off the other side and ploughed into the DC9 (which for an extra Daily Mail sensationalist worst-case scenario could have been full of holidaymakers) - that could also have been pretty nasty.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a plan to demolish the church, or even lift it off its foundations and move it. Then in 2002, grade 1 listed status was granted following a campaign.
But there is no cover up, or dark dealings. easyjet, Ryanair, Air Malta and Loganair have all carried out their risk assessments and made their decisions taking into account the obstruction.
But there is no cover up, or dark dealings. easyjet, Ryanair, Air Malta and Loganair have all carried out their risk assessments and made their decisions taking into account the obstruction.
Last edited by DC3 Dave; 24th Jun 2019 at 12:09.