Southampton-2
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stewyb
Under Civil Aviation Authority designations, the northernmost 150 metres of the extension would be classified as a ‘starter strip’, with the remaining 14 metres as a ‘runway extension’
Runway Measurement Current declared distance (m) Future declared distance (m)
02 TORA 1723 1745
02 TODA 1831 1805
02 ASDA 1723 1745
02 LDA 1650 1673
20 TORA 1650 1814
20 TODA 1805 1874
20 ASDA 1650 1814
20 LDA 1605 1605
Runway Measurement Current declared distance (m) Future declared distance (m)
02 TORA 1723 1745
02 TODA 1831 1805
02 ASDA 1723 1745
02 LDA 1650 1673
20 TORA 1650 1814
20 TODA 1805 1874
20 ASDA 1650 1814
20 LDA 1605 1605
Forgive me, but if this is the only benefit to the extension, what on earth is the point??? It just seems like RW20 TORA benefits slightly but this is not the main departure runway given prevailing wind conditions.
Originally Posted by stewyb
Under Civil Aviation Authority designations, the northernmost 150 metres of the extension would be classified as a ‘starter strip’, with the remaining 14 metres as a ‘runway extension’
Runway Measurement Current declared distance (m) Future declared distance (m)
02 TORA 1723 1745
02 TODA 1831 1805
02 ASDA 1723 1745
02 LDA 1650 1673
20 TORA 1650 1814
20 TODA 1805 1874
20 ASDA 1650 1814
20 LDA 1605 1605
Runway Measurement Current declared distance (m) Future declared distance (m)
02 TORA 1723 1745
02 TODA 1831 1805
02 ASDA 1723 1745
02 LDA 1650 1673
20 TORA 1650 1814
20 TODA 1805 1874
20 ASDA 1650 1814
20 LDA 1605 1605
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TCAS FAN
Much as I'd like to see it, can you explain the revised 20 declared distances as runway 02/20 is both by ICAO Annex 14 and CAP 168 criteria a Code 3 runway, due to its width being less than 45 metres. This accordingly limits declared distances to less than 1800 metres. This is the case with SEN who have a total paved surface of 1856 x 36 metres and accordingly have to limit their maximum declared distances to 1799 metres.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sharklet_321
Forgive me, but if this is the only benefit to the extension, what on earth is the point??? It just seems like RW20 TORA benefits slightly but this is not the main departure runway given prevailing wind conditions.
Originally Posted by stewyb
I have taken this info from the airports Obstacle Surface Limitation Report on the planning portal. Whether its correct I have no idea!
One thing that concerns me is the apparant lack of expertise of airport management who appear to have not picked up the error before the Report was submitted with the Planning Application.
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 28th Nov 2020 at 14:26.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 42
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rivet Joint
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/commun...xhibition.page
It looks like the vacant tower block in Stoneham is due to be demolished within the next year (see above link). At 17 stories and not far south of the runway perhaps this could result in improved runway performance?
It looks like the vacant tower block in Stoneham is due to be demolished within the next year (see above link). At 17 stories and not far south of the runway perhaps this could result in improved runway performance?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 2,599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
I looked into that anomaly when SEN was planning its runway extension. If the SEN TODA had been in excess of 1799m at that time it could have probably added to it by virtue of the pavement extension, but as it was less than 1799m the Code 3 TODA rule under CAP 168 applied. I can only assume that some form of Grandfather Rights are recognised by the CAA with respect to SOU.
I looked into that anomaly when SEN was planning its runway extension. If the SEN TODA had been in excess of 1799m at that time it could have probably added to it by virtue of the pavement extension, but as it was less than 1799m the Code 3 TODA rule under CAP 168 applied. I can only assume that some form of Grandfather Rights are recognised by the CAA with respect to SOU.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southampton-3
According to CAA web site Southampton has an EASA Certificate which states the runway is presently Code 4C. This presumably because the existing TODA for 02 and 20 exceeds 1799m. Maybe there is an exemption for the runway width being less than 45m and CAA has accepted it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In August 2003, I took a flight on the short-lived Flybe route Bergamo - Southampton (on Q400 G-JEDJ), connecting at SOU to flight BE998 to BHD (on Q200 G-JEDX). I have, as you can see, the regs of those flights in my log, but I am missing the flight number for the BGY-SOU flight. As I have neither a SOU nor a BE timetable from 2003 in my collection and Google has been useless, is anyone able to help out?
Last edited by virginblue; 29th Nov 2020 at 10:12.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the benefit of a 10% increase in take off distance for 70% of flights only benefits incumbent equipment like ERJ-145's etc etc, then why doesn't SOU management focus on this which is a lot less controversial and more likely to get approved?! 
Musket90
There is a perfectly functioning Southampton-2 thread which declared distances are the current hot topic. Why start a new thread? If you want to add something come over and join us on Southampton-2!
There is a perfectly functioning Southampton-2 thread which declared distances are the current hot topic. Why start a new thread? If you want to add something come over and join us on Southampton-2!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharklet_321
Because the extension will enable the airport to attract Airbus family aircraft and hopefully a LCC. Approval is the only realistic future and one I believe they will win!
Because the extension will enable the airport to attract Airbus family aircraft and hopefully a LCC. Approval is the only realistic future and one I believe they will win!
Looks like the moderators have been doing some housekeeping and creating new threads for some of the long running one's - thread starter gets allocated to the first post at the cut over point (well that's what happened to me on the new Newcastle thread!)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 2,599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Musket90
According to CAA web site Southampton has an EASA Certificate which states the runway is presently Code 4C. This presumably because the existing TODA for 02 and 20 exceeds 1799m. Maybe there is an exemption for the runway width being less than 45m and CAA has accepted it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usually the CAA would need to see a robust Safety Case that proves a net increase in overall runway safety levels before granting approval for any plans that require a derogation of 'grandfather rights' to be continued. Maintaining that the runway is a proper Code 4c runway -for the sake of a few metres TODA length - is hardly a net increase in safety, when the runway width is so out of kilter with the requirement.
I would imagine it will have to revert to a Code 3c to gain CAA approval.
I would imagine it will have to revert to a Code 3c to gain CAA approval.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southampton
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stewyb
Because the extension will enable the airport to attract Airbus family aircraft and hopefully a LCC. Approval is the only realistic future and one I believe they will win!
