Southampton-2
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the SOU story is rather like Brexit,that is we do not know all the facts to after the deal is done,in other words who will be able to operate with what?when the runway extension is complete! Why go ahead with this plan if the runway data is less then SEN which seems to be on the limits for 737-800 operations anyway!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New SOU operations will always suit Airbus over Boeing due to those set out above by Rog747. EZY/Wizz will surely benefit from the changes and with both also adding the A321neo to their fleet, this type could also be used to supplement 319/320 and has impressive field performance. Drainage and camber of the runway has been a problem for landing aircraft and this you would hope will be resolved during extension and resurfacing of entire runway that is overdue. Concern must be not the runway length after extension as this will be operationally sufficient but more apron space. Only 4 stands available and so any expansion will still be limited to a based aircraft or 2 max, although this will ease somewhat once BE relinquish their E95 and KLM the E75. Bottom line is that if the airport can get commitment and embed a LCC to commence a handful of routes from S20, the headache of stand space etc will be an ongoing discussion as part of the airports overall master plan
While the SEN runway has a greater physical length than SOU, its academic as only the declared distances can be used for landing and take-off weight calculations. In some respects SOU declared distances will be better than SEN, albeit the obstacle environment in the TOCS may impact of permitted take-off weights.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the doghouse (usually)
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the public consultation on the draft masterplan closed a few weeks ago and the final version is due out before Christmas. Planning application for the runway extension will be submitted early next year according to the airport MD.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see if the runway extension (given that planning permission is granted ) occurs with resurfacing and groving .On the subject of stands,I remember a A321 parked up on 13/14,facing out due to ILS infringement ,given this fact surely this 13/14 combination could be used as an additional stand for 320/738 operations.
If so that would give 5 stands as opposed to 4 for operation of a small LCC commitment.
If so that would give 5 stands as opposed to 4 for operation of a small LCC commitment.
While the SEN runway has a greater physical length than SOU, its academic as only the declared distances can be used for landing and take-off weight calculations. In some respects SOU declared distances will be better than SEN, albeit the obstacle environment in the TOCS may impact of permitted take-off weights.
I notice that the RESAs (Runway End Safety Areas) on both runways at SOU are only 90m in length. That was the case at SEN prior to the runway extension but these had to be substantially increased to meet CAA approval, now being 227m on 23 and 138m on 05. Can greater RESA lengths be accommodated at SOU should they be stipulated?
If maximum TORA/ASDA are to be achieved SOU will have to put up a safety case to justify their RESAs. IMHO the resolution of the current runway drainage problems (ie sort out the problems with the current grooving) will need to be a high priority- possibly improving the drains located on the east side of the runway, which possibly haven't been touched since the runway went down in the mid-1960s?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
Given the masterplan,surely advice has been received reference RESA on the proposed extension.With the airport management advertising that the extension will give the ability of 320 type aircraft to take heavier loads to Mediterranean destinations,there's a lot of egg on faces if they have got wrong!
Given the masterplan,surely advice has been received reference RESA on the proposed extension.With the airport management advertising that the extension will give the ability of 320 type aircraft to take heavier loads to Mediterranean destinations,there's a lot of egg on faces if they have got wrong!
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Southampton
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southampton 2
Have been reading posts on SOU for many months and at last have overcome the challenges of becoming a poster. I was an aircraft spotter at Sou back in the 1960s and subsequently became a commercially qualified flyer and spent nearly 40 years flying big jets and a few smaller turboprop s with a well known outfit.
Always an advocate of development at SOU , I have witnessed growth from 10 departures per day to over 50. As a professional pilot who has also been involved in flight operations in a management role I have to say that there has been a lot of absolute nonsense posted about our airport both with regard to the way the airport is run and the way in which aircraft are operated.
As an example, I flew to Skiathos and back in October. The payload limitations imposed are not just SOU runway limitations but Skiathos. The runway there is shorter than SOU!
I witnessed Thomas Cook Airbus 321s departing Skiathos to fly to the Greek mainland to refuel! These companies take these restrictions into account when pricing their products! When it comes to operating hours, our biggest international airport LHR, also has similar restrictions regarding night curfews. It has not stunted growth there!
Run out of time just now. More comments to come.
Always an advocate of development at SOU , I have witnessed growth from 10 departures per day to over 50. As a professional pilot who has also been involved in flight operations in a management role I have to say that there has been a lot of absolute nonsense posted about our airport both with regard to the way the airport is run and the way in which aircraft are operated.
As an example, I flew to Skiathos and back in October. The payload limitations imposed are not just SOU runway limitations but Skiathos. The runway there is shorter than SOU!
I witnessed Thomas Cook Airbus 321s departing Skiathos to fly to the Greek mainland to refuel! These companies take these restrictions into account when pricing their products! When it comes to operating hours, our biggest international airport LHR, also has similar restrictions regarding night curfews. It has not stunted growth there!
Run out of time just now. More comments to come.
As an example, I flew to Skiathos and back in October. The payload limitations imposed are not just SOU runway limitations but Skiathos. The runway there is shorter than SOU!
I witnessed Thomas Cook Airbus 321s departing Skiathos to fly to the Greek mainland to refuel! These companies take these restrictions into account when pricing their products! When it comes to operating hours, our biggest international airport LHR, also has similar restrictions regarding night curfews. It has not stunted growth there!
I witnessed Thomas Cook Airbus 321s departing Skiathos to fly to the Greek mainland to refuel! These companies take these restrictions into account when pricing their products! When it comes to operating hours, our biggest international airport LHR, also has similar restrictions regarding night curfews. It has not stunted growth there!
Aircraft arriving from the UK into JSI Skiathos (or mykonos for instance when their runway was still very short) will of course be much lighter due to the fuel burn and the LDA is fine for types including 757-200 and A320 and 321 except when there has been heavy rain and runway is wet wet wet and diversions are then necessary - as seen recently at the end of the season
The 757 has the best performance and brakes and will be sorely missed by operators and pax.
The SOU flight last summer to JSI was take off payload restricted out of SOU, or would face a stop at Brussels to take on fuel if fully loaded - that would then entail a 3 or 4 sector day for crewing and was likely unworkable even with a short delay...
The reason no stop was needed on the return out of JSI was the already booked restricted payload.
A full load could have been taken out of JSI but a stop on the way home would be likely as I have explained above and below.
Historically, departures from JSI (and JMK and JTR) back to the UK had always stopped at SKG or ATH (Volos or Kavala and CFU in recent years) to take on fuel with the exception of empty legs or very low pax on board where the a/c can make the UK with enough fuel.
At Monarch we flew the 737-200ADV to the islands.
SOU as we know is severely restricted for many take offs to a variety of destinations compounded by runway length, WAT limits, and type of a/c used...
Seems the A320 could be the best fit for airlines expanding at SOU as seen in SEN ops - although KM/air malta have to route their flights to MLA via sardinia or sicily to enable taking a full load out of SEN as MLA is too far to make it non-stop.
EZY do go to MLA and the Canaries but have a restricted payload by 5 to 16 seats on an A320. (180-186 seats)
This is still a BIG aeroplane to fill out of the area although again SEN has seen good growth using this a/c.
The 321 is likely way too big for SOU to fill up and the tail strike concerns would keep the CP very busy -
JSI and JMK can take 321's because they arrive with no fuel thus are light and have departed from airports in Europe with longer runways for a HGW take off.
738 and MAX for now does not have a future at SOU except maybe on short hops taking little fuel, although my pal who skippers both types at Norwegian crunched the numbers for some flights out of SOU and the loads available were completely uneconomical on most Med flights.
He also did it for GIB and again we saw why the 738 and the MAX will not go into Gibraltar.
The 757 has the best performance and brakes and will be sorely missed by operators and pax.
The SOU flight last summer to JSI was take off payload restricted out of SOU, or would face a stop at Brussels to take on fuel if fully loaded - that would then entail a 3 or 4 sector day for crewing and was likely unworkable even with a short delay...
The reason no stop was needed on the return out of JSI was the already booked restricted payload.
A full load could have been taken out of JSI but a stop on the way home would be likely as I have explained above and below.
Historically, departures from JSI (and JMK and JTR) back to the UK had always stopped at SKG or ATH (Volos or Kavala and CFU in recent years) to take on fuel with the exception of empty legs or very low pax on board where the a/c can make the UK with enough fuel.
At Monarch we flew the 737-200ADV to the islands.
SOU as we know is severely restricted for many take offs to a variety of destinations compounded by runway length, WAT limits, and type of a/c used...
Seems the A320 could be the best fit for airlines expanding at SOU as seen in SEN ops - although KM/air malta have to route their flights to MLA via sardinia or sicily to enable taking a full load out of SEN as MLA is too far to make it non-stop.
EZY do go to MLA and the Canaries but have a restricted payload by 5 to 16 seats on an A320. (180-186 seats)
This is still a BIG aeroplane to fill out of the area although again SEN has seen good growth using this a/c.
The 321 is likely way too big for SOU to fill up and the tail strike concerns would keep the CP very busy -
JSI and JMK can take 321's because they arrive with no fuel thus are light and have departed from airports in Europe with longer runways for a HGW take off.
738 and MAX for now does not have a future at SOU except maybe on short hops taking little fuel, although my pal who skippers both types at Norwegian crunched the numbers for some flights out of SOU and the loads available were completely uneconomical on most Med flights.
He also did it for GIB and again we saw why the 738 and the MAX will not go into Gibraltar.
Last edited by rog747; 17th Dec 2018 at 18:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
738 and MAX for now does not have a future at SOU except maybe on short hops taking little fuel, although my pal who skippers both types at Norwegian crunched the numbers for some flights out of SOU and the loads available were completely uneconomical on most Med flights.
He also did it for GIB and again we saw why the 738 and the MAX will not go into Gibraltar.
Given the masterplan,surely advice has been received reference RESA on the proposed extension.With the airport management advertising that the extension will give the ability of 320 type aircraft to take heavier loads to Mediterranean destinations,there's a lot of egg on faces if they have got wrong!
The minimum ICAO Annex 14 (which I am assuming is being used as SOU is an EASA Certified Aerodrome) length for a RESA for a Code 3 runway is 90 metres which is in addition to the required 60 metre strip end, ie 150 metres clear from the end of the TORA.
The Annex 14 Recommendation is a 240 metre RESA. If this cannot be obtained, which SOU cannot ever do due to the railyard and the M27, a safety case will be necessary to either show that there is reasonable chance that aircraft using the runway can be contained within something less, or the likelihood of an overrun is reduced due to other mitigation, often runway surface friction characteristics, which inevitably comes back to having excellent drainage to reduce the risk of a "wet" runway (or worse).
As mention in many posts, grooving is the way to provide for optimum drainage. Unfortunately while SOU's runway is grooved, as I have in the past pointed out, its not draining as it should. Hopefully this is now being considered and something will be done to improve the 1960s vintage drainage system, which was installed when the runway was originally constructed.
Hopefully the relatively new SOU owners have done their homework, otherwise we could possibly be back into the eggy face mode, which was unfortunately all too frequent an event in the days of Bl***y Awful Airports plc ownership.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would hope that the airport owner has discussed in detail the RESA issue with CAA.
The minimum ICAO Annex 14 (which I am assuming is being used as SOU is an EASA Certified Aerodrome) length for a RESA for a Code 3 runway is 90 metres which is in addition to the required 60 metre strip end, ie 150 metres clear from the end of the TORA.
The Annex 14 Recommendation is a 240 metre RESA. If this cannot be obtained, which SOU cannot ever do due to the railyard and the M27, a safety case will be necessary to either show that there is reasonable chance that aircraft using the runway can be contained within something less, or the likelihood of an overrun is reduced due to other mitigation, often runway surface friction characteristics, which inevitably comes back to having excellent drainage to reduce the risk of a "wet" runway (or worse).
As mention in many posts, grooving is the way to provide for optimum drainage. Unfortunately while SOU's runway is grooved, as I have in the past pointed out, its not draining as it should. Hopefully this is now being considered and something will be done to improve the 1960s vintage drainage system, which was installed when the runway was originally constructed.
Hopefully the relatively new SOU owners have done their homework, otherwise we could possibly be back into the eggy face mode, which was unfortunately all too frequent an event in the days of Bl***y Awful Airports plc ownership.
The minimum ICAO Annex 14 (which I am assuming is being used as SOU is an EASA Certified Aerodrome) length for a RESA for a Code 3 runway is 90 metres which is in addition to the required 60 metre strip end, ie 150 metres clear from the end of the TORA.
The Annex 14 Recommendation is a 240 metre RESA. If this cannot be obtained, which SOU cannot ever do due to the railyard and the M27, a safety case will be necessary to either show that there is reasonable chance that aircraft using the runway can be contained within something less, or the likelihood of an overrun is reduced due to other mitigation, often runway surface friction characteristics, which inevitably comes back to having excellent drainage to reduce the risk of a "wet" runway (or worse).
As mention in many posts, grooving is the way to provide for optimum drainage. Unfortunately while SOU's runway is grooved, as I have in the past pointed out, its not draining as it should. Hopefully this is now being considered and something will be done to improve the 1960s vintage drainage system, which was installed when the runway was originally constructed.
Hopefully the relatively new SOU owners have done their homework, otherwise we could possibly be back into the eggy face mode, which was unfortunately all too frequent an event in the days of Bl***y Awful Airports plc ownership.