Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Southampton-2

Old 21st Nov 2019, 16:23
  #1861 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by TCAS FAN


Not unusual if you have a displaced threshold, as is the case with RWY 20. Just up the road at Farnborough their RWY 24 has three or four inset crossbars due to a very large threshold displacement.
Many airports have inset crossbars including SEN on runway 23. Do you think TCAS FAN they should position another crossbar in front of the ILS on 02?
stewyb is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 16:41
  #1862 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,289
Received 20 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by stewyb
Many airports have inset crossbars including SEN on runway 23. Do you think TCAS FAN they should position another crossbar in front of the ILS on 02?
Presumably you mean the ILS localiser antenna. If so the answer is “no”. RWY 02 is equipped with what is described as a “simple approach light” system which only requires one crossbar. Unless the overall length of the current 02 approach lighting system can be significantly extended there is no justification for additional crossbars as it will not improve the RVR minima.
TCAS FAN is online now  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 16:59
  #1863 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
TCAS FAN
Thanks for the explanation on the crossbars,although I can understand that the LDA for 20 will not change,would I be right in saying that the LDA for 02 would increase as there is an extra piece on its northern end?
RW20 is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 18:03
  #1864 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,289
Received 20 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by RW20
TCAS FAN
Thanks for the explanation on the crossbars,although I can understand that the LDA for 20 will not change,would I be right in saying that the LDA for 02 would increase as there is an extra piece on its northern end?
IMHO yes, but not much as there will need to be RESA provided to cater for an overrun. Any increase will be dependant upon what distance any blast screen is from the end of paved surface.

As SOU is frequently compared with SEN, SOU already has longer LDAs than present at SEN.

Last edited by TCAS FAN; 21st Nov 2019 at 19:05. Reason: Addition.
TCAS FAN is online now  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 19:18
  #1865 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So how long are the existing RESA's at SOU? An arrestor bed would seem to indicate an area of CAA concern. Edit to add, I have just seen, 90m each end.
Red Four is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 20:01
  #1866 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Dorset
Posts: 62
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
People should stop winding and others stop biting - the application is finally live so IT HAS HAPPENED. I come from a long service in Local Authority Estates & Planning background - so yes I have an idea of what this means and likely next moves. Pressure will be massive from locals who rightly can say pollution noise and air will be considerably risen from a 3 base LCC A320 base or 7378 - 18- 24 movements? Regardless councillors will back residents - planning committee will look at business impact on community ALSO. If you work or live at the airport do not underestimate this factor even in the current climate. I would advise once comments goes live you encourage all your fellow workers and family and fiends to place a comment IF YOU SUPPORT -(same applies for those that don’t) - you do not have to live adjacent to comment should go without saying. But volume matters in tight planning decisions. If their is seen a ‘balance’ in public opinion it helps any ‘positive minded’ councillor on the committee to go out on the ‘economic and job aspect’. BE AWARE politics will play a huge part and expect it to be drawn out (a year could easily pass) even expect a refusal following a recommendation from committee over ruling the Authority allocated planner. This won’t be end. I would expect any good planning application consultant will be expecting this to go to appeal. Here I would expect less emotion and more business sense. So if you want the expansion comment and make it clear this could be a life or death of a commercial asset to an area and the job it begins. Presuming it’s Eastleigh Planning so don’t expect any ‘City’ love to come across, they won’t necessarily feel too much affection for how important it is to Southampton City. Good luck and I am sure many of you are hoping the future is Orange!
FrequentlyFlying is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 20:20
  #1867 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by FrequentlyFlying
People should stop winding and others stop biting - the application is finally live so IT HAS HAPPENED. I come from a long service in Local Authority Estates & Planning background - so yes I have an idea of what this means and likely next moves. Pressure will be massive from locals who rightly can say pollution noise and air will be considerably risen from a 3 base LCC A320 base or 7378 - 18- 24 movements? Regardless councillors will back residents - planning committee will look at business impact on community ALSO. If you work or live at the airport do not underestimate this factor even in the current climate. I would advise once comments goes live you encourage all your fellow workers and family and fiends to place a comment IF YOU SUPPORT -(same applies for those that don’t) - you do not have to live adjacent to comment should go without saying. But volume matters in tight planning decisions. If their is seen a ‘balance’ in public opinion it helps any ‘positive minded’ councillor on the committee to go out on the ‘economic and job aspect’. BE AWARE politics will play a huge part and expect it to be drawn out (a year could easily pass) even expect a refusal following a recommendation from committee over ruling the Authority allocated planner. This won’t be end. I would expect any good planning application consultant will be expecting this to go to appeal. Here I would expect less emotion and more business sense. So if you want the expansion comment and make it clear this could be a life or death of a commercial asset to an area and the job it begins. Presuming it’s Eastleigh Planning so don’t expect any ‘City’ love to come across, they won’t necessarily feel too much affection for how important it is to Southampton City. Good luck and I am sure many of you are hoping the future is Orange!
So effectively the airport management have no chance of getting underway in April 2020?,and given your assessment of a refusal extending the consultation by at least a year.My question is doesn't this give more time for the environmental activists like extinction rebellion to generate huge opposition?
RW20 is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 20:48
  #1868 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Dorset
Posts: 62
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by RW20
So effectively the airport management have no chance of getting underway in April 2020?,and given your assessment of a refusal extending the consultation by at least a year.My question is doesn't this give more time for the environmental activists like extinction rebellion to generate huge opposition?
NO - I don’t think I quite said it’s a given it won’t just pass, but I would be surprised given the make up of that particular Authority.
its likely to get drawn out yes, so much at stake and I would expect the Airport management to be ready for it. All I would say is don’t underestimate commenting - it will come down to jobs vs environment. Eastleigh is currently Liberal Democratic controlled by a large majority. They tend to go with the community feeling as less likely to be (terrible stereotyping I know) ruthless business men. The Council will not give much interest to the City of Southamptons interest. However I would not be surprised if we end up with a Conservative National Govt that IF the application is refused and goes to S.o.S appeal that decision gets overturned on appeal and pass (with Caveats of some
kind In faux respect of the original decision)
Again if you work at the airport or have friends or want a LCC at SOU COMMENT!! The Local Planner allocated may well be on your side. The comments against will be well orchestrated and numerous from a well organised network. It will look like a massive wave against. I’d have gone about application obviously way way earlier but also tried to stage it and slowly. Let stages slip quietly into planning over a period. A Big Bang often is unpredictable.

Last edited by FrequentlyFlying; 21st Nov 2019 at 21:34.
FrequentlyFlying is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 07:55
  #1869 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,289
Received 20 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Four
So how long are the existing RESA's at SOU? An arrestor bed would seem to indicate an area of CAA concern. Edit to add, I have just seen, 90m each end.
SOU has a Code 3 runway (iaw CAP 168/ICAO Annex 14). As such it is required to provide a minimum RESA length of 90 metres. This is in addition to the runway strip end which extends for 60 metres beyond the end of the TORA. Consequently a minimum of 150 metres overrun must be provided.

The recommended RESA length is 240 metres. If an aerodrome cannot provide this length a risk assessment must show that any risks of non containment of an overrun are at a sufficently low level as to become tolerable. Mitigation included in the assessment may include runway friction characteristics, which can normally be improved by grooving of the runway surface to assist with drainage in wet conditions.

Any increase in 02 TORA/LDA may be minimal, this is of course is due to the need to provide a RESA beyond the declared TORA.

Assuming that SOU owns the land out to the second 20 approach lighting crossbar (if they don't now is possibly the time to dust off the cheque book and go speak to the railyard owner) there is about 230 metres available, giving a possible RESA length of 170 metres with the current runway, less whatever a blast screen is going to take up. Just how much of this can be clawed back by a risk assessment to add to the current 02 TORA/LDA?

Looking at 20 TORA, which is currently 1650 metres (less than the 1723 metre runway length due to RESA requirement at the south end), with an addition of 164 metres on the north end there will be a total possible TORA of 1814 metres. However as the runway width does not meet Code 4 runway criteria, the maximum declared TORA of 1799 metres for a Code 3 runway will apply. This then extends the current RWY 20 90 metre RESA by another 15 metres. RWY 20 LDA cannot be increased as there remains a need for the current 20 displaced threshold.

Final runway TORAs/LDAs after the extension will accordingly rest on how robust a risk assessment SOU can produce to demonstrate a tolerable level of safety with less than the recommended 240 metre RESAs.

Last edited by TCAS FAN; 22nd Nov 2019 at 11:58. Reason: typo and additions
TCAS FAN is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 12:55
  #1870 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Surprised to see that the airport have not included the northern taxiway within their planning submission and instead state that this will only be carried out in the future once there is a suitable number of runway movements. I thought it would have been cheaper to complete whilst equipment is on site for extension!
stewyb is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 13:13
  #1871 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,289
Received 20 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by stewyb
Surprised to see that the airport have not included the northern taxiway within their planning submission and instead state that this will only be carried out in the future once there is a suitable number of runway movements. I thought it would have been cheaper to complete whilst equipment is on site for extension!
Agree totally. Bl***dy Awful Airports Plc missed the original boat when the runway was being resurfaced, at the time circa £40K to add the missing link to the north end of TWY A.

An extended RWY 20 is going to increase the backtrack to further reduce the flow rate. If other LCCs are as vociferous as Ryanair when it comes to turnaround times, the current log jams at Hold B1 are going to cause considerable aggravation for the airport operator.
TCAS FAN is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 13:41
  #1872 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by TCAS FAN
Agree totally. Bl***dy Awful Airports Plc missed the original boat when the runway was being resurfaced, at the time circa £40K to add the missing link to the north end of TWY A.

An extended RWY 20 is going to increase the backtrack to further reduce the flow rate. If other LCCs are as vociferous as Ryanair when it comes to turnaround times, the current log jams at Hold B1 are going to cause considerable aggravation for the airport operator.
Maybe they will lay down a little bit of extra tarmac at night when no one is looking!
stewyb is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 14:42
  #1873 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why wasn’t the terminal expansion also submitted?
Sharklet_321 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 15:02
  #1874 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Sharklet_321
Why wasn’t the terminal expansion also submitted?
This is phase one up to 3m pax p/a. Assume the terminal will follow in the future!
stewyb is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 16:33
  #1875 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,289
Received 20 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by stewyb
Maybe they will lay down a little bit of extra tarmac at night when no one is looking!
The availability of Google Earth will probably mean no.
TCAS FAN is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 17:23
  #1876 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by TCAS FAN


The availability of Google Earth will probably mean no.
This is classic SOU!,no taxiway means delay,if the management thinks that this is acceptable then they are very much mistaken!
Obviously there is not the financial backing to give the airside facities needed with what a runway extension needs. In addition with no planning application for terminal improvements,means many wet and winded pax trying to board a 320!
I cannot see how any LCC will entertain setting up an operation with SOU with the very limited proposals .
RW20 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 18:05
  #1877 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wet and 'winded' passengers do just that at much colder and wetter places than SOU.
inOban is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 19:54
  #1878 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by RW20
This is classic SOU!,no taxiway means delay,if the management thinks that this is acceptable then they are very much mistaken!
Obviously there is not the financial backing to give the airside facities needed with what a runway extension needs. In addition with no planning application for terminal improvements,means many wet and winded pax trying to board a 320!
I cannot see how any LCC will entertain setting up an operation with SOU with the very limited proposals .
I agree, how much extra would it cost to put in a taxiway of minimal length, just crazy!
stewyb is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 08:06
  #1879 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,856
Received 436 Likes on 262 Posts
"means many wet and winded pax trying to board a 320"

That's been the SOP at Aberdeen for 40 years - - and TBH teh weather there is a lot worse than at SOU
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 08:11
  #1880 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,856
Received 436 Likes on 262 Posts
RW20 is correct - you MUST comment whenever there is a Planning Application. It's one of the first things the Councillors look at - you don't have to outnumber the greens - just show there is a significant body of opinion in favour. That pushes things in the direction of the Planning Officers opinion - tho TBH if the professional planners don't like it you're pretty much lost even on appeal.
Asturias56 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.