Southampton-2
It is harder to kill off an airport than an airline as the physical asset will remain for a new owner who will come in without the debts of the previous owner. Yes airlines have and will fail but the same people will form new airlines out of the ashes of the failed airlines. Looking forward 2 or 3 years might seem like a long time but in a few years time looking back to these dark days won’t seem so bad.
Just seen this - Turkey has just now been added to the No-Go on your Hols list...
Guess TUI's BOH to DLM & AYT will get canned for OCT>? (Last peak departure was Oct half term)
That would leave just one TUI holiday flight a week from BOH to CFU, with no currently winter season at all... That's not gonna butter many crumpets is it.
I am in sympathy with your general sentiments, Rivetjoint: but it is hard to be optimistic & difficult to agree with "things can only get better" in the short or medium term. I said on here back in February that this crisis was existential for the airlines & the economy - nothing has changed, yet. In fact, things have got worse since then, & look like they are going to get worse. I do , however, very much hope that you are proved correct.
As mentioned the minimum length of a RESA should be 90 metres, they should also have a width of twice the runway width. Currently 02/20 meets this minimum requirement with TORA 1723 (02) and 1650 (20). The current UK AIP entries for SOU specify a 90 metre RESA for both runways.
One further point to remember is that a RESA is an additional requirement to a runway strip, which surrounds the runway with the intent that it should be obstacle free, albeit frangible signs/other equipment may be present if there for air navigational purposes.
Consequently the absolute minimum undershoot/overshoot protected area needs to be 150 metres (strip end + RESA).
The conundrum is by extending the runway by 164 metres can/has the airport owner convinced the CAA that an acceptable safety margin exists with current RESAs? If not then what could be gained by extending the runway paved surface is going to be eroded by a need to provide a longer RESA.
The most potential gain with the extension is runway 20. If the CAA will agree to the current south end RESA the potential TORA will be 1799 metres (current 1650 metre TORA plus 149 metres). Why only 149 metre increase? As the runway is classified as Code 3 (due to its width) the maximum TORA for a Code 3 is 1799 metres. The remaining 15 metres can be added to the current RESA.
Runway 02 could possibly have the TORA increased. Looking at Google Earth the proposed extension will require re-alignment of the current boundary fence in order to accommodate it. Assuming that there is only 164 metres to play with, subtracting the minimum 150 metres (strip end + 90 metres) that gives a potential TORA 1737 metres. If any of the land outside of the current boundary fence, as it appears that it is, anything that can be reclaimed by levelling it will be a bonus and possibly permit further extension of the 02 TORA towards the maximum 1799 metres.
As with many things at SOU, nothing is simple. Any extension of the 02 TORA will take the end of it closer to the large rail sheds, possibly negating any extra gained due to increasing obstacles in the take-off climb surface.
I sincerely hope that AGS has done all their homework, including speaking to prospective operators or aircraft manufacturers, and has already secured agreement from CAA as to the RESA lengths and thereby the TORA increases that will be possible.
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 7th Oct 2020 at 06:48.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply TCAS.
In view of the limited space to increase RESA's to the recommended 240m/2x width for a code 3 runway, I wonder if in gaining the necessary CAA approval for the runway extension project, that the airport might be aiming to use EMAS as a major plank of their argument to the CAA. I am not aware that the CAA has yet approved an EMAS installation in the UK, although I could be wrong?
Either way, I would expect the airport would have to show an overall improvement in safety by having this extension, not just wanting the situation of longer notified and usable lengths to market to prospective airlines.
In view of the limited space to increase RESA's to the recommended 240m/2x width for a code 3 runway, I wonder if in gaining the necessary CAA approval for the runway extension project, that the airport might be aiming to use EMAS as a major plank of their argument to the CAA. I am not aware that the CAA has yet approved an EMAS installation in the UK, although I could be wrong?
Either way, I would expect the airport would have to show an overall improvement in safety by having this extension, not just wanting the situation of longer notified and usable lengths to market to prospective airlines.
Runway 02 could possibly have the TORA increased. Looking at Google Earth the proposed extension will require re-alignment of the current boundary fence in order to accommodate it. Assuming that there is only 164 metres to play with, subtracting the minimum 150 metres (strip end + 90 metres) that gives a potential TORA 1737 metres. I any of the land outside of the current boundary fence, as it appears that it is, anything that can be reclaimed by levelling it will be a bonus and possibly permit further extension of the 02 TORA towards the maximum 1799 metres.
Our plans will not lead to an expansion of the airport site. Southampton’s longer runway and expanded parking facilities will be fully contained within the current airport boundary.
The boundary of the current EASA Certificated Aerodrome is most probably the boundary fence. This is part of the overall Southampton International Airport site, ie excluding such things as car parks, hangars and the northeast corner grass area.
If you look at Google Earth you will see an access track leading to the northeast corner, presumably on land owned by AGS. If AGS owned land extends out to the edge of the rail yard re-alignment of the track appears to be an option and therein moving the boundary fence would be possible. This would add approximately 55+ metres to the equation. Longer 02 TORA versus RESA?
Thanks for the reply TCAS.
In view of the limited space to increase RESA's to the recommended 240m/2x width for a code 3 runway, I wonder if in gaining the necessary CAA approval for the runway extension project, that the airport might be aiming to use EMAS as a major plank of their argument to the CAA. I am not aware that the CAA has yet approved an EMAS installation in the UK, although I could be wrong?
Either way, I would expect the airport would have to show an overall improvement in safety by having this extension, not just wanting the situation of longer notified and usable lengths to market to prospective airlines.
In view of the limited space to increase RESA's to the recommended 240m/2x width for a code 3 runway, I wonder if in gaining the necessary CAA approval for the runway extension project, that the airport might be aiming to use EMAS as a major plank of their argument to the CAA. I am not aware that the CAA has yet approved an EMAS installation in the UK, although I could be wrong?
Either way, I would expect the airport would have to show an overall improvement in safety by having this extension, not just wanting the situation of longer notified and usable lengths to market to prospective airlines.
From memory it was only used in anger once, again by a pilot induced accident involving a PA 34, landing late in well below RVR minima during fog. Good news was that the arrestor bed worked, however the PA 34's undercarriage suffered significant damage.
The UK CAA at the time were very enthusiastic about an arrestor bed, advocating that it could indeed mitigate risks for a less than recommended length of RESA. This subsequently changed when they realised that the material used in the arrestor bed was absorbent and could accordingly greatly increase the fire hazard by subsequently fuelling a fire following a fuel spill.
I have to admit that I am not familiar with EMAS, but if it can eradicate the possibility of increased fire risk, SOU may wish to discuss it further with CAA. It could only be considered for runway 20 as most, if not all, of the 02 RESA will be paved runway surface.
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 4th Oct 2020 at 15:13. Reason: correction
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south of Blue 1
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the fundamental problems with EMAS is, I am informed, that once it has been used in anger, it has to be replaced in its entirity. So, if an aircraft overruns and enters the EMAS area, after it has been removed, declared distances have to be recalculated and operations restricted until the EMAS is re-laid. This also places an obligation on the airport operator to hold spare EMAS systems in stock in order to facilitate a rapid resumption of normal operations. This comes at a cost, which some operators may not wish to bear - no finance departments enjoy shelling out for something that is hopefully not going to be used.
HB
HB
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS - Southampton's runway is Code 4C according to their EASA Certificate which can be viewed on the CAA web site. UK CAA use greater value of TODA/ASDA to determine runway coding. SOU's TODA for 02 is 1831m and for 20 1805m which being above 1799m puts it into Code 4.
TCAS - Southampton's runway is Code 4C according to their EASA Certificate which can be viewed on the CAA web site. UK CAA use greater value of TODA/ASDA to determine runway coding. SOU's TODA for 02 is 1831m and for 20 1805m which being above 1799m puts it into Code 4.
For runway 02/20 to be designated Code 4 it needs to have a minimum width of 45 metres (ICAO Annex 14 para 3.1.10 refers). If UK bails out of EASA, CAP 168 will apply, whereby Tables 3.1A and 3.2 will apply which clearly indicate a minimum width 45 metres for a Code 4 runway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to have some informative threads for a change and will be interesting to see what distances are designated once extension is complete. I say complete as I fully expect the application to be approved shortly!
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Handling
What’s the current situation with Southampton Handling agents? I know Aurigny are still self handling but what’s the latest with Swissport?
The last I heard they were leaving SOU altogether, but didn’t know if this was still the case.
If so, does anyone know who’s handling who now?
The last I heard they were leaving SOU altogether, but didn’t know if this was still the case.
If so, does anyone know who’s handling who now?
Have managed to find time to have a look at the Planning Application and see that it includes the runway extension and a blast screen.
The subject of airport boundary previously mentioned in posts # 2606 & 2607. appears to have been clarified. The Location Plan contained in the Planning Application indicates the airport site, not just that currently enclosed by the current boundary fence.
The blast screen is outside the current boundary fence and additionally the proposed extension, shown on the “Pavement Layout Plan", is so close that the fence will have to be moved.
Returning to the blast screen, a separate drawing of it indicates a possible clue as to the intended 02 TORA and therein the RESA. Shown on the plan is a “TAKE-OFF CLIMB SURFACE (TOCS) 2% SLOPE”. This is a runway protection surface which should be obstacle free in order to protect a departing aircraft.
The blast screen shown on the drawing extends above the TOCS. If this happens it could affect 02 take-off performance weights, and partially negate what could be achieved will all the extended TORA available.
The origin of the 2% TOCS slope is the runway strip end, or clearway (if provided beyond the strip end). Due to the limited distances I am discounting any clearway. The approximate distance to the origin is 113 metres from the point that the TOCS intersects the blast screen. Adding the runway strip end (60 metres) to this is the end of TORA.
Using Google Earth the expected location of the blast screen (shown on the “Block Plan” along the runway centreline to the current runway end is approximately 224 metres. Subtracting 173 metres from this (113 + 60) the end of TORA is 51 metres beyond the current runway end, giving a new 02 TORA of 1774 metres.
Due to the indicated alignment of the blast fence, to achieve a 2 x runway width RESA the length will be approximately 124 metres, better than the 90 metre minimum, but short of the recommended length.
I stress that all my calculations are approximate with an assumption that the ground level at the start of the 2% slope is the same, or close to, that at the blast screen.
It is hoped that AGS have done all their homework and that TORA and RESA lengths are already a done deal with CAA.
The subject of airport boundary previously mentioned in posts # 2606 & 2607. appears to have been clarified. The Location Plan contained in the Planning Application indicates the airport site, not just that currently enclosed by the current boundary fence.
The blast screen is outside the current boundary fence and additionally the proposed extension, shown on the “Pavement Layout Plan", is so close that the fence will have to be moved.
Returning to the blast screen, a separate drawing of it indicates a possible clue as to the intended 02 TORA and therein the RESA. Shown on the plan is a “TAKE-OFF CLIMB SURFACE (TOCS) 2% SLOPE”. This is a runway protection surface which should be obstacle free in order to protect a departing aircraft.
The blast screen shown on the drawing extends above the TOCS. If this happens it could affect 02 take-off performance weights, and partially negate what could be achieved will all the extended TORA available.
The origin of the 2% TOCS slope is the runway strip end, or clearway (if provided beyond the strip end). Due to the limited distances I am discounting any clearway. The approximate distance to the origin is 113 metres from the point that the TOCS intersects the blast screen. Adding the runway strip end (60 metres) to this is the end of TORA.
Using Google Earth the expected location of the blast screen (shown on the “Block Plan” along the runway centreline to the current runway end is approximately 224 metres. Subtracting 173 metres from this (113 + 60) the end of TORA is 51 metres beyond the current runway end, giving a new 02 TORA of 1774 metres.
Due to the indicated alignment of the blast fence, to achieve a 2 x runway width RESA the length will be approximately 124 metres, better than the 90 metre minimum, but short of the recommended length.
I stress that all my calculations are approximate with an assumption that the ground level at the start of the 2% slope is the same, or close to, that at the blast screen.
It is hoped that AGS have done all their homework and that TORA and RESA lengths are already a done deal with CAA.
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 6th Oct 2020 at 15:17.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN,
As always a comprehensive analysis of the Runway extension application.
The truth of the matter is has AGS done there home work ,debatable at least!
With the ongoing pandamic does the airport really need the extension ?,again dabateable, can the airport sustain its operations without the extension,yes it if it opens up to more training,and light aviation,coupled to domestic operations,it might work.However has AGS got other plans?
As always a comprehensive analysis of the Runway extension application.
The truth of the matter is has AGS done there home work ,debatable at least!
With the ongoing pandamic does the airport really need the extension ?,again dabateable, can the airport sustain its operations without the extension,yes it if it opens up to more training,and light aviation,coupled to domestic operations,it might work.However has AGS got other plans?
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: In the arrestor bed
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if 02 is obstacle limited with the big railway shed to the right? If the runway is extended as the main benefit is for 20, 02 then becomes the limiting runway, in use 40% of the time? Would not be sensible to have a flying programme based on performance you can only use 60% of the time - other wise you end up not refuelling (to get the performance,) taking off and landing at BOH to refuel and then use their longer runway, then flying flat out to try and get back before SOU closes. Very embarrassing - we sometimes had to do this.
Over the years the emergency turn procedure for 20 came and went. Essentially if engine fail turn right 15 deg at end of the runway over the Itchen.
On the 146 this would give us maybe another 200kg. But it was dependent on some trees right on the edge of the Type A chart (I think it was) and whether these were factored in or disregarded by the powers that be.
If it was me I would make sure this was a available, and save the £15m to try and weather the storm.
Back in the day if performance limited and on 02 we would do standing start with the tail right over the arrestor bed, which then blew the litag material across the motorway. Interestingly didn’t happen on the 195. I remember on one such occasion full of pax for Spain, with the performance worked out to the kilo, OAT rising, setting off at the same time the airport Kestral uncharacteristically decided to cross the runway at low level.
I saw this streak to my left at about 80kts. We kept going. I later found out the Kestral had been found on its back in the grass, feet in the air, but stunned. It was taken to some kind of sanctuary where it made a full recovery. Happy times.
I’m very grateful to have had many great years at SOU and I wish the airport all the best. R.
Over the years the emergency turn procedure for 20 came and went. Essentially if engine fail turn right 15 deg at end of the runway over the Itchen.
On the 146 this would give us maybe another 200kg. But it was dependent on some trees right on the edge of the Type A chart (I think it was) and whether these were factored in or disregarded by the powers that be.
If it was me I would make sure this was a available, and save the £15m to try and weather the storm.
Back in the day if performance limited and on 02 we would do standing start with the tail right over the arrestor bed, which then blew the litag material across the motorway. Interestingly didn’t happen on the 195. I remember on one such occasion full of pax for Spain, with the performance worked out to the kilo, OAT rising, setting off at the same time the airport Kestral uncharacteristically decided to cross the runway at low level.
I saw this streak to my left at about 80kts. We kept going. I later found out the Kestral had been found on its back in the grass, feet in the air, but stunned. It was taken to some kind of sanctuary where it made a full recovery. Happy times.
I’m very grateful to have had many great years at SOU and I wish the airport all the best. R.
I wonder if 02 is obstacle limited with the big railway shed to the right? .......
Over the years the emergency turn procedure for 20 came and went. Essentially if engine fail turn right 15 deg at end of the runway over the Itchen.
On the 146 this would give us maybe another 200kg. But it was dependent on some trees right on the edge of the Type A chart (I think it was) and whether these were factored in or disregarded by the powers that be.
I’m very grateful to have had many great years at SOU and I wish the airport all the best. R.
Over the years the emergency turn procedure for 20 came and went. Essentially if engine fail turn right 15 deg at end of the runway over the Itchen.
On the 146 this would give us maybe another 200kg. But it was dependent on some trees right on the edge of the Type A chart (I think it was) and whether these were factored in or disregarded by the powers that be.
I’m very grateful to have had many great years at SOU and I wish the airport all the best. R.
You mention +200 KG on the 146, a figure of up to 3 tonnes was quoted by BRAL ops as limiting 145 departures off 20 with the offending trees in place, again too close to take advantage of the 15 degree turn.
Cannot comment on whether the large shed north of the runway is performance limiting, maybe there is a perfomance guru out there who could?
I too enjoyed having the 146s resident, once came back from Malaga to SOU on the jump seat, in the days we could. A good bunch of guys to work with, most converting on to the 195s.