Southampton-3
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this is further encouraging news,but with things opening up for 2022,I feel the airport could be left in the side lines with the restricted runway length.
With fuel costs spiralling the need for larger economic aircraft becomes a necessity,With no further news on the runway extension and forthcoming legal challenge,things look challenging for the airport management.
With fuel costs spiralling the need for larger economic aircraft becomes a necessity,With no further news on the runway extension and forthcoming legal challenge,things look challenging for the airport management.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This morning, Sat 9th Oct, is the reality.... a little fog in the area. Up above the aeroplanes fly in frustrating circles.... unable to land. Bournemouth traffic is unaffected because of the superior landing aids/approach lighting systems/runway length. Do you really think an extra couple of metres of runway will make a difference? Time for a reality check. Remember Air Berlin!
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Granted Bournemouth (on 26) has lower minima compared to SOU, but the operators also need to be approved for CAT 2 / CAT 3 approaches. Does Eastern, Aurigny, Blue Islands, Loganair, City Flyer etc have CAT2 approval? None maybe except City Flyer would have CAT3 (and then i very much doubt they do) so the comparison between SOU and BOH is irrelevant in this instance. The extension will only benefit, maybe it will attract new operators but the reality is the CURRENT operators will benefit the most, a constant trend on this thread is that the runway extension will bring in all these new operators, forgetting the current users who lets be realistic have certainly helped (as much as they could) the airport throughout the toughest time aviation has seen.
Bournemouth and Southampton are two very different airports that can / do operate together well. Bournemouth has a lot of ancillary business, with Cargo, Draken, GAMA, JETS etc and a primarily leisure focused scheduled airline network. Southampton is a primarily business / commuting airport, with only a very small 'other' type operations such as Jetworks. The airport also has the benefit of the lifeline routes to the channel islands and is the primary link for the channel islands air ambulances. Southampton is Southampton and Bournemouth is Bournemouth, neither will ever be the other and why should they?
Bournemouth and Southampton are two very different airports that can / do operate together well. Bournemouth has a lot of ancillary business, with Cargo, Draken, GAMA, JETS etc and a primarily leisure focused scheduled airline network. Southampton is a primarily business / commuting airport, with only a very small 'other' type operations such as Jetworks. The airport also has the benefit of the lifeline routes to the channel islands and is the primary link for the channel islands air ambulances. Southampton is Southampton and Bournemouth is Bournemouth, neither will ever be the other and why should they?
Cityflyer’s entire fleet was Cat 3 autoland capable. With the “new” aircraft from China being Cat 2 man land only and the 170s leaving, the Cat 3 ratio approaches 50%. (Although in my experience not sure I’ve ever done a Cat 3 approach where I wouldn’t have got in with Cat 2 minima.)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EMB 145 might need up to an additional 15% of runway in low visibility as it might need to use reduced flap settings, and bear in mind that RW20 has a displaced threshold.... which the proposed runway extension will not affect. Previous comments reflect a good common sense attitude.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which your original post clearly did not. SOU may not have the perfect instrumentation set up but i'm sure it will cope just fine with any future opportunities that present themselves!
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L1011effoh
It was actually a question, im not to familiar with the ins and outs of the airlines listed. I would imagine City Flyer is CAT2 but the others... id be surprised.
It was actually a question, im not to familiar with the ins and outs of the airlines listed. I would imagine City Flyer is CAT2 but the others... id be surprised.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm actually pro Southampton big time. N88ZL Boeing 707 got in and out OK regularly, but the weather is not always kind, such as the Fokker 100 that slid off the end of RW20. Recent movements suggest the E135/145/170/190 types are ideal. Occasional A319/320 seem to be no problem but I would question the reliance on that size of aircraft for regular and frequent schedules. The Dash 8 still ticks all my boxes.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOU will only be CAT 1,and with a very high 20 RVR of 800 mtrs or more for landing ,it must be the worst regional airport for poor visability operations.
additional to this 02 minimal has been raised again to about 500 feet due to the RNAV withdrawn of LPV approaches.
Not the best of aids for any airline to consider with the runway extension in the future pipeline.
additional to this 02 minimal has been raised again to about 500 feet due to the RNAV withdrawn of LPV approaches.
Not the best of aids for any airline to consider with the runway extension in the future pipeline.
SKOJB
IMHO no, contrary to that posted at 597 the reason for the current, and possible future, operation at CAT 1 is due to the lack of a full (ie 900 metre) approach lighting system on RWY 20 together with obstacles in the final approach area. The presence of the latter will preclude significant lowering of the Descision Height (ie the point at which a missed approach must be initiated) therefore it is not financially viable to extend the approach light system to faciltate adoption of something better than CAT 1.RVR minima.
The issue of runway width is only applicable for Code 1 & 2 precision runways which requires a minimum width of 30 metres (ref ICAO Annex 14) which SOU already has if it were applicable,
Has anyone any update of Aurigny having EVS (Enhanced Vision Systems) fitted to their ATRs? This was apparently being done to counter a similar approach minima problem at Guernsey and could accordingly be applied at SOU to enable a less than CAT 1 minima to be used.
IMHO no, contrary to that posted at 597 the reason for the current, and possible future, operation at CAT 1 is due to the lack of a full (ie 900 metre) approach lighting system on RWY 20 together with obstacles in the final approach area. The presence of the latter will preclude significant lowering of the Descision Height (ie the point at which a missed approach must be initiated) therefore it is not financially viable to extend the approach light system to faciltate adoption of something better than CAT 1.RVR minima.
The issue of runway width is only applicable for Code 1 & 2 precision runways which requires a minimum width of 30 metres (ref ICAO Annex 14) which SOU already has if it were applicable,
Has anyone any update of Aurigny having EVS (Enhanced Vision Systems) fitted to their ATRs? This was apparently being done to counter a similar approach minima problem at Guernsey and could accordingly be applied at SOU to enable a less than CAT 1 minima to be used.
How often is the airport closed due to poor visibility? How many flights a year are affected??
if it's a low number there is no point in investing when there are a lot of alternatives relatively close by
if it's a low number there is no point in investing when there are a lot of alternatives relatively close by