Southampton-3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
adfly
Have to agree with the northern taxiway, no idea why they cannot extend out to runway as per your diagram and with equipment on site during construction, seems illogical to me. This same mistake was made 20 years ago when they had the opportunity during runway resurfacing and would have cost pence instead of pounds!
Have to agree with the northern taxiway, no idea why they cannot extend out to runway as per your diagram and with equipment on site during construction, seems illogical to me. This same mistake was made 20 years ago when they had the opportunity during runway resurfacing and would have cost pence instead of pounds!
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh thank the lord, I couldn't have faced any more of this will they/wont they.
Id be surprised if it made a huge difference tbh with a sudden flurry of new destinations and operators...
But glad the NIMBYs dont get it all their own way for once.
Id be surprised if it made a huge difference tbh with a sudden flurry of new destinations and operators...
But glad the NIMBYs dont get it all their own way for once.
LTNman
Is the cost more or less per metre than HS2?
Is the cost more or less per metre than HS2?
"The next battle should be in about ten years’ time when the 3 million pax cap is reached then!
this is exactly the sort of post that people shouldn't make - it's a gift to the swampies and any appeal against the decision (and I'm sure there'll be one)
this is exactly the sort of post that people shouldn't make - it's a gift to the swampies and any appeal against the decision (and I'm sure there'll be one)
stewyb
Let us be clear, what has been granted is permission for a runway extension, not a starter strip which would only be usable for take-off on 20 and would not necessarily have to be full runway width.
The, as yet to be approved by CAA, intended declared distances will include a small increase in 02 TORA and LDA.
Let us be clear, what has been granted is permission for a runway extension, not a starter strip which would only be usable for take-off on 20 and would not necessarily have to be full runway width.
The, as yet to be approved by CAA, intended declared distances will include a small increase in 02 TORA and LDA.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are quite right although TORA only improves by 20m or so. If 02 is in use for departures, question remains if a 320 could lift off with increased payload to the same extent as 20 after the extension?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slowly but surely...
Few snippets of good news.
- Today is the first day where there will be a flight on a weekend for a number of weeks (Eastern to Belfast City)
- Belfast City increases to 4 weekly services (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
- Loganair return tomorrow with flights to Newcastle initially 4 weekly (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
- Auringy appear to almost exclusively be using the E195 on Guernsey to Southampton flights at the moment, possibly an indication of increasing demand to use the only current mainland airlink to Guernsey.
- Inbound Blue Islands flight tomorrow appears to be fully booked - I expect the above applies to a lesser extent (Jersey also has a couple of BA/easyJet flights at the moment)
- Today is the first day where there will be a flight on a weekend for a number of weeks (Eastern to Belfast City)
- Belfast City increases to 4 weekly services (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
- Loganair return tomorrow with flights to Newcastle initially 4 weekly (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
- Auringy appear to almost exclusively be using the E195 on Guernsey to Southampton flights at the moment, possibly an indication of increasing demand to use the only current mainland airlink to Guernsey.
- Inbound Blue Islands flight tomorrow appears to be fully booked - I expect the above applies to a lesser extent (Jersey also has a couple of BA/easyJet flights at the moment)
SKOJB
Although I am not versed in the science of performance calculations, may I suggest a simplistic comparison with SEN who have a TORA/TODA 1739/1799M for both runways? What do EZY/RYR achieve with that?
On occassions in my distant past we had a number of jet operators requesting a 02 departure, with a tail wind, due to the improved declared distances and obstacle environment - even with the rail shed!
Although I am not versed in the science of performance calculations, may I suggest a simplistic comparison with SEN who have a TORA/TODA 1739/1799M for both runways? What do EZY/RYR achieve with that?
On occassions in my distant past we had a number of jet operators requesting a 02 departure, with a tail wind, due to the improved declared distances and obstacle environment - even with the rail shed!
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS CAN
Thank you for your observations,one thing I'm not clear about is the LDA for 02,given that it's a runway extension,why isn't 164 metre not being added on to the 02 data?
And how will the this effect the ILS minima for 20?
Thank you for your observations,one thing I'm not clear about is the LDA for 02,given that it's a runway extension,why isn't 164 metre not being added on to the 02 data?
And how will the this effect the ILS minima for 20?
The runway must have a strip surrounding it which is generally obstacle free, to cover the eventuality of an aircraft leaving the paved surface. For 02/20 this strip is 140 metres each side of the runway centreline extending for 60 metres before the threshold (ie earliest point of landing) and beyond the end of the declared TORA/LDA. Additionally there needs to be a Runway End Safety Area (RESA) extending outward from the strip ends for a minimum of 90 M as a safety buffer to counter an accident involving an undershoot or overrun. Consequently most of the extension is in fact the 02 strip end and RESA.
Should be no impact on the ILS minima for 20.
Should be no impact on the ILS minima for 20.
adfly
It would be a shame if the airport operator repeats the previous mistake of not extending the taxiway system. to counter the increased 20 backtrack problem that the runway extension will cause, during the time that the plant is on-site during construction.
While a taxiway change,as indicated, will require CAA approval, it may not require planning consent, being possible under Permitted Development Rights. Is there a Town and Country Planning expert who could comment on this?
From memory the Section 106 Agreement related to the original planning consent for BAA's re-development only included future development at the north end of the runway which I believe was due to noise issues for those living in Southampton Road and Campbell Road.This has obviously been satisfied by the recent extension planning consent.
On the subject of the Section 106 Agreement (which is still in place), there is a provision in it covering runway extension whereby the expectation is that an application for an extension should not be made, but if it was it should not exceed a total runway length of 2000 metres. The expectation of no application was subsequently interpretted by a past airport MD as the runway can never be extended, something that he used to frequently quote to all and sundry.
This was the same MD who had the Short Term Car Park built, against the advice of his Ops staff (me included), up to the western apron edge, thereby stopping most future Stand development to accomodate nose-in B737/A320 parking.
How I miss Bl***y Awful Airports Plc!
It would be a shame if the airport operator repeats the previous mistake of not extending the taxiway system. to counter the increased 20 backtrack problem that the runway extension will cause, during the time that the plant is on-site during construction.
While a taxiway change,as indicated, will require CAA approval, it may not require planning consent, being possible under Permitted Development Rights. Is there a Town and Country Planning expert who could comment on this?
From memory the Section 106 Agreement related to the original planning consent for BAA's re-development only included future development at the north end of the runway which I believe was due to noise issues for those living in Southampton Road and Campbell Road.This has obviously been satisfied by the recent extension planning consent.
On the subject of the Section 106 Agreement (which is still in place), there is a provision in it covering runway extension whereby the expectation is that an application for an extension should not be made, but if it was it should not exceed a total runway length of 2000 metres. The expectation of no application was subsequently interpretted by a past airport MD as the runway can never be extended, something that he used to frequently quote to all and sundry.
This was the same MD who had the Short Term Car Park built, against the advice of his Ops staff (me included), up to the western apron edge, thereby stopping most future Stand development to accomodate nose-in B737/A320 parking.
How I miss Bl***y Awful Airports Plc!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bishop's Stortford
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Business travel will not return to previous pre-COVID, pre-Brexit, thriving-Flybe levels, not for many years, if at all. Most pundits consider it will have declined by 50% by the time it reaches post-pandemic stability. This will therefore primarily facilitate more profitable leisure Ops.
The key question is what will the new Landing Distance Available (LDA) be on RWY 02 if currently 1650m and on RWY 20 if currently 1605m? Thereby what passenger load advantages will aircraft be able to land with on a declared WET runway thereafter, over and above what they can land with now?
Are they to still get away with the reduced RESAs despite a runway physical change? Grandfather rights do not exist and in theory a distance change should come with 240m RESAs at either end which would of course shorten the declared runway lengths (they're only 90m today, the absolute minimum permitted).
The key question is what will the new Landing Distance Available (LDA) be on RWY 02 if currently 1650m and on RWY 20 if currently 1605m? Thereby what passenger load advantages will aircraft be able to land with on a declared WET runway thereafter, over and above what they can land with now?
Are they to still get away with the reduced RESAs despite a runway physical change? Grandfather rights do not exist and in theory a distance change should come with 240m RESAs at either end which would of course shorten the declared runway lengths (they're only 90m today, the absolute minimum permitted).
Last edited by Avioactive; 12th Apr 2021 at 15:48.
Please excuse repetition of a sentence from my post #408, comparing SOU with SEN, with a SEN LDA 1604 "What do EZY/RYR achieve with that"?
Again, please refer to my post #274 with respect to new rules that come in on 4 November relating to reporting of a wet runway. It would appear unless the runway is known to be slippery when wet the current automatic penalty for wet runway will no longer apply.
From what I understand grandfather rights still apply to many aspects of runway 02/20.
Again, please refer to my post #274 with respect to new rules that come in on 4 November relating to reporting of a wet runway. It would appear unless the runway is known to be slippery when wet the current automatic penalty for wet runway will no longer apply.
From what I understand grandfather rights still apply to many aspects of runway 02/20.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the revised declared distances and ‘grandfather rights’ in place, the airport now seems capable of conducting a limited schedule of Airbus ops post extension. Will be interesting to see which airline shows their cards first as several sun routes will be taken on fairly quickly I am sure!
Last edited by SKOJB; 12th Apr 2021 at 16:42.
New Type A obstacle charts have been published in the past few days, following AGS buying the main tree problem area south of the runway, Marhill Copse, and apparently carrying out tree work to reduce their impact on 20 departures.
Comparing the new chart with the old the whole exercise would appear to be a complete non event. The highest tree has reduced from 149 to 148 FT with some other trees between Marhill and the runway end having grown in height!
I am missing something?
Comparing the new chart with the old the whole exercise would appear to be a complete non event. The highest tree has reduced from 149 to 148 FT with some other trees between Marhill and the runway end having grown in height!
I am missing something?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you probably know, the airport failed with their recent application to remove the largest trees in the copse ie Monterey Pines, and I believe thinning of the woodland has primarily taken place with very limited felling. Not sure what action the airport is taking but assume an appeal against this decision would be forthcoming!