The TORA and ASDA length for both 02 and 20 are the same so a stopway is not declared for either direction. The most likely reason for 02 slight increase in TORA is runway end safety area (RESA) length overrun being adjusted slightly where the new pavement is being constructed. The runway 20 overrun RESA is unchanged. The reduction in TODA by 16m for runway 02 may be due to adjustments being made to the location of a couple of runway 20 elevated approach lights which will be slightly nearer to the runway 02 end resulting in the first obstacle being slightly closer.

Forgive me, but if this is the only benefit to the extension, what on earth is the point??? It just seems like RW20 TORA benefits slightly but this is not the main departure runway given prevailing wind conditions.

Much as I'd like to see it, can you explain the revised 20 declared distances as runway 02/20 is both by ICAO Annex 14 and CAP 168 criteria a Code 3 runway, due to its width being less than 45 metres. This accordingly limits declared distances to less than 1800 metres. This is the case with SEN who have a total paved surface of 1856 x 36 metres and accordingly have to limit their maximum declared distances to 1799 metres.

I have taken this info from the airports Obstacle Surface Limitation Report on the planning portal. Whether its correct I have no idea!

Think you will find up to 70% of departures are from RW20!

Have looked at the subject Report. The airport consultants that wrote it recognise it as a Code 3 runway, then promptly go off and provide new declared distances that go outside the "less than 1800 metres" maximum for a Code 3 runway.

One thing that concerns me is the apparant lack of expertise of airport management who appear to have not picked up the error before the Report was submitted with the Planning Application.

TCAS FAN: Was this considered an obstacle during your time at SOU? It appears to be of similar distance as Marlhill Copse from the runway, just not immediately under it. The flights north do bank over the tower though and it is of course taller than the trees.

TCAS FAN

I looked into that anomaly when SEN was planning its runway extension. If the SEN TODA had been in excess of 1799m at that time it could have probably added to it by virtue of the pavement extension, but as it was less than 1799m the Code 3 TODA rule under CAP 168 applied. I can only assume that some form of Grandfather Rights are recognised by the CAA with respect to SOU.

Southampton-3
 

According to CAA web site Southampton has an EASA Certificate which states the runway is presently Code 4C. This presumably because the existing TODA for 02 and 20 exceeds 1799m. Maybe there is an exemption for the runway width being less than 45m and CAA has accepted it.

In August 2003, I took a flight on the short-lived Flybe route Bergamo - Southampton (on Q400 G-JEDJ), connecting at SOU to flight BE998 to BHD (on Q200 G-JEDX). I have, as you can see, the regs of those flights in my log, but I am missing the flight number for the BGY-SOU flight. As I have neither a SOU nor a BE timetable from 2003 in my collection and Google has been useless, is anyone able to help out?

If the benefit of a 10% increase in take off distance for 70% of flights only benefits incumbent equipment like ERJ-145's etc etc, then why doesn't SOU management focus on this which is a lot less controversial and more likely to get approved?! :ugh:

Musket90

There is a perfectly functioning Southampton-2 thread which declared distances are the current hot topic. Why start a new thread? If you want to add something come over and join us on Southampton-2!

Sharklet_321

Because the extension will enable the airport to attract Airbus family aircraft and hopefully a LCC. Approval is the only realistic future and one I believe they will win!

Looks like the moderators have been doing some housekeeping and creating new threads for some of the long running one's - thread starter gets allocated to the first post at the cut over point (well that's what happened to me on the new Newcastle thread!)

Maybe that is the reason but it seems a pretty significant CAA "exemption" as CAP 168 states that the minimum runway width for a Code 4 runway should be 45m while that at SOU is only 37m. It would be interesting to see the rational that SOU put forward to be granted that exemption.

Usually the CAA would need to see a robust Safety Case that proves a net increase in overall runway safety levels before granting approval for any plans that require a derogation of 'grandfather rights' to be continued. Maintaining that the runway is a proper Code 4c runway -for the sake of a few metres TODA length - is hardly a net increase in safety, when the runway width is so out of kilter with the requirement.
I would imagine it will have to revert to a Code 3c to gain CAA approval.

I'm guessing you are referring to the same Airbus family LCC that have recently been undertaking many sale and lease backs on a number of their aircraft, downsizing bases across Europe and closing a UK base completely. I don't believe the above knight in shining armour is likely to come to SOU's rescue anytime soon, extension or not, SOU should be focusing on the likes of keeping Eastern, Logan and poss a Flybe2 interested.