PPRuNe Forums - Southampton-3

Seems BA has removed Alicante, Limoges, Dublin and Edinburgh from sale. Not surprising as DUB/EDI were positioning flights for weekend flying only and Alicante/Limoges were short summer season of a few weeks

cavokblues

29th Oct 2023 07:29

I've just had a read of the Inspector's decision (available here https://planningpublicaccess.southam...=R2Q3F2OZ0SD00) and the inspector makes it clear on paragraphs 36 and 37 what specific information they require which may allow a successful application in the future.

I guess Southampton airport will make sure they have all of that info next time around?

LTNman

31st Oct 2023 06:15

https://www.eastleighnews.co.uk/2023...t-application/

Quote:

Southampton Airport has applied to Southampton City Council to reduce the height of 23 healthy trees in Marlhill Copse, citing air safety concerns.

Quote:

the airport argues that it has the authority under the Civil Aviation Act to fell or reduce in height any trees “in order to secure the safe and efficient use [of land] for civil aviation purposes”.

So what happens if this application is appoved, will the safety margins improve or more likely will SOU increase the performance figures of the runway so actually there is no change in safety?

Of course if safety was the real concern they could always reduce the runway length available.

Saabdriver1

31st Oct 2023 06:19

It will be an improvement in safety without doubt. The current procedures for an OEI departure off R20 comply with the requirements but rule out a straight-ahead climb on one engine because of these few trees.

SWBKCB

31st Oct 2023 07:33

The inspectors report linked at #2204 is worth a read - the application seems to have been based on efficiency rather than safety. The inspector doesn't seem very impressed with the application and as cavokblues has mentioned has virtually told them what to put in the next application.

Quote:

34. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has also suggested that the trees to be felled are affecting flight operations at Southampton airport. Referring to the UK’s obligations under the Chicago convention, it pointed out that the airport is required to have procedures in place to ensure that the air space surrounding the airport remains safe at all times. The airport appears to have achieved this through weight restrictions placed on aircraft using its runways.

35. Nevertheless, and in this context, the CAA has referred to 95 tree obstacles at Marlhill, which supposedly penetrate the airspace around Southampton airport. It has also pointed out that the mitigation taken to compensate for this is resulting in airline inefficiency, due to them incurring seat penalties etc. It then goes on to refer to the safeguarding protection that the Secretary of State has afforded to Southampton airport, because of its importance both to the national transport system and the local economy

SKOJB

31st Oct 2023 07:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saabdriver1 (Post 11530454)

I always thought a right turn after takeoff from 20 and to follow the river Itchen was to provide noise abatement?

Saabdriver1

31st Oct 2023 08:04

Yes, that is. There's a different procedure for engine failure at take-off which is altogether more onerous.

Asturias56

31st Oct 2023 08:53

One thing is certain - it'll be a massive bonus for lawyers . The locals will drag it through every court in the land, appeals, judicial reviews, more appeals

and it takes years :(

Expressflight

31st Oct 2023 09:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saabdriver1 (Post 11530454)

Is the 15 degree skew to starboard 20 departure climb path still is use?

TCAS FAN

31st Oct 2023 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Expressflight (Post 11530548)

Is the 15 degree skew to starboard 20 departure climb path still is use?

Yes it is, the Type A Chart has not as yet been updated to account for the recent runway extension.

https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats/...I_20-15deg.pdf

LTNman

31st Oct 2023 09:51

So what is the driving force behind this application, safety or profit? If it was safety then the argument would be that SOU has compromised safety by extending the runway, as they have identified safety concerns that were understood before the extension was started. If it was profit then a bit more honesty would be in order. I suspect the performance figures will be increased if the application is approved meaning the increased safety margin will disappear for those aircraft needing a longer runway although smaller aircraft would benefit.

Musket90

31st Oct 2023 19:21

On checking Town and Country Planning on the Government website Southampton is listed as an "Officially Safeguarded Aerodrome", meaning on the basis of its importance to the national air transport system that its operation and development isnot inhibited by buildings, structures, erections or works which infringe protected surfaces.

LTNman

31st Oct 2023 20:08

So the runway extension should not have been built then? Seems a bit drastic.

Buster the Bear

31st Oct 2023 22:34

So what are the new destinations that are bookable post runway extension?

davidjohnson6

31st Oct 2023 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster the Bear (Post 11530913)

So what are the new destinations that are bookable post runway extension?

Do Glasgow and Belfast-Aldergrove count ? (Tries to avoid the awkward silence while everybody else talks about the weather)

SWBKCB

31st Oct 2023 23:53

Glasgow already served by Loganair

LTNman

1st Nov 2023 05:07

Nothing for S24 but there is still plenty of time.

SWBKCB

1st Nov 2023 07:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musket90 (Post 11530838)

On checking Town and Country Planning on the Government website Southampton is listed as an "Officially Safeguarded Aerodrome", meaning on the basis of its importance to the national air transport system that its operation and development is not inhibited by buildings, structures, erections or works which infringe protected surfaces.

Which makes you wonder while the issue is still outstanding

All times are GMT. The time now is 13:03.

Page 111 of 169

111