Exeter Restrictions

[Charlie Fox]

Can someone from Exeter Airport explain the reasons why the following restrictions have been applied to single engine aircraft?
I understand that it is all do do with Public Safety Zones but please explain further.

Taking off on 26, the available distance is 900m. What are they going to do if you use part of the 1000m or more of concrete to the west!!!!!!

AGA : FROM 04/02/10 22:00 TO PERM C0543/04
E)WITH REF TO REDUCED RUNWAY LENGTH FOR SINGLE ENGINE PISTION
AIRCRAFT, IN ORDER TO INTEGRATE SAFETY WITH OTHER AIRCRAFT IN THE
VISUAL CIRCUIT, PILOTS ARE TO FLY CIRCUITS OF A SIZE COMMENSURATE
WITH THE FULL RUNWAY LENGTH.


AGA : FROM 04/02/03 12:35 TO PERM C0407/04
E)OPERATORS OF SINGLE ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT ONLY
1) FOR ARRIVALS TO RWY 08: FOR SINGLE ENGINE PISTON ACFT THE THR OF
RWY 08 IS DISPLACED BY 1173M AND IS NOT MARKED. INTERSECTION OF RWY
08/26 AND DISUSED RWY 13/31 MAY BE USED AS A GUIDE.
RWY 08 DEP ARE NOT AFFECTED.
2) FOR DEP ON RWY 26: FOR SINGLE ENGINE PISTON ACFT THE LENGTH
OF RWY 26 IS 900M FROM THE EXISTING THR. INTERSECTION OF RWY 08/26
AND DISUSED RWY 13/31 MAY BE USED AS A GUIDE. RWY 26 ARRIVALS MAY
USE THE FULL LENGTH.
AD-2-EGTE 1-8, PARA 6 REFERS

AGA : FROM 04/02/03 14:37 TO PERM C0419/04
E)RWY 08 NOT AVBL FOR LANDING OF SINGLE ENGINE
PISTON ACFT AT NIGHT. AIP REF AD 2-EGTE-1-8

RAC : FROM 04/02/03 12:46 TO 04/04/02 23:59 C0408/04
E)INCREASED MINIMA APPLICABLE TO SINGLE ENGINE PISTON ACFT ONLY
AD 2-EGTE-8-2 LLZ/DME/NDB(L) RWY 08 OCA(H) 700(602)
AD 2-EGTE-8-3 SRA RTR 1NM/2NM RWY 08 OCA(H) 700(602)
AD 2-EGTE-8-4 NDB(L)/DME RWY 08 OCA(H) 700(602)
SINGLE ENGINE PISTON ACFT NOT AUTHORISED TO/PROHIBITED FROM FLYING
AD 2-EGTE-8-1 ILS/DME/NDB(L) RWY 08 INSTRUMENT PRECISION APPROACH IN
TOTAL
RESTRICTIONS AND INCREASES DUE TO PUBLIC SAFETY ZONE REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE NEW VISUAL APCH AND LAND PROC IN FORCE FOR SINGLE ENGINE
PISTON ACFT ONLY

[83 3708]

I am not from Exeter but the problem potentially exists at a number of airports designated by the DfT as needing a Public Safety Zone. Exeter is perhaps one of the first victims of this utter nonsense.

As the name PSZ suggests the DfT consider there is danger to persons living on the surface by overflying aircraft, particularly at the landing and take off phase. Also, research suggests that the greatest risk is from single engine light aircraft rather than twins, corporate jets or airline types.

Accordingly 'Zones' of risk, placed at the end of the runway, whose dimensions are dependant on the size and frequency of aircraft using some airports have been imposed by the DfT. This can result in airports having to compulsorarily purchasing any houses within these zones and turfing out their inhabitants often at vast expense.

One way around the problem is to move the landing threshold and/or the end of take off run available and by doing so move the 'zone' off of housing and onto the airport or open ground. This is only necessary for the supposedly 'high risk' single engine aircraft.

This only applies to DfT nominated aerodromes, of which I think there are around 20, and has a far greater effect on those with high density single engine operations.

Utter b***ocks

Regards

[360BakTrak]

83 3708 Do you have any idea which other airfields are affected by this bizarre restriction?:confused:

[83 3708]

The subject has been bouncing around for a number of years. Consultation has supposedly been taking place in true government style.

I cannot get my link to stick here, but try going to the DfT website at www.dft.gov.uk and typing Public safety zone: a consultation document into their search engine.


Err! just edited to say my search suggestion didn't work. Sorry type PSZ in their search engine and have a browse around...


Oops! edited for a second time try this

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_503312.hcsp

regards

[360BakTrak]

Thanks for that!:ok:

[ABO944]

I expect this will delay getting airborne off RWY26 when its busy (dont laugh).

A backtrack from D on the southside would slow things up. I have had to wait for 10/15 minutes at D sometimes, before this restriction came in, so I wonder what its like now! Haven't flown from EGTE for a while.

[Polarbear77]

Probably due to the small village of Clyst Honiton at the very end of the DER of rwy 26 at Exeter. When taking of from 26, safety margins *are* indeed small if an enging failure should occur when overflying the village in a single-engined a/c.

[bcfc]

I have heard that Exeter had the option to keep the full length of 26/08 available to SEP if they went through some purchase scheme of the house(s) close to the 08 threshold. They didn't want the expense, so now SEP have this bizarre set of restrictions that are particularly onerous on a murky day with an easterly wind.

...and yes, its bl**dy slow when everyone is backtracking on 26. :mad:

[Charlie Fox]

See thread in ATC forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1243777#post1243777)

[bluskis]

www.dft.gov.uk seems a very appropriate address.

[foghorn]

Absolutely ridiculous. How many light aircraft have crashed into buildings in after take off / on finals in the UK recently? The last two that I can remember were both twins (Blackbushe and Shoreham)!

Plus the chance of them actually hitting anyone is tiny. Light aircraft generally aren't that big or fast, nor do they carry a lot of fuel, particularly not singles.

There is more than enough scope in law currently for people to be compensated for loss in the highly unlikely event of a light aircraft crashing on their house. Especially given that we're all going to be carrying more than enough third party cover thanks to the EU's minimum insurance proposals. Should trucking companies be forced to compulsarily purchase houses that are on exposed bends on routes over which their trucks pass? Because it's not a dissimilar level of risk. This is yet another stupid rule of the nanny state trying to wrap people up in completely unncessary cotton wool at others' expense. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[PhilD]

Well said, foghorn. The nanny state is taking over, with more and more restrictions like this that are nothing to do with any rational risk judgement, but just a set of inept politicians desparate to be seen to be 'doing something' so that they can justify their existence.

[robin]

Agreed, but do be aware that the airport rules and regs are under the control of the operators

If they decide SEP is too difficult, as a lot of "International" airports do, they are perfectly within their rights to ban GA or to impose onerous restrictions which have the same effect.

Just because we as pilots feel the restriction is 'eccentric', at least GA is still able to use the facility - for the moment, at least

That said, I hope some common sense comes into play here

[Saab Dastard]

It seems to me that EFATO is the most dangerous situation for any aircraft, particularly a single. For this reason, maximizing the TODA for singles must be the objective, so that in the event of engine failure, there is the maximum amount of airport ahead (either to brake or land back on), or the greatest possibility of reaching a safer altitude (for alighting clear) before crossing the airport boundary. This seems to be what Exeter have in mind - no D1 departures. Perhaps (if possible) re-instating the northeastern taxiway or building a SE taxiway would eliminate the holding and backtracking problems - certainly cheaper than buying properties in the PSZ.

On approach, should the emphasis not be on flying circuits commensurate with being able to glide in if the donk quits (far less likely anyway than at T/O) rather than on fecking around with perfectly serviceable tarmac and noise abatement procedures (aka safety abatement procedures).

White Waltham is one place where I know there are a lot of houses below the final approach to one of the runways (I can't remember which - FFF?). Does this mean that WW needs a PSZ, as there are a large number of single-engined aircraft movements? I'm sure there are several other GA fields that are in a similar position.

SD

[robin]

Sorry - no it's not

The issue is 08 arrivals, not 26 departures. Most SEPs can get off easily, even in the shortened runway, and clear to right or left before the end of the runway, so don't enter the PSZ on departure.

08 arrivals are overhead 3 houses in the PSZ. And to ask SEPs to fly a normal circuit but touchdown 1k down the runway without markings/boards or approach aids seems a bit 'eccentric'

[Saab Dastard]

Robin,

I think we are violently agreeing.

I think the 08 arrival procedure is pure pants - though I may not have expressed that very well - and I was trying to find something charitable about why they have bothered to put in the 26 Dep. restriction.

SD

[robin]

Saab Dastard

violent - moi??

[foghorn]

robin,

AFAIK Phil and I are railing against the dft's stupid regulations rather than Exeter's restrictions - as you say the airport authorities could have responded to the Government regulations by banning singles altogether (although for an airport the size of Exeter the loss of income could be an issue).

[robin]

Although I am not based there, my understanding is that the DFT guidelines are not mandatory, but advisory

It is therefore the airport's interpretation of the guidance that has caused the issue

[bcfc]

robin

I agree its Exeters interpretation of the rules, an interpretation no one else seems to have made [yet], that is the concern. How long before they start to take Southamptons attitude to GA?

[FlyingForFun]

Saab is quite right - there are houses just off the approach end to runway 25 (and 21, too, to a lesser extent) at White Waltham. The departures for both 03 and 07 include an immediate turn - in the case of 07, it's quite a big turn which still doesn't take you clear of the houses, just through a gap where there aren't quite so many. Runway 07 is only used if the wind is too strong for 03 or 11 to be an option because of this. I don't know how this fits in with the whole idea of a safety zone? I don't want to ask too many questions about it, though..... ;)

Out of interest, how many aircraft are affected by this restriction at Exeter? How many single-engine aircraft need more runway than what is left at Exeter? I'd expect not very many - most aircraft that need longer runways will, I would have thought, have more than one engine? I'm sure there are a small number of types affected, though - I just don't know how many.

I don't agree with you, Saab, about maximising the TODA w.r.t EFATO, though. If I have an engine failure after take off I will land in the safest place I can see. If that happens to be a bit of runway which, ordinarily, would be out of bounds, then that's where I'm going to land - it's certainly no more illegal than landing off the end of the runway in a farmer's field, and much safer. The only time the restriction would be an isue is during flight planning. I have to plan to be off the runway, with a safety margin, before the end of the TODA, but that's all.

FFF
---------------

[Charlie Fox]

Mr David Ogilvy
President
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
British Light Aviation Centre
50a Cambridge Street
London
SW1V 4QQ

2nd March 2004

Dear Mr Ogilvy

Thank you for your letter of 9th February 2004.

In July 2002 the Department for Transport issued a revised planning circular relating to control of development in airport public safety zones. At the same time public safety zones (PSZ) were introduced for some airports that had not previously had them. Exeter was one of these airports.

The PSV's were made up of two zones - one where no further development should take place and the other where any existing development would need to be removed. This latter zone would have meant Exeter International Airport acquiring and demolishing several properties in the village of Honiton Clyst at considerable cost which would inevitably have had to be passed on to the single engine aircraft users who were the reason for the extent of the 1-10,000 zone.

National Air Traffic Services were engaged to identify the high risk aircraft and to re-run the model several times using different scenarios.

These runs indicated two possible scenarios that would reduce the 1-10,000 risk contour to a size that would not include properties in Honiton Clyst. These were:

1) The airport no longer allowing light aircraft circuit training

2) The runway length available to single engine piston aircraft be reduced to 900 metres.

These two scenarious were taken to the airport User Group and the group was of the opinion that the reduction in runway length was by far the preferred option. On the basis of this consultation Exeter International Airport submitted a formal request for the recalculation of the PSZ's. Revised guidance was issued on 23rd January 2004 by the Department for Transport with the reduced distances being introduced on the 3rd February 2004.

Due to the significant level of consultation that took place between ourselves, the CAA and representatives of our users and flying clubs I am amazed that this issue should now be raised by your organisation.

I hope this provides you with the information you require.

Yours sincerely





MIKE FOSTER
SAFETY DIRECTOR

[robin]

Now there's a surprise

>>>This latter zone would have meant Exeter International Airport acquiring and demolishing several properties in the village of Honiton Clyst at considerable cost which would inevitably have had to be passed on to the single engine aircraft users who were the reason for the extent of the 1-10,000 zone<<<<

Surely the cost should be passed on to all users, as the risk involves any aircraft, but it does show Exeter's attitude to GA.

>>>>These two scenarious were taken to the airport User Group and the group was of the opinion that the reduction in runway length was by far the preferred option<<<

.... of the two given options, agreed. However, was consideration ever given to other options??