EXT ATC 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

[kishna]

....charge you by the inch my old son!

k

ps got yourself a tea room yet?

[BEXIL160]

These restrictions have nothing to do with ATC, and only serve to make things more difficult for the team at EGTE.

As I understand it some Desk bound Jobsworth has done some sort of Safety Survey / Risk Assessment for the approaches at the Airport. Apparently there is a building in the undershoot for RWY 08, which theorectically could be hit by a single engine aeroplane with power failure once in a blue moon (on a Thursday, when there's a letter R in the month). Hence the need for a VERY displaced threshold....

As for departures off RWY26... :confused:

Following the same logic most airfields in the UK would be unusable by single engined aeroplanes. Indeed just "down the road" at Plymouth, the airport is completely surrounded by housing

Rgds BEX

[Charlie Fox]

Don't mean to have a go at ATC. Seems a shame that common sense has gone out of the window!!!

Perhaps SATCO could take the matter up with management on our behalf.

See thread in Private Flying Forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124165)

[robin]

Can understand the reasons for it (just), but if the idea is to protect the housing on 08, why is it recommended to keep the full circuit pattern.

All that it means is you still cross the houses as before but at a higher level. Also means you hit them harder as gravity works it's magic.

Would speed things up though if there was a southside loop to the east end of 26, but I suppose if they are unwilling to spend to buy up the house, they aren't exactly going to want to spend on a new taxiway

[055166k]

Gosh.....this raises more Questions than it answers. What about single-engine turbo-props/jets.....what about a twinjet with an engine out, or a twin doing single-engine training. I submit that a single-engine piston a/c is the safest among all these as regards flight safety in the case you quote. I presume the instrument approach minima have been amended to the highest in Europe by the same process. Strong reservations about lack of appropriate markings.......does this comply with aerdrome licence regs? Now let me see........is that a PA46 with a piston engine or a turbo-prop? "xxx 01.....confirm you have a turbine engine....no a turbo-charger is not acceptable, can you accept an ILS with a 15 knot tailwind? No? How about an ILS followed by visual circling to R/W 08 to land on the bit at the end!!!!! Great post, haven't laughed so much for ages. Seriously though, what about a curved or offset approach as used at umpteen airfields I can think of?

[Spudmonkey]

Bl!!dy Ridiculous!!!!
What if this kind of rubbish was applied to Everywhere?

Good bye Dunkeswell, Southend, Bournemouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Rochester or anywhere else where an aircraft could cause harm to roads or buildings IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM!!!!

I'm sure most of the professional ATCO and pilots who read this are thinking 'Where next when some dork with no idea of the real world makes the decision?'

I'm sure the residents of said village (assuming Clyst Honiton) are more likely to encounter problems with accidents on the A30 ending up in their back gardens than jolly jonny in his C152 running off the end of a 2000m+ runway.

Well people, the ball is rolling where is going to be next?

[055166k]

Managed not to oversleep this morning, a bit early into work so looked up Exeter in Iron-Brain. If this "house" affects the R/W08 approach, and assuming it doesn't rise up and down like that building in my favourite TV puppet series "Stingray", then it also affects the R/W26 declared distances. I see that the TORA is 2073 metres and the TODA is 2653 metres........ask your over-zealous pen pusher how much that will have to change.....or perhaps we haven't been told the whole story.....does a local councillor dislike aeroplanes or something? Suggest you cancel some of the high revenue commercial traffic on safety grounds.

[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

[BEXIL160]

The Document refered to is available on the DFT web site and is labeled GUIDANCE . Nowhere in the documents are the words "Shall or Must" evident.

Indeed this Guidance Document is very woolly, with statements like " The secretary of state wishes to see...." Oh, does he? Well there are a few things that I'd like to see the secretary of state do himself actually. Chances? errr about zero.

I'm wondering why Exeter Airport excepted this at face value. Did they challenge it's "guidance" at all? Particularly on Historical grounds, a bit like "grandfather rights".

There's also a bit about "Transport infrastructure" (thats roads and railways to you and me) being considered as if they were residential properties within the PSZ. Meaning that if you've got a dual carriageway runnning through the final approach , SEPS are stuffed. Poor old Southampton then. Railway at one end, and M27 at the other.

If these PSZs really MUST be implemented for all larger airports, then it would be the end for SEP aeroplanes.

:( BEX