Beware of Re Bar on Alderney approach

[gim]

If you are landing at Alderney, try to land on the runway (unlike picture one, don't worry they where all fine). But if you are going to land short of the runway try your very hardest not to land on the approach lights as even though they are exquisitely made in very light weight materials, some complete idiot has reinforced the surrounding fence with 30kg wrist sized re bar at pilot leg height ...Doh! (as Homer Simpson would say).

http://www.calshotcats.co.uk//Alderney%20Plane%20Crash.jpg

http://www.calshotcats.co.uk//Re%20Bar.jpg

http://www.calshotcats.co.uk//Re%20Bar%201.jpg

[englishal]

Those metal bars are horrific?! Designed specifically to kill anyone who lands short by the looks of it!

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

I doubt if they meet the criteria for a Licensed airfield's runway 'clearway'.......:=

Bleedin dangerous I reckon if you slid off the end in any type and hit those....

[bingoboy]

They could be to save them from terrorist types.

[Fly-by-Wife]

How far short of the threshold is this set of lights? Is it possible that it lies outside of the designated clearway?

Is it the same at both ends of that runway?

FBW

[goatface]

It would be interesting to know if the Airport Authority know they've been put there.
That may sound almost unbeliveable, but over the years I've seen many similar things installed on airfields by the maintenance personnel which go against every rule in the book, often they're not discovered, especially if they're in a remote field location outwith the airport itself, until someone from another department sees them or the CAA Aerodrome Inspector pays a visit.

These lights are, as with many airfields, clearly in a field which would only normally be visited by those who maintain it and the farmer.

Perhaps those who run Alderney should be told?

[gim]

I'm told that as Alderney is not fully under 'British Rule' and that they only have to use 'CAA Guidelines', yes they have been told, are they going to do anything? .... I very much doubt it.

[AEST]

I'm told that as Alderney is not fully under 'British Rule'

Lucky bastards :ok:

[BillieBob]

How far short of the threshold is this set of lights?300 metres Is it the same at both ends of that runway?Yes

[mad_jock]

Yep same as Guernsey and Jersey. They say the will try and conform to industry best practise but if it costs to much or they can't be bothered they won't.

They are not part of Europe either so any EASA rules you find they will be ignore as well.

If you really want a laugh go and find the Guernsey ANO and have a read of it. If you can find it. There are several major differences to IACO. Try and find them published and you will struggle. There is no differences filed either.

[Fly-by-Wife]

How far short of the threshold is this set of lights?

300 metres

Is this just a lot of hot air about a non-problem?

If anyone lands 300m short of an 880m runway, or overruns the same runway on landing or indeed departs the end on a rejected take-off by 300m surely you would have to ask serious questions of the pilot(s)?

FBW

[wsmempson]

What happened to the concept of "controlled frangability" which is meant to be designed into airports?:eek:

[austerwobbler]

"probably put there to protect the light's from damage from farmer Old Macdonald's plough" :E

Austerwobbler

[WorkingHard]

Surely the answer is if you think it is dangerous then dont go. I am sure they will make no changes and now we all know the hazard is there we can cater for it!

[Johnm]

You have to think of flying into small islands as like strip flying not major airport flying. A more interesting hazard can be studied at Animals disrupt flying in Alderney Alderney News This Is Guernsey (http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/03/12/animals-disrupt-flying-in-alderney/)

The Channel Islands are British Territory but self governing within a framework that goes back to William the Conqueror. Their airspace is in fact the Brest FIR but the French cede control to Jersey during the day.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

So Fly by Wife,

when you take off and think it's all going well, but the engine stops, and you smash through the far set of lights in the ensuing forced landing, and the said 'rebar' penetrates your cockpit space and goes straight through you (i've seen it happen with cars..), will you be so smug then?:D

It's a genuine concern, and one which the Alderney powers that be should address if the lights are on airport property, just in case there is an accident and this thread is produced in court! Duty of care and all that.......:E

[Fly-by-Wife]

Chuffer,

Even without an engine one can still steer the aircraft, and I'm sure that any competent pilot with an EFATO would a) want to avoid the wooden fence and b) be able to do so, irrespective of the presence of rebar. The obstruction isn't that wide, after all - just a few degrees of turn to avoid it.

FBW

[Final 3 Greens]

What happened to the concept of "controlled frangability" which is meant to be designed into airports?

In this case, the aircraft provides the frangible components:}

[mad_jock]

Thats if they even see the fence until its to late. It you might have a point with a single but the muti engine machines if an engine goes bang they are not quite so controllable in direction. Remember they are not pref A machines so are not garanteed to climb after failure and may limp a few hundred feet before hitting the deck.

To be honest I doudt very much if the airport even knew the re-bar was being used in the fencing.

The farmer will have had a requirement to shaw up the fence because its boggy as hell around the lights. Fencing posts etc will be expensive cause they will have to be shipped in. The re-bar will proberly be spare from some other project. Once its been sitting for a while you can't use it for its intended purpose because there won't be any paperwork for it. Farmer would have been dead chuffed he found a use for it and his fence is srurdy as anything.

[englishal]

Even without an engine one can still steer the aircraft, and I'm sure that any competent pilot with an EFATO would a) want to avoid the wooden fence and b) be able to do so, irrespective of the presence of rebar. The obstruction isn't that wide, after all - just a few degrees of turn to avoid it.
If you are low and your engine quits, you don't have time to start fannying around like that....especially with wind, turbulence, etc.... A pilot who pulls off a straight ahead landing would be "competent" in my book, and it would be a shame for them all to be killed by metal stakes, when they probably would have survived otherwise.

Besides a wooden fence would be a good way to arrest speed.....well unless it has sodding great metal bars in it. If they turned the bars 90 degrees things would be better...

[sammypilot]

The airport authorities probably have a responsibility to make sure that the supports etc for the lights are frangible. Whilst I know it was the American legal system that ruled it (and therefore a mystery to many of us) after the American Airlines crash at Little Rock on the 1st June 1999, the grand jury decided that the deaths of the passengers were down to the stuctures supporting the approach lights and not the fouled up landing of the crew.

[BackPacker]

I don't get it. How many airfields have big wooden things (aka "trees", as in "woods"), big iron things (aka "pylons" as in "power lines"), big steel things (aka "cars"), big brick/concrete things (aka "buildings" as in "towns"), big water things (aka "lakes" and "rivers"), or big earth things or gaps (aka "ditches" or "dykes") 300 meters from their threshold? All of which can kill you just as easily as these steel rods.

Now if these steel rods were located in the guaranteed clearway that surrounds the runway, there would be an issue here. But 300 meters?

[austerwobbler]

" know by expirence that PAPPIS light's are flangable because i flatend a set whilst taxiing into low sun" :ugh:

"No damage to plane but PAPPI worse for wear"
i learnend from that ! :E

Austerwobbler

[derekf]

I've forwarded a link to this thread to the Director of Civil Aviation for Guernsey in case he was not aware of what's happened in Alderney.

[Ryan5252]

I don't get it. How many airfields have big wooden things (aka "trees", as in "woods"), big iron things (aka "pylons" as in "power lines"), big steel things (aka "cars"), big brick/concrete things (aka "buildings" as in "towns"), big water things (aka "lakes" and "rivers"), or big earth things or gaps (aka "ditches" or "dykes") 300 meters from their threshold? All of which can kill you just as easily as these steel rods.

Now if these steel rods were located in the guaranteed clearway that surrounds the runway, there would be an issue here. But 300 meters?Agreed, but I don't see the point of adding additional hazards.

In the event of an EFATO (for example) if one was to hit a pylon or a building etc. it would, at minimum, be described as an unfortunate accident. However, there were would most likely be some scrutiny as to the location of said hazard in the ensuing investigation, especially if the location of the hazard, prevailing winds etc. resulted in a distressed aircraft impact and a loss of life to follow. Therefore I would consider it entirely reckless on the part of whoever erected this mess, the landowner whose property it lies on, the airport authority as well as the authority whose jurisdiction the airport falls within.

As a pilot, private or otherwise, I expect that an airfield which is licensed for operations and is charging me for the use of their facilities to make sure that the conduct of my flight is safe.(I am aware the responsibility for the safe conduct of my flight ultimately lies with me alone, I do not believe this absolves the authority for taking all reasonable action to ensure ALL operations are conducted safely, and consideration should be given to emergency situations also)

[BackPacker]

Ryan, if you don't like 300 meters, how would you then define the influence sphere of an airport? Can you reasonably expect that all fences in a circle 1000 meters surrounding the airport, or 2000 meter underneath the approach path, or even worse, are scrutinized by the airport H&S folks? Just for the very unlikely eventuality that an aircraft ends up there in an emergency?

As far as I'm concerned the aviation authorities, whoever that may be, need to be informed about things along the lines of:
- Any structure extending above 300' AGL
- Any structure that extends into an ILS/approach area
- Any structure within the clearway that surrounds the runways and taxiways
And of course if any of these structures cause a safety concern, they should have a say about their construction, frangibility, ICAO markings/lighting and so forth.

But outside of those areas, as far as I'm concerned, there are no guarantees to any aircraft about clearances, frangibility, markings or whatever. If your aircraft ends up there, you might hit anything. Whether that's a fence post, something made out of concrete or metal or anything else. And yes, a lot of the things that can be found there can kill you if you hit it at speed. We can't make the whole world frangible.

And of course this works both ways. The bigger the sphere of influence of an airport about fencing construction and such, the more people the airport needs to employ to advise about, and regulate these kinds of building activities. Do we really want to pay for that? 'Cause the farmer sure doesn't.

(And given the size and population of the Channel Islands, how big is the Aviation Authority over there really?)

[BillieBob]

As a pilot, private or otherwise, I expect that an airfield which is licensed for operations and is charging me for the use of their facilities to make sure that the conduct of my flight is safe.And just how far outside the airfield boundary/safeguarded area would you expect this responsibility to extend? It's a while since I've been to Alderney but i seem to recollect that both crossbars are well outside the airfield boundary and in both cases, I think, separated from it by a public road.

[englishal]

Well these bars are located on the Approach light system, an area frequently transited over by aeroplanes at low altitude;) so they could minimise risk by using different supports or turning them 90 deg so that if the unfortunate happened it didn't end up staking the occupants...which these look very likely to do.

[Johnm]

Alderney airport manager now in the loop

[mad_jock]

That much aligned ferris metal might also have an effect on the landing aids.

[Johnm]

That much aligned ferris metal might also have an effect on the landing aids.

You jest, there's an NDB about half a mile from the threshold of 26 and that's it, apart from vectors from Guernsey/Jersey

[mad_jock]

Aye true enough half a ton of metal is not going to make the slightest bit of difference when you take all the other factors into account.

I always wondered what would happen on bad wx days if someone turned it off on the sly. My sneaky suspision would be that everything would continue to land as usual. Put a GPS jammer on the rock and all hell would let loose.

[englishal]

Mind you, unlike some airfields, Alderney is pretty hard to miss ;)...

[derekf]

The Guernsey (including Alderney) / Jersey Director of Civil Aviation (DCA) is investigating with the airport authorities.

It's also worth pointing out that in both Guernsey (including Alderney) and Jersey that the DCA apply local aviation laws to ensure full compliance with ICAO standards as detailed through UK CAP 168 for aerodromes.