Disused RET at LGW?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bedfordshire
Age: 43
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disused RET at LGW?
Quick question, when operating 26L at LGW, is there not an exit that is marked with crosses and not for use?
If so, what are the implications if someone were to use it by mistake (... as seemed evident today, when an arriving a/c didn't seem familiar with the layout and used it?)
Of course, i may have been seeing things, perhaps snowblindness setting in...
If so, what are the implications if someone were to use it by mistake (... as seemed evident today, when an arriving a/c didn't seem familiar with the layout and used it?)
Of course, i may have been seeing things, perhaps snowblindness setting in...
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Comment
No, your eyes are not deceiving you. Taxiway F is closed and has been replaced by FR.
FR is a preferred exit and allows, under normal circumstances, continuous movement across 26R and onto the northern taxiway.
FR is a preferred exit and allows, under normal circumstances, continuous movement across 26R and onto the northern taxiway.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The disused ‘F’ ret.
Its been out of use for about 4 years since the BAA very kindly built a proper RET with a much faster exit speed and run off area next to it - ‘FR’.
‘F’ is still load bearing and is inspected regularly, but ATC have to get the aircraft inspected by Airfield Ops (Checker) for any signs of fod damage, and fill out the required MOR. The problems start if the vacating aircraft thinks it’s on FR and comes off at high speed without the expected run off area and a much tighter turn to negotiate. Hopefully, the paint markings, signage, RETILS and lack of any lead off lights or centreline can prevent that.
Its been out of use for about 4 years since the BAA very kindly built a proper RET with a much faster exit speed and run off area next to it - ‘FR’.
‘F’ is still load bearing and is inspected regularly, but ATC have to get the aircraft inspected by Airfield Ops (Checker) for any signs of fod damage, and fill out the required MOR. The problems start if the vacating aircraft thinks it’s on FR and comes off at high speed without the expected run off area and a much tighter turn to negotiate. Hopefully, the paint markings, signage, RETILS and lack of any lead off lights or centreline can prevent that.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
what are the implications if someone were to use it by mistake (... as seemed evident today, when an arriving a/c didn't seem familiar with the layout and used it?)
You're absolutely right about it being replaced by the more user-friendly Foxtrot Romeo, which is designed for a full 60kt vacating of the runway and an easy turn onto Juliet.
Now, when we built the 'new, improved' turnoff we had a dilemma as to what to do with the old one. We could have dug up the surface and turfed it over - expensive and difficult to do the work effectively. OR simply take it out of use.
Unfortunately, when the new RET was first opened, a few people did take the old one by mistake. We've put in red lights at the entrance to the old one and enhanced blue lighting to encourage pilots to use the new one. We've masked off the old turnoff line and emphasised the new.
Funnily enough, it wasn't strangers who tried to use the old route, but base pilots; familiarity breeds contempt, despite our publicity campaigns.
So what happens if you go up the old RET by mistake? Well, a little embarassment, I guess, for you and a bit of irritation from the Controller who has now to try and get you onto a taxiway centreline. Some more paperwork for me (thanks!) But to the aircraft? Not a lot. We're spending money maintaining this 'dead' section as if it was active taxiway so that if it does get used by accident, then at least the a/c won't get damaged by ingesting loose material or damage to tyres.
We were interviewing crews to find out what had led them up the wrong path and the results of these had been fed into the changes programme, in the spirit of a no-blame culture. I must say that after all the enhancements we'd made, we haven't had an occurrence for ages.
If any of you feel that there is still the potential for further improvements, with examples of 'near misses' etc, then we'd be pleased to hear from you.
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Oops sorry LRTS, didn\'t see your post when I was composing mine!
TOO
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OddOne
Since you asked (and although it relates to your neighbour up the road, I think it raises an interesting point) - holding points NB2W/E seem to have been removed at the LL 27L holding point. They are still shown on the chart, there was no mention of them going (that I could find) in our briefing material and with the sun low in the sky and the surface slightly damp, the blacked out markings reflected as well as if they were still extant. Couple this with the "environmental capture" of taxying to the same place we always taxi to, and we very nearly crossed N2E a couple of weeks ago in order to wait where we usually do (HIRO and all that!).
This raises some interesting questions, 1. If we had crossed N2E, would that have been a runway incursion and 2. Do NB2W/E still exist and was I just confused by the low sun/damp surface/failure of my coffee to have fully kicked in?
G W-H
Since you asked (and although it relates to your neighbour up the road, I think it raises an interesting point) - holding points NB2W/E seem to have been removed at the LL 27L holding point. They are still shown on the chart, there was no mention of them going (that I could find) in our briefing material and with the sun low in the sky and the surface slightly damp, the blacked out markings reflected as well as if they were still extant. Couple this with the "environmental capture" of taxying to the same place we always taxi to, and we very nearly crossed N2E a couple of weeks ago in order to wait where we usually do (HIRO and all that!).
This raises some interesting questions, 1. If we had crossed N2E, would that have been a runway incursion and 2. Do NB2W/E still exist and was I just confused by the low sun/damp surface/failure of my coffee to have fully kicked in?
G W-H
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi GWH,
NB2E and NB2W are no more. It was decided (by whom I'm not sure) that N2E and N2W provided much better wingtip separation than NB2E and W when departing 27L. Not sure if your charts make it obvious, but the NB2 bar (both E and W) was parallel to the runway (and thus a/c holding at both NB2W and NB2E are pointing slightly towards each other), whereas N2 bar (both E and W) is purpendicular to the holding area, and so a/c holding at both N2E and N2W are side by side and parallel.
In answer to your other question, I guess technically it would be a runway incursion, but one could also argue in practical terms the runway still had Cat I protection.
NB2E and NB2W are no more. It was decided (by whom I'm not sure) that N2E and N2W provided much better wingtip separation than NB2E and W when departing 27L. Not sure if your charts make it obvious, but the NB2 bar (both E and W) was parallel to the runway (and thus a/c holding at both NB2W and NB2E are pointing slightly towards each other), whereas N2 bar (both E and W) is purpendicular to the holding area, and so a/c holding at both N2E and N2W are side by side and parallel.
In answer to your other question, I guess technically it would be a runway incursion, but one could also argue in practical terms the runway still had Cat I protection.
