RESA responsibility
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 57
Likes: 2
From: Hardover
RESA responsibility
Looking for group wisdom here
some self proclaimed experts in my space claiming that Runway End Safety Area be excluded from ATCO’s field of responsibility when confronted with the ICAO doc 4444 and Annex 11, citation below:
some self proclaimed experts in my space claiming that Runway End Safety Area be excluded from ATCO’s field of responsibility when confronted with the ICAO doc 4444 and Annex 11, citation below:
The purpose of air traffic control (ATC) service is to prevent collisions: (1) between aircraft; and (2) on the maneuvering area between aircraft and vehicles, and obstructions, and to expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
From: Earth
RESA is considered to be part of the manoevring area and therefore under ATC control.
Does this answer your question?
Edit: sorry, mixed up clearway, stopway and RESA
Does this answer your question?
Edit: sorry, mixed up clearway, stopway and RESA
Last edited by ramzez; 17th February 2026 at 05:50. Reason: mixed up clearway, stopway and RESA
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 138
From: 50+ north
"That part of an aerodrome to be used for the take-off, landing and taxiing of aircraft, excluding aprons."
RESAs are a contingency measure in the event of an aircraft overruning/undershooting a runway and are therefore not to be routinely used for take-off/landing/taxiing. Therefore they are not to be used in accordance with the definition. They are accordingly under the control of the aerodrome operator, not ATC.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 138
From: 50+ north
The risk management of a RESA is the aerodrome operator's responsibility to ensure that vehicles do not pose a hazard or prejudice the runway declared distances.
I would suggest that the Doc 4444 definition infers that the manoeuvring area is that set aside as suitable for the normal ground movement when taking-off/landing/taxiing. The surface of a RESA does not fall within this. Furthermore the surface of a RESA need not be prepared to the same standard as the manoeuvring area/runway strip and is intended to assist with deceleration in the event of an overrun.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 138
From: 50+ north
You have a Code 3 or Code 4 runway (TORA 1199+) the strip end extends for 60M beyond the end of TORA. That said, if you have an ILS, ATC approval also necessary to enter the localiser sensitive area, between the runway end and the LLZ antenna. This of course necessary to avoid interference with the radiated LLZ signal.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 57
Likes: 2
From: Hardover
ICAO Annex 14/UK CAP 168 only requires that a runway strip end (60 metres for a Code 4 runway) is obstacle free. A RESA extends beyond the strip.
The risk management of a RESA is the aerodrome operator's responsibility to ensure that vehicles do not pose a hazard or prejudice the runway declared distances.
The risk management of a RESA is the aerodrome operator's responsibility to ensure that vehicles do not pose a hazard or prejudice the runway declared distances.
, the operator is responsible for the ground installations and their conformity with safety requirements, f.e. frangibilty,when @42psi enters his “RESA”, it is ATCO’s responsibility to provide a safely flow of traffic, that implies operational oversight of RESA,. This is how I understand it too.
If a potential conflict with the departing traffic shows up, ATCO is authorized to withdraw the T/O clearance, order the A/C to hold position or abort T/O as needed. Would you agree?
Specifically if a known or recognized risk of collision between the departing traffic and ground installations and mobile obstacles in the “beyond runway end” area, but still within aerodrome’s controlled area exists.
ATC “controls” every operation within the airport perimeter (fence), otherwise we wouldnt be calling them Controllers if they were not, would we?
Originally Posted by doc 4444 7.1.1.1
Aerodrome control towers shall issue information and clearances to aircraft under their control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome with the object of preventing collision(s) between:
a) aircraft flying within the designated area of responsibility of the control tower, including the aerodrome traffic circuits;
b) aircraft operating on the manoeuvring area;
c) aircraft landing and taking off;
d) aircraft and vehicles operating on the manoeuvring area;
e) aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area.
a) aircraft flying within the designated area of responsibility of the control tower, including the aerodrome traffic circuits;
b) aircraft operating on the manoeuvring area;
c) aircraft landing and taking off;
d) aircraft and vehicles operating on the manoeuvring area;
e) aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,446
Likes: 367
From: Wildest Surrey
At the other end of the runway is the 'clearway'; a cleared area at the end of the takeoff run (TORA) over which an aircraft can make its initial climb. Clearways are a minimum of 60m in length.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 138
From: 50+ north
you are not wrong on this , the operator is responsible for the ground installations and their conformity with safety requirements, f.e. frangibilty,
when @42psi enters his “RESA”, it is ATCO’s responsibility to provide a safely flow of traffic, that implies operational oversight of RESA,. This is how I understand it too.
If a potential conflict with the departing traffic shows up, ATCO is authorized to withdraw the T/O clearance, order the A/C to hold position or abort T/O as needed. Would you agree?
Specifically if a known or recognized risk of collision between the departing traffic and ground installations and mobile obstacles in the “beyond runway end” area, but still within aerodrome’s controlled area exists.
ATC “controls” every operation within the airport perimeter (fence), otherwise we wouldnt be calling them Controllers if they were not, would we?
ATCO’s operational responsibility for providing safety in this sense extends well beyond the maneuvering area.
, the operator is responsible for the ground installations and their conformity with safety requirements, f.e. frangibilty,when @42psi enters his “RESA”, it is ATCO’s responsibility to provide a safely flow of traffic, that implies operational oversight of RESA,. This is how I understand it too.
If a potential conflict with the departing traffic shows up, ATCO is authorized to withdraw the T/O clearance, order the A/C to hold position or abort T/O as needed. Would you agree?
Specifically if a known or recognized risk of collision between the departing traffic and ground installations and mobile obstacles in the “beyond runway end” area, but still within aerodrome’s controlled area exists.
ATC “controls” every operation within the airport perimeter (fence), otherwise we wouldnt be calling them Controllers if they were not, would we?
ATCO’s operational responsibility for providing safety in this sense extends well beyond the maneuvering area.
As I have indicated in an earlier post, risk management of the RESA is the responsibility of the aerodrome operator, not ATC. Speaking from personal experience as having been a licensed ATCO for 42 years, ATC training does not include management of RESAs or other runway safeguarding measures. If they need to become involved with this it is something that would be managed on a case by case basis at individual aerodromes at the request of the aerodrome operator.
If there is a need for a person and/or vehicle to enter a RESA any risk to safety must be managed by the aerodrome operator. In this scenario if entry into a RESA is required the aerodrome operator is the responsible authority to put in place procedures to mitigate the risk. It is therefore probable that ATC would be requested to manage the risk on behalf of the aerodrome operator, thereby extending their normal area of responsibility. This could then result in a requirement for ATC to issue approvals for RESA entry.
Joined: Dec 2020
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 298
Likes: 237
From: Home
Access to the aerodrome surfaces adjacent to the manoeuvring area is a bit of a grey area, particularly if you limit analysis to SARPs and other rules. As TCAS FAN has described, an aerodrome should determine how things will operate within their remit, and theses working methods disseminated to those involved as is appropriate. Things do differ from one State to another (and, to an extent, from one aerodrome to another) - in one, shall we say, more authoritative State that I have seen, the airport operator managed and authorised every activity you can think of, seemingly treating each request in isolation and without much consideration of other activities, and blindly applying the rules. The airport management position was that if it was authorised, it could happen......and it was nobody else's business. It probably wouldn't surprise you that some things that happened would raise eyebrows, or red flags elsewhere.
If one considers the totality of SARPs and PANS I suspect that it would be possible to put forward a complete and consistent argument for why any particular situation or activity may happen and under whose operational control, but it won't necessarily be easy every time. TCAS FAN has explained that risk to safety related to the RESA (and anything else) should be assessed by the aerodrome operator, this is because there is a SARP that says the aerodrome operator has to have a Safety Management System that covers all of its operations. But there is more to it than that, not least the competence of actors with responsibilities within the SMS.
If one considers the totality of SARPs and PANS I suspect that it would be possible to put forward a complete and consistent argument for why any particular situation or activity may happen and under whose operational control, but it won't necessarily be easy every time. TCAS FAN has explained that risk to safety related to the RESA (and anything else) should be assessed by the aerodrome operator, this is because there is a SARP that says the aerodrome operator has to have a Safety Management System that covers all of its operations. But there is more to it than that, not least the competence of actors with responsibilities within the SMS.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
From: Earth
I beg to differ. Doc 4444 defines Manoeuvring Area as:
"That part of an aerodrome to be used for the take-off, landing and taxiing of aircraft, excluding aprons."
RESAs are a contingency measure in the event of an aircraft overruning/undershooting a runway and are therefore not to be routinely used for take-off/landing/taxiing. Therefore they are not to be used in accordance with the definition. They are accordingly under the control of the aerodrome operator, not ATC.
"That part of an aerodrome to be used for the take-off, landing and taxiing of aircraft, excluding aprons."
RESAs are a contingency measure in the event of an aircraft overruning/undershooting a runway and are therefore not to be routinely used for take-off/landing/taxiing. Therefore they are not to be used in accordance with the definition. They are accordingly under the control of the aerodrome operator, not ATC.
