Thump and Go, Maroochydore
nevile nobody
The "standard" is not 45m. It can be less. The aircraft size determines the width of runway required for landing. In particular outer main gear wheel span. See MOS Part 139. and ICAO Annex 14 and NPRM 1426AS
The "standard" is not 45m. It can be less. The aircraft size determines the width of runway required for landing. In particular outer main gear wheel span. See MOS Part 139. and ICAO Annex 14 and NPRM 1426AS
That's not my point though. My point is that the standard is 45m. Yet CASA keep allowing these 30m runways. Why don't they just enforce the standard and make RPT operations a bit safer?
Looks like they have changed the rules since my last understanding of it. 30m used to be an exemption that you needed CASA approval for but not any more. You never know anything in this game..........
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/124681/...token=8iv01Rj2
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/124681/...token=8iv01Rj2
Rules have not changed. Standards in MOS 139 and Annex 14 have been the same for 30 years or more. Exemption only required if OMGWS exceed the standard for 30m wide runway
NN also misses the point that it is the aircraft operator who decides what aeroplane is operated to a particular aerodrome, not the aerodrome operator. The exemption referenced for narrow RWY ops is for aircraft operators.
The CASA document says specifically that the regulations have changed and that aerodrome operators no longer need to work to a 45m standard which is what I was referring to.
An outcome-based regulation has been developed to assess the capability of aeroplanes to operate safely
on narrow runways. This is the alternative to requiring aerodrome operators to widen runways at aerodromes that do not support the aerodrome standards for larger aeroplane types. The assessment will include evaluation of aeroplane capabilities and aerodrome facilities.
The new regulation signi es that aeroplane operators will no longer need to apply for exemptions for narrow runway operations. Instead, aeroplanes will need to have been assessed by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or by ight test of the aeroplane to determine their capability to operate safely on narrow runways.
on narrow runways. This is the alternative to requiring aerodrome operators to widen runways at aerodromes that do not support the aerodrome standards for larger aeroplane types. The assessment will include evaluation of aeroplane capabilities and aerodrome facilities.
The new regulation signi es that aeroplane operators will no longer need to apply for exemptions for narrow runway operations. Instead, aeroplanes will need to have been assessed by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or by ight test of the aeroplane to determine their capability to operate safely on narrow runways.
They started talking about expanding the runway about 10 years ago. It still has not gone to tender and the ‘estimated’ project completion date is the first half of next decade.
Takes 20 years to piss around planning a runway widening and apron expansion, whilst China has built a few hundred airports in this timeframe.
Takes 20 years to piss around planning a runway widening and apron expansion, whilst China has built a few hundred airports in this timeframe.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Broome
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They started talking about expanding the runway about 10 years ago. It still has not gone to tender and the ‘estimated’ project completion date is the first half of next decade.
Takes 20 years to piss around planning a runway widening and apron expansion, whilst China has built a few hundred airports in this timeframe.
Takes 20 years to piss around planning a runway widening and apron expansion, whilst China has built a few hundred airports in this timeframe.
Been a few drinks between flying the old truck (NG) and the bus, but the bus has always had narrow runway ops (30m) in the manuals. I always have a little chuckle when people go on about "short" runways when more often than not those "short" runways are 3 to 400m in excess of the fully factored landing distance with autobrake medium. As for width, how much do you want to land an aircraft with an 8 metre wheel base
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway safety is the number 1 accident type by category, an order of magnitude beyond any other accident type: ICAO accident Stats
EASA produced an excellent study on runway excursions: A STUDY OF RUNWAY EXCURSIONS FROM A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE. The study compares the rest of world statistics to show the rates are very similar for all regions globally, comparing over 1,732 excursions globally between 1980 & 2008.
Landing overruns and veeroffs are the most common type of runway
excursion accounting for more than 77% of all excursions;
Sure the book may say you have a bit of pad, none of those 1,700+ odd crews thought they would screw it up either.
EASA produced an excellent study on runway excursions: A STUDY OF RUNWAY EXCURSIONS FROM A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE. The study compares the rest of world statistics to show the rates are very similar for all regions globally, comparing over 1,732 excursions globally between 1980 & 2008.
Originally Posted by EASA Study
Landing overruns and veeroffs are the most common type of runway
excursion accounting for more than 77% of all excursions;
ABC, the only waste of space is your post
