Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Essendon RWY Strip Width discrepancy

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Essendon RWY Strip Width discrepancy

Old 1st Feb 2018, 09:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 275
Essendon RWY Strip Width discrepancy

Interesting email today from the AFAP regarding Essendon RWY26/08.

It mentions that the strip must be at least 300M wide for Precision/ Non Precision Approaches. Due to the DFO and other structures, itís only 230M.

My question is whoís responsible? Which of the many strict liability offences are we committing by accepting an ILS onto 26?
717tech is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 10:55
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,734
So what action would the AFAP suggest their members take, now that the AFAP has told us all and we can't plead ignorance if sprung by CASA?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 10:59
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 634
Bloggs - reasonable point. I'll go with - "Well, the Regulator knows about it, and hasn't done anything about it, therefore they must deem it safe!"

Last edited by josephfeatherweight; 1st Feb 2018 at 11:29.
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 12:05
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 1,271
The whole thing is probably an elaborate (and deliberate) plot to close down Essendon once and for all
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 17:17
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 67
Posts: 775
ERSA says itís 300.
fujii is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 18:12
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by fujii View Post
ERSA says itís 300.
I believe thatís the issue. ERSA is supposedly incorrect and thereís no NOTAM.
717tech is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 18:33
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 67
Posts: 775
If that’s the case, it’s been wrong for 12 1/2 years or longer if you include construction time.
fujii is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 20:36
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 298
Don't worry, CASA will just construct a 'safety case' and issue a waiver as everyone know's that the horse has well and truly bolted on this one.

Money talks - and the greed, back slapping and dodgy deals that allowed an aerodrome to be converted into a commercial retail district would make a great article.
Falling Leaf is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 21:10
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 359
Sufficient evidence that it’s safe to continue operations as there have been no accidents despite being too narrow, standby for a rule change. Very clever use of flight testing using revenue flights?
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 21:43
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 242
https://www.casa.gov.au/files/vic171120pdf
thunderbird five is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2018, 22:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,734
Don't worry, CASA will just construct a 'safety case' and issue a waiver as everyone know's that the horse has well and truly bolted on this one.

Money talks - and the greed, back slapping and dodgy deals that allowed an aerodrome to be converted into a commercial retail district would make a great article.
From the RAPAC minutes, it looks like it was compliant until 2014 when the rules changed. Would you suggest knocking down the DFO or moving the airport?

It would have been better if the AFAP had also published CASA's response to the issue. In other words, the whole thing appears to be a non-issue, although CASA could make the text in ERSA a little clearer: "[email protected]@dy big buildings just inside the RWS on southern side" as opposed to myriad obstacle notes (one of which has got a bearing digit missing).
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 02:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
Are you assuming that the position of the gable markers indicate the runway strip? I think you'll find this is incorrect.


According the current MOS 139 gable markers are placed to indicate the limit of the graded portion of the runway strip (MOS 8.2.2). If you read the section on runway strip widths you will find that it is possible to declare a runway strip beyond where the gable markers are placed. Is that not the situation here?


It also goes on to describe the fly over area and how close to the centreline objects within the strip can be placed. It actually says that objects can be within the strip if certain parameters are met. Some interesting things regarding transverse slope.


Without knowing how the areas beyond the graded strip are set up it seems like the strip is compliant and the AFAP could be mistaken. Unless I have misread MOS 139.


Alpha
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 02:43
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,662
So it’s possible for aircraft (and other things) to be outside the gable markers at an aerodrome but still on the runway?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 04:32
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
According to the wording in MOS 139. Yes.

Im not sure they are considered to be still on the runway. Only considered to be within the strip. The wording explains that when the runway is in use the graded area must be free of obstruction, and that's where the gable markers are.
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 04:45
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,662
Hmmm. The point of having part of the runway strip outside the gable markers is not obvious to me, if aircraft and other obstacles can be there while the runway is in use.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 05:22
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 57
Posts: 149
Lead Balloon
Mos 139 6.4 relates to holding points and in particular distance from centreline. This is where the 90m and 150 m graded strips largely come in. Precision approach runway holding points are even further back from centreline at a descending scale along the runway depending on elevation of the holding point in relation to the threshold.
Aircraft at a holding point, usually in line with the gables, are considered to be clear of the runway. But the holding point is often not coincident with the gables.
The 300m runway strip does not relate to ground markings or gables and I have never seen one marked, although it may happen. It is a distance off centreline for the surveyor to reference, not aircraft.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 05:28
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
LB, we share the same sentiments.
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 08:49
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,662
Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
<snip>
The 300m runway strip does not relate to ground markings or gables and I have never seen one marked, although it may happen. It is a distance off centreline for the surveyor to reference, not aircraft.
But what is the reason for ďthe 300m runway stripĒ ďfor the surveyor to referenceĒ? What isnít allowed to happen inside the 300m runway strip? Whatís the point of its existence?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 09:47
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,098
The section outside the graded portion, but within the designated RWS width is known as the flyover. It must be kept clear of fixed objects that project through a plane that starts at the edge of the graded area (the gable line) and extends upwards at 5%. It's purpose is not for the wayward ground movement of aircraft (that's what the graded part is for), but for protection of very low altitude manoeuvring adjacent to the RWY. For a Precision I, II, or III Runway with code number 3 or 4E only the area within 60m of the RWY centre line needs to be kept clear of mobile objects. The gable line is usually used as the reference, but this is actually outside this line. You can have transitory obstacles - vehicles etc - within the RWS as long as they are outside the 60m. As I said, mostly the gable line is used as this is easier.
There is an escape clause for the AD operator who cannot meet the RWS requirements. MOS139 Section 6.2.18.4 refers.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2018, 10:03
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,662
Thanks TIEW. That makes sense. Iíve learned something.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.