Status of Displaced Threshold
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And we could spice up this thread by also discussing the licensed airfield in the south-west which regularly parks aircraft on the runway, before the start of the displaced threshold. Am I allowed to make an approach to this runway, since it is occupied? When departing, can I line up alongside the parked aircraft (assuming the runway is wide enough) to use the entire TORA?
I think, so long as you are happy that what you are doing is safe, the only people who are likely to care in most cases are the insurance company after you have an accident......
FFF
-------------
I think, so long as you are happy that what you are doing is safe, the only people who are likely to care in most cases are the insurance company after you have an accident......
FFF
-------------
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course there is airfield-owners that let some operators land before the displaced threshold in normal operations, just have a look at bremen international airport, for most operators it is 2030m or something, but for the airbus-factory flights its much longer, allowing them to use the displaced thresholds in both ends.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesper,
What you describe has been approved by the DFS and is published in the AIP. It is clearly reserved for those aircraft specified in the AIP.
People here are talking about landing before the only published threshold or that part of the runway designated by the operator as being the threshold.
Regards,
DFC
What you describe has been approved by the DFS and is published in the AIP. It is clearly reserved for those aircraft specified in the AIP.
People here are talking about landing before the only published threshold or that part of the runway designated by the operator as being the threshold.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
And we could spice up this thread by also discussing the licensed airfield in the south-west which regularly parks aircraft on the runway, before the start of the displaced threshold.
Was there not a NOTAM dealing with a) the obstacle, b) the change in runway dimensions?
Is this still the case? Let us know where you are talking about.
Regards,
DFC
And we could spice up this thread by also discussing the licensed airfield in the south-west which regularly parks aircraft on the runway, before the start of the displaced threshold.
Is this still the case? Let us know where you are talking about.
Regards,
DFC
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was hoping someone else might chime in with the name of the airfield, DFC, but they haven't! It's Dunkeswell. No, it's never been NOTAMed as far as I know. And, to be fair, there haven't been any obstructions the last few times I've been, and I'm not a regular enough visitor to be able to say whether this is a change in policy or a coincidence.
However, if you view the airfield on Google Maps, you can clearly see an aircraft getting airborne from runway 05 (the shadow of the aircraft shows that it is airborne), whilst another aircraft is parked at the end the runway, in what is the displaced threshold for runway 23, next to the refuelling area. It's too late at night for me to go onto the AIP to check this, but I believe the area where the aircraft is parked is part of the TORA and LDA for runway 05, and is also part of the TORA for runway 23, and my past experience is that it hasn't been uncommon, in the past, to find aircraft parked there.
A lovely airfield in every other way. Good cafe (for the rare occasions I have time to stop), nice runways, cute blonde working behind the desk.
A lot of my CPL students don't like it because it's uncontrolled and they have to mix with some much slower traffic - but it's all good practice, and keeps them very busy!
None of this helps in the slightest with the original question.....
FFF
-----------
However, if you view the airfield on Google Maps, you can clearly see an aircraft getting airborne from runway 05 (the shadow of the aircraft shows that it is airborne), whilst another aircraft is parked at the end the runway, in what is the displaced threshold for runway 23, next to the refuelling area. It's too late at night for me to go onto the AIP to check this, but I believe the area where the aircraft is parked is part of the TORA and LDA for runway 05, and is also part of the TORA for runway 23, and my past experience is that it hasn't been uncommon, in the past, to find aircraft parked there.
A lovely airfield in every other way. Good cafe (for the rare occasions I have time to stop), nice runways, cute blonde working behind the desk.
A lot of my CPL students don't like it because it's uncontrolled and they have to mix with some much slower traffic - but it's all good practice, and keeps them very busy!None of this helps in the slightest with the original question.....
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Spot FFF.
I thnk that the problem is that the aerodrome markings do not accurately reflect the true situation.
The AIP is quite clear with regard to TORA, TODA and ASDA for 05.
It seems likely that if one starts at the start of 05 and measures the declared ASDA and then add on a further 30m for the "strip". From that point draw a slope of some 5% ( 1 in 20) and I expect that the "object" will be cleared.
You could do similar measurments with regard to the approach obstacle clearance surface and again I am sure that the "object" would be cleared.
Or look at it another way, the road just behind the parked aircraft could be a lot closer to the THR runway 23 without causing any limitations on the operation even if there was a line of double-decker busses parked along it!!
Thus while not ideal, there is nothing wrong per say with an object being left where you see the aircraft parked on google.
The confusion arises where the markings show that the portion of 23 prior to the threshold is fit for movement despite a) an obstacle being parked on it and b) the starter extension only being a small portion of that piece of tarmac.
This confusion is further agrivated by the fact that the AIP includes a statement that the threshold of 23 is displaced.
I think that less confusion would exist if the area prior to the starter extension for 23 was marked in accordance with CAP168 just like runway 12 and 05 are marked and appropriate taxiway markings were provided if this piece of tarmac is to be used as a taxiway.
The operator is very clear however in reminding pilots to ensure that they use the threshold for runway 23.
If aircraft are permitted to park on that piece of tarmac, what markings are in place to show the point beyond which aircraft must not park as to do so would infringe on the runway?
Getting back to your point about lining up beside the parked aircraft and starting your take-off run - two problems - 1 it is prior to the starter extension and secondly the starter extension is PPR and I would expect that the aerodrome operator would make it clear to you where you could start the take-off run from and would also take into account blast effects from your aircraft on others parked prior to the starter exctension.
As for NOTAM - not required.
Regards,
DFC
I thnk that the problem is that the aerodrome markings do not accurately reflect the true situation.
The AIP is quite clear with regard to TORA, TODA and ASDA for 05.
It seems likely that if one starts at the start of 05 and measures the declared ASDA and then add on a further 30m for the "strip". From that point draw a slope of some 5% ( 1 in 20) and I expect that the "object" will be cleared.
You could do similar measurments with regard to the approach obstacle clearance surface and again I am sure that the "object" would be cleared.
Or look at it another way, the road just behind the parked aircraft could be a lot closer to the THR runway 23 without causing any limitations on the operation even if there was a line of double-decker busses parked along it!!
Thus while not ideal, there is nothing wrong per say with an object being left where you see the aircraft parked on google.
The confusion arises where the markings show that the portion of 23 prior to the threshold is fit for movement despite a) an obstacle being parked on it and b) the starter extension only being a small portion of that piece of tarmac.
This confusion is further agrivated by the fact that the AIP includes a statement that the threshold of 23 is displaced.
I think that less confusion would exist if the area prior to the starter extension for 23 was marked in accordance with CAP168 just like runway 12 and 05 are marked and appropriate taxiway markings were provided if this piece of tarmac is to be used as a taxiway.
The operator is very clear however in reminding pilots to ensure that they use the threshold for runway 23.
If aircraft are permitted to park on that piece of tarmac, what markings are in place to show the point beyond which aircraft must not park as to do so would infringe on the runway?
Getting back to your point about lining up beside the parked aircraft and starting your take-off run - two problems - 1 it is prior to the starter extension and secondly the starter extension is PPR and I would expect that the aerodrome operator would make it clear to you where you could start the take-off run from and would also take into account blast effects from your aircraft on others parked prior to the starter exctension.
As for NOTAM - not required.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the original topic, as the aerodrome is licenced, would I be correct in thinking that to 'officially' reposition the threshold, a new CAP232 aerodrome and obstacle survey would be required ?
If so then it is probably the cost and red tape involved in that process that is causing the airfield owner to keep it as it is. No doubt an urgent operating requirement would force the issue.
If so then it is probably the cost and red tape involved in that process that is causing the airfield owner to keep it as it is. No doubt an urgent operating requirement would force the issue.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
SimJock:
They should be doing an annual check survey anyway. If they haven't done that they would have to re-do the full AGA survey to re-height the relevant obstacle.
NS
would I be correct in thinking that to 'officially' reposition the threshold, a new CAP232 aerodrome and obstacle survey would be required ?
NS
