Razor61

Why on earth would an airport want to shorten an existing runway and also reduce the width of it when they take over from the RAF?

Surely an existing 9000ft runway which is incidently one of the widest in the country also would only favour an airport for taking more trade and in an event of an emergency?

Must be a cost cutting measure, unless someone can come up with a viable reason why you reduce the effectiveness of a runway to carry on with Civil operations.

Would this also have an affect on the RAF choosing SMG for a divert on Storm Trails across the Atlantic to Lajes? St Mawgan being the last longish runway in the country they will see... the only other option further on is i think Santiago in Spain.

Also i saw on another forum, the MoD are to keep the southern dispersal site including the vast ramp/pan space. Possible exercises will carry on from here in the future?

L1A2 discharged

No further military flying at SMG, capability 'not required' . The southern dispersal is part of the airfield estate area, Air ambulance operates nearby.

Why pay for runway upkeep if you don't need it operationally - it will be a burden on the council taxpayers ad infinitum.

diginagain

It's in Cornwall, where the local Councillors have never been known to step out of the way of progress.

teeteringhead

Almost certainly a major part of the reason is the difference in regulations regarding "clearance planes" between airfields operating under military as against civil regulations.

Civil regs (by which Oggy International would have to be ruled) have shallower permissable clearance planes (ie, space free of obstructions) both laterally (from the runway sides) and in the undershoot and overshoot from the available surface.

Two answers - knock down lots of trees and buildings (and I mean lots - a number of RAF control towers are too close to the runway to satisfy civil regulations!), or reduce the length and breadth of the runway to fit the existing obstacles......

......guess which option is cheaper ........

Razor61

Thanks Teeteringhead,

I believe the control tower will be replaced also. I can see SMG becomming a storage area now also, a bit like Exeter. St Mawgan has loads of old parking areas on the north side.
What a shame.

Safety_Helmut

Safeguarding requirements for the Cat IIIa ILS. Alternative is as Teeteringhead says, that and moving the road.

S_H

BackfromIraq

The runway needs to be resurfaced (finally we didn't resurface one that we were going to get rid of!) and it's wide enough or long enough (or both) for one part of it to be used while the other part is resurfaced, but when it becomes a civil airport they don't need so much length or width so they'll only resurface what they need.

Makes perfect sense really.

Seaking93

Word in the local area is that most of the above mentioned reasons are correct, but cost of resurfacing was the main reason, the entire length and width are not needed for civil ops so why waste money, which by the way is being used to erect a fence around the airfield to bring it up to civil airport requirements.

Melchett01

Simple, they are going to ramp up ops at SMG and move a couple of sqns down there.

Well I assume that's why they're shortening the runway. Afterall, every time I've seen them re-surface, widen or lengthen a runway the place has closed down shortly after, so that must be it.

TheInquisitor

If only the same were true of the local ladies......

Raven30

The emphasis is on Old. Many of the dispersals north side have not been strengthened since they were originally built and are no longer fit for parking anything other that light aircraft. Others are earmarked for different uses ie terminal car parks and new Control Tower.

....and the tree fellers are already busy in the estate on the north side...(No, not a group of navvies!)