Another airport being ruined by rich bastards
The 30 threshold has always been permanently displaced about 30 metres from the physical end of the tarmac, or it has for at least the last 40 years. As I keep telling you, I know, from first-hand experience, how close aircraft on approach to 30 get to vehicles on Sherger. (But perhaps my first-hand observation is just opinion…)
As to the obstacles on the Parkway (and anywhere else), there are these things called the Civil Aviation (Building Control) Regulations and a street light constitutes an ‘object’ within the meaning of those Regulations. But Essendon - out of many examples - tells us how diligently those Regulations are enforced in the interests of aviation safety when it’s getting in the way of someone making money.
As to the obstacles on the Parkway (and anywhere else), there are these things called the Civil Aviation (Building Control) Regulations and a street light constitutes an ‘object’ within the meaning of those Regulations. But Essendon - out of many examples - tells us how diligently those Regulations are enforced in the interests of aviation safety when it’s getting in the way of someone making money.
Another piece of disingenuous comment by Morgan is the reference to the IKEA development. The graphic he showed is approximately 8 years old and is not on aerodrome property. If he had read the Master Plan when it was published he would have seen this:
Most of the land north and south of the Airport is used for broadacre purposes because it is overflown by aircraft or because of its long association with Department of Defence activities. This land (including the Airport) was denoted as a new Employment Corridor in the Canberra Spatial Plan2 . The ACT Government’s Eastern Broadacre Planning Study has identified commercial and industrial land use opportunities adjoining the Airport, west of Majura Road opposite the Airport’s Majura Park. The ACT Government has already rezoned a 7.8 hectare parcel for bulky good retail as the initial stage of an investigation area. Both the rezoned and planning investigation areas are designed to leverage off the planning, investment and risk undertaken by Canberra Airport in developing Majura Park over the past fourteen years. The outcome of this development will be increased revenue to the ACT from land sales, which commenced in 2014 with IKEA.
Most of the land north and south of the Airport is used for broadacre purposes because it is overflown by aircraft or because of its long association with Department of Defence activities. This land (including the Airport) was denoted as a new Employment Corridor in the Canberra Spatial Plan2 . The ACT Government’s Eastern Broadacre Planning Study has identified commercial and industrial land use opportunities adjoining the Airport, west of Majura Road opposite the Airport’s Majura Park. The ACT Government has already rezoned a 7.8 hectare parcel for bulky good retail as the initial stage of an investigation area. Both the rezoned and planning investigation areas are designed to leverage off the planning, investment and risk undertaken by Canberra Airport in developing Majura Park over the past fourteen years. The outcome of this development will be increased revenue to the ACT from land sales, which commenced in 2014 with IKEA.
The 30 threshold has always been permanently displaced about 30 metres from the physical end of the tarmac, or it has for at least the last 40 years. As I keep telling you, I know, from first-hand experience, how close aircraft on approach to 30 get to vehicles on Sherger. (But perhaps my first-hand observation is just opinion…)
As to the obstacles on the Parkway (and anywhere else), there are these things called the Civil Aviation (Building Control) Regulations and a street light constitutes an ‘object’ within the meaning of those Regulations. But Essendon - out of many examples - tells us how diligently those Regulations are enforced in the interests of aviation safety when it’s getting in the way of someone making money.
The 30 threshold has always been permanently displaced about 30 metres from the physical end of the tarmac, or it has for at least the last 40 years.
The 30 threshold has always been permanently displaced about 30 metres from the physical end of the tarmac
how close aircraft on approach to 30 get to vehicles on Sherger.
Let's say the 5% was calculated on the road. I have no idea if it was, but let's use it for the purposes of the exercise.(*) It's 150m from the centre line of the north bound lane (closest to threshold) to white displaced threshold bar. That means a truck (not a car) would have to be 7.6m tall to actually hit the top of it. Most trucks are between 3-4m. If you are aiming for the first set of touchdown markers (at 300m from the road), the truck would have to be 15m tall. If you go to where most of the rubber is, (around 430m) the truck would have to be 21m tall.
If they fly to a 3% (which they shouldn't for reasons already mentioned) the numbers are 4.5m, 9m, and 13m. Yea, the truck will look close, but you would have to be in a gross, gross undershoot to actually hit anything
(*) Strangely enough if you calculate 5% from a 4.2m obstacle in the middle of the north lane, add 60m as you must, the threshold ends up where the displaced threshold is now, so they may be using the road traffic as the critical obstacle for the approach clearances.
Doing the same thing back from where the threshold is displaced from ie where it should be, (where the tarmac ends in this case (the end of RWY 12)), gives 1.2m at the roadside, probably where the old 4' stock fence used to be back when that was all the fence needed.
Midnight, nice video, been around a long time, but it's a departure off 17. Hard to see relevance to this issue.
Are the aircraft flying a 5% or greater approach? They would be, of course, because that's what it says the threshold is calculated on when they checked the appropriate documentation as they planned their flight, so why would they fly lower? They might hit something.
Only multi-engine, fixed-wing aircraft up to Airbus A318 size with special aircraft and aircrew certification to fly 5.5° approaches are allowed to conduct operations at London City Airport.[7][8]
The old MOS139 detailed where the RWY Threshold should be in a couple of sentences and very briefly referred to high approach angles and Displaced Thresholds. The current MOS139 now needs half a page with several subsections dealing with Displaced Thresholds.
Extrapolating 3% back along the 12 approach from a displaced threshold moved (upto) 450m (the figure mentioned in the Master Plan - I've used 450) gives an obstacle height at Majura Rd of 21m. That's a pretty high light pole, so maybe they won't go 450m. What 450m does give is plenty of clearance NW of Majura Rd for development, but that's not airport land. The deciding factor will be the take off clearance from RWY30 which at the published 3.69% from the end of the RWY30 strip (gable markers) gives 9m at the road. This exists now, but the 12 approach is the current overriding issue.
If you are aiming for the first set of touchdown markers [on RWY 30] (at 300m from the road), the truck would have to be 15m tall. If you go to where most of the rubber is, (around 430m) the truck would have to be 21m tall.
Do the maths on that.
Both the rezoned and planning investigation areas are designed to leverage off the planning, investment and risk undertaken by Canberra Airport in developing Majura Park over the past fourteen years.
At best, the lessor took advantage of what must have been a mule-stupid bureaucracy which didn't understand the development options and potential of the land when it granted a 99 year lease for $40 million in 1998. At best.
That, right there, is hilarious. "Risk"? Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.
At best, the lessor took advantage of what must have been a mule-stupid bureaucracy which didn't understand the development options and potential of the land when it granted a 99 year lease for $40 million in 1998. At best.
At best, the lessor took advantage of what must have been a mule-stupid bureaucracy which didn't understand the development options and potential of the land when it granted a 99 year lease for $40 million in 1998. At best.
Are the aircraft flying a 5% or greater approach? They would be, of course,
Do the maths on that.
No they would not be. If you fly aircraft try a 5% gradient and see what that looks like.
But don't sweat it. We all know the extents to which some people will go to 'prove' that some long-standing piece of GA infrastructure has to be sacrificed in the interests of ... what's it dressed up as? ... 'safety'.
It was ****en easy, and the occasional vehicle a few metres below was the driver's problem.
I'm only saying what the approach gradient has been published at. If you want to fly under it.....