SE ops at Exeter
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: At work
SE ops at Exeter
Just happened to be reading the NOTAMS for EXT and noticed that the threshold and TO run distances have been changed considerably as a result of revised "public saftey zone". I recall reading about this a while back, are any other airfields affected? Is this a "european" legislation or perhaps there is some point to it. Your comments are welcome.
Thanks
Thanks
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Although the 1100m runway is a bit of a pain, particularly the backtrack on 26, there are few SEPs which would find a 1100m hard runway a big issue.
Much more of an issue for SEPs is C0408/04, which completely prohibits SEPs using the Easterly runway from using ILS, and increases the MDAs of the non-precision approaches, and C0419/04 which bans SEPs from using 08 at night.
I suppose that in easterly winds and IFR (whether due weather or night) SEPs will just have to accept a stonking tailwind. And all in the name of safety
If I operated an SEP at Exeter I would be very upset, as I am sure many of them are.
Timothy
Much more of an issue for SEPs is C0408/04, which completely prohibits SEPs using the Easterly runway from using ILS, and increases the MDAs of the non-precision approaches, and C0419/04 which bans SEPs from using 08 at night.
I suppose that in easterly winds and IFR (whether due weather or night) SEPs will just have to accept a stonking tailwind. And all in the name of safety
If I operated an SEP at Exeter I would be very upset, as I am sure many of them are.
Timothy
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
From: UK
We are...
Apparently, the airport needed to purchase the house(s) close the the 08 threshold and this fell through for some reason.
As a result, 2/3rds of the runway cannot be used by SEP (except landing on 26 & t/o on 08), no night landings on 08, the ILS minima have increased, no ILS for 08, 26 departures have to backtrack...
There's going to be a lot more hanging around (than usual) as a result.
-bcfc
Apparently, the airport needed to purchase the house(s) close the the 08 threshold and this fell through for some reason.
As a result, 2/3rds of the runway cannot be used by SEP (except landing on 26 & t/o on 08), no night landings on 08, the ILS minima have increased, no ILS for 08, 26 departures have to backtrack...
There's going to be a lot more hanging around (than usual) as a result.
-bcfc
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Thank goodness that no cowboy in an SEP might be tempted to declare that they were flying a LOC approach to 08 and use the glideslope to help them find the runway.
I'm sure they couldn't live with themselves if they did
Timothy
I'm sure they couldn't live with themselves if they did
Timothy
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
From: Not a million miles from EGTF
SE Ops at EGTE
We wondered when this would come into effect, but it seems daft not to mark the newly-displaced threshold!!!!! and to stop ILS/night ops on 08 seems equally unnecessary
I also wonder if there are any reliable stats to justify the authority taking such a view of it's operations.
I also wonder if there are any reliable stats to justify the authority taking such a view of it's operations.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
What occurs to me folks is that it is the pilot who is in command of the aircraft and it is therefore the pilot who chooses which runway to use for both landing and t/o. Now if the airport declares via notam that the runway is closed then that is quite different. If however the runway you are to use gives an unsafe approach or landing then this should be refused by all a/c whether private or CAT. In the event of an accident caused by such an unsafe attempt to use the "incorrect" runway, who is liable? The commander or the airport? Any one with better knowledge please let us have your views. Of course the airport I assume can refuse you permission to land at all but if permission has been granted can it then be conditional on an unsafe approach?
