Birmingham Airport Runway extension
 

Had this from a friend in the midlands.

any one able to verify ? or explain why the extension isn't in use for heavies.

It's BS - Current restrictions are due to the surrounding groundwork being unstable and waiting for the grass to grow.

Who needs an A380 when EK send 3 777s a day :ok:

Hot off the FB Messenger, the only reason the Heavies are not using it is that the Airlines are not interested.

don't they currently just have 2 atm

oldoberon.

Your friend may speak some truth regarding problems with the runway.However how much is truth and how much is mud slinging is another matter.
True,problems were encountered during the resurfacing work last winter,exactly what I am not sure.Many rumours were doing the rounds,some suggest the extremely wet weather was a factor.Others say inferior products were used in the runway surface materials.This is the reason why the runway is being resurfaced again this winter as well As well as iron out some other long standing issues.I was told that the aim was to flatten out the runway.If you look from one end to the other you can see a series of 'waves' all the way down the length of it.
However none of this has anything to do with the type of aircraft using it.2014 has been a record breaking year in terms passengers using the airport,with many months being the best ever.
Also new routes and airlines for 2015 show that BHX s on the radar of many companies.Vueling,Icelandair and Norwegian to start by the spring.Norwegian in particular is a major coup,especially as it has been suggested elsewhere a large base could be set up with long haul flights to follow(USA permitting).
Add to that American A/L daily to JFK,and a 3rd daily to Dubai,as well as further charter flights to China(perhaps)would suggest an airport on the up.Not bad for a regional,which would not necessarily need large aircraft anyway,just a long enough runway for twin jets to use.

How much did the runway extension cost? If you divide that cost by the number of movements that actually need that extension rather than just using it because it is there I wonder if the airport will actually ever get their investment back?

The runway extension is a long term investment.Once in place the airport authority can look at attracting airlines to use it.
Personally I would like to see more European cites added as well as long haul.
As I said earlier BHX is on the up,we will have to see if 2015 brings any further developments,but at least the potential is there.I am sure most who use these forums would agree that it is better to have something available than not have it at all.

That can be said for just about every runway extension / new runway project in the UK, leaving aside LHR. However, pilots will always say that more runway length is better than less, and extended runways, whether they be at BHX, EMA or MAN (new runway) will assist the respective airports in gaining busines of all kinds (passenger and cargo) which they might otherwise not have got.

One of the problems with the UK is it fails, time after time, to invest for the future, be it railways, roads or airports - infrastructure development has always been to catch up with current demand, rather than to cater for future demand. That's how we've wound up with the cesspit that is LHR.

As for the original assertion that BHX runway can't handle the 380 / 747 because the runway hasn't been made long enough is, I suppose, in part true.

Better informed people than I may be able to confirm, but I imagine that 3000m may still be inadequate for a 380 or 747 at max take off weight to operate from BHX, but that doesn't preclude operators using them on shorter long haul routes such as Dubai, New York, Chicago, Miami. What precludes that is firstly, Emirates prefers to operate the more cargo friendly 777 on DXB, and the market for US services from the UK is overwhelming one for the big twins. Aside of BA / VS how many 380 / 747 movements are there a day between LHR and US destinations. Answer: very few, if any.

For many years, long after it ceased to be true, there was an urban myth around Birmingham that you couldn't fly non stop transatlantic from the airport - even after AA, CO and BA had proved otherwise the travelling public still believed it to be true.

Let's please not start another urban myth regarding the extended runway!

Correct.

As an illustration, the proposed new NW runway at Heathrow, which would have no restrictions on the aircraft types that could operate from it, would be 3500m.

Thanks guys, so in summary

There is some problem waiting for the associated groundworks to stabilise (not the extension itself).

It isn't long enough for the heavies to use for full long range flights ie west coast USA or far east but ok for middle east and east coast USA.

Finally as said most pilots prefer more rather than less, understandably. I see on the virgin thread that with the reduced braking capability Gatwick was very tight on length for it's landing.

Good to see airline use is on the up

Re undulations I imagine most runways slope one end to other and many have undulations,no doubt there are specifications covering this for new runways.

So according to NATS-AIS the BHX runway is 3050m long, interestingly the MAN runways are the same length and easily handle A380s & B747s so check your imagination!
Though in terms or TORA 05R/23L is the longer

Boeing quote a T/O field length of around 3300m (depends on the engine) for a B744 at 910,000lb, ISA+15, SL.

West Lakes

The key phrase in my earlier posting was "max take of weight" which, given DaveReidUK's subsequent posting suggests my imagination doesn't need so much checking. Must admit I overlooked that extra 50m though. Not bad considering the old brain cells are decaying faster than reproducing at my age!!!

The length of the runway tarmac is only partially a factor, you also have to consider the position of the thresholds, are they displaced as this will reduce the take off run available, but the big killer is obstacles and the ability of the aircraft to climb in the event of an engine failure.

I image the latter is the reason for restrictions at BHX given the many obstacles in the take off flight path.

That said, an A380 to Dubai is going to be no where near it's max take off weight as I should imagine the limiting factor is the zero fuel weight and so I can't imagine that for 6-7 hour hops it would make that much difference, but then I don't know what the OEI performance is like on the ugly bus

When I last departed BHX on 33 on a short haul flight we still used the original length as I am guessing, it is a shorter taxi than going to the end of the extension. What proportion of 33 departures actually use the full length? I am willing to bet it is only the EK flights.

Most of the short haul flights tend to depart from E1, but I have seen more than just the EK 777s departing from S1.

Doors to Automatic. New runway extension.
 

It really depends on many factors on the day, especially the flight crews/ captains preference.
Some don't like Tarmac behind them, thus use the full length. Some departures may require a 5 minute engine warm up ,if starting from cold. May as well use full length. If you are heavy more runway is useful, less engine wear or simply getting away quicker beating any ques, use E .If an aircraft wants to use E for it's departure and is holding at E,an aircraft behind is not able to get past and make its way to S. I often do performance for both.
Basically the extension is great, be glad when the current works are completed.

Interesting points, and the landing distance is a lot more generous now too. Out of interest what aircraft do you fly Oceanhawk?

When I was obtaining my PPL many years ago, my instructor told me on many occasions " any runway behind you when taking off is wasted runway"