Jar Ops Definition Of Two Runways
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge,UK
Jar Ops Definition Of Two Runways
Anybody know what the defiiation of a Airfield with two runways (with regard fuel poloicy)do the runways have to be completely separate or can they intersect
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 1
From: Who can say?
No, they may not intersect, and must be separated by a minimum distance - am away from reference books right now, so I can't quote it - sorry.
The reason for the no-intersection rule is, of course, the possibility of someone doing a wheels-up right on the intersection, thus closing both runways just about when you want to use the airfield.
The reason for the no-intersection rule is, of course, the possibility of someone doing a wheels-up right on the intersection, thus closing both runways just about when you want to use the airfield.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: 5 km from ESGG
They may intersect. Below is a part quote from JAR-OPS.
(i) They are separate landing surfaces which may overlay or cross such that if one of the runways is blocked, it will not prevent the planned type of operations on the other runway; and
(ii) Each of the landing surfaces has a separate approach procedure based on a separate aid.
If you accept crossing runways or not is, of course, very dependent on your view of life.
(i) They are separate landing surfaces which may overlay or cross such that if one of the runways is blocked, it will not prevent the planned type of operations on the other runway; and
(ii) Each of the landing surfaces has a separate approach procedure based on a separate aid.
If you accept crossing runways or not is, of course, very dependent on your view of life.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 168
Likes: 1
From: UK
You would be surprised at the number of people who are under the same misapprehension as Cap'n S.
TheMagus wins this one, but I would point out the importance of the linking word - and - as both conditions (i and ii) must be met.
Since this topic was raised in the context of Company Fuel Policy I would add a coupla paras and hope they don't sound too sanctimonious, they're certainly not meant to be.
Some months ago, the thread on use of contingency fuel prior to getting airborne was a classic example of how so many would appear not to fully understand their own company fuel policy. There were umpty ump "definitive" statements which were totally opposite to one another.
Perhaps it's not a bad idea to re-read one's Company fuel policy at a quiet moment to ensure full understanding of what you can or cannot legally do. If in doubt, then why not ask Flt ops or Trng Dept? Airmanship then dictates when you elect to use the options afforded by Company Policy.
Poorly worded or badly punctuated text in company manuals can so easily lead to misunderstanding.
TheMagus wins this one, but I would point out the importance of the linking word - and - as both conditions (i and ii) must be met.
Since this topic was raised in the context of Company Fuel Policy I would add a coupla paras and hope they don't sound too sanctimonious, they're certainly not meant to be.
Some months ago, the thread on use of contingency fuel prior to getting airborne was a classic example of how so many would appear not to fully understand their own company fuel policy. There were umpty ump "definitive" statements which were totally opposite to one another.
Perhaps it's not a bad idea to re-read one's Company fuel policy at a quiet moment to ensure full understanding of what you can or cannot legally do. If in doubt, then why not ask Flt ops or Trng Dept? Airmanship then dictates when you elect to use the options afforded by Company Policy.
Poorly worded or badly punctuated text in company manuals can so easily lead to misunderstanding.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 168
Likes: 1
From: UK
OOps! Sorry Captain Stable, did not intend to upset/offend yourself or any other folk..(not my style). Sincere apologies if I have. As you said you didn't have your books to hand and I am guessing that:
a) 50% 'ish of pilots would have agreed with you.
b) It is not the sort of "rivetting fact" that one retains uppermost in one's mind midst all the other "stuff" you guys/gals have to draw upon in your everyday line of work.
c) reason for conditions are based on a percentage probability of an accident/incident making both r/w's inoperable at the same time, when required in extremis, is so remote as to be considered an "acceptable risk".
Pax Manifest!!
a) 50% 'ish of pilots would have agreed with you.
b) It is not the sort of "rivetting fact" that one retains uppermost in one's mind midst all the other "stuff" you guys/gals have to draw upon in your everyday line of work.
c) reason for conditions are based on a percentage probability of an accident/incident making both r/w's inoperable at the same time, when required in extremis, is so remote as to be considered an "acceptable risk".
Pax Manifest!!
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: 5 km from ESGG
A long runway with another crossing near its end might be useable but I agree with Captain Stable: How can it be guaranteed?
...unless you need 1000 metres of a 3000 metre runway.
If, however, someone does something expensive on one runway it's quite likely some debris will end up on the other, regardless of where they cross.
...unless you need 1000 metres of a 3000 metre runway.
If, however, someone does something expensive on one runway it's quite likely some debris will end up on the other, regardless of where they cross.
still learning....
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
From: USA
"different", and "separate"
I'm with a US based 121 carrier. Our Ops. Specs. (CO55), has the provisions for "different" or "separate" runways depending on a few conditions.
"Different" runways may be the same piece of concrete, ie. Rwy 27 and Rwy 9. "Separate" runways must be two different pieces of concrete.
"Different" runways may be the same piece of concrete, ie. Rwy 27 and Rwy 9. "Separate" runways must be two different pieces of concrete.
still learning....
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
From: USA
CS-
I just got off the phone with both my POI and head of my dispatch training department. They both agree that the runways MAY intersect. (But they're both going to research the question to make sure). They're both busy folks, so I'm not holding my breath.
I just got off the phone with both my POI and head of my dispatch training department. They both agree that the runways MAY intersect. (But they're both going to research the question to make sure). They're both busy folks, so I'm not holding my breath.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
From: behind the lens
I hope you won't mind a Ground Ops comment.
If the two are not separated and something comes down wheels up or breaks up, you are likely to find re-declared distances on what - if anything remains operational.
Had experience of two wheels up on an intersecting runway, albeit one short and another past the intersection. If weather had necessitated CAT III, you would have all been diverting. (obstacles only just outside 90m).
Again, if something breaks up, you may well end up with debris in the alternate runway's clear & graded area or obstacles in the LSA. Not helpful if your calcs have not allowed for Murphy's to rear itself!
If the two are not separated and something comes down wheels up or breaks up, you are likely to find re-declared distances on what - if anything remains operational.
Had experience of two wheels up on an intersecting runway, albeit one short and another past the intersection. If weather had necessitated CAT III, you would have all been diverting. (obstacles only just outside 90m).
Again, if something breaks up, you may well end up with debris in the alternate runway's clear & graded area or obstacles in the LSA. Not helpful if your calcs have not allowed for Murphy's to rear itself!
