Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1840988
RipAndTear wrote:https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/19223841.southampton-airport-runway-plans-approved-three-days-debate/

I know 'it's only 164 metres', but this is going to extend the centrelines and therefore the CTA and make it even more likely to accidently infringe with the current squeeze on airspace, isn't it?

Pin out, throw grenade, wait for the bang.

R&T

Is the '164m' a full width extension or a reduced width starter extension?
The starter extension on 06 at Farnborough is about that length but only 150m are allowed to be 'declared' because it's less than the full 45m width with a turning circle.
In any case, 164m isn't going to cause either runway threshold to be moved but the paved length will be in excess of the necessary 1850m and hence eligible for an increase in the size of the ATZ to 2.5nm but an increase in the size of the CTR is not justified.
So apart from the LDA on runway 20 which can't be moved north due to the railway works, all other declared distances could increase by 164m IF the extension is full width; if not full width it can't be included in the LDA, TORA or ASDA for 02 but it can be included in the TORA, ASDA and TODA for 20
Pity they're not spending the money on an ILS on 02 instead, it would be much more useful.
#1841005
chevvron wrote:
Pity they're not spending the money on an ILS on 02 instead, it would be much more useful.


I asked this question of the people in the know many many years ago and was told than an ILS on 02 was not a viable option due to approach profile as there wouldn't have been any benefit over the other existing 02 approach options available as the ILS DA(H) could/would not be significantly less than that of the MDA(H) of non-precision approaches...
#1841018
It's full width.

The 20 threshold remains in the same place as present.

Declared distances increase by up to 164m to allow heavier a/c to calculate better performance figures.

Altering the approach lighting to accommodate a change in the lighting plane (geometric one not a/c not one for woodworking) was tricky, but fortunately the designers had a top Consultant on the job. :lol:
#1841106
CloudHound wrote:
Altering the approach lighting to accommodate a change in the lighting plane (geometric one not a/c not one for woodworking) was tricky, but fortunately the designers had a top Consultant on the job. :lol:

Should be no problem, approach lighting at other airports is flush fitting and inset on the paved surface so there's no reason that couldn't be done at Southampton.
At Farnborough for instance, at least half the 731m of HIAL in both directions (c/l and crossbars) is flush fitting and airfields with Cat 2 or 3 lighting (not applicable for Southampton or Farnborough) have flush fitting auxiliary lighting and TDZ lighting too.
#1841141
It’s not about inset fittings.

The slope of the geometric plane cannot conform to 1:66 so I helped devise a “stair case” design proposal which has proved acceptable to the CAA.

The elevated approach lights in the railway sidings have to be tall enough not to be obscured by rolling stock from the pilot’s eye view point.
Ben K, Ophelia Gently liked this
#1851201
About six or seven miles away to the South is the perfect answer for GA operations should Southampton start being difficult - Lee-on Solent, the former Fleet Air Arm base, HMS Daedalus. With the police now out of the way, Lee is much friendlier to GA.

Some say a far better choice for a regional than Southampton. Far fewer 'chimney pots' around Lee than Southampton, should matters become slightly critical while arriving or departing to the South !
#1851257
Loco parentis wrote:..the perfect answer for GA operations should Southampton start being difficult -..!


.. and there used to be another, whose scheduled service destinations once included Guernsey in Twin Pioneers ('Busy Bee airlines', in yellow and black) :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmout ... (Hampshire)
#1853514
Its what they do, these vexacious objectors.

Its not just about getting a slightly bigger aircraft in, its about the safety of existing flights too.

But they won't listen to reason. I expect if they were paying the real amount for the challenge ( not some artificially capped amount set by HMG) they would think twice about it.
#1853716
When you see that Southampton hosted just 132 airline flights in January, 59 in February, 71 in March and back to 135 in April, you wonder if they'll have anything left in the pot to pay the legal bills and keeping fighting this through to a satisfactory conclusion. So many regional airports on their knees after this pandemic. Bizarrely, the likes of Southend, Gloucestershire and Oxford have been second only to Heathrow as the busiest airports in the country for movements those first few months of this year.