Runways, Aprons and Taxiways

Scottie Dog said:
At first glance my feeling is that lowering the localised aerial means that you reduce the obstacles and thus change the obstacle clearance limit - I'll leave you to Google that phrase!
Click to expand...

ok, oddly i did get that. perhaps you can explain how it is that relevant to taking off and changing the TORA?

EDIT: it could make sense for landing distances available since it may allow you to shift the TDZ back and basically increase the LDA. however, how does it change the TORA since where the TDZ isn't relevant for that. all the runway before the TDZ (including any area before the displaced threshold, but not including any blast pad) can already be used for takeoff.
 
Last edited:
Aviador said:
It also likely resolves the company issue regarding "Jet2 A321Neo" aircraft ops at LBA.
Click to expand...
That last point may also coincide with my Community Report item saying just 6 new stands needed as fewer "bigger" aircraft are needed to attain pax forecast. Wonder if there has been a commitment from someone?
 
AI analysis is good and all, but I can easily break it, it's really not difficult

Like the time I managed to get it to say 6 different drivers finished 14th at the 2008 Italian Grand prix. Next time it had figured that out, but I still broke its language model.

For a more related example, it had literally no idea about LS225 previously being the flight number to Pula. I couldn't convince it.

I've given it a spin on the stand layout. Granted, it's alright for a pretty niche subject with data not too easy to get for an AI model. Seems to think Jet2 operates A321NEOs though. And that we have BA.
 
I'm fairly sure the current RW14 localiser is more or less level with the physical concrete of the SE end of the runway so replacing that with a modern antenna may be fairly straightforward. I'm not sure about the other end but I do remember watching an Aviogenex 737 clear it by only a few feet when taking off some decades ago! So that localiser may protrude more than its counterpart.
 
I’m not aware of any restrictions on a fully loaded -800 down to the canaries with fuel, catering and luggage, not aware of any problems (do not work inside an airline) but not something I’ve heard of before (this is with the current runway)
 
ZB757 said:
I’m not aware of any restrictions on a fully loaded -800 down to the canaries with fuel, catering and luggage, not aware of any problems (do not work inside an airline) but not something I’ve heard of before (this is with the current runway)
Click to expand...
Just to repeat, it was produced by AI but you need to look at the main point of the information which was to provide an answer to how the airport plan in increase the take-off run by lowering the ILS. What wasn't mentioned by the airport was its ability to make the ILS more stable allowing them to increase the number of aircraft movements during LVPs.
 
With talk of 'lowering' the ILS - is the reference not to the Glide Slope ariel rather than the localisers as seems to be being discussed?? I can see some logic in the statement if the GS ariel were able to be reduced in height
 
GolfFox said:
With talk of 'lowering' the ILS - is the reference not to the Glide Slope ariel rather than the localisers as seems to be being discussed?? I can see some logic in the statement if the GS ariel were able to be reduced in height
Click to expand...

you can change the glide angle. the localiser has nothing to do with the glideslope and i can't see it has any effect on the glide angle - you really shouldn't be within 35ft of a localiser on landing so i don't see it being a clearance issue for the localiser array. the glide slope antenna is separate and usually on the left hand side of the runway about 200ft up from the end.

the glide angles at LBA are 3.5 degrees on 14, and 3.0 degrees on 32. these are entirely normal and 3 is typical. i can't see what changing them would do at all for landing - and they certainly wouldn't affect takeoffs, it is an increase in available take off distance which is being claimed.
 
Sherburnflyer92 said:
There is no issues with Jet2’s neo into LBA. It’s when. Not if. And will be sooner then some members think.
Click to expand...

Adds fire to rumour I have recently heard. jet2’s Airbus A321Neo could be making more appearances at LBA by end of this year or early next as a new growth plan has been agreed between the airport and airline.

Summer 2027 could be interesting if it’s true.
 
Last edited:
lbaspotter said:
Adds fire to rumour I have recently heard. jet2’s Airbus A321Neo could be making more appearances at LBA by end of this year or early next as a new growth plan has been agreed between the airport and airline.
Click to expand...
That would make sense after VH's comments at Baildon on Monday that the projected pax growth can be achieved by fewer larger aircraft and hence the need for fewer new stands. Probably does also suggest discussions with LCC are progressing positively as otherwise there wouldn't be commitment
 
KARFA said:
you can change the glide angle. the localiser has nothing to do with the glideslope and i can't see it has any effect on the glide angle - you really shouldn't be within 35ft of a localiser on landing so i don't see it being a clearance issue for the localiser array. the glide slope antenna is separate and usually on the left hand side of the runway about 200ft up from the end.

the glide angles at LBA are 3.5 degrees on 14, and 3.0 degrees on 32. these are entirely normal and 3 is typical. i can't see what changing them would do at all for landing - and they certainly wouldn't affect takeoffs, it is an increase in available take off distance which is being claimed.
Click to expand...
Yes - all correct - flown both directions (and including the old offset localiser on 33 as was more times than I care to count over the years! :ROFLMAO: The key point I interpret is the height of the Glide Slope ariel itself can be reduced by replacing with more modern technology thus the subsequent reduction of the restricted vertical 'zone' allows a different point for the take off roll. Not anything to do with the localiser array, nor indeed the actual glide slopes - the exact same angles would have to be set on the new equipment. I don't know how it is calculated but somebody on here might!!
 
GolfFox said:
Yes - all correct - flown both directions (and including the old offset localiser on 33 as was more times than I care to count over the years! :ROFLMAO: The key point I interpret is the height of the Glide Slope ariel itself can be reduced by replacing with more modern technology thus the subsequent reduction of the restricted vertical 'zone' allows a different point for the take off roll. Not anything to do with the localiser array, nor indeed the actual glide slopes - the exact same angles would have to be set on the new equipment. I don't know how it is calculated but somebody on here might!!
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how a change in height of the glide slope antenna can change where you can take off from. I am sorry but that makes no sense at all.
 
KARFA said:
I don’t understand how a change in height of the glide slope antenna can change where you can take off from. I am sorry but that makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
It’s not the Glideslope structure , that’s the vertical red and white structure at the SIDE of the runway. The glideslope structure is abeam the touchdown point on the runway and has no bearing on TAKE OFF Distance Available (TODA).

What has been mentioned is the localiser structure. This is the orange Structure at the ENDS of the runway. The localiser antenna for runway 32 is at the chevon end, it radiates an extended centreline alone the runway and along the approach line, of course that means runway 14’s localiser antenna is at the far end of 14, ie the Horsforth end.
These antennas are a fence like structure and stand above runway level. This means for an aircraft taking off from runway 32 for example must pass over the 32 antenna (at the far (chevin) end) a minimum of 35 ft above it. To achieve this it would need to be wheels off by a certain point on the runway. If as has been suggested this can be lowered, it would mean you could be wheels off slightly further along the runway to achieve the 35’ over the now lower structure. Thereby increasing the TODA (Take Off Distance Available)
 
Last edited:
Yorkieflyer said:
It’s not the Glideslope structure , that’s the vertical red and white structure at the SIDE of the runway. The glideslope structure is abeam the touchdown point on the runway and has no bearing on TAKE OFF Run Available (TORA).

What has been mentioned is the localiser structure. This is the orange Structure at the ENDS of the runway. The localiser antenna for runway 32 is at the chevon end, it radiates an extended centreline alone the runway and along the approach line, of course that means runway 14’s localiser antenna is at the far end of 14, ie the Horsforth end.
These antennas are a fence like structure and stand above runway level. This means for an aircraft taking off from runway 32 for example must pass over the 32 antenna (at the far (chevin) end) a minimum of 35 ft above it. To achieve this it would need to be wheels off by a certain point on the runway. If as has been suggested this can be lowered, it would mean you could be wheels off slightly further along the runway to achieve the 35’ over the now lower structure. Thereby increasing the TORA (Take Off Run Available)
Click to expand...

Thanks. I don’t know what you think happens on a takeoff, but do you think aircraft would be passing 35ft of the localiser at the other end? I would be very concerned if you were within 200ft vertical of the opposite localiser on takeoff, never mind 35.

Edit: bear in mind your takeoff performance is calculated to allow you to accelerate to v1, reject the takeoff, and come to a complete stop by the end of the runway. I can’t see how you would legally be rotating that late on a runway that you would be so close vertically to the localiser array at the other end.
 
Last edited:
KARFA said:
Thanks. I don’t know what you think happens on a takeoff, but do you think aircraft would be passing 35ft of the localiser at the other end? I would be very concerned if you were within 200ft vertical of the opposite localiser on takeoff, never mind 35.
Click to expand...
I read it as how mathematically the declared distances are worked out for each runway, not about the flight crew making a judgement on a case by case basis. As can be seen from the current declared distances, the TODA on both ends is much higher than the amount of concrete. Rwy14 is phenomenal really due to the land falling away.

Declared Distances Details (EGNM)
  • Runway 14:
    • Take-Off Run Available):
      2,113m
    • Accelerate-Stop Distance Available):
      2,113m
    • Take-Off Distance Available):
      3,170m
    • Landing Distance Available):
      1,801m
  • Runway 32:
    • Take-Off Run Available):
      2,190m
    • Accelerate-Stop Distance Available):
      2,190m
    • Take-Off Distance Available):
      2,389m
    • Landing Distance Available):
      1,916m

I
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Upload Media

Remove Advertisements

Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.



Forums4aiports
Subscribe

NEW - Profile Posts

maciver
maciver
FaresChoices is a comprehensive online travel platform designed to simplify the travel experience, from planning to booking. Specializing in affordable airfares, hotels, Amtrak, cruises, and car rentals, the site empowers travelers by providing transparent comparisons of various prices and service options.
•••
David_itl
David_itl
survived a redundancy scenario where I work for the 3rd time. Now it looks likely I will get to cover work for 2 other teams.. Pretty please for a payrise? That would be a no and so stay on the min wage.
•••
Karl C
Karl C
Live in Market Bosworth and take each day as it comes......
•••
Jerry
Jerry
Well it looks like I'm off to Australia and New Zealand next year! Booked with BA from Manchester via Heathrow with a stop in Singapore and returning with Air New Zealand and BA via LAX to Heathrow. Will circumnavigate the globe and be my first trans-Pacific flight. First long haul flight with BA as well and of course Air NZ.
•••
David_itl
David_itl
15 years at the same company was reached the weekend before last. Not sure how they will mark the occasion apart from the compulsory payirse to minimum wage (1st rise for 2 years; i was 15% above it back then!)
•••
Ashley.S.
Ashley.S. wrote on Sotonsean's profile.
Welcome to the forum, I was born and bred in Southampton.
•••

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker.