I wonder if it could be possible to get some of these questions directly answered regarding the known issues about the runway 14/32 displaced threshold, ILS CATII & CATIII operations from either the Airports Management, ATC, Airfield Operations team or from the Airlines Operators themselves.

Otherwise can this issue be raised again/put on the agenda at the next Consultative Committee meeting White Heather?

I for one would be interested to hear what they all have to say. But my guess is that we will get the normal reply from LBA. "We expect the next generation of aircraft like the 787 & A350 won’t have problems so there isn’t any need to change".
If LBA are to keep on going for airlines using the likes of B733's, B738's, B752's, A319, A320's and E195's aircraft surely the problem needs fixing now, not later!
 
lbaspotter said:
I wonder if be could possible to get some questions directly answered regarding the known issues about the runway 32 displaced threshold, ILS and CATIII from the Airports Mangerment, ATC, Airfield Operations team or from the Airlines Operators themselves?

Otherwise can this issue be raised again/put on the agenda at the next Consultive Commitee meeting White Heather?

My guess is that we will get the normal reply. "We expect the next generation of aircraft like the 787 & A350 wont have problems so no need to change". But if we keep on going for airlines using the likes of B733's, B738's, B752's, A319, A320's and E195's surely the problem needs fixing now not later,,,

Agreed! :LOL:
 
I can bust some of these myths

- the displaced threshold is to comply with RESA requirements, nothing to do with Scotland Lane residents
- increasing the glideslope to 3.5 degrees will prohibit CAT2 / 3 approaches as the avionics on most aircraft are only certified to max 3.25 degrees for autoland, so it would be a massive retrograde step. Clue here, is that RWY14 - which already has a 3.5 degree slope, is CAT1 only.

The CAT3 system on 32 went in sometime around 94/95 - so it's been going now for 18 years. Plenty of experienced people have been involved in running the airport since then and none of them have found a cost effective solution to improving it.

I still think the most likely is to lower the glideslope on 14 and get that end certified to CAT2. The wind favours that end, the touchdown zone if flat and the viz is usually 50m better than the 32 end. An update on progress on this development is the question to ask.
 
The moving of the threshold was definitely used to appease local residents when the public enquiry took place.
 
TheLocalYokel
What about Thomson and whoever else operate larger aircraft to Bristol , do they accept Cat 3 approaches there ?

It's only when the weather approaches cat IIIb minima that Ryanair seems to divert whilst easyJet continues to land. I would stress that this is not a frequent occurrence.

I can't say I've noticed what happens to the likes of Thomson or Thomas Cook when this happens as there aren't as many of them.

In other cat IIIb operations (ie when conditions are not approaching minima) the larger aircraft (easyjet, Ryanair, Thomson, Thomas Cook etc) do all seem land whereas the small turbo-props that are not cat III-equipped divert.

BRS's website describes their cat IIIb thus:

Runway 27 is fitted with a Category lllb system which permits suitably equipped aircraft to land in periods of reduced visibility, the critical minima being a measured horizontal visibility of 75 metres.
 
Hi LS16

If i remember correctly I'm sure I’ve heard a discussion in the past with either a LBA based ATCO or Airfield op's personnel whom mentioned to us at an Air Yorkshire meeting that the issue of equipping LBA's Runway 14 with CAT2, ILS had been looked at by the airports previous council based management and the UK CAA had been consulted on this to work with them to find a solution.

In the same meeting I'm also sure it was mentioned that by building a metal gantry (instead of an Runway extension or runway overshoot) on the Horsforth end the current displaced runway 32 threshold could be pushed back to where it use to be so that the LDA could increased so that A320’s and B752’s would be able to autoland without them floating halfway down the runway before touching down as they do now.....

Can anyone confirm this as i'm sure other members of this forum might have been at the said meeting all them years ago??
 
A further point to note is the council seem to be pressing ahead with plans to build the airport link road. If they stick to the original plan it will run right past the Horsforth end of the runway. A potential opportunity to construct some sort of extension or starter strip that might assist with increasing the LDA on 32?
 
Im sure it will all be in the unbelievably late masterplan printed on papirus ( or if its as accurate as the current masterplan; andrex )
 
TheLocalYokel
Yes that makes sense Ryanair B737-800s are only Cat 3A capable so they need 200m Rvr
however Easyjet are Cat 3B and only need 75m Rvr. I am told that Ryanair ordered their aircraft with a Cat 3A option rather than Cat 3B. The difference is the roll out capability of the autopilot after touch down.
Thanks for the information !! keep an eye on what Thomsom and Tommy Cooks do next time its foggy at Bristol.
 
LS16

I understand there is a need for the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) but I also understand this doesn't need to be a paved area which is where the problem lies. It's a complete waste of concrete when around 300m of it are unusable for landing aircraft. As we've all discussed, we know it is possible to address this by either adding a flat overrun area or starter extension which would be used as the RESA. Looking at other airports, the main runway at Bristol doesn't have 300m of concrete prior to the threshold, nether does Liverpool or Newcastle.
 
Aviador said:
LS16

I understand there is a need for the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) but I also understand this doesn't need to be a paved area which is where the problem lies. It's a complete waste of concrete when around 300m of it are unusable for landing aircraft. As we've all discussed, we know it is possible to address this by either adding a flat overrun area or starter extension which would be used as the RESA. Looking at other airports, the main runway at Bristol doesn't have 300m of concrete prior to the threshold, nether does Liverpool or Newcastle.

When you refer to RESA are you meaning the 14 end (start of 32)? Where the Tristar (L1011) came off the end in the 80s? I know there is a flat run off at the end of 32 (start of 14) prior to the antenna and slope down to the road, but what does this have to do with the landing threshold? Surely if the TDZ was nearer the start it would lessen the need for RESA?
 
There's some bedtime reading on RESA's in the attached, for anyone interested.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice2012004.pdf

CAP168 is the aerodrome licensing manual if you really want to get into the technicalities http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP168.PDF

To cut a long story short, a RESA is required to protect aircraft in the event of an overshoot OR undershot. The length is dependant on a risk assessment of how severe an undershoot or overshoot would be. In the case of runway 32, clearly the view is that an undershoot would be a major safety risk because of the way the land falls away and the undershoot is below the level of the runway. There is no appropriate RESA in place, so, the displaced threshold is there instead. The only way to get rid of it would be to build up the land to the same level as the runway.

There are some airports operating on dispensations, which does seem pretty strange. There is no displaced threshold on runway 09 at Bristol for example and here is a view of the undershoot. The safety implications of an undershoot here look to be very similar to LBA. LBA has got the former CEO of BRS, the Commercial Director and up until recently, the Ops Director was ex-BRS too. If it was possible to get a similar dispensation in place at LBA, they would know what to do. In think the reality is that 32/14 was classed as a "new" runway when the extension was opened and it was forced to comply with the regulations

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=s ... CAsQ_AUoAg
 
Thanks for the info. Had a look at BRS 09/27 and agree its similar at the start of 09, lets hope they can get a dispensation!
Will read the other info later.
Thanks
 
Nobody would want safety to be compromised, I really can't see why raising land is such a big problem. Half the airfield is built on raised land so an extra 200m -300m at the end of the runway shouldn't be difficult to achieve. Any associated costs would be offset by the increase in value of the airport. It would have the effect of a 300m runway extension without even adding concrete. A starter strip as well would be a bonus.
 
Aviador said:
Nobody would want safety to be compromised, I really can't see why raising land is such a big problem. Half the airfield is built on raised land so an extra 200m -300m at the end of the runway shouldn't be difficult to achieve. Any associated costs would be offset by the increase in value of the airport. It would have the effect of a 300m runway extension without even adding concrete. A starter strip as well would be a bonus.

I agree. But no one has done anything in 30 years and that CAT3 landing issues have been around for 15 years. I'm inclined to think if it was straightforward, something would have happened. Nothing has, and Denison, Savage, Anderson all had a chance long before Bridgepoint took ownership.
 
It's not whether its "straightforward" just as building a bigger terminal is straightforward. That's not been done for 30 years too. It's about willingness to spend money to move the airport forward. The council could not do it and so the airport was sold with the express demand and proviso that those who won the ownership of the airport would spend the money that the council couldn't. This is the burden on Bridgepoint's shoulders and so far those intrinsic reasons for the airport's sale have not been met. It's a little ridiculous to talk about runway extensions and even RESA areas when all we've had in real infrastructure terms is a new bus shelter.
 
Re: KLM cityhopper

They can do CAT 3 if needs be apparently with the E190 - it did one last winter and like the 737 it does not work on closure rates like the Fokker 70 Auto land - proving a problem due to the undulation of the runway.
 
Re: KLM cityhopper

Sorry imagineif I was a little vague. The Fokker 70 is only CAT 2 as is the E190 however the later E190 models have had an avionics update and are Cat 3 but I dont know if Klm have bought the upgraded versions so that was my question. Cat 2/3 has nothing to do with autoland you can do a manual landing in Cat 2 conditions or indeed an autoland in any conditions and all aircraft types use a rate of decent computer. The only connection is if you carry out a Cat 3 approach the landing has to be automatic [ ie an autoland ] but they are viewed as separate functions.
 
Re: KLM cityhopper

a300boy said:
Cat 2/3 has nothing to do with autoland you can do a manual landing in Cat 2 conditions

Really?

Who does a manual landing in 300m vis?

The whole point of Cat 2/3 is autolanding is it not?

Below Cat 1 minima you either autoland or don't make the approach?
 

Upload Media

Upgrade Your Account

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

9 trips in 9 days done 70 miles walked and over 23-00 photos taken with a large number taken at 20mph or above. Heavy rain on 1 day only
5 trips done and 45 miles walked,. Also the RAF has had 4 F35B Lightning follow me yesterday and today....
My plans got altered slightly as one of the minibus companies had to cancel 3 trips and refunded me but will be getting nice discount when I rebook them.
wondering why on my "holidays" I choose to get up 2 hours earlier than when going to work. 6 trips in 6 days soon coming up with 3 more days to sort out

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock