Airport Consultative Committee [Questions & Responses]

[Len Fish]

The existing runway will have an expected life span so probably more cost effective at the moment to patch and repair to extend its life than start the project right away. Plus the owners will be investing in the terminal improvements first so, as above, financially are not ready to commit to the runway resurfacing just yet.

Post automatically merged: Dec 13, 2022

Pity if we are ripping up the runway bit by bit we couldn't somehow flatten out the 'hump' which seems to cause landing issues under certain conditions for specific types of aircraft. No doubt costly but would be beneficial long term.

You never know, with an asphalt runway surface it may be possible to do something about the hump.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

The existing runway will have an expected life span so probably more cost effective at the moment to patch and repair to extend its life than start the project right away. Plus the owners will be investing in the terminal improvements first so, as above, financially are not ready to commit to the runway resurfacing just yet.

Post automatically merged: Dec 13, 2022

You never know, with an asphalt runway surface it may be possible to do something about the hump.

To remove the hump would require the equivalent of a shallow railway cutting which clearly wouldn't be acceptable however with some clever landscaping you would think its height could be reduced y a couple of feet if the differential in height of the hump and the adjacent terrain could be taken up the gently sloping the land. What I'm less sure about is how they could do this bit by bit.

 

[Finger66]

I would like to think that they are seriously looking at hump removal in line with an asphalt runway. It would without doubt need a full runway closure for a period of time. If work could be completed between 01Nov and mid December that is the quieter time but I am no expert on time frames for such a project. Yes it's an inconvenience for 6 to 7 weeks but surely the longer term benefits outweigh that. However I am sure I read somewhere that the 32 ILS would then need recalibrating which is another huge cost. So overall I am not sure this will happen even though we all may like it to

 

[Easy289]

I think recalibration of ILS would only be required if touchdown zone repositioned.

 

[Finger66]

If they werent going to do that then probably pointless going to the expense of removing or reducing the hump

 

[White Heather]

They are not removing the hump. It's a straight runway replacement, just a different material. Someone asked at the meeting and the response was that landscaping the runway to remove it was not a viable option (no doubt because it would mean the airport closing for some time, drastically increasing the cost, and causing huge disruption to airlines, their crews, and their passengers).

It's another if those cost v benefits situations like a runway extension. The cost, disruption, and loss of business, far outweighs the benefits. We have already seen that some aircraft, especially those painted in Wizz or easyJet livery, have no problems with our hump and downslope, even when doing an autoland. Over time it will hopefully become less of an issue for other airlines too.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

You would think 1 or 2 ft would be achievable. Might not seem like a lot but in percentage terms it's massive.

 

[jason1-11]

Hump or no hump, I think the jury is still out in relation to the operational performance of the ILS on 32 when CAT 3 approaches are required. With LBA regularly in LVP at this time of year and with the RVR often below CAT 3A minimums, It really does put our little, hilltop airport at a disadvantage.

The real acid test for me will be to what extent Jet2 with their CAT3B A320/21’s utilise the equipment as and when introduced at LBA. Lets hope the astonishing performance of Wizzair somehow encourages them in a positive way.

 

[LBA4EVER]

To level the runway slightly to a lesser degree drop and loose the hump where the runway 32 touchdown area is would require the slightest down hill gradient starting right at the beginning of runway 32. Believe im correct there?
Does anyone actually know the height difference between where the runway crosses harrogate road and the very start of runway 32?

 

[Easy289]

Not sure but the 14 threshold is higher than the 32 threshold believe it or not

 

[Yorkieflyer]

32 threshold 662’ 14 674’ however both slope down to the lowest point, the N taxiway intersection

 

[LBA4EVER]

32 threshold 662’ 14 674’ however both slope down to the lowest point, the N taxiway intersection

When you say threshold you mean the very start of the runway? No way is the 14 start higher than 32, you can clearly see that

 

[White Heather]

The problem is, you can't just level off the runway without levelling off a considerable area of airfield either side. It has to be level either side of the runway for a set distance but no idea how far that is. Whatever, you're basically trying to level off a hill - a huge and extensive job that would impact other parts of the airport too.
As I said above, when you do the cost v benefit calculations, the cost is enormous (on top of doing the runway itself) and even if it prevents some diverts, the benefits to LBA in cash terms are not great. That's before you even start thinking about the need to redo the runway lighting too.

There's actually a bigger problem with the Chevin than the hump. It stops us using Cat3 at all on 14 and that's the runway in use on most low cloud days with a SE wind. Perhaps LBA should level off a couple of miles of Chevin instead?(And before anyone shoots me down, I am joking.......)

 

[HX3]

I take it, it is the approach angle that is the issue for runway 14? Surely though, places like Innsbruck in mountainous areas prone to low viz would have similar issues and they cope; so surely the angle connecting to the localiser is not insurmountable? As Wizz have proved, sometimes other airlines are more cautious and whilst safety is paramount, perhaps they are over-cautious??

 

[Aviador]

I take it, it is the approach angle that is the issue for runway 14? Surely though, places like Innsbruck in mountainous areas prone to low viz would have similar issues and they cope; so surely the angle connecting to the localiser is not insurmountable? As Wizz have proved, sometimes other airlines are more cautious and whilst safety is paramount, perhaps they are over-cautious??

To suggest "other airlines are more cautious" is possibly not quite what you ment to say as it suggests Wizz takes risks.

The fact of the matter is the airport has CAA approved equipment that enables suitably equipped aircraft to land in low visibility.

Some aircraft are better equipped than others and some airlines will have their own "local specific" guidance which may differ from officially accepted published information.

 

[HX3]

@Aviador I’m not suggesting Wizz takes risks, I’m stating that they apply different measures to assess risk.

Operate to different rules which allow for safe landings where other jurisdictional regulations/ local company regulations are more stringent, allowing for less scope to operate in adverse conditions, is that better phrasing

My point being that if the CAA allow and it is local company rules, perhaps observing the success of Wizz performance could act as a prompt to other airlines to investigate whether it would enhance performance, whilst (to your point) not impacting safety.

 

[Aviador]

I could come down to the specification of equipment used by Airbus being more able to deal with the constraints observed by those using Boeing equipment. Pure specification though.

 

[Yorkieflyer]

When you say threshold you mean the very start of the runway? No way is the 14 start higher than 32, you can clearly see that

Actually it’s the ‘piano Keys’ markings which mark the start of the Runway, not the concrete as the beginning is the ‘starter extension’ however, yes14 threshold is higher than 32. Eyes can be deceptive given the undulating terrain. The runway slope at the beginning of 14 is 0.87 down. 32 starter extension is flat initially and starts sloping down at 0.80 from the touchdown point (where D taxiway meets the runway’. This can be seen on the LiDO Airport charts on which there is also a cross section profile of the runway. It’s a rotten runway. The actual concrete length is a around 2200m however because of the displaced thresholds the available landing distances are 14: 1870m and 32: 1916m

Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2022

B

I could come down to the specification of equipment used by Airbus being more able to deal with the constraints observed by those using Boeing equipment. Pure specification though.

The 737 has a maximum Glideslope angle for an Autoland of 3.2 degrees, ILS Glideslope angle of runway 14 is 3.5 degrees due to the Chevin. Runway 32 has a standard 3.0 degree Glideslope hence the only runway with CAT3 Autoland capability.

Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2022

In fact, at the end of the ATiS report there is a statement‘Threshold elevation 662 feet’ when 32 is in use and of course ‘Threshold elevation 674 feet’ when 14 is in use.
All this is completely irrelevant of course because as has been stated, to re profile tge runway would be far to cost prohibitive and involve closing the airport completely while it took place.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Actually it’s the ‘piano Keys’ markings which mark the start of the Runway, not the concrete as the beginning is the ‘starter extension’ however, yes14 threshold is higher than 32. Eyes can be deceptive given the undulating terrain. The runway slope at the beginning of 14 is 0.87 down. 32 starter extension is flat initially and starts sloping down at 0.80 from the touchdown point (where D taxiway meets the runway’. This can be seen on the LiDO Airport charts on which there is also a cross section profile of the runway. It’s a rotten runway. The actual concrete length is a around 2200m however because of the displaced thresholds the available landing distances are 14: 1870m and 32: 1916m

Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2022

B

The 737 has a maximum Glideslope angle for an Autoland of 3.2 degrees, ILS Glideslope angle of runway 14 is 3.5 degrees due to the Chevin. Runway 32 has a standard 3.0 degree Glideslope hence the only runway with CAT3 Autoland capability.

Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2022

In fact, at the end of the ATiS report there is a statement‘Threshold elevation 662 feet’ when 32 is in use and of course ‘Threshold elevation 674 feet’ when 14 is in use.
All this is completely irrelevant of course because as has been stated, to re profile tge runway would be far to cost prohibitive and involve closing the airport completely while it took place.

Of course, standing at the Cemetery viewing area looking down the runway the furthest you can see is the hump. The other end of the runway is hidden so you can be mistaken for thinking the 32 end is higher than the 14 end.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I still

Actually it’s the ‘piano Keys’ markings which mark the start of the Runway, not the concrete as the beginning is the ‘starter extension’ however, yes14 threshold is higher than 32. Eyes can be deceptive given the undulating terrain. The runway slope at the beginning of 14 is 0.87 down. 32 starter extension is flat initially and starts sloping down at 0.80 from the touchdown point (where D taxiway meets the runway’. This can be seen on the LiDO Airport charts on which there is also a cross section profile of the runway. It’s a rotten runway. The actual concrete length is a around 2200m however because of the displaced thresholds the available landing distances are 14: 1870m and 32: 1916m

Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2022

B

The 737 has a maximum Glideslope angle for an Autoland of 3.2 degrees, ILS Glideslope angle of runway 14 is 3.5 degrees due to the Chevin. Runway 32 has a standard 3.0 degree Glideslope hence the only runway with CAT3 Autoland capability.

Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2022

In fact, at the end of the ATiS report there is a statement‘Threshold elevation 662 feet’ when 32 is in use and of course ‘Threshold elevation 674 feet’ when 14 is in use.
All this is completely irrelevant of course because as has been stated, to re profile tge runway would be far to cost prohibitive and involve closing the airport completely while it took place.

I still cant believe 14 is higher than 32! Is the whole area around the airport on a bit of a slope haha