TUI Airways

[a300boy]

Thank you !
We need a bit of all those items from time to time. Roll on good news for us all.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Reg Bristol airport, it’s in the south west and has no other nearby competition, that’s why it’s a 9million pax airport, we are talking about the city of Leeds and west York’s and look what airport we got, sort the runway out,end of!

 

[Jerry]

Reg Bristol airport, it’s in the south west and has no other nearby competition, that’s why it’s a 9million pax airport, we are talking about the city of Leeds and west York’s and look what airport we got, sort the runway out,end of!

It has Heathrow and Birmingham about 90 minutes away and of course Cardiff and Exeter quite close. It has a lot of competition.

 

[White Heather]

Reg Bristol airport, it’s in the south west and has no other nearby competition, that’s why it’s a 9million pax airport, we are talking about the city of Leeds and west York’s and look what airport we got, sort the runway out,end of!

You are a bit like a stuck record on this aren't you? The runway is not ideal and it is located at an airport which is also not ideally positioned but it is what it is.

A runway extension is not going to happen any time soon, and probably never, as I have told you before. It no longer even features in the airport masterplan. At the Horsforth end the land drops away far too steeply into what used to be an old reservoir. Not only would the infill required be absolutely huge, the new link road (Option A) goes right through there, so an extension there would need that link road to be built at the same time and to pass through a tunnel under the runway. Yet more expense for a relatively short extension. The Scotland Lane estate is very close and frankly, there is no chance they would get approval to build it at this end. If they ever did, most of the houses in that Estate would have runway approach lights in their back yard!

At the Yeadon end, the ground also drops away considerably, so once again, huge landfill would be required. Due to the requirement to have flat areas either side of the runway, Yeadon cemetery, would have to be removed - can you imagine the uproar that would cause if all those graves and what is in them were to be dug up? Do you seriously think they would get permission? And even if they did extend at that end, the requirement to clear Otley Chevin by a given height (hence the current 3.5 degree glide slope when landing on runway 14) would mean that aircraft landing would still land where they do now when using runway 14. The extra length would only be of any use for runway 32 landings and for take offs. Better than we have now but still not going to help on our low cloud days with 14 in use. And a runway extension either end will do nothing to resolve the direction of the runway or the cross winds arising from that.

I have had numerous discussions with ATC and airport management regarding moving the threshold back to where it used to be, which would effectively lengthen the stopping distance, but there are many issues that make this impractical at the moment, not least the ILS, runway lighting (newly installed), and the fact aircraft will be considerably lower as they pass over the Scotland Lane estate landing on 32. It is also likely that the CAA would have some issues and would not approve such changes unless all of them were resolved. These are not things that can be switched off one day, changed overnight and turned on again the day after. There would be huge disruption and huge costs. I am told that new technologies may help bring about improvements but successive ATC chiefs at the airport have all told me the same thing.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Reg Bristol airport, it’s in the south west and has no other nearby competition, that’s why it’s a 9million pax airport, we are talking about the city of Leeds and west York’s and look what airport we got, sort the runway out,end of!

I don't think the BRS management would agree with that. Only this week they've put out another press release bemoaning the amount of traffic they lose to London airports, mainly Heathrow.

It's been said before that LBA and BRS have many similarities: restricted runway; over 600 feet AMSL; challenging weather; awkward surface connectivity. Despite a new master plan being in preparation at BRS the management has made it clear again recently that a runway extension does not feature in their plans , and yet they are still forecasting 12 mppa by 2025 and up to 20 mppa by the 2040s.

It has Heathrow and Birmingham about 90 minutes away and of course Cardiff and Exeter quite close. It has a lot of competition.

SOU and BOH are also options for those in the south-east of the BRS catchment.

 

[KARFA]

Yes the runway direction is relevant and no displaced thresholds at Bristol plus a lower altitude above sea level all make the difference.

there is not much in it

T/O (TORA)
LBA - 2113m/2190m
BRS - 2011m/2011m

Landing (LDA)
LBA - 1524m/1620m
BRS - 1623m/1566m

 

[TheLocalYokel]

there is not much in it

T/O (TORA)
LBA - 2113m/2190m
BRS - 2011m/2011m

Landing (LDA)
LBA - 1524m/1620m
BRS - 1623m/1566m

AMSL is LBA 681 feet, BRS 622 feet.

 

[LBA4EVER]

reg white heathers point about moving the touchdown point further back to the start of the runway so aircraft land earlier, so say around 300-400metre back, would aircraft really be that much lower when coming into land, can anyone roughly calculate how much lower?

 

[LBA4EVER]

Also all those points you mentioned white heather I am aware of, but I am aware through through what iv been told that the runway is the main issue and the sticking point at LBA, I guess I just get abit frustrated that our little airport struggles to grow the way it should do! lol

 

[LBA4EVER]

Must admit the TORA and LDA for both LBA and BRS are very close but I guess generally most of the time due to wind direction BRS has the edge over LBA!

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

reg white heathers point about moving the touchdown point further back to the start of the runway so aircraft land earlier, so say around 300-400metre back, would aircraft really be that much lower when coming into land, can anyone roughly calculate how much lower?

It's all about glide path - they could be considerable lower moving it back. Probably around 200/300ft.

 

[White Heather]

Well if they put the touch down point where it used to be, pre runway extension (1974), they would immediately get rid of the slope that aircraft currently have to touch down on, which would be an immediate improvement. But if they maintained the standard 3 degaree glideslope currently in use on 32, then it stands to reason that aircraft would be lower passing over the nearby housing estate than at present. The only way to reduce the impact would be to increase the glideslope to 3.5 degrees, as it is on runway 14. Whether the CAA would be happy with that is another matter. Unfortunately, the real issues are such as the (brand new) landing lights, which would be all wrong for a threshold in a different place, and the runway lighting, and of course the ILS. All three would need changing - and none can be done quickly. So for a period of time, it is reasonable to assume that whilst the works were underway, there would be no ILS on 32, no runway lighting and no approach lighting, until they have re-done it all - and then had it all calibrated by the CAA. Heaven knows the disruption caused with all that going on.

 

[LBA4EVER]

do you mean pre 1984? whats the current glideslope degree for runway32?

 

[White Heather]

do you mean pre 1984? whats the current glideslope degree for runway32?

Yes, just a silly typo, sorry fight2win. The glideslope on runway 32 is current 3 degrees, and on 14, due to the Chevin clearance required, it is 3.5 degrees, which is one of the reasons we don't have Cat 3 landing on that runway.

 

[LBA4EVER]

So really if they had it at 3.5 degrees onto runway 32 with a touchdown area around 300-400metre further back on flat runway then I can’t imagine they would be much height difference over horsforth

 

[KARFA]

i think the problem is if it were 3.5 degrees you can't have CATII/III autoland which would be a very significant loss of capability.

 

[Deleted member 82]

Hi Karfa, I’m slack as a bag when it comes to technical stuff, but I assume the angle is too high to pick up the beam therefore renders it inactive?

 

[KARFA]

Hi Karfa, I’m slack as a bag when it comes to technical stuff, but I assume the angle is too high to pick up the beam therefore renders it inactive?

You can have an ILS at 3.5 degrees but only at CATI level. You can use the autopilot to follow the ILS down but the landing itself would have be hand flown. I understand CATII/III level ILS (i.e. autolands) are not possible at 3.5 degrees or more. Loss of autoland for 32 due to increasing the glide slope angle would be a very big issue whenever we have low visibility at LBA

 

[White Heather]

You can have an ILS at 3.5 degrees but only at CATI level. You can use the autopilot to follow the ILS down but the landing itself would have be hand flown. I understand CATII/III level ILS (i.e. autolands) are not possible at 3.5 degrees or more. Loss of autoland for 32 due to increasing the glide slope angle would be a very big issue whenever we have low visibility at LBA

Exactly KARFA. Solve one problem by effectively providing a longer stopping distance on 32 landings, but create a new one with no Autoland capability, which is hardly the best idea at the UK's highest airport. And, all at huge cost. It would only be worthwhile if the glideslope remained 3 degrees but aircraft would be considerably lower when passing over the Scotland Lane estate as they would then be touching down pretty close to the end of the concrete. I wouldn't mind that at all, but I can imagine that those who live there, just might. Even if their objections were over-ruled, there remains the problem of completely revised approach lighting, runway lighting and changes to the ILS system, meaning major disruption for the airport with the high risk of flights unable to land whilst all this is going on. Given that the MAN black hole is where it is, and likely to continue sucking in the vast majority of longer haul flights, it is hard to imagine the business case stacking up for doing all of that in the perhaps vain hope that LBA might secure a few long haul flights - and bearing in mind that both the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 can operate long haul, and, according to LBA management and ATC, operate from LBA as it is.

 

[jason1-11]

I still think GBAS will be the solution to many of LBA's runway woes especially when it is eventually certified to CAT III standards :