asitis Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 If the RESA is made mandatory in its 240m form by the eurocrats it will close a number of UK regional airports who would be unable to comply, the most important of which would be london city. It is now the proposers policy to bang on about safety when the original planning document was mainly about passenger figures and growth. Time has proven that the passenger figures cannot be supported to make any business justification for the investment. On the subject of safety, where does one draw the line an aircraft can just as easily over run the RESA and fall into the sea, Kai Tak had 12000ft Plus and had aircraft over run. I am afraid that far from being Govt foresight this is another case of too much, not needed in its current format and a feast for the consultants and staff employed to oversee it. BTW I am a pilot, so extra runway would be great ! I am also however a great believer in the proper use of public money in a democracy. This needs looking at again properly and remove the emotive language about safety and take a balanced view on what is required or necessary. The public trough will empty if the Govt.. do not exercise proper financial prudence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 asit - any idea what's involved in providing Cat 2 at one end at least? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 asit - any idea what's involved in providing Cat 2 at one end at least? Think this is correct but there is a minimum runway length not sure what that is but the aircraft will land deep. Most if not all Flybe aircraft and crews are cat 2 approved. I think it may only work on 08 because it requires a radalt for decision height. Category II - Category II operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height lower than 200 feet (61 m) above touchdown zone elevation but not lower than 100 feet (30 m), and a runway visual range not less than 1,150 feet (350 m). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 I bet the Ryanair pilot who went of the end of the runway at Limoges this week wished it had been another 100m longer. Actually another 50m would have made his day considerably better. (The runway at Limoges is over 700m longer than Ronaldsway apparently) Longer runway = safer (in my opinion anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 Longer runway = safer (in my opinion anyway) Depends if you've got waves crashing over it or not . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 It is very easy to say extend towards Castletown, but unless you want to knock down Janets Corner, most of the houses in Victoria Road and the Sidings pub, then this is a non starter! You say that like it's a bad thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 Are you expecting a 50 foot rise in the sea level then Skeddan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 Are you expecting a 50 foot rise in the sea level then Skeddan? No - just some rough seas once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 Are you expecting a 50 foot rise in the sea level then Skeddan? No - just some rough seas once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 I bet the Ryanair pilot who went of the end of the runway at Limoges this week wished it had been another 100m longer. Actually another 50m would have made his day considerably better. (The runway at Limoges is over 700m longer than Ronaldsway apparently) Longer runway = safer (in my opinion anyway) As a pilot, yes the longer the runway the larger the errors one can make and still save face, however if all goes horribly wrong whether through human or mechanical fault you can overrun any length. The present length of runway poses no restrictions for current operators except weather related which the proposed extension will not alter. Interestingly I can find no consideration of an EMAS which is a mechanical arrestor system if you like similar to that used on steep hills for heavy vehicles, I assume this is a much more cost effective solution !, and yes the FAA report that an EMAS will stop 89% of overruns and a RESA extension 84% of overruns. Anything for safety I am in favour of but the public must know that this huge expenditure is needed and justified and not just to feed the egos of a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 As a pilot, yes the longer the runway the larger the errors one can make and still save face Agreed The present length of runway poses no restrictions for current operators I thought the J41 was restricted at Ronaldsway? It is difficult to argue that when things do not go to plan (for whatever reason) a longer runway is bound to allow an extra safety margin. You don't need to be a pilot to work that one out. As to whether the expense is 'worth it' is much more debateable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.