Exeter Restrictions
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saab is quite right - there are houses just off the approach end to runway 25 (and 21, too, to a lesser extent) at White Waltham. The departures for both 03 and 07 include an immediate turn - in the case of 07, it's quite a big turn which still doesn't take you clear of the houses, just through a gap where there aren't quite so many. Runway 07 is only used if the wind is too strong for 03 or 11 to be an option because of this. I don't know how this fits in with the whole idea of a safety zone? I don't want to ask too many questions about it, though..... 
Out of interest, how many aircraft are affected by this restriction at Exeter? How many single-engine aircraft need more runway than what is left at Exeter? I'd expect not very many - most aircraft that need longer runways will, I would have thought, have more than one engine? I'm sure there are a small number of types affected, though - I just don't know how many.
I don't agree with you, Saab, about maximising the TODA w.r.t EFATO, though. If I have an engine failure after take off I will land in the safest place I can see. If that happens to be a bit of runway which, ordinarily, would be out of bounds, then that's where I'm going to land - it's certainly no more illegal than landing off the end of the runway in a farmer's field, and much safer. The only time the restriction would be an isue is during flight planning. I have to plan to be off the runway, with a safety margin, before the end of the TODA, but that's all.
FFF
---------------
Out of interest, how many aircraft are affected by this restriction at Exeter? How many single-engine aircraft need more runway than what is left at Exeter? I'd expect not very many - most aircraft that need longer runways will, I would have thought, have more than one engine? I'm sure there are a small number of types affected, though - I just don't know how many.
I don't agree with you, Saab, about maximising the TODA w.r.t EFATO, though. If I have an engine failure after take off I will land in the safest place I can see. If that happens to be a bit of runway which, ordinarily, would be out of bounds, then that's where I'm going to land - it's certainly no more illegal than landing off the end of the runway in a farmer's field, and much safer. The only time the restriction would be an isue is during flight planning. I have to plan to be off the runway, with a safety margin, before the end of the TODA, but that's all.
FFF
---------------
Thread Starter
Letter from Exeter to AOPA
Mr David Ogilvy
President
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
British Light Aviation Centre
50a Cambridge Street
London
SW1V 4QQ
2nd March 2004
Dear Mr Ogilvy
Thank you for your letter of 9th February 2004.
In July 2002 the Department for Transport issued a revised planning circular relating to control of development in airport public safety zones. At the same time public safety zones (PSZ) were introduced for some airports that had not previously had them. Exeter was one of these airports.
The PSV's were made up of two zones - one where no further development should take place and the other where any existing development would need to be removed. This latter zone would have meant Exeter International Airport acquiring and demolishing several properties in the village of Honiton Clyst at considerable cost which would inevitably have had to be passed on to the single engine aircraft users who were the reason for the extent of the 1-10,000 zone.
National Air Traffic Services were engaged to identify the high risk aircraft and to re-run the model several times using different scenarios.
These runs indicated two possible scenarios that would reduce the 1-10,000 risk contour to a size that would not include properties in Honiton Clyst. These were:
1) The airport no longer allowing light aircraft circuit training
2) The runway length available to single engine piston aircraft be reduced to 900 metres.
These two scenarious were taken to the airport User Group and the group was of the opinion that the reduction in runway length was by far the preferred option. On the basis of this consultation Exeter International Airport submitted a formal request for the recalculation of the PSZ's. Revised guidance was issued on 23rd January 2004 by the Department for Transport with the reduced distances being introduced on the 3rd February 2004.
Due to the significant level of consultation that took place between ourselves, the CAA and representatives of our users and flying clubs I am amazed that this issue should now be raised by your organisation.
I hope this provides you with the information you require.
Yours sincerely
MIKE FOSTER
SAFETY DIRECTOR
President
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
British Light Aviation Centre
50a Cambridge Street
London
SW1V 4QQ
2nd March 2004
Dear Mr Ogilvy
Thank you for your letter of 9th February 2004.
In July 2002 the Department for Transport issued a revised planning circular relating to control of development in airport public safety zones. At the same time public safety zones (PSZ) were introduced for some airports that had not previously had them. Exeter was one of these airports.
The PSV's were made up of two zones - one where no further development should take place and the other where any existing development would need to be removed. This latter zone would have meant Exeter International Airport acquiring and demolishing several properties in the village of Honiton Clyst at considerable cost which would inevitably have had to be passed on to the single engine aircraft users who were the reason for the extent of the 1-10,000 zone.
National Air Traffic Services were engaged to identify the high risk aircraft and to re-run the model several times using different scenarios.
These runs indicated two possible scenarios that would reduce the 1-10,000 risk contour to a size that would not include properties in Honiton Clyst. These were:
1) The airport no longer allowing light aircraft circuit training
2) The runway length available to single engine piston aircraft be reduced to 900 metres.
These two scenarious were taken to the airport User Group and the group was of the opinion that the reduction in runway length was by far the preferred option. On the basis of this consultation Exeter International Airport submitted a formal request for the recalculation of the PSZ's. Revised guidance was issued on 23rd January 2004 by the Department for Transport with the reduced distances being introduced on the 3rd February 2004.
Due to the significant level of consultation that took place between ourselves, the CAA and representatives of our users and flying clubs I am amazed that this issue should now be raised by your organisation.
I hope this provides you with the information you require.
Yours sincerely
MIKE FOSTER
SAFETY DIRECTOR
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exeter Restrictions
Now there's a surprise
>>>This latter zone would have meant Exeter International Airport acquiring and demolishing several properties in the village of Honiton Clyst at considerable cost which would inevitably have had to be passed on to the single engine aircraft users who were the reason for the extent of the 1-10,000 zone<<<<
Surely the cost should be passed on to all users, as the risk involves any aircraft, but it does show Exeter's attitude to GA.
>>>>These two scenarious were taken to the airport User Group and the group was of the opinion that the reduction in runway length was by far the preferred option<<<
.... of the two given options, agreed. However, was consideration ever given to other options??
>>>This latter zone would have meant Exeter International Airport acquiring and demolishing several properties in the village of Honiton Clyst at considerable cost which would inevitably have had to be passed on to the single engine aircraft users who were the reason for the extent of the 1-10,000 zone<<<<
Surely the cost should be passed on to all users, as the risk involves any aircraft, but it does show Exeter's attitude to GA.
>>>>These two scenarious were taken to the airport User Group and the group was of the opinion that the reduction in runway length was by far the preferred option<<<
.... of the two given options, agreed. However, was consideration ever given to other options??
