runway extension at Antwerp : legal setback

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
LX-LGX
Posts: 2004
Joined: 20 Jan 2004, 00:00
Location: ANR

runway extension at Antwerp : legal setback

Post by LX-LGX »

On 29th October 2008, the Flemish minister for Transport has given green light for the works at the "Krijgsbaan", the road at the end of the runway: the road will be locally deviated with a few hundred metres and there will be a kind of a tunnel. Aim is to extend the runway to a full 1.500m, including the new IATA safety margin. The minister (Hilde Crevits) also allowed new office buildings at the airport.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=38314

Two of the local mayors (from Borsbeek and from Mortsel) filed a complaint with the Raad van State / Conseil D'Etat, and the auditor of the RvS/CdE now advises his Court to reject this authorisation because the Flemish government hasn't amended the "regional plan" (het Gewestplan) for the surroundings of the airport. If the Raad van State / Conseil d'Etat follows the auditor - which they usually do - it's back to zero for the runway extension.

User avatar
Gliderpilot
Posts: 157
Joined: 14 Jun 2007, 11:56
Contact:

Re: runway extension at Antwerp : legal setback

Post by Gliderpilot »

This has nothing to do with a runway extension (like in: extra concrete/asphalt), it's all about respecting safety (margins).

LX-LGX
Posts: 2004
Joined: 20 Jan 2004, 00:00
Location: ANR

Re: runway extension at Antwerp : legal setback

Post by LX-LGX »

Gliderpilot wrote:This has nothing to do with a runway extension (like in: extra concrete/asphalt), it's all about respecting safety (margins).
At this moment, the full length of the runway may not be used to calculate max take off weight. Once the Krijgsbaan ("Military Road") will be deviated, the full 1.515m may be used. For me, this is a "runway extension".

Propwash

Re: runway extension at Antwerp : legal setback

Post by Propwash »

Gliderpilot wrote:This has nothing to do with a runway extension (like in: extra concrete/asphalt), it's all about respecting safety (margins).
;)

RESA.
The Runway End Safety Area (RESA) is an area extending beyond the ends of a runway strip, capable of adequately supporting an aircraft which overruns or undershoots the runway.

This area needs to be clear of all equipment and installations which are not frangible.

The Runway End Safety Area (RESA) of RWY 11 @ ANR ...... comply with the 'current' requirements of ICAO Annex 14 (min length of 90 meters, min width of 90 meters).

That's why the Take-Off Distance Available (TODA) of RWY 11 @ ANR is 'curently' reduced.

However, ICAO Annex 14 RECOMMENDS to extend the length of the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) to a distance of at least 240 meters !!
LX-LGX wrote:At this moment, the full length of the runway may not be used to calculate max take off weight.
See Runway End Safety Area (RESA) above.
LX-LGX wrote:For me, this is a "runway extension".
ONLY if RWY 11 @ ANR complies with te min Runway End Safety Area (RESA) requirements of ICAO Annex 14, the Take-Off Distance Available (TODA) will ..... ;)

User avatar
Gliderpilot
Posts: 157
Joined: 14 Jun 2007, 11:56
Contact:

Re: runway extension at Antwerp : legal setback

Post by Gliderpilot »

That is why I wrote "like in: extra concrete/asphalt".
When the media hears about a 'runway extension', they really do think about the extra concrete. You should tell them the deviation of the Krijgsbaan is necessary because of safety regulations for departing (and landing) aircraft. You don't have to mention a 'runway extension', because the media are against that anyway...

Isn't it stupid when you have a 1500m runway, you can only use 1300m?

Post Reply