Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Displaced threshold

10 Posts

hello,

i have a strange quesiton and in the end i guess the answer is clear.

at our Airport, former military and now beeing transfered to civil, one of the runway will have a displaced threshold nearly in the middle of the runway, ca. 800m displaced.
This will end in more noise for the village when doing circuits and also end in more backtracks as the only active intersection is near the threshold, and as last, usualy the affected RWY is used.
In my view the noise over the village is the worst outcome, all others are too not economical positiv but managable. Not that i’m affected with the noise, but i know where it will end….

There are 2 possible Ideas, use more often the other RWY if winds permit and, and here is the question use a different displaced threshold for circuits, the smal planes used the full RWY for decades without incidents, would this be legaly possible ? I guess all is related by ICAO rules who drive the displaced threshold ?

Brgds
Lucas

I don’t think it’s ICAO. I think it’s maintenance, including cleaning. Campbelltown EGCN had a huge runway. This has been twice shortened for civil use, with fences across it. The useable end is at the terminal. The Tower is far away.
Which section of runway is kept might be open to discussion with the village residents, if all the original runway is in acceptable condition.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

For t/o the full RWY is available and there is a small hill about 300m before the RWY.

luckymaaa wrote:

For t/o the full RWY is available and there is a small hill about 300m before the RWY.

That is most likely the reason. The military may have had very obstacle clearance different requirements. Looking at the runway on Google Earth, I’m surprised even 800 m displacement is enough. I assume there will be no flying at night?

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 28 Jan 10:14
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

no, no lights insatalled, the military had removeable lights and also flew in the night. Unfortunalty even in the new rules for the airport they exclude night flying except for choppers… why forbidding somethink unlikly to ever come ?

those anyone know if landing is permitted if some is taxing behind the treashold (so he theoreticly is not on the RWY) ?

Last Edited by luckymaaa at 28 Jan 11:12

luckymaaa wrote:

those anyone know if landing is permitted if some is taxing behind the treashold (so he theoreticly is not on the RWY) ?

I assume LSMF is not a licensed airport? In that case “permitted” is a somewhat loose concept unless there are national rules. But “theoretically”, displacing the threshold doesn’t make the part before the threshold any less part of the runway. Generally speaking, an aircraft is not supposed to land over another one on the runway. But if we assume the airport can set its own rules and instead talk about “safety”, I would say that if the taxying aircraft is at a sufficient distance behind the threshold to be well below any reasonable approach path then it could be safe. But this very tricky at an uncontrolled airport since in weak, variable or crosswind conditions, another pilot could find it reasonable to take off in the opposite direction. Then you wouldn’t want to have a taxying aircraft at the (now) departure end of the runway.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

An aircraft on the area before the displaced threshold is on the runway as that part is available for takeoff but not landing.

EGTK Oxford

I once landed in Tucson, Arizona, on a runway which was shared military/civil. As I overflew the displaced threshold markings, I noticed arrestor cables within the displaced threshold area. I was glad I had not landed short, tangling with them would have messed up the 182. In other cases, I have known thresholds to be displaced to assure the proper approach angle over an obstruction further back. If you are not absolutely sure of the runway, land appropriate to the markings!

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada

If I understand you right, then the full rwy will be available for t/o. If that’s indeed the case, noise should not be a factor for the village, aside from touch-and-go ops. Do you have that many t&gs there?

172driver wrote:

If I understand you right, then the full rwy will be available for t/o. If that’s indeed the case, noise should not be a factor for the village, aside from touch-and-go ops. Do you have that many t&gs there?

luckmaaa did write “This will end in more noise for the village when doing circuits” — which I understand to mean t&g.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
10 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top