Peter Mundy wrote that he started his takeoff run at the beginning of ther displaced threshild, not at intersection A.
Emir wrote:
They can tell you whatever they want but if used for takeoff run then it’s not RESA in terms of how it’s defined by ICAO. If it’s used as a part of runway then it can be used in TORA, TODA, LDA and ASDA calculations. And then it’s not RESA because RESA is not part of runway strip.
I wonder whether the term RESA has nothing to do with real operations, but only with legal definitions? AFAIK, there is not rule of mandatory to stop for take off, at least not in GA, meaning you could accelerate even on taxi without lift off and I had some ‘high speed taxi for take off’ on CTRs. So RESA would legally never be used for landing, but could be for high speed taxe and the only distinction is it is straight in line with the runway without being part of it. Maybe also a matter of noise abatement or legal approval issues – county does not allow for longer runways, or former gras part was converted into asphalte without changing the legal runway length?
So RESA would legally never be used for landing, but could be for high speed taxe and the only distinction is it is straight in line with the runway without being part of it.
That’s the case in bosco’s example. More often RESA is 30m before runway (displaced) threshold and it’s 90 to 120m long like in example below for LDVA.
In the example above RESA before RW16 is on grass and can’t be regularly used while half of RESA before RW34 (asphalt part) can be used for taxi and turn.
Was RESA ‘invented’ to avoid getting fined for landing or take off while there is another aircraft on the runway?
To summarize my idea about Coburg and its RESA:
I also do believe that a RESA shall not be used for takeoff (hence I didn’t use it for my takeoff run). In fact, the TORA for runway 12 at EDQC is given as 632 metres only, which fully underlines this.
However, there is always a bit of a difference between what should be assumed/used for planning purposes (which is particularly important for commercial operators), and what should or can be done after all in practice.
So, likely, it is either an official or semi-official thing that in the case of Coburg (also given that the RESA is tarmac’ed, as wide as the runway itself, even, etc.) it is “approved” to actually to start the takeoff roll from the very beginning, and not to “waste” precious runway, given that the runway is not the longest to begin with and that it’s all downhill after its end. They however cannot write this in the AIP, since it would be against the definition of a RESA.
Something like that.
Of course, this begs the question why they chose a RESA, and not a displaced threshold in Coburg. Probably some fine technicality there, and to find out, I would have to ask to the governing aviation authority for EDQC (Luftamt Nordbayern – no thanks!) or possibly the manager of EDQC, if he happens to know these technicalities at all.
As I only visit once every few years, I am not sufficiently interested in order to to that. I now know that in Coburg, effectively using the RESA for takeoff is allowed. Whenever I come across a RESA somewhere else in the future, I will likely ask the Flugleiter / AFISO for confirmation.
I just thought it was interesting to discuss here, and by the looks of things, these RESAs and displaced thresholds continue to confuse many people.
MichaLSA wrote:
So RESA would legally never be used for landing, but could be for high speed taxe and the only distinction is it is straight in line with the runway without being part of it.
Not automatically, but if there is a taxiway on it then yes.
Was RESA ‘invented’ to avoid getting fined for landing or take off while there is another aircraft on the runway?
No. The purpose of the RESA is to provide an area which will limit damage to aircraft and risk to passengers and crew in case of a runway overrun. A RESA is not necessarily either intended or even useable for taxi. It just happens to be so in the cases we’ve discussed here. (Otherwise they wouldn’t be discussed…)
The definition of a RESA is “An area symmetrical about the extended runway centre line and adjacent to the end of the strip primarily intended to reduce the risk of damage to an aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway”
there is always a bit of a difference between what should be assumed/used for planning purposes
I always view it that way, if there is a published “licenced TORA” you have to comply with it for takeoff planning (it’s in some folder that you will hand to regulator, investigator when you botch your takeoff), when you are looking for the actual takeoff, I think one should aim to use every inch of good ground that they judge ok to their advantage
It will be stupid to leave some “good surface” behind because someone will yell if aircraft lift-off early, whoever yelling is sitting on chair not in the cockpit 
he does not have to deal with engine failure, rejected takeoff, tired engine, weak takeoff performance, pilot error or 50/70 rule of thumbs…
boscomantico wrote:
Coburg (EDQC) has this.
Would be interesting to know why the runway markings had been changed. Obviously, when looking at the old markings, Coburg formerly had a displaced threshold, and now this had been amended as RESA. The only reasons I could think of have to do with the nearby road.
UdoR wrote:
Would be interesting to know why the runway markings had been changed. Obviously, when looking at the old markings, Coburg formerly had a displaced threshold, and now this had been amended as RESA. The only reasons I could think of have to do with the nearby road.
I assume CAA required RESA to be established. This is a recent initiative aligned with ICAO recommendations. When I was preparing documentation for reopening my base airport LDVA this was specifically required by Croatia CAA with that explanation. So I had to create new airport chart with RESA on both sides 30m distanced from usable strip. As a result we lost some TORA (picture attached few posts above) because RESA couldn’t be ensured on the grass 30m before the start of the strip at RW34 side (that piece of land is not airport’s property and it’s not for sale).
