We can show way on runway safety – deputy
Wednesday 29th September 2010, 2:29PM BST.
A DEPUTY plans to force Public Services to officially reconsider using collapsible runway technology as part of its multi-million pound airport project.
Deputy David de Lisle (pictured) said using Emas – a surface that gives way under the weight of an aircraft to halt it – would avoid extending airport boundaries into nearby green-field sites.
He also claimed it would be safer than extending safety areas at the ends of the runway, a policy agreed by the States last year.
Now he aims to take a requete or amendment to the States to make the department look at Emas (engineered materials arrester systems) once again.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
I’m all for Deputy De Lisle’s proposal, good on him!
Report abuse
The States should absolutely ‘reconsider’ EMAS: it would save many millions of pounds and a considerable chunk of St. Peter’s parish for a start. PSD didn’t give EMAS fair consideration in the first instance: they dismissed it out of hand a few months ago because it hadn’t yet been approved by the CAA, even though that decision was imminent. EMAS is an arrestor-bed system that would negate the need to extend the airport’s current boundaries. PSD’s current plans are being pitched as ‘essential works and maintenance’, but that’s very misleading: no one disputes that the runway and apron surfaces need urgent attention, but a runway extention (dressed up as a ‘displacement to the west’) is absolutely not. All airlines that currently operate in and out of the island have said the current length is more than sufficient for their aircraft to take off and land; all larger airlines that have been approached have said they would not fly to Guernsey even if we had a longer runway, and we are as legally compliant with CAA regulations as airports like Gatwick. Anyone who looked at PSD’s plans in detail at the drop-in presentation at the airport will know that if this proposal goes ahead unmodified we are in for two and a half years of intensive building works (involving an extra 40-50 trucks on our arterial roads between the airport and St. Sampson’s harbour every day), resulting in a permanent and unnecessary scar on our island’s landscape, along with increased pollution and debt into the bargain. I hope the States sees sense and reconsiders an option that will save us time, money and sanity.
Report abuse
The States have already purchased nine tenths of the land required for the extended safety area
Too late.It’s a done deal already
Report abuse
I dont think airlines that opperate larger equipment such as Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 would opperate into Guernsey even if it had a longer Runway, FlyBe may use their new ERJ 190 but that is all.
Only the existing types of aircraft will continue ie twin engined turboprop and their next generations.
Therefore would it not be better to upgrade the exisisting runway and possibly the ILS to CAT 2 so appraches could be made to a lower weather minima which would be more benificial.
Report abuse
Hi.
Skery.
You obviously dont live under the flight path. I dont want bloody get jets flying over my home. What we have is fine. Its a small island for gods sake!
The States have bought some land….whoopy doo! Keep it!
The EMAS system is by far the best outcome for Guernsey. Blimey, theres only a small amount of land here!
GD.
Report abuse
If Emas is safe, satisfies the CAA and anybody else it needs to, why not go for it? The States are not irrevocably committed to the runway extension yet, the purchased land might be needed at some point in the future and meanwhile perhaps it can be leased out. The remaining land they needed was contentious anyway, rather than offer silly money for it the States could let the family keep it.
Report abuse
Guernsey Donkey you do not understand my point is
A I dont think and I didnt state the runway extension is necessary because rightfully as you say Guernsey is only a small island and its air passengers is only finite that is why the likes of the low cost airlines would not fly to GCI.
B Yes medium size turbo prop aircraft that opperate into GCI provide an ample capacity for the islands needs.
C All that is requiered is the runway to be upgraded from the current one which built way back in 1960 which is almost half the time that powered flight has been in existence.
Upgrading the ILS alowing aircraft to land in lower visability which often occurs therefore reducing cancellations and diversions.
Report abuse
gsydonkee…you are absolutely correct, except for one thing, namely the EMAS system. The EMAS system is not needed either. Never never ever. If the EMAS system, or any other so-called ‘system’ were used, you would still have larger jets with increased noise and increased polution coming into the island and further destroying it.
But enough of the EMAS and other stuff like it.
What I’d like to know is this. When -oh when – are the States, the airport authorities, the business types, the well-heeled – and indeed anyone else who proposes expansion of the airport with an increase in services going to get it through their thick skulls that Guernsey does not need, should not have and MUST NOT have a larger airport in any way shape or form and at the outside should have only prop aircraft of recent manufacture landing on the islands precious, and limited, soil.
Furthermore – when oh when – and before it’s too late and all the damage is done – will the intelligent population of Guernsey stop being silent and get up on their hind legs and silence forever or boot out those who want to turn Guernsey into nothing but an over-populated highly polluted noise filled madhouse!!!!?
Report abuse
If we ignore the EMAS option our children will look back in the years to come and ask a basic question. “Why did they ignore a safer, more ecological and technically superior solution?” This is the 21st century and we are still applying 20th century solutions.
Rehabilitating the runway is important. But burying 13 acres of a scarce commodity (land)in this small Island is not the way forward.
History will judge us harshly if we pass up on this opportunity to pply the right solution.
Join us on Facebook – Search for Guernsey Airport Campaign
Report abuse
I visit the Island every two or three weeks and in all my comings and goings I have never been on a plane that has been full. Why do they need a longer runway for bigger planes???. The present size of planes are perfect for the island.
I understand the need for a greater influx of tourist but its not going to happen in the real world. The world is a small place and people have a greater choice of destinations for holidays.
Report abuse
‘gsydonkee’….you are totally correct. Guernsey is far too small and far too delightful a community to withstand further expansion of any kind at the airport. Experience has shown that in every instance of airport building and, especially, further expansion, those who live around the airport, ( often even some miles away from a major airport ) lose forever their quality of life. Furthermore, those who are directly beneath, or alongside of any flightpath are then, and until they die, subjected to a constant nightmare of excrutiating noise and health destroying pollution. Don’t allow the commercial proponents of ‘More’ and ‘bigger’ get away with it.
Report abuse
So, are all the people who are against The States present plans for the Airport reconstruction prepared to do something about it or are they all just gob and gaiters? Would you be prepared to close the airport until you are heard? It`s easy to access the runway and close it down, not that I would advocate such a move of course. I mean who could assemble a few hundred people around the perimeter and move in to have a picnic on the runway? The police wouldn`t be able to cope with such an invasion would they? I doubt if they could cope with just a few running around inside the perimeter fence.
Report abuse
Expat 80,
You keep banging on about how there must be no further expansion at the airport – do you not realise that the RESAs have to meet current regulations when the runway is resurfaced?
What do you suggest we do, ignore CAA requirements and lose the licence for any aircraft to operate?
I hope you like sailing!
Report abuse
Hello Gsy Airport Campaign. Judging by who posts the most on that page, I would summise as to your identity…..
Sometimes you have to do the best with the info available at the time. It could be argued that the “time” to revisit in light of new info, may have passed, seeing how many tyres seem to be going pop on the runway. How long before something more serious happens while we dither about waiting for certain politicians to jump on whatever popularist bandwagon might be trundling past.
The wagon-circlin’ arrow flingin’ BTF
Report abuse
Dear BillytheFish
Thank you for visiting the GAC Facebook site. I hope you found the informtion of interest. David De Lisle is a keen contributor to the site but he is only one of many members who all share a concern for what is proposed and the lack of willingness to consider better alternative solutions.
The condition of the runway is of considerable concern and needs to be addressed urgently. That is a completely different issue to the proposal to extend the runway west by 120m.
The current plans will likely take longer to complete than a scheme using EMAS that would see the existing runway restored to code. It is the poor condition of the surface that presents the highest risk, not the length of the runway or the RESA’s which are compliant with minimum standards as they are.
Report abuse
KEVIN….if you recheck my posts you will see that of course I have no objection whatsoever to performing maintenance work at the airport. My discussions have been directed solely against expanding the airport runway and allowing larger jets to enter Guernsey airspace with greater frequency. And as far as I am concerned, RESA ‘regulations’ come second to that of quality of life for Guernsey folk.
Report abuse
I commute in and out weekly from london and live under the flight path. For me the the airport is a life line. From my own business perspective any changes and upgrades to the airport need to prioritised by speed of implementation and safety.
Essential repairs must be carried out now and EMAS, which is safer, can be implemented without a planning review, when we are ready. On the other hand the ridiculous expansion being planned requires a planning review by law; as the extension goes outside the confines of the existing airport boundary. During that time the airport will degrade and the lifeline will be put at risk.
It seems to me that Commerce and Employment have led the administration down a red herring of airport expansion. The administration is now trying to hide behind a regulator that they have in their pocket. In the rest of the world attitudes towards airport expansion have changed fast. Governments, particularly in the UK understand that airport expansion brings little economic gain for a lot of local pain. Airport expansion belongs in the attic with other memories of the early noughties.
What have we got? Media lies, beligerence, antogonising and bullying of land owners without consultation. I hear the airport neighbours’ concerns and they have my sympathies. These are all ugly symptoms of a failing administration. We deserve more.
Come on deputities, you need to challenge the administration. Stop this unpopular policy from going any further and wasting our money. Say no to Airport Expansion and support the work of the Guernsey Airport Campaign to get EMAS here. It’s simply the right answer.
Report abuse
The States seem to have commited themselves once again into a project without looking at ALL options that are available to them, this has the making of the incinerator written all over it.
Let me make a prediction, this will go back to the states in January and they will be told to go back to the drawing board.
Prime agricultural land will be lost forever, and we need to make sure that if this is going to happen it has got to be the last resort.
Stick with the runway we have got and do all your resurfacing extra BUT for goodness sake use EMAS!!!
Report abuse
Wise words, blokeinlondon. Let’s hope there are some deputies reading this thread.
Nocon
PSD’s proposals will take 2.5 years to implement, with quite a few days scheduled for airport closure during that time. They also won’t be able to start work until a planning enquiry has been completed, which could delay proceedings by another couple of years – by which time the runway surface will probably be in such a bad state that it could force the airport into unscheduled closure. EMAS, on the other hand, would not need a planning enquiry as it wouldn’t involve moving the airport boundaries, and as it would be a smaller and less complex project it would be up and running a lot quicker than the foolish, outdated proposal the States is currently considering.
Billythefish
See the above re: timelines. Re: safety, arrestor beds such as EMAS are far safer than a strip of grass and an embankment, no matter how long it is. The assumption that an out-of-control plane travels in a straight line is barmy! Here’s a link demonstrating the superior safety credentials of arrestor beds over traditional grass RESAs:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/10/01/plane-overshoots-runway-at-teterboro-airport/
Report abuse
GAC
Thanks for the reply. In one short post you illustrate exactly why doubt should be cast on what you’re saying.
You say: “…the proposal to extend the runway west by 120m.”
I say: “No it isn’t” – PLEASE see my post on the other thread. There’s NO runway extension.
My understanding is that the CAA says that if you’re doing major repairs, you have to correct other areas where you’re not up to code. I believe that that means the 90m bare minimum cannot be retained. If you can go longer you have to, is my understanding.
Now we have EMAS, some 2 years after we were first tinkering with things. What happens if, SAY, we go with EMAS, then half way through the construction, the CAA licence a wonderful new way of stopping planes, similar to how they do on aircraft carriers. You now don’t need EMAS or RESAs. Do you think we should stop the project then and go back to the drawing board?
I know the above is a slightly odd example, but what I’m trying to say is why give people stick – you have to draw the line somewhere and considering how many things seem to be exploding when they hit our runway makes me think that line has already been crossed!
Lastly, Helen you’re quite right, crashing planes might not go in a straight line. What happens then if the miss the EMAS?????
The growing a little weary BTF
Report abuse
BTF:
Think about it like this
These lines of dots are both the same length
……
……
But the bottom one has been shifted west.
Now heres another line of dots
……::
This includes a starter section of semicolons.
Now which is longer this?
……
or this?
……::
the bottom line is longer but made of different parts. -and just like the proposal, the runway itself will be longer. A vision for 2030 that distorts the truth has so far been very poorly recieved by the public who are looking at this with 2020 vision. The runway is a strip of tarmac/concrete and it will be longer. The public aren’t stupid.
Generally as the facts change so do our expectations. That’s the way the market works. My expectations were substantially shifted when I heard about EMAS.
Report abuse
Dear BTF
You appear to enjoy a good debate which is good. If you do not have a formed opinion either way on this subject, can we ask what made to decide to argue for PSD rather GAC? Clearly our goal is to persuade as many people as possible of the merits of our argument, so your reasons are important for us to understand.
Referring to the other thread, if the runway has 1,583m aavailable for a pilot to take off on tomorrow, but only 1,463m today, why does this not classify as an extension to you?
Report abuse