EBST - building models on the runway?

arianne · Post by **arianne** » 29 Nov 2010, 16:50

I landed yesterday in St Truiden on runway 06 with a Piper Warrior and spotted some strange things on the old runway threshold:

Anybody care to shed some light on this?

simulator · Post by **simulator** » 29 Nov 2010, 17:18

een lokale kunstenaar die zijn dorp gaat nabouwen....

http://www.hbvl.be/limburg/sint-truiden ... ustem.aspx

rgds

arianne · Post by **arianne** » 29 Nov 2010, 17:40

Thanks, interesting. I would've thought they'd be more valued in a city ...

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 30 Nov 2010, 09:44

By the way,

It seems they also perform races in front of the runway: look at those skid marks just in front of the threshold, right from the extended centerline...

simulator · Post by **simulator** » 30 Nov 2010, 10:25

yep....

http://www.brustembase.be/

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 30 Nov 2010, 10:56

Slightly off topic, but am I the only one who gets confused when looking at the runway layout? I've never landed at EBST, so feel free to enlighten me.

When you would simply apply the meaning of runway markings to this runway, you would be allowed to land just after the displaced threshold and thus approximately at the point where the first taxiways join the runway between the trees. Nevertheless, it seems there is another threshold just behind the skidmarks...am I the only one who is thrown off by this?

If the first part of the runway would be unservicable, one would expect large white crosses to indicate that it is out of service and can not be used for take off or landing. In this layout, it means you can land just behind the first displaced threshold. But I can hardly imagine that any pilot in his right mind would land on that first part of the runway...

Confusing...that's the least you can say about this layout!

regi · Post by **regi** » 30 Nov 2010, 11:28

Imagine a jet wants to land there, but has to make a go around, giving full power. Bye bye "new village".
The airforce could make this up by themselves. First sending a F-16 to EBST for an emergency landing, coming low over that construction and than take off again. Nice firewood.

Look, was it really necesarry to put this construction at this spot?

jan_olieslagers · Post by **jan_olieslagers** » 30 Nov 2010, 11:58

Regi, you seem to be unaware that this aerodrome is no more operated by the military. Actually the published usable runway length is 1199 metres, that seems a bit short for an F16.
I do agree with bAir that the markings could be clearer, like at EBUL for just one example. But isn't that why we have the PPR phone call obligation?

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 30 Nov 2010, 12:12

Indeed Jan,

Proper flight preparation should always avoid confusion in flight. Nevertheless, that is no argument to allow misleading runway markings. Actually, I was surprised not to find anything on the subject in the aerodrome section of the AIP. I would at least have expected a remark...

arianne · Post by **arianne** » 30 Nov 2010, 13:44

I agree it is rather confusing, even more so in case of low(er) visibility, though still VMC. The red-and-white line is the only sign that this part of the runway is closed.

andorra-airport · Post by **andorra-airport** » 30 Nov 2010, 15:52

I agree with Regi.

Swiss flight 850 (Saab 2000 Basel-Hamburg). Could not land anywhere (weather), so they had to land at Werneuchen, with an obstacle on the runway (to prevent illegal car races on the runway), causing all landing gears to be sheared off.

That was only an example. Imagine if you need to land there (EBST) in emergency and you see a wooden "village" build on the runway.......

If you want to be an artist, do it in a park, a square, or in an old factory building, but not on a (old) runway please..

regi · Post by **regi** » 30 Nov 2010, 21:27

jan_olieslagers wrote:Regi, you seem to be unaware that this aerodrome is no more operated by the military. Actually the published usable runway length is 1199 metres, that seems a bit short for an F16.
I do agree with bAir that the markings could be clearer, like at EBUL for just one example. But isn't that why we have the PPR phone call obligation?

yeah , I know, that is why I mentioned that the airforce would have to provoke an emergency landing on the nearest airstrip.
A B747 as with that Virgin plane and the Citroën 2CV would even be better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0
"yeah, the 2CV really doesn't like crosswinds "

Captain Remi · Post by **Captain Remi** » 01 Dec 2010, 16:37

I know these are just models and nobody is to actually live there...
But personally, you could see this work of art also as a joke towards all those people building houses right next to an airport and then complaining about the noise levels

In this case, it would be ridiculous actually living ON the runway

And before anyone says... I know we're only talking models here, no actual housing project....

And yes, me too I live right next to the airport and don't complain for the noise, we knew when we came there

regi · Post by **regi** » 03 Dec 2010, 15:36

Captain Remi wrote:I know these are just models and nobody is to actually live there...
But personally, you could see this work of art also as a joke towards all those people building houses right next to an airport and then complaining about the noise levels
In this case, it would be ridiculous actually living ON the runway
And before anyone says... I know we're only talking models here, no actual housing project....
And yes, me too I live right next to the airport and don't complain for the noise, we knew when we came there

Right. And after staying at a hotel 500 meters parallel to a very busy runway, I can only say that I hardly heard any noise. But 15 miles further under the flight path you still tremble when an airplane takes off.
It depends on location.

Homo Aeroportus · Post by **Homo Aeroportus** » 03 Dec 2010, 19:10

This is just plain crazy and violates the ICAO Annex 14 requirements for closed runways.

Quote :
A closed marking shall be displayed on a runway or
taxiway, or portion thereof, which is permanently closed to the
use of all aircraft..... .... ....

On a runway a closed marking shall be placed at
each end of the runway, or portion thereof, declared closed,
and additional markings shall be so placed that the maximum
interval between markings does not exceed 300 m. On a taxiway
a closed marking shall be placed at least at each end of
the taxiway or portion thereof closed..... .... ....

When a runway or taxiway or portion thereof is
permanently closed, all normal runway and taxiway markings
shall be obliterated.

End quote.

Actually, their Bottland/Jepp chart (June '09) shows these marking, but not in the real world !

Room for improvement here, before an "Air Canada" type emergency landing brings this out.

H.A.

Aviation24.be

EBST - building models on the runway?

EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?

Re: EBST - building models on the runway?