8
$\begingroup$

There is tricky question we weren't able to find a clear answer to.

Following roughness tests we decided to close part of the runway to all aircraft movements (1400 ft out of a total 3000 ft runway). The taxiway is located at the center of the runway (photo 1).

Actually the airport is certified under Canadian regulation (CARS 302) and this is what is indicated in this case :

  1. Closed marking is placed at each end of the portion thereof, declared closed.
  2. Runway threshold is temporarily displaced from the runway end, arrows are provided on the portion of the runway before the threshold.

It's not clear what the best practice is if we have the two situations at the same time; a displaced threshold, and a closed section in the same area.

For the moment, we decided to maintain the two type of marking at the same time; closed marking are installed on the side of the runway (photo 3).

This is a temporary measure. Phase 1 of corrective works was done. Roughness test still not acceptable, we have to come up with a phase 2 corrective works before this winter.

Has anyone seen this before and what do you do in this case? I'm also interested to see what do you do under FAA regulation.

Thanks

Colsed section of the runway

Picture with only closed marking
This photo show the marking this winter without the arrows. To be able to paint the arrows for displaced threshold marking we installed the closed marking on the side of the runway (see below).

enter image description here Picture with displaced threshold and closed marking

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The answer depends on if the restriction is only temporary and you'll be fixing the roughness, or if it's of the permanent type. Can you please add this information into the question? $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    Commented Jul 13, 2018 at 22:59
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, yes it's a temporary action. We made a major cracks repairs but still have overruns on the Boeing Bump Index as those repairs weren't intended for runway profile correction. More repairs to come in one month otherwise these measures will become permanents until complete rehabilitation of the airport infrastructure next year. $\endgroup$
    – Tao Sassi
    Commented Jul 18, 2018 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Your case now looks like you have a closed grass runway next to a paved runway with usual displaced threshold suitable for takeoff from it or landing from an opposite direction. Very confusing. And, in any case, new threshold markings and runway numbers are highly desirable in a new position, without them it is even more confusing $\endgroup$
    – avtomaton
    Commented Jul 26, 2018 at 11:37

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

In any case, threshold and runway numbers are highly desirable in a new position. Possibly it is the reason why pilots were confused with your initial variant.

At least by FAA regulations, if you don't want to allow takeoff from this area, it should not be a displaced threshold. I believe that you have a relocated threshold (part of runway closed for takeoff and landing). It can still be available for taxi though, but you don't have a taxiway from that end of a runway. It should look like this: relocated threshold

FAA reference is here, in "Partially closed runway" paragraph.

I saw partially closed runway in Europe as well, and it looked like that (actually they marked that part as a blast pad, and I saw that several times):

relocated threshold EU

Unfortunately did not find anything similar for Canada (used Canadian AIM), but "relocated threshold" is mentioned in some accident investigation in Canada: report. And I still don't understand why the runway should not be marked just as "closed", without threshold displacement markings. Like here:

closed marking

Arrows may confuse pilots, because it usually means that that part of a runway can be used for takeoff, or landing in opposite direction.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Transport Canada visited the airport for process inspection this week and they didn't say anything about the use of the two types of marking at the same time. we still have to monitor if some pilots use the closed area. Otherwise, for the moment it's ok the way it is. $\endgroup$
    – Tao Sassi
    Commented Jul 18, 2018 at 18:34
3
$\begingroup$

This is what Lelystad airport in the Netherlands currently looks like. The runway is being extended but the extension is not yet open for operations, so it's closed with a displaced treshold, similar to what you're having there (albeit for different reasons) for the time being.

enter image description here enter image description here

This situation is temporary, the complete runway and new taxiways are scheduled to open in 2020.

As a trainee pilot there, I can tell you it's sometimes confusing when approaching with such a very long stretch of asphalt before the treshold. I've twice misjudged my approach and had my instructor take over on short final as I was about to land on the closed portion which is longer than the active runway itself.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ We added the arrows lately following many comments from pilots as only the threshold bar marking is not that simple to judge for approaching as you mention. But now, as other comments indicate, arrow does allow pilots to circulate in the closed area if they don't pat attention to the X installed on the side. Looking probably to change the arrow bu chevrons... $\endgroup$
    – Tao Sassi
    Commented Jul 18, 2018 at 13:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .