new route ex SYD needing runway dispensation

[Andrew Johnson]

We were looking at a new domestic route ex SYD & destination ports runway does not have a high enough PCN, which I believe is the hardness of the runway ashphalt.

Runway length wasn't a problem.

How do airports in such situations treat such requests ? ie aircraft landing at airport that is probably too heavy for what the runway was planned for ?

[Nigel C]

If the airline proposing to service the route is willing to pay for an upgrade to the pavement surface, then I'm sure the airport would consider the proposal.

[Andrew Johnson]

Originally Posted by Nigel C

If the airline proposing to service the route is willing to pay for an upgrade to the pavement surface, then I'm sure the airport would consider the proposal.

there's the catch, they are not.

Silly question, but will ask it anyway - So guess the aircraft in question would eventually tear the runway apart, however, wouldn't any damage be restricted to where the aircraft actually touched down & not whole runway.

[Darren T.]

PCN explained simply.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/FedEx...(F)/1801406/L/

[Nigel C]

There's the braking forces to be considered too, as well as slow turning off the runway onto taxiways. And I presume the aircraft would be expecting to use both ends of the runway at some stage due winds etc.

But you've got to remember, even the major ports that are built to handle the big stuff have pavement issues, especially after rain and heat. I can only imagine what would happen to a small port that gets a relatively oversize bird after rain and/or heat.

Little ole country town council can't be expected to pick up the pieces when the big city folk ruin their infrastructure (infrastructure that probably runs at a loss anyway and is being funded by the community, not the users).

[Andrew Johnson]

Originally Posted by Nigel C

Little ole country town council can't be expected to pick up the pieces when the big city folk ruin their infrastructure (infrastructure that probably runs at a loss anyway and is being funded by the community, not the users).

yes but little ole country town, won't get service without carrier getting dispensation or whatever it's actually called.

CATCH 22

[Owen H]

The little ole country town will provide the infrastructure it needs to service the aircraft. There is no point for the community to be served by an additional larger aircraft per day (with perhaps a small decrease in fare) if it is going to mean substantially higher costs to build a larger/stronger runway.

With very limited exceptions the airline isn't running a service to be nice, it is there to make a profit. And you can't expect a small community to fund runway repairs so a company can make more profit, when the community is probably no better off.

As to where the damage occurs - Nigel would know much more about this, but it seems to me that places that aircraft turn - such as turning nodes or the runway ends, seems to be the place that sustains the most damage (or makes the most notes on Jeppesen charts to make max-radius turns at least ).

I'm sure dispensations could be attained (even if max operating weights were limited) if a sufficient benefit to the community could be demonstrated.

[Nigel C]

Owen, I'd hazard a guess to say that about 95% of failures occur on taxiways. The screwing motion of the undercarriage in slow (and often tight) turns does wonders for suspect pavement. Also, the effects of jet blast or prop wash on the shoulders of both taxiways and runways may be an issue for smaller ports considering services from larger aircraft.

Andrew, can you let us know the final outcome?

[Andrew Johnson]

Originally Posted by Nigel C

Andrew, can you let us know the final outcome?

think the answer is a long way off like 6 months or more.

[Nigel C]

That's ok, we'll still be here.