In 1935, British civil aviation officials carried out aerial surveys in Newfoundland to select an aerodrome site for transatlantic operations (they settled on what is present-day Gander International). For three runways, officials set the dimensions at 600 feet in width and the fourth at 1200 feet wide. The widest runway was required to permit radio-assisted landings in poor visibility. Safety was suggested as one of the key reasons for the wide dimensions, with Newfoundland's weather likely influencing this decision. Then again, I was wondering if such widths were common within the British Commonwealth in the 1930s, in the interests of safety? Or maybe Newfoundland was treated as a special case?
In 1935, British civil aviation officials carried out aerial surveys in Newfoundland to select an aerodrome site for transatlantic operations (they settled on what is present-day Gander International). For three runways, officials set the dimensions at 600 feet in width and the fourth at 1200 feet wide.
Any thoughts on the matter appreciated.
Tks!
Darrell
I think you'll find this refers to the 'runway strip' width not the actual width of the landing surface.
The standard runway strip nowadays according to CAP168 is 300ft (ie 600ft wide) either side of the centreline of the runway in which the runway must be clear of all obstructions in case of a low overshoot (or 'go around' as it's called nowadays). Within this there will be an 'Obstacle Free Zone' of varying widths starting from 75m either side of centreline depending on the runway category which must be clear of anything which might harm the undercarriage of an aircraft should it run off the paved surface and then the actual width of the paved or graded surface.
We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of this site have already been set. By continuing to use this site you are agreeing to this. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy policy.