Different NATO standards ?

05 Oct 2008 18:09 #11 by olympusman
Replied by olympusman on topic Different NATO standards ?
Mandator V8

I meant parallel RWY as a wider TWY, maybe at the origin of confusion
We call them parallel RWY in Belgium

Right, in Germany, the airfields had 1 wider TWY's (about 22.5m wisi iso 15m) parallel to the RWY.
Like in Belgium and northern France for example
In Belgium, we have portable arrester systems on the wider TWY's in case of....

But looks like that the fields in the UK didn't have all the same infrastructure like above

Trying to trace the excellent book 'US Air Force in France 1950-1967' but didn't find a second hand one till now !

6 RCAF Bomber Group (organisation, airfields, squadrons, aircarft, and their 70 crashes in Belgium (location, crew, evasion lines, cemeteries, PoW Camps, etc...). Busy for a couple of years !!!!!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Oct 2008 19:13 #12 by REF
Replied by REF on topic Different NATO standards ?
At Bentwaters the parallel taxiway to the south of the main runway I believe was strengthened for an emergency runway - perhaps someone can confirm this.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

07 Oct 2008 20:32 #13 by MandatorV8
Replied by MandatorV8 on topic Different NATO standards ?
Been looking at some of my old stamping grounds in Germany using Google Earth. Some good shots of Laarbruch, Bruggen, Gutersloh, Wildenrath (now a train testing track) and Norvenich. Strangely, the image of Geilenkirchen was pixelated and the airfield not visible. I had thought that this would be the case for the USAF airfields but on the contrary, good images of Bitburg, Spangdahlem and Wiesbaden could be found. I have not yet had time to look at the places in Belgium and Holland that I also visited.

In looking at Google's images of these airfields, the double taxiways on the RAF airfields were clearly visible. However, and much to my surprise, Bitburg and Spangdahlem had only single taxiways. Will be interesting to look at the new airfields built in the 1950s and compare them with the 'rehabilitated' airfields in Germany, such as Ahlhorn, Jever and Oldenburg etc.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

07 Oct 2008 21:13 #14 by MandatorV8
Replied by MandatorV8 on topic Different NATO standards ?
Been Google Earthing around a few more NATO airfields in Germany and now Belgium. Seems to me that airfields like Jever and Kliene Brogel have a parallel taxiway able to be used as an emergency runway. In contrast, Bierset has distinctive parallel runways in the true sense. Would welcome Olympusman's take on my observations.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

07 Oct 2008 21:18 #15 by Peter Kirk
Replied by Peter Kirk on topic Different NATO standards ?
Before NATO would Manston be classed as three parallel runways in tight formation? I assume Carnaby (The airfield) and Woodbridge were similar.

Peter

No Amount Of Evidence Will Ever Persuade An Idiot (probably not Mark Twain)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

08 Oct 2008 16:43 #16 by olympusman
Replied by olympusman on topic Different NATO standards ?
Bierset MIL has been closed in 1993 and used by military helicopters till now
Since then, the airfierld became a (TNT) cargo airport and the then wide TWY became a parallel RWY !
The 'West Shelter Area' has been sold recently to the airport and no idea what will happen exactly... most probably used by general aviation in the coming years before having money to destroy all shelters, bunkers etc.. to become a huge platform for future project

6 RCAF Bomber Group (organisation, airfields, squadrons, aircarft, and their 70 crashes in Belgium (location, crew, evasion lines, cemeteries, PoW Camps, etc...). Busy for a couple of years !!!!!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Nov 2018 10:44 #17 by canberra
Replied by canberra on topic Different NATO standards ?
Leuchars has a parallell taxiway for most of the length of 27-09, I saw a German Atlantique get confused one day and try and land on it. Always a problem when a cotroller says "clear land runway 27 right " when the taxiway is to the right.

As for the clutch airfields they used the taxiways when the runways were being resurfaced, and in fact the taxiways had a RHAG as well.

As for the UK, most airfields dont have room for a parrallell runway, remember there are laid down requirements for separation. Gatwick cant use its taxiway as a runway when the main is in use.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.051 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

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.

  
EU Cookie Directive Module Information