Jump to content

madmanxpilot

Regulars
  • Posts

    989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

madmanxpilot last won the day on April 16

madmanxpilot had the most liked content!

About madmanxpilot

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

madmanxpilot's Achievements

Explorer

Explorer (4/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

1.2k

Reputation

  1. So it seems. Lets hope he can grasp the bull by the horns and and turn Ronaldsway into the facility we all need it to be.
  2. It was about how an upgrade to the airfield lighting system would allow for aircraft to land in conditions they can’t at the moment, thus reducing the number of delays and cancellations due to low cloud and low visibility.
  3. The terminal is suited to the model of multiple small aircraft coming and going through the day, not two or three Airbuses rocking up at the same time. The facilities and the handling agent just can’t cope. It’s like eating breakfast lunch and dinner all in one go and wondering why your gut is about to burst. Now, if the Government would take control of who comes and when by licensing routes, this would not be an issue. Also, reading the article in the Examiner last week about the approach lights, Mr Clarkson is mistaken if he thinks that a new ILS and some IRVR equipment will allow for landings in poor visibility. It won’t. Airfield minima are primarily dictated by the type of approach and approach/runway lighting. Here on Fraggle Rock the approach lights for runway 26 only go out about 300 metres or so - that’s why they are classed as basic. With that comes a minimum visibility required of 1000 metres before you can legally make an approach. They’d need to go out to over 720 metres to allow for approaches in 550 metres. It wouldn’t be cheap to do, but what cost are we paying for weather delays and cancellations that could otherwise be avoided?
  4. It was the case with the airlines I've worked for that the dispatcher will verbally confirm to the cabin crew the number of passengers on board, normally after the cabin crew have completed their headcount so as to avoid any confirmation bias. Once the dispatcher has left, and prior to starting the safety demonstration, the cabin crew will confirm with the flight deck crew that the doors are closed, and how many passengers there are on board including the number of 'specials' - ie passengers requiring assistance, The flight deck crew cross check this against their paperwork. This is the final chance to pick up any discrepancies.
  5. We could always get a management consultancy firm into sort things out. Who ya gonna call?, airport busters , AKA Team Annie and Jez. The business: https://transformmoc.com/?fbclid=IwAR1z4_7iAIW0sFDZnPyiP5MiWEkEtutF-9tAjJK-uq7UCOduZd06RV4DGyY The company info: (see people) https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14018199/officers?fbclid=IwAR2_l0cu0Ql4aT7dF3IuJ3Ip6Cx0uI6pogd-TU9Ljgk8xiIQLqcqAaU_LfI
  6. The prime focus should be on bringing the airport to a technical standard that matches the capability of the aircraft and crews to land. Everything else is just dressing.
  7. A couple of years back, NATS (National Air Traffic Services) were asked to report on what was the best that could be achieved so far as landing minima was concerned using the current facilities. The answer was as expected, nothing better than you have at the moment. The question was not asked about what was needed to allow for Cat 2. Meanwhile, grandiose plans were being drawn up to effectively knock down the terminal and re build it into a retail complex that incidentally handled aeroplanes. A completely arse about face way of considering what the point of the airport is.
  8. Upgraded runway lights and devices (transmissiometers) to measure the visibility accurately and instantly.
  9. The decision altitude element of the minima was not changed by the demolition of the gantry - it remains at 200 feet above the runway threshold. Because the gantry lighting is no longer there, the approach lighting is now officially classed as basic, whereas previously it was intermediate. The required RVR (runway visual range) increased as a result, it went from 700 metres to 1000 metres because the approach lighting that was on the gantry is no longer there. A Cat 1 approach at an airfield with full lighting allows for landings in 550 metres RVR. Cat 2 landings allow for a decision height of 100 feet and an RVR of 300 metres. Ronaldsway does not have any capacity to determine RVR (runway visual range). It used to be the case that a fireman would stand atop a fire engine and count the number of lights he could see along the runway. Despite it sounding very rudimentary, this method is legit for the purpose. However, a few years back, the firemen were told they were no longer allowed to do this though, as it was deemed unsafe. Now we rely on the weather observer in the terminal building to asses the visibility by looking out of the window. His observation is passed to the tower, who relay it to the pilots who then convert it into an equivalent RVR using a regulated formula. Proper airports have equipment called transmissiometers along the runway which accurately determine the RVR and record/report is constantly. With Cat 2 landings, you actually need less approach lights than for Cat 1 - it seems strange, but if you think about it, because you are making a decision to land at 100 feet above the runway rather than 200 feet, you are much closer to touchdown - you don't need to see the lights that are behind you after all! On a standard 3 degree glideslope, you travel 1/3 of a mile for every 100 feet you descend. So, on a Cat 2 ILS your decision height is 1/3 mile closer to the runway than it would be for Cat 1. Someone needs to grab the bull by the horns and spend money on upgrading the infrastructure at the airport to allow planes to land in low visibility conditions. Hopefully the new airport management will understand what is needed, because the airport is there to provide a vital link to the outside world, we should do everything we can to make that link more insulated from the vagaries of the weather.
  10. 100% Correct. Before any more money is spent on vanity projects, the airport's infrastructure should be improved to allow planes to land in low visibility conditions.
  11. If true, I'm surprised the Airport is allowed to operate with nobody present to ensure regulatory oversight.
  12. I can't easily find the guidance regarding queuing target times as it relates to UK airports (maybe it's classed as sensitive info?), but here is the same sort of thing for Dublin. https://www.aviationreg.ie/quality-of-service-/security-queues.931.html There was certainly a target time at Manchester and the airport were penalised if it wasn't met.
  13. I'm fairly sure that it is a Department for Transport/CAA requirement that passengers should be able to pass through security (at UK airports anyway) within a certain amount of time. I have an inkling it may be 30 minutes - but I stand to be corrected. The real reason airports like passengers there very early is probably to give business to the many retail outlets inside the departure lounge, who they can then charge exorbitant lease fees to. Obviously this doesn't apply here!
  14. But it will. Without the Open Skies Policy you could ensure that the market isn't saturated, the airlines that do operate will have enough business to make the routes viable without charging sky high fares. In return for this exclusivity, the Airline(s) would have to enter into a Public Service Obligation type agreement with the IOM Government to operate services to various destinations at agreed times. They could even be made to open a base here, guaranteeing local employment for pilots and cabin crew. This happens in the UK already on various routes. The IOM really needs to ditch these pie in the sky ideas about having millions passing though the airport each year. The Airport is there to provide a vital link to the adjacent Isle, nothing more, nothing less. Bin Open Skies, take control so we can satisfy our own requirements first and FFS upgrade the landing aids to give aircraft a better chance of getting in with bad weather before wasting money on vanity projects.
  15. You've hit the nail on the head with the Open Skies Policy. Airlines can come and go when it suits them, rather than when it's best for the airport and the travelling public. The Open Skies Policy is not for Airport Management to change, but they do advise the policymakers and liase with the Airlines. The needs of the Island must be put before the needs of the Airline. If they can't run services at times to suit us, then they shouldn't be allowed to steal business from those that can - and do.
×
×
  • Create New...