Jump to content

Radar Issues Still Outstanding at Ronaldsway.


woolley
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ex Airport fireman tells me that the upgrade of engines was to include engines with a 'Snozzle'  point on front of engine which is a sharp point which pierces the fuselage and injects the water/chemicals into the inside . Coming in at around 3/4 million so we will probably be getting two ! Mind you sounds like a good idea but at that price ? 

 . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Numbnuts said:

Ex Airport fireman tells me that the upgrade of engines was to include engines with a 'Snozzle'  point on front of engine which is a sharp point which pierces the fuselage and injects the water/chemicals into the inside . Coming in at around 3/4 million so we will probably be getting two ! Mind you sounds like a good idea but at that price ? 

 . 

It's an impossible situation in many respects.

The fire service at the airport do basically nothing.  Everyone knows that.  But it's one of those things you HAVE to have.

You then run into all the overly fussy and unnecessary health and safety and compliance aspects that have taken over the world which means anything the airport wants to do from a fire service perspective costs disproportionate amounts of money for what benefit you will actually get from it.

Let's be honest- if you worked on a risk versus cost and benefit basis you probably wouldn't bother with a fire service at the airport.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

It's an impossible situation in many respects.

The fire service at the airport do basically nothing.  Everyone knows that.  But it's one of those things you HAVE to have.

You then run into all the overly fussy and unnecessary health and safety and compliance aspects that have taken over the world which means anything the airport wants to do from a fire service perspective costs disproportionate amounts of money for what benefit you will actually get from it.

Let's be honest- if you worked on a risk versus cost and benefit basis you probably wouldn't bother with a fire service at the airport.

Certainly not when there’s a fire station across the road albeit not permanently manned. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2020 at 3:34 PM, asitis said:

The whole show is out of control, and will not stop until the money train hits the buffers !

Showing no signs of it though. VAT rebate back up to the levels of the film "industry" days at well over £1M a day - without a film industry and all based on domestic and business expenditure "surveys". Somebody over here must be spending big?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

It's an impossible situation in many respects.

The fire service at the airport do basically nothing.  Everyone knows that.  But it's one of those things you HAVE to have.

You then run into all the overly fussy and unnecessary health and safety and compliance aspects that have taken over the world which means anything the airport wants to do from a fire service perspective costs disproportionate amounts of money for what benefit you will actually get from it.

Let's be honest- if you worked on a risk versus cost and benefit basis you probably wouldn't bother with a fire service at the airport.

There's a risk vs cost value. Take the cost of a human life, in the range of a few million dollars according to most estimates. Now it takes one moderate incident to quickly eclipse the cost of the fire service at the airport.

Combine that with there not exactly being a nearby plan B for something that'd have to emergency land and require a fire response, you start to see further benefit.

If you read the NTSB report for this flight, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_5925, there's a strong suggestion that having a fire service at the airport would have saved a significant number of lives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, forestboy said:

Certainly not when there’s a fire station across the road albeit not permanently manned. 

I assume that the airport needs to be licenced by the CAA. This is one of the CAA  documents containing data re:  fire fighting capability.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP 168 Issue11_Licensing of Aerodromes 13032019.pdf

 

Somewhere in there is the required response time - I think 2 or 3 minutes from call-out to be at the aircraft (I did not read the entire document). Also they need to be able to quickly  get to the scene of the accident if is off either end of the runway.

The requirements will define minimum standards. As usual, the IoM gov. will probably seek to exceed those standards with unnecessary junk. (Like a control tower with enough concrete to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear missile)

Edited by Two-lane
ref document
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...