Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
piebaps

Privatise the Airport

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Complete and utter nonsense. But then you clearly have "issues" shall we say.

You are one piece of work. I very much doubt you'd be so brave were you in the same room as me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, quilp said:

You are one piece of work. I very much doubt you'd be so brave were you in the same room as me. 

You're a joke.

 

8 hours ago, quilp said:

I suggest you read those definitions to enhance your very narrow, ideologically-motivated view.

 

If you don't like being on the receiving end then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't hand it out...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thing, I thought a Mr Georgeson was number two to Reynolds at the airport, and when she got promoted to be oberleutnant of the Ports would have been number 1. From correspondence I have just received it appears Georgeson is "Ports Standards manager" with Mr Spake in charge of the airport ? We seem to be proliferating highly paid and pensioned jobs here !! Ahh but none of that matters, because again we seem to having another raft of professionals to run the show at arms length as its all a profligate balls up !

Is it me ?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 6:35 PM, madmanxpilot said:

As WTF says - it depends on how heavy the aircraft is and  what the wind component is. There is a lot more to it than that however. The runway state is very important (wet,dry,contaminated), as is the technical status of the aircraft, the flap that’s being used, for landing it matters  whether you are doing a low visibility approach or not and whether there is ice on the aeroplane (allowed for landing but not for take off). The surrounding terrain is considered too - you’ve got to be able to climb away should an engine fail on approach, so it’s not just runway length that determines whether you can make an approach. At places like Innsbruck where I’ve been, this is a major consideration.

No idea what a 747-200 would need - it would be dependent on all the above factors anyway.

Ronaldsway’s main runway is 1837 metres long - although the declared landing distances are less than that at 1613m for runway 26 1586m for runway 08.

So i take it, you would have to do the sums ( weight etc ), and get an up-todate weather forcast, before you would even concider taking off would you ?, or would you do that in the air, and divert as an option ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, asitis said:

Here's a thing, I thought a Mr Georgeson was number two to Reynolds at the airport, and when she got promoted to be oberleutnant of the Ports would have been number 1. From correspondence I have just received it appears Georgeson is "Ports Standards manager" with Mr Spake in charge of the airport ? We seem to be proliferating highly paid and pensioned jobs here !! Ahh but none of that matters, because again we seem to having another raft of professionals to run the show at arms length as its all a profligate balls up !

Is it me ?

Didn`t i see in the news a few days ago, ( currently out to tender ) plans to redo the runways ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they said they were spending money on ILS upgrade to improve the possibility of planes landing in reduced visibility i suspect people would be relatively happy about the expenditure

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bizarre situation this evening. U2 635 diverted back to LPL at the same precise moment U2 457 landed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, snowman said:

Bizarre situation this evening. U2 635 diverted back to LPL at the same precise moment U2 457 landed

It’s never been the same since Gary Powers got shot down.

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LightBulb said:

,So i take it, you would have to do the sums ( weight etc ), and get an up-todate weather forcast, before you would even concider taking off would you ?, or would you do that in the air, and divert as an option ?

You can set of for a destination even if the weather is not good enough to land there provided you have at least destination alternates available. The weather in the IOM can be so variable that the place to be is often in the holding pattern to the south east of the airport rather than sat on the deck in the UK. This will allow you to take advantage of any short duration improvement. Experience and good judgement is used to decide whether this is a viable plan.

The only difference between your take off weight and your landing weight is the fuel you've burned (unless bits of the plane have fallen off or someone has jumped out), so, as we know the weight we took off at, and exactly what we've burned, we know what weight we are landing at.

Every aircraft has a maximum authorised landing weight - it's called the structural limit. Invariably it is less than the maximum take off weight because of technical reasons you can google. You need to consider how much fuel you are going to put on to make sure you use enough of it getting where you are going to be at or below max landing weight.

In the main, it is the structural limit which is limiting, but when you come to a short runway like the IOM, particularly the secondary runway, 03-21, you need to take the other factors into account. As those factors such as wind, temperature, runway state and air pressure are variable, we do this calculations in the air prior to landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, snowman said:

Bizarre situation this evening. U2 635 diverted back to LPL at the same precise moment U2 457 landed

I wasn't there, but can wager that the decision to divert was made well before the other one landed, and at a point when the amount of fuel required to make an approach, possibly go around and divert back to LPL would have seen it getting there with less than final reserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, snowman said:

if they said they were spending money on ILS upgrade to improve the possibility of planes landing in reduced visibility i suspect people would be relatively happy about the expenditure

 

 

Absolutely. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@madmanxpilot

 

Go to 4.32pm

 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/u2457#2159ea2d

457 comes up from Bristol, no hold, straight in to land

 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/u2635#2159d52b

 

635 comes from LPL, goes in to the hold, in the meantime 457 goes past it and lands. 635 continues in the hold whilst 457 lands. 635 is facing northwards when 457 lands and yet it still diverts

 

 

Edited by snowman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, snowman said:

@madmanxpilot

 

Go to 4.32pm

 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/u2457#2159ea2d

457 comes up from Bristol, no hold, straight in to land

 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/u2635#2159d52b

 

635 comes from LPL, goes in to the hold, in the meantime 457 goes past it and lands. 635 continues in the hold whilst 457 lands. 635 is facing northwards when 457 lands and yet it still diverts

 

 

Not looked - watching T.V with Mrs MMP - but am certain there will have been a sound reason for the decision to divert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My airport mole tells me big Jessa is mortified at the amount of money thrown at the police and fire service personal down there and has a very big axe hanging over there very existance. Expect to see some minimum wage G4s types taking over these roles anytime soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...