Airport.

[snowman]

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

Could be worse. We could be living in Alderney.

https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2022-04-13/no-flights-coming-in-or-out-of-alderney-airport?fbclid=IwAR1QNKof2sSMSroj1y17JhUr81nmoOUJGIUJPoeSEHiJYTxc0FUx6TDELhc

Could be worse.

 

We could have British Airways

 

https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2022/04/15/british-airways-has-given-up-loading-luggage-on-flights-and-planes-arent-being-cleaned/

[NoTailT]

 

[ellanvannin2010]

3 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

 

For whatever reason they seem unwilling or unable to reschedule flights from lgw. The preferred option appears to be to cancel. Doesn’t seem to be  the case so much from their other airports to the IOM.

Perhaps resources or slots at LGW

[Amadeus]

32 minutes ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

For whatever reason they seem unwilling or unable to reschedule flights from lgw. The preferred option appears to be to cancel. Doesn’t seem to be  the case so much from their other airports to the IOM.

Perhaps resources or slots at LGW

This was purely down to fog and to Shamblesway International not being properly equipped for it, despite Sonja Sunshine pissing away millions on it. 

[ellanvannin2010]

19 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

This was purely down to fog and to Shamblesway International not being properly equipped for it, despite Sonja Sunshine pissing away millions on it. 

In this instance yes but the EZY excuses on their tracker for delays sometimes somewhat reminds me of the Reginald Perrin excuses for train delays.

The information on her German success stories seems to have vanished from the web too.

Edited April 15 by ellanvannin2010

[snowman]

Loganair had a cancellation this evening. IOM-LPL-IOM 

[asitis]

1 hour ago, NoTailT said:

 

Minima were better before they demolished the lighting gantry, as usual they never consulted anyone who actually flies about making approaches before the runway was extended. I'm not sure about rvr though.

[madmanxpilot]

10 hours ago, Amadeus said:

This was purely down to fog and to Shamblesway International not being properly equipped for it, despite Sonja Sunshine pissing away millions on it. 

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. 

[Nellie]

That incompetent, arrogant and reckless woman, Reynolds, and her ex-CiC Nick Black, need to be dragged out of their comfortable retirements and asked to explain to Tynwald, a Scrutiny Committee, the CAA, or whoever, how and why they allowed all this to happen, and the AG's Office should be tasked with finding ways to recover, or reduce their pension. It's simply not enough to trot out the old 'lessons have been learned' crap.

"The Isle of Man where you can (get away with anything)"

[lcd]

11 hours ago, NoTailT said:

 

 

23 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

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. 

Not wrong - but when the aircraft was turned over Liverpool the reported visibility was 300m. I'd be interested to know what equipment would have been required at the airport that would have allowed for a succesful landing. 

[madmanxpilot]

On 4/15/2022 at 11:21 PM, asitis said:

Minima were better before they demolished the lighting gantry, as usual they never consulted anyone who actually flies about making approaches before the runway was extended. I'm not sure about rvr though.

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.

Edited April 17 by madmanxpilot

[madmanxpilot]

3 minutes ago, lcd said:

 

Not wrong - but when the aircraft was turned over Liverpool the reported visibility was 300m. I'd be interested to know what equipment would have been required at the airport that would have allowed for a succesful landing. 

Upgraded runway lights and devices (transmissiometers) to measure the visibility accurately and instantly.

[asitis]

3 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

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. The lighting is now officially classed as basic, whereas previously it was intermediate. The required RVR (runway visual range) increased though, 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 2.

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.

Thanks, we clearly won't be in a position to deal with all Wx conditions but it would have been useful not to just extend the runway but to consider at that point how to better equip that longer runway. As I said they really didn't care, we had experts in charge. ( Just no one who knew anything about aviation).

[madmanxpilot]

Just now, madmanxpilot said:

Upgraded runway lights and devices (transmissiometers) to measure the visibility accurately and instantly.

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.

[asitis]

9 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

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.

But that is what happens when you appoint dreamers, bullshitters and reality TV stars, instead of an aviation professional !