Jump to content

Airport.


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Tim Baker basically saying it's too late to stop it happening and the legal cost of changing the contract means it is just better to go ahead.

 

That's the stage we are at.

I had an Easyjet Captain mate of mine run the take off performance figures of an A319 both with and without use of the starter extensions. As we all know these extensions are being widened at great expense to allow for their use when the taxiway is resurfaced.

Surprise surprise there is minimal penalty for not using them. Only off runway 26 when the runway is wet and the wind is very light does the data show any reduction to RTOW (regulated take off weight) worthy of note. Even then, if the wind was light, they could use 08 without any penalty that would prevent operation here with a full traffic load and fuel to get to LGW.

The IOM taxpayer is stumping up a few million quid to spend on a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I wonder if Easyjet were ever asked what the implications of the starter extensions being out of use were for their operation? 

Of course if they were offered a greater runway length they'd accept it  - aircraft take off with derated thrust whenever possible to save a few quid. But the point is, they could manage just fine without.

Just as was the case with the RESAs - there is not enough knowledge in Government to challenge the expenditure requests and priorities of the airport management.

PQ is right, but he's arrived on the scene a bit too late unfortunately.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

So someone who is a member of Tynwald and flew planes for a living (did he work for an airline flying here?) says it isn't needed but they're doing it anyway? Great stuff.

Fixed!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't a problem anyway, but even if there was,there are solutions that don't cost money.

For example..

If it needed to use the starter strip, the aircraft could taxi out, 180 before the starter strip and be pushed the extra 150 metres back to the start point of the strip by a tug.

If it was ever required, the manoevre would take less than five minutes to complete.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

 

The IOM taxpayer is stumping up a few million quid to spend on a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Sadly that appears to be a common theme at Heathrow on Sea 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Amadeus said:

Sadly that appears to be a common theme at Heathrow on Sea 

Ms Reynolds' parting gift....?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, madmanxpilot said:

PQ is right, but he's arrived on the scene a bit too late unfortunately.

In someone ways yes, but Government were told right back in 2006 that much of the works to be carried out were unnecessary, a full document was given to them via Peter Karran which was dismissed by that intellectual  colossus Tony Brown as purely an academic study. They don't get, that much relating to aviation is academic, and as you say the figures don't lie and you can't bullshit for justification. I don't suppose anything will alter now the bullshitter in Chief is going.

Can't back out of Liverpool ... contracts and consequences, now airport ...... contracts and consequences FML.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, madmanxpilot said:

That's the stage we are at.

I had an Easyjet Captain mate of mine run the take off performance figures of an A319 both with and without use of the starter extensions. As we all know these extensions are being widened at great expense to allow for their use when the taxiway is resurfaced.

Surprise surprise there is minimal penalty for not using them. Only off runway 26 when the runway is wet and the wind is very light does the data show any reduction to RTOW (regulated take off weight) worthy of note. Even then, if the wind was light, they could use 08 without any penalty that would prevent operation here with a full traffic load and fuel to get to LGW.

The IOM taxpayer is stumping up a few million quid to spend on a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I wonder if Easyjet were ever asked what the implications of the starter extensions being out of use were for their operation? 

Of course if they were offered a greater runway length they'd accept it  - aircraft take off with derated thrust whenever possible to save a few quid. But the point is, they could manage just fine without.

Just as was the case with the RESAs - there is not enough knowledge in Government to challenge the expenditure requests and priorities of the airport management.

PQ is right, but he's arrived on the scene a bit too late unfortunately.

The interesting thing is how it gets to 9m quid.

That's a staggering amount of money.  What are we exactly getting for that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

There isn't a problem anyway, but even if there was,there are solutions that don't cost money.

For example..

If it needed to use the starter strip, the aircraft could taxi out, 180 before the starter strip and be pushed the extra 150 metres back to the start point of the strip by a tug.

If it was ever required, the manoevre would take less than five minutes to complete.

 

I always get the impression the planes only use a certain amount of the runway to get up in the air.  Does 150m make a difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I always get the impression the planes only use a certain amount of the runway to get up in the air.  Does 150m make a difference?

It probably does if things go a bit wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I always get the impression the planes only use a certain amount of the runway to get up in the air.  Does 150m make a difference?

Calculation of aircraft performance is a complex subject. It's been made a lot easier recently due to apps that have been designed to do the calculations rather than paper graphs and manual calculations.

The runway length required for a plane to safely get airborne is the first consideration - but then you need to ensure it can clear obstacles should an engine failure occur at or shortly after take off. That's why departing from runway 26 is more limiting than 08 (Castletown and later on Cregneash).

Along with runway length, the runway state (wet/dry/contaminated etc) you also need to consider runway slope, wind component, temperature, air pressure, icing conditions, whether de icing fluid is on the aircraft or not, aircraft technical status (thrust reversers etc) and whether the air conditioning system is on or not. 

An app can work this lot out in a second after you've entered the data.

You are then presented with a maximum take off weight. 

This may be the maximum the aircraft can take off at anywhere (it's structural limit) or something lower due to the ambient conditions or aircraft status. 

It is normal for aircraft to use as little thrust as possible for take off, so provided other factors don't apply, you try and match the thrust required to the runway length available. It's called derating.

In answer to your question, 150 metres can make a difference. On IOM it is unlikely to make any difference to the load you can carry, but more likely to the ability to derate - which is not an issue.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I always get the impression the planes only use a certain amount of the runway to get up in the air.  Does 150m make a difference?

Aircraft require a very specific length of runway to get airborne, many factors effect this, most notable amongst these is weight. Without getting complicated and going into V speeds etc, before the point at which the aircraft is committed to flight, there has to be enough runway left to abandon the take off and stop. These are the factors which decide fuel/passenger and baggage loads. Large jet aircraft generally try and rotate at the same point on the runway irrespective of weight, derating the engines if they have too much available performance for reasons of engine wear and economy . So yes 150m could make a difference in certain very specific circumstances but shouldn't be any sort of deal breaker. As MMP has alluded to we have always chased a gold plated solution to a problem which doesn't really exist, mind you if Ms Reynolds 1.5 to 2 million passengers have occurred it may have been a more favourable argument

I'll use MMP for revision ! see above.

Edited by asitis
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

The interesting thing is how it gets to 9m quid.

That's a staggering amount of money.  What are we exactly getting for that?

laughed at.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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