madmanxpilot

I’ve just had a text delaying my sailing in a few days. It says a technical issue is forcing it to operate at reduced power. LPL-IOM is now going to take 3.5 hrs.

The AAIB are in charge - they must give permission before any accident aircraft is moved.

Let’s have that formal discussion ASAP then. I really hope that those who may think the Airport less important than other pieces of national infrastructure never experience the pain and stress of missing a friend’s funeral or a critical medical appointment due to the inability of the airport to handle low visibility conditions. I think they may change their viewpoint if they did.

Another couple of days where aircraft and crews could have operated if only the airport was properly equipped to deal with the conditions. This sort of disruption is obviously an acceptable alternative to spending money on the upgrades. As far as I know, nothing more than the back of a fag packet type cost benefit analysis (CBA) has been done by people who would never be able to identify all of the costs borne by individuals and businesses alike. They probably haven’t even had a quote for the work required. A one off expenditure for decades of benefit is surely needed. CBA evidently stands for something different.

The ATC closures aren’t of sufficient duration I would suspect, and are hopefully not a permanent feature moving forward.

Maybe the airport could close for a couple of hours once a month to facilitate the training. With prior notification to all users I can’t see that being a problem.

I don’t have any specific knowledge of why staff aren’t trained up on the boat, but my guess would be it’s to with there not being enough of them employed to allow for release from work to allow for attendance at whatever training needs to be given. There need to be a specific number of firefighters on duty to reach the required category of cover to allow for aircraft to operate. The bigger the aircraft, the higher the category and the more staff are needed.. If that’s the case, then someone should have perhaps considered that before spending (wasting) a lot of money.

Not normally.

Exactly.

All aircraft must have their critical structures free from contamination prior to take off. This because it can have a massive impact on aerodynamic performance if not removed. In times of active snow or other frozen precipitation , after de icing with a thin fluid, a thicker mix is applied to stop further accumulation. This second step comes with a hold over time which is calculated using information about the type of fluid, the type and heaviness of the precipitation and the temperature. The holdover time is the time from when this second application started to the time when the aircraft must be airborne. If that time is exceeded, and the weather is unchanged, the aircraft should return to stand and start the whole de icing process again. In the air, any ice will build up on the leading edges, and aircraft have systems to deal with that in all bar the most severe cases. My experience of the de icing arrangement here is pretty much as per @Andy Onchan has said above. De icing fluid isn’t cheap, and has a defined (short) shelf life. Unlike milk at the supermarket, a sniff test is not allowed!. I have also experienced the entire stock of de icing fluid being used on one business jet, leaving absolutely none for the commercial aircraft sitting covered in snow and ice. That was quite some years ago though, and nothing to do with Menzies. The other issue is that last I heard there is only one de icing rig, and it is very rarely used thanks to our maritime climate. As we know, machines that aren’t used regularly tend to develop technical issues more than those that are in frequent use. The bottom line as usual comes down to cost. Menzies would be taking a massive risk on their own part if they ordered massive quantities of de icing fluids on the chance that they would be required, not to mention the hundreds of thousands a new de icing rig would cost. As the airport is supposed to be a critical part of our infrastructure, perhaps this de icing function should be funded by the government to ensure its provision. However, with the head on drive into commercialisation of the airport underway at the moment, that is extremely unlikely to happen. Like the southern pool - the cost of everything is known (or guessed at in that case) and the value of things is ignored.

Yes, that was made blatantly obvious by the AD when recruitment for those posts was opened up. The Airport Board may invite people or groups to address them if specific knowledge is required, so let’s hope that happens.

You are correct. In the past, tens of millions of pounds has been wasted on so called improvements that have realised little or no benefit to the way the airport functions However, if the airport is to be brought up to a standard where it was not the weakest link in whether aircraft can get in and out during bad weather, further expenditure running into the many millions of pounds will be required. Mr Cobb is right to say that we need to decide whether that sort expenditure is worth the benefits that it would bring. It’s good to see that he has arrived at this point, albeit a little belatedly. In considering that point, it must be realised that any expenditure on upgrading infrastructure will be a one off that will bring decades of benefit. Should money will be made available, it is absolutely critical that it is spent in a way that will bring the biggest benefit. Unfortunately, at the moment, there is nobody involved with the management of the airport who knows enough to ensure that this happens. Mr Cobb relies heavily on the advice he receives from his subordinates, and unfortunately that advice, which appears to be given with absolute confidence, is far too often flawed. It is crucially important that they ask those who operate aircraft into Ronaldsway what they need to get the job done more reliably rather than making assumptions. This advice will be invaluable - and free.

Here too. Advertised today. ATCO Job.

I wonder if dressing up as Santa will appear on his CV too?

The wind has been 30 degrees off the runway heading almost all of the day here - which means the crosswind component will be 50% of the actual windspeed, so whilst it’d be rather bumpy on final approach, it’s shouldn’t pose a problem. Manchester’s runways are oriented about 30 degrees further towards the south, so that NW wind has been 60 degrees off the runway direction. That means that almost 90% of any wind speed will be crosswind, which would be an issue today. If anyone is interested, calculating the crosswind component is fairly simple - take sine of the difference in direction of runway heading and wind direction and multiply the result by the windspeed.

Currently there are 9 controllers able to work in both approach and tower roles, and 2 rated tower only. One of the tower only rated controllers leaves next week, and a further tower and approach rated controller leaves in February.

As I’m sure you know, it’s the Human Resources section which can be found right at the end of CAP670 that forms the reference document for duty hours limits and such stuff. Maybe some bedtime reading for the insomniacs amongst us? I think you will likely have access to the same information sources. If so you can find out the answer to your question regarding current headcount’s just as quickly as me! But I will get the latest figure and report back in any event.

No, the rules haven’t changed. That 14 figure includes trainees, recruits who are not locally checked out and at least one who is currently unable to control. The figure does not include two who have resigned in recent months.

It wouldn’t have been a problem before it was extended either.

The future function and form document which describes the process that is being undertaken to commercialise the airport is all about money. It’s about reducing the amount of cash IOMG has to spend on the airport by making the place more commercially savvy in its own right. There is nothing wrong with that. Where the problem lies is that this commercialisation process is the sole focus of attention at the moment, perhaps because it is easier to address than the real problems. This shouldn’t be the case. It seems some of those in positions of influence need to remind themselves what the prime function of the airport is, ie to allow people and goods to travel to and from the island in a frequent and reliable manner. This is the big issue, and where the airport is failing.

This is one of the ‘benefits’ of the Open Skies Policy. Airlines can come and go as they please when it suits them. If routes were licensed and airlines had to enter into a contract with IOMG to serve them, this sort of thing wouldn’t happen. In this particular case, IOMG had no idea the route was being suspended until the public announcement was made. Back in the days of Manx, we used to operate at 29 seat Jetstream 41 to BHD and DUB. A perfectly sized aircraft to operate frequent services on a relatively lean route. It was a good route for Manx2/Citywing and was a shame that they weren’t professional enough to be allowed to continue operating. It’s no wonder EZY have decided it’s unviable for them to operate during the leaner months, simply too much capacity and not enough demand.

They had 30% of their staff off at the same time due to sickness, so a lot more than one. The resources are spread so thinly here, that in addition to the two programmed daily closures, just one ATCO being unfit for duty will likely have consequences akin to what we saw this morning.

I think the relationship between the politicians and the civil servants is perhaps not as binary as has been suggested by some. In regards to our airport, the politicians rely heavily on the technical advice and opinion of the airport director. In providing this he will either be responding to a request from the politicians, or proactively suggesting to them something which he would like them to consider. The Airport Director will in turn frequently rely on information from his own subordinates, both to answer the politicians queries, or help formulate his own position. This is why it is essential that the people we have in post have the knowledge and relevant experience to get that advice and opinion right. That hasn’t always been the case in the past.

The IOMG 'Function Future and Form' document/policy, which details the requirement for a board, and the appointment of NEDs states: 'Many airports are commercial businesses, and in fact, all UK airports with a turnover of over £1 million must operate as arm’s length companies to comply with the Airports Act 1986' This is incorrect. The Act actually says, for airports with a turnover of more than £1 million: The Secretary of State may give to any principal council who control (whether alone or jointly with one or more other principal councils) an airport to which th ” is section applies in accordance with section 14, a direction requiring the council to form a company for the purpose of carrying on— (a)the business of operating the airport as a commercial undertaking; and (b)any activities which appear to the council to be incidental to or connected with carrying on that business. In any event, this 1980's Act was simply a piece of legislation that transferred the power of running government owned airports to the private sector as part of the Tory government's wide ranging policy of privatisation. It does not necessarily mean that it is right for the Isle of Man, where our critical infrastructure may not be best served by being exposed to the vagaries of businesses and their financial goals, even if government oversight exists.

Those that did apply were told that they didn't have relevant 'Board Experience'.