Latest Doublespeak From Airstrip One

[Declan]

I understood that the initial justification was increasing passenger numbers. This was changed at the 11th hour to safety concerns and the fear that flights on some routes wouldn't be possible without a longer runway.

 

This later reason has been robustly challenged on here.

[Albert Tatlock]

I understood that the initial justification was increasing passenger numbers. This was changed at the 11th hour to safety concerns and the fear that flights on some routes wouldn't be possible without a longer runway.

 

This later reason has been robustly challenged on here.

Personally, I think there should be an enquiry after the next election.

[manshimajin]

I understood that the initial justification was increasing passenger numbers. This was changed at the 11th hour to safety concerns and the fear that flights on some routes wouldn't be possible without a longer runway.

If I recall correctly there was also a claim that the lengthened runway was needed for larger jets such as 737s and 757s flown by charter airlines - the sort that would be needed for the high level of demand. Funny thing is that the charter flights that Ms Reassurance mentions are to be flown by FlyBe in their smaller planes. I wonder what Castletown residents would have to say about bigger jets rattling their roofs?

 

However....how about this for an alterantive theory... the Lady Manager had her eyes fixed all the time on a very tall perimeter fence. This was because she could not have a proper airport without it having a perceived global terrorism security threat and all the relevant safeguards to combat this. Otherwise when Airport Managers got together for their annual chinwag and all expenses paid dinner bash the rest of them would have sneered at Ronaldsway and called it a little offshore airport.

 

So she moved heaven and earth to get the tallest fence in the British Isles. This meant that planes would have to fly in much higher to clear it. They also would have to take off much further away from the end of the runway than they used to so they didn't catch their wheels in the chain links. So the only solution available was to have a longer runway so they would be able to clear the fence and land halfway down the tarmac.

 

And now to top it all, at the annual bash she can hold her head high and say "My rocks come from Norway! Where do your rocks come from?"

 

PS: when will the demand for some of those new bodyscanners be submitted - in case the UK will refuse to accept flights from here without them?

[Albert Tatlock]

PS: when will the demand for some of those new bodyscanners be submitted - in case the UK will refuse to accept flights from here without them?

Before they get a bodyscanner I think they need to go for a brainscanner first down there.

 

I also heard from my man in the pub that people believe she has recently been fencing aircraft.

[slinkydevil]

I wonder what Castletown residents would have to say about bigger jets rattling their roofs?

 

A residents laser protest with Jean Michel Jarre headlining the event.

 

[asitis]

Doesn't it worry anyone that the numbers, despite all the bad weather, are basically static?

 

Because it means all that extra investment is a complete and utter waste of money should...

 

At the risk of seeming like I haven't been following this issue very closely, I thought the runway was being extended to meet safety requirements for the existing size of planes using Ronaldsway rather than in the hope it would pave the way for larger aircraft to use the airport.

 

 

The runway has been extended for reasons which change with the wind and are at best unclear, they are certainly not mandatory for the type of aircraft we need here ! As for larger aircraft who is going to fill them, they aren't going to operate for fun. All this has been done to death and I am as guilty as anyone for doing so. There has been an unexplained and uncontrollable desire to get rid of a large amount of public money and the ongoing costs will continue to do so.

[manshimajin]

At the risk of seeming like I haven't been following this issue very closely, I thought the runway was being extended to meet safety requirements for the existing size of planes using Ronaldsway rather than in the hope it would pave the way for larger aircraft to use the airport.

Censorship just to add to the comment above - if you check the technical specifications for the planes that use the Airport you'll find that even after deducting for the RESA that supposedly is needed the un-extended runway is significantly in excess of their take off and landing requirements fully laden.

 

IF the runway had been unsafe the civil aviation authorities would have closed it down!

 

The original recommendations were for us to get bigger jets (737/757 size) and 1,000,000 passngers by 2010. Safety came in when this was shown to be totally unrealistic. Given the size of the market here it is most likely that the airport will continue in its current role as a feeder airport to the main UK and Irish airports (but not LHR).

[spanna]

The bigger jets line was just a rumour and then picked up as it was more interesting than the real reason.

 

The runway RUNOFF area had to be extended to meet with new rules coming in. The runoff area Ronaldsway had was too short and if it stayed that way opertors who run a/c like the e190 & q400 could potentially refuse to land here.

Then we would be up sh1t creek without a paddle.

Left with manx2 and their ww2 era mini planes flying us everywhere. No thanks.

[finaldestination]

Well said Spanna - there is so much horse manure on this thread - but as they say, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rumour!

 

The scheme to extend the RESA was planned long before the present senior management team were appointed. It was done as it was recognised that in the near future there would be a change in the requirements for runway end safety areas. I would have thought that people would be for once applauding the Government for being one step ahead rather than always fighting fires and playing catch-up.

 

A certain amount of the cost was used in resurfacing the main runway - something which would have had to be done anyway regardless of the RESA part of the project.

 

Before the present management team were in place I think it is true to say that there was probably a lack of investment in the airport, apart from the departure lounge. The re-surfacing of the taxiways was required to be done also and hats off to them for making use of the facilities that were already on site connected with the runway project.

 

The new control tower is also something which should have been done years ago. I went on a guided tour of the present one a few years ago and I thought it was scandalous that professional Government employess were allowed to work in such a sh** heap! I am sure if senior members of the Government were required to work in a painted world war 2 brick office things would have happened years ago.

 

As for the fence, I can accept the fact that we are required to comply with UK regulations purely on the fact that if we do not then I believe airports can refuse to accept our flights. Why should other airports spend a lot of money protecting their ramps to allow them to be 'contaminated' by aircraft coming from a 'dirty' airfield.

 

So I am convined that the money being spent down at the drome at the moment is justified. All of it seems to be based on safety and security and working conditions. If at the end of it all we achieve a slightly longer runway that may, or may not, attract more direct flights/bigger aircraft/new routes then that wil be an added bonus!

 

By the way, the new poles which have appeared on the road are reduced height street lamps, again being replaced on the grounds of safety. If you look carefully, there is also a section of fence displayed, I believe for the benefit of the residents nearby. Surprised nobody has noticed it but then again it is not that intrusive so probably does not make for a good whinge! (Disclaimer - it was there last time I looked but no gurantee that it is still there)

[Albert Tatlock]

There were other far less costly ways of meeting such RESA 'requirements' (e.g. catchment/sand etc.), even if the requirements were to become mandatory, which they ain't.

[manshimajin]

The bigger jets line was just a rumour and then picked up as it was more interesting than the real reason.

 

The runway RUNOFF area had to be extended to meet with new rules coming in. The runoff area Ronaldsway had was too short and if it stayed that way opertors who run a/c like the e190 & q400 could potentially refuse to land here.

Then we would be up sh1t creek without a paddle.

Left with manx2 and their ww2 era mini planes flying us everywhere. No thanks.

The rumour about bigger jets was started by the Airport which probably accounts for why it was a rumour only.

 

You might like to check the technical specs for the FlyBe planes as they can operate safely off shorter runways than Ronaldsway. But don't let your suppositions get in the way of the technical operating data.... This would have meant that the RESA could either have been incorporated into the existing runway or with a shorter extension not requiring the promontory which is the bit that cost so much.

 

It is surprising that FlyBe have not pulled their flights already if it is unsafe!

 

BTW what happened to the 1,000,000 passengers by 2010 that was used in the documents presented to Tynwald as the initial justification - probably just another ill founded rumour....and definitely not the real reason for the extension, just something to impress the folk on the hill.

 

Finaldestination will UK airports refuse to accept passengers from the airfields in the Scottish Islands that don't and cannot have fences?

 

Edited to add: The Dash 8 in its heaviest form (8-400) requires a take off distance at MTOW of 1,402 metres. For 500 nm journeys with 70 passengers it needs 1134 metres and a landing distance of 1070 metres. The runway is 1869 metres. Allowing for a 200 metre RESA that leaves 200 metres spare at maximum weight and 500 metres at a more usual take off weight.

[james]

Edited to add: The Dash 8 in its heaviest form (8-400) requires a take off distance at MTOW of 1,402 metres. For 500 nm journeys with 70 passengers it needs 1134 metres and a landing distance of 1070 metres. The runway is 1869 metres. Allowing for a 200 metre RESA that leaves 200 metres spare at maximum weight and 500 metres at a more usual take off weight.

 

TODA or TORA? What about crosswinds and wet runways?

[WTF]

The bigger jets line was just a rumour and then picked up as it was more interesting than the real reason.

 

The runway RUNOFF area had to be extended to meet with new rules coming in. The runoff area Ronaldsway had was too short and if it stayed that way opertors who run a/c like the e190 & q400 could potentially refuse to land here.

Then we would be up sh1t creek without a paddle.

Left with manx2 and their ww2 era mini planes flying us everywhere. No thanks.

 

the q400's will quite happilly land on the SHORT runway down there when the wind direction requires it.

[ballaughbiker]

TODA or TORA? What about crosswinds and wet runways?

Isn't temperature also a consideration? My somewhat hazy memory seems to recall an aircraft originally operated by Manx and then Eastern had it max take off weight restricted in certain conditions due to the runway length at Ronaldsway. Is anyone, still operating that beast, able to confirm that?

 

It's easy to quote cherry picked figures without the associated data used in the said cherry picking.

[ballaughbiker]

the q400's will quite happilly land on the SHORT runway down there when the wind direction requires it.

Not just the wind direction, but the windspeed.......