Latest Doublespeak From Airstrip One

[manshimajin]

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

 

Ballaughbiker IMC I was responding to the comments about the FlyBe aircraft. If people are interested in the figures they could do what I did and go to the technical data at the Bombardier site. This indicates that a fully laden 8-400 could easily take off from the current runway and that one with 70 passengers and fuel for 500nm needs only 1134 metres of the 1869 metres available on the pre-lengthened runway. Of course the manufacturers could be telling porky pies... and it is totally unsafe.

 

IMO the core issue was that the proposal was initially put forward based on bigger jets carrying more passengers. For this to be viable for normal operations would mean fewer flights and therefore less choice of travel times on the 'major' routes.

 

We have a local feeder airport and the 70 seaters that are used appear to be about right for this type of operation - which is no doubt why Aer Arran and FlyBe use this type of plane albeit from different makers. IMO there is no way that major airlines are going to fit Ronadsway into their schedules - they will continue to fly out of UK hubs that we need to connect with using small planes that do not need the longer runway.

[ballaughbiker]

Of course the manufacturers could be telling porky pies... and it is totally unsafe.

Grow up.

 

Sure manshimajin - I don't doubt those figures at all especially as I know nothing about Q400s. All I was trying to say was that the performance tables take a bit of working through even if you are current on type and taking one line from what could be be, in reality, 10s of pages might not be absolutely respresentative. You might just want to talk about Flybe but other aircraft also come here.

 

We've all seen the Q400s (and the variant Euromanx used to operate) take off in a very short distance if the conditions and payload are right. It's that hot day in summer when the wind is light and variable (eg might turn into a slight tailwind after you start rolling) and the aircraft is full of 'fat persons' with max luggage when those figures quoted might, just might, not work. Were your performance figures taken from tables applicable to Ronaldsway by any chance or were they from a perfect airport without obstacles, achieved by a new aircraft in perfect weather conditions by a Bombardier test pilot?

 

I haven't a clue if my example aircraft still operates from Ronaldsway but I'm sure, if my memory serves me correctly, that passengers would be mighty surpised to say the least, if the aircraft could not legally operate at max weight on a (to them) perfect day.

 

I think this runway work is a huge waste of money but one thing you cannot argue with is that it's impossible to have too long a runway.

[slinkydevil]

Anyone know why the flags at Ronaldsway were at half mast today?

 

Is it because her contract has been extended for another 10 years?

[bonatti]

I think whats obvious from all this is how easy it would have been for Ann Reynolds to pull the wool over our governments eyes.

The question is, what would have been the largest aircraft that would have been able to land/take off, at Ronaldsway complying with RESA before the extension took place (fully loaded,crosswinds,wet runway etc,etc,).Does anyone know?

[ballaughbiker]

what would have been the largest aircraft that would have been able to land/take off, at Ronaldsway

Dunno bonatti but you would have to consult lots of aircraft's performance data including differences in that type's variants to come up with a sensible answer. Ask the lady at the airport....

 

For instance Cardiff is only a bit longer at 2300 and something and some of BA's very big stuff flies in there for maintenance. However I think they're always zero payload and not fuelled up too much. Performance is a, er, rather big subject easily simplified (if you have a death wish).

[bonatti]

The only reason i ask is because, as we have seen over the last 10 years,air-operators come and go, and even the ones that stay change their aircraft from time to time. And whilst i feel we have been somewhat duped by the reasons behind the extension i believe that unless aircraft such as small Boeings and Airbusses are able to land at Ronaldsway in the future then we are limiting the ammount of airlines that can operate here, and as spanna has said,will leave us with just the two-bit outfits. And to be honest, i'd rather go by rowing boat than fly on some of the aircraft currently using Ronaldsway.

[cheesypeas]

what would have been the largest aircraft that would have been able to land/take off, at Ronaldsway

Dunno bonatti but you would have to consult lots of aircraft's performance data including differences in that type's variants to come up with a sensible answer. Ask the lady at the airport....

 

For instance Cardiff is only a bit longer at 2300 and something and some of BA's very big stuff flies in there for maintenance. However I think they're always zero payload and not fuelled up too much. Performance is a, er, rather big subject easily simplified (if you have a death wish).

 

We've had Boeing 757's in here. That would probably be the biggest.

[asitis]

The only reason i ask is because, as we have seen over the last 10 years,air-operators come and go, and even the ones that stay change their aircraft from time to time. And whilst i feel we have been somewhat duped by the reasons behind the extension i believe that unless aircraft such as small Boeings and Airbusses are able to land at Ronaldsway in the future then we are limiting the ammount of airlines that can operate here, and as spanna has said,will leave us with just the two-bit outfits. And to be honest, i'd rather go by rowing boat than fly on some of the aircraft currently using Ronaldsway.

 

The two bit outfits as you describe them inevitably operate smaller aircraft, as with the passenger density available in the IOM it is economically not viable to operate larger aircraft, particularly jet aircraft as opposed to turboprops. I cannot see a regular destination from the IOM which would support a large aircraft as all the popular (in terms of bums on seats) routes are only the 'hops' to the UK which a large jet could not operate economically due its poor performance at low altitudes, this is why virtually all feeder type airports operate turboprops which are fuel efficient and do not require as a general rule long runways. The fact that operators do come and go should tell you something about market size and the potential for a profitable business. The odd large aircraft can operate from here with restrictions but these restrictions have never stopped their coming and going when needed. Is what will be 60mill a sensible sum to spend of public money to divide between a very few large aircraft per annum ? I think not.

 

The only people to benefit from this over the top project are the planners, consultants, suppliers etc etc ! and not the passengers as little or nothing will change it is just economically impossible. And for those who still bang on about the safety argument I will concede that any extension is arguably safer, but you could extrapolate that argument until it became ridiculous, the airport as was needed investment and maintenance but not this level of profligacy for no discernible return or benefit. I think Alan Bell has just said the rolls royce projects have to stop, well this was the Bentley project and yes it should have stopped before it !

[P.K.]

... but one thing you cannot argue with is that it's impossible to have too long a runway.

True because according to my flying instructor a landing is only "a controlled crash".

 

But it is possible to have too long a runway if the costs outweigh the benefits....

[manshimajin]

We've all seen the Q400s (and the variant Euromanx used to operate) take off in a very short distance if the conditions and payload are right. It's that hot day in summer when the wind is light and variable (eg might turn into a slight tailwind after you start rolling) and the aircraft is full of 'fat persons' with max luggage when those figures quoted might, just might, not work. Were your performance figures taken from tables applicable to Ronaldsway by any chance or were they from a perfect airport without obstacles, achieved by a new aircraft in perfect weather conditions by a Bombardier test pilot?

Thanks for the very mature opener. The rest makes sense but bear in mind that airlines do not overload planes with heavy fuel for short flights so they need much less take off distance even with 70 bloated passengers on board. As you will see if you read my comments the data was taken from Bombardier - are you saying that Ronaldsway is not a typical airport and that normal aircraft company data does not apply here? That would certainly raise major safety issues for operations at the airport and for passenger safety.

 

More to the point, the future of Ronaldsway must be as a regional feeder airport serviced by smallish regional turboprop airliners that are more profitable to operate on these type of routes, environmentally friendly, low noise and easy to load and unload. If we are really going to get big jets using the place there are a whole lot more issues that will have to be looked into which will just keep adding to the bills.

 

If you recall the 'example' aircraft it would be interesting to see what its specification was.

[asitis]

What you can add about performance figures is Ronaldsway is at sea level and is not very often what you would term as hot or windless ! therefore Ronaldsway will never be near the worst case scenario as relates to aircraft performance.

[ballaughbiker]

are you saying that Ronaldsway is not a typical airport

No, not at all, but book figures are the best you will get for the reasons previously stated. I might even have some data for the J41 around somewhere, to quote actual figures, but I'd prefer someone currently operating it in and out of Ronaldsway to confirm it is in fact performance limited in certain conditions. If so, would this still be the case with a longer runway? By the way, how would a contaminated runway affect the figures you quoted for the Dash?

 

not very often what you would term as hot or windless

True, of course, but it does happen.

[WTF]

are you saying that Ronaldsway is not a typical airport

No, not at all, but book figures are the best you will get for the reasons previously stated. I might even have some data for the J41 around somewhere, to quote actual figures, but I'd prefer someone currently operating it in and out of Ronaldsway to confirm it is in fact performance limited in certain conditions. If so, would this still be the case with a longer runway? By the way, how would a contaminated runway affect the figures you quoted for the Dash?

 

not very often what you would term as hot or windless

True, of course, but it does happen.

 

 

fog/sea mist has more effect on ronaldsway than hot and still ! when did you last hear that the hot still weather was the reason for a cancellation at ronaldsway?? thought so, especially when they struggle to fill flights to capacity in the 'little' aircraft.

[jimbms]

For instance Cardiff is only a bit longer at 2300 and something and some of BA's very big stuff flies in there for maintenance. However I think they're always zero payload and not fuelled up too much.

Very true, as far as I remember from last time I went down there it has a very large facility for maintainence of 747's, part of which on a full service it has to be tested for take off and landing with a full weight/fuel load.

[ballaughbiker]

when did you last hear that the hot still weather was the reason for a cancellation at ronaldsway?? thought so

I don't recall saying flights had been cancelled for this reason. Did I ? thought not.

 

According to someone currently operating a variant of the J41, the max take off weight is restricted from 10886 to 10400 kg on 26 in hot and low pressure conditions. So WTF, they aren't going to cancel owt but if its full of 'whatever' 486kg (near enough half a tonne) of something is going to have to be taken off before it goes anywhere should these unfavourable conditions exist. Sorry, but do you understand what I'm on about now?

 

Aircraft performance is degraded by

 

hot

humid

icing

low pressure

tailwind

contaminated runway

height above sea level

runway surface

runway gradient etc

 

The last three are not going to be a problem at Ronaldsway but the rest might on what you might consider a nice day. And come on manshimajin what about contaminated runways???? How does this affect the data you provided earlier? Are you going to need a longer runway for the same aircraft if the said runway is contaminated?