The Thriller Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Ah I was wonderin how all them mexicans down behind the emperess hotel got here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Biker up in Ballaugh The aircraft currently using Ronaldsway on the normal daily schedules suffer no performance penalties (ie they can go with full loads and requisite fuel). The exception to this, I believe, is the Embrear 50 seat jet, which flybe occasionally sends to the Island on an ad hoc basis. Even then, the number of occasions when bags have to be left behind can be counted on the fingers of one hand - and that' probably covers the past 5 years. I don't have access to the performance requirements for the Boeings and Airbuses that occasionally come in on charter but, for such infrequent use, does the possible requirement of an enroute stop for fuel justify £40M? The extension is something the airport has happily done without for the past 60 years and can do without for the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 So we live on an island, made mostly of rock....the current runway is founded on the rock, yet to build the runway extension we need millions of pounds of rock to be brought over in huge barges from Norway? Eh? Can't we just blast a hole in Snaefell? It's a crap excuse for a mountain anyway. £40million my arse. I'd be prepared to bet it will cost over £50m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 £40million my arse. Is that your best price? I can stretch to a bacardi breezer and a bag of chips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 £40million my arse. Is that your best price? I can stretch to a bacardi breezer and a bag of chips. Heh, the best offer I've ever had was a bag of 50 Tescos chicken dippers. But I thought I'd aim a little higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Thanks Utah how about the J41 then? I seem to remember it is limited at Ronaldsway and that's here every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 This farce should go back to planning, the resa extension basically gives the island nothing for its 40m +. Thinking outside of the box if that sort of money was to be spent extending the other way, then aircraft could land here in much more limited vis than is the case at the moment (Cat 2), at least in that case the airport would have something for its money !! BTW someone has said that the 777 accident was recently quoted as a reason for having the resa and that the aircraft was saved by the resa, mighty good argument except that 27L at heathrow the resa is on the other end !! The hold up should now be used for an open and mature debate about how the manx public is best served by spending huge amounts of everyones money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 My thoughts exactly; it's a suitable 'excuse' for the politicos to shelve the whole farce with a modicum of face-saving. The Directress might care to divert her energies into some exciting, new project. Was tunnelling (trench and cover) the road at the southwest end of the airport ever considered? By pushing the runway in that direction the RESA and a useful lengthening of the runway could probably be achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gags Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Standard government incompetence i'm afraid. Of course we need the runway and a proper airport, but with the normal amount of enquries, will it ever happen? Although it would make a good car park down there and there would be plenty of space for apartments... Hopefully all of the £10 apd's would be able to cover the cost....and what ever happened to the enquiry about having it at a sensible percentage and not a ludicrous £10?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 What a total waste of 40 million quid! Some people should be put in a machine-gunned rowing boat for this decision and towed 10 miles out to sea. There should be a public enquiry into this ineptitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finaldestination Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I think for once the IOM Government is showing excellent foresight is building the RESA before it becomes mandatory, and that is bound to happen. If we do not comply with the ICAO requirements then they will have to shorten what are known as Declared Distances. These are distances which take obstacles, RESAs etc into account and do not necessarily relate to the physical length of the runway. If they have to reduce further the 'useable' dimensions of the runway when this requirement comes in, then that will bound to affect our present operators never, mind any new operators who may wish to come here. It is very easy to say extend towards Castletown, but unless you want to knock down Janets Corner, most of the houses in Victoria Road and the Sidings pub, then this is a non starter! On a pure common sense basis....walk along to the end of the main runway where the lighting gantry goes into the sea. You will see how little level land there is at the end of the runway. Would you like to be in an aircraft that runs off the end? Straight down onto the rocks - that will result in a catastrophice break up of the aircraft! For anyone who wants to fully understand how complex a subject is..trying googleing CAP168. This document will show you it is not just a case of sticking some tarmac down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 There doesn't seem to be any mention of building a whole new second runway as an alternative - something which perhaps might not be any more expensive that extending the existing one out to sea (?) Out of interest is this a complete non-starter? - if so why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 if so why? tryprevailing wind and topography Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finaldestination Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 One of the options that was loked at I beleive was extending the SW/NE runway. The main problem is that if you extend the centreline outwards you more or less hit Snaefell. The amount of high ground in this area woul preclude any decent instrument approach. Therefore, when the weather is grotty, the place will be at a standstill even more than it is now! As for a complete new runway, where there really does not appear to be anywhere you could put it. You would still encounter the same problems as have been considered for the RESA project. The only really viable option is out to sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I think for once the IOM Government is showing excellent foresight is building the RESA before it becomes mandatory, and that is bound to happen. If we do not comply with the ICAO requirements then they will have to shorten what are known as Declared Distances. These are distances which take obstacles, RESAs etc into account and do not necessarily relate to the physical length of the runway. If they have to reduce further the 'useable' dimensions of the runway when this requirement comes in, then that will bound to affect our present operators never, mind any new operators who may wish to come here. It is very easy to say extend towards Castletown, but unless you want to knock down Janets Corner, most of the houses in Victoria Road and the Sidings pub, then this is a non starter! On a pure common sense basis....walk along to the end of the main runway where the lighting gantry goes into the sea. You will see how little level land there is at the end of the runway. Would you like to be in an aircraft that runs off the end? Straight down onto the rocks - that will result in a catastrophice break up of the aircraft! For anyone who wants to fully understand how complex a subject is..trying googleing CAP168. This document will show you it is not just a case of sticking some tarmac down! But when you look into this, where it is not possible or impracticable to provide the full length of RESA: "other methods, such as use of suitable material to enhance deceleration of the aircraft, or some reduction in landing distance available, or a combination of the above, may be used. In recognition that some aerodrome operators will need time to develop an implementation strategy, a five-year lead time has been provided. The ICAO recommendation of 240m RESA where practicable will be transmitted to aerodrome operators as a recommendation, not as a mandatory standard". In other words there ARE alternatives available. I suspect you are that guy I came across writing a uni disertation on the subject, or work there - and claim my £5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.