ballaughbiker Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Here's the wind at 1020 and 1050 EGNS 151020Z 18026KT EGNS 151050Z 18025G36KT so as Bob says around 30kt, 80° off. The dry crosswind limit of the F50 is 30kt I am told so whatever, it looks like it was being operated close to limits. I hope for the Captain's sake it wasn't wet or gusts in excess of 30kt at the time. Anyway no one's hurt and the machine maybe OK which is what really matters. (It's dead easy flying this armchair) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Bob Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Edited for poor maths !. It went off at about 10.15 - there were no reported gusts in the 1020 metar, so I'm sure it would have been in limits. Armchairs are always easier to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I got blown off on a plane once. Didn't have anything to do with crosswind landing though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Could have been worse, could have been a load of snakes on the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Was there any runway contamination Bob? (Runway) 21 would have been a better bet anyway. Pre your edit,I thought that woman had moved the runways around in the last few years since I hung up my David Clark's..... Edited to add (Runway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Bob Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 The runways were wet. There was some fairly low cloud this morning which would likely have prevented the use of 21 for landing..FEW007 BKN011 OVC030 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgy Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 some photos Great pictures Jimmy lad. I miss all the fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Can't fault VLM normally though. How many domestic flights still give you a beer free? Maybe some of it found it's way to the flight deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Muppets! If only they'd landed it on the Silverburn we'd have had international coverage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 The runways were wet. There was some fairly low cloud this morning which would likely have prevented the use of 21 for landing..FEW007 BKN011 OVC030 Now you've got me really worried - low clouds and a wet runway - I thought that those were normal conditions here! Does this mean that wet and low cloud = don't get in a plane without good insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooster Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Some good Pictures there from JIM What size lens have you got on there to get shots like that from the gantry end or were you in the field next to the new taxiway????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Bob Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Manshimajin, there are two runways at Ronaldsway - the main 26-08 (East to West) runway has an instrument landing system for both directions and a shorter 21-03 (SW-NE) runway which has no instrument landing aids. If the wind is too strong out of the South or the North, the crosswind can be 'outside limits' for the main runway. On these rare occasions the shorter runway can be used so that a more into wind landing can be acomplished. As there is no instrument landing system for the shorter runway, one has to us the Mk 1 eyeball, a visual approach. If the cloud is low, or the visibility is poor, this ceases to be an option. For the VLM Fokker, they will have needed to be visual with the ground by 800 feet or so - the use of that runway is not authorised otherwise. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshall_42 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Manshimajin, there are two runways at Ronaldsway - the main 26-08 (East to West) runway has an instrument landing system for both directions and a shorter 21-03 (SW-NE) runway which has no instrument landing aids. If the wind is too strong out of the South or the North, the crosswind can be 'outside limits' for the main runway. On these rare occasions the shorter runway can be used so that a more into wind landing can be acomplished. As there is no instrument landing system for the shorter runway, one has to us the Mk 1 eyeball, a visual approach. If the cloud is low, or the visibility is poor, this ceases to be an option. For the VLM Fokker, they will have needed to be visual with the ground by 800 feet or so - the use of that runway is not authorised otherwise. Hope that helps. Thanks a lot Bob. I will never enjoy a 21-03 landing anymore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Manshimajin, there are two runways at Ronaldsway - the main 26-08 (East to West) runway has an instrument landing system for both directions and a shorter 21-03 (SW-NE) runway which has no instrument landing aids. If the wind is too strong out of the South or the North, the crosswind can be 'outside limits' for the main runway. On these rare occasions the shorter runway can be used so that a more into wind landing can be acomplished. As there is no instrument landing system for the shorter runway, one has to us the Mk 1 eyeball, a visual approach. If the cloud is low, or the visibility is poor, this ceases to be an option. For the VLM Fokker, they will have needed to be visual with the ground by 800 feet or so - the use of that runway is not authorised otherwise. Hope that helps. Thanks for the explanation. It does make me wonder about the priority of capital expenditure at Ronaldsway - from a pilot and passenger point of view which is more important - runway extensions, new control tower or instrument landing aids on the second runway? Personally my priority is getting down safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.