Airport.

[madmanxpilot]

3 minutes ago, lcd said:

 

Not wrong - but when the aircraft was turned over Liverpool the reported visibility was 300m. I'd be interested to know what equipment would have been required at the airport that would have allowed for a succesful landing. 

Upgraded runway lights and devices (transmissiometers) to measure the visibility accurately and instantly.

[asitis]

3 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

The decision altitude element of the minima was not changed by the demolition of the gantry - it remains at 200 feet above the runway threshold. The lighting is now officially classed as basic, whereas previously it was intermediate. The required RVR (runway visual range) increased though, it went from 700 metres to 1000 metres because the approach lighting that was on the gantry is no longer there. A Cat 1 approach at an airfield with full lighting allows for landings in 550 metres RVR. Cat 2 landings allow for a decision height of 100 feet and an RVR of 300 metres. Ronaldsway does not have any capacity to determine RVR (runway visual range). It used to be the case that a fireman would stand atop a fire engine and count the number of lights he could see along the runway. Despite it sounding very rudimentary, this method is legit for the purpose. However, a few years back, the firemen were told they were no longer allowed to do this though, as it was deemed unsafe. Now we rely on the weather observer in the terminal building to asses the visibility by looking out of the window. His observation is passed to the tower, who relay it to the pilots who then convert it into an equivalent RVR using a regulated formula. Proper airports have equipment called transmissiometers along the runway which accurately determine the RVR and record/report is constantly.

With Cat 2 landings, you actually need less approach lights than for Cat 1 - it seems strange, but if you think about it, because you are making a decision to land at 100 feet above the runway rather than 200 feet, you are much closer to touchdown - you don't need to see the lights that are behind you after all!  On a standard 3 degree glideslope, you travel 1/3 of a mile for every 100 feet you descend. So, on a Cat 2 ILS your decision height is 1/3 mile closer to the runway than it would be for Cat 2.

Someone needs to grab the bull by the horns and spend money on upgrading the infrastructure at the airport to allow planes to land in low visibility conditions. Hopefully the new airport management will understand what is needed, because the airport is there to provide a vital link to the outside world, we should do everything we can to make that link more insulated from the vagaries of the weather.

Thanks, we clearly won't be in a position to deal with all Wx conditions but it would have been useful not to just extend the runway but to consider at that point how to better equip that longer runway. As I said they really didn't care, we had experts in charge. ( Just no one who knew anything about aviation).

[madmanxpilot]

Just now, madmanxpilot said:

Upgraded runway lights and devices (transmissiometers) to measure the visibility accurately and instantly.

A couple of years back, NATS (National Air Traffic Services) were asked to report on what was the best that could be achieved so far as landing minima was concerned using the current facilities. The answer was as expected, nothing better than you have at the moment. The question was not asked about what was needed to allow for Cat 2. Meanwhile, grandiose plans were being drawn up to effectively knock down the terminal and re build it into a retail complex that incidentally handled aeroplanes. A completely arse about face way of considering what the point of the airport is.

[asitis]

9 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

A couple of years back, NATS (National Air Traffic Services) were asked to report on what was the best that could be achieved so far as landing minima was concerned using the current facilities. The answer was as expected, nothing better than you have at the moment. The question was not asked about what was needed to allow for Cat 2. Meanwhile, grandiose plans were being drawn up to effectively knock down the terminal and re build it into a retail complex that incidentally handled aeroplanes. A completely arse about face way of considering what the point of the airport is.

But that is what happens when you appoint dreamers, bullshitters and reality TV stars, instead of an aviation professional !

[snowman]

49 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

A couple of years back, NATS (National Air Traffic Services) were asked to report on what was the best that could be achieved so far as landing minima was concerned using the current facilities. The answer was as expected, nothing better than you have at the moment. The question was not asked about what was needed to allow for Cat 2. Meanwhile, grandiose plans were being drawn up to effectively knock down the terminal and re build it into a retail complex that incidentally handled aeroplanes. A completely arse about face way of considering what the point of the airport is.

The bit about the terminal is actually a decent idea and would generate revenue streams. It won't happen because there's a lack of vision, boldness and also a failure to get even the basics right. So it will remain just an idea. Much like some of the planes, it won't get off the ground.

 

What will happen is that, as with everything else, it will be allowed to become so shit that eventually they know that the public will simply say "go ahead and spend whatever you need to try and put it right"

Edited April 16, 2022 by snowman

[asitis]

12 minutes ago, snowman said:

The bit about the terminal is actually a decent idea and would generate revenue streams

I'm interested in how this would work ?

[madmanxpilot]

15 minutes ago, snowman said:

The bit about the terminal is actually a decent idea and would generate revenue streams. It won't happen because there's a lack of vision, boldness and also a failure to get even the basics right. So it will remain just an idea. Much like some of the planes, it won't get off the ground.

 

What will happen is that, as with everything else, it will be allowed to become so shit that eventually they know that the public will simply say "go ahead and spend whatever you need to try and put it right"

The prime focus should be on bringing the airport to a technical standard that matches the capability of the aircraft and crews to land. Everything else is just dressing.

[asitis]

16 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

The prime focus should be on bringing the airport to a technical standard that matches the capability of the aircraft and crews to land. Everything else is just dressing.

This is the problem the 'core' function of the airport wasn't sexy enough for the imbeciles who were in charge !

[Guest]

Ronaldsway will never be like other airports with long dwell times for holiday flights combined with huge commercial shopping complexes.  It is an essential island transport hub and should be operated as such.  We must accept that ultra-cheap fares and frequency of service are not mutually compatible,  realistically we need to find an airline or airlines that will provide a compromise.  Twenty five years ago, with the demise of Manx Airlines, I was suggesting just such an option, with return fares of circa £200 and I still feel the same approach is necessary to give us what we need. EasyJet would probably not provide a guarantee of an assured service in the future, much as though I utilise and  enjoy their present offerings.  
There are no easy solutions, let us hope that the new management recognises the needs of the island and focuses on the apparently neglected core issues.

 

[Ringy Rose]

11 hours ago, snowman said:

The bit about the terminal is actually a decent idea and would generate revenue streams.

I highly doubt it. We don't have the numbers and, unlike Jersey, we can't offer duty free for trips to the UK either.

10 hours ago, Cypman said:

I was suggesting just such an option, with return fares of circa £200

That's well on the way to what EasyJet charge if you take any sort of baggage. I'm flying to Gatwick with them next week, including a hold bag and reserved seats it's £160 return, and that's on the late rotation both ways. The earlier rotation was over £200.

Of course the "fare" was about £40 there and £60 back, but with bags at £27 each way and a reserved seat at £5 each way the "fare" is only half the total cost.

[NoTailT]

8 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

I highly doubt it. We don't have the numbers and, unlike Jersey, we can't offer duty free for trips to the UK either.

That's well on the way to what EasyJet charge if you take any sort of baggage. I'm flying to Gatwick with them next week, including a hold bag and reserved seats it's £160 return, and that's on the late rotation both ways. The earlier rotation was over £200.

Of course the "fare" was about £40 there and £60 back, but with bags at £27 each way and a reserved seat at £5 each way the "fare" is only half the total cost.

I had noticed easy bags had become very expensive.

£23 for 15KG bag to Liverpool. £25 for 23KG..

[snowman]

Just looked at Loganair prices mid May to and from London. I wish it every success but at over £220 return I'm out 

Edited April 16, 2022 by snowman

[snowman]

53 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

I highly doubt it. We don't have the numbers and, unlike Jersey, we can't offer duty free for trips to the UK either.

 

Need to grow the population. There's not a chance in hell tourist numbers will grow sufficiently to justify this idea. But if the population increases you get the outbound residential traffic and the inbound visiting friends and family growth.

[mad_manx]

50 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I had noticed easy bags had become very expensive.

£23 for 15KG bag to Liverpool. £25 for 23KG..

Even the base fare of Logan air  has an  allowance for checked in bags  and for extra bags they only charge £10 per bag (15kg max) 

Probably the cheapest in the UK as far as I know..

Easyjet is fine if you are going  with only hand luggage but once you add on luggage etc it starts to get expensive. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by mad_manx

[finlo]

7 minutes ago, snowman said:

Just looked at Loganair prices mid May to and from London. I wish it every success but at over £220 return I'm out 

Rightly or wrongly I'm sure we were paying more than that 30 year ago!