Airport.

[Blade Runner]

.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Blade Runner

[Blade Runner]

10 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

It certainly was downgraded.
 

The whole approach lighting system to runway 26, including the gantry that extended eastward into the sea, was removed during the runway extension project. It was replaced with a much shorter version of only land based lights and no gantry.

Prior to this work on the extension, the approach lights to runway 26 were long enough to fall into the intermediate category - IALS - allowing for approaches to be made in 700 metres. After the extension was built they didn’t extend out as far and fell into basic category - BALS - allowing for approaches in only 1000 metres. That is an absolute fact as I was operating in and out of the place pre and post extension and was very much concerned about it at the time.

Random thought...

Could a Gantry be floated on the approach with Gimble controlled lights? - Or shorten the runway artificially and put the gantry lights on the runway near wherethey used to be ?

Like I said just a thought.

What do other places do?

I am into engineering, not marine, I may add but I will ask a few mates what the cost may be of a trio of 18m deep sea depth piles into rock? and the likely cost of a platform above with a connecting cable and revert as soon as I know.

Give me a couple of days, its a bank holiday 🙂 

It does not sound like rocket science on the face of it. Then again, Rocket Science, is getting much easier.

Brain Surgery is the next comparison for effect, but then again, with AI controlled surgical robots who knows.............

"Shitting in a bucket from 50 feet" may be the new standard reply for "Hard Things To Do"?

Try and get your Smart Speaker to do that!..............................

[Blade Runner]

.........................

Edited April 30, 2023 by Blade Runner

[Blade Runner]

.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Blade Runner

[Blade Runner]

 

i

Edited April 30, 2023 by Blade Runner

[madmanxpilot]

46 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

 

Cobb, and perhaps others, have said that the problem with extending the approach lights is that the seabed drops off sharply in the required location. That may be so, but by itself it is an insignificant statement.

I would like to see an estimate of the cost to install a lighting gantry. Until that is done, all the mumbling from Cobb and Thomas is just uninformed gossip.

Indeed - 17 metres is the deepest it gets where any gantry would need to be installed. They just keep spouting what they think is correct rather than actual facts.

[Jarndyce]

35 minutes ago, Omobono said:

as Scotlands finances  and government credibility  seem to be going down the pan in the post Jimmy Kranky period 

The issues with the ferries and the finances started during the Wee Jimmy Krankie regime, not after...

[WTF]

5 minutes ago, Blade Runner said:

Random thought...

Could a Gantry be floated on the approach with Gimble controlled lights? 

 

i thought that too, then i remembered how well IOMG purchased electrics last in a saltwater air environment. 

[Jarndyce]

5 minutes ago, Blade Runner said:

It does not sound like rocket science on the face of it. Then again, Rocket Science, is getting much easier

Certainly easier than posting comments just the once...apparently...😉

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

And if the clusterfuck at HIAL is anything to go by, we’ve simply gone and appointed another Reynolds. Remote towers on remote islands are a stupid idea, everyone told him they were a stupid idea, but he did it anyway. £9m later, turns out it was a stupid idea.

Meanwhile, looking out of my window I’d be amazed if many flights go today. But Chris Thomas has listened to Cobb and they have a plan. It’s all about the retail opportunities.

You can't really blame Cobb for the disaster at HIAL, it was well underway before he arrived (he was only there two years before he baled out) and the remote ATC system was clearly not going to work even before he arrived.  Whether he was the right person to be appointed or not is another matter - he only had less than seven years in aviation, but he seems to be the only person they could get (this was after the post was readvertised remember).  Of course others may have been turned away by HR before they even got to interview as not reaching the required bullshit-spouting threshold to make those sorting the applications feel comfortable.

As for the current ridiculous plan, given the time things take to work through the civil service system, I suspect neither he nor Thomas had much to do with its origin, except maybe Thomas has watered it down a little.  But it has all the marks of Cannan and Treasury over it as the only solution they recognise is to give money and jobs to their mates and hope something will magically turn up.  And Treasury are clearly refusing to let the DoI spend any money on the Airport unless it fits their plans.  Look how they refused to replace even the decrepit trollies and the DoI had to get the cash from DfE.

Of course if Treasury had kept any of the controls it was supposed to over the DoI in the last 20 years, we wouldn't be here.  But the truth is that in that time, not only has bad behaviour been rewarded, it has the only thing that has been rewarded.  Misbehave, lie and bully and the rest of the public service will give in out of laziness, fear and a belief that civil service decisions should never be challenged publicly.  Stick to the rules and you will lose out.

[Non-Believer]

6 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Indeed - 17 metres is the deepest it gets where any gantry would need to be installed. They just keep spouting what they think is correct rather than actual facts.

One might ask what sort of culture and mentality would continually resort to this sort of thinking? It's some sort of denial, almost....

[madmanxpilot]

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

One might ask what sort of culture and mentality would continually resort to this sort of thinking? It's some sort of denial, almost....

Doing nothing is the easy option isn’t it. Imagine the work they would have to do if they were told that the project was feasible and was to go ahead. It’s a lot easier to sit on your ass, take the money and say it is what it is and hope others buy into it.

[Non-Believer]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

And Treasury are clearly refusing to let the DoI spend any money on the Airport unless it fits their plans.  Look how they refused to replace even the decrepit trollies and the DoI had to get the cash from DfE.

And yet the Honourable Court is now happy to nod through a £300M(?) proposal without any digging for detail, or indeed any real supply of detail as to what the spend is for, other than a misnamed "Flight Management System".

The system of Govt is increasingly appearing dysfunctional. Silos rule.

[code99]

8 hours ago, Zarley said:

So another typical BALS-UP from IOMG. 

It has been reported that a version of an AI is able to generate better diagnoses for patients that many doctors can. Maybe the IOM could become the first country in the world to trial an AI to replace some of our politicians and senior civil servants?

Surely, an AI would be able to assess our decrepit landing system and configure one for our requirements – one that allows aircraft to land in inclement weather conditions. I am not convinced that the current airport management and their ‘experts’ can do this in either a timely way and indeed ‘expertly’.  If the decision to ‘downgrade’ some of the landing system lighting (which existed before the runway was extended) was made to save money, then that decision could end up costing multiples of what was initially saved. If this palaver continues, there may not be any airlines which are willing to fly here. At least an AI would know the correct terminology to use on every subject it was asked about. I am still unclear what the DOI Minister meant by the £300m “flight management system” … could it be that the word “data” was omitted and he was talking about our “flight data management system”? Including the word ‘data’ completely changes the flavour to the problem(s) that the airport is facing.

My biggest gripe remains that no one in Tynwald was sufficiently aroused by the mindboggling £300m sum (which roughly is a quarter of our National Insurance Fund) to ask questions/ clarifications as to what this money would be used for. At the same time, these same politicians are seemingly squabbling about the £10m to £40m that are needed urgently so that Manx Care can treat NHS patients - the amount that Manx Care, an arm’s-length operator, are saying they need if they are to fulfil their mandate with Tynwald!

Perhaps the UK could provide us a set of AIs as part of their commitment to the welfare of their Crown Dependencies?

[WTF]

47 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

, but he seems to be the only person they could get (this was after the post was readvertised remember).  Of course others may have been turned away by HR before they even got to interview as not reaching the required bullshit-spouting threshold to make those sorting the applications feel comfortable.

 

there was atleast one suitable candidate that knew a lot about aviation and airports but they were far too knowledgeable and practical to be given the job.