newaccount Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 3 minutes ago, Banker said: Manchester easyJet turned back to Manchester due to fog Indeed it did. And it drew a penis before going back to Manchester. IOM Airport = cock and balls 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 20 minutes ago, newaccount said: Indeed it did. And it drew a penis before going back to Manchester. IOM Airport = cock and balls I think that's doing the cock & balls a disservice. They're far more useful than our airport. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 We’ve been dished up the excuses as to why we are where we are with a lack of ATCOs. There is no excuse for having an airport that can’t deal with aircraft in low visibility. The deficiencies are now acting as multipliers. When the weather is good enough to make approaches, there is the potential for the airport to be shut. When poor landing facilities prevent approaches from being successful, the airport may be open. We are reaping what the airport management have (or have not) sown over recent years, and it’s not all down to Annie and Jez as some are now wishing to conveniently make us believe. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 Adopts Dr Evil voice *weather... right* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newaccount Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 6 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: We’ve been dished up the excuses as to why we are where we are with a lack of ATCOs. There is no excuse for having an airport that can’t deal with aircraft in low visibility. The deficiencies are now acting as multipliers. When the weather is good enough to make approaches, there is the potential for the airport to be shut. When poor landing facilities prevent approaches from being successful, the airport may be open. We are reaping what the airport management have (or have not) sown over recent years, and it’s not all down to Annie and Jez as some are now wishing to conveniently make us believe. Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 6 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: ...and it’s not all down to Annie and Jez as some are now wishing to conveniently make us believe. You mean there's more of them.....? 😱😱😱 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 (edited) 21 hours ago, newaccount said: People won't pay the stupidly high prices that Loganair want I’ve talked about this before. People think Loganair are expensive because their fares include baggage. IME travelling to the north west there’s usually fuck all difference between Loganair and EasyJet once you’ve paid £20 for a normal sized cabin bag or £30 for a 15kg hold bag. Loganair are, to be fair, crap at marketing. I don’t think a lot of people realise hold luggage is included with Loganair. Edited June 24, 2023 by Ringy Rose 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 53 minutes ago, Banker said: Manchester easyJet turned back to Manchester due to fog Yet the Liverpool EasyJet just before it made it in on first attempt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 4 minutes ago, english zloty said: Adopts Dr Evil voice *weather... right* Having just looked at the METAR history, the visibility was now lower than 1500m in any report during the period they were here. The problem appears to have been to cloud base - it was overcast at 100 feet. With the BASIC lights we have, the chance of getting the required visual references at the decision height of 200 feet would have been very slim. With INTERMEDIATE lighting, like we used to have before the runway extension, you’d probably be OK. With FULL lighting, you would definitely get in in those reported conditions. Yes, we have a CAT1 ILS like most other similar airports, but quite frankly, unlike those others, our lights are SHIT! The Airport Director doesn’t seem to get this, and tried to make the point on his recent Mannin Line appearance that we have the same as everywhere else. We do not, and until he realises this there will likely be no advocacy from him to make it better. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may only be relaying information given to him by his managers. It’s just so frustratingly avoidable. 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 10 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: Yet the Liverpool EasyJet just before it made it in on first attempt! The weather deteriorated between their arrivals. The cloud went from broken at 200 feet, to overcast at 100 feet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 We are too preoccupied with writing masterplans that we aren't dealing with the now ! that's half the trouble. Planning is going into what happens to the airport with a sea level rise, I kid you not ! Perhaps that's the almighty saying just flood the bastard ! 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 3 hours ago, John Wright said: It’s mealy mouthed CS speak to avoid honesty. To paraphrase. We should have 16 operational. We actually only have 8, so we are at 50%. They need to explain why 6 are non operational, and when, if at all, it’s anticipated they might become operational. What does non operational mean, training, familiarisation, unable to work unsupervised, suspended, off sick ( long/short term ) If another 4 are to start this year that takes up to 18. Are more operational ATCO to leave to bring down to 16, or are these trainees and it’s anticipating a 50% drop out? When is it anticipated those 4 will become operational? You can get a reasonable bit of information from the FoI (and you're not going to get more because it would be down to the level of personal detail): There are 8 fully qualified and operational ATCOs There are 2 FQ not working for some reason (wasn't one supposed to have failed a drug test, even though it was likely from prescription medicine?) There are maximum 4 'experienced' ATCOs not yet qualified for IOM. One has just received an offer (presumably to start September) one joined in May, the other two earlier. Except for the first I presume these would be FQ comparatively quickly. There are 4 student ATCOs. 3 start in September, one already in training (first year?) It still looks very vulnerable, but its difficult to see what more they could do. We don't know how many they will lose in the next few years to retirement, experienced ATCOs not settling, students not qualifying etc. Or further resignations - especially among those who can (re)train ATCOs. It's not helped by Pugh not being qualified for IOM either and so unable to either fill in or train. He seems to have been a classic IOMG appointment - a belief that all you need is a 'manager', even though they have never worked in the same environment (military ATC will have very different demands) and a desire to appoint a local, providing they have the right connections. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: It's not helped by Pugh not being qualified for IOM either and so unable to either fill in or train. He seems to have been a classic IOMG appointment - a belief that all you need is a 'manager', even though they have never worked in the same environment (military ATC will have very different demands) and a desire to appoint a local, providing they have the right connections. So much truth written in so few words. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 5 hours ago, John Wright said: I’m not in the know, but airport fire service is part of the airport and will be part of the airport emergency response plan. It’s not precisely clear to what kipper99 refers, but it sounds as if he/she is saying it’s not explicitly set out, and it should be. These things shouldn’t be ad hoc. Of course it should be set out, I just wondered if the procedure (and by extension the equipment) was with the emergency services rather than with the airport apron services. The thing that struck me was the fact that not only does the airport itself not have the right ground handling asset/equipment to move the aircraft neither does Menzies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted June 24, 2023 Share Posted June 24, 2023 8 hours ago, Kipper99 said: IOM airport does not have a plane recovery plan in their emergency response plan A while ago a false alarm with the baggage scanners resulted in the roads around the airport being closed. Someone made an FoI request for the emergency plan but was denied on the grounds that terrorists would find things out. So who knows what is in the plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.