Airport.

[mad_manx]

16 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

Manchester is so not user friendly though in many ways. Needs must though sometimes. 

Yes.. EasyJet flies from T1 and almost every time I've been directed to the dungeon called security B .

A low ceiling hall which ends up causing  panic attacks for those who are claustrophobic ( have seen it twice over the last few months over maybe 7 flights) 

Add on probably some of the worst food and drink establishments and airport lounges in Western Europe  and its not great. 

Liverpool airport  is much better and I only use MAN if I don't have a choice..

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by mad_manx

[madmanxpilot]

12 minutes ago, cheesypeas said:

Facebook 

 

That’s probably a fair comment but I doubt the approach lights actually affect many flights a year. It’s fixable, and we could also upgrade the new ILS to Cat 2, but at a cost of millions and I’m not sure the benefit justifies the cost.

You wouldn’t need to extend the approach lights as far out (if at all) for Cat2 as you would for full lighting for Cat1. This is because your decision height for Cat2 is much lower and at that point in space many of the approach lights (assuming you had a full set unlike us) would already be be behind you.

So, Cat2 would be an alternative to extending the lights out for a full system to improve Cat 1 capability.

You wouldn’t need to change the ILS for Cat2,  but you would need more ground lighting and other things.

When we are enjoying periods of good weather it’s all to easy to forget the many foggy days when flights are delayed or cancelled due to low cloud and/or visibility.

However, if the political member with responsibility for the airport is saying that it’s not cost effective, it would seem as though someone at Ronaldsway has already told it’s not worth it. I would love to see the rationale and data they have used to arrive at that decision, which I cannot believe is anything other than deeply flawed.

Any expenditure would be a one off to provide years of improved all weather capability.

 

[WTF]

1 hour ago, cheesypeas said:

 

is it here to pick up michelle and doug and a few suitcases of cash ??

[NoTailT]

22 minutes ago, WTF said:

is it here to pick up michelle and doug and a few suitcases of cash ??

Now, now.

[Amadeus]

2 hours ago, Nellie said:

Since the turn of the month, the cancellation rate on Gatwick is running at 33% (5/15). On the late evening flight it is 42% (3/7). There have been some huge delays on those that have operated, meaning people have reached Gatwick when trains etc have finished.

 @Chris Thomas @Stu Peters  when are we going to see, or hear, that IOMG are taking some real steps to address this situation directly with easyJet, to censure them, or to ask for sight of their improvement plans. 

Show us that the Airport officials and our politicians do have access to the right people at easyJet, and that you have the collective backbone to tackle this major issue.

We need to know that the IOMG cares and is trying to get some sanity restored to this important link.

If you won't talk to easyJet, what are you doing about getting Loganair (or another carrier) to step up with more seats, at sensible prices to the London Airports. 

This is turning into a major crisis for the Island. The Island simply cannot go on like this for much longer. At least show us that IOMG is taking this seriously.

They're too busy playing with paint in the carpark.

[Banker]

8 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

They're too busy playing with paint in the carpark.

I don’t think easyJet will listen to Iom politicians about their schedules anymore than they would listen to a DBC councilman 

[WTF]

34 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

They're too busy playing with paint in the carpark.

almost as useless as playing with a camera in the carpark 

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, mad_manx said:

Yes.. EasyJet flies from T1 and almost every time I've been directed to the dungeon called security B .

A low ceiling hall which ends up causing  panic attacks for those who are claustrophobic ( have seen it twice over the last few months over maybe 7 flights) 

Add on probably some of the worst food and drink establishments and airport lounges in Western Europe  and its not great. 

Liverpool airport  is much better and I only use MAN if I don't have a choice..

 

Hear hear.

And having used Jet2 for a number of holidays,  the announcement that they would now be flying out of  Liverpool filled my heart with gladness.

Manchester airport is horrible.

Its like the Heysham of sea travel.

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Addition of last paragraph

[The Voice of Reason]

3 hours ago, Nellie said:

Since the turn of the month, the cancellation rate on Gatwick is running at 33% (5/15). On the late evening flight it is 42% (3/7). There have been some huge delays on those that have operated, meaning people have reached Gatwick when trains etc have finished.

 @Chris Thomas @Stu Peters  when are we going to see, or hear, that IOMG are taking some real steps to address this situation directly with easyJet, to censure them, or to ask for sight of their improvement plans. 

Show us that the Airport officials and our politicians do have access to the right people at easyJet, and that you have the collective backbone to tackle this major issue.

We need to know that the IOMG cares and is trying to get some sanity restored to this important link.

If you won't talk to easyJet, what are you doing about getting Loganair (or another carrier) to step up with more seats, at sensible prices to the London Airports. 

This is turning into a major crisis for the Island. The Island simply cannot go on like this for much longer. At least show us that IOMG is taking this seriously.

Absolutely correct.

But apart from the MHK’s we have an Airpot Director who looks like he has just come out of school.

OK there’s perhaps not much he can do about Easyjet cancelling flights left,  right and centre but surely communication with airport users has to be on his job description. 

I have this image of him sitting in his office, playing with his Scalextric set and watching his Harry Potter videos, oblivious to the shit show that is going on around him on his watch .

What is he being paid for?

Making sure the vending machine downstairs doesn’t run out of chocolate bars?

[offshoremanxman]

5 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

What is he being paid for?

Making sure the vending machine downstairs doesn’t run out of chocolate bars?

To be fair they were even out of Fruit & Nut last time I was in there. 

[The Voice of Reason]

9 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

To be fair they were even out of Fruit & Nut last time I was in there. 

So he can’t even get that right.

” Crazy for those Cadbury’s nuts and raisins”. If you’re old enough to remember that.

Cobb certainly isn’t!

Anyway I digress

Edited July 9, 2023 by The Voice of Reason

[newaccount]

51 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Absolutely correct.

But apart from the MHK’s we have an Airpot Director who looks like he has just come out of school.

OK there’s perhaps not much he can do about Easyjet cancelling flights left,  right and centre but surely communication with airport users has to be on his job description. 

I have this image of him sitting in his office, playing with his Scalextric set and watching his Harry Potter videos, oblivious to the shit show that is going on around him on his watch .

What is he being paid for?

Making sure the vending machine downstairs doesn’t run out of chocolate bars?

What in the name of god are you fucking on about.

Edited July 9, 2023 by newaccount

[Stu Peters]

8 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

You wouldn’t need to extend the approach lights as far out (if at all) for Cat2 as you would for full lighting for Cat1. This is because your decision height for Cat2 is much lower and at that point in space many of the approach lights (assuming you had a full set unlike us) would already be be behind you.

So, Cat2 would be an alternative to extending the lights out for a full system to improve Cat 1 capability.

You wouldn’t need to change the ILS for Cat2,  but you would need more ground lighting and other things.

When we are enjoying periods of good weather it’s all to easy to forget the many foggy days when flights are delayed or cancelled due to low cloud and/or visibility.

However, if the political member with responsibility for the airport is saying that it’s not cost effective, it would seem as though someone at Ronaldsway has already told it’s not worth it. I would love to see the rationale and data they have used to arrive at that decision, which I cannot believe is anything other than deeply flawed.

Any expenditure would be a one off to provide years of improved all weather capability.

 

I know a bit about flying but currently only a little about commercial aviation, so I’m happy to defer to expert advice. I questioned the benefit of expensive equipment is all, there has to be a strong business case for everything, so I’ll certainly be finding out how many flights over the last few years would have landed with extended lighting and/or CatII ILS.

[madmanxpilot]

2 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

I know a bit about flying but currently only a little about commercial aviation, so I’m happy to defer to expert advice. I questioned the benefit of expensive equipment is all, there has to be a strong business case for everything, so I’ll certainly be finding out how many flights over the last few years would have landed with extended lighting and/or CatII ILS.

That’s good to hear you say.

When making that assessment,  do compare it against what we currently have. That may sound obvious, but currently we are heavily constrained by the approach lighting category. Even if you can legally make an approach as the visibility (RVR) is 1000 metres or more, if the cloud base is at or below 100 feet you will likely not get the  required visual reference at the decision height of 200 feet to be able to land. In contrast, it is very unlikely that if Cat 2 were available, that the cloud base would ever be an issue. This is because at the Cat2 decision height of 100 feet, you’d likely be able see lights through whatever was between you and the runway.

I suppose what all that means is that rather than just comparing conditions, you’d need to note when aircraft have been affected by low cloud and poor visibility, and make the assumption that they would not have been if the RVR had been 300 metres or more.

However, you won’t be able to tell, with any degree of accuracy, when the RVR will have actually been 300 metres or more. Currently, and for at least the last 20 years or so, we have been relying on human observations from the window of the met office. This is factored to give an equivalent RVR. It’s not very accurate, so will not necessarily give a true picture of when Cat2 would have been possible. Because of this inaccuracy, factoring cannot legally be used to provide an RVR of less than 800 metres. There is kit installed at three places along side the runway to measure this electronically, but last I heard, it’s broke and can’t be used. Two or more of these would need to work for Cat2. 
 

I was chatting to someone the other day who mentioned you’d be happy to have a listen to what us pilots have to say, that would be a very useful interaction.

[Amadeus]

I think Heathrow on Sea should be moved from DOI to GSC, seeing as they are clearly operating a lottery.