Airport.

[madmanxpilot]

 

In addition to the data I provided above, here is the record for more recent times. Again, these are the days where visibility was below 1000m at some point, this time between Jan 2020 and Jun 2023.

As I’ve said previously, low cloud tends is as much of a problem, if not more, than fog.

Better approach lights will allow for approaches to be legally commenced in lower visibilities than at present, and give you a better chance of getting the required visual references at decision altitude when low cloud is present.
 

Edited October 24, 2023 by madmanxpilot

[Nellie]

2 hours ago, CrazyDave said:

Did anyone hear Mr Cobb on the Manninline?

I thought he did very well, and highlighted the fact that most decisions are down to cost vs benefit and need to be backed up by a valid business case.  Yes we could make it easier to land in fog but it would cost 10m and save roughly 8 fog days a year.

It also highlighted the lack of understanding of the people who moan.  Gatwick flights.  It’s a budget airline and Mr Cobb said himself that he uses that route on the understanding that there might be delays, but that if he needs to be at a meeting he will fly Heathrow or London City.  More money, but better odds of being on time.

Another classic was the guy who phoned in asking Mr Cobb to categorically state if it was his responsibility to make sure taxis were there when a flight came in.  Obviously not ffs.  Book one in future.

All in he did very well and answered clearly and it really highlighted how few people understand his position and what he does and doesn’t have control over.  Like waiting for a handling agent paid by the budget airline you chose to fly with because they were cheap to bring steps or offload bags.

Yes, I thought he did pretty well, and does perhaps have a better handle on many things than most of us thought.

I was interested to see how he'd deal with questions about the evening Gatwick fiasco, but the caller who raised this had, in my view, totally the wrong angle, suggesting that the Airport should waive any 'fines' (as the caller referred to them) for late opening, and be prepared to stay open as late as easyJet require. That stupid suggestion was very easy for Mr Cobb to bat away. He did say that easyJet do pay any extension fees, at the published tariff, which is good news. 

I was disappointed that he felt that sprucing the place up was not a priority. He must be the only person on the Island who doesn't see that the place looks run down and neglected. 

[Sheldon]

1 hour ago, madmanxpilot said:

RNAV will make no difference as the minima are higher than the current ILS. It will only be a benefit when the ILS is off for maintenance and will speed up the flow rate for procedural approaches. I understand that the process to design and validate this type of approach is ongoing. It’s a shame they weren’t in place before the ILS maintenance earlier this year.

Regarding ‘fog days’ - here are the official records from Ronaldsway for the last 30 years. This shows the average number of days each month when the visibility was less than 1000 metres at some point.

There are a few factors that are worth considering too. 
 

First, it is not just fog that causes missed approaches, more often than not it is low cloud. You quite often have good visibility below a low overcast. Full approach lights would mitigate most of this type of disruption .

Second, disruption caused by fog tends to take a day or so to resolve - aircraft and crews tend to be out of position as a result.

Third, let’s not forget that the expenditure is a one off. It will reap benefits for decades, so to let people think it’s £10mil for 8 days is perhaps a bit disingenuous. Assuming the airport functions for another 30 years, then that price comes down to £300K for each year, and as I said above, there are more than 8 days per year where operations could take place with proper lighting where currently they can’t. 
 

Mr Cobb talks about cost benefit analysis - but you can bet your bottom dollar that no benefit analysis has been done.

This is too important an issue to be left to one or two fellas to  make a decision on based on what they think rather than what they know.

If only a pilot had 'phoned in...

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, madmanxpilot said:

[...] Third, let’s not forget that the expenditure is a one off. It will reap benefits for decades, so to let people think it’s £10mil for 8 days is perhaps a bit disingenuous. Assuming the airport functions for another 30 years, then that price comes down to £300K for each year, and as I said above, there are more than 8 days per year where operations could take place with proper lighting where currently they can’t. 
Mr Cobb talks about cost benefit analysis - but you can bet your bottom dollar that no benefit analysis has been done.

I was just pleased that the concept of a cost benefit analysis was recognised.  As you say we need to start from the data and an examination of just how many days and flights have been affected in recent years and whether the situation is changing with altered weather patterns.  Neither meteorology nor aviation are lacking in retained information, so it should be possible with care and some thought.

Whether it will have any effect is another matter.  We have a civil service culture that only likes to makes forced decisions.  So tell them that something is required and it will happen no matter if that is or is not true or whether it is any use whatsoever.  Something requiring evaluation will be put off, because that would require taking responsibility for making a decision.

[madmanxpilot]

Just now, Roger Mexico said:

I was just pleased that the concept of a cost benefit analysis was recognised.  As you say we need to start from the data and an examination of just how many days and flights have been affected in recent years and whether the situation is changing with altered weather patterns.  Neither meteorology nor aviation are lacking in retained information, so it should be possible with care and some thought.

Whether it will have any effect is another matter.  We have a civil service culture that only likes to makes forced decisions.  So tell them that something is required and it will happen no matter if that is or is not true or whether it is any use whatsoever.  Something requiring evaluation will be put off, because that would require taking responsibility for making a decision.

Exactly.
 

 

[Roger Mexico]

8 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

If only a pilot had 'phoned in...

I rather got the impression that Mr Cobb had been looking at this topic from some of his comments.

Actually I was less surprised than some others that he came across well, because on previous appearances he did seem to have some idea about what he was talking about, despite the standard management waffle.  Most of the jargon he used today was tech-jargon (for which he apologised) rather than more generalised bullshit.  He also had the problem that a lot of what he was asked would have required criticising partner firms or their staff if he was being honest (Lesson 1: Never believe what the pilot tells you).

[CrazyDave]

2 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

 

In addition to the data I provided above, here is the record for more recent times. Again, these are the days where visibility was below 1000m at some point, this time between Jan 2020 and Jun 2023.

As I’ve said previously, low cloud tends is as much of a problem, if not more, than fog.

Better approach lights will allow for approaches to be legally commenced in lower visibilities than at present, and give you a better chance of getting the required visual references at decision altitude when low cloud is present.
 

“At some point” being the important phrase here.  

[CrazyDave]

2 hours ago, Nellie said:

I was disappointed that he felt that sprucing the place up was not a priority. He must be the only person on the Island who doesn't see that the place looks run down and neglected. 

He don’t say that.

He said that there is only a certain amount of budget and that in his opinion others things are higher priority.

I am literally just out of a work meeting where we had similar conversations.  Lots of things that need urgent attention and money in an ideal world.  We had to decide on/argue about which are the HIGHEST priority.

Thankfully we don’t have thousands of people scrutinising the decisions we made and claiming to know better how to run our business.

[CrazyDave]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

(Lesson 1: Never believe what the pilot tells you).

100 percent.

The fact that the caller, who claimed to be a successful businessman, was so convinced that the pilot was telling the gospel truth even when faced with comments to the contrary made me very glad he doesn’t run a business that handles my money.

[Sheldon]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

an examination of just how many days and flights have been affected in recent years and whether the situation is changing with altered weather patterns.

Exactly. I didn't hear the program; did Cobb actually say "8 days"? The number of foggy days (and visibility below 1000m "at some point") are far less relevant metrics than the actual number of flights delayed and/or diverted.

[Two-lane]

This is a link from not long after he arrived. I was not impressed with his point of view.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/money-is-needed-to-maintain-the-airport-says-new-director/

"He said money hasn't been spent on vanity projects:"

Well, pretty obvious is the half-dozen bar-code scanners that are not used.

In the radio clip he mentioned the control tower. To me, it looks like there is so much concrete that it could withstand a direct hit from a missile. If it had been a simple construction of 4 steel beams planted vertically in the ground, plus beams to support the floors - I would guess faster construction, more floor area, easier maintenance - and much cheaper.

And his view of the runway extension is that it will support larger aircraft in the future - maybe.

In other words - I think it is worth analysing what he says, rather than always taking it as factual.

 

[madmanxpilot]

Just now, Sheldon said:

d Cobb actually say "8 days"?

Yes - in citing the specific argument about whether improved approach lighting was worth the investment.

There are far more than eight days per year when low cloud and/or reduced visibility cause cancellations that would not have happened if the facilities at the airport matched the capability of the aircraft and crews.

I’ve just listened to the programme on the podcast.

A few observations.

Mr Cobb seemed to be a bit more up to speed with the technical side of things, although it started to go a bit awry when describing how an ILS/DME works 😂.

A central theme was scheduling, and problems that are caused when multiple aircraft arrive at the same time - problems waiting for steps, bags to be unloaded or there being enough taxis outside.

There are three things within the control of the airport, or IOMG, that would mitigate a significant amount of these occurrences.

1) Open Skies - airlines can come and go when they please, if routes and schedules were regulated, then  perhaps arrivals and departures could be spread out more evenly.

2) Low visibility capability. If the airport could cope with these conditions more readily, there wouldn’t be a mass arrival when conditions improve to the point where aircraft can land.

3) ATC shortages - less of a problem that it was, but a similar effect to point 2. Multiple aircraft arrive after the tower re opens following a mandated break. Points 2 and 3 when they happen together cause even more of an issue.

 

 

[madmanxpilot]

Just now, CrazyDave said:

“At some point” being the important phrase here.  

True - it could have been in the middle of the night.But that’s the only data there is.

The metric should be along the lines of ‘how many flights were cancelled or directly and indirect delayed due to weather conditions at Ronaldsway that wouldn’t have been so affected  if the airport been better equipped?’

 

 

 

[Two-lane]

There is a comment above about the problems caused by multiple aircraft arriving at the same time.

Airports such as Heathrow do not have this problem, because they are at full capacity all the time.

Years ago I was somewhere (I think it was Stockholm), sitting where I could see the airfield. I had been there for a couple of hours, watching just the occasional aircraft leaving. Then suddenly, around 4 or 5 p.m., there was a queue of aircraft on the taxiway waiting for takeoff. All the business persons going home after their meeting.

In other words, I do not regard multiple aircraft arrivals/departures as a "problem", just run-of-the-mill stuff that small airports have to deal with. Not anything for a manager to complain about.

I do not think that the airport is scruffy. It is perfectly ok.

As for persons occasionally standing in the departure lounge at busy times - that is what happens on buses and trains at rush hour. Try the tube at rush hour.

It also happens in pubs on Friday and Saturday nights, but no one complains about that.

 

[Ringy Rose]

There’s nothing wrong with the airport- it is clean and it is functional. A lick of paint wouldn’t go amiss, break up the Government Magnolia, but apart from that, I don’t see the issue.

9 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

In other words, I do not regard multiple aircraft arrivals/departures as a "problem", just run-of-the-mill stuff that small airports have to deal with. Not anything for a manager to complain about.

Friday tea-time is always a case in point- four EasyJets, an Aer Lingus, and a Loganair all come and go in the space of two hours. A brief look at the timetable shows it’ll be busy so plan accordingly, including expecting a queue at security. Same with luggage, it’ll take a bit of time for them to take bags off the planes. EasyJet deliberately stack their departures to save money, it is what it is.