The Phantom Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: Which leads to the question why they need a boat (and slipway) at all if the Coastguard and RNLI are deemed acceptable to cover? Alternatively if there is a need for an even more immediate response why have they been failing to provide adequate cover for so long (wasn't the previous boat got rid of in 2016?). 32 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Somewhere within the CAA regulations is a response time for the fire crew to get to a crashed aircraft on the airfield (or maybe nearby). I recall it being a rather small number of minutes. Nearest Coastguard/Lifeboat are Douglas or Port St Mary. Both of these in good weather would be 20-30 mins travel on the water. Plus they're without stationed crews, so you'd probably then have at least a similar amount of muster time. Total time from call to being on scene would therefore be 40-60 minutes. The airport has a boat and a permanently stationed crew. From the station to the slipway in Derbyhaven is only a few 100 metres. Assuming it's hightide (see my earlier comment) it wouldn't be unrealistic to be on the water within say 15 minutes. One of these scenarios would almost guarantee total mortality from fire, drowning, hypothermia. Looking on Google maps, by coincidence it looks like they've just got a RIB sat outside the station attached to a blue tractor. Edited January 3 by The Phantom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) . Edited January 3 by The Phantom Duplicate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newaccount Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Titan Airways A320 G POWM is operating this evenings LPL IOM service. LM 687/8. G LMTC gone tech upon arrival this morning in LPL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 hours ago, The Phantom said: Looking on Google maps, by coincidence it looks like they've just got a RIB sat outside the station attached to a blue tractor. This?: Judging from Google Earth the image appears to be from 2012. As I suspect most IOM imagery is - there's a lot of roads that become fields when you click the map to satellite. As you say RNLI would take some time to turn up, though Coastguard might be a bit quicker. Again you wonder just exactly what the Airport has been getting away with over the last decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: This?: Judging from Google Earth the image appears to be from 2012. As I suspect most IOM imagery is - there's a lot of roads that become fields when you click the map to satellite. As you say RNLI would take some time to turn up, though Coastguard might be a bit quicker. Again you wonder just exactly what the Airport has been getting away with over the last decade. Yep. Wouldn't allow me to upload for some reason. Yeah guessing it's old as the tractor is just a farm job by looks of it versus the specialised drowned one in the other photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) The ariel photos on the manngis thing are much more recent than google maps, for those who like having a look around. Edited January 3 by TheTeapot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 3 hours ago, The Phantom said: Whilst having a little dig at the job of the Fire/Rescue down there, I do know a few of them and they're competent, decent guys who would be more than capable of doing this. It's certainly a management fault, neglecting required and sensible training. Not the guys at the tip of the spear. I wondered about that as well. It's clear from Moorhouse's question and follow-up that someone has been prompting him (he's the local MHK of course) it's possible the crew want to (and management may even agree) but there are practical difficulties (cover of airport duties?) or petty squabbles or it may have been decreed from on high that they need another 20 'HR professionals' to supervise the training. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 8 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: The ariel photos on the manngis thing are much more recent than google maps, for those who like having a look around. They seem to only be a few years out of date as the Dandara roundabout appear to be mid-construction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: I wondered about that as well. It's clear from Moorhouse's question and follow-up that someone has been prompting him (he's the local MHK of course) it's possible the crew want to (and management may even agree) but there are practical difficulties (cover of airport duties?) or petty squabbles or it may have been decreed from on high that they need another 20 'HR professionals' to supervise the training. There's something absolutely not right about this situation. I really don't see how an airport with approaches over the sea would be allowed to operate if it didn't have all the risks covered, documented and the appropriate assets in place in case of a catastrophe on water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) CAA document CAP 168 (no doubt someone wearing a white shirt with epaulettes will be along to explain the 3-letter acronyms): "8.128 Where an aerodrome is located close to water/swampy areas, or difficult terrain, and where a significant portion of approach or departure operations takes place over these areas, specialist rescue services and fire fighting equipment appropriate to the hazard and risk shall be available." That looks pretty clear to me. Edited January 3 by Two-lane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 And as an adjunct, courtesy of RFC 2119: "1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 27 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: There's something absolutely not right about this situation. I really don't see how an airport with approaches over the sea would be allowed to operate if it didn't have all the risks covered, documented and the appropriate assets in place in case of a catastrophe on water. The appropriate cover is in place as detailed in the news report on matter Two agreements are in place between the Isle of Man Coastguard and the Royal National Lifeboat Institute (RNLI), along with the Maritime Coastguard Agency have been established, which are in place should an aircraft ‘ditch’, according to Mr Crookall. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 The definition of the word "ditch" in this context is "a forced landing on water". If that happened out at sea, the RNLI and the coastguard helicopter would be the fastest people to get there. I wonder if Crookall is deliberately using that word. The references I quoted above relate to an aircraft crash at or near an airfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: I wondered about that as well. It's clear from Moorhouse's question and follow-up that someone has been prompting him (he's the local MHK of course) it's possible the crew want to (and management may even agree) but there are practical difficulties (cover of airport duties?) or petty squabbles or it may have been decreed from on high that they need another 20 'HR professionals' to supervise the training. Plus, who wouldn't want to get paid to play in a speedboat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 There is a section in CAP 168 relating to response time: "8.24 The operational objective of the rescue and fire fighting service shall be to achieve a response time not exceeding three minutes to any point of each operational runway, in optimum visibility and surface conditions. The operational objective of the rescue and fire fighting service should be to achieve a response time not exceeding three minutes to any other part of the movement area in optimum visibility and surface conditions" There might be an argument that an aircraft crashing short of runway 26 is not on the airfield so is someone else's responsibility, but there is no possibility that the RNLI will get there any time before the fire crews have run down there, climbed over the fence, and dived into the water to try to do something helpful. 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.