Nellie Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 13 minutes ago, Banker said: Totally agree but Facebook warriors are blaming government, airport, ATC breaks etc as easyJet told them its airport failure. Probably a bit of a perfect storm. easyJet operating two hours late, then a missed approach, climb back to 8000 feet and twenty minutes circling, which likely used up enough unplanned fuel to make a return to Gatwick impossible, without uplifting more fuel. Fueler, quite reasonably, gone home. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/u2843#36d27129 But Government, airport management and the ATC managment have created a crisis of confidence where they're going to be an easy target when stuff goes wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad_manx Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, madmanxpilot said: I’ve never heard of it being done for take off either. There have been reports over the years of passenger’s electrical devices interfering with navigation equipment and causing oscillations in the flight path. Whilst not really a problem for take off, which is a visual procedure, it has the potential to be so for Cat 2/3 approaches where the slightest deviation off profile could have significant consequences. That's why I found it very strange.. I am a fairly frequent flier and have never seen this anywhere else for a take off.. Cabin crew asked every passenger to show their phones and were checking if they were switched off . Aircraft didn't take off until they inspected the phone of every passenger. They mentioned about visibility and concern about interference with instruments but I have never seen anything like it for a take off. I am trying to recollect which flight it was on Checked my tickets It was either on EZY716 IOM to MAN on 21st June or EZY840 IOM to LGW on 10th July ... My travel off island since then was on loganair . So must have been one of the above. Edited August 27 by mad_manx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 3 hours ago, gerremonside said: Possibly. You'd have extra with not needing to man the Approach/Radar function... But you'd also have a big bill from whoever you outsourced to, a big training impact to train the outsourcee's ATCOS in local procedures, a less happy workforce who only do a less fulfilling and interesting job here with it being Tower only (and therefore likely to leave to find better work), and a workforce on the outsourced centre with no local knowledge. I suspect your comment comes from an imagining that a big base of ATCOs means any one of them could just walk in and do it. Not the case sadly, they'd need exactly the same local validation and recurrency process as those who currently carry out Approach and Radar here. I get that, but they manage it for other places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 2 hours ago, Nellie said: But Government, airport management and the ATC managment have created a crisis of confidence where they're going to be an easy target when stuff goes wrong. It’s more cynical than that. If the reason for the delay is easyJet’s fault then easyJet have to pay compo. If easyJet can try and pretend the fault is at the airport then it’s “extraordinary circumstances” and so they don’t. Which is why EasyJet crews will always be straight on the intercom to blame ATC or the weather for easyJet’s incompetence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 2 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: It’s more cynical than that. If the reason for the delay is easyJet’s fault then easyJet have to pay compo. If easyJet can try and pretend the fault is at the airport then it’s “extraordinary circumstances” and so they don’t. Which is why EasyJet crews will always be straight on the intercom to blame ATC or the weather for easyJet’s incompetence. I agree that easyJet are accomplished liars when they need to be as they seem to forget that reasonably well informed passengers can check much of what they are told. But the issue of compensation didn't arise on the inbound flight, as they weren't three hours late, despite all the circumstances. The return flight was over three hours late, but was such a clusterfuck of issues that it'd be impossible to pin it on the airline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Poppins Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 2 hours ago, madmanxpilot said: The published hours for fuel availability is from 0630 until 2030. If fuel is required outside of those hours, then the airline should request it. It’s not the fueler’s fault at all. People just need somebody to blame. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 I'd rather get to Gatwick late than be cancelled 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 10 hours ago, Hairy Poppins said: People just need somebody to blame. it's all your fault. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 12 hours ago, Derek Flint said: I get that, but they manage [remote ATC] for other places. Not that many - it's notable that London City seems to be the only one in the UK and there may be particular circumstances there and other countries have been slow to adopt. There's a fairly recent article here: https://www.global-aero.com/remote-and-virtual-towers-is-this-the-future-of-air-traffic-control/ It strikes me as rather a 'salesman solution': buy a magic piece of software and all your troubles will be over and further costs will be minimal. But we know from HIAL that there may be problems implementing it even with airports that have only a few flights a day and the set up for London City hardly looks cheap to install or run. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 One odd little thing regarding the Airport. Normally they produce the passenger figures for the previous month around the 11-12th of the month. But there's still nothing showing on the website for July here: https://www.airport.im/passenger-figures/ Even if it's because the person responsible is away on their hols, it doesn't show a very resilient organisation. As ever the more highly-paid people they employ, the less actual information comes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 Just now, Roger Mexico said: the more highly-paid people they employ, The more of a beauracratic balls up it becomes ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 All this stuff about the airport being controlled by an AI robot on the far side of the planet via ultra-high-speed optical networks is very impressive, and will no doubt put the IoM on the world map, but: 1. What problem are you trying to solve? 2. What created that problem? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: Not that many - it's notable that London City seems to be the only one in the UK and there may be particular circumstances there and other countries have been slow to adopt. There's a fairly recent article here: https://www.global-aero.com/remote-and-virtual-towers-is-this-the-future-of-air-traffic-control/ It strikes me as rather a 'salesman solution': buy a magic piece of software and all your troubles will be over and further costs will be minimal. But we know from HIAL that there may be problems implementing it even with airports that have only a few flights a day and the set up for London City hardly looks cheap to install or run. It's expensive. That's why it's not really been taken up. At the moment it's seller's market for the software, another couple of software providers might bring the price down. Remote ATC operations will come to IOM and the HIAL, eventually. There'll be no other choice. As I suggested on a another topic IOM could position itself as the place where Remote ATC could be based. That would, of course, require an absolutely iron cast IT infrastructure.... which, despite what MT and IOMG say, doesn't exist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 13 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: . As I suggested on a another topic IOM could position itself as the place where Remote ATC could be based. That would, of course, require an absolutely iron cast IT infrastructure.... which, despite what MT and IOMG say, doesn't exist! the last part would suggest the first part isn't a starter anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Christian Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 15 hours ago, mad_manx said: That's why I found it very strange.. I am a fairly frequent flier and have never seen this anywhere else for a take off.. Cabin crew asked every passenger to show their phones and were checking if they were switched off . Aircraft didn't take off until they inspected the phone of every passenger. They mentioned about visibility and concern about interference with instruments but I have never seen anything like it for a take off. I am trying to recollect which flight it was on Checked my tickets It was either on EZY716 IOM to MAN on 21st June or EZY840 IOM to LGW on 10th July ... My travel off island since then was on loganair . So must have been one of the above. This has happened to me once - with BA on approach to Bologna. The visibility was very poor so they were landing on pure ILS with no visual of the runway at all. They stressed that phones can interfere with this system and stressed the importance of having phones all turned off. But they didn’t come round to check. I’m also a frequent flyer and it’s the only time it’s happened to me. 1 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.