If the aircraft and crew were autoland capable as Lagerlout has suggested then it begs the question why they were diverting in iffy conditions to a marginal cat 1 approach, thus further limiting their options.
Then again Hooded suggests something completely different a couple of posts earlier. Other posters have further blurred the waters. Who knows?
We received very clear directions recently from the german civil aviation authority (LBA) when fuel was an issue, to give preference to airfields with two separate runways and approach systems. The directive was a bit more complicated than that, being Germany, but that was the gist of it.
Manchester would seem to fit the bill quite nicely and is I understand a Jet 2 base and has reasonable road connections to Leeds. But it is easy to be wise after the event.
On a related topic I often find alternates filed by the company to make no sense. Ronchi (Trieste) and Pula which we regularly file as alternates for Venice in reality make no sense. If it is foggy in Venice it is normally just as foggy up the coast and unlikely to improve quickly, and subsequantly ending up with a planeload of passengers in Pula is a logistical nightmare!
Last edited by lederhosen; 18th Dec 2007 at 11:55.