SEN en route tech stops
These are the relevant METARS for the two flights in question: -
EGMC 10 0550Z 20006KT FEW040 10/09 Q1009 SEN-FAO, A319
EGMC 11 0550Z 18005KT CAVOK 12/10 Q1010. SEN-TFS, A320
The problems at SEN appear to arise when the tailwind component on 06 is strong enough to negate the performance advantages of using 06 but the corresponding headwind on 24 is not sufficient to overcome the obstacle clearance penalties of 24.
I don’t have access to the quality of data that would facilitate a proper analysis but the A320 Aircraft Characteristics Planning manual (and I know the limitations of this source) suggest to me that last Saturdays TFS could have departed a SEN length runway up to the MTOW of the aircraft (G-EZTD 73500kg) if 06 had been available. Are there any significant obstacles that would reduce RTOW on 06 ? Is this figure valid ?
The equivalent manual for the A319 unfortunately only shows data for a higher powered A319 than the EZY aircraft. But is clear enough to me that the relatively low power of the EZY A319 is one of the reasons why they are encountering problems. A higher powered and higher MTOW A319 (such as the Germania aircraft) surely would have operated SEN-FAO direct. Likewise, I suggest, an EZY A320 .
These strong upper southerly and south westerly winds in my experience are a not uncommon feature of the routes to Spain and the Canaries, especially in autumn and winter, a function of the jetstream position. They will not go away. I am thinking increasingly that the A320 is a better aircraft than the EZY A319 for the longer SEN routes. Now the routes are maturing and if the commercial case is sufficiently robust perhaps this is the way forward.
BK100 you obviously have a good handle on events, any comments ? Or from anyone else with access to better data than me ?
Last edited by Tagron; 21st Oct 2014 at 17:39.
Reason: typo