Tui runway excursion at Leeds Bradford 20/10/23
Yes, LBA was like that at the time, before the 1984 runway extension opened. Several UK airports had such traffic lights at the time, operated from the tower, and a couple still do, as the road is regarded as in the runway overrun area. Also avoids propwash/jetblast from departing aircraft departing in the reciprocal direction impacting light vehicles.
Originally Posted by beamer
Daft place to have an airport even if it has been there since at least WW2.
I was wondering when someone would mention Bristol.
They of course had an aifield with long runway on flat ground but built houses on it and moved the airport to the oddly named Lulsgate bottom , odd because its on the top of a hill . A shorter runway than LBA but more aligned to the prevailing winds but it does suffer from low cloud . being in th South West wind and rain are pretty common.
As anewcomer to the area it seems to em the sie was chosen when it was sleepy place but now serivnga big city and a propserous surrounding area it has far mor movements than anyone envisaged . Of course being in the Sw there are few options as almost all of it is hilly and if it isnt hilly its likely to flood.
The airport is almost all 737-8 and A320 series , any one with experience from the front seats wiling to give a view on its 'trickiness' or not. I know the 737-8 has a bad reputation in wet windy conditions.
Of course moving here from near LHR everything looks tiny by comparison (including the planes)
PB
They of course had an aifield with long runway on flat ground but built houses on it and moved the airport to the oddly named Lulsgate bottom , odd because its on the top of a hill . A shorter runway than LBA but more aligned to the prevailing winds but it does suffer from low cloud . being in th South West wind and rain are pretty common.
As anewcomer to the area it seems to em the sie was chosen when it was sleepy place but now serivnga big city and a propserous surrounding area it has far mor movements than anyone envisaged . Of course being in the Sw there are few options as almost all of it is hilly and if it isnt hilly its likely to flood.
The airport is almost all 737-8 and A320 series , any one with experience from the front seats wiling to give a view on its 'trickiness' or not. I know the 737-8 has a bad reputation in wet windy conditions.
Of course moving here from near LHR everything looks tiny by comparison (including the planes)
PB
Leeds & Bradford Airport | A different point of view by Mark Winterbourne, on Flickr
It's still a nasty piece of concrete, stuck up in the weather, pointing the wrong way, with a reputation for slipperiness.
Not my photo.
Last edited by Saab Dastard; 21st Oct 2023 at 13:08. Reason: Removed duplicate image.
Several UK airports had such traffic lights at the time, operated from the tower, and a couple still do, as the road is regarded as in the runway overrun area. Also avoids propwash/jetblast from departing aircraft departing in the reciprocal direction impacting light vehicles.
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: arctic
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LBA is a horrible airport in bad weather. I have had some tricky times landing there over the years.
A thought for the Captain and FO who will no doubt not in the greatest spirits. Flying can be a cruel.
A thought for the Captain and FO who will no doubt not in the greatest spirits. Flying can be a cruel.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leave it to the professionals - TUI are a very decent airline and no doubt their culture will ensure that the crew will be treated fairly and returned to flying duties in due course.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth until ..........
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA SAFO 19003
“ The problem with heavy rain at Leeds, is that even if you can land comfortably in the 115% Factored LD, the technique for recovery from loss of directional control creates a huge decision problem: “
Not judging here but :
Part of the FAA SAFO 19003 States :-
Subject: Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways.
Purpose: This SAFO cancels and replaces SAFO 15009 and warns airplane operators and pilots that the
advisory data for wet runway landings may not provide a safe stopping margin especially in conditions of
Moderate or Heavy Rain.
Background: Landing overruns that occur on wet runways typically involve multiple contributing factors
such as long touchdown, improper use of deceleration devices, tailwind and less available friction than
expected. Several recent runway-landing incidents/accidents have raised concerns with wet runway
stopping performance assumptions. Analysis of the stopping data from these incidents/accidents indicates
the braking coefficient of friction in each case was significantly lower than expected for a wet runway as
defined by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 § Section 25.109 and Advisory
Circular (AC) 25-7D methods.
These incidents/accidents occurred on both grooved and un-grooved runways. The data indicates that
applying a 15% safety margin to wet runway time-of-arrival advisory data, as recommended by
SAFO 19001 (or current guidance), may be inadequate in certain wet runway conditions. Takeoff and
Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) procedures implemented by the FAA on October 1, 2016,
added new insight as to how flightcrews can evaluate runway braking performance prior to landing.
TALPA defines WET as “Includes damp and 1/8-inch depth or less of water,” while CONTAMINATED is
“greater than 1/8-inch of water.
”
Discussion: These overruns have occurred on grooved and smooth runways during periods of moderate to
heavy rain. Analysis of these incidents/accidents indicates that the braking coefficient of friction in each
case was significantly lower than expected, and that 30 to 40 percent of additional stopping distance may
be required if the runway transitions from wet to contaminated based on the rainfall intensity or reported
water contamination (greater than 1/8-inch depth). For the operational in-flight landing assessment,
determining whether the runway is wet or potentially contaminated is the pilot’s responsibility.
The FAA recommends that airports report “Wet” conditions. However, airports are not required to report
when a runway is only wet. Further, an airport may not be able to generate a Field Condition NOTAM
(FICON) for sudden rain showers that result in water on the runway more than 1/8 of an inch in depth
(contaminated). Rainfall intensity may be the only indication available to the pilot that the water depth
present on the runway may be excessive. The 1/8-inch threshold that separates a wet runway with a
RWYCC of 5 from runway contaminated with water depth greater than 1/8-inch a RWYCC of 2 is based
on possibility of dynamic hydroplaning. This can be especially true in moderate rain if the runway is not
properly crowned, grooved, constructed with a porous friction course (PFC) overlay, or when water run-
off becomes overwhelmed. During heavy rain events, this may be true even on a properly maintained
grooved or PFC runway.
The TALPA RCAM recommends using landing performance data associated with medium to poor
braking or RwyCC of 2, if greater than 1/8-inch of water is anticipated to be on the runway. When
planning to land on a smooth runway under conditions of moderate or heavy rain, or when landing on a
grooved or PFC runway under heavy rain, pilots should consider that the surface may be contaminated
with water at depth greater than 1/8 inch and adjust their landing distance assessment accordingly.
Pilots should use all available resources to determine what condition they may expect upon landing to
include Air Traffic Control (ATC), FICONs (as some airports do report Wet conditions), flight
visibility, and/or onboard weather radar.
Not judging here but :
Part of the FAA SAFO 19003 States :-
Subject: Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways.
Purpose: This SAFO cancels and replaces SAFO 15009 and warns airplane operators and pilots that the
advisory data for wet runway landings may not provide a safe stopping margin especially in conditions of
Moderate or Heavy Rain.
Background: Landing overruns that occur on wet runways typically involve multiple contributing factors
such as long touchdown, improper use of deceleration devices, tailwind and less available friction than
expected. Several recent runway-landing incidents/accidents have raised concerns with wet runway
stopping performance assumptions. Analysis of the stopping data from these incidents/accidents indicates
the braking coefficient of friction in each case was significantly lower than expected for a wet runway as
defined by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 § Section 25.109 and Advisory
Circular (AC) 25-7D methods.
These incidents/accidents occurred on both grooved and un-grooved runways. The data indicates that
applying a 15% safety margin to wet runway time-of-arrival advisory data, as recommended by
SAFO 19001 (or current guidance), may be inadequate in certain wet runway conditions. Takeoff and
Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) procedures implemented by the FAA on October 1, 2016,
added new insight as to how flightcrews can evaluate runway braking performance prior to landing.
TALPA defines WET as “Includes damp and 1/8-inch depth or less of water,” while CONTAMINATED is
“greater than 1/8-inch of water.
”
Discussion: These overruns have occurred on grooved and smooth runways during periods of moderate to
heavy rain. Analysis of these incidents/accidents indicates that the braking coefficient of friction in each
case was significantly lower than expected, and that 30 to 40 percent of additional stopping distance may
be required if the runway transitions from wet to contaminated based on the rainfall intensity or reported
water contamination (greater than 1/8-inch depth). For the operational in-flight landing assessment,
determining whether the runway is wet or potentially contaminated is the pilot’s responsibility.
The FAA recommends that airports report “Wet” conditions. However, airports are not required to report
when a runway is only wet. Further, an airport may not be able to generate a Field Condition NOTAM
(FICON) for sudden rain showers that result in water on the runway more than 1/8 of an inch in depth
(contaminated). Rainfall intensity may be the only indication available to the pilot that the water depth
present on the runway may be excessive. The 1/8-inch threshold that separates a wet runway with a
RWYCC of 5 from runway contaminated with water depth greater than 1/8-inch a RWYCC of 2 is based
on possibility of dynamic hydroplaning. This can be especially true in moderate rain if the runway is not
properly crowned, grooved, constructed with a porous friction course (PFC) overlay, or when water run-
off becomes overwhelmed. During heavy rain events, this may be true even on a properly maintained
grooved or PFC runway.
The TALPA RCAM recommends using landing performance data associated with medium to poor
braking or RwyCC of 2, if greater than 1/8-inch of water is anticipated to be on the runway. When
planning to land on a smooth runway under conditions of moderate or heavy rain, or when landing on a
grooved or PFC runway under heavy rain, pilots should consider that the surface may be contaminated
with water at depth greater than 1/8 inch and adjust their landing distance assessment accordingly.
Pilots should use all available resources to determine what condition they may expect upon landing to
include Air Traffic Control (ATC), FICONs (as some airports do report Wet conditions), flight
visibility, and/or onboard weather radar.
I was wondering when someone would mention Bristol.
They of course had an aifield with long runway on flat ground but built houses on it and moved the airport to the oddly named Lulsgate bottom , odd because its on the top of a hill . A shorter runway than LBA but more aligned to the prevailing winds but it does suffer from low cloud . being in th South West wind and rain are pretty common.
As anewcomer to the area it seems to em the sie was chosen when it was sleepy place but now serivnga big city and a propserous surrounding area it has far mor movements than anyone envisaged . Of course being in the Sw there are few options as almost all of it is hilly and if it isnt hilly its likely to flood.
The airport is almost all 737-8 and A320 series , any one with experience from the front seats wiling to give a view on its 'trickiness' or not. I know the 737-8 has a bad reputation in wet windy conditions.
Of course moving here from near LHR everything looks tiny by comparison (including the planes)
PB
They of course had an aifield with long runway on flat ground but built houses on it and moved the airport to the oddly named Lulsgate bottom , odd because its on the top of a hill . A shorter runway than LBA but more aligned to the prevailing winds but it does suffer from low cloud . being in th South West wind and rain are pretty common.
As anewcomer to the area it seems to em the sie was chosen when it was sleepy place but now serivnga big city and a propserous surrounding area it has far mor movements than anyone envisaged . Of course being in the Sw there are few options as almost all of it is hilly and if it isnt hilly its likely to flood.
The airport is almost all 737-8 and A320 series , any one with experience from the front seats wiling to give a view on its 'trickiness' or not. I know the 737-8 has a bad reputation in wet windy conditions.
Of course moving here from near LHR everything looks tiny by comparison (including the planes)
PB
The wind whipping up and over the surrounding hills makes it doubly tricky. It's an unusually difficult place to operate from, given how many movements there are a day.
LBA is maybe the most challenging (non island) runway that sees scheduled jet CAT traffic in the U.K. I have operated three different airliner types into Leeds over the past two decades. It can be very challenging in stormy weather and for someone who is unfamiliar with the runway profile, it can catch you out. It is definitely not somewhere you want to spend an extended time in the flare enjoying the view.
As mentioned above, the AAIB report is the only public source where there will be enough detail available to reach an informed opinion.
As mentioned above, the AAIB report is the only public source where there will be enough detail available to reach an informed opinion.
I would suggest BRS 09 with 150-180/15+ kts up there with the most challenging in UK…
Beamer, Indeed. And Finningley also had traffic lights, but they were called signals, used to stop the trains on the track in the undershoot of 20. And, if one of my instructors is to be believed, to stop the Vulcans taking off on 20 at full power blowing them off the embanked track.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
The writing for LBA should have been on the wall when Doncaster opened. Someone at DSA should have 'phoned Jet2 with an invite for Dinner - somewhere nice - for a serious discussion along the lines of "How much would it cost us to have you move your centre of operations from that ludicrous place you're at to our new, less challenging, and more operationally effective location here?"......
The writing for LBA should have been on the wall when Doncaster opened. Someone at DSA should have 'phoned Jet2 with an invite for Dinner - somewhere nice - for a serious discussion along the lines of "How much would it cost us to have you move your centre of operations from that ludicrous place you're at to our new, less challenging, and more operationally effective location here?"......
There were plans for a new airport for Yorkshire on what was termed Thorne Waste in seventies. Nothing came of it.
I’m not sure just how many ‘current’ professional pilots actually look at this particular site anymore. They invariably have their own Company and Union forums to discuss issues rather than be subject to some of the drivel on here from spotters, wannabes and retired old gits like myself !
Peel had tried to get Jet2 into Doncaster from day dot. Jet2 were not interested then and I doubt they’d be interested now. When PM decided to start a low-cost airline, he chose LBA as its launch base for a reason. Whilst it might be a pig of a place and wholly inadequate for the cities it serves, I can’t see any alternative plans being drawn up to flatten Barnsley and put an airport in its place any time soon, so stuck with LBA we are as it’s in the middle of and urban area containing something like 2.5 million people - something that Finningley cannot boast unfortunately, in spite of its superior infrastructure.
Pointless speculating as to what might have occurred on this occasion, but with the happy news that there were no injuries, I sincerely hope the crew are ok! Clearly the authorities will be going through all this with a fine tooth comb, including matters pertinent to LBA.
Last edited by pug; 21st Oct 2023 at 18:53.
Pug
Possibly because Finningley (sorry, Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield, or some such snappy title) came to be the way it is because it was a cold war V-bomber station, and I guess you wouldn't want to have one of those in the middle of 2.5m people.
airsound
LBA .... it’s in the middle of something like 2.5 million people - something that Finningley cannot boast unfortunately, in spite of its superior infrastructure.
airsound