BY diversion from LBA. 11/2
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a little annoying (understatement) when your driving through Horsforth watching the aircraft fly overhead on their approach into Leeds whilst a bus passes you advertising DSA.
Get a reality check, only the crew / ops can confirm why they diverted. Some ideas!
- Maybe the ILS capture equipment had broken and they were below minima for an SRA? That we be a combination of wx and tech.
- Cat1 ILS approach absolute minima 550M, aerodrome operating minima possibly higher. Listened to the ATIS 40NM from airfield (thats the ATIS protected range) and RVR was outside this range.
I could go on but cant be bothered.
Truth is we don't know. If the crew aint sure I'd rather they diverted and I had a bus ride.
TIO
P.S.
The allegations (not by myself) were down to a few inderviduals (allegedly) abusing their personal allowances.
P.P.S I don't work for BY or Thomas Cook
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: BOH - UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all seem to getting bogged down in the specifics of this particular incident. That's not really the point. The point is that over a number of considerable years, including when I was there in the 90's, Britannia were perceived (note the word: perceived) to be more prone to diverting than other users of the airport.
loco
loco
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: doncaster
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by diversion etc
Personally I am very sad to read the vitriolic comments on this page,by people who should know better. As some of you know,I am but a layman when it comes to aviation. We all have particular subjects in which we profess inside knowledge,but let me say that being a professional in anything,be it solicitor,doctor,policeman or pilot,does not make them a fountain of ALL knowledge. I was particularly hurt by the comment about DSA being a "tin pot airport" . A silly comment not bourne out by any facts. Good luck to LBA, and all airports,they provide jobs for many people. Incidentally,where is the moderator.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RobT100
RobT100,
I am sure you said what you said because it appears whether true or not that Thomsons are turning their back on LBA in favor of DSA dispite the loyal customer base for LBA.
DSA cannot be blamed for this in any way and i'm sure RobT100 didn't mean to be so harsh and I would welcome him back to apologise in some way. What I would suggest to him am others alike is to just carry on voting with your feet. Carry on using other operators and airlines that offer services from LBA. This year i'm flying from LBA with 'Thomsons' on my group booking costing over 2000 pounds. Next year I will choose LBA again, with which ever operator choose to make LBA a departure point.
Airlines such as Jet2.com, BMI, FlyBe and Air Southwest have all made recent commitments to LBA with new services. Thomas Cook and First Choice are offering aditional capacity from LBA.
Turn it off; Dog_eat_ears
What you are implying is that other airlines using LBA are effectively breaking the rules during high winds and LVPs. You are not understanding what Going Loco is saying. What he is saying is that many times when the weather is NOT marginal at LBA Britannia/ThomsonFly still divert. Yes we don't no the reasons behind the diversions but it does occure alot more with Thomson aircraft than like equiptment with other operators.
As far as I can make out, this thread was started to establish those facts?
I have decided to delete one thread about the customs. I did think it was slightly off topic but I still believe it was relevant.
I am sure you said what you said because it appears whether true or not that Thomsons are turning their back on LBA in favor of DSA dispite the loyal customer base for LBA.
DSA cannot be blamed for this in any way and i'm sure RobT100 didn't mean to be so harsh and I would welcome him back to apologise in some way. What I would suggest to him am others alike is to just carry on voting with your feet. Carry on using other operators and airlines that offer services from LBA. This year i'm flying from LBA with 'Thomsons' on my group booking costing over 2000 pounds. Next year I will choose LBA again, with which ever operator choose to make LBA a departure point.
Airlines such as Jet2.com, BMI, FlyBe and Air Southwest have all made recent commitments to LBA with new services. Thomas Cook and First Choice are offering aditional capacity from LBA.
Turn it off; Dog_eat_ears
What you are implying is that other airlines using LBA are effectively breaking the rules during high winds and LVPs. You are not understanding what Going Loco is saying. What he is saying is that many times when the weather is NOT marginal at LBA Britannia/ThomsonFly still divert. Yes we don't no the reasons behind the diversions but it does occure alot more with Thomson aircraft than like equiptment with other operators.
As far as I can make out, this thread was started to establish those facts?
I have decided to delete one thread about the customs. I did think it was slightly off topic but I still believe it was relevant.
Lady Lexxington
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Manor House
Age: 44
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read the whole thread, I feel that:
1.) Only the flightdeck have the right and reasons for a diversion to occur. It's not a decision taken lightly, think of how it will affect
future ops if your a/c is in the wrong place, and how do we know the crew are manchester based?
Without comment from the crew concerned then who are we to make such assumptions and accusations?
2.) If anybody out there can provide an accurate divert rate for ALL carriers at LBA, then maybe we can start a sensible thread about diverts concerning BY.
cheers
lexxity
1.) Only the flightdeck have the right and reasons for a diversion to occur. It's not a decision taken lightly, think of how it will affect
future ops if your a/c is in the wrong place, and how do we know the crew are manchester based?
Without comment from the crew concerned then who are we to make such assumptions and accusations?
2.) If anybody out there can provide an accurate divert rate for ALL carriers at LBA, then maybe we can start a sensible thread about diverts concerning BY.
cheers
lexxity
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of adding anything further which is misleading or irrelevant.....
Statistically BY do have a higher propensity to divert away from LBA than other airlines, relative to the number of movements. In what has been a very mild 04/05winter so far, the absolute numbers are small, but relatively BY make up about 25% of diversions from around 2% of the traffic. I can try and dig out some info from prior years if it helps, but it shows much the same story.
There are I believe a number of rational reasons behind this:
1) BY have operating criteria for LBA ops which do not permit CATIII approaches with any tailwind component. Given the prevailing wind in low-viz conditions at Leeds tends to be from the South and South East, this often restricts BY inbounds to CAT1 approaches only whereas other operators accept tailwind components onto the CATII/III equipped runway. I am not aware whether the zero tailwind criteria is company wide or specific to LBA ops.
2) The nature of the BY schedule means that almost all of their LBA flights are timed to arrive back into Leeds late evening. Low-viz conditions at Leeds are more prevalent at night than day and so almost all of BY's inbound schedule is in the time-frame when LVPs are most likely to be in force. Other operators have a broader schedule across the day and proportionately less of their schedule is exposed to these periods.
3) BY's fairly small flying programme out of Leeds means crews are less likely to have accumulated the local airfield knowledge that the Jet2 / bmi guys have built up. Someone once said (on this forum I think) that the trick to Leeds was to get to know it when the weather was fine so your ready for when it isn't. I guess the BY crews just don't have that opportunity and if the guy up the front isn't 100% comfortable with an approach into Leeds in low-viz or windy conditions, I'd rather take the bus ride everytime.
In the past, other factors have also contributed. In the mid-late 90's, prior to the upgrade of the 14 glideslope, BY introduced higher operating minima for approaches to 14 which increased the minimum touchdown RVR to 1000m. So with no tailwind accepted on 32 and a 1000m minima on 14, they diverted quite a lot over those winters. The use of the -800 for a couple of summers at the turn of the millennium also contributed to a higher diversion rate given the aircraft was not particularly well suited to LBA's short runway.
So various factors over the last 10 years or so have contributed to the situation. Personally I have flown in and out of Leeds as a passenger more times than I can remember and the only 2 weather related delays I experienced were both with Britannia, ironically enough both with the same captain. Once was on a 757 coming in on 14 during the 1000m minima days when we needed 2 approaches to get in and the second was on the -800 when we went into EMA to await cloud base improvements. Both times the Capt (Clive Noel-Johnson) displayed exemplary customer service and communication skills and was obviously determined that if it was safe to do so he would get his passengers to their intended destination. Such was the service I wrote a brief letter of thanks to Customer Services which I hoped reached him.
In terms of a wholesale criticism of the TUI empire, fellow LBA contributors should be careful about lumping in the commercial side of the TUI empire with the flying side. The people who decide to decide how many flights per week to offer from Leeds and to which destinations are not those at the sharp-end doing the flying so to suggest there is some sort of institutional bias against the airport is not something I subscribe to. Ultimately, the commercial guys need to be sure that the decision to operate any given service from Leeds generates incremental profit compared to serving the LBA market for that service from MAN. The flying guys from time to time need to weigh up the option of a 3000m runway at a familiar and wide-open MAN or a tricky CAT1 onto 1900m at an unfamiliar Leeds. Both things can go against LBA from time to time, but that's life.
The other thing to bear in mind is that overall at a time when passenger numbers are rising rapidly, the absolute number of people being affected by diversions away from Leeds is falling. In 2003 there were just 57 diversions from 15,000 inbound ATMs. In the early 90s Leeds was loosing 300 a year from about 12,000.
682
Statistically BY do have a higher propensity to divert away from LBA than other airlines, relative to the number of movements. In what has been a very mild 04/05winter so far, the absolute numbers are small, but relatively BY make up about 25% of diversions from around 2% of the traffic. I can try and dig out some info from prior years if it helps, but it shows much the same story.
There are I believe a number of rational reasons behind this:
1) BY have operating criteria for LBA ops which do not permit CATIII approaches with any tailwind component. Given the prevailing wind in low-viz conditions at Leeds tends to be from the South and South East, this often restricts BY inbounds to CAT1 approaches only whereas other operators accept tailwind components onto the CATII/III equipped runway. I am not aware whether the zero tailwind criteria is company wide or specific to LBA ops.
2) The nature of the BY schedule means that almost all of their LBA flights are timed to arrive back into Leeds late evening. Low-viz conditions at Leeds are more prevalent at night than day and so almost all of BY's inbound schedule is in the time-frame when LVPs are most likely to be in force. Other operators have a broader schedule across the day and proportionately less of their schedule is exposed to these periods.
3) BY's fairly small flying programme out of Leeds means crews are less likely to have accumulated the local airfield knowledge that the Jet2 / bmi guys have built up. Someone once said (on this forum I think) that the trick to Leeds was to get to know it when the weather was fine so your ready for when it isn't. I guess the BY crews just don't have that opportunity and if the guy up the front isn't 100% comfortable with an approach into Leeds in low-viz or windy conditions, I'd rather take the bus ride everytime.
In the past, other factors have also contributed. In the mid-late 90's, prior to the upgrade of the 14 glideslope, BY introduced higher operating minima for approaches to 14 which increased the minimum touchdown RVR to 1000m. So with no tailwind accepted on 32 and a 1000m minima on 14, they diverted quite a lot over those winters. The use of the -800 for a couple of summers at the turn of the millennium also contributed to a higher diversion rate given the aircraft was not particularly well suited to LBA's short runway.
So various factors over the last 10 years or so have contributed to the situation. Personally I have flown in and out of Leeds as a passenger more times than I can remember and the only 2 weather related delays I experienced were both with Britannia, ironically enough both with the same captain. Once was on a 757 coming in on 14 during the 1000m minima days when we needed 2 approaches to get in and the second was on the -800 when we went into EMA to await cloud base improvements. Both times the Capt (Clive Noel-Johnson) displayed exemplary customer service and communication skills and was obviously determined that if it was safe to do so he would get his passengers to their intended destination. Such was the service I wrote a brief letter of thanks to Customer Services which I hoped reached him.
In terms of a wholesale criticism of the TUI empire, fellow LBA contributors should be careful about lumping in the commercial side of the TUI empire with the flying side. The people who decide to decide how many flights per week to offer from Leeds and to which destinations are not those at the sharp-end doing the flying so to suggest there is some sort of institutional bias against the airport is not something I subscribe to. Ultimately, the commercial guys need to be sure that the decision to operate any given service from Leeds generates incremental profit compared to serving the LBA market for that service from MAN. The flying guys from time to time need to weigh up the option of a 3000m runway at a familiar and wide-open MAN or a tricky CAT1 onto 1900m at an unfamiliar Leeds. Both things can go against LBA from time to time, but that's life.
The other thing to bear in mind is that overall at a time when passenger numbers are rising rapidly, the absolute number of people being affected by diversions away from Leeds is falling. In 2003 there were just 57 diversions from 15,000 inbound ATMs. In the early 90s Leeds was loosing 300 a year from about 12,000.
682
Last edited by 682ft AMSL; 14th Feb 2005 at 16:03.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
682AMSL
Thankyou and very well explained. Now why couldn't dog_eat_ears (dogs_ears_up) explain it that way? You would expect a 'professional' answer from a 'professional' person!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEODIS
yes I will take this opportunity to apologise to any offended party here regarding DSA, thank you for pointing out my way. offence was not what I meant to cause.
However on the question of DSA being a "tin pot airport" I am not convinced for one reason: When thomson were trying to push DSA for my holiday flight I was concerned at one small matter: they explained that I may not have a meal on my holiday flight because, and I quote "facilities at DSA are restricted". Now tell me anyone, what impression does that give ?
Please dont come back and say they are not quite ready, because if they arent they shouldnt be operating. For the s.yorks people then I wish DSA all the luck in the world, for us W.yorks folk i wish they would look after LBA a touch better.
BY have a history of diverts at LBA, all I want is a reason, not somebody telling me that I know nothing. I am not alone in my opinion (and by heck I'm sure I'm allowed one whether i'm professional or not) regarding BY diverts and it would be nice to get an answer.
Good health to everyone.
yes I will take this opportunity to apologise to any offended party here regarding DSA, thank you for pointing out my way. offence was not what I meant to cause.
However on the question of DSA being a "tin pot airport" I am not convinced for one reason: When thomson were trying to push DSA for my holiday flight I was concerned at one small matter: they explained that I may not have a meal on my holiday flight because, and I quote "facilities at DSA are restricted". Now tell me anyone, what impression does that give ?
Please dont come back and say they are not quite ready, because if they arent they shouldnt be operating. For the s.yorks people then I wish DSA all the luck in the world, for us W.yorks folk i wish they would look after LBA a touch better.
BY have a history of diverts at LBA, all I want is a reason, not somebody telling me that I know nothing. I am not alone in my opinion (and by heck I'm sure I'm allowed one whether i'm professional or not) regarding BY diverts and it would be nice to get an answer.
Good health to everyone.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post thanks 628,I have operated into LBA over the past two decades flying 732/733/738/75/767 aircraft and can not remember having ever diverted though it often is a close call at this extremely demanding airport.I believe it to be one of the most challenging airports I,ve ever operated into because of geographic location,runway orientation/length and profile.The runway dished profile on an autoland (where the touchdown is always deeper into a runway) means the aircraft could touch down very late on what is an already extremely short runway coupled with what is usually a crosswind.Therefore as an aircraft commander LBA needs to be treated with a great deal of respect ,additionally a late diversion to MAN can result in being put in the hold on the Leeds beacon before diversion is accepted which can consume a great deal of fuel which of course you don,t want to have much if landing at LBA(short runway) to keep the landing weight down(remember charter flights are normally full compared to locos 70% load factors.So if LBA wants to stay in the airport league tables it needs to lengthen its runway to facilitate more comfortable bad weather operations.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leeds and Cork people should get together to explore our own unique airfield operations. Some of the frustrations etc are remarkably similar. Poor weather and short runway and we can go on from there!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Dartania. I agree and a number of improvements to the airfield to improve general performance as well as low-viz capability have been discussed e..g
* CATII on 14; I remember an airport board member telling me this was due to be installed "ready for winter 97/98"..still waiting.
* Overrun on 32; there's about 150m at the end of 32 in the 14 undershoot that's ripe for concreting
* 32 undershoot; parallel taxiways, turning loops etc have all been mooted for the 32 end with associated improvements to the undershoot to try and reduce the amount of displacement on the threshold (that said, no one has ever confirmed to me that a raised undershoot would permit the threshold to be moved).
* starter strip for 32 / runway extension
All cost money though and I guess the airport will be looking at how they best allocate the investment monies they have. If we say that 60 diversions per annum at 100 passengers a go = 6,000 passengers + say a further 4,000 affected by knock on cancellations due to diverted a/c and crews being in the wrong place etc. That leaves 2,390,000 passengers to worry about the rest of the time and I wonder whether the airport have taken the view that on a cost / benefit basis, the current low-viz protection is 'good enough'. It's certainly a whole lot better than a few years ago. Rather than spending money trying to get 10,000 down to 5,000 the airport might well take the view that investing in facilities to make life easier for the rest and to attract new business is a greater priority. It's not necessarily an approach I'd disagree with so long as the LVP situation wasn't an hindrance to winning new business. For example the timings of arrivals from the US and Pakistan are such that a fair few would be arriving with early morning mist and fog lingering and if a CO 757 operates to the same criteria as a BY 757 then, well, need I say any more?
Tom - a better idea is for Leeds and Cork people to get together with the Bristol gang to learn how you can run a v.successful business with a short runway and an elevated position.
682
* CATII on 14; I remember an airport board member telling me this was due to be installed "ready for winter 97/98"..still waiting.
* Overrun on 32; there's about 150m at the end of 32 in the 14 undershoot that's ripe for concreting
* 32 undershoot; parallel taxiways, turning loops etc have all been mooted for the 32 end with associated improvements to the undershoot to try and reduce the amount of displacement on the threshold (that said, no one has ever confirmed to me that a raised undershoot would permit the threshold to be moved).
* starter strip for 32 / runway extension
All cost money though and I guess the airport will be looking at how they best allocate the investment monies they have. If we say that 60 diversions per annum at 100 passengers a go = 6,000 passengers + say a further 4,000 affected by knock on cancellations due to diverted a/c and crews being in the wrong place etc. That leaves 2,390,000 passengers to worry about the rest of the time and I wonder whether the airport have taken the view that on a cost / benefit basis, the current low-viz protection is 'good enough'. It's certainly a whole lot better than a few years ago. Rather than spending money trying to get 10,000 down to 5,000 the airport might well take the view that investing in facilities to make life easier for the rest and to attract new business is a greater priority. It's not necessarily an approach I'd disagree with so long as the LVP situation wasn't an hindrance to winning new business. For example the timings of arrivals from the US and Pakistan are such that a fair few would be arriving with early morning mist and fog lingering and if a CO 757 operates to the same criteria as a BY 757 then, well, need I say any more?
Tom - a better idea is for Leeds and Cork people to get together with the Bristol gang to learn how you can run a v.successful business with a short runway and an elevated position.
682
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last remarks
Dartania and 682AMSL another two very good posts.
Thanks for explaining everything. So Britannia does not look so bad after all, but in response to 682 ref LBAs priorities, I agree other things must be given priority. Additional apron space, terminal development and multistory car parking, must be of greater importance prior to any expensive runway extentions or starter strips etc.
Having said all that and I don't know how much to believe this but, several people from the airport authority have said to have been toying with the idea of a steeper glideslope to both ends. Apparently this would give an additional 150m on either end of the runway, in terms of the start of the threshhold. If possible this could be done with very little disruption.
RobT100 thanks for that, we could do without upsetting those Doncaster folk down the road anymore. They spend enough time closely watching developments at LBA as it is. Mark my words Doncaster will do well and it will be a success, LBA will continue to do very well and it is already a success.
Cheers to everyone at both ends of gods country!
Thanks for explaining everything. So Britannia does not look so bad after all, but in response to 682 ref LBAs priorities, I agree other things must be given priority. Additional apron space, terminal development and multistory car parking, must be of greater importance prior to any expensive runway extentions or starter strips etc.
Having said all that and I don't know how much to believe this but, several people from the airport authority have said to have been toying with the idea of a steeper glideslope to both ends. Apparently this would give an additional 150m on either end of the runway, in terms of the start of the threshhold. If possible this could be done with very little disruption.
RobT100 thanks for that, we could do without upsetting those Doncaster folk down the road anymore. They spend enough time closely watching developments at LBA as it is. Mark my words Doncaster will do well and it will be a success, LBA will continue to do very well and it is already a success.
Cheers to everyone at both ends of gods country!
