LUTON
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by airhumberside
I wouldn't be too concerned about the loss of Vasteras. It's to do with a new Swedish tax. Of course loads may be a factor but FR are making a point to the Swedish Government; dont introduce new flight taxes. LTN, along with Vasteras (and also Malmo) have been caught up in this and lost out.
Hopefully FR will replace it with another route or increased frequencies to an existing destination
Hopefully FR will replace it with another route or increased frequencies to an existing destination
At the moment, VST is still bookable until the end of Oct. On several occassions in the past, MOL has stated publicly that he is very pleased with the 4 based LTN operation. However, there certainly is a fair bit of chopping & changing of routes and it is difficult to see if any new, real expansion of the LTN base will happen for ryanair. Some 21 months ago, when the 4 based aircraft were announced, MOL said he thought LTN would probably have 7/8 based aircraft within three or four years. We shall see.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have also heard today that the police airwing is being turfed out of Luton
.They were supposed to be moving to the area where the Fire training ground is,This was supposed to reduce interference with other traffic.Looks like the decsion to to turf them out is due to the fact they want to build more car parking spaces in that area.If this is correct it is typical of LLAO to put money before safety and security. I have seen the Police helicopter over the years patroling the perimeter, day and night and it gave me reassurance that they were there hopefully giving anybody a secong thought about targetting the airfield.I wonder if the car crime into the long term car park will increase when they leave as they appear to make 80% of their arrival/departures in that area,lets hope the travellers and local yobs in that area don't think that it will become easy pickings form the cars.
As I said I think this yet another bad decision from the airport, does anybody else have any views on this good or bad? PS lets hope they don't need the support from the Boys in Blue for expansion.
.They were supposed to be moving to the area where the Fire training ground is,This was supposed to reduce interference with other traffic.Looks like the decsion to to turf them out is due to the fact they want to build more car parking spaces in that area.If this is correct it is typical of LLAO to put money before safety and security. I have seen the Police helicopter over the years patroling the perimeter, day and night and it gave me reassurance that they were there hopefully giving anybody a secong thought about targetting the airfield.I wonder if the car crime into the long term car park will increase when they leave as they appear to make 80% of their arrival/departures in that area,lets hope the travellers and local yobs in that area don't think that it will become easy pickings form the cars.As I said I think this yet another bad decision from the airport, does anybody else have any views on this good or bad? PS lets hope they don't need the support from the Boys in Blue for expansion.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is correct it is typical of LLAO to put money before safety and security. I have seen the Police helicopter over the years patroling the perimeter, day and night and it gave me reassurance
Arguably, it could be even more effective because if there was a 'threat' the 'targets' would at present see/hear the helicopter get airborne for a perimeter patrol, whereas if it operated from a distant site it would simply 'arrive' on site without/with minimal warning.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote From CAP 493
the location of the police helicopter's 'base' is now incompatible with the adjacent buildings, aprons and taxiways, and increasingly struggles to meet the required operating standards.
If this is the case by moving the helicopter to it's new base away from the taxiways which I heard is over by the fire ground this would get rid of the problem,also would it not have a Police presence at a weak security point of the airfield.
the location of the police helicopter's 'base' is now incompatible with the adjacent buildings, aprons and taxiways, and increasingly struggles to meet the required operating standards.
If this is the case by moving the helicopter to it's new base away from the taxiways which I heard is over by the fire ground this would get rid of the problem,also would it not have a Police presence at a weak security point of the airfield.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now whilst I am sure that I do not have all the relevant facts, I thought I would share a rumour with you all to comment and put me straight if I am wrong.
Well the story goes something like this:
Yesterday a RYR airframe was running late due to earlier tech problems and as things stood at the time, the final flight which was back from Dublin would have arrived after the nightly curfew. Now as I understand things, RYR decided to use a Dublin based airframe to operate the return flight and beat the closure, this would have meant the flight departing from Luton close to 23:59 having arrived from Dublin sometime after 23:00 (in reverse of the normal pattern) I understand that the outbound flight back to Dublin called for push and start well before 23:59 and would have been airborne at 00:03.
The airport authority prevented its departure.
Was this a well reasoned and sound decision made by the airport?
If this is true, I bet RYR and its passengers were livid, especially having attempted to ensure their passengers were not inconvenienced?
Anyone like to comment further........I realise arriving flights are missing the curfew on an almost daily basis, but to prevent a flight departing must have caused a massive amount of hassle for the airport and RYR. Did the passengers have to spend the night at Luton, or did they get away from elsewhere?
Just how much work could have been done on the runway in those 3 minutes?
Anyway, I am just a bear with a sore head, what do I know?
Well the story goes something like this:
Yesterday a RYR airframe was running late due to earlier tech problems and as things stood at the time, the final flight which was back from Dublin would have arrived after the nightly curfew. Now as I understand things, RYR decided to use a Dublin based airframe to operate the return flight and beat the closure, this would have meant the flight departing from Luton close to 23:59 having arrived from Dublin sometime after 23:00 (in reverse of the normal pattern) I understand that the outbound flight back to Dublin called for push and start well before 23:59 and would have been airborne at 00:03.
The airport authority prevented its departure.
Was this a well reasoned and sound decision made by the airport?
If this is true, I bet RYR and its passengers were livid, especially having attempted to ensure their passengers were not inconvenienced?
Anyone like to comment further........I realise arriving flights are missing the curfew on an almost daily basis, but to prevent a flight departing must have caused a massive amount of hassle for the airport and RYR. Did the passengers have to spend the night at Luton, or did they get away from elsewhere?
Just how much work could have been done on the runway in those 3 minutes?
Anyway, I am just a bear with a sore head, what do I know?
Thread Starter
At one time the police helicopter unit was going to move to RAF Henlow or was it RAF Halton? I have no idea why the plan fell through though.
It might be quite expensive to move the police helicopter unit to the fire training ground as I don't think there are sewers, water, electricity, telephone or land side access roads to that part of the airport
Luton's February passenger figures are only up 1.9% but then a day was lost when the airport was closed for 12 hours due to the runway being blocked. Stansted on the other hand was up 7%. I thought they were full?
March has already been affected by Cat 1 operations and the need to divert
It might be quite expensive to move the police helicopter unit to the fire training ground as I don't think there are sewers, water, electricity, telephone or land side access roads to that part of the airport
Luton's February passenger figures are only up 1.9% but then a day was lost when the airport was closed for 12 hours due to the runway being blocked. Stansted on the other hand was up 7%. I thought they were full?
March has already been affected by Cat 1 operations and the need to divert
Last edited by LTNman; 17th Mar 2006 at 16:10.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just how much work could have been done on the runway in those 3 minutes?
LLAO has imposed penalty clauses on the contractors in the event that they don't meet various completion milestones during the resurfacing work. Any failure to enable them to start 'on the button' and work right up to the wire could invalidate said penalties if the need arose to invoke them.
Luton's February passenger figures are only up 1.9% but then a day was lost when the airport was closed for 12 hours due to the runway being blocked
It might be quite expensive to move the police helicopter unit to the fire training ground as I don't think there are sewers, water, electricity, telephone or land side access roads to that part of the Airport
March has already been affected by Cat 1 operations and the need to divert
"The truth is rarely pure, and never simple" (Oscar Wilde, 1895)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 493
Spoken to a scource and the Police have the funding sorted out and had a start date for the contractors.The access road has been upgraded and mains water has been put in for the contractors.This is an airport decsion and the Police are livid with the decsion as they believed they had a good working relationship with the airport.sadly your facts are wrong this time CAP493 this is purely a LLAO decsion.
Spoken to a scource and the Police have the funding sorted out and had a start date for the contractors.The access road has been upgraded and mains water has been put in for the contractors.This is an airport decsion and the Police are livid with the decsion as they believed they had a good working relationship with the airport.sadly your facts are wrong this time CAP493 this is purely a LLAO decsion.
Thread Starter
This is correct. I believe that LTN lost around 140 movements which equates to something like 13,000 pax. If that figure is added back into Feb's total what would the actual percentage increase be then?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...sadly your facts are wrong this time CAP493 this is purely a LLAO decsion
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiltern (Police) Air Support Unit
The current operation of the Chiltern Air Support Unit (CASU) is as CAP493 correctly states, not compatible with the necessary safety standards particularly because the helicopter uses Delta to take-off from, and the close proximity of the new pier, various aprons + parked aircraft, lighting towers and hangars. It should be remembered that none of these existed when CASU originally set up at Luton.
CASU has historically paid only a 'peppercorn' rent and minimal landing fees. Whilst the Council may have been content to agree to this arrangement, LLAO (or rather ACDL) is a commercial company who's interested in making money.
The proposed 'new' site for CASU is in fact, at +/- 500 metres, too close to the existing runway to enable simultaneous movements by the helicopter because of vortex wake separation reguations which although only 'advisory' for landing (if the helicopter operates visually - which it usually does) are mandatory for take-off and do not provide for any dispensation just because the helicopter may be operating a 'priority' flight. Therefore, the take-off vortex wake separation needed after any aircraft except a 'light' category takes off from the runway would be a minimum of two minutes and perhaps three.
To avoid this requirement, CASU would need to be located at least 760 metres away from the existing runway which in that area, puts it outside the airport's current boundary.
This may be why the plan has apparently fallen through; although why this restriction wasn't identified by those involved in the planning, goodness knows.
The police may well be 'livid' - but just like your average driver that gets caught by the police doing 45 mph in a 30 limit - rules are rules, and being 'livid' doesn't pemit the rules to be bent or broken!
CASU has historically paid only a 'peppercorn' rent and minimal landing fees. Whilst the Council may have been content to agree to this arrangement, LLAO (or rather ACDL) is a commercial company who's interested in making money.
The proposed 'new' site for CASU is in fact, at +/- 500 metres, too close to the existing runway to enable simultaneous movements by the helicopter because of vortex wake separation reguations which although only 'advisory' for landing (if the helicopter operates visually - which it usually does) are mandatory for take-off and do not provide for any dispensation just because the helicopter may be operating a 'priority' flight. Therefore, the take-off vortex wake separation needed after any aircraft except a 'light' category takes off from the runway would be a minimum of two minutes and perhaps three.
To avoid this requirement, CASU would need to be located at least 760 metres away from the existing runway which in that area, puts it outside the airport's current boundary.
This may be why the plan has apparently fallen through; although why this restriction wasn't identified by those involved in the planning, goodness knows.
The police may well be 'livid' - but just like your average driver that gets caught by the police doing 45 mph in a 30 limit - rules are rules, and being 'livid' doesn't pemit the rules to be bent or broken!
If - as suggested - there is a perfectly legal and above board safety reason for the proposed move by the unit to be blocked very much at the last minute [pen poised and money already spent on ground surveys, designers and contractors] how come that the Luton airport authorities are tongue tied and apparently unaware of this very good reason, especially as this has been public domain for some days already.
That is not really a question or a challenge its just an observation based on some enquiring phone calls to get Luton's comments.
Perhaps they need you to help them with their story!
That is not really a question or a challenge its just an observation based on some enquiring phone calls to get Luton's comments.
Perhaps they need you to help them with their story!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police helicopter
Quote
The current operation of the Chiltern Air Support Unit (CASU) is as CAP493 correctly states, not compatible with the necessary safety standards particularly because the helicopter uses Delta to take-off from, and the close proximity of the new pier, various aprons + parked aircraft, lighting towers and hangars. It should be remembered that none of these existed when CASU originally set up at Luton.[/COLOR]
Is that not the reason the Police were building the new site so to reduce the disruption to other traffic or am I missing a point here ?
PANEWS : Are there any other Police air units in the country that use regional/international airport's and if so how do they get around the safety issues,is it that those airports more flexible in there prodedures.
Does anybody know how long it would take the police once they have identfied a new site to get the neccesary permission for night flying in and out of an area that currently has no permission. If this is a lengthy procedure could the Police be without a base and therefore the area have no Police helicopter. If this is the case the airport should really consider extending their stay until this is completed as it appears to be their actions that have caused this problem for them.
The current operation of the Chiltern Air Support Unit (CASU) is as CAP493 correctly states, not compatible with the necessary safety standards particularly because the helicopter uses Delta to take-off from, and the close proximity of the new pier, various aprons + parked aircraft, lighting towers and hangars. It should be remembered that none of these existed when CASU originally set up at Luton.[/COLOR]
Is that not the reason the Police were building the new site so to reduce the disruption to other traffic or am I missing a point here ?
PANEWS : Are there any other Police air units in the country that use regional/international airport's and if so how do they get around the safety issues,is it that those airports more flexible in there prodedures.
Does anybody know how long it would take the police once they have identfied a new site to get the neccesary permission for night flying in and out of an area that currently has no permission. If this is a lengthy procedure could the Police be without a base and therefore the area have no Police helicopter. If this is the case the airport should really consider extending their stay until this is completed as it appears to be their actions that have caused this problem for them.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You forget Buster, that the runway would remain available for 15 minutes after the departure."
Buster understands from the rumour mill, that on this particular day, the NOTAM did not state this and has since been amended?
Regardless of this, an 'own goal' and a lack of customer service from the airport operator? Having said that, would LLAO recognise just who its real customers are?
Buster understands from the rumour mill, that on this particular day, the NOTAM did not state this and has since been amended?
Regardless of this, an 'own goal' and a lack of customer service from the airport operator? Having said that, would LLAO recognise just who its real customers are?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No different than a passenger arriving 3 minutes late at check-in and being told tuff you should have arrived on time. If Ryanair likes to stick by the rules then they have no complaints.
There are quite a few police units at airports - and busy ones at that.
North East are in Newcastle and Teesside both pretty busy regionals with no reports of conflict problems.
Further down the scae South Yorkshire at Sheffield [now of course downgraded from its original status] and Central Counties Wolverhampton [on the up?].
Quite a few others are on small airfields that can be dismissed as quiet.
Merseyside used to be at Speke and suffered at the hands of airport authorities that tired of them. In their case though they had time to go find a new spot and build there in reasonable order.
In the end this row is about adequate time and springing the refusal to build out of the blue just when the spade was poised. Chiltern now have less than a year to decide what to do, approach the prospective new site, ask them if its possible and await their debate, then survey the site, do bores, get a design and a builder. I would suggest that is going to be impossible.
The way out is either a stay of execution or go to any location with a spare existing building to get their breath back. Then start over as above. Sort of suggests a military camp somewhere close to Luton or east of there to take in the proposed tie up of Herts and Beds with Essex.
North East are in Newcastle and Teesside both pretty busy regionals with no reports of conflict problems.
Further down the scae South Yorkshire at Sheffield [now of course downgraded from its original status] and Central Counties Wolverhampton [on the up?].
Quite a few others are on small airfields that can be dismissed as quiet.
Merseyside used to be at Speke and suffered at the hands of airport authorities that tired of them. In their case though they had time to go find a new spot and build there in reasonable order.
In the end this row is about adequate time and springing the refusal to build out of the blue just when the spade was poised. Chiltern now have less than a year to decide what to do, approach the prospective new site, ask them if its possible and await their debate, then survey the site, do bores, get a design and a builder. I would suggest that is going to be impossible.
The way out is either a stay of execution or go to any location with a spare existing building to get their breath back. Then start over as above. Sort of suggests a military camp somewhere close to Luton or east of there to take in the proposed tie up of Herts and Beds with Essex.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Western Counties Air Operations Unit (provides helicopter coverage for the Avon and Somerset & Gloucestershire Constabularies) is based at Filton, not Bristol Airport at Lulsgate. With BRS being on such a constricted site I doubt there would be room for the police unit anyway.
These police units not infrequently stand in for air ambulances, either because an area doesn't have one or because the designated air ambulance is already committed at an incident.
It is obviously in the public interest to provide such cover whenever possible.
I can well understand the police being annoyed, not in the way that convicted speeding motorists might feel annoyed as has been suggested, but because the constabulary realises the important service the helicopter units provide to the public.
These police units not infrequently stand in for air ambulances, either because an area doesn't have one or because the designated air ambulance is already committed at an incident.
It is obviously in the public interest to provide such cover whenever possible.
I can well understand the police being annoyed, not in the way that convicted speeding motorists might feel annoyed as has been suggested, but because the constabulary realises the important service the helicopter units provide to the public.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A Virtual World!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notams
The current Notam regarding the runway closure still does not state that departing aircraft have to be airborne no later than 15 minutes before the runway closure. Nor does it state that incoming aircraft have to be "wheels down" three minutes before the runway closes.
The Notam that applied to the preparatory work did explicitly state that departures had to be airborne by 23.45Z. That Notam is no longer current.
The crew of the Ryanair aircraft were Dublin rather than Luton based and therefore were probably not aware of the previous Notam.
Whilst I note and agree with all the previous comments concerning contractors performance and the need to shut the runway on time, surely there is a case of "swings and roundabouts". The night before the Ryanair incident, the runway actually closed at around 23.45 (i.e. 15 minutes early) and this is not uncommon. The same happened last night. Accordingly, one would have hoped that the Airport Duty Managers who take these decisions would adopt a commonsense approach and as Buster has said, recognise who their customers are ... i.e. the passengers as well as the airline.
The Notam that applied to the preparatory work did explicitly state that departures had to be airborne by 23.45Z. That Notam is no longer current.
The crew of the Ryanair aircraft were Dublin rather than Luton based and therefore were probably not aware of the previous Notam.
Whilst I note and agree with all the previous comments concerning contractors performance and the need to shut the runway on time, surely there is a case of "swings and roundabouts". The night before the Ryanair incident, the runway actually closed at around 23.45 (i.e. 15 minutes early) and this is not uncommon. The same happened last night. Accordingly, one would have hoped that the Airport Duty Managers who take these decisions would adopt a commonsense approach and as Buster has said, recognise who their customers are ... i.e. the passengers as well as the airline.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport will be putting in a planning application soon to extend the long term car park towards the fire training ground.
I thought the BA 747 that came in departed at 23.55
The Notam that applied to the preparatory work did explicitly state that departures had to be airborne by 23.45Z. That Notam is no longer current.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ask the tower !
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OLNEY 1 BRAVO
The crew of the Ryanair aircraft were Dublin rather than Luton based and therefore were probably not aware of the previous Notam.