DUNDEE

[VickersVicount]

do we know for fact that it was 'successful',(apart from FlyBe bluster) if it was such a money spinner I suspect more effort would have been made to resolve any issues

[Albert Hall]

RNP compliance is now mandatory at Amsterdam. It was not before, when Scot Airways operated SOU-AMS about ten years ago. Things can and do change in this industry...

[edi_local]

We would need to look at CAA figures if they were published for the route.

I doubt they would have increased the service to daily if it wasn't needed. I think the fact they rerouted the flight to EDI and laid on buses too shows there was enough demand. They could have just refunded everyone months ago and left them to find their own way.

I only personally flew the route once and on both legs it was full, that was 2 months in.

[HeartyMeatballs]

You have two airlines. One pull Service due to what it perceives to be unacceptable risk. Another airline continues to operate into the field operating a craft with similar approach speeds to the Q400.

It says a lot about the safety culture of flyBE. Wether or not someone else has operated or continues to do so is irrelevant. If flyBE feel that it's not up to their standard, has decreased in standard or has proved to be more of an operational and flight safety risk then they owe nobody any explanation.

The fact that there's little in the way of protest Fromm Dundee airport would perhaps suggest that there's something in it. Maybe they've crunched the numbers and it just won't be viable for them to upgrade service.

[Albert Hall]

I suspect it is more about differences in operating culture and training. A high proportion of one operator's flying is into smaller airports with short, narrow runways outside controlled airspace on non-precision approaches, yet the other is very used to big airports with full radar cover and navaids. Each trains well for what they do and their crews are very experienced in it. Start to cross the dividing lines and the result will always be uncertain. Neither operator is operating unsafely, and this decision is evidence of that, but it is very much a case of "horses for courses".

[Porrohman]

Is the issue partly connected to aircrew familiarity? Loganair crews will be very familiar with the procedures and potential issues at Dundee as they are based there and/or regularly fly there. Flybe crews are presumably drawn from a large pool so they will have less opportunity to achieve similar levels of familiarity.

With Leuchars no longer operating as an air defence station, is radar guidance from them still normally available for aircraft approaching Dundee?

[Oxford Bags]

DND-AMS Passenger Figures

Putting aside the complexities of BE's decision to cease the DND-AMS service.


Looking at the CAA monthly returns, the DND-AMS route generated 13967 passengers over 226 flights (17628 seats) during the five full months of operation which, if my maths serves me correctly, equates to a 79% average load factor. The word is it would have been higher had it not been for the significant number of 'no shows' who, having booked flights at a reasonable price, could not find accommodation in AMS to suit their budgets.


Yes the fights were initially discounted but not bad for a start-up service with minimal advertising and it demonstrates the potential of the Dundee/Perth and North-East Fife catchment area.

[edi_local]

That is good going. Considering that figure will also have included the time after they started to route people down to EDI, so the news that was taking place would have had a negative impact on numbers too, with many probably going to cheaper/more frequent EZY or KLM anyway.

I am not sure I buy the lack of cheap accommodation reason for people not showing up. Surely people wouldn't book flights without having at least searched for a hotel that meets their budget? I find Amsterdam a reasonable place to stay too, having spent many nights in the city om recent years.

[Homo Simpson]

The issue was passengers did not have accommodation in Amsterdam and that is why Flybe pulled the route?

[TartinTon]

the DND-AMS route generated 13967 passengers over 226 flights (17628 seats) during the five full months of operation which, if my maths serves me correctly, equates to a 79% average load factor

I'm assuming that the flights came back as well which would mean that the LF is a fairly unimpressive 39.6% LF unless the 226 is one-way sectors? Would at least explain Flybe's behaviour.

[Oxford Bags]

226 flights; that is 114 AMS-DND and 112 DND-AMS (there were two cancellations) during the five full months of operation.

[Heathrow Harry]

a lot of no shows is characteristic of Business pasengers not holiday traffic...... which is oddly encouraging

I never thought Dundee was viable but if it was LF 79% I'm wrong - but they clearly need a decent small airline with some commitment

[virginblue]

Depends.

If traffic was, as some earlier posts suggest, mainly outbound and leisure-bound, the route obviously benefitted from a novelty effect much more than routes with a high percentage of business travellers. There are only so many Dundeenians that will go on a weekend break to Amsterdam.

[fjencl]

We await next to hear who will be operating the PSO from march 2017 on the Dundee to London route.

[Porrohman]

TangoAlphad said;

Loganair usually go for the visual if the weather permits but it seems that Flybe weren't allowed to do visuals as they made a habit of only doing the procedure onto 09 even on a gin clear day and 10 kts straight down 27..

I played back a few recent LC D328 approaches on FR24. Most appeared to be visual approaches to Runway 27 but I noticed that Monday morning's arrival from STN did what was presumably an ILS approach to 09 with a significant tailwind (circa 15-20kts?). (There is currently no ILS on runway 27 at DND).

I also noticed that, although the D328 appeared to follow the Cat C approach initially, the turn on to base leg was much tighter than the approach chart meaning that it stayed well clear of Scone. Base leg roughly followed the south slopes of the Sidlaws giving 6 or 7 mile finals and thereby reducing the risk of Scone traffic conflicts and of terrain affecting the ILS. The first time around the pattern, the D328 maintained the prescribed 2,200ft and didn't attempt an approach, instead climbing straight ahead to 3,000ft which is the standard missed approach procedure. The second time around the approach was sucessful.

If Flybe's Q400s were following the 09 ILS approach chart for Cat C aircraft, they would almost overfly Scone and base leg would be to the north of the Sidlaws. This increases the risk of terrain affecting the ILS if the approach is not stable and accurate. It also increases the risk of potential traffic conflicts with VFR traffic at Scone. These risks are managed via existing procedures but may not be compatible with Flybe's SOPs from what others have said. This routing also increases the risk of turbulence from the Sidlaws affecting the stability of the approach and potentially causing loss of ILS.

The 09 ILS approach has the following warning;

Due to terrain, LOC and GP flag alarms may be experienced at northern edge of coverage when below glidepath sector. Full scale fly-up indications may not be maintained when left of centre-line and below GP.

With the Q400 having a circa 170kt initial approach speed in icing conditions and with some (many?) Flybe approaches to 09 having had a tailwind component and, given the potential for turbulance from the Sidlaws, would this, ideally, necessitate a longer final approach and take the flight-path beyond Scone? If finals are extended at the normal 2,200ft then presumably this increases the risk of ILS being masked by terrain.

Is 09's length a limiting factor for a Q400 at DND with a significant tailwind component and especially in icing conditions with the associated higher speeds? I don't have access to detailed performance figures for the Q400 but the publicly available data that I have seen would seem to indicate that a Q400 carrying out an ILS approach and landing on 09 at DND with a tailwind component and icing conditions would, at best, create a high workload and may necessitate a diversion.

Is there any reason, other than cost, why DND doesn't have ILS on runway 27 (the runway most closely aligned to the prevailing wind)? The approach to 27 cuts through the Leuchars MATZ but this is the case whether the approach is visual, IFR or if ILS is added. There is also a danger area (D604) at 7nm DME which is presumably associated with the MOD ranges at Barry Buddon. An ILS approach to 27 would come very close to this Danger Area. Is this the reason for the absence of ILS on 27?

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public...temid=103.html

[SWBKCB]

These risks are managed via existing procedures but may not be compatible with Flybe's SOPs from what others have said.

You certainly have done your homework though.

Surely all would have been well known before the service started? Not as if it was a snap decision, having gone through the Regional Development Fund process - something changed in the meantime?

[Porrohman]

Can't DND increase the pattern height for the Cat C 09 ILS approach from 2,200ft to 3000ft or greater in circumstances when extended finals are necessary? This would increase vertical separation with VFR traffic in the vicinity of Scone and reduce the risk of terrain degrading or masking the ILS.

Another potential solution would be a steeper glidepath. The Q400 and D328 are both able to use LCY which has a 5.5 degree glidepath although this requires additional crew training and wouldn't be suitable for many aircraft types and crews. Even a slight increase in glideslope angle would be helpful though.

In the 80s and 90s, MLS was being developed and had the advantage over ILS of allowing final approaches that were not straight. This might have been ideal for DND but the technology was abandoned in favour of GPS/WAAS/EGNOS/LPV which has yet to be approved for DND. According to Wikipedia, as of Sept 2014 it was only approved for 114 European airfields.

[Richard Taylor]

Not being Dundonian, I was trying to visualize what objects there could be on the 27 approach.

The bridges are the logical guess but are they actually on the approach and high enough to negatively impact? The port sees oil rig activity but again cannot think that could be high enough to come into play.

Is the Dundee Law a factor? Not that far from the airport, but doesn't appear to impact the approach path.

Unless it's the fitba pitches under the approach at about 0.5m from touchdown?

[dont overfil]

Originally Posted by Richard Taylor

Not being Dundonian, I was trying to visualize what objects there could be on the 27 approach.

The bridges are the logical guess but are they actually on the approach and high enough to negatively impact? The port sees oil rig activity but again cannot think that could be high enough to come into play.

Is the Dundee Law a factor? Not that far from the airport, but doesn't appear to impact the approach path.

Unless it's the fitba pitches under the approach at about 0.5m from touchdown?

Oil rigs and floating cranes would cause more than a little difficulty with an ILS signal.

TangoAlphad has been spot on with his description of the situation. As he says the Dundee GNSS approach has been sitting on a desk with the CAA for some time and will go a long way to help FlyBe come to terms with their operating limitations once introduced.

Passenger numbers have never been an issue on this route. However the overall efficiency may not be the best due to the hold ups at Amsterdam and the scenic tour of Fife and Angus the crews must perform when planning a circle to land on RWY27. A two hour sector time says it all.

Either way that was not the problem. Inflexible SOP's resulting in an unnecessary amount of time flying round in circles in class G airspace with the resultant RA's and an unconnected airprox. Yes, these issues should have been identified before the route started.

To answer an earlier question FlyBe Q400s can accept a 15 kt tailwind component at Dundee.

[Porrohman]

Originally Posted by TangoAlphad

Dundee caters to a lot of business jets due to them being a lot cheaper than Edi/Gla. A slope that steep would limit them unnecessarily.

Agreed but perhaps a 3.5 degree glideslope would give more vertical separation near Scone and less risk of terrain masking the ILS. Would a 15kt tailwind and a 3.5 degree glideslope during icing conditions be too challenging an approach in a Q400?

Originally Posted by TangoAlphad

And I'm not sure what you mean by extended finals.. it is a non radar procedural approach.. you can't self position further out than the CAT C approach takes you and that will be why there is a platform of 2100.. to match up with the distance on the slope that is there. While the CAT C takes you over Scone there is a letter of agreement in place which works very well and traffic at Scone doesn't tend to be any issue for Dundee.

If the Cat C ILS procedure for 09 had, let's say, a 3000ft platform (or perhaps higher?) and 10 mile finals instead of the current 6.7, taking it beyond Scone, it would be better suited to the frequent tailwind approaches at DND. It would reduce crew workload and provide more time to establish a stable approach in such conditions (especially during icing conditions when 20kts is added to Q400 speeds). It gives the added advantage of increased vertical separation from traffic at Scone. Presumably a revised Cat C approach of the type I have suggested would require testing and certification which I expect would be expensive.

Originally Posted by TangoAlphad

Dundee is a small airport and will be limited financially as to what kind of approaches they can offer. The ils onto 09 has on a few occasions been limiting but for the vast majority of the time it gets you onto 09 or circling onto 27.
There is a GPS approach very near completion which will give near ILS minima onto both 09 and 27.

The GPS approach, when approved, might resolve the issues that Flybe seem to have with the current procedures but it will depend on whether it is compatible with Flybe SOPs. Presumably Flybe will have seen sight of the proposed procedure. Perhaps they are uncomfortable with it or perhaps approval is too far away in the future or too uncertain?

Flybe should have been aware of the limitations of DND and its compatibility with the Q400 before the route commenced so I'm confused as to why they need to withdraw from the route. Didn't they do their homework beforehand or has something changed since then?