ISLE OF MAN
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By comparison the national airline's Q400's can't even get in and out, well they can but not with very many passengers.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ATR has tailwind capability of upto 15 knots (depending on variant), higher than the Q400.
The dry crosswind limit is 35 knots, higher than the Q400.
The wet crosswind limit is 4 knots lower than the Q400, but it's not a significant factor on the whole and is rarely the reason for diverts off the IOM.
There are no performance issues operating into and out of the IOM.
The aircraft is VERY reliable. Relatively few disruptions due to the aircraft or the operation.
If the IOM had a CATII ILS, then the number of weather related diverts would drop by, I estimate at least 75% if not higher. Certainly every time I have had to divert the weather has been significantly above CATII minima.
I 100% stand by what I said, it's the ideal aircraft for island connectivity which is why most island communities in Europe use them (Balerics, Canaries, Greek Island, Channel Island etc etc etc etc)
As has been said, there is a good reason why they've sold over 1,500 of them!
The only problem with the ATR on the IOM that I see if that there are only 2, I think a fleet of 3 or 4 would serve the island much better.
The dry crosswind limit is 35 knots, higher than the Q400.
The wet crosswind limit is 4 knots lower than the Q400, but it's not a significant factor on the whole and is rarely the reason for diverts off the IOM.
There are no performance issues operating into and out of the IOM.
The aircraft is VERY reliable. Relatively few disruptions due to the aircraft or the operation.
If the IOM had a CATII ILS, then the number of weather related diverts would drop by, I estimate at least 75% if not higher. Certainly every time I have had to divert the weather has been significantly above CATII minima.
I 100% stand by what I said, it's the ideal aircraft for island connectivity which is why most island communities in Europe use them (Balerics, Canaries, Greek Island, Channel Island etc etc etc etc)
As has been said, there is a good reason why they've sold over 1,500 of them!
The only problem with the ATR on the IOM that I see if that there are only 2, I think a fleet of 3 or 4 would serve the island much better.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But RVF would rather have an ATP ..... the Prune thread below is dedicated to this stellar aircraft................
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...hat-wrong.html
EVERYTHING - according to the informed opinion.....................
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...hat-wrong.html
EVERYTHING - according to the informed opinion.....................
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha, yeah I have heard it wasn't a great aircraft. The ATR would benefit from an extra 30KT in the cruise for sure, (the ATR42-5/600 has this) otherwise it's a good aircraft for the job it is designed to do
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, if the ATR is that capable, someone should tell Stobart to loosen up their restrictions a bit....
I simply don't trust them to get me on and off the Island with any kind of reliability. Never had an issue with the Q400 when they had Island based crews operating them.
I simply don't trust them to get me on and off the Island with any kind of reliability. Never had an issue with the Q400 when they had Island based crews operating them.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stobart Air operate the aircraft to the same limits as everyone else ...
the majority of problems on the IOM are weather related and the fact that the ILS operates to increased CAT I minima due to their being no approach lights on runway 26. The runway was extended and the approach lighting gantry not replaced, so rather than the standard 550m RVR required on the IOM it is 1,000m
Given that the weather is frequently 500m or below, that causes the vast majority of problems (such as yesterday).
If the airport had a CATII ILS then everytime I have had a problem and had to divert, we would have got in.
It is not the aircraft, or the airline that is the problem!
the majority of problems on the IOM are weather related and the fact that the ILS operates to increased CAT I minima due to their being no approach lights on runway 26. The runway was extended and the approach lighting gantry not replaced, so rather than the standard 550m RVR required on the IOM it is 1,000m
Given that the weather is frequently 500m or below, that causes the vast majority of problems (such as yesterday).
If the airport had a CATII ILS then everytime I have had a problem and had to divert, we would have got in.
It is not the aircraft, or the airline that is the problem!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find Stobart have quite restrictive limits put on them compared to other operators. The Viz limits were 750m before never 500. There is no RVR equipment at Ronaldsway so only Met Viz which is factored. I do believe, but happy to be corrected that Stobart do not factor the Met Viz. Which is often the problem.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: back end of beyond
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find Stobart have quite restrictive limits put on them compared to other operators. The Viz limits were 750m before never 500. There is no RVR equipment at Ronaldsway so only Met Viz which is factored. I do believe, but happy to be corrected that Stobart do not factor the Met Viz. Which is often the problem.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure you that Stobart do factor the Met vis, however EU OPS dictates that it can't be factored if the reported vis is less than 800m, so in effect, although the plates say 1,000, Stobart require a vis of 800m on the IOM.
If the Island wanted to invest any money at the airport, then upgrading to CAT II/III would be the best investment they could take, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't cost that much and the benefits would be immense.
In Stobart's defence, if the schedule is disrupted through weather, or any other issues, they do all they can to get the schedule back and are the most committed.
If the Island wanted to invest any money at the airport, then upgrading to CAT II/III would be the best investment they could take, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't cost that much and the benefits would be immense.
In Stobart's defence, if the schedule is disrupted through weather, or any other issues, they do all they can to get the schedule back and are the most committed.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: back end of beyond
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=cumbrianboy;9815353]I can assure you that Stobart do factor the Met vis, however EU OPS dictates that it can't be factored if the reported vis is less than 800m, so in effect, although the plates say 1,000, Stobart require a vis of 800m on the IOM.
If the Island wanted to invest any money at the airport, then upgrading to CAT II/III would be the best investment they could take, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't cost that much and the benefits would be immense.
In Stobart's defence, if the schedule is disrupted through weather, or any other issues, they do all they can to get the schedule back and are the most committed.[/QUOTE
Agreed, well said !!
If the Island wanted to invest any money at the airport, then upgrading to CAT II/III would be the best investment they could take, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't cost that much and the benefits would be immense.
In Stobart's defence, if the schedule is disrupted through weather, or any other issues, they do all they can to get the schedule back and are the most committed.[/QUOTE
Agreed, well said !!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ellan vannin
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If by that you mean Flybe will operate an extra flight or put on a larger aircraft of their own then you are probably correct.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, you will see, on the times disruption happens, the spare ATR from Dublin over here, but you know what, it is FlyBe's network so any decision made is made in cooperation between the two ... it's no big deal.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ellan vannin
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not a big deal, Flybe have significantly more resources and currently if I am correct the flights are still actually Flybe flights and not a franchise.
I suppose it depends on the terms of any contract Stobart have with Flybe for the IOM routes
I suppose it depends on the terms of any contract Stobart have with Flybe for the IOM routes
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, Stobart has the same RVR limits as other operators into the Isle of Man, Cumbrianboy is spot on the mark with his comments.
New ATR - 600 series aircraft with clearvision (EVS) technology installed would have a slight advantage over other aircraft however the runway lighting is still an issue. CAT II is really the only option.
Flybe/Stobart really do try their best to "get in" by carrying plenty of holding fuel and sometimes it pays off. Can't say the same for Easyjet.
The other issue is crosswind. This is where I have to admit Stobart is a bit restricted in their operations, no circling in IOM as of yet. Having said that, this is rarely an issue compared with the fog.
And in defence of ATR, the latest versions are extremely capable aircraft. EVS, PBN, STOL version (42-600S), Hot/High (Boost option), high density version (78 seats), combi version, front and/or rear door option. For pax, large stand up cabin, greater seat pitch/width, large overhead bins, very quiet, Wifi connectivity etc. Overall good reliability with minimal ground support required.
The "lack" of power is actually the selling point for ATR, extremely economical aircraft with good field performance carrying at least 70 pax. The slower cruising speed makes minimal difference on short routes up to about 300nm which is what it's designed for. It simply is the best aircraft for the job and the orders show.
Just one thing I'd change though, an APU instead of Hotel Mode !!!!!!!!!!
New ATR - 600 series aircraft with clearvision (EVS) technology installed would have a slight advantage over other aircraft however the runway lighting is still an issue. CAT II is really the only option.
Flybe/Stobart really do try their best to "get in" by carrying plenty of holding fuel and sometimes it pays off. Can't say the same for Easyjet.
The other issue is crosswind. This is where I have to admit Stobart is a bit restricted in their operations, no circling in IOM as of yet. Having said that, this is rarely an issue compared with the fog.
And in defence of ATR, the latest versions are extremely capable aircraft. EVS, PBN, STOL version (42-600S), Hot/High (Boost option), high density version (78 seats), combi version, front and/or rear door option. For pax, large stand up cabin, greater seat pitch/width, large overhead bins, very quiet, Wifi connectivity etc. Overall good reliability with minimal ground support required.
The "lack" of power is actually the selling point for ATR, extremely economical aircraft with good field performance carrying at least 70 pax. The slower cruising speed makes minimal difference on short routes up to about 300nm which is what it's designed for. It simply is the best aircraft for the job and the orders show.
Just one thing I'd change though, an APU instead of Hotel Mode !!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sun pm BA3288 LCY-IOM cancelled due to Menzies not being able to get the bussed passengers to stand 12 for ETD+15, the crew went out of hours. Someone at Eastern's crew planning dept needs some help?
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be a sign of just how short of crew Eastern may be and how disgruntled what staff they have may be if the crew wouldn't exercise a minimal amount of discretion to get the job done!