Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Manchester - 3

Old 1st Oct 2006, 17:28
  #121 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: manchester
Posts: 67
Globespan Cape Town now down to twice a week all winter and looks to be replaced by Canadian destinations from April
initial is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 09:43
  #122 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 72
RW24L in poor weather

At the moment 24R is closed at night for maintenance. If the weather is poor, it's supposed to be reopened so that the ILS can be used.

So how come I've had to do two approaches over the last few nights, both using RW24L VOR/DME in heavy rain and crosswind with the approach lights only appearing at "100 above" (550ft above the airport)?

In my airline, VOR approaches are commonplace but in many airlines they are unusual and such an approach under these conditions would have an unacceptably high risk.

Would someone from MAPlc or ATC care to comment, please?
757operator is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 18:07
  #123 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 34
RWY24L Poor Weather

757 Operator,

As you say, the minima for VOR approaches varies from one operator to another - each airline should ensure the Airport and ATC are aware of their operating minima so they can take this into account when planning work on the runway. Why not file an ASR and insist on feedback via the usual safety reporting channels?
AeroMANC is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 22:25
  #124 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 72
No, all operators do have the same minima (subject maybe to small national variations in how to apply them). It's just that some operators are unaccustomed to doing VOR approaches, let alone down to minima in a crosswind and heavy rain. Tempting them to do so invites trouble.

There's nothing illegal or theoretically unsafe about what is going on, so an ASR is not really applicable. But it still seems to me to be bad practice.
757operator is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 06:50
  #125 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 75
Posts: 2,023
First, the good news. No more runway closures until after Christmas
Second, the bad news. 140 days of single runway ops next year
Third, the really bad news. Runway 24R will be resurfaced in 2008
As ATC, we "discuss" runway closures, and try to minimise any disruption, but at the end of the day, it's MA's airport.
Looking on the bright side. In the past, when any runway work was done on the "Single Runway" as was, the Airlines either rescheduled or diverted. Now there is runway 24L/06R. As an aside, if the forecast is not very good, work on 24R is either postponed, or kept to a minimum, so that a "fully equipped" [ILS] runway is available.
Hope this helps
chiglet is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 08:28
  #126 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 862
I bet MAPLC wished they had spent a few more pounds on building a full taxiway system for the new runway, i thought it was very short sighted at the time and i am just a lay man, what do i know ?

Still the batched landings and take offs followed by a runway full of back tracking airliners makes interesting viewing !
MAN777 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 08:57
  #127 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
I may be wrong but was it not one of the deals to the Mobberly/eco set that the taxiway would not be built all the way intially

GOLF-INDIA BRAVO is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 12:53
  #128 (permalink)  
Sir George Cayley
Posts: n/a
GIB I'm sure that's part of it but,

Geoff Muirhead axed the taxiway to save in the order of 10 million and the 24L ILS to save 1.5 million

The 06R ILS was installed at CAT l standards.

Sir George Cayley
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 15:35
  #129 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 72
Chiglet et al, thanks for the info.

Well, if that's what's coming over the next couple of years, now's the time to fit a RW24L ILS. Cat 1 would be fine.

For one of UK's foremost airports to have only a primitive approach aid on the secondary runway is laughable - and £1.5m will seem cheap if even one aircraft gets it wrong.

Also, RW24L is where they try and get the emergencies to land, so as to keep 24R free. Now I've tried RW24L with two engines, I certainly won't be using it on one engine. Sorry MAPlc, but I'll be insisting on an ILS to RW24R and sorry about clogging up your airport for a few hours.
757operator is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 17:41
  #130 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 34
Chiglet has confirmed what I was told today, 140 nights of runway closures next year, resurfacing 2008. I understand MA are considering the installation of an ILS for RWY24L on this basis - not sure whether this would be to CAT1 or 3 standard. As 757operator suggests,we airlines should insist on this over the coming months.
AeroMANC is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 18:08
  #131 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 71
Posts: 979

I suspect it would have to be Cat 1 only as the present lighting is only to that level and I presume it would take too long and be too expense to do an upgrade of the lighting - or are the ducts there already?

Yes, it would make sense to have the basic ILS for any time that 24R is out of use.

Scottie Dog
Scottie Dog is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 19:17
  #132 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 34
24l & 06r Catiii

MA need to consider CAT3 ILS/Lighting - CAT1 doesn't help much in dense fog! Even if there are safety issues concerning dual runway operations in LVP, CAT3 ILS for 24L & 06R would at least keep the place ticking over when 24R & 06L is out of service for long periods. You would assume ducting is already in place for reduced spacing on the centreline. TDZ and Supplementary Approach could be a problem if ducting wasn't installed during the construction.
AeroMANC is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 22:54
  #133 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Runway designation is changing next year to 05L/R & 23L/R. Does anyone have any idea why
cleared for take off is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 23:26
  #134 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North Cheshire
Posts: 29
Question No Complaints ?

Having just worked the last two night duties in ATC ( Sunday and Monday), during the inclement weather referred to by " 757 operator ", there was only one period of around six minutes where the weather criteria for VOR / DME approaches, neared the recommended minima (It never fell below). One aircraft executed a go-around during this, followed by a landing some twelve minutes later.
During this whole period I only recieved one observation from a crew after landing, that the weather at the time was " marginal ".
If we are not told that crews are experiencing problems by the crews themselves, and all our conditions for VOR / DME approaches are being met, then we have no reason to suspect that all is not well!!
There are contingencies that should the weather deteriorate below minima, or it is considered that difficulties will be experienced, then we can revert to 24R within 30 - 50 minutes if work on the runway has already started.
To answer "Cleared for take-off's" point about runway designation change, it's all due to the change in the earths magnetic field, called variation. The Magnetic direction for our runway will now err more to 230 degrees than 240 degrees and like wise of course with the reciprocal, thus the need for change.
One idea being put forward however, but not receiving much support, is that to avoid ANY possible confusion between which of the two runways to expect on approach, crossing on the ground, and SIDS for departure, (and believe me sometimes there is a lot of confusion!), is to leave one of them alone, and just rename one to 23 / 05. Would that cause much confusion in the cockpit flying heading 234 to a runway called 24 ?? Comments appreciated.
Lord Toofouright is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2006, 07:05
  #135 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,046
is to leave one of them alone, and just rename one to 23 / 05.
Standard practice in the rest of the world q.v. ATL, HKG, IAH etc etc...
ETOPS is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2006, 17:30
  #136 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 478
I have heard MAN is to possibly get a new service to Madrid with a low cost operator. Anyone know anything? Air Madrid, Spanair?
Vuelo is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2006, 17:53
  #137 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 89

Maybe CLICK............

ManchesterMan is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2006, 18:16
  #138 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chester
Posts: 51
easyJet maybe? The EZ/MAN rumour has been flying round for ages. Trying MAN from an existing base could test the waters?

bmiBaby- with 4 aircraft becoming available (2x new, 2xMME) and 3 going to BHX, MAD could be part of an expansion from MAN

Jet2- They already have Spain covered from MAN, so Madrid would be a logical choice. They would be my favourite to serve the city.

Ryanair- if MAD does ever become a base, as was rumoured some time ago, then MAN could benefit from a route- this is highly unlikely I guess, but possible.

Vueling- entering the UK market must be highly lucrative, but very competitive, so having gained brand recognition in Spain they might be ina good position to give the UK a go?

It really could be anyone!
Euroboy39 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2006, 19:03
  #139 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 180
As of 2nd November 2006, Mahan Air will change its flights TO

Thursdays arriving at 1730hrs, departing 1900hrs

Saturdays arriving at 1800hrs, departing at 1930hrs
gayrugbybloke is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2006, 19:29
  #140 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the flight deck of course !!
Posts: 475
Jet2- They already have Spain covered from MAN, so Madrid would be a logical choice. They would be my favourite to serve the city.

and what about Monarch ?
ICING AOA is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.