Manchester - 3
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757Op
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
watp,iktch
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
watp,iktch
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
Still the batched landings and take offs followed by a runway full of back tracking airliners makes interesting viewing !
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AeroMANC
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
Yes, it would make sense to have the basic ILS for any time that 24R is out of use.
Scottie Dog
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North Cheshire
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chester
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the flight deck of course !!
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
