SOUTHEND 5
The Flybe timetable shows the Jota RJ as operating the following SEN routes:
From 7th May until 31st August it will operate all flights to BUD, CGN (except Tuesday), LYS, REU and VCE. It will also operate DBV on Tuesdays and PGF and Sundays. From 1st September all flights are shown as being operated by Stobart Air.
From 7th May until 31st August it will operate all flights to BUD, CGN (except Tuesday), LYS, REU and VCE. It will also operate DBV on Tuesdays and PGF and Sundays. From 1st September all flights are shown as being operated by Stobart Air.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks! I have sat and read the list of messages recently, a little bemused, a smirk on my face, but until now stayed unopinionated. Not wishing to get too depressed about the patch of weeds that used to be outside the terminal to attract butterflies and insects (we have 300 yards of this stuff standing 2 feet high around the Luxembourg terminal), it's the subject of Southend's future which interests me most, and of course nobody knows the true answer. What I do know is that on the north side of the old apron construction work is taking place to provide 5 parking bays for A320 size aircraft. The target is to attract Wizzair and more Easyjet operations. Yes, it's a wait and see what happens for next year, but at least Stobarts seem to be planning ahead to have more parking for airliners. As to the amount of movements per hour, I am not sure how this would be accurately calculated considering the runway and taxiways layout. For sure, the airport is VERY under utilised for most of the day at present. As for EZY moving up to 20 aircraft into SEN; I just cannot see why a major airline should do such a thing whilst SEN will always have the same length runway and only CAT1 ILS. A lot depends how the new Stobart/FlyBe flights sell during the first 12 months of operation, or indeed if they make a good profit. As for the pile of rubbish dumped near the new tower; yes it must and will be moved eventually.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
With respect to ILS capability, couldn't LSA be capable of Lower Than Standard Category I ops? Assuming that the 'new' ILS installations are of the latest technical standard, LSA seems to comply with the necessary requirements with the exception of a 'Full Approach Lighting System'. However, also assuming that the existing CL 4 Bar complies with the 'Basic Approach Lighting System' then LTSC 1 ops to 200ft DH/500m RVR should be possible, at least on Rwy 23?
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks! I have sat and read the list of messages recently, a little bemused, a smirk on my face, but until now stayed unopinionated. Not wishing to get too depressed about the patch of weeds that used to be outside the terminal to attract butterflies and insects (we have 300 yards of this stuff standing 2 feet high around the Luxembourg terminal), it's the subject of Southend's future which interests me most, and of course nobody knows the true answer. What I do know is that on the north side of the old apron construction work is taking place to provide 5 parking bays for A320 size aircraft. The target is to attract Wizzair and more Easyjet operations. Yes, it's a wait and see what happens for next year, but at least Stobarts seem to be planning ahead to have more parking for airliners. As to the amount of movements per hour, I am not sure how this would be accurately calculated considering the runway and taxiways layout. For sure, the airport is VERY under utilised for most of the day at present. As for EZY moving up to 20 aircraft into SEN; I just cannot see why a major airline should do such a thing whilst SEN will always have the same length runway and only CAT1 ILS. A lot depends how the new Stobart/FlyBe flights sell during the first 12 months of operation, or indeed if they make a good profit. As for the pile of rubbish dumped near the new tower; yes it must and will be moved eventually.
P.S. When I lived in Luxembourg I never did find their domestic departures area ... where is it again?
I believe a considerable amount of the necessary work for LTSC 1 ops for 23 was carried out some time ago but it seems to be on the back burner at present. I would imagine that if there was airline input encouraging it then this would be moved forward again.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, if it's already been mentioned, but it looks like the PowdAir service to Sion is on starting 17th December. Trade Air (Croatia) will provide a F100.
Last edited by DC3 Dave; 26th Apr 2017 at 12:32.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest i've seen about Powdair is that tickets are due on sale from early May. They now want to use an A319 instead of a Fokker 100. Also Swiss have announced they will resume seasonal flights from LHR-Sion this winter, so don't know how that will affect a potential SEN-Sion route. I guess we'll find out soon one way or the other. It's certainly an ambitious schedule they propose.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that Powdair is a registered company in Ireland. Earlier in the year it was described as a "virtual airline". So what exactly is that? Is it somebody sitting on a computer setting up and offering tickets for sale, but if not enough are sold, the project ceases? I wont believe it until LSA announce it officially.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virtual airline basically means they don't have their own AOC, so will rely on an ACMI operator initially to run flights on their behalf. They are seeking to obtain an AOC for operations beyond W17/18, presumably this will be dependent on how well this season's flights go.
ILS Lower Than Standard Category 1
The drawback with LTSC 1 ops, as I understand it, is the requirement for additional on board equipment in the form of HUD or EVS and associated crew training. The total costs would be considerable and an airline would question whether the expenditure was justifiable.
The range of RVRs in which the benefit could be gained will be roughly in the region of 400-700m.. In the UK RVRs of these values tend to be transient, in that they are most likely to be found when fog is in process of clearing or forming. The advantage period can be short. Mature fogs tend to stabilise at a much lower figure such that only Cat 3 is possible.
I can understand .that SEN management looked at LTSC 1 and I suspect I know why they did not proceed with it. To the airport it may have looked like an economical way to achieve lower operating minima in that there was presumably no requirement for extra ground equipment. There would still be the certification costs, and as we know CAA costs tend to be not insubstantial.
So they could spend the money only to find there was no operator ready or willing to use the facility.
The range of RVRs in which the benefit could be gained will be roughly in the region of 400-700m.. In the UK RVRs of these values tend to be transient, in that they are most likely to be found when fog is in process of clearing or forming. The advantage period can be short. Mature fogs tend to stabilise at a much lower figure such that only Cat 3 is possible.
I can understand .that SEN management looked at LTSC 1 and I suspect I know why they did not proceed with it. To the airport it may have looked like an economical way to achieve lower operating minima in that there was presumably no requirement for extra ground equipment. There would still be the certification costs, and as we know CAA costs tend to be not insubstantial.
So they could spend the money only to find there was no operator ready or willing to use the facility.
Last edited by Tagron; 26th Apr 2017 at 23:06. Reason: Full title
Tagron
I think you sum up the situation very well. As I said in my previous post ".... if there was airline input encouraging it then this would be moved forward again." Previously I believe Airbus were going to do trials but they dropped the idea for some reason and easyJet seem content with the current situation. One could draw the conclusion from that fact that their commercial agreement with LSA caters for the diversion situation to their satisfaction.
In December last I carried out a study of SEN RVR readings over a two day foggy period. During that time there were 57 RVR readings reported in the METARs and 86% of those were below 700m. Only 19% observations were between 400m and 700m which supports Tagron's suggestion that these were transient during periods of decreasing or increasing visibility.
My understanding of LTSC 1 Ops is that approved minima can be as low as 400m with appropriate App Lighting. I believe that SEN could currently potentially be approved for 450m with the existing lighting which, on the face of it, sounds a useful improvement. However, only 5% of RVR readings were between 400m and 500m and 7% between 500m and 600m so the number of times that LTSC 1 would allow approaches which cannot be made under the current situation would be very small.
All other things being equal it would obviously be advantageous to try to gain LTSC 1 approval but the economics of doing so may weigh against its operational advantages as things stand. For example there is not currently a wave of arrivals in the early morning but if that were to change then perhaps the subject might be revisited.
I think you sum up the situation very well. As I said in my previous post ".... if there was airline input encouraging it then this would be moved forward again." Previously I believe Airbus were going to do trials but they dropped the idea for some reason and easyJet seem content with the current situation. One could draw the conclusion from that fact that their commercial agreement with LSA caters for the diversion situation to their satisfaction.
In December last I carried out a study of SEN RVR readings over a two day foggy period. During that time there were 57 RVR readings reported in the METARs and 86% of those were below 700m. Only 19% observations were between 400m and 700m which supports Tagron's suggestion that these were transient during periods of decreasing or increasing visibility.
My understanding of LTSC 1 Ops is that approved minima can be as low as 400m with appropriate App Lighting. I believe that SEN could currently potentially be approved for 450m with the existing lighting which, on the face of it, sounds a useful improvement. However, only 5% of RVR readings were between 400m and 500m and 7% between 500m and 600m so the number of times that LTSC 1 would allow approaches which cannot be made under the current situation would be very small.
All other things being equal it would obviously be advantageous to try to gain LTSC 1 approval but the economics of doing so may weigh against its operational advantages as things stand. For example there is not currently a wave of arrivals in the early morning but if that were to change then perhaps the subject might be revisited.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Express Flight and Tagron:
Thanks for your inputs wrt the LTSC 1 ops query I posted. I must admit that, based on (inter alia) the following:
https://ww1.jeppesen.com/company/pub...SA_AIR_OPS.pdf
(Para 11 SPA.LVO.110 General operating requirements a. 1. i)
I understood that if the aircraft and crew were CAT II auto-land capable, trained and current and the ILS signal was of CAT IIIA quality (which I understand is the case at LSA on both ends), then an auto-coupled approach was permitted without the need to utilise additional HUD or EVS systems.
Not being a Flt Ops bod, I take it this is not the case then?
Thanks for your inputs wrt the LTSC 1 ops query I posted. I must admit that, based on (inter alia) the following:
https://ww1.jeppesen.com/company/pub...SA_AIR_OPS.pdf
(Para 11 SPA.LVO.110 General operating requirements a. 1. i)
I understood that if the aircraft and crew were CAT II auto-land capable, trained and current and the ILS signal was of CAT IIIA quality (which I understand is the case at LSA on both ends), then an auto-coupled approach was permitted without the need to utilise additional HUD or EVS systems.
Not being a Flt Ops bod, I take it this is not the case then?
Downwind.Maddl-land
I admit that I didn't know HUD or EVS was necessary but assumed that Tagron was correct in stating it to be so. Perhaps he can confirm one way or the other. I do know however that Airbus were planning to do some test flying, at JER I think it was, so there must be a little more to it than just crew currency being needed.
I admit that I didn't know HUD or EVS was necessary but assumed that Tagron was correct in stating it to be so. Perhaps he can confirm one way or the other. I do know however that Airbus were planning to do some test flying, at JER I think it was, so there must be a little more to it than just crew currency being needed.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it would be, and very much justified. Flights are often sold out. Also notice CDG drops to 2 weekly in November, then up to 3 weekly after then. I believe it was originally 4 weekly when it started. Also good that LYS hasn't been dropped with the introduction of BE competition.
Downwind.Maddi-Land
Thank you for posting that source material included in which is the circumstance in which HUD is not required for LTSC 1. It seemed to me however that SEN operations could not meet the requirement: -
"autocoupled to an autoland that needs to be approved for CAT 3A operations." (SPA.LVO.110 General Operation Requirements 2)
As we know, the SEN runways cannot be approved for Cat 3A and for reasons not connected with the ILS performance. Additionally RW05 has a 3.5 degree glideslope, which is outside the certification parameters for a Cat 3 ILS. On that basis SEN would not be exempted from the HUD requirement..
Your view that it only needs the ILS signal to be of Cat 3A standard is an interesting one. To my mind it doesn't seem to be supported by the wording of the above rule and I am curious as to whether your "inter alia" sources give a different slant.
Expressflight
My observation on RVR values was based on research published in the early days of autoland by either the Blind Landing Experimental Unit or BEA's AWOPS team (Can't remember which). It was statistically based then, I have always found it to be broadly accurate in the UK and it is interesting see your own SEN observations reach a similar conclusion nearly 50 years later. At the time it lead to the conclusion that Cat 2 was not very useful in the UK scenario and that airports and airlines should go straight to Cat 3 wherever possible.
As an open question, can anyone tell us the present AOM used by EasyJet at SEN, and whether Cat 1 autoland is authorised ?
Thank you for posting that source material included in which is the circumstance in which HUD is not required for LTSC 1. It seemed to me however that SEN operations could not meet the requirement: -
"autocoupled to an autoland that needs to be approved for CAT 3A operations." (SPA.LVO.110 General Operation Requirements 2)
As we know, the SEN runways cannot be approved for Cat 3A and for reasons not connected with the ILS performance. Additionally RW05 has a 3.5 degree glideslope, which is outside the certification parameters for a Cat 3 ILS. On that basis SEN would not be exempted from the HUD requirement..
Your view that it only needs the ILS signal to be of Cat 3A standard is an interesting one. To my mind it doesn't seem to be supported by the wording of the above rule and I am curious as to whether your "inter alia" sources give a different slant.
Expressflight
My observation on RVR values was based on research published in the early days of autoland by either the Blind Landing Experimental Unit or BEA's AWOPS team (Can't remember which). It was statistically based then, I have always found it to be broadly accurate in the UK and it is interesting see your own SEN observations reach a similar conclusion nearly 50 years later. At the time it lead to the conclusion that Cat 2 was not very useful in the UK scenario and that airports and airlines should go straight to Cat 3 wherever possible.
As an open question, can anyone tell us the present AOM used by EasyJet at SEN, and whether Cat 1 autoland is authorised ?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly the additional AMS flight on Friday (12:30 arrival) and Sunday in February (10:55 arrival) are operated by an AMS based A319. Is the idea that if bookings are high they can make it regular? No 4th rotation is bookable in March at the moment.
Also are Wizz Air's A320's capable of using SEN's runway? I don't know how the EZY engine's take-off performance compares to that of WZZ's, but if they are 'targeting' them I guess operations must be possible.
Also are Wizz Air's A320's capable of using SEN's runway? I don't know how the EZY engine's take-off performance compares to that of WZZ's, but if they are 'targeting' them I guess operations must be possible.
Last edited by tws123; 28th Apr 2017 at 13:13.