St. Helena Service
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM quite so. But in accordance with the downwind range treaty signed between the UK and the US the rights to use Wideawake are partitioned thus:- rights to the runway built by the US, strengthened by the US for use by NASA and administered by USAF Patrick AFB; all other rights for the RAF i.e. basically the pan and fuel pipeline, that is all; all else in the civil register, well in emergency under the Alan Mulally agreement [eg flight DAL201] nothing to be unreasonably withheld. I am afraid that the USAF has the last say when it come to flights. If you want clarity please ring ++247 3315 Ascension Ops and they will be happy to explain. Wideawake has always been a US aerodrome and the RAF is welcome as a lodger unit and shares certain duties but the runway is owned by Uncle Sam. I always used to welcome RAF personnel with a reminder of why seat places on trooping flights are limited to 185 pax - that is the capacity of the "Chapel of Rest" which is that wriggly tin hut down by Long Beach, nothing to do with St Mary's Church. It is the freezer. And on that cheerful note and always happy to serve with very happy memories of my time at ASI 1999-2002, especially under Maj Jeff Lowdermilk.
Last edited by mathy; 2nd Jun 2016 at 13:20. Reason: keyboard sticking
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear WHBM and others. It is not just my keyboard that is sticking. Let's try another PC.
Firstly the status of Wideawake. The UKG and USG entered into an agreement, [sometimes called a "lease" but that is an errant description], in June 1956. It is called the Bahamas Agreement and runs so long as the original is valid and for successive five year periods. Now and then an interim change is proposed to allow this or that or have something discontinued. The agreement legislates for the "Eastern Range" or "Downwind Range" off cape Canaveral but clauses have grown to include a major part of the GPS monitoring system. There is no lease, or rent although both parties reimburse the other for goods and services. Basically the USG is exempt for all charges. They did build the airfield in WW2. They did return in 1956 [the year of Suez]. They did propose the agreement and the UKG did sign it.
In one sense certain responsibilities are shared but the late Robin Cook upset a lot of apple carts so much so that some say the USG was on the point of serving notice. Unthinkable?
Wideawake divides responsibilities thus: the airfield, the tower etc is administered and more importantly belongs to the USG. Every movement be it departure or landing must be reimbursed; every landing weight is reported. Likewise every weight-and-balance sheet so that wear and tear can be assessed. The UKG carries the burden of looking after the "pan" which includes I think the fuel pipeline. [JP8 by the way].
Informally the US may accept up to four civil but non-revenue movements per month. Non-revenue means exactly that for the USG accepts no liability. The day that the USG senses that this is a commercial airport and can be treated like a hotel is the day the shutters come down. It is an airbase.
Now what happens in emergencies? Well under the so-called Alan Mulally Agreement the USG will not unreasonably withhold succour in grave or life threatening danger. If a runway is under repair or war-like preparations are underway or the Commander-in-Chief [Mr President] says so then permission to use ASI can be withheld.
You may not file Ascension as an alternate. If you do not have PPR you will be staying at what the French call "hotel gratuite" and the Brits call HMP.
Now for a bit of black humour. Ever wonder why the TriStar or A330 were limited to 185 places? Take stroll down to Long Beach and the Chapel of Rest. [Not St Mary's Church]. Its a giant freezer. Seats 185. More or less.
Firstly the status of Wideawake. The UKG and USG entered into an agreement, [sometimes called a "lease" but that is an errant description], in June 1956. It is called the Bahamas Agreement and runs so long as the original is valid and for successive five year periods. Now and then an interim change is proposed to allow this or that or have something discontinued. The agreement legislates for the "Eastern Range" or "Downwind Range" off cape Canaveral but clauses have grown to include a major part of the GPS monitoring system. There is no lease, or rent although both parties reimburse the other for goods and services. Basically the USG is exempt for all charges. They did build the airfield in WW2. They did return in 1956 [the year of Suez]. They did propose the agreement and the UKG did sign it.
In one sense certain responsibilities are shared but the late Robin Cook upset a lot of apple carts so much so that some say the USG was on the point of serving notice. Unthinkable?
Wideawake divides responsibilities thus: the airfield, the tower etc is administered and more importantly belongs to the USG. Every movement be it departure or landing must be reimbursed; every landing weight is reported. Likewise every weight-and-balance sheet so that wear and tear can be assessed. The UKG carries the burden of looking after the "pan" which includes I think the fuel pipeline. [JP8 by the way].
Informally the US may accept up to four civil but non-revenue movements per month. Non-revenue means exactly that for the USG accepts no liability. The day that the USG senses that this is a commercial airport and can be treated like a hotel is the day the shutters come down. It is an airbase.
Now what happens in emergencies? Well under the so-called Alan Mulally Agreement the USG will not unreasonably withhold succour in grave or life threatening danger. If a runway is under repair or war-like preparations are underway or the Commander-in-Chief [Mr President] says so then permission to use ASI can be withheld.
You may not file Ascension as an alternate. If you do not have PPR you will be staying at what the French call "hotel gratuite" and the Brits call HMP.
Now for a bit of black humour. Ever wonder why the TriStar or A330 were limited to 185 places? Take stroll down to Long Beach and the Chapel of Rest. [Not St Mary's Church]. Its a giant freezer. Seats 185. More or less.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Gateshead, UK
Age: 25
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
added para graph
Black humour. In the event of a major disaster you pick up the bits, bag em up and consign then to the freezer. There are no pews in the Chapel of Rest or soft organ music nor hearses waiting. If you want St Mary's then go across the road. I just did not want to spell out quite so graphically why a whacking great bird carries so few on the milk runs. On military ops different rules apply but on normal trooping and roulement the pax load is as I said about 185 of whom 25 are typically contractor ex-pats or Saints. The ex-pats have 27kg of baggage, the Saints have 54kg. Though not exactly current I have seen the disaster plan and the worst case scenario. I have flown the route many, many times both in light blue and dark blue. My pen name is the clue, approaching MATHY. Some nice fotogs. Are you a Geordie by any chance? Ex-216??
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West Midlands UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That article by Lord Ashcroft mentioned above with the quotes from the various pilots that have landed on St Helena is an eye-opener.
Most telling to me is that his own pilots advised against taking his Falcon 7X to the island. Now I'd have thought that is the sort of aircraft that could have landed on Runway 02, accepting the tailwind penalty, and, in any case could carry plenty of fuel for a diversion back to the mainland if necessary.
I'm assuming here that the turbulence etc on approach to 02 is relatively less than for Runway 20 where the King and Queen rocks blanket the approach from the SE winds. The Comair Director of Ops quoted a "relatively benign" approach from the south I seem to remember in the interview with him.
Most telling to me is that his own pilots advised against taking his Falcon 7X to the island. Now I'd have thought that is the sort of aircraft that could have landed on Runway 02, accepting the tailwind penalty, and, in any case could carry plenty of fuel for a diversion back to the mainland if necessary.
I'm assuming here that the turbulence etc on approach to 02 is relatively less than for Runway 20 where the King and Queen rocks blanket the approach from the SE winds. The Comair Director of Ops quoted a "relatively benign" approach from the south I seem to remember in the interview with him.
I get the impression that Comair have now decided that it's unsuitable for them to continue. I wonder what their insurers had/have to say about it.
I wonder what Air New Zealand crews with experience of Wellington would make of it.
I wonder what Air New Zealand crews with experience of Wellington would make of it.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Governor announces that WHBM has said a Wellington can land on St Helena.
Seriously Porto Santo and Madeira are bad enough! I would counsel SHG to exchange a bit of kitty litter for more concrete.
All the computer models in the world can only do so much for the real model is twelve inches to the foot and is called St Helena. Anyone who has set foot on Prosperous Plain knows exactly what the problems are. Short runway, rapidly changing wind speed and direction.
So before you build, if build you must, drive in two pegs, have solid
concrete all the way between them, mark the touchdown zones and anything left over is RESA. Don't bleat "but it must be 240 metres". Needs must when the devil drives. Under extenuating circumstances it can be less and in many remote areas it is less, Norfolk Island for example where I have stood with the station manager watching
four windsocks streaming in four different directions.
Their problem is exactly the same, to get people in and out, to foster tourism and have as much runway as the geography can provide. The answer is not to maximise the RESA by minimising the runway. That is like Paddy who landed athwart in smoke and dust and marvelled at the width but complained about the length.
Only an idiot puts his left foot in the right shoe. It is left foot in the CORRECT shoe. In other words Rules and How to Interpret Them.
You wonder who made the decision in the first place... about the shoes I mean. Any fool can build an airport in the wrong place. Someone just did.
Seriously Porto Santo and Madeira are bad enough! I would counsel SHG to exchange a bit of kitty litter for more concrete.
All the computer models in the world can only do so much for the real model is twelve inches to the foot and is called St Helena. Anyone who has set foot on Prosperous Plain knows exactly what the problems are. Short runway, rapidly changing wind speed and direction.
So before you build, if build you must, drive in two pegs, have solid
concrete all the way between them, mark the touchdown zones and anything left over is RESA. Don't bleat "but it must be 240 metres". Needs must when the devil drives. Under extenuating circumstances it can be less and in many remote areas it is less, Norfolk Island for example where I have stood with the station manager watching
four windsocks streaming in four different directions.
Their problem is exactly the same, to get people in and out, to foster tourism and have as much runway as the geography can provide. The answer is not to maximise the RESA by minimising the runway. That is like Paddy who landed athwart in smoke and dust and marvelled at the width but complained about the length.
Only an idiot puts his left foot in the right shoe. It is left foot in the CORRECT shoe. In other words Rules and How to Interpret Them.
You wonder who made the decision in the first place... about the shoes I mean. Any fool can build an airport in the wrong place. Someone just did.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West Midlands UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first medevac flight has taken place - evacuating a young child to Cape Town.
The plane was a Falcon 20 out of Lanseria via Walvis Bay, and it landed on Runway 02. A picture on the "What the Saints did next" blog shows the aircraft just coming over the fence (yes you can see it on the first step of the Dry Gut fill), with the windsock looking like the wind was pretty much straight across. Pilot evidently reported no particular problems with the approach/landing.
That blog is here: https://whatthesaintsdidnext.com/201...-on-st-helena/
The plane was a Falcon 20 out of Lanseria via Walvis Bay, and it landed on Runway 02. A picture on the "What the Saints did next" blog shows the aircraft just coming over the fence (yes you can see it on the first step of the Dry Gut fill), with the windsock looking like the wind was pretty much straight across. Pilot evidently reported no particular problems with the approach/landing.
That blog is here: https://whatthesaintsdidnext.com/201...-on-st-helena/
Did look a wee bit sporting just before touchdown, but it looks like they were doing a performance landing, aiming for the numbers rather than the aiming point/PAPIs. Delighted to see the airfield working for the purpose intended.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I thought so too. There was a smidge of tail wind and just when I thought you cut it a bit fine there was that slight float, close in. Jings, crivvens, a wee bit sporting? Man you have dry sense of humour that would whip aff PC Murdoch's helmet just braw. So that's the Falcon, rear engine jobby. Whit next Wullie? We must learn what we can while we can for there is no pleasing this besom wind.
i heard the RMS is now going to do 3 more r/t voyages
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mathy, when and where did the Governor say that ?
It would be most worrying if sort of a 'who is the most courageous' competition would now evolve under pressure as a result from that top secret 'task force'.
Looking back I found this:
St Helena Air Access ? Atkins
The Governor announces that WHBM has said a Wellington can land on St Helena.
Looking back I found this:
St Helena Air Access ? Atkins
Atkins is providing project management, civil and geotechnical engineering, business case and risk consultancy, market research and demographic consultancy to develop a solution for air access to St Helena.
Atkins was the first consultant to devise a technically feasible airport solution that meets international safety standards. It requires a 1950m runway on the only relatively flat area of land on this tiny, mountainous and volcanic island situated in the Atlantic Ocean. This was supported by a wide-ranging study which produced integrated technical and economic arguments.
Atkins was the first consultant to devise a technically feasible airport solution that meets international safety standards. It requires a 1950m runway on the only relatively flat area of land on this tiny, mountainous and volcanic island situated in the Atlantic Ocean. This was supported by a wide-ranging study which produced integrated technical and economic arguments.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Woodbridge, Suffolk
Age: 71
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St Helena wind shear issues
I am not a pilot, and if this thread is in the wrong place I apologise.
The Daily Mail carried a very melodramatic report to the effect that "hundreds of millions of taxpayers money has been wasted building an airport on St Helena which is unusable because of a wind shear issue that should have been foreseen". Reading it, I thought I detected some journalistic licence. :
St Helena island's £250m airport where jets can't land because it is too windy | Daily Mail Online
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_Airport
It would be nice to hear from professionals on this.
(thanks Moderators for moving this from "Rumours..." I did try to search the forum but failed to find this most enlightening thread - thanks everyone!
The Daily Mail carried a very melodramatic report to the effect that "hundreds of millions of taxpayers money has been wasted building an airport on St Helena which is unusable because of a wind shear issue that should have been foreseen". Reading it, I thought I detected some journalistic licence. :
St Helena island's £250m airport where jets can't land because it is too windy | Daily Mail Online
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_Airport
It would be nice to hear from professionals on this.
(thanks Moderators for moving this from "Rumours..." I did try to search the forum but failed to find this most enlightening thread - thanks everyone!
Last edited by Methersgate; 8th Jun 2016 at 13:40. Reason: To explain why this just popped up without reference to the rest of the thread!
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West Midlands UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CGB - I wonder what the wind was like when you were there? The only data I can find that's relevant is in the Info Memorandum calling for proposals for the air service.
It's here: http://www.flytosthelena.com/wp-cont...Memorandum.pdf
There's a wind rose which shows that the max wind is 12m/sec (I reckon that's 23 knots) with a direction of SE. There are also records of easterly (about same speed) and southerly winds of much lower intensity. So perhaps the worst case is a tailwind of about 12 knots if you use runway 02.
Now is there an aircraft that can reasonably use the 1850m runway with that sort of tailwind? That is, one that can carry a commercially viable load of passengers.
If a commercial case cannot be made, I guess that the Goverment subsidy will have to remain, perhaps at the same level as with the RMS St Helena. However, at least the islanders will have quicker access (especially for medical emergencies) and more flexibility for tourists.
Perhaps they will have to move the localizer again - to cover runway 02 instead of 20!
It's here: http://www.flytosthelena.com/wp-cont...Memorandum.pdf
There's a wind rose which shows that the max wind is 12m/sec (I reckon that's 23 knots) with a direction of SE. There are also records of easterly (about same speed) and southerly winds of much lower intensity. So perhaps the worst case is a tailwind of about 12 knots if you use runway 02.
Now is there an aircraft that can reasonably use the 1850m runway with that sort of tailwind? That is, one that can carry a commercially viable load of passengers.
If a commercial case cannot be made, I guess that the Goverment subsidy will have to remain, perhaps at the same level as with the RMS St Helena. However, at least the islanders will have quicker access (especially for medical emergencies) and more flexibility for tourists.
Perhaps they will have to move the localizer again - to cover runway 02 instead of 20!
Being involved with another potential SHL project this is not good news . Having been aware of the Comair issues from the beginning I am surprised it has taken so long to hit the main stream press.
Sadly it does seem a case of statistics outweighing the bloody obvious that you can never easily (and therefore safely) operate large jet transports into short airfields on islands because , especially with oceanic islands you get very capricious winds in terms of speed , direction and changes of both. While it does look like the 02 approach is more benign the 73 -8 has abit of a history when it comes to running off the far end. I am sure the Comair people didnt take their decisions lightly and S Africans are not feint hearted folk either, and concluded that it is too much of a risk to operate scheduled services in sucha situation. The problem is of course that because the ship is being decommisioned any aircraft serving SHL has to be a reasonable size so anything much smaller rthan a 73/A32 type cannot met the freight requirments.
No doubt the mighty 757 could do it all easily but not many of them around these days and passenger wise at least an overkill anyway.
I feel really sorry for the islanders who didnt get dealt the best hand in life born/living there and this must come as a terrible shock to them
Sadly it does seem a case of statistics outweighing the bloody obvious that you can never easily (and therefore safely) operate large jet transports into short airfields on islands because , especially with oceanic islands you get very capricious winds in terms of speed , direction and changes of both. While it does look like the 02 approach is more benign the 73 -8 has abit of a history when it comes to running off the far end. I am sure the Comair people didnt take their decisions lightly and S Africans are not feint hearted folk either, and concluded that it is too much of a risk to operate scheduled services in sucha situation. The problem is of course that because the ship is being decommisioned any aircraft serving SHL has to be a reasonable size so anything much smaller rthan a 73/A32 type cannot met the freight requirments.
No doubt the mighty 757 could do it all easily but not many of them around these days and passenger wise at least an overkill anyway.
I feel really sorry for the islanders who didnt get dealt the best hand in life born/living there and this must come as a terrible shock to them
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
Not sure, but the only one that comes to my mind is the CS100. Impressive short field and high angle capabilities, sufficient range, smaller and lighter than the 737-800 and with ca. 120 seats could be a viable option.
Comair probably too conservative and not flexible enough to add (or replace) such a new aircraft type to its fleet But I am sure there are also other thinner routes in Southern Africa where the CS100 can be used,
Even Air Namibia should have a look at the CS100.
As far as I know several lessors will offer the CSeries in 2017 if leasing is an option.
Now is there an aircraft that can reasonably use the 1850m runway with that sort of tailwind? That is, one that can carry a commercially viable load of passengers.
Comair probably too conservative and not flexible enough to add (or replace) such a new aircraft type to its fleet But I am sure there are also other thinner routes in Southern Africa where the CS100 can be used,
Even Air Namibia should have a look at the CS100.
As far as I know several lessors will offer the CSeries in 2017 if leasing is an option.
Last edited by volare7266; 8th Jun 2016 at 13:21.
Volare
As i understand it the problem is freight. St helena for years has had a regualr cargo passenger ship dedicated to serving the island-everythign thta was imported had to come that way-and as asmall island everything has to be imported.
St helena is too small and too remote for regualr marine traffic 'passing by' and has very basic port faciltiies hence the special purpose vessel.
However it was decided that if an airline rana meaning scheduled passenger service with decent freight capacity thena few ship visits a year with heavy/non urgent non perishable stuff would be fine.
The problem with C series, Embraers as I understand it is they cannot carry much cargo compared to a 73-8 and the Boeing can also trade off pax numbers for more freight weight when pax loads are light.
Thats why it looks like they have painted themselves intoa corner if the 738 or similar cannot operate-the smaller aircraft are just too small.
Apologies if I have done down the capabilites of these smaller alternatives
As i understand it the problem is freight. St helena for years has had a regualr cargo passenger ship dedicated to serving the island-everythign thta was imported had to come that way-and as asmall island everything has to be imported.
St helena is too small and too remote for regualr marine traffic 'passing by' and has very basic port faciltiies hence the special purpose vessel.
However it was decided that if an airline rana meaning scheduled passenger service with decent freight capacity thena few ship visits a year with heavy/non urgent non perishable stuff would be fine.
The problem with C series, Embraers as I understand it is they cannot carry much cargo compared to a 73-8 and the Boeing can also trade off pax numbers for more freight weight when pax loads are light.
Thats why it looks like they have painted themselves intoa corner if the 738 or similar cannot operate-the smaller aircraft are just too small.
Apologies if I have done down the capabilites of these smaller alternatives