St. Helena Service
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might I suggest that this is an airport trying to find aeroplanes rather than aeroplanes trying to find an airport. Why does every lump of rock need an airport?
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West Midlands UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport anemometer system out of action
Another note in the St Helena Independent mentions that a NOTAM has been issued saying that the anemometer system is U/S. The newspaper says what the NOTAM does not, namely that the airport is out of action until it is fixed. The NOTAM quotes an end date of 10th July, which I assume allows time for spare parts to arrive on the RMS St Helena.
I am staggered by this. You'd have thought that careful consideration would have been made of all the "show stopping" vulnerabilities that exist and that adequate allowance would have been made for redundant systems or spare parts so that faulty equipment can be repaired in reasonably quick time.
I wonder what other systems don't have adequate spares?
I am staggered by this. You'd have thought that careful consideration would have been made of all the "show stopping" vulnerabilities that exist and that adequate allowance would have been made for redundant systems or spare parts so that faulty equipment can be repaired in reasonably quick time.
I wonder what other systems don't have adequate spares?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case people do not know more than one person has died on the island before a passing ship could attend. The UK has responsibilities and a duty of care to all her people. HMG recognises this. There would appear to be management shortcomings in the way the airport project has been handled.
Last edited by enicalyth; 25th Jun 2016 at 13:40. Reason: typos
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Relocating at present.
Age: 63
Posts: 115
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what other systems don't have adequate spares?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a quote:
The team at Atlantic Star have taken the decision to cancel the proposed October 2016 services between the UK and St.Helena.
Whilst we regret having to take this decision, we have done so against the background of continued uncertainty regarding flight operations on to runway 20 at St.Helena. Runway 20 faces into the prevailing trade winds and is therefore the best suited to supporting flights operating with a commercially viable payload. However, until more comprehensive and accurate data has been gathered regarding the wind effects and potential for windshear when landing on this runway it is sensible to take the conservative course of action and postpone flights.
Atlantic Star and flight operator TUIfly continue to work closely with St. Helena Government and UK DfID to establish a robust safety case for operations onto runway 20. We are also investigating an interim solution to allow commercial air access using runway 02. The tailwind that is usually experienced on this runway necessitates a reduction in the number of passengers that can be carried, which impacts significantly on the economic viability of flights.
Atlantic Star Airlines remains committed to the long term future of flights to St.Helena and the provision of a direct link to the UK from the island. We are continuing to work with our travel industry partners and other stakeholders to achieve this, and maintain an ambition to operate flights direct from the UK at Christmas as planned.
End of quote
The team at Atlantic Star have taken the decision to cancel the proposed October 2016 services between the UK and St.Helena.
Whilst we regret having to take this decision, we have done so against the background of continued uncertainty regarding flight operations on to runway 20 at St.Helena. Runway 20 faces into the prevailing trade winds and is therefore the best suited to supporting flights operating with a commercially viable payload. However, until more comprehensive and accurate data has been gathered regarding the wind effects and potential for windshear when landing on this runway it is sensible to take the conservative course of action and postpone flights.
Atlantic Star and flight operator TUIfly continue to work closely with St. Helena Government and UK DfID to establish a robust safety case for operations onto runway 20. We are also investigating an interim solution to allow commercial air access using runway 02. The tailwind that is usually experienced on this runway necessitates a reduction in the number of passengers that can be carried, which impacts significantly on the economic viability of flights.
Atlantic Star Airlines remains committed to the long term future of flights to St.Helena and the provision of a direct link to the UK from the island. We are continuing to work with our travel industry partners and other stakeholders to achieve this, and maintain an ambition to operate flights direct from the UK at Christmas as planned.
End of quote
Lets wheel the jet out and have a trip down to St Helena - the airport's open again
CANCELLATION OF NOTICE TO AIRMEN
Posted on July 1, 2016 by St Helena Government | Leave a reply
The system will be monitored daily, but St Helena Airport is once again able to accept one-off flights.
SHG
1 July 2016
Posted on July 1, 2016 by St Helena Government | Leave a reply
St Helena Airport yesterday cancelled the NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) which it had issued on 23 June 2016, advising that the wind measuring system at the Airport had been remedied, stabilised and tested.
SHG
1 July 2016
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West Midlands UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is that the VOR will be rechecked with the relocated security fencing. Perhaps then there will be a VOR/DME approach for Runway 20, and possibly Runway 02 also.
Maybe they will do some checking of the GBAS VHF Data Broadcast (VDB). I understand that the main thing necessary is to check that the VDB signal can be received error free over the required operating volume (i.e. from 23nm out to the runway threshold). The big benefit of GBAS will be providing good vertical guidance, otherwise absent with the other landing aids. (However, not many smaller aircraft are equipped with the necessary receivers as yet.)
Finally, I'd have thought that they would do a series of approaches, especially to Runway 20, over a period of a number of days, checking where exactly the windshear occurs. And also checking out the idea that a steeper approach with a significantly further displaced threshold can reduce the windshear problem.
I wonder if I'll be right?
I still think it would make sense to put more concrete down on the RESA at the O2 threshold end - far better to have something safe to run onto instead of dirt.
Maybe they will do some checking of the GBAS VHF Data Broadcast (VDB). I understand that the main thing necessary is to check that the VDB signal can be received error free over the required operating volume (i.e. from 23nm out to the runway threshold). The big benefit of GBAS will be providing good vertical guidance, otherwise absent with the other landing aids. (However, not many smaller aircraft are equipped with the necessary receivers as yet.)
Finally, I'd have thought that they would do a series of approaches, especially to Runway 20, over a period of a number of days, checking where exactly the windshear occurs. And also checking out the idea that a steeper approach with a significantly further displaced threshold can reduce the windshear problem.
I wonder if I'll be right?
I still think it would make sense to put more concrete down on the RESA at the O2 threshold end - far better to have something safe to run onto instead of dirt.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed in most respects BB. Precisely what I have been advocating a few posts earlier. When space is short pave the entire length. Take heed of Airbus and Boeing and declare an LDA of at least 1850 metres, build the darn thing and what is left over is de facto RESA.
The ICAO is a UN organisation and can make general recommendations, SHG acts on the best advice of ASSI and has the power to relax rules where local exigencies suggest it would be wise.
The thing is that SHG were stung and shamed by their inaction and massive loss of face that they insisted on 240 metres RESAs. Actually they wanted 300 metres but that is ludicrous, there would not have been any useable runway at all. It was a dog-in-the manger stunt to spike Shelco's proposals.
Shelco had in mind a 2200m declared distance for the take-off only runway and the paved length of the landing runway was to be from S15 57 00 W005 38 46 to S15 58 08 W005 38 44 which is 2090 metres exactly of solid concrete. The RESAs were to be 120 metres at each end - concrete NOT kitty litter - leaving 1850 metres LDA. Fully 300 metres more than the miniscule Atkins proposal.
But SHG forced the RESA issue. Shelco's engineers were Boeing and Arup, well aware of the winds issues and withdrew deeming the single short runway unworkable. They played no further part though SHG asked for all the records of boreholes, trial pits etc that Shelco had spent half a million pounds of their own funds gathering.
So instead of TWO runways we have ONE runway, very short but with huge RESAs. And humungous earthworks. Basil Read also proposed to do away with the culvert and SHG agreed. Something they may have cause to regret if the present runway needs more room.
Now if SHG climb down and start paving over RESA people will be entitled to ask what then was wrong with Shelco's ideas in the first place. I submit that no way was SHG going to have private enterprise interfering and their adoption of 240 metres RESAs was no more than a ruse to scupper the best laid plans of Boeing/ARUP. It was pure dog-in-the-manger stuff.
As regards the DVOR I am led to believe that "IW" who was engaged by SHG/ASSI to work up the plates is one of those who is on the case. Watch the ATNS website ATNS: AIr Traffic Management for updates.
I maintain an interest as an expatriate Saint. I will close by reminding all that this has never been about tourism per se. It is about access. Too many people have died before a ship could call and HMG has a duty of care to provide access for the needy, the infirm and those wishing to have gainful employment overseas and be free to return speedily to their families should emergencies arise. No doubt tourism will be a boost and the Saints will manage it wisely.
What have you heard me say? Bad go, Worse Come. Those are the words of Saints referring to the succession of Governors. Governors, 4000 souls on three islands need Governors?? We need energetic shirt-sleeve inspiration. Not pixx-potical Governors.
Best wishes
The ICAO is a UN organisation and can make general recommendations, SHG acts on the best advice of ASSI and has the power to relax rules where local exigencies suggest it would be wise.
The thing is that SHG were stung and shamed by their inaction and massive loss of face that they insisted on 240 metres RESAs. Actually they wanted 300 metres but that is ludicrous, there would not have been any useable runway at all. It was a dog-in-the manger stunt to spike Shelco's proposals.
Shelco had in mind a 2200m declared distance for the take-off only runway and the paved length of the landing runway was to be from S15 57 00 W005 38 46 to S15 58 08 W005 38 44 which is 2090 metres exactly of solid concrete. The RESAs were to be 120 metres at each end - concrete NOT kitty litter - leaving 1850 metres LDA. Fully 300 metres more than the miniscule Atkins proposal.
But SHG forced the RESA issue. Shelco's engineers were Boeing and Arup, well aware of the winds issues and withdrew deeming the single short runway unworkable. They played no further part though SHG asked for all the records of boreholes, trial pits etc that Shelco had spent half a million pounds of their own funds gathering.
So instead of TWO runways we have ONE runway, very short but with huge RESAs. And humungous earthworks. Basil Read also proposed to do away with the culvert and SHG agreed. Something they may have cause to regret if the present runway needs more room.
Now if SHG climb down and start paving over RESA people will be entitled to ask what then was wrong with Shelco's ideas in the first place. I submit that no way was SHG going to have private enterprise interfering and their adoption of 240 metres RESAs was no more than a ruse to scupper the best laid plans of Boeing/ARUP. It was pure dog-in-the-manger stuff.
As regards the DVOR I am led to believe that "IW" who was engaged by SHG/ASSI to work up the plates is one of those who is on the case. Watch the ATNS website ATNS: AIr Traffic Management for updates.
I maintain an interest as an expatriate Saint. I will close by reminding all that this has never been about tourism per se. It is about access. Too many people have died before a ship could call and HMG has a duty of care to provide access for the needy, the infirm and those wishing to have gainful employment overseas and be free to return speedily to their families should emergencies arise. No doubt tourism will be a boost and the Saints will manage it wisely.
What have you heard me say? Bad go, Worse Come. Those are the words of Saints referring to the succession of Governors. Governors, 4000 souls on three islands need Governors?? We need energetic shirt-sleeve inspiration. Not pixx-potical Governors.
Best wishes
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mathy
Shelco had in mind a 2200m declared distance for the take-off only runway and the paved length of the landing runway was to be from S15 57 00 W005 38 46 to S15 58 08 W005 38 44 which is 2090 metres exactly of solid concrete. The RESAs were to be 120 metres at each end - concrete NOT kitty litter - leaving 1850 metres LDA.
Last edited by volare7266; 5th Jul 2016 at 19:37. Reason: typo
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Volare
Consult the June 2001 Highpoint Rendel Report. SHG will provide a copy if you ask nicely. I am surprised that you do not have a copy particularly as you have been a very active and useful participant in this forum. I assumed that you had all documents from the St Helena access website.
Now as to maps. You have Google Earth?
Plot 15°57'16"S 5°39'42"W; 15°57'53"S 5°38'39"W and you will see that it is not strictly Prosperous Bay. The take-off runway was to be RW14 facing into wind with a paved length of 2190 metres. You will also see that the seaward end is roughly where the NDB "ST" is. As you know the long runway exploits the SE Trade winds but the high ground and cloud on Bonfire Ridge and Diana's Peak precludes the opposing direction. All these details were lodged at the time for public consultation though they are now of historical interest only. That is until the time people start asking questions as to why much of the Atkins study recommendations have not been followed up. Atkins made is clear that their studies were predicated on prescribed proving flights using the actual proposed aircraft types. There were not done. Prosperous Bay Plain is windy, turbulent and the winds across King and Queen Rocks are capricious to say the least. It is a bit late now.
This for me has been a very painful process from the beginnings in 1999 to date. I have, moderators please note, had some pretty vituperous private hate mail forcing me to discontinue my internet service provider. If you all don't mind I think I will withdraw completely. But there have been lighter moments such as when the Royal Navy completely failed to provide meteorological soundings up to 3000ft AAL but a rating flying fliying a radio controlled glider powered by a piece of knicker elastic provided subjective evidence of where and what the problems were. Just sublime.
Consult the June 2001 Highpoint Rendel Report. SHG will provide a copy if you ask nicely. I am surprised that you do not have a copy particularly as you have been a very active and useful participant in this forum. I assumed that you had all documents from the St Helena access website.
Now as to maps. You have Google Earth?
Plot 15°57'16"S 5°39'42"W; 15°57'53"S 5°38'39"W and you will see that it is not strictly Prosperous Bay. The take-off runway was to be RW14 facing into wind with a paved length of 2190 metres. You will also see that the seaward end is roughly where the NDB "ST" is. As you know the long runway exploits the SE Trade winds but the high ground and cloud on Bonfire Ridge and Diana's Peak precludes the opposing direction. All these details were lodged at the time for public consultation though they are now of historical interest only. That is until the time people start asking questions as to why much of the Atkins study recommendations have not been followed up. Atkins made is clear that their studies were predicated on prescribed proving flights using the actual proposed aircraft types. There were not done. Prosperous Bay Plain is windy, turbulent and the winds across King and Queen Rocks are capricious to say the least. It is a bit late now.
This for me has been a very painful process from the beginnings in 1999 to date. I have, moderators please note, had some pretty vituperous private hate mail forcing me to discontinue my internet service provider. If you all don't mind I think I will withdraw completely. But there have been lighter moments such as when the Royal Navy completely failed to provide meteorological soundings up to 3000ft AAL but a rating flying fliying a radio controlled glider powered by a piece of knicker elastic provided subjective evidence of where and what the problems were. Just sublime.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the June 2001 Highpoint Rendel Report is not freely available online as it was commissioned and paid for by Shelco.
However it seems Boeing had major concerns even about that concept as they said ''Because of the nature of the approaches to an aerodrome on Prosperous Bay Plain and the possibility of crosswinds in excess of 13kts, the aircraft may be performance-limited for flights in-bound to St Helena. To allow a robust assessment, flight trialling of the Prosperous Bay Plain site is recommended, to occur before the design for the chosen runway is finalised.''
Boeing concluded: '' This recommendation applies regardless of which aerodrome concept is selected.''
However it seems Boeing had major concerns even about that concept as they said ''Because of the nature of the approaches to an aerodrome on Prosperous Bay Plain and the possibility of crosswinds in excess of 13kts, the aircraft may be performance-limited for flights in-bound to St Helena. To allow a robust assessment, flight trialling of the Prosperous Bay Plain site is recommended, to occur before the design for the chosen runway is finalised.''
Boeing concluded: '' This recommendation applies regardless of which aerodrome concept is selected.''
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volare
Apologise at once.
The High-Point Rendel Report was commissioneneod by DFID/SHG NOT by Shelco.
I am not going to give you my e-mail address so that I can forward a copy. If you want the reports or any of the reports then go to the St Helena access web site and if what you want is not there apply to SHG and every assistance will be given you.
You have had ample time to collect data and clearly have not done so but somehow feel qualified to venture opinion which is your right but if you make allegations... then be careful what you say especially about who is bought and paid for.
Apologise at once.
The High-Point Rendel Report was commissioneneod by DFID/SHG NOT by Shelco.
I am not going to give you my e-mail address so that I can forward a copy. If you want the reports or any of the reports then go to the St Helena access web site and if what you want is not there apply to SHG and every assistance will be given you.
You have had ample time to collect data and clearly have not done so but somehow feel qualified to venture opinion which is your right but if you make allegations... then be careful what you say especially about who is bought and paid for.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mathy, thank you for correcting me about the High-Point Rendel Report. But I never asked for your email address, never sent you a private message and also never expected you to email me anything.
I am familiar with the St.Helena air access website.
I was under the impression there were two concepts, Shelco's 'two runways' concept and Atkins' 'one runway' concept.
What happened with St. Helena Airport is so incredible that even people - obviously less qualified than you (but who were interested in visiting the island) - dare to wonder.
I am familiar with the St.Helena air access website.
I was under the impression there were two concepts, Shelco's 'two runways' concept and Atkins' 'one runway' concept.
What happened with St. Helena Airport is so incredible that even people - obviously less qualified than you (but who were interested in visiting the island) - dare to wonder.
Last edited by volare7266; 6th Jul 2016 at 07:35.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West Midlands UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the options?
It's looking likely, as far as I can see, that the British Government will have to spend some significant amounts to get the St Helena Airport working as originally envisaged.
The runway is in the wrong position and too short for viable commercial services (e.g. using the Comair 737-800). Sure there are sub-optimal solutions using further displaced thresholds and steeper approaches, but these will not result in cheap access to the island, unless the Government provides a high subsidy to the operation.
So what could be done? First and probably cheapest would be to concrete the rest of the fill over Dry Gut. According to the runway general layout drawings, this would add another 300m to the runway length. Unfortunately, there would then be no safety area (RESA) in case of an aircraft landing late and overrunning the end. However, it might allow the touchdown point to be moved another 200 to 300m along the runway (20) which may go some way to mitigating the effects of windshear.
If this is not considered practicable, the only other thing to do is to extend the runway by further fill of the Dry Gut area. This would be expensive and difficult to achieve. The bypass channel would need to be put into a culvert (as originally proposed) and the fill would need to be found from somewhere on the island. As Prosperous Bay has already been extensively flattened by the airport project (along with its ecology), such fill may have to come from further afield. As for the original fill project, we might be talking about several hundred thousand dumper truck journeys, this time from considerably further away. The work could take another two or three years.
And who would do such a job and for what price? Basil Read may be the only practical choice for the contract, but can you see them agreeing to a fixed price? They may well have the Government over a barrel.
Are there any other possible options? I fear that St Helena may be stuck with a "regional jet" type of operation and the Government with subsidizing things into the future.
At least the new Rupert's Wharf seems to be able to berth ships OK. Small mercies.
The runway is in the wrong position and too short for viable commercial services (e.g. using the Comair 737-800). Sure there are sub-optimal solutions using further displaced thresholds and steeper approaches, but these will not result in cheap access to the island, unless the Government provides a high subsidy to the operation.
So what could be done? First and probably cheapest would be to concrete the rest of the fill over Dry Gut. According to the runway general layout drawings, this would add another 300m to the runway length. Unfortunately, there would then be no safety area (RESA) in case of an aircraft landing late and overrunning the end. However, it might allow the touchdown point to be moved another 200 to 300m along the runway (20) which may go some way to mitigating the effects of windshear.
If this is not considered practicable, the only other thing to do is to extend the runway by further fill of the Dry Gut area. This would be expensive and difficult to achieve. The bypass channel would need to be put into a culvert (as originally proposed) and the fill would need to be found from somewhere on the island. As Prosperous Bay has already been extensively flattened by the airport project (along with its ecology), such fill may have to come from further afield. As for the original fill project, we might be talking about several hundred thousand dumper truck journeys, this time from considerably further away. The work could take another two or three years.
And who would do such a job and for what price? Basil Read may be the only practical choice for the contract, but can you see them agreeing to a fixed price? They may well have the Government over a barrel.
Are there any other possible options? I fear that St Helena may be stuck with a "regional jet" type of operation and the Government with subsidizing things into the future.
At least the new Rupert's Wharf seems to be able to berth ships OK. Small mercies.
The whole thing seems to be wrapped up in excessive concern by the UK government wanting to have a Fixed Price contract without an adequate design. This was what caused the mainstream UK contractors to all walk away in the first place, because someone in the UK govt had it in for them after the experience of building the Falklands airport, which was done Cost Plus. I suppose we just add this one to the long litany of procurement failures the government has got into over time. Professionals such as Boeing (see above) were ignored because it was felt they were just wanting things done to be able to charge the project budget for them.
There was a belief that the major UK contractors (Balfour Beatty, Carillion, etc) would just take the money and subcontract the physical construction out to the likes of Basil Read anyway. Sorry, there's more to it than that, they like to do complete and working projects that can be examples for future clients. If there were these documented concerns around they would have wanted to get those understood and fully handled at the start.
There was a belief that the major UK contractors (Balfour Beatty, Carillion, etc) would just take the money and subcontract the physical construction out to the likes of Basil Read anyway. Sorry, there's more to it than that, they like to do complete and working projects that can be examples for future clients. If there were these documented concerns around they would have wanted to get those understood and fully handled at the start.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it not be possible to just land a small performance A aircraft. Preferably one that is multi use between cargo and pax.
Spending another X amount of UK taxpayer money on a white elephant surely doesn't make sense. Even if the runway was extended its not as if a 737 would have anywhere near a full load and it is total overkill.
Or just keep it for medevac only.
Spending another X amount of UK taxpayer money on a white elephant surely doesn't make sense. Even if the runway was extended its not as if a 737 would have anywhere near a full load and it is total overkill.
Or just keep it for medevac only.
From Friday's SH Independent:
Can anyone explain what all this means.
Under the name of the St Helena Government a list of Local
Traffic Regulations was recently published as a supplement
to the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) for St Helena
Airport. In the AIP published on 28 th April, 10 days after
Comair’s implementation flight landed, the 11 point section
headed Local Traffic Regulations included one reference to
the wind situation around the airport site; it simply stated,
‘Caution – severe turbulence may be experienced on final
approach.’ Another section of the AIP called Flight Proce-
dures drew attention to the wind shear problem in a two sen-
tence statement which reads ‘Severe turbulence and or wind
shear could be encountered by aircraft conducting Approach
on RWY 02/20, when the wind direction originates from the
south-east quadrant, and in excess of 20 knots at the sur-
face. This turbulence is generally associated with nearby to-
pography to the east of the runway threshold.’
The AIP supplement, published on 23 rd June replaces the origi-
nally published Local Traffic Regulations with a 17 point list of
warnings, procedures, rules and information specific to St
Helena Airport. Point 7 in the Local Traffic Regulations in-
cludes 10 items all of which refer to turbulence, wind shear
and tailwind and the procedures in place to maintain the stand-
ards of safety required at all airports.
Air Traffic Control will issue strong wind warnings to approach-
ing aircraft crew whenever a sustained wind speed of 20 knots
or more is recorded or when gusts reach 28 knots or more.
Wind shear warnings will be issued when the wind speed at
the runway touchdown area is 20 knots and the wind speed
exceeds 40 knots at 2000 feet above the airport or there is
gusting at 35 knots in the airport area. Warnings will also be
issued if a heavy shower is within 10 kilometres of the airport.
Flight crew are asked to pay close attention to the wind direc-
tion indicators (wind socks) located at both ends of the run-
way. It is pointed out, ‘wind shear and/or turbulence may be
experienced below 400 feet above the Runway threshold (at
the northern end). Onset is quick with maximum intensity
immediate’.
Flight crew are warned wind shear can also be present on the
southern final approach to the runway but it is classified as
weak or moderate. Flight crew are also asked to consider
approaching the runway from the south if wind conditions on
the northern approach are too severe. Service messages will
be issued whenever winds exceed 15 knots. St Helena Air
Traffic Control will also report every two minutes the wind speed
to flight crew approaching from the north. Flight crew will also
receive information on the downwind and flight crew can re-
quest ‘instantaneous wind read out, crosswind and tailwind
components’. It is recommended first time operators should
carry out an approach to assess the weather and wind shear
prior to landing.
St Helena’s AIP is published by Air Traffic Navigation Services
- who provide navigation services to South African Airports - in
collaboration with Air Safety Support International – a division
of the UK Civil Aviation Authority concerned with air safety
standards at airports in the British Overseas Territories. Every
airport has to publish an AIP and the layout and content is
Insert
More Wind Related Safety Measures at the Airport
standardised by international agreement through the Interna-
tional Civil Aviation Organisation. Supplements are issued
regularly on fixed dates based on 28 or 56 day cycles de-
pending on whether the information is operationally signifi-
cant or other supporting information. The changes recorded
in AIP supplements are in turn used to update flight manage-
ment systems. These computerised systems perform a wide
variety of in-flight tasks and reduce the workload for flight crews.
Other additional measures to reinforce safety at the airport
may include the installation of a Low Level Wind Shear Alert
System which consists of a network of wind speed measur-
ing devices at ground level positioned near the runway thresh-
old/ touchdown area and along the approach route. Addi-
tional weather radar may help and planes capable of a mak-
ing a steep-angled descent/ take-off are other options which
are probably being considered.
Reaction to the Local Traffic Regulations in the recent AIP
Supplement has been varied. ‘Quite comprehensive’ was one
and ‘the most restrictive set of conditions I have ever seen’
was another. A further comment was comparing these regu-
lations with London City Airport or Madeira and then they don’t
look too bad. The London City Airport regulations include the
runway will be closed when it is wet. Another regulation men-
tions that a missed approach due to wind shear should be
reported to Air Traffic Control. Another comment mentioned
the Avro RJ-85 as a plane which is capable of making a steep
angled decent and thereby avoiding the wind shear without
losing too much runway length. This plane is a regular at
London City Airport. Vince Thompson
Traffic Regulations was recently published as a supplement
to the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) for St Helena
Airport. In the AIP published on 28 th April, 10 days after
Comair’s implementation flight landed, the 11 point section
headed Local Traffic Regulations included one reference to
the wind situation around the airport site; it simply stated,
‘Caution – severe turbulence may be experienced on final
approach.’ Another section of the AIP called Flight Proce-
dures drew attention to the wind shear problem in a two sen-
tence statement which reads ‘Severe turbulence and or wind
shear could be encountered by aircraft conducting Approach
on RWY 02/20, when the wind direction originates from the
south-east quadrant, and in excess of 20 knots at the sur-
face. This turbulence is generally associated with nearby to-
pography to the east of the runway threshold.’
The AIP supplement, published on 23 rd June replaces the origi-
nally published Local Traffic Regulations with a 17 point list of
warnings, procedures, rules and information specific to St
Helena Airport. Point 7 in the Local Traffic Regulations in-
cludes 10 items all of which refer to turbulence, wind shear
and tailwind and the procedures in place to maintain the stand-
ards of safety required at all airports.
Air Traffic Control will issue strong wind warnings to approach-
ing aircraft crew whenever a sustained wind speed of 20 knots
or more is recorded or when gusts reach 28 knots or more.
Wind shear warnings will be issued when the wind speed at
the runway touchdown area is 20 knots and the wind speed
exceeds 40 knots at 2000 feet above the airport or there is
gusting at 35 knots in the airport area. Warnings will also be
issued if a heavy shower is within 10 kilometres of the airport.
Flight crew are asked to pay close attention to the wind direc-
tion indicators (wind socks) located at both ends of the run-
way. It is pointed out, ‘wind shear and/or turbulence may be
experienced below 400 feet above the Runway threshold (at
the northern end). Onset is quick with maximum intensity
immediate’.
Flight crew are warned wind shear can also be present on the
southern final approach to the runway but it is classified as
weak or moderate. Flight crew are also asked to consider
approaching the runway from the south if wind conditions on
the northern approach are too severe. Service messages will
be issued whenever winds exceed 15 knots. St Helena Air
Traffic Control will also report every two minutes the wind speed
to flight crew approaching from the north. Flight crew will also
receive information on the downwind and flight crew can re-
quest ‘instantaneous wind read out, crosswind and tailwind
components’. It is recommended first time operators should
carry out an approach to assess the weather and wind shear
prior to landing.
St Helena’s AIP is published by Air Traffic Navigation Services
- who provide navigation services to South African Airports - in
collaboration with Air Safety Support International – a division
of the UK Civil Aviation Authority concerned with air safety
standards at airports in the British Overseas Territories. Every
airport has to publish an AIP and the layout and content is
Insert
More Wind Related Safety Measures at the Airport
standardised by international agreement through the Interna-
tional Civil Aviation Organisation. Supplements are issued
regularly on fixed dates based on 28 or 56 day cycles de-
pending on whether the information is operationally signifi-
cant or other supporting information. The changes recorded
in AIP supplements are in turn used to update flight manage-
ment systems. These computerised systems perform a wide
variety of in-flight tasks and reduce the workload for flight crews.
Other additional measures to reinforce safety at the airport
may include the installation of a Low Level Wind Shear Alert
System which consists of a network of wind speed measur-
ing devices at ground level positioned near the runway thresh-
old/ touchdown area and along the approach route. Addi-
tional weather radar may help and planes capable of a mak-
ing a steep-angled descent/ take-off are other options which
are probably being considered.
Reaction to the Local Traffic Regulations in the recent AIP
Supplement has been varied. ‘Quite comprehensive’ was one
and ‘the most restrictive set of conditions I have ever seen’
was another. A further comment was comparing these regu-
lations with London City Airport or Madeira and then they don’t
look too bad. The London City Airport regulations include the
runway will be closed when it is wet. Another regulation men-
tions that a missed approach due to wind shear should be
reported to Air Traffic Control. Another comment mentioned
the Avro RJ-85 as a plane which is capable of making a steep
angled decent and thereby avoiding the wind shear without
losing too much runway length. This plane is a regular at
London City Airport. Vince Thompson