Isle of Man-3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you can't say EZY didn't give it a good try today, last Liverpool unfortunately on it's way back to LPL.
Loganair, should you have done better today? Are they CAT3 rated into LPL & MAN?
Loganair, should you have done better today? Are they CAT3 rated into LPL & MAN?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was the new firestation to house this kit is not built yet, has it even passed the design stage?
Meanwhile the new kit sits in the elements getting a wash from the salty sea air!?
Meanwhile the new kit sits in the elements getting a wash from the salty sea air!?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: N. Irish Sea
Age: 74
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they could get the airport to CAT II standard ILS then the vast majority of lost approaches would go. There is still the issue of stonking cross winds but often it's doable, it's the combination of the vis and cloud base that makes it worse (plus the IOM has no equipment for measuring RVR so it's only standard MET VIS which is reported, so actually although the plate says 1000m RVR you can land in 800m met vis because it can be multiplied if the met vis is >=800m)
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s complete rubbish. All things are equal when it comes to IOM arrivals. If LPL or MAN arrivals are the issue, Cat III will be a differentiator. Best to get your facts straight though.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the IOM is not really to do with the aircraft but more the airport. A standard CAT I approach requires 550m RVR but the IOM is 1000m because, when they extended the runway they didn't put in proper approach lighting. There is also, if my memory serves me right, an issue with doing a CAT II into the IOM because of the terrain profile at the end of the runway affects the rad alt. I am imagining EZY and Logan and the others all have the same issue coming into the IOM ..
If they could get the airport to CAT II standard ILS then the vast majority of lost approaches would go. There is still the issue of stonking cross winds but often it's doable, it's the combination of the vis and cloud base that makes it worse (plus the IOM has no equipment for measuring RVR so it's only standard MET VIS which is reported, so actually although the plate says 1000m RVR you can land in 800m met vis because it can be multiplied if the met vis is >=800m)
If they could get the airport to CAT II standard ILS then the vast majority of lost approaches would go. There is still the issue of stonking cross winds but often it's doable, it's the combination of the vis and cloud base that makes it worse (plus the IOM has no equipment for measuring RVR so it's only standard MET VIS which is reported, so actually although the plate says 1000m RVR you can land in 800m met vis because it can be multiplied if the met vis is >=800m)
Another significant issue for low viz ops at EGNS, is on RWY08 the ILS is offset from the runway by 4 degrees. So when you pop out of cloud you’re not actually pointing at the runway. The aircraft needs to be visually manoeuvred to line up with the runway. The higher minimas for that runway reflect that.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach lighting actually becomes less important with low viz approaches. For a Cat III approach the approach lighting being u/s has no effect on your minima because you’ll never actually see it if landing in actual minimums.
Another significant issue for low viz ops at EGNS, is on RWY08 the ILS is offset from the runway.
Another significant issue for low viz ops at EGNS, is on RWY08 the ILS is offset from the runway.
Another problem with 08 is the PAPIs are set to a different angle to the approach so getting 2 reds and 2 whites on an accurately flown approach at minima isn’t a given.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach lighting actually becomes less important with low viz approaches. For a Cat III approach the approach lighting being u/s has no effect on your minima because you’ll never actually see it if landing in actual minimums.
Another significant issue for low viz ops at EGNS, is on RWY08 the ILS is offset from the runway by 4 degrees. So when you pop out of cloud you’re not actually pointing at the runway. The aircraft needs to be visually manoeuvred to line up with the runway. The higher minimas for that runway reflect that.
Another significant issue for low viz ops at EGNS, is on RWY08 the ILS is offset from the runway by 4 degrees. So when you pop out of cloud you’re not actually pointing at the runway. The aircraft needs to be visually manoeuvred to line up with the runway. The higher minimas for that runway reflect that.
the isle of man is no where near CAT III and the aircraft that mainly use it are hot cat III capable.
if there was a way to get CAT II that would help more than anything else.
I’ve spent enough time at Kelly to have worked these things out …
Join Date: May 2015
Location: London
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Lfc84 could explain why on many times in the past when there has been fog EasyJet flights have been diverted back to Gatwick and London City have landed !