Isle of Man-3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were to SAABs HUD equipped, approved and drivers checked out to use them? If so then I think RVR minima goes down to 350m generally but local rules might be different.
I'm sure the drivers would be well skilled in being steep operational checked out for LCY.
I'm sure the drivers would be well skilled in being steep operational checked out for LCY.
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2000s were Cat II, same as the ATR, but the HUDs were never used in the UK by either operator. They had sensibly been removed from several aircraft as it was all too easy to smack your head on them getting in and out of the seat.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lighting requirements for Cat II/III includes supplementary red approach lights for the inner 300m and runway touchdown zone lights. Also whilst the runway has centreline lights they are at 30m spacing and for Cat II/III ops it is desirable to have 15m spacing. As mentioned for Cat II/III approaches radio altimeter is used and if the pre-landing threshold area is not suitable for this then this may be a factor.
Regarding the minima for Cat I approaches the length of the approach light system does affect this and different operators will have different minima. In the case of runway 26 the approach light length is published as 360m which puts in to the "basic" category for air operations.
Airports have to make business decisions on whether the cost of installing Cat II/III approach and runway lighting and upgrading the ILS is actually worth it given the type and frequency of traffic being experienced and perhaps IOM decided it was too difficult because of the topography and wasn't worth the investment because of both, therefore wasn't worth the investment. Other airports I can think of which frequently experience low visibility but which have Cat I facilities only are in the Channel Islands..
Regarding the minima for Cat I approaches the length of the approach light system does affect this and different operators will have different minima. In the case of runway 26 the approach light length is published as 360m which puts in to the "basic" category for air operations.
Airports have to make business decisions on whether the cost of installing Cat II/III approach and runway lighting and upgrading the ILS is actually worth it given the type and frequency of traffic being experienced and perhaps IOM decided it was too difficult because of the topography and wasn't worth the investment because of both, therefore wasn't worth the investment. Other airports I can think of which frequently experience low visibility but which have Cat I facilities only are in the Channel Islands..
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Musket90
Other airports I can think of which frequently experience low visibility but which have Cat I facilities only are in the Channel Islands..
Would help alot with the IOM if they could get LTS CAT 1 certified.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Dct_Mopas. I understand Jersey has full facilties for 26 approach lighting (5 x crossbar 914 length) which I think helps as reading the rules for air operations about LTS Cat I it would suggest if the approach lighting length is "Basic" then 600m RVR/CMV would be the minima for LTS Cat I. I might have got this wrong though !
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the Extension was done, the GP antenna was moved to the other side and relocated 60m closer to the sea. This was against the strong advice of all of the Island Operators present at an operations meeting held prior to this. The result was the minima was raised from 750m to 1000m as they effectively lost a line of approach lights to the threshold lighting.
Again, Auto landing aircraft must add to their landing distance usually 300m or so. Once you do that the runway length becomes marginal. CAT 2 approaches will never work when you are over the sea at 100ft. For a Cat 3 you'd be at 50ft and over the undershoot tarmac.
The only way that Ronaldsway would achieve all weather capability is to extend over the road. That isn't going to happen. it was shown many times to the airport director that the embedded lighting was poor compared to the previous gantry system, but she never really seemed to get it or care. So we have what we have. An airport where hardly anything actually works, be it car park barriers, radar, doors, escalator, cafe, you name it. There are a few fundamental things need sorting before they even look at improving aircraft's chances of getting in on foggy days.
Again, Auto landing aircraft must add to their landing distance usually 300m or so. Once you do that the runway length becomes marginal. CAT 2 approaches will never work when you are over the sea at 100ft. For a Cat 3 you'd be at 50ft and over the undershoot tarmac.
The only way that Ronaldsway would achieve all weather capability is to extend over the road. That isn't going to happen. it was shown many times to the airport director that the embedded lighting was poor compared to the previous gantry system, but she never really seemed to get it or care. So we have what we have. An airport where hardly anything actually works, be it car park barriers, radar, doors, escalator, cafe, you name it. There are a few fundamental things need sorting before they even look at improving aircraft's chances of getting in on foggy days.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RVF750
When the Extension was done, the GP antenna was moved to the other side and relocated 60m closer to the sea. This was against the strong advice of all of the Island Operators present at an operations meeting held prior to this. The result was the minima was raised from 750m to 1000m as they effectively lost a line of approach lights to the threshold lighting.
Again, Auto landing aircraft must add to their landing distance usually 300m or so. Once you do that the runway length becomes marginal. CAT 2 approaches will never work when you are over the sea at 100ft. For a Cat 3 you'd be at 50ft and over the undershoot tarmac.
The only way that Ronaldsway would achieve all weather capability is to extend over the road. That isn't going to happen. it was shown many times to the airport director that the embedded lighting was poor compared to the previous gantry system, but she never really seemed to get it or care. So we have what we have. An airport where hardly anything actually works, be it car park barriers, radar, doors, escalator, cafe, you name it. There are a few fundamental things need sorting before they even look at improving aircraft's chances of getting in on foggy days.
Again, Auto landing aircraft must add to their landing distance usually 300m or so. Once you do that the runway length becomes marginal. CAT 2 approaches will never work when you are over the sea at 100ft. For a Cat 3 you'd be at 50ft and over the undershoot tarmac.
The only way that Ronaldsway would achieve all weather capability is to extend over the road. That isn't going to happen. it was shown many times to the airport director that the embedded lighting was poor compared to the previous gantry system, but she never really seemed to get it or care. So we have what we have. An airport where hardly anything actually works, be it car park barriers, radar, doors, escalator, cafe, you name it. There are a few fundamental things need sorting before they even look at improving aircraft's chances of getting in on foggy days.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
Is this all understood over there ? Sounds like a big step backwards so there must have been reasons ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They could already get A320 and B737 and the occasional B757 in. Just quite compromised in terms of load for departures. It was indeed a big step backwards, wanted by nobody and has caused issues that continue. Then again, nothing done by IOM politicians in the last 20 years has gone right......Wit hthe exception of the Pinewood sharess, that turned a profit.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: BMA
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pabely
Hats off to EZY when the LPL went tech today, sent a replacement from MAN and pax now at their destination.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can keep a delay under three hours, you avoid 261 compensation and so you do everything you practically can to minimise the delay. I wouldn't have thought the fact it's the Isle of Man really has anything to do with it - it's a delay in the network and a capable Ops team should be trying to keep it short.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BA318
Surprising considering how some users here constantly tell us Easyjet don’t care about the IOM and it’s passengers.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Albert Hall
If you can keep a delay under three hours, you avoid 261 compensation and so you do everything you practically can to minimise the delay. I wouldn't have thought the fact it's the Isle of Man really has anything to do with it - it's a delay in the network and a capable Ops team should be trying to keep it short.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: London
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BA318
Surprising considering how some users here constantly tell us Easyjet don’t care about the IOM and it’s passengers.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Albert Hall
If you can keep a delay under three hours, you avoid 261 compensation and so you do everything you practically can to minimise the delay. I wouldn't have thought the fact it's the Isle of Man really has anything to do with it - it's a delay in the network and a capable Ops team should be trying to keep it short.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: BMA
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loganair are relaunching IOM-LCY from 19th April (6weekly rising to 10 weekly in May) and IOM-LHR from 3rd May (daily)
Source: Seanm1997 on Twitter
Time for the IOM to use it or lose it.
Source: Seanm1997 on Twitter
Time for the IOM to use it or lose it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: N. Irish Sea
Age: 73
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BA318
Loganair are relaunching IOM-LCY from 19th April (6weekly rising to 10 weekly in May) and IOM-LHR from 3rd May (daily)
Source: Seanm1997 on Twitter
Time for the IOM to use it or lose it.
Source: Seanm1997 on Twitter
Time for the IOM to use it or lose it.
Also from 3 May Loganair are launching one daily rotation IOM-LHR (Heathrow)
