BUZZ and Astaeus at LBA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUZZ and Astaeus at LBA
According to the rumour mill both Buzz and Astaeus are looking to set up at Leeds. LBA seems to be undergoing quite and expansion at the moment, I am not sure if the airport can sustain this level of traffic. I have yet to see how the low cost operators will cope every time they have to divert when there is LBA's famous fog coverings throughout the winter, might damage there marghins a bit too much
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Penarth South Wales
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astraeus in Leeds
Ahh, the joys of a rumour network.
1. Astraeus is a charter airline. The only reason we would go to Leeds is some tour operators asked us to do some flying for them out of LBA.We are doing a couple of day trips at the moment for Transsun. On the other hand, Buzz is a low cost scheduled carrier that has to find it's own passengers. Chalk and Cheese really.
2. Astraeus has no plans to set up in Leeds. (Something about "horses mouth" comes to mind
)
H
1. Astraeus is a charter airline. The only reason we would go to Leeds is some tour operators asked us to do some flying for them out of LBA.We are doing a couple of day trips at the moment for Transsun. On the other hand, Buzz is a low cost scheduled carrier that has to find it's own passengers. Chalk and Cheese really.
2. Astraeus has no plans to set up in Leeds. (Something about "horses mouth" comes to mind
)H
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fair enough, I thought I might here it from the horses mouth on here thanks for clearing that one up. But I have still heard that there will definatley be another scheduled operator strating up alongside jet2 and the rumour is that it will be BUZZ
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LBA is CATIII equipped on RWY32, albeit with some limiting factors (runway slope and tailwind). However the B737-300 is supposedly the aircraft that is best able to handle these limiitations and I suspect it is no coincidence that Jet2 operate this type of a/c.
Buzz of course also operate the -300, so who knows?
682
Buzz of course also operate the -300, so who knows?
682
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm fairly sure bmi have shot CAT3's into Leeds at RVR's lower than 200m. I thought low-viz minimas were not generic to a/c type were dependant upon what equipment was fitted to the a/c, the expertise of the crew and airfield facilities.
Even if 200m was the absolute minima, Jet2 would get in more often than not.
I suspect we'll see plenty of crew familiarisation and practice CAT3 approaches between now and the 12th Feb launch date.
682
Even if 200m was the absolute minima, Jet2 would get in more often than not.
I suspect we'll see plenty of crew familiarisation and practice CAT3 approaches between now and the 12th Feb launch date.
682
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re cat 3B ops at lba :
MyTravel B757's are cat 3B 75m vis , no decision height autoland - BUT - not authorised to use at LBA - the aircraft ' float ' in the flare due to the runway terrain - not good on a relative ' short' runway for the 757 - runs out of runway !
MyTravel B757's are cat 3B 75m vis , no decision height autoland - BUT - not authorised to use at LBA - the aircraft ' float ' in the flare due to the runway terrain - not good on a relative ' short' runway for the 757 - runs out of runway !
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
platespinner - is that 'not authorised' end of story, or not authorised only when there is a tailwind component (as is the case with Britannia 757s).
Does anyone how much more landing distance would need to be added on 32 to allow autolands with say a 7-10kts tailwind?
682
Does anyone how much more landing distance would need to be added on 32 to allow autolands with say a 7-10kts tailwind?
682
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SE of Compton
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't necessarily a case of landing distance that is the problem with autolands on 32 but the topography of the runway. Due to the length of the displaced threshold (which was increased when the old '33' was extended to comply with more stringent 'undershoot' regulations) the touchdown zone coincides with the hump where the runway drops away. I have some video footage of a Britannia 757 doing a practice Cat III at LBA which in the flare stage floats along the runway and finally makes with the ground at the bottom of the slope almost halfway down the concrete.
One solution to this problem would be to get rid of the displaced threshold, since that part of the concrete is almost flat, aircraft touching down on this would have no 'floating' problems, additionally this would add some metres to the LDA. To get rid of the displaced threshold the undershoot for 32 would need landfilling to bring it level with the runway - it was done in the mid eighties on the same scale to provide increased apron space, I dont believe it would be massively expensive, particularly if it meant LBA lost its reputation for diverts. Additionally if this work meant some form of parallel taxiway being built form say D1 to the threshold then all the better!
One solution to this problem would be to get rid of the displaced threshold, since that part of the concrete is almost flat, aircraft touching down on this would have no 'floating' problems, additionally this would add some metres to the LDA. To get rid of the displaced threshold the undershoot for 32 would need landfilling to bring it level with the runway - it was done in the mid eighties on the same scale to provide increased apron space, I dont believe it would be massively expensive, particularly if it meant LBA lost its reputation for diverts. Additionally if this work meant some form of parallel taxiway being built form say D1 to the threshold then all the better!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14, great idea but isn't the land at that end owned by the water authotity? I'm sure that there used to be an underground reservoir at that end. Also didn't Luton close at night in order to build up part of the runway to make it flat to enable the CAT 3 to work better? Could LBA not do this! As the highest airport in Britain surely it would make sense to have a fully useable CAT 3 ILS, especially with the forthcomming Jet2 operation. Also of note, is when it is poor vis at LBA the wind is usually favoring 14 which I believe is only CAT 1 at the moment. Given the 3.5 degree glideslope on that end I doubt this could be improved. As for Buzz/Astaeus I doubt either would consider LBA with Jet2 and perhahps another LCA with 2 MD83s supposidly starting in 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's dificult to soar with eagles when you work for turkeys!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's dificult to soar with eagles when you work for turkeys!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The resevoir is located to the right of the undershoot.
The undershoot itself is part of the Leeds Country Way walking route so you can amble around amongst the approach lights at will! Doing so gives an impression of the task involved though if the undershoot were ever to be levelled. Some of those approach lights stand on poles that must at least 15m high. Even the creation of a 150m level undershoot would therefore require over 100,000 cubic metres of earth (150 x 45 x 15). Goodbye Plane Tree Hill perhaps??
682
The undershoot itself is part of the Leeds Country Way walking route so you can amble around amongst the approach lights at will! Doing so gives an impression of the task involved though if the undershoot were ever to be levelled. Some of those approach lights stand on poles that must at least 15m high. Even the creation of a 150m level undershoot would therefore require over 100,000 cubic metres of earth (150 x 45 x 15). Goodbye Plane Tree Hill perhaps??
682
