Globespan Cape Town now down to twice a week all winter and looks to be replaced by Canadian destinations from April

RW24L in poor weather
 

At the moment 24R is closed at night for maintenance. If the weather is poor, it's supposed to be reopened so that the ILS can be used.

So how come I've had to do two approaches over the last few nights, both using RW24L VOR/DME in heavy rain and crosswind with the approach lights only appearing at "100 above" (550ft above the airport)?

In my airline, VOR approaches are commonplace but in many airlines they are unusual and such an approach under these conditions would have an unacceptably high risk.

Would someone from MAPlc or ATC care to comment, please?

RWY24L Poor Weather
 

757 Operator,

As you say, the minima for VOR approaches varies from one operator to another - each airline should ensure the Airport and ATC are aware of their operating minima so they can take this into account when planning work on the runway. Why not file an ASR and insist on feedback via the usual safety reporting channels?

No, all operators do have the same minima (subject maybe to small national variations in how to apply them). It's just that some operators are unaccustomed to doing VOR approaches, let alone down to minima in a crosswind and heavy rain. Tempting them to do so invites trouble.

There's nothing illegal or theoretically unsafe about what is going on, so an ASR is not really applicable. But it still seems to me to be bad practice.

757Op
First, the good news. No more runway closures until after Christmas :ok:
Second, the bad news. 140 days of single runway ops next year :ouch:
Third, the really bad news. Runway 24R will be resurfaced in 2008 :{
As ATC, we "discuss" runway closures, and try to minimise any disruption, but at the end of the day, it's MA's airport.
Looking on the bright side. In the past, when any runway work was done on the "Single Runway" as was, the Airlines either rescheduled or diverted. Now there is runway 24L/06R. As an aside, if the forecast is not very good, work on 24R is either postponed, or kept to a minimum, so that a "fully equipped" [ILS] runway is available.
Hope this helps
watp,iktch

I bet MAPLC wished they had spent a few more pounds on building a full taxiway system for the new runway, i thought it was very short sighted at the time and i am just a lay man, what do i know ?

Still the batched landings and take offs followed by a runway full of back tracking airliners makes interesting viewing !

I may be wrong but was it not one of the deals to the Mobberly/eco set that the taxiway would not be built all the way intially

G-I-B

GIB I'm sure that's part of it but,
 

Geoff Muirhead axed the taxiway to save in the order of £10 million and the 24L ILS to save £1.5 million

The 06R ILS was installed at CAT l standards.

Sir George Cayley

Chiglet et al, thanks for the info.

Well, if that's what's coming over the next couple of years, now's the time to fit a RW24L ILS. Cat 1 would be fine.

For one of UK's foremost airports to have only a primitive approach aid on the secondary runway is laughable - and £1.5m will seem cheap if even one aircraft gets it wrong.

Also, RW24L is where they try and get the emergencies to land, so as to keep 24R free. Now I've tried RW24L with two engines, I certainly won't be using it on one engine. Sorry MAPlc, but I'll be insisting on an ILS to RW24R and sorry about clogging up your airport for a few hours.

Chiglet has confirmed what I was told today, 140 nights of runway closures next year, resurfacing 2008. I understand MA are considering the installation of an ILS for RWY24L on this basis - not sure whether this would be to CAT1 or 3 standard. As 757operator suggests,we airlines should insist on this over the coming months.

AeroMANC
 

I suspect it would have to be Cat 1 only as the present lighting is only to that level and I presume it would take too long and be too expense to do an upgrade of the lighting - or are the ducts there already?

Yes, it would make sense to have the basic ILS for any time that 24R is out of use.

Scottie Dog

24l & 06r Catiii
 

MA need to consider CAT3 ILS/Lighting - CAT1 doesn't help much in dense fog! Even if there are safety issues concerning dual runway operations in LVP, CAT3 ILS for 24L & 06R would at least keep the place ticking over when 24R & 06L is out of service for long periods. You would assume ducting is already in place for reduced spacing on the centreline. TDZ and Supplementary Approach could be a problem if ducting wasn't installed during the construction.

Runway designation is changing next year to 05L/R & 23L/R. Does anyone have any idea why:confused:

No Complaints ?
 

Having just worked the last two night duties in ATC ( Sunday and Monday), during the inclement weather referred to by " 757 operator ", there was only one period of around six minutes where the weather criteria for VOR / DME approaches, neared the recommended minima (It never fell below). One aircraft executed a go-around during this, followed by a landing some twelve minutes later.
During this whole period I only recieved one observation from a crew after landing, that the weather at the time was " marginal ".
If we are not told that crews are experiencing problems by the crews themselves, and all our conditions for VOR / DME approaches are being met, then we have no reason to suspect that all is not well!!
There are contingencies that should the weather deteriorate below minima, or it is considered that difficulties will be experienced, then we can revert to 24R within 30 - 50 minutes if work on the runway has already started.
To answer "Cleared for take-off's" point about runway designation change, it's all due to the change in the earths magnetic field, called variation. The Magnetic direction for our runway will now err more to 230 degrees than 240 degrees and like wise of course with the reciprocal, thus the need for change.
One idea being put forward however, but not receiving much support, is that to avoid ANY possible confusion between which of the two runways to expect on approach, crossing on the ground, and SIDS for departure, (and believe me sometimes there is a lot of confusion!), is to leave one of them alone, and just rename one to 23 / 05. Would that cause much confusion in the cockpit flying heading 234 to a runway called 24 ?? Comments appreciated. ;)

Standard practice in the rest of the world q.v. ATL, HKG, IAH etc etc...

I have heard MAN is to possibly get a new service to Madrid with a low cost operator. Anyone know anything? Air Madrid, Spanair?

VUELO

Maybe CLICK............

MM

easyJet maybe? The EZ/MAN rumour has been flying round for ages. Trying MAN from an existing base could test the waters?

bmiBaby- with 4 aircraft becoming available (2x new, 2xMME) and 3 going to BHX, MAD could be part of an expansion from MAN

Jet2- They already have Spain covered from MAN, so Madrid would be a logical choice. They would be my favourite to serve the city.

Ryanair- if MAD does ever become a base, as was rumoured some time ago, then MAN could benefit from a route- this is highly unlikely I guess, but possible.

Vueling- entering the UK market must be highly lucrative, but very competitive, so having gained brand recognition in Spain they might be ina good position to give the UK a go?

It really could be anyone!

As of 2nd November 2006, Mahan Air will change its flights TO



Thursdays arriving at 1730hrs, departing 1900hrs



Saturdays arriving at 1800hrs, departing at 1930hrs

and what about Monarch ? :rolleyes: