PPRuNe Forums - St. Helena-2

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)

- - St. Helena-2 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/600684-st-helena-2-a.html)

An updated pdf with Q&A can be found at this link from SHG
http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/wp-con...ember-2017.pdf

The prices quoted are far too high for the average Saint when jobs are paying £7,700 for a bakery worker or an Internal Auditor for SHG at £8828 or £11034 depending on qualifications ( all per annum.)
Someone on the minimun wage in the UK would get circa. £12700 p.a. approx. for someone over 21.
It is also important to understand that food etc.costs are very much more than in the UK.
For more information about Saint Helena follow these links:

http://http://www.saint.fm/the-independent/

SAMS The Sentinel newspaper - St Helena Island

https://www.facebook.com/groups/560571324116728/ (facebook)

Possibly, but no more so (in fact on average less so) than the ferries that Saints previously used to go to their better paid jobs in other places. The real issue of course is how they can get to the Falklands if not via Ascension Island :-(

The updated SHG FAQ note says: "Airlink plan to carry out an engine upgrade in the first quarter of 2018 which will allow the aircraft to be registered to carry 87 passengers on this route."

Any comment on the likely nature of the upgrade?

CF34-10E5A1 engines.

You can see the aircraft on FR24 on the way to WDH at the moment..

https://www.flightradar24.com/SA8131/f33cce7

Commercial flights start to St. Helena

According to the BBC commercial flights to St. Helena from South Africa have at last begun. It makes me wonder what has been done to mitigate the dangerous wind conditions that were originally identified...

I am amazed that as far as I am aware, there have been no comments relating to today’s first commercial flight.
Anyone?

IIRC the first commercial flight was back in May with an RJ85 operated by Airlink but this seems to be the first scheduled flight to HLE.

Return flight, SA8132, just airborne now. Hope the crew enjoyed the nightstop - doubt they needed to pay for any "beverages" :D

Criminally lazy of the press to carry on referring to HLE as a useless airport when it's now starting to perform the role of what will by February be "one of the most vital airports in the world"!

Not sure how they have solved the "wind shear" problem apart from restrictive limits and skill?
Is there a more detailed explanation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike6567 (Post 9926015)

Not sure how they have solved the "wind shear" problem apart from restrictive limits and skill?
Is there a more detailed explanation?

What else do you need (except for some luck...)?

Is it more challenging than, for example, Funchal? (or the old Kai Tak with a 700' cloud base? ;)

Big error on choosing the airline for the first attepmt TBH - -clear drive to "fly the flag" rather than getting someone who knew what they were doing................

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETOPS (Post 9925875)

Return flight, SA8132, just airborne now. Hope the crew enjoyed the nightstop - doubt they needed to pay for any "beverages" :D

I would suspect they were urged not to partake of alcoholic beverages on this lay-over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike6567 (Post 9926015)

Not sure how they have solved the "wind shear" problem apart from restrictive limits and skill?
Is there a more detailed explanation?

Apparently Comair the first carrier has a firm policy to always go-around with a windshear alarm. Many carriers do not require a go-around when there are not thunderstorms or frontal passages. The systems were implemented originally because some misguided pilots crashed after flying through thunderstorms on short final. Micro-bursts are really the only events that exceed aircraft performance capabilities. The current St.Helena carrier SA Airlink intends to try to fly through the turbulence. Large control movements on short final are something that's rare in today's "stabilized approach" era. In preparation, the St. Helena route Airlink pilots have been hand flying the E190 all the time except in cruise to get their skills up. A prior ETOPS qualification flight made a lot of landings with the heavy winds which were "eye opening" but they are succeeding. The windshear alerts are ignored and the aircraft wrestled through the turbulence and if the energy is right at the touchdown zone, landed. That's what you get paid big bucks for. The chief pilot and training director are among the qualified Captains on the route. They haven't had to go-around yet.
The E190 can also land downwind where-as the Comair B 737-800 could not on the RESA restricted runway length.

Reserve fuel requirements

Thanks lolder,
This brings back memories of operating to Bermuda in the past with no diversion and just island reserve fuel.
We always assumed if someone got stuck on the runway there was equipment to remove the obstruction - however I think that was wishful thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lolder (Post 9927482)

Large control movements on short final are something that's rare in today's "stabilized approach" era.

Could the flight not just have been contracted to a carrier which serves Shetland or the Faeroes (or Wellington New Zealand if we want to stay in the Southern hemisphere), where such are everyday events in winter.

This just looks like huge waste public money.

Well I think that setting up an air link to St Helena was a commendable project but it could most likely have been achieved on a tighter budget

Mike 6567

I lived on Bermuda for 12 years and visited often before and after. Bermuda is under two hours from a US diversion airport /airfield JFK being the nearest aside from Norfolk NAS which i understood would be dire emergency only being military.

Problem with BDA in winter was that it could be a very very long trip from London due to Atlantic winds forcing a very slow journey or massive diversion. One trip I made went as far north as iceland before heading south over Nova Scotia. Of course if it was more of a westerly wind a slow trip a cross the Atlantic arriving over a blocked runway meant more plodding against the wind to get to NY. I think these were problems for the BOAC VC10s and 707 436s but once the 747 and 1011 arrived things improved.

If you did face a blocked runway the USN based at the airport (a USN base itself) had some serious equipment for lifting /shoving ?dragging anything out of the way so you would probably have been Ok

yes would have been rather nice if the first flights had the union flag on the tail but the comair/BA 738 attempt was so flawed -
the 738 was not right for the mission as well known at GIB where they do not operate in there (well not without uneconomical and operational restrictions)

do comair still operate the 733 and 734 and they would probably been OK for HLE?

IF lolder is correct- I'd suggest the RMS is kept in operation for longer.

The E190 is currently the only aircraft available on the used market that has the range and can, in a pinch, land downwind at HLE with the available 6396 ft. of grooved, concrete runway restricted by 240 m. + RESAs to 5036 ft. legal landing distance. The RMS is wearing out and requires massive subsidy exceeding the passenger ticket price.
Single runway remote island airports usually have rules that once an inbound aircraft has reached the point of no return, no other aircraft operations are permitted until the aircraft has landed to make a blocked runway situation very remote. I believe Easter Is. is in this category. The 240-300 m. RESAs at HLE are the cause of most of the problems. If they were 90 m., bigger, more efficient aircraft could operate there. The B-757-200 would be the most economical. Stretched 737s and A320+/- require more runway when they get heavy particularly at maximum landing weights and downwind. I just watched the NG show about the Garuda 737 that touched down 2800 Ft. from the threshold 80 kts. over Vref with only 5º flaps! How does any RESA make an airport safe from pilots like that? He had 21 years with the company.

Quote:

The B-757-200 would be the most economical.

However I very much doubt you would often get the demand for a 757 to carry an "economical" load.

Can a B757 go to places that an A318 cannot go to?

The 757 could carry almost a full payload in and out of St. Helena but the island infrastructure can't yet handle 220 tourists at a shot. The A318 can go more places like London City but it's a lot smaller.

Could an Airbus 318 make it from St Helena to London non stop! I doubt it as it would definitely need a fuel stop en route and I don't see that happening.

I doubt that anything can launch off St. Helena's runway and make it to LON non-stop without some in-flight refuelling!

The discussion subject is operations between St. Helena and Africa, E190, A318, B757 or whatever.

A 757 would be very interesting if a combi version existed (like KLM's 747-400M). 200+ seats is indeed too much lift, but a combination of passenger and freight would be a more appropriate replacement for the lifeline currently provided by the RMS.

Astreaus (as was) had a "combi" 757 (don't think it had a freight door) that was used by Iron Maiden for their World Tours back in the late noughties.

I think there was only one combi with a cargo door made for Nepal and there was mention of a few conversions but I don't know if they actually occurred. The combi could take a standard container. You need the "big" engine 757's for St. Helena because of takeoff runway length. Newer aircraft like A321's probably have lower seat mile costs but need longer runways at high weights.
Namibia is claiming Airlink is using un-negotiated 5th freedom rights with the Airlink intra-airline passenger transfer at WDH. Namibia was an unsuccessful bidder for the service with an A319 and apparently has their knickers in a knot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wycombe (Post 9936321)

Astreaus (as was) had a "combi" 757 (don't think it had a freight door) that was used by Iron Maiden for their World Tours back in the late noughties.

Yes! Thanks for reminding me. G-OJIB. Here's a pic of the rear cargo hold. Now N938FD with FedEx.

Sadly, as Lolder has alluded to there are some more problems with the air service because of a lack of communication and understanding between Airlink and the Namibian authorities. See below parts of the article from The St Helena Independent :

Quote:

A dispute between Airlink and the Namibian aviation authori-ties means the St Helena air service has been significantly changed after only two week’s operation. From tomorrow planes will fly only to Johannesburg. It will be a non-stop flight, the call at Windhoek for re-fuelling and transferring pas-sengers for the connecting Cape Town connection will no longer take place. This change to the air service schedule is expected to continue until Airlink’s dispute about the use of Windhoek’s Hosea Kutako airport is resolved.

Then further on:

Quote:

On Tuesday a clearer picture started slowly to emerge when The Namibian reported “An SA Airlink aircraft on its way to St Helena Island was temporarily grounded by the Namibia Civil Aviation Authority at Hosea Kutako International Airport on Saturday.” The report further explained, “The flight had come in from Johannesburg on its way to St Helena, but had used its technical stop for refuelling to pick up passengers flown in by SA Airlink from Cape Town for a connecting flight to the British island territory.” Passenger transfers at Windhoek were, we all assumed, a normal procedure which had been agreed by Airlink with the aviation authorities in Namibia. Asit turned out, the Namibian authorities say they have not agreed to anything.

To see the full article go to: http://independent.saint.fm/wp-conte...t-20171027.pdf

As to the suggestions above about the 757, would it be capable of take off and landing with a full load if not how many passengers? For those who have mentioned passengers and tourist accomadation,many of them will be Saints who will stay with family and friends as of now with the RMS,

There is an explanation re the runways RESAs below which was in the SHG's newsletter from July 2012:

Quote:

We have finalised a number of important changes to the airport runway design that have the potential to deliver significant benefits for St Helena.
Last November a contract was signed with Basil Read to construct an airport with a 1,550m long landing runway. With this length of runway the largest aircraft that can use the airport are the Boeing 737-700 and Airbus A319, both of which carry around 120 passengers. The runway would also be suitable for new generation aircraft like the Bombardier C series, also with 100 to 120 seats, should these become available in the region.
The 2011 Reference Design for the airport included an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) which allowed us to reduce the length of Runway End Safety Area (RESA) and make considerable savings on the amount of rock that would need to be placed in Dry Gut. At the tender stage, Basil Read offered to construct a full 240m RESA in place of EMAS, at no additional cost to their tender price.
There are a number of advantages to the RESA option. Under the EMAS option, it would be practically impossible ever to extend the runway. The runway construction is based on balancing the amount of excavated material from Prosperous Bay Plain with the amount of rock required to fill Dry Gut. Once the airport is operational, if we wanted to extend the embankment we would have to bring in huge quantities of rock from another site at a prohibitive cost. However, by constructing a full length RESA, we leave ourselves the option of adding EMAS at a later date to allow us to increase the declarable distance, allowing operations by larger Boeing 737-800 or Airbus 320 aircraft, which can carry around 160 passengers. We therefore accepted Basil Read’s offer to construct a full 240 m RESA at the south-ern end of the runway.
In order to accommodate larger aircraft, in addition to increasing the runway length, we also need to do a number of relatively minor works. These include widening the embankment over an additional 40 m at the southern end, paving an additional 100 m of the runway with concrete, providing larger turning circles at the runway ends, and increasing the size of the apron. By spending a relatively small amount to do these works now, while Basil Read has the equipment on island, we can limit future works to the placement of EMAS, significantly reducing the costs of any future extension.
Additional runway works have therefore been agreed. We won't be able to use the additional runway length for landing the Boeing 737-800 or Airbus 320 until further work is carried out to add an EMAS, but it is much more cost effective to do these preparatory works now than it would be in the future.
A variation order to this effect was issued on 17th July. It is expected to carry out this work within DFID's existing budget for the airport. The additional earthworks and concrete will add 12 weeks to the length of the contract. The revised contractual completion date for the project is now 25th February 2016

.

FHSH AD 2.13 – DECLARED DISTANCES 2016
Runway designation,TORA, TODA, ASDA, LDA, (all meters). Remarks
20
1850- 2775- 1850- 1550- DTHR
02
1635- 2425- 1635- 1535- NIL

After re reading the article above I looked at the specifications for the Bombardier CS 3000 ( been in the news lately). It would seem it would provide the ability to carry more passengers than the E195 and possibly some freight as well. Though I think they would have to reduce the load due to the shortest runway length ( why can't they add on the length of the RESA?) Can our anyone advise?

Bombardier CS 3000 (from their brochure)
PERFORMANCE
Range (225 lb. / 102 kg per pax.)
3,300 NM 3,798 SM 6,112 km
Speed
Maximum Cruise Speed:
0.82 Mach 470 kts 541 mph 871 km/h
Normal Cruise Speed:
0.78 Mach 447 kts 515 mph 829 km/h
Takeoff Field Length (ISA, SL, MTOW,Max. Thrust)
Base: 5,000 ft. 1,524 m
Max: 6,200 ft. 1,890 m
Landing Field Length 1 (ISA, SL, MLW)
Max: 4,950 ft. 1,509 m
Base: 4,800 ft. 1,463 m
GENERAL
Flight Crew 2
Same type rating as CS100
Cabin Crew 3 to 5
Passengers
Dual class 130 passengers (36/32 in.pitch)
Single class 140 passengers (32 in.pitch)
Maximum Capacity 160 passengers (29/28 in.pitch)

I'd suggest that smaller aircraft offering more frequent services to be preferable to larger aircraft offering less fequent services particularly taking in to consideration the terrain and weather conditions associated with St. Helena.

So what if the runway may be capable of accommodating B737-800's & A320's, why take unecessary risks if B737-600/700's, A318/319's, Embraers & Bombardiers and whatever can do it just as comfortably and with less risk involved.

But there is a modern day mentality to squeeze as many bums in to one flight as is possible, a local airline to me (Air Philippines) have realised the error of their ways, their Q400's don't have the runway performance to operate to/from a number of airports here so they've needed to go back in time and recommence Q300 operations.

The issue is just how many people St Helena can accomodate at a time

Sure in the long run you can increase facilities but nothing happens very quickly there

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Wayfarers (Post 9938752)

It's much more expensive to use two smaller aircraft. There are two main problems; the first carrier to be awarded the route apparently has an automatic go-around policy after a wind shear alert. Many carriers do not in the absence of thunderstorms and frontal activity.
The second problem is when landing downwind to avoid the turbulence, 1000 ft. of runway at the rollout end is subtracted from the runway because of RESAs. The 6396 ft. pavement becomes 5036 ft. Now this is a scary table top airport with 1000 ft. elevation. Anybody that's relaxed flying in here is crazy. Where does designing a runway to make it "damn fool proof" end.