View Full Version : Britannia moving again

6th Dec 2001, 01:17
I hear the White Hats are moving their Florida operations from MCO back to Sanford.
I wonder why? :(

6th Dec 2001, 01:56
cost !!

6th Dec 2001, 04:03
Probably more to do with the fact that several of the large tour operators are using allocations on each others flights next year from the smaller regional airports, and to keep things simple it will be easier if everyone flies to the same place in Orlando.

6th Dec 2001, 06:22
Why the thumbs down and unhappy face?

Sanford has undergone much improvement and now is a British charter company's paradise . . . it is a worthwhile move on the part of Britannia. They were the "Last Of the Mohecans" as it were . . . the only British holiday airline not operating into SFB. Due to a shift of GA traffic to a runway as separated from heavy traffic as possible, and recent terminal expansion of check-in areas and the British holiday company's Welcome Centre, there is plenty of space for Britannia and Thomson's (and whoever else involved) to be easily accomodated.

Also, the holiday companies are selling any unsold seats on the same flights, and the airlines will be alternating these "hybrid" flights . . . it would obviously be easier if they were all going to the same place.

The grass is genuinely greener at SFB . . . at MCO they seemed to be squashed into a corner and given a worse deal . . . at Sanford they will no doubt be spending much less to operate into Florida.

A well-thought move on the part of Britannia Airways and not before time either! :)

(This is for all those who critisized the airport and used BY leaving as "proof"!) :D

Best of luck to BY,
SFly ;) :D :) ;) :D :)

6th Dec 2001, 11:54
Also I have headr that the handling in SFB is very good and fast copmared to MCO, however that was always in the context of being told how much better they were in relation to that provided by my old employers! :) Anyway good luck to Britannia, they were always nice people to do business with.

6th Dec 2001, 14:49
As a BY pilot, I am not thrilled to be going back to SFB.

I had a near encounter with a student pilot attempting to land on the short parallel runway and he/she had no idea where the center line was. The poor devil almost got a 767 up his tail. On another occasion I ended up doing a low level go around at 1AM local, because the runway lights would not illuminate and the airfield atc is closed at this time. (for those who don't know, a go around from low level in a high performance twin jet with a 2000ft stop,is not funny at the best of times) PS you are obliged by law to apply full go around power below 500ft and then clean up fully if you are in imc. The trip after that during a push and start, we had some idiot try to sneak behind us. Not withstanding the fact that had we run over him, 186,000kg of 767 would have flattened him... he got all upset that he got a savage buffeting from the right engine exhaust as he scooted past. Duh... did he really think that his C152 would not be troubled by a jet engine that puts out 63,000lbs of thrust ,even at idle it will blow the unwary away. The last incident happen as we waited to cross the short easterly rwy. A light airplane did a touch and go and then turned immediately left so he/she could fly over the top of us at about 100ft or so. Great fun I suppose that pilot thought. Thank god the engine didn't fail, or the ensuing collision would have caused untold carnage.

All the above happened to ME. It's not third hand gossip. I was a VERY happy pilot when we moved back to MCO.

I have not flown into SFB for a while now and maybe things have changed. I sure as hell hope so.

6th Dec 2001, 15:06
max-cont...Where in the ANO or JARs' does it state that full GA thrust is obligatory from below 500 feet? News to me.

TS Hauler
6th Dec 2001, 15:33
Sounds to me that some BY crews prefer MCO because the airport is closer to the theme parks and top hotels etc and will use any excuse to stay where they are. Wasn't the original move several years back because of the Class 'D' airspace issue?

However, the pax(oops,customers)seem to like SFB .

Funny how Spotty, My Travel Air (MTA?), AMM etc etc seem to operate through SFB with alacrity. I hear that VS may use it as an alternate. Now they are demanding people so it can't be all that bad.

Panam (MkIV?) seem to making a fist of operations at SFB. They do have a spanking new dom term (and new ATC procedures) to operate out of which I understand had some UK charter ops too.

6th Dec 2001, 16:08
It is stated in our ops manual. Our AOC is authorised by the CAA who require us as crews, to use the approved procedures. Whether it is stated in JAR ops or PANS ops or a similar document, I do not know. At the moment I'm on leave and I will not be driving in to work to search for a reference.

This is, I would venture, an irrelevant point with regard to the subject of SFB and it's suitability for heavy jet traffic and student pilot training.

The pax have a right to be able to travel without us at the front end, having to use our superior aviating skills ;) to get them to their chosen destination in one piece and without doing aeros in the process.

When I get back to the office in a couple of weeks I'll have a look for you and if I'm wrong, I'll post the retraction at that time. I hope this is acceptable.

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: max_cont ]

6th Dec 2001, 16:14
TSH, where we stay when in Orlando does not change because the airfield does. We stay in hotac on I Drive regardless. (very close to all the play areas. :D)

However, because we've been going to Orlando for so long, most of us don't bother with the attractions. Just like the locals.

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: max_cont ]

Augustus Finknottle
6th Dec 2001, 16:15
Max Cont,

A few questions:

1. What were you doing landing at an airfield with no ATC ?

2. Where can I find this regulation about low level go arounds ? Almost every trainer in every UK airline clearly needs to be brought up to speed.

3. Why should a PPL know (or be interested in) the MTOW of a 767 ?

4. Why should a PPL know (or be interested in) the Max thrust of a PW/GE engine ?

5. Why do you think that said engines at idle thrust would “blow the unwary away” – the unwary in this case being at least 100feet behind the tailpipe.

6. Why would a light a/c pilot, in the event of an engine failure choose to crash into your lovely, high powered, very heavy wonder jet ?

7. If you're so keen to tell the world that you fly a "heavey" jet, shouldn't you learn to spell it first. (Ask your captain - he'll know)

8. Why do you consider a go-around to be an aerobatic manouver ? (Strike that question - maybe yours are)

9. Why did you feel the need to point all this out ?

Toodle Pip,

Gussy (Captain – lovely, high powered, very heavy wonderjet) :rolleyes:

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: Augustus Finknottle ]

6th Dec 2001, 16:33
For all those who think Brits has been dragging its feet over SFB, it may be of interest that along with Airtours, they were the first to operate there. The move back to MCO had as much to do with commercial considerations of SFB development - lack of apron space, pax queues at check in etc - as with the safety of operating large jets into what was primarily a training academy airfield.
If things have improved, and a better deal is in offer then let's take it!

6th Dec 2001, 16:43
1: 1AM ATC went home, airfield stays open. fire cover available press PTT in a certain way and the lights come on. You can even turn them up.

2: See my earlier post.

3: Having good situational awareness, as an aviator is conducive to longevity.

4: Because if you are aware of power of these engines, you use discretion when trying to taxi behind. You then don't get damage inflicted on your pride and joy, or for that matter the flying schools pride and joy.

5: Because thats what happened.

6: He/She would not have had any choice at that altitude had the engine failed quite early in the touch and go.

7: Because a lot of the arguments about how good SFB is, was based on the pax terminal and how convenient it is for the pax. I was only highlighting the flight safety implications that we encounterd when we first operated into SFB. The pax on the flights that I mentioned are still blissfully un-aware of any concern that we as flt crews had at that time.

I gather from the way you have posted that you believe that I'm against PPL's. FYI I am a self improver who used the instrutor route. I am all for PPL's. (I was one) I'm also intrested in safety. Are you?

As I said I hope things have improved

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: max_cont ]

6th Dec 2001, 16:46
perhaps i can answer a few of your questions 1. What were you doing landing at an airfield with no ATC ?
a) sfb is a 24hr airfield with rff facilities to match. local atc closes at approx 10pm local. you are permitted to land under the authority of MCO approach although at your own discretion. lighting is controlled by clicking various times on the airfield unicom frequency depending on required brightness.

2) 4. Why should a PPL know (or be interested in) the Max thrust of a PW/GE engine ?
a) because it is common sence / good airmenship to know that one of these suckers will blow you away if you taxi behind it. and also for the wake vortex seperation requirements (pilots not atc's responsability) seem to think that similar questions are asked in ppl air law!

3). Why do you think that said engines at idle thrust would “blow the unwary away” – the unwary in this case being at least 100feet behind the tailpipe.
a) because at any second full thrust could be applied and kill you. also any fod, stones dust etc can be thrown at high velocity into your a/c. (again covered in PPL air law )

4. Why would a light a/c pilot, in the event of an engine failure choose to crash into your lovely, high powered, very heavy wonder jet ?
a) because in a light single engined a/c at 100ft with an engine out - you dont have a decision as to where you are going to crash. you just do. especially if a student pilot.

5) Why did you feel the need to point all this out ?
a) because GA traffic has always been a serious problem in and around SFB. taxing behind a heavy twin jet in a light c152 alone, proves you have no regard for your surroundings on the airfield. you also have the rt confusion and numerous students all transmiting at the same time. this is all in addition to the very serious airprox's that occur in flight with the GA a/c hardly even aware of what they have caused. i just pray that no "actual incidient" ever occurs. anybody remember psa 727 and the c172 over san-diego?

Augustus Finknottle
6th Dec 2001, 17:20
Boeing Boy,

My questions were semi - rhetorical - Duh !!!! :rolleyes: . I know there is ATC available, it’s just controlled from MCO – that is not what Max said however.

PPLs are indeed made well aware of the dangers of proximity to jet aircraft – they do not know nor care about the MTOW or Max thrust of specific jets. Why should they ?

A Cessna 152 will not be “blown away” if it taxis behind a 767 at idle thrust. It’s wings may well waggle but that’s all.

Why on gods earth would any sane pilot “suddenly apply full thrust” on the ramp ?


You haven’t answered questions 7 and 8 – I wait with bated breath. ;)

Toodle Pip,

Gussy :rolleyes:

6th Dec 2001, 19:13
I suspect that Britannia moved to MCO for 3 reasons:

Passenger check-in became a nightmare with queues outside the terminal building and irate passengers.

They negotiated advantageous landing and handling charges at MCO.

There were so many FSR's and MOR's being filed that they had to do something to improve safety which poses an interesting question to others who continued to operate into SFB:
What was No 1 on your Mission Statement (management speak)?

6th Dec 2001, 19:17
Augustus, thank you for pointing out my typo. Sometimes the odd one slips in un-noticed. Do feel free to act as my spell check.

I was not "keen to tell the World that I fly heavy jets". I was only participating in a discussion about SFB and about BY's return to that airfield. Since I have been flying with BY for over 13 years I felt I could contribute to this subject, in a constructive manner.

As someone who lists "Totty" as an interest, I doubt you would be interested in any kind of constructive debate whatsoever.

At no point did I say go-arounds were aero's.

As you are obviously someone who has nothing to learn and no doubt knows everything, I will be only to happy to leave you in your own World.

I guess the rest of us will struggle to reach your level of perfection. Perhaps you could come on over to us BY flt crews and show us how to do it, or did you get invited to leave at some point? It would explain your hostility.

Good day.

PS Reply not required

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: max_cont ]

Augustus Finknottle
6th Dec 2001, 19:59

Firstly, if I was lucky enough to be on leave as you purport to be, I wouldn’t be spending it doing this. As far as acting as your spell checker then here we go – Agustus, contrubute, aero’s and contructive.

As for the aerobatic manoeuvres – you stated (straight after the bit about G/As) that you would not wish to “subject your pax to aeros”. If your G/As aren’t the relevant aeros (note- no apostrophe required) then what in the hell are you subjecting the shellsuited masses to ?

I have never worked for BY – fine company as it is. No point to make here.

I’m now happy to be left in “my own world”. The good people in the Hyatt Business Centre had chosen to restrict my viewing of BigNellies.com with a “Parental Bar” – so much for the "land of the free". This totally unwarranted censorship was the only reason that I was forced to click onto this dull old thread in the first place. However, a charming young (and I suspect somewhat moist) bit of Totty has just shown me a way around this bar and onto free thinking adult entertainment – so Toodle Pip for now.


PS. 13 years with BY - Christ !! how long does it take to get a command with the "White Hatters"? You'd be on Conc by now (well not you personally, obviously) if you were in Big Airways !!!!

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: Augustus Finknottle ]

Capt PPRuNe
6th Dec 2001, 20:09
Errr... we suffer enough from 'thread wander' in most posts and it seems to be a sport over on Jet Blast so can we please try and stick to the original topic and those of you wanting to make your points about heavy jet ops from an airport that handles lots of student pilot traffic please feel free to start a new one on Tech Log or Wannabes or Private Flying forums.

As for operating out of SFB, I can let max_cont know that things have improved immeasurably at SFB over the last few years. ATC are much more aware of the problems we face and are very good at keeping the students and other light a/c out of our way. I have not operated any 'parallel' ops for at least a year there.

Also, the terminal has been expanded and there are many more gates there now and handling is extremely expeditious and friendly. I know of few airports, especially in the USA where we can get the pax off and be through immigration and customs within 30 minutes of on-blocks. I know for a fact that it takes about the same amount of time from on-blocks at SFB to the crew hotel on I-Drive (a 40 mile journey) as it does from MCO (about an 8 mile journey).

The only problem I still find with operating into SFB is with both Daytona Approach and Orlando Approach. The first always seem to want to take you off the STAR and have you track the 191 radial out of OMN which points you at the centre of the airport and then Orlando Approach either take you many miles downwind for 09L at low level (3000-2000 feet) or else botch up a tight right downwind for 27R usually sending you through the centreline at about 6 or 7 miles out.

Hopefully they will get their acts together and get the airspace sorted out a bit better and let us fly more or less the planned STAR for whichever runway is in use. Apart from that SFB is a pleasure to operate in and out of nowdays.

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: Capt PPRuNe ]

6th Dec 2001, 20:36
Thanks for the info Capt P. I suppose I'll be finding out very soon by all accounts.

Sorry if I wandered off topic a bit.

6th Dec 2001, 20:39
augustas. the mtow of any jet a/c (or more so the wake catageory that falls into) is of great importance to a ppl student for seperation purposes. many student pilots (if they are aware at all in the early stages) forget that it is the pilots own responsibility to ensure wake vortex seperation. how many ppl students are aware that a 757 (35% the mtow of a 747) generates the same ammount of wake as the 747 for instance.

A Cessna 152 will not be “blown away” if it taxis behind a 767 at idle thrust. It’s wings may well waggle but that’s all. well thats a matter of opinion, and personaly i wouldn't want to try it out. are you therefore implying that it is safe to taxi behind a 767, coz your wings will only wobble? what if im stationary on the taxiway and have to move off - im going to increase power (ok maybe not full power) but this alone would blow away a c152 not far behind. (this was proved last year in manchester i think after a c172 taxied behind a delta a/c)

Why on gods earth would any sane pilot “suddenly apply full thrust” on the ramp ? ever heard of engine runs? as before, even with an engine far from full power will produce a tremendous jet blast.

Augustus Finknottle
6th Dec 2001, 21:19
Boeing Boy,

Sorry, I was off message for a while there - BigNellies.com is not what it used to be. :(

Firstly, I was not aware that ICAO wake vortex seperation guidelines applied whilst taxying.

Secondly, it now seems like a very good idea to avoid operating into Sanford (in any size of aircraft) if they are allowing full power engine runs on the ramp. I therefore retract everthing I have said.

Toodle Pip, Gussy. :rolleyes:

PS The Shift/Caps Lock button is on the left hand/middle side of your keyboard - you might like to try it some time. ;)

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: Augustus Finknottle ]