Snow in the UK

[AlphaWhiskyRomeo]

I am finding it hard to believe that UK Airports cannot deal with snow a little better than they have in the last 24 hours.

I wa sdue to depart MAN at 0900 on Saturday morning, but showed up to check in to fin the airport officially closed with landing aircraft in a hold pattern. 24R opened around 0730 for dep and arr and 24L opened arounf 0900.

But the snow that caused the problem fell before 2200 on the Friday night, and I cannot understand why the airport could not have cleared and de-icied the runways/taxiways earlier.

My 1 1/2 hour delay was certainly not the worst - either at MAN or at other UK airports, but I can't believe that taxiway and runway snow-clearing could not have been done earlier. (Although I understand that aircraft de-icing must take place as close to departure time as possible.)

Does anyone have any comments (for and against) regarding the way UK airports deal with icy conditions when they do show their faces 2/3 times a winter????

[Fernando_Covas]

Quite simple this one. The cost of buying the equipment outweighs the cost of delays caused. Some years the snow clearing equipment may not be used at all. It all comes down to cost in the end,

[Jet2]

But the snow that caused the problem fell before 2200 on the Friday night, and I cannot understand why the airport could not have cleared and de-icied the runways/taxiways earlier.


Not quite true. I agree that chaos seems to ensue with every sprinkling of snow here but in Manchester's defence, there was further snowfall on Saturday morning that was the sole reason for the delays/closure. They were also in LVP's.

METARs from Saturday morning:

EGCC 040820Z 00000KT 3300 BR BKN002 BKN009 M03/M03 Q1000 BECMG 5000 SCT004 BKN010
EGCC 040750Z 09002KT 3400 -SN BKN002 M04/M04 Q1000 SNOCLO BECMG NSW BKN003
EGCC 040720Z 00000KT 3000 -SN OVC002 M04/M04 Q1000 SNOCLO TEMPO 2000 BR BKN003
EGCC 040650Z 00000KT 2500 -SN BKN005 M05/M05 Q1000 SNOCLO BEMCG 4000 NSW SCT005
EGCC 040620Z 00000KT 1000 R24R/P1500 R24R/P1500 -SN FEW002 SCT006 M05/M05 Q1000 TEMPO 0800 SN FZFG BKN004
EGCC 040550Z 00000KT 2600 BR SCT062 M06/M06 Q1000 TEMPO -SN
EGCC 040520Z VRB02KT 0400 R24R/0500 R24R/0500 FZFG SKC M07/M07 Q0999 TEMPO 0800

[Richard Taylor]

Weather up here very poor this last week. 50yr record apparently broken for March snowfall. About a foot of snow at ABZ, drifts in the Shire several feet deep in places.

Still snow showers today, though think (!) the worst may be over.

Was capped by an electrical storm also on Fri morning.

A thankless task for all concerned trying to keep the airport functional.

[nclbase]

The weather was bad in Newcastle also but the airport was kept operational throughout.
Surely airports have a duty to ensure they have the right equipment to enable the continued operation - after all, the airlines pay enough in ground fees:O

[MAN777]

I was on nights and finished my shift Sat morn, I was also puzzled as to why what amounted to 2 mm of snow managed to shut the runway, this would have never happened when Peter Hampson was Airfield Manager !

[rampman]

I was working sat morning at man and if you was in the snow storm that morning you will understand why the runways were closed for about 45 mins. an inch of snow fell in about 25 mins onto very cold ground as it hit the snow froze and the airfeild became one big ice ring. was closed to all traffic so they could clear the runways (you cant do this with planes landing) the whole operation was done in about 1 hour from clearing the runway(24R) to de-icing the stands.

well done the chaps of airfield ops and maintinace for a job well done

rampman

[Bagso]

Facts Facts Facts.........please gentlemen !

Whilst fully appreciating that Manchester is not exactly a beacon of efficiency it was infact on LVPs Sat am which caused delays, it was nothing to do with snow ! The volume of traffic trying to get off the airfield was significant at a time when RW2 was closed hence the delays.

I will concede that snow was however a factor late Friday when the de-icing team managed to fail at the first due poor equipment ....!

[sportzbar]

I am led to believe that as the airport is now under new management (believed to be ex-railtrack) that the cause of all these delays is the wrong kind of snow.


The management would like to apologise in advance for the Autumn of 2006 when leaves on the runway will be the cause of delays and cancellations. :)

[Jet2]

Bagso

The delays were very much to do with the snow as you will see on the METARs the airport was SNOCLO ..... this is not because of LVP's.

LVP's just caused further delays when the airport re-opened.

[Doug the Head]

Quite simple this one. The cost of buying the equipment outweighs the cost of delays caused. Some years the snow clearing equipment may not be used at all. It all comes down to cost in the end, Yup, it´s simple but only because everything in the UK is organized in a typical ´Penny wise Pound foolish´ manner, resulting in appalling and overpriced quality.

While other countries with a similar climate (like Belgium, Holland, France, western part of Germany etc) seem to be able to buy equipment and organize de-icing, why can´t the UK step into the 21st century as well? :hmm:

[NudgingSteel]

Actually, the closure at about 0630 on Sat was caused by a fresh snowfall starting to accumulate on the runway. Although it had been treated, the surface contamination started to increase to the point that braking action was reported as medium/poor. With the snow still falling the airport authority had absolutely no option at this point but to close and sweep; whilst completing this they also re-treated with antiice. Before the runway reopened, the cloud dropped to 200' hence low visibility procedures commenced, which dropped the movement rate further once the runway became available, hence the large backlog of delays for departures (getting the inbounds out of the holds being the priority). Once all the runway lead-offs and all the taxiways were clear and treated, the other runway and its taxiways could be attended to; once they opened then the departure rate upped nicely.

[Turn It Off]

I cannot comment on how Manchester dealt with snow this time around, but can offer my opinions based on other airfields around the country.

I have dealt with snow this year, and, it caused the airfield I work at to close for several hours. The reason, not enough equipment to deal with the snow fall. For some this is not acceptable - would the increased landing fares to pay for the extra kit be more acceptable? - Didn't think so.

In the UK snow fall happens rarely, and if it does is very rarely a major problem. Therefore a very difficult obstacle to deal with if ti does happen in vast quantities. If you are a pilot type, liken it to the time that you have an engine failure on take off - It is an Unusual circumstance, for which you are trained, but, you will never deal with it perfectly, but will do your damn best to deal with it safely, the same as airfields do when dealing with snow.

The airfield I work at are aware of this, and are planning on next autumn holding an "all weather" meeting in order that we can get the procedures down to an absolute 't' and if we cannot prevent disruption, at least we all know / can proove we did our damn best.

[Curious Pax]

While other countries with a similar climate (like Belgium, Holland, France, western part of Germany etc) seem to be able to buy equipment and organize de-icing, why can´t the UK step into the 21st century as well? :hmm:

Bit of a fallacy there - Amsterdam was chaotic last week apparently, with huge deicing queues. A friend was sat on a KLM flight for over 3 hours as they awaited their turn. The circumstances were understandable, but no one has lines of 100s of deicers/snow ploughs etc poised at many airports south of Scandinavia!

[Rampmole]

That snow that fell early on sat was indeed the reason why runway closed, a blessing in disguise really, not for the punters of course but the ramp lads got an nice coffee break out of the cold,,,apologies to the monarch pilot who copped a snowball in his ear whilst doin his walk round..It wasnt meant for you!!;)

[LYKA]

Interesting

It could be said that if all adjacent airfields did the same (i.e. close when A/C could land) then are you potentially putting the A/C in a greater risk because they might not have the fuel to go any where else....Hmmm?:{

Secondly, and I understand the laibility part of the equation, why don't UK airfields close when they have TS overhead - they (the BAA??) seem to be happy to allow pilot judgement in this case?

[NudgingSteel]

LYKA
I'd take issue with your first point. I don't know how close you consider 'adjacent' airfields, but if all the airfields in (say) the Midlands were simultaneously affected by snow to the point that braking action was seriously degraded, there's no debate about the safe option. They close to snowclear. All the airlines have to carry their holding / diversion fuel. The crew will have access to the weather forecasts or actuals, which will let them determine if they need to either nominate a diversion alternate further away from destination, or carry extra holding fuel if they're likely to be delayed upon arrival. It would have to be a sudden, severe snowfall covering a huge, huge area to close destination and all suitable alternatives.
The alternative risk, of sliding the aircraft (probably with still thousands of kilos of fuel on board) off the runway upon landing, is of another magnitude.
Of course, if a crew decides that things are so bad that the safest option is to land on a heavily contaminated runway, that would be permitted, but it really would have to be pretty serious.

As for the thunderstorm bit, there's guidance in a recent-ish AIC to crews regarding operation in thunderstorms. Generally the UK doesn't get storms as intense as, say, the US, so we get less problems with microburst, tennis-ball sized hailstones etc etc. Weather radar lets crews decide where the worst bits are and they'll either delay departure or request to hold off an approach if necessary.

[AeroMANC]

I concur with Jet2, delays Saturday morning mainly due to LVP's which did not allow for an immediate recovery in the movement rate following the snow closure.

The Airport snow closed at around 06:30hrs due to 5mm contamination and reduced braking action (Medium), with continuing heavy snowfall. I understand the decision was taken to SNOCLO in an attempt to clear the snow in advance of the morning arrivals peak and prevent further accumulations. Furthermore, I'm told that due to environmental restrictions airports are now required to use 'weaker' anti-icing chemicals which dilute following heavy rainfall or snow. Secondary applications are therefore required to 'top up' the chemicals.

Seems to me that Manchester did a good job given the circumstances - the only other option would have been to continue operating the runway, allow the snow and ice to accumulate and then force a closure during the busiest period.

[LYKA]

Hi NS
FYI we don't have to carry extra fuel (but yes, it would be a good idea to! - but take a long haul flight, they might not be able to get the extra fuel on board) as long as we meet our planning requirments at dispatch. As far as our rules are concerned it is the depth of contaminent that is relavant, the BA is ONLY used for the crosswind limit.
The reason I ask is that this very same senario happen a couple of yrs back in the London TMA - many pans called becuase of the snow - the aircraft (at least ours) we able to land with the current depth of snow - thats my point. Taking scandinavia as an e.g. the weather may be such that you CAN'T find a decent alternate for a considerable distance and therfore, you might not be able to load up the extra fuel.
v. intersting though.