View Full Version : MAN Gear Collapse SAT

Jet A1
17th Jun 2001, 17:25
Saw a sick looking Kingair on 06R with pleny of fire machines around it....Seems had a nose gear collapse then verred off the rwy. Closed EGCC for a good 30 mins before going back to single runway operation......Thankfully the two runways prevented an unwanted overnight in MAN ! What is it with MAN ??? Something always seems to happen !

17th Jun 2001, 18:08
When people arrive it is so truly wonderful they simply don't want to leave again in a hurry http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

"Go around..I say again...go around"

18th Jun 2001, 01:04
It is only a matter of time before a larger aircraft does the same and goes across to the active take off runway. The two runways are far too close together for comfort.

18th Jun 2001, 01:20

You are right in so much as the runways are close but they do not have start and stop ends which are equal with each other, rather one starts at about the midpoint of the other. Also in my experience I have never seen aircraft operating off both runways at the same time. ATC have always made me wait for a landing aircraft on the other runway, before releasing me. Am I just lucky or do ATC normally allow aircraft to land and take-off on both runways without concern for separation?

18th Jun 2001, 01:53


18th Jun 2001, 19:13
In normal segregated operations there is no requirement for ATC to wait for one aircraft to land before clearing another for take off.
Dependent operations, however, which do require the arrival to be either more than 2 miles from touchdown or landed, prior to rolling the departure are used when the standard missed approach cannot be flown for whatever reason, or an ILS approach is not flown or other less common reasons I will not go into here.

You're almost right, its KPHL - Philadelphia.

18th Jun 2001, 19:30
It's not the procedures that worry me, it's the proximity of aircraft holding for 24L to the active landing runway 24R. The fact that other airports are the same doesn't change the risk. If "Gerona" happened at Manchester during a peak period the fire services wouldn't have known where to start.

19th Jun 2001, 00:11

Thanks for that. It's nice to know that amongst some of the beefing and banter that goes on in this forum, you can still get a sensible answer.


19th Jun 2001, 01:29
Everything in life has an element of risk in it. What you describe has been investigated by the highest authorities responsible for airport safety and has been deemed safe.
If all airports had to be designed to allow an aircraft to safely leave the runway out of control after landing they would be 2 miles square, made entirely of concrete and have a terminal building a 10 minute taxy away! Not very practical.

You're welcome.

19th Jun 2001, 03:23
Does anyone know more about the subject of the thread, i.e the gear collapse? was it a NEA King Air involved

19th Jun 2001, 04:20

No, it wasn't

19th Jun 2001, 14:34
Shot One
Ithas been many years since NEA operated any Kingairs. No doubt though they will be repairing this one!

22nd Jun 2001, 11:54
Sky 9

You obviously lead a sheltered, risk-averse life.

Without being pedantic, rwy ops at Manchester meet ICAO requirements and have been deemed sufficient by the authorities in this country.

Without dismissing the Gerona accident, there are so many variables that can create, exacerbate, but also diminish risk, that one should not make blanket statements about the safety of one particular operation.

Consider the safety-gains involved. Rwy 2 prevents mixed-mode traffic on a single rwy...now where have we recently seen a near-disaster as a result of THAT mode of operation...???

There's more in the spectrum than simply B & W.


23rd Jun 2001, 00:57
Of course EGCC meets ICAO standards, that’s why it was approved; however that doesn't necessarily mean that it is very wise.
A two runway configuration that involves aircraft holding close to active landing runways especially when there are three holding points, (increasing the risk by a multiple of 3) on the north of 24R and a huge holding area to the south cannot be considered very wise.

Interestingly I understand that there has been no risk analysis of the layout just acceptance of ICAO criteria.

Finally as the guy at the sharp end I try to be risk averse; is that a crime, or are we in a different industry to the one that I joined?

StoneyBridge Radar
23rd Jun 2001, 01:42
Oh please, you can not be serious sky9

By the way, I'm typing this with my keybaord cover on...just in case the plastic keys make me break a nail..not really a risk, but you never know.

Your comments sound more like a Mobberley resident or a journo scratching for a very cheap story.

Let's drop the silly comments about the runway layout and get back to what this thread was created for.

It does annoy me when I read comments from that very small minority of pilots who think they are God's gift to every other profession in aviation, from baggage handler to airfield architect to ATCO.

23rd Jun 2001, 02:19
When the Titanic sank, it carried the number of lifeboats as required by law. ICAO requirements?
Need I say more?

23rd Jun 2001, 05:31
Yes lets leave it to the Airfield Architects !
They actually built the new tower in Miami before they found they couldnt see the runway !! So much for the experts.