Another Aircraft off the Runway at BRS? [Archive]

fireflybob

30th Dec 2006, 08:55

Fun and games in Dub last night, circuit was full with G/A's due x w/v's. I am fed up with flying in crap weather.
Today 04:51

Yes, bearcat, I know what you mean but isn't this what flying is all about. In an age where the great unwashed think it's "all automatic" it's nice to know that there are still quite a few things in flying which are down to skill and good judgement!

Also, diversions are so (relatively) rare now and we are used to rigidly following "rules" perhaps it's time to resurrect phrases such as "command judgement" or "airmanship"? This comment is not intended to criticise the crews landing at BRS etc since I also was flying into DUB last night and the conditions were, to say the least, somewhat sporty!

I suppose what I am trying to say is that we like to think that we are protected by all the theory about braking action and margins etc but even the best can get caught out by what is one of our worst enemies - the weather!

Safe flying to all in 2007!

BigEndBob

30th Dec 2006, 09:57

Does the runway at BRS still have the big dip in the middle?
Seem to remember last time there (15 odd years ago) landing at night in PA28 most of the runway dissapeared on landing due to dip in centre.

WindSheer

30th Dec 2006, 10:14

Putting anything around a 757/321 size into BRS is tough enough for the crews due to the slope and stopping distance. There is such pressure to 'hit the spot' it puts the twitches in all 'left hand sphincters'!!
Combine this with extremely gusty crosswinds, and poor braking action, experienced BRS pilots will be very go-around minded!!!
BRS are very proud of their divert capability, and Andrew Skipp (rightly so) was very proud to stand in front of the cameras last week stating they were one of the only airfields in the area open for business!!

However the guys behind airfield operations should assist some of the boys up at the pointy end. Dont play that terrible gamble between safety & striving to keep the airfield open!!! We are all under pressure to prevent financial loss and minimsise disruption, but lets do it safely!!!
As I type this I can just see the stricken BA EMB being towed across to a hangar for repairs. :uhoh:

RAT 5

30th Dec 2006, 10:20

It'll be interesting to see what conclusions the lawyers, insurers and AAIB come too. Someone is going to be in the dock for off-roading; question is who.

ivor toolbox

30th Dec 2006, 11:07

However the guys behind airfield operations should assist some of the boys up at the pointy end. Dont play that terrible gamble between safety & striving to keep the airfield open!!! We are all under pressure to prevent financial loss and minimsise disruption, but lets do it safely!!!
As I type this I can just see the stricken BA EMB being towed across to a hangar for repairs

Well certainly the comment,to me, by one "airport manager" yesterday while we were recovering the Aurigny ATR "All I want is that ***ing plane off the ***ing grass and out of the way so I can re-open MY runway,all this is costing us " just shows their attitude at present doesn't it??

Luckily neither plane was particularly badly damaged, or their inhabitants injured; but both will be giving their respective engineering teams some work over the weekend.

ttfn

Stampe

30th Dec 2006, 12:30

Time for the authority to actually "regulate" I suspect.There are two airfields in the UK where the runways give me serious safety concern BRS and LBA.In the course of my job I have to operate into both, each are barely acceptable in reasonable conditions and marginal to "unsafe" in poor conditions for commercial aircraft.I would never allow my family to fly from them as passengers in anything other than good weather conditions.Commercial and planninng pressures have allowed their terminals to be developed way in excess of their runways physical characteristics and local weather.It will be a brave manager who ignores the recent 3 events at BRS ,should a more serious accident occur the lawyers will have a field day.wake up Bristol,wake up CAA.:ugh:

Scimitar

30th Dec 2006, 12:57

crew the screw

30th Dec 2006, 13:14

Braking action mid point is to be totally ignored @ Brs IMHO. As soon as there is even a hint of moisture on it it has the friction characteristics of a greasy pole:E..... @ a strip joint!! I strongly urge all involved at BRS to treat this runway with the respect it NOW deserves.

What the reason for this is I don't know.. Or care... SOMEONE @ BRS must be a wee bit nervous now.

What the stats are for departing the runway @ Brs I don't know but surely 3 in as many weeks Ain't good?

ivor toolbox

30th Dec 2006, 14:06

I operated 757s (and occasionally 767-300s) in and out of Bristol for 15 years and can't help wondering what all the fuss is about. Have they done something to the runway recently that has altered the friction effect?

Ah yes perhaps to explain,the runway is in the process of being resurfaced,with the work done at night by contractors, the top surface in @ the middle 'third' is only a temporary surface until the proper top surface can be laid full length.

ttfn

almost professional

30th Dec 2006, 14:47

Why are they giving B/A figures on a wet runway?

niknak

30th Dec 2006, 15:34

Good point A/P.

Under normal circumastances, with a grip tester or mu meter, it is not possible to give B/A readings when the runway is wet.
This is rammed down our throats every autumn when the annual winter snow op's are published.

What do Bristol know that we don't???

alghaita ganga

30th Dec 2006, 16:02

It seem that Bristol is just like an African airfield :uhoh: . Maybe they should take leaf from the Nigerian book and close it down at short notice for repair :E . At DNPO there were other problems also with the airfield, but it was close at less than 2 days notice in August and the runway will be resurface by Julius Berger. If I visit UK I must take note not to fly to Bristol. Cardiff is also close and seems not to have these problem - or maybe I just go to Londres and take a train - zut, no your British trains are really awful and alwasy problems with leaf on the line :{ :}

Noiffsorbuts

30th Dec 2006, 16:04

Many of us have been MOR ing this dreadful runway for several weeks. It beggars belief that nothing has been done about it.

BA today introduced panic measure restrictions massively limiting the operational ability of its aircraft out of BRS with wet and crosswinds. Many services will have to be cancelled or divert............

The more fundamental point is that Bristol airport istelf is actualy a joke.

It is in the wrong place, badly served by road let alone rail.

Its in the cloud

It is a short runway with no room to extend

There is inadequate parking

Its facilities are bursting at the seems.

It is completely the wrong place for a major commercial operation and now it is suggested that it is to double in size!!!!!!!!!!

Filton would have been just the ticket.

Stampe

30th Dec 2006, 16:11

Spot on and what runway it does have is of such uneven profile that landing in difficult weather especially blustery winds and cat 3 operations are always marginal.Why it was ever developed in preference to Filton is just beyond belief.As the safety culture in our industry disapears under commercial pressure I fear it will all end in tears.:ugh:

WindSheer

30th Dec 2006, 16:52

The reason for poor braking in sections at the mo' is its being re-surfaced by night. This leaves a smooth slippy surface. The 'substance' then has to harden for around a week before the grooves can be applied to prevent sitting water. That is where the issue is!
Credit to 2 EZY pilots earlier who refused to depart despite pressure from ATC. They had received a company memo (in light of the incidents), stating not to operate with a crosswind of more than 15kt when the r/way is wet wet wet! This included gusts!! The wind was 21012G18 so they refused!!
Nice one EZY..:ok:
Also about the comments on the logistics of Cardiff airport!! Now now!!
A 20 minute drive from the center, compared to the interesting 'hop' to LGW from say piccadilly circus is not even comparable!! :)

The Nr Fairy

30th Dec 2006, 17:19

http://www.chew76.fsnet.co.uk/lulsgate/lulsgate.html

brain fade

30th Dec 2006, 17:39

Look folks, it's simple. They are resurfacing the rwy. The new bit is not the final upper layer. There's no point grooving it as the final 'finish' or ' wearing course' is the only one you'll see once the job is done, and it will be grooved.
The stuff they are laying at the moment has sweet FA in the way of grip when even mildly wet. It can't be grooved as it's not the top layer.

a/c will therefore continue to have 'grip related' incidents, either braking or directional for the forseeable.

If BRS don't sit back and have a wee think here, they'll get themselves shut- which would be no bad thing as it's a total sh*thole anyway which only a moron would prefer to Filton.

Gurt lush my babbers!

Actually I quite like the place but why? I don't know!:ok:

We've now got a reduced crosswind limit too (20KT) and as any fule no, thats going to rule BRS out on a great many days!

really not

30th Dec 2006, 17:41

I once flew an ATC manager from BRS on the jump seat for a famil trip ( ah those days...............) and that Filton/ Lulsgate question came up. I remember him saying that Brymon had just been investigating a possible move, but the runway at Fil was only full strength at either end (as was the military spec at the time - who needs to land anywhere else than the numbers biggles?), not full length as is needed for civil ops. It made sense, maybe someone else would know if true. It was also not available now because BAE had sold all the surrounding land for houses and Cribbs Causway, so the council would not give the planning consent for regular commercial operations.

Shame 'cause it would have been much better than BRS as said earlier.

almost professional

30th Dec 2006, 18:03

Sorry but Niknak is correct, should not take B/A readings on wet runway as unreliable-we have not done so for years-but we still get asked!

Churchillian

30th Dec 2006, 21:48

Merchant
30Kts wet or dry. I'm on the ERJ-145's that are operated by BA Connect.
It's a friendly airport if you follow me, and I love our handling folk. But the airport and ATC are totally rule-bound and full of the silly rules that only small 'international' airports love.

Still, that's a small price to pay for a really good regional airfield!

Filton would do ALL Lulsgate does, but better.

ps. Hi Standard.;)

pps. Does ATCOJ30 talk that way at home?:}

Brain Fade,

I have spent the last 12 years ensuring pilots like you can operate safely into and out of this small 'international' airport; most of which were spent separating you and your colleagues from the myriad of military and light aircraft operating outside CAS. I also hit the bells last night for the unfortunate crew who slipped off of the runway and spent the next 15 minutes ensuring they and their passengers were OK. None of us are content with the current runway situation and advised the airport authority of our disquiet at a very early stage during the works - we are now working with them to provide the most accurate and timley information to all crews operating to/from EGGD.

Be careful accusing a professional group of people (like you and your fellow BA pilots) of being 'totally rule bound'; it probably means we ARE professional and, like the best pilots, are not prepared to cut corners for expediency. We are here to provide you with a service and keep you safe - it's worth remembering that before you next denigrate Bristol ATC.

RAT 5

30th Dec 2006, 22:04

Back to my question: Who is going to be in the firing line and covered in manure for a/c going cross country?

brain fade

31st Dec 2006, 00:14

RAT

Well not BRS atc for sure.:}
Blame the pilots!:} :D

I'm sure you're not content with the state of the runway. I had my first aquaplane on it about 8 weeks ago.

I regret not filing on it for sure. So partly to blame...:uhoh:

Whose idea was it to do the job in Winter?
Churchillian.

You're like a lot of folk at these 'regional' airports. You think you're sh*t hot but the truth is you could try a lot harder.

Try talking less for starters. It's a simplex net.

Also if you could 'cut a few corners' expeditiously AND safely, would that be welcome, do you think?

WindSheer

31st Dec 2006, 04:00

Back to my question: Who is going to be in the firing line and covered in manure for a/c going cross country?

Priceless....:D

Whose idea was it to do the job in Winter?

You couldn't even contemplate doing it in the summer!! It would work for the sched airlines, but it doesn't give the charters the r/way use they need!! We enjoy our red eye flights......dont take them away from us....;)

brain fade

31st Dec 2006, 10:41

Windsheer

Doing it in summer would mean it would be dry a lot more of the time. Then the lack of grip would not be so likely to cause problems as you'd need the combination of low friction, wet rwy and awful weather. Now while this would still happen in summer it would not happen so often.

There have been at least THREE offs recently and probably more to come. I could be one of them!

So how safe is that?

They should have shut foggy bottom for a few months and operated from Filton. :ok:

Trouble is..........no one would want to go back!

Stampe

31st Dec 2006, 10:46

Now,now gentleman i,ve worked Bristol ATC in various aircraft from a 767 to Robinson 44 and always found them very good.I,m sure they are as disgusted with the substandard runway that they find themselves supervising under ever increasing commercial pressure even when in its normal condition let alone the current degraded state.We,re all in this together ,remember the management ,politicians and lawyers are very good at hiding behind and finding fault with the license holders be they,pilots,enigineers or controllers.:ok:

Standard Noise

31st Dec 2006, 13:01

Stampe - indeed we are, disgusted that is.
Fadey - change the habit of a lifetime and stop blaming ATC at Briss for everything. You're meant to be intelligent to be a pilot, use your intelligence or use some of your over inflated salary to buy some. Several of my colleagues (including Churchillian, who is one of the most skilled and professional ATCOs I've ever worked with) have been put in an uneasy situation over the last few days where things have gone wrong and they have had to put into practice procedures that we hope we never have to use. We don't like it, but that's the way it is. God forbid you find yourself in the position two of your fellow professionals found themselves in on Friday. You might just be glad that Churchillian and the rest of us know what we're doing and are there to press the big red button. Or you could go to work for proper airline, oh silly me, you will be soon!:ok:

The fault with all of this lies with BIA and Lagan, the rest of us, pilots ant ATCers alike just have to cope with it. If you don't like it, transfer elsewhere (oh, bit of deja vu there!).

Freeway

31st Dec 2006, 13:08

The only reason that BRS is still open and operating is the fact that there were no fatalities or serious injuries associated with the last 3 incidents.

IMHO, if the ATC personnel and flightcrew at the airfield are aware of the deficiencies and are unhappy with the the runway situation, knowing that there have been 3 recent incidents involving commercial aircraft on the runway, then the operating company behind BRS airport is now leaving itself wide open to serious litigation if there are any subsequent incidents.

The operating company at BRS airport has the old ethos of money before safety, we all know companies that have had that ethos, unfortunately they tend to end up on the front pages of our morning papers.

brain fade

31st Dec 2006, 13:16

Standard.
Thanks for the top tips! I'll pop out to the shops after lunch.;)

You know I can't resist a dig at BRS, but I like you really.

I completely agree that its not anything to do with your lot that the rwy is a fuggin disaster area and an accident waiting to happen if there ever was one. Lets call the first three 'incidents'.

It don't matter a toss whose 'fault' it is. Question is, what is Bristol Airport going to do about it?

Well??????????:hmm:

btw. I bet the pilots involved would be happy to swap their level of 'unease', for yours.

judge11

31st Dec 2006, 13:33

Unless ocurrance reports have been raised by every crew that has even commented to themselves that 'mmm, that section of runway is a bit iffy' then no-one is to blame but those who have continued to use a clearly unsafe surface. Alarm bells have to be rung with airline, airport and regulatory authorities or nothing will ever get done. Being able to say 'it was an accident waiting to happen' and doing nothing to prevent it does nobody any favours.

Anotherflapoperator

31st Dec 2006, 13:39

...So speaks an angry man.

I got in this morning to see a handwritten notice to warn of the temporary 20kt crosswind limit sitting in the fax, with the official version in my inbox for the manual when I got back from LGW. Our company is certainly taking it VERY seriously, as they should do.

Modern commercial life does seem to be a case of Airport operators cutting corners whenever possible in the name of cost savings or profits, while ATC, Airlines and emergency services face the consequences of these acts. BIA is not the only one by far, and either we accept it and work together to make it work SAFELY or bleat to the Authority, who has time and time again, meekly stood by and let them get on with it. Mind you, I did my FRS in BRS this time round, and there did seem to be a lot of improvements and work being done since I was last there in the dim and distant past.

Best of luck to all of you flying in and out of BRS these next few weeks, not nice at all, and always remember to stick to the SOP and limits on all occasions to cover your own arses! Havnig read up on the last over-run on a 145, the bit about the spoilers closing up again as it thinks you've stopped really got me thinking.....eugh. Fly safe in 2007!

Mr Angry from Purley

31st Dec 2006, 14:09

Don't rely on contacting the Authority, the Belgrano's been closed for god knows how long so they can save on electricity :\

Cosmic Wind

31st Dec 2006, 14:36

This has opened up the mindset of the operators of BIA. Profit and blinkered expansion before everything else. If they are not careful all the proposed expansion plans will end up where they deserve, in the bin. Hope the CAA take them apart if any shortcomings become apparent in the new year.

fmgs

31st Dec 2006, 16:08

Standard Noise:

I find your two postings a wee bit sanctimonious, I'm afraid.

If you are, as you say, an ATCO at BRS, surely you have a duty to report anything that you consider dangerous to the proper authority, and not just to the aerodrome operator. Or are you afraid to put your head above the parapet? There is an occurance reporting scheme in this country; use it. If you need to go direct to SRG, do so.

And just how are the contractors "idiots"? Are they responsible in some way for deviating from their contract in a way prejudicial to flight safety? If they are, what are you and your colleagues actuallydoing about it? A neighbour is a director of the construction company you have identified; I'm sure he'll find your comments interesting. :ugh:
The truth might be that BIA Authority might not be carrying-out their responsibilities with regard to WIP due to commercial pressure, and interpreting the rules and regulations in a way that is commercially beneficial to them.

If safety is being compromised, in any way, then there is no use in standing on your soap-box in PPRuNe, you have a duty to report it.

WHBM

31st Dec 2006, 17:02

Well certainly the comment,to me, by one "airport manager" yesterday while we were recovering the Aurigny ATR "All I want is that ***ing plane off the ***ing grass and out of the way so I can re-open MY runway,all this is costing us " just shows their attitude at present doesn't it??
I T :

Would you be good enough to pass this report on to AAIB and CAA. You don't have to supply your own name but do please give the individual's name, along with date, time, others seen to be present, etc, and report the comment as accurately as possible.

DUNLOPS UP

31st Dec 2006, 18:03

Interesting comments from ATCOs at BRS.

There are some very good and efficient people in the tower but the rest leave a lot to be desired. Not wishing to change the thread too much but a month at LGW would sharpen them up.
I have been -
*broken off the ILS for a single engine aircraft to fit in front of me - with huge additional costs due to the vectoring round for another line up.
* sat in a queue 757/737/737/erj - to depart whilst several inbounds landed, no speed control imposed on the inbounds to make gaps large enough to get an aircraft away - huge costs to all cocerned in fuel, let alone the environment.
* had to repeat the QNH during 3 successive transmissions.
* some controllers would not let you depart unless the inbound was at least 10 miles away- has improved recently.
* had a slot and yet still waited for 2 other aircraft to push ahead of us which didnt have slots, we were third at the hold when we easily could have been in front and not been eventually made to wait on the runway whilst ATC negotiated with London as to whether we could depart due to slot expired.
Im not angry of course because its what one has now come to expect at BRS.
Happy new year

Standard Noise

31st Dec 2006, 18:14

Standard Noise:

I find your two postings a wee bit sanctimonious, I'm afraid.

If you are, as you say, an ATCO at BRS

So here is another who will not post his/her credentials to prove their validity to question my opinions yet implies that I am fraudulent with my personal profile. I may come over as sanctimonious, but I speak as I find. It may not be to your, or any one else's liking, but there you go. It's a sad day if I can't say what I believe, us Ulstermen have a habit of being blunt and forthright as your neighbour will no doubt testify. This post may be erased by the Mods (that'll be two today) BUT IT WILL NOT ALTER MY OPINION, but if that is what the Mods wish, then so be it.

Dunlops up - PM on it's way.

BTW, how do you know I haven't already reported it? Point being, I'm not likely to go public on here if I have, it's between me and the 'proper authority', but then if you are such an expert, you would know that.:D

Iron Duke

31st Dec 2006, 18:24

A bit about Lulsgate ... I believe it was origionally designed as a military diversion to RNAS Yeovilton. The logic being that if Yeovil was fogged out with radiation fog then Lulsgate with it's elevated position would be in the clear.
Despite Filton being in every sense a more suitable International Airport (communication, space, big runway, near the city center etc...) it fell foul of noise problems with the juxtaposed housing developments and approach over the city. Lulsgate, with it's relative remoteness sufferred none of these problems and the local authorities put their weight behind its case.
I used to operate orange B737s into BIA regularly and can say that landing on 09 at night in a 30kt X-wind and driving rain is one of the trickiest things that anyone can be called upon to do in our job. (particularly with Boeing wipers!) ... and now if there are serious decelerative problems aswell then something should be done. I am pleased to see that the operators are imposing very sensible local limitations.
Happy New Year to all, and lets hope the weather improves ....

I.Duke

OverRun

31st Dec 2006, 23:40

There is a subset of airports that might be characterised as those with only one runway and non aviation people in charge. Some airport managers/boards are not aviation people at all, and neither understand the concept of redundancy nor care about operations. They operate inadequately, and others suffer as a result. This is NOTHING to do with the aviation professionals that work at the airport, and everything to do with the Board and most senior management of the airport company.

The non aviation managers would be the first to complain if any aviator flew from LAX-LHR with only three of the four Boeing 747 engines working because they don’t understand redundancy, yet they operate their own airport with a single runway and no backup. Possibly there was nothing in their law degree or accounting course that said it couldn’t be done. So when runway repairs are needed (which is every 10 years or so) they keep the facility in service and try and patch it as they go. One of my benchmarks of an airport management is the time that they allow the engineers for shutdown so construction can proceed. Anything around the 6 hour mark shouts out to me: ‘moron at the top’. I’ve even seen 5.5 hours, but I didn’t hear the shout because I was laughing so hard at their idiocy. There is a long list of problems that such tight time limits cause, but the most pressing one is that the facility is kept sub-standard [and may be even dangerous] for weeks on end.

There are several options to do the job properly at airports with one runway. The first is to close the runway completely while the work is done. 2000m of runway typically needs about 13000 tonnes of asphalt. Three plants working 24 hours should lay that in 4 days. Then lay 6000 tonnes of porous asphalt on top for friction – another 2 days. Then allow 1 day for lighting and markings. So a 7 day shutdown of the runway, after which it re-opens as fit-for-service. Note the use of porous asphalt to reduce the closure time rather than grooving. Oh – did I mention that porous asphalt costs slightly more than grooving? Probably about 2 pence per passenger more. There are a whole range of other scheduling and design options that can also be used.
But if the airport has been properly run as a full-time serious place, there will be other runways built that can be used while the shutdown occurs (such as LHR) or even the parallel taxiway (LGW) that can be used. If these aren’t available - well that airport is either running on too tight a budget or isn’t a full-time serious place. In that case, the airport should take it on the chin, and close for the week. There are usually plenty of transportation alternatives for that week - trains, buses and other airports. And if the airport ever wants to run as a full-time serious placed, it can always build the facilities it needs for redundancy.

Of course it only happens that way sometimes. There are too many airport managers/boards who are not aviation people, and they are not about to cut their cashflow one little bit by closing. Since they don’t know about aviation, they think that the airport makes money from retail, rental, carparking, and the like. The runway is just a nuisance that costs money. A look at their annual report will show their attitude – the “not aviation” ones will be all about income from the various sources and the runway won’t even get a mention. This sort of forgets the fact that ‘no runway = no income’ and that the airport’s core business is about aircraft taking off and landing safely. For non-aviation people, if repairs are inconveniently needed they will be (a) deferred as long as possible and (b) not allowed to interfere with the running of the airport.

Thus we arrive to my earlier remark about only allowing a 6 hour window for construction, since any more will affect operations. And work is to be done at night, which is the worst possible time for this type of construction with too-rapid cooling of the asphalt, poor construction joints, water trapped in the pavement, etc. And of course the work is scheduled for the quietest season.

I don’t know BRS. Do they have an alternative runway or taxiway? How long is the time window for construction? Is it at night? Is the CEO a lawyer or accountant? How does their annual report read? When is their quiet season?

TomBola

1st Jan 2007, 00:10

OverRun,
How refreshing to see your post. Even in Nigeria, our authorities have closed down one of the major international airports now for 4 months to resurface the runway. We may not have the facilities, and we may be condemned for unsafe practices, but even in Africa we close down a runway for resurfacing. Maybe the management of BRS makes even we third world airports look like professionals now :} :yuk:

ETOPS

1st Jan 2007, 09:24

You might be suprised to learn that SRG have actually read this thread and will be acting on it.

Well done Pprune :ok:

fyrefli

1st Jan 2007, 09:32

Despite Filton being in every sense a more suitable International Airport (communication, space, big runway, near the city center etc...) it fell foul of noise problems with the juxtaposed housing developments and approach over the city. Lulsgate, with it's relative remoteness sufferred none of these problems and the local authorities put their weight behind its case.

The thing is the approach isn't over the city at all - a quick reference check on Google Earth shows that the approach to 09 crosses nothing other than an industrial bit of Avonmouth and the approach to 27 is to the South of Sadly Broke, only overflying a bit of Stoke Gifford.

I find it somewhat ironic that part of the campaign against Filton expansion comes from the environmental lobby (including the local FoE run until recently by my parents!), when the environmental cost of continually expanding an airport in self-evidently the "wrong" place is massively greater.

To return the thread to operational matters, what if any are the implications for rejected take offs of the self-evidently sub-standard temporary surface?

ATCOJ30

1st Jan 2007, 10:59

Just to correct a couple of Posts on this subject:

2 aircraft left the runway surface, not 3, as some Posters have stated.

ATC certainly did not exert any "pressure" on the EZY aircrew to depart (Winsheer's post). The ATCOs concerned passed frequent wind updates to the crews concerned, as was entirely appropriate. In such circumstances, ATC pass as much information as possible to flight crews, including latest braking action- and runway surface condition reports, to enable pilots to make informed decisions.

On related topics on the thread:

Brain Fade: predictable comments, offensive and puerile as ever.The one about ATC "cutting corners" beggars belief from someone who purports to being a professional pilot.

Dunlops Up: Did you make your comments/complaints known to BRS ATC through any channel available to you (Flight Safety Manager/ASR/MOR/phone call to ATC?) If not, why not? Whatever happened to CRM/TRM, which is equally applicable to pilot-ATCO exchanges.

DUNLOPS UP

1st Jan 2007, 13:41

ATCOJ30

Certainly did on one occasion and spoke to a rather obnoxious guy who was controlling at the time, he was talking to me on the phone, tower Fx and his assistant all at the same time, I was told to shut up while he was transmitting - I didnt realise at the time he wasnt talking to me - I thought only women could multi task!

I have all events logged and will contact you when there is a next time and raise the issues.
Having said that, arrived in the other night - No6 - and the contoller was excellent - not the normal panick with so many arrivals at the same time - asked if we should slow up - NO he said - and he fed in all six, in perfect sequence without any of us being vectored all over the sky.

Glad that someone is taking notice.

PAXboy

1st Jan 2007, 17:17

OverRun asked : "Is the CEO a lawyer or accountant?"
The website does not give that but a local will supply I'm sure. The MD is Andrew Skipp but no other details. The website states the usual blandness:
Bristol International Airport is a Private Limited Company, 100% owned by a joint venture holding company, South West Airports Limited. South West Airports Limited (SWAL) is in turn owned by Macquarie Airports (MAp), a subsidiary of Macquarie Bank Ltd, Australia's largest investment bank and Ferrovial Aeropuertos, a subsidiary of Ferrovial, one of Spain's foremost infrastructure companies.
Since acquiring Bristol International, in January 2001, both shareholders have increased their portfolio of airport investments, including stakeholdings in Sydney, Birmingham, Belfast City, Brussels, Rome and Copenhagen Airports.
www.macquarie.com.au
www.ferrovial.com
They have posted their 'Master Plan 2006 to 2030' on their website as a pdf.

vulcanpilot

1st Jan 2007, 20:12

If anyone has ever seen Mr Skipp on the TV spouting about his plan to take over the world (sorry, I mean the expansion plans for BIA) then you would see he most certainly is an accountant. Or perhaps a 'merchant banker'! :E

This would never have happened in Les' day!

Dash-7 lover

1st Jan 2007, 21:16

My co have now issued a 20kt x-wind limit for a wet rwy @ BRS - was 35kts!

tyfilou

2nd Jan 2007, 08:17

Hey guys!
Happy new year!
Nobody got hurt for now and what we all want is to keep the score like it is!
Trying to blame one another will not solve the problem and will not improve the CRM in our work!
What has to be sorted is the conditions under wich we can or can't operate from BRS and make certain that we get the proper information about the runway status in terms of NOTAM to know if a temporary ungrooved surface is there,
braking action and friction coefficient reports and pilot reports...
For us now it's clearly 15Kts Max X-wind in BRS until further advice!
We are all part of a loop and we must keep all sources of information open to continue a safe operation.
Blaming the controllers the other pilots or whoever in the loop is not a correct CRM prospect and does not show a great deal of professionalism.
Enquiries are made by the authority and the aim of it is to make sure that safety is ensured and that everybody can learn from eventual errors commited.
Blaming is a lawyer's job and i'm fortunate enough not to be one!
This is not a professional lawyers rumour network thanks god! So please don't start and make one on Pprune!
Happy new year again and best wishes from Guernsey

WATABENCH

3rd Jan 2007, 22:24

Just as a coincedence these "incidents" have all happened in the 2 week window where the runway has not been worked on overnight, I really am not going to pretend I know anything about runway friction, braking distances and resurfacing because I dont, but could the post ponement of work added to the problem in anyway?
Also have any other uk airports recently had re-surfaceing work? Did LTN not do theirs last winter? and if so were any major problems caused there in poor wx?
Link is for Guernseys local rag re: Aurigny offroading + pic.
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/code/shownewsarticle.pl?ArticleID=001599

Stop Stop Stop

4th Jan 2007, 13:08

KLM have imposed similar measures following the recent incidents.

Braking action is to be considered medium when the runway is wet until further notice (i.e. when they sort the runway out).

This means a crosswind limit of 15kts instead of 30.

Strepsils

4th Jan 2007, 15:04

Shiftcontrol

4th Jan 2007, 20:37

Having just watched a program on Luton airport where the were replacing the runway surface overnight in 100m sections, I have to ask why Bristol can't do the same?

It may have been clever editing, but the new runway sections appeared to be laid and grooved, in other words fully completed, at the end of every night.

Why does Bristol appear to be having such problems?
I also watched that prog. The work was being carried out by the same contractors as at BRS as per a previous posting on this forum since deleted (by the mods?) since it named names.The prog also said that the runway at LTN was around10/15 years old.However they were only replacing the wearing course at 50mm,not base course.The prog was filmed in 2006

TimS

5th Jan 2007, 07:57

According to the BBC, Easyjet have cancelled all operations through Bristol today due to concerns about the performance of the runway in wet conditions!

see ..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/

Bristol_Traveller

5th Jan 2007, 08:14

GWR-fm reporting the same, and the deps board seems to confirm.
Anyone airside got anything insider on this?

News Bristol

5th Jan 2007, 08:16

Does anyone know what is going on at Bristol Airport today?
Where are the planes being diverted to?
Is it anything to do with the runway?
Any info gratefully recieved...

London legend

5th Jan 2007, 08:20

EASYJET COMMENT STATEMENT TO BBC RADIO BRISTOL

Easyjet has cancelled all flights at Bristol International due to concerns about the resurfaced runway.

"We have cancelled all flights this morning following concens of reliability of newly resurfaced runway in wet weather
customers entitled to refund. they have been in consultation with brisol airport and civil aviation authority."

News Bristol

5th Jan 2007, 08:29

Is It Just Easyjet?

jimworcs

5th Jan 2007, 08:31

05 January 2007
All flights to and from Bristol cancelled this morning, 5 January 2007
easyJet announces that it has cancelled all flights to and from Bristol International Airport this morning following concerns over the reliability of the newly resurfaced runway in wet weather conditions.

News Bristol

5th Jan 2007, 08:41

Does anyone know if there are any flights being allowed to land?

BBC Chris

5th Jan 2007, 08:48

Does anyone know if there are any flights being allowed to land?

Hiya guys ...

I'm working for the BBC and I'm looking for people to get in touch with us - especially pilots and crews - to talk about this story.

If you would like to chat to us then please do get in touch on 0117 9747747 or email [email protected]

If anyone happens to have any pictures from the terminal today too I'd really like to see them - again, email [email protected]

Cheers

Chris

ceedee

5th Jan 2007, 08:51

Does anyone know if there are any flights being allowed to land?
Easyjet's decision (amazingly) only applies to Easyjet flights.
Everything cancelled this morning and this afternoon's departures showing "possible disruption".
Check it yourself on the BIA Arrivals Board (http://www.bristolairport.co.uk/flight_information/arrivals_board.aspx)

News Bristol

5th Jan 2007, 09:00

If you have any details about flights or what's going on behind the scenes and want to speak to the press in confidence or otherwise call us on 07968 361059 or email [email protected].

BBC Chris

5th Jan 2007, 09:05

If you have any details about flights or what's going on behind the scenes and want to speak to the press in confidence or otherwise call us on 07968 361059 or email [email protected].

Hello .. who's this?

[email protected] MMS:07725 100 100 Phone: 0117 9747 747 for the BBC.

Slopey

5th Jan 2007, 09:13

Uh oh - I hope that every UK based thread which appears in R&N won't now have "Call BBC/ITV/Sky/etc" posts appearing :rolleyes:
I suppose it was only a matter of time.

BEagle

5th Jan 2007, 09:14

The Lulsgate NOTAM states:

DUE TO RWY MAINT THE RWY SFC BTN THE INT OF TWYS DELTA AND FOXTROT WILL BE SLIPPERY WHEN WET. VARIABLE FRICTION CO-EFFICIENT READINGS WILL BE EXPERIENCED THROUGHOUT THE RWY LENGTH AND ARE AVBL ON REQUEST. ACFT HANDLING DIFFICULTIES MAY BE EXPERIENCED DURING CROSSWIND CONDITIONS.

Now, that's the middle 33% of the runway length which, as it's been declared 'slippery when wet' MUST be considered to have the same braking coefficient as an icy runway. This will have a major effect on operations; the increased Landing Distance Required and/or Accelerate/Stop Distance Available plus the stated crosswind handling problems add up to an overall significant hazard if they are not fully understood.

If rain is forecast (not unknown in the South West), operating into or out of a runway declared 'slippery when wet' is not something to be considered lightly.

Runway friction coefficients allegedly obtained for such runways are notoriously unreliable. Easyjet have taken a very prudent course of action and one which others would do well to learn from.

(Yokelvision journos - feel free to quote me as you wish!)

BBC Chris

5th Jan 2007, 09:25

(Yokelvision journos - feel free to quote me as you wish!)

Thanks very much!

quaerereverum

5th Jan 2007, 09:30

A huge swathe of EZY morning flights cancelled today (Friday 5th Jan) due to concerns about new runway surface:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6233487.stm
https://www.easyjet.com/EN/News/bristol_cancellations_5_january.html
QV

brain fade

5th Jan 2007, 09:35

Yes

Heard this on the 1000 news today. I landed twiceat BRS yesterday and it was very much 'ops normal'.

What's the problem today? As we left I could see the plant producing the material for the resurfacing was going full pelt, with steam coming from it's chimney, so presumably, resurfacing re-commenced last night.

Must be a bit of a costly embarassment for BIA.:rolleyes:

rallymania

5th Jan 2007, 09:35

head in the sand?

"Rayanir told the BBC it had experienced no problems at the airport and was unaware of any concerns." from the bbc's article

well done easyjet

brain fade

5th Jan 2007, 09:44

ermm. This is getting a bit cringeworthy.:rolleyes:

WHAT are BIA going to do about this, as I asked earlier?:ooh:

nonemmet

5th Jan 2007, 09:47

What's the problem today? As we left I could see the plant producing the material for the resurfacing was going full pelt, with steam coming from it's chimney, so presumably, resurfacing re-commenced last night.

Yesterday there was no problem - for the first time in weeks the runway was dry.
The problem today is that the runway is wet, and so the resurfaced section is slippery again.

Colonel Klink

5th Jan 2007, 09:53

Well done easy jet for being procative, obviously the owners of BIA didn't read the threads here on Pprune about how slipperey their own runway is when wet!!

ivor toolbox

5th Jan 2007, 09:56

WHAT are BIA going to do about this, as I asked earlier?

Absolutely nothing that they're not told to do by the regulatory body, and as our once powerful CAA has had most of its' powers subsumed to Cologne or Dusseldorf (or wherever the hell the EASA office is this week), its' not likely to tell them to do anything IMHO, that would be 'interfering with a commercial operation' wouldn't it?

Only action like EZY have taken today is likely to make them sit up and take notice...hit 'em in the wallet is the only thing they'll recognise nowadays.

ttfn

Noiffsorbuts

5th Jan 2007, 10:31

Very well done to Easy for having the guts to put the safety of their passengers first.

Shame on you BA and others who have pussyfooted around and kept their heads down despite some of us filing MORs weeks ago alerting to the inevitability of accidents on this apalling runway.

One can only guess at the pandemonium in Mr Skipp's office.

The action by Easy in declaring that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes sould now be followed by others and the whole ridiculous farce that is Bristol International should be exposed for the nonsense that it is. It has already exceeded its safe operating capacity given its size nature and location.

Freeway

5th Jan 2007, 10:35

Agree with what BEagle has said a few posts ago.

Easyjet has made a clear and robust decision based entirely on the safety of its passengers and crews, they should be congratulated and supported by us all. :D

I wish that the other operators would follow Easyjets' lead and show BIA that the current situation is both unsafe and therefore unacceptable.

No aircraft operations at an airport, means no money for the airport operator. The runway would be fixed PDQ if this was the case.

brain fade

5th Jan 2007, 10:40

Must say

Hats off to Easy. I've also seen them suspend ops due extreme weather in the past.

Not saying it's NEVER happened where I work, but it's sure never happened to me!

Must be a strong safety culture that puts safety befor profit in such an assertive manner.:ok:

Now, for a laugh, compare that attitude to Bristol 'international' Airport's!:rolleyes:

Phil Brockwell

5th Jan 2007, 10:58

For any stranded Easy PAx, aircraft available for charter on the soutside!!!:E

Silvertop

5th Jan 2007, 11:20

Here's the link draw your own conclusions.

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/code/shownewsarticle.pl?ArticleID=001599

WindSheer

5th Jan 2007, 11:27

Hmmm....I fear this is revolving entirely around politics than neccessarily safety! Someone has got to take the wrap for the 'skids' last week, what better way to pass it to the airport!!!! And rightly so! BIA staff were so proud to boast their opening hours during the fog, but in the past week have buried their heads!! The pressure has been put entirely onto the 4 stripers to decide whether to take the 'risk' or not!! A bit of operational backup would not have gone a miss!!
The airline I work for has received no official 'update' on runway speculation from BIA in the past week, poor show on the safety side!!!

Anyway, a happy and prosperous new year to all.....:eek:

J-Class

5th Jan 2007, 11:48

I've been reading this thread as a passenger and would like to add my congratulations to Easyjet for putting safety first in this instance. Their action does beg the question why other carriers are continuing operations, particularly in light of the evidence reported in this thread.

Wycombe

5th Jan 2007, 12:02

From the BIA arr's/dep's it looks like there are some BACON cancellations also
(I can see MUC, DUS and CDG so far this morning)

Dash-7 lover

5th Jan 2007, 12:05

Yep - I've just canx 12 sectors so far with the rest on a 'rewarn' !!!
DUS/FRA/GLA/MUC/CDG x 2

Asked pax svcs to try and disperse pax through BHX....... ;-(

ivor toolbox

5th Jan 2007, 12:17

You may want to take a look here as well

http://www.ukar.co.uk/cgi-bin/ukarboard/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=1;t=25772

ttfn

chrism20

5th Jan 2007, 13:58

BA website is now stating that all flights to/from Bristol are now cancelled for the next few days

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/flightops/public/en_gb

nonemmet

5th Jan 2007, 14:00

Hi Flying Farmer,
you asked:
How would someone cancel the booking? having spoken to your helpline it will cost extra to make changes to any bookings already made, not ideal.
Calls at 10 and 65 pence a minute, if you want to speak to someone
Press release from easyjet at 13:30 approx
easyJet announces that it has cancelled all flights to and from Bristol International Airport this morning following concerns over the reliability of the newly resurfaced runway in wet weather conditions.
The safety of its passengers, crew and aircraft is easyJet’s first priority and this decision has been taken following extensive discussions with Bristol International Airport and the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
Customers are entitled to a refund of the fare paid or a free transfer on to another easyJet flight within the next month.
To claim a refund customers should call easyJet customer services on 08712 442366 to make a transfer please visit www.easyjet.com and log on to ‘manage bookings.’
Customers are asked to refer to www.easyjet.com for information, a further update will be provided before midday today.

I think you pay 10p per minute on an 0871 number, not ideal I agree, but looks like there should not be any other charges.

Capt.Paul Skinback

5th Jan 2007, 14:12

Just watched that idiot of an airport manager on the local news defending the state of the runway. According to him the CAA gave the runway the all clear yesterday. Well yesterday it was dry and the wind was straight down the runway! Maybe he should try skippering a 60t a/c on that surface.

Unlike the previous evening when the landing XL 738 reported to the tower a 'loss of control for 300metres!'

Landing at BRS has now become a lottery in the wet and thank goodness my company has put its hand up and said enough is enough! The last few days have been bloody hard work.

Lastly, why was there no work being done for the two week period over Christmas and New Year?

d192049d

5th Jan 2007, 14:21

Aga : Q)egtt/qmrxx/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5123n00243w005
From 06/12/30 15:33 To 07/03/31 23:59 C5837/06
E)due To Rwy Maint The Rwy Sfc Btn The Int Of Twys Delta And Foxtrot
Will Be Slippery When Wet. Variable Friction Co-efficient Readings
Will Be Experienced Throughtout The Rwy Length And Are Avbl On
Request. Acft Handling Difficulties May Be Experienced During
Crosswind Conditions.

SailorOrion

5th Jan 2007, 14:37

I'm wondering ...

FRA/EDDF has resurfaced (or rather replaced) its runway 7L/25R two years ago. Each night the runway was closed at 2200 local and re-oped at 0600 local, during which about 50m of the concrete runway was replaced by an asphalt one.

What were these guys doing differently?

SailorOrion

fyrefli

5th Jan 2007, 14:38

Hi Flying Farmer,
you asked:
Press release from easyjet at 13:30 approx
I think you pay 10p per minute on an 0871 number, not ideal I agree, but looks like there should not be any other charges.
On the Bristol thread in AA&R I posted the true geographic nos as per http://www.saynoto0870.com/
They work - I've been successfully dialling them from Holland for 1 euro cent a minute (with a geographical number carrier pre-selection works; with 0870/1 it doesn't).

Gary Lager

5th Jan 2007, 15:13

Does the current Notam give sufficient weighting to the situation??

I would suggest, absolutely not. Whoever wrote that perhaps stuck between a rock (flight safety) and a hard place (BIA management).

Flight Safety has no place for diplomatic ar*e-covering, they're supposed to be NOTices to AirMen, not notices to commercial/PR interests.

It was even less helpful before the excursions, at least someone eventually realised that maybe, just perhaps, pilots ought to be given a bigger hint. :ugh:

balderino

5th Jan 2007, 15:15

airmail

5th Jan 2007, 15:36

I have taken the following paragraph from the page on Bristol Airports website when they announced the resurfacing work:
Commenting on these works, Carl Lapworth, Head of Engineering at Bristol International said: “The resurfacing of the runway has been planned very carefully, taking into account the needs of the airport, local communities and the authorities. We will be working closely with Lagan Construction to ensure that the works are completed on time and with minimal impact on the environment, our services, and our neighbours"
For those of you that wish to see the whole page it is at:
http://www.bristolairport.co.uk/press/press_releases/article.aspx?newsid={C80C8E97-3329-4A0A-935D-F7B90D167EBE}
I note that they seemed to take into account everyones needs except for the airlines!

G-CPTN

5th Jan 2007, 15:46

This phenomenum (of low coefficient of newly laid surfaces when wet) has recently been the subject of much conjecture in the road construction profession and industry. Combined matrix bituminous materials were developed for 'easy' resurfacing, though research work on the skid resistance of the prototype materials was carried out on surfaces which had been in use for some time. Few, if any, tests were performed on freshly-laid surfaces until motorists reported skidding events, especially when the surface was wet. It has been discovered that the oils in the bitumen leech-out and, as there has been insufficient wear to allow the stone-matrix to rise to the surface, when these oils from the binder mix with the water from rain, the resultant surface can be 'like a skating rink' until dust combines with these oils and/or surface wear uncovers the matrix material.
Of course grooving the surface will accelerate the wear process, as well as providing spaces for the water to collect and drain away.

5th Jan 2007, 16:14

Quote from EasyJet website!

"As rain is forecast for Saturday 6 January, easyJet will operate a large proportion of its services in and out of Cardiff International Airport. Passengers will be required to check in at Bristol International Airport as normal and will be transferred across to Cardiff. A list of the flights the airline plans to operate tomorrow will be posted on the website later this afternoon."

What a farce this is turning out to be! Does that mean everytime its going to rain between now and the scheduled end of the runway work, they are going to transfer ops to Cardiff !

Balerdino, welcome to PPRune - I see this is your first post. I'm interested to know why you think putting peoples lives first is "a farce"? I do not know if you have any connection with the aviation industry - but if you comments reflect your attitude to safety then I sincerely hope you are not employed in any safety critical role in any profession. :hmm:

I think "the farce" lies elsewhere, and EZY should be commended for taking the bull by the proverbials and telling BIA that they need to get their house in order. I see BA has now followed suit.

In answer to your question, I think it's a certainty that EZY, and probably most other operators will indeed transfer ops to CWL (Cardiff) when the wx precludes BRS. What else would you suggest they do - take a chance - and hope to get away with it - GET REAL!!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

A4

JW411

5th Jan 2007, 16:26

I've just heard Mr Skipp bullsh*tting on the BBC Radio 4 5 o'clock news and to say that he was less than convincing at reassuring us all that his runway is perfectly safe would be an understatement.

I would guess that Mr Skipp is soon to learn that a P45 is not, as he has always imagined, a very nice old compass!

datboy

5th Jan 2007, 16:34

So that's why there were 3 Easy A319's and a KLM Fokker 100 in the hold last night (I think) in a light shower which couldn't even be picked up by the onboard weather radar!
I notice Ryanair are still flying there 737's in though:=

Marra123

5th Jan 2007, 16:37

air2bob

5th Jan 2007, 16:49

ezy/xla/ba should be applauded for their action and all airlines should stick together puting safety before profit but i'm wondering how my company fca managed their flight to tfs with a 757 which is bigger/heavier than say a a319? i hope fca were not turning a blind eye to the risks!!!!. who picks up the bill for all the coaches up and down the m4 to cwl/lgw/stn/ltn? and at this time of year are cwl really able to manage all the extra flights? i've flown from there many a time it's not the best for handling!!! and thats on a normal day.

GBALU53

5th Jan 2007, 17:01

Good to see action is being done, it is the Airlines that are getting the most grief.

So the two loosers here the Airlines and the Airport. The confidence in Bristol if this is not sorted out quickly will take a long time to build up again and other Airports might well benefit.

It took several aircraft to go farming, at least that is a lot better than any damaged aircraft of injury to passengers.

WATABENCH

5th Jan 2007, 17:04

All FCA flights will ops in and out of BHX until monday apart from AGP which will ops from EXT.

Golf Charlie Charlie

5th Jan 2007, 17:10

What about the daily Continental 757 ?

sbthomas

5th Jan 2007, 17:13

I took the good lady to Paris for a couple of days and we returned this morning. On appr to BRS this morning, obvious engine power increase and then configuration changes as everything cleaned up. The A/C announced that "due to the runway being a bit slippery, the company don't want us to land there so we're now going to Birmingham".

After landing at Brum cabin crew made announcment that we would be bussed to BRS and said we'd be met in arrivals. Needless to say no-one there to meet the pax who picked up their bags and did their wandering sheep impersonations. When I asked BACON staff what the plan was, I was told "you're at the wrong desk - we're ticketing". Eventually I found a coach outside with a driver who said he was waiting to transfer BA pax to BRS.

Pax aren't pi55ed off at pilots/ops making safety decisions; they're fed up with being treated like mushrooms. Maybe the comd shouldn't have tried to pass it off as something trivial and something he had no part in; it made it sound like a buck-passing exercise. Might it have been better to clarify "this is for your safety".

The attitude of ground staff was just appalling, although not surprising as we see it so often. I can see why BA wants to shift the whole lot over to Flybe.

In trim

5th Jan 2007, 17:21

I applaud the decision of the airlines concerned.

But then, in terms of potential "corporate liability" anyone who continues to operate would be taking a real chance. "What if....."? It would be very hard to defend an accident / incident / injury from the insurance or legal perspective if airlines were to continue operating.

And of course, based on the laws of probability, the based/high frequency operators such as EZY would be most exposed in terms of a likely incident.

5th Jan 2007, 17:27

Marra,

The problem is that the travelling public just take things for granted. This is because 99% of the time everything works and when it doesn't, they don't understand why. That's not a criticism by the way. A significant number of the public think that "it's all automatic - just push a few buttons and it's all done for you". How many times have I heard that? :rolleyes:

Perhaps the complaining pax at NCL would like to think on the following analogy:

We will give you a gun with 10 chambers in it and load two bullets. Now spin the barrel, point the gun at yourself and pull the trigger. I guarentee that not one person would do it. So why then do they think they know best when it comes to landing an aircraft on a runway of questionable ability. It may be ok, or perhaps you'll slide off the side/end, collapse the gear, rupture the fuel tanks and suffer a catastrophic fire ...... perhaps a bus from CWL isn't so bad.

If anything, these complaining pax should reflect and be praising EZY for putting the passengers interests ahead of any commercial consideration......

As Commanders we carry a responsibility that most people cannot begin to comprehend. I'm not "bigging myself up" - just stating a fact. I am personally responsible for the lives of 150+ people, a multi-million pound asset and the Company's reputation. If I'm not happy about any safety aspect of the operation I WILL NOT go and my company WILL back me up. The passengers should respect that decision - it's taken for YOUR safety - not for your inconvienience :ugh:

So, travelling public, when you get angry because of a slight inconvienience - just take a step back and think .......

A4

Dolley

5th Jan 2007, 17:38

I myself felt quite proud to be part of easyjet today.
I'm only cabin crew but I had been following the increasing number of incidents and have to say that I started to be more and more worried about the situation, and wondering if it needs somebody to get hurt before somebody will do something about it.
Therefore I'm more than relieved that easyjet took this step, although I'm quite aware that there might be some dire consequences looking around the corner.
I'm not surprised that most airlines followed easyjets lead. How could they not? If now something would happen after easyjet made the statement about safety concerns... Well, I'm not surprised that ryanair doesn't give a damn...
I just hope they'll find a solution so we don't have to operate out of Cardiff everytime it rains (somebody told me that rain seems to happen on a more than regular basis in this beautiful country). That would be painful for pax, crew and company....and BRS airport too, I guess. At the end of the day nobody (at least I don't) wants BRS airport to get into so much financial trouble that they have to shut down.
But, at the end of the day, it's nice, for once, to be reminded that there is people and companies out there that care more about safety and people than money and reputation. So for me this whole day, despite all chaos, feels slightly up-beat on the pure matter of human nature. The only thing that I found a bit disappointing was a quite obvious seperation between flight deck and cabin crew in BRS crew room today(which isn't normally the case). But that was probably just me, or just because of circumstances.
Plus, I'm not unhappy about the unexpected day off :-)

ivor toolbox

5th Jan 2007, 17:49

flower

5th Jan 2007, 18:01

According to BIAs MD live on BBCs Points West this evening the two aircraft leaving the runway were just very minor events :rolleyes:

Stop Stop Stop

5th Jan 2007, 18:07

Whilst they might be "minor" to the MD of BRS- he will be sitting in his office just worrying about how he will justify his position to the Board, whilst the poor crews in the aircraft concerned will most likely be immediately suspended from duties and have to face a lengthy internal investigation and then be questioned by the AAIB etc. etc.

I suspect for these poor people that this will not be a "minor" occurance at all. There but for the grace of God go I! My thoughts are with the crews and not Mr. Skipp, who really ought to consider just what must be done to sort this fiasco out at HIS airport, instead of issuing pointless soundbites to the BBC!

SWBKCB

5th Jan 2007, 18:08

According to BIAs MD live on BBCs Points West this evening the two aircraft leaving the runway were just very minor events :rolleyes:

Good grief...
:ugh:

Anotherflapoperator

5th Jan 2007, 18:33

...They were only "minor" events because he aircraft concerned were not larger! One of our 145s was one of them, and that type is not best happy in slippy conditions....

A company notice went up today banning BA Connect 145s from Bristol when the runway is wet, but if it dries up they can operate and will. Very sensible and correct. I can't for the life of me work out how the management of BRS haven't got the grooving machine out right now no matter how expensive it is!

Helen49

5th Jan 2007, 18:37

Having read the above contributions, a couple of my long held beliefs are confirmed.......too many people put safety first only in their safety policy documents (in reality the bottom line has first priority) and secondly, passengers are still treated in the same way that they have always been treated by airlines and handling agents.....'as nuisances' and the last people to be kept in the communication loop. What a sad comment on our aviation industry.
H49

old,not bold

5th Jan 2007, 18:49

What a depressing thread this is.....

The runway at BRS has been a problem for as long as I can remember, for one reason or another (obstructions, slopes, and now surface). I don't know why the two aircraft ran off recently but they are not the first by a long way. I would want a very careful investigation before even thinking of blaming the operating crew.

Lack of proper investment and maintainance is fairly clearly the primary cause, and this is a characteristic of any airport owner who invested simply to turn as big a profit as possible as quickly as possible. Nothing wrong with that, just as long as there is a pro-active regulator ready, willing and able to threaten closure, and do it if nothing happens, the moment that things slip.

Step forward the CAA.........ah well, perhaps not.

The problem is that most UK airports are now owned by investors who have one sole purpose, and that's an exit within 5-10 years with the highest achievable pay-off. You don't get that by investing in long term safety improvements, or by reducing profits by spending more than a bare minimum on maintenance. With a supine and compliant regulator, we have not seen the last accident due to airport inadequacies.

Could Exeter be the next place where things start to go wrong? LCY and Balfour Beatty are not there other than to maximise return on capital as quickly as possible, ie before demand is constrained and reduced by environmental measures and/or terrorism.

The bleats about passenger attitudes from ground staff are equally depressing, because they reveal the attitudes of these staff towards their customers. Clearly the customers were treated like sheep in the case of diversions from BRS and herded from place to place, with rude staff and little information. I now fly on business every few weeks on European services , LCC and others, and having been in the airline and airport industry for 35 years I find the behaviour of ground passenger service staff is now almost universally appalling, particularly in the UK. Easyjet's treatment of boarding passengers at the gate is especially oppressive, offensive and demeaning, whether or not it is Easyjet or an agent for Easyjet. (LPL and PMI, recently, to name but two stations of many).

Unless the culture of contempt for the customer that is now the norm, not only with LCCs, is eradicated, the industry may well find that even British passengers become less tolerant and more often react violently to the treatment that is meted out to them. It is condescending rubbish to assume that they don't understand or tolerate safety issues. They do; what they object to is being treated like idiots, often by people who are themselves clearly untrained, incompetent, unintelligent, and totally unable to handle a situation calling for initiative and ability, such as a diversion. I refer to the majority of passenger service ground staff at most airports, from management downwards.

Slats One

5th Jan 2007, 18:50

During an 11 minute section as the lead live from Bristol Airport report on teh BBC's main West of England news tonight, we were treated to a flurry of "pilots comments" in subtitles "taken from a pilots web site". That's why the first few pages off this thread made up most of BBC Points' West story tonight- verbatim lifts from here.

That is how a journo stands a story up these days...

As for Bristol Int Airports' MD, I can only award him a gold star for alleged Bullshine. " Minor incidents due to a number of factors, the runways condition was not at fault" The runways was not a factor". Its the airlines decision not the pilots...". "Oh how much we regret Easy Jets decision. Safety remains our top priority, nothing wrong, top class contractors, blah blah.

So, on one hand there is no problem, but on the other hand he understands Easy et al if they decide to make a safety decision...

He said the CAA had been along today and cleared the runway as safe...

I remind you folks, he said the runway was not one of those numerous factors that caused a/c to depart their profile!

What was it then- bacon buttys on the railway line?

UK corporate speak - how terribly disappointing for safety...

Rant over - but if you had seen it....you would too.

crew the screw

5th Jan 2007, 19:05

Here's the BBC Coverage..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/bristol/realmedia/tv/pw?size=16x9c&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1

G-CPTN

5th Jan 2007, 19:05

I believe that the two 'off-runway' incidents occurred during 'taxiing' . . .

Stone Cold II

5th Jan 2007, 19:19

Both incidents happened on Landing not taxing.

Bristol aiport website makes intresting reading, they have issued a statement still trying to make out the runway is fine.

They have a list of all the airlines who will not operate out of BRS but tried to make themselves look better by having a large list of airlines who are operating out of BRS, most of which didn't have any flights scheduled out of BRS today. They did mention Thomsonfly as one of the airlines operating out of BRS but if you look at the arrival boards they to have diverted to BHX.

GroundBunnie

5th Jan 2007, 19:36

Having seen several posts about appalling service by mostly unnamed airlines, and as a CSM at BRS................

I was called in this morning off a rest day, and have spent around 7 hours in the terminal. The BACON customer services team have performed wonders all day, organising coaches, looking after passengers both landside and airside, with more and more flights being cancelled as the day wore on. Some of the early shift actually offered to stay on and help. Not helped by the BA website saying no ops all weekend out of BRS, not sure where that came from, but as I left a couple of hours ago, an attempt at running an operation tomorrow will occur.

And all this while all of us are facing redundancy shortly, with no info from the BACON board......

As for the runway conditions, I believe all the flight decks of whatever colour are making the right decision, despite making my job very interesting...

GroundBunnie

WindSheer

5th Jan 2007, 19:40

Can I just say that after spending all day at work today, I was appalled at how much 'non-information' we received from BIA ops.
Our a/c went down to XXX this morning, whilst it was away we were trying to get a reasonable answer as to what the hell was going on. The impression I got was that BIA were preying for us not to divert as we would be 'another on the list', rather than assist us with the real issue!
We eventually pulled the plug for brummie land 1 hour before ETA.
I got home to see Mr Skip (in a very awkward situation:uhoh: ) on tv commenting live about EZY, EZY and EZY, not a dicky on the other 4 carriers!! :ugh:

ALL THE BEST! :\

Ashling

5th Jan 2007, 19:58

I think the point here today is that a major airline which asserts it puts safety first actually demonstrably has. In doing so it has led the line with other companies and the regulator left to follow suit.

We can only applaud easyJets decision. Often we criticise those in management for various reasons, many justified, but today I've got to say that I'm proud of ours and the decision they took. The opposite would seem to be true of the airport management. They seem to have no grasp of what the appalling consequences deniing this problem might be. Two offs, an overrun, an aircraft reporting loss of control for 300m and several MORs all within a compressed time period surely warn us all.

The Notam now clearly states that the runway is slippy when wet so I can only imagine that our legal friends would have a field day if someone was hurt or killed as a result of an incident with an aircraft landing or taking off.

Thankfully EZY have now drawn a line under things and perhaps prevented a tragedy. It will be fascinating to watch the fallout as the airport management run for cover.

I'd agree that handling agents and airlines often treat passengers poorly and do not always keep people informed. However often situations change rapidly and the ground staff are often as much in the dark as the passengers.

Safe flying all

Noiffsorbuts

5th Jan 2007, 20:47

Having seen Skippy's interview I am left speechless with the man's hypocrisy.

"Safety is our greatest concern......................"yeah, yeah, yeah

Three weeks ago having myself had an alarming arrival which only saw any meaninful decelaration with 900 metres of runway left I exchanged comments with Tower and said I was filing an MOR. The controller said he was pleased about this as it would lend weight to the many representations already being made to airport management that the runway at BRS is unsafe.

Skippy and his mates have been sitting on a powder keg and they deserve every vilification that is thrown at them. They have been playing Russian Roulette with our lives and those of our pax and it is to the very great credit of the EJ pilots and those who have followed to have said that we are not prepared to put up with this any more.

This is quite unprecedented in the anals of aviation.

I am left wondering if what has happerned at BRS might just be the start of something quite significant.

At the end of the day the buck stops with us at the sharp end. We are under so much pressure to perform now with assaults on our professional judgement from all directions and Europe trying to drive a horse and cart through our already inadequate FTL directions.

Could this be the beginning of an outbreak of common sense where we the pilots actualy determine what is or what is not safe and act accordingly?

I think all this goes a lot further than the immediate issue of a scabby runway at BRS and its incompetent mangement.

Riccardo

5th Jan 2007, 20:53

Just thought I'd jump in here, as a noobie you know.

I managed to get out of BRS this morning on the BA to MXP. Had to chuckle at the shop assistant in the terminal whom I overheard explaining to one couple who's EZY flight to somewhere had just been cancelled, that "it's because EasyJet's tyres can't grip in the wet, and the runway's wet where it's been redone."

Muppet. :ugh:

RAT 5

5th Jan 2007, 21:18

Going back to my question many days ago: No doubt, after the AAIB has had its pennyworth, it will be the insurance companies who will decide blame; or perhaps not. Someone is going to have to pay, and the insurance companies of the airport and the airlines will be able to draw their pistols at dawn. After the dust has cleared we may have an answer.
Any news on New Road's attitude to all this? Does not the Ivory Tower have an oversight of its members' safety? As for the CAA, does it not have a duty of care to UK passengers?

balderino

5th Jan 2007, 21:23

Balerdino, welcome to PPRune - I see this is your first post. I'm interested to know why you think putting peoples lives first is "a farce"? I do not know if you have any connection with the aviation industry - but if you comments reflect your attitude to safety then I sincerely hope you are not employed in any safety critical role in any profession. :hmm:

I think "the farce" lies elsewhere, and EZY should be commended for taking the bull by the proverbials and telling BIA that they need to get their house in order. I see BA has now followed suit.

In answer to your question, I think it's a certainty that EZY, and probably most other operators will indeed transfer ops to CWL (Cardiff) when the wx precludes BRS. What else would you suggest they do - take a chance - and hope to get away with it - GET REAL!!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

A4

A4 - Apologies if my post could be easily misconstrued, however given your position and the current circumstances I can easily understand your reading it in that way. My post was intended to be a rhetorically sarcastic comment.

If it wasnt clear in my original post then let me make it clear here, yes i also believe the farce is to do with BIA and not any of the operators, you cant argue against the safety decision the operators have taken, period.
Of course I commend it like everyone else.

Yes this is my first post, and just for the record I have previously worked in the aviation industry and personally know serving pilots with EZY , although not operating out of BRS.

The reason why I posted, and perhaps why it didnt come across as it should have, is because I was fuming. Fuming that it has been allowed to get to this situation in the first place. Fuming that as a frequent user and big supporter of the progress that both the airport and operators have made in the last few years at Bristol, that it could now be jeopardized by in my view, a completely avoidable public relations disaster. It has been obvious that there have been issues for a while, as any reader of this forum will know and even more importantly by recent events. Even Jo Public could work out that there was no way BIA was going to win up against an aviation safety issue of this kind. Why didnt BIA act decisively and early? Even if they could not have physically sorted out the problem , they still should have recognized the fact instead of sitting on their hands and hoping it would go away, that's what i think is the farcical bit!

Co-incidentally, I was on board a plane that skidded on the runway at BRS some years ago when the Newcastle flights were operated by the Dash props, so believe me I'm on your side! Which points out also, what someone else alluded to, that BRS has always been a tricky place to land in certain conditions.

Regards

Balderino

wearthefoxhat

5th Jan 2007, 21:39

As a blissfully unaware fare paying passenger, I was directed to this site for background reading after the cancellations at Bristol today.

My previous only concern was getting the luggage allowance right (not simple with EJ)

I've now read with open mouthed amazement at the strength of feeling regarding the management and condition of the runway at Bristol. I've also read the interview with the airport 'manager'!

From a position of complete ignorance, having never flown out of Bristol, I have booked (some time ago) with EJ flights for me and my family in Feb.

How worried should I be? Will the runway issues be resolved? Will pilots still have the strength of resolution to refuse to fly there if there are issues. Their lives are on the line also.

Doctor Cruces

5th Jan 2007, 21:41

Wouln't have happened in the days of Bill the Coach and The Coach Company.

Alyhough based at MAN, all staff had airside passes and always met the pax from the aircraft and escorted them through baggage and to the waiting coaches.

I have seen staff dispatched to busy trouble spots such as BHX and EMA when lots of divs were expected in order to do the same thing.

They had flight following software in the office in order to "watch" what was going on in real time once given the heads up by a client and often told their ops that Flt xxx had diverted to xyz airport before they knew themselves.

I don't know if there is an equivalent still operating but the industry needs a dedicated, professional outfit such as The Coach Company was in order to understand the indusrt needs and not leave passengers just milling around waiting for someone to tell them where to go.

Doc C

C152_driver

5th Jan 2007, 22:11

Speaking from the viewpoint of SLF, and a fairly regular one on EasyJet, I'd say this reflects nothing but good on them. Well done on taking what cannot have been an easy stand (at least from a commercial viewpoint) guys. :D

Of course, I'd be :mad: off if I'd been delayed or cancelled out of BRS, but it wouldn't be at EasyJet. It's really good to see an airline 'walking the walk' on an problem like this.

fyrefli

5th Jan 2007, 22:15

We can only applaud easyJets decision. Often we criticise those in management for various reasons, many justified, but today I've got to say that I'm proud of ours and the decision they took. The opposite would seem to be true of the airport management. They seem to have no grasp of what the appalling consequences deniing this problem might be. Two offs, an overrun, an aircraft reporting loss of control for 300m and several MORs all within a compressed time period surely warn us all.

Having finally got to my Bristol base about 20 mins ago, thanks to KLM, having had to wait 'til 2.30 to finally get confirmation that the AMS EZY flight was cancelled would be my only criticism of EZY - and I can even understand that.

Well done to the EZY (and other) crew and to EZY themselves for showing some guts. I sincerely hope you successfully reclaim the 300 quid I'm about to bill you for from BIA :D Irrespective, I wonder how much money the airport lost today? First to disembark, got to immigration, one woman says to the other, "Look! Passengers!". Says I, "Have you had a bit of a dearth of them today then?" ;) "You're the first one I've seen for five hours", says she!

Bus was a tad empty too! ;)

Monarch Man

5th Jan 2007, 22:15

Wearthefoxhat...rest assured that professional airline pilots will not operate if there is any doubt or concern that cannot be resolved or mitigated to an acceptable level.
I've operated into BRS from time to time and can only admire EJ's stance as it is a marginal operation in poor weather. The BRS airport managers' comments relating to the cancellation however, defy description. He seemed to be suggesting that Easyjet the company...decided not to operate, and then suggested that it wasn't the pilots who didn't want to fly.
Come on BRS airport, get your act together...at the moment you are an embarrassment to civil aviation.

corsaman

5th Jan 2007, 22:18

Hi Dolley, as an EZY crewmember, I felt exactly the same today - it seems as if the company is handling things entirely responsibly. If you fancy some sectors, you could have my Belfast Cardiff Belfast Faro Belfast tomorrow, with pleasure!! Only joking - wouldn't miss it for the world.:)

5th Jan 2007, 22:56

Balderino. Apology accepted. Yes I'm fuming too that this situation has been allowed to get to this point. What I cannot stand is Corporate bull$hit statements being issued about "safety is our priority" but have done NOTHING at all about a known problem for a number of weeks - hoping it would go away :mad:

It could be argued that BIA has left us "four stripers" wide open to potential disaster. For the the BIA "mouth" to describe the runway excursions as "minor" is despicable - he has no idea of true responsibility or the implications for the crew involved - perhaps they have a strong case against BIA/him. If he screws up his profits might be a bit lower but at least no one dies.......

However - I think BIA has well and truely screwed up on this one - and it's all coming home to roost.

Fly safely everyone,

A4

Dolley

5th Jan 2007, 23:03

corsaman
lol
I'll leave all the excitment to you, I'm afraid.
Can't say I'm not glad that my days off start tomorrow...bet it will be a bit of a 'job' in the next few days! At least only 2 sector days from Cardiff because of the extra transport time!
wearthefoxhat
I understand your concern. The only thing that I can say is that I think easyjet has proven today that we all don't need to be to worried. I'm convienced that they won't let us fly out of BRS until matters are resolved so there is nothing to worry any more. And as I know a few pilots personnally....they tend to be very stubborn, so if they don't want to fly, they won't ;-)

OverRun

6th Jan 2007, 00:30

Watched the BBC news (thanks crew the screw for the link). It is notable that BRS got 17 years of life out of the old runway, because many runways get resurfaced (well) before that. This is not implying that they deferred maintenance excessively of course.

The BBC news suggested that the runway was being strengthened to cope with increased traffic. Together with the long period for the works of 5 months, this would explain the need to lay basecourse asphalt before eventually laying surfacing asphalt and grooving it. However this sort of large scale work is described as reconstruction or rebuilding, not as resurfacing. Reconstruction is a whole different ball game. While resurfacing usually happens while the runway is left in service, reconstruction is not. Using a pilot's analogy, resurfacing is like those old-time long distance flyers topping up the engine oil in flight; it's tricky but can be done after careful preparation. Reconstruction is like having to strip down the whole engine and rebuild it while in flight. All this with a single engined aircraft (single runway airport) :hmm:

brain fade

6th Jan 2007, 02:07

WindSheer

6th Jan 2007, 09:02

From Ryanair's point of view business is normal at BRS because they would have received no communication from BIA - the same as every other airline based there.
The airlines with staff and pilots based at the airport, have been fully aware of the past week's situation, and have deemed the runway 'unsafe' (not neccesarily the case!!!).
Thats why Continental have landed this morning - to them everything will seem normal.....until they disembark that is!! BIA are doing their very best to hold onto every last airline......:uhoh:
"10 green bottles.....do do do do.......":O

Pinkman

6th Jan 2007, 09:21

BBC reporting that Thomas Cook is the next green bottle....

PS - OverRun - great analogy

blue up

6th Jan 2007, 09:39

T-fly ops told us that 737 ops out of BRS are a no-go and that 757/767 ops only when the runway is dry. Not "official" since as a pilot I get this sort of info a day late, as usual. Last night we (fortunately) took BHX fuel since there was no hint of BRS problems on the fuel plan, notams, crew notices etc.
Lucky we stopped to chat with one of the ground crew who gave us all the info he had picked up from local radio!!!!

Shame Cardiff has the stand "fingers" out of service at the mo. Stand 7 has huge holes in it where they have pulled away rusty panels. Amazing that they passed 'inspection' a few months ago. Wouldn't want to buy a used car off whoever passed them last time!

Capt Squat-thrust

6th Jan 2007, 09:55

sky9

6th Jan 2007, 10:07

I do wonder what the legal consequence would be for:
a) the aircraft Captain
b) the Airport Authority
if another aircraft slide off the side of the runway.

airmail

6th Jan 2007, 10:42

BBC now reporting that 9 airlines have cancelled flights from Bristol over safety fears

Noiffsorbuts

6th Jan 2007, 10:43

Interesting to see that even now Skippy cant get his act together by aggressively taking control of the situation. "Fiddling while Rome burns" comes to mind.

BRS needs to be shut NOW and the runway work finished in one hit.

Any other solution will fall short of the mark and prolong the pain for all of us.

WATABENCH

6th Jan 2007, 10:46

Lead story on Sky News now!
Just shut the bloody place til wednesday(forcast to rain til then at least) groove the blinkin runway and get your airlines back, surely its really not a good idea to piss off the airlines that have shown such trust in BRS such as BA, XLA, EZY and FCA. These 4 airlines have shown a lot of commitment to BRS especially EZY and FCA with EZY's constant addition of new routes IBZ announced 2 days ago, and FCA launching Long Haul, and now the MD stands there basically saying he doesn't give a s**t!
FR probably too tied up defending itself to the bloody politicians again!
Think were all waiting for CO to get a sniff of whats going on, I fear if the CO 757 overshoots into the safety area there will be a phone call to there HQ with inevitable phrase "Houston we have a problem".
GONE!
1. Easyjet
2. First Choice
3. Thomson
4. Thomas Cook
5. British Airways
6. Aer Lingus
7. Air Malta
8. Excel Airways
GOING????
9. Fly Be????
10. Continental ?????
11. Ryanair?????
12. Air Southwest????
13. KLM????
14. Eastern?????
15. SN Brussels????
16. Aer Arann????
17. Aurigny????
18. Astreus????
Shall I go on!

smellysnelly2004

6th Jan 2007, 10:48

I worked within BIA last year and simply cannot believe this thread.

At some point, even in blinkered t**ts like the MD, there has to come a time when everything doesn't come down to bank balance. Do people like him stop to think about anything other than money? I feel sorry for him - imagine living your life like that.

Personally, it seems crazy that non-aviation money men within BIA decide that a runway is safe for operation(clearly not after reading this thread). I wholly congratulate EZY and all other operators who have put safety first and cancelled/restricted services. Not only the RIGHT thing to do but also the ONLY way to get through to the big-nobs.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Bus14

6th Jan 2007, 10:56

Lulsgate is a complete :mad: , whose only saving grace is that, since Filton was NOT chosen, is the only airfield left.
A BAD choice.
Always fogged in.
Bloody bumpy approaches
700m RVR minima due slope
Expensive car parking
Need a Taxi to get there, or the 90min yokel bus!
A total, total :mad: of an airfield!
Trust the Brizzol city fathers...........to get it TOTALLY WRONG!:rolleyes:

Brain Fade, I have been in self imposed exile from this site for a few years so I congratulate you for tempting me back to reply to your post.

I hope I am qualified to reply. I carry no remit for BIA, but I have operated MD83, A320 and A321 aircraft from BRS for over 16 years and am a TRE. As I am converting to the B757 I am not operating out of BRS at the moment, although I fully understand and agree with the airline's and pilot's frustration with the way BIA are handling the consequences of the runway resurfacing (some posters seem to think that 'flight deck' are making decisions - quite how they believe that an inanimate piece of machinery commands an aircraft mystifies me, the people at the pointy end are pilots (I digress)).

Anyway, at the risk of thread creep, to address your points:

'Always fogged in' - A previous poster referred to good old Les, an earlier MD of the airport. Good old Les refused to install a CAT3 ILS so that the airlines could safely operate in the fog, unless the airlines helped to pay for it. The subsequent owners stumped up the cash and installed the kit. As a result BRS now handles quite a few diversions from fogged out EXT and CWL in addition to being available to based airlines in the fog. BTW, please don't flame me for bad mouthing Les, I liked the bloke and was proud to represent my airline at his memorial service at Bristol Cathedral.

'Bloody bumpy approaches' - Try LGW with a southerly wind, FNC all the time, or INN with a Foehn wind howling out of the Brenner Pass, or countless others, what's your point?

'700m RVR minima due slope' - the 700m RVR limit is due to the length of the approach lights, limited on RWY27 by Felton Common and 09 by Brockley Coombe. If you are refering to the hill dropping away into Brockley Coombe, fair cop, if you are referring to runway slope, 'fraid not. In any event, the RVR limit in the fog on 27 is 75m for Cat3 and 300m for Cat2, so for most of us the 700m limit is only limiting with a strong easterly wind that precludes a tailwind landing on 27.

'Expensive car parking' I understand that the on airport stuff is competitive. Off airport is limited by planning permission, which is whole different subject.

'Need a taxy to get there' Try LGW, LUT STN, NCL, EXT, GLA, etc - need I go on

'Trust the Brizzol city fathers' I wouldn't trust them any more than you, but they sold BRS many years ago in order to allow it to expand. For that alone I thank them

Filton is a dead duck, and in my opinion this was so long before Sadly Broke was built, despite it's excellent road and rail links.

I hope we can all agree that the issue with the runway friction is temporary, is extremely disruptive to the passengers who pay our salaries, but can be dealt with just as soon as the BIA management come out of denial. Could it have been foreseen? - maybe. Could the current situation be better handled by BIA? - almost certainly. Is BRS an inherantly risky place to operate from? - absolutely not! Operation from BRS is limited by runway length, but aviaition is one of the most regulated 'high risk' environments anywhere. Aviation has been into risk managment since long before the buzzword was invented. Airlines operating from BRS will continue to manage and mitigate that risk. Easyjet have taken a public lead on the present issue, and deserve to be congratulated, but the other based airlines with a smaller presence have also been mitigating risk on behalf of their customers as well.

I will be back at BRS with the B757 soon, followed by the B767, and I trust that once the new runway surface beds in and has the grooving carried out we can get back to 'ops normal'. BRS works just fine for me. Effective risk management is the key to aircraft operation not 'bean counting'. I hope the BIA management can learn from the adverse publicity.

My motto has always been 'have fun, don't crash'. It is not a flippant motto, everyone should enjoy their job, and in order to 'have fun', pilots need to use knowledge, skill, and attitude to manage risk. BRS is not a 'Bad airport', and I, for one, have fun operating large aircraft from there (present circumstances excepted!).

Have fun, don't crash
Bus14 (@BRS and wondering if I should change my name to Boeing14?:ok: )

fmgc

6th Jan 2007, 11:01

'have fun, don't crash'

I like that, never used it as a motto but definitely my ethos.

Now that Ezy have made the decision to pull out wouldn't it be a PR disaster for any other airline to fly out of there?

Noiffsorbuts

6th Jan 2007, 11:09

airvanman

6th Jan 2007, 11:26

WATABENCH

6th Jan 2007, 11:32

Skippy will, theres bound to be a spare EZY hanging about :}
New NOTAM issued for BRS
RWY27 - DONT BOTHER AT ANYTIME
RWY09 - ESPECIALLY DONT BOTHER AT ANYTIME
PLEASE CARRY ADDITIONAL FUEL IN ORDER TO HOLD AND WAIT TIL JULY OR ATLEAST TIL CONTACTORS GROOVE THE BLOODY MID SECTION.

Just seen excellent interview on BBC NEWS 24 with TCX spokesman Shaun Robinson, Mr Robinson was very informative and filled in a lot of gaps that so far have been missed in other interviews, well done TCX :ok:

Pinkman

6th Jan 2007, 11:41

I still have a question/problem with the underlying cause of this issue. Lets leave all the BIA bashing aside and accept that they scheduled the work in good faith, not expecting this to happen (obviously). One of the earliest posts quoted a mu-meter figure of 0.52 or therebouts for the mid section. That just doesn't tally with pilot reports of a slick section with zero braking action (or even "speeding up"!) BIA are quoted as having had the CAA down and that they were satisfied that they were doing everything correctly. If the 0.5 number was quoted then I can see how that conclusion can be reached but its at odds with the pilot reports and the empirical experience. How can that be?
The other question relates to G-CPTNs comments about continuous/combined matrix asphalt. If the Runway is being strengthened or reconstructed and the base layer renewed, why would you use a material designed for a surface layer as a sub base? It partly explains the events but why would you use it in the first place? Or have I misunderstood? (I used to make it - I don't lay it)
Pinkman

flyerboy

6th Jan 2007, 11:41

Don't think they are because whilst my colleagues and I were trying to calm down and explain to irate pax during yesterdays fiasco that the runway according to most airlines was unsafe to use they were taxiing out behind us on ferry flights to Cardiff

HundredPercentPlease

6th Jan 2007, 11:56

Pinkman,

Is it because mu meter readings are so unreliable and unreconcilable to real aircraft braking that (for example) Airbus performance precludes you from using such figures?

Is it because BRS reported the friction as "unreliable", and so must be considered "poor", thus disallowing take-off?

Or is it because aircraft slithering off the runway is a better measure of real safety. And who knows what would happen if you had an engine failure whilst on the slippery bit? I don't - but I wouldn't want to be the one to find out.

Silvertop

6th Jan 2007, 11:56

Bus 14, great post, really well balanced, and encapsulates how I feel about BRS and operating out of there, nice one.:ok:

Bus14

6th Jan 2007, 12:00

Bus14...........your contribution is as farcical and misleading as it is just plain WEIRD.

"Have fun, dont crash":rolleyes:

Just the sort of balanced professional attitude that the fare paying public would be reassured to know is the ethos of the guy in whose hands they have placed their lives.

Go back into exile I suggest is the kindest way of putting it.

Noifs, my thanks for your most charming and eloquent reply to my post. I am indebted to you for your advice to return to exile, and indeed will be taking it. My exile was prompted by such balanced posts in the first place.

Before I do though, can I just point out that I am judged by both my peers and superiors to very much have a balanced and professional attitude. In addition to flying the line and training for my airline, the CAA judge me to be competent as an RETRE (examiner of examiners for the uninitiated), and 2 major aerospace companies judge me suitable to offer advice to their research departments on human factors issues, but hey, who are any of them to judge?

So I close, once again with:

Have fun, don't crash
Bus14

Back to lurk mode

brain fade

6th Jan 2007, 12:21

BUS 14
like your motto.:)
If I stop having fun, I'll stop too.
I won't deal with your comments one by one, because, of course, your comments are accurate.
As for apps, there's no CAT 2 on 09, due rising ground and it IS as rough as f*ck both ends (but 09 is worse) if there's any south in the wind.

And as I've asked TWO times now........ WHAT are BIA going to do about the state of the runway........APART from saying that it's OK....................................which plainly it ain't!:D

Self Loading Freight

6th Jan 2007, 13:08

Regardless of the facts, the story's out of control and the airport's in trouble. The rules are simple, these days - even if you're right and there is no real problem, take it on the chin and do whatever it takes to fix the perceived problem. The airport has to shut down, do whatever work is necessary, and come back fresh.

Otherwise, the story keeps creeping up the news - more carriers restricting services, more punters choosing not to take flights in (there is no journey for which Brizzle is the only option), and the excuses coming from management sounding more and more specious every time. They already sound like amateur hour at Club Spin; they're going to sound like a P45 in blank verse by early next week.

This is regardless of the facts.

One of the first companies to learn the rules of the new news environment was Intel with its buggy Pentium. The company was dead right - it was a very minor bug that would affect almost nobody, and absolutely no reason to recall all the chips. The customers thought differently - and, after a brief and very embarrasing battle in public, they won hands down.

R

fmgc

6th Jan 2007, 13:48

Just heard Eric Moody being interviewed on Sky.

He was saying that BRS had two choice wrt to resurfacing. Either shut the airport for 10 days or resurface it bit by bot every night.

He was implying that because they chose the latter that safety was compromised.

That must be rubbish because LTN have just been through the exact same thing with no problems at all.

fyrefli

6th Jan 2007, 14:02

Check out post 148 by Overrun.

Banana Split

6th Jan 2007, 14:43

fyrefli

6th Jan 2007, 15:02

Explanation from an engineer of the difference between Luton and Bristol (and maybe Liverpool) "resurfacing":

The BBC news suggested that the runway was being strengthened to cope with increased traffic. Together with the long period for the works of 5 months, this would explain the need to lay basecourse asphalt before eventually laying surfacing asphalt and grooving it. However this sort of large scale work is described as reconstruction or rebuilding, not as resurfacing. Reconstruction is a whole different ball game. While resurfacing usually happens while the runway is left in service, reconstruction is not.

vintage ATCO

6th Jan 2007, 15:13

That must be rubbish because LTN have just been through the exact same thing with no problems at all.

Same contractor too I believe.

I've heard elsewhere that this middle section is not the final surface which presumably why it hasn't been grooved. Are they attempting to improve the profile of the runway as well?

Back in 1989 Luton raised the eastern end of the runway by 130cm so it does happen.

Ranger 1

6th Jan 2007, 15:25

Flying_Monkeys

6th Jan 2007, 15:29

So, most operators who use jets have stopped at Bristol at the moment -good call, safety has to be number 1 priority. I notice that Astreus are being reported by the BBC as still running. Are their superior beings flying the Astreus kit? Why do they think they're above everyone else?

HundredPercentPlease

6th Jan 2007, 16:17

HundredPercentPlease: If the Mu meter readings are as you say, why is this machine still used world wide,to assess runway surfaces, also any idea what else can be used instead to measure runway friction?
Ranger 1, I'm sorry, I am only repeating what my operator (EZY) and Airbus tell me - I am no expert. We are only to use friction readings for establishing crosswind limits - for all other runway performance we use contaminant type and depth (and a laptop!).

Here's something from a very long Airbus document:

The reported μ is measured by such friction-measuring vehicles, as:
Skidometer, Saab Friction Tester (SFT), MU-Meter, James Brake Decelerometer
(JDB), Tapley meter, Diagonal Braked Vehicle (DBV). ICAO Airport Services Manual
Part 2 provides information on these measuring vehicles.
The main problem is that the resulting friction forces of an aircraft (interaction
tire/runway) depend on its weight, tire wear, tire pressure, anti-skid system efficiency
and… ground speed. The only way to obtain the aircraft’s effective μ would be to use
the aircraft itself in the same takeoff conditions, which is of course not realistic in daily
operations.
Another solution is to use one of the above-mentioned vehicles, but these
vehicles operate at much lower speeds and weights than an aircraft. Then comes the
problem of correlating the figures obtained from these measuring vehicles (reported
μ), and the actual braking performance of an aircraft (effective μ).
To date, scientists have been unsuccessful in providing the industry with
reliable and universal values. But tests and studies are still in progress. This is why
Airbus publishes contaminated runway information as a function of the type of
contaminant and depth of contaminant, and not as a function of the aircraft’s effective
μ.

exeng

6th Jan 2007, 16:36

You single out Astraeus as continuing to operate.

The BBC news state these airlines: Astraeus, Aer Arran, Ryanair, Air South West, Aurigny, Continental and Flybe are still flying from the airport.

Regards
Exeng

11K-AVML

6th Jan 2007, 16:38

gabbai

6th Jan 2007, 16:39

There is obviously a safety issue at Bristol so why are

Continental

KLM

Ryanair

Air South West

Aer Arran

FlyBe

Aurigny

Austrain Airlines

Eastern

still flying in and out?

Atishoo

6th Jan 2007, 16:49

ummmmmmm...... :rolleyes: GREED ????? :D

Outoftheblue22

6th Jan 2007, 17:27

Gabbai

To be fair, I think you'll find quite a number of the airlines in the "still operating" list use turboprops which could stop in a fraction of the available runway, so there's much less of an issue for them.

gabbai

6th Jan 2007, 17:36

11K-AVML

6th Jan 2007, 17:38

Well, it's definatly in the tabloids now. ITV National news (terrestrial) have just had it as one of their headlines!
(Saturday 6th Jan '07, 17:30)
Now on Channel 4 News (another National outlet). Third Item of the evening. Soon everyone will know!

The guy (supposed pax) with the white beard in a blue raincoat like jacket must have been waiting for his flight for quite sometime now...I've seen him being interview on three different channels now - including once yesterday evening and once today! (See the earlier post with the link to the BBC PointWest item broadcast on Friday - he's in there too!)

From the Channel 4 Interview with Skippy
Skippy says regarding the difference between 'incidents' and 'skidding'
"One caused by fog"...
"Another caused by 90 degree winds"

He said that the runway resurfacing was being carried out in the same manner as at other airports.

Regarding compensation:
"We're investigating"..."are issues can we can deal with after we've got the runway resurfaced"

Regarding some airlines cancelling flights and other continuing,
"Weather has caused the runway to fall below the standard for some of the airlines, but not others."

6th Jan '07, 18:45

Update:
I've just noticed there is a big article in todays times...or at least the local takeaways copy of the Times

WindSheer

6th Jan 2007, 17:42

Outoftheblue22 you are right but why are Continental, for example, still flying and why don't the idiots running Bristol explain to the media what is going on instead of saying they are working with the airlines? Most of the airlines are running away as fast as they can
Already explained that.
The airport is still officially open. As CO are based in the states they dont know what is going on as BIA are not communicating. Its communication between airlines that have caused everyone to pull out.
BIA are going the wrong way about....as previously said, announce that the airport is closed until further, and sort the issue....dont let rumours and speculation continue!!!
The bad handling of this scenario will leave ripples that are going to remain for a long while...:sad:

brain fade

6th Jan 2007, 17:57

windsheer

You're correct. As someone said elsewhere on the thread, it's not whats correct that's important now, its what's said and done by BIA from now on that will influence the outcome.

The only sensible thing to do is bite the bullet- shut the airfield- do the rwy properly- reopen.

Street cred regained. press happy. etc etc.

But will they?........ They haven't got the balls!:rolleyes:

paulriggers

6th Jan 2007, 18:06

Just seen PPrune being quoted on Sky News. Few of theses posts actually shown. Some of you now have 5 minutes of username fame!!

Mooneyboy

6th Jan 2007, 18:09

Pprune has also been quoted on channel 5 news .

jmc757

6th Jan 2007, 18:09

The airport is still officially open. As CO are based in the states they dont know what is going on as BIA are not communicating. Its communication between airlines that have caused everyone to pull out.

Exactly right, but interesting to see this mornings Balkan Holidays from Plovdiv diverted to Exeter. Was this due to the runway issues as well? wonder how they came to know about it? Or was it a split BRS/EXT flight that just went into EXT instead? I know Balkan do that often in lower season.

flyerboy

6th Jan 2007, 18:12

Just a lucky guess!! This might come as a big surprise to some people but I think you will find that most airlines do know what is happening at Bristol even if they are not based in the UK. Someone from ATC might be able to confirm this but I think the CO had to use 09 today

SWBKCB

6th Jan 2007, 18:29

I'm sitting here somewhat shamefaced because I've been waiting for somebody else to come up with an explanation as to how this is just a way of Easy putting one over on BIA and gaining some commercial advantage (cos I've had a good go and can't think of any).:O
As no such explanation has appeared I'm being forced to admit that even in this modern world there are admirable organisations who are prepared to take a stand (and one can only imagine the problems this is cauing for them).
Well done easy and the others.:D

G085H1TE

6th Jan 2007, 19:41

I work for servisair at NCL handling the flights for easyjet, I would just like to say how some of the passengers attitudes towards this is terrible. The amount of people who are travelling on the BRS flights and are wanting complaint letters and are wanting to argue about being diverted to CWL is amazing! How do people not understand its for there own safety and that EZY could quite easily cancel this service and leave them to find there own transport
Marra, before you re-appear to bleat further about the attitude of PAX here , let me explain to you exactly why they get so p!ssed off.

My mother was due to fly from BRS last Friday. Before leaving home she did all the right things and checked the BIA website for any problems or last minute advice. All she saw was a vague announcement about EasyJet cancelling flights. She was flying with Thomson so no problem there then?

Only when she got the BRS did she discover that she would be bussed to Brum. The only word of explanation she received was "the runway is wet". Now maybe I'm wrong, but I would suggest that even the most non-aviation minded person would not ordinarily view a wet runway as sufficient explanation for the inconvenience of a 2 hour bus trip to BHX.

She was then directed to a point where "someone" would "meet" her. Of course there was nobody there other than a load of other bewildered passengers. After a further 40 minutes of standing in the rain without so much as a sniff of anyone 'official' she finally managed to track someone down and got put on a bus.

So, "do people not understand its for there own safety" - no, not necessarily, not unless someone has taken the time to explain the situation properly. My experience is that, generally, folk are much more cooperative if their intelligence is not insulted and adequate, truthful explanations behind decisions are communicated to them.

Oh, and some semblance of organisation to make the alternative arrangements work wouldn't go amiss either.

flyingbug

6th Jan 2007, 19:57

and now she knows that the runway is slippery when wet, is she still upset that she was flown from an alternative airport?

G085H1TE

6th Jan 2007, 20:09

and now she knows that the runway is slippery when wet, is she still upset that she was flown from an alternative airport?
She wasn't especially upset in the first place because my father (ex-RAF) dropped her off at BRS and suspected the reason for it.

But, she's not the slightest bit upset now because she KNOWS the reason for it - which is exactly my point.

GMIMA

6th Jan 2007, 20:19

landed there today, the atis gave damp wet damp, i think it was supposed to say damp, ice,damp, wouldnt want to even attempt a landing at BRS if there was a cross wind in excess of 5 kts........dangerous stuff:mad:

jumbojet

6th Jan 2007, 21:00

Its even on Belgium radio now!! 10pm news, Q-Music!!

Also, at LPL, just resurfaced, slippy as hell until grooved. You could feel it & see it, but only after impact!!

Mr @ Spotty M

6th Jan 2007, 21:07

10 Airlines now listed as not operating BRS.
May be CO still flying because the B757 has a better stopping distance than B737 & A319, only a guess though?

Sheikh Zabik

6th Jan 2007, 21:11

This is a PR disaster for BRS and gets worse at every news bulletin.

It does not take great intelligence to realise that the public are going to be more inclined to trust our reservations about the runway state than accept reassurance with mealy mouthed ambiguous assertions by Skip and his apologists that all is fine and dandy and that, by implication, the problem lies with us pilots.

BRS stands to lose a great deal of long term business and the situation will only get worse until the realisation finaly dawns that the only course of action avilable is to quickly shut the airport and finish the runway in one hit.

To continue with the current stand off will be ruinous for the airport, and a great inconvenience for those of us who rely on it for our work and travel.

As a pilot I am very annoyed that the CAA has not put up a spokesman to explain the issues clearly to the press.

Stop Stop Stop

6th Jan 2007, 21:36

There is obviously a safety issue at Bristol so why are
Continental
KLM
Ryanair
Air South West
Aer Arran
FlyBe
Aurigny
Austrain Airlines
Eastern
still flying in and out?
I can't speak for the others, but KLM are still operating in and out of BRS albeit with strict restrictions when the runway is wet (crosswind limit and no deficiencies affecting stopping performance allowed). KLM have been monitoring the situation very carefully all weekend and have responded with the restrictions very quickly. One flight today had to divert to CWL.
The F100 and F70 that both operate into BRS at various times of the day are much lighter than B737's and A319's (40T and 36T MLW respectively) and are pretty good at stopping hence less restrictions in force than the larger aircraft.
This is a fluid situation and may well change at short notice.

BusterHot

6th Jan 2007, 21:56

Anybody had any experience with Exeter? Runway resurfaced just after the 26 threshold to just short of Twy C. 1 yr+ and still not grooved. Last year when a bit icy, the whole of the resurfaced area was covered with "ice mushrooms". Normally we dont start braking until about the end of the area, and landing on 08, we're down to taxi speed before we reach it. However, there was a point mid 06 when if you couldn't make C, you had to go to the end instead of doing a 180.

It'd be interesting to hear from any operator that had to use the brakes in anger on this section. I've always wanted to ask ATC why it hasn't been grooved, but as it hasn't been an issue for us/me personally I've never got around to it. After the problems at BRS, I wonder if I should.

OverRun

6th Jan 2007, 23:04

Pinkman raised the question about the reported mu-meter results. When I saw them, I was also a little surprised that they did not accord with the pilot reports of poor braking in wet weather. The friction testers (mu meter, grip tester and the like) are very useful machines, but they do need to be calibrated and precisely operated. There have been problems with achieving repeatable results with these machines, and quite a lot of work has been done internationally over the last 5 years to improve measurements. This has given us a better understanding of the potential variability and how it can be better controlled. I imagine that someone has asked for another machine/crew to go to BRS and do some check-runs with the existing machine to check the calibration. I do not know if the BRS machine was sent to any of the international fly-in calibration sessions such as NASA's Wallops Flight Facility or had recently been recalibrated by the manufacturer, but that seems to be increasingly common practice for individual airports to do.

Leaving aside calibration, a more fundamental issue should be considered. It was already posted above by HundredPercentPlease that "these vehicles operate at much lower speeds and weights than an aircraft." They do, and most tests are at 65 kph and 95 kph (the green pages in ICAO Annex 14, Vol 1, Attachment A, Table A-1). This is rather less than aircraft takeoff speeds of say 100-125 knots (180–225 kph), but gives generally reasonable results on runways which conform to ICAO requirements for macrotexture. This is because the loss of friction with speed on runways with good macrotexture (i.e. grooved or porous) generally flattens out by 95 kph. If the computer picture thingy works, the first graph below will show this. Even though wet friction does reduce with speed, there is enough friction to allow light-medium braking. [note: I have deliberately used skid number rather than mu to prevent people making possibly erroneous comparisons].
http://www.geocities.com/profemery/skid1.gif

However if the runway has poor macrotexture (is flush or smooth), wet friction continues to be lost with increasing speed, and the 65/95 measurements don’t fully pick this up. Friction may drop to the point where there is simply not enough friction to allow for even light braking and so the aircraft feels like it is sliding when the brakes are applied. Some of earlier posters have mentioned this, and the second graph shows why.
http://www.geocities.com/profemery/skid1a.gif

High speed wet friction can be checked, and in most parts of the world it was normal to also test runways at 80 mph (128 kph). All the machines are built to that standard and rated for that speed. Indeed, the need to adjust speed for macrotexture is clearly set out in clause 7.8 of the green pages referred to above. I saw a photo of one of the old British friction machines using a Jaguar (XK140?) to tow at high speed. We used race-tuned V8 engined vehicles with brakes and gearbox from the racing department (as well as roll-bar and crash helmets) to tow our mu-meter, and that was really really good fun. The third graph shows how the higher test speed can pick up the loss of friction if the runway is flush.
http://www.geocities.com/profemery/skid2.gif

The practice of testing at 80 mph (128 kph) has dropped away in some countries, partly because the 95 kph tests give reasonable results on textured runways, partly because it was difficult to get to speed quickly enough for the touchdown areas (or to stop at the other end), and partly I suspect because management thought that the ultra-high performance tow vehicles were (a) nicer than their own company cars and (b) looked out of place in the airport works yard.

It would be very interesting to see the BRS runway 80 mph (128 kph) test results and see how much they explain of the apparent low friction. A word of warning, and I hesitate to write this because those readers who are being used to punting 75 tonnes of metal, passengers and fuel down the runway at 200 kph in rain, cloud and all sorts, will laugh at this, but high speed testing is risky and does need to be done with care.

balderino

6th Jan 2007, 23:09

Part of a revised statement on the BIA website tonight at 22:30.

"Since Friday morning (January 5) Bristol International has been liaising with the Civil Aviation Authority and all airlines operating from the airport. With the approval of the CAA, last night (Friday January 5), a test strip was added to the area of runway currently under modification which involved the grooving of the temporary area under construction. The effect of these grooves in the test strip will be reviewed today (Saturday) and tomorrow (Sunday) by the airport, the airlines and the CAA. If it is found to be successful, we will continue to groove each temporary section as we continue to resurface the rest of the runway. This could allow the progressive resumption of normal operations at Bristol International from Monday morning, and all future stages of the resurfacing would follow the same process. "

Would/Could this be enough to sort out the problem , but what about the perception problem?

Phil Space

7th Jan 2007, 04:33

Airline pilots reject 'danger' runway

After touchdown skids were reported at Bristol, flights are cancelled and thousands face delays

Anushka Asthana
Sunday January 7, 2007
The Observer

Thousands of people faced travel chaos this weekend after nine airlines cancelled flights at Bristol International Airport over claims that planes were skidding on the runway and having difficulty braking in heavy rain.
Easyjet, British Airways, Thomas Cook and First Choice were among those refusing to use the recently resurfaced landing strip after pilots described it as 'unsafe' and 'too smooth'. Despite reports that four planes have skidded across it, the airport and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) insisted the runway was safe.

Tony Horwood, aviation director at the airport, said 32 flights had landed and taken off yesterday: 'We know that the runway is safe to operate. The CAA have also reassured us that it is safe.'
The airlines disagreed, and 98 flights were diverted to other airports yesterday while 28 were cancelled. Easyjet, the airport's biggest operator, cancelled all of its 68 flights on Friday and 40 flights over the weekend, affecting more than 10,000 customers. They also diverted 76 flights to Cardiff International Airport, transporting passengers there by coach.

Samantha Day, a spokeswoman for the airline, said: 'The fact is that over the last two weeks there have been four incidents where airliners have had longer braking distances than is acceptable. The surfacing is causing concern in wet conditions. Safety is our number one priority and we are working closely with Bristol to find a solution.'

According to Easyjet, the new runway, currently undergoing a £17m resurfacing programme, has not yet had grooves cut into the surface, affecting braking distances and leaving pilots unconfident about landing in wet weather. One of the four planes said to have been involved in an incident was an Excel flight that apparently overshot the tarmac on Thursday night. In December an Easyjet flight from Malaga and an Aurigny flight from Guernsey were both reported to have skidded, the latter on to the grass. The situation first came to light when pilots aired their concerns on an internet forum, www.pprune.org. One pilot who logged on as 'ezydays' wrote: 'The middle point of the runway definitely seems dodgy. Having landed there several times with this ungrooved bit, I'm not entirely happy any more. Let's get this sorted before something worse happens.'

Thousands queued in the rain yesterday for coaches to take them to other airports. Julian Johnston, his wife and four children travelled from Swansea to Bristol to catch a flight to Tenerife. 'We've all worked over Christmas and this holiday was going to be a special present for us all,' he said. 'We haven't a clue what time we're going to finally reach our hotel.'

LTNman

7th Jan 2007, 07:38

From the BBC's website

Passenger Sarah David was on board an Excel plane that landed at the airport on Wednesday on the way back from the Canary Islands.

She told the BBC the aircraft veered from side to side before it came to a stop.

"My little girl was clinging to my arm and my nephews in the seat behind were very frightened and people weren't screaming - it wasn't the Titanic or anything like that - but you could see looking around that people's faces were very shocked at what was happening.

"When we finally came to a stop, people just erupted into a spontaneous round of applause."

Sector Who

7th Jan 2007, 08:31

Just as an aside, could someone from Yokelvision advise when and by whom they were given permission to monitor and rebroadcast ATC RT on the news?
I refer them to the Wireless Telegraphy Acts of 1949, 1998, 2006 and to http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206063
Of course they'd never break the law in the course of their 'journalism' by lstening into transmissions they aren't allowed to would they.... I mean look what happened to that guy from the 'News of the Screws'!

Nick NOTOC

7th Jan 2007, 09:40

i'd say what a daring decision of EZ to cancel it's flights whan it cannot be sure if the runway is safe enough! four incidents in such a short time span are definatly a good indication of something wrong.
Clearly EZ and others have put safety ahead of money! That in my opinion is the way it should be in aviation.
Any statement from the airport or CAA are only valid if clearly prooven and it seems that what they are doing now.

Nick

groundhogbhx

7th Jan 2007, 10:09

It sounds like the tests on the runway aren't good. Flights diverting to BHX again tomorrow and yet to be confirmed talk that they are going to close the airport and do the job properly.

Finally the light at the end of the tunnel?

TCAS FAN

7th Jan 2007, 10:30

I am somewhat bemused by the inference that grooving of the runway surface is apparently going to cure the "slippery when wet" problem.
As with any newly laid asphalt surface, there is an initial problem of a certain amount of oil in the asphalt mix coming to the surface. This should in time disperse.
Any initial concern should be, is the asphalt spec' correct? Presumably an experienced and reputable contractor has been employed, so who is overseeing quality control? Is there a problem there?
I would hope that BRS have been frequently assessing surface friction during the overlay project, when did the "slippery when wet" NOTAM go out, before or after the runway excursion?
I flew regularly off the SOU runway while it was being re-surfaced. No problems at all. The airport regularly checked friction readings and never got near "slippery when wet". They then took an apparently good draining runway and grooved it without ensuring that water in the grooves could drain away, hopefully BRS will not make that mistake.
The end result is that water sits in the grooves, is thrown up by inspecting vehicles and the runway reported wet five hours after rain has ceased! The resultant weight penalty for a wet runway has cost SOU thousands of pounds in lost revenue due to diversions by B737/B757/MD83s who were not expecting a wet runway, and were consequently too heavy to land on the LDA available.
Going back to the ability of grooves to drain, if they don't drain, water sitting in them can freeze, expand and you end up with a corrugated runway surface. I've seen it happen twice at SOU, resulting in all morning flights being cancelled until the ice melts.
Good luck BRS!

ivor toolbox

7th Jan 2007, 11:24

Top post Mr OverRun!

FYI Brs uses an old(ish) LandRover Defender for pulling the Mu meter,
hardly a speed machine, and sometimes as an alternate, a Landrover Discovery, depending on the operative,as each has their own favourite vehicle don't they RangerOne?

ttfn

TCAS FAN

7th Jan 2007, 11:32

Phil SpaceJust wondering where the buck stops

With the Aerodrome Licence holder, who is accountable for the safe operation of aircraft movements that require use of a licensed aerodrome.

westie

7th Jan 2007, 11:46

What about the issue of compensation for the airlines who have taken the safe option and decided not to use the runways in thsi state? The CAA and Airport seem to think the runway is useable to i guess the lawyers could be rubbing their hands again at the thought of some lengthy court cases?

Ranger 1

7th Jan 2007, 11:48

ivor toolbox: The speed for Mu Meter runs is set at 40 mph, & always has been, as far as I am aware, although there was talk by the experts working on Runway classification, in altering the speed for some classification runs back several years ago.
The Defender is fine for this although the Disco is much more comfortable, the exception to the 40 Mph limit is when operating on Snow & Ice when friction can be measured effectively below 40mph.
I make no comment on my Preference of vehicle :p

ivor toolbox

7th Jan 2007, 12:09

OO-er, it seems as if BIA should start taking legal advice,if as it seems Ranger1 has just admitted, albeit on open forum, that they (sic) don't comply with ICAO Annex 14, Vol 1, Attachment A, Table A-1 as stated by Mr OverRun, and test at the higher speed.

Now we know where the buck stops.

ttfn

Ranger 1

7th Jan 2007, 12:11

OverRun: Please click on the link below for Data on normal friction testing:
http://www.densongse.com/products/douglasspd.htm

OverRun

7th Jan 2007, 12:21

Nice bit of kit. Note the bit about testing to 80 mph. I had looked at their 2006 user manual earlier today, and it said the same thing. CAP 683 doesn't actually give a specific speed for runway friction testing, but perhaps I can help. 40 mph is for roundabouts and shopping centre carparks. 40, 60 and 80 mph are for airports. If the runways are grooved, then the 40 and 60 mph speeds can be used to infer high speed wet friction. If they are not, then I rather think the 80 mph speed test is needed.

crew the screw

7th Jan 2007, 12:28

Fantastic... Now we are talking and getting somewhere!!

Now Ranger1 get the :mad: in your disco or defender and hit the strip at 80mph!! just for a little experiment.. We don't need to see the figures but please just do it and take further action if the readings are in anyway different or alarming?

Crew...

Atishoo

7th Jan 2007, 12:29

GT Operator

7th Jan 2007, 12:47

Great responses OverRun.:ok:

Here in the UK Rwy friction testing for maintenance puroses is governed by CAP 683 as you are already aware. It was revised in July 2004 when the requirement to carry out testing at speeds other than 65Kph/40Mph were dropped from it's requirements?????? They were however included in the original version!

ivor toolbox

7th Jan 2007, 12:52

vulcanpilot

7th Jan 2007, 13:26

Just reported, BRS are closing the airport to all flights until Tuesday.

BBC Chris

7th Jan 2007, 13:34

Statement in full:

Latest News

Update On Air Services From Bristol International Airport

(07/01/07)

07 January 2007, 14.00 hrs

UPDATED INFORMATION FROM BRISTOL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Following concerns of some airlines operating at Bristol International regarding the surface of the temporary sections of the runway during the on-going re-surfacing programme during wet conditions, the airport has been consulting closely with the Civil Aviation Authority, its airlines and its contractors on a way forward.

At all times the CAA has confirmed that appropriate operational measures are in place to assure that the runway is safe for operations in wet and dry conditions.

Detailed assessments have been made this morning on the impact of additional grooving on test strips of the temporary surface, which were put in place during the resurfacing work over the last two nights. These have proved satisfactory in terms of further increasing the drainage of surface water on the temporary sections of the runway which is in the process of being resurfaced.

The CAA has confirmed they have no objection to the proposed additional grooving work to be undertaken on the temporary sections of the runway. We are confident that for those airlines which have suspended their operations at Bristol International Airport, this will address their concerns and allow them to resume operations at the airport.

In order to resume normal services at the airport as quickly as possible, and to clarify the situation for passengers, the airport is closing the runway from 1430 today. This will mean all flights for the rest of Sunday and Monday morning will be either diverted or cancelled. This decision has been made in consultation with our airline partners.

This will allow us to fast-track the on-going work on the temporary surface of part of the runway, which could otherwise only be done at night. Work will continue later today on adding further grooves to the rest of the existing temporary surface.

Bristol International Airport Managing Director, Andrew Skipp said: “Safety is always our top priority. At all times the CAA have confirmed that our runway is safe, and the process we have been following for the re-surfacing, which is still underway, is correct.

“As we have done throughout the resurfacing programme we will continue to liaise fully with our airlines partners and provide them with all the information they need to operate from the airport.

“I can only apologise to travellers for the disruption this is causing to their journeys, and reassure them that we are working hard to rectify the situation as quickly as possible.

Passengers are advised to contact their travel agent or airlines direct for an update, or check the Bristol International website www.bristolairport.co.uk (http://www.bristolairport.co.uk/) for up to date information.”

ATCO1987

7th Jan 2007, 13:38

Bristol Tower advises closure in 20mins time.

Spitoon

7th Jan 2007, 14:32

Ranger1, I sincerely hope you are kidding. Please tell me you are joking. Even in my wildest dreams [nightmares], I didn’t think BRS was testing at 40 mph (65 kph). I cannot believe that this is true. I do this sort of thing for a living and this is WAY outside international practice.I think we need to make a distinction here between the Annex 14 reference, which is for monitoring runway surface conditions for the purpose of arranging timely maintenance and for NOTAMing 'slipery when wet' if approppriate, and of measuring/reporting the braking action on a contaminated runway for operational use. Very different things.....and very different procedures.

kirkbymoorside

7th Jan 2007, 14:46

Just reported, BRS are closing the airport to all flights until Tuesday.

NOTAM issued shows the runway closed until noon on Monday 08 January.

prometheusracer

7th Jan 2007, 15:07

Did Ranger1 try that test at 80mph and find 'anomolous' results then?:}

mrloop

7th Jan 2007, 15:15

Excellent timing of the BIA announcement - at 1400Z I'd just set off to HAM and after 50 minutes travel arrived in time to see the OLT BRE-HAM-BRS flight cancelled on the airport boards.

OLT are flying into Filton in the morning - so that's an evening sat in front of BBC TV swapped for a nice early start tomorrow.

braking action poor

7th Jan 2007, 15:58

No, you wont find out how/why/when the CAA has approved any work :ugh:

To my surprise after flying in to about 100 different airports in Europe, of all the rynways noted as "groved" on the plates only on really seemed groved and that's ENHD/HAU.

No other, be it STN, DUB or any other has groves coming slose to this airport.

Why dont they all do it like this??

crew the screw

7th Jan 2007, 15:59

No but you'll get as close an answer as asking to be 'filled in' so to speak.. The last time I looked on here the CAA don't give us the inside line, or an insight or discuss their decisions.

IMHO the skid tester is a wee bit woolly the real skids are in the pants of the operating crews on the flight decks, doing well over 120mph on that strip, not just 40mph in a defender 110

Just my Cockey 2 cents worthless..

vintage ATCO

7th Jan 2007, 16:03

I think we need to make a distinction here between the Annex 14 reference, which is for monitoring runway surface conditions for the purpose of arranging timely maintenance and for NOTAMing 'slipery when wet' if approppriate, and of measuring/reporting the braking action on a contaminated runway. Very different things.....and very different procedures.

Exactly. Also worth noting that we do not actually measure braking action on a runway contaminated solely by water as the results, with current kit, are considered to be misleading. Instead a description of each third is given from dry/damp/wet/water patches/flooded.

Martin Barnes

7th Jan 2007, 16:16

Bristol has finally closed to comply with pressure from their major airline partners, who form most a the revenue stream and car-parking opportunity.

I flew in from EWR yesterday morning as SLF with CO and witnessed a perfect landing and roll out despite considerable standing water on the strip,
CO are obviously a very professional airline with only high-time crews operating international services. as an aside the captain had his wife and kids on-board, so obviously had no concerns.

I have been landing in our own jet (C650) since works began and have noticed a slightly slick surface on the mid section.

The fact is, when the conditions are on the crosswind limits with considerable standing water present acceptable safety margins are eroded and airlines such as easyjet prefere to cancel their whole operation rather than divert only the flights affected by actual conditions , operators of the smaller EMB145 without reverse thrust have problems operating from contaminated runways at the best of times.

The airlines that have continued to operate have no doubt been making their operating decions on a flight by flight basis.

Frankly I think Skippy and the BIA team have done a great job keeping the public and operators informed and have really pulled out the stops to get the problem fixed.

Spitoon

7th Jan 2007, 16:24

Sorry i've arrived here a bit late can someone fill me in, so to speak.
If the CAA have approved the runway work and surface at all times why has there been a problem with it for operating airlines?
I may be a bit off-message here, but in my experience the CAA doesn't approve things in the way you suggest. The theory, these days, is that airports and ATC units (and according to some CAA documents, UK airlines) are supposed to have safety management systems. The CAA approves these systems if the procedures mean that things - things, routine or otherwise - should stay safe. It's not rocket science, mostly just common sense.

Perhaps the question is, what does the BRS safety management system say should have been done, and did it happen? Only if the answer to these questions are yes, should we start asking whether the CAA did their job properly.

And for anyone who thinks these are radical suggestions, take a look at ICAO Annexes 11 and 14 and the Manual of Safety Management Systems.

11K-AVML

7th Jan 2007, 16:34

Did anyone just see the sky news footage of a Ryanair plane landing at bristol?

OMG LOL dunno why im laughing the thind aquaplaned down the runway with a wave of water plashing out either side, horrible, Good luck to all you brave Pilots. :)
Anyone interested, the link to this footage is here:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-bristol_p299,00.html

It's not the first clip Atishoo is refering to, but the second clip a bit later.

whatdoesthisbuttondo

7th Jan 2007, 16:34

Frankly I think Skippy and the BIA team have done a great job keeping the public and operators informed and have really pulled out the stops to get the problem fixed.

At what point did they have the slippery runway conditions adequately NOTAMd?

I was under the impression it was a bit late.

Martin Barnes

7th Jan 2007, 16:49

I think around late november early december, after pireps/mors ect!

fmgc

7th Jan 2007, 17:08

Did anyone just see the sky news footage of a Ryanair plane landing at bristol?

OMG LOL dunno why im laughing the thind aquaplaned down the runway with a wave of water plashing out either side, horrible, Good luck to all you brave Pilots. :)

I don't think that you can read anything into that clip, and doesn't look like aquaplaning. Just looks like a bit of a "wobble" after a lumpy x-wind approach, nothing unusual.

ajamieson

7th Jan 2007, 17:42

Out of interest, what happens to the PSC element of the fare paid by passengers whose flights have been diverted? If I were a punter I'd be asking for a refund, either from my airline or from BIA. Are EZY et al already withholding such payments to BIA?

11K-AVML

7th Jan 2007, 17:59

RE: PSC
I had wondered that myself. WRT diversions, won't EZY et al. have to pay Cardiff or Birmingham for their passenger services though? Would the difference work out to be much at the end of the day? Plus, as I understand it, EZY pax have to check-in at BRS anyhow, so they'll be using *some* of the services that pays for.

Media Watch Update
For anyone else's information, this story has now reached the tabloids top spot, albeit on a Sunday (ITV 18:45).

Unfortunately they didn't seem to give a very accurate description of the problem - the guy speaking live from BIA said
"only in Britain" :ugh:
and that
the problem was that anywhere else in the world the runway would be shutdown to undertake resurfacing, whereas at BIA they tried to do it at night with aircraft using in between this, during the day. :hmm:

Media Watch Update 2:
Channel 4 news featured this as their third item, but very briefly. Unfortunately they too didn't give a correct picture of the problem.
They stated it was a problem with a new surface that had only recently been finished, and that grooves would now be added to it.
I didn't comes across that they understood it was in fact a temporary surface and that grooves were/have always been the intention in that final design of the resurfacing.
(Channel 4 News 19:40)

I don't think these really portray the problem very accurately which is disappointing if not surprising.

Mr ajamison, I hope you will be able to set the record straight for your readers come Monday. ;)

Standard Noise

7th Jan 2007, 18:16

And for those who reckon that Ranger1 and his colleagues should be operating the mu-meter at higher speeds than 40mph, this is the third airport I've worked at, and at my previous units, ATC were responsible for the friction testing. It was always doen at 40mph. The vehicle used to tow the mu-meter is largely irrelevant but believe me, a 110 or Disco is far better than some equipment I've had to use in the past.

PAXboy

7th Jan 2007, 18:25

Regarding Denson Mu-meter Mk 6
OverRunNice bit of kit.
Note the special optional extra: Available with dry run self wetting option.
Ah yes, many of us will be familiar with that feature, especially as we get older ... :sad:

nilcostoptionmyass

7th Jan 2007, 19:50

Did anyone see the M/D of Bristol irport on telly last night ? "who'd have thought it ???" what a load of tosh, the airlines pullout has no doubt been driven by pilots who's first priority is safety to the public.

The MD last night seemed to imply nothing was wrong with the runway because I guess its dramatically affected passenger numbers buying from the shops etc..........

Airways B

7th Jan 2007, 20:30

My experience years ago of previous models of Mu Meter tells me that the mark 6 uses basically the same chassis as previous models. It is a three wheeled device. The centre wheel is treaded and runs in line with the direction of the vehicle under no load. It is basically used to measure the reference speed and distance covered. The outer two wheels fit on a hinged 'A' frame, have bald tyres of a soft compound and are run out of track in a 'toe in' fashion with a stress gauge connected across the bar of the 'A'.
The effect of this is that when pulled along, the outer wheels will want to pull together and the amount of force with which it can do that is directly related to the friction coefficient of the surface that it is used on. Because of the way in which the Mu Meter operates, it's manufacturer would claim that it was the best device on the market for assessing a surface's friction state particularly with regards to aquaplaning. (other devices generally tend to operate with the friction measuring wheel running straight and constantly braked)

This principle has been used on most variants of Mu Meter, the updates have been to the systems used to record the readings from pen / chart recorder to modern electronics and pc's.

The variants with which I am familiar were very prone to going out of calibration particularly due to wear and scrubbing of the soft bald tyres and had to be calibrated about every three runs or so to keep the figures constant. Incidentally this calibration was done by hand pulling (yes backwards at a very slow walking pace!) the Mu Meter about 1m along a calibrated board with a high grip surface at a constant rate to check that, I think, 0.79 was acheived and making adjustments if required.

I wonder if the latest Mu Meter is calibrated in the same manner and as regularly?:confused:

vintage ATCO

7th Jan 2007, 20:40

I thought most places used Griptester these days (similar kit though)?

Ranger 1

7th Jan 2007, 22:47

Airways B: check you Pm's.
Vintage ATCO, not sure how many Grip Testers there are compared to Mu-meters, but the MK-6 is very relaible & user friendly in service compared to the older versions, which had a belt drive on the Rear wheel for distance & speed readings, which used to frequently break usually in the middle of a run at night in a snow storm.:{

floatingharbour

8th Jan 2007, 06:52

Did anyone just see the sky news footage of a Ryanair plane landing at bristol?
OMG LOL dunno why im laughing the thind aquaplaned down the runway with a wave of water plashing out either side, horrible, Good luck to all you brave Pilots. :)
.... no aquaplaning evident from the clip, just a normal roll-out under conditions that you'd expect to see on a runway described as 'wet'.
The pilot commented after landing that the braking action was very good.

London Mil

8th Jan 2007, 07:19

I'm going back a few years so I may be wrong, but ISTR that one of the problems witha mu-meter was that it gave inaccurate readings if the runway was wet or contaminated. :ugh:
A snippet:
On wet runways friction measurements are carried out in order to establish whether the runway is slippery when wet, and to indicate the need for runway maintenance. Friction measurement on wet runways is NOT carried out for operational use by aeroplanes, as no correlation exist between measured friction and aeroplane behaviour.

BEagle

8th Jan 2007, 07:44

Certainly that's what I've always understood.

I have often noted that many pilots do not understand (or have forgotten) that 'slippery when wet' means that 'ice' values must be used for performance planning when that runway is anything other than damp (surface colour change, no glistening).

At Lulsgate, it has been seen that 10 airlines have quite rightly taken a stance against the risks posed by a 'slippery when wet' runway - and yet others, some of whom who operate the same aircraft type, have continued. Why are some airlines prepared to risk their passengers' safety when others are not?

8th Jan 2007, 08:03

Certainly that's what I've always understood.
I have often noted that many pilots do not understand (or have forgotten) that 'slippery when wet' means that 'ice' values must be used for performance planning when that runway is anything other than damp (surface colour change, no glistening).

BEagle - do you have a link or reference for this?

At Lulsgate, it has been seen that 10 airlines have quite rightly taken a stance against the risks posed by a 'slippery when wet' runway - and yet others, some of whom who operate the same aircraft type, have continued. Why are some airlines prepared to risk their passengers' safety when others are not?

£/$

Fly safe everyone....

A4

WATABENCH

8th Jan 2007, 08:29

Runway to re open at 1000 :D

John Wilson

8th Jan 2007, 09:09

I am amazed at the lack of common sense let alone technical knowledge on the problem at Bristol Airport. From the shots of the runway it appears that
it is not level and flat, indeed it has a definate hump in the middle.
When landing even with spoilers deployed and full flap the weight of the craft is still not bearing fully on the runway for at least half its rundown, add to this the fact that if the runway falls away - ie down hill, this will further delay the full weight application, then add some water to further reduce the friction coefficient the result is skidding.

The only important criteria in braking is "weight" and the "coefficient of friction". Putting drainage slots in the surface implies that someone thinks that there is an aquaplaning issue, this cannot be the case on a runway that is downhill and is absurd when we are considering that we are talking about hundreds of tons sitting on relatively small tyre areas; it has to be the runway is not long enough and flat enough to give a good margin of error.

The CAA should get some boffins in there quick to sort it out.

:ugh:

BEagle

8th Jan 2007, 09:17

Interestingly, the old AIP/AGA Section 3/5-6 used to say (paraphrased from my old Air Law notes):

"When a runway is notified as "slippery when wet", the TODA/LDA used for performance planning shall be not less than that pertaining to 'very slippery' or 'icy' requirements stated in the Aircraft Flight Manual"

However, this seems to have been dumbed-down quite a bit in the current UK AIP AD1.1.5 and now merely says:

"When a runway is notified as ‘may be slippery when wet’, aircraft operators may request additional information relating to that notification from the aerodrome operator. However, any performance calculations or adjustment made as a result of this information is the responsibility of the aircraft operator."

So, presumably the wise heads in the more reputable airlines such as Easyjet take their 'responsibility' more seriously than those in others? Where once the performance requirement was laid down, it is now left to the discretion of the airline. I'm not sure that this is a particularly healthy state of affairs with certain airlines....

Stop Stop Stop

8th Jan 2007, 09:52

The airport is again open. The Continental 76 landed at 1042. It will be interesting to see if Easy start operating again today. Probably a case of "watch this space."

Stampe

8th Jan 2007, 10:02

The real bottom line colleagues is whatever they do to this runway if it remains the current length,undulating profile in its present geographical weather challenged location it will remain a marginal surface for operating jet aircraft from in demanding conditions.:ugh:

jumpseater

8th Jan 2007, 10:31

Beag's hopefully this will finally nail the lie that lo-co's are not concerned for safety.

'Putting drainage slots in the surface implies that someone thinks that there is an aquaplaning issue,'
No, its a standard technique to improve drainage on runways. By helping disperse the surface water it obviously helps minimise the potential of aquaplaning occuring. It may be worth pointing out for some, that by doing this, (channels draining water off the surface) it helps heavier than air machines accelerate for take-off.

'this cannot be the case on a runway that is downhill'
Erm just thought I'd point out that going the otherway, its uphill.....

'and is absurd when we are considering that we are talking about hundreds of tons' :hmm:

'it has to be the runway is not long enough and flat enough to give a good margin of error'
That'll be it then:ok:

There was a young man in his plane..
That landed at Bristol in rain..
He thought he might skid!
My god how he did!
And now the poor boys in Dunblane!

Are you holding the door open for me? How kind......