View Full Version : Monarch incident @ Manchester 29/01

29th Jan 2008, 17:11
Monarch 757 today at Manchester (13:15), parked on the high speed turn off, surrounded by fire engines, I think the runway was closed for a while and the it looked like they where inspecting the runway 23R.. We had to wait for taxi clearance for about 10mins as a result.. any ideas?

steve platt
29th Jan 2008, 17:40
it was an a300 not a 757. empty flight from brussels burst front tyre on landing. runway closed 10 mins resulting in 1 divertion away by a thompsonfly 737 to liverpool. everything else landed after holding for 10 or so minutes. minor delays to outbound flights.


A Very Civil Pilot
29th Jan 2008, 18:05
How was the TOM flight supposed to know it was a only going to be a 10 minute delay?
Were the forecast winds inound as predicted?
Did they cruise at the optimun FL?
Perhaps all the extra fuel for a 10 min hold might have been used?

Easy to criticise with hindsight.

Not to scale
29th Jan 2008, 18:26
Even if with the other runway available, the TOM 737 must have been at CMR ??


29th Jan 2008, 18:29
Monarch 757 today at Manchester (13:15), parked on the high speed turn off, surrounded by fire engines, I think the runway was closed for a while and the it looked like they where inspecting the runway 23R.

My company procedures require you to determine the delay and get an EAT. If ATC can't provide that (often because the delay is unknown at that point), then one has to have a plan.

If you reach the latest time to action that plan without an EAT that is acceptable, then you divert and fuel and go (or whatever is possible).

I remember being behind a 'white tail' A300 into LGW about 12 years ago. He developed a hydraulic problem downwind and requested a 20 mile final. We were vectored ahead, only for a xxx727 to overshoot the Cat1 hold and for us to go-around (and div to BOH)! In the meantime we were ofeered a hod at the 'GW'? but ....

Buzz Lightyear
29th Jan 2008, 18:51
ATC I believe informed holding aircraft that the delay was indeterminate therefore they bugged out sooner rather than later.

Left runway not used because they had all the tenders in attendance (including the two from the south station) Bit ott in mho.

It was tyre no2, left bogie, front right hand side. Went as we crossed the cat 11/111 stop bars. Thought it was a taxi light.

Engineers at ground level in pier Charlie said they heard it and thought someone had dropped something upstairs. Made engineers on the BMI 330 in front of the Myt hangar jump.

Wouldnt want to be close to one when it went off.

29th Jan 2008, 22:10
Wouldnt want to be close to one when it went off.
I have been and it wasn't much fun. I was about 70' in front of it in the co-pilot seat of a VC10 at about FL310 in the descent - the bang and jolt through the airframe was impressive to say the least. The tyre blew the gear door off, took out the fuel lines from the port wing, lost us 15,000lb of fuel and both port Conways (and as a result, the LH hydraulics).

It also made a VERY nasty mess of the undercarriage bay.

We then had quite an interesting 25 minutes or so!

30th Jan 2008, 00:40
So the 737 was "at CMR?". So what? Perfectly normal if contigency used enroute, which is what it is there for. Think you'll find that this will happen more often as flight plan fuel is carried as per most airline proc's. Unless of course they expected such events happening on their arrival. :rolleyes:

30th Jan 2008, 09:18

close to cmr.

they were lucky to live. :rolleyes:

Doug E Style
30th Jan 2008, 10:43
Or maybe they lived nearer to Liverpool than Manchester...

30th Jan 2008, 11:43
funny how it started off about a monarch, and ended up on thomsonfly:confused:

Jet A1
30th Jan 2008, 19:11
It was a faff - MAN closed then opened then decided they better do a runway inspection so closed again - Delay Not Determined....So single runway ops means no commitment to MAN and probably not a bad idea to shoot off given capacity at LPL is not great and I'd rather be front of the queue than at the back ...

30th Jan 2008, 21:18
Interesting Saskatoon.
You jump on a thread, post something totally irrelevant and are then never seen again. I imagine you're too embarrassed to come back?
Do you work in aviation? Do you have any understanding of the processes involved in debris sweep? Have you heard of indeterminate delay?
Like someone said, rather be at the front of the queue than the back.
Now why did I post this, you probably won't read it?

Jet A1
30th Jan 2008, 22:18
Wx was forecast to be good so why carry shed loads of fuel...How often does this sort of thing happen ?

If you had that mentality you would carry tonnes extra per sector for those just in case days....

Unfortunate, but on the day the skipper has to make the judgement call - maybe he did have plenty of juice but just wanted to shoot off before things got exciting later on....Let's not play armchair pilots hey >?!

31st Jan 2008, 09:15
Slightly OT but in a similar vein re 'lack of information', I had to despair at the attitudes of passengers at Heathrow following the BA incident and moaning and complaining about 'lack of information'.

As if this is an everyday event and so the alternative machinery moves smoothly into action and pigs might fly? Makes me want to grab them firmly, shake them and scream at them to get a life.

31st Jan 2008, 09:17
Under JAR Ops it is acceptable, under certain weather conditions, to use a second, independant runway at your destination as your alternate. Thomsonfly do not do this but other operators do. The policy looks decidedly shaky if the second runway does not become available when the first one is blocked!

I know that this is thread creep but it just shows what effect unexpected minor events can have. In October I was taxying out to Rwy 23R at MAN late one evening. It was single RWY ops at the time. A landing a/c hit a rabbit just before vacating the runway at a high speed turn off. No drama you would think. Wrong! An ops vehicle went to collect the corpse but could not clear up all the blood and guts. ATC then decided that this needed to be sorted out by having the area swept before anyone else could land. An a/c on short finals was instructed to go around and the next a/c on approach also had to return to the traffic pattern. Hand on heart this is true.

I suspect that ATC were just following a set of unnecessarily rigid rules that prevent the use of common sense. You could well argue that departures should be delayed in such a scenario but a low level go-around just because of a small amount of soft debris more than half way down the runway??? Now debate that one!

31st Jan 2008, 09:59
A sector of what length? No idea what it was like yesterday around late morning over France but yesterday late afternoon we ended up at 340 rather than the planned 380 due continuos turbulence, bordering on moderate. We were there for 2 hours and then copped for a descent >10,000' below profile presumably as LATCC got us underneath the BCN outbounds. Inbound to MAN from The Canaries that cost us 600kg. I've no idea what contingency on the 73 is or where it was inbound from but making an assumption (as seems traditional here), it would be less than 600 kg. Add an indeterminate delay with a potentially disabled aircraft then good call IMHO.

As for rabbit guts, what BA do they create?:}

31st Jan 2008, 23:01
braking action?

paw paw paw

Bob Stinger
1st Feb 2008, 06:33
Tight Circuit,
As you suggest it must be something in the ops manual for the airport as i once saw Cape Town get shut for a dead mole we had landed never saw it but the SA 330? behind us reported seeing the critter!! A/C went around and it was off to the hold for everybody, the best words coming from the pilot of an army rotor as he cleared "thanks and good luck with the mole"