oil on the runway at Manchester today

[Don't sink]

Anyone know anything about oil on 23R today that caused much holding and diverts to lpl,ema,bhx etc?

[twhite1]

So that explains the TOM 757-200 coming over my house turning final for 27 at LPL.

[c52]

So having two runways doesn't help MAN even as much as it helps LGW?

[D-ENIM]

It's wonderful that the Great British intellectual thirst for aviation knowledge is finally quenched. :yuk:

[Hotel Tango]

Did a Brit nick the towel you left by the pool last time you were on your hols D-ENIM? :E

[magpienja]

Yes the TOM 757 came over my house in Runcorn at 1000ft...impressive as well...I remember thinking mmmmI wonder what's going on a Manch....question answered.

Nick.

[OliWW]

3x TOM diverted to EMA, 1x B75W, 1x A321 and 1x B73H... left about an hour later...

[Mr A Tis]

Would it be silly to ask why 23L wasn't brought into use rather than having to divert away?:confused:

[Benjamino]

Ahhh ok... this will explain what I saw today at EMA.

I was walking down the side of the runway on the airport trail earlier this afternoon when a TOM 738 landed, parked up on the taxiway (I think?) and stayed there - I was quite a way down so couldn't see all that well, but I could see that it had steps up to it. A few minutes after I saw the air ambulance hovering close to it. I checked the EMA website on my phone and it displayed a TOM flight from Pisa and showed as diverted. I was thinking it was a medical diversion. But not long after, the FCA A321 landed and parked literally right next to the TOM.

Then, come to think of it, shortly after was the 75W that came in and parked up on it's tod in the middle of nowhere...

It all makes sense now! ;)

[Shrimps]

Would it be silly to ask why 23L wasn't brought into use rather than having to divert away

It was - but as all arriving aircraft must use a VOR/DME procedure followed by a backtrack (or 3 land in sequence, hold in the loop at the end and backtrack), all slotted in around departures, it does reduce runway capacity, especially with an unplanned situation such as today.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<but as all arriving aircraft must use a VOR/DME procedure >

Radar?

[opnot]

no ils on 23L

[dwshimoda]

Plus you'd need an unscheduled runway inspection to get 23L open, and would have reduced RFF while the Kestrel was surrounded by 5(!) fire engines which may be an issue.

I think MAN did quite well, with minimum diversions.

DW.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Opnot..... so they do just procedural approaches without radar?

Runway inspections don't have to be scheduled... do they? Where I worked they could be carried out at any time.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Ahhh... thought so. Ta.

[opnot]

HD
unfortunately in this day and age they are now scheduleded irrespective of what traffic is around, we have to make gaps to get the inspections done, even at Hounslow West

[dwshimoda]

...normally brought onto an intercept heading at about 12DME on radar vectors, to do a VOR/DME procedure as explained by WingoWango. 23L is runway 2 and has an area for turing at about 2/3rds, otherwise it's down to the end to join the loop which can accommodate at best, 4 jets, which all then need to backtrack. Add in departures, and you can see how flow rate is massively reduced.

Runway inspections are now scheduled and require breaks in the arrival sequence - however in this instance the runway had to be opened as an emergency, so it would have been an unscheduled inspection to get things rolling. Lot's of stuff sent to the holds whilst this happened, but not too many diverts. And operating into MAN you should carry 20 mins holding fuel for a no delay approach...

DW.

[Noah Zark.]

D-ENIM
It's wonderful that the Great British intellectual thirst for aviation knowledge is finally quenched.

How to make friends and influence people! Welcome to Pprune. You'll go far. Hopefully. :yuk:

[redED]

Would it be silly to ask why 23L wasn't brought into use rather than having to divert away?

Not sufficient fire cover initially.

[Mr A Tis]

Thanks for the answers, seemed to be handled pretty well then.
I take it an ILS to 23R with a visual break to 23L is no no then in these days of rules & regs.

[dwshimoda]

I take it an ILS to 23R with a visual break to 23L is no no then in these days of rules & regs.

There is no published approach for that. I would imagine both the lateral distance apart, and the distance between the thresholds (nearly a mile) would give you minimums that would be much greater than the VOR approach. It's also a non-precision approach, which is exactly what the VOR/DME approach to 23L is.

The big delay to flow is primarily the fact you have to land and backtrack, or go to the loop and wait to comeback. This drastically reduces the capacity of the runway.

All in all it was well handled, and if people carried the 20mins hold fuel, I doubt there would have been a need for anyone to divert.

[PPRuNe Pop]

That's enough of that one thank you.

PPP