Semi-Mixed Operations at EGCC?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semi-Mixed Operations at EGCC?
It is now over 3 years since dual runway operations started at Manchester.
The original draft operating plans refered, I believe, to the introduction of semi-mixed mode 'when sufficient experience of dual runway operations has been aquired'.
Has this time now arrived, and would the introduction of this new mode make any difference to the amount of traffic currently being handled?
As a second question, has anybody looked at what delays would now be being experienced if the airport had remained as a single-runway field?
Scottie Dog
The original draft operating plans refered, I believe, to the introduction of semi-mixed mode 'when sufficient experience of dual runway operations has been aquired'.
Has this time now arrived, and would the introduction of this new mode make any difference to the amount of traffic currently being handled?
As a second question, has anybody looked at what delays would now be being experienced if the airport had remained as a single-runway field?
Scottie Dog
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard that later this year EGCC were going to be doing staggered parallel approaches, but only on to 06L/R, not at the 24 end - any EGCC guys have an update on this?
Also they are doing VFR arrivals to the departure runway (and maybe vice versa)
Also they are doing VFR arrivals to the departure runway (and maybe vice versa)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The service provided at MAN is very good, we don't hold very often, the routes are usually not too long. To be able to split north and south arrivals onto the appropriate runway simultaneously would speed things up even more. The problem would lie on 24 without a sensible IFR approach to 24R.
The whole operation of the 2 runway thing for departures has worked better than I imagined, with multiple crossing points and enough room to accomodate aeroplanes on the south side, we seldom get held up.
The whole operation of the 2 runway thing for departures has worked better than I imagined, with multiple crossing points and enough room to accomodate aeroplanes on the south side, we seldom get held up.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On "Westerlies" 24R/24L, if a pilot is "Trial Briefed", [s]he can land 24L during "dual ops". Saves vortex spacing with a stack [sorry] of inbounds on the Right.
watp,iktch.
ps.
Like your "sidestep" scottie
watp,iktch.
ps.
Like your "sidestep" scottie
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Police Defender (Islander) already operates a sort of mixed mode, departing in whats left of arrival slots (lining up on 24R as the last landing is on the prior fast turn off). It also usually arrives VFR at almost 90 degree angles to the threshold of 24R. When on Easterlies it usually arrives 06L flying a staggered approach with other arrivals on 06R. If this could be done with the multitude of Jetsreams and Dash 8s it would make some very interesting approaches !!
Another thing has crossed my mind as I sit here in Cheadle. Sometimes all the 24R arrivals seem to be on a displaced approach track parallel and north of the centreline (only in good weather), I presume this is some sort of non ILS approach, any answers please.
Another thing has crossed my mind as I sit here in Cheadle. Sometimes all the 24R arrivals seem to be on a displaced approach track parallel and north of the centreline (only in good weather), I presume this is some sort of non ILS approach, any answers please.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN777 & Chiglet
Yes, I appreciate that the Defender and various GA movements do use the 'other' runway on occasions, however I was actually thinking along the line of more regular usage.
MAN777 has hit it on the head with suggesting that possibly Jetstreams and Dash-8s could be used in mixed semi-mixed mode - especially on 06 landings.
It would also be interesting to see 24R being used for the same aircraft types when departing to the north.
Thanks to those who have provided input so far. Hopefully others will give their thoughts as well.
Yes, I appreciate that the Defender and various GA movements do use the 'other' runway on occasions, however I was actually thinking along the line of more regular usage.
MAN777 has hit it on the head with suggesting that possibly Jetstreams and Dash-8s could be used in mixed semi-mixed mode - especially on 06 landings.
It would also be interesting to see 24R being used for the same aircraft types when departing to the north.
Thanks to those who have provided input so far. Hopefully others will give their thoughts as well.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another mode of operation we would like to use would be 06R landers to switch to 06L if visual,and there were no departures to delay.
With mixed mode I think one has to consider both arrivals and departures together. For example, would parallel approaches lower the departure rate, and by increasing the landing gaps to get the outbounds away would the overall landing rate be reduced.
With mixed mode I think one has to consider both arrivals and departures together. For example, would parallel approaches lower the departure rate, and by increasing the landing gaps to get the outbounds away would the overall landing rate be reduced.
Guest
Posts: n/a
With mixed mode I think one has to consider both arrivals and departures together. For example, would parallel approaches lower the departure rate, and by increasing the landing gaps to get the outbounds away would the overall landing rate be reduced.
Consider if both the runways at Heathrow could be used as efficiently as the one at Gatwick which hit 58 movements (again) in a single hour a week or so ago......
WF.
Warped Factor.
Try looking at the airfield layout and SID tracks and you'll see it's a completely different kettle of fish for the proposals at Heathrow to be applicable at Manchester. To keep this short let's look at 24L/24R ops. ..
1.There's no ILS on 24L.
2.There's no parallel taxiway on 24L so arrivals would need to backtrack.
3.The runways are close staggered parallels so if there was a B757 lets say, on approach for 24L. The DHC8 3nm behind on the ILS for 24R would be beautifully presented for the vortex descending from the B757.
4.I suspect SRG would have a serious issue with the two sets of Approach lights being displayed on the close parallel's. I know they do it in the states but you know how the CAA think regarding U.S. procedures!
5.All departing aircraft currently cross the landing runway. Although this would change if you were departing a significant number from 24R. In certain wind conditions this needs a 4nm gap anyway.
6. Let's assume you want to depart Northbounds off 24R and Southbounds of 24L. The NPR's are such that there is only one SID that actually turns Left, (Listo), which is restricted to certain aircraft/weight categories. Northbound are Desig & Pole Hill but the problem is that the Honiley/Monty/Knockin/Wallasey off 24L all dogleg to the right across the 24R departure track at 3.2d MCT!
There's probably more but I'm going out so I'll leave it at that. I don't see offset approaches on 06R/06L at min vortex coming in for ages, if ever. The FAA are about to run a trial, I believe but it involves specific training for aircrew to do it and, (I think), provision of an offset LLZ? To me, the problem is not arrival delays, and won't be for sometime. It's the departures that need sorting due to the 'Cheshire agreement' which the airport entered into. Unfortunately, as this is political your guess is as good as mine as to wether it will ever be changed. My guess is not. My wish list at the moment would be. (Not neccessarily in order of preference)!
1. A better taxiway layout with a 06L passing bay with permanent avoidance of the bottlenecks around the end's of A and C pier. (Parallel taxiways down to 06L would be luverly)!
2.More stands and please! No more cul-de-sac's!
3.CAT3 ILS for 06R and a rapid exit before VD on to a..
4.Parrallel taxiway for 24L/06R.
5.CAT1 ILS for 24L would be O.K.
6. Re approval for drinking tea in the TWR....Sorry, getting off track now so I'm off out, (Having spent a theoretical billion or so).
Spiney
Try looking at the airfield layout and SID tracks and you'll see it's a completely different kettle of fish for the proposals at Heathrow to be applicable at Manchester. To keep this short let's look at 24L/24R ops. ..
1.There's no ILS on 24L.
2.There's no parallel taxiway on 24L so arrivals would need to backtrack.
3.The runways are close staggered parallels so if there was a B757 lets say, on approach for 24L. The DHC8 3nm behind on the ILS for 24R would be beautifully presented for the vortex descending from the B757.
4.I suspect SRG would have a serious issue with the two sets of Approach lights being displayed on the close parallel's. I know they do it in the states but you know how the CAA think regarding U.S. procedures!
5.All departing aircraft currently cross the landing runway. Although this would change if you were departing a significant number from 24R. In certain wind conditions this needs a 4nm gap anyway.
6. Let's assume you want to depart Northbounds off 24R and Southbounds of 24L. The NPR's are such that there is only one SID that actually turns Left, (Listo), which is restricted to certain aircraft/weight categories. Northbound are Desig & Pole Hill but the problem is that the Honiley/Monty/Knockin/Wallasey off 24L all dogleg to the right across the 24R departure track at 3.2d MCT!
There's probably more but I'm going out so I'll leave it at that. I don't see offset approaches on 06R/06L at min vortex coming in for ages, if ever. The FAA are about to run a trial, I believe but it involves specific training for aircrew to do it and, (I think), provision of an offset LLZ? To me, the problem is not arrival delays, and won't be for sometime. It's the departures that need sorting due to the 'Cheshire agreement' which the airport entered into. Unfortunately, as this is political your guess is as good as mine as to wether it will ever be changed. My guess is not. My wish list at the moment would be. (Not neccessarily in order of preference)!
1. A better taxiway layout with a 06L passing bay with permanent avoidance of the bottlenecks around the end's of A and C pier. (Parallel taxiways down to 06L would be luverly)!
2.More stands and please! No more cul-de-sac's!
3.CAT3 ILS for 06R and a rapid exit before VD on to a..
4.Parrallel taxiway for 24L/06R.
5.CAT1 ILS for 24L would be O.K.
6. Re approval for drinking tea in the TWR....Sorry, getting off track now so I'm off out, (Having spent a theoretical billion or so).
Spiney
Squadgy.
Thanks for the offer. I may take you up on that on tuesday. By the way, the VFR landing on the departure runway trial is going very well and we can do it on both ends. It's for MSF briefed pilots only though. The LLR proposal you saw the initial paper on is being considered by Directorate of Airspace policy to see wether it goes on to further consultation or gets binned. My own consultation returns were very 'pro', with some very useful suggestions that were mainly accepted and incorporated into the document.
Spiney
Thanks for the offer. I may take you up on that on tuesday. By the way, the VFR landing on the departure runway trial is going very well and we can do it on both ends. It's for MSF briefed pilots only though. The LLR proposal you saw the initial paper on is being considered by Directorate of Airspace policy to see wether it goes on to further consultation or gets binned. My own consultation returns were very 'pro', with some very useful suggestions that were mainly accepted and incorporated into the document.
Spiney
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another progression planned is LVP departures from 24L.
Currently once viz falls towards the LVP trigger point MAN reverts to single RWY ops. Residual departures already on the southside can fire off provided their ops manual permits it.
Clearly easterly ops are a no-no as 06R is CAT l ILS only
The main obstacle was the need to gain experience in normal ops and debug the operating procedures. My belief is that the 2nd runways facilities apart from the ILS would meet LVP departure minimun standards.
The critical part of the procedure is crossing 24R (the landing RWY) in LVP. Since the incursion monitors at the crossing points have been installed and the lighting panel upgraded it would appear that introduction of this might be possible.
Anyone here present know of any impediment to this?
Sir George Cayley
Currently once viz falls towards the LVP trigger point MAN reverts to single RWY ops. Residual departures already on the southside can fire off provided their ops manual permits it.
Clearly easterly ops are a no-no as 06R is CAT l ILS only
The main obstacle was the need to gain experience in normal ops and debug the operating procedures. My belief is that the 2nd runways facilities apart from the ILS would meet LVP departure minimun standards.
The critical part of the procedure is crossing 24R (the landing RWY) in LVP. Since the incursion monitors at the crossing points have been installed and the lighting panel upgraded it would appear that introduction of this might be possible.
Anyone here present know of any impediment to this?
Sir George Cayley
Sir George.
Would have thought this was highly likely with minimal expense. I believe there is a problem with centreline light spacing at the moment but now that light fittings seem to be fitted by cutting existing surfaces then sealing in I'd have thought this would be highly likely to be persued. Just a personal opinion of course.
Spiney
Would have thought this was highly likely with minimal expense. I believe there is a problem with centreline light spacing at the moment but now that light fittings seem to be fitted by cutting existing surfaces then sealing in I'd have thought this would be highly likely to be persued. Just a personal opinion of course.
Spiney
