St Mawgan / Newquay International!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St Mawgan / Newquay International!
RAF to withdraw from St Mawgan in 2007 according to BBC Website as the airfield is mothballed pending a review.
Some ambiguous mention of civilian movements during that time, any bets on SERCO taking on the role??? Or will this be the first tower manned by RAF controllers providing purely a service to civilian aircraft only (a bit like Brize!!)
Some ambiguous mention of civilian movements during that time, any bets on SERCO taking on the role??? Or will this be the first tower manned by RAF controllers providing purely a service to civilian aircraft only (a bit like Brize!!)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Will they use QFE or QNH?
I thought, it's on the coast, surely it won't matter. I was surprised when looking it up to see that the aerodrome elevation is 390', 13millibars (or Hectopascals if you're being picky) so it matters quite a lot!
I guess the RAF are wedded to QFE for arrival but it's hardly a problem to adjust by adding 13 if you want QNH, I'd have thought...
Or, even, just use QFE! (or is that against the rules if your comany is wedded to QNH?)
TheOddOne
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be surprised if the civil side could support the airport alone. I doubt Ryanair will increase services. Is there enough demand with Air SouthWest and Skybus? Surely its a very seasonal destination.
A great shame to see any airfield slowing down. And a scary thought that we are to lose more RAF airfields.
A great shame to see any airfield slowing down. And a scary thought that we are to lose more RAF airfields.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: somewhere hot
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
any bets on SERCO taking on the role???
they just lost the contract at Filton and they can't keep up with the demand for controllers at the Airfields that they have got so..................
P.S. I hear on the grape vine that another controller is about to/has resigned at that place to far north to mention.
mind you lots of overtime for those that are left
pps I know I can't spell!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's at 390 feet because it's on top of the cliffs north of Newquay. When I lived there (!960's Shackletons) it was famous for what we called "Gale force fog" so carry an alternate!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Er, Devon!
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't *know* anything substantial - however, I have heard various rumours from all sorts of directions that point to a happy resolution for civilian ops, viz:
Airport recently gained approval for expanding various buildings
Air Southwest just about to start routes from there
Local government very keen on keeping it open (see transport white paper etc.)
Don't see that Ryanair has an alternative in the SW (Plymouth too small for B737, Exeter and Bristol carry rival lo-co's) and while Skybus and ASW have home bases elsewhere, they both seem to see EGDG as very useful.
I believe that SERCo's only involvement is handling and ground services on contract from the operator of the civilian terminal. No ATC links or anything at this time.
As and when I know more and can say so, I will!
DinD
(Currently suffering at Rudloe for the cause of Approach Procedural Control)
Airport recently gained approval for expanding various buildings
Air Southwest just about to start routes from there
Local government very keen on keeping it open (see transport white paper etc.)
Don't see that Ryanair has an alternative in the SW (Plymouth too small for B737, Exeter and Bristol carry rival lo-co's) and while Skybus and ASW have home bases elsewhere, they both seem to see EGDG as very useful.
I believe that SERCo's only involvement is handling and ground services on contract from the operator of the civilian terminal. No ATC links or anything at this time.
As and when I know more and can say so, I will!
DinD
(Currently suffering at Rudloe for the cause of Approach Procedural Control)
Do we have to wait until 2007 to stop the continuous flow of Class E MORs (ie MORs that never were) from ATC St Mawgan reporting Ryanair/Air Southwest everytime that they fly an ILS with an RVR/equivalent in the order of 550 metres? This of course in the real world they can do perfectly legally. Don't know what MOD use in lieu of a MATS Part 2, but whatever it is could it reflect the fact that MOD minima do not accord with CAA/JAA and help prevent the St Mawgan ATCOs from developing RSI?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St Mawgan MORs
Like all UK military airfields, St Mawgan is required by JSP552 to submit a report whenever a civil aircraft makes an approach in visibility below 1000m. In doing so, they are not accusing the pilot of breaking his/her own minima. It is for SRG to decide whether there is need for further follow up, and frequently they simply reply that "all is in order". Why the 1000m limit?... dunno, but that's the rules St Mawgan has to play by! Hope that clears things up, and sure it's nothing personal?
Ohh... and on the subject of use of QNH? St Mawgan has obtained approval to use QNH, on request, as an alternative to QFE (which remains the UK military preference). Roll out expected to be 01 June 2005.
Ohh... and on the subject of use of QNH? St Mawgan has obtained approval to use QNH, on request, as an alternative to QFE (which remains the UK military preference). Roll out expected to be 01 June 2005.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I lay my head is home.
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we have to wait until 2007 to stop the continuous flow of Class E MORs (ie MORs that never were) from ATC St Mawgan reporting Ryanair/Air Southwest everytime that they fly an ILS with an RVR/equivalent in the order of 550 metres? This of course in the real world they can do perfectly legally
conditions when no other sane individual can possibly land? Methinks that commercial considerations can be put before flight safety on more than a few occasions here. The more MORs the better when it comes to establishing the paper trail for the subsequent Board of Inquiry!
Last edited by SID East; 1st Jun 2005 at 22:34.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidence?
I think some of these "safety" statements need to be backed up with evidence.
How do you know what a pilot sees out of a flight-deck window?
Are you basing your lack of understanding with reference to a met report which by its very nature is out-of-date the moment it is printed, and moreover is taken from a different observation point than the pilot's?
Are you frustrated that despite your best efforts to the contrary these commercial flights do get in? They are flown by some of the best and most experienced pilots in the world. The job of a controller is an "enabler"....not a "preventer".
As I said before.....produce evidence to support your premise that any particular operator is more prone to "disaster" than another.
How do you know what a pilot sees out of a flight-deck window?
Are you basing your lack of understanding with reference to a met report which by its very nature is out-of-date the moment it is printed, and moreover is taken from a different observation point than the pilot's?
Are you frustrated that despite your best efforts to the contrary these commercial flights do get in? They are flown by some of the best and most experienced pilots in the world. The job of a controller is an "enabler"....not a "preventer".
As I said before.....produce evidence to support your premise that any particular operator is more prone to "disaster" than another.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
055166k
Your feathers obviously ruffled by previous post. Not sure I agree with all of it myself either, but whilst you are correct to say that the ATC perspective is different from what the pilot can see from the cockpit, the "limited" view from the tower is still considerably better than when said pilot is looking out into 8/8 cloud and does not know what the vis is going to be like when/if breaks cloud at minima, hurtling towards the ground with (hopefully) the runway in front of him/her.
In these circumstances the ATC/MET report is all, perhaps unfortuantely, the pilot has to go on. FACT. They should therefore act accordingly
I remind you both though, my original statement acknowledged that the conditions for reporting approaches in JSP552 are, generally, above the pilot's minima... them are the rules. I think this may have something to do with collecting stats on LVP operations at military bases... it's nothing personal!
Your feathers obviously ruffled by previous post. Not sure I agree with all of it myself either, but whilst you are correct to say that the ATC perspective is different from what the pilot can see from the cockpit, the "limited" view from the tower is still considerably better than when said pilot is looking out into 8/8 cloud and does not know what the vis is going to be like when/if breaks cloud at minima, hurtling towards the ground with (hopefully) the runway in front of him/her.
In these circumstances the ATC/MET report is all, perhaps unfortuantely, the pilot has to go on. FACT. They should therefore act accordingly
I remind you both though, my original statement acknowledged that the conditions for reporting approaches in JSP552 are, generally, above the pilot's minima... them are the rules. I think this may have something to do with collecting stats on LVP operations at military bases... it's nothing personal!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre Argh
Thanks for the tranquilliser response, I understand perfectly the situation that prevails.....rules are rules as regards reporting criteria. I would point out however that one man's cloud is another man's mist.....military aircraft can maintain formation in "cloud" ......can they not?
Anyway...give the pilot all the information and let him/her make the decision based on their own operating minima.....this post highlights a fundamental difference between military and civil.
Anyway...give the pilot all the information and let him/her make the decision based on their own operating minima.....this post highlights a fundamental difference between military and civil.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the "limited" view from the tower is still considerably better than when said pilot is looking out into 8/8 cloud and does not know what the vis is going to be like when/if breaks cloud at minima, hurtling towards the ground with (hopefully) the runway in front of him/her.
If one is 'looking' into 8/8 cloud, then when/if one 'breaks cloud' the visibility will, by definition, be remarkably improved.
Besides, when the vis is that close to minima, it is hardly ever the case that we 'break cloud' at all, just gain enough information from the visual picture (runway light pattern, surrounding texural cues) to complete a safe landing. If we do not have enough visual reference to complete a safe landing, it's really a no-brainer - we go-around. I expect we have all experienced go-arounds due to wx in our professional careers to date, so at some of us must be applying the criteria correctly.
Typical descent rate on the ILS about 700fpm. That's an equivalent speed towards terra firma of about 7kts. I can run faster than that, so I can hardly agree with the description of that as 'hurtling towards the ground'. Additionally, from 200' DH. at 700fpm, that gives me 17 seconds before I touch down. Count to 17 (one thousand, two thousand...) and see that really that is quite enough time to make a fairly straightforward decision and apply the correct techniques to disappear skywards again.
Of course, all that assumes a 'stabilised' approach - if the approach is not stable (RoD, deviation from LLZ/GS, IAS etc) we go around at 500'aal (minimum). Even simpler.
Additionally, ATC/MET isn't all the pilot has to go on - as we all know, we only need a proscribed minimum reported vis (RVR/Met vis) to continue to our 'last-chance' decision altitude, in order to see what we can see. If we can see what we need to land and are cleared to do so by ATC, tower can report what the hell they like but we will be making the decision based on our defined criteria, not someone else's.
I have landed in (reported RVR) 550m on a CAT 1 runway (night - a bit easier than daylight) and I would say that those minima really are well placed, landing in less than that would not be safe. I have also gone around in 1500m of BR on the same runway (daylight) because we could not see what we needed to see. So report what you like! We'll make our decision.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With no disrespect intended I wont tell you how to drive your radar blips if you dont tel me how to fly my approach. Looking out a window in the tower and looking out of the flight deck on approach are two totaly different things and viewed from different positions. Regardless of the RVR I can start the approach and go as far as the OM. If the RVR at the OM is below minima I have to go around if its not I can continue. If after the OM it dips below minimum I can continue to dDH and make up my own mind. As a pilot I am used to and trained to fly to minima and execute a go-around if I have to, are you able to make that decision? There is also a distinct difference between RVR and reported met visibility.
Can I look at 2 blips on a screen and decide if they will be a conflict in 2 mins time? Do I know all your rules and regs? Probably not
Can I look at 2 blips on a screen and decide if they will be a conflict in 2 mins time? Do I know all your rules and regs? Probably not