Your obviously a journo or a nimby then :\

Mr. A - Nice to make your acquaintance, give my regards to Danny when you see him next ;-) Nasty business about the authorities dissing the senior ATC guy.

Anyway, what was the problem with the load on 'Lili' ?

ToTH

There was no problem with the load etc... aircraft was at MTOW and that's about exciting as it gets...:hmm: if there was an incident to be reported or recorded, I'm sure we would all have heard about it by now... :eek:

Cheers,
JFF :ok:

JFF: A civil reply - much appreciated !

If no excitement - why the original posting by senior ATC in two forums ? (and posted in good faith)

The authorities are saying that it was 'close to' permitted TOW, but 'it is not possible to confirm absolutely that the aircraft’s rate of climb was above the minimum required'

Did their lawyers draft the last bit ? ;-)

ToTH

If no excitement - why the original posting by senior ATC in two forums ? (and posted in good faith)

The authorities are saying that it was 'close to' permitted TOW, but 'it is not possible to confirm absolutely that the aircraft’s rate of climb was above the minimum required'

Did their lawyers draft the last bit ? ;-)

ToTH

ToTH this is the definitive answer : Capt B said there was no problem with that flight and I tend to beleive his word above all the here say and press gossip and his vast flying experience speaks for itself and thats the end of the matter.
Slowfly::}

If Bopster says it was OK, that's fine by me!

Toad of TH
There you go, guess the Airport can count on your support for the runway extension then as the alledged problem would not occur if the extension is made.
:\

Mr. A - Perhaps you might know why the airport is so circumspect about the direct supply of anything detailed in print that the public might see ?

For instance, it is understood that responses to complaints usually give the altitude of the aircraft in question, and sometimes nice coloured charts showing aircraft tracks if people are lucky, but apparently neither have been forthcoming so far to Melbourne nimbys for this incident.

ToTH

T of TH
Most of the Airliners that work out of NEMA (despite the NIMBY protests of it being inundated with old night freight planes) are pretty powerful beasts so they get airborne well early along the runway. The odd aircraft such as the DC8 take longer, or the First Choice 767 on the way to Orlando.

Having been a LGW resident for many years (one runway and ten-twenty times as busy as NEMA) i remember many a day watching the Braniff 747 take up all the runway before it departed. Then many years at EMA I remember watching the BMI and Omega Boeing 707s take all the runway length to get airborne.
At Miami I recall DC6's being at about 500 foot over Miami Beach, 5 miles from the Airport.

Ah fond memories.

Anyway back to the subject. Its at Filton by the sounds of it. If its coming up North again I'll post another message and we can go and pole it!

:\ :\

T of TH
Aircraft just flew into NEMA. :\

9G-TOP rather than 9G-LIL

The future's not garlic bread, it's the DC8 stretched freighter ? :}

ToTH

T of TH
And said aircraft departed at 2100, bit noisy otherwise fine.
No CAA ramp check (a good sign for concern):\

Jeez...
 

It amazes me that this generates so much interest. Let me point out a few matters here, first there was NO incident to report, and this was confirmed by the CAA. The reason the "incident" came to the knowledge of the CAA, was I believe because of the posts on this forum - picked up by journos etc... shortly after this all surfaced, the operator and crew contacted EMA, who also did not have any issue.... so lets see, the CAA are not concerned, the Airport Management have no concern, and the company for which the aircraft was operating on behalf of, also had no concern - whatsoever.

Think that about wraps it up. :ok:

JFF :p

JFF
Careful or i'll turn into a NIMBY as well!
The NIMBYs are looking for trouble at NEMA, anything to do with passenger aircraft is fine (recent easyjet fire, delays last year with Scandic) but if its a knackered old DC8 freighter working for DHL then they will pounce on it.
I must right to the new nu's and tell them that Johnsons air came in again!
Remember please the original discussion was started by the ATC Watch Controller..........
:\

Edited 'cos I can't be bothered anymore.... :zzz:

Cheers
JFF

and a comment about a 'curvature of the earth departure', which seems increasingly to be vindicated as the story unfolds.

Sir Humphrey has indulged a spot of derriere-covering by saying 'it is not possible to confirm absolutely that the aircraft’s rate of climb was above the minimum required' - but maybe he should check his (NATS) sums again ! If he's reading this, the SIDs doc says something about 8·7% and 7.3% climbs. Apparently, it's to avoid hitting stuff and also annoying the nimbys.

Somewhat amusingly, Sir Humphrey also says that a Mandatory Occurrence Report was submitted by the airport, but then Sir H. says that he later decided that an MOR wasn't needed. He regrets, however, to say that the details can't be released for Freedom of Information reasons.

ToTH

Just in case Sir Humphrey thinks this is dead ...

Reg Cap (ATC) said: "Subsequent inspection revealed no obvious damage to approach lights or Localiser aerial, but there was a single (wheel?) track in the grass beyond the end of the runway, lasting about 50m.
DC8 drivers - is it possible for the port wing to lift just enough for the outer rear wheel of the main bogie to skim along the ground, but not the inner wheel? It wasn't a vehicle track (only one tyre track, not 2)."

Sir H.'s people seem to favour vehicle tracks - plural - whereas the airport says 'rabbits' ! So, rabbits on motorbikes, perhaps ? ;)

He might also like to know that Reg Cap's 'port wing lift' and associated aircraft yaw, at the end of the runway, generated a corresponding deviation in the NATS radar track.

ToTH