Thomsonfly 'Too wet' runway hits holiday flight
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 6chimes
AS CREW I always find it strange that some pax seem to find any reason to question a captains decision where self preservation and that of his pax, who have trusted the responsibility for their safety to him are not to their liking.
Is it because we as humans have a strange way of relating things to each other? It costs me £10 to get the train 8 miles into London, yet we think we can fly a thousand miles for the same price! So when your a thousand miles from home and the captain knows he can get you within a hundred miles of the destination you wanted to get to; is that not good enough? Believe me a divert airport is not an option you would take lightly. Dont forget the crew had to report at the airport so their cars are at that location, so believe me the crew would not be too happy with being diverted so that the a/c could get some maintainance!
Basically, if the flight diverted then it was necessary, if you believe different then put your money up and train yourself as pilot then pop back here in a couple of years and eat some humble pie (guaranteed you will.).........Oh and no I am not a pilot, just someone who sees 24/7 what they do, so I know.
6
Is it because we as humans have a strange way of relating things to each other? It costs me £10 to get the train 8 miles into London, yet we think we can fly a thousand miles for the same price! So when your a thousand miles from home and the captain knows he can get you within a hundred miles of the destination you wanted to get to; is that not good enough? Believe me a divert airport is not an option you would take lightly. Dont forget the crew had to report at the airport so their cars are at that location, so believe me the crew would not be too happy with being diverted so that the a/c could get some maintainance!
Basically, if the flight diverted then it was necessary, if you believe different then put your money up and train yourself as pilot then pop back here in a couple of years and eat some humble pie (guaranteed you will.).........Oh and no I am not a pilot, just someone who sees 24/7 what they do, so I know.
6
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diggles,
Max landing weight for a B737-800 in the wet at CVT is about 56 tonnes. At this weight it will probably use most of the available runway to stop. Not much margin for error here! The flight would have been perfectly possible if the runway had been dry. ATC report to the crew on finals was "runway wet, wet, wet". Go figure !!
God spoilt a good a*seh*le when he put teeth in your mouth.
BC
Max landing weight for a B737-800 in the wet at CVT is about 56 tonnes. At this weight it will probably use most of the available runway to stop. Not much margin for error here! The flight would have been perfectly possible if the runway had been dry. ATC report to the crew on finals was "runway wet, wet, wet". Go figure !!
God spoilt a good a*seh*le when he put teeth in your mouth.
BC
Last edited by Brae_Cwynd; 7th Apr 2006 at 06:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brae_Cwynd
Max landing weight for a B737-800 in the wet at CVT is about 56 tonnes.
I see, so if it was landing at BHX in the dry, it's weight would be ... different ?
At this weight it will probably use most of the available runway to stop.
Not much margin for error here! The flight would have been perfectly possible if the runway had been dry. ATC report to the crew on finals was "runway wet, wet, wet". Go figure !!
The imaturity of this comment - and from some other pilots - is scary.
The point I wanted (and still want) to make is simply :
Misleading passengers is wrong.
If a 738 cannot arrive at cvt in the wet, it probably wont arrive.
(It rains in the UK)
Although several postings suggest things are not as straight forward as they might seem.
I do not for one second think the plane leaving at the begining of this link (so long ago I've lost interest...) Palma (?) was ever going anywhere other than the Home of Robin Hood. Doncaster.
And I don't think the driver had any say it the matter, it was a company commercial decision.
Final Point - which will almost certainly result in this post being pulled:
Being moved to the slf forum doesn't irritate me.
But a trolly dolly (moderator) telling me I talking technical tosh does.
Icing on the cake - If the Trolly Dolly in question also works for ThomsonFly- who seem to be getting it in the neck quite often - well if this post sticks, I'll eat my hat.
And apropos of nothing - when a 'pilot' gives his occupation as an airframe driver, and his location as 'Camp X-Ray' then that sort of compromises the credibility of his comments doesn't it ?
Happy Landings.
DR
Max landing weight for a B737-800 in the wet at CVT is about 56 tonnes.
I see, so if it was landing at BHX in the dry, it's weight would be ... different ?
At this weight it will probably use most of the available runway to stop.
Not much margin for error here! The flight would have been perfectly possible if the runway had been dry. ATC report to the crew on finals was "runway wet, wet, wet". Go figure !!
The imaturity of this comment - and from some other pilots - is scary.
The point I wanted (and still want) to make is simply :
Misleading passengers is wrong.
If a 738 cannot arrive at cvt in the wet, it probably wont arrive.
(It rains in the UK)
Although several postings suggest things are not as straight forward as they might seem.
I do not for one second think the plane leaving at the begining of this link (so long ago I've lost interest...) Palma (?) was ever going anywhere other than the Home of Robin Hood. Doncaster.
And I don't think the driver had any say it the matter, it was a company commercial decision.
Final Point - which will almost certainly result in this post being pulled:
Being moved to the slf forum doesn't irritate me.
But a trolly dolly (moderator) telling me I talking technical tosh does.
Icing on the cake - If the Trolly Dolly in question also works for ThomsonFly- who seem to be getting it in the neck quite often - well if this post sticks, I'll eat my hat.
And apropos of nothing - when a 'pilot' gives his occupation as an airframe driver, and his location as 'Camp X-Ray' then that sort of compromises the credibility of his comments doesn't it ?
Happy Landings.
DR
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its called humour Diggles.
Got it in one Einstein. Longer runway, better braking action, you can stop more weight. Theres a difference between aircraft structural and performance limits.
You got any stats for annual rainfall at CVT, or how many days it rains? Must be a pretty wet part of the UK where you live 'cos I certainly don't remember living anywhere in this country where it rains all day everyday. Except Scotland.
Does it make it any less irritating if a fully qualified and current Airline Transport Pilots Licence (Aeroplane) licence holder tells you you're talking tosh? Its still tosh. Those trolly dollys do a lot more flying than you do and some of them know a lot more about flying than you do. Although evidently that isn't too difficult.
Hopefully not only will your post but your posting rights will be pulled then we'll all be spared your ignorant conspiracy theories. Now go on, tell us who really shot JFK.
Max landing weight for a B737-800 in the wet at CVT is about 56 tonnes.
I see, so if it was landing at BHX in the dry, it's weight would be ... different ?
I see, so if it was landing at BHX in the dry, it's weight would be ... different ?
Misleading passengers is wrong.
If a 738 cannot arrive at cvt in the wet, it probably wont arrive.
(It rains in the UK)
If a 738 cannot arrive at cvt in the wet, it probably wont arrive.
(It rains in the UK)
But a trolly dolly (moderator) telling me I talking technical tosh does.
Hopefully not only will your post but your posting rights will be pulled then we'll all be spared your ignorant conspiracy theories. Now go on, tell us who really shot JFK.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Solo.
Humour ? I love it, in it's place.
The only airport where 56 tons is not 56 tons, is on The Moon. Where different rules apply.
You totally ignored my comments.
I guess you are an agumentitive person, per se.
And hope the airframes you drive, do not contain passengers.
Oh and I eagerly anticipate the next time the pilots are incapacitated and the trolly dollies have to land the plane. No worries there.
(oops you're the one who claims to be located at Camp X-Ray aren't you ? Very witty)
DR
Humour ? I love it, in it's place.
The only airport where 56 tons is not 56 tons, is on The Moon. Where different rules apply.
You totally ignored my comments.
I guess you are an agumentitive person, per se.
And hope the airframes you drive, do not contain passengers.
Oh and I eagerly anticipate the next time the pilots are incapacitated and the trolly dollies have to land the plane. No worries there.
(oops you're the one who claims to be located at Camp X-Ray aren't you ? Very witty)
DR
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK well despite you being undeserving of it let me explain some fundamentals of physics and flight to you. Lets say the aircraft touches down with a velocity, U. The distance required to bring the aircraft to a halt, s, is:
s=ut+0.5at^2
where a is the accelleration rate and t is the time.
The time is defined by the equation:
v=u+at,
where v is the final velocity (zero in this case), hence:
t=u/-a
The decelaration capabilty is of the aircraft is dependent on the capability of the brakes to slow the wheels and the tyres to grip the runway to exert a decelerating force. The decelerating force F, is determined by the coefficient of friction, mu, multiplied by the normal reaction of the aircraft N, which is the product of the mass of the aircraft m, times by the gravitational accelaration, g. Thus:
F = muN
OR
F = mumg
So working back we can say that:
S=u(u/-a)+0.5a(u/-a)^2
OR
S= -u^2/a +0.5u^2/a
Thus
S=-u^2/a
The decelaration force, F, comes primarily from the landing gear:
F=ma.
Thus
a=F/m
OR
a= mug
Thus
S= u^2/mug
So given that we are not landing on the moon, as you perceptively pointed out, g is constant. U is predetermined as the minimum speed required to keep the aircraft in the air. Thus the landing distance, S, varies according to the coefficient of friction, mu.
Wet runways have a lower coefficient of friction than dry runways (can you drive a car? Wet stopping distances are greater than dry stopping distances for that reason). When the runway is wet, mu is lower, S is higher and if S plus a safety margin exceeds the runway length then you cannot land on the runway. Now go away with a pen and paper, try working out some sums for yourself and leave the professionals to fly the aeroplanes.
s=ut+0.5at^2
where a is the accelleration rate and t is the time.
The time is defined by the equation:
v=u+at,
where v is the final velocity (zero in this case), hence:
t=u/-a
The decelaration capabilty is of the aircraft is dependent on the capability of the brakes to slow the wheels and the tyres to grip the runway to exert a decelerating force. The decelerating force F, is determined by the coefficient of friction, mu, multiplied by the normal reaction of the aircraft N, which is the product of the mass of the aircraft m, times by the gravitational accelaration, g. Thus:
F = muN
OR
F = mumg
So working back we can say that:
S=u(u/-a)+0.5a(u/-a)^2
OR
S= -u^2/a +0.5u^2/a
Thus
S=-u^2/a
The decelaration force, F, comes primarily from the landing gear:
F=ma.
Thus
a=F/m
OR
a= mug
Thus
S= u^2/mug
So given that we are not landing on the moon, as you perceptively pointed out, g is constant. U is predetermined as the minimum speed required to keep the aircraft in the air. Thus the landing distance, S, varies according to the coefficient of friction, mu.
Wet runways have a lower coefficient of friction than dry runways (can you drive a car? Wet stopping distances are greater than dry stopping distances for that reason). When the runway is wet, mu is lower, S is higher and if S plus a safety margin exceeds the runway length then you cannot land on the runway. Now go away with a pen and paper, try working out some sums for yourself and leave the professionals to fly the aeroplanes.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo,
I applaud your attempt to educate the ignorant prat but I think we all might as well give up at this point.
When diggles comes out with a line like "if it was landing at Birmingham in the dry, its weight would be...different?" then I think we all know the depth of his ignorance.
Diggles, you are a grade A moron. Goodbye.
BC
PS Mods, can't you close this pointless thread? It's going nowhere.
I applaud your attempt to educate the ignorant prat but I think we all might as well give up at this point.
When diggles comes out with a line like "if it was landing at Birmingham in the dry, its weight would be...different?" then I think we all know the depth of his ignorance.
Diggles, you are a grade A moron. Goodbye.
BC
PS Mods, can't you close this pointless thread? It's going nowhere.
