Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

Thomsonfly 'Too wet' runway hits holiday flight

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

Thomsonfly 'Too wet' runway hits holiday flight

Old 29th Mar 2006, 20:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thomsonfly 'Too wet' runway hits holiday flight

This does seem to be the thin end of the wedge.
I find it so surprising that no-one else has picked this up I'm posting it myself.

http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/01...name_page.html

So the plane which left Palma suddenly became unlandable at CVT?
or was it the rain... Or the 737 became bigger ?
Someone tell me.
Doesn't this show Thomsonfly's contempt for passengers... ?
I only know if I'd been on the flight and fed this b*llsh!t I would have been furious.
Diggles is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 20:27
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sounds like Mr Clarke doesn't know the first thing about flying, particularly the effects a wet runway would have on stopping distance.
Hand Solo is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 20:31
  #3 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,145
Received 62 Likes on 50 Posts
Taken from that linked report:
It made a lot of people very nervous.
So ... action taken by the carrier to PROTECT their passengers is received by the passengers as making things worse? If the passengers think that - then there is nothing in the world that can reassure them and they should stop using airlines.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 20:47
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While I acknowledge safety is always paramount. No question.
(However a wet runway .....)

Let me spell it out:
There was never any intention to land at Coventry
and as such the Coventry bound passengers were "Duped".
Diggles is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 20:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To be honest I'd be getting a bit nervous if I was fed this baloney. It seems pretty likely that flying direct to Doncaster was probably the plan. I wonder if the coaches were waiting for the aircraft, because it only takes a short while to get from CVT to DSA, and they wouldn't have been if it was a genuine diversion.

But B737-800s do not normally land at CVT, and if the runway was contaminated, that would probably have made it impossible to land. Coventry's 23 LDA is only about 1650m, and usually TOM use -500s.

So probably I'd be doubly nervous after first listening to the baloney, and THEN discovering that they were going to have a go at landing at CVT in heavy rain!
Riverboat is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 21:08
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Were I a passenger on that flight I would expect the crew to at least have a go at getting me to my intended destination. If the forecast at CVT was simply for tempo showers then theres a reasonable chance the aircraft might get in so why not try? I've certainly had a go at destinations where I reckoned we only had a 50% chance of getting in simply because thats where the pax want to go, not somewhere two hours bus drive away.
Hand Solo is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 21:14
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here and there but mostly lgw
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dont have the numbers to hand but from memory an 800 needs to be about 59 tonnes to land in 1600 wet. Thats a despatch figure and i think a conservative pi would give about 2/3 that using good braking action (boeing recommendation). Thats all based on skiathos, and requires prior visit in most companies. So maybe it was a safety and not operational decision.Very easy to pi yourself into a diversion, and rightly so.
Farty Flaps is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 21:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: middle england
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With the pax load on that flight into CVT that evening, the aircraft should have made an attempt at landing especially as the runway status was damp that evening. CVT has had 757 with a full load land on a wet runway.

One thinks Captain DSA wanted to get home a bit earlier
Ducki is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 21:25
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hand Solo
I'm not sure whether you're being facetious or not. I hope you are.
I can confirm that Mr Clarke DOES NOT KNOW DIDDLY SQUAT about landing distances. 'Cause He's a Bleedin' Passenger, who was expecting to be dropped off at Cov!
Diggles is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 22:04
  #10 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let me spell it out:
There was never any intention to land at Coventry
and as such the Coventry bound passengers were "Duped".
Diggles- if you know so much to make such a sweeping statement, why don't you say in your profile what you are so we can judge how much credence to give your opinion? First thunderous posting making strong accusations? What do you know about it please?
Rainboe is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 23:42
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rosterwilltell
Age: 68
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fartyflaps da...d good

an 800 gets a rough 55 tons on the wet 23
DoNotFeed is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 23:44
  #12 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 72
Posts: 1,169
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fish

Hand Solo
Sounds like Mr Clarke doesn't know the first thing about flying, particularly the effects a wet runway would have on stopping distance.
Do you?

All landings by UK public transport aircraft have to satisfy 'wet' performance conditions. Are we saying that the runway was flooded, or had water patches?

It could be that the aircraft was never going to be able to land at CVT, but hey, why let the pax fret for the whole two hours, when they could be told at the end of the trip?
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2006, 23:55
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: middle england
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It had rained in CVT that evening but it was drying, it certainly wasn't wet.
Ducki is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2006, 06:23
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,785
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
You'd also have to wonder why Doncaster was the divert airport. Surley Luton would be a lot closer? Sounds like a commercial decision to me!!
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2006, 06:34
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: FL400+
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Diggles

The first P in PPrune does not seem to apply to you so you can do two things on this board:
1) do not post
2) post and ask the question why it is 100% right what the guy did by diverting

Looooong haul is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2006, 06:38
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely NEMA is closer to CVT than DSA?
Navy_Adversary is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2006, 07:21
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1. CVT has had flooding problems recently. Don't know if this is still the case.
2. 757 has 8 brakes and a VREF of @130 kts. 738 has 4 brakes and VREF (don't know but told) of @150 kts. LBA was a similar case re 757 -v- 738.
3. Apparently most pax were going to Doncater so having made a decision to divert, Doncaster would seem logical. Why inconvenience 2 sets of pax?
4. Of course, no other airline has any commercial thinking influencing their choice of alternates does it?
5. The crew on the day were there. I wasn't. Anyone else?
6. Any example of TFly doing anything at CVT will displace world genocide in Midlands local papers. And amongst certain sections of the Pprune community.
yeoman is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2006, 07:36
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They should've flown Ryanair to Doncaster(Coventry).
Wingswinger is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2006, 10:59
  #19 (permalink)  
Sir George Cayley
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There is value in discussing operations from wet or contaminaed rwys and the fact that coefficient of friction values derived by CFME do not read across to a/c performance tables. But........

For Thomson Fly read Britannia. And.....

How many times do Leed/Bradford inbounds divert to Manchester when the a/c is tasked for an early MAN departure and carrys snags that BY Eng want to fix on the line?

Methinks a few buses and a few moans cost less than the reposition and loss of maintenance time. Especially if the crew are running up towards discretion.

Tactical planning

Sir George Cayley
 
Old 30th Mar 2006, 11:59
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: up up up
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diggles
Doesn't this show Thomsonfly's contempt for passengers... ?
I only know if I'd been on the flight and fed this b*llsh!t I would have been furious.
No it doesn't. Have you been drinking? I don't think you really have a clue what you are talking about.
whatdoesthisbuttondo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.