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.

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

Taken from that linked report: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.

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".

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!

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.

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.

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 :ugh:

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- 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?

fartyflaps da...d good
 

an 800 gets a rough 55 tons on the wet 23 ;)

Hand SoloDo 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?

It had rained in CVT that evening but it was drying, it certainly wasn't wet.

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!!

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

:rolleyes:

Surely NEMA is closer to CVT than DSA?:confused:

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.

They should've flown Ryanair to Doncaster(Coventry).:}

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

No it doesn't. Have you been drinking? I don't think you really have a clue what you are talking about.