BHX closed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: ????????????
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX closed
Something to do with a Flybe Dash 8 gone off the end of the active runway onto grass. Thats all I know at the moment.
Runway is open at reduced distances
Runway is open at reduced distances
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Saw it in situ.
It had gone onto the grass at E1 after turning off 15.
Nice tyre tracks and now a/c has been pulled off.
1800hrs;
G-JEDI now being pushed into maint hangar with muddy tyres!
It had gone onto the grass at E1 after turning off 15.
Nice tyre tracks and now a/c has been pulled off.
1800hrs;
G-JEDI now being pushed into maint hangar with muddy tyres!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Here, but soon will be there
Age: 54
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember this topic was brought up on the EGBB ATC website www.egbb.co.uk some time ago. Apparently the Authority brought in Cranfield Institute of Technology to inspect the surface and could find nothing wrong with it. Personally I take it very gingerly vacating when its wet there!
k
k
All BHX regulars know that either end of the runway has a threshold area of concrete rather than tarmac - when its wet it is noticeably 'slippery' and care is needed particuarly at the southern end of 15 where virtually all aircraft exit the runway with a ninety degree turn. My company briefly published amended performance figures based upon this problem but these were withdrawn when airport authority assured one and all that there was no significant loss of braking efficiency in damp or wet conditions.
Locals know this area as 'Britannia Corner' - know perhaps a new name will emerge !
At end of day, the good thing is that such excursions have caused no injuries other than to pride and will inevitably occur at very low speeds - there but for the grace etc...............
Locals know this area as 'Britannia Corner' - know perhaps a new name will emerge !
At end of day, the good thing is that such excursions have caused no injuries other than to pride and will inevitably occur at very low speeds - there but for the grace etc...............
Guest
Posts: n/a
The tire tracks were almost parallel to the Britannia's ..... bet the Britannia skipper feels better now ....
Last time this happened, we had NOTAM warnings everyday day for months, and skidometer checks (it seems) after every other landing aircraft for days ...
Last time this happened, we had NOTAM warnings everyday day for months, and skidometer checks (it seems) after every other landing aircraft for days ...
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooops, 2 excursions at the same end? Surely no coincidence there then. Thanks Cranfield, fantastic job. Earths flat as well eh?
I sit in the right seat at BHX with no tiller hence no responsibility once the hooligan elements of the landing roll have been completed. I work with a group of guys all highly experienced and v professional but I do find the old backside muscles tensing involuntarily as we approach the end of 15 in the wet. Thats not due to 'cavalier' taxying but a discernible change in runway surface and a very noticeable effect on braking.
Sounds like the latest incident caused a high degree of chaos which might provoke a solution from BHX Airport (particularly if its cost them). RET's would be nice and a runway surface that doesnt resemble something knocked up by Ground Force even better.
And most impressed by the RJ crew i/b from Munich with an hours holding fuel! Pretty sure we'd have been sat on a bus back from EMA by then, but thats another subject.
I sit in the right seat at BHX with no tiller hence no responsibility once the hooligan elements of the landing roll have been completed. I work with a group of guys all highly experienced and v professional but I do find the old backside muscles tensing involuntarily as we approach the end of 15 in the wet. Thats not due to 'cavalier' taxying but a discernible change in runway surface and a very noticeable effect on braking.
Sounds like the latest incident caused a high degree of chaos which might provoke a solution from BHX Airport (particularly if its cost them). RET's would be nice and a runway surface that doesnt resemble something knocked up by Ground Force even better.
And most impressed by the RJ crew i/b from Munich with an hours holding fuel! Pretty sure we'd have been sat on a bus back from EMA by then, but thats another subject.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJ ?? I think you mean a FlyBe 146 inbound from Paris that held for 55 mins, it was the the only one to land out of the 10 initial A/C in the hold.
Nice to see some company's still allow there crews to carry that bit extra for mum etc.
Perhaps now BHX will invest in some extra tarmac - ever the optimist.
PJ
Nice to see some company's still allow there crews to carry that bit extra for mum etc.
Perhaps now BHX will invest in some extra tarmac - ever the optimist.
PJ
The reason for the firm braking, followed by magical mystery tour of the west side of the airport by our LH 4904 B737 yesterday is now made clear! And there was I thinking "Why are we over here and obviously planning to cross via 16/24 instead of exiting left at the end of 15?"
Did see a few flashing lights and the unfortunate ac being towed back a bit later as I was walking through the arrival pier.
'Slippery when wet'- apart from being a great Bon Jovi album, means "Treat like ice!". Amazed how few folk seemed to know that back when I used to fly as other than SLF in big ac!
Did see a few flashing lights and the unfortunate ac being towed back a bit later as I was walking through the arrival pier.
'Slippery when wet'- apart from being a great Bon Jovi album, means "Treat like ice!". Amazed how few folk seemed to know that back when I used to fly as other than SLF in big ac!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No there's only a 4% difference in our fuel prices between BHX and CDG - which is not enough to warrant tanking as per FlyBe company policy.
I like to take extra fuel even when it doesn't require it, it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside
and as a side effect occasionally pay's off with not having to divert when incidents like this occur 
This is in no way a criticism of those who had to divert, it's just that I consider myself lucky that i am not persuaded to always take minimum fuel when the weather is fine.
PJ
I like to take extra fuel even when it doesn't require it, it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside
and as a side effect occasionally pay's off with not having to divert when incidents like this occur This is in no way a criticism of those who had to divert, it's just that I consider myself lucky that i am not persuaded to always take minimum fuel when the weather is fine.
PJ
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not THAT debate again.
However - never ever take just minimum fuel.
It's nothing to do with the nice weather or otherwise, extra fuel is for UNFORESEEN SITUATIONS.
Like Hudson Bay, who had just as a nice day as anyone else, but awarded himself a few kilos for that unknown factor - well done.
However - never ever take just minimum fuel.
It's nothing to do with the nice weather or otherwise, extra fuel is for UNFORESEEN SITUATIONS.
Like Hudson Bay, who had just as a nice day as anyone else, but awarded himself a few kilos for that unknown factor - well done.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea why the flybe 146 was carrying 55 min spare fuel--but to state this is just a 'few spare kilos' is nonsense. i think most people would acceot '20 min for mum' whatever the company tanking policy or otherwise (outside London of course)--but 1 hr ?
Surely the operator can expect that commercial policy may require the ac to divert to East Mid, Coventry, Brtistol, Stansted or Exeter--weather permitting of course ?
I restate that i have no knowledge of the specifics of this event.
Surely the operator can expect that commercial policy may require the ac to divert to East Mid, Coventry, Brtistol, Stansted or Exeter--weather permitting of course ?
I restate that i have no knowledge of the specifics of this event.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Prop,
I guess it's a good thing the Capt. of the 146 did carry more than 20 min's holding - otherwise FlyBe would have had an A/C + passengers diverting to Coventry and all the delay's to the next BHX - CDG - BHX rotation that followed that flight.
Perhaps they should invite the Capt. for tea and biscuits at Exeter for not doing what they expected him to do i.e. diverting and costing them lot's of money.
I guess it's a good thing the Capt. of the 146 did carry more than 20 min's holding - otherwise FlyBe would have had an A/C + passengers diverting to Coventry and all the delay's to the next BHX - CDG - BHX rotation that followed that flight.
Perhaps they should invite the Capt. for tea and biscuits at Exeter for not doing what they expected him to do i.e. diverting and costing them lot's of money.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As i said , I dont know the specifics--he may well have been tanking for all i know.
the point I'm makng is that if every ac carried an hour's fuel for no reason at all other than there is space in the tank the cost of operation would rise unacceptably.
the point I'm makng is that if every ac carried an hour's fuel for no reason at all other than there is space in the tank the cost of operation would rise unacceptably.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Prop,
I have been in touch with the Capt. on said flight and can now enlighten you with the "specifics".
Firstly he/she wasn't tanking - they actually took the same amount of fuel from BHX - CDG as well.
Secondly they actually took an extra 40 mins fuel out of CDG but managed to save extra fuel en-route by reducing to holding speed when they received info of the runway blockage - hence stretching it out to 55 min's.
Thirdly let's look at the extra cost involved in taking this extra fuel -
You say that most will take an extra 20 min's holding - so they took an extra 20 min's on top of this "because there was space in the tanks" - 20 min's holding = aprox. 600 kg.- increased fuel burn per ton = 25kg. so actual extra fuel cost for 50 min flight from CDG - BHX = 600 / 1000 X 25 = 15kg
Average price of fuel these days = 15p per litre -- therefore 15kg = 18.75 litres X 15p = the grand total of £2.80.
WOW I'm surprised Flybe haven't gone bust already,
But hey your point is taken - after all it's an accumulative amount of all the flight's and not just one - right.
I'll advise him/she to take a maximum of 20 min's holding in future and divert to Coventry/East Midland, hopefully then 'the cost of operation wouldn't rise unacceptably'
I have been in touch with the Capt. on said flight and can now enlighten you with the "specifics".
Firstly he/she wasn't tanking - they actually took the same amount of fuel from BHX - CDG as well.
Secondly they actually took an extra 40 mins fuel out of CDG but managed to save extra fuel en-route by reducing to holding speed when they received info of the runway blockage - hence stretching it out to 55 min's.
Thirdly let's look at the extra cost involved in taking this extra fuel -
You say that most will take an extra 20 min's holding - so they took an extra 20 min's on top of this "because there was space in the tanks" - 20 min's holding = aprox. 600 kg.- increased fuel burn per ton = 25kg. so actual extra fuel cost for 50 min flight from CDG - BHX = 600 / 1000 X 25 = 15kg
Average price of fuel these days = 15p per litre -- therefore 15kg = 18.75 litres X 15p = the grand total of £2.80.
WOW I'm surprised Flybe haven't gone bust already,
But hey your point is taken - after all it's an accumulative amount of all the flight's and not just one - right.
I'll advise him/she to take a maximum of 20 min's holding in future and divert to Coventry/East Midland, hopefully then 'the cost of operation wouldn't rise unacceptably'
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Prop,
He didn't carry an hour's extra fuel necessarily.
He probably carried standard company holding fuel + an extra half hour or so, which is the extra fuel that I may take personally for unexpected scenarios, not exclusively for weather either.
He may have landed with diversion fuel or just a bit less.
He didn't carry an hour's extra fuel necessarily.
He probably carried standard company holding fuel + an extra half hour or so, which is the extra fuel that I may take personally for unexpected scenarios, not exclusively for weather either.
He may have landed with diversion fuel or just a bit less.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EXETER,UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good. i'm not exactly sure what we're supposed to be argueing about.
I could of course play devil's advocate and suggest that , if the problem was known about so early, the company should have sent the ac to Coventry and saved an hours maintenance related costs. But that would be churlish.
As I have said at least 3 times. I had no knowledge of the details. Thanks for the info which indicates that the captain did exactly what most of us do.
let us just agree that it costs money to carry fuel, and diversions dont happen very often.
I could of course play devil's advocate and suggest that , if the problem was known about so early, the company should have sent the ac to Coventry and saved an hours maintenance related costs. But that would be churlish.
As I have said at least 3 times. I had no knowledge of the details. Thanks for the info which indicates that the captain did exactly what most of us do.
let us just agree that it costs money to carry fuel, and diversions dont happen very often.