Another Aircraft off the Runway at BRS?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot commented after landing that the braking action was very good.
Last edited by floatingharbour; 8th Jan 2007 at 06:57. Reason: typo
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm going back a few years so I may be wrong, but ISTR that one of the problems witha mu-meter was that it gave inaccurate readings if the runway was wet or contaminated. 
A snippet:
A snippet:
On wet runways friction measurements are carried out in order to establish whether the runway is slippery when wet, and to indicate the need for runway maintenance. Friction measurement on wet runways is NOT carried out for operational use by aeroplanes, as no correlation exist between measured friction and aeroplane behaviour.
Certainly that's what I've always understood.
I have often noted that many pilots do not understand (or have forgotten) that 'slippery when wet' means that 'ice' values must be used for performance planning when that runway is anything other than damp (surface colour change, no glistening).
At Lulsgate, it has been seen that 10 airlines have quite rightly taken a stance against the risks posed by a 'slippery when wet' runway - and yet others, some of whom who operate the same aircraft type, have continued. Why are some airlines prepared to risk their passengers' safety when others are not?
I have often noted that many pilots do not understand (or have forgotten) that 'slippery when wet' means that 'ice' values must be used for performance planning when that runway is anything other than damp (surface colour change, no glistening).
At Lulsgate, it has been seen that 10 airlines have quite rightly taken a stance against the risks posed by a 'slippery when wet' runway - and yet others, some of whom who operate the same aircraft type, have continued. Why are some airlines prepared to risk their passengers' safety when others are not?
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Certainly that's what I've always understood.
I have often noted that many pilots do not understand (or have forgotten) that 'slippery when wet' means that 'ice' values must be used for performance planning when that runway is anything other than damp (surface colour change, no glistening).
I have often noted that many pilots do not understand (or have forgotten) that 'slippery when wet' means that 'ice' values must be used for performance planning when that runway is anything other than damp (surface colour change, no glistening).
At Lulsgate, it has been seen that 10 airlines have quite rightly taken a stance against the risks posed by a 'slippery when wet' runway - and yet others, some of whom who operate the same aircraft type, have continued. Why are some airlines prepared to risk their passengers' safety when others are not?
Fly safe everyone....
A4
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: West Yorkshire
Age: 77
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skidding at BRS
I am amazed at the lack of common sense let alone technical knowledge on the problem at Bristol Airport. From the shots of the runway it appears that
it is not level and flat, indeed it has a definate hump in the middle.
When landing even with spoilers deployed and full flap the weight of the craft is still not bearing fully on the runway for at least half its rundown, add to this the fact that if the runway falls away - ie down hill, this will further delay the full weight application, then add some water to further reduce the friction coefficient the result is skidding.
The only important criteria in braking is "weight" and the "coefficient of friction". Putting drainage slots in the surface implies that someone thinks that there is an aquaplaning issue, this cannot be the case on a runway that is downhill and is absurd when we are considering that we are talking about hundreds of tons sitting on relatively small tyre areas; it has to be the runway is not long enough and flat enough to give a good margin of error.
The CAA should get some boffins in there quick to sort it out.
it is not level and flat, indeed it has a definate hump in the middle.
When landing even with spoilers deployed and full flap the weight of the craft is still not bearing fully on the runway for at least half its rundown, add to this the fact that if the runway falls away - ie down hill, this will further delay the full weight application, then add some water to further reduce the friction coefficient the result is skidding.
The only important criteria in braking is "weight" and the "coefficient of friction". Putting drainage slots in the surface implies that someone thinks that there is an aquaplaning issue, this cannot be the case on a runway that is downhill and is absurd when we are considering that we are talking about hundreds of tons sitting on relatively small tyre areas; it has to be the runway is not long enough and flat enough to give a good margin of error.
The CAA should get some boffins in there quick to sort it out.
Interestingly, the old AIP/AGA Section 3/5-6 used to say (paraphrased from my old Air Law notes):
"When a runway is notified as "slippery when wet", the TODA/LDA used for performance planning shall be not less than that pertaining to 'very slippery' or 'icy' requirements stated in the Aircraft Flight Manual"
However, this seems to have been dumbed-down quite a bit in the current UK AIP AD1.1.5 and now merely says:
"When a runway is notified as ‘may be slippery when wet’, aircraft operators may request additional information relating to that notification from the aerodrome operator. However, any performance calculations or adjustment made as a result of this information is the responsibility of the aircraft operator."
So, presumably the wise heads in the more reputable airlines such as Easyjet take their 'responsibility' more seriously than those in others? Where once the performance requirement was laid down, it is now left to the discretion of the airline. I'm not sure that this is a particularly healthy state of affairs with certain airlines....
"When a runway is notified as "slippery when wet", the TODA/LDA used for performance planning shall be not less than that pertaining to 'very slippery' or 'icy' requirements stated in the Aircraft Flight Manual"
However, this seems to have been dumbed-down quite a bit in the current UK AIP AD1.1.5 and now merely says:
"When a runway is notified as ‘may be slippery when wet’, aircraft operators may request additional information relating to that notification from the aerodrome operator. However, any performance calculations or adjustment made as a result of this information is the responsibility of the aircraft operator."
So, presumably the wise heads in the more reputable airlines such as Easyjet take their 'responsibility' more seriously than those in others? Where once the performance requirement was laid down, it is now left to the discretion of the airline. I'm not sure that this is a particularly healthy state of affairs with certain airlines....
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Jan 2007 at 09:40.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real bottom line colleagues is whatever they do to this runway if it remains the current length,undulating profile in its present geographical weather challenged location it will remain a marginal surface for operating jet aircraft from in demanding conditions.
Beag's hopefully this will finally nail the lie that lo-co's are not concerned for safety.
'Putting drainage slots in the surface implies that someone thinks that there is an aquaplaning issue,'
No, its a standard technique to improve drainage on runways. By helping disperse the surface water it obviously helps minimise the potential of aquaplaning occuring. It may be worth pointing out for some, that by doing this, (channels draining water off the surface) it helps heavier than air machines accelerate for take-off.
'this cannot be the case on a runway that is downhill'
Erm just thought I'd point out that going the otherway, its uphill.....
'and is absurd when we are considering that we are talking about hundreds of tons'
'it has to be the runway is not long enough and flat enough to give a good margin of error'
That'll be it then
There was a young man in his plane..
That landed at Bristol in rain..
He thought he might skid!
My god how he did!
And now the poor boys in Dunblane!
Are you holding the door open for me? How kind......
'Putting drainage slots in the surface implies that someone thinks that there is an aquaplaning issue,'
No, its a standard technique to improve drainage on runways. By helping disperse the surface water it obviously helps minimise the potential of aquaplaning occuring. It may be worth pointing out for some, that by doing this, (channels draining water off the surface) it helps heavier than air machines accelerate for take-off.
'this cannot be the case on a runway that is downhill'
Erm just thought I'd point out that going the otherway, its uphill.....
'and is absurd when we are considering that we are talking about hundreds of tons'
'it has to be the runway is not long enough and flat enough to give a good margin of error'
That'll be it then
There was a young man in his plane..
That landed at Bristol in rain..
He thought he might skid!
My god how he did!
And now the poor boys in Dunblane!
Are you holding the door open for me? How kind......
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take my hat off to the contractors, working in this weather.
The question I would also be asking is "why this runway work was scheduled at the most inclement time of year, both in terms of precipitation and daylight" and, as it is obvious Lulsgate is a marginal airfield for many of the types now operating, they didn't close for a few weeks and shift operations to Filton or Cardiff.
The question I would also be asking is "why this runway work was scheduled at the most inclement time of year, both in terms of precipitation and daylight" and, as it is obvious Lulsgate is a marginal airfield for many of the types now operating, they didn't close for a few weeks and shift operations to Filton or Cardiff.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree that the timing of this runway re-surfacing was a little unfortunate and some might say, ill thought through.
Obviously, Mr. Skipp did not want disruption to services in summer which of course, would have been a wholly more appropriate time to carry out heavy maintenance work such as this, as the chances are that the weather would have been more suitable for the job. Of course, the charter flights might well have been inconvenienced- ah well, the old balance sheet problem again!
In Italy, Bologna Airport needed to carry out similar runway maintenance which included resurfacing and adding an extension. Here they did the right thing and closed the airport for the duration of the works and relocated all operations to Forli Airport, just down the road. Result: a little inconvenience for all operators for a short time but the runway was completed quickly and more to the point, safely.
Obviously, Mr. Skipp did not want disruption to services in summer which of course, would have been a wholly more appropriate time to carry out heavy maintenance work such as this, as the chances are that the weather would have been more suitable for the job. Of course, the charter flights might well have been inconvenienced- ah well, the old balance sheet problem again!
In Italy, Bologna Airport needed to carry out similar runway maintenance which included resurfacing and adding an extension. Here they did the right thing and closed the airport for the duration of the works and relocated all operations to Forli Airport, just down the road. Result: a little inconvenience for all operators for a short time but the runway was completed quickly and more to the point, safely.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC
The CO flights touch down seemed to be on the Numbers, ie earlier than the designated touch down zone. The runway also appears to have been extremly wet, perhaps water logged?
The BBC report at 14:15 was comical, apparently the runway is the same as runways at Luton and other airports. Additonally, it was NOT pilot power that brought about the canx ops of the 10 airlines. (Whos "Power" was it then?) Lets not for get they have had 2 aircraft slide off the runway!
BALPA need to issue a statement, clarifying the issues.
The BBC report at 14:15 was comical, apparently the runway is the same as runways at Luton and other airports. Additonally, it was NOT pilot power that brought about the canx ops of the 10 airlines. (Whos "Power" was it then?) Lets not for get they have had 2 aircraft slide off the runway!
BALPA need to issue a statement, clarifying the issues.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good news everbody....
on Radio 2 Ken Bruce invites suggestions on how to 'spin' bad news into good - today's subject was Bristol Airport.
The winner for me was,
" Celebrations as Bristol hosts greatest ever flypast"
DZ
The winner for me was,
" Celebrations as Bristol hosts greatest ever flypast"
DZ
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wet runway
I guess many of those active on this tread might benefit reading these documents from 1998:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...4!OpenDocument
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...edia/a1-48.pdf
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...4!OpenDocument
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...edia/a1-48.pdf
Home and Wet!
Having joined the forum last week specifically as a means of keeping tabs on the real story behind the BRS runway saga, I hope I may be allowed a minor contribution as my first post.
I have not yet seen any TV pictures, but my wife and I were back seat passengers on this morning's CO 76 from EWR and have nothing but praise for CO's handling of the flight. Prior to boarding, some two hours late, we were specifically advised that, with expected high tailwinds and a consequent flight time of some five and a half hours, take-off would be deferred until CO could be reasonably certain of arriving over BRS after 1000 - allegedly during the "contractors' teabreak according to one of CO's ground staff! PAX having boarded some two and a half hours' behind schedule, Captain Jeff Buchman came into the main cabin (curiously enough, there were very few, if any, of what CO quaintly calls Business First PAX - funny that!) and gave a very lucid and frank explanation of the situation, including the possibility of diverting to Cardiff. He then took individual questions on a walkthrough the main cabin before returning to the front of the cabin to highlight his answers to the individual questions he had received, ending up with the answer to the final question - who had one last night's big game in the US.
On arrival in UK airspace this morning, Captain Buchman provided several succinct updates from the flightdeck, including the possibility of Birmingham in lieu of Cardiff "following radio discussions with BRS and CO", before explaining that we were expected to go into a holding pattern for about 20 minutes whilst a final decision was made, then five minutes later announcing that we would indeed be landing at BRS. At that point, we broke clear of cloud incidentally immediately over my house outside Bath and a few minutes later made what my wife and I both agreed was one of the smoothest we have ever experienced at BRS over some 20 years, in numerous types of aircraft. We therefore thoroughly endorse the spirit of Martin Barnes's remarks about CO, and well done Captain Buchman and crew. And yes, they did receeive a well-earned round of applause ......
I spoke to the captain as he passed through the baggage hall, shortly before he was interviewd by Clinton Rogers of BBC West, to whom I aslo commended CO, and specifically the captain, and, whilst grateful that I had taken the trouble to compliment him on his overall handling of the situation, both in the air and on the ground, Captain Buchman was actually very matter of fact about the whole thing - although he did say that he had heard nothing about the runway problem before he showed up at EWR yesterday evening.
Jack
I have not yet seen any TV pictures, but my wife and I were back seat passengers on this morning's CO 76 from EWR and have nothing but praise for CO's handling of the flight. Prior to boarding, some two hours late, we were specifically advised that, with expected high tailwinds and a consequent flight time of some five and a half hours, take-off would be deferred until CO could be reasonably certain of arriving over BRS after 1000 - allegedly during the "contractors' teabreak according to one of CO's ground staff! PAX having boarded some two and a half hours' behind schedule, Captain Jeff Buchman came into the main cabin (curiously enough, there were very few, if any, of what CO quaintly calls Business First PAX - funny that!) and gave a very lucid and frank explanation of the situation, including the possibility of diverting to Cardiff. He then took individual questions on a walkthrough the main cabin before returning to the front of the cabin to highlight his answers to the individual questions he had received, ending up with the answer to the final question - who had one last night's big game in the US.
On arrival in UK airspace this morning, Captain Buchman provided several succinct updates from the flightdeck, including the possibility of Birmingham in lieu of Cardiff "following radio discussions with BRS and CO", before explaining that we were expected to go into a holding pattern for about 20 minutes whilst a final decision was made, then five minutes later announcing that we would indeed be landing at BRS. At that point, we broke clear of cloud incidentally immediately over my house outside Bath and a few minutes later made what my wife and I both agreed was one of the smoothest we have ever experienced at BRS over some 20 years, in numerous types of aircraft. We therefore thoroughly endorse the spirit of Martin Barnes's remarks about CO, and well done Captain Buchman and crew. And yes, they did receeive a well-earned round of applause ......
I spoke to the captain as he passed through the baggage hall, shortly before he was interviewd by Clinton Rogers of BBC West, to whom I aslo commended CO, and specifically the captain, and, whilst grateful that I had taken the trouble to compliment him on his overall handling of the situation, both in the air and on the ground, Captain Buchman was actually very matter of fact about the whole thing - although he did say that he had heard nothing about the runway problem before he showed up at EWR yesterday evening.
Jack
Last edited by Union Jack; 6th Oct 2007 at 12:36.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Union Jack
Nice to hear that your family appreciated the efforts of this undoubtedly fine airman. I gather a number of operators have made Bristol Airport Captains only landing.
I hope that Bristol take a less agricultural approach to their airfield management before any further aircraft go farming or worse!
Nice to hear that your family appreciated the efforts of this undoubtedly fine airman. I gather a number of operators have made Bristol Airport Captains only landing.
I hope that Bristol take a less agricultural approach to their airfield management before any further aircraft go farming or worse!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Union Jack
Landing Field Length for a Slippery Runway
Max Cross Wind 10 Kts
Type Boeing 757-200
Landing Mass 85,000Kgs
Flap 30 deg
Pressure Altitude 1000'
Landing Distance required 8030Ft
Valid OAT of ISA + 15 deg and below
Valid Runway Slope 1% down to 2% up
Landing Distance available Rwy 27 EGGD, go on have a look!!!
Good Decision
Landing Field Length for a Slippery Runway
Max Cross Wind 10 Kts
Type Boeing 757-200
Landing Mass 85,000Kgs
Flap 30 deg
Pressure Altitude 1000'
Landing Distance required 8030Ft
Valid OAT of ISA + 15 deg and below
Valid Runway Slope 1% down to 2% up
Landing Distance available Rwy 27 EGGD, go on have a look!!!
Good Decision