Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Another Aircraft off the Runway at BRS?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Another Aircraft off the Runway at BRS?

Old 31st Dec 2006, 13:16
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the top tips! I'll pop out to the shops after lunch.

You know I can't resist a dig at BRS, but I like you really.

I completely agree that its not anything to do with your lot that the rwy is a fuggin disaster area and an accident waiting to happen if there ever was one. Lets call the first three 'incidents'.

It don't matter a toss whose 'fault' it is. Question is, what is Bristol Airport going to do about it?


btw. I bet the pilots involved would be happy to swap their level of 'unease', for yours.
brain fade is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 13:33
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unless ocurrance reports have been raised by every crew that has even commented to themselves that 'mmm, that section of runway is a bit iffy' then no-one is to blame but those who have continued to use a clearly unsafe surface. Alarm bells have to be rung with airline, airport and regulatory authorities or nothing will ever get done. Being able to say 'it was an accident waiting to happen' and doing nothing to prevent it does nobody any favours.
judge11 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 13:39
  #43 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
...So speaks an angry man.

I got in this morning to see a handwritten notice to warn of the temporary 20kt crosswind limit sitting in the fax, with the official version in my inbox for the manual when I got back from LGW. Our company is certainly taking it VERY seriously, as they should do.

Modern commercial life does seem to be a case of Airport operators cutting corners whenever possible in the name of cost savings or profits, while ATC, Airlines and emergency services face the consequences of these acts. BIA is not the only one by far, and either we accept it and work together to make it work SAFELY or bleat to the Authority, who has time and time again, meekly stood by and let them get on with it. Mind you, I did my FRS in BRS this time round, and there did seem to be a lot of improvements and work being done since I was last there in the dim and distant past.

Best of luck to all of you flying in and out of BRS these next few weeks, not nice at all, and always remember to stick to the SOP and limits on all occasions to cover your own arses! Havnig read up on the last over-run on a 145, the bit about the spoilers closing up again as it thinks you've stopped really got me thinking.....eugh. Fly safe in 2007!
Old 31st Dec 2006, 14:09
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't rely on contacting the Authority, the Belgrano's been closed for god knows how long so they can save on electricity
Mr Angry from Purley is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 14:36
  #45 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Off to Filton

This has opened up the mindset of the operators of BIA. Profit and blinkered expansion before everything else. If they are not careful all the proposed expansion plans will end up where they deserve, in the bin. Hope the CAA take them apart if any shortcomings become apparent in the new year.
Cosmic Wind is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 16:08
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Standard Noise:

I find your two postings a wee bit sanctimonious, I'm afraid.

If you are, as you say, an ATCO at BRS, surely you have a duty to report anything that you consider dangerous to the proper authority, and not just to the aerodrome operator. Or are you afraid to put your head above the parapet? There is an occurance reporting scheme in this country; use it. If you need to go direct to SRG, do so.

And just how are the contractors "idiots"? Are they responsible in some way for deviating from their contract in a way prejudicial to flight safety? If they are, what are you and your colleagues actuallydoing about it? A neighbour is a director of the construction company you have identified; I'm sure he'll find your comments interesting.
The truth might be that BIA Authority might not be carrying-out their responsibilities with regard to WIP due to commercial pressure, and interpreting the rules and regulations in a way that is commercially beneficial to them.

If safety is being compromised, in any way, then there is no use in standing on your soap-box in PPRuNe, you have a duty to report it.
fmgs is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 17:02
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,676
Likes: 0
Received 43 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by ivor toolbox
Well certainly the comment,to me, by one "airport manager" yesterday while we were recovering the Aurigny ATR "All I want is that ***ing plane off the ***ing grass and out of the way so I can re-open MY runway,all this is costing us " just shows their attitude at present doesn't it??
I T :

Would you be good enough to pass this report on to AAIB and CAA. You don't have to supply your own name but do please give the individual's name, along with date, time, others seen to be present, etc, and report the comment as accurately as possible.
WHBM is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 18:03
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Midlands.UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Interesting comments from ATCOs at BRS.

There are some very good and efficient people in the tower but the rest leave a lot to be desired. Not wishing to change the thread too much but a month at LGW would sharpen them up.
I have been -
*broken off the ILS for a single engine aircraft to fit in front of me - with huge additional costs due to the vectoring round for another line up.
* sat in a queue 757/737/737/erj - to depart whilst several inbounds landed, no speed control imposed on the inbounds to make gaps large enough to get an aircraft away - huge costs to all cocerned in fuel, let alone the environment.
* had to repeat the QNH during 3 successive transmissions.
* some controllers would not let you depart unless the inbound was at least 10 miles away- has improved recently.
* had a slot and yet still waited for 2 other aircraft to push ahead of us which didnt have slots, we were third at the hold when we easily could have been in front and not been eventually made to wait on the runway whilst ATC negotiated with London as to whether we could depart due to slot expired.
Im not angry of course because its what one has now come to expect at BRS.
Happy new year
DUNLOPS UP is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 18:14
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fmgs
Standard Noise:

I find your two postings a wee bit sanctimonious, I'm afraid.

If you are, as you say, an ATCO at BRS
So here is another who will not post his/her credentials to prove their validity to question my opinions yet implies that I am fraudulent with my personal profile. I may come over as sanctimonious, but I speak as I find. It may not be to your, or any one else's liking, but there you go. It's a sad day if I can't say what I believe, us Ulstermen have a habit of being blunt and forthright as your neighbour will no doubt testify. This post may be erased by the Mods (that'll be two today) BUT IT WILL NOT ALTER MY OPINION, but if that is what the Mods wish, then so be it.

Dunlops up - PM on it's way.

BTW, how do you know I haven't already reported it? Point being, I'm not likely to go public on here if I have, it's between me and the 'proper authority', but then if you are such an expert, you would know that.
Standard Noise is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 18:24
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A bit about Lulsgate ... I believe it was origionally designed as a military diversion to RNAS Yeovilton. The logic being that if Yeovil was fogged out with radiation fog then Lulsgate with it's elevated position would be in the clear.
Despite Filton being in every sense a more suitable International Airport (communication, space, big runway, near the city center etc...) it fell foul of noise problems with the juxtaposed housing developments and approach over the city. Lulsgate, with it's relative remoteness sufferred none of these problems and the local authorities put their weight behind its case.
I used to operate orange B737s into BIA regularly and can say that landing on 09 at night in a 30kt X-wind and driving rain is one of the trickiest things that anyone can be called upon to do in our job. (particularly with Boeing wipers!) ... and now if there are serious decelerative problems aswell then something should be done. I am pleased to see that the operators are imposing very sensible local limitations.
Happy New Year to all, and lets hope the weather improves ....

Iron Duke is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2006, 23:40
  #51 (permalink)  
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is a subset of airports that might be characterised as those with only one runway and non aviation people in charge. Some airport managers/boards are not aviation people at all, and neither understand the concept of redundancy nor care about operations. They operate inadequately, and others suffer as a result. This is NOTHING to do with the aviation professionals that work at the airport, and everything to do with the Board and most senior management of the airport company.

The non aviation managers would be the first to complain if any aviator flew from LAX-LHR with only three of the four Boeing 747 engines working because they don’t understand redundancy, yet they operate their own airport with a single runway and no backup. Possibly there was nothing in their law degree or accounting course that said it couldn’t be done. So when runway repairs are needed (which is every 10 years or so) they keep the facility in service and try and patch it as they go. One of my benchmarks of an airport management is the time that they allow the engineers for shutdown so construction can proceed. Anything around the 6 hour mark shouts out to me: ‘moron at the top’. I’ve even seen 5.5 hours, but I didn’t hear the shout because I was laughing so hard at their idiocy. There is a long list of problems that such tight time limits cause, but the most pressing one is that the facility is kept sub-standard [and may be even dangerous] for weeks on end.

There are several options to do the job properly at airports with one runway. The first is to close the runway completely while the work is done. 2000m of runway typically needs about 13000 tonnes of asphalt. Three plants working 24 hours should lay that in 4 days. Then lay 6000 tonnes of porous asphalt on top for friction – another 2 days. Then allow 1 day for lighting and markings. So a 7 day shutdown of the runway, after which it re-opens as fit-for-service. Note the use of porous asphalt to reduce the closure time rather than grooving. Oh – did I mention that porous asphalt costs slightly more than grooving? Probably about 2 pence per passenger more. There are a whole range of other scheduling and design options that can also be used.
But if the airport has been properly run as a full-time serious place, there will be other runways built that can be used while the shutdown occurs (such as LHR) or even the parallel taxiway (LGW) that can be used. If these aren’t available - well that airport is either running on too tight a budget or isn’t a full-time serious place. In that case, the airport should take it on the chin, and close for the week. There are usually plenty of transportation alternatives for that week - trains, buses and other airports. And if the airport ever wants to run as a full-time serious placed, it can always build the facilities it needs for redundancy.

Of course it only happens that way sometimes. There are too many airport managers/boards who are not aviation people, and they are not about to cut their cashflow one little bit by closing. Since they don’t know about aviation, they think that the airport makes money from retail, rental, carparking, and the like. The runway is just a nuisance that costs money. A look at their annual report will show their attitude – the “not aviation” ones will be all about income from the various sources and the runway won’t even get a mention. This sort of forgets the fact that ‘no runway = no income’ and that the airport’s core business is about aircraft taking off and landing safely. For non-aviation people, if repairs are inconveniently needed they will be (a) deferred as long as possible and (b) not allowed to interfere with the running of the airport.

Thus we arrive to my earlier remark about only allowing a 6 hour window for construction, since any more will affect operations. And work is to be done at night, which is the worst possible time for this type of construction with too-rapid cooling of the asphalt, poor construction joints, water trapped in the pavement, etc. And of course the work is scheduled for the quietest season.

I don’t know BRS. Do they have an alternative runway or taxiway? How long is the time window for construction? Is it at night? Is the CEO a lawyer or accountant? How does their annual report read? When is their quiet season?

Last edited by OverRun; 7th Jan 2007 at 07:47.
OverRun is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2007, 00:10
  #52 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Afrika sometimes
Age: 68
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How refreshing to see your post. Even in Nigeria, our authorities have closed down one of the major international airports now for 4 months to resurface the runway. We may not have the facilities, and we may be condemned for unsafe practices, but even in Africa we close down a runway for resurfacing. Maybe the management of BRS makes even we third world airports look like professionals now
TomBola is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2007, 09:24
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,373
Received 102 Likes on 43 Posts
You might be suprised to learn that SRG have actually read this thread and will be acting on it.

Well done Pprune
ETOPS is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2007, 09:32
  #54 (permalink)  
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Iron Duke
Despite Filton being in every sense a more suitable International Airport (communication, space, big runway, near the city center etc...) it fell foul of noise problems with the juxtaposed housing developments and approach over the city. Lulsgate, with it's relative remoteness sufferred none of these problems and the local authorities put their weight behind its case.
The thing is the approach isn't over the city at all - a quick reference check on Google Earth shows that the approach to 09 crosses nothing other than an industrial bit of Avonmouth and the approach to 27 is to the South of Sadly Broke, only overflying a bit of Stoke Gifford.

I find it somewhat ironic that part of the campaign against Filton expansion comes from the environmental lobby (including the local FoE run until recently by my parents!), when the environmental cost of continually expanding an airport in self-evidently the "wrong" place is massively greater.

To return the thread to operational matters, what if any are the implications for rejected take offs of the self-evidently sub-standard temporary surface?
fyrefli is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2007, 10:59
  #55 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SW UK
Age: 68
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to correct a couple of Posts on this subject:

2 aircraft left the runway surface, not 3, as some Posters have stated.

ATC certainly did not exert any "pressure" on the EZY aircrew to depart (Winsheer's post). The ATCOs concerned passed frequent wind updates to the crews concerned, as was entirely appropriate. In such circumstances, ATC pass as much information as possible to flight crews, including latest braking action- and runway surface condition reports, to enable pilots to make informed decisions.

On related topics on the thread:

Brain Fade: predictable comments, offensive and puerile as ever.The one about ATC "cutting corners" beggars belief from someone who purports to being a professional pilot.

Dunlops Up: Did you make your comments/complaints known to BRS ATC through any channel available to you (Flight Safety Manager/ASR/MOR/phone call to ATC?) If not, why not? Whatever happened to CRM/TRM, which is equally applicable to pilot-ATCO exchanges.
ATCOJ30 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2007, 13:41
  #56 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Midlands.UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Certainly did on one occasion and spoke to a rather obnoxious guy who was controlling at the time, he was talking to me on the phone, tower Fx and his assistant all at the same time, I was told to shut up while he was transmitting - I didnt realise at the time he wasnt talking to me - I thought only women could multi task!

I have all events logged and will contact you when there is a next time and raise the issues.
Having said that, arrived in the other night - No6 - and the contoller was excellent - not the normal panick with so many arrivals at the same time - asked if we should slow up - NO he said - and he fed in all six, in perfect sequence without any of us being vectored all over the sky.

Glad that someone is taking notice.
DUNLOPS UP is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2007, 17:17
  #57 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,169
Received 62 Likes on 50 Posts
OverRun asked : "Is the CEO a lawyer or accountant?"
The website does not give that but a local will supply I'm sure. The MD is Andrew Skipp but no other details. The website states the usual blandness:
Bristol International Airport is a Private Limited Company, 100% owned by a joint venture holding company, South West Airports Limited. South West Airports Limited (SWAL) is in turn owned by Macquarie Airports (MAp), a subsidiary of Macquarie Bank Ltd, Australia's largest investment bank and Ferrovial Aeropuertos, a subsidiary of Ferrovial, one of Spain's foremost infrastructure companies.
Since acquiring Bristol International, in January 2001, both shareholders have increased their portfolio of airport investments, including stakeholdings in Sydney, Birmingham, Belfast City, Brussels, Rome and Copenhagen Airports.

They have posted their 'Master Plan 2006 to 2030' on their website as a pdf.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2007, 20:12
  #58 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Weston-super-Mare & Jersey CI
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If anyone has ever seen Mr Skipp on the TV spouting about his plan to take over the world (sorry, I mean the expansion plans for BIA) then you would see he most certainly is an accountant. Or perhaps a 'merchant banker'!

This would never have happened in Les' day!
vulcanpilot is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2007, 21:16
  #59 (permalink)  
Dash-7 lover
Posts: n/a
My co have now issued a 20kt x-wind limit for a wet rwy @ BRS - was 35kts!
Old 2nd Jan 2007, 08:17
  #60 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sundgau
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is this a Professional Network?

Hey guys!
Happy new year!
Nobody got hurt for now and what we all want is to keep the score like it is!
Trying to blame one another will not solve the problem and will not improve the CRM in our work!
What has to be sorted is the conditions under wich we can or can't operate from BRS and make certain that we get the proper information about the runway status in terms of NOTAM to know if a temporary ungrooved surface is there,
braking action and friction coefficient reports and pilot reports...
For us now it's clearly 15Kts Max X-wind in BRS until further advice!
We are all part of a loop and we must keep all sources of information open to continue a safe operation.
Blaming the controllers the other pilots or whoever in the loop is not a correct CRM prospect and does not show a great deal of professionalism.
Enquiries are made by the authority and the aim of it is to make sure that safety is ensured and that everybody can learn from eventual errors commited.
Blaming is a lawyer's job and i'm fortunate enough not to be one!
This is not a professional lawyers rumour network thanks god! So please don't start and make one on Pprune!
Happy new year again and best wishes from Guernsey

Last edited by tyfilou; 3rd Jan 2007 at 14:16.
tyfilou 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.