Spanair MD-80 Incident At LPL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spanair MD-80 Incident At LPL
News Flash :
Does anyone know the tailwind component on landing for an MD-80 ?
A Spanair MD-80 has just had a tyre burst and has skidded along runway 27 at LPL.
The wind at the time was 100/14. No reported injuries at present, fire on board but brought under control.
Any info ?
Does anyone know the tailwind component on landing for an MD-80 ?
A Spanair MD-80 has just had a tyre burst and has skidded along runway 27 at LPL.
The wind at the time was 100/14. No reported injuries at present, fire on board but brought under control.
Any info ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
from news.bbc.co.uk
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">A plane carrying 51 people has crashed at Liverpool Airport.
The undercarriage of the aircraft, en route from Palma in Mallorca, collapsed as it landed at 1330BST at the airport in Speke.
It is understood all the 45 passengers and six crew were evacuated safely. Some were treated by paramedics in the main terminal building, but none are said to have been taken to hospital.
An airport spokeswoman said: "The accident happened when the starboard undercarriage of Spanair flight number JKK3203 collapsed as it landed and the plane wobbled on to one wing."
Eight appliances from Merseyside Fire Service, seven ambulances and a major incident team were sent to the airport and the Royal Liverpool and Whiston hospitals were alerted.
A spokesman for Mersey Regional Ambulance said: "Some of the passengers were treated in the airport terminal but luckily nobody was seriously hurt." </font>
The undercarriage of the aircraft, en route from Palma in Mallorca, collapsed as it landed at 1330BST at the airport in Speke.
It is understood all the 45 passengers and six crew were evacuated safely. Some were treated by paramedics in the main terminal building, but none are said to have been taken to hospital.
An airport spokeswoman said: "The accident happened when the starboard undercarriage of Spanair flight number JKK3203 collapsed as it landed and the plane wobbled on to one wing."
Eight appliances from Merseyside Fire Service, seven ambulances and a major incident team were sent to the airport and the Royal Liverpool and Whiston hospitals were alerted.
A spokesman for Mersey Regional Ambulance said: "Some of the passengers were treated in the airport terminal but luckily nobody was seriously hurt." </font>
Guest
Posts: n/a
160to4DME
But I wouldn't land a 737 with a 14kt tailwind component either,and with Manchester traffic, it is almost impossible to get a straight in onto R/W 27. It is usually quicker to go downwind and visual onto 09, in the sort of weather it was at the time.
But I wouldn't land a 737 with a 14kt tailwind component either,and with Manchester traffic, it is almost impossible to get a straight in onto R/W 27. It is usually quicker to go downwind and visual onto 09, in the sort of weather it was at the time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kriskross
Agreed, but the wonders of how EGGP decide the operational runway has always eluded me. For sure, Manchester's runway in use is not a consideration, and there are specific procedures for those nightmare days when one is on easterlies and the other on westerlies.
However, and this is no dig at EGGP ATCOs, it does often appear that the runway is switched specifically to suit the direction from which landing IFR traffic is coming from, or which direction departing traffic is heading off on (and it's a bloody nuisance if we're busy on the sectors !!)
And you're quite right, unless it's 0300 hrs, you're never going to get a straight-in on 27 (although it used to be great for T.N.T at night who often got to route TNT-MCT-ILS27).
You mention going downwind for 09. Have any crews got a view on the new procedures which have been put to the airlines ?
All traffic, irrespective of direction, to do a right hand circuit when on 27, plus no more LPL as the clearance limit, replaced with Eaton on A25 and Banks, 6 nm west of WAL (Yes, even for traffic from the east).
Interesting times ahead...and this is what they call progress !!
Agreed, but the wonders of how EGGP decide the operational runway has always eluded me. For sure, Manchester's runway in use is not a consideration, and there are specific procedures for those nightmare days when one is on easterlies and the other on westerlies.
However, and this is no dig at EGGP ATCOs, it does often appear that the runway is switched specifically to suit the direction from which landing IFR traffic is coming from, or which direction departing traffic is heading off on (and it's a bloody nuisance if we're busy on the sectors !!)
And you're quite right, unless it's 0300 hrs, you're never going to get a straight-in on 27 (although it used to be great for T.N.T at night who often got to route TNT-MCT-ILS27).
You mention going downwind for 09. Have any crews got a view on the new procedures which have been put to the airlines ?
All traffic, irrespective of direction, to do a right hand circuit when on 27, plus no more LPL as the clearance limit, replaced with Eaton on A25 and Banks, 6 nm west of WAL (Yes, even for traffic from the east).
Interesting times ahead...and this is what they call progress !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
160to4DME
If I commented on what I thought about the new procedures, Danny would take my password away. How did the computer trial with them go a couple of weeks ago? Or should I just ask my neightbour. There is going to be a lot of noise from LPL crews!!
If I commented on what I thought about the new procedures, Danny would take my password away. How did the computer trial with them go a couple of weeks ago? Or should I just ask my neightbour. There is going to be a lot of noise from LPL crews!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The trial went surprisingly well. It was a good opportunity to try out one or two new things, including taking advantage of the fact Liverpool will have SSR by the autumn, but by the end, both the Liverpool and Hawarden guys went away happy.
From our point of view, the biggest concern was the airspace between the LPL and WHI/Nanti. There's simply too much aluminium there at the moment, made worse if EGCC is on the 06s. The days of turning onto base for 27 at WHI have long been numbered, so we tried to address the problem of where to send EGGP traffic without vectoring you round the sky.
The EGGP guys agreed that the simplest and most expeditious option was to take traffic over the top then downwind right hand. There's a gap between EGGP and MIRSI where there is currently little traffic. We worked out it added about 3 minutes to the flying time for traffic coming through WHI, so I don't think many will moan. Of course, the left base option will still be there if it's quiet.
The other problem was to create EGGP specific holds, as holding at the LPL is currently restricted to not above 3500ft.
Therefore, traffic from the south and SE will route to Eaton on A25 (from the SE, routing TNT direct to Eaton).
Traffic from the West,North and East will all route to BANKS, which is 6 miles west of WAL. Whilst extending the route for traffic from the east, it was the only place where traffic could be held without having an effect on Manchester traffic or Liverpool outbounds. There will also be the option of routing traffic from the east Denby-Mirsi-Eaton.
Whilst some might moan that traffic from the east will have to go past the field to get to Banks, remember, it's exactly the same for traffic inbound to Manchester which routes from the east and has to go to Rosun before turning back downwind for 24R.
Therefore, having simulated Liverpool with a projected future movement rate of 32 IFR an hour, Liverpool came away from the trials with proposals for 2 new holds, 2 RMAs and alot more airspace to play with.
When the procedures are introduced, there are bound to be those who complain that it's all a backward step. However, we've proven the system can cope for even the most optimistic of forecasts for Liverpool traffic, and as such, the trial should be considered a great success.
[This message has been edited by 160to4DME (edited 10 May 2001).]
From our point of view, the biggest concern was the airspace between the LPL and WHI/Nanti. There's simply too much aluminium there at the moment, made worse if EGCC is on the 06s. The days of turning onto base for 27 at WHI have long been numbered, so we tried to address the problem of where to send EGGP traffic without vectoring you round the sky.
The EGGP guys agreed that the simplest and most expeditious option was to take traffic over the top then downwind right hand. There's a gap between EGGP and MIRSI where there is currently little traffic. We worked out it added about 3 minutes to the flying time for traffic coming through WHI, so I don't think many will moan. Of course, the left base option will still be there if it's quiet.
The other problem was to create EGGP specific holds, as holding at the LPL is currently restricted to not above 3500ft.
Therefore, traffic from the south and SE will route to Eaton on A25 (from the SE, routing TNT direct to Eaton).
Traffic from the West,North and East will all route to BANKS, which is 6 miles west of WAL. Whilst extending the route for traffic from the east, it was the only place where traffic could be held without having an effect on Manchester traffic or Liverpool outbounds. There will also be the option of routing traffic from the east Denby-Mirsi-Eaton.
Whilst some might moan that traffic from the east will have to go past the field to get to Banks, remember, it's exactly the same for traffic inbound to Manchester which routes from the east and has to go to Rosun before turning back downwind for 24R.
Therefore, having simulated Liverpool with a projected future movement rate of 32 IFR an hour, Liverpool came away from the trials with proposals for 2 new holds, 2 RMAs and alot more airspace to play with.
When the procedures are introduced, there are bound to be those who complain that it's all a backward step. However, we've proven the system can cope for even the most optimistic of forecasts for Liverpool traffic, and as such, the trial should be considered a great success.
[This message has been edited by 160to4DME (edited 10 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok I'm an ex-EGGP ATCO who escaped to the sandpit a couple of years back.
160 to 4 DME
Hmmm favourite was allowing the majority of flights ie. from the west to land 09 and depart 27, weather and traffic permitting.How does that piss you off at Manch? Only trying to provide a service :P
Good to hear no one was badly hurt, though.
160 to 4 DME
Hmmm favourite was allowing the majority of flights ie. from the west to land 09 and depart 27, weather and traffic permitting.How does that piss you off at Manch? Only trying to provide a service :P
Good to hear no one was badly hurt, though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
<< Hmmm favourite was allowing the majority of flights ie. from the west to land 09 and depart 27, weather and traffic permitting.How does that piss you off at Manch? >>
Hi FlyThrough
Nothing wrong with doing your best to expedite traffic; however, it can get infuriating when you're going hammer and tongue on the sector and EGGP are calling you for every aircraft with a runway change depending on which direction they're coming from or going to !
But as I said earlier, as things get busier, the flexibility of swapping runways for individual aircraft will no doubt become a less common perk.
Hi FlyThrough
Nothing wrong with doing your best to expedite traffic; however, it can get infuriating when you're going hammer and tongue on the sector and EGGP are calling you for every aircraft with a runway change depending on which direction they're coming from or going to !
But as I said earlier, as things get busier, the flexibility of swapping runways for individual aircraft will no doubt become a less common perk.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was very sorry to learn of the incident at L'pool with the Spanair a/c. I went on holiday with them last year on the dreaded midnight Tenerife from Manchester. We were given very understanding, professional and courteous treatment at all times throughout the flight.
As an aside though, surely if you don't like the wind component on the runway in use, you make your feelings known to atc don't you. If a subsequent change of runway upsets certain other carriers including those who have their head office at Luton, TOUGH!!! I also used this carrier as well once and that was enough, my opinion HORRIBLE and never again under any circumstances. The dregs in my opinion.
As an aside though, surely if you don't like the wind component on the runway in use, you make your feelings known to atc don't you. If a subsequent change of runway upsets certain other carriers including those who have their head office at Luton, TOUGH!!! I also used this carrier as well once and that was enough, my opinion HORRIBLE and never again under any circumstances. The dregs in my opinion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If its Britannia you're on about I can vouch for that. On a recent soccer charter they allowed two obviously drunk/drugged passengers on (calling the no1 Mrs) and shouting the captain is a w****r. One tried to get up for the loo as we lined up and ended up wetting himself. When I got up to complain (after the seatbelt signs were off obviously) I was told to move seats by a security guard on board. When I pointed out that this wouldn't help and they had already breached the ANO by carrying these two idiots I was told to be quiet and sit down...
BTSM
BTSM