Runway at BRS was unsafe.
Paxing All Over The World
Writing beautiful documents, guidelines and examples of best practice and hard earned experience is, relatively, cheap.
The cost of sending experienced, high quality humans out to a regional airport to train the staff embarking on a big project and then to monitor their project ...??? That takes long pound notes.
Knowing nothing about the CAA but a lot about living and working in the UK, I would wager that the CAA does not do that any more - if it ever did. One of the pillars of the temple was removed when Thatcher & Co implemented the 'Light touch of regulation'. They might have started with the likes of British Telecom but the path was set. Another pillar was removed when 'agencies' were created from govt departments and another pillar was the budgeting of said agencies.
Further, I would guess (note that I am mere pax and know nothing and I am GUESSING) that the CAA and others (not all) involved in UK airline safety (ground and airborne) are currently running on their reputation. That and the very hard work of the front line people who are keeping vigilant.
I hope I'm wrong but the law of familiarity will have it's way.
The cost of sending experienced, high quality humans out to a regional airport to train the staff embarking on a big project and then to monitor their project ...??? That takes long pound notes.
Knowing nothing about the CAA but a lot about living and working in the UK, I would wager that the CAA does not do that any more - if it ever did. One of the pillars of the temple was removed when Thatcher & Co implemented the 'Light touch of regulation'. They might have started with the likes of British Telecom but the path was set. Another pillar was removed when 'agencies' were created from govt departments and another pillar was the budgeting of said agencies.
Further, I would guess (note that I am mere pax and know nothing and I am GUESSING) that the CAA and others (not all) involved in UK airline safety (ground and airborne) are currently running on their reputation. That and the very hard work of the front line people who are keeping vigilant.
I hope I'm wrong but the law of familiarity will have it's way.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
Surely they are leaders in tombstone thinking - they even have one outside their HQ.
ADDED - On the Hudson ditching thread this report has been highlighted:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1437/srg_a...-01-030303.pdf
It certainly shows the UK CAA can think outside the box an anticipate genuine emerging risks when it puts its mind to it.
Strange really that the UK CAA, or at least some of its staff, have claimed to be world leaders in SMS application and so rarely promotes effective implementation.
Surely they are leaders in tombstone thinking - they even have one outside their HQ.
ADDED - On the Hudson ditching thread this report has been highlighted:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1437/srg_a...-01-030303.pdf
It certainly shows the UK CAA can think outside the box an anticipate genuine emerging risks when it puts its mind to it.
Last edited by zalt; 18th Jan 2009 at 15:03. Reason: To give credit where credit is due
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair comments, in some respects. Unfair perhaps to have a go at SRG on the timing of CAP 781 because my understanding is that it was already in preparation before the incidents at BRS. It was then further delayed by a review in the light of what happened at Bristol before the draft was finalised. Its irrelevant anyway because CAP 760 which WAS published before the incidents has as much if not more relevance.
To my mind it is very simple. The AAIB report should have asked and answered the following questions:
- Was there a performance failure by the individual aircraft operators?
- Was there a performance failure by the aerodrome operator - BRS?
- Was there a failure in oversight by the regulator - SRG?
and a more general question:
- Is there a need to review the system by which aerodromes are licensed and their performance and management assessed?
If these questions have not ALL been addressed then IMHO the report is deficient. And there is no reason as far as I can see why the AAIB (which reports to the department for transport) could not thoroughly assess the role of the SRG (which reports to the CAA, an independantly funded and operated specialist public body) in the context of this incident. The questions go back to the credibility and independance of the AAIB.
More worryingly, if the AAIB isn't prepared to thoroughly review the actions of its peers then how, as a nation, can the Brits criticize the French and the cozy government/Airbus relationship? It could be the death of our national sport...
To my mind it is very simple. The AAIB report should have asked and answered the following questions:
- Was there a performance failure by the individual aircraft operators?
- Was there a performance failure by the aerodrome operator - BRS?
- Was there a failure in oversight by the regulator - SRG?
and a more general question:
- Is there a need to review the system by which aerodromes are licensed and their performance and management assessed?
If these questions have not ALL been addressed then IMHO the report is deficient. And there is no reason as far as I can see why the AAIB (which reports to the department for transport) could not thoroughly assess the role of the SRG (which reports to the CAA, an independantly funded and operated specialist public body) in the context of this incident. The questions go back to the credibility and independance of the AAIB.
More worryingly, if the AAIB isn't prepared to thoroughly review the actions of its peers then how, as a nation, can the Brits criticize the French and the cozy government/Airbus relationship? It could be the death of our national sport...
Last edited by Pinkman; 18th Jan 2009 at 11:48.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although a number of areas in aviation are having to come to terms with SMS, UK licensed airports are not. That's because Aerodrome Standards (and Air Traffic Standards) took onboard SMS quite some years ago.
It would seem that the CAA publications that have been issued over the years have gradually started with SMS as a given when addressing airport managers. Funnily enough, CAP 772 the Bird Hazard Bible, when reissued from CAP680, certainly seems to take airports SMS as already in place.
To some extent, that managers at aerodromes keep changing and hence their replacements have to be "programmed" into SMS (not sure if they have it at Costco) is a nub of the problem. But there again the CAA's own management of safety should systematically look for these failings and address them?
Lastly, the flocking birds report is actually from some time ago, I seem to remember it around the millenium.
Sir George Cayley
It would seem that the CAA publications that have been issued over the years have gradually started with SMS as a given when addressing airport managers. Funnily enough, CAP 772 the Bird Hazard Bible, when reissued from CAP680, certainly seems to take airports SMS as already in place.
To some extent, that managers at aerodromes keep changing and hence their replacements have to be "programmed" into SMS (not sure if they have it at Costco) is a nub of the problem. But there again the CAA's own management of safety should systematically look for these failings and address them?
Lastly, the flocking birds report is actually from some time ago, I seem to remember it around the millenium.
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir George
That was my point - the paper on 'large flockers' was done years before what seems to have been the first hull loss last week (done in about about 2002 or 2003).
Interesting if airport managers aern't coming from aviation. Even more reason for the AAIB to look at more then 'the technicalities'.
That was my point - the paper on 'large flockers' was done years before what seems to have been the first hull loss last week (done in about about 2002 or 2003).
Interesting if airport managers aern't coming from aviation. Even more reason for the AAIB to look at more then 'the technicalities'.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir George...
Agreed...
The problem you describe (the rise of "business managers" who are there to generate income, are from another industry, who are not thought to need to know the minutiae of the business, and who turn over very quickly) is evident everywhere. It was mentioned by Paxboy as being in telecommunications, and it is certainly starting to happen in my industry. When explaining to these wunderkind that they will face regulatory action and loss of profits or liberty if they compromise on safety, and if you can show through your risk assessment that this is a real possibility, all of a sudden you can compete with cash projects and safety can take its place alongside financial objectives. Because business drivers are leading to the hiring of administrators who dont understand the technical side of the business at the same time that as a society we are moving to a self assessment model for compliance then the corollary is that regular audits and proper incident investigations need to be carried out by people who ARE technically competent. And THAT is why the AAIB report should have addressed the "why" it was permitted to happen as well as the "how" it actually did happen.
The problem you describe (the rise of "business managers" who are there to generate income, are from another industry, who are not thought to need to know the minutiae of the business, and who turn over very quickly) is evident everywhere. It was mentioned by Paxboy as being in telecommunications, and it is certainly starting to happen in my industry. When explaining to these wunderkind that they will face regulatory action and loss of profits or liberty if they compromise on safety, and if you can show through your risk assessment that this is a real possibility, all of a sudden you can compete with cash projects and safety can take its place alongside financial objectives. Because business drivers are leading to the hiring of administrators who dont understand the technical side of the business at the same time that as a society we are moving to a self assessment model for compliance then the corollary is that regular audits and proper incident investigations need to be carried out by people who ARE technically competent. And THAT is why the AAIB report should have addressed the "why" it was permitted to happen as well as the "how" it actually did happen.
Paxing All Over The World
Slightly off topic but stick with me.
My Saturday job as a 16 year old was as counter staff in a department store. The General Manager had started as Saturday staff, been through the loading bay and warehouse, then back to the counter, then junior manager and so on - all the way to GM. The organisations or business where that happens now must be very few.
In the late 1980s, I recall a conversation with a pal who ran the telecommunications of a major UK hospital (I won't be more specific). He needed a completely new telephone system (about Ł1M or so) but they chose to refurbish an operating theatre. The next year they turned him down for another project. In the end he demonstrated how the failing phone system was costing lives. He got the money.
Without being political it was the Tories who promoted the idea that any good manager could manage anything. I did not agree in the 1980s and nothing I have seen in UK govt, privatised industries or banking has changed my mind. But - how we restart the culture of working your way up - I have no idea.
I am biased, as I have always worked in service industries. I worked my way up in comms and then in the work I do now. Oh yes, and I'm middle aged and I've seen it before.
My Saturday job as a 16 year old was as counter staff in a department store. The General Manager had started as Saturday staff, been through the loading bay and warehouse, then back to the counter, then junior manager and so on - all the way to GM. The organisations or business where that happens now must be very few.
In the late 1980s, I recall a conversation with a pal who ran the telecommunications of a major UK hospital (I won't be more specific). He needed a completely new telephone system (about Ł1M or so) but they chose to refurbish an operating theatre. The next year they turned him down for another project. In the end he demonstrated how the failing phone system was costing lives. He got the money.
Without being political it was the Tories who promoted the idea that any good manager could manage anything. I did not agree in the 1980s and nothing I have seen in UK govt, privatised industries or banking has changed my mind. But - how we restart the culture of working your way up - I have no idea.
I am biased, as I have always worked in service industries. I worked my way up in comms and then in the work I do now. Oh yes, and I'm middle aged and I've seen it before.
One thing does not come out in the AAIB report.
We have had runway resurfacing/regrading rojects for many years, almost all airports worldwide do them from time to time. Also, the bulk of commercial airports in the UK have only one significant runway, and continue operations during such projects, even where the physical work is done during nighttime closures. And yet there has never been an experience of four aircraft getting off the runway in a few days during such a project.
So what was different on this occasion ? This is surely what the AAIB should put their finger on, so it may be avoided in the future. Runways will continue to be rebuilt, what aspect should be avoided to prevent getting into the same situation again. Was it some aspect of the work sequence, or the materials or work method, or aircraft procedures, or limits, or what ? I don't see this addressed in the report
We have had runway resurfacing/regrading rojects for many years, almost all airports worldwide do them from time to time. Also, the bulk of commercial airports in the UK have only one significant runway, and continue operations during such projects, even where the physical work is done during nighttime closures. And yet there has never been an experience of four aircraft getting off the runway in a few days during such a project.
So what was different on this occasion ? This is surely what the AAIB should put their finger on, so it may be avoided in the future. Runways will continue to be rebuilt, what aspect should be avoided to prevent getting into the same situation again. Was it some aspect of the work sequence, or the materials or work method, or aircraft procedures, or limits, or what ? I don't see this addressed in the report
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what was different on this occasion ?
A few thoughts
Maybe the runway profile, including the ramping, during the period concerned didn't allow water to quickly drain off the ungrooved surface. strong crosswinds with rain may have had similar effect.
The re-profiling of the runway which required base course to be laid separately which other airport resufacing projects may not require.
This re-profiling and consequent areas of ungrooved base course shown in Figure 5 of the report seem to be spread across a lot of the surface which may not have helped.
The wet weather preventing an accurate friction assessment to be carried out using self wetting device (always a problem during winter months).
Unfamiliarity with friction runs and reporting under such conditions.
A few thoughts
Maybe the runway profile, including the ramping, during the period concerned didn't allow water to quickly drain off the ungrooved surface. strong crosswinds with rain may have had similar effect.
The re-profiling of the runway which required base course to be laid separately which other airport resufacing projects may not require.
This re-profiling and consequent areas of ungrooved base course shown in Figure 5 of the report seem to be spread across a lot of the surface which may not have helped.
The wet weather preventing an accurate friction assessment to be carried out using self wetting device (always a problem during winter months).
Unfamiliarity with friction runs and reporting under such conditions.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And one more thought on what was wrong:
There was far too-short a period for closure. In the hours available during closure, the contractor must:
adjust markings/lighting
mobilise equipment onto runway
remove asphalt ramps from previous night
if needed remove light fittings
milling out old asphalt
laying new asphalt
compaction
cooling
possibly laying another layer and cooling
if used, temporary grooving
if needed, cut runway lighting slots and cores
if needed, install light fittings
lay asphalt ramps
adjust markings/lighting
demobilise equipment from runway
runway safety inspection
re-open
The typical minimum time is 8 hours, and it usually does involve some rescheduling of aircraft on some days. The pressure from the commercial mangers (and most non-engineering airport management) is that the airport must be kept open and no flights can be disrupted. The two goals conflict, and with an overbearing airport general manager and a weak airport engineering manager, the wrong goal can take precedence. The closure time at BRS was, AFAIK, 6 hours.
With all the peripheral activities required, the actual asphalt laying part of the job within the 6 hour timeframe is very short. This has the effect that (a) many more days of construction are needed, which increases the number of aircraft exposed to these constrained operations; (b) the lack of time forces shortcuts in the works needed to leave the runway in a safe condition; and (c) the quality is poor meaning that the next runway rehabilitation occurs sooner.
Turning back to the Statement from Bristol International Airport (09/01/09). They claimed that they
I don’t think it is relevant if the contractor is experienced in these matters. The experience of a contractor is that of delivering their product close enough to the specification and as cheaply as possible so as to make a profit. They are not airport engineers, nor are they going to overrule the superintendent/consultant engineers on technical matters. The contractors are used to lots of silly ideas in specifications, and one more isn’t going to phase them. If they are given an overly tight timeline, then they’ll simply try to meet it.
And the claim that ‘standard industry practices were followed’ is a subtle alarm bell. You see, the industry of the contractor is that of the ‘road asphalt industry’; there is no such thing as an ‘airport asphalt industry’. All across the world, asphalt comes from contractors who work on roads and highways with only the occasional job on airports. Even if a contractor has surfaced several airports before, the majority of that contractor’s staff, quality controllers, systems, and operators have gathered their expertise from the road sides of things. There are subtle differences between roads and airports. I’m sure the contractor was following standard industry practices of his own ‘road industry’, but what was needed was for the airport engineers to adjust those practices to airport requirements.
One of the reasons that I am positive about CAP 781 is that it contains a number of those subtle differences.
There was far too-short a period for closure. In the hours available during closure, the contractor must:
adjust markings/lighting
mobilise equipment onto runway
remove asphalt ramps from previous night
if needed remove light fittings
milling out old asphalt
laying new asphalt
compaction
cooling
possibly laying another layer and cooling
if used, temporary grooving
if needed, cut runway lighting slots and cores
if needed, install light fittings
lay asphalt ramps
adjust markings/lighting
demobilise equipment from runway
runway safety inspection
re-open
The typical minimum time is 8 hours, and it usually does involve some rescheduling of aircraft on some days. The pressure from the commercial mangers (and most non-engineering airport management) is that the airport must be kept open and no flights can be disrupted. The two goals conflict, and with an overbearing airport general manager and a weak airport engineering manager, the wrong goal can take precedence. The closure time at BRS was, AFAIK, 6 hours.
With all the peripheral activities required, the actual asphalt laying part of the job within the 6 hour timeframe is very short. This has the effect that (a) many more days of construction are needed, which increases the number of aircraft exposed to these constrained operations; (b) the lack of time forces shortcuts in the works needed to leave the runway in a safe condition; and (c) the quality is poor meaning that the next runway rehabilitation occurs sooner.
Turning back to the Statement from Bristol International Airport (09/01/09). They claimed that they
engaged the leading expert designers, engineers and contractors in this specialist field. Standard industry practices were followed
And the claim that ‘standard industry practices were followed’ is a subtle alarm bell. You see, the industry of the contractor is that of the ‘road asphalt industry’; there is no such thing as an ‘airport asphalt industry’. All across the world, asphalt comes from contractors who work on roads and highways with only the occasional job on airports. Even if a contractor has surfaced several airports before, the majority of that contractor’s staff, quality controllers, systems, and operators have gathered their expertise from the road sides of things. There are subtle differences between roads and airports. I’m sure the contractor was following standard industry practices of his own ‘road industry’, but what was needed was for the airport engineers to adjust those practices to airport requirements.
One of the reasons that I am positive about CAP 781 is that it contains a number of those subtle differences.
So, is temporary grooving normal ? Or is it normal should rain and/or crosswinds be forecast ? Or is the contractor asked to stop works if such conditions are forecast ? The surface is normally temporary only for one night, the works move on to the next section next night.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Temporary grooving is one option. I think there are better engineering solutions, and so it is pretty rare to find. I do not think it is particularly efficient or cost-effective, but sometimes I guess one gets stuck in a poor situation and so it gets chosen. I recall that was used at BRS eventually. CAP 781 (section 3.1.5) refers to it as an option.
I’m uncomfortable with the thought that temporary grooving should be considered normal should rain and/or crosswinds be forecast. If it is raining to any extent, then asphalt laying shouldn’t take place for normal construction quality reasons. Normally major construction is planned around weather patterns, and is done in the drier seasons (if applicable). Yes, if unexpected rain is forecast on the night, the works are temporarily stopped.
But the works planning at BRS combined winter with rain and crosswinds on what is a single very short runway. The risk of aircraft overruns under those conditions is considerably higher, and the planning for the works failed to recognise this and so they were simply hazardous. And were shown to be so in practice.
I’m uncomfortable with the thought that temporary grooving should be considered normal should rain and/or crosswinds be forecast. If it is raining to any extent, then asphalt laying shouldn’t take place for normal construction quality reasons. Normally major construction is planned around weather patterns, and is done in the drier seasons (if applicable). Yes, if unexpected rain is forecast on the night, the works are temporarily stopped.
But the works planning at BRS combined winter with rain and crosswinds on what is a single very short runway. The risk of aircraft overruns under those conditions is considerably higher, and the planning for the works failed to recognise this and so they were simply hazardous. And were shown to be so in practice.
Paxing All Over The World
Thank you OverRun, most interesting. Just a regular pax here.
BRS has an increasing number of summer destinations, both schedule and charter, so the commercial imperative to resurface in winter would be clear.
In recent years in the UK, many complex engineering projects, such as bridges, tunnel repairs and railway improvements (both permanent way and platform) have changed their timing of works. It was usual to do a little bit every night for, perhaps, months. Then it was realised to be far more cost effective and ultimately less disruptive, to close the road/railway/bridge for an intensive period of work - say three days, one week or one month of 24x7 as opposed to five months of night time working. Not least as the plant is then not standing idle for 16 hours a day.
I realise, of course, that airlines are not keen on such things but do you know of any single runway fields that have used the full shut down route, rather than night time working?
BRS has an increasing number of summer destinations, both schedule and charter, so the commercial imperative to resurface in winter would be clear.
In recent years in the UK, many complex engineering projects, such as bridges, tunnel repairs and railway improvements (both permanent way and platform) have changed their timing of works. It was usual to do a little bit every night for, perhaps, months. Then it was realised to be far more cost effective and ultimately less disruptive, to close the road/railway/bridge for an intensive period of work - say three days, one week or one month of 24x7 as opposed to five months of night time working. Not least as the plant is then not standing idle for 16 hours a day.
I realise, of course, that airlines are not keen on such things but do you know of any single runway fields that have used the full shut down route, rather than night time working?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a case of re-inventing the wheel and not looking at history.
A 100 years plus ago heavy industry went through all these hassels with plant and unplanned shut downs.
They started doing the fair fortnights. Glasgow still does it to a large extent and there are a few other ones around the country.
Basically all heavy industry shuts down for a fortnight. All the staff have a holiday apart from the maintence boys. Which is why its best to check when the Glasgow fair is because it doesn't matter where you go there will be some pissed up idiot in a rangers or celtic top.
All the big projects are completed all parts that are due in the next 6 months are swapped out early everyone is happy.
Now personally if I was relaying a runway, a year in advance I would tell everyone that the airport was going to be shut for 3 weeks. Tell the staff to book holidays for that date or get those training cources booked, book the contractors and materials with hefty penalty clauses. Portacabins to sleep in and on site catering, laundery. 2 weeks jobs done. 1 week for cockups and inspections rectification lighting etc. Public arn't pissed off, airline arn't pissed off. Jobs done. But then again I am an ex mech eng the bean counters wouldn't go for it. Its taken years for the oil industry to learn that sometimes the engineers actually know what they are talking about when it comes to project managment.
I have seen oil yards when the poo hits the fan turn round 50 million pounds worth of kit after one phone call and the whole thing is setup by an old boy with a ONC to his name in 10 mins
1. tell the boys they are on double time until it finishes
2. Book every artic you can get your hands on and start dumping trailers in the yard
3. Tell the butty van to park up in the corner.
4. If i see anyone without PSE on they will be cleaning the bog in the bothie.
And PAX boy the RAF to my knowledge are the only ones who shut down all flight ops to get things sorted Brize was the last one to my knowledge but that was shut for months not weeks
A 100 years plus ago heavy industry went through all these hassels with plant and unplanned shut downs.
They started doing the fair fortnights. Glasgow still does it to a large extent and there are a few other ones around the country.
Basically all heavy industry shuts down for a fortnight. All the staff have a holiday apart from the maintence boys. Which is why its best to check when the Glasgow fair is because it doesn't matter where you go there will be some pissed up idiot in a rangers or celtic top.
All the big projects are completed all parts that are due in the next 6 months are swapped out early everyone is happy.
Now personally if I was relaying a runway, a year in advance I would tell everyone that the airport was going to be shut for 3 weeks. Tell the staff to book holidays for that date or get those training cources booked, book the contractors and materials with hefty penalty clauses. Portacabins to sleep in and on site catering, laundery. 2 weeks jobs done. 1 week for cockups and inspections rectification lighting etc. Public arn't pissed off, airline arn't pissed off. Jobs done. But then again I am an ex mech eng the bean counters wouldn't go for it. Its taken years for the oil industry to learn that sometimes the engineers actually know what they are talking about when it comes to project managment.
I have seen oil yards when the poo hits the fan turn round 50 million pounds worth of kit after one phone call and the whole thing is setup by an old boy with a ONC to his name in 10 mins
1. tell the boys they are on double time until it finishes
2. Book every artic you can get your hands on and start dumping trailers in the yard
3. Tell the butty van to park up in the corner.
4. If i see anyone without PSE on they will be cleaning the bog in the bothie.
And PAX boy the RAF to my knowledge are the only ones who shut down all flight ops to get things sorted Brize was the last one to my knowledge but that was shut for months not weeks
Last edited by mad_jock; 20th Jan 2009 at 11:55.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lincolnshire UK
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weeze in Germany - the former RAF Laarbruch - closed down for two weeks in the spring of 2007 in order to resurface the runway and some of its taxiways, while also taking the opportunity to install part of an airfield lighting / ILS upgrade.
The lighting aspect of the work was completed after the airport had re-opened.
The lighting aspect of the work was completed after the airport had re-opened.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single runway airports – shut down? Several in Nigeria – Kaduna Airport and Maiduguri Airport for unknown periods. Chapel Hill in USA for 21 days. Aspen USA for 2 months. Broome in Australia for 11 days. Pune, India for 2 weeks. Bloemfontein, South Africa for two weekends (2 runways, so the main runway was closed for 2 months and this total closure was just for the intersection). Google News showed 8790 news items on ‘airport closure works’ for the last 10 years, so a guess of 100-200 might be reasonable.
There are some single runway airports which are very long, and works can shut one end and operations safely continue at the other. Walvis Bay in Namibia, and Auckland in New Zealand are examples.
Mostly, airports have more than one runway, and can then close one runway (although even that takes considerable organisation and planning). It is a popular option in Australia, with Perth and Melbourne doing that recently. Dubai did that a couple of years ago.
Mad_jock has the right idea though. I’ve got something like the 'fair fortnight' coming up soon – and everyone from every maintenance department is going to share in the shutdown. I only wish I had heard his advice earlier about allowing
Got the 2 weeks bit right on another airport. Forgot to allow for the 1 week bit. Things were a bit hectic towards the end of the closure.
There are some single runway airports which are very long, and works can shut one end and operations safely continue at the other. Walvis Bay in Namibia, and Auckland in New Zealand are examples.
Mostly, airports have more than one runway, and can then close one runway (although even that takes considerable organisation and planning). It is a popular option in Australia, with Perth and Melbourne doing that recently. Dubai did that a couple of years ago.
Mad_jock has the right idea though. I’ve got something like the 'fair fortnight' coming up soon – and everyone from every maintenance department is going to share in the shutdown. I only wish I had heard his advice earlier about allowing
2 weeks jobs done. 1 week for cockups and inspections rectification lighting etc.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and as its an airport book calibrator for 5 days before planned opening. Again the fannys on the lighting will take 4 days to find a bulb which will be the whole ball ache of passing regulation check.