Arctic Diversion Airports
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arctic Diversion Airports
Hi Everyone,
I've seen a lot of people wondering abouts these airports over the past little while. I work out of CYFB (Iqaluit) and have flown many times to BGSF (Sanderstrom Fjord), and yes over the past number of years i have seen many of your aircraft divert here. Well i hope this helps most of you understand the area. Like many other airports around the north we don't have airstairs either that can reach up to the height of the widebodies, where as BGSF does due to the fact SAS has a sked fight into there. As for the runways both are great, nice and long and well kept, CYFB this winter had some problems keeping runway maintainer's so as some of you found out the runway was closed some evenings throughout the winter. As for accomodations there would be plenty if needed summertime might be a bit of a problem as there are lots of tourists who come to the area. As for medical facilities, Iqaluit has a full hospital as does Sonderstrom and CYFB also has a medivac operated if needed. Certainly a good consideration is the winters as it very common to see -35C with a 30 knot wind out of the north, remember the water doesn't even open till mid july. CYFB has an ILS to the most common runway in use and a back course to the other as for BGSF it uses a localizer approach and you use it to circle to the other runway, which i would not recommend to people not familier to the area. I hope this helps you overseas boys understand the area a little bit, i you want to know more feel free to post and i will try my best to answer.
PS: A for the northern lights up here there fantastic, the season is over as we are going 24 hours of daylight, but best place to see them are half way between CYFB (Iqaluit) and CYUX (Hall Beach) also along the northern tip of Quebec just north of CYVP across to Churchill. Cheers.
I've seen a lot of people wondering abouts these airports over the past little while. I work out of CYFB (Iqaluit) and have flown many times to BGSF (Sanderstrom Fjord), and yes over the past number of years i have seen many of your aircraft divert here. Well i hope this helps most of you understand the area. Like many other airports around the north we don't have airstairs either that can reach up to the height of the widebodies, where as BGSF does due to the fact SAS has a sked fight into there. As for the runways both are great, nice and long and well kept, CYFB this winter had some problems keeping runway maintainer's so as some of you found out the runway was closed some evenings throughout the winter. As for accomodations there would be plenty if needed summertime might be a bit of a problem as there are lots of tourists who come to the area. As for medical facilities, Iqaluit has a full hospital as does Sonderstrom and CYFB also has a medivac operated if needed. Certainly a good consideration is the winters as it very common to see -35C with a 30 knot wind out of the north, remember the water doesn't even open till mid july. CYFB has an ILS to the most common runway in use and a back course to the other as for BGSF it uses a localizer approach and you use it to circle to the other runway, which i would not recommend to people not familier to the area. I hope this helps you overseas boys understand the area a little bit, i you want to know more feel free to post and i will try my best to answer.
PS: A for the northern lights up here there fantastic, the season is over as we are going 24 hours of daylight, but best place to see them are half way between CYFB (Iqaluit) and CYUX (Hall Beach) also along the northern tip of Quebec just north of CYVP across to Churchill. Cheers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
in my company we are not allowed to use sondrestromford, or iquilat in the planning of en route diversion airfields. iam unsure of the exact reasons, but i bet the high ground and difficult approaches have something to do with it. also sondrestomford has a very low rff catagory overnight (below my company/caa minima) in years gone by, the company could apply for a rff catagory upgrade should we have to rely on sondrestomford for etop's, but since the introduction of our "long range" a/c there is no need. iquilat iam led to beleive has a permenant low or no rff catagory at all status, thus proving iligal and unsafe to use. however should murphy ever raise his ugly head and the unthinkable ever happen, eg, a serios on board fire, or multiple engine malfunction, i wouldn't hessitate to use either. i know this will sound cruel but, for a medical case i would continue to the assigned div airport (possibly goose bay, or keflavik) rather than risk an approach. at the end of the day i also have a responsibility to the other pax, none of whom would thank me for slamming into a mountain, or skidding off the runway in pieces.
------------------
IT'S BETTER TO BE ON THE GROUND, WISHING YOU WERE IN THE AIR - THAN IT IS TO BE IN THE AIR, WISHING YOU WERE ON THE GROUND !
------------------
IT'S BETTER TO BE ON THE GROUND, WISHING YOU WERE IN THE AIR - THAN IT IS TO BE IN THE AIR, WISHING YOU WERE ON THE GROUND !
Guest
Posts: n/a
And there BOEINGBOY you have the whole problem with the CRAZY ETOPS/LROPS logic. You are not allowed to use a certain airfield for planning purposes (eg too dangerous) but you are supposed to use it in an emergency, quite possibly with a seriously degraded aeroplane.
Sounds like the chess match in Alice in Woderland!
Sounds like the chess match in Alice in Woderland!
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is an excellent topic, Allwayscold, and thank you for taking the time to post it. As an ex-(and future again when the seat become the correct one) ETOPS pilot, any input to help us understand the nature of the fields we nominate as alternates is a big bonus.
However, as this topic doesn't cover the remit of rumour or news for it to remain up here, I'll transfer it. I think Tech Log might be the best destination, in this case. An interesting evolution of this discussion would be referring to what Boing has above... the fact that we only visit you under duress, and that may not be the best time to have to carry out a backourse approach to circle with a strong northerly at an unfamiliar field. It helps to know what facilities there are from a locals point of view, as this often does not tally with what our companies claim.
Welcome,
Sick Squid
Rumours and News Moderator
[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 01 May 2001).]
However, as this topic doesn't cover the remit of rumour or news for it to remain up here, I'll transfer it. I think Tech Log might be the best destination, in this case. An interesting evolution of this discussion would be referring to what Boing has above... the fact that we only visit you under duress, and that may not be the best time to have to carry out a backourse approach to circle with a strong northerly at an unfamiliar field. It helps to know what facilities there are from a locals point of view, as this often does not tally with what our companies claim.
Welcome,
Sick Squid
Rumours and News Moderator
[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 01 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey "Always", I agree, excellent topic. As a fellow Canuck flying ETOPs ops for the CYYZ based carrier with tacky red engines and infamously cramped seating... you know the one, I'd like to add what I "know" about CYFB and it's suitability for ETOPs operations.
In August of '99, the JAA issued an information leaflet (IL no.20) proposing several changes to ETOPs legislation. From the IL, "The definition of Adequate Aerodrome has been expanded upon to include a reference to the revised RFFS levels available at Canadian en-route alternates."
The concern being inadequate levels of Rescue and Fire Fighting Services. As this document later specifies, "For an aerodrome to be suitable for the purpose of this IL, it should have the capabilites, services, a minimum of ICAO category 4, or the relevant aeroplane category if lower, Rescue and Fire Fighting Services and facilities necessary to designate it as an adequate aerodrome..."
Apparently ICAO has been exerting pressure on the Libs for some time, trying to get them to fork out some cash to reverse the downgrades in airport emergency services implemented in the early ninties. I don't have a CFS in front of me so I don't know the category of RFFS now available in CYFB, but I bet it would be a little light on fire trucks and foam for my A-330 if we were in dire need.
Thanks for the additional info on CYFB. I haven't had the pleasure of being there since '94. If you're interested, I've been told by a gentleman who's involved in the project that a new version of TP 6327, the Canadian ETOPs document, will soon be available.
If there's anyone with additional info, feel free to update/correct me.
In August of '99, the JAA issued an information leaflet (IL no.20) proposing several changes to ETOPs legislation. From the IL, "The definition of Adequate Aerodrome has been expanded upon to include a reference to the revised RFFS levels available at Canadian en-route alternates."
The concern being inadequate levels of Rescue and Fire Fighting Services. As this document later specifies, "For an aerodrome to be suitable for the purpose of this IL, it should have the capabilites, services, a minimum of ICAO category 4, or the relevant aeroplane category if lower, Rescue and Fire Fighting Services and facilities necessary to designate it as an adequate aerodrome..."
Apparently ICAO has been exerting pressure on the Libs for some time, trying to get them to fork out some cash to reverse the downgrades in airport emergency services implemented in the early ninties. I don't have a CFS in front of me so I don't know the category of RFFS now available in CYFB, but I bet it would be a little light on fire trucks and foam for my A-330 if we were in dire need.
Thanks for the additional info on CYFB. I haven't had the pleasure of being there since '94. If you're interested, I've been told by a gentleman who's involved in the project that a new version of TP 6327, the Canadian ETOPs document, will soon be available.
If there's anyone with additional info, feel free to update/correct me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding operations at BGSF:
The llz/dme app is done mostly straight-in (95% of the time) since the wind is prevailing outflow from the ice-cap(easterly). And most of the time (approx 90 %) you take off with a tailwind due to higher terrain to the east (rwy 10/28). the runway lenght is 2815 meter / 9235 feet! and the RFF is cat 5, cat 8 with PN 4Hr. And yes they have been landing the Concorde here the last summers. BGSF is the best alternate in whole Greenland and is only down for maybe 5 days a year! CYFB is worse!
BGSF does not have a full hospital. They only have one nurse!
There is an other airport further south, BGBW. This one is 1830 meters / 6000 feet, but that's another story!! Only ndb/dme app with high terrain. Still alot of ferry pilots use it.
------------------
40 knot x-wind on 799 meters on an average day!
The llz/dme app is done mostly straight-in (95% of the time) since the wind is prevailing outflow from the ice-cap(easterly). And most of the time (approx 90 %) you take off with a tailwind due to higher terrain to the east (rwy 10/28). the runway lenght is 2815 meter / 9235 feet! and the RFF is cat 5, cat 8 with PN 4Hr. And yes they have been landing the Concorde here the last summers. BGSF is the best alternate in whole Greenland and is only down for maybe 5 days a year! CYFB is worse!
BGSF does not have a full hospital. They only have one nurse!
There is an other airport further south, BGBW. This one is 1830 meters / 6000 feet, but that's another story!! Only ndb/dme app with high terrain. Still alot of ferry pilots use it.
------------------
40 knot x-wind on 799 meters on an average day!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Excellent topic, thanks alwayscold and the other contributors. As a LHR-based longhauler this sort of gen. is invaluable.
Can anyone tell me what the medical facilities are like in Goose and Gander? Someone told me recently that they only have basic clinics and that anything serious has to get airlifted out - is that true?
Can anyone tell me what the medical facilities are like in Goose and Gander? Someone told me recently that they only have basic clinics and that anything serious has to get airlifted out - is that true?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tired, I cut my ETOPS teeth on a certain short-lived longhaul fleet from a regional UK airport, and the Urban myth there was that Goose Bay had a very large US Military hospital. (Not that the young, free and single FO's would ever have attempted to influence a diversion decision based upon the availability of several hundred nurses, you do understand. The myth stated 4000 nurses, but even I couldn't believe that! ) 
Now, older, and with less hair, we all know to call Medlink because they have the gen, but it would be nice to have a general idea of what the facilities are. Which is why this topic is spot on; I can think of nothing worse than dropping the medical case off in Goose only to find the local surgery closed, some six-fingered bloke with a banjo under his parka, and a frozen tumbleweed blowing down the high street. Oh, yeah, and the casualty is lying in the road, thumbing a lift to Montreal.
Seriously; there is a strong argument given the nature of these fields and their use by almost every major operator as ETOPS diversion fields (read; allowing them to continue operating under the ETOPS rules by their existence) for a small financial consideration to be provided towards the provision of precision approach aids at all feasible runways.
I'm sure Mr Joe Public would not like to know that should some really nasty situation develop mid-Atlantic (the critical-fuel scenario depressurisation with engine failure for instance), the flight crew don't just have the problem itself weighing on their shoulders, but also a very high workload approach at the diversion field to accomplish. For instance, I have flown the sum total of, er, (let me think, yes) NO backcourse approaches in anger in my career so far. The first one I would like to be somewhere tropical, 35 degrees and calm, on a summers day. And how likely is that to happen?
Sick Squid
[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 03 May 2001).]
Now, older, and with less hair, we all know to call Medlink because they have the gen, but it would be nice to have a general idea of what the facilities are. Which is why this topic is spot on; I can think of nothing worse than dropping the medical case off in Goose only to find the local surgery closed, some six-fingered bloke with a banjo under his parka, and a frozen tumbleweed blowing down the high street. Oh, yeah, and the casualty is lying in the road, thumbing a lift to Montreal.
Seriously; there is a strong argument given the nature of these fields and their use by almost every major operator as ETOPS diversion fields (read; allowing them to continue operating under the ETOPS rules by their existence) for a small financial consideration to be provided towards the provision of precision approach aids at all feasible runways.
I'm sure Mr Joe Public would not like to know that should some really nasty situation develop mid-Atlantic (the critical-fuel scenario depressurisation with engine failure for instance), the flight crew don't just have the problem itself weighing on their shoulders, but also a very high workload approach at the diversion field to accomplish. For instance, I have flown the sum total of, er, (let me think, yes) NO backcourse approaches in anger in my career so far. The first one I would like to be somewhere tropical, 35 degrees and calm, on a summers day. And how likely is that to happen?
Sick Squid
[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 03 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
When DL dropped an MD11 into CDB a bit ago, this was what it was like:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010402/atm029.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
tired:
Goose Bay has a 35 bed medical clinic with onsite 24/7 surgery and anaesthesia. Nice broad military style runway, few bars and fewer nurses - with awful Redhats.
Gander has 100 bed regional hospital with ICU. Full blown Internal medicine/CCU, OBS and paediatric services. Full range of surgical services 24/7 orthopaedic, vascular &c (and a far higher number of single young nurses). It also has a rather nifty 'blow-up' MASH tent type affair which can be put up to deal with a larger number of casualties.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
[email protected]
edited for dyslexic keyboard
[This message has been edited by Code Blue (edited 02 May 2001).]
Goose Bay has a 35 bed medical clinic with onsite 24/7 surgery and anaesthesia. Nice broad military style runway, few bars and fewer nurses - with awful Redhats.
Gander has 100 bed regional hospital with ICU. Full blown Internal medicine/CCU, OBS and paediatric services. Full range of surgical services 24/7 orthopaedic, vascular &c (and a far higher number of single young nurses). It also has a rather nifty 'blow-up' MASH tent type affair which can be put up to deal with a larger number of casualties.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
[email protected]
edited for dyslexic keyboard
[This message has been edited by Code Blue (edited 02 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Code Blue - thanks very much, exactly what I was looking for.
Sick Squid - yeah, why do those stories never turn out to be true? And when they are true, I never get to divert there
DougS - that's a nice, heartwarming story. Bet it was the highlight of Cold Bay's year, too
Thanks guys.
t
Sick Squid - yeah, why do those stories never turn out to be true? And when they are true, I never get to divert there
DougS - that's a nice, heartwarming story. Bet it was the highlight of Cold Bay's year, too
Thanks guys.
t
