"DENEB" in METAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"DENEB" in METAR
The code DENEB means fog dispersal operations in force.
The only such system I ever heard of was the WW2 RAF "FIDO" which involved burning petrol from a sprayer-equipped pipeline running down the side of the runway - not a good plan in a bomber shot full of holes & leaking fuel...
Where, if anywhere, is this done nowadays?
How is/was it done?
The only such system I ever heard of was the WW2 RAF "FIDO" which involved burning petrol from a sprayer-equipped pipeline running down the side of the runway - not a good plan in a bomber shot full of holes & leaking fuel...
Where, if anywhere, is this done nowadays?
How is/was it done?
fido
I believe Paris CDG has a modern-day FIDO in that it uses underground jet engines to blast out near the threshold,and heat the foggy-foggy dew,improving the threshold vis. Well,we`ll be able to send a few spare Concordes around HRW,GW,MN,EDI,and a few other places soon,in time for the winter fogs.(jobs for retd,Concorde pilots!).
French system of jet engine exhaust was called Turboclair. Don't know if it is still in use (haven't been to CDG for years) but used to be mentioned on airfield plates.
Russians were experimenting with a system of fog dispersal using liquid nitrogen back in the early nineties. But I haven't a clue how it worked, if it did.
Russians were experimenting with a system of fog dispersal using liquid nitrogen back in the early nineties. But I haven't a clue how it worked, if it did.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used the Turboclair at CDG a few times in the late 70s and early 80s. As far as I recall they "guaranteed" 200m(?) vis in the touchdown zone and therefore didn't give touchdown RVRs. It had to be switched off as the aircraft passed 1000 or so on finals so the "crosswind blast" could dissipate. Always worked for me ok (vis was always better than the guaranteed level) although at night it was essential not to use landing lights, as going into the wall of fog at the end of the cleared area with lights on could be quite an experience. (Mind you I've always found it better to land at night without lights if the RVR is less than about 300m)
On a slightly different topic does any body else remember the ice clearing operations at Moscow SVO in the 70's? To clear the ice from the apron they had what looked like cement mixer lorries with old IL62 APUs strapped to them pointing downwards at 45 degrees. The exhaust blast would free areas of ice inches thick and about the size of a dining room table. These would go tumbling across the apron smashing apart. The noise of a couple of these going at full blast made even a Trident seem quiet.
On a slightly different topic does any body else remember the ice clearing operations at Moscow SVO in the 70's? To clear the ice from the apron they had what looked like cement mixer lorries with old IL62 APUs strapped to them pointing downwards at 45 degrees. The exhaust blast would free areas of ice inches thick and about the size of a dining room table. These would go tumbling across the apron smashing apart. The noise of a couple of these going at full blast made even a Trident seem quiet.
