CAT III anyone
(well I guess you maybe able to do a CAT II to R27L)
EGLL 201350Z VRB03KT 0500 R27L/P1500 R27R/0700 FG BKN001 01/01 Q1040
CAT III anyone (well I guess you maybe able to do a CAT II to R27L)
CAT III anyone
(well I guess you maybe able to do a CAT II to R27L)
Means there's cloud pretty much right down to the ground, motherger.
The guy I'm travelling back with tonight is b*ggered. We can get from Hong Kong to Heathrow just fine (so I'm alright), but his internal to Manchester from there tomorrow morning appears to have gone AWOL now. (So he's just learnt.)
The guy I'm travelling back with tonight is b*ggered. We can get from Hong Kong to Heathrow just fine (so I'm alright), but his internal to Manchester from there tomorrow morning appears to have gone AWOL now. (So he's just learnt.)
Well, I just got back to work after landing from Hong Kong on the VS201 - the captain told us when we left Hong Kong that we'd be making "full use of the autoland capability of the aircraft on arrival".
Good job he did - we couldn't see the runway, even when we were on it! [:0]
Pretty cool though, being on a plane that's just landed itself. [y]
Good job he did - we couldn't see the runway, even when we were on it! [:0]
Pretty cool though, being on a plane that's just landed itself. [y]
Originally posted by mitchja
Yeah I've been on a few VS flights where the flight deck make the point of telling everyone they will be landing automatically when the weather is bad. It's no different to landing normally.
A pilot came over the PA after a rather firm bump when meeting terra firma that the landing was harder than usual because he'd let the computer land it. Can't remember which flight it was, but it would either be VS or BA in the past month.
Is there any truth in this or was it just a bit of pilot bravado?
Cheers, Howard
This morning on BBC Radio 4 a BAA spokesman was interviewed about the fog and said that they had instituted their backup plan to cover such events, although what that entails other than cancelling a bunch of flights and putting up the marquees again wasn't clear.
My understanding about the delays is this, so I welcome corrections if I've misunderstood: although both the planes and the airport have sufficient equipment to be able to land and takeoff in such conditions, there are restrictions put in place in the number of flight movements to ensure that there is enough distance between planes for safety.
In general, shorthaul flights are smaller planes and less pax are inconvenienced if they are cancelled as opposed to the longhauls. A shorthaul slot takes the same time/space as a larger longhaul slot (ignoring the additional time required switching from 'heavies' to smaller shorthauls). In addition if shorthaul planes are in the wrong place, it's quicker to recover from this situation than if longhaul planes are in the wrong place.
Under the current takeoff and landing procedures (one takeoff runway, one landing runway), Heathrow is already operating at full capacity without the impact of weather. This is clear from the fact that even in good weather frequently you spend half an hour in a holding pattern trying to land, and half an hour in a line waiting to takeoff at LHR.
Typically abroad and certainly in the US, larger airports with two parallel operating runways improve capacity significantly by allowing planes to both takeoff and land on both. It is common to see a string of flights coming in to land at both, as well as taking off simultaneously.
ISTR some suggetion that LHR capacity could be increased if the runway pairs 27/9 are used for both takeoffs and landings simultaneously - is there a local regulatory or other perhaps practical reason why this doesn't happen?
Cheers, Howard
My understanding about the delays is this, so I welcome corrections if I've misunderstood: although both the planes and the airport have sufficient equipment to be able to land and takeoff in such conditions, there are restrictions put in place in the number of flight movements to ensure that there is enough distance between planes for safety.
In general, shorthaul flights are smaller planes and less pax are inconvenienced if they are cancelled as opposed to the longhauls. A shorthaul slot takes the same time/space as a larger longhaul slot (ignoring the additional time required switching from 'heavies' to smaller shorthauls). In addition if shorthaul planes are in the wrong place, it's quicker to recover from this situation than if longhaul planes are in the wrong place.
Under the current takeoff and landing procedures (one takeoff runway, one landing runway), Heathrow is already operating at full capacity without the impact of weather. This is clear from the fact that even in good weather frequently you spend half an hour in a holding pattern trying to land, and half an hour in a line waiting to takeoff at LHR.
Typically abroad and certainly in the US, larger airports with two parallel operating runways improve capacity significantly by allowing planes to both takeoff and land on both. It is common to see a string of flights coming in to land at both, as well as taking off simultaneously.
ISTR some suggetion that LHR capacity could be increased if the runway pairs 27/9 are used for both takeoffs and landings simultaneously - is there a local regulatory or other perhaps practical reason why this doesn't happen?
Cheers, Howard
ISTR some suggetion that LHR capacity could be increased if the runway pairs 27/9 are used for both takeoffs and landings simultaneously - is there a local regulatory or other perhaps practical reason why this doesn't happen?
Cheers, Howard
I believe that is proposed for the near future ... only thing is, it will allow for 80k+ additional flights annually (if I recall, the limit goes from 470k to 550k though I'm sure someone will correct me) and I feel sure that airlines will take up these slots as much as they can. Ergo, for future fog and other events there may be no net benefit.
There's a plane at JFK, to fly you back from far away
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
Originally posted by Howard Long
This morning on BBC Radio 4 a BAA spokesman was interviewed about the fog and said that they had instituted their backup plan to cover such events, although what that entails other than cancelling a bunch of flights and putting up the marquees again wasn't clear.
Marquees... It's like being in a third-world country. Welcome to the UK, here's your tinfoil blanket, and there's the soup line.
Could you imagine marquees being erected outside a German airport like MUC?
Back to the situation about using LHR runways in "mixed-mode". There's some issue about using 09L for takeoffs, for one thing. ISTR there's some agreement with the local authority about that.
Secondly, I don't think the runways at LHR are far apart enough to use simultaneous parallel approaches during low-visibility. I think they are only okay for "staggered" approaches - i.e. you can have simulatanous approaches to both runways, but they have to be a certain distance in trail, which does help with wake vortex spacing. They do this now, particularly in the mornings when the arrivals are coming thick and fast and there are few departures. It's known as "TEAM" - Tactically Enhanced Arrival Method - where aircraft are tactically assigned to arrive on the departure runway to increase arrival rate.
So, in a situation like the fog we've got, you would probably be back to "split-mode" ops anyway, but the impact will be worse, because the schedule will be built around using "mixed-mode".
The real solution for Heathrow is a third runway, far enough away from the existing 27/09s to allow simultaneous parallel approaches - so it will probably be something like 36L/18R at AMS (a 10/15 minute taxi from the terminal area).
Regards,
Mike
I was under the impression that simultaneous ops weren't allowed at LHR in order to give residents under the flight-paths a break i.e. for half the day, or whatever, a runway will be used for TOs and the for the other half it will be used for landings. That way, people only have planes overhead for half the time.
IMO, if you move into a house across the road from an airport and then have the audacity to complain about aircraft noise, you should be subject to the noise all day long[V][}:)][:I]
VS.
IMO, if you move into a house across the road from an airport and then have the audacity to complain about aircraft noise, you should be subject to the noise all day long[V][}:)][:I]
VS.
Is there any reason why they couldn't consolidate 4 or 5 shuttles to .. say Edinburgh and put them on one 747. After 3 or 4 of these to Manchester, Glasgow etc would that not clear 1500 odd people with just 4 take offs [?] [?]
Or am I just being to simplistic in my approach to clearing some of the problem.
David.
(assuming there is a spare 747 lying about)
Or am I just being to simplistic in my approach to clearing some of the problem.
David.
(assuming there is a spare 747 lying about)
Originally posted by David
Or am I just being to simplistic in my approach to clearing some of the problem.
A little, as some of the regional airports might not have runways, stands or apron equipment (like tugs, towbars and other apron equipment) that can handle the big girl, assuming there is a 744 going spare, and a crew to fly it.
Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, you're probably okay with the 747, apart from that you might have to use a remote stand (there's going to be a limited number of stands - possibly no domestic stands that can take the 747), and then you're stuck bussing ~350 pax around.
That said, it can be done. BA have subbed in 767s, 777s, and 747s on domestic flights for major sporting events, but it's been rather pre-meditated.
From the BA fleet, up-gauging to a 767 would probably be the best option if you wanted a bigger aircraft at short notice - easy to crew (common 757/767 flight crews, so can be drawn from the existing crews booked to work "Shuttle" flights on the 757), and easier to accomodate than the 777 or 744.
Doing aircraft swaps can be a bit of a logistical nag for the flight ops people, as you've got to find the aircraft, crew it, and liaise with the handlers and caterers to work the bigger aircraft.
Mike
Originally posted by mitchjaWell maybe from the point of view of a cabin rider...
Yeah I've been on a few VS flights where the flight deck make the point of telling everyone they will be landing automatically when the weather is bad. It's no different to landing normally.
Originally posted by mike-smashing
Doing aircraft swaps can be a bit of a logistical nag for the flight ops people, as you've got to find the aircraft, crew it, and liaise with the handlers and caterers to work the bigger aircraft.
Mike
Yeah agree - but surely desperate times mean desperate measures and if it takes going with a coffee/sandwich etc and the ground staff etc digging deep and getting people home/away for Christmas you would have thought that it might be worth the extra aggravation.
David
The CAT III landings (complete auto) sometimes can be 'better' or 'worse' depending on the wind and actual weather conditions.
Different auto-land's are used depending on the weather situation, CAT III isn't used very often and the flight deck usually always lets the PAX know for obvious reasons.
Some airlines or flight crew members cannot perform certain CAT landings because of aircraft capability or just because the captain isn't certified to that extent.
Different auto-land's are used depending on the weather situation, CAT III isn't used very often and the flight deck usually always lets the PAX know for obvious reasons.
Some airlines or flight crew members cannot perform certain CAT landings because of aircraft capability or just because the captain isn't certified to that extent.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests