Flightradar24 Thread Part III

JuanJose

JuanJose wrote: »

Just caught it myself. Seems like construction work on the runway threshold requiring all lights to be turned off! Heard the tower, in response from a pilot asking for an estimate on the delay, saying that this is "the first night of this" so an estimate was going to be a bit difficult. This isn't going to be a once-off occurrance so?

Part of runway works, 6 days a week for next two months at least.

markc91

Messy night here in the hall in t2 loads diverting elsewhere

JuanJose

Deleted User wrote: »

Part of runway works, 6 days a week for next two months at least.

Cheers for that.

faoiarvok

Razor44 wrote: »

Hearing on the feed something about a shorter runway for this evening? Setting up lights for it? Anyone have any info on this

http://iaip.iaa.ie/iaip/Published%20Files/SUPP%20Files/2017/EI_SUP_2017_14_EN.pdf

View Profile

It's ridiculous that the DAA approved this to happen so early in the evening. It should be postponed til midnight so it has minimum disruption to airline schedules.
Aircraft holding for over 30 minutes every night now cos the country's main airport completely closes! Madness!!

JCX BXC

View Profile wrote: »

It's ridiculous that the DAA approved this to happen so early in the evening. It should be postponed til midnight so it has minimum disruption to airline schedules.
Aircraft holding for over 30 minutes every night now cos the country's main airport completely closes! Madness!!

"The country's main airport completely closes" What?

View Profile

While they reconfigure the equipment,personnel, lights etc they close every runway.

JCX BXC

View Profile wrote: »

While they reconfigure the equipment,personnel, lights etc they close every runway.

For how long?

faoiarvok

View Profile wrote: »

It's ridiculous that the DAA approved this to happen so early in the evening. It should be postponed til midnight so it has minimum disruption to airline schedules.
Aircraft holding for over 30 minutes every night now cos the country's main airport completely closes! Madness!!

Cutting nightly working hours from 6 to 4, requiring 50% more nights of disruption. Bit of a balancing act required.

faoiarvok

faoiarvok wrote: »

Cutting nightly working hours from 6 to 4, requiring 50% more nights of disruption. Bit of a balancing act required.

Currently it’s 7 hours 2115 till 0430 that’ll be chopped shortly in April till after 2300 due summer schedule. This project is now going on for 18 months I think everyone wants it over a done with now.

faoiarvok

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Currently it’s 7 hours 2115 till 0430 that’ll be chopped shortly in April till after 2300 due summer schedule. This project is now going on for 18 months I think everyone wants it over a done with now.

The NOTAMs show the actual working hours as 2200-0400, with time either side for installing temporary end lights etc.

This part of the project (Phase 2) that requires a temporary suspension of all ops only started tonight, only NOTAM’d to run til Sunday morning for now (I don’t know if that will be extended or repeated).

View Profile

Yeah but there were 15 odd aircraft holding while they did the switch over. At least one aircraft had to divert cos he couldn't hold any longer.
This will cause massive delays to schedules.

NH2013

View Profile wrote: »

Yeah but there were 15 odd aircraft holding while they did the switch over. At least one aircraft had to divert cos he couldn't hold any longer.
This will cause massive delays to schedules.

It was NOTAM'd though well in advance with a warning to expect delays of up to 45mins during the changeover period, so they should have brought sufficient holding fuel for the anticipated delay, hardly the DAA/IAA's fault if they didn't uplift enough fuel to wait it out.

View Profile

Problem is not every aircraft can take 60mins+ holding fuel. Especially if Rwy16 is in use which has a new length of 1600m when the work in progress is active.
Throw in some bad weather too and extra fuel can be restrictive.

marno21

Is the Dassault Falcon over east Limerick an unexpected diversion to Shannon? Descending at 8000ft/min and didn't look like one of the usual Shannon approaches

BZ

marno21 wrote: »

Is the Dassault Falcon over east Limerick an unexpected diversion to Shannon? Descending at 8000ft/min and didn't look like one of the usual Shannon approaches

No it was a planned arrival.

smurfjed

Yup, the airbus guys are probably looking for crosswind situations to do the max demonstrated crosswind

We used to have crosswind limitations, now we have Max Demonstrated Crosswinds, so the stronger the wind that they find, they better it is for operators in the future, i would however assume that they have a max theoretical crosswind so they will keep trying to get to that limit.

smurfjed

The UK has a maximum rate of descent of 8000 fpm, is this the same in Ireland?

JCX BXC

smurfjed wrote: »

The UK has a maximum rate of descent of 8000 fpm, is this the same in Ireland?

At what levels?

View Profile

JCX BXC wrote:

At what levels?

1,000ft

smurfjed

All controlled airspace.

http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/files/FOCUS - Past Issues/Focus 72.pdf

Irish Steve

Descent rates.

In terms of operational procedures,I've seen 6000 Fpm during the descent, but the controlling factor is more likely to be the cabin pressure/altitude, for passenger comfort, it is preferred not to exceed 500 Fpm climb or descent, and that is then related to the cabin pressure differentials which are aircraft structural limits that cannot be exceeded, so a lot will depend on how the cabin is doing in comparison to the passing altitude, and if the descent rate is too fast for too long, there can be situations where the descent rate has to be reduced in order to allow the cabin to "catch up". It's more of an issue on (older) aircraft that are pressurised to 8000 Ft, if the arrival is at or close to sea level, that will need up to 16 minutes to get the cabin down, so storming down at 6000 Ft or faster from (say) FL370 has the potential to get ahead of the cabin, which can then mean either reducing the descent rate for a while, or step descent, the problem there being that a longer distance will be required to get the aircraft down to approach levels. Not all aircraft are pressurised to 8000 Ft, some are as low as 4000 Ft, which means that there's less time needed to get the cabin down, the DC10 was one that had 4000 Ft cabins, which was nice for the passengers, it was a much more comfortable environment, but the down side was that if a failure of any sort occurred, there was a lot more pressure inside the cabin to cause disruption, as was seen with some of the early cargo door failures on that type. The A380 is pressurised to 5000 Ft, with a service altitude of 43,000 Ft, which may explain why it's popular with frequent flyers, it will be more comfortable than a cabin at higher altitude.

The more recent Dassault Falcons have a cabin altitude of 4000 Ft, some of the earlier ones operate at 6000 Ft, so a descent rate of 8000 Fpm is workable, and will be used to allow the aircraft to stay as high as possible for as long as possible, as the fuel burn and true airspeed at height will be better, and the Falcon 7X for example can operate up to 51,000 Ft, which helps considerably, as this is above the levels normally used by commercial flights, so things like direct routings are easier to obtain, as there is less traffic at those heights to conflict.

Rule of thumb for larger commercial jets used to be 3 times the height, so FL360 would mean 108 miles, give or take, but that may also be affected if there are going to be speed reductions or limits during the descent. On some of the older aircraft, (BAC1-11 comes to mind) there was then the issue that it would descend, or slow down, but it wouldn't cope well with trying to do both at the same time, so the track distance needed before final approach was longer. Another limit on some types (BAE 146 for example) can be that they are limited to 250 Kts below 10000 Ft to help avoid problems in the event of a bird strike on a windscreen.

Hope that makes sense, it's complex when you start digging a bit deeper.

roadmaster

There a stobart doing a lot of flying in north cavan is it a training exercise?

GBX

BZ wrote: »

AIB94TN the new A330neo is on its way to SNN to perform touch and go’s in the strong crosswinds.

https://twitter.com/shane_oconnor17/status/974413773988614144

Oscar Bravo

roadmaster wrote: »

There a stobart doing a lot of flying in north cavan is it a training exercise?

EI-CBK on a post maintenance flight.

roadmaster

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

EI-CBK on a post maintenance flight.

Where I was this morning working is in the back of beyond and I could hear this prop circling. At first I taught maybe it was a casa as the cloud cover was low but when I got 4g I seen on my phone it was a stobart

smurfjed

and the Falcon 7X for example can operate up to 51,000 Ft, which helps considerably

Thats what the brochure says but its not realistic, they really need to be light to get up there and in some cases the authorities won't allow them to fly that high due to radiation concerns.

Oscar Bravo

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

EI-CBK on a post maintenance flight.

Returning to lessor

JCX BXC

Nice roar off the AN124 over West Clare now inbound Shannon.

JCX BXC

Runway opening in next few minutes, which has been closed since before 9:30am.

Several aircraft considering diversions, currently we have

FR121 (RYR54AQ) LGW-DUB diverting to Shannon.

One aircraft telling ATC (didn't catch who) that they'll have to declare pan for fuel in about 7 minutes.