Whit'na plane wis yun ?

[Ghostrider]

 

^ From memory the ATP's stood up reasonably well to cross winds, unless maybe flans aff o' Scatness when trying to lift on 27 in a SW gale, but that never happened....

 

Of course, the 2000 may well be significantly better, but only time will tell....they certainly don't have zero windage though.

Except for one that scraped its wing on the runway on take off.  Maybe December 1991.  Got into the air but diverted to a nice long runway for landing.

 

 

That sounds very like what never happened - not that I could possibly comment, of course.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Ghostrider

[JustMe]

 

 

^ From memory the ATP's stood up reasonably well to cross winds, unless maybe flans aff o' Scatness when trying to lift on 27 in a SW gale, but that never happened....

 

Of course, the 2000 may well be significantly better, but only time will tell....they certainly don't have zero windage though.

Except for one that scraped its wing on the runway on take off.  Maybe December 1991.  Got into the air but diverted to a nice long runway for landing.

 

 

That sounds very like what never happened - not that I could possibly comment, of course.

 

And here is the accident report on the incident http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/6-1992%20G-BTPE%20.pdf  Reason I remember the incident is that it was the plane that brought me up to Shetland for Christmas taking off for the return trip to Aberdeen.  Glad I was not on that flight.

[Ghostrider]

^ It was all kept very hush hush at Sumburgh on the day, nobody was willing to admit much, and the "evidence" on the ground was "camouflaged" with all speed.... If it had not been for the bent bits and them having to dig Sumburgh soil out of the wingtip, I think all concerned would have been quite happy to pretend it never happened. Passengers aboard apparently were never aware of anything untoward, but it could have easily gotten very messy had the wingtip dug in a bit more.

[NessNutter]

Ghostrider i think the mists of time may well have fogged your recollections of the infamous ATP. Its more than a little unfair to compare the Saab2000 with the ATP. Whilst you are correct in saying that the passenger load is less on the 2000 it is a faster, newer and more cost effective aircraft.

 

The ATP, as well as the jetstream61, are a redesigned HS 748 an aircraft which first flew in the 1960's. Albeit with advanced avionics and power plants. The 2000 is based on a Saab340. Whilst the 2000 was developed around the same time as the ATP the 340 it was based on first flew in 1983. It too has upgraded avionics and power plants. It is over 100kts faster than an ATP giving Loganair the option to cut the flight time to Aberdeen to just over 30 mins if they so choose. I am sure that Logainair's choice may well have been influenced by the success of Eastern on its Shetland routes.

 

I am not quite sure where you think Loganair are to conjure up a new 60+ seat turboprop aircraft from they just do not exist. All of the aircraft currently available are from the same era. Granted both the Dash8 and ATR72 offer more seats. However both are high wing aircraft not well suited to strong cross winds. The Dash8 has its issues with reliability. The ATR72 was hardly a success during its Britworld days the large cargo door a nightmare in high winds. the Do328 again suffers from having a high wing. 

 

With regard to 'bumping' pax as you admit yourself the ATP was rarely fully booked, because it had so many seats. Yet it was limited in capacity during certain conditions.

 

Also as far as I am aware the Loganair plan is to replace the 340 on certain flights with the 2000 not reduce the number of flights, so surely there is a gain in seats available. Its not a case of 2 Saab 2000 flights or three Saab340 flights.

 

You are quite correct to say that at the end of the day its down to personal opinion, however unlike the available air frames things have moved on in the last 20 years.

[Ghostrider]

^ Well, if it looks like an ATP, and if it carries like an ATP, it might just be.....

 

Yes, granted, it has significant speed advantage, I've never disagreed on that one. It may be a few years ahead of the ATP in design, technological and build quality, but when it comes to balancing the scales in 2014 between a reworked and upgraded '60 initial design built between '88 and '96 and a reworked and upgraded '83 initial design built between '92 and '99, IMHO it all rather becomes academic, as neither can claim to be much more "modern" or "current" than the other.

 

At least with the ATP and before it the Budgie, the scheduled service offered to the public was being provided using current production models, with the 2000, current 340 and previously the 360 we've been downgraded over the last 14 years to airframes that are now a minimum of 15 years old, in a few years these supposed "new" 2000's will be at least as old as the well worn bucket Viscounts BAF had doing basic shuttle ferrying of roustabouts in the 80's. They looked their age, if the 2000's don't, its down to nothing but veneer, as they've had at least as hard a life.

 

Yes, granted too, Loganair have a very limited pool of models to choose their fleet from, but why are we compelled to stick with turbo props, if increased capacity and speed is the MO, why not look at regional jets as well, it would at least double the number of potential candidates. Without access to data to compare the overheads, which I don't have, it is obviously impossible to say for certain, but I would suspect probably the sole reason why regional jets were unlikely to have made the shortlist, is additional cost. Which would lead one to conclude that Loganair have no interest in providing an up to date aircraft on the route which in turn would provide a provide an up to date service, rather they'll keep on putting older and older and nearer to obsolete aircraft which they can obtain relatively cheaply for as long as they can, and use any plus point over the aircraft already on the route in a positive spin exercise to attempt to gain positive publicity. Instead of being honest, and admitting, "we fly you in old cheap dated aircraft comparable to what was on the route 25 years ago, we're going to fly some of you in equally old and outdated aircraft that hold more of you and go a little faster, the only advantage to you is you don't have to put up with this increasingly heading to obsolete transport for quite so long at any one given time". Doesn't have quite the same feel good factor as "new", "faster", "improved" sound bites, does it?

 

As for the weather conditions performance of the 2000 over the ATP, it needs to be compared like for like, and again, unfortunately I do not have access to such data. In the ATP's era 09/27 was considerably shorter than at present, it has been lengthened at least twice since the ATP was introduced. The question which needs answering is, were ATP's using Sumburgh as is now, rather than as it was when they did use it, how much would the runway improvements have negated the need for the restrictions that were imposed on it back then.

[NessNutter]

^ different tail , different nose and by your own posts doesn't carry so not the same. You will also struggle to an ATP in Europe that isn't a freighter.

 

Name one current, modern, regional jet which can operate out of Sumburgh with its current runway lengths?

[Rasmie]

Embraer E-170?

[stilldellin]

Meanwhile, some air traffic at Sumburgh yesterday, our Saab 340 workhorse :-

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/13387601113_a4720f993a_c.jpg

Saab 340 G-LGNB IMG_7298 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

 

the Northern Lighthouse Board EC135 chopper G-CGPI :-

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3702/13388063484_e9323caf20_c.jpg

EC135 G-CGPI IMG_7319 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

 

the Jigsaw twins, Bond Rescue's G-REDO & G-REDP :-

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3790/13388162753_dc042d2d6c_c.jpg

Bond Rescue G-REDO & G-REDP IMG_7355 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

 

and our now regular Dornier 328 G-BWWT  :-

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2846/13387547225_8e90d134e7_c.jpg

Dornier 328 G-BWWT IMG_7334 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

 

[Seaflech]

The one part of your last post I agree with Ghostie is that the reason Loganair are staying away from regional jets is due to cost.  If they wanted to go into bankruptcy in the quickest possible time then flogging the Saabs and replacing them with a fleet of jets would certainly achieve this, but the unfortunate downside would be a very quiet Sumburgh airport.  Bear in mind that Loganair are 'Scotland's Airline,' not 'Shetland's Airline.'  They serve a multitude of other island groups that have nowhere near the facilities of Sumburgh, and carry nothing like the number of passengers.  Can you imagine trying to fill a 60-70 seat jet in Tiree to fly to Glasgow four times a day?  An airline operating many of the same type of aircraft makes far more sense than having multiple types.  Think spares/maintenance costs, training, aircrew, manuals, cost of running etc.

 

There is no such thing as 'old, cheap aircraft' when it comes to commercial flying.  If you buy them cheap, they cost extremely dear in maintenance.  If you buy new, they cost not quite as much in maintenance.  It's not like buying a cheap car where you can live with the passenger's window not working and a rattly back end.

The Saab 2000 is still classed as a modern turboprop, but rest assured the technology change between when it and the ATP came into service is huge.  In earth years there may not be much between them but in terms of avionics and engine management and efficiency they are generations apart.

 

Regional jets simply wouldn't work on the island routes.  Not because it's a conspiracy (but keep the tinfoil hat handy, just in case), but due to very simple economics of scale.

Jets only become efficient at high altitudes where they can burn less fuel to get greater performance.  On the Sumburgh to Aberdeen/Edinburgh/Glasgow routes this would mean they would spend half their flight climbing to a more efficient, but not most efficient altitude,  followed immediately by a descent.  Sumburgh is the furthest flung Scottish airport which means that on every other route a jet wouldn't be able to get that high, meaning you'd be pouring fuel down the engines, increasing engine wear and ultimately putting a higher price on the ticket to pay for it.

Another aspect is number of cycles (flights).  If you have a jet doing a take-off and landing every 40 minutes it will soon rack up many cycles, decreasing the lifespan of the plane (most aircraft have some 'cycle limit' on them so they will have a reduced service life,) and making them more unattractive when you come to sell them again than one that's done 2-4 hour cycles.

 

So the bottom line as far as I can see is that we will continue to be served by rattly old turboprops for many years to come, until such time as their cost/profit margin is so reduced that the only option will be to put on some regional jets.  Probably 15-20 year old ones as that will be all that's affordable......

[Infiltrator]

A blast from the past - I might have posted it before.

 

Regarding ATP reliability, the following should just about cover it.

Undaunted by technical realities, the design team at British Aerospace has announced plans for the ATP-XL, promising more noise, reduced payload, a lower cruise speed, and increased pilot workload.

We spoke to Fred, a former British Rail boilermaker, and now Chief Project Engineer. Fred was responsible for developing many original and creative design flaws in the service of his former employer,

and will be incorporating these in the new ATP-XL technology under a licensing agreement. Fred reassured ATP pilots, however, that all fundamental design flaws of the original model had been retained. Further good news is that the XL version is available as a retrofit.

Among the new measures is that of locking the ailerons in the central position, following airborne and simulator tests which showed that whilst pilots of average strength were able to achieve up to 30 degrees of control wheel deflection, this produced no appreciable variation in the net flight path of the aircraft. Thus the removal of costly and unnecessary linkages has been possible, and the rudder has been nominated as the primary directional control.

In keeping with this new philosophy, but to retain commonality for crews transitioning to the XL, additional resistance to foot pressure has been built in to the rudder bias system to prevent over-controlling in gusty conditions (defined as those in which wind velocity exceeds 3 knots).

An outstanding feature of ATP technology has always been the adaptation of the PW100 engine, which mounted in any other aircraft in the free world is known for its low vibration levels. The ATP adaptations cause it to shake and batter the airframe, gradually crystallising the main spar, lock the port maingear after retraction, desynchronise the accompanying engine, and simulate the sound of fifty skeletons fornicating in an aluminium dustbin. BAe will not disclose the technology they applied in preserving this effect in the XL but Fred assures us it will be perpetrated in later models and sees it as a strong selling point. "After all, the Concorde makes a lot of noise" he said, "and look how fast that goes."

However design documents clandestinely recovered from the BAe shredder have solved a question that has puzzled aerodynamicists and pilots for many years... how does the ATP actually fly ?? These documents disclose that it is actually noise which causes the ATP to fly - the vibration set up by the engines, and amplified by the airframe, in turn causes the air molecules above the wing to oscillate at atomic frequency, reducing their density and creating lift. This can be demonstrated by sudden closure of the throttles, which causes the aircraft to fall from the sky. As a result, lift is proportional to noise, rather than speed.

Fred was at pains to point out that during the take-off phase, the previous equation is not applicable as the net take-off flight path is completely proportional to the willpower of the flightdeck, cabin crew and passengers combined. "Any single person not willing the aircraft to become airborne could cause a major accident," he commented.

In the driver's cab (as Fred describes it) ergonomic measures will ensure that long-term ATP pilots' deafness does not cause in-flight dozing. Orthopaedic surgeons have designed a cockpit layout and seat to maximise backache, en-route insomnia, chronic irritability and terminal (post-flight) lethargy. Redesigned "bullworker" elastic aileron cables, now disconnected from the control surfaces, increase pilot workload and fitness. Special noise retention cabin lining is an innovation on the XL, and it is hoped in later models to develop cabin noise to a level which will enable pilots to relate ear-pain directly to engine power, eliminating the need for engine instruments altogether.

We were offered an opportunity to fly the XL at British Aerospace's development facility, adjacent to the BritRail tearooms at Little Chortling. (The flight was originally to have been conducted at the Prestwick plant but aircraft of BAe design are now prohibited from operating in Scottish airspace during avalanche season). For our mission profile, the XL was loaded with Benbecula passengers for a standard 100 nm trip with BritRail reserves, carrying three pilots (all Captains, due to crew shortages) and 68+40 passengers (all from the same family) to maximise discomfort.

Passenger loading is unchanged, the normal 'prop rotating in wind of 5 knots, due to slack groundstaff failing to secure it' syndrome, inflicting serious lacerations on 71% of boarding passengers, and there was the usual confusion in selecting a seat appropriate to the nearest emergency exit. The facility for the clothing of embarking passengers to remove oil slicks from engine cowls during loading has been thoughtfully retained.

Start-up is standard, and taxiing, as in the standard ATP is accomplished by brute force. Takeoff calculations called for a 250-decibel power setting, and the rotation force for the (neutral) C of G was calculated at 180 ft/lbs. of backpressure.

Initial warning of an engine failure during takeoff is provided by a reduction in vibration of the flight instrument panel. Complete seizure of one engine is indicated by the momentary illusion that the engines have suddenly and inexplicably become synchronised. Otherwise, identification of the failed engine is achieved by comparing the vibration levels of the windows on either side of the cabin. (Relative passenger pallor has been found to be an unreliable guide on many ATP routes because of ethnic consideration).

Shortly after takeoff the XL's chief test pilot, Capt. Bloggs, demonstrated the extent to whch modern aeronautical design has left the ATP untouched; he simulated pilot incapacitation by slumping forward onto the control column, simultaneously applying full right rudder and bleeding from the ears.

Whilst initially noting nothing out of the ordinary, on discovery that Capt. Bloggs actually was incapacitated, the crew of the XL discovered that, like its predecessor, it demonstrated total control rigidity and continued undisturbed. Power was then reduced to 249 decibels for cruise, and we carried out some comparisons of actual flight performance with graph predictions. At 5000 ft and ISA, we achieved a vibration amplitude of 500 CPS and 240 decibels, for a fuel flow of 700kgs/hr making the ATP-XL the most efficient converter of fuel to noise after the Titan rocket.

Exploring the Constant noise/Variable noise concepts, we found that in a VNE dive, vibration reached its design maximum at 1000 CPS, at which point the limiting factor is the emulsification of human tissue. The catatonic condition of long-term ATP pilots is attributed to this syndrome, which commences in the cerebral cortex and spreads outwards. We asked Capt. Bloggs what he considered the outstanding features of the XL. He cupped his hand behind his ear and shouted "Whazzat?"

We returned to British Aerospace, convinced that the XL model retains the marque's most memorable features, whilst showing some significant and worthwhile regressions.

BAe are not, however, resting on their laurels. Plans are already advanced for the HS748-XL and noise tunnel testing has commenced. The basis of preliminary design and performance specifications is that lift increases as the square of the noise, and as the principle of acoustic lift is further developed, a later five-engined vertical take-off model is also a possibility.

[stilldellin]

An amazing sight yesterday was the new Loganair Saab 2000 G-LGNO approaching and landing on runway 33 at Sumburgh :-

 

Full set of pictures on flickr...

[mogling]

Did any of you sooth-by eagle-eyes notice a peerie helicopeter goin aboot this afternoon?

My neighbour Bob got quite excited - he thought it was maybe a Robinson R22?

 

It passed over Sandwick heading north about 3, then went back heading south around 4.00.

 

He's not online, so I said I would ask on here and pass on any news.

Thanks

[Rasmie]

A Hoswick based windy-spiel entrepreneur keeps an R22. Goes out for a run on fine days

[mogling]

Thanks Rasmie - that was one of my initial thoughts - I'll pass that on to my neighbour - he'll be pleased he was right, no doubt.

I mind seeing the photo in the paper and tried to find the story online to find out what kind of chopper he'd got, wi no joy.

 

I ken nothing about helicopters apart from the difference between going to work on a SR92 - you had to wear an extra layer under the suit as they were cold, uncomfortable & rattley, whereas the SuperPumas and Tigers were hot, stuffy & crubbit, and I dreaded having to sit next to a large person if they had grabbed the window seat before me...

[stilldellin]

^ Wiz on a joy ride tae da Beryl in the seventies but nae idea whit kind of a beast it wiz ! Wid agree the Puma's are braawly cramped as opposed tae the Sikorsky S92A's seen here together at Sumburgh today .  :-