Shetland's airports (and parking)

[Infiltrator]

NewMagnie - Scatsta was never closed. It increased it's operation ten years ago, but it didn't reopen.

 

I'm not sure about that. There was a bit of a spell between the end of the SVT flights and the consortium setting up shop there. I'm not sure how they'd have held on to their operating licence with no operations. Still, bit of a moot point I suppose.

 

I don't really mean Scatsta Airport though, I mean the current IAC operation.

 

IAC didn't exist before the Scatsta operation. The Brymon operation went from Unst to Scatsta and when Shell moved from Sumburgh the Brymon (was BA to end up with) opertion merged with the Shell operation and IAC was born. SVT had a Shorts 330 they were flying from Scatsta till the Dash 7's arrived from Unst.

Dash 7's were fantastic planes, bit long in the tooth but their short take off and landing abilities were fantastic.

 

Operation staying at Scatsta is a good result for everyone - except for HIAL, but they blew their chance 10 yrs ago when they wouldn't reduce their charges for Shell at Sumburgh.

[NewMagnie]

IAC didn't exist before the Scatsta operation. The Brymon operation went from Unst to Scatsta and when Shell moved from Sumburgh the Brymon (was BA to end up with) opertion merged with the Shell operation and IAC was born. SVT had a Shorts 330 they were flying from Scatsta till the Dash 7's arrived from Unst.

Dash 7's were fantastic planes, bit long in the tooth but their short take off and landing abilities were fantastic.

 

Operation staying at Scatsta is a good result for everyone - except for HIAL, but they blew their chance 10 yrs ago when they wouldn't reduce their charges for Shell at Sumburgh.

 

I'm aware of that (less the SVT Shorts 330 stuff - I'd thought that had stopped a while before, but I stand corrected) - just that my syntax is a bit lazy and now I've opened myself up to all kinds of semantic arguments. That'll learn me I suppose.

 

Yes, the dash 7 was a tremendous aeroplane. At the time Brymon left unst there's were the only one's left on the British registry - unless you count the one that BAAS runs. The rest are being bought up by the US coast guard I read somewhere.

 

Interestingly, the only reason they were used was to get into Unst's 600m runway - after the SIC turned down planning permission for an extension. Brymon always reckoned they had Chevron over a barrel (no pun intended) when it came to negotiating prices and declined to do so when the annual review came around. Chevron told them to get stuffed and moved to Scatsta. The bitter irony for Brymon was that they were then forced into a pricing war to keep the business.

 

Still, all a moot point now as I said and as far as Scatsta goes, best of luck to them.

[Rasmie]

themole

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There was only one airport opened friday and saturday now which one could that have been

the above statement is incorrect, if you mean Sumburgh.

fri13 loganair had 5 movements, there were 7 other movements plus of course some coastguard helicopter movements

sat14 loganair had 6 movements other fixedwing 2 movements.

 

There is a huge difference between being closed all day and having some flights divert as I'm sure Suddenstop will verify. I suggest if you want to check the truth you ask the various airport managers' for actual figures - after all these are not secrets, but never the less its better to ask someone who knows rather than just make it up.

[Sudden Stop]

Yeah, i'll go along with that, no problem Rasmie.

 

The weather changes so damned often in shetland that it's rare to go whole days at a time without something moving.

 

Asking the airport managers about movement figures may be a good thing for the Shetland Times to do. I get the impression that they are, maybe not anti-scatsta, but certainly pro-anything else besides scatsta. They get sumburghs figures every month, do they ever try to get scatsta's? Maybe they have and have been told to p*ss off, but it would be interesting to see updated numbers in the paper each month.

[breeksy]

sudden stop, I would agree with the shetland times certainly not being pro-scatsta.

 

On the Friday after the Bourbon Dolphin capsized, Scatsta had flights diverted to there with relations, police and press, as well as having Lima Charlie there for a while and the downmanned crew from the Transocean Rather check in and fly from Scatsta.

 

In the Shetland Times there was a picture of one aeroplane at Sumburgh that arrived with relations, and no mention of Scatsta - although it was also mentioned that the Tranocean crew flew into Sumburgh.

[Baxter]

It

[HonestJohnDoe]

On the subject of waste of money.

 

As I read it, ILS (Instrument Landing System) so greatly desired - can have drawbacks.

 

At Kirkwall and Inverness the introduction of ILS has apparently reduced the effective useable landing distances. it also reduced somewhat the benefit of the runway lengthening at Sumburgh. Apparently it is not possible to forecast the actual effect, until work has been completed and Then the CAA come along and calibrate it and give you your new length. While at Kirkwall the improved minimum height has been a godsend, at Sumburgh the minimum cloud height for landing has gone up 50ft. The old hands reckon it might have been better with the old talk down radar ILS is potentially disastrous on a short field opreration.

[Sudden Stop]

I think the ILS vs runway declared length issue will depend on the quality of the planning and the availability of land to set aside for the ariels - they need to be well away from any potential interference source. I doubt very much that it's not possible to plan for these things.

 

The Sumburgh problem had something to do with the lack of land to put the equipement at the end of the runway (nowt but water), i think...

 

As far as Scatsta is concerned, the radar is being retained for getting down during low cloud. The ILS is to replace the olde worlde beacon approach which is not commonly used anymore at airports as busy as Scatsta. It's also complicated (relative to ILS) and not good for visiting pilots who aren't experienced in the flying of such procedures, like the loganair diversions. Most of the diversions recently have asked for radar (probably to get them neatly onto finals rather than using the beacon).

[HonestJohnDoe]

you pays your money you takes your chance

[jjm23]

The ILS is to replace the olde worlde beacon approach which is not commonly used anymore at airports as busy as Scatsta.

 

This point may be valid, but Beacon approach's are still used all over the world.

Aberdeen Still uses beacon approach's aswell as ILS landings.

 

In shetland there are three main beacons these are:

SUM @ sumburgh

TL @ tingwall

SS @ scatsta

 

I hear on the radio all the time the Flightline BAe146's requesting either a visual approach or an approach via the SS which is located just to the north of scatsta. I also hear sumburgh radar clearing Loganair flights for the beacon approach into sumburgh.

So after a big rant it is my veiw that the ILS at scatsta could work both ways and either slow down or speed up traffic, but the beacon should be kept because it is still a navigation aid. As for ILS i think scatsta would have to adopt the same system as London city airport, this is because of the steep decent rate on finals to land (overhead the oil terminal)

Ok guys rant over for today

cheers,

jjm23

[Sudden Stop]

Hmmm, can - open, beacon worms - everywhere!

 

The particular type of beacon at Scatsta (and Tingwall) is a fairly inaccurate type. The 'SUM' at Sumburgh is a whole different breed of nav aid and far more accurate and 'easier' to use. Most of HIALs airports have this type of beacon but they're expensive in comparsion.

 

As for the ILS being a 'replacement', that was wrong. A bad choice of word on my behalf. I never meant that the existing one would be taken away, it would still be needed and probably an additional beacon will be sited with the ILS.

 

The steep approach would be great, and exactly what the BAe146s were designed and built for. But, would the SAABs or other visitors be able to use it? I don't know. A more standard descent rate would be more likely. And as for flying over the terminal - it doesn't need to, and won't, happen. If you look on a map and follow the line of the runway out a few miles, you'll see it doesn't overfly the terminal.

[HonestJohnDoe]

I see Sumburgh was down to a CAT4 operation on Tuesday morning due to firefighter sickness. This meant that only aircraft up to Saab340 size could use it!

Luckily the afternoon shift was complete as there was a BAe146 sudden arrival.

Rumour abounds that any staff leaving will not be replaced.

This would mean than any CAT5 or above aircraft would rely on pre-planning (such as the Atlantic Airways BAe146 schedule) and willingness of firefighters to work overtime.

If this is true it would be a worrying development for people using Sumburgh as a diversionary airpoprt.

[Sudden Stop]

The staff sickness event was a bit of a worry wasn't it?! Crikey.

 

I thought Sumburgh used to be CAT4 with CAT6 available within a certain amount of time (can't remember what it was) anyway. Then the atlantic airways blokes started and they went back to CAT6 full time. It may have just been a rumour at the time, of course.

 

From a diversionary point of view, A/C can elected to land if the fire cat is reduced by a certain amount can't they? There is something in the flight planning that prevents them from setting off to a airfield that doesn't have the correct cover but they can divert to one, i think.

[HonestJohnDoe]

sudden stop said

There is something in the flight planning that prevents them from setting off to a airfield that doesn't have the correct cover but they can divert to one, i think.

 

only if an emergency occurs and then they can't take off again, till the cat is raised, I believe. Can't use it is an alternate for planning purposes

[Sudden Stop]

I seeeee... Oh well, flight planning, isn't my strong suit.

 

Use of an airport as an alternate must be worth something to HIAL surely? Cutting the fire cover to 'stick it to' the IAC would be a bit over the top.

 

I read an article from an old copy of the Shetland Times today. It was from 2005 just as the money was coming together for Sumburgh's runway extention. It was interesting to see them say that 16 jobs would be created if the extention was built. Were they ever created?

 

Now, the money was raised, the extention was built and suddenly they want to reduce services and staff numbers???? What's that all about? What's going on down there?