St. Helena. too windy
Discussion
davepoth said:
Gandahar said:
So the rival manufacturers test plane finds no issues with wind. Flown by their test pilots who I assume are better than average.
Not as if there is that much run-off for if the plane due to wind lands well down the runway.
I looked at that photo the first time and thought "nah, they've got that wrong - it's blatantly a screen capture from an episode of Thunderbirds, nobody would ever build a runway somewhere like that."Not as if there is that much run-off for if the plane due to wind lands well down the runway.
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 10th December 20:50
davepoth said:
Gandahar said:
So the rival manufacturers test plane finds no issues with wind. Flown by their test pilots who I assume are better than average.
Not as if there is that much run-off for if the plane due to wind lands well down the runway.
I looked at that photo the first time and thought "nah, they've got that wrong - it's blatantly a screen capture from an episode of Thunderbirds, nobody would ever build a runway somewhere like that."Not as if there is that much run-off for if the plane due to wind lands well down the runway.
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 10th December 20:50
Certainly would concentrate the mind not to undershoot!
Part of me wants to see the island opened up to modern transport. Part of me wants it to remain a cool offshore outpost, served only by the world's last-remaining Royal Mail ship that takes 2-4 weeks to get there and back.
http://www.islandholidays.co.uk/holidays/south-atl...
http://www.islandholidays.co.uk/holidays/south-atl...
saaby93 said:
Just on Radio4, Public accounts committee unhappy that government spent 300 umpty million on a runway but forgot to check windshear and opening in May 2016 didnt happen.
Theyve asked for report by April 2017 and agreed to keep the post ship running
They also read out from Darwin's notes from visiting the island 180 years ago.Theyve asked for report by April 2017 and agreed to keep the post ship running
Charles Darwin said:
The only inconvenience I suffered during my walks was from the impetuous winds. One day I noticed a curious circumstance: standing on the edge of a plain, terminated by a great cliff of about a thousand feet in depth, I saw at the distance of a few yards right to windward, some tern, struggling against a very strong breeze, whilst, where I stood, the air was quite calm.
Approaching close to the brink, where the current seemed to be deflected upwards from the face of the cliff, I stretched out my arm, and immediately felt the full force of the wind: an invisible barrier, two yards in width, separated perfectly calm air from a strong blast.
Approaching close to the brink, where the current seemed to be deflected upwards from the face of the cliff, I stretched out my arm, and immediately felt the full force of the wind: an invisible barrier, two yards in width, separated perfectly calm air from a strong blast.
From the New Civil Engineer this week....
k then..... 
NCE said:
The government has been slammed for “serious failings” in a £285M project to design and build an airport on the island of St Helena, in the South Atlantic Ocean.
The Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) has concluded it is “staggering” that the Department for International Development (DFID) did not foresee the problems that stop the airport, which was funded by public money, from being used by commercial aircraft. The department is also conducting its own review into the issue.
The PAC said that the department was evasive on the question of who should be held responsible, and is yet to hold anyone to account or identify the extent or cost of the remedial action required.
The problem is “wind shear”, which makes it difficult for planes to land; so while some flights have landed, the operation of a commercial airline service to the island to boost tourism has not happened.
The design build contract was awarded to South African infrastructure firm Basil Read in 2011. Atkins had produced a feasibility study six years earlier in 2005, which noted doubts about the amount of turbulence that could be expected on the approaches, due to the elevated location and the surrounding bluffs, and recommended a test with a charter aircraft before any decision was made.
The PAC report states: “It is staggering that the department commissioned and completed the St Helena Airport before ascertaining the effect of prevailing wind conditions on landing commercial aircraft safely at St Helena.
“For a project of this size, we would expect the department to have applied a thorough concept design and risk management process in the early part of any engineering works to test assumptions and highlight potential operational issues such as wind shear. Wind shear is a well-known concept in airport construction and should have been identified as an issue for St Helena.”
PAC chair Meg Hillier said: “The government has an obligation to support St Helena but a £285M white elephant serves neither its people nor the taxpayers footing the bill.
“The failure to undertake robust due diligence on this project is truly appalling. I also have serious concerns about the airport’s business case, which was marginal at best.
“A more modest airport could have addressed the practical needs of the Saints. Scaling up the project may have made sense were it not done on the back of such unconvincing projections.
“The result is a disaster: a commercial airport that is not fit for purpose, no credible plan to salvage value for money, and no clarity on exactly who is responsible for the whole sorry mess.”
A DFID spokesperson said: “One of the first things the secretary of state did this summer was to take concrete actions to get the airport up and running and to ensure the lessons from this project are learnt. We are already seeing the results.
“An external expert was brought in to review evidence of DFID’s actions while an independent panel has been tasked with finding a solution to challenges presented by wind shear.
“Following this work, the St Helena Government has now released a tender for air services for a three-year period to provide the best possible air service for the island.
“18 flights have successfully landed so far – including three vital medevac flights. More flights are due next week. To uphold our duty to the island an extension of the Royal Mail Ship service will provide guaranteed access in the meantime.
“The secretary of state is clear: we will deliver on what we promised for the island and we will identify failures to ensure they are held to account, redressed and not repeated.”
A spokesperson for Atkins added: “Early in the project Atkins provided a range of consultancy services to the DFID in relation to the creation of a new airport on St Helena, including feasibility studies and master planning. This work received independent review by a third party panel. As part of this work a series of risks, consequences and recommendations associated with wind and other weather conditions were highlighted to inform our client’s decisions around the level of air service that could operate from the airport versus achieving best value for money.”
Usual Govt dept clusterfThe Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) has concluded it is “staggering” that the Department for International Development (DFID) did not foresee the problems that stop the airport, which was funded by public money, from being used by commercial aircraft. The department is also conducting its own review into the issue.
The PAC said that the department was evasive on the question of who should be held responsible, and is yet to hold anyone to account or identify the extent or cost of the remedial action required.
The problem is “wind shear”, which makes it difficult for planes to land; so while some flights have landed, the operation of a commercial airline service to the island to boost tourism has not happened.
The design build contract was awarded to South African infrastructure firm Basil Read in 2011. Atkins had produced a feasibility study six years earlier in 2005, which noted doubts about the amount of turbulence that could be expected on the approaches, due to the elevated location and the surrounding bluffs, and recommended a test with a charter aircraft before any decision was made.
The PAC report states: “It is staggering that the department commissioned and completed the St Helena Airport before ascertaining the effect of prevailing wind conditions on landing commercial aircraft safely at St Helena.
“For a project of this size, we would expect the department to have applied a thorough concept design and risk management process in the early part of any engineering works to test assumptions and highlight potential operational issues such as wind shear. Wind shear is a well-known concept in airport construction and should have been identified as an issue for St Helena.”
PAC chair Meg Hillier said: “The government has an obligation to support St Helena but a £285M white elephant serves neither its people nor the taxpayers footing the bill.
“The failure to undertake robust due diligence on this project is truly appalling. I also have serious concerns about the airport’s business case, which was marginal at best.
“A more modest airport could have addressed the practical needs of the Saints. Scaling up the project may have made sense were it not done on the back of such unconvincing projections.
“The result is a disaster: a commercial airport that is not fit for purpose, no credible plan to salvage value for money, and no clarity on exactly who is responsible for the whole sorry mess.”
A DFID spokesperson said: “One of the first things the secretary of state did this summer was to take concrete actions to get the airport up and running and to ensure the lessons from this project are learnt. We are already seeing the results.
“An external expert was brought in to review evidence of DFID’s actions while an independent panel has been tasked with finding a solution to challenges presented by wind shear.
“Following this work, the St Helena Government has now released a tender for air services for a three-year period to provide the best possible air service for the island.
“18 flights have successfully landed so far – including three vital medevac flights. More flights are due next week. To uphold our duty to the island an extension of the Royal Mail Ship service will provide guaranteed access in the meantime.
“The secretary of state is clear: we will deliver on what we promised for the island and we will identify failures to ensure they are held to account, redressed and not repeated.”
A spokesperson for Atkins added: “Early in the project Atkins provided a range of consultancy services to the DFID in relation to the creation of a new airport on St Helena, including feasibility studies and master planning. This work received independent review by a third party panel. As part of this work a series of risks, consequences and recommendations associated with wind and other weather conditions were highlighted to inform our client’s decisions around the level of air service that could operate from the airport versus achieving best value for money.”
k then..... NCE said:
A DFID spokesperson said: “One of the first things the secretary of state did this summer was to take concrete actions to get the airport up and running and to ensure the lessons from this project are learnt. We are already seeing the results.
How much concrete will they need?The idea of building a larger elephant than immediately necessary may have been reasonable, bearing in mind its position relative to ascension and trying to give tourism a boost to make the island profitable.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/285m-airpo...
"The PAC said that the department was evasive on the question of who should be held responsible, and is yet to hold anyone to account or identify the extent or cost of the remedial action required."
Government being evasive.... well I never
Meanwhile, perhaps they should have asked other islands such as Madeira for advice. I went on holiday in the 80's before the runway extension was done and it was always full spoilers and brakes even with good weather. Tenerife old airport was also very bad due to sudden lack of visibility, massive rain showers etc.
Considering the wealth of expertise over so many years it still screwed up, perhaps due to lack of dialogue.
"The PAC said that the department was evasive on the question of who should be held responsible, and is yet to hold anyone to account or identify the extent or cost of the remedial action required."
Government being evasive.... well I never
Meanwhile, perhaps they should have asked other islands such as Madeira for advice. I went on holiday in the 80's before the runway extension was done and it was always full spoilers and brakes even with good weather. Tenerife old airport was also very bad due to sudden lack of visibility, massive rain showers etc.
Considering the wealth of expertise over so many years it still screwed up, perhaps due to lack of dialogue.
saaby93 said:
More likely the desire 'to get an airport in their now' overrode everything.
Seeing as the runway is there, what's the best way of dealing with the wind shear?
https://whatthesaintsdidnext.com/2016/04/19/britis...Seeing as the runway is there, what's the best way of dealing with the wind shear?
There's a video of the first 737 landing on this page so you can see fairly clearly what's going on - as the plane is coming over the edge of the cliff there is some very turbulent air (as Darwin mentioned) and that's what's upsetting things. There are things that can be done to fix that but they'll involve concrete, dynamite and millions of pounds.
Edited by davepoth on Sunday 1st January 22:12
davepoth said:
saaby93 said:
More likely the desire 'to get an airport in their now' overrode everything.
Seeing as the runway is there, what's the best way of dealing with the wind shear?
https://whatthesaintsdidnext.com/2016/04/19/british-airways-737-800-first-landing-on-st-helena/Seeing as the runway is there, what's the best way of dealing with the wind shear?
There's a video of the first 737 landing on this page so you can see fairly clearly what's going on - as the plane is coming over the edge of the cliff there is some very turbulent air (as Darwin mentioned) and that's what's upsetting things. There are things that can be done to fix that but they'll involve concrete, dynamite and millions of pounds.
In pass 2 why the time he'd sorted it he was down the runway
In pass 3 he landed it while the wings were trying to change ends
Cant they devise some wind defelctors like on the second severn crossing?
CoolHands said:
Why don't they fly in from the other end?
Or any reason they didn't go east west instead? Seems to be more space that way.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@-15.9597691,-5.6077...
CTRL + Left mouse button to move and rotate.
saaby93 said:
The turbulence seems to be just at the landing point.
In pass 2 why the time he'd sorted it he was down the runway
In pass 3 he landed it while the wings were trying to change ends
Cant they devise some wind defelctors like on the second severn crossing?
That's what we're talking about. The problem is that the wind suddenly changes at the edge of the cliff, and the only way of fixing that is to move the effective cliff edge.In pass 2 why the time he'd sorted it he was down the runway
In pass 3 he landed it while the wings were trying to change ends
Cant they devise some wind defelctors like on the second severn crossing?
FourWheelDrift said:
Or any reason they didn't go east west instead?
If the wind was from the west, they'd still have the problem of coming in over the cliffs in the same way, maybe the weather models indicated worse wind shear in that direction?Plus the ground rises up quite a bit inland to the west, so taking off towards rising ground isn't ideal, nor is coming in to land over rising ground and having to drop down, which is more likely the reasons they went N-S.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff