http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4742669.stm

I use Manchester (Ringway) airport fairly often, but yesterday when my plane took off I looked back at the runway and noticed that at the end of the new runway there is a big and quite sudden fall-off. In light of what happened at Toronto, is Rinway's new runway considered safe?

I'm sure it is, otherwise it wouldnt have been built like that- it is the same at Leeds.

I'm sure it is, otherwise it wouldnt have been built like that.

Safety is only secured once enough people have died to convince those with their hands on the cheque book to fork out for better standards. All transport safety standards and improvements are built on the bones and memories of victims.

I had a really bad landing at Ringway last year - it was extremely windy, one of the my worst ever landings (not the worst, which was at another airport), the plane was bouncing around and I sensed he would abort the landing: he got us down okay but everyone on the plane seemed to be alarmed - but I now wonder what is at the end of that runway for any plane that doesn't stop in time at Ringway?

Maybe they will only let planes land so that they will land travelling away from the bank.

This is a no go. to think that a runway is unsafe because there is a drop at the end of the runway is stupid. ringway airport is as safe as any other airport (runway anyway).

if u think that is a promblem, imagine how dangerous airports are where the runway goes out into the see!?!?!? Corfu......., Crete Her.........HK........London city ......!!!!!!!

This is a no go. to think that a runway is unsafe because there is a drop at the end of the runway is stupid. ringway airport is as safe as any other airport (runway anyway).

if u think that is a promblem, imagine how dangerous airports are where the runway goes out into the see!?!?!? Corfu......., Crete Her.........HK........London city ......!!!!!!!

I've always thought major airports should have some kind of 'soft landing' facility for planes that can't make it to land and stop on the short strip of concrete that is a runway: some kind of flat and soft surface - bog perhaps -or thick estuarial mud - or artificial trees that will fall down and form a protective cushion. Just a few hundred feet of grass on a gentle incline might do to slow and stop a plane that overshoots the runway.

We accept acres of car parks, roads, warehouses and pointless business parks next to runways, why not a safety zone where a plane with landing gear or other problems could touch down and offer some prospect of survival to those on board?

(PS Some call Ringway the "unlucky" airport because of the number of mishaps, accidents and deaths that have befallen those travelling through it).

Yeah but then the plan would get all stuck and messed up- why not have some of that springy stuff they have at playgrounds, then just some thicker grass after it....and some plane sized rumble strips

The plane incident that happened here in Toronto was mainly because the plane was allowed to land in incredibly bad stormy conditions. On CP24, we were shown a traffic camera view of what the runway looked like before the plane landed. You could literally see nothing. The plane must have been using only radar, and should not have been allowed to land, but instead diverted to Ottawa.

I've always thought major airports should have some kind of 'soft landing' facility for planes that can't make it to land and stop on the short strip of concrete that is a runway: some kind of flat and soft surface - bog perhaps -or thick estuarial mud - or artificial trees that will fall down and form a protective cushion. Just a few hundred feet of grass on a gentle incline might do to slow and stop a plane that overshoots the runway.

We accept acres of car parks, roads, warehouses and pointless business parks next to runways, why not a safety zone where a plane with landing gear or other problems could touch down and offer some prospect of survival to those on board?

(PS Some call Ringway the "unlucky" airport because of the number of mishaps, accidents and deaths that have befallen those travelling through it).

Seriously, is this guy pissed?

You let a plane with landing gear run off into mash land or esturial mud and what happens? It digs its wheels in, archs forwards and breaks it's back. The wings break and spill fuel all over the place. A fire ensues, in a place inaccessible to fire Engines. Injured people staggering out into cold water.
I'd say, JLA has the problem if anything, especially as the runway is only 2/3 the length of either of MAN's 2 runways.

Safety is only secured once enough people have died to convince those with their hands on the cheque book to fork out for better standards. All transport safety standards and improvements are built on the bones and memories of victims.

I had a really bad landing at Ringway last year - it was extremely windy, one of the my worst ever landings (not the worst, which was at another airport), the plane was bouncing around and I sensed he would abort the landing: he got us down okay but everyone on the plane seemed to be alarmed - but I now wonder what is at the end of that runway for any plane that doesn't stop in time at Ringway?


IMO this thread is utter idiocy! Any plane that overshoots a runway will be in trouble, if it happened in Manchester the plane would skid down into some farmland. If you seriously have concerns about this, Ringway should not be what you are most worried about. What would happen if a plane has a bad landing at London City? It would go either into some water, into some buildings or have to abort the landing and make a sudden swerve around Canary Wharf! Ringway has got it good.

And the drop at the end of the ringway runway is hardly significant.

Its mostly the planes that land at Manchester that arnt safe. Air Scandic's planes are awful.

When they start doing this every week then you can be worried.
http://www.muenster.de/~c-s/astronomie/sts05.jpg

I travelled on an Air Scandic a couple of years ago and it was fine!

To me this thread is nothing more than an attempt to have a veiled dig at Manchester, to add to neopolitans delusions that Manchester Airport will close. Seriously, there are far worse situations all over the world.

I don't think that Manchester airport has safety problems that would be any different than most other airports in the UK. I believe that its excellent reputation as a well-run airport and the numerous awards and accolades from passengers, airlines and aircrew can only bear testimony to this fact.
It's no fluke that it is the busiest (non-London) airport in the UK and is constantly improving and expanding to provide outstanding service to the Northwest and indeed parts of the North and Midlands. Its geographical position and transport accessibility will ensure its continued success.

Now if anyone here has flown into the 'old' Hong Kong airport on a windy day you will understand the meaning of 'white knuckles'. :shocked:

Some people here sound to me like the owners of beach concessions who prevent a beach being closed even though a shark has eaten a child - you know, that kind of 80s made for TV film scenario. They'd rather we all took our chances with that huge dip at the end of the new Ringway runway, rather than demand safety.

I am well aware that some other airports also have safety issues, but few have the "unlucky" tag that is associated with Ringway. Whenever I fly through it (and in recent years thats about once every two months) I have a twinge of fear I don't get at most other airports. So many people have died flying to or from that airport, or perished tragically at the airport itself, in horrifing circumstances. You would have to be very insensitive not to be aware of catastrophe while taxing to the runway at that airfield, and of the terrible deaths others have suffered there.

I've done a bit more research on the net, and it seems that my ideas are fine, that its all down to economics: the airlines wont pass on the extra pennies to passengers that increased runway safety tolerances would cost.

It's called tombstone technology, the fact that airlines upgrade safety only after something goes wrong.

Liverpolitan, please list all the fatal accidents that have occured as a result of flying through Ringway? I can only think of the 1985 accident.

CAW, I don't do research assistance stuff for people, and don't intend to start here. But just a bit of casual googling ought to jog your memory.........how about this:

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/65/65103_40m_rebirth_for_scene_of_air_crash.html

I think it was after this that the "unlucky" tag might have started being applied to Manchester Airport? I am not old enough to know that.

http://www.cusick.co.uk/articles/article_182.shtml

http://avstop.com/news/uk.html

This one sounds a bit daft to me, but I suppose the "unlucky" tag has generated stories like this in the South East Lancs / North East Cheshire area.

http://www.mysterymag.com/casebook/?page=article&subID=109&artID=240

A bit more readable:

http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/news/manchester.html

I think Earlybird shoud do some statistical analysis - if the "unlucky" tag is a myth, Earlybird is the person to nail it.

So, he could compute how many passengers starting a flight at Manchester, or on a flight to Manchester, have died en route, compared to the top 20 other UK airports? If he's feeling a bit adventurous, he might then want to create ratios or odds, eg you have a 1 in 500,000 chance of dieing if you fly to / from Manchester Airport, compared to 1 in x chance from another airport.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-VUEA_3-05.pdf

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-BYRA_07-05.pdf

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_508150.pdf

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_507773.pdf

CAW, I don't do research assistance stuff for people, and don't intend to start here. But just a bit of casual googling ought to jog your memory.........how about this:

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/65/65103_40m_rebirth_for_scene_of_air_crash.html

I think it was after this that the "unlucky" tag might have started being applied to Manchester Airport? I am not old enough to know that.
But that crash wasnt because Manchester had saftey problems. That crash happened because two of the four engines stopped. Then because confusion between the crew which engines had stopped when they where trying to restart them.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_501866.pdf

the crash wasnt the fault of the runway, it was the fault of the airport for letting the plane land in a storm, all airports should close during major electrical storms, ive been in a few at orlando sanford, they will either stop u from landing if u get there in middle of storm, and if u land and storm hits before you get to the terminal you just have to sit and wait til the storm ends, heads will roll at torontos air traffic control for thatt fiasco

There are simply hundreds of Manchester Airport related accidents and safety issues listed on the official Government site, and very many people have tragically died. Only someone with Earlybird's combination of obsessiveness and numeracy will do the sums, I imagine, but someone ought to be able to tell us if this is a normal number of accidents and deaths for the number of people travelling through the airport. Bigger airports would be expected to have more bad luck than smaller ones, but the "unlucky" tag is I think a sympton that people feel that Ringway has had more than its fair share of bad luck.

But that crash wasnt because Manchester had saftey problems. That crash happened because two of the four engines stopped. Then because confusion between the crew which engines had stopped when they where trying to restart them.

I never said it was anyones fault, let alone the fault of an airport. I am just digging up some examples of where people have perished en route to or from Manchester Airport (as requested by CAW). I've also dug up some examples of where people were in danger during such journeys.

Seriously, is this guy pissed?

You let a plane with landing gear run off into mash land or esturial mud and what happens? It digs its wheels in, archs forwards and breaks it's back. The wings break and spill fuel all over the place. A fire ensues, in a place inaccessible to fire Engines. Injured people staggering out into cold water.
I'd say, JLA has the problem if anything, especially as the runway is only 2/3 the length of either of MAN's 2 runways.
thats not really a problem, its smaller runway means it can only allow smaller aircrafts ie 737 and would never have aircraft as large as a340 land without an extension

I never said it was anyones fault, let alone the fault of an airport. I am just digging up some examples of where people have perished en route to or from Manchester Airport (as requested by CAW). I've also dug up some examples of where people were in danger during such journeys.
Your trying to make out that Manchester Airport has bad saftey problems when it doesnt. 22 million fly in and out each year and how many die? None, apart from them guy's who have heart attack's because their scared of flying.

Well I dont know why ringway airport can be considered dangerous when probably every road has mroe accidents than this. The M62 Liverpool-Leeds-Hull nicknamed murder motorway might as well have a thread on how to make it safer, but then shouldnt everything that is more dangerous than this airport.

Your trying to make out that Manchester Airport has bad saftey problems when it doesnt.

No I am not. I happened to notice that scarey fall-off at the end of the Runway for the first time recently, and wondered about it in light of the Toronto incident. I've also asked if the general perception of it as an unlucky airfield is justified? I've quoted no figures at all, just dug up some examples when asked to. If you don't believe the place to be unlucky, then that is fine. I am not sure about it, personally - I use it, and wouldn't if I was that fearful, as I say it's just a slight twinge I get, being aware of what has happened there before.

My scariest landing ever was at liverpool airport on a flight back from turkey. The airline was sunways with a turkish crew. Not sure if they were that familiar with the airport but on approach there was a lot of low cloud and murk that had rolled in of the mersey and irish sea. then as we broke through the cloud base all we saw was the mersey getting closer and closer with no sign of the runway, i honestly thought we were going to hit the water, then the engines made a loud noise and we lurched upwards again then down again, everyone screamed it was like a rollercoaster. To my relief the water ended and there was some grass then the runway appeared. then we swayed a bit and hit the runway hard the plane...an MD 83 bounced twice before the reverse thrust was applied. Scared the shit out of everyone

My scariest was at Schiphol when the wind was just ridiculous, and I think it was foolish that they landed (it was a BA flight). When we landed, the Captain announced that he thought the first officer, who had brough us down, deserved special praise for such a difficult landing. That made me even more cross - not only was it foolhardy, but I'd expect the top man to at least take the controls at such a moment, unless of course he was too drunk or something like that.

No I am not. I happened to notice that scarey fall-off at the end of the Runway for the first time recently, and wondered about it in light of the Toronto incident. I've also asked if the general perception of it as an unlucky airfield is justified? I've quoted no figures at all, just dug up some examples when asked to. If you don't believe the place to be unlucky, then that is fine. I am not sure about it, personally - I use it, and wouldn't if I was that fearful, as I say it's just a slight twinge I get, being aware of what has happened there before.
So your not saying Manchester's not safe, just out of all the airports in the world you happen to pick Manchester.

in bad conditions planes have to have quite a hard landing, this obviously wasnt the case in toronto

I dont think liverpool is a scary airport to land at but that turkish pilot descended to early and we nearly ended up in the mersey. Makes me a bit tense now when landing there from the west side.Was the Dan air disaster in tenerife in the eighties en route from manchester or was that gatwick?

I find it astonishing that you are trying to use the ManU Munich crash as fuel for your 'Unlucky Manchester' theory. It's not Ringways fault it was snowing in Germany!

alot was learnt about friction caused by icing on wings from the munich incident and in retrospect brought about many new safety procedures that are making flights safer to this day

This is a no go. to think that a runway is unsafe because there is a drop at the end of the runway is stupid. ringway airport is as safe as any other airport (runway anyway).

if u think that is a promblem, imagine how dangerous airports are where the runway goes out into the see!?!?!? Corfu......., Crete Her.........HK........London city ......!!!!!!!

Or Madeira - the runway is a huge concrete construction coming out of the cliff and over the sea! There's a motorway running underneath it.

I find it rather sad that liverpolitan is using the incident that happened here to have yet another go at Manchester. The 'dip' at the end of the runway at Manchester Airport is probably there for a reason.

Surely there's nothing worse than the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong. Planes used to have to fly so low above peoples rooftops they could see what the residents were watching on tv, then do a 90 degree mid air turn to avoid a mountain! Or so I've heard.

What a shame Liverpolitan has to live life as a closet Mancunian, I think it's time Liverpolitan came out of his closet and declared his undying love for the north of Englands most important city, Manchester.

It would seem that someone has far far too much time on their hands.
Methinks this person should be taking alternative transportation when they venture north.
Of course it could be just a loveable geriatric scouse rogue doing a bit of mischievous scaremongering......bless him...

What a loads of bollox this thread is,,Poli on a rant again :)

Accy , u having a good time matey ?

Liverpolitan put the fucking pipe down you crazy bintette.

I think some people are protesting too much, as usual. IBEH, your twatty name suits you fine, keep it.

We need Earlybird to provide statistical proof that the "unlucky" tag is unfounded. He is silent on the issue. I suspect he has run some figures through his odd little brain and found they don't add up, so he's part of the cover-up. In fact, I think I can almost cite his silence on this subject as evidence in support of my theory.

As regards the Munich tragedy, of course it is relevant, because those poor souls were en route to Ringway, and the claim is that the airport is somehow cursed because people perish en route to or from, as well as at it. I wonder if perhaps it has been built on some lay line or whatever they are called, or a Saxon burial ground? Does anyone know the history of that rather sinister place?

Anyway, let's put safety first, and stop the "my airport is great because it's local" stuff, eh? If people want to widen this out into a "which UK airports have the most dangerous runways" discussion that is fine by me. I am convinced that the Gatwick runway has to be one of the most dangerous of all - only the other day I saw what I think is called a 'go round' there: a big Emirates plane was on its final descent, very close to the runway, but there was a dirty old Travelocity 747 (looks about 30 years old) on the runway and it was obviously taking too long to take off, so the Emirates plane had to abort its landing at last minute and climb up again.

hahaha you uptight little git. I shallnt linger, people like you remind me quite why I left this place, tara,

hahaha you uptight little git. I shallnt linger, people like you remind me quite why I left this place, tara,

A nice case of the kettle calling the pot............what a wanker

Liverpolitan, why do you do this? are you just pissed off that liverpool has had yet more bad news about scrapers not being approved,and does anyone give a toss weather liverpol thinks this airport is jinxed? Seeing as it keeps getting voted UK best airport and probably will in the future as too by the travelling public. Also worlds best airport a few times :)

Liverpolitan, why do you do this? are you just pissed off that liverpool has had yet more bad news about scrapers not being approved,and does anyone give a toss weather liverpol thinks this airport is jinxed? Seeing as it keeps getting voted UK best airport and probably will in the future as too by the travelling public. Also worlds best airport a few times :)

I am a regular passenger at Ringway, one of those who contributes to its passenger totals each year. Over the years I have used it far more often than Liverpool airport, although that has started to change a bit now Easjet offer a bigger range of destinations. I am entitled to ask about its safety record and also this notion that it is somehow unlucky. I am entitled to ask whether the Toronto incident is relevant to the unusual dip at the end of the new runway at Ringway.

It has nothing to do with skyscrapers, it has to do with transport safety. :)

I think some people are protesting too much, as usual. IBEH, your twatty name suits you fine, keep it.

We need Earlybird to provide statistical proof that the "unlucky" tag is unfounded. He is silent on the issue. I suspect he has run some figures through his odd little brain and found they don't add up, so he's part of the cover-up. In fact, I think I can almost cite his silence on this subject as evidence in support of my theory.

As regards the Munich tragedy, of course it is relevant, because those poor souls were en route to Ringway, and the claim is that the airport is somehow cursed because people perish en route to or from, as well as at it. I wonder if perhaps it has been built on some lay line or whatever they are called, or a Saxon burial ground? Does anyone know the history of that rather sinister place?

Anyway, let's put safety first, and stop the "my airport is great because it's local" stuff, eh? If people want to widen this out into a "which UK airports have the most dangerous runways" discussion that is fine by me. I am convinced that the Gatwick runway has to be one of the most dangerous of all - only the other day I saw what I think is called a 'go round' there: a big Emirates plane was on its final descent, very close to the runway, but there was a dirty old Travelocity 747 (looks about 30 years old) on the runway and it was obviously taking too long to take off, so the Emirates plane had to abort its landing at last minute and climb up again. erm thats total bollox, firstly you cant see gatwicks runway from the motorway, secondly travelocity dont even own any planes, theyre a travel agent and nothing more, and aborted landings happen quite often at both gatwick and heathrow due to the massive volume of planes passing through them

plus as i said the accident in munich was due to icing o wings causing friction, before anybody knew this could happen, alot was learnt from that disaster

erm thats total bollox, firstly you cant see gatwicks runway from the motorway, secondly travelocity dont even own any planes, theyre a travel agent and nothing more, and aborted landings happen quite often at both gatwick and heathrow due to the massive volume of planes passing through them

"Maggie" (only blokes in drag choose names like that on the internet), please
look at a map. You will see that the train line runs directly next to the runway, and everyone on the Victoria - south coast line via Haywards Heath has a perfect view of planes lining up on that runway. Where do you think the Gatwick Express ends up? I saw that incident from the train, not a "motorway". I don't drive, I get the train.

Second, travelo do indeed have a branded 747 charter plane that flies out of Gatwick in the summer reason. It's a horrible old 747 been there for a couple of seasons now, not sure if it's owned by travelocity or not, but that is the words on the side, except the "o" in travelo is painted red.

You know nothing about the topic you are talking about, "maggie".

Incidentally, re your quoting of someone elses surname, did you sort that little confusion out? People thought it was a bit creepy.

You can indeed see right into Gatwick from the trainline. Travelled into London that way last year. A plane flew a couple of hundred feet above going in to land. Class.

travelocity dont have any planes, you are getting them mixed up with travel city direct, whose planes arent old, they simply have a basic paint job because theyre actually air atlanta planes

and being as i work through gatwick id say i know alot more on the subject than you do

and being as i work through gatwick id say i know alot more on the subject than you do

You don't even know that the main train line runs right by the end of the runway: before they introduced air conditioned trains, if your train stopped there in summer you could SMELL the aviation fuel, it's just a few hundred feet away from the planes.

travelocity dont have any planes, you are getting them mixed up with travel city direct, whose planes arent old, they simply have a basic paint job because theyre actually air atlanta planes

Yes, as I have already said, they put a red dot in place of a nought. Not old? It looks ancient, and doesn't have winglets. How old is that 747?

erm its travel city direct, plus they only use 747 300 planes which only came into production 20 years ago, plus those same planes are also used by virgin atlantic and air france, companies that wouldnt use 'ancient' airliners

travelocity dont have any planes, you are getting them mixed up with travel city direct, whose planes arent old, they simply have a basic paint job because theyre actually air atlanta planes

http://images.airliners.net/open.file?id=698621&WxsIERv=Obrvat%20747-267O&WdsYXMg=Geniry%20Pvgl%20Qverpg&QtODMg=Znapurfgre%20-%20Vagreangvbany%20%28Evatjnl%29%20%28ZNA%20%2F%20RTPP%29&ERDLTkt=HX%20-%20Ratynaq&ktODMp=Frcgrzore%202004&BP=0&WNEb25u=Wbna%20Znegberyy&xsIERvdWdsY=GS-NON&MgTUQtODMgKE=Whfg%20nsgre%20ynaqrq%20ba%2024E%20ejl%2C%20fgvyy%20jvgu%20erirefr%20cbjre%20ba&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=327&NEb25uZWxs=2004-10-25%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=22530%2F531&static=yes&width=1024&height=675&sok=JURER%20%20%28nveyvar%20%3D%20%27Geniry%20Pvgl%20Qverpg%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=32&prev_id=700842&next_id=695925

If you look at that pic of a travel city plane when they used to put a big solid 'o' between travel and city on the tail (to read "travelocity"). If you look at more recent photos you will see they have painted the solid '0' out, maybe travelocity told them to do that?

who cares, theyre still pretty modern airliners, alot younger than most of those flown by budget airliners such as easy jet, and with air atlanta rapidly becoming one of the largest airlines in europe owners now of bot excel and travel city theyre actually going to be one of the few airlines to operate 747 400s a plane which ba can hardly afford

also the plane in that picture ceased operation last year being as its a 747 200 and truely was old

Liverpewl Airport. . .

http://www.avolites.org.uk/jokes/images/liverpool2.jpg

is that really liverpool airport

No it isn't. It's just a very tired joke now...

It's funny.

oh, i thought it look kinda bit close to mountains, tho in all fairness is no more ridiculous than polis claims of cursed runways. lol and equally ridiculous

Liverpewl Airport. . .

http://www.avolites.org.uk/jokes/images/liverpool2.jpg
You naughty man!! :lol:

I'd have to concede that MAN could indeed be unlucky at times.
When you really think about the premise of this thread you could only conclude that any poor passenger that has the misfortune of sharing an aircraft, or anywhere within earshot of our 'poolitan would have to be considered very unlucky indeed.

lol

Thats very funny. :hilarious