Fog delays flights across Essex (From Braintree and Witham Times)

bloomin' cyclists

I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Olivia2847 wrote:
I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

All departures and more than half of arrivals to and from Stansted Airport were late

Olivia2847 wrote:
I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Didn't you look out of the window this morning? Driving was hard enough, let along flying.

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:
I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Didn't you look out of the window this morning? Driving was hard enough, let along flying.

especially considering the amount of motorists who decided they didn't need to turn on any lights.

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:
I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Didn't you look out of the window this morning? Driving was hard enough, let along flying.

It's called radar ......

Gosh, fog in the Thames estuary in October. Please excuse my total lack of surprise.

Olivia2847 wrote:

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote: I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Didn't you look out of the window this morning? Driving was hard enough, let along flying.

It's called radar ......

Are you trolling or what?

I don't think aeroplanes solely use radar to take off and land...it kind of helps to also see where you're going.

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote: I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Didn't you look out of the window this morning? Driving was hard enough, let along flying.

It's called radar ......

Are you trolling or what? I don't think aeroplanes solely use radar to take off and land...it kind of helps to also see where you're going.

All Boeings are fitted with an R100F navigation system ..._

Olivia2847 wrote:

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote: I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Didn't you look out of the window this morning? Driving was hard enough, let along flying.

It's called radar ......

Are you trolling or what? I don't think aeroplanes solely use radar to take off and land...it kind of helps to also see where you're going.

All Boeings are fitted with an R100F navigation system ..._

What's that then?

If you're saying they could take off and land without visibility you should give easyjet a ring so they can tell their pilots.

Just a practice for Boris Island.!

Olivia2847 wrote:

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote: I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Didn't you look out of the window this morning? Driving was hard enough, let along flying.

It's called radar ......

Are you trolling or what? I don't think aeroplanes solely use radar to take off and land...it kind of helps to also see where you're going.

All Boeings are fitted with an R100F navigation system ..._

and a spotter should know that the flight crew still need to be able to see the runway.

I beleive Easyjet (Airbus A319) need 600m on one runway and 750m on the other, the vis was down to less than 200m this morning so delays have happened, slower aircraft such as the ATR's can land with 350m vis.

Shocked the anti-airport lot have not been on here gloating!

I bet there weren't any cyclists that couldn't get to work because of the fog.

EssexBoy1956 wrote:
I bet there weren't any cyclists that couldn't get to work because of the fog.

But would they cycle all the way to Jersey!

Where do cyclists come into it? Have I missed something?

Max Impact wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

rjsizzler wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote: I thought the statements were obvious but why are there no problems at Stansted? Don't tell me - its the wrong type of fog ..........

Didn't you look out of the window this morning? Driving was hard enough, let along flying.

It's called radar ......

Are you trolling or what? I don't think aeroplanes solely use radar to take off and land...it kind of helps to also see where you're going.

All Boeings are fitted with an R100F navigation system ..._

and a spotter should know that the flight crew still need to be able to see the runway.

I beleive Easyjet (Airbus A319) need 600m on one runway and 750m on the other, the vis was down to less than 200m this morning so delays have happened, slower aircraft such as the ATR's can land with 350m vis.

Shocked the anti-airport lot have not been on here gloating!

They couldn't hear or see anything either - off to Brize to catch a Timmie so that will shut rjsizzler up!

I lived in San Fran for years in the 90's and fog was a constant occurrence at the local airfields but it had little effect on the scheduling of local and international flights so its sounds like the airports and airlines just bring a little too cautious. A whole load of hype over nothing.

leigh-my-town wrote:
I lived in San Fran for years in the 90's and fog was a constant occurrence at the local airfields but it had little effect on the scheduling of local and international flights so its sounds like the airports and airlines just bring a little too cautious. A whole load of hype over nothing.

Thank you all you trolls out there !

The Yellow Peril wrote:
Where do cyclists come into it? Have I missed something?

Sorry, cyclists seem to be the prominent theme of every other thread on this site, so just thought I'd keep it going, before that bloke who spends his life in the Shoebury Internet Cafe has a go.

leigh-my-town wrote:
I lived in San Fran for years in the 90's and fog was a constant occurrence at the local airfields but it had little effect on the scheduling of local and international flights so its sounds like the airports and airlines just bring a little too cautious. A whole load of hype over nothing.

The regulations set out by the CAA, manufacturers & airlines are diffrent throughout the world, what the US airlines choose will be diffrent to UK operators and regulations.

Differing types have diffrent rules, a lot depends on their landing speed, the faster the aircraft the greater the distance needs to be to see the runway.

Better safe than a burning hole in the ground!

Theres a fair bit of Fog on the Tyne also.

leigh-my-town wrote:
I lived in San Fran for years in the 90's and fog was a constant occurrence at the local airfields but it had little effect on the scheduling of local and international flights so its sounds like the airports and airlines just bring a little too cautious. A whole load of hype over nothing.

As Max Impact rightly says, all aircraft need a minimum visibility for landing and taking off, Irrespective of how sophisticated their radar is.

I don't believe believe Southend has ground radar (?), so nobody could see if the runway was clear. There have been several nasty accidents involving passenger aircraft colliding with other aircraft and vehicles in foggy conditions.

at least the fog will dissipate and spread and weaken any rogue laser pointer beams.....

We were on the 2pm Barcelona flight to Southend yesterday. After hours of being held in the airport (I think it was 7hrs but I've been up all night !) We took off at 10pm heading for Southend.

We made an extremely terrifying attempt to land. Literally could see nothing at all until all of a sudden a house appeared at the side window which I felt I could have touched ! The pilot pulled up so hard we all gripped the seats & thought this is it.

We cirecled for a few moments & the pilot came on & said she had to abort the landing but would attempt again as fog was due to clear.

The second attempt was terrifying but at least not quite as painful to the neck muscle & she then declared we would attempt a landing at Stansted.

By this point we were all terryified & all I could think about was why had I allowed my husband to talk me into leaving my baby at home with grandparents so we could have a weekend away, I just hoped that he would be well looked after.

We very soon were making our third attempt at landing & you should have heard the cheers when our very lovely lady pilot brought us down in what can all be described as dense fog.

The conditions were no better here, so why was she able to land here ? I'm intrigued if anyone knows the answer. Do they have better equipment here ?

Anyway, I'm still shaking !

CalebsMum wrote:
We were on the 2pm Barcelona flight to Southend yesterday. After hours of being held in the airport (I think it was 7hrs but I've been up all night !) We took off at 10pm heading for Southend. We made an extremely terrifying attempt to land. Literally could see nothing at all until all of a sudden a house appeared at the side window which I felt I could have touched ! The pilot pulled up so hard we all gripped the seats & thought this is it. We cirecled for a few moments & the pilot came on & said she had to abort the landing but would attempt again as fog was due to clear. The second attempt was terrifying but at least not quite as painful to the neck muscle & she then declared we would attempt a landing at Stansted. By this point we were all terryified & all I could think about was why had I allowed my husband to talk me into leaving my baby at home with grandparents so we could have a weekend away, I just hoped that he would be well looked after. We very soon were making our third attempt at landing & you should have heard the cheers when our very lovely lady pilot brought us down in what can all be described as dense fog. The conditions were no better here, so why was she able to land here ? I'm intrigued if anyone knows the answer. Do they have better equipment here ? Anyway, I'm still shaking !

Just checked the weather logs the visibility was greater than 600m at Stansted so they could land.

Max Impact wrote:

CalebsMum wrote: We were on the 2pm Barcelona flight to Southend yesterday. After hours of being held in the airport (I think it was 7hrs but I've been up all night !) We took off at 10pm heading for Southend. We made an extremely terrifying attempt to land. Literally could see nothing at all until all of a sudden a house appeared at the side window which I felt I could have touched ! The pilot pulled up so hard we all gripped the seats & thought this is it. We cirecled for a few moments & the pilot came on & said she had to abort the landing but would attempt again as fog was due to clear. The second attempt was terrifying but at least not quite as painful to the neck muscle & she then declared we would attempt a landing at Stansted. By this point we were all terryified & all I could think about was why had I allowed my husband to talk me into leaving my baby at home with grandparents so we could have a weekend away, I just hoped that he would be well looked after. We very soon were making our third attempt at landing & you should have heard the cheers when our very lovely lady pilot brought us down in what can all be described as dense fog. The conditions were no better here, so why was she able to land here ? I'm intrigued if anyone knows the answer. Do they have better equipment here ? Anyway, I'm still shaking !

Just checked the weather logs the visibility was greater than 600m at Stansted so they could land.

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert but the runway at stanstead is longer which must give the pilot a little bit more to land on in dodgy conditions like low visability. As for your aborted approaches these planes and our airport are equiped with Instrutment Landing Systems ,which will in effect get you to the ground in safety but the pilot still requires legal amounts of vision to land. Even though the house you discribe seemed close I am sure you were in no mortal danger. I do hope you enjoyed your weekend away.

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
Theres a fair bit of Fog on the Tyne also.

Hands off, it's all mine.

The report referes to "Pisa, Italy", "Warsaw, Poland", "Madrid, Spain", etc. Surely we all know where these places are. Have the Gazette's American owners given orders to explain elementary geography, the way they do over there? I hope this doesn't become a habit.

r6keith wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

CalebsMum wrote: We were on the 2pm Barcelona flight to Southend yesterday. After hours of being held in the airport (I think it was 7hrs but I've been up all night !) We took off at 10pm heading for Southend. We made an extremely terrifying attempt to land. Literally could see nothing at all until all of a sudden a house appeared at the side window which I felt I could have touched ! The pilot pulled up so hard we all gripped the seats & thought this is it. We cirecled for a few moments & the pilot came on & said she had to abort the landing but would attempt again as fog was due to clear. The second attempt was terrifying but at least not quite as painful to the neck muscle & she then declared we would attempt a landing at Stansted. By this point we were all terryified & all I could think about was why had I allowed my husband to talk me into leaving my baby at home with grandparents so we could have a weekend away, I just hoped that he would be well looked after. We very soon were making our third attempt at landing & you should have heard the cheers when our very lovely lady pilot brought us down in what can all be described as dense fog. The conditions were no better here, so why was she able to land here ? I'm intrigued if anyone knows the answer. Do they have better equipment here ? Anyway, I'm still shaking !

Just checked the weather logs the visibility was greater than 600m at Stansted so they could land.

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert but the runway at stanstead is longer which must give the pilot a little bit more to land on in dodgy conditions like low visability. As for your aborted approaches these planes and our airport are equiped with Instrutment Landing Systems ,which will in effect get you to the ground in safety but the pilot still requires legal amounts of vision to land. Even though the house you discribe seemed close I am sure you were in no mortal danger. I do hope you enjoyed your weekend away.

Every so often you get a hairy flight and I'm sure a lot of us have had a similar experience to Calebsmum. The pilot got her down safely, so she was soon reunited with little Caleb.
Also, good to hear of a lady pilot, there are not many of them yet but no doubt there will be more in future.

Guessing where The Echos headline story today came from then! Trawling their own comments pages to invent news!