Time for nose in, push back, says Chamber
Wednesday 29th April 2009, 2:30PM BST.
THE introduction of ‘nose-in, push back’ parking at the airport is long overdue, according to the Chamber of Commerce.
Rob Le Page, head of Chamber’s transport sub-group, said he understood it had always been the intention for the system to be introduced at the time of essential works being carried out on the runway and it was included in the designs for the new terminal.
‘For at least the last 10 years Chamber has been advocating that the best way to use space at the airport is to introduce “nose in, push back” as this would provide the maximum flexibility for air traffic control and the airlines.
‘It would also provide the best options for maximising the number of aircraft that can be parked at the airport and potentially airport income.
‘And, more importantly, it provides the best option for satisfying health and safety options.’
He said those he had spoken to at BAe and the CAA agreed and he found it disappointing to read that airlines such as Flybe and Aurigny were against the plans, because nearly all the airfields they flew to in the UK would be using the ‘nose in, push back’ system already.
The plans announced last week by Public Services are expected to cost £600,000 and would be implemented when runway repair work began.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full, click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Why can’t the aircraft reverse with their propellers thus saving the cost of the tugs?
Most types have that capability and that has or is done at some US airports even with pure jets, albeit a very noisy process in that case.
Report abuse
Reversing back from nose in parking would quite quickly give the glass walls in front of the terminal a nice frosted effect!
What do the Chamber of Commerce know about running an airport or airline? Do they think that parking is so critical that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds annually on an ongoing basis will suddenly free up parking stands and cause a rush of new carriers? I don’t think so; it will just increase the cost of flying to and from Guernsey, and slow down the turn around times of the aircraft which will also ultimately increase the cost of flying to and from Guernsey.
Maybe if they spent some time talking to the airlines involved they would understand this, and stop making ill informed recommendations, and shooting themselves in the feet!
Report abuse
There are some jet types approved for this (very few if any visit Guernsey) but you will be hard pushed to find a jet operator who is willing to use reverse thrust to “push back”, there have been numerous instances of FOD (Foreign Object Damage) done to aircraft. It’s generally a big “no no” for Jets (and an even bigger absolutely no way, without a doubt no no if there is any ice, snow or rain contamination on the ground and/or airframe).
Some turboprop (although not all) can do it, including the ATR family of aircraft, however as you said it can be rather noisy, and actually quite a skill in the ATR, there have been numerous tail strikes on this type after the pilot touched the brakes during reversing. It is for this reason that most ATR operators around the world would rather have a tug than risk the tail strike, a seconds lapse in concentration of the captain would result in all the overhead luggage shifting and everyone having reclined seats!
Report abuse
This has a distinct whiff of post-rationalisation…. Some very weak arguments for spending a large sum of public funds on something even the airlines themselves don’t want. It feels like a promise has already been made, or a substantial capital outlay already occured, and this is just the mop-up operation after the event.
Report abuse