In the spirit of viewtopic.php?t=607153 I can report based on an article at the excellent blog What The Saints Did Next that an AVRO RJ100 has made a visit to the controversial airport on St. Helena.

Darrin Henry reports:

Islanders on St Helena starved of information for more than six months concerning the fate of air access, saw despair brushed aside by the heroic, entrepreneurial spirit of Atlantic Star’s commercial airline ambition, when they coolly landed an AVRO RJ100 jet plane at the island’s much maligned airport.

The four-engine, British made aircraft designed for short take-off and landing operations completed the 700 mile, two hour flight from Ascension Island, landing first time on runway 02, the southern approach with a tail wind of approx 6 knots. The flight is actually being operated by Tronos Aviation Leasing. From the perspective of an untrained eye the landing looked as smooth as you could wish for, confirmed later by Atlantic Star Director, Richard Brown.

“It was pretty straight forward actually. We got visual of the island about 10-15 miles out. …then we had the opportunity to remain over the sea and we could just fly straight round onto the final for runway 02 and it was fine. Nothing much really to say about it.”

Much more in the rest of the blog post, including some lovely photos:



And a video ( go to the blog to find that, it's worth the click! )

While this perhaps won't be the turning point in the St Helena airport controversy, it sure seems to have lifted the spirits of the Saints!

Darrin writes:

There is a clear buzz of excitement with people for the first time since that ‘wind shear day’ in April. The demonstration of commitment from Atlantic Star to provide an air service to St Helena has been extremely impressive.

I'm hoping to hear more good news from St. Helena!

I read the full post, but none of it explains why the ARJ100 is better suited. Is the 20 approach over steep terrain? Does the ARJ have a higher certified tailwind limit or higher demonstrated crosswind component?

doug_or wrote:

I read the full post, but none of it explains why the ARJ100 is better suited. Is the 20 approach over steep terrain? Does the ARJ have a higher certified tailwind limit or higher demonstrated crosswind component?

Did you read the article mentioned in the post? About everything is the difference.

Anyway, there are a lot of airports were the ARJ100 gets in and out and the 737-800 does not manage. Perhaps they should try a 737-700 or an A319.

It's telling that they chose to accept a modest tailwind rather than approach past windshear hill.

I really hope a perminant solution is found. I don't suppose the ARJ can make it from South Africa?!

Armodeen wrote:

It's telling that they chose to accept a modest tailwind rather than approach past windshear hill.

I really hope a perminant solution is found. I don't suppose the ARJ can make it from South Africa?!

It says that they landed both directions. 6 knot tailwind on 02 and 18 knot crosswind on 20. Neither seem like a problem

303dk wrote:

It says that they landed both directions. 6 knot tailwind on 02 and 18 knot crosswind on 20. Neither seem like a problem

Right, but they operated from the Ascension Island 700 miles to N-W. But the 4,500 souls on the island want to go to South Africa some 1500 miles in the opposite direction.

The ARJ-100 is of course the perfect plane for the airport. But it lacks the capability (range / payload) for meaningful operation to South Africa, considering the lack of nearby alternates, and the need for tailwind landings due to the extreme windshear conditions.

Also the need is one weekly flight only. Where else in the region can such a special plane be utilized on the other six days of the week?

They made the island's first airport at a cost of roughly $60,000 per soul on the island, and now they can't use it because they can't afford to buy and operate an L-100 Hercules to be used once a week.

200 years ago Napoleon was put away on the island, saving Europe from further of his disasters due to its remoteness. With today's bi-monthly ship connection it seems that traffic hasn't improved much during those 200 years.

Would a CS100 do the trick here? Supposedly it has great runway performances and enough range to reach South Africa

prebennorholm wrote:

303dk wrote:

It says that they landed both directions. 6 knot tailwind on 02 and 18 knot crosswind on 20. Neither seem like a problem

Right, but they operated from the Ascension Island 700 miles to N-W. But the 4,500 souls on the island want to go to South Africa some 1500 miles in the opposite direction.

The ARJ-100 is of course the perfect plane for the airport. But it lacks the capability (range / payload) for meaningful operation to South Africa, considering the lack of nearby alternates, and the need for tailwind landings due to the extreme windshear conditions.

That's a pretty harsh post. I get it, a lot of money was spent and the results were very disappointing. The people living there got their hopes up high as the airport was being built, had them dashed when the 737 had its challenges in landing, and now this is a some positive news for a change. The money that was spent can't be unspent. The thing to do now is to see if there isn't some way to salvage the situation. I presume it's going to be something along the lines of this flight, executed by well chosen equipment with well chosen pilots and with a strong regard to the weather. Unfortunately it probably isn't going to be like landing on an ex-SAC base on a calm summer's morning. Let's try to wait and see what the next steps are going to be.

I'm just confused as to why they spent millions and millions building an airport against all the controversy, they went to all the engineering efforts to make the airport work for the island, yet they then suspend all services due to concerns over wind shear... I mean how in the hell did they not take these things into calculation before building the airport! According to articles online it's the Islands government that's suspended the flights... so anyone with more information or anyone that can explain it would be appreciated!

mjoelnir wrote:

doug_or wrote:

I read the full post, but none of it explains why the ARJ100 is better suited. Is the 20 approach over steep terrain? Does the ARJ have a higher certified tailwind limit or higher demonstrated crosswind component?

Did you read the article mentioned in the post? About everything is the difference.

Anyway, there are a lot of airports were the ARJ100 gets in and out and the 737-800 does not manage. Perhaps they should try a 737-700 or an A319.

Yes, I did read the article. It mentioned the short stopping distance of the ARJ, and the problem the 737 had with crosswinds, but I didn't see anything else. Those statements didn't answer my question.

I am wondering. If tourism develops (which seems to be anticipated,) how do they manage?
I myself would be going to the island when infrastructure is ready.

303dk wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

It's telling that they chose to accept a modest tailwind rather than approach past windshear hill.

I really hope a perminant solution is found. I don't suppose the ARJ can make it from South Africa?!

It says that they landed both directions. 6 knot tailwind on 02 and 18 knot crosswind on 20. Neither seem like a problem

My mistake, thanks.

Would it not be possible to civilianise an mil cargo such as c17 or something like a an74. What would work really well and I would love to see
Is them use a shinmaywa us2 , if it couldn't land on the runway it could just land in the harbour:)

f4f3a wrote:

Would it not be possible to civilianise an mil cargo such as c17 or something like a an74. What would work really well and I would love to see
Is them use a shinmaywa us2 , if it couldn't land on the runway it could just land in the harbour:)

As there are enough civilian airliners being able to do this, why look to the military stuff? One should just not start out with a 737-800, it having rather limited field performance.
The Avro RJ100 of course, Dash 8-400, today a CS100, 700nm from ASI. A 737-700 or 737-600. An A318 or A319, even a 757-200 does better than the 737-800.

It helps when you have guys like the two pilots being used to fly in and out of FAE. There they used the Avro RJ100 and use now the A319. It helps also to contract the right airline flying the right equipment. BA has some A318, but perhaps that is to "fine" to be used on this Islanders even for a try out.

The thing about using the 738: The airline that was supposed to operate the route already has them. To operate any other plane, they'd have to find an airline willing to do it, or convince Comair to introduce another type. Both of those options sound expensive.

XLA2008 wrote:

I'm just confused as to why they spent millions and millions building an airport against all the controversy, they went to all the engineering efforts to make the airport work for the island, yet they then suspend all services due to concerns over wind shear... I mean how in the hell did they not take these things into calculation before building the airport! According to articles online it's the Islands government that's suspended the flights... so anyone with more information or anyone that can explain it would be appreciated!

Victory has many fathers, defeat has none.

Not much is known beyond the info in our last thread at viewtopic.php?t=607153

There was talk about blowing up part of the hill which was causing part of the windshear. That would be pricy too.
The other issue is the ship that services the island is being scrapped due age. Cost of another vessel would be huge as well.
Presumably this operation is subsidised by uk gov so would a wet lease be out the question

fortytwoeyes wrote:

The thing about using the 738: The airline that was supposed to operate the route already has them. To operate any other plane, they'd have to find an airline willing to do it, or convince Comair to introduce another type. Both of those options sound expensive.

Or alternatively just charter a plane from an ACMI operator that has the right equipment for the task. In South Africa alone you have Solenta Aviation, Safair and Global Aviation who specialize in providing ERJs, 737-300s, 737-400s, C-130s/L-100s, A320s or MD-80s. It would probably cost more ££££ if they want something special like an A318 or C-series, but it would still be cheaper than fixing the island.

VSMUT wrote:

Or alternatively just charter a plane from an ACMI operator that has the right equipment for the task. In South Africa alone you have Solenta Aviation, Safair and Global Aviation who specialize in providing ERJs, 737-300s, 737-400s, C-130s/L-100s, A320s or MD-80s.

You have to remember that planes flying to St.Helena must have a ETOPS certification. MD-80 wouldn't probably be able to takeoff from St.Helena when fully loaded.

I think a CS100 would be ideal? It has the range and has the capability. The only problem is that the airlines flying there (or planned to fly there) does not have CS100 and they are not going to get it because of this one route.

VSMUT wrote:

fortytwoeyes wrote:

The thing about using the 738: The airline that was supposed to operate the route already has them. To operate any other plane, they'd have to find an airline willing to do it, or convince Comair to introduce another type. Both of those options sound expensive.

Or alternatively just charter a plane from an ACMI operator that has the right equipment for the task. In South Africa alone you have Solenta Aviation, Safair and Global Aviation who specialize in providing ERJs, 737-300s, 737-400s, C-130s/L-100s, A320s or MD-80s. It would probably cost more ££££ if they want something special like an A318 or C-series, but it would still be cheaper than fixing the island.

Your list of frames includes quite a few that are not very good at getting in and out of rather short and difficult runways. Getting a A318 should not be to expensive as unpopular as this frames are, as an alternative the 767-600, SAS is getting rid of them. I could imagine the next size up 737-700 and A319 should also work.
My best bet would be the Avro RJ100 or a Dash8-400 connecting the Island to Ascension.

f4f3a wrote:

There was talk about blowing up part of the hill which was causing part of the windshear. That would be pricy too.
The other issue is the ship that services the island is being scrapped due age. Cost of another vessel would be huge as well.
Presumably this operation is subsidised by uk gov so would a wet lease be out the question

I also found it interesting that the airport was actually less expensive than replacing the ship in the long run.

FWIW, the airport is technically open. Private aircraft can use it. I wonder if they could convince/pay TAAG to operate to Luanda instead with their 737-700 or Air Namibia with a A319 to Windhoek. LAD is only 1300 miles or so.

Here's a thought. Why not try it with Easyjet, Monarch or British Airways pilots who have done the Gibraltar course and have experience of flying to and from the Rock?

All three airlines use smaller aircraft than the 738W too. Maybe it just needs a combination of the right plane and the right pilot training. Gibraltar pilots have to operate with the harsh winds caused by the Rock and are specially trained to operate the routes. Seems to me it's an ideal route for a 73G or A319.

My first concern with the A318, B737-600 and RJ100, is all being built in small numbers.

The B737-600 and RJ100 are also out of production.

mjoelnir wrote:

Your list of frames includes quite a few that are not very good at getting in and out of rather short and difficult runways. Getting a A318 should not be to expensive as unpopular as this frames are, as an alternative the 767-600, SAS is getting rid of them. I could imagine the next size up 737-700 and A319 should also work.
My best bet would be the Avro RJ100 or a Dash8-400 connecting the Island to Ascension.

Bear over with me, I'm down with the flu so I'm not operating at 100% I just looked up a short list of some of what was available...

The A318 (C-series and 737-600 included) would probably cost quite a bit since:
1. Nobody in South Africa or nearby has them, meaning that either the aircraft would have to be parked for 6 days a week, or shuttled between Europe and South Africa every single week.

2. The only A318s available for charter are probably going to be ACJs, which makes them more expensive. I don't think anybody offers the 737-600.


But lets face it, the population is tiny and they have near naught hotel capacity. How many seats do they need (hardly the 189 offered on the 737-800)? I am willing to bet that something as small as a CRJ-200 or ERJ-135LR to Windhoek or via Walvis Bay would be suffice for now, assuming they can get around the diversion issues. A dedicated cargo plane could then deliver all the cargo on a separate flight. The Q400 might have some range issues.

VSMUT wrote:

But lets face it, the population is tiny and they have near naught hotel capacity. How many seats do they need (hardly the 189 offered on the 737-800)? I am willing to bet that something as small as a CRJ-200 or ERJ-135LR to Windhoek or via Walvis Bay would be suffice for now, assuming they can get around the diversion issues. A dedicated cargo plane could then deliver all the cargo on a separate flight. The Q400 might have some range issues.

I'm pretty sure that they said the 737-800 would only have about half the seats available for sale. It's also first about cargo, mail, and local/medical traffic - tourism second. Tourism will take time to develop. They list about 150 hotel rooms on the island right now. The airport construction included a cruise ship port too.

What about Dash 7? No ETOPS problem and could also carry cargo. Air Greenland used Dash 7 as combi aircraft and BAS use them for example to fly from Falkland Islands to Antarctica.

Every airline flying A320 series frames should be able to add an A318, as any airline flying 737-800 should be able to add an 737-600 and use them also for other trips. The frames would be relative inexpensive to buy, scrap value? What is wrong with the Avro? You would find one cheap at Swiss or Brussels Airline and the frame could be stationed at HLE for emergency use..

A A319 or 737-700 non ER should also do. A 737-800 or 737-8MAX would not optimal, due to her limited field capabilities.

Love the dash 7. If you can land in courcheval then you can land anywhere

prebennorholm wrote:

The ARJ-100 is of course the perfect plane for the airport. But it lacks the capability (range / payload) for meaningful operation to South Africa, considering the lack of nearby alternates, and the need for tailwind landings due to the extreme windshear conditions.

Also the need is one weekly flight only. Where else in the region can such a special plane be utilized on the other six days of the week?

finnishway wrote:

You have to remember that planes flying to St.Helena must have a ETOPS certification.

VSMUT wrote:

But lets face it, the population is tiny and they have near naught hotel capacity. How many seats do they need (hardly the 189 offered on the 737-800)? I am willing to bet that something as small as a CRJ-200 or ERJ-135LR to Windhoek or via Walvis Bay would be suffice for now, assuming they can get around the diversion issues.

Isn't CityJet unloading a few of their ARJ-85s .....



It appears to check all the boxes and could be made work at the limits of its payload/range envelope.

mjoelnir wrote:

Every airline flying A320 series frames should be able to add an A318, as any airline flying 737-800 should be able to add an 737-600 and use them also for other trips. The frames would be relative inexpensive to buy, scrap value?

It's still a lot of money to lay out for a plane that would only fly once a week. I don't see any ACMI operator be willing to do that unless they are offered a really long contract to justify the extra costs of having the jet standing about in South Africa.

mjoelnir wrote:

What is wrong with the Avro?

Nothing, other than range. The sources I looked up state that it can barely reach St. Helena from Windhoek on a windless day, before diversion fuel is factored in: (Windhoek is about 1350 nautical miles, and prevailing winds/jetstreams blow from the west). Does anybody offer optional extra fuel tanks?

https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/ ... 7085100/47

303dk wrote:

I wonder if they could convince/pay TAAG to operate to Luanda instead with their 737-700 or Air Namibia with a A319 to Windhoek. LAD is only 1300 miles or so.

That would be cruel, putting them through the Luanda experience

With its 2920mi range and 300mph cruising speed and the STOL capability, the Shin Meiwa US-2 amphibian could be useful.

VSMUT wrote:

It's still a lot of money to lay out for a plane that would only fly once a week. I don't see any ACMI operator be willing to do that unless they are offered a really long contract to justify the extra costs of having the jet standing about in South Africa.

Why should it stand around? I have not heard about an A318 or 737-600 not being usable for normal passenger flights. It would still be rather low cost even if standing around more sensible in St. Helena, compared to the investment into the airport.

VSMUT wrote:

Mjoelnir wrote:

What is wrong with the Avro?

Nothing, other than range. The sources I looked up state that it can barely reach St. Helena from Windhoek on a windless day, before diversion fuel is factored in: (Windhoek is about 1350 nautical miles, and prevailing winds/jetstreams blow from the west). Does anybody offer optional extra fuel tanks?

https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/ ... 7085100/47

That is about the same range of a CRJ700, an E170 has a bit more. The bigger ones would not have the field performance. But I was thinking the Avro as a shuttle to Ascension, meeting the A330 to the UK.
The Idea of the two pilots was using it for 50 pax only instead of 100.

VSMUT wrote:

(Windhoek is about 1350 nautical miles, and prevailing winds/jetstreams blow from the west).

Except that WDH is actually 2,035nm GC from ASI. The linked source does show that the RJ85 has a bit better range than the RJ100, but from ASI may only be able to reach the NE tip of Brazil and NW Africa.....




.....from Senegal down to Nigeria where there may not be too much leisure demand

After watching the excellent video of the landing I thought to myself, "why would someone want to visit St.Helena"? It seems so desolate, bleak and windy.

As always, looking at a primary source can be quite helpful - quote from the airline's website:

"The purpose of the visit is to illustrate the reliability and versatility of the Avro RJ100 in the demanding flying environment of St Helena. Atlantic Star proposes to offer services using the aircraft, initially to neighbouring Ascension Island, 700 nautical miles way to the north-west, and to offer 24/7 medical evacuation capability to the 4500 strong Island community. Wind-shear data continues to be collected to establish a framework for safe operations, and once flights are established and a long range RJ100 variant is supplied by manufacturer BAE Systems, flights to Cape Town, Windhoek, Johannesburg and Accra will become possible."

The runway is stated as 1850m ( I guess this is the 1550m 'runway', plus the 60m 'runway strip', plus the 240m 'runway safety area'). The 240m runway safety area is built on the south end, but now recommendations are to land south to north to mitigate the effects of windsheer.... Can planes touchdown on this RSA to utilize the full 1850m, or is that lost on the 02 landings (south to north)? For these 02 landings, are they limited to 1550m? What is the declarable landing area for 02 landings as opposed to 20 (north to south) landings.

How much of it is considered useable for takeoff?

mjoelnir wrote:

Why should it stand around? I have not heard about an A318 or 737-600 not being usable for normal passenger flights. It would still be rather low cost even if standing around more sensible in St. Helena, compared to the investment into the airport.

Who on earth would charter an A318 or 737-600 for passenger flights in or around South Africa? The horrible CASM is still valid for ACMI operators and their customers The only reason why these two are even being discussed here is because they are uniquely suited for this particular task. Nobody else has shown interest in them. That means that St. Helena would either have to buy and pay for maintenance of the plane themselves, or guarantee some private company that it can justify the cost of buying and introducing a whole new sub-type with very limited use anywhere else, and zero resale value on top of that, both of which would require lots of ££££ compared to just chartering an already available 737-300.

I also think you would run into some issues with finding a second-hand A318 or 737-600. The only A318s that are stored are the former Avianca/LAN machines with those oddball P&W engines. I don't think the situation is much better with the 737-600. The ones being WFU by SAS are simply worn out.

Devilfish wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

(Windhoek is about 1350 nautical miles, and prevailing winds/jetstreams blow from the west).

Except that WDH is actually 2,035nm GC from ASI. The linked source does show that the RJ85 has a bit better range than the RJ100, but from ASI may only be able to reach the NE tip of Brazil and NW Africa.....

?

Wasn't this about St. Helena to Africa flights?

mjoelnir wrote:

That is about the same range of a CRJ700, an E170 has a bit more..

I've not found any evidence of any ETOPS120 CRJ700s or E170s in existence.. You'd need that just to reach an airport on the African continent, wouldn't you?

ODwyerPW wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

That is about the same range of a CRJ700, an E170 has a bit more..

I've not found any evidence of any ETOPS120 CRJ700s or E170s in existence.. You'd need that just to reach an airport on the African continent, wouldn't you?

I have not looked if there are ETOPS CRJ700 or E170, I just compared range and my point is that most of the smaller sized RJ do not have that much more range than the Avro.
On the other hand not knowing about it das not preclude it.

Anyway, my favorite would be an A318 for operation to the African continent and an Avro RJ for a connection to Ascension.

VSMUT wrote:

Wasn't this about St. Helena to Africa flights?

Apologies...my bad.....

VSMUT wrote:

[quote="mjoelnir"Who on earth would charter an A318 or 737-600 for passenger flights in or around South Africa? The horrible CASM is still valid for ACMI operators and their customers The only reason why these two are even being discussed here is because they are uniquely suited for this particular task. Nobody else has shown interest in them. That means that St. Helena would either have to buy and pay for maintenance of the plane themselves, or guarantee some private company that it can justify the cost of buying and introducing a whole new sub-type with very limited use anywhere else, and zero resale value on top of that, both of which would require lots of ££££ compared to just chartering an already available 737-300.

You are going a little bit off line here. Compared to a 737-300 the 737-600 does not have a horrible CASM. I do not expect somebody to own a 737-600 and charter it out, just to be helpful to this poor Islanders. I expect the airline contracted to do this flights, Comair ( the South African one), to own or lease equipment that is able to do the job. Perhaps if you own only 737-400 and 737-800, both rather challenged on such an airport, you should not offer to do it.
I even think that the 737-400 would have difficulties to reach the mainland out of an airport with such a short runway. If Comair would organize a 737-600 or even a 737-700, they probably would be able to do it. I was talking about an A318 or 737-600 for the lowest possible investment. If the get a A319 or 737-700, kudos to them.

All this discussion up and down the CASM, tiring. If a frame can not do it the best CASM does not help.

Is BAE Systems planning a long range version of the RJ100?.

Can't help thinking than an A319 or 737-700, perhaps with an ACT, would be the best bet. There are plenty of them about, easy to add in to any existing A32X/737NG fleet, decent range and performance, not too big or too small.

bennett123 wrote:

Is BAE Systems planning a long range version of the RJ100?.

The RJ100 has been out of production for quite a while.

mjoelnir wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Is BAE Systems planning a long range version of the RJ100?.

The RJ100 has been out of production for quite a while.

Last one delivered 13 years ago (2003).

Viscount724 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Is BAE Systems planning a long range version of the RJ100?.

The RJ100 has been out of production for quite a while.

Last one delivered 13 years ago (2003).

Which doesn't exclude that BAE could modify one ARJ with extra belly tanks similar to the RAF 32th sqn birds of the Royal Flight.

Back of the envelope calculations would indicate that with such a mod an ARJ would make the St. Helena - RSA roundtrip with Ascension as alternate with a half full cabin OR (not "and") 10 klb cargo/mail.

Problem is that the citizens of St. Helena are dreaming of a £600 roundtrip to RSA, and reasonably priced cargo and mail service. That sort of economy is impossible on a specialized plane with much reduced payload capability, which is next to impossible to utilize six days a week.

prebennorholm wrote:

Which doesn't exclude that BAE could modify one ARJ with extra belly tanks similar to the RAF 32th sqn birds of the Royal Flight.

Back of the envelope calculations would indicate that with such a mod an ARJ would make the St. Helena - RSA roundtrip with Ascension as alternate with a half full cabin OR (not "and") 10 klb cargo/mail.

Problem is that the citizens of St. Helena are dreaming of a £600 roundtrip to RSA, and reasonably priced cargo and mail service. That sort of economy is impossible on a specialized plane with much reduced payload capability, which is next to impossible to utilize six days a week.

Sorry if it's an ignorant question, but there must be other bulk cargo service to St Helena regardless of the air service?

And in your scenario, perhaps it'd make sense to outfit two such modified a/c, one as you describe, a 2nd as a pure freighter with all the seats etc removed?

Revelation wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

Which doesn't exclude that BAE could modify one ARJ with extra belly tanks similar to the RAF 32th sqn birds of the Royal Flight.

Back of the envelope calculations would indicate that with such a mod an ARJ would make the St. Helena - RSA roundtrip with Ascension as alternate with a half full cabin OR (not "and") 10 klb cargo/mail.

Problem is that the citizens of St. Helena are dreaming of a £600 roundtrip to RSA, and reasonably priced cargo and mail service. That sort of economy is impossible on a specialized plane with much reduced payload capability, which is next to impossible to utilize six days a week.

Sorry if it's an ignorant question, but there must be other bulk cargo service to St Helena regardless of the air service?

And in your scenario, perhaps it'd make sense to outfit two such modified a/c, one as you describe, a 2nd as a pure freighter with all the seats etc removed?

Better a covertible freighter where the seats slide forward, or are paletized or modularized in some way. Then it's operated at least once a week for passengers and ad hoc as a freighter. You can also have a module or pallet with a medical setup for evac flights.