BRASO holding for Heathrow inbounds does NOT equal EAT's

[coracle]

Don't know if I' getting a bit kranky because I'm tired after what seems a shockingly busy start to the summer, but to all those dear folk who fly in and out of Heathrow, under 20 minutes delay means just that, whether you are holding at BRASO or LAM.

WE DO NOT PUBLISH EAT'S FOR DELAYS OF 20 MINUTES OR UNDER!!!

Please stop asking when we tell you that your delay is under 20 minutes.

Thanks.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

....and has been thus for at least 35 years!

[BOAC]

.......and, I believe, for the WHOLE of the Londom TMA?

Anyone who arrives with less than 20 minutes holding.........................:ugh:

[issi noho]

"Unless otherwise instructed controllers shall pass expected approach times to aircraft with whom they are in contact. EATs shall not normally be issued when the delay is expected to be less than 20 minutes. The statement 'no delay expected' is only to be used, particularly for long haul flights, if it genuinely reflects the situation. However, at the request of a pilot, controllers are to give a general indication of the likely delay based on the information available at that time."

Straight out of MATS pt 1, so can you advise me if LTMA is exempt from the last sentence.

BOAC, if only wisdom made your fuel tanks bigger and and JAR OPS fuel policy require that you were wise we'd be on a winner.

[AlanM]

issi, they get the rough estimate when they contact Heathrow approach on first contact.

Asking for the amount of delay wastes RT that people are trying to use to get the stacks down bring them off.

[issi noho]

Yep, agree entirely. So the odd broadcast of rough delays a little earlier might help reduce this problem. If you can stop pilots getting tunnel vision on fuel they might spend more time avoiding level busts.

I'm not trying to be argumentative just help avoid frustrations like those of the thread starter and do my bit for safety.

[MancBoy]

Whenever we are holding at BRASO I always say the following when on CLN,


"callsign 123, LAM3A arrival but clearance limit is BRASO to hold, delays approximately XX Mins"

Clear, concise and the fact that this instruction is issued whilst aircraft are stiill over the Dutch or Belgium coast should give aircrew ample time to sort out whether they have enough fuel or not.

One problem with the Swanwick system is that the information on the sis screen only says either delays are less than 20 mins, so could be one min or 20 mins, and when it does have EATS on it they are inaccurate.

The info on the supervisors desk is a lot more accurate.

[Lookatthesky]

And this information will be repeated by TC East, TC LAM and LL Director!!

I think that the message should get through!!

[BOAC]

BOAC, if only wisdom made your fuel tanks bigger and and JAR OPS fuel policy require that you were wise we'd be on a winner. - not 'my' wisdom, just advice to pilots published by the CAA. Don't know about JAROPS. It is your choice and your own risk if you have not got 20 mins holding fuel and continue to the London TMA. (Bigger tanks and you'd have to fly further anyway:) )

I thought it was quite clear that the original complaint here was that crews were asking for 'EATs'. The point made by 'coracle' was that there is no such animal as an EAT if delays are less than 20 minutes - so there is no point in asking.:ugh:

[MancBoy]

Mike, when delays are in excess of 30 mins we do ask Maastricht to slow traffic down for us so that we can try and avoid the dreaded LOGAN hold.


And from another thread, the TMA sectors would rather we didn't slow traffic down and try and 'stream' them so it looks like both ends want different things.

We can't win

[BizJetJock]

So how does this fit in with the principle that in the event of comms failure in IMC in the hold you should commence your approach as close as possible to EAT?:confused:

[eyeinthesky]

That's the rub... the R/T fail procedures are anachronistic and designed for a time when the possibility to leave CAS at 45 degress and proceed visually were feasible (imagine that in the middle of LUS airspace...).

Without checking the documents, my understanding in the scenario you gave would be:

Proceed to the terminal fix, make at lease one hold, and them start down in the hold and follow the procedural approach. We have a computer-based estimate of your arrival time at the fix and will clear the other traffic out of the way. The details are of course more intricate to that..

An of course, in today's world if you are out of R/T contact for that long you needn't worry about the procedures....:= There will be one or two pointy grey jets just outside the cockpit windows more than happy to lead you to the airport of their choice!:eek:

[Loki]

Mancboy:

Just do as I used to; if TMA moaned about the traffic being streamed I just told them I was doing it for my benefit, not theirs.

[anotherthing]

Loki - I work in the TMA - I would love to get properly streamed traffic - unfortunately the LACC controllers do not have the time or airspace to do it properly.

eyeinthesky - try doing a 45 degree turn to leave CAS in the TMA - hjow does that work?!!!

[MancBoy]

Anotherthing, please enlighten my LACC colleagues and me on what 'properly' streamed traffic is , just so that we can serve you better.

[055166k]

Does a hold at any point before the "stack" require an onward clearance time?
I thought the EAT [if any] started at the stack. Genuine question...it may well have changed since course 26!

[BOAC]

Don't know what the book says but as a pilot I need to have a rough idea of how long before I land for decisions on diversion, so if we are 'pre-stack' either an EAT or at least an OCT to be going on with is nice.

[MancBoy]

If we dare to issue an EAT then it is always, or should be always, issued as


"callsign 123 your EAT from LAM, BIG, OCK or BNN is ........"


Still waiting for a definition of 'properly' streamed.

Hurry up, I'm back on radar in 7 and a half hours and I can't sleep without it.

[MancBoy]

Damn, I've just done some streaming without the correct guidance.

TC Midlands didn't complain so i'm assuming it was ok??

[DFC]

coracle,

"Don't know if I' getting a bit kranky because I'm tired after what seems a shockingly busy start to the summer, but to all those dear folk who fly in and out of Heathrow, under 20 minutes delay means just that, whether you are holding at BRASO or LAM..........."

Quite right, you should have issued an "Expect onward clearance time".


Brasso is an enroute hold on the way to the terminal hold at LAM is it not?

Regards,

DFC

[anotherthing]

Mancboy

Properly streamed means to me, going to the correct fix, or on a decent heading, with speeds that take into consideration the traffic situation i.e. Easterlies at Gatwick, 300+ kts 5 miles from GWC is pants; even more so if holding... just ask pilots how they enjoy being told to fly at 300+kts (which is against the rules without coordination anyway), only to be told by us reduce 210kts, hold at Willo!!

However, before you start getting all defensive again, if you read my post, I have also said that you guys do not get the aircraft in enough time, with enough airspace to always be able to do this all the time ... so chill :ok:

[MancBoy]

Anotherthing, I can't speak for my south colleagues as i only do north bank sectors.

On DTY and CLN we can and actually have to present traffic at speeds of 300 knots plus and it is in our rules that we are allowed to anyway.

You still haven't said what 'properly' streamed traffic is. Unless it is stipulated in MATS part 2, as it is for CC inbounds through TNT for example, then one persons interpretation of streaming is going to be different from another persons ideas.

I can be defensive if I want to. Far too many people from both sides are too quick to whinge and slag off the other side without understanding the other persons problems.

If you read my earlier posts on other threads you will see that I have been valid in TC and AC so have seen it from both sides.

In a perfect world everything will be streamed 'properly' but get real, you ain't going to get it EVERY time.

Some people in TC need to realise that traffic may come over on speeds or headings which are actually to suit us against other traffic that isn't going into the TMA.

Not long now till you can come into the AC ops room at Swanwick and show us how to did it.

[MancBoy]

Anotherthing, another thing.

Why not tell which ever sector it is that is giving you the traffic what you want when you are holding or know that KK is on easterlies and you can see they have a bunch of inbounds so that they can plan ahead at bit more and maybe get the french or whoever to start presenting traffic better.

I agree that if you are getting traffic at ridiculous speeds a short distance from the hold then that is poor awareness from the AC bods end and i apologise on their behalf, inbred southbankers.

On CLN we are trying to encourage TC and AC to communicate more and let each other know what they what at times of holding or busy bunches of inbounds, and it seems to be improving things.

Are you sure that the southbank sectors actually know the impact of KK or LL on easterlies has on their options of presenting traffic to you?

If they have never been told how will they know what is ideally required?

[loubylou]

bizjetjock - in the event of r/t failure etc then you use the "EAT or if one has not been issued then your last known ETA " etc

however - lets hope it doesn't come to that!

anyway - what's the harm in saying to crews "hold at XXX expect 10 mins delay"?
it keeps them in the picture, and does reduce r/t as then you don't get asked how long the delay is

just a thought

louby

[PPRuNe Radar]

Quite right, you should have issued an "Expect onward clearance time".

Brasso is an enroute hold on the way to the terminal hold at LAM is it not?

DFC is correct .... onward clearance times are required for non intermediate holding fixes even if it is an arbitrary 10-15 minutes. Any update must be issued before the arbitrary time issued expires.

For intermediate approaches, the 20 minutes applies. Approach expected within 20 minutes, no EAT or onward clearance time required ... outwith 20 minutes, an EAT must be issued.

Remember it's not just for radio failure purposes, the pilots have to calculate holding fuel and decide whether a diversion might be requiered once their fuel reserves (under JAR or FAA rules) are depleted. Better to do so sooner rather than later :ok:

[anotherthing]

Mancboy

May i suggest you read the contents of posts before getting defensive... I mentioned in both my posts that the AC guys quite often do not get enough time or airspace to do the job to either their or TCs satisfaction.

Just in the same way as TC does not have the time nor the space often.

Take a chill pill, and stop being defensive... it starts to make people think you are trying to make excuses there is no need to.

:ugh:

[5milesbaby]

get the french or whoever to start presenting traffic better.
Superb mate, really needed a good laugh and you win by a mile!

Nothing will stop S19 putting the first in a stream at 300kts as I agree with Anotherthing, there isn't enough time or airspace to do anything differently. If we know there is holding we will try to slow them down but not always possible.

To make the situation better then we need to get the system the LAS's have for delays available at ALL sector positions, but we know that'll never happen.

Now if we could just talk once again about those headings on DVR........blah...blah...blah... :ugh:

5mb, well inbread southbanker :E

[30W]

To make the situation better then we need to get the system the LAS's have for delays available at ALL sector positions, but we know that'll never happen.

Should that really be necessary? Surely an interactive/pro-active LAS should be able to keep the operational position 'in the picture' with such information?

If the above doesn't happen, why not, and isn't it about time it did??

30W

[Gonzo]

Surely an interactive/pro-active LAS should be able to keep the operational position 'in the picture' with such information?

Exactly what I was just thinking.....:confused:

[5milesbaby]

I know the LAS's are renowned for sitting back and letting it all run down the drain, but I can hardly expect them to come over to every sector and update us of the current delay to LHR and LGW every 15 minutes. Some are good enough to let us know as the delays creep up toward 20 minutes, but without the accurate info we can only generalise. I've seen the board, and at times one a/c in the sector gets 15 mins, another 12, and the third only 5, so how do we pass that generally?

Isn't it about time we get the correct information at our fingertips?

[Roffa]

Isn't it about time we get the correct information at our fingertips?

You'll only have the correct info if the EAT PC at TC is kept up to date, and it generally isn't until delays hit the magic 20 minutes and we have to start giving out EATs.

Up to that point delay info passed is generic ie 5 to 10, 10 to 15, 15 to 20.

[TATC]

So how does this fit in with the principle that in the event of comms failure in IMC in the hold you should commence your approach as close as possible to EAT?:confused:

I thoughtnit was "..as close as possible to EAT where this has been issued and acknowledged."

otherwise the approach is started based on if the RT failure occured before or after entering the hold or before or after contact with ATC (ie the APC controller running the hold)

Nearly all airfields in the UK publish RT fail procedures for inbound aircraft, which vary slightly from the general procedure. They also cater for thos times when EAT's have not been issued OR acknowledged.