LPL/MAN controllers -- opinions please?

[Phoenix_X]

Any MAN or LPL controllers out there?

I was discussing a few days ago in my LPL departure brief the engine failure procedure. Our company procedures state to go straight ahead, that's what the performance figures are good for.

Now taking off RW09, straight ahead will take us near the MAN overhead. Ofcourse we would call ASAP that we'll deviate from the SID and continue straight ahead. But --

We thought of, if it took us some time to contain the engine failure and control/clean up the aircraft, it would be a good idea to actually head for the MAN overhead (possibly hold there),out of the way of their landing/departing a/c. By that time we should be nicely sorted out for an ILS06, and so not waste time turning back on ourselves for LOC RW09 @ LPL, and also giving us a 2 long RWY airport with ILS approach.

Now I've heard rumours that some MAN controllers say that we wouldn't do that, as it would cause great problems for you. On that day, we *would* have done that as that's what we briefed. It seemed a sensible solution to us, but do you guys think otherwise?

[mainecoon]

you didn't say what departure you were on but as an enroute atco at manch i would be horrified if you followed that course of action

if we were landing 06 conflict straight away with landers and also with departures in all directions

if we land 24 conflict with all departures straight away

seems a better idea to be turning back to the pool but obviously if dire then manch would have to be an option but with much chaos

not much help for you i must admit but hold at the lpl at 2500 qnh better plan till you either sort the problem or liverpool give us and our approach a heads up of the situation at least

[jocko0102]

You could put yourself in even more doo if you went straight to the man overhead.At low levels you would be getting in the way of all sorts and if we didnt know straight away what you were doing or we slow in getting stuff out the way you might not need to worry too long about your engine probs.

[spekesoftly]

As already mentioned above, flying due east from L'pool R/W 09 will very quickly put you in direct conflict with Manchester's traffic. You don't say what A/C type is involved (ie single engine performance), but if straight ahead is initially essential to achieve minimum control speed, then obviously you have no choice. Whilst appreciating that this will already be a period of very high pilot workload, and that controlling the A/C is your first priority, inform ATC (PAN and TXP #7700) ASAP. Let ATC know just as soon as you are able to safely turn, specify your preferred direction of turn, if applicable, and your intentions - return/hold/divert.

[hatsoff]

Straight Ahead off 09 at EGGP is just about the most dangerous thing you can do for reasons given above ie Traffic everywhere!!

If you can get some control after the failure , I suggest you turn left 30 degrees on to 060.
This won't provide standard separation but it increases the chances of missing most of the traffic.

On runway 06L/R at EGCC , you'll still be head-on to traffic working Manch Approach descending to 3500ft but ,hey, who said flying's safe.
They are allowed to be at 3500 ft just east of the LPL while you're climbing to 4000ft on your 09 SID.
Safety Cases you've got to love them.

Get that 7700 squawk on as a priority - before RT calls.

[Phoenix_X]

It's interesting to read this -- Our company procedures are to continue straight ahead until clean, and above MSA (3500'). Ofcourse we can deviate from this under radar, but it would certainly be a good 10 miles if not more before most of us would want to start turning, being oblivious to most of what you said above.
If all of us knew this, we would obviously make more of an effort to turn early, but not all of us do and chances are that an engine failure (B737) would cause alot of us to go straight ahead for awhile.... Maybe a slight discussion with our operator would be appropriate to ensure not getting into a big mess once the sh*t hits the fan.

Thanks for the info -- I certainly will suggest at least the 30deg left from now on, and then control the problem asap, and be available for further left turns....

[mainecoon]

feel free to give us a call and arrange a visit after about 30 seconds you will see why your company approach frightens us so much

regrds and thanks for being switched on enough for the post

maine:)

[Phoenix_X]

I've been thinking about doing that (I've visited LATCC several times when I was near there, and numerous visits to our own TWR/APPR). But I haven't found the time yet.

Problem is -- You've convinced me. But not the 300 other pilots based at LPL.... That's a danger...

[Max Angle]

I think you will find that the procedure for any performance A aircraft (ie anything flying for an airline operation) is to climb straight ahead until 1500ft AGL. The obstacle clearance is only considered within a narrow path in front of the take-off runway and any turn outside of that path could put the aircraft into an obstacle.

Obstacle clearance turns exist for some runways that have high terrain in the normal take-off path and the max. take-off wieght is much reduced to take in to account the lower rate of climb (which, may anyway be only 500fpm) that turning produces. These procedures are only published (by the airlines performance dept. )because of terrain but I would have thought that there are runways like LPL 09 where a turn should be put in to keep traffic separated as well. Trouble is it will clobber a lot of operations with a big weight penalty so I can't see it happening. We do certainly need some communication between aircraft performance guys, ATCO's and pilots on this one before there is a nasty.

[Phoenix_X]

You're absolutely right, however, our company procedure is to continue straight ahead, and if we're busy, all you'll hear is "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY XXXX01 engine failure, continuing straight ahead, standby." This is what we're trained to do and on that dark day, many will do exactly that.

And I can guarantee you alot of our guys would continue further than 1500'. Our figures clear us beyond that, to 30nm to be exact. So like I said, a potential hazard here!