Heathrow Inbounds descending over the top of London City outbounds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Inbounds descending over the top of London City outbounds
BBC News - Jet and Turkish Airlines 777 in 'near-miss' over London
Isn't this becoming worryingly common? Now I happily watched a Citation zoom beneath my LHR inbound in exactly the same place last week but I expected he'd be at least 1000 ft below as I am familiar with the area.
However didn't Air Canada have an issue in exactly the same place descending this time into a City outbound recently?
I used to live near LCY and whilst having seen aircraft perform this departure / arrival dance many times, it seems to me that good fortune has played a part in avoiding a major incident. I'm hardly a tabloid sensationalist but this surely isn't the safest way to seperate traffic with both flows in a crucial and often distracted phase of flight.
What changes are being made to stop this happening for real next time?
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/28819...st-london.html
Isn't this becoming worryingly common? Now I happily watched a Citation zoom beneath my LHR inbound in exactly the same place last week but I expected he'd be at least 1000 ft below as I am familiar with the area.
However didn't Air Canada have an issue in exactly the same place descending this time into a City outbound recently?
I used to live near LCY and whilst having seen aircraft perform this departure / arrival dance many times, it seems to me that good fortune has played a part in avoiding a major incident. I'm hardly a tabloid sensationalist but this surely isn't the safest way to seperate traffic with both flows in a crucial and often distracted phase of flight.
What changes are being made to stop this happening for real next time?
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/28819...st-london.html
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 9th Sep 2010 at 09:50.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked that airspace for many years and the only incident I encountered was caused by TCAS!. How about all the outbounds from airports all over the UK which climb up under inbounds and overflying traffic with 1000 ft separation? It happens maybe hundreds of times each day. The procedures are perfectly safe; it just depends on pilots and controllers getting them right. The investigation will sort out any shortcomings.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this becoming worryingly common? Now I happily watched a Citation zoom beneath my LHR inbound in exactly the same place last week but I expected he'd be at least 1000 ft below as I am familiar with the area.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the superb professionalism of ATC and 99.9% of pilots the airspace around London is too busy , it is an accident waiting to happen !
There is simply too much traffic ! It should be capped and now !
Whilst TCAS "may" have helped, as Heathrow Director points out it is not failsafe, and he can quote an example where it could actually contribute to an accident !
Adding aircraft like the A380 is great but all the airlines do is maintain frequency !
By way of example BA, AA etc now operate a service almost every 30 minutes to New York , by any reasonable measure surely some of this passenger traffic must originate North Of Birmingham so why not use Manchester ? Three terminals, two runways , it is crazy !
Adding runways in the South east is also no answer, if the airspace above cannot take the extra traffic!
I am NOT part of the green lobby, far from it, but there are vested interests at work here, you cannot base all increases in traffic purely on commercial factors
based purely on critical mass it now makes more sense to ram more and more traffic into the South east, the politicians think jobs etc and follow the lead.....
....but if there is a major mid air over London they will all be scarpering for the exits.
There is simply too much traffic ! It should be capped and now !
Whilst TCAS "may" have helped, as Heathrow Director points out it is not failsafe, and he can quote an example where it could actually contribute to an accident !
Adding aircraft like the A380 is great but all the airlines do is maintain frequency !
By way of example BA, AA etc now operate a service almost every 30 minutes to New York , by any reasonable measure surely some of this passenger traffic must originate North Of Birmingham so why not use Manchester ? Three terminals, two runways , it is crazy !
Adding runways in the South east is also no answer, if the airspace above cannot take the extra traffic!
I am NOT part of the green lobby, far from it, but there are vested interests at work here, you cannot base all increases in traffic purely on commercial factors
based purely on critical mass it now makes more sense to ram more and more traffic into the South east, the politicians think jobs etc and follow the lead.....
....but if there is a major mid air over London they will all be scarpering for the exits.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was relaxed about the Citation flying under my flght, ( I was a passenger I hasten to add ) as I know LCY departures are restricted to 3000 ft in the first instance and LHR arrivals aren't supposed to be below 4000 ft.
I have seen this maneuvour many times as I was local to the area, my concern is that this is the second reported time in recent years that a large airliner has been involved in a loss of seperation over a densely populated part of London.
It ought to be possible to route Heathrow arrivals far enough East or West of LCY departures but maximising the use of the airspace means that some of them are descending right on top of LCY departures climbing towards them. As a layman it's far from ideal IMHO, if the professional says it's safe, I'm just asking why given the Air Canada incident, it seems to have happened again in the sane place.
Not a journo, just an ex local.
I have seen this maneuvour many times as I was local to the area, my concern is that this is the second reported time in recent years that a large airliner has been involved in a loss of seperation over a densely populated part of London.
It ought to be possible to route Heathrow arrivals far enough East or West of LCY departures but maximising the use of the airspace means that some of them are descending right on top of LCY departures climbing towards them. As a layman it's far from ideal IMHO, if the professional says it's safe, I'm just asking why given the Air Canada incident, it seems to have happened again in the sane place.
Not a journo, just an ex local.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As HD and Roffa know, I am also a local to the area in question.
I suppose it could be argued that it is the corporate traffic out of City which is most likely to bust a level if any does. I guess the pilots of such, especially if not City regulars, are more likely to fail to double brief themselves of this particular risk than to forget to check their performance figures for take off. And despite them correctly responding to clearances day in day out, the workload here and keeping up with the aircraft perhaps lends itself to a busted level here more than at other airfields.
As we all know, there on some days and times exists a continuous barrage of opposite heading other traffic, many of the pilots of which I imagine are in practice oblivious to the popularly denied risk of fast lower traffic busting levels up into their Heathrow approach, not so much trusting to TCAS perhaps as trusting that the ANSP has maintained the airspace in failsafe fashion. That they might be oblivious and also at a stage in their approach where they have been progressively turned and descended in the same area to within 1000 feet of opposite fast traffic and furthermore that they will often be largely distracted with a need to descend further and establishing on a neighbouring localiser within the next 60 seconds or so, clearly tempts fate?
I honestly don't know why so many of you in this forum have been so touchy about defending this LCY-LHR overlap over the years. I don't think you could point to anything else quite like it in UK airspace at least? It is no coincidence that at least two of these incidents have happened in exactly the same tiny piece of sky, now is it?
Goodness knows I was criticised enough as a mere mortal over daring to question you guys over it last time it made PPRUNe.
As a matter of general interest, Roffa, what procedure was put into place following the latest incident, please? Is it a delayed clearance down to 4000 for these particular LHR approaches perhaps? I sit here looking north into a view of the exact piece of sky as I type. I think of the last half dozen departures from LCY turning north, three were corporate jets, and I am guessing that in the same time there have been maybe a dozen and a half Heathrow arrivals heading south over Hackney, all of which I am guessing are generally not much below 5000 or 6000, without resorting to checking on a screen somewhere whereas a couple of months ago a good number of them would already be down to 4000 by Canary Wharf and immediately descending further..
It is a great view ... and better by miles on your kit ... of that I have no doubt.
I suppose it could be argued that it is the corporate traffic out of City which is most likely to bust a level if any does. I guess the pilots of such, especially if not City regulars, are more likely to fail to double brief themselves of this particular risk than to forget to check their performance figures for take off. And despite them correctly responding to clearances day in day out, the workload here and keeping up with the aircraft perhaps lends itself to a busted level here more than at other airfields.
As we all know, there on some days and times exists a continuous barrage of opposite heading other traffic, many of the pilots of which I imagine are in practice oblivious to the popularly denied risk of fast lower traffic busting levels up into their Heathrow approach, not so much trusting to TCAS perhaps as trusting that the ANSP has maintained the airspace in failsafe fashion. That they might be oblivious and also at a stage in their approach where they have been progressively turned and descended in the same area to within 1000 feet of opposite fast traffic and furthermore that they will often be largely distracted with a need to descend further and establishing on a neighbouring localiser within the next 60 seconds or so, clearly tempts fate?
I honestly don't know why so many of you in this forum have been so touchy about defending this LCY-LHR overlap over the years. I don't think you could point to anything else quite like it in UK airspace at least? It is no coincidence that at least two of these incidents have happened in exactly the same tiny piece of sky, now is it?
Goodness knows I was criticised enough as a mere mortal over daring to question you guys over it last time it made PPRUNe.
As a matter of general interest, Roffa, what procedure was put into place following the latest incident, please? Is it a delayed clearance down to 4000 for these particular LHR approaches perhaps? I sit here looking north into a view of the exact piece of sky as I type. I think of the last half dozen departures from LCY turning north, three were corporate jets, and I am guessing that in the same time there have been maybe a dozen and a half Heathrow arrivals heading south over Hackney, all of which I am guessing are generally not much below 5000 or 6000, without resorting to checking on a screen somewhere whereas a couple of months ago a good number of them would already be down to 4000 by Canary Wharf and immediately descending further..
It is a great view ... and better by miles on your kit ... of that I have no doubt.
Last edited by slip and turn; 9th Sep 2010 at 18:55. Reason: typo
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there is a procedure now called "The City Box". The "Box" is a chunk of airspace covering the area where the city departures perform the intial right hand turn eastwards while climbing to 3000'. Heathrow Directors cannot descend their inbounds below 5000' (thus leaving a 1000' buffer) if the aircraft will overfly this area i.e. those on a right base for 27L/R.
As far as i know the City box is only active when City is busy with departures and when it is active Heathrow directors bring up the box on the video map.
As far as i know the City box is only active when City is busy with departures and when it is active Heathrow directors bring up the box on the video map.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slip and turn... And your aviation background is, please? It would help the professionals on here if contributors would indicate their background a little. Then we know whether to enter a serious discussion or not. For the record, I'm Brendan McCartney, retired Heathrow (and other places) ATCO with 31 years experience working in the LTMA. I know some people prefer to remain anonymous but some indication of professional aviation involvement would be useful. Tnx.
No matter what procedures are introduced, someone is going to make an error one day.. We are all human, after all. During my time at Heathrow I saw many, many new procedures and revisions to existing ones introduced to enhance safety. I know that the ATC procedures have recently been revised to offer further protection to traffic landing at Heathrow and departing LCY but you cannot legislate for every eventuality. In the end, it's down to humans to follow the instructions...
No matter what procedures are introduced, someone is going to make an error one day.. We are all human, after all. During my time at Heathrow I saw many, many new procedures and revisions to existing ones introduced to enhance safety. I know that the ATC procedures have recently been revised to offer further protection to traffic landing at Heathrow and departing LCY but you cannot legislate for every eventuality. In the end, it's down to humans to follow the instructions...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A box? Interesting concept. Lending credence to such a thing might almost have been taken as heresy once upon a time, I bet 
Seriously, it's good to know that the ANSP can move quickly when it feels the need.
HD, you 'll have to forgive me, don't worry about too much about my blank profile, just pitch your response at your own level and I'll be happy to pick the bones out of it as best I can.
I very much agree with your summation - in fact I used exactly the same two angles for comparison in the first draft of my last post (comparing legislation via airspace design versus the human factors affecting the pilots in this set of airspace circumstances) but I lost it in the verify login process, and hastily redrafted it. Its good I think that this bit of airspace has perhaps now been "over-engineered" a little in order to compensate.
Seriously, it's good to know that the ANSP can move quickly when it feels the need.
HD, you 'll have to forgive me, don't worry about too much about my blank profile, just pitch your response at your own level and I'll be happy to pick the bones out of it as best I can.
I very much agree with your summation - in fact I used exactly the same two angles for comparison in the first draft of my last post (comparing legislation via airspace design versus the human factors affecting the pilots in this set of airspace circumstances) but I lost it in the verify login process, and hastily redrafted it. Its good I think that this bit of airspace has perhaps now been "over-engineered" a little in order to compensate.
Last edited by slip and turn; 9th Sep 2010 at 18:58.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just imagine.... if in every TMA and airway over Europe, when climbing and descending aircraft were likely to get within 1000 ft, they built in an extra 1000 ft.... That would be like saying the standard vertical separation will now be 2000 ft.. And how about the cases when two aircraft get less than the required distance apart horizoantally? Let's make 5nm become 10nm and 3nm become 6nm.. Really, that's what it comes down to - total nonsense!!
Hi slip and turn, I'd like to echo HD and ask again what your background/experience is. I have asked you this before without an answer and, if you'll forgive me for saying so, you make very authoritative sounding posts on ATC issues yet you seem to lack a lot of insider knowledge.
It may help followers of this thread if they knew your experience.
Sorry, hope this doesn't sound rude.
It may help followers of this thread if they knew your experience.
Sorry, hope this doesn't sound rude.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree HD, if they did that everywhere then Emirates would have to make the letters even bigger under their fuselage ... their 380 went over here at 5800 or so this evening and for the first time I couldn't read it
I am sorry Del Prado, I prefer to remain anonymous and it has never been my intention to appear as someone with particular knowledge other than what I have seen with my imperfect eyes in this bit of airspace over many years. My aviation knowledge is elementary.
I am sorry Del Prado, I prefer to remain anonymous and it has never been my intention to appear as someone with particular knowledge other than what I have seen with my imperfect eyes in this bit of airspace over many years. My aviation knowledge is elementary.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slip,
You say "A box? Interesting concept."
Boxes are more common than you think.
I believe there is a box near Manchester for gliding activity and another box was in existence in the Honiley area several years ago.
You say "A box? Interesting concept."
Boxes are more common than you think.
I believe there is a box near Manchester for gliding activity and another box was in existence in the Honiley area several years ago.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Unknown
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director, just asking your opinion on one thing...
According to the report the EGLC tower controller issued SID (DOV 4T) and also said "maintain altitude 3A" which the Citation pilot read back "DOV 4T maintain 4A" which the controller missed.
Not putting blame on anybody I hasten to add, I was just wondering why the level restriction was even mentioned as the restriction is on the charts? I appreciate not all charts have them, I have had a few Air France pilots ask about what the SID altitude is but never had to issue it otherwise.
Cheers
According to the report the EGLC tower controller issued SID (DOV 4T) and also said "maintain altitude 3A" which the Citation pilot read back "DOV 4T maintain 4A" which the controller missed.
Not putting blame on anybody I hasten to add, I was just wondering why the level restriction was even mentioned as the restriction is on the charts? I appreciate not all charts have them, I have had a few Air France pilots ask about what the SID altitude is but never had to issue it otherwise.
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZOOKER
slip,
You say "A box? Interesting concept."
Boxes are more common than you think
You say "A box? Interesting concept."
Boxes are more common than you think
I guess I was trying to appear a little ironic because I once dared to refer to this evidently troublesome bit of sky as a "cube" in that three and a half year old thread linked to by the OP
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I was just wondering why the level restriction was even mentioned as the restriction is on the charts?"
I know you asked HD the question, but I thought I'd offer my opinion.
As far as I'm aware the charts (AIP) only show the profile of the stepped climb i.e. climb to 3000', level off for a bit, then further up to 4000' once round the corner. These charts do not hilight the fact that the climb should be STOPPED at 3000'. Therefore the level restriction "mentioned" by the tower controller is an instruction overiding the SIDs' climb profile i.e. climb to 3000' and only subsequently higher once cleared by ATC.
I know you asked HD the question, but I thought I'd offer my opinion.
As far as I'm aware the charts (AIP) only show the profile of the stepped climb i.e. climb to 3000', level off for a bit, then further up to 4000' once round the corner. These charts do not hilight the fact that the climb should be STOPPED at 3000'. Therefore the level restriction "mentioned" by the tower controller is an instruction overiding the SIDs' climb profile i.e. climb to 3000' and only subsequently higher once cleared by ATC.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot offer a definitive answer but I was told that the reason the tower issues the SID altitude is to prevent the kind of incidents which are being discussed here!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIC on revised SIDs nicely tied up to coincide with the release of the AAIB report:
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...2010_34_en.pdf
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...2010_34_en.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Will_McKenzie
the EGLC tower controller issued SID (DOV 4T) and also said "maintain altitude 3A" .....I was just wondering why the level restriction was even mentioned as the restriction is on the charts?
a frightening experience to hear that sudden "leaving three" report). EGLC Tower issues the SID altitude restriction on behalf of Thames Radar which is responsible for the release. Some Thames Radar ATCOs have, certainly in the past, chosen to impose the 3A stop because they found the interaction of LYD and DVR SIDs and the STARs to be DANGEROUS.
