Vectoring at Gatwick
118.7
exactly what i was getting at, involve and engage people early and you have much better chance of success rather than spending ages on the technicalities and preferred solutions only to find out no one likes them. And as you pointed out affected communities could be a good way from the airport and may not immediately come to mind as 'affected areas' in my experienced-having lived close to and around LHR for about 50 years people are very sensitive to change, most noise is a background issue unless you live at Hatton Cross or similar, and people are very sensitive to change if its time of day. loudness or pitch. In fact one of the problems is that comparing sound measured and perceived sound are often very different things
exactly what i was getting at, involve and engage people early and you have much better chance of success rather than spending ages on the technicalities and preferred solutions only to find out no one likes them. And as you pointed out affected communities could be a good way from the airport and may not immediately come to mind as 'affected areas' in my experienced-having lived close to and around LHR for about 50 years people are very sensitive to change, most noise is a background issue unless you live at Hatton Cross or similar, and people are very sensitive to change if its time of day. loudness or pitch. In fact one of the problems is that comparing sound measured and perceived sound are often very different things
I'm not sure of the "full" - but if the airport wants to maintain any level of trust with the local communities and a sense of a social licence to operate it needs to have a meaningful engagement with the people it is going to affect in advance of inflicting significant changes from trial procedures. Noise effects need to be considered way beyond the 57dBA Leq16hr averaged contour.
"Airports and air traffic control organisations sometimes carry out short-term trials to gather data and validate possible proposals for future requests for changes to the UK airspace structure.
- This means that for a short period aircraft may be flying different routes to the published structure.
- Government policy states that as these trials provide a valuable contribution to the efficient use of UK airspace we should encourage their use.
Due to the Secretary of State’s role in managing noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted if a trial is now proposed in the vicinity of these airports the organisation proposing the trial will also discuss the issue of consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport’s office.
Any trial will have a fixed start and end date and if, after the trial, the organisation running the trial wishes to make the change permanent then the full airspace change process, including consultation, will be required."
https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Guid...ucture-trials/
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Secretary of State’s policy does place an onus on us to consider the information the airport or air traffic control organisation gather on the environmental impact of a trial to establish whether a consultation/engagement is required. This will be based on information provided by the airport or air traffic control and take into account the level of environmental impact, the length of the trial and the environmental objectives given to us by the Secretary of State.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got no skin in the game either way, but if there is a requirement to consult before a trial, then the overwhelming response will be negative. Human nature dictates very few people will welcome aircraft flying overhead them when none (or at least fewer) have before.
So if airport X consults on, for example, an RNAV departure trial, and 95% of respondants are negative, what happens? No trial? But maybe the CAA permits it anyway, due to the value of the trial to future developments, and then the community feels even more disenfranchised because of this.
I think this is what did happen with OF trials, but as I said Heathrow were receiving noise complaints specifically referencing Operation Freedom trials months in advance of them actually happening. As you say, perceived noise/annoyance is often very different to actual noise levels, but the 'engagement' by the airport can heighten that perception of noise without any changes taking place.
It's not an easy situation to navigate.
So if airport X consults on, for example, an RNAV departure trial, and 95% of respondants are negative, what happens? No trial? But maybe the CAA permits it anyway, due to the value of the trial to future developments, and then the community feels even more disenfranchised because of this.
I'm not sure of the "full" - but if the airport wants to maintain any level of trust with the local communities and a sense of a social licence to operate it needs to have a meaningful engagement with the people it is going to affect in advance of inflicting significant changes from trial procedures.
It's not an easy situation to navigate.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My recollection is that local authorities were frustrated by the engagement for the OF trials.
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...ms%20Trial.pdf
Concerns expressed by local authorities regarding the trial
Communication about the trial design and reporting
10.25 Some local authorities expressed concern to Government and the CAA
about the little notice they had been given to inform or respond to local
residents before the trial – timescales which the CAA accepts were
largely outside HAL’s control. They also expressed a wish to be more
involved in the trial design. HAL made a commitment to local authorities
that if the Minister considered any components of the trial were
creating unacceptable disturbance to residents, then those components
would be discontinued.
10.26 Following Phase 1, it took time for HAL to assess what had been learnt
and to build that into the design of Phase 2 and gain approval from the
CAA and Government. As Phase 2 approached, local authorities were
again raising the same issue about being given insufficient time to engage
properly about the trial, despite the recommendations in the CAA report
regarding more engagement with stakeholders and through the NTKWG.
In some cases local authorities felt that they needed more information
to understand properly how some of the new measures would be
implemented, for example where they interacted with the existing night
flights regime.
10.27 When HAL produced its report on the summer season of Phase 2 in
December 2012, local authorities again complained that they were given
insufficient time to digest and comment on the draft. Local authorities then
expressed frustration that the early-morning arrivals measure proposed for
Phase 2 – which brought the prospect of reducing the number of flights
arriving before 05.00 – was not proceeded with, after it had been trailed
to residents. Local authorities questioned why it had not been established
earlier that airlines were unable to meet the operational requirements.
Communication about the trial design and reporting
10.25 Some local authorities expressed concern to Government and the CAA
about the little notice they had been given to inform or respond to local
residents before the trial – timescales which the CAA accepts were
largely outside HAL’s control. They also expressed a wish to be more
involved in the trial design. HAL made a commitment to local authorities
that if the Minister considered any components of the trial were
creating unacceptable disturbance to residents, then those components
would be discontinued.
10.26 Following Phase 1, it took time for HAL to assess what had been learnt
and to build that into the design of Phase 2 and gain approval from the
CAA and Government. As Phase 2 approached, local authorities were
again raising the same issue about being given insufficient time to engage
properly about the trial, despite the recommendations in the CAA report
regarding more engagement with stakeholders and through the NTKWG.
In some cases local authorities felt that they needed more information
to understand properly how some of the new measures would be
implemented, for example where they interacted with the existing night
flights regime.
10.27 When HAL produced its report on the summer season of Phase 2 in
December 2012, local authorities again complained that they were given
insufficient time to digest and comment on the draft. Local authorities then
expressed frustration that the early-morning arrivals measure proposed for
Phase 2 – which brought the prospect of reducing the number of flights
arriving before 05.00 – was not proceeded with, after it had been trailed
to residents. Local authorities questioned why it had not been established
earlier that airlines were unable to meet the operational requirements.
10.31 Local authorities stressed to the CAA that they understood the
objectives behind the trial and sought wherever possible to explain
these to residents. However, they felt that if changes to established
operating patterns were to be accepted by local residents, they needed
open explanation, preferably in advance. The form of the data made it
more difficult for them to explain to a complainant why there had been
a particularly noisy aircraft a few days previously, and whether the flight
was part of the trial. They suggested that data could have been made
more accessible (such as a weekly narrative or a daily log listing flights
that landed out of alternation and the reason why), and that this would
have improved the understanding and trust of the local community.
10.32 A lack of explanation and transparency was felt to be a source of
frustration for residents and contributing to a climate of distrust. It was
suggested that it was of little comfort for local residents to be told that
the flight that had disrupted their sleep had been nothing to do with
the trial. These views reflect continuing issues around the wider
HAL-community relationship, rather than being specific to the trial itself.
objectives behind the trial and sought wherever possible to explain
these to residents. However, they felt that if changes to established
operating patterns were to be accepted by local residents, they needed
open explanation, preferably in advance. The form of the data made it
more difficult for them to explain to a complainant why there had been
a particularly noisy aircraft a few days previously, and whether the flight
was part of the trial. They suggested that data could have been made
more accessible (such as a weekly narrative or a daily log listing flights
that landed out of alternation and the reason why), and that this would
have improved the understanding and trust of the local community.
10.32 A lack of explanation and transparency was felt to be a source of
frustration for residents and contributing to a climate of distrust. It was
suggested that it was of little comfort for local residents to be told that
the flight that had disrupted their sleep had been nothing to do with
the trial. These views reflect continuing issues around the wider
HAL-community relationship, rather than being specific to the trial itself.
For example communities were told initially that arrivals on 09R were part of the trial and then (following a prolonged spell of easterly operations) that, well, no they weren't actually.
It should be a no-brainer that consultation on any trials, whether at LHR, LGW or anywhere should require the sponsor to be unambiguous about what is planned to happen.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrying out a consultation doesn't necessarily involve offering communities a veto over whether a trial does/doesn't happen.
How much would the publicity, how much would a pre-trial consultation, do to increase awareness and heighten the perceived noise annoyance?
118.7, I assume you've also read 10.15-10.24 and 10.39-10.44. In my direct experince with local authorities, they never think they have enough time! I'm not taking sides here, but there are many sides to every story.
One issue is that the OF trials were very complex, with several modifications to procedures being introduced simultaneously. It is sometimes not possible to exactly quantify the effect, or how the overall operation will change, when faced with such a complex trial. This was the point of the OF trial.
Maybe we should all start doing pre-trial trials, to find out the effect of the trial?
Not sure about you folks, but I'm very happy I've not yet written 'trails'. A pitfall the CAA unfortunately did not avoid in CAP1117!
having started the issue of consultations I should make it clear that I entirely understand how difficult the task is. I mentioned in one post how people came out with all kinds of ridiculous remarks , like complaints about things before they even started and flights al night long at LHR. I also think and agree that there should not be a need to consult before trials since the trials have to be done to get any sense of what might be workable . They should however be very clearly advised to affected areas and the airport should understand it is not only immediate neighbours affected.
Noise has lessened and lessened over time, a 787 descending towards Ockham over my house last night was barely audible and failed to make its presence known above a lawnmower half a dozen gardens away. But for all that there will be objections and complaints (although I understand that tiny minority of people make 75% of the complaints about LHR) and all i meant it is as well to be prepared for these rather than be in reactive mode or fine tuning proposals that might not be acceptable in practice due to public reaction-deal with the issue as early as possible because it will always take time to resolve
Noise has lessened and lessened over time, a 787 descending towards Ockham over my house last night was barely audible and failed to make its presence known above a lawnmower half a dozen gardens away. But for all that there will be objections and complaints (although I understand that tiny minority of people make 75% of the complaints about LHR) and all i meant it is as well to be prepared for these rather than be in reactive mode or fine tuning proposals that might not be acceptable in practice due to public reaction-deal with the issue as early as possible because it will always take time to resolve
I am always surprised when I get taken on a Nats tour of SE England on a radar heading that a clearance limit is not specified. It may be in the Aip, but with the trend towards EFB and supplements, I will probably be approaching Penzance by the time I find it on the ipad.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DESDI or BUBIN
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we are on here, I have another Gatwick question.
Unfortunately I fly the world's biggest and ugliest aircraft on a regular basis into Crawley international and every time we do the aircraft behind us are always changed to an RNAV approach at the last minute, which I am guessing is because of the potential of the aircraft infringing the ILS critical area on 26L/08R??
On our LIDO (approach) charts it states that if we exit by certain points then we don't impact on this at all and 99.9% of the time you will see guys using "brake to vacate" and we can tell you not only exactly where we plan to exit, but also our runway occupancy time to the second.
At all other UK airports, this is never an issue as it seems to be communicated that we can exit long before getting close to the area so is there something that we are not aware of or can we help each other in minimizing last minute approach changes, particularly if it requires higher minima on a marginal day? Our regular approach speed at max landing weight is comparable to an A320 and we can stop and vacate in a short distance if required.
It used to be at LHR that Director or even London would ask at an early stage where we planned to vacate to help planning and we have normally selected an exit long before even getting into UK airspace and we will always advise if we need a longer than normal length to vacate, it is just knowing when to put this into conversation.
Would be interested to get some feedback on this to hand back to fellow dugong drivers.
Cheers
EdB
Unfortunately I fly the world's biggest and ugliest aircraft on a regular basis into Crawley international and every time we do the aircraft behind us are always changed to an RNAV approach at the last minute, which I am guessing is because of the potential of the aircraft infringing the ILS critical area on 26L/08R??
On our LIDO (approach) charts it states that if we exit by certain points then we don't impact on this at all and 99.9% of the time you will see guys using "brake to vacate" and we can tell you not only exactly where we plan to exit, but also our runway occupancy time to the second.
At all other UK airports, this is never an issue as it seems to be communicated that we can exit long before getting close to the area so is there something that we are not aware of or can we help each other in minimizing last minute approach changes, particularly if it requires higher minima on a marginal day? Our regular approach speed at max landing weight is comparable to an A320 and we can stop and vacate in a short distance if required.
It used to be at LHR that Director or even London would ask at an early stage where we planned to vacate to help planning and we have normally selected an exit long before even getting into UK airspace and we will always advise if we need a longer than normal length to vacate, it is just knowing when to put this into conversation.
Would be interested to get some feedback on this to hand back to fellow dugong drivers.
Cheers
EdB
While we are on here, I have another Gatwick question.
Unfortunately I fly the world's biggest and ugliest aircraft on a regular basis into Crawley international and every time we do the aircraft behind us are always changed to an RNAV approach at the last minute, which I am guessing is because of the potential of the aircraft infringing the ILS critical area on 26L/08R??
On our LIDO (approach) charts it states that if we exit by certain points then we don't impact on this at all and 99.9% of the time you will see guys using "brake to vacate" and we can tell you not only exactly where we plan to exit, but also our runway occupancy time to the second.
At all other UK airports, this is never an issue as it seems to be communicated that we can exit long before getting close to the area so is there something that we are not aware of or can we help each other in minimizing last minute approach changes, particularly if it requires higher minima on a marginal day? Our regular approach speed at max landing weight is comparable to an A320 and we can stop and vacate in a short distance if required.
It used to be at LHR that Director or even London would ask at an early stage where we planned to vacate to help planning and we have normally selected an exit long before even getting into UK airspace and we will always advise if we need a longer than normal length to vacate, it is just knowing when to put this into conversation.
Would be interested to get some feedback on this to hand back to fellow dugong drivers.
Cheers
EdB
Unfortunately I fly the world's biggest and ugliest aircraft on a regular basis into Crawley international and every time we do the aircraft behind us are always changed to an RNAV approach at the last minute, which I am guessing is because of the potential of the aircraft infringing the ILS critical area on 26L/08R??
On our LIDO (approach) charts it states that if we exit by certain points then we don't impact on this at all and 99.9% of the time you will see guys using "brake to vacate" and we can tell you not only exactly where we plan to exit, but also our runway occupancy time to the second.
At all other UK airports, this is never an issue as it seems to be communicated that we can exit long before getting close to the area so is there something that we are not aware of or can we help each other in minimizing last minute approach changes, particularly if it requires higher minima on a marginal day? Our regular approach speed at max landing weight is comparable to an A320 and we can stop and vacate in a short distance if required.
It used to be at LHR that Director or even London would ask at an early stage where we planned to vacate to help planning and we have normally selected an exit long before even getting into UK airspace and we will always advise if we need a longer than normal length to vacate, it is just knowing when to put this into conversation.
Would be interested to get some feedback on this to hand back to fellow dugong drivers.
Cheers
EdB
I don't think it's really a problem for the following aircraft except on the very rare occasions when weather precludes an RNAV and a 20 mile gap is required.
On the subject of speeds, are you expecting 160 to 5 or 160 to 4?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DESDI or BUBIN
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy with either, unfortunately company stabilisation criteria require that we are at landing configuration at appropriate speed by 1500' agl and if not by 1000' with a couple of caveats then we have to fly a G/A. Therefore any tighter than 160 to 4 can get interesting with a tailwind.
Normal approach speed is in the region of 130-135 kts so we actually have a bit to lose from 4 miles for a "big jet".
I was just curious why it was necessary in the first place to give the following aircraft the RNAV approach if we are not likely to infringe the ILS on a normal day out.
Anything after my last coffee of the day onboard is last minute ;-)
Normal approach speed is in the region of 130-135 kts so we actually have a bit to lose from 4 miles for a "big jet".
I was just curious why it was necessary in the first place to give the following aircraft the RNAV approach if we are not likely to infringe the ILS on a normal day out.
Anything after my last coffee of the day onboard is last minute ;-)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sussex
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eau de Boeing
On 26L ops I have only seen a 380 vacate at anywhere other than the end on 2 or 3 occasions since they began operating. I am obviously not there every movement but am sure 95% + vacate at Juliet.
The effects on the ILS - I have seen an aircraft established on the ILS at 10 miles when the 380 turns off the runway at Juliet. The deflection in the ILS caused it to deviate 1.5 miles to the north.
Have not seen the effects on 08R where 99.9% vacate at BR.
Why such the low numbers of vacating at FR? Excellent runway utilisation when I have seen it done, meaning no lost movements. Whereas vacating at Juliet means 2 lost movements.
Regards
On 26L ops I have only seen a 380 vacate at anywhere other than the end on 2 or 3 occasions since they began operating. I am obviously not there every movement but am sure 95% + vacate at Juliet.
The effects on the ILS - I have seen an aircraft established on the ILS at 10 miles when the 380 turns off the runway at Juliet. The deflection in the ILS caused it to deviate 1.5 miles to the north.
Have not seen the effects on 08R where 99.9% vacate at BR.
Why such the low numbers of vacating at FR? Excellent runway utilisation when I have seen it done, meaning no lost movements. Whereas vacating at Juliet means 2 lost movements.
Regards
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost 2 movements yesterday. U2 following had to bin it when EK rolled to Julliet (as they said they would when asked by LGW Tower) with one lined up from Alpha. When asked to expedite, the chaps said they had a speed limit once within the stop-end. Skip and I mused that perhaps that wouldn't have been an issue if they were able to avoid using said stop-end.
I do remember being told by someone that brake temps were an issue as the turnarounds are relatively short.
It's worse in LVP's. 27nm gap required apparently.
I do remember being told by someone that brake temps were an issue as the turnarounds are relatively short.
It's worse in LVP's. 27nm gap required apparently.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DESDI or BUBIN
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me explain a little further and it should clear it up for you.
08R works well for both of us. You get 99.9% exits at BR and a guaranteed runway occupancy time every time. The distance from touchdown to BR means we can vacate, taxi into stand 110 and keep our brake temps below 300 deg, which is the optimum for the relatively short turn-around in Gatwick.
On 26L however it can be a bit more problematic.
Firstly there is the issue of runway exits, for the A380 only FR and J are available to us.
In simple terms, we have a choice of either vacating at J, which gives us the option to vacate direct onto J and then manage the brake temps well for the outbound crew.
OR
We vacate at FR and our brake temps will normally be around 450-500 deg by the time we get on stand. With no external cooling other than the Sussex breeze we tend to lose 100-120 deg an hour from the brakes and we have no brake fans fitted. Max permitted temp for take off is 295 deg and we require brakes to manoeuvre around Gatwick on the way out and normally have quite a wait at the holding point.
Now this is not your problem I appreciate, but it is an important consideration. When I am training guys and we are early then I encourage guys to use FR and try to manage the temps accordingly and also it gets me to Tesco 5 mins earlier. However I cannot speak for everyone.
Now for Smokey Lomcevak's bored musings with his "skip", the issue with the end of the runway is with our OANS/Airport Nav/ROW/ROP systems, of which I am sure he is an expert.
The layout of the airport at Gatwick means that "J" lies beyond the official end of the runway, which means that if we are doing more than 10kts past that then there is a high likelihood of a Runway Overrun warning (not good) and subsequent ASR paperwork. The BTV system targets 10kts groundspeed 300m from the threshold end so guys need to disconnect it early to allow the plane to roll on at a higher speed.
So in short on 26L, FR is ok on a normal day but gives us high brake temps for a turnaround. With being unable to accept any other exit after that until J, we are almost stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If the airport surveyed G/GR then it would probably make all the problems go away instantly for both sides.
However you are more than welcome to ask the question about vacating at FR and I am sure most "skip's" (out here we are called captain) will happily oblige. The key thing is to ask early to give us the chance to re-select the exit during a non-critical stage of flight. On transfer to tower it is a bit too late to manage it with someone inexperienced on type, which is why most people will take J.
In return if we can get an accurate TOBT/TSAT and minimal taxying, then most people will happily dispatch with higher brake temps, especially on 26L.
I am happy to give any interested controllers a tour of the plane and associated systems next time I am in Gatwick (next month). We did this in Birmingham, after starting operations there and I think it was mutually beneficial for both sides. Feel free to PM me.
08R works well for both of us. You get 99.9% exits at BR and a guaranteed runway occupancy time every time. The distance from touchdown to BR means we can vacate, taxi into stand 110 and keep our brake temps below 300 deg, which is the optimum for the relatively short turn-around in Gatwick.
On 26L however it can be a bit more problematic.
Firstly there is the issue of runway exits, for the A380 only FR and J are available to us.
In simple terms, we have a choice of either vacating at J, which gives us the option to vacate direct onto J and then manage the brake temps well for the outbound crew.
OR
We vacate at FR and our brake temps will normally be around 450-500 deg by the time we get on stand. With no external cooling other than the Sussex breeze we tend to lose 100-120 deg an hour from the brakes and we have no brake fans fitted. Max permitted temp for take off is 295 deg and we require brakes to manoeuvre around Gatwick on the way out and normally have quite a wait at the holding point.
Now this is not your problem I appreciate, but it is an important consideration. When I am training guys and we are early then I encourage guys to use FR and try to manage the temps accordingly and also it gets me to Tesco 5 mins earlier. However I cannot speak for everyone.
Now for Smokey Lomcevak's bored musings with his "skip", the issue with the end of the runway is with our OANS/Airport Nav/ROW/ROP systems, of which I am sure he is an expert.
The layout of the airport at Gatwick means that "J" lies beyond the official end of the runway, which means that if we are doing more than 10kts past that then there is a high likelihood of a Runway Overrun warning (not good) and subsequent ASR paperwork. The BTV system targets 10kts groundspeed 300m from the threshold end so guys need to disconnect it early to allow the plane to roll on at a higher speed.
So in short on 26L, FR is ok on a normal day but gives us high brake temps for a turnaround. With being unable to accept any other exit after that until J, we are almost stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If the airport surveyed G/GR then it would probably make all the problems go away instantly for both sides.
However you are more than welcome to ask the question about vacating at FR and I am sure most "skip's" (out here we are called captain) will happily oblige. The key thing is to ask early to give us the chance to re-select the exit during a non-critical stage of flight. On transfer to tower it is a bit too late to manage it with someone inexperienced on type, which is why most people will take J.
In return if we can get an accurate TOBT/TSAT and minimal taxying, then most people will happily dispatch with higher brake temps, especially on 26L.
I am happy to give any interested controllers a tour of the plane and associated systems next time I am in Gatwick (next month). We did this in Birmingham, after starting operations there and I think it was mutually beneficial for both sides. Feel free to PM me.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EdB,
Thanks a lot. Sounds like most of the stuff I've heard is spot on.
Very rarely do I experience boredom sitting at A3, especially with you big boys coming in, and occasionally we resort to humour to fend it off. If that doesn't work, I simply remind myself that I'm earning cash every minute I'm sitting there!
Thanks a lot. Sounds like most of the stuff I've heard is spot on.
Very rarely do I experience boredom sitting at A3, especially with you big boys coming in, and occasionally we resort to humour to fend it off. If that doesn't work, I simply remind myself that I'm earning cash every minute I'm sitting there!
