Heathrow delays 05/01/05

[simfly]

Hearing ABZ tower relaying to Heathrow flights 27L closed due to incident, delays expected to be 2 hours...

[wilbur.wright]

27Left believed back in operation around 12.15.

Some delays due to arrangements for the three-minute silence.

[Sonic Cruiser]

Eurocontrol CFMU Reported that single runway operations due to someone bursting a tyre, incident now resolved.

[southern duel]

No Burst tyres on this one.

This was the last aircraft to land before the scheduled 3 minute silence at 12 noon. Unfortunatly he had the normal and nearly daily problem of a smoking undercarriage. ( caused by de icing fluid dripping onto warm brakes - a common occurance with aircraft arriving from the states) ATC instigated an AGI and the aircraft stopped on 27L. The BA Aircraft had originated from Denver where it had been de iced. Runway available at 12:13 after inspection of the aircraft by the Fire service.

Had another 90 minutes later on an American B777 AA098 with the same problem although he vacated the runway before he came to a halt and the fire service arriving so the runway was never unavailable

happy flying.

[J-Class]

Just back from GVA where my BA flight was delayed three and a half hours allegedly due to the 3 minutes silence causing a previous sector of the same aircraft to declare low fuel and divert to LGW. Not happy.

[BEagle]

Neither, I imagine, are several hundreds of thousands of people in SE Asian countries bordering the Indian Ocean right now....

Have some respect......

[Load Toad]

What a pity J-Class, my heart bleeds and I suggest we start a charity appeal for you. How thorougly inconvenient this tsunami has been eh?

[J-Class]

BEagle, I've got plenty of respect for the people affected by the Tsunami and made my donation before Jack Straw. That doesn't mean I have to respect an airline which doesn't fuel its aircraft appropriately and as a result screws up my day.

[eal401]

I have given my thoughts re: the three minute silence on JB.

However, delaying aircraft for it is ridiculous, particularly if it knocks on to cause thee hour delays. But if the arrangements have caused a fuel emergency, it is not ridiculous but an irresponsible and idiotic endangerment of life.

Unless of course the survivors of SE Asia want more death and suffering.

Just because J-Class is not happy about being delayed because of an organisation(s) inadequate/incompetent planning, this does not mean he has no respect. To imply so is thoughtless, patronising, offensive, arrogant and self-righteous.

[RoyHudd]

Eal401, you are right, and well-said. The 3-minute silence was a totally inappropriate symbol of "respect" for the dead victims of the tsunami. A 2 minute silence is held annually in respect of this country's dead in World War 1 and 2, which were vastly greater numbers, and this is not seen fit to interfere with air traffic and air safety.

[eal401]

The 3-minute silence was a totally inappropriate symbol of "respect" for the dead victims of the tsunami.
I wish it was a symbol of respect and not a blatent Blair PR exercise.

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

I believe the 3 minutes was an idea from Brussels and not Downing Street

G-I-B

[simfly]

When BA LHR flight was informed of the delays in ABZ, pilot reported he'd need to get more fuel than planned as they only had 20mins worth for holding:confused: I understand that airlines want to keep fuel to a minimum, but going into LHR with only 20mins spare seems a bit toooo tight to me....

[surely not]

G-I-B don't worry about Eal401, he can get a snipe at Blair into any thread, very tedious.

I assume that the 3 minutes silence and Apt closure was NOTAMed? If yes, then shouldn't the airline operators either have planned a delayed departure from their destination, or upped the fuel reserve by a small amount to take account of the potential additional hold? I cannot believe that it was imposed without warning.

I seem to recall some interesting threads on here awhile ago concerning some airlines very tight holding fuel allowances. A 3 minute delay could occur without warning any day, it shouldn't be that critical should it?

[Del Prado]

The runway closure due 'smoke from undercarriage' was at least partly to blame for the diversion to LGW J-Class is refering to.
Aircraft got airborne from LGW to return to Heathrow just as runway was closed again for same reason.

Sometimes it's just not your day.

[maxalt]

Simfly, there is a long standing UK Notam which recommends all a/c commanders with destinations in the London TMA to carry a minimum of 20 mins holding fuel.
As you rightly say however, some airlines don't like pilots to carry any extra fuel, and actively work to discourage it (league tables published/ tea and biscuits with chief pilot etc). I know of colleagues in my own company who have never heard of or read the particular Notam I refer to, and others who know of it but feel threatened if they carry more than that 20 mins.

This has been discussed at length here before.

[BusyB]

I'm slightly confused as to how an a/c inbound from USA to LHR still has deicing fluid to drip onto brakes!

[ClickRich]

I presume the fluid is on surfaces within the undercarriage bay. With those doors closed and very low temperatures, it must not evapourate away. Then when the doors open for landing...

[LYKA]

MaxALT:

It's not a NOTAM! It's an AIC which advises that on receipt of "no delay" from ATC you can expect up to 20 mins holding. As an AIC (white or pink I think), which are endorsed for information, guidence and neccesary action. An AIC is not a legal document, but any new information having a bearing upon an operation is incorporated in to the OM, and where necessay, the CAA are consulted to clarify applicabilty to XX. Many airlines use statistics to determine contingency fuels/ delays nowadays so quite often you may need/ given more the 20 minutes etc.

I am sure you know all this anyhow, sorry if it appears patronising, I have quoted from our OM!

Safe flying.

[eal401]

he can get a snipe at Blair into any thread
Off topic, sorry.

Well Surely, I've just done a search on my user name and the word Blair to find all these threads where I get a snipe in.

Number of results: 3

Number of "snipes" at Blair: 1, i.e. this morning's post. Another did mention him, but was a joke, not a serious thread.

I'll accept your apology when you're ready.

:mad:

[BEagle]

Perhaps I was too hasty with my comment. However, it was my perception that the 3 min silence was considered an inconvenience to travel plans - and that seemed rather heartless to me.

Talking to a new ba skipper the other day made me aware of the miniscule fuel margins which some airlines now encourage their commanders to accept.... "It's going to cause an accident one day" he said.....

And yes, 3 minutes was excessive in my view.

[HotDog]

Right, how many minutes of silence were accorded to the some 650,000 victims of the Tangshan earthquake on July 27, 1976 in China?

[maxalt]

but any new information having a bearing upon an operation is incorporated in to the OM Maybe in your outfit, not in ours in this case. And we aren't under the CAA.

They used to add a special allowance to the flight planned fuel for such airports, but they stopped that.

UK AIC/NOTAM, whatever...its not widely promulgated over here. I first found out about it on this website!

[zed3]

Surely , respect is personal and also spontaneous .
I personally paid respect by thinking about the victims and then donating an amount to a UK charity days ago . At the risk of attracting criticism , I take exception to being told to stand silently still ( throughout Europe .....hint , hint . ) for three minutes . I was in fact working ( in a European en-route Upper ATC centre at the time ) but still , it grates somewhat to be told by unseen masters what to do . Maybe I am wrong , paranoid or something , yet I have a nasty feeling of creeping control .
This is not a political statement but just a worry , deep down about freedom . Maybe the wrong occasion to express my views on the matter but nevertheless .

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

It's been an interesting thread! A 3-minute gap in the landing stream equates to about 10 miles and I have seen lots of 10-mile spaces which have nothing to do with "silence" periods. There are loads of special flights around London which require gaps in the final approach stream but they're not heard about..

As for the AGIs for smoking brakes - I've put dozens of them on myself and they are very frequent occurrences DURING DAYLIGHT. How many occur in the dark and are therefore not seen one can only wonder...

[FullWings]

Had one of these myself last winter, smoke from gear on rollout, fire brigade, etc. Funny old thing, it was coming back from DEN.

We did remark while we were being de-iced that they were doing a pretty thorough job of it - including about 1" of fluid on the windshields... Must have left a lot on the brake units too.

[PAXboy]

Radio 4 report: The 'invitation' for a 3 minute silence came from the PM of Luxemburg [sp?] who currently holds the position of chair of the EU.

No comment. :rolleyes:

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

I'm curious as to exactly how much "extra"fuel all you 20/20 hindsight aces would have loaded to compensate for the 3 minute delay. . . 3 minutes???
Presumably you would have used your vast experience of the global impact of mega tsunamis on traffic flow patterns into the London TMA to arrive at the correct figure.
:confused:

[Capt H Peacock]

We seem have this argument regularly on PPRuNe. Funny how it's always Big that ends up diverting. Most other operators seem to be able to take the Authority's advice, and that 20 minutes extra fuel is a sensible amount.

[simfly]

Although I understand the arguments for and against the 3 mins silience (not that it's anything to do with the thread:bored: ) I think the whole thing is more relevant to us than any other tradgedy, bearing in mind the loses, not just from the UK, but from many countries, and the it all happened in a popular place where everyone is welcomed to visit.

[TopBunk]

Capt HP

I don't think that you can satistically prove your assertion that Funny how it's always Big that ends up diverting .

Big Airways has 42% of the slots at LHR and therefore one would expect them to divert more aircraft than other airlines purely because of the numbers. As to whether this is greater as a percentage than their slots, I question your assertion.

I suspect that given the need to divert aircraft, ATC are not going to divert Korean, Aeroflot, China Eastern, Varig, etc etc because of the potential language issues, but are going to divert locals such as BA, BMI and Aer Lingus.

The BA fuel policy meets all CAA requirements and provides in shorthaul 99% contingency fuel - ie the contingency fuel carried will be sufficient for 99% of the flights and will result in aircraft still landing with reserve plus alternate.

It is true that at certain times of the day this can result in less than 20 minutes contingency fuel, maybe as little as 8 or so.

Personally, for a given flight I think inter alia, is this a 99% day - if so then I would be happy to take planned fuel. It may be that my 99% judgement is conservative in that on more than 1% of occasions I take more fuel, but there is no comeback, all anyone can ask is for you to think about your fuel decision wrt company policies.

[Barry Cuda]

Top Bunk, it's not necessarily ATC that will divert an aircraft... We rely on the pilots to tell us when and where they want to divert and we try and facilitate these requests.

Maybe the airlines you name don't divert because they don't have handling agents elsewhere...?

[Gonzo]

Or carry more fuel?

lights blue touchpaper and retreats.....

:D

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I suspect that given the need to divert aircraft, ATC are not going to divert Korean, Aeroflot, China Eastern, Varig, etc etc because of the potential language issues, but are going to divert locals such as BA, BMI and Aer Lingus.>>

Err.. excuse me chaps but ATC CANNOT divert an aircraft. Full stop.

[flowman]

It would have been more beneficial to bin the three minutes silence and contribute the money saved by not wasting fuel, or three minutes total European Union production and giving the cash where its most needed.
Can somebody start a separate Tony Blair bashing thread, it looks as though it would be well attended!

[luoto]

Topbunk: you wrote "I suspect that given the need to divert aircraft, ATC are not going to divert Korean, Aeroflot, China Eastern, Varig, etc etc because of the potential language issues, but are going to divert locals such as BA, BMI and Aer Lingus."

I am not authorised to sit in the driving seat so consequently this question may be "bleeding obvious" but surely there is a requirement for flight deck wallahs to have sufficient English skills (ICAO official lang.) to traffic into UK airspace etc. And persumably they would have plates etc for Alternates?

If that is the case, why should others be "affected" by this "special treatment" and pay extra costs and knock on sked changes?

Could an ATCer or similar give the official line on this? Mr Heathrow Director states that ATC don't order diverts? Presumably the approach controller can say whether permission is granted to land in a given sequence or instruct holding manouveres, but I guess the PIC determines if they have sufficient juice or declare a visit to a fine Alternative location.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<If that is the case, why should others be "affected" by this "special treatment" and pay extra costs and knock on sked changes?

Could an ATCer or similar give the official line on this? Mr Heathrow Director states that ATC don't order diverts? Presumably the approach controller can say whether permission is granted to land in a given sequence or instruct holding manouveres, but I guess the PIC determines if they have sufficient juice or declare a visit to a fine Alternative location.>>

As I pointed out, ATC cannot divert aircraft so the first part does not arise. By "cannot divert" I mean that a controller in the UK cannot specifically instruct a pilot to fly to a different airfield unless the pilot makes an appropriate request.

Aircraft heading for a major airport are usually directed by radar and the landing sequence is decided by many factors but mainly down to the type of traffic offering. If too many a/c arrive at once they will be instructed to enter a holding pattern until such time as they can be sequenced for landing. The air traffic controllers do not "grant permission to land" in the manner in which you imagine. A/c are directed to the airfield and ATC at the airfield clears them to land purely based on other air traffic and not to do with whether the pilots speak good, bad or indifferent english.

In the case of an aircraft with a major mechanical problem ATC may, if so requested by the airport authority, transmit a message to the captain asking him if he would consider landing at a quieter airfield to prevent delays at the major airport. However, the decision on where to land always rests with the Captain - and rightly so.

The only time I ever became more involved in the decision making process was many years ago when Heathrow experienced a steady wind of 010/60kts for several hours, which meant very few aircraft could land. A/c were diverting from all over the place to airfields with N-S runways and when those places became congested, many crews asked ATC "Any suggestions where we might go?"

[Gonzo]

Luoto,

You are correct, but sometimes as ATCOs we want aircraft to do things that require a complicated procedure or instruction, and using our common sense, UK or 'native' english speaking crews would understand us better.

For instance, into Heathrow one or more of the stacks fill up more quickly than others, usually LAM. There is a procedure called 'stack swap' where Approach allocate a supplemental route to a STAR so an inbound might fly intro LAM, then staight out to BIG to hold. BA, Midland and Aer Lingus and the like tend to use this (it doesn't jump the queue, it just spreads out the holding more evenly) because we can explain it easily, and they know the whys and wherefores.

If we chose Air China, Korean etc for this we'd be making a rod for our own backs because it would be much harder to explain it simply in the event of confusion. And coming into a busy TMA anywhere in the world is the last place for confusion.

[Capt H Peacock]

Whilst Air Traffic cannot instruct an aircraft to divert, they may have to close the airfield or may not be in a position to give a legal landing clearance.

One might suggest that's tantamount to the same thing.

[Jerricho]

That in itself opens a WHOLE new can of worms.

[luoto]

..for the updates guys and I certainly didn't intend to open cans, boxes or packages of worms.

But in terms of language, how does that relate to "
Amendment_164 to Annex_1 ... has introduced strengthened language proficiency requirements for flight crew members and air traffic controllers. The language proficiency requirements apply to any language used for radiotelephony communications in international operations. Therefore, pilots on international flights shall demonstrate language proficiency in either English or the language used by the station on the ground. "
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#q9

Is there any sanction? Are foreign air crews really tested for this (and how is the proof made?)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am making no slurs on any foreign crews coming into LHR or other places and am merely interested in the dynamics.