Mixed mode at LHR

[GT3]

Regular operations of landing on both runways (a set amount every hour on the depature runway) during the whole day.

Coming to an airport near Windsor soon. Fear it on GMC!

[Gonzo]

Luuuurvely!:ugh:

[411A]

So, what's the big deal?
LAX did this for years, with 25L/R, before the 24's were available...and occasionally all 4 runways are used for landings...mixed with departures.

Surely good 'ole LHR can cope?
All the folks there need is more stiff upper lip.:cool:

[fly bhoy]

All the folks there need is more stiff upper lip

And less work in progress!!!

FB:ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Ahh.. will it ever happen, I ask? As I write this I have in front on me an article I wrote for a magazine in December 1965 (yes - nineteen sixty-five) entitled "Parallel Landing Procedures at London (Heathrow) Airport". A novel idea, which never caught on! Let me know when it comes in - I want to watch GMC!!!

411A - just try popping a map of Heathrow onto a map of LAX. Your place takes up half of California whereas our little strip is tucked away in the middle of a housing estate. We don't have the room you people have...

[Gonzo]

Isn't the PPRuNe 'ignore list' a wonderful thing?

HD, The recent developments alluded to here mean that in effect we can TEAM much more often than now. Instead of just using the inbound holding delay as the trigger point for TEAM, I hear that we'll soon be able to use the holding delay plus any delay a/c are getting on the ground at their departure airports.

i.e. BA315 LFPG-EGLL gets 20 minutes slot delay in LFPG and then ten mins at BIG, we can TEAM.

TC are still very reluctant to do simultaneous parallels.

[Max Angle]

The question is will it be used to expedite the traffic already using the place, in which case lets get on with it, or to cram more traffic in?. Somehow I know the answer without waiting for a reply, oh well it should provide some go-around practice if nothing else.

[evenflow]

You know that queue you have to wait in for take off from heathrow.....its about to get longer! :}

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Problem they found back in the 60s was that traffic offering from the north and south stacks was rarely equal - there would be a rush from the north all for 28R (now 27R) and nothing from the south for 28L, causing problems for the #2 Directors (now Final Director). Of course, back in those days there were plenty of staff to provide for two #2s.... but now???

Similar problems occurred with outbounds so although both runways were available the GMC problems were horrific.

[Jerricho]

TC are still very reluctant to do simultaneous parallels.

Really? *Scratches head* Bunch of wussies :p

[halo]

A few reasons why it's not such a good idea....

1) Far too complicated on GMC..... It's hard enough now with all the construction work going on without adding opposite direction taxiing traffic into it as well

2) The majority of people at Heathrow have never done any kind of solid single runway training (the simulator doesn't count because it's not particularly realistic). Therefore, expect more incidents in a similar vein to a couple of years ago (BA B744, BMI A320). Piggyback go-arounds will become a lot more commonplace

3) It is rapidly becoming the norm at Heathrow that controllers have either no or very little radar experience, hence when it all goes horribly wrong they don't have the skills to get themselves out of it. A few reasonably recent cases have also highlighted this, and as long as the college of knowledge keep trying to send us people with no radar training whatsoever then you can expect a few of the 21 Destinations to take a hit

4) Runways 27L/27R are reasonably well set up for Mixed Mode. Turn-offs are in a good location and of a good standard, and so there is no reason purely from a runway useage angle that 6nm spacing with one away in a gap couldn't be done. Runways 09L/09R however will be awful for Mixed Mode as there are no rapid turn-offs and what turn-offs are present are poorly located. Couple this with the fact that on 09L the Holding Area does not permit any aircraft to overtake each other at all, then the chance of marshalling to sneak two aircraft away in a gap becomes zero.

I would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this because I'm sure it could be a long and productive debate :D

I do feel however that unless the Terminal 4 situation is resolved i.e. traffic can park/has a stand/has somewhere to hold for a stand/has enough tug crews to cope.... then we are putting ourselves at risk by allowing a whole barrage of BA aircraft and their affiliates to land 27L/09R and block up the whole airfield. We can only get so many in there waiting for stands before we can't get anybody out of there from stands!!

[Gonzo]

I agree, halo.

Intersting times ahead, especially given that over the next 5-10 years we will see less stands than at present.

[Evil J]

ah halo, the voice of reason-you should be management....o yeah you are:ok:

Must agree that whilst it may alleviate the inbound delay surely it will affect the outbound rate...is this not robbing Peter to pay Paul?

And as previously stated what is the point of having the aicraft on the ground if it cant get to its gate, quite possibly because the aircraft on it cant get out because of outbound delays(!)...or am i missing something???




*expect fluctuation in the glidepath*:E :E

[Gonzo]

Evil J, no, you're not missing something.

:rolleyes:

[PAXboy]

Am I right in thinking that simultaneous landings occur in the very early morning? I'm thinking of from opening at 06:00 for an hour or so when many of the long haul birds come home to roost?

[Jerricho]

PAXboy, normally when the 0600 "all stations go" hits, both runways may be used if the arrival delay is sufficient (help me out with the numbers here Gonze et al. Isn't it something like 10 minutes holding between 0600 and 0630 then 5 mins between 0630 and 0700? Can't remember)

Ideally the BA/T4 arrivals land on the south runway, but as halo has described, it can get very congested down that part of the field very quickly.

[upandoffmyside]

And is anything actually being done at exit A9W or is just closed to add daily interest to our lives...!?

[411A]

Clearly, the radar folks at LHR have their knickers in a twist, as do the folks that are supposed to co-ordinate ground ops/construction.
Do they not talk to one another...at all??

And, if not, why are we not surprised?:yuk:

[Lost_luggage34]

I have somewhat limited experience of the innards of ATC operations at LHR.

But who has overall control over runways, taxiways and GM ?

I suspect it is a mixture of HAL, BAA and NATS.

Do any of you actually talk to each other ?

What are the real, major issues behind mixed mode not being workable ?

halo's post raised some good questions and gave some good answers.

Why are there not the same high speed exits when the Westerly approaches are in use ?

I am sure my understanding is very lacking and that it is not so simple, but money must be a factor. All very well investing in T5 but what about better planning of manouvering space ?

As always, the technology is there. The skill of ATC is there for sure. Are the restrictrictions simply due to lack of space on the ground for traffic moving about ?

Many questions from one who is rather unintiated in current matters, but as a regular LHR transit passenger, valid ones I think.

[Gonzo]

Jer, re: the delay 0600-0700 you are correct.

LL34,

We do talk to BAA/HAL (they are the same enitity). However, as you've pointed out, money is a big factor. Everything that we suggest that would expedite traffic flow, i.e. more high speed turn offs, whatever, everything has to have a business case attached to it, and we have to show HAL that they would get their money back in x years time.

HAL airside ops staffing levels are way below requirement.

Mixed mode will not work because we haven't got enough space on the ground. As has been pointed out, we struggle presently. Another big reason is lack of stands to park all the planes on.

[BEagle]

As SLF, I got so fed up with the delays at LHR that I now use BHX as my first choice of airport.

Nothing about LHR has much to recommend it these days - it's expensive and congested.

Let's hope more money will be spent on improving regional airports than on trying to squeeze yet more into LHR.

Would adoption of mixed mode cause airlines to review their routine fuel policies?

[fly bhoy]

Just found out this morning that we are due to get another RET on 27L where A6W/E are just now, but that wouldn't help the congestion on the ground, just add more to it for T3(and T5 when it opens)!!

I think, as halo and gonzo say, though that unless something's done about T4 (with regards to stands, guidance etc), that landing even more on 27L would just cause even worse gridlock, and especially when T5 opens as there's going to be even less stands for BA then than there are currently!!

FB:ok:

[FLZERO]

Paxboy,

Yes, they do use mixed mode in the early morning inbound rush to roost, but then the outbound traffic is minimal.

Zero. :ok:

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

As a frequent SLF (and as such this issue affects the SLFs deeply as well, given the profound delays at LHR), is there any lesson to be drawn from other airports with mixed mode operations on parallels and where the terminal area is largely central or in between the runways ? Thinking of JFK or ATL or ORD, for example. Yes, I know these generally have more runways, but in terms of ground movement control do they simply have more taxi-ing space or more gates to manage ground conflictions ? Thanks

[GT3]

A lot more taxiways is the answer to that. We do have 2 taxiways that loop around LHR but they are not fully open due work in progress, and dont expect them to be fully open for at least another 3 years. Then there will be more work.

I suggest we shut LHR for a month. Get all the work out the way and then open up an airport that is able to handle the traffic properly.

[Jerricho]

I suggest we shut LHR for a month.

Probably not a bad idea GT.

Or just nuke the place and start again.

[Northerner]

<I suggest we shut LHR for a month. Get all the work out the way and then open up an airport that is able to handle the traffic properly.>

I could handle that!!!
:}

<Nothing about LHR has much to recommend it these days>

What not even the chance to talk to me and all the other fabulous people on the way in?:\ :p

Seriously Mixed mode will require an awful lot of capacity increases everywhere. I know they are working on that, but whether they will work on it enough before they try to bring it in remains to be seen....

"hold at Biggin, delay not determined whilst the Heathrow guys work out whether they have to say take off or land...." :E

Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to...."

[Gonzo]

Of course, I hear some top people are working on it now.....:}

Don't worry Northerner, you'd still have those CSE PA34s to keep you company!

;)

[Lost_luggage34]

Thanks for the reply Gonzo.

Very interesting. Kind of confirms my suspicions, but does beg the question why does nothing ever get done to address the GM issues ?

As I stated before, all very well building a nice, new shiny terminal - so more parking space.

But your colleagues still have to shuufle the tin on arirval and on departure.

Seems to me like a bit of a shot in the foot.

[Northerner]

<Of course, I hear some top people are working on it now.....>

Really?

We must have different names...

:E :E :E :E

Just thought how happy Southampton, Farnborough and Gatwick would be with no Heathrow inbounds and outbounds....

[Gonzo]

We're our own worst enemies. We've made it work for so long, it seems like we're squeezing ten gallons into a pint pot! And of course HAL aren't ATC experts, they contract out (to us) for that. We tell them what would be efficient and cut down on delay, but they say no and go for the lower cost option (or no-cost option and do nothing). They are the owners of the airfield, after all.

The problem is in getting the HAL/BAA bigwigs to understand how Heathrow ATC works, and just how much more efficient the operation could be if the airfield infrastructure was improved. The number of unserviceabilities, especially taxiway lighting faults, is ridiculous.

We have a similar problem with BA not employing enough dispatchers, so the stand guidance isn't switched on for hte inbound, so he has to stay on the taxiway blocking and delaying other traffic. Instead of employing more staff, BA just add on another five minutes to the flight time for each flight. Far cheaper!

And as T5 opens up more stands, other parts of the airfield are going to be closed for improvements (A380 stands, etc), so overall we're going to keep losing parking capacity.

Northerner.....

Just thought how happy Southampton, Farnborough and Gatwick would be with no Heathrow inbounds and outbounds....

Those towns have airports too????? :oh:

[TheOddOne]

Gonzo,

Those towns have airports too?????

Oi!!!

I know we're only a tiny little outfit down in the country (a mere 31 million pax last year) but we're pretty friendly and I like to think that NATS and GAL talk to each other regularly and profitably. Development does take time and we do ask a lot of NATS, but I like to think it's no more than they feel they can deliver. We've got problem areas on our airfield, too and the same lack of BA dispatchers.

HAL/NATS never seem to have got on so well as they ought, even going back 20-25 years or so. I dunno what it is about LHR, it was a great place to work in many ways, crossroads of the world and all that, but there was always a tension and atmosphere about the place that pervaded everyone's thinking and attitude towards one another.

Cheers,
The Odd One

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The blindingly obvious answer to Heathrow's "problems" is to ditch the noise restrictions..... the movement rate could then be doubled at a stroke and you wouldn't need any fancy mixed mode stuff..

[Gonzo]

The Odd One,

I was half expecting a reply from you. :ok:

I should have added to my post above that the relationship we have with the ODMs at Heathrow is excellent, and that we are confident they appreciate our problems, and we certainly appreciate some of theirs. In many cases their hands are tied from above, as I guess you know, and that's the problem, as is the lack of resources given to AOSU (being told only to call AOSU in an emergency, as the night shift is sorely undermanned and nobody's around to answer the phone is just not acceptable - and that's certainly not the fault of the ODM or AOSU!).

Just to illustrate, yesterday the low cloud lifted to reveal one of the exits off a runway had a barrier across half of the concrete (albeit only the hatched area), and it was obvious that many aircraft were slowing down to take that exit, then would see a barrier, assume it was closed, and then have to roll all the way down to the one after next (the next one closed for real!). This caused three go-arounds in half an hour, and we quickly got the barrier removed. We weren't told the barrier was being placed, nor was the ODM! Who knows who decided to put it there!

[opnot]

Gonzo
Re your last two postings.
Just change the name from Heathrow to Manch.
I think we are all in the same boat and sinking fast.

[Northerner]

Gonzo...

<Those towns have airports too????? >

Just ask the many many people who got hammered on TC SW, TC NW and TC Midlands in the last few days.

The story is the same everywhere I think, we get so good at our jobs that the planes just keep on coming, and we keep just trying to fit them in.

The summer is going to be so much fun....:uhoh:



Only made better by the fantastic people I work with.
:O :)

Take care out there,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

[Gonzo]

Just ask the many many people who got hammered on TC SW, TC NW and TC Midlands in the last few days.

Ahhh, but you have that canteen! I had a lovely fry-up for brekkie when I was over the other day!

Only made better by the fantastic people I work with.

And those who you talk with on the phone! :ok:

[TopBunk]

Gonzo

We have a similar problem with BA not employing enough dispatchers, so the stand guidance isn't switched on for hte inbound, so he has to stay on the taxiway blocking and delaying other traffic.

Then why aren't the stand guidance systems left permanently on?
They are meant to signify (AFAIK) that the stand is ok to enter, but at the end of the day, if I as the captain hit anything, it is still my fault anyway. Leave them on and in a small aircraft like my Airbus I can taxi on at my on cognisance and get out of your hair! If I'm not happy I won't taxi onto stand, but 99% of the time I would be, at the moment I have no choice in the matter.

[Gonzo]

I have no idea.

I guess something like insurance, health and safety?

It's an airline/BAA issue. We've been on at them for years to improve things.

[Jerricho]

is to ditch the noise restrictions

Bren, you speaketh the truth. However it has become a sign of the times. Poor old Sydney airport is brutally under the thumb when it comes to noise. As are many other places in the world.

(I've just done a Google search "aircraft noise abatement. Makes for some interesting reading)

[Aerostar6]

100% agree on the permanent stand guidance 'on' theory.

9 times out of 10, after sitting just short of parking spot for 10 minutes, despatcher screeches to a halt in his Fiesta in a cloud of blue smoke, runs across and hits the 'on' switch without so much as a backward glance at the ramp.

Since we are not going to park if there is something in the way, and we have a view that is 30' higher up than the guy on the ground anyway let the crews decide whether it's safe to go on.

Put mirrors on all of the stands and we can save them the electricity for lighting up the guidance! That should persuade HAL!

[NigelOnDraft]

100% agree on the permanent stand guidance 'on' theory 100% disagree :)

If your suggestion is implemented, do you think you will be disembarking sooner or later? I would say later - much later! What incentive for BA to properly man the Dispatcher team if the aircraft has "arrived" (Park Brake on for ACARS etc.), and HAL / ATC not breathing down their necks...

A final thought with thes new fangled guidance systems at LHR (APIS) - for Nigel's see FCO 2802. If the stand is not "on", you should not even turn on to point at the system - you will need to block the whole cul-de-sac. If you have turned "on" to find it off, you now need a marshaller, even if the thing is now turned on. Don't blame me, I don't write the rules... :)