EGLL/LHR Temp. Closed?

[ALLDAYDELI]

Hearing reports that LHR closed down currently due to a disabled a/c on the runway and diverts are now being instigated. Whats up?

[GrahamK]

I read on airliners.net that it's a KLM 767 with some sort of fire on 9R and a CX 343 made an emergency landing on 9L. Dont know how true this is though

[ukatco_535]

Having just managed to get a break from the ops room at TC, I can confirm that one runway is now open again, after several aircraft have diverted. It has had a knock on effect, with Solent departures etc being held for a while and flow is now in progress.

The lack of staff is not helping

[Leezyjet]

KL B763 stuck on 09R, not sure why, but they were putting steps up to the L1 when I was out that way. Already had a GPU attatched and were just hooking up the tug. Fire service and Police were also in attendance.

Runway closed and down to single ops on 09L then CX A343 had RTO from approx 80kts, fire service also attended this and followed a/c back to stand where it refuelled and has now gone again.

LHR Fire Service have been busy. Bet their pool table has never been so quiet. :E

:)

[xetroV]

I read on airliners.net that it's a KLM 767 with some sort of fire on 9R and a CX 343 made an emergency landing on 9L.

Don't believe everything you read on Airliners.net. According to the threads in their forum, the KLM airplane had a fire/engine fire, a seized landing gear, or even supposedly hit the runway during landing with a wingtip! According to www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl (a dutch aviation news site) the problem was a malfunctioning brake when taxying out onto the T/O runway.

Also the CX flight didn't make an emergency landing; it aborted its take-off.

[hold on the left]

Right, lets deal in facts and not fiction.... There is already too much rubbish spouted about this sort of thing on Airliners.net and on here, so I will clarify some points for you

1)KLM do operate B767-300s into Heathrow. If you haven't seen one then you should spend more time at the airport. If you have seen lots of them then you should spend less time at the airport and more time in the pub.

2)Today one of them had a problem with wheel bearings on the main gear which seized whilst taxiing down 09R attempting to return to a stand. The Airport Fire Service attend these sort of things because when bearings and things seize they start to get very very hot indeed..... think metal on metal under duress

3)The Cathay A340 had a rejected take-off. Rejecting at a reasonable speed requires a healthy application of brakes.... these get hot.... the fire service attend (See above)

4)Runway 09L was used in a similar manner to Gatwick/Stansted, etc... i.e. one lands, one takes off

5)There was no collision between anything at all.... None, nothing, nichts!!

6)There was no landing aircraft with undercarriage problems

7)There was a period of having no aircraft arriving or departing from heathrow airport.... as a consequence of the two above mentioned problems

8)There was no KLM landing with wing problems (as mentioned elsewhere)

9)Nobody died, or was injured

10)The above events resulted in delays, and the creation of a sperm whale and a bowl of petunias (Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, its on at the cinemas)

11)There is no big deal about any of this. S**t happens

Any questions?

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Now, if Heathrow had a third runway..................... :ouch: :ouch:

PS. It all looked a bit of a non-event from where I sat.

[Knackered Nigel]

No big deal, but both runways closed means poor buggers with cirrus fuel ended up elsewhere no doubt. Unlucky chain of events. Never commit to Heathrow.. imho.

I understand the Klm was on the runway for about 3 hours!

My flight was cancelled unfortunately as a result.

KN

[vanhigher]

why did the A340 have an RTO ?

just wondering ..

[bluepilot]

quote :Now, if Heathrow had a third runway.....................

Heathrow does have a third runway, its called 23 !!!

[Irish Steve]

And, at risk of stirring pots that had started to settle slightly, , this almost unheard of sequence of infrequent and unexpected events demonstrates only too clearly why the crew of the 3 engined BA 747 that was going in to MAN a few weeks back followed precise procedure and declared a Mayday before getting to the final approach stage. Not because they were in trouble, but to make ABSOLUTELY sure that they were not going to get into a potentially problematic scenario because of circumstances outside of their control.

Can't have a 2 runway airfield with both runways closed, so we won't cause problems by declaring it? Glad (a) he wasn't trying to get into LHR this afternoon, and (b) he did it by the book.

Looks to me like some of their actions were only too clearly vindicated by this scenario today.




(prepare for incoming)


edited to keep the spelling police happy

[Fried_Chicken]

quote :Now, if Heathrow had a third runway.....................

Heathrow does have a third runway, its called 23 !!!


Did have a 3rd runway called 23! Permantley closed now I believe

FC

[crjlover]

here the AIM from eurocontrol:

SUBJECT: HIGH DELAY DEST EGLL
.
OPERATORS AND ATC UNITS ARE ADVISED THAT THERE ARE MAJOR DELAYS
IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: ARRIVALS AT EGLL
.
DELAYS ARE CAUSED BY DISABLED AIRCRAFT ON RWY
DELAYS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
.
-------- ARE UP TO 60 MINUTES--------------
.
FMD STAFF ARE CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING THE SITUATION AND WILL
ADVISE OF ANY POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS.
IN THE MEANTIME OPERATORS ARE STRONGLY REQUESTED NOT TO TELEPHONE
FMD HELPDESK ABOUT DELAYS WHICH ARE TYPICAL/AVERAGE.
.
FMD BRUSSELS.

[Curious Pax]

I seem to remember in some of the threads discussing fuel, and the amount of contingency to be carried, there was some mention of different rules for airports (specifically LHR) that have 2 runways in cases when the weather is not expected to be a problem. Can someone knowledgeable about such things comment on this in the light of yesterdays double runway outage?

Apologies if I've firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick, but in this case my username is accurate!

[katana]

The CX flight was 252. RTO at 110kts due to ATC instruction to stop. Following landing a/c also told to go around. Seems the single runway operation made ATC go for super-tight departures/arrivals and they stuffed it. No tyre damage, just hot brakes.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<made ATC go for super-tight departures/arrivals and they stuffed it>>

So speaks "cadet pilot" Mr Katana........ Hope you don't "stuff it" one day, my son.

For Curious Pax.... during my time in Heathrow ATC I often heard of crews who "anticipated" the other runway as a kind of alternate.. Extremely unwise as the departure runway is frequently not available for landing, not simply because of departures but there are often works going on which would prevent landings.

[NigelOnDraft]

HD...

.... during my time in Heathrow ATC I often heard of crews who "anticipated" the other runway as a kind of alternate.. Extremely unwise as the departure runway is frequently not available for landing, not simply because of departures but there are often works going on which would prevent landings.This issue often crops up here. Whilst we know you are now retired, as either "Approach", "Director", or "Tower", if an aircraft familiar with LHR (e.g. BM or BA) makes no statement or emergency call about his fuel state, what would an ATCO, from his training, "expect" the aircraft to be able to do in terms of go-around, diverting, further radar circuit(s) etc. from just before touchdown ?

[Dude~]

So did the KLM actually reject its take off or did it's bearing seize as it taxied on to the runway?

[BOAC]

NOD - I think a post by 'Kowloon' a few years back thoroughly explored this question and proved 'committing' to be generally something to be done with extreme caution:eek:
PS I never did it!

EDIT: Found it - by 'Antigua' - sorry 'Kowloon' here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50602) and followed up here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69040)

[NigelOnDraft]

Dude~

So did the KLM actually reject its take off or did it's bearing seize as it taxied on to the runway? You obviously have a reading problem :) does this help:2)Today one of them had a problem with wheel bearings on the main gear which seized whilst taxiing down 09R attempting to return to a stand

Hi BOAC!

NOD - I think a post by \'Kowloon\' a few years back thoroughly explored this question and proved \'committing\' to be generally something to be done with extreme caution I in fact do it reasonably often, but to my own criteria, not my employers :) Like most things in life, you make you own judgements, while holding your own Plan B in mind... Too many follow the book blindly without really thinking through the possible consequences....

[WHBM]

Just an outsider here. Actually a sort-of outsider as our company (located near LHR) had several visitors from Scotland and the north yesterday, all of whom had grossly disorganised journeys home.

The incidents described are reasonably straightforward and do not lead to gross disorganisation elsewhere. How is it that about once a month something happening at LHR leads to cancellation of half the BA domestic programme for the rest of the day ?

Who allowed Rwy 23 to be closed (seemingly just to park a few more T4 aircraft) when the airport is in such a tight situation ?

Who allows things like the T5 construction cranes to impinge on the glidescope putting the opposite runway out of action for arrivals ? Goodness me it's an AIRPORT that BAA are running ! It's not as if alternative construction techniques are not possible.

Why are runway-impinging works not done at night ? Heathrow has it easier than most at that time, with little/no small-hours activity and 2 non-intersecting runways available anyway.

[Hand Solo]

The incidents described are reasonably straightforward and do not lead to gross disorganisation elsewhere. How is it that about once a month something happening at LHR leads to cancellation of half the BA domestic programme for the rest of the day ?

Closing both runways at Europes busiest airport is not straightforward! The domestic program is messed up because a few of the aircraft have diverted and have no estimate as to when they'll be back at LHR, likewise with the crews, and everyone else has a massive slot delay and consequently goes out of hours. I'd challenge the claim that this sort of thing doesn't cause gross disorganisation elsewhere. Last time I saw two runways closed at Frankfurt there was traffic holding over Belgium and aircraft were diverting back to the UK over the channel!

Who allowed Rwy 23 to be closed (seemingly just to park a few more T4 aircraft) when the airport is in such a tight situation

HAL, against the wishes of ATC and the pilot community. Besides, 23 was no use with less than 30 minutes notice anyway as it had stands at the end and all the aircraft needed to be towed away before it could be opened.

It's not as if alternative construction techniques are not possible.

Why are runway-impinging works not done at night

One word - cost.

[Tallbloke]

I thought Heathrow had no night time traffic for noise reasons, so it would hardly be very neighbourly to open a building site all the time the aircraft are not flying.

Isn't the type of structure being used at T5 supposed to reduce (not eliminate) the use of cranes over long periods by making sure that as much as possible was done on the ground before major structures were positioned?

[BOAC]

I in fact do it reasonably often, but to my own criteria, not my employers - exactement, mon ami!

I remember with some anxiety those 'blind followers' as you put it who would happily fly down to 30 mins total fuel remaining with nowhere else to go - 'cos the book says to do it!

I'm still not sure ATC know the truth?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<if an aircraft familiar with LHR (e.g. BM or BA) makes no statement or emergency call about his fuel state, what would an ATCO, from his training, "expect" the aircraft to be able to do in terms of go-around, diverting, further radar circuit(s) etc. from just before touchdown ?>>

Hi Nigel. ATC would expect the aircraft to make a standard missed approach and then be radar-vectored for a further approach. If the pilot wished to divert it would be impractical to issue a SID so, again, radar vectors would be employed to get it into the departure route.

In bad weather when crews are aware of their fuel problems they will usually warn ATC in advance that in the event of a go-around they would like to divert to xxx. ATC then usually issues them with the appropriate SID to use following the go-around.

Does that answer your questions?

[NigelOnDraft]

HD...

Thanks for the answer(s). In short, does not seem you "expect" aircraft to be able to "divert"?

Your reply concurs with the way I "play" it, in that if a GA will result in either a PAN or Mayday call (i.e. might or would result in landing off the second approach with less than reserves), then I will tell ATC e.g. shortly after leaving the hold.

As per diversions and SIDs etc., I do note our Flt Plans rely on a "SID to be flown". As you state, this is unlikely to occur, and so in the absence of other factors, I will aim to select and brief for an Altn that has the MAP at least taking me roughly in that direction. And as you say, if it gets tight / likely, would aim to pre-warn ATC....

[woodpecker]

This ATC pilot thing is all about communication.

After the '87 gales there were numerous comments from pilots who suggested they were "not kept in the picture" regarding low level turbulence while sitting in the various Heathrow holds. In the old days P3 would have been removed from the loop to monitor the tower frequency in such conditions. But with a two crew operation that becomes more difficult. The comments made to the tower controller should have been passed to those contemplating an approach.

The other side of the coin is that the pilot has a responsibility to keep the controller "up to speed" with regard to his reduced capabilities (fuel, increased DH, Crosswind limit etc)

I remember Heathrow running with 9R closed and the total operation on 9L. The weather was fine and ourselves, like many others with an EAT, were committed to Heathrow. Our fuel state had been passed to the controller while we were holding but it seemed prudent, when changing to the tower and being informed that we were to continue our approach as there was a Concorde lining up after the preceding landing traffic to "keep him in the picture as well".

"Speedbird 123 understand to continue with a departing Concorde shortly to line up.. Be aware due to our (legal) fuel state in the event of a Go-around we will declare an emergency and carrying out a visual 1500 feet circuit left hand". Need I say that the Concorde's line-up was cancelled! Hopefully our call was appreciated by the tower controller!

[WHBM]

Hand Solo :

Thank you for your input, but it seems that if it's not one thing at Heathrow it's another - both runways closed this month (though not for long apparently), LVPs last month, high crosswinds the month before with increased spacing ..... etc. And always the domestic schedule shot for the rest of the day.

Regarding the stands at the end of 23 which had to be cleared, whoever authorised them in the first place ? And the T5 overheight cranes ? Sure it saves BAA costs. But whatever are the CAA airfield licencing people doing about all this ? Nothing it seems, their days being too fully occupied with lining up CBEs for each other.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Nigel.. As you know, I'm retired so it would be as well to obtain current info and hopefully one of my ex-colleagues will comment. However......

<<In short, does not seem you "expect" aircraft to be able to "divert"?>>

Not wholly sure what you mean. Go-arounds are fairly commonplace and ATC treats them all as "expecting" to be repositioned for landing at Heathrow unless the pilot says otherwise. A diversion to another airfield can be accomplished by ATC with the minimum effort from anywhere in the circuit. But... if you mean "divert" to the other runway then you should be aware that this may not be a possibility.

Procedures may well have changed but I always assumed that it was inappropriate to issue a SID to a go-around (remember we're forever being reminded about pilot "workload"!). I always worked on the basis that a diversion of a late go-around just got radar vectors but someone who stated that he might divert after a go-around (LVPs) got a SID well in advance.

[Skylion]

Two points:

1)

BA shorthaul suffers disproportionate knockons from disruputions because the aircraft, tech crew and cabin crew are all rostered separately. Crew and aircraft seldom stay together for the next sector out of LHR . This is compounded by cabin crews minimum turnaround time agreements which illogically and expensively treat LHR differently from any other point on the network.

2) Never mind 3 runways, the published 1947/48 plans for LHR showed nine runways, six south of the A 4 and 3 in a triangle between the A 4 and where the M4 now is. 2 of the southerly 6 would probably have had to go to make way for the Central Terminal Area, but it was still a pretty impressive collection. Harmondsworth and Sipson were scheduled to disappear via compulsory purchase orders. All of this was scrapped around 1954 as the bureaucrats and politicians had by then decided that aviation needs would never grow that much and they would rather spend the money on the NHS. How times dont change.

[Gonzo]

WHBM,

Extra stands v 23: All down to cost.

Extra revenue gained by BAA through more stands = x

Cost to BAA of keeping 23 as an active runway = y

Cost to BAA of those two days a year when 23 would have been used but without which LHR now goes SNAFU = z

Revenue x is very significant.
Cost y is astronomical
Cost z is, relatively, not very much at all.

The same case applies to de-icing facilities, and many other examples.

[littleprince]

The construction of a taxiway is very much different from that of a runway. It's much cheaper to build and maintain a taxiway than a runway. Rwy 23 has been designated part of twy alpha for a little while now according to the aerodrome chart in the air pilot. Officially 23 is still available but if it costs 1 dep and 1 arr slot to let something land on 23, who would let that happen these days?

Also there's bound to be legal wrangles when they start planning for the 3rd (4th in theory) runway. I suspect 23 will remain on the book until it is built so they can say "hey we havent added another runway, we've simply relocated 23 to become the new 27R"!!!

[Warped Factor]

NoD,

This atco would have thought that if nothing is said on the r/t to indicate otherwise that anyone making a missed approach should be able to fly to their designated alternate and then hold there for a certain amount of time (15mins?) before making an approach?

Woodpecker's reply is also indicative of another concern of mine. It could be called single plane syndrome...each pilot thinking "well I'm right down to minimums now but it's okay, if it all goes pear shaped I'll just call pan or mayday".

Fair enough, but how many might be thinking it at the same time? After the first one calls pan and comes in out of sequence he knocks back everyone else in the queue a bit so someone else calls pan, againe knocking back everyone else and so on. Traffic calling pan or mayday will also be given extra spacing ahead on final approach, for obvious reasons, increasing the overall delay even more. It's a cumulative effect that just gets worse.

One day this situation is going to turn round and seriously bite us.

WF.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Oh yes..... one point I meant to mention. Data presented to controllers does not routinely include info about alternates. Short of asking the pilot the only way that the controller could obtain this information would be from the FPL, which could take a long time.

[BEagle]

With the fuel states used by some airlines these days, how long before Heathrow has its 'West Raynham Incident'?

[NigelOnDraft]

WF...

This atco would have thought that if nothing is said on the r/t to indicate otherwise that anyone making a missed approach should be able to fly to their designated alternate and then hold there for a certain amount of time (15mins?) before making an approach?Thanks for that answer... When an aircraft, say in the LAM hold, nnow uses the totally legitimate ability to "dispense" with the Altn, what succinct RT phrase can we use to ATC to indicate this? It's nothing formal, but, like you, it can only help that ATC, and other aircraft are aware... All will get a "feel" for when numerous aircraft are getting into this situation :(

I can only agree that "one day" there will be a nasty. Current "rules", leaving aside airmanship, mean that some crews think nothing of adjusting their plan to land with only just over reserves, and say nothing. Effect is that on requested to GA, the reply will be "GA Mayday", and I cannot imagine ATC will be too amused :(

I for one do think this through, and have my Plan B & C up my sleeve. Not "legal" in the extreme, but will see my aircraft & PAX safe. The problems I see are that: A lot of people seem to just follow the rules blindly e.g. "commit" to a single airfield (runway) even in, say CAT3A [this is permitted!]
Don't see a need to think one step ahead e.g. "what if we GA", and then where appropriate pass on that plan e.g. tell ATC "in the event of a GA we will be calling P / M due fuel"
The lack of liasion between the operator side (i.e. airlines / crews) and the ATC side about what fuel levels we now can/do plan to land with, and indeed lots of pressure from the airlines to almost routinely do so I do not want to start another debate about whether we should be landing with these fuel levels etc. - we've done that! Just want to spread the communication, and see how we can keep ATC somewhat more in the loop...One day this situation is going to turn round and seriously bite us. Couldn't agree more.

1 final point. All this is regulated by the CAA. In my spare time I fly Jet Provosts from a 2 runway airfield (albeit they intersect and 1 is a bit short). Under the CAA rules I must make my final landing with sufficient fuel to divert - this just under a "Permit to Fly" so Day VMC only. The next day I jump in an public transport operated Airbus, and the rules allow me some hour+ out to "commit" myself + 100+ PAX to a single runway in CAT3A with no possibility of diversion. That doesn't add up to me, more so when you consider the JP has bang seats !!

[BOAC]

ATCOs/HD - if you look at the links in my edited post of 12/5, it would appear wise to 'expec't at least one MAYDAY if a g/a occurs?

Does this help with your planning? :D :D

In the case of the BA 747 into MAN, we COULD have had the situation where a company minded Nigel was on final to land with 30 mins fuel remaining (ie no diversion fuel) and ordered to g/a for the MAYDAY jumbo behind...................... oh what fun we had.....

Let me see. Off to LPL with Nigel (1) on a MAYDAY with 'not much' left, next a/c after the jumbo broken off the approach (now on a MAYDAY) in case 747 blocks the runway, next one into the hold, now short of fuel, on a PAN. Anyone want to continue the story?

[NigelOnDraft]

....was on final to land with 30 mins fuel remaining (ie no diversion fuel)Can be worth clarifying this is "30 mins holding" - not 30mins flying. A GA and optimal visual circuit might only take 7-8 mins, but will use, for an Airbus, ~50% of this fuel as a minimum. Any sort of radar circuit - even a tight one, will be using 60% as a minimum, therefore basically there might be only "one shot" left :( I can't imagine other types are far off this either...

[250 kts]

On a slightly different,but still relevant subject. Just imagine the holding at LHR is 20 minutes (as little as that I hear you say) and the centre is advised that say,Stansted/Gatwick,has a closed runway. Would you expect ATC to make general broadcasts-the reason being many of you would have Stansted/Gatwick as an alternate.

[Warped Factor]

NoD,

Thanks for that answer... When an aircraft, say in the LAM hold, nnow uses the totally legitimate ability to "dispense" with the Altn, what succinct RT phrase can we use to ATC to indicate this? It's nothing formal, but, like you, it can only help that ATC, and other aircraft are aware... All will get a "feel" for when numerous aircraft are getting into this situation

I've been working when a/c in the hold have said words along the lines of "be advised we are now committed to landing at Heathrow"..."roger" was my reply because I couldn't think of anything else to say.

Here we get into Catch 22 again. If you tell me you're committed to landing at Heathrow, there are big delays for whatever reason but the wx is such we can be doing 2.5nm spacing, would you expect to be given more room in front of you so that you're fairly aassured of a landing clearance but with the consequence of knocking back the EAT of everyone else still holding and so making life more uncomfortable for them?

If you get extra room you knock back everyone else by a couple of minutes but you probably land, if you don't get extra room and have to go around and call mayday we'll be breaking all the traffic on intermediate and final approach off so that you can come back in with minimum delay and everyone else gets knocked back probably 10 or so minutes and the situation escalates.

Same situation applies in that if a lot of aircraft start telling us they're committing so we get a "feel" for it...what sort of position does that put us in? We've got to keep landing at the minimum interval to keep the landing rate up and the delays to a minimum whilst knowing that the first missed approach is likely to cause serious problems for a number of a/c.

Hopefully I'll be on a day off when the sh:mad:t starts to fly :(

WF.

[BOAC]

Can be worth clarifying this is "30 mins holding" - not 30mins flying - absolutely correct, NOD, over-simplification on my part to avoid frightening the horses! Further clarification? It is a max of 30 mins fuel left IN THE AIR to tanks EMPTY. There may not even be 30 mins as engines tend to splutter a bit on low fuel, and tank gauges are not 100% accurate anyway. As well as the fuel 'crisis' the crew have all sorts of other emergency drills going on due to the fuel state. WF - you are not wrong! I would not like to be there either.

Personally I have always thought JAROPS incorrect in allowing this and feel they should have set a higher minimum fuel, say 45 mins?

If you want a further laugh, JAROPS do not consider a runway as part of the 'ground equipment' required to assure a landing:D We differ on that point.

[NigelOnDraft]

WF...

said words along the lines of "be advised we are now committed to landing at Heathrow"..."roger" was my reply because I couldn't think of anything else to say. I've done that in the past... and the "Roger" reply means at least I know you've understood what I mean by that. I am not expecting you to do anything with it, other than maybe a dry "well, that makes 10 of you right now" which ought to get us all thinking. And given a comment like that, one of us, and/or you, might consider an MOR :)

The problem with the "committing rules", almost by consensus, is that they work well for 1 aircraft. They will all fall apart with 10+ aircraft and one other spanner thrown in...

would you expect to be given more room in front of you so that you're fairly aassured of a landing clearance No... I would only hope for a bit more room if I subsequently stated "fyi, if we GA we will call Mayday". If the latter was a PAN, then maybe, maybe not depending on traffic etc. And I have no right to the room, you just might decide to give it to me to make your life easier :)

The trouble is we cannot solve this situation as "individuals". it's only with the bigger picture, and getting them "up the chain" to see the problems we might get a better fallback plan. But as usual, "they" will stick their heads in the sands until the **** does hit the fan, and then deny they were aware of a problem. All I can do today, is cover my own backside...

[Jordan D]

Sorry - me being uninformed once more - but what is the West Raynham incident?

Jordan

[NigelOnDraft]

West Raynham incident Well known to RAF types!! Not quite sure of the type (Hunter?) but 4+ got airborne and doing whatever when the weather socked in. I am sure someone will find the details, but resulted in nearly all the aircraft lost and 1 life I think...

As I say, I am sure someone will find a link / relate the whole story. IMHO there is a lesson or more from it that could be related to this subject matter :(

[Ranger One]

NoD said:

The lack of liasion between the operator side (i.e. airlines / crews) and the ATC side about what fuel levels we now can/do plan to land with, and indeed lots of pressure from the airlines to almost routinely do so

I'm going to take a wild guess: how long do you think before we see transponders that encode a summary of fuel state data? I give it ten years plus one major incident.

R1

[southern duel]

WHBM

I think you miss the point about Runway 23 and crane Operations at Heathrow.

First of all there were 78 cancellations and 7 diversions due to the KLM incident and the CX aborted take off. I cant remember the exact figure but approx 70 of those dep/arr were BA. There were no BMI cancellations or Diversions. That probably tells a story in itself.

i presume all your colleagues flew BA ???

Runway 23 is closed and yes because of the need for more aircraft parking areas. The amount of times runway 23 was used is insignificant compared to aircraft awaiting stands to park. This was mainly due to pressure from BA to the BAA especially for T4. Anyway what good would 23 have been because we were on easterly ops !!!!

Departing 09L and landing 23 , now that would be interesting for ATC to manage not to mention aircraft landing with a tail wind.

The Terminal 5 cranes are only allowed to affect one runway at a time and are Notam'd as such with strict controls by ops. There is an agreement which says they must be lowered within 10 minutes if required to do so.

Night work would be too expensive and also the noise from the site would be unbearable for the local residents

This is in agreement with the CAA.

These types of incidents when both runways are out of action are few and far betwen and you cannot legislate for every eventuality.

By the way whats Low Viz got to do with anything ?? Most airports suffer at one stage or other and the flow rate goes down which is normal practice. Perhaps you should have a word with the great one and get him to stop lozw viz, high winds, thunderstorms etc etc

Perhaps you should fly from Luton in the future.


:ok: :ok:

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

If RW23 is closed, can someone please amend the AIP?


FROM 04/12/04 12:30 TO 05/12/31 23:59 A2686/04
E)RWY 23 NOT AVBL DUE WIP

[BEagle]

The 'West Raynham Incident' took place on 8 Feb 56. 8 Hunters got airborne in low cloud and mist which was expected to improve. It didn't - it worsened. They arrived back at 20000ft over West Raynham to find low cloud and fog. Despite the fact that 2 other a/c had already diverted to Waterbeach, the 8 Hunters set off at 2000ft to Marham in pairs at 30 sec intervals. Marham's weather also deteriorated and the GCA controllers were unprepared for 8 a/c with critical fuel states all planning to arrive within 4 minutes of each other; of the first pair 1 lost sight of his leader but landed successfully more by luck than judgement, the leader flew 3 timed circuits at below 500ft, landed successfully but flamed out taxying in. The others weren't quite so lucky, 4 climbed up and ejected as their fuel ran out, 1 crashed into a field and was killed, the 8th flew a 150ft circuit but force landed when his engine flamed out on final.

Whenever someone 'commits' to a single aerodrome, they should consider what would happen if that aerodrome became unavailable or that multiple diversions might be required. Despite what airline beancounters may want, intending to land at the planned destination without enough fuel to divert anywhere else seems the height of folly to me. But then I'm old-fashioned about such things!

Worringly, a new ba skipper recently told me "Our landing fuel policies will kill people one of these days".

If beancounters think that paying to carry extra fuel is expensive, let them consider the cost of an accident.....

[Anti-ice]

quote 'skylion'


"BA shorthaul suffers disproportionate knockons from disruputions because the aircraft, tech crew and cabin crew are all rostered separately. Crew and aircraft seldom stay together for the next sector out of LHR . This is compounded by cabin crews minimum turnaround time agreements which illogically and expensively treat LHR differently from any other point on the network."

----

Oh skylion , grow up:mad:

We had operated a 8 hr duty day with a link , which was retimed for our 3rd sector to nightstop.
We had a 50 min break reduced to 23mins at the CAT lounge , and had been so busy on the preceding 2 sectors , we had no break whatsoever ALL DAY , plus a delay with passengers onboard...

So are you telling everyone , that despite you being sat on your *** a**e all day , that the cabin crew should be on their feet for 12-14 hours with no 'getting away from it' whatsoever ?

We don't scuttle off with handfuls of newspapers to read all flight - we work ,. .try to have a little appreciation and wind your neck in..........

Perhaps if we removed your flight deck seats and made you stand all flight, you may see things from a different perspective....

[Jordan D]

BEagle - many thanks for the explanation, most appreciated.

Jordan

[Widger]

Well, when this happened, I posted, that I thought TC were probably busy and it was lucky that it happened at a quiet time of the day. My post was deleted for some reason and looking at Dude's recent post , it obviously happened to him/her as well. Why was this? I have an opinion. Mods are you part of NATS management? Anyway, well done TC and LACC, the incident obviously had some knock on effect later on that evening.

[Turn It Off]

Maybe everytime you land with below diversion fuel, if you are unhappy / uncomfortable with it then you could file an ASR?

[Skylion]

Anti-Ice.

If you were with Easyjet, Ryan and a host of others, you, the pilots and the aircraft would probably have all been together on the stand,- not in the lounge,- for 25 minutes and then off again, not for one sector, but two.
BA suffered disproportionately, not because of ATC,( who did a good job for everyone), the BAA, KLM, Cathay or anyone else but because of its own arrangements. Why do you think BMi, and their customers, in comparaison came away pretty much unscathed?

[GT3]

Anyway, well done TC and LACC, the incident obviously had some knock on effect later on that evening.

Any well dones for LHR?? Or did we have it easy that afternoon?

[Mushroom_2]

"Any well dones for LHR?? Or did we have it easy that afternoon?"

The days of LHR getting any well dones are long gone I'm afraid.

[Captain Airclues]

Well done LHR!!!!

[PPRuNe Pop]

I second that! :ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

WELL DONE HEATHROW.

As for Mushroom_2.... well we all know what they're fed on.