Wx aviodance.

[Oliver James]

DIY wx avoidance is dangerous. On LHR approach we are already vectoring traffic close together so, if you need it, please ask before you do it. It will be a very rare occasion that we are not able to help you. . .. .It happened twice in the space of 3 minutes this week, presumably going around the same "cloud" (as it was later described). On both occasions it involved traffic turning downwind off LAM. Both a/c stopped their turn 30 degrees short of the mark and it put them both in direct conflict with traffic turning onto the ILS. On both occasions action had to be taken to ensure separation (not to mention personal cleanliness). . .. .I know the r/t loading is high (in fact if pilots feel unable to ask for help due r/t loading then it must be too high) but that is a separate issue. We won't see that you have rolled out until after 2 or 3 sweeps of the radar and that can be too late to react. Remember also, TCAS doesn't give azimuth and basing action on it has already caused a near miss. . .. .No NAME, no pack drill. The AIRLINE concerned has been notified but everybody needs to understand. (The same applies to slow rates of turn which is why we sometimes slow traffic to 180kts before the downwind turn, in strong wind. We expect/ need rate one or better.). .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> point 4

[vegas_jonny]

At the risk of irritating a director (!) , a Captains first priority is the safety of his aircraft and its occupants. If avoiding action is required immediately then that is that.. .It is always necesseray to inform ATC first, however, if you can't get a word in, that does not mean you fly through the CB!

[porpoise]

V-j, it's true that if you can't get a word in you are not going to fly through cb just because you don't have permission to turn. You do however have to say something at the earliest possible time, and if it's causing a problem and a fellow professional has asked you nicely why not just listen to what he has to say?

[Oliver James]

VJ, I understand your point, captains responsibility and all that and that is fair enough... Trouble is that in taking wx avoidance without prior approval, these captains did just that, they endangered the safety of their aircraft, and others. . .. .There was no reported CB activity (if there is we tend to use vertical separation to give us a safety margin.) and when questioned the second captain said "... it was to go around a cloud". Compelling grounds for going it alone? Doesn't seem so to me. . .. .Whilst it is and issue, is the fear of litigation perhaps making more of wx than ought to be? Back in the days of Dan Air 1-11s and B727s, nobody seemed to care and I don't recall any problems.. .. .point 4 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[Pandora]

While we try our hardest no to upset anyone the order still remains - aviate, navigate, communicate. . .. .We would not deliberately disobey an ATC order and not notify them unless we absolutely had to and we couldn't get a word in.

[flite idol]

The road to undermine the commanders authority is a very risky and dangerous one. 120.4 makes a very valid point however. I have flown with captains who upon approaching innocuous cu bark "tell em were goin 20 left for weather" and feel because number two will make it so, they just make the turn, even thiough the poor sodin` f/o cant get a word in edgeways. The lengths I`ve seen some people go to, to avoid fairly benign weather is at times outlandish.

[White Knight]

I have noticed that a minority of pilots will deviate for the slightest of Cumulus - come on chaps, let's not stuff up the directors too much. A large Cb is one thing - a bit of Cu with a bit of rain coming out from below is another.

[NigelOnDraft]

120.4. .. .We will obviously try our hardest to tell you prior to avoiding action, and if not possible, as soon as possible thereafter.. .. .However, please bear in mind the Dallas TriStar accident - they were still going after the Flt Crew's families years after because the CVR caught the crew commenting on a "rain shower" - and as the lawyers said "and they still flew into it...!". .. .We also have the same problem with radars - ours only viewing an arc forwards, so its only as we get to within, say 60 deg of the shower (plus any time for a sweep) that we "see" the shower, hence may need to roll out early etc.. .. .Finally - R/T loading. Yes - the frequencies at LHR are far too congested, and this is the real cause. If you have to get a special concession to allow "callsign only to 120.4" then someone is admitting that the frequency is overloaded... We had the same discussion recently about lczr then GS intercepts a few days back.... .. .NoD

[Max Angle]

There does seem to be a huge range of opinion on what needs to be diverted around when it comes to CB's and towering CU. A lot of the time when flying around the London TMA in and out of Heathrow you hear pilots asking for steers around really pretty tame looking weather. If it looks like we will only get a little bump then I would rather fly through than load up an already busy ATCO. It is simply not realistic to avoid everything, turbulence is just part of flying and it is not possible to always provide a "magic carpet" ride for the pax. . .. .As far as DIY weather avoidance goes, it seems to me that even a fairly large CB is going to make much less of a bump than smacking a 747 over the centre of London!. Unless I felt that the aircraft was in REAL danger, and lets be honest, that is very very rare, I'll take my chances with the weather and maintain separation.

[IcePack]

There was a very good article in the BALPA log a few years ago about a Captain who got taken to court for "hurting" one of the crew due turbulance in a hold. (Wake I think) Anyway the bit I alwys remember was the first interview with the lawyer.Quote " Captain why did you recklesly fly your aircraft through this area of turbulance". .Not good to deviate without permission. But sometimes I have thourght of squarking radio failure when I have not been able to get a word in entering London TMA.

[MacDoris]

All valid points so far i would say and can only add that if you can get in on the frequency give us a fighting chance, how far you need to turn for how long and direction (if you can go left or right tell us it can cut down on a lot of co ordination), but i also understand that there are times in the situations when everyone is looking for Wx avoidance that you may not be able to get in on the RT and may feel the need to avoid, as has been mentioned already in these situations controller workload rockets and we may not notice your turn till too late so avoiding action could well result. Afterall everybody is aiming for the same gap.. .. .Icepack in current climate i would stronly suggest not Sq radio fail in the London TMA or any other area unless you really are, the result may be surprising!. . . . <small>[ 25 March 2002, 21:21: Message edited by: MacDoris ]</small>

[cactusbusdrvr]

I've always thought that the professional way to fly transport catagory aircraft was to minimize abrupt movements of the aircraft when you have pax on board. Dodging around buildups keeps the pax and the trolley dollies (as you call them over there) happy.. .We have a crew that has been cited by the NBTSB (not the FAA) for causing a flight attendant to be seriously injured during turbulence. In the terminal area when everyone should be down you do need to stay on the vector, especially under final approach. I wonder, though how much noise abatement has hindered the availability of airspace to allow wx deviations.

[Warped Factor]

Last year while doing the final director position at LHR an A320 didn't tell me it had stopped its turn to avoid weather.. .. .End result was separation rapidly lost and my giving avoiding action at the same time as the A320 got a TCAS RA.. .. .Well that wasn't the end end result, I got suspended from duty as well while the circumstances of the loss of separation were investigated.. .. .Unfortunately our highly processed radar has no weather information displayed on it, so we can't see any wx and just have to sit and wait to see who wants to go where when avoiding. There is a certain amount of inconsistency here though, where one aircraft goes left, right, left, right etc to avoid, the one 5 miles in trail doesn't say a word and just seems to go happily in a straight line.. .. .But whatever, we will do everything possible to accomodate your requests, short of letting you bump into someone else. But please try not to go wandering off on your own, it doesn't do my blood pressure or grey hair count very much good at all <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . .. .WF.

[Oliver James]

Well, it isn't a perfect world and I don't suppose there is a perfect answer to this. . .. .One thing is for sure, the r/t loadings at LHR are too high. Nigel is right, "Callsign only..." tells us something. I have often wondered how I would safely cope with a Mayday on 120.4, especially if on 09L and doing some right-siders as well. Sure, spare r/t is an essential part of the safety infrastructure but to move our traffic through a single final director we have had to do away with it. Unwise, I think, but so far, so good. (Mixed mode with two Final directors would reduce individual loading but that is politically very difficult... unless we had an accident that implicated r/t loading, then I am sure a way would be found.) For what it is worth, it has been deemed that just 5 seconds is the longest time that the final director can be safely without r/t access and we have a special handset that bypasses everything else to give us immediate fallback.. .. .I don't want to upset anybody over this I just want to bring it to the fore so that aircrew are aware of the impact DIY has on us. We already play it tight so if you pinch a bit too, it can get frightening. I guess I am asking you to be certain that you HAVE to turn for SAFETY rather than discomfort. If the wx is THAT bad we would usually be expecting it and have flowed accordingly.. .. .Point 4 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[HugMonster]

Is it not about time that the APP and DIR radars had Wx returns?

[5milesbaby]

"We will obviously try our hardest to tell you prior to avoiding action, and if not possible, as soon as possible thereafter." . .Not trying to pick holes but hopefully clarifying the difference to keep all in tune, Avoiding Action is to miss another plane, WX avoidance is the topic which can lead to the former.. .. .This has been battled out before, and to no real conclusion. Obviously we as ATC need to know your actions and will do the best to maintain separation. Our goal is to keep it, so any loss is a mark in the book, be it our fault or not, we are still scarred. As mentioned above though, pilots are there to assure the safety of pax and plane so will also do what is neccessary. But we DO NEED TO KNOW what you are doing. I don't know about other controllers, but I definately would congratulate any pilot who can't get in on congested RTf to Sq MayDay if they felt so required. The alarm bells would go crazy and full attention certainly given, you'll definately get your space on the frequency now. As for the legalities......... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" />

[Jetavia]

During timebuilding in Florida the US ATC did a great job vectoring around weather as they have wx radar, but as far as I know Europe seem to be way behind not being able to do the same .. ??

[411A]

Not complying with ATC instructions to...."fly around a cloud"? Perhaps the "Captain" involved should turn in his ATPL and stick to private VFR flying.. .Doesn't sound to me as though he should be in an airliner.

[recommended spacing]

We get a lot of weather avoidance up here north of the border and generally the rt loading is such that pilots can get in and tell us what they are doing. When we know the weather is there, we DO use vertical separation, it gives us that bit more flexibility, having never worked at TC I can't comment on the procedures etc, but at the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for the safety of an aircraft lies with the commander of that aircraft, if (s)he feels the need to avoid the weather then so be it, but get in and tell us asap, or sqawk 7700 if you can't. The paperwork for a loss of separation is nothing compared to losing an a/c (I've had both), and beiong suspended until the subsequent investigation clears the ATCO then so be it, personally I'd be glad of the time off, knowing that I'd done nothing wrong!!

[somewhatconcerned]

Can't see the point of flying round clouds myself except when the safety of the aircraft is at stake. I do it in my 172/warrior so why can't the 'big boys'. Surely accepting turbulance comes with the territory. You would get more than a few nasty bumps if cloud avoidance caused a collision.

[pom]

I see from the first post on this topic that two aircraft flew around the same cloud. After the first avoidance the controller should have known that there was a chance that some wx was there, and subsequent a/c on the same route may have wished to avoid it. I think a flippant comment on a serious matter may have been misinterpreted. I don't know anyone who "flies round clouds", many who fly around weather. Many years ago I heard a 1-11 asking for permission to deviate to avoid weather. The controller told him no. The next call from the 1-11 was that he was unable to maintain height or heading. He ended up in an Italian airfield with his windscreens opaque, his radome missing, his leading edges full of holes, and his fuel tanks leaking. To my mind, the most important common theme is the overloading of R/T traffic. I have to say, there are some controllers who don't help, they issue an instruction and the moment it is acknowledged they issue another one. It is not uncommon to listen to half a dozen such transmissions before getting one's oar in. And I'm not anti-ATC. They do a wonderful job, and I have really enjoyed the times when I have visited West Drayton to see them in action. It's a great shame they don't get more chance to fly with us, to see the other side of the conversation. Because in all other matters, we're on the same side.

[propulike]

OK boys, you're scaring me now. For heavens sake, Max Angle,. .. ."As far as DIY weather avoidance goes, it seems to me that even a fairly large CB is going to make much less of a bump than smacking a 747 over the centre of London!. Unless I felt that the aircraft was in REAL danger, and lets be honest, that is very very rare, I'll take my chances with the weather and maintain separation. ". .. .A bit more respect for old mother nature PLEASE. Severe turb and icing is present in ANY CB, never mind 'fairly large' ones! If you're going to make a hole in London, flying into one would be a bl@@dy good way to start.. .. .Whilst not deviating for any cloud in the sky is part of the job, avoiding potentially 'nasty' build-ups most certainly is also. Whether avoidance of this particular cloud was worthy of DIY deviation or not I can't tell, but if it comes to CB vs ATC there should only ever be one decision.. .. .Not meant to be disrespectful to any ATCers or Aviators. Apologies if it is taken as such.

[Oliver James]

The first aircraft just reported his heading as different to the one we had issued, he said nothing of wx. It was reasonable to assume the issue was communications. We have radars, not cristal balls.. .. .The techniques we use at TC are what shift the traffic and I guess this is what it comes down to. We could always reduce the capacity I guess, but that hardly fits in with the economics and politics of aviation in the SE. . .. .The r/t loading on 120.4 has been measured in trials to peak at over 90% (I think it was 95%). That is undoubtably too high and seems to be the crux if the issue. . .. .How can we encourage those with the authority to do something about it?. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> . .. .Point 4

[White Knight]

The thing is cactusbusdriver that the prime considerations for transport flying is. .. .SAFETY. .COMFORT. .REGULARITY in this order. So, if you're going to deviate around a large Cu, just because it may be a bit bumpy you may well end up infringing the safety due to lack of seperation - as 120.4 is trying to say.. .. .As I said in my first posting, deviating around a Cb is one thing (required in fact), dodging fluffy clouds is another - and I often hear other pilots calling for left/right xx when there is really no wx to speak of. . .. .If as you imply going to cause a bit of a rough ride for a few moments then a bit of forethought with regards to securing the cabin and getting the crew to sit down and strap in can actually work quite well.....

[Stan Woolley]

If there are widespread buildups in the terminal area the cabin will probably have been made secure in advance,but this may not be the case with one or two isolated buildups.. .. .Even though the seatbelt signs may be on ,the cabin crew will still be walking about and even a big cumulus,whilst not presenting the same threat as a CB,could still break bones or worse.. .. .Murphys law will of course ensure that the first radar heading will be straight towards this cloud!. .. .I'm with Pom and Propulike,also its about time ATC had weather radar.The fact is that if you can't get a word in edgeways such that it is obvious that ATC are maxxed out(I believe you can sense this over the radio),I would rather not be there.. .. .Like everything else these days,we will squeeze and squeeze till something BAD happens.. .. .Notwithstanding I would like to thank all UK controllers for the excellent job they do, and a special thanks to those who give us Left or Right base into Luton!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[spekesoftly]

The question was asked earlier "Is it not about time that APP and DIR radars had Wx returns". .. .Early generation Airfield primary radar equipment did display Wx returns, often so successfully that the aircraft returns could not be detected! Filters fitted to later radars 'clean up the picture', so it's a bit 'CATCH 22'.

[Oliver James]

The Watchman radar has an Adaptive Moving Target Indicator (AMTI) so that it can differentiate between ground clutter and wx, and at 10cm is short enough to see the bad stuff. The data is there. The problem is that our displays (not the original Watchman ones which allowed you to have wx 'ghosted' in the background on variable brilliance) are not set up/capable of displaying it.. .. .It is time that was addressed but that still leaves the issue of r/t.. .. .Point 4

[harpy]

This problem won't go away until controllers have good weather radar displays of their area. They can't hope to cope without it and pilots can't be expected to fly through the weather. RT congestion just exacerbates the problem.. .. .Anyone who flies into Orlando will acknowledge the excellence of the weather avoidance instructions given by ATC. The controllers have been given the tools to do the job.. .. .Although our weather is not as severe as the Florida weather, it can still cause damage. London controllers should also have the right tools.

[Phoenix_X]

We don't even have to go that far for good ATC WX radar, AMS approach have it, and put it to good use. I've been vectored around weather in the AMS TMA, and couldn't have 'DIY'd' it better myself.. .. .As to some saying they don't know anyone flying around some fluffy clouds, I've certainly flown with some that insist on doing so.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[propulike]

120x4. .. .It seems as though the symptom was the aircraft deviating around weather, which in this case may have been benign. However the problem, it's become obvious from reading these posts, is as you say - that the frequency in use when the aircraft went 'DIY' was just too congested. (Not a new problem, and one discussed on a West Drayton visit I jumped on about a year ago.). .. .However ANY problem that results in an aircraft doing anything other than as expected will have similar results. The only answer, other than to encourage pilots to ignore the outside world and follow the same track at all times (and you know my feelings on that one!) is to create space on the r/t. Ways to do it? Sorry me old, but without detailed knowledge of how you boys run things I'm unable to help on that one. All we can do is make sure we give ATC as much notice as possible of track deviations around active cells.. .. .At least I know now though that weather declutter isn't selectable on your kit any more! My, how the wheel keeps turning.....

[HugMonster]

Put simply, the safety of the aircraft is the commander's decision, and his alone.. .. .It is not for ATC to second-guess or judge that decision. That someone else went through a given bit of airspace three minutes ago is irrelevant. Weather moves. CB's build (and can build very rapidly indeed). Some aircraft may have minor unserviceabilities that ATC would know nothing about, resulting in one aircraft being able to risk going through a bit of weather, and others of exactly the same type not being able to. Some commanders may have told the cabin crew to sit down and buckle up. Others may have problems in the cabin requiring the crew still to be walking around.. .. .So what?. .. .If aircraft need to avoid weather, they should do so. If the RT is too congested to get a word in edgeways, then it is up to NATS, the CAA and the RTA to sort it out.. .. .But don't come whingeing to aircrew that their attention to detail, in making their passengers' flights safe and comfortable (which is what we're all there for, after all), meant that you needed to sweat for a while.. .. .If ATC can't see weather returns on their radar screens and need to, then NATS need to sort that out as well. Who was it said that the aircraft returns were obscured by the weather? Perhaps on primary-only systems. But all the signals are there, available to be fed in. All it needs is the will to do it, to provide the service needed to make aviation in one of the busiest TMA's in the world safe.

[stator vane]

if it was an airbus, maybe the airplane did the avoiding all by itself!!!

[Big Tudor]

HM. .. .It's one thing when "Attention to detail" means a controller has to sweat it out for a bit, it's quite another when that same attention to detail means separation is eroded to the point that safety is jeopardised and a controller is suspended from duty pending investigation. . .. .I thing the crux of the argument is that R/T loading is so high that pilots can't advise when they are having to take such action, particularly in busy airspace such as SE England. The further point is are some pilots avoiding "a bit of cloud" which may prove a risk and in doing so putting themselves, and others, in more serious positions.

[HugMonster]

BT, I would be very surprised indeed if pilots are changing course in busy airspace, without being able to get a word in edgeways on the RT just to avoid "a bit of cloud".. .. .Any truly "professional" pilot knows the dangers of reducing separation. He also knows the dangers of going through a CB. You have to allow him to weigh the dangers and make his decision accordingly. If inexperienced pilots err in their caution of weather, not wishing to go through a simple bit of cumulus I would expect that to be drummed out of them in Line Training.. .. .But since ATCers here admit they can't see ANY weather, it's a bit rich for them to protest that pilots are avoiding something they can't even see and judge for themselves!. .. .I agree, however, that the remedy lies first and foremost with NATS doing something about the appalling state of congested frequencies in the London TMA.. .. .PS I understand that any controller involved in an incident is immediately pulled from the desk, that "suspension" has no implications whatsoever for his career. Indeed, he can be back later in the same shift!. . . . <small>[ 27 March 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: HugMonster ]</small>

[Warped Factor]

Hug,. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> But don't come whingeing to aircrew that their attention to detail, in making their passengers' flights safe and comfortable (which is what we're all there for, after all), meant that you needed to sweat for a while.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">How was it making the flight safer when the incident that I was involved in ended up with the aircraft getting close enough to trigger a TCAS RA? . .. .But sorry, that's enough whingeing from me.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> . .. .Better weather info for the controllers in the LTMA is coming (eventually), but the way it will be presented is still under discussion as far as I'm aware. Whether it will end up on the radar display or on a separate display on the TV type data displays we have adjacent to the radar remains to be seen.. .. .In the meantime the only real weapon we have against serious weather is flow control. The current rules call for a minimum 15% reduction of the Target Sector Flow rates if Cb activity is forecast for any particular sector.. .. .So unless the Cb activity takes us by surprise, in theory there should be sufficent r/t time available to make your deviations known as there should be fewer aircraft around at the time.. .. .In theory anyway.. .. .WhingeFactor <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" />

[Warped Factor]

Hug,. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> PS I understand that any controller involved in an incident is immediately pulled from the desk, that "suspension" has no implications whatsoever for his career. Indeed, he can be back later in the same shift!. .</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Yes, not necessarily, quite possibly depending on circumstances.. .. .Just because it's not your fault it doesn't make watching possibly unecessary incidents any more enjoyable though.. .. .We have a good database of incidents now that we can replay on a PC, if you've got a masochistic streak drop me an e-mail and you can come in and watch a few <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . .. .WF.. . . . <small>[ 27 March 2002, 19:04: Message edited by: Warped Factor ]</small>

[411A]

Hmmm, some pilots here actually think that they own the airspace and can do as they please. Hello, attention... the controller OWNS the airspace, make NO mistake. And from comments, some think that a jet aeroplane will "fall apart" when going thru a low level cloud.. .Hey guys, it may come as a big surprise that DC-6's and Stratocruisers plowed thru the murk and actually came out on the other side in one piece.. .Rough ride, yes indeed, and the cabin crew had better be strapped in...and THAT is the Captains responsibility.. .Wake UP, and listen/follow the controllers instructions.. .Ah well, some never learn. Perhaps they should retire....to VFR flying on Sundays.

[Carnage Matey!]

What like you? I think a DC6 or a Stratocruiser was probably the last thing you flew! Your attitude certainly dates from that era.

[411A]

...the era of "listen to the controller and follow instructions".... ESPECIALLY true now as ever!. .Give the guys on the ground a break!. .Oh yes...still flying jet aeroplanes.

[Max Angle]

411A,. .. .For once I find myself in agreement with you!.

[FCOM 3]

120.4-you're absolutely correct in all that you say-having flown commercially for 24 years, I really can't see why it it seems so so difficult for my colleagues to accept your perspective.. .THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between CBs and "cloud".. .Waken up guys and get a life-and, if you don't mind, a profession.

[TowerDog]

Tend to agree with 411 on this one:. .. .Meh flew DC-3s around the skies with no radar, day/night, VFR/IFR, tropics and Alaska.. .Got bounced around a little, but were able to hit the bar every evening for a cold beer.. .. .No TCAS back then however, stayed with the controller all the time.

[Oliver James]

I hope I haven't sown the seeds of disharmony with this; fighting each other won't help. My purpose has been to broaden the understanding of the dangers of DIY avoidance and seek solutions.. .. .As the debate draws to a close what seems clear is that the r/t loadings at LHR are having an impact on safety; but so long as we get away with it nothing will change unless we push for it. Are we happy to let things run? If not, how are we going to address it? Individuals have little impact. Should we not ask our professional bodies to get together and make representations? I have raised the matter with management myself, the repsonse was "... is it a question of your competence?". Of course, it could be, but reading the debate suggests there is much more to it than that.. .. .We are on the ground. Speak up for your own sakes! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[halo]

Hi guys, as a tower controller I have seen some and carried out some phenomenal weather avoidance, so from my experience here are some points to throw into the mix :-. .. .1) If there is a loss of separation due to a pilot initiated turn due weather avoidance, then the controller WILL get suspended. I know people that have been in this situation and its not very pleasant. The flight crew as far as I am aware do not get suspended and they do not have to justify their actions infront of an SRG Inspector. The controller does!! Although it may not officially make it onto your record, the controller will always be known as "the one that had the near miss", and that is a non-starter as far as careers go. .. .2) The Manual Of Air Traffic Services Part 1(the ATC bible)under Flight Rules, it states that in Class A Airspace pilots will:. .- Obtain ATC Clearance before entry,. .- COMPLY WITH ATC INSTRUCTIONS. .and in return for that, we will "Separate All Aircraft From Each Other".. .. .In addition to this information it lists among the pilots responsibilities the need to conduct the flight in accordance with clearances and instructions from air traffic control.. .. .Now here comes the best bit, and I quote directly from the Weather Avoidance section.. .. . When operating in controlled airspace the pilot is required to obtain a clearance for any proposed detours due to storm centres . .. .I have checked this with the Air Navigation Order to confirm its universal existence and it stands exactly as written above.. .. .Although we are sympathetic towards weather difficulties and will give our all to ensure safe flight for everybody, if it comes to crunch time as to who was in the right/wrong then for a pilot initiated turn I suspect the above will stand. I completely understand about high RTF loading and the only suggestion I can make is to select the RTF squawk and wait for what will undoubtedly be a rapid response from the controller, at which point you will be able to make your request

[Scando]

I stay on the given vector, unless I can get a word in. I don't mind very much going through some weather when close to a major airport. All the hosties and pax are seated at this stage. There is of course a limit to everything. When it's time to put your foot down, thats what you'll do. I don't fancy wearing no halo. Rules or no rules.

[411A]

Certainly seems as though at least the controllers have the right idea, even if some pilots don't...the need to deviate around weather (and not just some "clouds" in the TMA) requires an ATC clearance or...declare an emergency, at least that way not just the controllers have to fill out the paperwork. In the ATC environment, 'tis a team effort, not just a pilot going off on a tangent.

[Stan Woolley]

Why bother with radar,lets turn them off and just hope for the best,better still lets explain our policy in the in-flight magazine!. .. .'You may be interested to know that as a result of airspace overcrowding we can no longer guarantee being able to deviate around bad weather!. .. .Although relatively unlikely, the possible consequences are nasty turbulence,possible damage to the aircraft and/or engines by hail,and the odd lightning strike(like a gun going off in your ear).We apologise in advance for any stress or injuries caused!'. .. .NOBODY wants to deviate from a clearance without good reason BUT it is surely a slippery slope to start flying through weather you would rather avoid because ATC do not have radar and the airspace is too busy.. .. .Defining what weather is bad enough is easier when VMC,but what about IMC when the returns are red,is it a shower or a freak powerhouse CB?. .. .411a will help defend you in court!. .. .1)Give ATC radar.. .2)Reduce flow rates when necessary.

[411A]

Well Flanker...if you know how to properly use that wx radar...you would know. Not really rocket science.

[Pegasus77]

Have to add to the discussion that I'm not always perfectly explaining what kind of weather I'm avoiding. There is not always time to tell the controller "request left 10 degrees to avoid some build-up, which might cause less passenger comfort when flying through", or "request left 10 degrees to avoid a CB which seems dangerous enough to allow this deviation from the previous vector". . .In some countries the controllers hardly speak any English, and when I request "left 10 degrees due to weather" twice, and the controller still doesn't understand me... then still I don't plan to fly through some red area's on the WX-radar.. .. .I agree, that in dense area's, the traffic situation is a factor in the decision whether to deviate from a given vector or not, but to 'boldly go where the controller has told you to go, or where others have boldly gone before' does not sound very wise to me.. .. .P77

[halo]

Its not about the safety of YOUR aircraft!! Its about the safety of ALL the other aircraft wedged into a tiny piece of airspace. Just because you are encountering bad weather doesn't give you the right to make heading adjustments! Please try and remember that you are on that heading for a reason. I agree with you entirely that we should have weather radar, and it would be a lot easier if we could see what you could see, but we haven't. Believe me, its going to be a lot harder for a crew to explain to company management that because of a pilot induced heading deviation you've nearly wanged into another plane than it is to explain why some of the pax had a bumpy ride. In addition to all this, there is a phenomenal amount of workload involvded in weather avoiding procedures. The guys at Terminal Control are working extremely hard to keep you away from the weather and other traffic. If you start making your own heading choices then this task becomes impossible.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Just to see if the works can cope with another spanner....why is it 9 times out of ten, a turn to avoid weather REDUCES mileage whilst only a very small fraction results in traffic actually going out of their way?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .And call me old cynic, but have many other ATCOs noticed how weather avoiders who turn and seemingly shorten track often also ask "Any speed?" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> . .Those who take the p155 with the above are turning the imporatant issue of CB avoidance into a farce......remember the boy who cried wolf...??

[Oliver James]

A genuine question for the pro DIY:. .. .If you were able toget in on the r/t and request a turn for wx and we said no due traffic, would you do it anyway?. .. .Point 4

[Stan Woolley]

Dear 411a. .. .As I am just a 'junior guy'I really appreciate you taking time out from being a 'Senior guy' to clear up this whole aviation thing for me.. .. .So lets sum this up:. .1)If I turn I can expect a bollocking.. .2)If I don't turn I can also expect a bollocking.. .. .which is nice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

[ksideris]

Let's see:. .. .Flying through "red" on WX: Bad !. .Flying into other aircraft : Bad !. .R/T congestion : Bad !. .No weather radar for ATC : Bad !. .. .My thoughts: Don't avoid without calling. As others have suggested, can't get on the frequency, squawk 7600 or 7700, that should do it. It is better than having a nice contact with another flying object at 100+ knots. . .. .Concerning weather radar on ATC, I hope something is done soon as some have said it will. . .. .Concerning R/T congestion, well... D**n ppl something needs to be done, don't know what. . .. .TMAs are bound to be busy, can't do much about that. Everyone wants to fly to an airport that is within a few miles of the city he is trying to get to, so the aircraft are going to be there.... So the only way to get R/T less congested is better tactics, technology, no ?. .. .I know it is a simple way of looking at it, but sometimes you have to go back to the basics..... .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

[411A]

Well Flanker, since you asked..... .Modern color radar is sometimes rather difficult to interpret regarding rain intensity (red all 'round)...try using countour, this will help...but us "senior guys" generally prefer monochrome radar. With this equipment, heavy rain is well indicated in countour with the "donut hole" well defined. My opinion anyway, some will disagree, no doubt.. .The point is...sometimes you just have to accept the rough ride to avoid bashing into another aeroplane. Many won't like this idea either...

[Pegasus77]

120.4: to answer your question offcourse not <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> but I guess you would offer us another direction if possible. If there is no other possibility... maybe your airspace is a bit full?. .And I must add to that, that at some airports I have had the very nice experience of the controllers vectoring us around the weather without us even asking. . .Guess if you know where it's hanging, that would be safest?. .. .P77

[PAXboy]

Having read carefully through the entire thread, may a Pax chip in?. .. .Firstly, on the ascent and descent, I EXPECT to be bounced around a bit. What I do not want is be woken in the middle of the night mid-cruise by being too close to a thunderstorm, of course, if it is just too far to go around then so be it.. .. .On approach, I am astounded that captains would deviate without ATC permission. I have read all the points back and forth in this thread and feel great sympathy with both sides but if there is CB activity then just warn the CC to be strapped as well and through we go.. .. .On the crowded R/T problem. The only solution to this is likely to be the one solution that the British will not take: more people in the ATC tent, peering out to see what is happening and more people with magaphones to tell the pilots where to go!. .. .If the London area is split into smaller areas, either vertically in concentric rings or horizontally by altitude, then another team of ATC could be brought in?. .. .Having watched the British politicians and management over the years, we can safely say that will not happen until long after saftey has been invaded.. .. .I recall that the investigation into the King's Cross tube fire (1987?) found that staff had been warning for years about what could happen.. .. .It would be intersting to know how they handle this problem in the New York handling area?. .. .On balance? Bounce the pax unless you are SURE that the CB is nasty. After all, if one plane load of us get bounced REALLY badly by having to follow ATC heading into bad CB, then that will start to change the minds of those who hold the money. NOTHING else will.. .. .My thanks to ATC for their kind attention to us and for all the flight crew on my many trips through the London area over the years. Thus far, I have never been bounced to the point of discomfort and I am highly sensitive to such movement.

[Warped Factor]

PAXboy,. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> On the crowded R/T problem. The only solution to this is likely to be the one solution that the British will not take: more people in the ATC tent, peering out to see what is happening and more people with magaphones to tell the pilots where to go!. .. .If the London area is split into smaller areas, either vertically in concentric rings or horizontally by altitude, then another team of ATC could be brought in?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Since the London Terminal Control Room went live back in '93 there has been a continual evolution in the sectorisation of the airspace with new sectors being added on a not irregular basis in order to try and increase the capacity. There's another resectorisation (is that a word?) coming fairly soon..... .. .But more sectors actualy makes weather avoidance even more complicated as it becomes more likely that any requested deviation will take the aircraft out of your chunk of airspace and into someone elses. Co-ordination with the other sector must be done if you're going to go into its airspace unexpectedly, all adding to the already fairly high workload.. .. .Heaven help us if we'd ever gone down the "tunnels in the sky" concept as originaly envisaged for the Terminal area back in the late 80's, early 90's. Weather avoidance in that setup would have been a nightmare.. .. .WF.. . . . <small>[ 29 March 2002, 23:46: Message edited by: Warped Factor ]</small>

[stator vane]

okay, a serious reply for a change with no reference to an airbus.. .. .411 made a statement that appeared to be a bit condescending, and that got my attention.. .. .and not at all wanting to start an argument, but stating a fact,. .. .during all my training on DHC-6s, commercial Hercs, and B737's, i never received any training about the radar usage. had to piece it together by observation and questions and to put it mildly, there was quite a range of different responses.. .. .finally found a couple of books dedicated to the subject and have tried to apply that.. .. .but over the years, i have noticed an alarming difference in actual radar units just on the B737's which i have been flying for over 5000 hours in the left seat. the settings must really vary quite a bit from unit to unit. the first time was in korea. IMC and got a return that definitely needed attention. tried the up and down and varied the gain to all levels and had to fight hard to get a heading to avoid. finally got it just as we broke out of the stratus and there was NOTHING there!. .. .now in belgium, with certain units, we can line up on rwy 25R, turn on the radar and it looks like certain death on all gains and up to 15 degrees up, when you can look out the window and see nothing but light cumo's.. .. .i have suspected poor calibration and written a few up, but the mx just writes "tests OK" . .. .i have returned to the airport three times in my career due to radar failure. . .. .one involved, some serious conditions in IMC and the radar started showing a red,yellow death streak about the 11 oclock position on the screen from bottom to top, (which would stay on a fixed relative bearing during a turn) and i definitely lost any confidence in that unit and turned around. . .. .so for myself, i am not very confident about what the unit is telling me and how long it will last.. .. .and just listening to the aircraft in front of me and hearing that they got through okay is no assurance to my getting through okay. i.e.Dallas.. .. .i was told by a U-2 pilot, (at least he said he was) that he has seen CB's climb at 6000 feet per minute. so the aircraft just in front might say, "no turbulence" and when i go 5 minutes later through the same "cloud" it may be a different animal. when in IMC, i do tend to be a bit cautious about returns on the radar.. .. .i will be the first to admit that i don't know as much as i wished i could about the matter, but when i am in the left seat, i have to work with what i have, and when the caca hits the fan, i am the one who will take the hit, in any sense of the term. . .. .and i do still think it is best to err on the side of safety. and with the TCAS we have, when push comes to shove, we can avoid other aircraft.

[Warped Factor]

stator,. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> and i do still think it is best to err on the side of safety. and with the TCAS we have, when push comes to shove, we can avoid other aircraft.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of TCAS, but it would appear it isn't quite infallible yet.. .. .Here's a quote from a UK AAIB report...... .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> Although the TCAS equipment fitted to the B 747 operated normally, the RA instruction actually reduced the separation distance because of the particular circumstances of the encounter. These comprised the high descent rate of the G IV and the lack of a co-ordinated vertical manoeuvre since RA was not selected on both devices.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Full report <a href="http://www.aaib.dtlr.gov.uk/formal/airp/airp.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.. .. .WF.

[propulike]

411A, (and Towerdog)

quote from 411A
And from comments, some think that a jet aeroplane will "fall apart" when going thru a low level cloud. Hey guys, it may come as a big surprise that DC-6's and Stratocruisers plowed thru the murk and actually came out on the other side in one piece
unquote

For your info, some accident reports are summarised below.

14 Feb 1953 National Airlines Douglas DC-6 Reg no N90893. Crashed due to structural failure after flying into a storm whilst en-route from Tampa to New Orleans.
22 Aug 1954 Braniff Airways Douglas DC-3 Reg no N61451. Crashed shortly after take off from Waterloo USA whilst trying to traverse a thunderstorm by flying towards a ‘bright spot’
03 May 1968, Braniff Airways Lockheed L-188A Electra Reg N9707C. Crashed due to structural failure after flying into a thunderstorm en-route from Houston to Dallas. (This crash prompted major reviews of storm avoidance training and procedures.)
06 Oct 1981 KLM Fokker F-28 Fellowship 4000 Reg no. PH-CHI crashed due to structural failure after flying through an area of thunderstorm activity whilst en-route from Rotterdam to Eindhoven. (The crew had requested to deviate around weather.)
02 Aug 1985, Delta Airlines L – 1011 TriStar Reg no. N726DA. Crashed after flying into a microburst on approach to Dallas.

If you want to see more like this, keep flying into CBs. If you still think that it’s OK to do that, perhaps that Sunday VFR flying you keep going on about is more appropriate for you!

I’m still not advocating avoiding all weather – just the stuff that’s nasty!

[411A]

Agreed propulike, the nasty ones should certainly be avoided...but you must remember that your aeroplane is not the only one in the sky...cooperate with the ATC controllers and all will survive.:D

[Mr Fishy]

so 411a, what is your defination of "a nasty one".
If you were flying through an area containing CB`s that appeared red on a radar how would you decide which one was nasty?
I would consider all red returns on a properly set up radar
(i.e. correct gain setting) extremly hazardous to fly through,
but maybe I`m missing something!

[411A]

Well fishy..lets take an example...Singapore, twenty miles west, six thousand descending, all the radar screen shows red (general rain showers in the vicinity) from the aeroplane to the runway.
What are you going to do? Hold for the rain to move away (could take hours, how much fuel do you have....all good questions, and I have been in this situation many times there...the answer is use contour to deviate 'round the larger buildups and accept the generally rough ride. Weather is part and parcel of the airline pilots job, like it or not.
OTOH, for a pilot to go off an a tangent, without advising ATC before hand.....is NOT a good idea, for him OR the other aircraft in the TMA.
You do your best...and use the experience at hand. That is what you are paid the big bucks for.;)

[Oliver James]

WF
I can recall about half a dozen incidents which TCAS has caused. It would be most unwise to rely on it for this purpose and if we have got to the point where we have to rely on it then we have got way past the point where safety is being compromised to move more traffic. That is something we keep telling the public we will never do.

Yesterday I had two Heavies running into OCK 5 miles apart, 1000' separated. The first asked to go right for wx and deviated by about 2 miles. The second went straight "through" what ever the first avoided. There was only 15kts of wind , so any wx wouldn't have moved 2 miles in 1 minute. I asked if it was to avoid CB activity (none being reported by Met.) and he said yes, tops about FL100. I thought CBs went much higher than that or have I got something wrong there? Topping out at that level, was this not a towering CU, and far less significant in terms of wx? The point I have been making is that many a/c are deviating for comfort rather than safety and it is draining our capacity.

Pegasus 77
If you wouldn't avoid when we have said no due traffic then you are saying that the traffic confliction rates higher than the wx danger. In that case why are so many people prepared to deviate without being sure that there is no traffic in the way first?

Several things need to be done if this issue is to be resolved:
1. Provide NATS ATCOs with wx radar so that we can see your needs.
2. If we wish to retain our capacity, crews must only request for safety, not comfort.
3. R/t loadings must be reduced. At Heathrow this can be achieved by Mixed mode and a second Final Director.

This is a safety issue and it has to come before politics.

Point 4

:)

[Hand Solo]

I would want to avoid any Cu type cloud that was topping out at FL100. CBs do get really high, but those sort of heights generally don't occur in the UK that often. Whether its TCu or CB can be something of an academic exercise because you can get an awful lot of turbulence in both. As for prioritising wx avoidance over traffic conflict, well you'll hate me for saying this but most people look at TCAS. We've generally got a reasonable idea whats within 10 miles of us and +/- 7000 feet, and if it comes down to flying through a really nasty one one has to consider what the greatest threat to the aircraft is; the certainty of hitting very bad wx or the possibility of conflicting with another aircraft. Now that would be an interesting one to defend in court, but I'd opt to avoid the immediate danger and worry about the loss of seperation if/when it happens. As for the heavies in trail you mention, well I don't know what the resolution of your radars are but a few hundred feet lateral seperation could make the difference between skirting the edge or ploughing right through so it's possible one didn't actually hit it.

[411A]

Well, guess we can put HandSolo in the category of.....we'll do our own separation, thank you very much, and will call if convenient.
Scary....:eek:

[Hand Solo]

Completely wrong 411A. I'm very much in the category of continue if at all possible, avoid if convenient to ATC. The latter is for comfort, the former for safety. Unlike you I do not have blind faith that the cabin and its contents are completely secure. Flying into a CB invites all manner of things to get airborne, from the floors and the overhead lockers, which could injure a person. It also raises a number of technical risks beyond the obvious rain and hail damage. The airframe probably won't break up, but severe turbulence can and does lead to airframe overspeeds and angle of attack protection being activated. Both of these events will cause the autopilot to drop out in my type. In a busy terminal area this could lead to highly dangerous altitude busts, particularly as vertical seperation is significantly less in real distance terms than lateral seperation. These sort of events are likely to leave the crew with little or no spare capacity to respond to ATC instructions, exacerbating the situation further still. In the rare instances of extreme weather in the UK I'd much sooner have a controlled unauthorised departure from ATC clearance than an uncontrolled and unexpected one. If that messes up the approach sequencing then I'm really sorry, but it's going to cause less disruption than an unauthorised departure followed by a medical emergency because someones now wearing their wheelie bag as a hat and the stewardess broke a leg.

[411A]

Well HandSolo, have to agree with you about one thing....no matter WHAT you tell the cabin, they will invariably do their own thing. Recall years ago on departure from CMB, told everyone in the cabin to "sit tight and stay belted in" because of wx ahead on the departure track. Sure enough, one hostie in the rear cabin decides to start drinks service and...presto, one nasty thump and the whole cart was upside down with many broken bottles....and this was in the clear, with no returns on the 'scope. Sometimes no matter what, s..t happens.

[120.4]

Hand Solo

Yes, I take your points. I have learned something about met. We only reduce target sector flows when there is a 50% prob. of thunderstorm activity. Perhaps that is inadequate.

10 miles on TCAS closing at 220kts each. Thats 440kts, = over 7miles per minute, 10 miles = about 80 secs. Give us say, 3 sweeps to see that you haven't taken the turn, 15 secs. We are probably going to lose separation which means automatic suspension for us, when we have followed the rules and the crew has deviated! At the very least, it is going to be frightening. Also, TCAS gives no azimuth guidance and an attempt to interpret the cockpit screen rather than listen to an ATC avoiding turn has already led to a real nasty in France. TCAS is vertical only. If the wx is that bad won't you have seen it well before you get to it?

In the example I outlined, the first heavy deviated 2 miles to get around the wx. I don't understand how the second a/c could have missed it on the same original track.

Point 4

:)

[halo]

Like I said before, it's really easy in court. The Air Navigation Order states that you will not make a turn without ATC permission during weather avoidance . Its written in black and white!! And also like I said in my earlier post, its a lot easier to explain to your company management why your pax had a bumpy ride than it is to explain why you have just nearly knocked another company aircraft out of the sky! Yes, they really are that close together in the TMA around Heathrow!!

[411A]

Well halo, perhaps it's...."don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up...." syndrome here, at least with some.
Really scary....:eek: :eek:

[Pegasus77]

120.4, wasn't that exactly what you were saying?

Why deviate for weather in a direction where you are sure there is other traffic, because ATC told you it is? Guess turning another way would be easier then.

Personally I think you can discuss this for ages, as it all comes down to pilots interpretation of how severe the weather is. I don't have the experience that 411A has, therefore I might be more cautious than he is.

A cumuliform cloud with tops at FL100 probably won't kill you, because it hasn't grown into full proportion yet.
As I said, traffic density and frequency congestion are factors in deciding wether to divert around it or not.

P77

[120.4]

Quad erat demonstrandum.

Point 4

:)

[HugMonster]

If the wx is that bad won't you have seen it well before you get to it?

In the example I outlined, the first heavy deviated 2 miles to get around the wx. I don't understand how the second a/c could have missed it on the same original track.
You don't necessarily see Wx. Embedded CB's for example. Wx radar is not perfect, and nor are estimates of relative rates of movement and development.

As for the second point, as has already been pointed out, there are many reasons why this could occur. Partial equipment unservicability, different mod. states, rate of movement and development of the weather, etc. etc.

Some pilots are more cautious than others. Whilst one could not condone course changes to avoid a little light fair weather cumulus, it would perhaps be sensible to avoid castigating pilots for being cautious. Furthermore, tales of "In the old days we used to fly DR through the Alps with only a hand compass and a sextant" are not helpful here.

I do not advocate pilots doing their own thing willy-nilly. First choice, every time, is to contact ATC in advance and obtain clearance for avoiding course. In extreme circumstances only, if you can't get a word in edgeways, the aircraft commander is responsible for the safety of the aircraft, its crew and passengers. He screws up, he carries the can. I'm not sure about the RTF squawk suggestion. Seems to me an abuse, but if it works I'd be prepared to try it.

Ultimately, the solution is for sensible levels of investment into equipment and manpower in ATC.

PS Pegasus - be very wary of building CB's. They can bite very hard when building. To say "It's not fully developed - it'll be fine" exhibits a misunderstanding of the dangers.

[Final 3 Greens]

A sobering thought about Cu's topping out at FL100.....

Whilst I was undertaking flight training in the States a few years ago a particularly nasty tornado wreaked havoc in the Kansas area.

Although this happened hundreds of miles away, I was interested in what sort of storm would cause this sort of damage.

Having made some enquiries, you may be surprised to know that the linesquall CBs involved topped out at no more than 12500' or thereabouts. (I had some copies of doppler radar images showing the perfect "hook" shape in the middle of the returns, but lost them in a house move sadly.)

I know that the weather in the UK is different to the US, but it does make you think....

[Capt Pit Bull]

A few random thoughts.

I see no reason to fly through any turbulance if I can reasonably avoid it. Even a little bit can really scare the punters. But the key word here is 'reasonably'. If ATC sound maxed out, then I'm not going to request avoidance for comfort, only safety.

It would be nice if there was standard terminology, but in its absence I tend to only use the word 'request' if its a low priority (i.e. for comfort). If instead I'm concerned for safety I tend to use words like 'must' or 'need'.

e.g.

"Request left 30 for weather" (comfort)

"We need 30 left for weather" (safety)



As far as relying on TCAS to provide a indication of a safe direction to turn. No. No. Absolutely not. TCAS Traffic displays are neither designed, suitable, or certified for any other purpose than telling you roughly where to look to get a visual on the threat aircraft in the event of a TA or RA.


Nasty weather radar story. Climbing out of MAN. CBs about, plus other cloud. So WX Radar on. Pop out of cloud to see the mother in law of all CBs about 20 miles away, but nothing on radar. Turns out tilt control is knackered at certain positions and intermittently commanding full up! Don't forget you own built in broad spectrum, passive, wide angle radar receiver (i.e. the mark 1 eyeball).

CPB

[120.4]

Well, I 've learned some things here about CUs. Thanks chaps.

Unfortunately, all we hear is "talk" about providing us with wx radar, but no sign of it. We never seem to get ahead of the game in this country - be it wx radar, or terminals or runways etc. It puts all of us under greater pressure.

Point 4 :)