LHR Airborne delay - poor information [Archive]

Sean Dell

19th Dec 2007, 09:48

Guys and Gals - please could someone explain.

Now as a pilot based at LHR - I am well aware of most of the nuances of delays and their causes at LHR. Any mention of FG/SN strong winds etc and I'm sticking the gas on.

However, lately - with pretty reasonable weather, there have been some puzzling delays. Yesterday for example (Tues) - was told on first contact with London that some holding (10-15 mins) and to slow to holding speed. When at LAM told to expect 15 mins TOTAL delay. Now my understanding is that some of this delay would have already been absorbed into our linear holding (ie slowing down along way out). Anyway imagine our surprise when after 25 minutes in the stack we were finally allowed on our way. We were told that this was due to strong upper winds on the approach. 5 mins later we were flying our approach in 'not very strong winds'.

So what's going on guys? We all know to expect some holding at LHR - and we know that when you say delays 10-15 mins - then that's what they will be. And when you give us a reason for the delay - it's usually correct.

So what is it - staff shortages? I'm confused.

Sean

ps - nearly achieved the impossible inbound from BRU the other day. LAM3A became BIG1E and then OCK to hold. Was hoping for a final trip to BNN for a full house - but no luck!

Roffa

19th Dec 2007, 10:00

In the past the system for tracking delays and EATs used to be manned by a Heathrow approach valid atco.

Now, as there aren't enough Heathrow valid controllers around to be able to look after it it is generally left to a Supervisor who also has a myriad of other tasks to attend to as well.

As such when delays are building often no-one is actively tracking this and it's not until one of the approach atcos turns round and shouts at someone that they need to devote some time to the EAT system that said supervisor will take a look at it.

From that point it then takes time for the system to be brought up to date and reliable information gained from it.

It's not unusual for the system to be showing inaccurate delay info i.e. saying delay less than 10 minutes when it's actually 15 or more.

I don't think you'll find any of the approach controllers are particularly impressed with this, we don't enjoy being made to look stupid by giving out delay info that is simply wrong because an important tool in the system is not being actively looked after.

In your particular case I expect it was just the volume of traffic that led to your total delay and that the earlier info you were given on 10-15mins was just inaccurate info for the reasons stated above.

Sean Dell

19th Dec 2007, 10:09

Thanks for the prompt reply Roffa - will this situation get any better or is it here to stay?

The accurate delay info is very important to us - as when we are given a delay that is significantly longer than that which we have planned - it starts those alarm bells ringing a bit sooner. We then start looking at plan B a bit sooner too. It helps us establish 'bottom lines' as a crew. eg. ' we have 10 mins holding capability with LGW/STN/LUT options - any more and we either commit or divert.' We would rather not be making these calculations as our 'expect 5-10 mins total delay' comes and goes.

Please pass on my concerns further up the chain if you are able.

Many thanks

Sean

Yellow Snow

20th Dec 2007, 11:17

Sean,

if it's staffing issues, there's no cover up, I'll be happy to tell you on the frequency.

eyeinthesky

20th Dec 2007, 11:17

You are of course right that accurate delay info is usefil to have and necessary once delays build up and when I am on the radar I will always try and have a look at the stack on radar and estimate the delay. If traffic permits, I will offer you the chance to slow down en route to save fuel. All the comments so far about the updating of the EAT monitor are valid.

However, the official line that anything up to 20 mins holding is classed as no delay for Heathrow. That's why you may get some ATCOs who you ask for the delay looking at the EAT monitor and answering "Less than 20 mins" when it could be anything from zero to 19 mins. Not awfully helpful, but in line with the procedures!

Given all this, "we have 10 mins holding capability with LGW/STN/LUT options - any more and we either commit or divert." would seem a little bit tight on the fuel planning..

Sean Dell

21st Dec 2007, 15:21

little bit tight on the fuel planning..

you would be absolutely right ! Statistical contingency fuel figure! Not always 10 mins but can be at times of statistically low holding.

Expect to land with Reserve Fuel + Div Fuel
Have Contingency for faffing about with - once it has gone on holding (or whatever) - a decision to comitt ie burn Div Fuel or Divert is made.

If no reason (Weather/Other problems) to take more than flight plan fuel including SCF - then that's what generally gets loaded. Hence if delays of 10-15 mentioned then = no drama. However if a big delay materialises out of nowhere then = big headache.

I do sympathise with you over the staff shortage issue. An unfortunate sign of the times.

Keep up the otherwise excellent work guys. :D

SD

BOBBLEHAT

22nd Dec 2007, 08:25

As an ATCO doing the TMA sectors, I think you are quite right to be frustrated with inaccurate information. Most of the time all we get displayed to us is a bit of paper saying what the delay is. We pass it to you and everything should be ok. It seems nowadays this bit of paper is frequently wrong. We look stupid and it places you in a tricky (or even dangerous) situation. Can I ask that you report the situation through your company (ASR? - I'm not sure what you call it)

As for slowing down a long way out, usually this is not added to your total delay, it is done to save fuel and stop you all screaming into the holds and slowing at the slp's.
There are occasions when we can see that you have already been numbered into the sequence, so we tell you to slow up and you will start absorbing your delay en route but I doubt it is ever more than 30/40 miles out.

When we issue EAT's then these are generally done much further out - perhaps up to 150 miles.

Room for improvement.....................?

anotherthing

22nd Dec 2007, 09:24

The problem with slowing you down from a long way out is one quite often of level restrictions.

As a TMA Bod, we often harass the en route guys to slow you down, when delays get to 15 mins or more..... it serves several purposes.

1. It saves you fuel and absorbs some of your delay en route to the hold
2. There is no point in having you come screaming in at over 300kts, just for us to tell you on first contact "when level, reduce to holding speed" (it makes it look as if ATCOs are not planning or talking to each other, and it is not in accordance with handover SOPs between AC andTC)
3. If we slow you down enough, it quite often gives just enough room to squeeze you in without resorting to using the outer holds - Tiger, Logan etc, which AC do not like doing as it greatly impacts on their operation.

The problem with the above is because of the make up of the airspace in the south east, it is imperative that you make the level restrictions otherwise you will be in someone elses airspace. This can be coordinated on a case by case basis, but the chancs are the sector that is affected is also busy and need all their levels.

Unfortunately, AC do not always get traffic early from the previous sector, so the problem gets knocked on to TC, albeit with a bit of improvement in the situation.

As for the LAM-BIG-OCK farce - this is happening more and more often. I understand the idea of taking a couple from LAM to BIG if it prevents LOGAN holding, however any more than that and we should hold at LOGAN... it's close enough to bring things off quickly - it's as simple as the TIGER hold is to operate. Holding out to the southwest, much further away when OCK is busy is a different ball game - it can take 20 or more minutes to bring an arcraft on, by which time OCK can be empty or have several spaces!

To not use a published hold (LOGAN), and avoid doing so by moving from LAM to BIG is all very well, but not when it then means that BIG becomes so full that we have to TIGER hold or move to OCK. That is a farce and is just passing the problem on to another sector.

As for updated times, I agree with Bobblehat.... since the move it feels as if we are not getting EATs as quickly updated. The amount of times I have had to demand them is ridiculous. They should be available so that we can tell the aircraft on first contact - not a difficult thing to ask considering we get them only 50 or 60 miles from the hold!

I also have reason to question the delays that are promulgated more often - it quite often says 10-15 mins when its obvious there is no delay etc etc. Yes I can see for myself and tell aircraft the true picture, however how am I to know that although there does not seem to be much traffic, the promulgated 10-15 mins delay is actually correct because of circumstances I have not been made aware about?

Although it seems like common sense to tell Aircraft what delay I see on radar, I am really supposed to tell them what is written by the Traffic Manager, who allegedly knows the full picture :ugh:

Phantom99

22nd Dec 2007, 12:26

As for the LAM-BIG-OCK farce - this is happening more and more often. I understand the idea of taking a couple from LAM to BIG if it prevents LOGAN holding, however any more than that and we should hold at LOGAN...

When TC EAST was changed a few years ago the logic behind it was that it would prevent holding in the AC sectors...hmm, that worked! As you say, once we hold at LOGAN high level we start to run out of room very quickly. Out of interest, why is the LAM-BNN swap not used?

From an AC perspective it is very frustrating to not get told of any delays at LAM, then informed to restrict arrivals to the BRASO hold with no warning that delays are increasing (our info screens for EATs only pop into life at 20mins+). If we could get at least some warning, we can slow the aircraft down as soon as we get them.

Bobblehat, I wish EATS were being issued 150 miles out, it would provide a better service from your AC colleagues. We are rarely able to issue EATS because by the time the details are on the screen we have generally already transferred the aicraft.

anotherthing

22nd Dec 2007, 14:19

Phantom99

I'm surprised and dismayed that you do not have a screen that tells you what they delays are for LL/KK/SS/GW. EATs only get put up if over 20 mins, however it would be helpful for you guys and ultimately us if you were given the same info we are.. if you have the facility to do it for EATs, you should have that capability when its less than 10mins/10-15 mins or whatever. Then we might not get stuff at 300kts+ when we have 15-20 mins delay promulgated!!

If you don't have the info, how can you act accordingly? Might be worth bringing it up your end, it has been raised recently on ours.

LAM-BNN is not used that often - it can cause problems to capital etc, but used on a tactical basis, it works well.... unfortunately LAM-BIG is an easy cop out, however the past few times, we have ended up then moving BIG to OCK and even TIGER holding :ugh:.

Some people claim that to call a/c on from LOGAN takes too long, yet I know plenty of North Bankers (that's not cockney slang), who say it is not an issue. LAM has plenty of levels.. as soon as it is observed that the bottom a/c has a heading off, the next one can be called on and arrive in a timely fashion.

This is unlike the outer holds for WILLO/OCK which suffer for 2 reasons. 1 - they are a fair distance away, and 2 because of the lack of available levels at these holds, once they start to empty, they can do so quickly if the sequence dictates that 2 or 3 come off in succesion from that hold.

Holding out is never a good option for AC - it's not what you do and it can get messy. It's too restrictive and causes other problems. However management must be willing to use LOGAN otherwise we might as well bin it. LAM is a busy stack so often something needs to be done, LAM-BIG is often a lazy, unimaginative cop out that traffic managers/GS's who have little idea of how the sectors work foist upon us.

Scuzi

22nd Dec 2007, 15:07

I take it you all mean BRASO when you speak of LOGAN? When LAM is full (up to FL170), aircraft are held at BRASO (FL180-FL240) and when BRASO is full they are then held at LOGAN (FL250+).

LOGAN holding is not a desirable situation to be in as it screws over TC East and Clacton but the main reason being that when Heathrow approach pull 4 aircraft out of LAM at the same time, it takes quite a while (relatively) to bash the LAM stack down so aircraft can be brought on from BRASO and descended so that aircraft can then be brought on from LOGAN to BRASO. It can only be described as an accordion effect and leaves a lot of sky being used up with not a lot of planes in there, whilst the outer holds are full.

With a skilled controller and a bit of tactical rule bending, the levels can be regained fairly quickly but this isn't always the case.

Swapping from LAM to BIG is relatively easy providing that there aren't many aircraft at BIG. It's usually just a matter of TC East turning it left a bit and descending it, requiring a fairly standard co-ordination with TC South. LAM to BNN, however, goes into TC Capital's airspace and depending on the level, TC Midland's airspace too. If the traffic situation is fairly complex on NW Deps/BNN at the time, a swap from LAM can easily push it over the edge.
In answer to the thread starter, the reason that you still hold for 15 minutes at LAM after slowing down is that everyone else is slowing down too and I believe the delay calculation takes this into consideration (don't quote me on that though!)

It does seem to be a regular occurence where the delay screen is saying <10 mins yet aircraft are holding for 15 mins or on the flip side, the delay is showing as 15-20 mins yet aircraft are coming straight off. Another consideration to take into account is that if something happens to push the delay up, e.g. strong winds, it can take a considerable amount of time to get things back to normal. The winds may be long gone by the time you get there but the knock on effect is massive, especially during the busy periods.

There was one occasion last week when I was working BNN and a 744 had been holding for some time in BRASO and LAM and was eventually swapped over to BNN to make some room. As such, his EAT needed to be recalculated. They were quite tight on fuel and told me they could hold for about 10 minutes more before they'd have to declare an emergency as he was committed to Heathrow. The pilot kept asking me for the revised EAT but I must have waited almost 10 minutes before one was calculated. It was very frustrating for me and the pilot. He needed to know whether he'd have to declare or not and I needed to know if I was going to have to pull him out of the stack and drop him down. I felt quite bad as neither of us was in the picture and the pilot probably thought I was a bit of a numpty for giving him guesses rather than actual times!:sad:

I hope all that makes some sense! :}

anotherthing

22nd Dec 2007, 18:19

Scuzi,

I meant what I said, LOGAN, Not BRASO!

It's all very subjective, and I'm all for taking BIG1E, but am getting hacked off recently with getting them forced upon us when counting back we will not have levels at BIG. We are made to feel guilty by the GS if we try to refuse!

It's a team game and the BIG1E is a very simple swap, as easy as the BOV1D the other way round.

As for LAM to BOV, it can cause a pain on CAP (and MIDS), but it just never even seems to be considered, even when looking at the radar and the pending strips it's obvious that it is easily feasible!

Whats more worrying is the trend on one watch to use the BIG1E to avoid BRASO holding, which has ultimately caused the same problems regarding implementing TIGER holding or shoving stuff across to OCK.

Another bug bear is the Traffic Managers coming across and missing out both the GS and the Coordinator and telling the controller direct. How the hell is the GS or the coordinator supposed to maintain the bigger picture?!!!!

Scuzi

22nd Dec 2007, 18:29

Some very valid points there anotherthing, there is a lot of pressure when stacks swaps are being initiated but most of the time they are a necessary evil, especially during those periods when LAM and BRASO are full but all the other stacks are practically empty. Sounds stupid but it happens quite regularly!

Sometimes we just have to make the best of a bad situation. Better the "stitch up" is spread over a couple of sectors rather than just the one. :E

anotherthing

22nd Dec 2007, 19:27

Scuzi

I am all for taking them if we can, as anyone else in the room will do either north to south or south to north... thats the good thing about the TC ops room, we will try to dig each other out the poo.

I would just like to see the people who get paid to 'manage' actually think about things instead of doing it by wrote.

It's almost as if they think "Bugger, Its getting busy at LAM and BRASO, tell you what, the BIG1E worked the last time, i will do that*" without any recourse to what is going to happen on the receiving sector or seemingly without a clue as to what other options are available to them!!

*You can replace scenario with any number of others and the solution will be one that 'worked last time' even if the circumstances are different.

Coupled with the lateness of EAT/delay information, it makes me think that there is a lack of planning and forethought from some TM's and GS's.... there seems to be a lot of reactive decisions and not so many proactive ones.

Sean Dell

23rd Dec 2007, 07:17

Interesting stuff chaps - even if it's starting to go over my head a little! I think I might have unearthed an underlying problem - is it going to get worse or will your bosses in NATS actually do something about it? I mean we could submit an ASR with the MOR box ticked - but you guys seem equally annoyed by the stitch up or lack of controllers - so can you do the same please.

VBRGDS

Merry Chrimbo

S.D.

BDiONU

23rd Dec 2007, 08:08

For ATC there is a route which doesn't seem to have been explored and thats to put something in writing for your Local Investment Review Board (LIRB), in TC its known as the TClipper.
Muttering on here or between yourselves ain't going to alert the backroom boys & girls to the problem and come up with a solution.
If anyone in LAC or LTC (or MACC or ScOACC for that matter) isn't sure what I'm talking about or how to go about kicking something off please PM me.

BD

Lookatthesky

23rd Dec 2007, 08:11

however any more than that and we should hold at LOGAN... it's close enough to bring things off quicklyI meant what I said, LOGAN, Not BRASO!

Erm, not quite...the minimum hold level at LOGAN is FL250 and it's further away from LAM than BRASO, there's nothing quick about bringing a/c off from LOGAN:ugh:

Our (TC's) remit (as I'm sure you're aware) is to fill the inner holds first (hence the LAM-BIG, LAM-BNN, even LAM-OCK occasionally). Then we'll fill BRASO and finally LOGAN.

The impact of LOGAN holding on AC is the same (if not worse) as the outer holds for WILLO/OCK on you (I'm assuming you do south) and you seem dead set against using these - I'm sure CLN feel the same re: the impending use of LOGAN (that's not saying it won't doesn't get used, but why not actively manage the traffic??)

It's funny but you never hear any complaints regarding 'unimaginative cop outs' when a/c are moved from OCK to BNN first thing in the morning :mad:

anotherthing

23rd Dec 2007, 08:18

I would not say the BOV1D was a difficult swap.

Lookatthesky

If you read my posts for what they actually say, not what you think they say, you will see that my gripe is with when we do these stack swaps to help out others, then have to hold out with AC because of it :ugh:

Something that has happened more often recently.

As per my last post (which you seem to have missed altogether), it is happening more and more often with regards to BRASO holding.

I'm all for not asking AC to hold out - it's a messy and drawn out affair. But when we start not even using BRASO because TMs are going through the motions, then it gets a bit silly.

That's my lot on this subject, as BDiONU has hit the nail squarely on the head.

Del Prado

23rd Dec 2007, 12:06

I think it's wrong to expect to be able to issue EATs 150 miles out. That's almost an hour from touchdown, there's no way an EAT will be accurate then.
If AC or TC 'outer' sectors are pressured for an EAT can't they give a best guess estimate or quote the delay for the aircraft just entering the inner holds as a guide?

When I've done EATs I've been pushed for times by Midlands controllers but I've kept them waiting while I arranged a stack swap which facilitated a better order for TEAMing and maybe knocked 3 mins off the delays.
What are we trying to do here, expedite the traffic or give very early delay info?
Pilots should be aware that the earlier the landing order is decided the less efficient it will be.

Having said that, the biggest problem for delay management that the move to swanwick has produced is the EAT PC and landing rate monitor is not as easily accessable for the Heathrow controllers as it was. We can't update is as we used to or use it to guide the traffic manager in chosing the best landing order.

tczulu

23rd Dec 2007, 16:17

anotherthing re post 12
As the controller IN CHARGE of the sector you do not have to agree/accept any stack swap proposal put to you by a g/s.Not always a popular move I grant you,but if done for the right reasons,is unarguable come the inevitable wash up/witch hunt.Been there,done it!

Northerner

23rd Dec 2007, 20:00

And please also remember that on sector you might not always have the bigger picture. It may be that a stack swap is done from LAM-BIG creating Tiger holding as the GS's know that on that particular day LYD sector have more capacity than others. Tiger is often also favoured as it is closer in that some other outer holds and with well established procedures.

As a controller and a GS I would say that I try never to stack swap without good reason; that I ALWAYS ask the controller concerned if they can accept the swap (remembering that I'm not on radar at that time so may not have the full picture of the sector) and you can refuse if there is good reason to do so. HOwever, if you're bandboxed and say no then don't be surprised if I split it then ask again!

I don't do Airports/EAT's at the moment, but I too have noticed a difference when I'm on radar - however, I'm raising it internally too - I hope you folk are as well, as whinging on here won't get us anywhere!

And having been around a while I have seen one go LAM - BIG - OCK - BOV once!

Cheers,
N

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

1985

24th Dec 2007, 08:32

If AC or TC 'outer' sectors are pressured for an EAT can't they give a best guess estimate or quote the delay for the aircraft just entering the inner holds as a guide?

I try to do this but we don't get the delays for any aircraft until they go above 20 mins. This "less than 20 mins" rubbish is just pointless it could mean from 0 -19 mins. AC should have a link to the EGLL EATs aswell as the other TMA airfields on the SIS, that way when the delays start creeping up then we can help by slowing stuff down. At the moment we are left guessing by looking at the landing rates and counting the traffic ahead of the one asking. If we chucking stuff in at 300kts + and the delay is 15mins let us know and we'll slow it down. Better communication between TC and AC is the key.

As for the LOGAN hold, using the furthest away, highest level AC hold is not sensible. It should be used as a last resort as it causes so many problems not just for CLN but NOR. LMS, LUS and Maastricht.

Lookatthesky

24th Dec 2007, 12:10

As for the LOGAN hold, using the furthest away, highest level AC hold is not sensible. It should be used as a last resort as it causes so many problems not just for CLN but NOR. LMS, LUS and Maastricht.

It is a last resort as we would fill BRASO first, although I grant you, some people on here would have you think otherwise :rolleyes:

250 kts

24th Dec 2007, 15:57

1985,
Why not do what I do. if there is any inkling of a delay over about 10 minutes I just get the LAS to get the accurate EATs up on his display and to keep me notified of any significant change. I agree it would be better to have it on the SIS but I understand there was not enough of a "business case" to warrant it a couple of years ago.

120.4

24th Dec 2007, 17:59

I'm late entering this one I know - There may be a little help on the way. It's called CDM, Collaborative Decision Making. Phases 1 & 2 are on line and phase 3 goes online 20th January (I think), available on an Internet subscriber basis. This will enable airline ops to have direct access to the EAT information constantly and a whole host of other things too. Eventually it will be forcasting on-block times 3 hours in advance, using multiple sensors and user inputs, on software being developed by a VERY well known sporting organisation.

It won't stop the congestion of course but it should give operators a much better chance of managing their problems.

.4

1985

26th Dec 2007, 15:55

250 kts

I have to say your LAS's sound better than mine, i reckon one update before their book would draw them back in :E

Lookatthesky

I'm aware BRASO gets filled before LOGAN but other people seem to want to fill LOGAN when its the hold that causes the most grief, before filling a hold that has very clearly defined procedures on how to handle it eg TIGER. :ugh:

Hope everyone had a good xmas

Sean Dell

7th Jan 2008, 20:03

More poor info today !

I know there were strong winds at LHR - but some of this was absorbed by slot delays (WR delay code today).

However - 'expect 10-15' total delay at BNN. Various curt responses from controllers when asked 'was this 10-15 holding in addition to slowing up' - reply was a terse ' no, total delay - as I said !'

Anyway we were given 10-15 mins which became an EAT of 22 mins and then this wasn't honoured either - missed by about 4 mins!

I suppose I should routinely carry 30 mins then no nasty surprises ?

S.D.

beaver liquor

7th Jan 2008, 20:51

Well the strong winds today are forecast to be even stronger tomorrow afternoon - in excess of 50 knots at three thousand feet, and 30 knots on the ground, so more of the same.

Of course if the flow is perceived to be too severe the airlines are jumping all over NATS asking why its low - even if the weather situation is pretty obvious!

Airlines need to make up their mind what they actually want - an on-time off blocks departure (good for the punctuality stats eh?) and significant air holding; or a more punitive slot but less air holding. Make your minds up time.

Del Prado

7th Jan 2008, 21:33

Sean, your delay is the amount of time going round the hold. It does not include slowing down early. (how could we work that out accurately anyway?)

As an aside, there's pressure from above about the spacing on final approach. 2.5 miles is being viewed as absolute minimum separation therefore some/many of the Heathrow directors are unhappy providing 2.5 mile spacing when a very slight misjudgement (by us or you) and we'll end up in the office for our equivalent of tea and biscuits.
A change of personnel when the oncoming final director is unhappy doing 2.5 mile spacing and your initial 15 mins could quickly become 22.

(Incidentally 2.5 miles in today's wind takes about 1minute 20 seconds whereas 3 miles with a slight tailwind takes about 1minute 5 seconds.)

Sorry for the thread drift but to get back to your last point, if there's strong headwinds or LVPs forecast then I strongly suggest you expect at least 30 mins holding. I'm surprised it's not company policy with 50kts headwinds.

250 kts

8th Jan 2008, 07:51

1985,

Yes I think we are lucky on our watch with the quality of the LAS's. I know when I spin I have had the odd "funny look" when I have asked for the EATs to be displayed and monitored-but that's part of what they are there for and I have seen a few other ATCOs start to ask for the same info too.

Phantom99

8th Jan 2008, 09:46

As an en-route controller we try our best to relay the information to pilots but we don't always have all of the information. I realise that in the flightdeck you don't always know if you talking to terminal or en-route so understandably it can be frustrating.

Yesterday morning was interesting for us on Clacton (sector for the LAM arrivals) with delays reaching 35 mins yet the controller info screen was being updated with EATs only every 10 mins, hardly any aircraft in the hold at LAM (so we can guess at the delays) and not much info forthcoming from TC (not a bash, you guys have other things to worry about).

Our primary trigger for slowing aircraft down with us and also with Maastricht was the fact that we could see the ground speed of aircraft transferred to TC slowing dramatically, not the most scientific but it worked! Oh and once the published landing rate drops below 38 an hour we are always prepared for delays.

The LASs are good on B (Green) watch with regard to EATs from their more accurate machine. We try to give accurate delay info on first contact but it often more of an educated guess until we see the EATs appear (eventually!)

Sean Dell

8th Jan 2008, 10:28

I understand that the strong winds will cause delays and reduced flow rates - but still am concerned that duff info is being passed along the line (because the supervisor is not updating the delays as often). I think as a pilot I would rather be told 'we don't really know what the delays are' - then I would start planning sooner. Rather than be given a 'plucked out of thin air number.'

Also - the comment about 'total delay' - I always find misleading. If you are offered the chance to slow down - total delay is 10 mins, then should I slow down to holding speed and expect 10 mins in the hold or fly balls out to the hold and get the same 10 mins? One of those is pretty much 10 mins total delay the other considerably longer.....:confused:

Please guys - don't take any of this personally - you are all very good - it's just I have noticed these things (I describe above) happening more and more and I am just trying to further my understanding of what's going on - so that I can plan accordingly.

ATB

S.D.

Del Prado

8th Jan 2008, 11:23

I'll say "total delay" if you've been round the hold before getting on my frequency. If I say "delay 15mins" a typical response is "is that from now as we've already been round once?"
I'm trying to give you as accurate info as possible while trying to reduce R/T, Perhaps "total holding" would be a more accurate term?

The "delay" or "total delay" NEVER EVER includes slowing down early.
If you want to fly balls out to get to the hold the delay will be 15 instead of 10. We're not trying to hoodwink you. It is the same for everyone.

Thunderbug

8th Jan 2008, 12:23

Sean

I'm with you on this one. Delays into LHR are becoming unpredictable. Sure with winds, SN, FG; delays are expected, but even on a good day - 20 minutes can come out of nowhere especially if it is a weekend.

This unpredictably combined with the lack of accuracy is not a happy state of affairs especially when we up to recently had good info being given out.

A recent arrival via LAM. Nice day, but a weekend. told 15 min delay, total delay was 21 min not including slowing down. Then we had a very long approach; downwind to abeam LHR and then back to Docklands and then in.

I don't mind what you tell me as long as it is the truth. Bit like PAs to passengers, they react far better being told the truth rather than some BS.

Del Prado
Sean, your delay is the amount of time going round the hold. It does not include slowing down early. (how could we work that out accurately anyway?) If you give me a delay figure, I too expect that to be total delay. If I then slow done approaching the hold, this will absorb some of that delay hence the time doing circles will be less. If that is not the case expect alot of people doing 300+kts to the 12 mile point.

T'bug:ok:

Del Prado

8th Jan 2008, 14:19

TB, at the risk of repeating myself, If you want to fly balls out to get to the hold the delay will be 15 instead of 10.

Sean Dell

8th Jan 2008, 14:37

Thanks DP.

So as I am a bit fick,

What you are saying is.

As soon as holding is mentioned, slow down immediately to holding speed (we will not lose our place in the queue) and when we do make the fix the delay should (subject to the info from your supervisor being accurate ;-) ) be what you are telling us. Whether the words 'total delay' or 'expect 10-15 mins in the hold' are used - it makes no difference - they are the same beast.

I will try and convey that to the people that I am flying with as there are a lot of theorists out there!

Del Prado

8th Jan 2008, 14:58

Exactly. Especially the not losing your place bit. When delays are less than 10, the landing order is decided up to about 40 miles from the stacks and when in EATs the order is picked up to 200 miles from the airfield.

I also find the less the delay the more it's first come, first served but when in EATs it comes down to the most efficient landing order. Then it doesn't matter how fast you try to get to the fix you could still end up behind a heavy that's 20 miles to run to another stack.
That may not sound fair but by picking the most efficient vortex order we'll reduce the delays for everyone following. (and because we've been doing that all day we've probably already saved you a significant extra delay.)

Scuzi

8th Jan 2008, 15:45

I don't mind what you tell me as long as it is the truth. Bit like PAs to passengers, they react far better being told the truth rather than some BS.

Hold on a second. We have nothing to gain by giving you inaccurate information. If telling you that you'll be holding for half an hour is going to piss you or your passengers off, I couldn't care less. We can only pass on the information that is in front of us and the majority of the time that is fairly accurate. There are times when it is inaccurate but that's the nature of the beast. In case you aren't aware bucko, air traffic control is a complex game and the slighest variable can rubbish the best of plans. I'd hardly consider an extra 6 minutes anything to get your knickers in a twist about.

Why would we purposely lie to you? We're not used car salesmen, out with a cheesey grin trying to keep you happy, we're there to shift traffic. We do our best to accommodate requests when we can and we do our best to keep you in the picture by giving you accurate information but if the information we are getting is inaccurate then it isn't our fault if you spin around the hold once more than expected.

15 minutes is a long time in this game, anything can happen. Don't accuse us of lying and bullsh***ing when you don't come off the hold the second you expect. We're all in this together with the aim of keeping delays to a minimum and keeping everyone in the picture. Stupid accusations like your's do nothing to help.

Why don't you come and visit us and see how it all works?

Sean Dell

8th Jan 2008, 15:59

I'd hardly consider an extra 6 minutes anything to get your knickers in a twist about.

Scuzi - it might be the difference between binning your alternate and committing (shock horror) to LHR.

In level flight on the Scarebus 6 mins is a tad over 200kgs of fuel. An approach into LHR from the stacks about 400-600kgs.

On a fair weather day (if there is such a thing any more) we aren't always awash with gas. Hence my point that the sooner we know an accurate figure (if poss) the better.

Cheers

SD

Scuzi

8th Jan 2008, 16:12

Of course, accurate figures as soon as possible are always welcome. They're not always possible though. Like I said, 15 minutes is a long time in this game and anything can happen. The figure you are given first might very well be accurate to the minute but by the time you get to the hold and spin a few times, the wind could have changed, there may have been a go around or two, there could be an infringer, an emergency, someone in the hold above you or in another hold could shout "pan pan"....anything could happen.

As was mentioned before, even something as simple as another controller taking the reins could increase the delay by a few minutes because, believe it or not, some may not be quite as good as others.:E

I haven't been on a fam flight into Heathrow in a while (one in the pipeline though) so I'm not quite familiar with how you plan your fuel but do you plan it that tight? I know 6 minutes can mean the difference between diverting or not, especially if you have been holding for a considerable time but 6 minutes on top of an expected 15 in the grand scheme of things isn't entirely unreasonable.

I agree entirely that we should do our best to keep the figures accurate and that the figures of recent haven't always been as accurate as we would like. However, I resent being accused of lying.

anotherthing

8th Jan 2008, 17:40

Sean Dell

Just to save any confusion that may have arisen from Del Prados post (#29).

Your EAT will be based on the estimate for your entry into the hold. Therefore once given an EAT, if you slow down and take longer to get there, you will reduce your time in the hold.

Obviously it's a fluid situation - you're EAT not being honoured by a 4 minutes slip right is not good for you guys, but sometimes inevitable because of an unexpected occurence. Similarly I have seen EATs reduce significantly very rapidly.

Thunderbug

8th Jan 2008, 18:53

Scuzi

However, I resent being accused of lying

I never accused anybody of lying - my sincere apologies if that is way it came across. :uhoh:

This thread is about improving the accuracy of the information about delays inbound the London TMA, LHR especially. Hopefully you agree that we are after the same thing here, but viewing from different perspectives.

Take the mere 6 extra minutes. That did not include slowing down so add a couple - an extra 8 minutes on a 15 minutes estimate is over 50% in error.

That day it did matter. The flight plan was not the most generous, but there was no reason to take more gas. I had already committed based on the 15 min, the extra delay plus extended routing all start making things a bit tight.

I'm not throwing accusations at anybody, I just agree with the original observation that the quality of inbound delay info has deteriorated.

If you want a Fam flight - PM me and we will try and get one sorted. :ok:

T'bug