UK Heathrow

[manrow]

Is it still true that London Heathrow holds the gold medal for non-adherence to international airfield standards?

[Max Angle]

Quite possibly, and some of the non-adherences came about whilst they were trying to become ICAO compliant such as the holding point names (ETTIV, HORKA etc). 5 letter names are for airborne use only and should not be used on the ground. You should also not have runway entry points named the same as the taxiway that services them, such as Alpha 4, Alpha 5 etc. on 27R that come off the Alpha taxiway. Thanks to BAA's bungling the whole place is a total mess now but then what do you expect from them.

[ZOOKER]

Why do you still need just 5 letters?
(My in-car GPS allows me to type in a town, postcode or even a whole address).
Surely it is time to revert to geographical names which mean more to both aviators and controllers alike.

[privatesandwiches]

what, you mean like goodwood and southampton???

[Spitoon]

Max, how should runway access points be named????

[Spitoon]

And another thingIs it still true that London Heathrow holds the gold medal for non-adherence to international airfield standards?Whether it's really a fair allegation or not it is true that LHR deviates from many standards. This will make it interesting in the future when EASA sets the rules for aerodromes - the last draft rules I saw said that an aerodrome would not be certified if it does not comply with European and ICAO Standards.

And it won't just be LHR that can't be certified - perhaps this is just another way they're trying to stop aviation. Still, I guess EASA must know what it's doing.....

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<5 letter names are for airborne use only and should be used on the ground.>>

I read that 50 times but still can't make sense of it.

Bring back the block numbers!!

[autothrottle]

Still use some of the old familiar block numbers when thinking of places to hide aircraft waiting for stands, such as 37(O) or 25(i). By the way HD, Block 85 is no longer the biggest block....its now block300!!!

[vespasia]

You should also not have runway entry points named the same as the taxiway that services them, such as Alpha 4, Alpha 5 etc. on 27R that come off the Alpha taxiway

IIRC, that's exactly how holding points should be named. Alpha 1 is the 1st holding point on taxiway A, Alpha 2 is the second etc.

[manrow]

Seems to me the answer is Yes!

[Skipness One Echo]

ATC still refers to the old days, as in "traffic coming from the old Novembers" on occasion which intuitively was the Stands N76-N90. A lot of people still think of LHR in those old terms(!)

[Minesapint]

Five letter designators are designed for easy recognition (three or five for fixes DTY, BAGSO etc) and four letters for airports - EGLL. To change the standard would require significant changes to state flight data processing systems which are somewhat expensive.

[dontdoit]

It'll always be "Block 17"; hands up anyone who knows what that exit from 09L is called (without looking at the chart!!!)

[Max Angle]

I read that 50 times but still can't make sense of it.

Sorry, it had been a long day in the fog. What I meant to write was "should NOT be used on the ground". Nowhere else I have ever flown to uses 5 letter designators for ground holding points, it causes confusion every day at LHR with ATC often having to repeat the message 3 or 4 times to an overseas visitor who simply does not understand what is being said when Pluto or Saturn or Ettiv are mentioned.

that's exactly how holding points should be named. Alpha 1 is the 1st holding point on taxiway A, Alpha 2 is the second etc.

No it's not, according to ICAO recommendations the runway holding point designator should not include the same letter as the taxiway serving it. So any holding point designator leading off the Alpha taxiway should not include an A. The only place at LHR where this recommendation is implemented (no doubt by chance) is the North side of 27L/09R. There are plenty of other airports around the world where the same applies but all the ones I have used that have recently been changed to be ICAO compliant don't do it. Just fly 30 minutes East to AMS to see how it should be done, LHR is a total mess by comparison.

And whilst I am having a rant. Why is it that at night when we are supposed to "follow the greens and stop at the reds" are the (non compliant) holding points not blocked with a red stop bar. I have lost count of the number of times that someone (including me a few times) has got a bollocking from ATC for going past Saturn or Titan or Horka when the green lights merrily carry on straight past it to a red stop bar further down the taxiway. Pretty sure they all have stop bars so please use them.

[Spitoon]

No it's not, according to ICAO recommendations the runway holding point designator should not include the same letter as the taxiway serving it. So any holding point designator leading off the Alpha taxiway should not include an A.Max, a reference for this would be useful. If you're not sure where to go you might like to look at Annex 14 para 4.2.16 as a starting point.

[gone_fishing]

No it's not, according to ICAO recommendations the runway holding point designator should not include the same letter as the taxiway serving it. So any holding point designator leading off the Alpha taxiway should not include an A.

If this is true, then that means most aerodromes in the UK are non-ICAO compliant (not that I think that's a bad thing).

[Gonzo]

I have lost count of the number of times that someone (including me a few times) has got a bollocking from ATC for going past Saturn or Titan or Horka when the green lights merrily carry on straight past it to a red stop bar further down the taxiway. Pretty sure they all have stop bars so please use them.

I'm afraid that to bring up a stop bar at, say, LOKKI, means either someone else somewhere has a green route, or in some cases, the only other way to bring up stop bars at all runway holding area entry points would be to do what we call 'junction clear' the block(s) subsequent to those points. This would mean any a/c in those block(s) would be faced with no greens and lit stop bars, even though they would have been cleared to a runway entry point.

[autothrottle]

Max,

Whilst I agree that stop bars at clearance limits would be ideal, as Gonzo has said it would "drop" a bar for someone else giving them a green route through their clearance limit, OR by clearing the route to bring up the bar at say LOKKI the greens would go. In low vis we endeavour to keep stop bars lit at the delineation of GMC1,2 and 3 to prevent incursion into another GMC's ground space. This is fine when the movement rate is low as in LVP's but during normal conditions we have found that trying to keep the routes lit , expedites the traffic flow, reducing waiting times. At MOST points on the airfield we CAN bring up a bar at a clearance limit , such as short of Charlie or short of Link11 , but near the RHA's where space is tight and transfer of control goes from GMC to AIR it is almost impossible to bring up bars at Intermediate holding points like ETTIV or LOKKI, AND keep up the maximum departure rate off the runway. It would slow everything up too much.

Cheers A/T

[ILS 119.5]

I fly into LHR quite often, can you guys explain why the ATC vortex requirements are different at LHR from elsewhere in the world

[anotherthing]

In what way are they supposedly different?

[Spitoon]

Or maybe that the UK uses different spacings from those specified by ICAO and used in many other States.

[rodan]

That's true, but there are also two different standards for civil ATS units within the uk. Something I've never been quite able to understand. If it's perfectly safe at Heathrow, why is it suddenly unsafe down the road at Farnborough (for example)?

[Spitoon]

True rodan, and I've got no answer for that. IIRC LL had approval to do 'land after the departing' and different 'land after' procedures, which were landing clearances when no other airport (perhaps with the exceptions of CC and KK) was permitted to do this. I don't know what the situation is now but the 'big NATS airports' were undoubtedly treated differently by the CAA when the CAA and NATS were a single organisation. What the justifications were I have no idea, no one would say when I asked.

[Eggs Petition]

The UK uses Small as a wake category. Although some others may do likewise (Switzerland) it is unusual.

The UK spacings are
H-H,M,S,L
M-M/S, L
S- S,L

H-4,5,6,8NM
M-3,4,6
S-3,4

To all UK ATCOs, I believe these spacings are different from ICAO and the rest of Europe.

As for cleared to land when one aircraft is still to vacate... well, it does include a certain distance that not many regional aerodromes in the UK could accommodate. I'm out of touch but I think it says the preceeding aircraft must be 2500m further along the runway and in continuous motion? However, remember that this is used elsewhere in Europe... as is the 2.5NM on final approach within the last 10 miles.

[Spitoon]

As for cleared to land when one aircraft is still to vacate... well, it does include a certain distance that not many regional aerodromes in the UK could accommodate. I'm out of touch but I think it says the preceeding aircraft must be 2500m further along the runway and in continuous motion? However, remember that this is used elsewhere in Europe... as is the 2.5NM on final approach within the last 10 miles.Again, true, but the cleared to land with one to vacate (reduced runway separation) has only recently been formalised and incorporated into ICAO documents. LL was doing it long ago. And not every airport is handling aircraft the size of those at LL, so the distances involved might be accommodated on the runway length available. But the principle was that LL was in some way able to use these procedures - and again I think CC was similarly authorised - whilst other airports were not.

BTW, on the wake vortex categories (or wake turbulence as we're now supposed to call it on the RTF), I think that even for the categories that are used by ICAO the weights used as the cut-off point in the UK are different.

[Lon More]

Is this "substandard" Heathrow the one refereed to in other threads as the best airfield in the world with the best Air Traffic Control? :}:=

[Geffen]

After the landing/departing cleared to land has sadly been removed from the ATCO tool box at Heathrow. At least no one can get confused by it anymore.

[Gonzo]

But the principle was that LL was in some way able to use these procedures - and again I think CC was similarly authorised - whilst other airports were not.

I would imagine that given enough time we could find procedures that other airports can use, but others can not.

Anyway, isn't the difference in vortex spacing down to the increased density of the air mix due to pollution? :}

[Spitoon]

I would imagine that given enough time we could find procedures that other airports can use, but others can not.
Gonzo, I am sure you are right. But I wasn't seeking to be critical of LL, simply trying to illustrate that (and I think it's down to the CAA) treated different airports in different ways for no apparent justifiable reason. If after the landing/departing cleared to land was safe for use at LL why shouldn't it be used at other airports given suitable infrastructure? But it wasn't an option for other airports. As Geffen alludes, it caused confusion - I remember one conversation with a LL-based pilot I had at my place of work when he wanted to know why, in the same circumstances, at 'home' he got cleared to land and we said "land after". Maybe not surprisingly I couldn't give him a satisfactory answer!

[Gonzo]

I agree Spitoon, and on the 'land after/after the landing, cleared to land' matter I very rarely used them, purely because most crews would not understand the differences.