Flipping runways in thunderstorm conditions at LHR [Archive]

hold at SATAN

8th Jun 2009, 11:17

We can have upto a 5kt tailwind component in accordance with "preferential westerlies" but that requires several conditions including a dry runway.

Chasing the weather, be it wind or avoiding CBs, is an absolute nightmare. I remember a shift back in 2002ish when we swapped ends 3 times - absolute carnage.

Holding points tend to have around a dozen aircraft at time when it's busy. If we suddenly change runway direction and those aircraft need to go to the opposite end....

Usually weather tends to settle down/move over a shortish period of time. But multiple end changes can increase ATC workload to an unbearable level with delayed pilots whining about start times etc etc, all which could have much longer term ramifications. In the overall scheme of things, unless the wind is forecast to change to the opposite end, as opposed to a temporary shift brought about by CBs, we just sit tight and weather the storm :ok:

Julian Hensey

8th Jun 2009, 11:30

Ok interesting, yesterday particularly looked "difficult" as I was on the M25 very close to LHR and driving over a hail carpet under a large thunderstorm with the wheels crunching the hail down. I looked at the wind and it was very slow..but thanks for the information - I was interested because these particular storms seemed to be moving very slowly.

anotherthing

9th Jun 2009, 14:47

Sunday afternoon was particularly nasty - thank you Mr Easy Jet pilot who badgered one controller relentlessly, then did the same to the Essex controller.

If you ask for deviation for weather and we don't give it to you, there is a bloddy good reason! Despite telling you we couldn't and why, you still took up valuable R/T time.

Professional pilot? not in this case.

Andy Rylance

9th Jun 2009, 15:18

Jerricho

9th Jun 2009, 21:30

This can and certainly does happen Andy, and any controller will tell you that when storm cells are around, vertical separation is a beautiful thing..........

1985

9th Jun 2009, 22:30

but there must be a time when there is no choice and a pilot has to take the decision to avoid a CB regardless and then inform ATC what is going to do because he/she has to and has no options for safety even if ATC it is going to be too difficult to route.. is that a common happening?

it does happen but it would be nice if we got told. Unlike a certain pilot who's first call was "turning right 20 degrees to avoid" across the nose of the parallel heading traffic 5 miles to his right!

anotherthing

10th Jun 2009, 19:02

This can and certainly does happen Andy, and any controller will tell you that when storm cells are around, vertical separation is a beautiful thing..........

Vertical separation is indeed a beautiful thing. However on Sunday in the LTMA when the weather suddenly hit, there were aircraft all over the place, some wandering through 3 or four different sectors that they would normally never be near. Level separation was not an option!!

Clouds, however active, are softer than aluminium. Always ask first, I will MOR a pilot who puts his and other aircraft into danger because he turns before asking. I will remind a pilot of his obligation to request a trun if his actions do not happen to put himself in harms way on that day.

It will be a very rare and extremely rare happening if you are refused the turn you want - if you are, then it is because you will endanger your, and other crews, aircraft.

I know the ride isn't pleasant (I flew professionally before this career), but it is not safe to turn without permission!!

I am campaigning to get an educational DVD produced by NATS that will illustrate the effect weather can have - it will include actual radar replays with R/T and phone calls. It is initially intended for Tower controllers as part of TRUCE (cos we don't like being badgered every 5 mins to cancel MDIs etc when we are hanging on for dear life), but I have suggested it gets sent to the airlines as well.

Unfortunately the safety manager who was supposed to produce this DVD after my suggestion several months ago (about 12) has been very slow and in fact very negligent in doing so. He was given a sharp reminder by his peers very recently.

Traffic is...

10th Jun 2009, 20:53

Dare I say, but occasionally a little more info from the radar guys and girls would go a long way on the day. Tower folk do realise that the radar folk are exceptionally busy, but when we are told very little to nothing with regards to what is going on, we will call now and again to find out what sort of delay can be expected. However, I agree that some of us probably call a little too often and don't give you any respite. Sounds like the DVD would be a good idea though.

PS We realise you guys are busy because we tend to visit Swanwick now and again. How many times do radar folk visit the towers?;)

anotherthing

11th Jun 2009, 08:27

PS We realise you guys are busy because we tend to visit Swanwick now and again. How many times do radar folk visit the towers?
Not often enough - a lot of issue we have (rightly or wrongly) is no TOIL for doing it on a day off and not being released during rostered days, especially as our clawback days are often (and particulalry over the next 2 years) already earmarked and in fact demand for them is over the number we have to give back to the company due to various things that are coming soon.

I think that there is slightly less appreciation from all sides wrt colleagues working conditions/tasks/problems - exacerbated by the reduction in the college course length.

I know that on Sunday more info from the GS side of things may have helped you guys and reducced the phone calls from you (we appreciated the airlines badger you), but at the time, out of the 5 TC groups North, South, East, Midlands and Capital, we were running out of legal hours for personnel on 3 of them (5 mins to go) and getting close on the other 2 groups, so there was a lot of head scratching going on!! The weather seemed to catch us out a bit - we knew it was there - it had been threatening all afternoon, but had seemed to be static and did not move towards the TMA at all, then all of a sudden (it seemed like), it was upon us.

btw, Thanks to AC as well for taking some short notice (far from ideal) calls to hold out :ok:. Hopefully LAS south passed on the message at the time, she was asked to but she and you were both still busy.

DFC

11th Jun 2009, 09:00

I will MOR a pilot who puts his and other aircraft into danger because he turns before asking.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that if a pilot decides to turn when either;

a) They have asked and you say no; or

b) They have not asked

then you will file a report about the situation as you experienced it under the MOR scheme.

There is no such thing as "MOR the pilot".

From the pilot point of view, I will not fly into a CB. To do so would put the safety of the aircraft at risk. If I can I will give ATC the option of a left or righ turn. If not then while I might put it nicely by saying "request 20 right to avoid weather" what I am saying is I need to turn for safety reasons.

I have turned first and talked later in the LTMA before - unable to get in on frequency. However, it is the pilot who is responsible for the safety of the aircraft in every respect. The ATCO is only responsible for the safety of the ATS provided.

A complaint regarding a pilot having to endlessly badger a controller to avoid weather says something about the weather, about the pilot's attitude to safety and also about the ATCO's attitude to safety. 1 good thing out of 3 ain't bad!.

Regards,

DFC

anotherthing

11th Jun 2009, 09:24

DFC,

I do hope in your last paragraph you are not trying to say the pilot is in the right... the frequency was busy, the pilot was offered a different turn but would only accept a turn in the direction he stated... a direction that was not available because of the numerous aircraft that were in his way. Even a climb or descent to facilitate his turn was not feasible because of the traffic situation. The pilot was in his right to ask (and it is good that he did and did not just turn), and was well within his right to ask again when refused, stressing how much he needed the turn. However once he had got to that point, he should have stopped.

If he felt strongly about it, he could then file a report on landing and an appreciation from both sides may have been gained (but how many pilots, especially LoCo pilots with multiple sectors and minimum turn around times, will want to or can be bothered to go into paperwork? They'd rather get their way in the air - which is understandable to a degree).

The RT was extremely busy, this pilot did not help especially as the controller concerned had explicitly told him that he could not turn in that direction, told him why, and offered an alternative (which was the only one available but unfortunately was of no use to the pilot). Asking once, or even twice, stressing how much you really want to turn is acceptable, constant badgering and complaining to the point of arguing is not. It can be extremely dangerous.

As for the MOR, it would include the situation experienced, but on replay, it would highlight the poor appreciation by the pilot (a bit of a re-briefing on airmanship and appreciation of what else is going on in busy airspace methinks), particularly in similar circumstances on Sunday, when it was investigated.

ATCOs are not 'only responsible' for the safety of the ATS provided, they are responsible for the safety of all aircraft under their charge.

You are correct in stating that the ultimate responsibility for an individual aircraft lies with the Captain. Unfortunately the ATCO often has more than just one aircraft to worry about, which is why sometimes (rarely) we have to say no.

I too would not fly into a CB if at all possible (talking from experience here, NATS ATCO is my second career - I flew for a living beforehand) - you state that you will turn (and indeed have done so) before getting permission, especially when the RT is congested. That is your perogative and right, and if there is an incident, you would have good mitigating reasons... however that does not detract from the statement that the pilot on Sunday displayed poor airmanship and awareness - did he think he was the only aircraft with weather? Did he think it was acceptable to constantly transmit on an obviously very busy frequency during what was obviously a difficult time for all (aircrew and ATCOs), when he had been given explicit reasons as to why he could not be given the turn he requested?

Bad weather is not an acceptable excuse for poor airmanship... I do not know of any ATCO that would refuse a turn if they could give it, apart from the fact that that is what we are here for (whilst ensuring the safety of all our other aircraft whilst granting the turn), it is not defendable. However, what is even more indefensible, is an ATCO who would let an aircraft turn when it asks (even when asking for a very good reason), when granting that turn would create a dangerous situation for the aircraft and other aircraft besides.

Bear in mind the period we were talking about on Sunday was extreme - we often have weather but this happened at just the wrong time with regards to the inbound traffic situation and the weather was particularly nasty. Normally when we have weather we have it (traffic) flowed to the point that we can give the pilot the turn he/she wants, every time without fail. (Even though it usually then means we have to do some frantic coordination).

This should make it even more evident to aircrews that when we say no, it's for a damned good reason, not just for the hell of it!!

Regards

Anotherthing

DFC

11th Jun 2009, 22:29

I do hope in your last paragraph you are not trying to say the pilot is in the right

The only thing that the pilot did wrong was to continue to make requests. Far better to give up on a lost cause and either just turn or perhaps better to declare an emergency and turn.

If the weather needed to be avoided for safety then there would never be an option of not avoiding it.

If I need to avoid weather then I will avoid weather. In busy airspace I don't avoid every bit of cumulus that might cause a bump. If I ask to avoid weather in the LTMA there is a safety reason for my request.

If you have aircraft to my right on a parallel with min radar separation and I report that I have to turn right to avoid weather then you have to accept that you now have to move that other traffic or end up with less than min separation.

When I can see a CB ahead I am never going to ever fly into it. I will fly round it or do a 180. I don't really care as long as I am never inside that CB.

Part of the problem is that ATC can't see any of the weather. I can see a CB ahead and I know that if I move 0.5 to 1nm further right of the current track, I can avoid. However, what I request is 20 degrees right to avoid because this is the way that it is done. You don't know that I only need to move a small bit right of track and assume that this new track is going to go on for God knows how long.

I have previously done orbits, diverted miles off track and a few times even flown a new route to avoid CBs. I have never been refused such a request in any of the worlds major TMAs including London.

That is why I am so shocked to hear that an ATCO could take such a risk with a flight by forcing that flight to fly in weather that the pilot requested to avoid.

I think that ATC attitude in this case mirrors the Captain of the ship in this video;

YouTube - Battleship VS Lighthouse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knu14TlvCQE)

Regards,

DFC

anotherthing

11th Jun 2009, 22:48

I forgot about the big sky small aircraft skygod mentality... no means no. Only used for a very good reason.

As for ending up with less than min separation, you really haven't got a clue - as evident by your post above.

No means no. Happens on very few occasions, and only for very good reason. I will file and I will be in the right.

I'm shocked that a professional pilot can't get it in his skull that turning his aircraft might actually be more dangerous - ATC has the big picture when it comes to traffic - don't even try to mention TCAS.

Lets agree to disagree, though I am correct.

Scuzi

12th Jun 2009, 00:56

A balance has to be struck in this situation. If a pilot asks for a turn to avoid weather and ATC refuses, he/she must make a decision whether to continue as cleared or to take responsibilty for a turn. Why waste precious time by asking again when you have already bee told "No". As anotherthing says, if you have been refused a turn it is for a bloody good reason, i.e. there is another aeroplane close by and if you take the turn you want, you're going to lose minimum separation.

As a pilot and a controller, in this particular scenario working as a controller I have used the following procedure. It may not be listed in the book but everyone was crystal clear.

Working TMA North last September when thunderstorms appeared to be a daily occurence, I had an aircraft outbound from EGSS on a CPT deaprture. The pilot requested a 30 degree right turn which I refused as there was traffic 3 miles northwest at the same level. The turn would have resulted in a loss of seapration hence my refusal. The pilot prevailed as was his/her right to do so, so I made it perfectly clear with something along the lines of "Callsign, traffic 2 o clock 3 miles same level, right turn will put you in conflict with it, if you choose to turn right maintain your own visual separation".

I continued with regular traffic information until the conflict was clear. They were flahsing white on my screen and I was quite frankly shi**ing myself but it worked out in the end and I wasn't held responsible. Quite luckily, even though they were reasonably close, minimum separation was maintained throughout. Through pure fluke mind you.

The downsides to the situation were the massively increased workload due to having to monitor it in a very busy and complex environment but we all kept our noses clean which must be a bonus?

I can understand the situation from both sides of the fence and I think the only way to resolve our differences (read: misunderstanding of each others jobs) in this situation is familiarisation of each other. Fam flights and visits to ATC are absolutely essential if we want to bridge the gap in knowledge.

anotherthing

12th Jun 2009, 07:57

Scuzi

I don't misunderstand pilots - I flew professionally for a number of years before joining NATS.

It's pilots with statements such as The ATCO is only responsible for the safety of the ATS provided.
who do not understand what we do and what we are governed by law to do.

If you had lost separation in the instance you mention, you would have been suspended, albeit for a very short time. Now I don't care about being suspended if I know it is not my fault, though as you know, it is not the best thing to happen when chances are everyone is working balls out due weather.

If the situation on Sunday had resulted in a LOS, then it would have been more than one controller suspended as aircraft where all over the place flying through sectors they should never have been near. Again, not a consideration for the pilot when it is his or her ultimate responsibility for safety.

However in the LTMA, or any other airspace for that matter, turning an aircraft when you have been told 'no' could at worst, constitute 'endagerment of aircraft' either your (the pilot concerned) own or yours plus others. Now i don't have the ANO on me, but I know that there is a little bit of law about endangerment of aircraft.

You really hit the nail on the head wrt the amount of monitoring required - so it works out for the aircraft that turned, but quite possibly to the detriment of other aircraft in the sky.

Now, a pilot has ultimate responsibility for the safety of his aircraft... ATCOs are however responsible for the safety of many aircraft and a captain would not expect us to reduce the effectiveness of that safety net by focussing on aircraft unevenly.

That's why, as you know, when it's quieter on sector, you are more likely to go for the climb throughs etc because you can devote more time to monitor each aircraft... as it gets busier, you tend to play things 'safer' (in apostrophes because we are always doing things safe, it's just the degree of risk mitigation that changes).

DFC does not seem to be able to understand that point. If a pilots actions result in a LOS and suspension by an ATCO, then an MOR is written. No way round it.

In that MOR it will categorically state facts... Text written stating "... ABC123 turned right after I had refused permission, thus causing a LOS between him and XYZ987 (or even worse an incident elsewhere on sector as you were disatrcted by the actions of ABC123)..." would be included... the pilot of ABC123 would be held to account.

Reckless endangerment?? not really 'reckless' in the eyes of the law, but still possibly endangering aircraft and therefore still on sticky ground.

A lack of appreciation by pilots as to what turning could involve.

I think most ATCOs, PPL/ATPL holders or not, young or old, all know that flying through heavy Cbs is bad... it's not a difficult concept for a layman to understand (and an ATCO is not exactly a 'layman').

The lack of appreciation of traffic flows, sectorisation, coordination and separation requirements by pilots, is more of an issue in this argument - though that is why the ATCO is there we have the bigger picture even though some pilots believe TCAS is as good as a ground based radar... Hence why pilots should understand that the extremely rare 'no' is being used for exceptional reasons and not just for the Hell of it!

We are there to help, and we will do our damndest to do so... but not to the point of possibly endangering yours and other aircraft.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

12th Jun 2009, 09:34

<<When I can see a CB ahead I am never going to ever fly into it. I will fly round it or do a 180. I don't really care as long as I am never inside that CB.

Part of the problem is that ATC can't see any of the weather. >>

And the pilots can't see any of the other aeroplanes, DFC! We all know our respective responsibilities - pilot responsible for his aeroplane; air traffic controller responsible for maybe 20 aeroplanes. But the BIG problem for pilots in bad weather, DFC, is that ATC - and ONLY ATC - can see all the traffic around you and in the approach sectors of a busy airfield a lot will be at the same FL/altitude. "Vertical" is best, but you can't stay vertical with 20 aeroplanes; there is not enough room. If you suddenly turn without warning do you not consider another aeroplane alongside that you might hit?? By the time ATC has seen your unannounced turn it maybe too late to do anything with the other traffic and the stress caused to the ATCO suddenly faced with an "airmiss" would be immense and might result in him totally losing control of the whole situation. During bad weather, controllers are working flat out because many aircraft are not doing "standard" things and require constant monitoring.

I never had a pilot do some of the things mentioned on here and I cannot ever recall refusing a "weather turn", but it might have happened. However, in many years of radar control in busy airspace I never ceased to be astounded at the varying attitude of pilots to storm cells. Some were plodding along happily whilst others were frantically asking to turn left and right "to avoid".

One incident involved a 747. Heathrow was on easterlies and there were a few CBs about but the majority of traffic was following the usual pattern and landing OK. Not long after leaving LAM the pilot of the 747 wanted to turn right about 40 degrees which, after phoning my TMA colleague handling that sector, I approved. When he was a few miles NW of Bovingdon he wanted to turn south (!)... but not 220, which would have put him back into the landing stream. No, he wanted south, straight through the downwind legs for 09L... He kept going, turning further left, necessitating phone calls to the Heathrow south Director, TMA (S) and Gatwick Director. After causing some scary moments with the traffic at OCK he eventually ended up over Gatwick before he would turn right back towards Woodley and he eventually descended for landing. Meanwhile many other aircraft had flown the approach from all 4 stacks, some with one or two small heading changes "to avoid", and landed OK. Question: WHY??? The chaos in the TMA caused by that one aeroplane was incredible.

On another occasion a small turboprop made a completely normal approach whilst large jets were weaving all over. If the weather was deemed too dangerous to fly through by pilots of heavy jets, how come a small aeroplane could whizz straight through? (I'm not a pilot so apologise if the answer should be obvious).

Heathrow with storm cells on the approach..... Most aircraft held off by flying radar circuits north and south of the ILS. However, the odd one made a normal approach - right through the alleged bad weather! I had the tower telephone to say "The landing xxx says to tell everyone it's no problem on the approach" whereupon several others made approaches and landed OK, presumably ignoring their weather radar.

Weather avoidance is painfully inconsistent between pilots and ATCOs received no specific "weather training" in my day. Are pilots either not trained properly in the use of weather radar or are they are basically left to their own devices to interpret what they see? E.g string of same company 757s all on the same heading at the same level at 210kts. One turns right, one turns left, the next plods on. As an ATCO I received no official training in bad weather problems but I always told trainees that the worst situations they were going to see would be those in bad weather. It can be very, very scary. Maybe things have changed now?

It's a tragedy that so few pilots visit ATC. We used to get some at Heathrow but in the 10 years I was at West Drayton I saw less than a handful. I showed an airline captain around Heathrow once and he sat in on radar in some bad weather. He came away a very, very shaken man. I know that pilots sometimes attend controllers "unusual occurrence" training but is enough attention paid to bad weather exercises? When I did them I was usually faced with an engine failure or something similarly straightforward, or something so scary I might see it once in a lifteime, yet never ever was there an exercise devoted to a TMA full of CBs, which happens many times each year.

DFC

12th Jun 2009, 10:25

HD,

You are correct. In fact the pilot spoken of earlier who made several requests to avoid weather and then flew through that "weather" just leaves the ATCO sitting there saying "see I knew that he did not need to avoid anything".

You are totally correct - 1 goes left, one goes right and one up the middle. Part of the reson is that the CBs move but another more important thing is that weather radar need to be used correctly and even when used correctly requires quite a lot of interpretation.

I don't buy the pilots are responsible for one aircraft while the controllers are responsible for several. The pilot's actions have to ensure the safety of their aircraft - which by association requires the pilot not to endanger other aircraft. My visually flying across the trail of another aircraft 1nm behind and 100ft above is not dangerous. Don't forget that the first objective of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft in the air and not to maintain X distance between flights. The X distance is simply a tool to achieve that objective.

I always remember that separation standards are minima and shall be increased when requested by the pilot or considdered necessary by the ATCO.

Putting two aircraft parallel with minimum separation in weather avoiding situations can result in the controller having to explain on the MOR / Airporx report why they thought it was safe to apply the minima in that situation.

-----------

I will MOR a pilot

I will file and I will be in the right

I am correct

:rolleyes:

Regards,

DFC

Del Prado

12th Jun 2009, 12:51

My visually flying across the trail of another aircraft 1nm behind and 100ft above is not dangerous

Assuming you are VMC and have identified the correct 'target'.
How do you know there's not another aircraft nearby?

I always remember that separation standards are minima and shall be increased when requested by the pilot or considered necessary by the ATCO.

Putting two aircraft parallel with minimum separation in weather avoiding situations can result in the controller having to explain on the MOR / Airporx report why they thought it was safe to apply the minima in that situation.

You really don't have much grasp of the route structures within the LTMA if you believe we have room to apply more than the minima.

1985

12th Jun 2009, 13:49

DFC

I understand why the differences between aircraft exist when it comes to avoiding weather. Be they more accurate wx radar, different interpretation of the radar, more nervous pilot etc etc. It can be frustrating as hell as everything goes everywhere and i will do my upmost to help no matter to let aircraft to fly whatever wx avoidance they want.

BUT you have to ask for/ request the avoidance, you can't just go ahead and do it, there are other aircraft in the sky and as such i have a responsibility to them aswell as the aircraft wanting to avoid to keep them apart. If you ask you may have your descent/climb stopped, or you may be asked if 5 degrees would do instead of 10.

it does happen but it would be nice if we got told. Unlike a certain pilot who's first call was "turning right 20 degrees to avoid" across the nose of the parallel heading traffic 5 miles to his right

In this instance if the wx avoiding a/c had carried on doing what he wanted he would have ended up having a TCAS RA as he was slightly ahead and climbing at the same rate. I had to give a stop climb at a level that he was about to pass through. He passed directly underneath the other a/c and scraped 1000' vertically. No time for avoiding action. All because he just turned without telling me until he was well in the turn. He got filed on.

Just turning is not acceptable, we have to be told and then have to approve it. Your aircraft is your responsibility i understand that, but there is a bigger picture.

fly bhoy

12th Jun 2009, 14:56

DFC

My visually flying across the trail of another aircraft 1nm behind and 100ft above is not dangerous.

No but it is illegal in class A airspace (which last time I checked...the TMA is!!:ok:) and that is the point you seem to be missing.

Standard separations are exactly that...standard. And my radar colleagues are not allowed to reduce them (I am able to reduce them using reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome laws, but I'm just a glorified parking attendant anyway!!!:}) so the minute you get less than 5 (or 3) miles or 1000ft it is a "loss of separation" which can result in immense stress and (probable) suspension for the controller involved!

My point being, the radar bods CANNOT, by law, approve a turn which will reduce separation, regardless of the reason (emergencies aside obviously).

As for Putting two aircraft parallel with minimum separation in weather avoiding situations can result in the controller having to explain on the MOR / Airporx report why they thought it was safe to apply the minima in that situation.
it is entirely possible that the controller in question didn't have a choice but to apply minimum separation due to the volume of traffic and wx etc in that situation.

And whether you buy it or not, it is a fact...you are responsible for one aircraft whereas the controller is responsible for many. And, has already been mentioned, if he/she/it has to concentrate solely on your impending loss of separation due to an unauthorised turn, while two other aircraft are coming into confliction 50 miles away, it's clear where the blame for that other incident is going to lie...squarely with the pilot making the unauthorised turn in the first incident!!:=

Quite what the solution is I don't know. Would the pilot in question have accepted an "orbit in present position until advised"?!? Doubtful. Also doubtful if that would even be possible. But I only get paid to say "cleared to land/takeoff" so it's not up to me to find a sloution!!;)

FB:ok:

DFC

12th Jun 2009, 21:08

Would the pilot in question have accepted an "orbit in present position until advised"?!? Doubtful

If they were requesting to avoid the weather for safety reasons then if an orbit was the only option then they should take it. To do otherwise simply shows that the request was not really required in the first place.

And whether you buy it or not, it is a fact...you are responsible for one aircraft whereas the controller is responsible for many.

I am responsible for the consequences of my actions no matter if those actions have an effect on 1 or 100 aircraft or on 1 or a thousand people on the ground.

Hailstones the size of tennis balls ruin glass houses. Think of what solid metal from a CB caused by a controller putting an aircraft inside it would cause.
----------

Fly bhoy,

I don't think that you will find it illegal fro aircraft at the same level to fly closer to each other than 5nm or even 3nm in Class A. Think procedural separation for one example of when it can be done.

----------

Just turning is not acceptable

Nor is flying into a CB (ever). That is why we get paid - to make difficult decisions regarding the safety of the aircraft. Simple question - do I fly into the CB (certain danger) or do I turn to avoid (without being able to ask) and have the possible risk of getting closer than the controller would like to another aircraft.

-----------

Del Prado,

Agreed with regard to other traffic. Turning without clearance is not something that I did lightly the option of lossing the wings was not going to be tried.

I know that you don't have any room. The CAA likewise. However, that is a clear "shall" in the CAA's rule book and there is no option to say no!!

There are many rules that can ruin an ATCO's day if they were ever used. Imagine a pilot not being able to avoid weather because it is busy. So they declare an emergency and then impose radio silence on you before broadcasting their intentions at length. :eek:

Regards,

DFC

fly bhoy

12th Jun 2009, 23:43

DFC

I am responsible for the consequences of my actions no matter if those actions have an effect on 1 or 100 aircraft or on 1 or a thousand people on the ground.

So when you initiate your unauthorised turn, who is responsible for issuing the numerous ensuing avoiding action instrusctions that may result? Is it you? Or is it the controller?!? Thought so...!! And that is the point we are all trying to make. Trust me, we all know your arse is at the pointy end, but we still have to apply our rules, whether you like it or not.

As for I don't think that you will find it illegal fro aircraft at the same level to fly closer to each other than 5nm or even 3nm in Class A. Think procedural separation for one example of when it can be done.

I can't figure out how to cut and paste from a PDF but from reading the MATS pt1 i'd say its fairly obvious that it IS illegal to reduce separation unless

1) In the vicinty of an aerodrome
2) On an advisory route
3) Search and rescue escorts, and
4) Loss of separation (but the controller must use every means to obtain the required minima ASAP)

Search for CAP493 section 1-3-1 and -2 for the exact wording.

I'm sure it can't be pleasant for you to be in that position, but you have to understand that the controller simply can't authorise a turn that wil reduce separation. Scuzi's solution seems to make the best of a bad situation and is somewhat akin to out "at your own discretion" that we use occasionally, but again, on the ground is so much different to in the air.

FB:ok:

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

13th Jun 2009, 07:41

<<I don't think that you will find it illegal for aircraft at the same level to fly closer to each other than 5nm or even 3nm in Class A. Think procedural separation for one example of when it can be done. >>

DFC... Pray, enlighten us further, in the context of bad weather..

DFC

13th Jun 2009, 10:03

HD,

As a pilot I am not required to keep x distance between my aircraft and other aircraft. What I am required to do is to comply with the rules for avoiding collisions as contained in the Rules of the Air.

I am only required to comply with an ATC clearance when that clearance is safe.

An ATC clearance that takes me through a CB is unsafe.

Controllers are there to prevent collisions in the air.

--------------

As an aside, if you think that avoiding a CB and getting as close as 1nm from another aircraft at the same level is shockingly dangerous then get a fam flight on a Farnbough Inbound - threading it's way through gliders, para gliders, parachute drops, microlights, all manner of cessna and Piper and other flights plus the odd ex military jet doing more than 250Kt along with the military doing the same and some helicopters. The CAA says that is perfectly safe for regular Public Transport Flights. Moving a mile or 2 left or right in a controled environment must be safer than that even if one doesn't ask!!

-----------

I can see some controllers here could object to the following;

Aircraft departing runway 27 cleared straight ahead 3000ft. String of aircraft joining downwind from the west IFR. Pilot at 400ft reports turning onto a track of 180 and climbing to 4000ft due engine failure. Seems that some people here would tell the pilot not to turn because it would cause a loss of their separation standard with the traffic joining downwind!

Regards,

DFC

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

13th Jun 2009, 10:50

DFC. Let's stop all the waffle about CAA saying things are safe, etc, etc., and I'm not talking about Farnborough or gliders or clockwork mice. You said: "I don't think that you will find it illegal fro aircraft at the same level to fly closer to each other than 5nm or even 3nm in Class A. Think procedural separation for one example of when it can be done." I would like YOU to tell us how this might be done procedurally in the context of bad weather in the London TMA - Class A airspace.

Aircraft departing runway 27 cleared straight ahead 3000ft. String of aircraft joining downwind from the west IFR. Pilot at 400ft reports turning onto a track of 180 and climbing to 4000ft due engine failure. Seems that some people here would tell the pilot not to turn because it would cause a loss of their separation standard with the traffic joining downwind!

So why on earth would the pilot do something like that? Every engine failure on take-off I've ever experienced has climbed straight ahead for many miles, not wanting to turn, let alone climb to 4000 ft when the clearance was to 3000 ft. I would certainly advise him not to turn - and tell him why.

DFC

13th Jun 2009, 18:02

OK.

Two aircraft over XYZ vor. CB sitting on 360 radial. Aircraft 1 avoids by flying outbound on the 340 radial while aircraft 2 flies outbound on the 025 radial. As soon as they are both established outbound they are separated and procedurally can be cleared to the same level because you have track separation as per MATS 1.

If the aircraft are slow enough they could in theory both only be 1 or 2nm from the VOR when no longer separated vertically.

Of course there is also the opposite direction case where two aircraft avoid weather by flying in oposite directions along the same route and habving confirmed the pass, the controller swaps levels.

Those are examples of where a controller can have aircraft very close together in class A but very much separated according to the book.

However what I really had said was that it is not illegal for me to be closer to another aircraft than what the ATCO is told to maintain between aircraft on the radar display. If it was illegal then since radar is not 100% accurate the controller can see what they judge to be 5nm when the aircraft are in fact (a bit) less than 5nm appart.

Remind me again at what distance the "snitch" makes a recording when say the required separation is 5nm?

-------------

So why on earth would the pilot do something like that?

Ever heard of an emergency turn?

I fly to lots of aerodromes where we will fly a special procedure in the event of an engine failure and it is not straight ahead or follow the SID.

Unless you have reviewed the performance manuals for every company and every type that operates from the airport, you probably would not be aware of what they have planned in case of engine failure.

However, "I would certainly advise him not to turn - and tell him why." would not be what the crew are interested in when dealing with an emergency.

Regards,

DFC

fly bhoy

13th Jun 2009, 20:19

DFC

In the VOR example you talk about, the point is that although the separation may only be 1-2nm at the VOR, it is only ever going to increase due to the diverging headings. In the actual incident that was mentioned earlier, the aircraft wanted to turn on a converging heading, thereby reducing the separation below the minimum we are ALLOWED to apply when following the procedures laid down that we have to follow! Therefore, I say again (:ok:) we CANNOT authorise the turn.

For what it's worth, yes I agree with you that you two flying say 2nm apart at same level is probably safer for you than flying through a very active cell, but we simply cannot authorise the turn that would reduce the separation to 2nm. And therefore badgering the ATCO on an already busy frequency for something he/she cant authorise is at best futile, and at worst, dangerous and poor airmanship.

Several times I have seen two of my departures get about 1-2nm same level, but they are on diverging SIDs and I can reduce the separation in the vicinity by applying visual separation, something our radar colleagues can't do (although I did hear a funny story of someone trying that excuse on a board or check when they lost separation!! Think it went "but I had them both visual on the radar screen"!!!:E).

As for the emergency turns example, all bets are off when there's an emergency and separation can obviously be reduced due to the mitigating circumstances, but i'm afraid bad weather doesn't constitute an emergency and therefore standard separation HAS to be applied.

FB:ok:

DFC

13th Jun 2009, 21:16

but we simply cannot authorise the turn that would reduce the separation to 2nm

I fully understand that.

However, what is going through every pilot's mind following the following discussion;

London ABC123 request a turn 20 degrees right to avoid weather

ABC123 negative continue present heading traffic 3 O'Clock 5 miles on a parallel heading

is

Well shift that traffic then or do you think that we are crazy enough to fly into that CB we have ahead.

Agree with your comments about aircraft in emergency. Do you want me to declare an emergency when you refuse a turn for weather. a CB in one's 12 O'Clock is certainly grave and imminent danger!!

However, what the emergency turn highlights is that there can be times that an aircraft will suddenly do something that you a) don't expect, b) don't want. Not only that but one airline can have the engine out procedure going right and the next company can have it going left. If the aircraft is light enough then it might go straight ahead. In no case can ATC refuse.

The radials bit was in response to someone saying that it was illegal for aircraft to be only 1 or 2nm appart in class A.

Look at it like this - it is not mission impossible it is mission difficult. The pay cheque is for the difficult not just the easy!!

Regards,

DFC

30W

13th Jun 2009, 21:38

As a pilot who has regularly visited LATCC/South Coast Sunshine over the years I can appreciate both sides of the discussion....

I was present in AC LATCC days when 'A' Watch of old experienced their 'Black Friday' - weather created.... Man and Boy operation, others running between sector suites passing messages as the Chiefs were overloaded also. Several losses of seperation, some not even seen until tape replay. Tc took their hit also, so not just an AC problem on the day....

I have to say it was a shocking experience to witness, and one I hoped would never be repeated. It left most of my ATC friends, all very experienced, quite shocked.

How has ATC learned from this experience, it seems to have happened again?

I'm NOT a controller, but I do have a few questions which may widen the debate.....

1. Were the outbounds stopped? If not, why not? I know the action causes knock on for the rest of the day (night), but if the safety of the sector is in doubt, as seems to be suggested on this occasion it seems a SAFE option?

The numerous TRUCE, LATCC ECT sessions I have been privaledged to witness seem to me to have had a remarkably quick effect on sector loading, TC especially.

2. Just how good is NATS at managing weather? I think it's wrong, personally, that Tac's can't see the weather in their sector IF they choose to do so. Having it available in LAS and 'front desk' positions helps the controller little. Also depends on the LAS/GS etc on duty (no slur intended, but perhaps a valid point?)

3. Were overloads filed on this day so that proper investigation of ALL the circumstances can be learned from? This INCLUDES Investigations contacting an airline, if considered appropriate to ask for response/feedback/education to the subject pilot who has caused such sector upset.

The pilot community at large has LITTLE understanding of ATC. A great shame, and despite many years of trying to achieve better, still receives significantly more than management lip service. Sorry ATC, airlines could, and SHOULD do better with pilot understanding of the ATC world :-(

It comes down to the same old reason, ATC'ers, in general, won't attend famil etc on days off, and management for business cost reasons won't approve it during working hours.... we all hope it will change, odd occasions occur when you think it might, but then it slips back down the non-essential, too costly route.......

anotherthing

13th Jun 2009, 23:12

30W

In answer to some of your questions

1. yes, but the main problem was inbounds to the LTMA/MTMA - of course, they were already coming. We had been briefed on the weather but it had not moved for 4 hours before it suddenly hit us. There's only so much flow you can put on before the airlines badger us with annoying phone calls - our flag carrier being one of the worst culprits I'm afraid to say.

2. NATS is very savvy with weather, but i refer you to the above about airline Ops who don't either have a clue of the impact it can have, or don't care. As for radar controllers having weather on radar - all very well, you'll find debates about this in this forum. I'm in the camp that says 'no thank you' - I'm too busy to turn aircraft because I 'just happen' to think they might want to turn - especialy considering the differences in attitude even between crews operating from the same company flying the same aircraft on the same route! I'd rather the pilot asked and we will give it if we can - we will move heaven and earth to do so, sometimes it is just not possible.

And yes, there are some lazy GS's around - I'm sure the same can be said for the LAS role.

3. Not sure - there is a tendency in TC not to file overloads (I personaly believe that TC don't file enough and AC file too often. I believe that somewhere in the middle is probably a proper level of reporting, but if a controller feels overloaded then they should file... just seems that TC file a lot less - and that's not saying that is something to be proud of).

DFC

ABC123 negative continue present heading traffic 3 O'Clock 5 miles on a parallel heading

is

Well shift that traffic then or do you think that we are crazy enough to fly into that CB we have ahead.
It is not always that simple in congested airspace I'm afraid - we will if we can and we will manufacture it to make it happen if we can.

Also, just because you have a cell, the other aircraft in your scenario might already be on a heading to avid so can't turn.

ATC is not black and white, there are so many variables to consider.

Rest assured, if we can give you the turn we will, no matter how hard it makes things for us. We will not refuse just because it makes things difficult. We will refuse if it means we will be breaking the law.

criss

14th Jun 2009, 07:46

DFC, having one on 345 radial and the second one on 025 radial you don't have separation "as soon as they are established on radials".

To anotherthing and other ATCOs - what about using "essential traffic"?

anotherthing

14th Jun 2009, 09:11

'Essential traffic' is not there to allow you to reduce legal separation minima.

Essential traffic is traffic which is separated for any period by less than the specified standard separation. It is normally passed in situations where ATS surveillance systems are not available. Essential traffic information passed to an aircraft shall include:

a) Direction of flight of conflicting traffic;

b) Type of conflicting traffic;

c) Cruising level of conflicting traffic and ETA for the reporting point, or for aircraft passing through the level of another with less than the normal separation; the ETA for the reporting point nearest to where the aircraft will cross levels; and

d) Any alternative clearance.

CAP493 Section 1 Chap 3 Para 4

DFC

14th Jun 2009, 09:23

DFC, having one on 345 radial and the second one on 025 radial you don't have separation "as soon as they are established on radials".

You are totally correct because there is less than 45 degrees between the radials.

However, if you read my post I said one aircraft was on the 340 radial and the other on the 025 radial which is 45 degrees and according to MATS 1 they are separated.

Regards,

DFC

Roffa

14th Jun 2009, 09:50

Hmmmm, sorry RYR1234 I can't approve a left turn for weather but, if you'd be good enough to route direct to BPK and leave there on the 020 radial we might be able to work something out in a few minutes...

:rolleyes:

criss

14th Jun 2009, 12:41

'Essential traffic' is not there to allow you to reduce legal separation minima.

I know, I was referring to it as a last resort.

45 degrees and according to MATS 1 they are separated.

Isn't any distance required in the UK procedures?

Julian Hensey

15th Jun 2009, 16:02

As the original poster can a pilot tell me the rules for flying under a CB? If the approach path shows them being able to get under the CB before they enter it is that within limits and if so what are the limits between aircraft and base of CB?

anotherthing

15th Jun 2009, 17:36

JH

I've been stuck under a very active CB, trying to climb out of a closed valley in Wales many moons ago - not a pleasant place to be and resulted in a call on 243.0 as we thought we were not going to climb well enough to clear terrain.

Apart from huge downdrafts, even flying in the vicinity of a big active Cb can result in lightning strikes.

As an aside - fair bit of weather around today, every pilot (on the sectors I was working) asked for a turn and did not just do it (thank you). Every pilot that requested it was given it as well - it caused extra work but that's what ATCOs are there for.

I say agin, if we say no, it is for a very good reason, and not just to bugger you guys up :ok:

DFC

15th Jun 2009, 22:58

Quite correct - flying under a CB is just as bad as being in one. Think microburst, windshear, turbulence, hail.

One guy said to me today that the following was best;

London ABC123 request right 20 degrees to avoid weather

ABC123 negative continue present heading (reason)

London ABC123 that clearance is unsafe.

Quite ironic that in all the discussion of pilots having to resort to using their emergency discretion to avoid an unsafe situation not one controller has suggested that MATS 1 clearly permits controllers to use their initiative and ignore the rules therein when faced with an unusual circumstance.

Could it be that the wings coming off an aircraft in a CB that you put it in is not going to kill you. Easy to sit there and tell a pilot to fly into a CB because it isn't going to kill you is it?

Regards,

DFC

10W

16th Jun 2009, 08:25

London ABC123 that clearance is unsafe.

At which point the pilot gets told about the conflicting traffic and is also told he is now responsibile for maintaining his own separation from all other aircraft until he can accept a vector. My hands are clean in respect of the safety of his aircraft, which is now solely in the hands of the pilot.

Other traffic affected would also be given traffic information on the 'rogue' and advised of his intentions to manouevre his aircraft towards them with less than standard separation.

MOR filed and the CAA can clear up any piloting issues :ok:

My duty of care is discharged because I have provided separation up until the point where the pilot deviated from my clearance. I can't physically stop him from doing so, and provided I have made the pilots involved aware of what is happening, then the duty of care has shifted to the pilot who has not complied with the clearance and has refused to do so for his own good reasons, which he'll be called on to justify.

5milesbaby

16th Jun 2009, 09:44

DFC, you are just not getting it are you? I HAVE said "negative, continue present heading (reason)" and then worked my balls off to get rid of that (reason) so you can turn and avoid. In congested airspace such as London's, there is no possibility to flow it such that headings are never needed, you may as well just ground everything and shut up shop, thats about what the flow would do anyway. If I have a radar, I cannot use procedural separations. If I don't have a radar, I am not allowed to control procedurally, I just use everything in my possession to ensure all aircraft are at safe levels. Loss of radar in London = ground all aircraft, too many of our routes are established with the proviso they are radar monitored.

If you are giving me 20 seconds notice that you are about to fly into a cell, then why? The minimum notice I was given yesterday was about 3 minutes, that gives me time to change a plan and get you avoiding in time. If you cannot get in on frequency, squalk 7700. You will get instant attention and get your avoidance one way or another. You do not have to go through all the nause on the RTF, just simply saying "need immediate turn to avoid" or something similar gets the point across.

Any pilot that turns without permission inside CAS especially in a busy TMA is just asking for a subsequent enquiry. You may think that we don't care about you sat up there being pushed into a CB when we are all safe down here - we will have to live with any consequences for the rest of our lives.

30W

16th Jun 2009, 22:55

Anotherthing,

Many thanks for your reply,

There will always be an issue about those on the coalface, and those running desk jobs in support of the operation. AO’s fall into that category, and well what can I say, I know both professions share at times the same exasperations.

One things for sure though, those in the operational role have the final responsibility, and if we are unhappy with it, then sometimes we need broad shoulders and so NO to external pressures. So how do we educate Airline Ops? Only an idea, but how about NATS put together a short radar tape of a sector on the point of going under due to weather. Distribute it to the Airlines, asking specifically that it’s aimed for distribution to their Ops departments, with an accompanying small booklet explaining weather impact on ATC Ops. Simple closing statement – “watching the video, did you feel comfortable? Do you feel the controller sounded comfortable? Did the pilots sound comfortable?

We all work within commercial demands, but SAFETY is paramount, ATC control that safety function. When weather delays occur – it’s to stop the above videos becoming a longer running series than Die Hard...........”

Only an idea, but how do we educate to improve the system?

I accept your views on weather depiction. Personally I believe that it CAN benefit the whole operation. If ATC take positive control of what they see, and tactically use it, it can be a lot less stressful for all. The American experience – I sometimes operate to Orlando as an example, weather in the summer worse than the UK. Controllers work with weather depicted, categorised 1-5. Before I have asked for deviation, ATC have already provided vectors to avoid, pick us around cells, through gaps as they see them. If a pilot is given a course to avoid he will generally be happy with it, go with the flow, it will match what he sees also. If left to make a decision, you get what we have here in the UK, different people wanting different things. Give 6 controllers the same complex tactical situation - would they all agree on how they would handle it?

Of course a pilot can request a different course of action, but my US experience is they generally don’t, they can see ATC are taking them clear, they monitor, they learn to trust what’s happening.......

ATC wise, it must surely create a far more stable and predictable sector flow than that you occasionally experience? In my view it makes ATC far more controlling and far less reactive – an easier time for both sides.
As far as I’m concerned, you and I are not paid to be uncomfortable. To work hard, and efficiently yes, but to be feeling uncomfortable in doing that work, no. If you are close to going under, if RT congestion is such that it’s a struggle, then we are both uncomfortable. Flow it as seen fit, if conditions deteriorate don’t for a second worry about slapping MDI’s and zero flow on if you need it. Broad shoulders to the AO’s if required, and have the Network desk fully support that philosophy and argument.

5miles,

The minimum notice I was given yesterday was about 3 minutes, that gives me time to change a plan and get you avoiding in time.

In the AC world I agree pilots should be able to give you that, I don’t think it’s always practical in the TC environment. Large turns through the SID’s etc often mean you can’t predict what exactly you need till you are ‘round the corner’ and can see and evaluate the situation in front of you. That doesn’t necessarily give the same time frame for planning and communication that exists as a ‘norm’ in AC world.

10W

Hope your keeping well? Working in a different world post merger down here - if the previous system had it's difficulties, they really didn't exist compared with the current one:*

Keep up the excellent work guys,

With great respect
30W

DFC

17th Jun 2009, 10:37

Personally I believe that it CAN benefit the whole operation. If ATC take positive control of what they see, and tactically use it, it can be a lot less stressful for all. The American experience – I sometimes operate to Orlando as an example, weather in the summer worse than the UK. Controllers work with weather depicted, categorised 1-5. Before I have asked for deviation, ATC have already provided vectors to avoid, pick us around cells, through gaps as they see them. If a pilot is given a course to avoid he will generally be happy with it, go with the flow, it will match what he sees also. If left to make a decision, you get what we have here in the UK, different people wanting different things.

I agree.

As for the video showing the carnage of weather - I honestly don't think that it would have the impact you expect unless the people watching it have experience of how ATC works - Standing back watching a sector working most lay people will not see much of an outward difference in traffic at 70% capacity or 107%.

I don't know if NATS still uses the videos made in the BA sim for emergency training but if you have seen them then you have to admit that while they convey likely responses and actions, they are a bit;

"Fire Engine Number 1"

"Check - Carry out emergency checklist - engine fire"

"Coffee pot boiling over"

"Check - carry out abnormal checklist - shortage of coffee"

"Left wing gone"

"Check - carry out emergency checklist - prayer book"

:D

All cool calm and professional. A non-flyer standing in the background would not recognise a difference between loosing the coffee pot or the wing problem if it was not for the bells and flashing lights (on the coffee pot).

-------

While pilots can listen to the controller and get a perception of how things are going - constant radio calls, everyone asking for avoidance, diversion etc etc etc, just like simple first aid - it could be the aircraft not making a sound that has the greatest problem (they are quiet because they are trying to deal with it).

----------

Have a look at the following video.

YouTube - FedEx Flight 1478 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re0tuqZ1u9w)

Isn't it very hard to see what is really happening when you can't see the time of day weather or the underlying reason for why the aircraft is clearly proceeding to undershoot?

Without all the facts then one is partially blind and unable to do one's task to the required standard.

Regards,

DFC

anotherthing

17th Jun 2009, 10:51

DFC/30W

There is a video in the making - the idea was mooted over a year ago (by me - and I won an I-Pod for it!!) and is only just coming to fruition now after some badgering :ugh:

It was initially meant for Tower controllers TRUCE training - there is an increasing lack of understanding of each others tasks between tower/approach/area units - caused in no small amount by the reduction in the course length at NATS college.

However I have also just asked if it is worthwhile putting around the airlines and this has been forwarded to the safety department.

DFC - I get your point about non-ATC maybe not 'getting' the impact of weather through a video, but the recent weather we have had, if shown properly, might go some way to showing it. The R/T loading etc and the stress in voices of aircrew and ATCOs is evident.

NATS have a very good video production team - they might be able to make a short video which includes clips of normal day to day operations then a longer clip with bad weather to highlight the differences - it is very noticeable!

HeathrowAirport

27th Jun 2009, 16:40

There a nice CB in SE/NE London at the moment, from my SBS everythings enroute holding and running away thats on the LAM star. Lovely.

Jumbo Driver

27th Jun 2009, 23:04

After that (somewhat interesting) thread creep on weather avoidance, I'd like to get back to the original question, which was ...

If you have a large amount of bad weather on the east side of LHR, so much so that departing traffic is having a tough time finding a route out, but the prevailing wind is from the east, can runways be changed to the west departures even with a tail wind from the east?

The simple answer to the question posed is that it would be better to maintain the easterly runway(s) (09L/R) for arrivals from the west (where it is clear) and hold departures until the weather clears to the east for departures. I would agree with HD's initial response and emphasise that holding departures on the ground must always be preferable to holding inbound traffic in the air.

Runways can be changed but, as has also been said earlier, it can take some time, depending on the level of traffic. However, I suggest there would be absolutely no point in doing so in the circumstances described in the original question.

JD
:)