Biggin TWR/ Thames Radar - Today?

[tomtom_91]

Hey All!

Just a quick question....

This AM there was an a/c departing Biggin, it went on the over head inbound DET 3000. Biggin then handed it to Thames Radar 132.700 who asked the a/c to sq ident and clime 4000 then handed it straight off to London Control (Freq. unknown)

The a/c was on 132,700 for no longer then 45 seconds - Could he not just have been handed to London?

Just wondering im sure there is a reason.... im not narrow minded just being nosey :P

Thanks

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

So you've contravened the Wireless Telegraphy Act twice - 1 by listening to the air band, and 2 by publishing what you have heard.

ATC procedures are there for very good reasons. Are you going to question everything like this you may hear?

[Vino Collapso]

Anyone going to answer the question?

[Dizzee Rascal]

Thames Radar are required to verify and validate the SSR code prior to transfer to London Control.

[timelapse]

The answer is probably to do with "standing agreements" whereby with certain traffic it is agreed that they will be transfered to a certain controller doing a certain thing (at a level, on a heading, navigating to a point, etc).

Educated guess is that Biggin have an agreement that this airways traffic once released can be transferred to Thames inbound to DET at 3000. Thames then have an agreement with London that it can be transferred to them at 4000.

By having these agreements, far more traffic can be acommodated because it does not need to be individually coordinated.

What you probably witnessed was each controller doing what they should do with the traffic to meet the agreements that are in place for their unit.

In the case of this sort of traffic it would be possible for Biggin to individually co-ordinate with Thames that this traffic could be transferred directly to London. But that would require phone calls and extra workload and if either controller was busy then the workload would quite possibly be less if the aircraft was not coordinated and just transferred as per the agreement.

Hope that makes sense?

[PrivateFly]

This is a really good question. What ever the reason ATC had, procedures like this should be challenged. Launching aircraft into London's airspace and immediately giving them two freq changes is asking for trouble; level busts, changing to wrong freq, distraction from monitoring the flying pilot, over speeds etc etc.

Would a single freq change be better for flight safety? Yes, it would be. So this is an excellent question and one which deserves a better response than the first reply.

Amsterdam ATC are to be really proactive in keeping departures from EHAM simple; although London is obviously much busier airspace, it would be interesting to compare level bust stats?

[SFCC]

Excellent replies.
One's I'm sure the original poster will appreciate.
ExHD WYFNI

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<This is a really good question. What ever the reason ATC had, procedures like this should be challenged.>>

Something very similar happens not infrequently at Heathrow and, no doubt, at a million other places. Easterly departures bound for Compton and all points west are controlled initially after take off by the Heathrow South Director (now Heathrow Int South) to climb them through the downwind landing stream. That controller issues specific headings for each departure to Heathrow Tower based on the traffic situation. If the departure rolls a few seconds earlier or later than anticipated the whole situation could change and the Heathrow South controller may only have to verify the SSR code and altitude, tell the outbound to resume own navigation and transfer it to London Control, sometimes in considerably less than 45 seconds. I've done that more times than I've had hot dinners.

Of course it may not be perfect but it's safe.. and in 31 years I never once had a pilot complain about it.

PS... I should also have commented that to change such procedures on an individual basis means more work for a busy controller. Eg. If the Heathrow controller decided he did not want to work the outbound he would have to telephone the TMA controller who would be next in line and Heathrow Tower to get them to tell the pilot of a different frequewncy from that published. I am not familiar with Thames/Biggin procedures but I'd bet that the something similar applies. Standard procedures are carefully framed and problems can arise if they are changed without careful liasion........ Recall the Concorde and Dash7 incident years ago..

[ATCO Two]

In the past aircraft were sometimes transferred from EGKB direct to London Control if there was no conflicting traffic. Howver, it is now considered "best practice" for Thames Radar to validate and the verify the SSR readout, and to initially work all EGKB outbounds.
Some reasons for doing this:-
a) to ensure separation from City traffic downwind right hand for runway 09
b) to ensure the EGKB departure does as expected - I have known EGKB departures climb straight ahead from runway 03 right towards City traffic at 3000ft, instead of turning right towards DET. Also many high performance aircraft do not fly through the EGKB overhead as should be the case, and end up several miles north of EGKB. Sometimes aircraft in this position have been known to return to the overhead and carry out an orbit before finally setting course!
c) Thames Radar can give traffic information, or possibly avoiding action, on known or unknown aircraft in the vicinity of EGKB to the departing traffic.
d) as the ILS is on 21, sometimes Thames Radar is vectoring traffic opposite direction to departures from 03, and obviously needs to have the departure on the frequency in order to provide separation.
e) when Thames Radar releases the departure we do not know exactly when it will get airborne, therefore the traffic situation is dynamically changing from minute to minute. It is therefore safer to work the departure as a default situation, even though it may only be on the frequency for a minute.
Level busts on EGKB departures are very rare as the initial clearance on the SDR is only to 3000ft, with subsequent climb to 4000ft when safe.

[Mister Geezer]

So you've contravened the Wireless Telegraphy Act twice - 1 by listening to the air band, and 2 by publishing what you have heard.

How do you know he was listening to his airband radio? At 18 years of age, he is old enough to hold a PPL so perhaps he was actually flying at the time? Don't belittle someone without the facts.

Would you rather he posted this here or phoned up Swanwick and asked??? :}

[Kiltie]

This is an 18 year old being very open and asking a simple question HD. There is no sinister content nor inference. Why shouldn't he question what he hears on a chat forum such as this? The answers provided will only serve to educate him and increase his knowledge.

The amount of stern confrontation and jumping down throats on these forums creates unnecessary divides. I'm surprised at your reaction.

[Jim59]

I have a handheld ICOM air band transceiver that is licenced as a mobile ground station and for which I pay Ofcom, via the CAA, £25 per annum. The licence restricts the frequencies that I may transmit on, but not those to which I listen.

How do you know that the original questioner did not have a licenced radio?

[anotherthing]

PrivateFly

ATCO2 has given a very good answer as to why Thames work the traffic, but may I suggest you take a visit to Swanwick? Maybe then you will get a better understanding of the complexities of having 7+ busy international airfields within a 60 mile radius... that's 7+ not including EGKB, EGMC etc...


To answer your question (which you answered yourself, incorrectly, based on supposition, not knowledge)

Would a single freq change be better for flight safety? In this case, no it wouldn't be.

As for level busts - as a ratio, the number of level busts from aircraft with SIDs that enter into CAS is much higher than the incidence of level busts for traffic such as EGKB departures.

To wit, maybe the fact that they work Thames Radar at low levels is actually one of the reasons why they have less level busts as a percentage of departures.

What works in one piece of airspace, say around EHAM does not always mean it will work elsewhere!

[chevvron]

A similar situation occurs with Farnborough IFR departures; Farnborough Approach is required by procedures to validate the transponder code and verify altitude readout prior to the pilot contacting London Control and they may be on Farnborough Approach frequency for much less than 45 sec. Of course if they have to be vectored clear of conflicting traffic it will be longer as unlike the Biggin/Thames procedure, Farnborough has no mandate to climb the departure into controlled airspace hence it remains in class G until 2-way with London

[Roffa]

Re the original question, I'm sure he just wants to make sure IVAO or VATSIM have the correct procedures.

[tomtom_91]

Hey all!

Sorry have been so busy did not read up....

Heathrow director - Is it your aim to put people off of the aviation industry - I was not questioning what was happening I just wanted to educate my self!

Thanks for the replies guys I now understand why this change happens :)

Tom