LGW ILS maintenance - lack of notice

[Sean Dell]

Hi Guys

Yesterday, we got the LGW ATIS inbound and briefed accordingly for an ILS approach. On base however we were asked if we were visual with the field and when we replied in the affirmative were cleared for a visual approach.

Now, it was a lovely day and I know that for lots of people a visual approach is Nirvana etc. however my concern is that usually I like to brief a visual approach, particularly if I'm flying with someone with little experience. It is not usually the best place on base leg to do this.

This is not the first time this has happened at LGW. Would it be possible for LGW to maybe NOTAM that the ILS would be subject to routine maintenance?
Then at least we can touch on the fundamentals of flying visually in our approach brief.

Many thanks

Sean

[Del Prado]

I'd like to think a 'non standard' approach is given as soon as possible after first contact, whether NOTAMed, on ATIS, or not.
However, since there is always the risk of an ILS failure is it worth always including a visual approach when you do the approach briefing?

For what it's worth, KK Director usually only get about 3 minutes notice that the ILS is going off. eg. "after XXX on a 7 mile final we're taking the ILS out of service"

[Spitoon]

Well, in my day - and certainly if I was SUPing - elective withdrawal of equipment was done after setting it up with pilots who would be affected. And I don't mean clearing an aircraft for a visual approach without any other warning. Doing it this way suggests to me that the controller has no idea of how an aircraft is operated. I think I must be turning into a grumpy old man with the thoughts going through my mind at the moment....

I'm not a commercial pilot but I can see a difference between completing the approach visually if the ILS fails and being given a different type of approach with no notice. FWIW I have dealt with at least one operator that would not convert to a visual approach in these circumstances but would fly a go-around.

As for KK Director only getting 3 minutes notice of the ILS being taken OOS - what happened to co-ordination? What's a few extra minutes so that aircaft can be told to expect a visual? Or how about co-ordinating it with an ATIS update if there is just too much traffic to fit the extra RTF in?

I sometimes think we're forgetting that ATC is there because the aircraft are there rather than the other way round!

[GRUMP MODE OFF].......I think

[goatface]

Routine maintenance for the ILS doesn't have to be notamed, the days and times are published in the UK Air Pilot in the AD Section as with every airfield.

[Sean Dell]

Routine maintenance for the ILS doesn't have to be notamed

And therein lies the problem - doesn't have to be - so nobody does. Most other airports IMHO manage this.

As for briefing a visual approach every time - where do you draw the line? 'maybe the 08 ILS will be radiating, lets brief a back course ILS approach! etc.'

Guys, I appreciate that ATC are trying to engage with pilots so we have a mutual understanding of each others job - I applaud that. However why give with one hand and take with the other. Is the failure to NOTAM/promulgate information (even out of courtesy) a staffing issue? I would much rather hear about pertinant info than 170kts to 5DME which has been there for months!

[A and C]

If the weather was CAVOK then ATC should be able to assume that any airliner is being flown by a crew that is able to look out of the window and land the aircraft.

What you seem to be saying (in your first post) is that a low time FO is likely not to be able to do a visual approach or switch from an ILS app to a visual without re-briefing, flying is a dynamic thing and pilots need to be flexable about appoaches when the weather permits.

What this is shouting to me is that your airline is putting people in the right seat and charging them for "line training" and once that training has finnished getting another person to do the same?

[Sean Dell]

A and C, with respect - I think that you are totally missing my point.

Most of us fly ILS after ILS with the odd non precision approach thrown in for good measure. Now we all enjoy a nice visual approach and a bit of poling it around as well. But as the visual approach is more the exception rather than the rule, not everyone is well practiced at it all of the time. So if you know that one is coming your way, then most aircrews (independent of their experience levels) in the interests of CRM like to brief so that they can confirm their understanding of whether the visual approach will be flown manually or automatically, what speed control (managed/automatic), what will happen with FMA's for a go around etc etc. It is not a loss of face or an admission of poor handling skills if you, as a crew, talk about the pit falls etc.

Secondly, if ATC know about maintenance on a bit of kit that we rely on for the majority of our approaches then regardless of whether or not it is mandatory to let us know about it, it would be nice to know. Heaven forbid, it might even improve flight safety!

I accept that in some cases the ILS fails when you are being vectored onto it. Most crews will be able to cope with converting to a visual with a quick mini brief but if they don't feel ready (for whatever reason) can elect to break off the approach - but that's not what we are talking about here is it?

There are of course those steely eyed aviators amongst us who, the moment ATC mention a visual approach, whoop with joy and immediately take the autopilot out without so much as a sideways glance, leaving their jaded collegue trailing in their wake. I know becuase I've flown with them.

Safe flying

Sean

[anotherthing]

It's not just the ILS.

Happened on a couple of times now on a nightshift: the first aircraft of the morning are starting arrive, no landing time restrictions, so no delay. Aircraft gets abeam GWC when KK Twr phones up and says 'we've still got the lighting inspection to do'... makes the TMA and DIR look complete idiots when we now have to tell the aircraft to slow down and possibly hold.

Considering the tower knows the aircraft are coming and when, it's really not good enough.

Does ready 15 mins before the first arrival not happen anymore, or is it just incompetence from the Airport Authority??

Either way, it is not professional.

[/Grump Mode]

[off watch]

anotherthing
"Does ready 15 mins before the first arrival not happen anymore, or is it just incompetence from the Airport Authority??"

Quote from CAP168 =

1.2 Periods of Display of Aeronautical Ground Lighting
1.2.1 Aeronautical ground lighting should be displayed at least 15 minutes before the estimated time of arrival of any aircraft and until at least 15 minutes after the actual time of departure of any aircraft as follows:
By day: High intensity systems, where installed on the runway to be used,
whenever the visibility is less than 5 km and/or the cloud base is less than
700 ft.
By night: Irrespective of weather conditions

Looks like a non-compliance to me if it's still night :(

[stue]

Coming into KK the other morning at about 0200Zish, it was a beautiful clear night and very quiet on London frequency as it usually is at that time. We were cleared to MAY I think? We started our decent and I picked up the ATIS, which said that all runways where closed till 0230Z! When we told London this it was met with an “err, standby, I will just check......” then he came back and said yep, your right, route to Timba and hold for 30mins. During all this I am double checking the notams, to see if we had missed it but neither I nor the Captain could see any sign of it. We had enough fuel to deal with it, as I work for a company who maintains that we must enter the London TMA with at least 20mins holding fuel above reserves, but it was a bit of a shock.

I fully understand that maintenance needs to be done and that the best time to do it is at this time in the morning, but usually its notamed to give us a bit of a heads up? We could have delayed ourselves on the ground before we left TFS for LGW. Also, London had no idea about it? I understand that you guys are in different buildings, but surely picking up the phone and letting London know that KK is closed for another 30mins would be a sensible thing to do?

I think all of you guys do a fantastic job, you’re the best in the world, but we could have been in a bit of a pickle that night.

As for changing from and ILS to a Visual, in my company we fly quite a few visuals, so it isn’t that big of a deal. However, again, it is nice to get a bit of notice so I can think the approach through in my head and then let the Captain know what I’m planning on doing.

Thanks though for all the hard work you guys put in to getting us on the ground!:ok:

Cheers

[anotherthing]

Stue - it is totally unacceptable and completely unprofessional.

As an aside, The TMA controllers and KK Dir sit in the same room. In fact at that time of night you'll most likely find that the TMA controller was sitting 4 workstations away (15 feet) from the KK Dir.

So the breakdown in communication was either between TWR and Dir, or Dir and TMA.

The only other excuse is that it was missed on handover (TMA controllers swap at around 0215 Local, about 40 mins before you say you pitched up.

Either way, not pretty poor. I know at that time in the morning extra paperwork is the last thing you need but it is worth reporting it officially - that's the only way that anything might be done about it.

[vespasia]

Just to add some comments from a KK TWR controllers POV....

I agree that it's unacceptable to simply ask if you're visual and then clear you for a visual approach - I would expect that you might be asked if you were happy to accept a visual approach for ILS maintenance, and then cleared if OK with you. If you said that you'd rather continue the briefed ILS approach then that should never be a problem. If it's any consolation, we get very little notice in the tower about these outages and my feeling is that if the weather's good the unit is too quick to give the ILS away without sufficient notice to traffic - I think we should have more robust procedures as we do for Low vis procedures and better co-ordination with KK INT/FIN to deal with the situation. I'll raise this issue through the appropriate channels to see what we can do about this, but feel free to pm me with further occurences.

On the second subject of the runway closure, this has been an issue between BAA and ourselves for some time, and I don't think we'll overcome it soon. The problem arises when BAA need to do additional work at night and decide close to the time that they need or want to close the runway. They do issue the NOTAM but if you've already departed you may not have the info in time, especially on a longer flight. The same thing can happen if an incident happens and the runway closes but obviously everybody is much more aware and you'll find out very quickly. The problem is that we in ATC have no way of knowing when the NOTAM has "gone live" and therefore no way of co-ordinating with en-route or TMA ATC which aircraft have or haven't received it. We have to assume that the NOTAM gets to your company or handling agent and that they forward the info to you. Again, I'll raise this issue with our ops guys and unit management to see what can be done, if anything.

As a final comment for anotherthing, I believe that there is an SRG dispensation to reduce the lighting display time to 5 minutes (there certainly is when switching from the main to the northern and vice versa.

HTH

[anotherthing]

Vespasia,

Must admit I didn't know aboutr any SRG dispensation - and Dir didn't seem to know about it either.

It's still slightly embarrasing when you have the first arrivals of the morning pouring in with no delay expected, when we suddenly have to tell them to slow down, delay not determined, for a lighting inspection.

This has happened more than once recently, when there has been no arrivals for a good 40 or 50 minutes i.e. ample time to get the inspection out of the way.

I know it's an Airport Authority issue, but it reflects badly on ATC, not BAA.

[vespasia]

Hi anotherthing - the problem is that the lighting inspection is part of the WIP ongoing on the northern runway. BAA carry this out as part of the handback procedure when the work is complete and it can't be carried out while the work is in place. Since the work ends (usually!) at 0500L that's when the inspection has to be done. Even if there have been no arrivals for the past hour the BAA physically can't carry out the lighting inspection during that time. The good news is that the problem should disappear in a month or two when the WIP finishes (and believe me I'm looking forward to that as much as you!)

:ok:

[HeathrowAirport]

I landed LTBS-EGKK TOM571 G-OOBI (6hrs late) at 04:30 on the 7th July 2009, we rolled full length and vacated at J1, taxied 49R via J, S and L.

Is this standard at this time due per the NOTAM?

[vespasia]

I landed LTBS-EGKK TOM571 G-OOBI (6hrs late) at 04:30 on the 7th July 2009, we rolled full length and vacated at J1, taxied 49R via J, S and L.

In short, yes!

[HeathrowAirport]

Thanks. Wondered why we did that, until I checked the NOTAM on the UK-AIP and gathered that was why, we did that.

[hangten]

For Stue:

The morning that you speak of was something of an unusual one in that the closure of 26L/08R was unexpected and unplanned but entirely necessary. An emergency repair had been attempted earlier in the day but had been unsuccessful despite being left to cure all day, and B and C being the only available points for departure from approximately 10am.

Of all the considered options the closure of both runways at night for an hour was taken for two reasons - firstly the cost of delays caused by nothern runway operatons during the evening would have been much more significant, and secondly the decision was made earlier (around 6pm I believe) to facilitate notifications. A NOTAM was sent around this time (or shortly afterwards) and more significantly flow control measures were taken to ensure you shouldn't have arrived at this time - of course this depends on what time you were due to depart, whether you were informed, what short cuts you may have received and maybe most significantly, whether or not the destination aerodrome decided to pay any heed at all to the flow control anyway...

I can't comment on why London wouldn't know, but they should have. A phone call was made during the evening time when the decision was taken.

[anotherthing]

Vespasia

Thanks - it's just a shame BAA can't be a bit more flexible, i.e. pack up in time for a lighting inspection to be done in time for the first arrivals around the 0500 time (there is plenty of notice), or if they'd rather not have to chop and change on a daily basis, why they don't NOTAM the fact that during periods of WIP, there will be no landing between say 0500 and 0530 to allow for the change and inspection...

An easy enough thing to do (even for inept BAA), and then the people who get it in the neck from the operators (ATC, TWR and Radar) don't sound like numpties!!

I suppose at least we have the excuse that we have been on shift al night so we can use it as mitigation!!

[stue]

Hi hangten, anotherthing and others...

Thanks for the info! We had left the UK from BRS with the NOTAM pack etc some 10ish hours before so that is probably the reason we didn’t know about it. Not having left from LGW we had no idea about the only points for departure being B and C. I gathered it was something of an unusual occurrence, I seem to come into LGW quite a bit at that time of night (I don’t think someone likes me in crewing!) and usually it works like clockwork. As for London not knowing about it, we where the first to come in at that time and as anotherthing says it could have been lost in the handover of controllers.

It’s good to get some info on the reasons behind it all though, thanks!

Cheers