Aberdeen delay question

[throw a dyce]

I'm a ATC controller at Aberdeen and recently I have noticed helicopter pilots starting to question the slightest hold and how long the delay for.This is for SVFR inbounds,IFR outbounds and concerns all companies.Is there any reason for this?:)

[helimutt]

Go ask Paul C why Helicopter pilots get ar&ey. :ok:

I reckon it's because we're an impatient lot, wherever we work, and we fly helicopters, not fixed wing. :E

[bigglesbutler]

If it's an AS332L then its probably due to fuel, we give the client max payload after taking into account all the fuel we need and that only leaves a very small margin for error. We add fuel for taxi and sometimes on a busy morning the normal taxi fuel isn't enough. It can be a bit of a gamble sometimes as if we take too much fuel for taxi and have no delays we are then overweight for take off and have to burn it off, done that twice now and had to taxi to W 1 and 5 on different days. The flip side which you are probably thinking of, is if we don't have sufficient to hold for too an extended period of time then we need to know so we can taxi back into dispersal, remove our pax and refuel.

We might seem like a funny bunch (helicopter pilots), and some like me have no idea about stuck wing ops, but we are merely trying to operate efficiently.

Hope that helps

[Noiseboy]

Fuel will also be the reason in the L2, we don't want to go back to the ramp for fuel if we can help it or divert when inbound and being held for ILS traffic, particularly if the met office issues coastal tafs and the airport then closes for snow that isn't forecast until hours later. Every minute can count for us.

In the 225's with greater fuel capacity and higher AUW it may be more down to pilots not seeing why the runway isn't being sectorised to allow more efficient use of the space, and inbound, not wanting to completely drain rigs of their fuel stocks, may be similarly tighter on fuel thus limiting available holding times before a diversion will be necessary.

[throw a dyce]

I understand the outbound situation with taxi fuel and trying to get departures away.That's why I will always get gaps and the delays are reduced as much as possible.However why do all the companies depart at the same time,when the fixed wings are departing (on slot times).This also clashes with an inbound rush, and simple maths means delays for someone.Also there are strict rules about how we sectorise the runway.
However the noticeable change is some getting really A:mad:sy about even the slightest hold in SVFR.It just seems that some want no delay out,and the flip side no delay in ,when SVFR in Mats part 1 is lower priority over IFR.
When asked what the delay is for SVFR,when I'm really busy,I often cannot answer that question.This often can get into a call the Watch Manager situation,because I'm entitled to say less than 20 minutes is no delay.
It just seems to be happening a lot more recently.:hmm:

[cyclic]

The inbound situation can be just as fuel critical as outbound. We are often operating to "coastal" TAFs which allow us to do away with an alternate as you will know. If you then get held it is really helpful to know for how long it is going to be, especially if it looks like the weather could close in at any moment due to say, a very large snow shower. In the recent conditions, a VFR approach is preferable to being in the pattern at 2500' getting nicely iced up. You may like to take a trip in a Puma with 30-40mm of ice on it - its not a bundle of fun especially when it starts to come off!

Why are people getting more excitable? Perhaps it is the end (hopefully) of one of the worst winters in 30 years and we are getting a little tired :)

[throw a dyce]

Cyclic,
I'm not really referring to VFR.It's SVFR when I have to separate from other SVFR and IFR.We have to make gaps to get SVFRs in against IFR,and then that delays other traffic icing up at 2500ft.Flip side of the coin is we pack in the IFR,and the SVFR(lower priority) and outbounds start bleating.Can't win eh:ugh:
I'm sure that when SVFR was thought of it was intended for C152 getting in with weather slightly under VFR criteria.Not for commercial twin turbine helis doing 160 kts,using it to carry extra load and less fuel.
I have also had circuit and airtest traffic moan about delays and they are the lowest priority of the lot.
I think some of ATC are getting a bit weiry of this as well,and it's not just me.It's not always in snow conditions.
Anyway next one asks I'll say delay less than 20 mins and wait for the response.You can always declare an emergency and then we will part the waves.:cool:

[Sir Niall Dementia]

For inbounds, as I only too well remember after 6 hours in the seat in goon bag, jacket and all the rest of the gear the exploding bladder scenario may be taking all the more mature aviator's concentration.

I once got held on left base for 15 mins (due controller training, she was following the rules, not squeezing us in the way the experienced controllers would) and then got a complaint from both company and ATC for leaping out of my seat for a pee on the grass at the tower side of the den. It was either that or find out how good my suit was from the inside!

As for the outbounds I do remember siting at one of the W holds watching the taxi fuel burn off and rapidly re-juggling the plan. It sounds from this thread that the pressure is coming on to burn a lot less gas.

[cyclic]

Not for commercial twin turbine helis doing 160 kts,using it to carry extra load and less fuel.

I think that is the general idea of commercial aviation! Our lords and masters want more bang for their buck. If we all did an IFR approach every time SVFR is declared then I'm sure you and your colleagues would soon get fed up. We are all on the same side, just trying to get the job done safely and efficiently and often a two second explanation can do a lot to placate even the most impatient crews - "hold at XXXX due to blah".

As for declaring an emergency, you can see the P&J headline now can't you?

"North Sea Chopper in Fuel Scare Horror etc, etc."

We need to avoid this at all costs for obvious reasons. ATC do a great job at ABZ most of the time. Pilots at ABZ do a great job most of the time. Sometimes a little understanding on both sides goes a long way.

[Data Dad]

Noiseboy, you wrote

In the 225's with greater fuel capacity and higher AUW it may be more down to pilots not seeing why the runway isn't being sectorised to allow more efficient use of the space,Can you explain what you mean by 'the runway isn't being sectorised'?

Sectorisation is subject to quite strict criteria (vis/cloud etc) and is mainly of use to depart a helicopter in front of a landing one - it cannot help improve the departure rate when there are no inbounds such as first thing in the morning.

For everyone - one other thing you have to remember that has changed in the last two years is that we (ATC) now HAVE to apply standard Wake Turbulence spacing - any ATCO who doesn't faces a tea without biscuits situation. Thus for VFR/SVFR you get the obligatory 'recommended spacing xxx' warning. Whether those flying VFR/SVFR follow the recommendation is entirely down to them. BUT in order to allow for those that do wish to position themselves the appropriate distance behind other traffic, we (ATC) HAVE to have the required gap 'built-in' to the sequence. That sequence and built-in spacing also affects the aircraft behind you - to allow you to turn final and land before the next ILS traffic 'busts' the Wake Turbulence spacing required by that aircraft. With an L, L2, 225 or 92 Number 1 that means you must have vacated the runway before the next landing Jetstream/Saab 340/other Light category aircraft gets to 4 mile final. (3 miles for Small/Lower Medium category.) For the purposes of this, Runways 32/34 are considered to be a single runway.

So the days of 'squeezing you in' as someone else posted are in reality, gone.

Safe flying

DD

[TTFD]

ATC do a great job at ABZ most of the time. Pilots at ABZ do a great job most of the time. Sometimes a little understanding on both sides goes a long way. Perhaps this is the time for ATC and helicopter crews to have another meeting at a local hotel for a beer and a chat?

It would also be nice to have some of the ATC offshore controllers come with us just to see our side of the job, and also more pilots visit ATC to see their side of the job. Those pilots from my company who have visited ATC have found it to be a very worthwhile experience and now have a better understanding as to why controllers ask us to do certain things like holding at Balmedie in SVFR. (Where exactly is the Balmedie hold? - we have NOBAL and BALIS in our systems, but not "Balmedie").

Some even had the chance to have a go on the ATC simulator and found it wasn't so easy to mix in rotary and fixed wing (who no doubt moan in the real world that they have to hold because of inbound helicopters short of fuel) - and that was without all the phones going!

[throw a dyce]

To add to DD point about vortex.A certain operator that resides on the East side,are so slow vacating the runway,that a normal gap is not large enough to safely adhere to the vortex criteria for following traffic.You can have well in excess of the vortex spacing when they are over the localiser,but it has gone by the time they crawl off the runway.That's the commercial flights,the trainers are :zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz: dreadful.The answer is even bigger gaps,or hold them until it's safe.Then they moan as usual.:ugh:
Actually you get tea and no biscuits just for doing you job properly.The rules are there for everyones safety,as it's the small turbo prop that will roll over,having been driven through vortex from a heli cutting in front.The ATCO will be in the dock.:suspect:

[Toroidal Vortex]

but it has gone by the time they crawl off the runway


I dont see it as fare to single out the east side operators. If we have landing clearance that is it we are clear to land and i dont see why we should rush. There are many more important things to consider such as PAX comfort and inexperienced crew learning the ropes. You cant hurry them :mad:

TV

[TTFD]

Probably because some of the east side crews tend to land on the runway and vacate (especially on 34) rather than vacating in the hover as the other two operators tend to do. Admittedly, the west side is easier to vacate with 32 available, and now 18 as well.

It is not a new comment, though, and it has been like this for years. Perhaps the east side operator has different checks/procedures compared to the others.

[Fareastdriver]

Many years ago we had the Air Traffic Control Assistants go on strike at Aberdeen. It was at a time when Bristows alone were launching 60-70 flights a day. To make ATC work at all slot times were introduced. Traffic has never gone so smoothly at Aberdeen before or since.

[cyclic]

TAD

I specifically avoided being personal or childish but your comments regarding the East side helicopter operator and how they operate probably won't do your case much good. The previous respondents are absolutely correct about 32 and 23 making the west side easier to vacate to. The East side helicopter operator are the only company that generally uses the main on the majority of occasions. Sometimes turning off in the hover putting the aircraft downwind is not feasible or safe. Sometimes being 90 degrees out of wind is particularly uncomfortable in the Puma. Sometimes E2/3 are the last taxiways to be de-iced or swept. Perhaps the East side helicopter operator's crews are being particularly cautious for obvious reasons. Perhaps the East side helicopter operator has the biggest number of new crews?

However, where possible most crews will vacate in the hover if they can. If you want to pop across and have a chat then I am sure you will made most welcome. If you have a genuine grievance then there is a formal setting where you can vent your spleen!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

"Throw a Dyce" if you ever hold me inbound and I am short of fuel I will reply with my available fuel (less final reserve) expressed in holding minutes so you can then prioritise.

I think its a dangerous practice for us all to start questioning ATC. They have enough to do and if the controller has held us...you can bet he is busy.

Its simple, if short of fuel - tell some one before it becomes a problem...otherwise shut up and wait your turn.

For outbounds it gets a little more tricky but to be honest I add extra taxi fuel based on the time of day to cope with this.

To answer the question as to why we all try and get airborne at the same time......its what the Oil Companys want...so its what they get. It needs ATC to some extent to grow some balls and impose some kind of slot system on us. That would definitley help.

DB

[throw a dyce]

Double Bogey,
To be honest I am not interested in a helicopters fuel state unless they declare an emergency.If a particular crew wants to cut it fine for whatever reason then that's their problem.My problem is protecting the runway and being safe and fair to everyone.

Cyclic,
I have already mentioned the East side operator to the powers that be.I think most Tower controllers are very wary as most have learned the hard way.However the standard gap doesn't work with them,as they are so slow from the threshold to touching down.My answer is I hold them until I can either set up a bigger gap,or make sure the following aircraft is in a medium category.An inbound fixed wing can travel 5 miles from the time they travel from the localiser to touchdown.The following light category must be at or over 4 miles at that point.Therefore I must have 9 miles,and more like 12 miles to try and set it up.The standard gap is 8 miles.Now you go and figure.:hmm:
What happened when I held an East side operator in SVFR due weather,traffic,deicing a runway,and 6 waiting outbounds.They complained on the R/T and then by phone.Charming :}

[-272.15 degrees Cels]

Logs for the fire!
Incoming!:suspect:

Every minute in the air is big bucks for the helicopter operators.

The east side crews, new or not should be able to vacate a runway as quick as any experienced pilot. They also get to use 23 and a hover to the right to vacate 34 is hardly rocket science.

The oil company penalty clauses regarding late departures do not effect safety but do cause conflict between management and pilots. I do not know a pilot personally on the north sea who actually rushes to a point where safety is compromised just to be away on time.

It really is stupid for helicopter operators to schedule same time departures from Aberdeen at 07:00hrs.

Aberdeen ATC in my opinion are superb. They are for obvious reasons the best I have ever experienced for helicopter/fixed wing operations.
Thank you to them!

[cyclic]

If a particular crew wants to cut it fine for whatever reason then that's their problem.

I think you have demonstrated in this statement a complete misunderstanding of the operation offshore. No crew that I know of deliberately cuts it fine. Why would they?

DB was giving sensible information that would allow any reasonable professional the opportunity to avoid a worsening situation.

If you treat all the crews in the same manner then after a while all the crews will be less likely to help. As I said before, I think we generally get an excellent service from ATC and we are always willing to help where we can. Sometimes it is not what is said, it is the way it is said and someone with your obvious experience will know this. I'm sure that if you and your colleagues have a genuine concern about how one of the companies operates then there is a formal process where that concern can be addressed. I know for a fact it would be taken very seriously and if proved to have some foundation would be acted on.

[HeliComparator]

To be honest I am not interested in a helicopters fuel state unless they declare an emergency

and

If we have landing clearance that is it we are clear to land and i dont see why we should rush.

With these sorts of attitudes, no wonder a fairly straightforward operation at Aberdeen can be made so difficult at times. Why not get together in a small darkened room and beat s**t out of each other - you would feel much better for it!

A real question - I appreciate that large helicopters can seriously upset fixed wing so understand the separation required between a heli and a following plank, but does vortex wake separation have to apply between heli and heli - although I have hit the occasional vortex from another heli, and it can be quite powerful, the control power of a helicopter is such that this is nothing more than annoying - there is no danger of losing control.

Does ATC have to apply vortex separation between helis? If so, is this because no thought has been given to it (just lumping helis in with planks)? Is it the dreaded arse-covering being top priority? Or is it actually necessary for some reason that I don't understand (and I don't mean "because it says so in the ATC manual").

These days Abz does seem very bad at making the best use of its infrastructure - just very occasionally we get to take off on 14, but it seems to me that this could substantially increase the departure rate (1 heli going off on 16, one on 14 very shortly before or after). Or are you going to tell me its the phantom vortex separation again?

HC

[malabo]

From an outside view I'd wonder why ATC has not adapted further to an airport with heavy helicopter operations. We had a thread on wake turbulence a while ago, and it is obvious that the ATC in different countries hold up a different rule book, and that pilots have different levels of fear based on where they operate.

A few things different out here, and not suggesting it is possible in Aberdeen, just saying it is done different elsewhere. We'd takeoff and land from any reasonable surface with a reject area, not necessarily a runway. You look like you've got a lot of ramp space and taxiway at Aberdeen. At some large airports I've even seen taxiways used for takeoff by smaller fixed-wing aircraft. We never hold for anything except for a "heavy" on wake turbulence because we can't waive it. Tower will always indicate they are holding you for say, a 737, and they expect the very next thing a helicopter will say is "waiving wake turbulence". Must be the magic words they need to hear. Likewise we never land on a runway off an IFR approach unless the visibility is "real bad". The approach is always broken off as soon as you get visual and you'll sidestep over to the taxiway or pad and free up the approach and runway for the guy behind you. Also lets ATC position aircraft on the runway for takeoff because they don't expect you to need it for landing. Do that a few times and ATC gets real friendly slotting you onto the ILS. Another friendly thing you can do is keep your speed up to airliner approach speeds as long as possible. We no longer fly Bell 212's at 90 knots, and again providing you have some reasonable weather at the bottom you can keep the speed up in the 150 range until the last mile or two. Never been held up from landing for wake turbulence. Never heard a helicopter ever say "we're not going to accept a landing clearance because we're worried about turbulence" either. Oh, and when you say "ready for takeoff", ATC expects you to be airborne a couple of seconds after they clear you.

Our helicopter operators meet with the local ATC on a regular basis to work out how to smooth out operations. Surely with the size of helicopter operations in Aberdeen you must be doing this on a formal basis.

[Phil77]

To be honest I am not interested in a helicopters fuel state unless they declare an emergency :confused:

...another outside observation (only helpful for your inbounds of course):
Although it is not a regulation and merely advisory in nature, on this side of the pond we have a procedure that states "minimum fuel". Controllers are requested to keep an eye on the aircrafts expected progress and try to avoid undue delays:

Minimum Fuel. The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and the Pilot/Controller Glossary both provide the following definition, which states that, Minimum Fuel:

“Indicates that an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.”

Note: Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by a pilot that his/her fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, he/she cannot accept any undue delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations. If, at any time, the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare an emergency and report fuel remaining in minutes.
A personal note: I believe the system only works if all parties involved respect each other and not bitch at the first sign of trouble - I am sure that most controllers are doing everything in their power to help. Still, some seem to forget on occasion, that their job is to provide a service to the pilots, not the other way 'round - just saying :oh:

[Data Dad]

Helicomparator

Yes, ATC have to apply the Wake Turbulence criteria (name changed from Vortex Wake separation a while back) Heli - Heli. Up until a serious incident two years ago we operated on the basis that you put forward - that heli-heli was no big deal - and CAA/SRG effectively/tacitly turned a 'blind eye'. That has now gone and we are left with having to apply it. There were a number of meetings between CAA/SRG, ATC and the Operators to 'sort it' (I am pretty sure at Bristow DW was involved). The CAA view is that there is NO Scientific evidence to support the 'no effect' approach and no doubt with liability very much to the forefront of their minds, we are left with the situation as now.

At the risk of reminiscing, the ATC/Helicopter airport operation has changed beyond recognition over the nearly 30 years I have been controlling them. Queueing side by side at what is now D2? Holding on the left at D2 whilst a heli lands and crosses (also keeping left) on 23? two-way taxying on the Delta taxiway - right in front of the side stands? Hover taxying on the same? Vacating left 'over the grass' for the east side operators and to Spot 1 at what is now Scotia? taxying behind one waiting at C3/D2? Land on the taxyway? And many more 'speedy' methods...... my newer colleagues are often obviously left incredulous when I tell the way it used to be!

DD

[Data Dad]

As I am tired of looking at the Glacier at my front door and this is an interesting thread I will pick up on some of the comments - all meant in good spirit and with the aim of improving understanding......

Toroidal Vortex

If we have landing clearance that is it we are clear to land and i dont see why we should rush. Quite correct, we don’t want you to ‘rush’ or be unsafe. However, a landing clearance bears with it a certain amount of responsibility to other airport users – in other words occupy the runway for the minimum amount of time that it safe to do so. In the ATC world, 90 secs to 2 mins (absolute tops) is the accepted time frame before controllers get ‘jittery’ and go-arounds start to occur. That is 90secs from crossing the threshold to vacating or lined-up cleared for take off and airborne. In those 90 secs the aircraft that was 5 miles behind you is now only 2 miles from the threshold – or less if it’s a 225 on the ILS :ok: Make it 2 mins and it is only 1 mile out. Any longer and it’s ‘see you in 10’ as it goes around. And that’s on a GOOD weather day…… We work to Standard Gaps to accommodate Wake Turbulence requirements, time to vacate etc but those Gaps have to be based on what is (pre-)determined as a reasonable time to occupy the runway. IIRC the runway capacity at Aberdeen is declared as 36 or 38 movements per hour depending on the runway configuration in use. Divide 60 mins by 38 and see how long you get for your take-off or landing clearance.


TTFD

(Where exactly is the Balmedie hold? - we have NOBAL and BALIS in our systems, but not "Balmedie") From the rest of your post I guess that you know the answer – however others might not!

In SVFR conditions <5Km vis/Cloud Ceiling <1500ft or at Night, SVFR aircraft have to be separated (by ATC) from other SVFR and IFR aircraft. This is done by using deemed separated points which are geographical locations. Around Aberdeen these are Hackley Head, Balmedie (the village/town), Bridge of Don, Greg Ness (usually referred to as Girdle Ness) Clashfarquhar Bay, Loch of Skene, Kintore, Inverurie and Insch. NOBAL, BALIS, SHRUB etc are NOT deemed separated points and so cannot be used by us to separate aircraft hence the request to ‘Hold at Balmedie’. In the distant past, the inbound clearance was via the Peterhead Lane of which Balmedie forms a part. So my tongue-in-cheek recommendation if you want to fly SVFR around Aberdeen – get the points above loaded in your FMC or carry a half-mil VFR chart with you :E



Cyclic

often a two second explanation can do a lot to placate even the most impatient crews - "hold at XXXX due to blah" Except when the runway is ‘closed’ for de-icing, snow clearing, WIP, etc. then invariably the reason will be ‘due traffic’ – it would get a bit repetitive to constantly say or (from your point of view) hear, this – and it doesn’t tell you something that you wouldn’t already know really.




DD

More to follow....

[throw a dyce]

DD,
You forgot about departing off 06 threshold,Bristow ramp.Also Bolkow 105 doing circuits off the grass,in snow.Also 5 (that's right five)in VMC night circuits, I was a trainee and Radar trying to co-ordinate a visual through the middle of it.:) Oh you'll think of something.:D

Helicomparator
One of the reasons we don't use 14 so much,is partially because it is shorter as you have to depart from A4.The other was that the L2 and 225s couldn't take it.So we have been informed.
Also 14 was only really useful to get one away between fixed wings,but with standard gaps it makes little difference.Unless you want to jump the Q of course.
I got taught a big lesson on vortex early on.Chinook (remember them:yuk:) departing from W5 with a Loganair Twin Otter at 4 miles.This is legal even now.The Twotter Hit the vortex over the threshold and nearly crashed.The spacing was in excess of the vortex required for a light passing through the vortex of a 747.:eek:Phantom vortex.:bored:

[TTFD]

Data Dad

Around Aberdeen these are Hackley Head, Balmedie (the village/town), Bridge of Don, Greg Ness (usually referred to as Girdle Ness) Clashfarquhar Bay, Loch of Skene, Kintore, Inverurie and Insch.DD, I'm playing devils advocate here but according to the AIP there is no Balmedie as part of the VFR/SVFR route structure. In fact BALIS only comes in to it when VFR/SVFR and 34 is in use for the helicopter routes. Some of the other places you mention are not in there either. I have to admit I have never heard of Clashfarquhar Bay and have never heard this point mentioned on the radio.

I was told about BALIS not being used because of the separation issue you mention with an aircraft holding at Bridge of Don, and that NOBAL couldn't be used becasue of a similar issue with Hackley Head (plus it is an outbound IFR point). I know that some crews still continue to BALIS and take up the hold because that point is already in the FMS (and it is easy to set up a hold there with the FMS), not fully understanding the issues you have to deal with regarding separation SVFR to SVFR. We all know where Balmedie village is, but the point is that many crews are still not aware of the difference between BALIS and Balmedie when SVFR. Hence my comment about a "Balmedie" point.

I see that in the AIP (AD 2-EGPD-3-2) the route structure for a VFR/SVFR 34 arrival clearly shows SHRUB-BALIS (as does the text) and Balmedie is on the map as if only to show where the village is. However, it is shown SOUTH of BALIS! There is nothing in the text or maps to state a Balmedie Hold or even a VRP. In fact Balmedie isn't even shown in the Class D Airspace Chart - Entry/Exit Lanes & VRPs (mind you nor are the points the helicopters use as I presume the chart is designed for light aircraft/visitors to Aberdeen).

I'm sure the residents of the ever-growing Balmedie would not appreciate a 225 or S92 holding over the top at 1000ft.

Bit of a thread drift I know.

TTFD

[Data Dad]

TTFD

you are of course completely correct - I have just rechecked the relevant pages and see that these are now at odds with what our 'Bible' says...... Either the charts are wrong/incomplete or what we have been doing for many, many years is now wrong. :uhoh:

Strangely, just today a non-resident VFR fixed wing (on his own volition) requested a route via Balmedie - so it 'may' still appear on the 1/4 or 1/2 mil VFR charts - I don't have a copy here to check.

Will chase it up tomorrow....

DD

[airpolice]

This is OS Memory Map CAA Chart

http://micromancs.com/balmedie.jpg

[eglnyt]

If you ever hold me inbound and I am short of fuel I will reply with my available fuel (less final reserve) expressed in holding minutes so you can then prioritise.

You might not be aware but MATS Part 1, the controllers bible, contains the following statement under the heading Flight Priorities

Pilots who announce that their aircraft is short of fuel are to confirm that they are declaring an emergency before being given priority over other flights.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

eglnyt (what the f...)...I see you live in the "Real World" where everything happens like it says so in the book.

The "reality" is that we are not "Short" of fuel until we expect to land with less than the "Final Reserve" fuel figure.

Maybe you should spend some time watching "Air Crash Investigation" there was a great one recently where the crew of a Columbian tried in vain to get the message to ATC that they were "Short" of fuel. Many dead people!!!

If I give my endurance I expect the ATC controller to spark....if not he will eventually get the PAN call.

Books do not have all the answers and even if they did do you really expect us to start reading one as the sh*t impacts the fan. We can only retain so much knowledge. Thank god that flying is 99% common sense!! and hopefully the likes of yourself are kept far far away from the rest of us!!

DB

[mad_jock]

Speaking as a PPL instructor the students and later qualified PPL's without instrument training wouldn't know to use the IFR points or to be honest what they actually mean.

They would see Balmedie and that will do for them.

Same with the inverurie lane.

[HeliComparator]

DataDad

Thanks for that - I rather thought that was you would say! There may be no scientific evidence to the CAA that there is no effect of large heli on large heli, but equally there is no evidence to the contrary either. Unfortunately its yet another example of ivory towerites making decisions based on their own agenda and on the basis of "why make a decision that might possibly have a come-back when I can decide the other way and be totally safe from criticism". Campaign Against Aviation stikes again! Its a pity these sorts of decisions are based only on the whims of a few uninformed arse-coverers and not on the basis of science!

If they got a bonus that related to how many movements/hr their arbitrary policies allowed...

Throw a Dyce - 225s can certainly use 14 as I did the other day. It might get difficult on a hot and windless day (since we need to use a higher decision speed) but we are not getting many of those at the moment! It can be frustrating to be sitting at C3 for 20 mins with gaps in the traffic that could easily allow a departure on 14 with good safety margins. Any fixed-wing intending to land on 16 but not on the ground by 14 has a problem anyway!

Whilst many of the guys in NATS are good guys and conscientious, unfortunately there is always the minority...!
You might not be aware but MATS Part 1, the controllers bible, contains the following statement under the heading Flight Priorities

I guess eglnyt is not aware of the pilot's bible which says that its better to address a developing problem before it becomes critical, rather than ignoring it and then screaming once you are nearly dead. But then sitting in the tower with a nice cup of coffee, why would he worry?

It is a pity to see some controllers who consider aircraft to be their personal playthings. We need to remember why we are here - ATC is here to provide a service to pilots. And its not that pilots are on some higher plane of existence than controllers (pun almost intended!) - pilots are here to provide a service to their passengers and (in the case of Abz helis) their oil company paymasters. So we are all here to provide a service to others, lets try not to forget that!

HC

[eglnyt]

Like many CAA Documents CAP 493 the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 does contain the Regulator's get out clause that controller's can use their own initiative and discretion in response to unusual circumstances but in the real world controllers are generally expected to comply with it whether or not they think it is common sense.

Further south there have been incidents where controllers who "spark" in the way you suggest have found themselves with a problem as the attempt to prioritise leads to pan calls from those moved out of the way. That is why the CAA periodically publishes AICs on the subject.

[Training Centre]

HC
RWY 14 - assume an engine failure at TDP and at MAUM for the day - obstacle clearance in 1st Segment? I don't think so.
Now, if they were to move the aerial (and the chimneys for 2nd segment?) then perhaps.
TC

[HeliComparator]

Training Centre

Of course it depends on AUW, wind and density altitude - but the day I referred to we were averagely heavy, it was cold, the wind was SE and we could nominate a Vtoss well in excess of the minimum, so rate of climb when OEI would have been 500'/min or so. We had plenty of safety margin over 35' miss (but thanks for your concern!).

Just checked the distance again - 581m so you can do Vtoss 55 in nil wind with spare in terms of accel stop distance. The aerial (assuming you mean the one just beyond the end of 14) is only 18'. In nil wind you will be at 35' less than 1/2 way along the runway (before 16 centreline) with the remaining distance to climb the 18'. With Vtoss +10 from minimum the graphs show 430'/min or so, ie 8% or 4.5 degrees. And that is with no headwind.

Certainly it would be foolish to do it at min Vtoss (100'/min RoC). You can't do it every day but when you can, its frustrating not to be allowed to.

HC

[exlatccatsa]

Surely a quick prompt to the ground or Tower controller "By the way we could accept 14" is all that's required. I have seen times when controllers are busy, (especially in the morning rush, where there have been lots of FW slots and they have been delayed into the Heli rush) they get into the mindset of one runway operation and when they are focused on that one runway its easier to forget they have another option.
A quick prompt from the heli early enough in the taxi phase would be enough to break into the single runway train of thought.


Surely the points raised in this thread confirm the need for more Heli operator/pilot controller face to face meetings. After all we are all trying to achieve the same goals, just being constrained by different rules and regulations.

[TTFD]

Data Dad

Thanks for your reply and look forward to hearing what you find out. Even the half-mil provided by airpolice shows "Balmedie" next to the BALIS point and not next to the yellow dot of the village itself. (Only making the point for those not familiar with Aberdeen).

exlatccatsa

I have on a few occasions stated that I can accept 14 for departure and have still been sent to C3, W4 (and even D2 on one occasion) and been held in the early morning departures rush hour for about 30 minutes. Not a gripe, as it does depend I guess on the experience of the Tower Controller both overall and at Aberdeen, plus I do not know his mental plot on things. There maybe something going on that I am not aware of. I can only ask.

What did annoy me and a couple of my colleagues one morning was taxying out, being held at D2 and then seeing three rotary depart who had taxied from their respective ramps well after me - that was frustrating. I am sure there was a reason but it would have been nice to have been told. One of the aircraft that taxied out after me went off 14 as well to add insult to injury.

Fortunately the above is extremely rare in my experience. As I said in an earlier post (and I think someone else from overseas alluded to this as well), perhaps it is time for another get together, plus a bigger push for more visits of aircrew to ATC and vice versa?

TTFN, TTFD :ok:

[HeliComparator]

DataDad

Whilst I think of it, I meant to pick up on your point about Vortex Wake being changed to "Wake Turbulence" - seems to me to be the rule-writers being in denial of the existence of helicopters once again! Wake is something you leave behind you as you move along, doesn't really fit a hovering helicopter does it! At least Vortex sounded like something a heli might produce! Or maybe I am just bitter and twisted!

exlatccatsa

Unfortunately it became not unusual for ATC to snap at you if you suggested such a thing. The tone was pretty much "I'll decide which runway you will use, you just do as you're told". Once you have had a few of those, you give in and stop offering. Which is a pity because most of the controllers at Abz are very courteous and professional, but of course you always remember the ones that permanently get out of bed on the wrong side!

As TTFD points out, things could be improved with better communications and understanding between the two roles. Long gone are the days when ATC trainees would take a jump seat ride out to a rig, not to mention the days when NATS provided some flying training for its controllers (and ditto for tower visits by pilots - now its a major expedition to get through security to the Tower!). All part of the cuts and world being ruled by the HSE brigade.

HC

[Inverted81]

if anyone from CHC or Bond would like to help set up a fam flight scheme with us at NATS ABZ drop me a PM... (we already have one in place with BHL)

81

[letMfly]

Helicomparator
After thirty-odd years of watching large helicopters turn final 200 yards behind 757s, Nimrods and other bigjets, I am as frustrated as you at the imposition of the rules which were designed for fixed wing aircraft. However it should be remembered that wake turbulence separation has always been applied between all aircraft on instrument approaches and also between all departing aircraft whether helis or planks.
The major change is that we have to say "Caution wake turbulence. The recommended distance is "x" miles" to every VFR (or visual) helicopter which is following an aircraft of the same or higher wake category. Whether or not you guys follow the recommendation is up to you, but thankfully most of you disregard it.:D
By the way, none of the rule-writers are able to explain why I can quite legally clear a large helicopter to take-off 100 yards behind another heavily laden helicopter, yet the same two helicopters should be 3nm apart on approach. Do the rotor vortices differ greatly between take off and landing config?
As regards your other point about controllers snapping at you, this was covered in another thread, but it really disappoints me to hear that it is still happening. All I can suggest is that you continue to ask for RW14 etc and if you get a blunt reply, phone the Watch Manager on your return so we can investigate the circumstances.

[throw a dyce]

Helicomparator,
Wake turbulence refers to vortex when in transitional flight,and also ground effect turbulence say when hover taxiing.SRG changed the wording and also we now have to say recommended distance instead of spacing.

As far as 225's off 14.Perhaps you may like to take that up with your company.When the 225 came in we were told that they couldn't take 14.
The times that someone has offered to take 14 in the early morning,it really wouldn't have made much difference.However it would have resulted in a rather large Q jump so I just say your number x to depart.It seems that it's OK to Q jump,but it's wrong if you are on the receiving end. TTFD was complaining about just that.

What would happen if I started saying to half of the 17 helicopter that want start at the same time,standby for start minimum 40 minutes delay? Go and get a cup of tea and a bacon sarny.
Somehow it would be tea and no biscuits for me,because I'm not providing a wonderful ''Service''.Actually I would be,because I would save tons of fuel,far less delays at the hold :).It should be the companies that schedule a maximum of say 5 outbound each between 7 and 8 am at one every 10 minutes for example.(It's not rocket science,and applies to every other airport in the world except ABZ.:hmm:)
No I would be seen as a right old grump.who fell out of bed on the wrong side,and not a good guy who says yes to everything.
Well the yes men are the one that tie themselves in knots very quickly.
Also it is the Tower controller who will tell you which runway to depart off,because he/she has the big picture,and is aware of the rules that we have to adhere to.

[HeliComparator]

letMfly

To be fair, I haven't asked for 14 for some time due to previously mentioned snaps making me feel its wasn't the done thing. Perhaps that problem has been fixed some time ago, I just haven't tested the water recently. My recent departure from 14 was at the suggestion of the controller:D


Regarding the turbulence, I can't imagine that there is any difference between a landing and taking-off helicopter - turbulence gets worse at low speed, and you are slow in both the above situations. Do you guys ever feed back to NATS / SRG HQ that you think procedures are inappropriate?

tad - Not trying to jump the queue, just trying to maximise the departure rate. Depending on who is "on" there does seem to be quite a difference in departure rates. Sometimes we sit there saying "could have got 2 helis off in that gap" though I accept that it could be due to co-ordination with Approach going on behind the scenes. Again, back to understanding each other's issues.

Without knowing who told you 225s couldn't use 14, I can't comment. Perhaps it was that we couldn't always use 14 and it was considered simpler for there to be no doubt. But this is not the case, sometimes we can but it does depend on a number of factors. An Easterly component to the wind certianly helps, and we are not allowed to takeoff with even a slight tailwind component.

Regarding scheduling of early morning departure, if we were BA, BMI etc I would quite agree. Trouble is we are not masters of our own destiny - we are chartered by the oil companies and they want departures first thing. Its hard to say to company x "sorry, your deparures will be later because company y is going first". That is not a good way to retain your contracts (which can be cancelled at short notice if the charterer gets too pissed off with you). As I said previously, all my wage and a good chunk of your wage, comes from the oil companies, so we have to try to keep them sweet! Although I suppose you would get your wage regardless of which colour the helicopter is!

It would be interesting to research whether the maximum arrival / departure rate is currently less than it was in the heyday of the 80s. Seems to me there are now far fewer heli flights, but longer delays. To be fair, I guess there are a lot more fixedwing flights that there used to be.

Also it is the Tower controller who will tell you which runway to depart off,because he/she has the big picture,and is aware of the rules that we have to adhere to.

Of course, but one could still accept a suggestion or offer graciously, even if ultimately not going along with it! He is aware of the rules that govern his issues, but perhaps not those of the recipients of the service. Without wishing to get into a "mine is bigger than yours" argument, in fact its the aircrew that have the big picture that relates to the entire flight from start to finish, including issues to do with fuel, weather and payload. The tower controller has the co-ordination of deparures and arrivals at the airport to consider, but this is a thumbnail compared to the big picture (yes, mine is definitely bigger than yours:))

HC

[throw a dyce]

Helicomparator,
I'm sure the Oil companies are happy because you are burning lots of their product.Why has it taken 30+ years for the same situation to be happening every morning,when there is a finite capacity.I'm not suggesting y company goes first.It's the airport capacity is X, and they can only take so many fixed wing inbounds,outbounds and helis(divided by 3).At the moment Ground is completely overloaded,all rushing out to sit there for 30 minutes.And it's all ATC's fault,for not BREAKING Safety rules.It's madness :ugh:.
When you say 2 helicopters could go in a gap.A standard gap is designed for one heli to depart,and have vortex separation on the next arrival.There is a trend amongst several fixed wing operators to sit on the runway,for some time after being cleared take-off.Also with some types they need engine system checks when it is cold.Some heli operators are slower than others.All this slows things down.
Then there are the controllers,who try and pack inbounds at the same time as a long line of outbounds are waiting.These are the yes men,try and please everyone.It doesn't work and they are pushing their luck often.The controllers you don't seem to like (like me)are the one who have gaps always set up,but overall have a lot less holding.I can achieve a steady departure rate,and if you are very very lucky 2 in a gap,but only with the right combination of traffic.However the overall departure rate is high because I'm not having to chance 2 in a non existant gap.The down side is that I hold inbound helis more,to be fair on the departures.Hence the moans about ''What's the delay'' etc.
Also in the good old days the inbound rush was later.Now it starts about 7.20am.I managed 52 outbounds in one hour,many years ago.I don't do anything different from then to now.There was no inbounds.:bored:

Oh it was your company that said a 225 couldn't take 14.:)

[Data Dad]

HC,

just a quick reply for now....

It would be interesting to research whether the maximum arrival / departure rate is currently less than it was in the heyday of the 80s. Seems to me there are now far fewer heli flights, but longer delays. To be fair, I guess there are a lot more fixedwing flights that there used to be.

I think you are probably right - the achieved rate is less now. A number of reasons contribute to that. Earlier, I reminisced about what we used to get away with. One example - two helicopters side by side at what is now D2 (can't remember now what its previous identity was Holding point Charlie maybe?) with 2 side by side we could alter the order of departure to give the most efficient rate - dependant on speed and HMR - put the 76 ahead of the 61 for instance. Now the types are much more similar in speed and they have to line up in line-astern which makes cherry picking difficult. Thats just one area where changes have had a negative impact. (also remember that back in the early-mid 80's up to 50% or more of the heli departures were VFR or SVFR not an all IFR set as now)

The 14 issue IIRC - we were told by CHC-Scotia that Mark 2's and 225's couldn't take 14 at all - I guess some people took that to mean that it was also true for Bristow. The other problem is that we have largely been on 34 for what seems like months! - it is natural to 'get out of the habit' (of using 14) so do give us a nudge from time-to-time. Any disrespectful replies should be dealt with as indicated above.

Final point for now:

Sometimes we sit there saying "could have got 2 helis off in that gap"

One thing that is maybe not immediately apparent with the 'wake turbulence issue'. When any helicopter departs 16 from W4 or W5, we have to ensure that we apply the correct separation against the next landing as it has been decreed that the landing will fly through the 'wake' So a heli departing from W4 or W5 has to be airborne and away before a landing Jetstream gets to 4nm - this also applies to a heli departing from E3 on 34. In a strong headwind you will end up sitting twiddling your thumbs waiting for the landing traffic.......

Another current reason for extended waits for 16 - we are limited to using 5nm radar separation to the south of the airport instead of the previous 3nm. This means that departures have to be spaced further apart.

Finally, yes we have and do make representations but the CAA are fairly intransigent as I am sure you are aware.

I am full support of any move to arrange another get-together....

DD

[HeliComparator]

tad - Look, there is only room for one bitter and twisted individual on this site and I got here first! Less of the self-loathing, nobody hates you.

I realised that it was BHL that indicated that 225s couldn't use 14, my question was which individual? You have to bear in mind that if you ask a group of 4 people a technical question, you will get 4 different answers. No, on second thoughts if its pilots you will get 5 different answers!

The point was just that, from our eyes, there seems to be a significant variation in the efficient use of FW arrival gaps to allow helis to depart, according to which shift is on or whatever. I understand and have seen some unreasonable delays in FW pushing their throttles forward on the runway, some helis clearing the runway etc, and can see how that can easily unravel a plan, and therefore why a slightly increased error margin can in fact make things run more smoothly. However perhaps more use could be made of "can you accept immediate takeoff" with the helis- after all a heli running at the holding point is just desperate to get airborne, I just have to pull up this lever and its off...


HC

[HeliComparator]

DataDad

Thanks for that - I understand the importance of heli vortex vs landing FW, but couldn't more common sense be applied? There is a massive difference between nil wind when a vortex can linger over the runway for a long time (and be very dangerous to FW), vs the normal Dyce strong crosswind where the vortex is blown off the runway in seconds. Surely the goal is safe but expeditious operations, not rules for the sake of the rules?

Regarding CAA intransigence I have to say that Flight Ops are pretty reasonable, whereas other departments are less so. Perhaps this is because in general Flight Ops personnel still fly, whereas others have forgotten what the sharp end of aviation is like (assuming they ever knew!).

HC

[ShyTorque]

Helicopter vortex wake is likely to be of lower intensity when landing than when taking off.

Firstly, a landing helicopter in a steady descent will have a lower angle of attack on the rotor blades than the same aircraft lifting to the hover and climbing.

Secondly, being at the end of its sector, it is likely to be at a lighter weight.

I don't work from ABZ but sometimes find myself more than a little bemused when I am given permission to hover taxy to line up on the runway then held in the hover for vortex wake reasons behind a departed fixed wing.

I'm already airborne. :ugh:

[exlatccatsa]

"I don't work from ABZ but sometimes find myself more than a little bemused when I am given permission to hover taxy to line up on the runway then held in the hover for vortex wake reasons behind a departed fixed wing."


There are similar bemused comments here when a helicopter asks for a backtrack and can do so in the hover. Anyone care to explain?
With regard to using different runways.
A question which arose today with the wind at 050/12kt. We have noticed that no one seems to want a 05 departure anymore since the runway was shortened. Obviously it wasn't used today because of the low cloud. Is it too short to be of any use now?

[HeliComparator]

There are similar bemused comments here when a helicopter asks for a backtrack and can do so in the hover. Anyone care to explain?


Yes, and its all to do with engine failure accountability. From the hover or hover taxi, a helicopter will fall to earth safely if one engine fails (there not being very far to fall). If the heli then transitions away down the runway then has a failure early on, it can "reject" and land back on the runway. When that option is no longer available because the end of the runway approaches, the aircraft has to be able to climb away on 1 engine. Since the power required to do this decreases as airspeed increases (up to about 70kts) the aircraft has to be above a certain critical airspeed. That airspeed depends on its weight, and the ambient pressure and temperature.

So it has to be possible to accelerate to the critical speed, and with a worst case failure at that point has to be able to either stop in the distance still remaining, or climb away. The length of runway required to do this depends on the critical speed and the headwind component on the runway in question.

Hope that explains it!

The problem with 05 is that its not only shorter now, but has relatively high buildings just off the end of the runway. If the aircraft is light and with a headwind it could still be done, but unless we go into the graphs its less intuitive that we would clear the obstructions by the minimum required height in the event of an engine failure just after we are committed to continue the takeoff.

Perhaps ATC could consider if there is significant benefit to using 05 and 14 for departure more often? If so, we could formulate some guidance for crews about using these runways, map out the obstacles in the climb-out etc. Of course we don't want to go to that trouble if ATC doesn't really want us to use them.

Is there more of a noise issue departing on 05?

HC

[TTFD]

What would happen if I started saying to half of the 17 helicopter that want start at the same time,standby for start minimum 40 minutes delay?throw a dyce

Actually what you said above has happened some mornings. I have asked for start and been told not to and call back in 10-15 minutes, the reason being staff shortages in ATC. Fair enough, at least we know the reason why and we can tell our Ops that there is an ATC delay. Maybe it should happen more often and then perhaps the oil companies might actually start listening when we tell them it is all due to the fact that they want all their flights to go at the same time. Of course, that also requires the three respective helicopter company commercial managers to tell their clients this as well! :ugh: It not only causes ATC problems, as there are also problems in the heliport terminals as well with the mass influx of passengers all wanting to check in, go through security, get their passenger briefings, etc.

exlatccatsa

Runway 05 is now shorter than it used to be and even with the wind you stated, a 225 would need almost all of that length for its transition assuming that it was at or below a weight that allows for that length. With a headwind component less than 10kts the runway is not long enough, unless the aircraft is light enough to use a Vtoss 45 profile - not that often I suspect. Also most operators tend to use Vtoss 50 as the minimum speed profile for a 225 I believe. AS332Ls may be able to use the runway more than the heavier types.

Similarly, these issues apply to the use of 14 as well. However, it being longer does mean that EC225s can more readily accept a 14 departure if the aircraft is within the specified performance criteria at the time.

Yes we can lift to the hover and we are able to hover-taxi for a back track if needed, but the flight manuals for all types have supplements for Category A Operations (i.e. Public Transport) and these dictate the procedures and distances we require for a transition to forward flight from the hover with a reject distance to land and stop should an engine fail (or some other emergency occur). As HC mentions, we are not allowed to accept a downwind take-off or landing for Cat A operations. However, I will admit there is some question as to what is actually meant by "take-off" - is it the act of actually getting airborne, or the transition from the hover to forward flight? I believe the latter is what is inferred but certainly the 225 Cat A Operation Supplement says "takeoff and landing with tail wind are not permitted". HC, your thoughts?

As with the AS332L2 (and I suspect the S92 as well), the distances required for a transition to forward flight vary for all sorts of reasons including AUM (or AUW if you prefer) and the headwind component. The EC225 does not require to backtrack as often as the AS332L2 or the S92 might, but it does happen occasionally.

TTFD

[exlatccatsa]

Thanks for the explanations HC & TTFD. I'll pass it on next time someone makes a comment.

[Data Dad]

HC

I understand the importance of heli vortex vs landing FW, but couldn't more common sense be applied? There is a massive difference between nil wind when a vortex can linger over the runway for a long time (and be very dangerous to FW), vs the normal Dyce strong crosswind where the vortex is blown off the runway in seconds. Surely the goal is safe but expeditious operations, not rules for the sake of the rules? I agree 100% with you – however decisions to get that through have to be taken at levels way above where I stand and are fraught with difficulties: At what x-wind component can we stop apply the separation just being one.

In case it's not widely known and with credit to Lori Bergman - the following is most apt:

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim.

I will throw a ‘common-sense’ idea back at you….

With regards the back-tracking for departure on 34. The area beyond the end of the runway is a fairly smooth piece of grass which had a considerable amount of hardcore placed down on it in the mid-90’s when a 146 went gardening. The efficacy of it was proven when a Dornier went the same way a couple of years ago – could not this perfectly good piece ground be considered as a suitable reject onto area/de-facto runway extension, thereby negating the need for the backtrack? :E


The request for a backtrack is another reason why crews may feel gaps are being missed – if a helicopter (or fixed-wing for that matter) is back-tracking we CANNOT allow a sectorised landing so it can lead to one needing a back-track having to wait for a longer time and with the lack of ‘cherry-picking’ opportunities I have already mentioned it may look like we are not being the most efficient we can be. (First thing in the morning we regularly send a back-track one to A4 for that reason but that option is largely closed off once inbounds start arriving)


ShyTorque

I don't work from ABZ but sometimes find myself more than a little bemused when I am given permission to hover taxy to line up on the runway then held in the hover for vortex wake reasons behind a departed fixed wing. Holding in a hover you are not actually flying through a ‘Wake’ – fixed wing Wake turbulence only starts being generated when the aircraft rotates which I assume would be someway beyond where you are holding.

TTFD

Haven’t got any answers yet regarding Balmedie etc. However the question has been ‘escalated’.


DD

[HeliComparator]

the 225 Cat A Operation Supplement says "takeoff and landing with tail wind are not permitted".

I am sure it means the "departure" ie the transition away, and the arrival, rather than the actual takeoff or landing to/from the hover. Whilst in the hover you have not really started the Cat A procedure, and there is nothing in the main body of the RFM to stop you lifting or landing with wind from any direction, though its best to be within the demonstated wind envelope of course.

I think the reason for the statement in the Cat A supplement is that the graphs don't cater for tailwind, so its not possible to calculate climb gradient, obstacle clearance etc with a tailwind, something which is a fundamental element of a Cat A takeoff. Also it probably would not be too hard to get into a situation where the landing speed from a reject was over the RFM limit of 40kts. As usual, beurocratic correctness supercedes common sense, so they can't say "slight tailwind OK provided no obstacles" etc.

Data Dad - appreciate the point but Aberdeen is the primary location in the UK where large helis and FW mix - if the unthinking rules are going to get changed by pressure from any airport, it will be from Abz. Abz is not just a small provincial airport, its the UK capital of heli operations and should be a key player in setting the rules!

If the x-wind component is known, its relatively easy to determine how long it will take for a vortex to drift away more than the half-span of a FW from the edge of the runway since the vortex will be drifting with the wind. A few rules of thumb could be created with some safety margin if there was a will to do it. A good project for Helios when they have finished the Multilat analysis!

Regarding the over-run area, it might be feasible to use it but we would have to be certain that it could cope with 11 tonnes running on at 20kts or so without digging the wheels in / folding the noseleg. When a FW slithers past the end the worst case is gear folding / belly scraped. For a heli, its main rotors hitting the ground, breaking up and trashing anything or anyone in the vicinity.

HC

[ShyTorque]

ShyTorque

Quote:
Holding in a hover you are not actually flying through a ‘Wake’ – fixed wing Wake turbulence only starts being generated when the aircraft rotates which I assume would be someway beyond where you are holding.

Datadad, I'm aware of wake generation issues, probably more than some, hence my comment. I used to teach close formation in fixed wing and rotary aircraft (which included formation takeoffs); also a certain rotary wing role I flew involved chasing a large landing fixed wing down the runway, with a view to landing a certain group of interesting people on the wing.

We hardly ever use the full runway length unless mandated by ATC for an IFR departure, which is rare. We usually use an intermediate access point for VFR/SVFR. We are therefore sometimes immediately adjacent to the airliner 'rotate' point for entry to the runway. Obviously, in such cases, I will ground taxy to line up, bearing in mind the wind velocity and likely path of the preceding wake. :ooh:

[Training Centre]

Does the Operator on the East side of EGPD still depart RWY 16 from E4? It has never been safe or legal, but they did it anyway.

[Toroidal Vortex]

Training Centre

This has become a bit of a “bash the east side operators” forum. Where does your term “legal” come from? Is there an airport by-law that states thow shalt not take-off from abeam E4?

Correct me if I’m wrong but there is more than enough space departing 16 from E4 :ugh:

[Woolf]

Training Centre:

Not sure how you can depart 16 from E4 - E4 being the holding point on the E taxiway leading up to H23 and the BMI hangar? In any case as has been mentioned the required take-off distances depend on aircraft type as well as procedures (some operators allow Class 2 procedures within their ops manual).

Also having operated on both the east and west side for a good number of years I am slightly surprised at what appears to be a bit of a grievance towards the east side operator by ABZ ATC for not being expeditions enough in clearing the runway?

As posted above, clearing down 18 or 32 is expeditious as it leaves plenty of distance to wash off speed and the aircraft can land behind the holding point to save time (you can even run it on across the holding point).

In contrast, to vacate at E2 or E3 a full 90+ degree turn is required. Regardless of whether the aircraft vacates in the hover or not it almost needs to come to a full stop to complete the landing profile before starting a turn. Dependant on aircraft type and wind conditions a crosswind hover can be too uncomfortable for passenger flights (or out of limits) and the aircraft needs to land on the runway. I’ve experienced a good number of approaches where pilots (both current and previous east side operators) tried to expeditiously fly round the corner towards E2 or E3 at speed which more often than not ended up in an uncomfortable situation.

I agree for an inexperienced pilot the above might take slightly longer but then the time is required and I will not compromise the safety of the aircraft. I will however always be as expeditious as possible under the circumstances and if I perceive an expeditious vacation? of the runway is required (we can usually tell by the voice) I have the option to take control of the aircraft if I think this will help matters.

Bottom line is that for an east side aircraft vacating at E2/E3 (regardless of operator) the time from crossing the threshold to vacating the runway will be longer in comparison to an aircraft vacating down 18 or 32. It would be an interesting experiment to give west side helicopters clearance to land 16 but vacate through the 23 instead of the 32 intersection, you would probably see a marked.

Finally I firmly believe we all (pilots and ATC) try to be as professional and expeditious as possible within the rules and regulations we are given and judging by radio calls this attracts mutual appreciation. However I would challenge the view that crews deliberately take their time when manoeuvring at the airport or that they lack the required skills. Communication is certainly key and as suggested we probably need more.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I am a Scotia Pilot. This thread is getting a bit silly to be honest.

We operate L2s to a cut-down performance solution giving us 2 take-off options that require either 505m or 800m of runway for ASDR (Accleration and Stop Distance Required). Ie the amount of prepared surface required following a failure of a critical power unit - right at the most critical point - just before TDP (Take-off decision point).

Thanks to Mr Eurocopter - neither profile takes account of the effect of headwind component so when the headwind component is strong we actually need less runway - but we just do not have data to support this.

Hence an experienced pilot may decide to go from C3/34 without a backtrack if he is light or has a strong headwind - but in doing so he is taking the risk upon himself.

As regards clearing the runways expeditiously - if we are trying to operate to tolerances that mean a poor Bond pilot struggling to turn downwind (as most of their runway clearances involve turning downwind in the prevailing Westerlies) - is been pressurised to get off the runway - then we are all expecting too much.

I like ATC and I have an enormous respect for them - BUT when a controller starts to question why a 10 ton helicopter can't get off the runway so he can rack something in behind then that respect gets eroded.

PUMAs hate been turned around in the wind, partly due to the autopilot fighting our inputs and mostly due to the fact that it is big slab sided beast that is designed to sit nose into the wind. I think I have around 8,500 hours on the beast in its various guieses now, am and I still treat this kind of descending, turning manouvre with the utmost of respect.

God knows how it must feel when you are an ex robo jockey who has a few hours on type trying to execute these kinds of manouvre.

Added to this - the manouvre one day works very nicely, and on another day, same conditions, the PUMA seems to grunt and groan and threaten to depart its nice controlled flight path all the way the ground.

In aviation we hammer in to ourselves that IF THERE IS DOUBT - THERE IS NO DOUBT.... this is why some pilots make a beautifull sweeping exit landing like a butterfly on the safe side of the stop line and others take a more cautious route. As experience grows we tend to "Listen" to what the machine is telling us and execute a more sympathetic manouvre with safety being the overiding consideration.

The bottom line is that the runway belongs to the landing aircraft UNTIL HE HAS SAFELY EXITED.

[HeliComparator]

DB

Have to disagree with you, I think this thread is quite good. Far better to have the gripes from ATC on E side operator's expeditiousness aired and explained with reasoned argument, ditto the gripes on wake separation discussed. Otherwise we all sit in our boxes moaning and feeling agrieved about the behaviour of others and getting wound up. Its all about communication!

Regarding your point on no data for wind effect on ASDR, this is surely incorrect? The 225 has figure 20 in the CAT A supplement to give wind effect, and although its a long time since I flew the L2 I am 99% certain there is the same info in its Supplements. Do you fly the L2 CAT A or Group A these days?

If there is a limitation not to allow for wind, this is a CHC limitation not a Eurocopter one.

I am aware that CHC decided to use only two of the many possibilities of Vtoss for takeoff profiles. I suspect this was legacy from the 332L which had 2 profiles, and Trainers introducing the L2 thought that pilots would struggle to cope with the 8 (?) possibilities in the Supplement. Its perhaps worth considering whether, whilst this was a non-issue when CHC was an E side operator, since the move its now too restrictive? Did you carry the same company restriction onto the 225?

When we introduced the 225 to Bristow it was decided to allow all the possible Vtoss choices (all 10 of them) since the profiles are the same, its just the numbers that change. After all, fixed wing pilots seem to manage with different V speeds for each takeoff, depending on weight etc.

For training we just distinguish between a Vtoss = Vy and a Vtoss < Vy since as you know the actions OEI at the end of the first segment climb are different in these two cases. We have never found this to cause a problem / issue in BHL.

This allows BHL pilots to choose an optimal Vtoss and possibly explains why CHC tend to backtrack for 34 more / further than BHL do (assuming that to be the case?)

Whilst it is of course up to CHC to decide how they want to operate their aircraft, perhaps its time for them to re-evaluate whether their current policy is optimal?

HC

[throw a dyce]

DB,
I don't pressure anyone to get off the runway.It's only that you can lose vortex spacing having got the correct gap,because the heli landing is so slow.
As ATC what do we then do? Land the light category through the vortex knowing that it was OK as the heli passed the localiser,but on touchdown it's way below what is legal.Send the fixed wing around.Complain to the heli operator,or get bigger gaps for that operator.
Well getting bigger gaps means more holding for the heli,and more moans.Sending fixed wings around dramatically increases radars work load.I have already mentioned it to our management.As for racking in something behind it.Sometimes you are struggling to get a landing clearance with a fixed wing 8 miles behind,when they have to vacate at E2 after 6.00pm on 16.
I don't really know the answer,but to start complaining to the controller about what the delay is when your SVFR is just inviting a phone the watch manager.:hmm:

[-272.15 degrees Cels]

I fully sympathise with "throw a dyce" regards departures. Its stupid that the helicopter operators agree contracts with oil companies to depart at 07:00hrs. I am a current NSC and am sick and tired of apologising to our passengers for the delay at C3 during the 07:00 rush of around a 20 minute period.
Why our contracts departments agree to these terms which give great penalties in late departure compensation is just crazy.
Its time the helicopters companies wielded the big club. :eek:

[cyclic]

just inviting a phone the watch manager

TAD

I have been watching this thread with much interest since I last commented. Is the Watch Manager some kind of head teacher in your opinion who has dominion over some pretty experienced helo pilots? I think not, and having spoken to a good many "watch manager" I have found them to be pretty reasonable professional folk just as one would expect.

I take it after all your years at ABZ you haven't risen to this dizzy height. Perhaps you should put yourself forward at the next "promotion board"!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

HELICOMPARITOR,

Thanks for the explanation and yes we do have the options in the CAT A supplement but your are right CHCs philosiphy is to keep it simple and we tend to use one of either two profiles VTOSS = Vy or VTOSS = 55. These two profiles enable us to "shortcut" the performance tables provided we have encompassing critieria of ADSR and ambient T & P parameters, which of course are tailored in ABZ to temperate Northern climatic conditions.

We do always have the option of resolving the solution longhand and I guess if we were to maximise the opportunities without a backtrack we could do this.

You make a good point and there is probably an argument for revisiting the issue formally to create more flexibility. Maybe I will pass this on to our Technical Pilots and see what can be done.

Thanks.

[HeliComparator]

DB

Its possibly easier for us since our Flight Operations software spits out the maximum permissable weight at various values of Vtoss after we have typed in the ambient conditions, therefore once we have the load we know which is the lowest Vtoss we can go for, though of course we are encouraged to select a Vtoss that will give a comfortable RoC OEI, rather than one that only gives ~100'/min. As a double-check the aircraft displays the minimum value of Vtoss on the ASI strip as well (unlike the L2 that displays the min level flight OEI speed)

Then its just fig 20 to tell us how much runway we need for the prevailing wind.

HC

[Droopystop]

TAD

I have been watching this thread with much interest since I last commented. Is the Watch Manager some kind of head teacher in your opinion who has dominion over some pretty experienced helo pilots? I think not, and having spoken to a good many "watch manager" I have found them to be pretty reasonable professional folk just as one would expect.

I take it after all your years at ABZ you haven't risen to this dizzy height. Perhaps you should put yourself forward at the next "promotion board"!

A bit harsh?

Perhaps all TAD is saying is that s/he is in catch 22, know they will get complaints if they hold and will get sacked if the loose separation. Hence the call to the Watch Manager is merely a warning to stand by for the complaints.

I think most pretty experienced helicopter pilots flying in and out of Aberdeen know that asking more from an ATCO at busy times means increased controller workload and therefore decreased safety. They would also take more fuel if their experience told them to expect delays.

[HeliComparator]

So, back to the original post...

If I asked to hover on the runway for a hover check, the first question from ATC would be "how long for?". This is because time on the runway is a limited commodity. If the question is unasked /answered, the controller risks a much more serious problem developing if the aircraft hovers for longer than he bargained for.

So it is with inbound delays. Now its the aircraft with the limited commodity (fuel) and it would be a foolish pilot who agreed to an indefinite delay without starting to think about "plan B" etc. Since a heli may arrive at Aberdeen without alternate fuel, that plan B would include landing at Longside or in a field nearby - all good P&J fodder!

If TAD does not like to be questioned on such matters, something is seriously wrong.

So in order to avoid unnecessary radio exchanges, when instructing a heli to hold inbound it would be best to indicate the likely length of the delay. Then everyone is happy and calm (unless its 30 minutes!). If that is not done, you can guarantee that pilots will be getting uncomfortable and the question will not be long in coming.

Perhaps the clue is in the original post - to paraphrase "I am doing something I think right but all the operators' pilots are questioning it" - so either he is the only person with the right idea at Abz, or maybe its the other way round. Some introspection required I suggest!

HC

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

To hell with it...lets just take TAD out the back and give him a damned good thrashing!!!