ils clearance

[alpergokgoz]

what is to be expected or to be done by a pilot after ils clearance is given by air traffic controller ?can he/she descent until reaching the altitude of the glide slope or has to wait until further descent clearance ?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Sweet Potatos]

Maintain your cleared level until established on the localizer, then leave that level with the Glideslope as you have been "cleared" for the ILS.

If you require further descent in order to establish then request it from the controller - it's likely to have been an oversight by the controller if you've been left high.

Hope that helps.

:)

[Sonnendec]

I disagree.

When we issue an approach clearance, we are clearing for the full descent, you shouldnt have to ask for more descent. Anyway, it´s always useful to reconfirm the clearance if you are not sure of ATC intentions :ok:

Best regards.

[chevvron]

In the UK at the moment, descent clearance is additional to LLZ established clearance. This will be changing at some airports in the near future, but there will still be some (where for instance, VFR routes cross under the final approach) where you will have to wait for descent clearance.

[Sweet Potatos]

Sonnendec, I think you may have mis-interpreted what I said.

Even in ICAO when you give a pilot "cleared ILS RWxx" he should maintain his level until established on the LLZ then leave that level and descend with the glidepath.

There is no requirement to ask for further descent unless the pilot feels he is too high for that position and point of intercept.

There could be traffic and or terrain reasons why you should maintain that level given by ATC - though most ATC I know would give a reason esp if was an unusual level due traffic below etc.

ie. don't just descend to minima cos "he cleared us"!

Mytupence worth ... correct me if I'm wrong.

[sabenaboy]

If I hear "cleared for the ILS app" while I am following a published arrival track, I will automatically assume that that means I can descent according to the published altitudes. As Sonnendec suggested, in case of doubt, I would check ATC if that is exactly if that is what they meant, even if I don't think I have to check.

If I'm on radar vectors at 3000' on a final intercept course and I hear "cleared for the ILS" I will assume that I'm automatically cleared to the published G/S intercept alt should it be lower (e.g. 2000'). Again, in case of doubt, I would check with ATC if that is what they meant, even if I don't I think have to.

On the few occasions I fly to Britain, I have noticed that ATC often wants you to report established on the LOC, before issuing the "cleared for approach"

That procedure is a waste of time and bandwidth in my opinion and increases the workload on an otherwise already busy frequency.

Outside the UK if often hear "cleared for the ILS, leave 3000' on the glide slope". That's the ideal short and unambiguous clearance in my opinion.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<That procedure is a waste of time and bandwidth in my opinion and increases the workload on an otherwise already busy frequency. >>

Not so. I worked Heathrow Final Director for 31 years and never had any problems with what you call "bandwidth". I saw several pilots descend to dangerous levels in the old days of "cleared for the ILS" so I am quite happy that the existing phraseology is safe.

[sabenaboy]

Hi HD, the problem is that 3 extra calls have to be made:
1. A/C "established on the loc"
2. ATC "Cleared for the ILS"
3. A/C readback "Cleared for the ILS"

A simple "cleared for the ILS, leave XXX' on the glide" make those three calls superfluous. I sure hate it when I'm told to report the loc when being vectored close to G/S intercept, only to find myself in a position where I can't get through on a busy freq. to get a clearance allowing me to follow the G/S. I can assure you that intercepting a G/S from above in a heavy A320 with still (or some tail)wind is not easy without busting FDM-limits.

Also I remember having read plenty of topics about this issue on pprune. I remember that I looked up and found ICOA (not UK!)documentation confirming that I can descent to published G/S intercept alt when cleared for the ILS on a intercept heading. I'm sad that I can't find it back at this time, but I'm sure someone will come up with an official ICAO document.

Best regards,
Sabenaboy

[max alt]

"A heavy A320",that made me laugh out loud.Thank you for that.
I think the reply by HD is spot on.Please be guided accordingly.
Max.

[sabenaboy]

Hello max alt,

Glad I got you laughing! :ok: But seriously now: A heavy 320 (= one close to max LW) doesn't descent very well until you select flaps 2 or select the gear down, and then intercepting the G/S from above will be difficult without exceeding the max allowable descent rates at low alt.

Apparently, I'm not the only or the first one to come up with this remark.

Catocontrol (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/207431-cleared-localiser.html#post2345334), notdavegorman (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/207431-cleared-localiser.html#post2345387) (twice (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/207431-cleared-localiser-2.html#post2349159)), BOAC (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/207431-cleared-localiser.html#post2345387), 757manipulator (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/207431-cleared-localiser.html#post2348434), and I'm sure many other pilots don't like the British way of clearing us to an ILS.

I have a dream... the same procedures and phraseology all over the world. I guess the chances for that are just as big as having Pippa in my bed tonight! :sad:

[Pera]

Mytupence worth ... correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. ;)

An ILS clearance allows descent to the start altitude on the plate. The unique UK phraseology compensates for this.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I'm sure many other pilots don't like the British way of clearing us to an ILS>>

Whether pilots like it or not is a total irrelevance. It's unambiguous and safe, which is why the procedure was arrived at. Perhaps it will change in future..

[LEGAL TENDER]

other pilots don't like the British way of clearing us to an ILS

Don't blame it on the whole of the UK, it's usually a couple of airports in the south, or the big shed by the lake that decide what is safe or not in the rest of the country ;)

[sabenaboy]

Hello Heathrow Director,
Whether pilots like it or not is a total irrelevance.It's not irrelevant, HD. It would be if we weren't able to motivate WHY we didn't like it.

At this time, that's the way it's done in the UK, so -sadly- we have to follow the existing procedure. That doesn't mean that there would not be room for improvement. And if it can be improved, it should. Over the past years you're defending this phraseology with such an obstinacy that I'm starting to believe that you might have invented and introduced it! ;)

It's unambiguous... No, it's not. Even if I do realise that it I shouldn't start following the G/S when cleared for the LOC only, it's clear from others posts in threads about the same subject that there are several people who still would start following the G/S when they hit it. Why? Because 99 times out of 100 that's what a controller will let you do. So, I'm not amazed that someone would start descending on the G/S when they can't get through to obtain a clearance due to ATC freq congestion for instance. If, on the other hand, "cleared for the loc" would be a clearance not routinely issued, then people would probably pay more attention to it and realise that there is a good reason not to leave the current altitude! Also, when you clear traffic for the ils when he's LOC established, what's stopping him to not to think he might be allowed to descent immediately to the published alt?
...and safe No, it's not. Reread my previous paragraph for a first reason. It's not unambiguous, so it's not safe. Then (re)read the click-able links in my post nr 10 (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/454506-ils-clearance.html#post6519421) for some more reasons why it might be unsafe. Having to intercept the G/S from above was mentioned as one of the Swiss cheese holes lining up in the Turkish crash in Amsterdam. Notdavegorman explains in this post (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/207431-cleared-localiser-2.html#post2349159) why getting a late descent clearance increases the workload. If a certain phraseology sometimes unnecessarily increases the workload, that is already enough reason to at least reconsider improving the procedure.

If I have to believe you, traffic congestion never occurs on LHR ATC freq. Even if I haven't been to LHR in the last 10 years, I find that hard to believe! Or is LHR APP freq really that much calmer then BRU, FRA, MUC, AMS or CDG? Unnecessarily increasing an already busy freq can't be enhancing safety, now can it?

So, here's my suggestion:

Let's suppose the traffic is on an intercept radar heading for the LOC...
case 1: he's already at minimum G/S intercept alt: simple say "Cleared for the ILS"
case 2: He's still above the published altitude but ATCO has no objection for descent to the published alt: say: "(optimally:cleared for descent alt XXX and) cleared for the ils"
Case 3: You want the traffic to maintain the higher then published altitude until G/S intercept:say: "cleared for the ils, intercept G/S at XXX (current alt)"

All these cases require just 2 calls (clearance + readback) iso 5! (LOC instruction + readback + established on LOC + "cleared ILS" + readback)

If you really want the traffic not to descend, not even when he hits the G/S then and then only would I suggest you to use "Cleared for the LOC only, maintain XXX alt until advised"

That is the way it's being done in most parts of the world I fly to and is in my opining shorter safer and less ambiguous then in the UK.

So, please, if you reply, which I hope you do, don't just come back to say " That's how we do it over here and it's safe. Just live with it!" but try to explain the reasons why you think the UK way is safer, less ambiguous and easier!:ok:

Respectfully,
Sabenaboy

[Gonzo]

Sabenaboy,

Also, when you clear traffic for the ils when he's LOC established, what's stopping him to not to think he might be allowed to descent immediately to the published alt?

But that isn't the clearance. The clearance given is to 'descend on the glidepath'.

How about....

"......when established, descend on the glidepath, QNH..."

.....which is current UK phraseology.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<If I have to believe you, traffic congestion never occurs on LHR TWR freq. Even if I haven't been to LHR in the last 10 years, I find that hard to believe! Or is LHR twr freq really that much calmer then BRU, FRA, MUC, AMS or CDG?>>

Heathrow Tower is not involved!!!!!! It's the radar controllers who put aircraft on the ILS. Good God man, you don't even know how the system works!

It's pointless arguing. I've seen aircraft "cleared for the ILS" descend to well below the glidepath. Under the ILS at many airfields there is other traffic which has to be protected. The UK made an attempt to solve this problem, which really did work.

I'm not getting involved any further.

[fireflybob]

As pilot totally agree with HD and others - clear and unambiguous!

If you're not cleared descent on GP then you don't descend and if necessary ask to be resequenced or carry out a Go Around - surely you'd want to ensure safe clearance from other traffic?

[172_driver]

An ILS clearance allows descent to the start altitude on the plate. The unique UK phraseology compensates for this.

Is that something that's unique for UK? Like Sweet Potato said I would just maintain last assigned altitude until established on the localiser. From here I could start looking at what the plate says. Where I fly regularly, an ILS with multiple step downs, I am not always exactly sure which segment I will be vectored on to and certainly I would not descend to the published 2500 ft G/S intercept (FAP) when I am actually joining the LLZ where it's published 3800 ft.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point of view? But it certainly doesn't seem reasonable to descend to published G/S intercept altitude when being vectored on far out - especially not when aerodrome is surrounded by terrain. I should admit, I am talking about US procedures here but I can't see this being too different around the world. Here they also tell you what altitude to maintain until established on the LLZ, so it avoids all confusion and interpretation of ICAO docs :D

[BOAC]

Yes - as before I fully support bringing the UK into line with the rest of the world. As with others, I cannot believe the traffic situation in the UK is that different or difficult.

Chevvron mentioned a discussion about this between ATC and SRG back in 2006 - what happened? Certainly clearance (in advance) to descend with the glide is a good idea.

[bookworm]

If you're not cleared descent on GP then you don't descend and if necessary ask to be resequenced or carry out a Go Around - surely you'd want to ensure safe clearance from other traffic?

But this is the irony of the current phraseology. ATC doesn't want you to go around if you reach glideslope intercept at your assigned altitude and haven't got a "descend with the glide instruction". The glideslope itself is inevitably clear. The phraseology is intended to prevent descent below the glideslope when the initial clearance (in the UK to "intercept the localiser", everywhere else "for the ILS") is given.

I have a dream... the same procedures and phraseology all over the world.

Indeed. Perhaps NATS and ATSD should get out more. ;)

[sabenaboy]

Heathrow Tower is not involved!!!!!! It's the radar controllers who put aircraft on the ILS.

Ok Heathrow director,

I made a mistake. I should have talked about app or director or radar or whatever the service that brings you on the loc at LHR is called! Jesus! Mea culpa. :eek:
But why is that a lot of people on internet forums, have to start beating below the belt when someone politely brings up good arguments and stands by his opinion. Good God man, you don't even know how the system works!
I haven't seen this behaviour from you in other threads I looked up about this subject. So could you please respect me as I am trying to respect your opinion.
I would have hoped that you'd return with some good arguments but you didn't.
Would you please have an other try at giving a decent reply, without getting personal?

Regards,
Sabenaboy

[Radar]

So could you please respect me

sabenaboy,

Best of luck, mate! I sometimes get the impression the D in HD stands for Defensive.

[galaxy flyer]

Using the "leave 3000' on the glide path" or "descend on the glide path" is really not different than the American, "cleared ILS XX, maintain 3000' until established localizer".

GF

[fireflybob]

ATC doesn't want you to go around if you reach glideslope intercept at your assigned altitude

ok bookworm, so just fly the localiser until you receive atc clearance to descend or if too high then ask for resequence?

Having to intercept the G/S from above was mentioned as one of the Swiss cheese holes lining up in the Turkish crash in Amsterdam.

sabenaboy, they didn't have to "intercept the G/s from above" they elected to do so having found the a/c in that situation - an atc clearance doesn't, I am sure you will agree, absolve the flight crew from managing the approach safely. They could have said "unable ILS due height, request resequence us please"

[sabenaboy]

Hello fireflybob,

they didn't have to "intercept the G/s from above" they elected to do so having found the a/c in that situation - an atc clearance doesn't, I am sure you will agree, absolve the flight crew from managing the approach safely. They could have said "unable ILS due height, request resequence us please"

I think that you should realise all pilots will try to avoid a go around or "request to be resequenced" as long as they think they can handle the situation at hand without too much problem. How long would it take to be "resequenced" in AMS or LHR on a busy day? I don't really know, but I guess it could be anything between 5 and 30 minutes? I hope you understand that pilots will try to avoid that at all cost! If had gone around every time I got vectored for a G/S intercept from above (or late clearance to follow the G/S), I would be averaging 5 go-arounds/year (or "resequencings") iso my current estimated 0,5 go-arounds/year. In the Turkish crash they coped reasonable well with the G/S intercept from above, but it was still one of the small "Swiss cheese holes" lining up, as was the RA failure. The biggest (I'd say gigantic) hole was of course pilot error due to a lack of monitoring the airspeed!

[fireflybob]

sabenaboy, but the basic point I am making is that it is us pilots who are managing the aeroplane (indeed the operation of the aeroplane) - if you are issued a clearance which you cannot comply with due to performance constraints or such items as approach gates then it behoves us to advise atc "sorry unable!" - of course, this is a judgement call at certain times but, in my opinion, this is what flying (indeed captaincy) is all about. Yes, resequencing may take a little extra time but is far preferable than an approach gate bust or even worse, as Amsterdam shows.

Whilst supporting any attempt to achieve standardised R/T thoughout the world we also have to realise that atc need to retain a degree of flexibility at the same time ensuring safe separation with other a/c. I cannot understand this obsession with wanting clearance to descend when "cleared ils" (or whatever phraseology you want!) when it is clearly in our hands, as pilots, to manage the a/c safely.

[bookworm]

ok bookworm, so just fly the localiser until you receive atc clearance to descend or if too high then ask for resequence?
...
sabenaboy, they didn't have to "intercept the G/s from above" they elected to do so having found the a/c in that situation - an atc clearance doesn't, I am sure you will agree, absolve the flight crew from managing the approach safely. They could have said "unable ILS due height, request resequence us please"


Right, but the ATC system should facilitate managing the approach safely. Continuing to fly the localiser above the glideslope, and then diving back on to the glideslope at some later stage doesn't really do that, does it?

The justification for reinventing the ICAO phraseology seems to be that on the LHR westerlies the FAP is at 2500 ft at D 7.5, and an early descent to 2500 ft causes difficulty. Why not, in that case, reposition the FAP to 3000 ft and D 9.2? All the initial approaches bring you to 3000 ft at D10.0 on the localiser anyway.

[10W]

"......when established, descend on the glidepath, QNH..."

.....which is current UK phraseology.

Does Gonzo's UK phraseology not give pilots what they want ? :confused:

[bookworm]

Does Gonzo's UK phraseology not give pilots what they want ?

It's 90% of the way there, if that clearance is issued every time, instead of the two parts. Standardisation on ICAO phraseology would be the remaining 10%.

I just can't see why the UK can't do the same as the rest of the world and say "cleared for the ILS approach". Aren't aircraft on a closing heading at LHR already in a descent to 3000 ft?

[Spitoon]

I have some support for the UK phraseolgy because it is unambiguous.

Whilst I have never worked Heathrow, there were many occasions when I wanted traffic approaching the ILS to stay at a particular level until intercepting the glidepath. The UK phraseolgy made this clear.

As for bookworm's 'Aren't aircraft on a closing heading at LHR already in a descent to 3000 ft?' Again I couldn't speak for Heathrow but at the places that I worked the level an aircraft was descending to depended entirely upon other traffic in the area and particularly operating below the approach path.

I fully support the idea of standardisation with ICAO - but there are a couple of problems, one of which is specific to the UK (and no doubt parallels in other States). First the UK does not fully apply all of the SARPs and of particular relevance here is that ATC services are provided outside CAS - all of the ICAO SARPs, PANS and the associated phraseology assume that this does not happen. Secondly, the ICAO procedures and so on assume an idealised and standard situation which simply cannot be replicated in the real world sometimes if one tries to accommodate everyone's wishes. And I suppose finally there is the problem that ICAO and its specialist panels and whatever are only made up of humans...who don't get everything right first time!

[fireflybob]

Right, but the ATC system should facilitate managing the approach safely. Continuing to fly the localiser above the glideslope, and then diving back on to the glideslope at some later stage doesn't really do that, does it?

bookworm, I agree it should do that but in a dynamic environment in the real world, is that always possible? Who says you have to dive back onto the glideslope? If you're not happy, then state "unable" and request repositioning for the approach.

[bookworm]

Spitoon makes good points. So how often does the situation arise when you wish an aircraft to maintain its current altitude while intercepting the localiser, but do not want it to descend with the glideslope?

In other words, is there ever any point in in splitting the intercept instruction from the descent instruction like:

Closing the localiser from the left/right; report established.

Descend on the ILS, QFE (pressure) [millibars].

rather than

When established on the localiser, descend on the ILS, QFE (pressure)
[millibars]/QNH (pressure) [millibars], [elevation (number) feet].
?

[chevvron]

For milibars read hectopascals. THREAD CREEP!!

[Data Dad]

Bookworm wrote:

In other words, is there ever any point in in splitting the intercept instruction from the descent instruction

Yes! At the unit where I work, it is a very common to have inbound aircraft being on a closing heading at 15+nm from touchdown (out to 25nm for straight-ins). Because of terrain/other traffic/min radar service levels these aircraft can often only be safely cleared to descend to 4000ft which puts them well outside the protected range (10nm and roughly 3000ft) of the Glidepath . So they get a localiser 'clearance' then when safe and appropriate a further descent to 3000/2500ft and then a glidepath 'clearance'

DD

[BrATCO]

Why should there be a difference between horizontal and vertical clearances ?
When pilots are vectored, they don't turn on localizer before being cleared for localizer.
When they are cleared for 3000', why should they descend lower before being cleared for ILS APP, when they hit the GS, once established on localizer ?

I'm not up to date about APP anymore, but I seem to remember I used to deal with ILS approaches in a sequence of 3 messages :

- "Descend 3000' (or 2000'), QNH xxxx"
- "Turn right/left heading yyy to intercept localizer RWY XX" (no mention of QNH)
In regard of the position, I could concatenate these first two messages in one. In this case, I would add : ", report established on the localizer"

Procedure was to aim localizer interception at least 30 secs before GS interception.
Once established,
- "Cleared ILS approach RWY XX, QNH xxxx."
Because of terrain and because I worked crossed runways, some of the approaches including circling, I wouldn't clear for ILS final before established on localizer.

I don't remember I had any problem with this procedure.

I reckon pilots knew then that they shouldn't descend below cleared altitude before being established on localizer AND glide AND cleared for ILS approach.
I thought it was worldwide procedure among pilots.

[bookworm]

Yes! At the unit where I work, it is a very common to have inbound aircraft being on a closing heading at 15+nm from touchdown (out to 25nm for straight-ins). Because of terrain/other traffic/min radar service levels these aircraft can often only be safely cleared to descend to 4000ft which puts them well outside the protected range (10nm and roughly 3000ft) of the Glidepath . So they get a localiser 'clearance' then when safe and appropriate a further descent to 3000/2500ft and then a glidepath 'clearance'

That's a bit different. Your three instructions are:

1 "Turn left heading xxx to intercept the localiser, report established"
2 "Descend to altitude 2500 ft"
3 "Descend on the ILS, QNH xxxx"

What's wrong with:

1 "Turn left heading xxx"
2 "Descend to altitude 2500 ft"
3 "Continue the heading, when established on the localiser, descend on the ILS, QNH xxxx"
?

Instructions 2 and 3 might be combined.

1 "Turn left heading xxx"
2 "Descend to altitude 2500 ft on the heading, when established on the localiser, descend on the ILS, QNH xxxx"

Anywhere else in the world, the instructions would be:

1 "Turn left heading xxx"
2 "Descend to altitude 2500 ft, cleared ILS approach runway xx, QNH xxxx"

[Data Dad]

What's wrong with:

1 "Turn left heading xxx"
2 "Descend to altitude 2500 ft"
3 "Continue the heading, when established on the localiser, descend on the ILS, QNH xxxx"
?

Two things -

1) the aircraft often establish on the localiser whilst level or descending to 4000ft and a) there is often slower lower traffic to be passed before further descent, or b) the aircraft is not permitted to descend further because of minimum radar vectoring levels (ATSMAC refers) - terrain or obstacles in other words.

2) The UK CAA says that you should not use the Glidepath beyond its protected range (which is much less than the Localiser protected range) so the choice is continue vectoring until inside or below protected range/altitude or allow a Localiser lock-on then give descent to allow a glidepath intercept within the protected area:

what is commonly done is:

a) 'xxx turn left heading yyy closing localiser from left/right report established;

followed when possible with

b) 'descend to altitude 3000ft then further with the glidepath'

So we do actually compress the suggested 3 Tx into 2

DD

[controllerzhu]

Very interesting thread, with many good points. I hope we keep it simple (quick) here in the US. When vectoring for the approach its a simple, PTAC.. Position (in relation to an approach fix) Turn (degree intercept determined by a/c type), Altitude (to maintain until established), Clearance for the approach. While not being vectored a simple issuance of an altititude to maintain until the approach fix then the clearance for the approach (mainly used in the ARTCC enviroment). Lastly if an a/c has reported on say the localizer we just give the clearance for approach.
Again a very interesting thread, it's amazing of all the different ways/standards to reach the same results..safety.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

For Heathrow, when we are TEAMing onto 27L using the LOC only approach how is the clearance given and how is separation against the helicopters proved?

G W-H

[BrATCO]

I guess that would be a "LOC/DME" app (or a "LOC + DME", at least), altitudes must be* published in regard of the distance : same-ish as a glide, just a bit less precise...
The core of the problem is the same : no descent below cleared altitude until established AND cleared for the final.

[Jerk mode ON]
Rotors must be VFR flights, no separation has to be provided. :E
In order to be safe, just let the helos fly lower than DH. :}
[/Jerk mode OFF] (... where's the button?)


Edit : (*) I have no clue whether these altitude vs distance are actually published or not.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

I don't have any approach plates in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that the LOC procedure starts from 2500'. The ILS clearance procedure disliked by pilots at Heathrow was (I believe) brought in to stop people descending straight to 2500'. Is there anything about the way that the clearance for the LOC procedure is delivered that prevents pilots descending straight to 2500'?

G W-H

[369toRingway]

Affirm, intial clearance is usually 4000ft. descent to 3000ft at 13 miles then 2500ft at 11 miles.

[Del Prado]

"Maintain xxxx ft, cleared ILS XX approach". That, to 99.99% of pilots is totally unambiguous and keeps the airwaves quiet.

That saves about 4 syllables compared to “When established localiser XX, descend on the glide path.”

The ILS approach starts at 2500 and there is other IFR traffic at 3000 and VFR aircraft at 2400 and below. Clearing aircraft for the ILS approach at 4000’ in the past has led to some descending early to 2500.

If only 0.01% of pilots find it ambiguous, that’s about 2 incidents a month. (Although you might want to check my maths👍)


I completely agree though, it does feel unsatisfactory to be at odds with most of the rest of the world but there is a strong safety case behind it.

[Brian 48nav]

RudderTrimZero,

Why do you feel the need to resurrect a thread that has been dormant for 11 years?


Is it just to have a go at HD? HD was a very good controller, popular with his colleagues and an all round top man. He has not posted here for a couple of years but I am not aware that he has 'fallen from the perch'. I know life has not been kind to him for the last 10 years or so and the last thing he needs is people like you having a go at him.

If you fly for the Middle East airline that has made the news for all the wrong reasons this last year or so ( See Rumours and News section ) I should keep your head below the parapet if I were you.

[chevvron]

RudderTrimZero,

Why do you feel the need to resurrect a thread that has been dormant for 11 years?


Is it just to have a go at HD? HD was a very good controller, popular with his colleagues and an all round top man. He has not posted here for a couple of years but I am not aware that he has 'fallen from the perch'. I know life has not been kind to him for the last 10 years or so and the last thing he needs is people like you having a go at him.

If you fly for the Middle East airline that has made the news for all the wrong reasons this last year or so ( See Rumours and News section ) I should keep your head below the parapet if I were you.
HD is still active on the 'blackbushe proboards' forum; the loss of his wife affected him greatly.

[Brian 48nav]

Chevvron,

Thanks for the update - I am sometimes in touch with Talkdown Man and he keeps me up to date as much as he can. Please give Bren my best wishes when you are next in contact with him.

[chevvron]

Chevvron,

Thanks for the update - I am sometimes in touch with Talkdown Man and he keeps me up to date as much as he can. Please give Bren my best wishes when you are next in contact with him.
www.blackbusheairport.proboards.com/ using the name 'controller'. Last entry I've seen was 25 Sep 2022.