LHR mixed mode trial

[LCYslicker]

The trial period for using LHR's 2 runways in mixed mode is ending soon, with the next period covering the Olympics. My observation is that it has very rarely been used during the trial period. Does anyone in the ATC world want to comment on whether useful experience of mixed mode has been gained? Thanks.

[Sir George Cayley]

Perhaps a call to Gatwick might help?;)

SGC

[Gonzo]

The current trial, called operational freedoms, is not mixed mode.

[DaveReidUK]

The current trial, called operational freedoms, is not mixed mode.

The current trial involves interleaved landings and takeoffs on the same runway, which is the generally accepted definition of mixed mode, albeit in this case only involving one runway at a time (while the other operates in segregated mode) and only for limited periods.

What the trial isn't is parallel mixed mode (sometimes confusingly abbreviated to simply mixed mode), which is the term used to describe simultaneous use of mixed mode on two or more parallel runways or, in ICAO-speak, "mixed parallel operations".

[Gonzo]

Ok, so using your definition we've always been doing mixed mode.

I was trying to make the point that the trial is not for the commonly held definition of mixed mode. It merely changed some of the time-based triggers which allow us to use the promulgated departure runway for arrivals, using our current procedures.

[LCYslicker]

Okaaaaaayyy.
Let's try that one again.
Can any LHR ATCer say how the trial that is just ending has gone?

[DaveReidUK]

Let's try that one again.
Can any LHR ATCer say how the trial that is just ending has gone?


A quick flick through the published results up to mid-Feb at www.heathrowtrial.com (http://www.heathrowtrial.com) would suggest around 3,500 landings on the departure runway since the start of the trial, of which 1500 or so were during the 0600-0700 period and so fall outside the scope of the trial provisions.

The trial also includes departures from the arrivals runway, of which there appear to have been around 50.

[LCYslicker]

Excellent data there - many thanks. Interesting that noise complaints are higher, despite the relatively low number of affecting flights.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

First such trials - then known as parallel landing trials were in the 60s (I wrote a magazine article about the procedures). It was a no-go because of the unequal offering of traffic from north and south and the dreadful ground control problems. Staffing requirements were very high too so how they would do it now with much less staff I don't know! Maybe all the problems have been resolved.... but I'd still like a grandstand seat of GMC when it happens.

[DaveReidUK]

I'd still like a grandstand seat of GMC when it happens.

You'd need to get up early :O

Here's what you'd have seen before breakfast today:

AA100 06:03 27R
BA112 06:05 27L
VS004 06:06 27R
BA124 06:07 27L
BA078 06:08 27R
BA206 06:09 27L
SA234 06:11 27R
BA216 06:12 27L
CX255 06:14 27R
VS602 06:15 27L
BA106 06:16 27R
BA058 06:17 27L
AA174 06:19 27R
GF007 06:20 27L
VS012 06:21 27R
CO110 06:23 27L
BA072 06:24 27R
BA174 06:25 27L
DL270 06:27 27R
DL003 06:29 27L
VS022 06:30 27R

Not to mention half a dozen departures squeezed in between those arrivals. Sheer poetry.

[Gonzo]

/pedant mode on

DaveReid, the figure of 3500 you quote, is that all aircraft that landed on the departure runway on westerlies after 0700? If so, then lots, if not the majority, of them would have come under the usual TEAM criteria, so are not part of the Ops Freedoms trial.

Also, the practice you describe of landing on both runways before 0700 is not part of the trial. We've always done that, I'm sure HD can remember it!

Sorry to be a pedant, but there is a great deal of misinformation about Operational Freedoms and what is happening at LHR.

/pedant mode off

[DaveReidUK]

DaveReid, the figure of 3500 you quote, is that all aircraft that landed on the departure runway on westerlies after 0700? If so, then lots, if not the majority, of them would have come under the usual TEAM criteria, so are not part of the Ops Freedoms trial.

Also, the practice you describe of landing on both runways before 0700 is not part of the trial. We've always done that, I'm sure HD can remember it!

Sorry to be a pedant, but there is a great deal of misinformation about Operational Freedoms and what is happening at LHR.

No argument there - in fact I said as much in my original post:

of which 1500 or so were during the 0600-0700 period and so fall outside the scope of the trial provisions

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Here's what you'd have seen before breakfast today:>>

Did it for most of my life, Dave!

[DaveReidUK]

DaveReid, the figure of 3500 you quote, is that all aircraft that landed on the departure runway on westerlies after 0700? If so, then lots, if not the majority, of them would have come under the usual TEAM criteria, so are not part of the Ops Freedoms trial.

Sorry, Gonzo, I've just realised I didn't answer the first part of your question.

As far as I can deduce from the published stats, the 3500 figure is the total number of landings which were either out-of-alternation (on westerlies) or on 09R (on easterlies). That includes the 1500 "traditional" 0600-0700 TEAM landings which would have happened even without the trial.

I'm pretty sure that everything that landed on the departure runway after 0700 is accounted for in the balance of 2000.

Post-0700 landings are identified in the stats as TEAM (on easterlies) or TEAM* (on westerlies), with the asterisk indicating that those were a use of Operational Freedoms.

What I don't fully understand is why OFs appear not to be applied when on easterlies. It seems a bit odd that a 10-minute delay is enough to trigger their use on westerlies, but on easterlies ATC presumably have to sit on their hands until the delay has built up to 20 minutes before deploying TEAM under the pre-trial criteria.

[On the beach]

Those figures look like 84 movements per hour.

What's the max. you can shift?

On the beach

[Crazy Voyager]

Hourly record 100, daily record 1386, achived on July 18 2011.

At least that's what I was told when I was there :)

[118.70]

It will be interesting to get the commentary in the report as to what periods in the four months were subject to the 20 minute delay that can trigger normal TEAM and what periods were subject to the 10 minute delay to trigger trial TEAM*.

Of course the delay periods include delays at the originating airport (as well as en-route delays and stack-holding delays) and the trial can be triggered merely by anticipating that the delay time will be reached unless the freedom measures are implemented !

Goodness knows how ATC manage to keep track of this - perhaps someone continually tracks these times and hoists a flag / blows a whistle when the trial can start and lowers it for the "all clear".

[Gonzo]

DaveReid, on easterlies we can land on either runway, regardless of delay.

[DaveReidUK]

OK, now I'm completely confused.

DaveReid, on easterlies we can land on either runway, regardless of delay.

Do you mean during the trial, or before it, or both ?

I ask because, according to the DfT:

"When severe inbound congestion occurs, or is expected to occur, involving airborne holding delays of 30 minutes or more, with at least 20 minutes delay in the inner stacks, it is NATS' practice to land additional aircraft on the assigned departure runway if it considers the landing rate can be increased (e.g. local weather conditions permitting). The procedure is known as Tactically Enhanced Arrival Measures (TEAM)."

which would suggest that delay has always been a criterion, with no distinction made between easterlies and westerlies.

If, on the other hand, there aren't actually any triggers that apply on easterlies, then landing on 09R isn't a tactical measure, it's just SOP - but then why are 09R landings being identified as TEAM in the stats ?

Answers on a postcard, please.

[Sir George Cayley]

Operations on parallel runways are dependent or independent in either mixed or segregated mode. This is covered by the SOIR rules ICAO Doc 9643.

Heathrow was built before these rules were developed and the two runways are so far apart that under SOIR they can be counted as independent in all modes of operation.

Therefore, leaving the Cranford Agreement to one side, ATC could treat each runway as if it was a separate airport. Clearly issues about landing runway and final terminal destination revolve around which hold arrivals are picked from and hence how to control traffic on the northern runway heading for T4 and vice versa.

Nevertheless. If Gatwick single runway ops can deliver over 50 per hour on one runway that kinda points at 100/hr at LHR. Or am I missing something?

SGC

[Not Long Now]

Differing speed groups help at Gatwick too.

[DaveReidUK]

Nevertheless. If Gatwick single runway ops can deliver over 50 per hour on one runway that kinda points at 100/hr at LHR. Or am I missing something?

Yes, you're ignoring the fact that the Gatwick runway operates, of necessity, in mixed mode whereas under normal circumstances Heathrow's runways operate in segregated mode, which is less efficient in terms of utilisation.

I've read estimates that LHR could accommodate around up to 15% more movements without extending the operating day if full mixed mode was used on both runways. That would be a more realistic comparison with LGW's capacity.

[severidian]

Sydney YSSY operates in mixed mode and has opertaed at 106. cap breach.

[Gonzo]

DaveReid,

Both. Yes, confusing, isn't it?

There is no restriction to landing on 09R. However, in general we can only depart on 09R due to Cranford. Therefore, in general, the level of outbound demand precludes using 09R for arrivals a lot of the time. It's down to the individual controllers to offer spare capacity to the inbounds.

However, when the delay builds up on easterlies, we tend to use the same level of delay to provide the same rate of arrivals (6 per hour) as on westerlies, hence it can still bew referred to as TEAM.

SGC, under current understanding of SOIR9643, LHR is not equipped for independent approaches or departures.

[118.70]

LCYslicker :

In addition to the daily and monthly reports provided by BAA, the CAA have published an early interim report to the Aviation Minister with information on the trial as carried out in November and December.

It gives some more independent analysis of how many additional TEAM* flights have taken place .

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=589&pagetype=90&pageid=13041

[DaveReidUK]

There is no restriction to landing on 09R. However, in general we can only depart on 09R due to Cranford. Therefore, in general, the level of outbound demand precludes using 09R for arrivals a lot of the time. It's down to the individual controllers to offer spare capacity to the inbounds.

However, when the delay builds up on easterlies, we tend to use the same level of delay to provide the same rate of arrivals (6 per hour) as on westerlies, hence it can still be referred to as TEAM.

Thanks, the fog is beginning to clear !

I understand the distinction you're making between a planned stream of post-0700 09R landings (to reduce delay) and opportunistic use of 09R for other reasons (e.g. a T4 arrival).

So it would be helpful if the trial stats observed that distinction too. Instead, some days' totals appear to count all 09R landings, including any ad-hoc, isolated non-TEAM movements, but the stats for other easterly days seem to exclude those and only count TEAM.

there is a great deal of misinformation about Operational Freedoms and what is happening at LHR

You're not wrong there.

[118.70]

The fog extends to the CAA at times :
However, on a number of occasions, there has been some discrepancy between BAA‟s published figures and the CAA‟s interpretation of the data. In most cases, it has been possible to explain the differences, following extra work from NATS and BAA, but this reconciliation is not always apparent from the data which BAA is routinely publishing. (Section 7.9)

and suggest that the Cambridge boffins look closely :
A key step in the data validation process for the final report will be ensuring that the two principal sources of data used in measuring use of the trial freedoms (i.e. the Noise and Track-Keeping System and NATS operations logs) are reconciled accurately and consistently so as to provide a robust and reliable picture of the flights that have benefited from the application of the operational freedoms. We would recommend that Cambridge University look specifically at this aspect of data generation as part of their validation role.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Heathrow was built before these rules were developed and the two runways are so far apart that under SOIR they can be counted as independent in all modes of operation.>>

Wish I'd known that during the 31 years I was a Heathrow radar controller. We always provided radar separation twixt the two runways in IMC... or have the rules recently changed?

[DaveReidUK]

The fog extends to the CAA at times :
However, on a number of occasions, there has been some discrepancy between BAA‟s published figures and the CAA‟s interpretation of the data. In most cases, it has been possible to explain the differences, following extra work from NATS and BAA, but this reconciliation is not always apparent from the data which BAA is routinely publishing. (Section 7.9)

and suggest that the Cambridge boffins look closely :
A key step in the data validation process for the final report will be ensuring that the two principal sources of data used in measuring use of the trial freedoms (i.e. the Noise and Track-Keeping System and NATS operations logs) are reconciled accurately and consistently so as to provide a robust and reliable picture of the flights that have benefited from the application of the operational freedoms. We would recommend that Cambridge University look specifically at this aspect of data generation as part of their validation role.

Quite so.

Given that the whole point of the trials is to test the effect of variations in runway usage, you would think that counting the number of movements accurately and identifying correctly which runway each one used would be a good idea.

It's hard to see where "interpretation of the data" comes into that.

[118.70]

I guess that interpretation is a bit harder than that - and I don't know how impenetrable the ATC operational logs are to decipher and match up with the NTK data.

There is also the strange category of " Number of aircraft arrivals operated outside the runway alternation pattern (excluding TEAM arrivals or emergencies)" which would be clearer if there was a bit of commentary explaining what was going on. I guess situations where they shift the whole landing runway from the designated one to the other becuase it is more suitable for cross-winds would be approriate to go in that box.

But there is still fog around.......

[On the beach]

If Heathrow was to be operated to its full capabilities i.e. no night curfew and full independent mixed mode, then the capacity could be increased by in excess of 40%.

Won't happen, of course, because the BAA would have to build 2 or 3 more terminals to cope with the extra passengers. Not to mention all the associated tube, Heathrow Express expansion that would be required. Might be a bit of a kerfuffle from the Cranford residents too, I guess. And I'm not even going to mention politicians.

It would be interesting to see if the costs of compulsory purchase of all the noise-affected houses around LHR would be greater than building "Ebbsfleet-in-the-Marsh International Airport". Probably take just as long.

Meanwhile in Amsterdam the other morning, in a three hour period whilst I was waiting for a connecting flight, there were flights to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, East Midlands, Southampton, Aberdeen, Norwich, Cardiff, Luton, Liverpool, Leeds Bradford, Stansted, Durham Tees Valley, London City, London Gatwick and even a couple to Heathrow. Most were KLM Cityhopper B737-800s, even one of the Heathrows, so over 4,000 passengers. Now I know Amsterdam has its attractions but not on a sub-zero February morning. I would imagine more than 50% of those travelling, like me, were connecting because they couldn't get the flights they used to via Heathrow. This was a real surprise for me and just goes to show how much traffic is being lost by Heathrow - over 2,000 "customers" in just 3 hours and from just one European Airport.

On the beach

P.S. Our flight and the Glasgow flight were overbooked, too.

P.P.S. Forget the mixed-mode trial. It works. Just like it does everywhere else in the world. Hurry up and get on with implementing it before LHR becomes just an anachronism.

[DaveReidUK]

There is also the strange category of " Number of aircraft arrivals operated outside the runway alternation pattern (excluding TEAM arrivals or emergencies)" which would be clearer if there was a bit of commentary explaining what was going on. I guess situations where they shift the whole landing runway from the designated one to the other because it is more suitable for cross-winds would be appropriate to go in that box.

I would agree with that theory were it not for the fact that on the 2 windy days right at the end of November, when landings were swapped back to 27L in the afternoon/early evening, those values are shown as zero. Which is fair enough, I suppose, as you could argue that landings were still conforming to an ad hoc, weather-related change in alternation.

Having said that, the only day where the stats do show a sizeable "operated outside the runway alternation pattern" total (35, in fact) was a couple of weeks later (Sun 18th December) when the exactly same thing happened - strong SSW winds resulting in 27L being used for a couple of spells in the late afternoon.

Go figure.

And then there are out-of-alternation landings that aren't counted at all, like last Friday evening's BMI from Vienna, which landed between a couple of 27R departures. The "post-0700 TEAM" and "out of alternation" totals for that day are both zero, so was it therefore classed as an emergency landing ?

The sad part is that, now Phase I of the trial is over, some serious debate and decision-making on Future Heathrow needs to happen (cf On the Beach's post) - but that process doesn't stand a chance if the various parties involved can't even agree over basic statistics on what happened during the trial.

[LCYslicker]

I knew this subject was complicated, but not THIS complicated!
Thanks, chaps, for a most enlightening thread - I'm glad that the right people understand it.
Lucky the current govt has ruled out the 3rd parallel runway, then, otherwise it would get extremely complicated.
For what it's worth, London ATC and 4 airports handle more passengers per annum in aggregate than any other city - NYC comes next (though it handles more movements = more t/props). But note PEK alone has just overtaken LHR.

[DaveReidUK]

I knew this subject was complicated, but not THIS complicated!

But it isn't - that's the point.

Counting movements, and recording which runway they used, and why, is hardly rocket science. I don't believe for a moment that NATS aren't doing that part properly.

Yet the CAA, in their progress report on the trial, talk about "discrepancies in the published figures" and "queries on the consistency of the data", together with a pointed reminder to all concerned that the trial needs to produce data "sufficient to generate a robust information-base on which Government can ultimately take decisions".

I can see the CAA's point, though - for example the stats would have us believe that 100% of last Monday's movements were easterlies, when in fact the whole day was westerlies.

[Gonzo]

Counting movements, and recording which runway they used, and why, is hardly rocket science. I don't believe for a moment that NATS aren't doing that part properly.The why can be missed sometimes, it depends on priorities at the time. Most whys can be worked out afterwards, again if there is time, or purely from the stats.

However, the benefit for each particular flight is very much more difficult to ascertain when looked at in isolation. Did the out of alternation arrival occur because of Ops Freedoms? Or would it have TEAMed anyway in a pre-Ops Freedoms world? If we 'Ops Freedoms' TEAMed 3 an hour over two hours, would we have 'standard' TEAMed 6 in the second hour before? Yes, it's probably better because it implies less airborne holding, but is it looked at as 6 extra arrivals? Did the fact that we used some of the pro-active tests such as landing the A380 and T4 traffic on the departure runway cause a build up in departure delay?

Add all that to the common misconception that standard TEAM of 6 per hour gives you 6 extra arrivals per hour, and it all gets rather complicated!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Does ATC still record movements Gonzo? I thought that went out years ago?

[DaveReidUK]

The why can be missed sometimes, it depends on priorities at the time. Most whys can be worked out afterwards, again if there is time, or purely from the stats.

Thanks - that's a rather more succinct (and comprehensible) explanation than this one from the report:

"Although it appears from these figures that there were a significant number of days during the proactive test period when the TEAM* freedoms were not used proactively, it may be that landing A380s, small aircraft or T4 arrivals out of alternation on these days has been captured under the reactive TEAM* totals. When the reactive trigger conditions are also met, it is not always possible to say under which variant of the freedom an aircraft was landed."

[118.70]

Another source of confusion is the treatment of which days night flights are assigned to.

The daily reports all have "Date that data relates to (from 00:00 hrs to 23:59 local time)" on the top line of the report.

However the info for Saturday 4th February (one of the snow days) actually covers the period 04:30 Saturday 4th February to 04:30 on Sunday 5th February.

Hence the continual stream of departures that took off over Cranford in the early hours of Sunday are attributed to Saturday's report and not to Sunday !!

Odd that they clarify the timing of the data on the first line and then don't actually report the info on that basis.

[DaveReidUK]

Another source of confusion is the treatment of which days night flights are assigned to.

The daily reports all have "Date that data relates to (from 00:00 hrs to 23:59 local time)" on the top line of the report.

However the info for Saturday 4th February (one of the snow days) actually covers the period 04:30 Saturday 4th February to 04:30 on Sunday 5th February.

Hence the continual stream of departures that took off over Cranford in the early hours of Sunday are attributed to Saturday's report and not to Sunday !!

Odd that they clarify the timing of the data on the first line and then don't actually report the info on that basis.

Yes, for some reason night movements seem to be giving the analysts a lot of problems.

It may also be relevant that the night quota dispensation counts for 4th and 5th February were initially shown as TBC, then values were "added after verification" that were actually higher than the total number of movements (exempt/non-exempt), then they were changed back to TBC with the comment "figures withdrawn pending further analysis".

Given the long-standing statutory requirement to report LHR night quota movements and exemptions to the DfT, you would think that any bugs in the analysis and reporting process would have been ironed out long ago.

[DaveReidUK]

The trial period for using LHR's 2 runways in mixed mode is ending soon, with the next period covering the Olympics. My observation is that it has very rarely been used during the trial period. Does anyone in the ATC world want to comment on whether useful experience of mixed mode has been gained?

To return to the original question, Phase I of the trial has now ended, to be followed by 4 months of analysis of the results. Any lessons learned will be incorporated in Phase II, which will take place over the summer/Olympics period, starting at the beginning of July.

I guess a good question at this stage would be whether any strategies have emerged from the trial that ATC can continue to use over the intervening period, i.e. measures short of enhanced TEAM/TED but which can be deployed on a day-to-day basis, or will the operating regime in the meantime revert to that which existed pre-trial ?

Incidentally, I understand from the group who are tasked with doing independent validation of the published trial results that they have recommended the stats be withdrawn and re-done to eliminate "incorrect manual data manipulations" which have affected both the daily and monthly figures. I don't know whether that recommendation has been accepted, or if it has, what timescales will be involved for the rework.

I assume this, if done, would address all the various issues mentioned in previous posts: incorrect movement counts, reporting night flights against the wrong day, missing TEAM instances, failing to identify which freedom was applied, wrongly reporting runway usage, etc.

[118.70]

The monthly report for January has yet to appear (and is thus rather delayed compared with those for November and December which appeared around the 22nd of the following month). Perhaps some additional screening work is going on before publication.

Going on to the second phase of the trials (if the Minister is minded to pursue them), the CAA have recommended better and earlier discussion with the local authorities and other stakeholders :

Recommendations:
(a) We note that the timing of the first phase of the trial allowed only limited opportunity for prior engagement with local communities. We recommend that BAA considers how best to engage with communities about the trial ahead of the commencement of the second phase, including seeking agreement with the DfT and CAA on what successful engagement looks like.

(b) We recommend that local authority technical experts should have more, and earlier, opportunity to be engaged in the data verification and analysis.

(c) The publication of existing runway operating procedures in mid-December helped to answer a number of the questions raised about the distinction between pre-existing procedures and the operational freedoms in the trial. We recommend that the differences between existing flexibility and the freedoms being tested by the trial are clearly explained at an earlier stage for the second phase of the trial.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/589/20120217%20%28Final%29%20Interim%20CAA%20Report.pdf

ACL have also written to airlines regarding the reduced declared capacity for the Olympic period
Specifically for the period 14th July to 14th September inclusive, Heathrow is declaring a revised scheduling limit for both runway arrivals and departures, and for terminal load factors.
They also request that night time operations be avoided
The purpose of the trial is to provide an evidential base for future operating permissions whose outcome will be the reduction in delay, improvement in punctuality and increased resilience of the ATM operation. In turn, the flexible use of the runways is anticipated to deliver less airborne and runway holding as well as a significant reduction in the number of late running departures. With regard to this last point, ACL is requested to use all means available to avoid night time operations and where such flights take place to provide a detailed account of the rationale to the Slot Performance Committee.

LHR Summer 2012 Capacity Declaration Letter (http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/LHR%20S12%20declaration%20letter.pdf)

[DaveReidUK]

Going on to the second phase of the trials (if the Minister is minded to pursue them)

Interesting - I wasn't aware of that caveat, although I guess the Minister can change her mind whenever she wants.

Phase II of the trial will be crucial, not least because of the extra ATC challenges that the summer/Olympics peak will bring, and the lessons learned from Phase I.

I would expect that a number of things will change in the 4 months leading up to the next phase: stakeholder engagement, data capture and analysis, reporting, etc, and possibly even the ground rules re when freedoms can be deployed.

[118.70]

What are the major challenges of ATC for the summer/Olympic peak ?

If LHR scheduled capacity has been reduced, all airports have been coordinated and new air routes introduced haven't most of the boxes been ticked ?

I can see issues with turning planes round with large quantities of untypical baggage and high load factors, but how serious are the extra demands on ATC ?

[DaveReidUK]

I can see issues with turning planes round with large quantities of untypical baggage and high load factors, but how serious are the extra demands on ATC ?

Fair enough, I stand corrected. It's reassuring to know that the summer/Olympics period will be simply business as usual for ATC.

I had mistakenly inferred from the CAA's comment in their interim report, about Heathrow being at full stretch over the Olympic period, that they were implying an abnormally high workload for ATC.

[118.70]

I'm not quite sure about "business as usual" for the Olympics

Some people are already rather twitchy :


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/589/20120123%20Final%20APFG_11_M02%20Minutes%20of%20ad%20hoc%20A PFG%20meeting%2012%20Dec%202011.pdf

and the NATS reply raises all kinds of questions about further extensions to the "trials"

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/589/DOC270212.pdf

Alleviate the ban on night time jets ?
Stop using first come- first served and divert those who abuse the slot system
Do proper mixed mode at Heathrow
Remove the 6/hour cap on TEAM...........

[DaveReidUK]

and the NATS reply raises all kinds of questions about further extensions to the "trials"

And here's the CAA letter referred to in the reply from NATS:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/589/20120126%20Letter%20to%20APFG%20re%20ad%20hoc%20meeting.pdf

Interesting reference (2nd para) to:

"Plans are already being formulated to stand up the NACME [National Airspace Crisis Management Executive] for some of the peak capacity days as a precaution."

[118.70]

I see the January summary report has now been issued.

I am surprised that while stack holding and taxi-in times have been fairly consistent in the three months that have been reported on, and average taxi-out time has been steady-ish, the average times for departure hold have been all over the place.

November average 10.26 mins
December 2.98 mins
January 7.53 mins

It doesn't appear to be related to easterlies/westerlies.

Anyone know any obvious causes ?
Is it a weather phenomenon ?
Or is there an ace who can get the movements running like clockwork in December but then goes on holiday ........?

[Minesthechevy]

118.7 -

It's because of the quality of the L/Ops. Taxiway movement rates always go up when the R&Gs are on.

Well, that's what happened when I was on the Panel

<sits back and waits for chorus of agreement>:O

[Gonzo]

Ha! Never laughed so much in ages.

In fact, a little wee came out!

[118.70]

The BAA Annual Report includes:

In July 2011, the South East Airports Taskforce, sponsored by the Department for Transport, recommended that consideration be given to Heathrow having greater operational freedom to prevent or mitigate disruption. For example, this might involve simultaneous use of both runways for arrivals and departures in such circumstances, within the existing overall cap on aircraft movements. An initial trial of runway use in this manner concludes in February 2012 with another trial expected during summer 2012. If implemented permanently, such measures should improve areas such as punctuality and baggage misconnects as well as bringing environmental benefits such as reduced stacking.

It's the first time I've seen mention of "baggage misconnects" as being something that is potentially affected by the trial. And as it is directly related to the "passenger experience" I'm surprised they haven't included a metric for it in the protocol.

[DaveReidUK]

It's the first time I've seen mention of "baggage misconnects" as being something that is potentially affected by the trial. And as it is directly related to the "passenger experience" I'm surprised they haven't included a metric for it in the protocol.

I'd guess there is a long list of outcomes that the SEATF could have listed as being dependent on punctuality, of which "baggage misconnects" is one ("passenger misconnects" too, come to that).

Presumably the 15 minute punctuality figures in the daily stats are intended as a proxy for all of those consequences too.

Interestingly, for the whole of the trial the punctuality stats, quoted as a percentage to 2 decimal places, have a zero as their second decimal (for example last Wednesday's were 89.70% for arrivals and 91.10% for departures). The odds of that happening for 121 consecutive days must be astronomical. Either that or someone needs to brush up on their maths: Significant figures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures)

[The Many Tentacles]

I am surprised that while stack holding and taxi-in times have been fairly consistent in the three months that have been reported on, and average taxi-out time has been steady-ish, the average times for departure hold have been all over the place.

November average 10.26 mins
December 2.98 mins
January 7.53 mins

It doesn't appear to be related to easterlies/westerlies.

November is when IFACTS was introduced into the Area Control Ops Room and there was either a 10 or 20% reduction in traffic values for each sector, plus a lot of nervous supervisors who, had not received any of their training yet.

We did have a management meeting where they told us how much extra delay there was for the introduction of iFACTS, it was less than they expected, but still considerably more than the November average, hence the big figure.

Simples :*

[118.70]

Local press interpret the CAA report :

Talking on trials must improve, aviation authority tells BAA (From Richmond and Twickenham Times) (http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/9593508.Talking_on_trials_must_improve__aviation_authority_t ells_BAA/)

Talking on trials must improve, aviation authority tells BAA


The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has recommended BAA improves the way it communicates with communities next to Heathrow, to reduce hostility towards its runway trials.

The CAA said the air operator faced distrust from residents suspicious of its motives and suggested it could involve council experts in collecting and analysing data.

Heathrow ended its first four month test on February 29. It allowed the airport to use one runway simultaneously for arrivals and departures when planes face a 10 minute wait, or if more than 30 per cent of aircraft are running more than 30 minutes late.

Heathrow is due to start its second phase this summer.

Meanwhile, the Government has rejected an offer from Sir Richard Branson to invest £5bn expanding Virgin Atlantic operations if it dropped its opposition to Heathrow expansion.

[Sir George Cayley]

Anyone know the declared runway rates at Manchester for single runway mixed mode and two runway segregated ops?

SGC

[Suzeman]

Anyone know the declared runway rates at Manchester for single runway mixed mode and two runway segregated ops?

The ACL Library is a useful source for several airports and their declared capacities - runways and terminals. Page 4 for declared current runway capacities.

Airport Coordination Limited - Reports/Statistics (http://www.acl-uk.org/aclNew/reportsStatistics.aspx?id=98)

S 2011 limits for MAN are here - times in UTC.

http://80.168.119.219/UserFiles/File/MAN%20S11%20Start%20of%20season.pdf

W2011 limits here

http://80.168.119.219/UserFiles/File/MAN%20W11%20Start%20of%20Season.pdf

Think the 2 runways are only both open 06.30-10.30 and 16.00 to 20.00 LT weekdays now plus Sat 06.30. - 10.00 and Sun 16.00 - 20.00

Hope this helps

Suzeman

[On the beach]

Think the 2 runways are only both open 06.30-10.30 and 16.00 to 20.00 LT weekdays now plus Sat 06.30. - 10.00 and Sun 16.00 - 20.00

Only 2 runways available 8 hours out of 24 hours?

I can't believe that. Ever likely the aviation business in this country isn't performing to it's potential!

On the beach

[clonecity1]

Regarding holding time stats. When is the aircraft deemed to have ceased holding? Is it upon receiving the clearance or when the heading has been taken up? For example it takes a long time to do the following "next time overhead make a 360 back to OCK, then leave hdg085" The sceptic in me thinks this is to keep the delay stats lower.

[118.70]

Airline twitchiness reaches new levels :

Olympic air chaos for millions: BA and top airlines warning 'foolhardy and reckless' Government over risk of delays in apocalyptic letter | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116147/Olympic-air-chaos-millions-BA-airlines-warning-foolhardy-reckless-Government-risk-delays-apocalyptic-letter.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

I wonder what NATS five options were ?

[DaveReidUK]

I wonder what NATS five options were ?

They presumably include the options that BA proposed in its evidence this week to the Commons Transport Select Committee:

a) relaxation of the night flight restrictions

b) further relaxation of the restrictions on mixed mode (beyond the provisions of Operational Freedoms trial)

c) removal of the requirement of NATS' licence that all traffic must be treated equally on a first-come first-served basis

[118.70]

Thanks for the link .

House of Commons - Transport Committee - Written Evidence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/tog/contents.htm)

The NATS evidence includes :8.3 The industry will need to be prepared, and the CAA will need to be flexible and responsive on a tactical basis throughout the Olympics period to the various types of disruption risk, particularly if more than one of these risks was to be coincident.

8.4 NATS has facilitated two cross industry workshops with airports, airlines, business jet operators, ACL, CAA, DfT and MoD to highlight risks and discuss an industry response. At these
workshops, airports and airlines suggested mitigations that could be provided by the Government on a temporary basis which would significantly improve resilience or recovery from disruption, such as:

Additional measures to ensure effective management and policing of additional airport slots

Increased availability of military airspace

Limited easing of the night jet ban restrictions

Early vectoring off departure routes to enable increased runway capacity during recovery from disruption

Prioritisation of certain aircraft types or flights over others.

8.5 The CAA has acknowledged the risks that various stakeholders raised, primarily around lack of resilience of
London’s airspace today and the forecast additional Olympics traffic, combined with heightened security considerations, which meant there was a real and significant risk of widespread disruption. The CAA confirmed in February 2012, that it will progress, with industry, the risks identified which NATS does not have the authority to progress, including some of the items listed in 8.4 above.

8.6 The CAA and NATS have held discussions recently to establish the extent to which the restrictions on NATS imposed by its Licence and the Transport Act, might limit NATS’ ability to exercise the full range of operational decisions that its customers might desire, across a range of situations in which the resilience of the network was adversely affected.

8.7 The overriding principle established by the Licence is that any operational decisions must not unduly favour any particular aircraft or class of aircraft user. However, some reasonable latitude is allowed to deviate from that principle, taking into account a need to operate the route network as a whole, as efficiently as practicable.

8.8 The result from those recent meetings is that NATS is preparing a range of possible operational responses to
potential scenarios designed to respond to customer needs, balanced with network efficiency. These will be discussed further with the CAA such that the CAA will be able to give clear guidance as to the limits of latitude NATS will be able to exercise.

So if those five measures mentioned in the letter are the ones in 8.4, it adds military airspace and vectoring off NPRs to your three.

[DaveReidUK]

So if those five measures mentioned in the letter are the ones in 8.4, it adds military airspace and vectoring off NPRs to your three

Interesting comment in the minutes of the last meeting of the CAA-chaired Airport Performance Facilitation Group (remit: "to act as facilitator in the oversight and scrutiny of the implementation of the package of initiatives recommended by the South East Airports Taskforce to improve punctuality, increase resilience and reduce delay"):

"There was general agreement among industry representatives that if a solution could be found [to the capacity/resilience issue] for the Olympics, it might be something that could be used in the future."

Next APFG meeting is this coming Thursday.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Early vectoring off departure routes to enable increased runway capacity during recovery from disruption>>

We could do that 30 years ago but presumably it's forbidden now?

[DaveReidUK]

<<Early vectoring off departure routes to enable increased runway capacity during recovery from disruption>>

We could do that 30 years ago but presumably it's forbidden now?

Members of the public complaining about off-track departures are told:

"There may be occasions when Air Traffic Control (ATC) direct aircraft off an NPR at an altitude below 4,000ft. This may be necessary in order to maintain safe separation from other aircraft or for other safety issues such as weather avoidance."

No mention about doing it simply to increase runway capacity.

[DaveReidUK]

All change.

The Minister has announced that early vectoring off the SID/NPRs will in fact be one of the additional freedoms to be available during Phase II of the trials, which start in July (and which will now last 9 months, rather than 3, up to the end of March 2013).

Other new freedoms will include a relaxation of the existing night quota to allow more arrivals before 0600, subject to schedule changes, and an increase of the TEAM limit from 6 to 12 landings per hour.

[DaveReidUK]

early vectoring off the SID/NPRs will in fact be one of the additional freedoms

Or not, as the case may be ?

Here's what the trial website says, somewhat confusingly:

"The use of this procedure means that departures using southerly departure routes can be redirected from the departure route earlier than is usual. The re-directed aircraft will mostly remain within the boundaries of the existing departure routes."

Any controllers care to comment on what they understand by this ?

Are we talking about vectoring aircraft left or right of the nominal SID track, but still keeping them within the 3km-wide NPR swathe ? Would that provide sufficient increased separation between consecutive departures on the same SID to allow an increase in the departure rate ?

[118.70]

I'm still waiting to hear the clarification of what the vectoring off the SID is going to mean in practice. And what does "mostly" in the NPR mean ?

Hopefully it is worked out before they use it !

[DaveReidUK]

I'm still waiting to hear the clarification of what the vectoring off the SID is going to mean in practice. And what does "mostly" in the NPR mean ?

Hopefully it is worked out before they use it !

These instances will presumably be reported on, along with use of the other freedoms, so we'll see then what it's all about, assuming that individual flights which have been subject to this freedom are identified as such.

Having said that, it's only 6 days until the start of Phase II and a number of the Phase I reporting requirements still haven't been fulfilled: there's no detailed report for February, many of the daily summaries have errors which BAA have undertaken to rectify, but haven't (yet), and the promised data showing in detail which flights used which freedoms has still to materialise.

[118.70]

Wandsworth has leaked a bit more info on the Phase II trials :

Wandsworth Council - Let residents judge extra hour sleep plan (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/11286/let_residents_judge_extra_hour_sleep_plan)

It looks as if the changes to early morning arrivals won't kick off until November.

[DaveReidUK]

Wandsworth has leaked a bit more info on the Phase II trials.


That just about says it all.

The CAA's recommendations from Phase I included:

"We recommend that the differences between existing flexibility and the freedoms being tested by the trial are clearly explained at an earlier stage for the second phase of the trial."

I don't think that relying on a third party "leak" to learn additional details of the trial four days before the start of Phase II was quite what the CAA had in mind.

[118.70]

I was told tonight by some that had been "engaged" that we should expect to see a BAA advertorial in the local press soon.

It wasn't clear whether they supported the presentation or not !

[118.70]

It appeared as if there were some unusual routings late last night - ? associated with Operational Freedoms / the scramble to get delayed Olympic flights away on the "busiest day" ??

In particular BA199 to BOM was reported to be overhead in Chiswick at 23:23 which was hardly "mainly within the noise preferential route".

Maybe rules are only there to be broken !

[DaveReidUK]

Maybe rules are only there to be broken !

Or maybe not:

"ATC can direct planes off the NPR at an altitude below 4,000ft if this is required for safe separation from other aircraft or for other safety issues such as weather avoidance. Therefore, if a plane is not following the NPR, it does not necessarily mean it is doing anything wrong. However, if you do have a query regarding a particular aircraft you may contact our Flight Evaluation Unit, who will able to assist."