LHR 09L rolling down the runway

[Gonzo]

While go-arounds are flavour of the month:

In this recent spate of easterlies, I've noticed an interesting trend of BA 737, 757 and A319/320s rolling down the runway without asking, and sometimes doing so even after asking and being denied.

For example; yesterday evening, we had a clear day and a 10kt headwind, so the spacing was 2.5 miles on final. BA 737, on being cleared to land at 200ft, asks for a roll to the Bravos (block 16), and I reply 'Negative', which he acknowledges.

So there I am, expecting him to adhere to the AIP 'minimum time on the runway' and vacate first available turning, which for a 737 in a 10kt headwind would usually be block 11 (all the Lufthansa, Midland and Aer Lingus 737s seemed to be coming off there okay), but he merrily speeds past it; "Vacate FIRST right, company traffic short final" I say, he acknowledges while rolling past 13. "Expedite vacating" I say", "Wilco" he says, while sailing past 14. Eventually he vacates at 15, which I reckon is about 2200-2300m.

Luckily the one behind was happy to take a 'land after'.

Why did he ask to roll if he was going to anyway?
If he wasn't going to try to vacate with minimum time, I would have liked to have known (as would radar) prior to the event.

Just an observation..........

Comments? Am I missing something obvious here?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Comments? Here's one - they've been doing it since I started there in 1971 and I'll bet Ace can confirm they've been doing it longer than that!!

[wysiwyg]

Please don't forget that in his own world Nigel owns the runway! ;)

[Gonzo]

Hi HD,

Wondered how long it would take you......:)

Seems to have got worse recently even from my limited experience.

Gonzo.

[PAXboy]

From an outsider's point of view:

If you ask the P/F to vacate soonest - AND they confirm - and they then do not do so, they have disobeyed your instructions and can be reported for so doing?

In the exchange that you relate, the pilot appears to have agreed three times to vacate early. Once whilst airborne and twice in the roll out?

We can all understand that a longer roll out speeds arrival at the gate but if pilots start ignoring your commands - then they HAVE to be reported!!

I was amused that Nigel's think they own LHR, we have something similar in my field. I am in telecommunications and, despite 18 years having passed since the first Act of privatising GPO Telecommunications into BT .... BT behave as if they still own the lot!

[Freddy Forks]

Unfortunatey some pilots still have the attitude of "I'm on the runway at the moment and i will do as I wish - I'm not rushing for anyone".
Its just not professional nor is it big or clever Nigel. Do as ATC say (within reason ofcourse) we are there to help each other.

[Hand Solo]

Well instead of Nigel-bashing on hear have you tried doing something productive about it like complaining to BA? Its the quickest way to get a Flight Crew Notice up about it, which would raise awareness and reduce the number of occurrences.

[B clam]

Hmmm...

I am from said Company and am very disappointed that this is the perception of BA.

I have always vacated the R/W asap whether requested or not. This has always been the case with guys I have been flying with or with Company a/c ahead of me on app.

Is this another case of BA bashing or, if not, I apologise for my colleagues lack of airmanship.

[Hand Solo]

And of course how annoying is it when the ATCO starts hassling you to expedite on the landing roll when you really need to concentrate on getting the Airbus autobrakes out in a crosswind without swerving the thing off the runway? Next it'll be taxi instructions at 90 kts in the continental style!

[Young Paul]

I wish greater use of "Land After" was made. I'd much sooner have a "land after" at 600' in reasonable met than a "land" at 150-250' - especially because that then opens you up to somebody trying to transmit in the 10 second window within which the "land" clearance is available before I really ought to be going around.

I was a little taken aback to be going around once at 150' when a clearance hadn't been forthcoming, and no "expect late" call made. I'd just drifted along expecting the clearance to come - as presumably had the tower controller. The other crew member decided enough was enough and around we went! ATC said "Why did you go around?" to which the answer was "We didn't have landing clearance below decision height." A "land after" at 500' would have done nicely.

[overstress]

One person slags BA so everyone jumps on the bandwagon - having said that I also apologise for my colleagues on their behalf.

Most of us in BA, just like any other company, are reasonably aware - one or two appear to inhabit different orbits to the rest of us.

Land after gets my vote every time.

[Gonzo]

Some interesting replies here.

Firstly, believe it or not, this is not BA bashing. I did try to avoid it in my inital post.

Secondly, it's good to know that you guys are aware of this issue in the first place.

I get some stick for it at work, but I do rate BA. 99.9% of the time. Of course there is always the odd happening, but it is purely the fact that around 40% of movements at LHR are BA, we see more involving them than any other airline.

Young Paul - I would much rather use a 'Land After' than an 'After the landed x, cleared to land' (quick question, do you know the difference? :) ) . The potential 'problem' with a 'Land after' is that until you hit the deck, we cannot be certain that you will land. I was on Departures once last year, when Arrivals had a tight one, and the one following went around, even when no.1 was plainly off the runway. The Arrivals controller was rather miffed, but I asked him what he'd said and he replied he'd given a 'Land after'.

Also, the reason the 'After the landed, cleared to land' was introduced was because some companies were going to refuse to fly into such a major airport and not receive a 'proper' landing clearance.

Hand Solo - Your suggestion was actioned less than 15 minutes after the event.

This is the sort of issue I used to bring up on my jumpseat flights.
Enough said.:rolleyes:

Gonzo.
Edited for spelling

[Young Paul]

Well, what I mean is, I'd rather have a conditional landing clearance that will work than an absolute clearance that may not.

"Land after" is good enough for me - it has a defined meaning and application, and keeps the radio working as slickly as "after ... line up" does for the other end of flights. Also, if an aircraft stays on the runway to vacate at block 16, it doesn't stop the next aeroplane landing, so helps to improve ground movements as well.

[Pandora]

No BA bashing please - we don't all pop out of the same mould, so some of us do things that cause others of us to scratch our heads. (PS Gonzo, i do realize your initial post was very carefully worded).
As a BA pilot allow me to put forward a theory as to why a bit of rolling has been going on. I don't condone it, but on the 737 fleet we are trying to make our slow little aircraft fly to a 757 schedule. It is just not possible most of the time, so I can see how some people would try to roll a bit. These are probably the same people who have their noses pressed to the windscreen with max autobrake to get off the runway asap when using 27.
Also, weight comes into whether we come off at 11 or 14. Although we can come off at 11 more or less every time (it gives approx 1650m LDA) why hammer the brakes when it takes the same amount of time to get off the runway in a less frantic manner? Of course it all depends on how close the aircraft behind you is.
Just recently on a few occasions Tower have given me permission to roll to 16 with the landing clearance. I realise you can't do it all the time but it does make our life so much easier.
On a final note, I have done 2 go-arounds in the last year due to aircraft not vacating quickly enough - an AirFrance and a Crossair. In the case of the AirFrance he rolled to blocke 79 on 27L and igored requested from Tower to vacate at 82 and 81 (twice). :eek:

[spekesoftly]

Pandora

I've been following this thread with interest, but please could you explain your comment that "we are trying to fly the 737 fleet to the 757 schedule ............. so I can see why some people would try to roll a bit".

I'm not trying to challenge what you say, I would just like to understand your theory.

[Hand Solo]

It may be that the 737 is a slower aircraft than the 757 but the schedules are constructed based upon 757 sector times. As a result the 737 is always behind schedule and any time that can be made up with a long roll out is very useful.

[Max Angle]

Gonzo,

The potential 'problem' with a 'Land after' is that until you hit the deck, we cannot be certain that you will land

Thats an interesting comment, in reality you can't be sure that any aircraft is going to land until it does so regardless of what sort of landing clearance has been given. In fact even after touchdown, until the reversers have been deployed you can go-around, not likely I admit but you should not assume an aircraft will actually land just because a clearance has been issued.

From my point of view, when you are close to the guy in front a land after is a far better way of dealing with the situation and I would like to see it used more at LHR. At bmi we have a standing order regarding late landing clearance which reads:

A G/A will be flown if landing clearance has not been received by 200 feet AGL unless,
a) the runway is clearly visible
b) the touchdown zone is clear of aircraft and vehicles.

In all cases a G/A is to be flown if landing clearance has not been received by 100 feet AGL.

I think we all imply from that with a land after clearance, 100ft is the min. altitude that you can go down to without having decided to land.

As far as rolling down the runway goes, I never do it unless we have been told we can. I also don't bother asking, in my experience it almost always offered when available, same for block 79's off 09R.

[Gonzo]

Thanks Pandora, I did try! Believe me, if a roll looks allowable, I will. I'll even give you a short one to 14 or 15 if I can.

Max Angle - Regarding the landing clearances.

Obviously, I will only give 'cleared to land' if the one ahead has vacated. When you read it back, you're saying to me "Yes, I think the runway is clear too (if you can see it of course:) ), so if nothing else happens I'm going to land."

If I give you a 'land after', I'm saying: "Well, apart from the aircraft, which I've made sure you can see, the runway is clear to land at your discretion", and then you read back "I can see the one on the runway, and if he's off in time, or I'm happy he is far enough down the runway, I'll probably land."

You see why I'm more confident you'll land with the first one. Less variables.
Gonzo.