Brookmans Park & Dovers Poor Wx

[BRISTOLRE]

Last night loads of storms & CB activity both sides of LHR wreaking havoc.
Around 1730z London ATC not permitting anymore SIDs thru Dover or Brookmans Park due to high level of storm intensity and traffic volumes.
At one stage Epsom SIDs and STARS badly effected by storms.

Between 1730z and 1800z only aircraft heading on a straight track departure from LHR were allowed to depart, i.e. VS011 and BA001 OK. Storm was some 9 miles long at one stage and the cell was half a mile north of the threshold for 27R!

BA442 almost had to return to stand for more fuel as it sat awaiting a new departure track to avoid wx.

[slingsby]

Quite intersting to watch from my location (near Compton VOR), several aircraft weaving around the storm cells around 1630. This must have been the same one progressing east bound. BA 777 made one turn followed quickly by a rapid turn to the south just as the CB above me deposited a large bolt of lightning and heavy sounding thunder clap directly ahead of it's path. BA001 was unaffected. Very co-operative ATC it would seem for wx avoidance tracks.

[Stan Sted]

I played cricket yesterday at a ground 8 miles NW of BPK and the match was interrupted by light rain from about 17.20 for 10 mins (or about the time it took to sup a pint of Greene King IPA from the barrel in the pavilion).

The sky to the south was as black as pitch (geddit?) Seems we had a lucky escape from a drenching and an abandoned match.

[BEagle]

Quote:

"BA442 almost had to return to stand for more fuel as it sat awaiting a new departure track to avoid wx."

Don't BA captains look at the met picture and/or sky and load extra fuel as a precaution any more? Or is it that safely-earthbound company beancounters do not allow such airmanship decisions these days?

[TopBunk]

BEagle

The fact that he didn't have to return to stand means that he DID HAVE enough fuel.

You really should know better than this - it's like subscribing to the journalists panic 'almost crashed' sensationalism whenever an aircraft carries out a go-around.

Of course we look at the weather, but sometimes it can get worse than expected / sit over the airfield longer than usual / etc. In these circumstances you can occasionally get tight on fuel (even after loading some extra).

[52049er]

Just beat me to the keyboard TB. For goodness sake Beagle - as you well know there could be any number of reasons why he made that (correct) fuel decision - MTOW just being one of them. In any case, would it be such a problem if he did taxi back in for another 1000kg? By my reckoning if 1% of +2hr flights did this the company would still save money.

[BEagle]

Sorry - just cheekily doing some fishing, Top B and 52049er!;)

You have successfully made the point that reputable airline's Aircraft Commanders will load sufficient extra fuel to cater for such conditions! So no shock, horror, "Giant Jet In Near Disaster in Storm! We nearly didn't have enough fuel because it was raining" tales to keep any Daily Chipwrapper 'air correspondents' perusing this thread happy! :yuk:

[WMD]

While we're on the subject - please, please ask us (ATC) first before you make a turn for wx. We try to be as helpful as possible and can nearly always give you the turn. A few aircraft recently have turned without asking and in a busy TMA you're going to end up hitting metal rather than a cloud.

Before the flames - it's only a FEW who turn before asking!:)

WMD

[Jerricho]

I'm with WMD on this one. I'll bust my b*lls to try and give you guys any weather avoiding vector you need, but I have seen several dummy-spits from the pram by TC guys who have had a jet turn for Wx themselves. More than once over the past couple of days I have heard "Where's he off to?". Can become a little frustrating (Although, no where near a frustrating as it is for you guys trying to dodge the bumps or other fluffy nasty things!!!)

[BRISTOLRE]

ref my comment on the BA442 he was sat ages and ages on the holding point(s) for a clearance to get out, the Wx just closed in and got worse. God only knows how much fuel was burnt as the little 319 sat there waiting,waiting,waiting.

[Jerricho]

Couldn't he just turn off the engines and leave the radio on???

Works on the M25....... :}

(Sorry!)

[timzsta]

Wouldn't it be nice if the M25 was like the LTMA.
"London XXX with you at juntion 10"
"Direct DVR, no speed restriction"
Would be bliss

:O

[NigelOnDraft]

WMD / Jerricho...

Most pilots will obviously try and ask before deviating for weather... as you say.

However, one of priciples of flying is:
Aviate Navigate Communicate
or its more "PC" version
Plane Path People!

UK ATC frequencies are the busiest I have met. It may not appear so to you, since you are working at 150%, but it can take a few minutes to get a call in sometimes. This is fairly unique to the UK, and IMHO is the most dangerous part of our ATC system. It is also not uncommon to try and make a call, say 4+ times, and each time get stepped on / not acknowledged.

As a general "rule", I will not take an aircraft into something painting "red" on the radar. If I have failed to get ATC clearance, either because I left it too late, or I could not get a word in, the sorry - it comes down to priorities. It comes down to the probablilites of a problem due to the weather, and red returns could mean loss of the aircraft and occupants, as could (would!) a mid air. And of course, CBs "develop", and what was green 2 minutes ago has just started painting red...

That said, 99% of the time we get in the call, you go out of your way to help (far more so than other ATC agencies), and god knows how you cope with 15 aircraft all wanting to deviate.

Keep up the good work!

NoD

[WMD]

NoD,

I'm very interested in your reply.

1. I'm thankful that incidents of pilots turning before asking is rare and hopefully less than the 1% you infer.

2. Agree with you that are frequencies in the London TMA (and, of course, enroute) are more often than not too busy. Alas the only ways of fixing that problem is to either :

a) have smaller sectors which means more controllers (which we don't have as we're already understaffed in a big way)

b) Put on some severe flow rates which means more delays for you and the pax. We often put on extra flow rates when there's bad wx as sector complexity at least triples when ac are avoiding clouds. Of course, we've to keep those delays to 1.2mins per flight I believe.

c) Make you stay on the ground until you can at least fly the SID or until the wx has gone.

3. Slightly horrified that you risk both your own aircraft and others in the sky to avoid the "red". Don't get me wrong, I understand the dangers of downdraughts, windsheer, turbulance, icing etc - but you're not the only plane in the sky (unless it's the middle of the night). I had a nasty scare a few years ago when I was controlling three abreast coming up into the BIG stack for EGLL. Without warning the middle a/c turned left across the nose of the a/c to his left. Other pilots were clogging the R/T trying to get their wx avoidance requests in and it was pure luck that I managed to get an "avoiding action" call in to the other a/c.

Just a thought!

WMD

[eyeinthesky]

WMD: I fully concur with your request for a call BEFORE turning, but:

Quote

I had a nasty scare a few years ago when I was controlling three abreast coming up into the BIG stack for EGLL. Without warning the middle a/c turned left across the nose of the a/c to his left. Other pilots were clogging the R/T trying to get their wx avoidance requests in and it was pure luck that I managed to get an "avoiding action" call in to the other a/c.

Unquote

displays perhaps a lack of forethought on your part. Given that weather avoidance was already taking place, perhaps you should have considered modifying your technique and not committing yourself to radar headings. Give yourself some vertical separation room to cope with it rather than dropping them all at once. If they have to ladder down in the hold (wherever that may be if there is a storm over the VOR!) that is better than a TCAS RA or worse on the way in!!

[Pilot Pete]

It's good to see the two sides to the problem;

A couple of years back we were heading towards LANAK on our way to EGPF. Over the top of LANAK was a red paint on the wx radar. The Scottish controller was working at least at his peak, possibly just over the curve and getting overloaded. He was working lots of traffic with constant RT. We were told to hold at LANAK and requested holding over the GOW due wx. Refused. Couple of miles later and asked again, this time told (vehemently to hold at LANAK). Entered the hold in turbulence and was struck by lightening 3 times in the first hold. At that point we exited the hold towards the west and then told the controller that we were on a heading to avoid. So you can't win, just try what you can to comply. What we must all remember here is that the captain has the ultimate responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and when he deems it necessary he can make the decision not to follow an ATC instruction. It's all down to risk assessment and with TCAS the commander has a reasonable chance of disobeying an ATC instruction yet still keeping separation from other traffic. I felt the incident in question had a lot to do with the controller being overloaded and literally just trying to hold everything together as he did not have sufficient capacity left for 'alternatives.'

To close I would like to offer my thanks to all those ATCOs who do such a great job day in day out, especially London sector controllers who's capacity and professionalism often get the pair of us looking at each and remarking "they're busy!" when what we really mean is "how the hell do they cope with this workload?"

Thanks again

PP

[NigelOnDraft]

WMD...

Thanks for the reply...

Intrigued by your comment <<Slightly horrified that you risk both your own aircraft and others in the sky to avoid the "red".>>
Sorry - I'm not sure you understand. Avoiding going onto the "red" is not doing so to avoid a "few bumps" - it is to avoid risking the aircraft and occupants...

The following are potential consequences of going into red bits:
1. Aircraft falls apart = lots dead.
2. Aircraft loses control, and so takes up a random heading and altitude and climb / descent = ATC hacked off again!
3. Aircraft is badly damaged.
4. Aircraft occupants are killed or seriously injured in the turbulence encounter - even if aircraft only suffers minor damage.

These are relatively unlikely consequences, but the nature of the job is not to take the risk. Especially now with TCAS, if I have repeatedly tried to ask for avoiding action, and failed for whatever reason, I may judge the minimum overall risk is to take avoiding action without clearance from ATC first. That is what I am paid for...

I have to say, that if I took that course of action (and I haven't had to to date), then:
1. I would squawk 7700
2. I would make a Pan or Mayday call hoping I might actually get acknowledged.
3. The ASR / MOR paperwork would inevitably fly, and I would have to justify my actions.

<<which we don't have as we're already understaffed in a big way>>
<<Put on some severe flow rates which means more delays for you and the pax>>
<<Of course, we've to keep those delays to 1.2mins per flight I believe>>
Just puts the lie to my employers "Safety is our No. 1 Priority" - and presumably yours has something similar. They forget to add the small print - so long as it does not cost, and so long as it meets the bean counters' targets...

<<Make you stay on the ground until you can at least fly the SID or until the wx has gone>>
That's what you and I are paid for if an acceptable alternative cannot be found.

I was at LHR recently, and we had already incurred a significant (BA induced) delay. The the weather started... the Delivery controller kept us informed e.g. no aircraft has departed for 20 mins, massive problems flying the SIDs etc. etc. Very easy to take this info, pass it to the PAX, and hey presto - not a squeak! They'd also rather get to their dest late than not at all!

The RT loading problem around LHR is self perpetuating. Because of it, I now ask for avoiding action earlier and more often and more cautiously here than elsewhere, because I cannot rely on getting a call in when I will / may need it.

All the above said, 99% of the time it all works very well... I never cease to be amazed at how London area ATC copes with all the aircraft deviating with the same traffic levels as when we all fly where we're supposed to!

NoD

[WMD]

EyeintheSky

Silly me! I'd never have thought of going vertical when there's wx about OR maybe it was you operating as the LYDD controller who gave me the said 3 aircraft 5miles abreast all level at FL160 (as it was then) :D I know that was the standing agreement at the time but there ain't much I can do with them when they've only just checked in and the centre one decides to take a 70degree turn to the left.. ah well...

Nod

Glad you mentioned good 'ole TCAS. There is an increasing number of pilots who seem to be fustrated controllers and use TCAS as a steering tool these days. I believe this to be a potentially dangerous development and have witnessed at least 3 airproxs over the past few years when pilots have used the TCAS for lateral separation.

As for delays, I hear today that you guys 'n' girls (or at least your companies) prefer to hold for 30 mins in the stack rather than take the delay on the ground?

WMD

[NigelOnDraft]

WMD...

I'm still not quite sure where your're coming from?

I am under your control. I have tried 4 times+ over a minute or 2 to get a Wx avoid call in. The frequency is very busy, each time I get stepped on or not acknowledged. There is a red painted area on the radar. I was unable to call earlier because a turn has only now made it visible, or it has only painted red more recently i.e. developing or was hidden etc.

What am I to do?
PS and the answer is not to fly into the red thing - I won't/don't!

I am not proposing to use TCAS to "self control". Just when (if) I am forced to deviate without clearance, it will help somewhat to determine which way I go.

Standing by!

NoD

[IcePack]

Um!,
Think our friends in BMA have recently demonstrated interesting damage caused by hail. Also about a year back there were some very interesting pictures, posted on Pprune of the tristar at lyon that was written off. If anybody has a link to those pics maybe post them to WMD.:E

[NigelOnDraft]

WMD...

You might like to read:
http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR70-16.pdf

http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR69-03.pdf

http://www.avsaf.org/reports/US_reports/1970/1972.02.22_AliiAirHawaiiInc_BeechD18S.pdf

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/avaition_losses.html

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/dc9.htm :
4 April 1977; Southern Airways DC9-31; New Hope, GA: The aircraft had both engines lose thrust after ingestion of hail. The crew landed the aircraft on a road but hit a number of trees and a building. Two of the four crew members and 60 of the 81 passengers were killed. Eight others were killed on the ground.
27 July 1981; Aeromexico DC9-32; Chihuahua, Mexico: The aircraft crash landed during a violent thunderstorm, broke in two and burned. Two of the six crew members and 48 of the 60 passengers were killed

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9575/wxl.htm
# 3) 08.12.63 () Boeing 707-121

N709PA (17588/3) Pan American World Airways
[year built: 1958]
occupants: 8 crew + 73 passengers = 81.

fatalities: 8 crew + 73 passengers = 81.

location: Elkton (USA)

nature: Scheduled Passenger phase: Initial Approach

flight Washington-Baltimore IAP, DC - Philadelphia IAP Flightnr.: 214
Inflight explosion of fuel tank due to lightning strike.
Source:



# 4) 24.12.71 (12.36) Lockheed L-188A Electra

OB-R- 941 (1086) LANSA
[year built: 1959]
occupants: 6 crew + 86 passengers = 92.

fatalities: 6 crew + 85 passengers = 91.

location: Puerto Inca (Peru)

nature: Scheduled Passenger phase: Cruise

flight Lima-Jorge Chavez IAP - Flightnr.: 508
About forty minutes after take-off, the aircraft entered a zone of strong turbulence and lightning. After flying for twenty minutes in this weather at FL210 lightning struck the aircraft, causing fire on the right wing which separated, along with part of the left wing. The aircraft crashed in flames into mountainous terrain. Structural failure occurred because of the loads imposed on the aircraft flying through a severe thunderstorm, but also because of stresses resulting from the manoeuvre to level out the aircraft.
Source:



# 5) 09.05.76 (14.35 GMT) Boeing 747-131F

5-8104 (19677/73) Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force
[year built: 1970]
occupants: 10 crew + 7 passengers = 17.

fatalities: 10 crew + 7 passengers = 17.

location: Madrid; nr (Spain)

nature: Freight phase: Descent

flight Tehran-Mehrabad IAP - Madrid-Torrejon AFB Flightnr.: 48
The Boeing was operated on a military logistic flight from Tehran to McGuire AFB via Madrid. The flight took off from Tehran at 08.20h GMT and climbed to a cruising altitude of FL330. After establishing contact with Madrid control, clearance was received to CPL VOR via Castejon. At 14.25h the flight was cleared to FL100. At 14.30 the crew advised Madrid that they were diverting to the elft because of thunderstorm activity, and at 14.32 Madrid cleared ULF48 to 5000ft and directed him to contact Madrid approach control. At 14.33 the crew contacted approach control and advised them that there was too much weather activity ahead and requested to be vectored around it. Last radio contact was when ULF48 acknowledged the 260deg heading instructions and informed Madrid that they were descending to 5000ft. The aircraft was later found to have crashed in farmland at 3000ft msl following left wing separation. It appeared that the aircraft had been struck by lightning, entering a forward part of the aircraft and exiting from a static discharger on the left wingtip. The lightning current's conductive path to the static discharger at the tip was through a bond strap along the trailing edge. Concentration of current at the riveted joint between this bond strap and a wing rib were sufficient conductive to cause the flash to reattach to this rivet and to leave the discharger. Fuel vapors in the no.1 fuel tank then ignited. The explosion caused the upper wing skin panel to separate, causing a drastic altering of the aeroelastic properties of the wing, and especially the outboard section of wing. The outer wing began to oscillate, developping loads which caused the high-frequency antenna and outer tip to separate. The whole wing failed a little later.
Source: FI 15.5.76(1283); NTSB-AAR-78-12



# 6) 05.09.80 () Lockheed L-100-20 Hercules

KAF317 (4350) Kuwait Air Force

occupants: crew + passengers = 8.

fatalities: crew + passengers = 8.

location: Montelimar; nr (France)
Crashed after lightning strike.
Source: FI 03.01.1981 (29)



# 7) 08.02.88 (07.58) Swearingen SA.227AC Metro

D-CABB (AC-500) N?rnberger Flugdienst - NFD

occupants: 2 crew + 19 passengers = 21.

fatalities: 2 crew + 19 passengers = 21.

location: Mulheim; nr (Germany)

nature: Scheduled Passenger phase: Initial Approach

flight Hannover-Langenhagen APT - D?sseldorf Flightnr.: NS108
The Metro aircraft suffered a lightning strike, following which the electrical system failed. The right wing broke off in an uncontrolled descent and the aircraft disintegrated.
Source: ICAO Adrep Summary 2/90 (#32)


All I can say, is that far more aircraft / passengers have been lost due to encounters such as these, than midairs....

Best regards

NoD

[farefield]

Valid point made by NoD there but I do believe that he's preaching to the converted anyway.The London controllers and those at LHR are excellent when it comes to wx avoidance requests.
Arriving back at LHR on Tuesday AM we got to Ockham to get Zapped by lightning even though the cloud wasn't painting too heavily.We asked to get out of there and the guy on Director let us go straight to Biggin.Trouble was there was a LARGE cell at the southern end of the hold so Director let us do what we wanted within the vicinity of BIG.There were 2 other aircraft there both weaving about and the controller just said,

" Get on with it and I'll make sure you don't get near anything".
Even though holding was 10 to 15 mins it didn't sound too busy to the south of LHR, however I would like to pass my thanks on to that controller and the guy he handed us to for final manoevring.Their flexibility and appreciation of our problems was first class and I like to think I can have the same appreciation of the problems they have to cope with.

So if it was either of you WMD or Jericho,thanks fellas.

[Jerricho]

I find calls "we are going to need a turn in 5 miles due to a buildup/weather" very, very useful. This was I can alter circuit shape as required earlier rather than "we gotta turn NOW!". As you guys have been saying and I understand this isn't always possible, but it does make things much easier. But I do understand that ultimately the responsibility for the jet and the SLF is yours, and you will do what it takes.

And this may have come up before, but you mention TCAS, and an awareness of who is around. Can I get some thoughts on situations I have had where I have had a jet upwind from LAM heading toward the BNN downwind track and say "Were going to need a turn in x miles", yet the stuff streaming from BNN hasn't said a thing? Not argument trawling, just looking for thoughts. Don't some TCAS and Weather Radars display on the same screen in the cockpit (I haven't had a fam flight for ages!)? Or situations where one guy takes the heading and a guy 3 miles behind won't?

[ratarsedagain]

Jerricho,
Can't speak for all types, but certainly on the 777 we have the luxury of TCAS, Wx Radar Returns and if required 'Terrain' displays all on the main Nav display in front-makes keeping an eye on things that much easier. However, previous type was the 747 'Classic' where the Wx radar was just to the right/left of your knee, and TCAS was on a retrofitted LCD VSi-not always easy to correlate traffic and wx. I guess some of the other older types are the same.
Also the wx radars on different types i'm sure vary considerably, it was certainly the case between the classic and the 777, so some pick up more/less than others.
Hope this is of use, and Re the 'Fam' flights, the quicker we get you guys/girls more of them the better-it's invaluable for both of us.
Finally, as has been said umpteen times before, keep up the good work!!!!!!!

[WMD]

Guys 'n' Girls,

I KNOW you NEED to AVOID the RED stuff. I bend over backwards to help you to do so. It makes for an interesting shift when there is wx.

The point I was trying to make was that your aircraft will probably survive a cell but most certainly will not survive a mid-air collision.

I'm not suggesting that you (NoD) use your TCAS to steer by - just making the point that its an increasing practice and that's when there's no weather.

Icepack - chill. I've seen the pictures and I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT NOT GOING INTO THE RED BITS ON THE RADAR. Just trying to see both sides of the equation and give you some of the issues from our side of the fence.

WMD:D

[Shuttleworth]

I agree wholeheatedly with the following ; "The RT loading problem around LHR is self perpetuating. Because of it, I now ask for avoiding action earlier and more often and more cautiously here than elsewhere, because I cannot rely on getting a call in when I will / may need it."

Why do ATC colleagues sometimes see busy frequencies as an "inconvenience" (something to be overcome by talking faster) and pilots see them as simply dangerous?

[WMD]

Shuttleworth

I couldn't agree more.. They're all too busy at peak times. The reason you may hear folk talking faster is that there are alot of a/c on the frequency and lots of instructions need to be given to get them where they're supposed to be going and off the frequency ASAP.
Unfortunately, I can only see it getting worse in attempts to reduce delays. Let's hope that there isn't a "MAYDAY" at one of these times.

WMD

[MacDoris]

I dont think ATC see abusy freq as an inconvenience and quite often the talking faster thing is not intentional, it often occurs because so many people stepping on others Tx etc that in an attempt to keep "control" of the frequency the rate at which you deliver instructions increases till it gets to the rate where all you here is "say again". We are aware of these problems and as much as possible try to keep the loading down by splitting freq etc but believe it or not we dont have that many frequencies available, for example the new redevelopment of the airspace in the Clacton area needs at least 2 new freqs at the moment if were "lucky" we will get one.

[Bright-Ling]

If you can't get in for 1 minute or more and you are going to vector yrself - why not squawk 7700 to get the attention of the controller.

Also, if the urgency to turn is that extreme, why not shout PAN PAN and it may even blot out the other person. Chances are someone might hear it and others may keep quiet.

Just a thought.

I appreciate the problems of both sides here.

[Youwererobbed]

The bottom line is obeying ATC is a "nice if you can" but flying into the red is "not part of the program". LHR has some of the best ATC in the world but there are times when you have to put the safety of your AC above ATC. That's what we are paid for to some degree, remember that we can see all the other aircraft on TCAS. For many parts of the world obeying ATC blindly is a death trap, and although LHR is very very good they are times when, sorry guys, but you are down the list of a pilots priorities.
Our training is fly the aircraft, navigate and avoid terrain and if you have time (and only if you have time) communicate to ATC.
If the worlds ATC was to the standard of LHR then maybe we could approach the situation differently...but it aint.

[peeteechase]

I came up from Paris CDG on the afternoon of the 2nd to be met by an almost solid wall of red from BIG to OCK. We managed to vector ourselves safely through the only gap available with great cooperation from LHR director. Nice work guys, I sure wish you had weather radar as they do in the States, would take the guesswork out from your point of view.
Best regards,
PTC

PS: I always try to ask for a deviation heading, I can't understand the mindset of those who don't, we are all part of a big team after all?

[Bright-Ling]

Youwererobbed:

The bottom line is obeying ATC is a "nice if you can" but flying into the red is "not part of the program". LHR has some of the best ATC in the world but there are times when you have to put the safety of your AC above ATC

"above ATC"?

Without causing controversy it is not me that will get it in the neck if you vector yourself into another aircraft. We ask you NOT to self vector because of other Aircraft, Crews and Passengers.

If the worst were to happen when self vectoring, and you collided with another and you survived, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the Capt in court on potential Manslaughter charges. Any legal eagles care to comment?

NOD

Do you (or others) have any Company SOP's on dealing with your scenario?

Any Trg Capt's tried that scenario in the sim???

[Point Seven]

I'm a controller and i think some of my brethren should just calm down a bit. Aircraft self vectoring due weather IS NOT an easy thing to deal with but we are paid to do just that. We may well worry about crews vectoring themselves into another plane, but so, probably, do they. What's the difference between a plane weather avoiding and one making a TCAS climb/descent? They both may erode separation, but both are some thing we can do nothing about.

Airlines SOPs are there not for guidance but adherence. Pilots must follow them or they face discipline. If it says avoid the red they DO NOT have a choice, same as TCAS. I think the controlling fraternity should try and get across the point that Jerricho (hello kangaroo boy) is trying to make and let us know early if they want to avoid weather. But if there's bad CBs about, expect the unexpected. Or get sector chiefs to say no deps. In my time in EGLL toer, not a single pilot has complained when i've said they can't go due weather. Everyone is safe on the floor! (unless i'm doing GMC)

We controllers should try and learn the pilots point of view, as they should try to learn ours. This forum proves we shouldn't tell the other that they're wrong but give our views so we can find a decent half way house.

P7

[NigelOnDraft]

.7 / Bright-Ling / WMD..

Thanks for your replies. I suspect as ever, we're slightly as cross-purposes...

1. London ATC are by the far most impressive in dealing with Wx avoidance requests - both in flexibility in where they'll let you go, and keeping high traffic levels flowing.
2. If we have an SOP, its commonsense. Would be "If you see red, ask ATC avoid". Of course, it does not cover the case where you cannot get through because the frequency is so busy. Because no airline / ATC Mgmt would acknowledge that the frequencies are overloaded...
3. "Self Vectoring by TCAS" is a bit misleading... Not all pilots may "avoid red" - I will. Radars are imprecise, and it doesn't help that ATC can no longer see the weather. Some people have been into red, and no real problem - others have, and come out minus their wings. My point is that I will self manoeuvre to avoid red as a last resort - TCAS or no TCAS. TCAS just gives me some help - but nothing of course compared to an ATC clearance. Finally, I did say that if I self manoeuvred without ATC clearance, it would be accompanied by 7700, and an emergency call...
4. As .7 says - if frequencies are crowded, wx adds to the problem, we need someone with the b*lls to say STOP... That is what we all are paid for, and only then will the bean counters take notice. We are all guilty of squeezing more and more out of the system, and all the managers see is more for less. They will not draw the bottom line - we have to... Maybe next time I cannot get a weather avoid call in for some time I should ASR it - every time an aircraft self maneouvres I hope you MOR it - but doubt you have time...??

Bright-Ling
<<If the worst were to happen when self vectoring, and you collided with another and you survived, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the Capt in court on potential Manslaughter charges. Any legal eagles care to comment?>>
I say again, and nobody will answer. There's a bright red thing on my radar - I'm going towards it. I cannot get ATC to acknowledge my avoid request. What do I do?? Are you seriously saying I fly into it?? Because I am saying I will not... The PK of a CB is far higher than the PK of an uncleared heading - the latter requires the probabilty of a degradation of safety, then the multiplied by probability of that airprox leading to a midair, multiplied by the probability of the controller failing to do anything about it (and remember I would be squawking 7700).

NoD

[Bright-Ling]

NOD

Good points buddy.

We are all aiming towards the same end here, so lets pull together! If you get a situation where you fell you can't get in and talk or you feel the freq is too congested then put some paperwork in. You can file a MOR (1261) as well - and it might make things better. If everybody does people will beging to listen. What about CHIRP - I don't recall seeing much in there about it.

I hear what you are saying about the need for someone to have some balls and say stop. However, that is easier to do with the Paris and Manch trafic than the Long haul stuff. There are traffic managers who work purely to sort this out. They have some weather infor from the met office but they are also under immense pressure from NATS/airlines to keep things rolling and reduce delays. The person on the freq has virtually no input into that equation - not least because they have no time to think about it....just playing with cards as dealt!

The other interesting point is how different pilots deal with the red. I have seen 10 aircraft go through the same piece of air, (including F50's) and the B777 asks to avoid. Couple that with the lack of info we have on the screens (which is frankly p1$$ poor) and it makes a very tricky situation which is hard to plan against. Throw in the over congested freq's and it makes for an uncomfortable time for all pilots and controllers. I think it is this unknown that is the frustrating part for us.

As the silly season of September is fast approaching and the TCU/CB's are building (!) we maybe all need to understand each others problems better. Certainly on yr wx radar you can give an accurate view of what is ahead. I appreciate you don't know what heading you will be given sometimes which is hard for you - but if you can give us as much info as you can as soon as you can it will help. Certainly on the arrival routes you roughly know where you are going and if you see anything in the area of the holds shout up asap.

The weather avoidance scenarios have been included in our TRUCE now - (Trg in Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies). Wx avoidance isn't just a bind for TC - it can cause carnage. I am sure you have seen TC - but arrange a visit for later in the year when the weather is crapper.

[MacDoris]

I like the idea of sq 7700 if you must avoid and cant get in. ATC i think do understand to a degree the problems the drivers face its just that when it is drilled into you to keep aircraft apart and for their own reasons do their best to get closer than they are supposed to be it can look a bit frightening, 1 mile miss out the window looks no problem but on the radar for all we know youve just collided? People do stop the traffic if it is justified but you can only really stop stuff on the ground the green glow on its way cant just stop.
I cant remeber what my point was so if you must avoid without telling me fair enough you know the risk you are taking either way, please understand if i sound a bit rattled as it can look horrible from our point of view and we know we will be filling in forms etc and unavailable to help our work buddies just when they need it most:uhoh:

[Point Seven]

7700 is only to be used in emergency conditions and by putting it up when weather avoiding could serve to devalue the seriousness of its use.

P7

[Gonzo]

Thinking about what P7's just said (not often I can admit to that ;) ), why not 7600?

Gonzo.

[AlanM]

but P7...

is that the same 7700 used by people (ATCO's and pilots) when they coast in at St Rumble with a medical emergency?

Not sure these aircraft who pass a number of airfields in getting to the destination really need to do so.

mmmm!

:8 :cool:

[BOAC]

Right - over to ATC - we cannot get a word in and must avoid a build-up. We check TCAS and make a reasoned change of heading.

What do YOU want us to do then?

[WMD]

If you're under 6000' - PRAY.

If you're at any level near CPT/MID/BPK or DET - PRAY REAL HARD.

WMD.:)

[BOAC]

Anyone got anything slightly more constructive? The suggestions so far are 7600 or 7700

WMD - I take it you would prefer us to fly into the CB then?

[5milesbaby]

Can't see why this isn't a 7700 cert. As has been said, pilots are NOT going into the cell, therefore need priority handling, therefore can declare a Pan at least if not a Mayday for 'Priority Handling'.
I for one would certainly want to know if you are changing heading without my instruction ASAP, and if 7700 is the only attention getter then so be.
There may be a slight problem with this practice in the London TMA however. Down at sunny Swanwick, when a 77** code is selected, the callsign data is retained alongside the new squalk. I believe that in TC however, the callsign data is REPLACED, so by squalking 77** you can then possibly be asked, 'station squalking Mayday identify yourself'. I would imagine this could quite upset one or two of you, if not lead to a little confusion. :O

[NigelOnDraft]

<<you can then possibly be asked, 'station squalking Mayday identify yourself'>>
Certainly solves the problem of getting the call in!

<<7700 is only to be used in emergency conditions and by putting it up when weather avoiding could serve to devalue the seriousness of its use>>
.7 - we're getting into circles here again... WMD is implying that any deviation from our assigned heading is likely to lead to an airprox - even Midair. If us putting ourselves in this situation is not an "emergency" I do not know what is....

To be frank, I do not know exactly what I am saying by squawking 7700?? Does it translate directly to "MAYDAY" - I've just found a website that says it does...

"Mayday" does not imply directly the seriousness of the emergency - what it does imply is the immediacy of the requested assistance. So I cannot think of a better use for it than here - I have been trying to get a word in, I cannot, I am now heading off somewhere else, I need your IMMEDIATE assistance to ensure my safety....

<<BOAC's WMD - I take it you would prefer us to fly into the CB then?>>
Well that's 2 of us trying to get that answer!

NoD

[BOAC]

I need your IMMEDIATE assistance to ensure my safety....

Yes, NOD, and. of course, that of other traffic too.

[WMD]

Circles again.. I don't want anyone to endanger their aircraft or another aircraft - it's part of my job to keep you safe and apart.

1. If you can get the call in - no problem we'll sort you out to get around the CB's - it's what we do.

2. If you can't get the call in, you will avoid it anyway.

Should you put on 7600/7700? You could debate that for ages - if it's less than a 10 degree turn on your part we'll probably not notice for a few minutes (if at all). If it's a huge turn - you'll get our attention straight away without sqawking 7700.

However, by selecting 7700 everyone in the room (TC) will notice you and will most probably vector their traffic out of your way. Our displays now keep your callsign when you select 7700.

As you say, you're in danger if you go into the CB and from an air traffic point you're in danger if you come off the SID/track you're on in the TMA so a 7700 is prudent if not justified.

If my colleagues down at NERC can put on a 7700 for a sick pax who has flown across the pond and still wants to go to destination, I think this case for a 7700 is proven.

We'll worry about the paperwork later.

WMD

[AlanM]

well said WMD

the only thing I would reiterate is to give us as much info and warning asap.

as I said earlier, I appreciate you may not know where your next heading will be - but if you are on a STAR you will have a rough idea of yr track so tell us please.

What range do you fly with yr wx radar on so that it can give usable details of the cells?

[BOAC]

but if you are on a STAR you will have a rough idea of yr track so tell us please.

....and SID, except that the 'radar headings' can change ALL of that, and there often is not time to ressess, discuss etc etc the 'new' problems in time to respond in the acknowledgement call, and requested altitude changes also change the weather problems.

The radar only looks certain angles left and right, so sometimes the cells can 'pop up' into view fairly unexpectedly.

Radar ranges used vary according to the route and weather.

So, 7700 is the favourite then? It WILL generate safety paperwork on both sides, which SHOULD have the beneficial effect of re-inforcing to management and the system the problems ATC have in manning/sector levels.

I'd like to 'echo' that working London ATC in bad weather is a most impressive experience - keep up the excellent work guys and girls.

[eyeinthesky]

It's the usual story: Ask 6 ATCOs / Pliots a question and you will get 60 different answers!

Here's my tuppenceworth:

1) Plan ahead: If on the flight deck your weather radar shows that your present track (if on a heading) or intended track (on own nav) shows that you will need to avoid, then ask earlier rather than later. That can be as suggested so far: "I will need to turn L or R in 15/20 etc miles" or "I need to stay high to get over the top" (not always feasible).

Down on the ground, if I really need someone to stay on a heading for a climb through or whatever and I know there is wx about, I will check with them first that they are able to continue on the heading for x miles before committing myself. I will also suggest early on that if they are planning weather avoidance the direction in which they should plan to go which will help me out. That might mean a bigger detour but it's better than a late turn directly into other traffic.

2) Modify your plan: If there is wx about, don't commit to large amounts of radar headings: use stepped climbs and descents so that you can accommodate changes of heading. If asked, I am usually able to say, don't turn yet, but on passing X you can avoid as you wish.

I appreciate that we can't cover every eventuality here, but I suggest that it should be an uncommon occurrence (even in the LTMA in my experience) that the situation is so desperate that you are thinking of 7700 and a TCAS-based separation. If the weather is that bad then in the TMA you should be stopping departures or putting MDIs on and getting flow involved to reduce the inbound load. In en-route then the flow measures or splitting should help. But it can all be reduced by using different techniques than the usual. If the delays build, then that's preferable to a new pair of underpants or worse due to frequency loading.

Short answer for BOAC's question: Do what you have to do, but if you have left it that late to make the decision then you are in the sh1t anyway and we will have to cope. Certainly don't squawk 7700 or 7600: it just adds to the uncertainty and hassle.

Another tip I perhaps shouldn't let on is that if you REALLY need to talk then if you key the mike and make the message quite long, the chances are that the end of your message will come after the end of the ATCO's or the other a/c, and you will get a "Station asking for wx avoidance, say again" and you are in!! :ok:

PS : I'm also strongly against the wholesale use of 7700 as taught in TRUCE. Unless the aircraft itself is in trouble or is going to descend rapidly into unsuspecting airspace, why the f*** should you put 7700 on for a 747 from HKG who has a heart attack patient on board and has just flown past Frankfurt, Brussels, Amsterdam and Stansted? All the necessary expedition can be arranged by phone without waking up every radar unit in the country including D&D!

PPS: Don't forget to ask the SOB at the same time as putting on 7700!!:rolleyes: "err 375 SOB London. Oh, sorry, make that 374 and we'd like to cancel the Pan":eek:

[Chosun]

Late arrival in this long thread, but here goes. "Station asking for weather avoidance.........." Well I fly a subsonic jet, not a station, and that is the point! Usually doing 250 IAS, maybe 280-300 TAS in the sky, and the blobs aren't static either, they are blowing in the wind and can grow at a good rate too. If the frequency is too busy to get a foot in the door, then I will avoid first and ask second, preferring to take the outside chance of a TCAS to the certainty of a battering in the red stuff.
As for an unannounced A7700, no way! In the USA you'd have an F16 escort in seconds......but then the USA controllers seem to be (have to be) more aware of the cb's, and are more sympathetic about keeping everyone in the clear as much as possible. On the odd occasion in the UK when the clouds get really ugly, I have found the LHR controllers to be very flexible, but I understand them getting weary of planes dodging 'fair weather Cu'............

So, as usual, some pilots & controllers good, some not so good, but every pilot owes it to his plane and passengers to avoid real Cb's. ;)

[Seloco]

I'm a mere pax observer here, privileged to experience such a professional exchange of views on an amazingly complex topic whose resolution to me seems often to require superhuman skills and stamina both from those in the air and those on the ground.

A couple of linked facts bother me though.

A respected UN organisation has just, unusually, pronounced that the world's weather is now undoubtedly changing fast due to global warming. One of the implications is that the UK's weather will get not just warmer, but more extreme. This means a more energetic heat engine driving more CBs and more situations like those of the 2nd July around London.

Against this fact I think I recall reading in one of the responses on this thread that London ATC no longer has access to wx radar. If this is true, is it not indeed something approaching madness? Surely with modern technology the ATCers should have as complete an access to relevant data as mankind can devise?

[WMD]

Seloco,

The only thing in the ops room at TC showing any weather is the computer down the far end running a program called 'MIST'. It can show you the forcast weather (ie where the rain will most likely be) and the actual weather(rainfall) at half hourly intervals (I think). It can do a few other things too (lightning for eg) but it's a tool to help the traffic manager really. Rumour has it that there were/are plans to ditch it completely.
The radar displays have all the weather filtered out. It would be great to have a switch so we could flick it on and off again occasionally.

WMD

[Seloco]

Thanks for the clarification, WMD.

I find it hard to believe that you guys are not given access to technology that could tell you when a blasted great cell is hovering over Ockham or wherever. It sounds rather like being asked to direct a group of people through a minefield, but perversely having to rely on them to tell you where the mines are!

[Yellow Snow]

Soleco

Nail being hit on the head there:hmm: