Alitalia 244? Go-around - Heathrow 7th September c7:00pm
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Roxton, UK
Age: 47
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alitalia 244? Go-around - Heathrow 7th September c7:00pm
Can anyone shed any light on the go-around described above.
A colleague, who was on the plane, described nearly landing on the plane in front. Me being a PPRuNer tried to calm the tabloid style conversation developing and assured him that it was probably a fairly standard procedure and was due to Heathrow's very tight landing sequences.
Can anyone give me some hard facts to back me up.
Thanks
DeepC
A colleague, who was on the plane, described nearly landing on the plane in front. Me being a PPRuNer tried to calm the tabloid style conversation developing and assured him that it was probably a fairly standard procedure and was due to Heathrow's very tight landing sequences.
Can anyone give me some hard facts to back me up.
Thanks
DeepC
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to beat you to it P7,I was a morning shift! You guys were the afternoon...............
(Sorry DeepC!!!)
Without trying to imply your friend is over-dramatising, I take it he saw the other jet vacating the runway. Perhaps (can't remember what runway we were on!?) he saw a crossing a/c that was a little slow getting across.
(Sorry DeepC!!!)
Without trying to imply your friend is over-dramatising, I take it he saw the other jet vacating the runway. Perhaps (can't remember what runway we were on!?) he saw a crossing a/c that was a little slow getting across.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can give you a definitive answer on this one....
We were landing 27R. He was sent around because he was too tight against the aircraft in front. With little headwind, and even with the airbus ahead trying his best, it was never going to work. I can only apologise if your friend had to change his kecks afterwards, but thats just the way it goes sometimes!!
It was a joy working with P7 that day, and its good to see you even remembered to post the traffic information joke
See ya pals
We were landing 27R. He was sent around because he was too tight against the aircraft in front. With little headwind, and even with the airbus ahead trying his best, it was never going to work. I can only apologise if your friend had to change his kecks afterwards, but thats just the way it goes sometimes!!
It was a joy working with P7 that day, and its good to see you even remembered to post the traffic information joke
See ya pals
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go-arounds, like at any airport, can happen daily (or a couple of times in a day), then you can go for ages without one. So many things can cause it to happen, both ATC wise (tight spacing) and aircraft (little fast on final approach).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P7 etc
Been on the 'bus now 2 years ish, probably about 350 landings at LHR in that time, never yet had to go-around - very impressive. Been close though! It is a luxury to come in behind a heavy with 5 miles (even it it sometimes closes to a little less!). Personally I find TCAS in rose mode a wonderful aid to awareness, seing the a/c ahead 800 ft below and the one behind 600 above gives advance knowledge of being requested to expedite ... min time on runway, and as a result I've never caused anyone behind to have to go around either.
Keep up the good work ... now, can you have a word for me and ensure no more than 5 mins holding and no slot delays for the rest of my career (8+ years [hopefully]).
Been on the 'bus now 2 years ish, probably about 350 landings at LHR in that time, never yet had to go-around - very impressive. Been close though! It is a luxury to come in behind a heavy with 5 miles (even it it sometimes closes to a little less!). Personally I find TCAS in rose mode a wonderful aid to awareness, seing the a/c ahead 800 ft below and the one behind 600 above gives advance knowledge of being requested to expedite ... min time on runway, and as a result I've never caused anyone behind to have to go around either.
Keep up the good work ... now, can you have a word for me and ensure no more than 5 mins holding and no slot delays for the rest of my career (8+ years [hopefully]).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I find TCAS in rose mode a wonderful aid to awareness, seing the a/c ahead 800 ft below and the one behind 600 above gives advance knowledge of being requested to expedite ... min time on runway, and as a result I've never caused anyone behind to have to go around either.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jtr
... no, not missing anything. Yes, it does get down to 600ft/1.9nm. Not a problem usually as long as everyone is aware. Home based operators are most aware (as you'd expect), and I include Aer Lingus in this. From personal experience I find KLM and SAS reliable also, but don't relish following AF or AZ.
The norm is 2.5nm/800ft [again from my experience].
The guys in the tower seem to be coping pretty well (although not as slick) with the current occasional 09R landings configuration (due Canada geese at 09L threshold). By that I mean no significant additional holding - in fact less than normal this week. Haven't personally yet had the chance to take off on 09L.
... no, not missing anything. Yes, it does get down to 600ft/1.9nm. Not a problem usually as long as everyone is aware. Home based operators are most aware (as you'd expect), and I include Aer Lingus in this. From personal experience I find KLM and SAS reliable also, but don't relish following AF or AZ.
The norm is 2.5nm/800ft [again from my experience].
The guys in the tower seem to be coping pretty well (although not as slick) with the current occasional 09R landings configuration (due Canada geese at 09L threshold). By that I mean no significant additional holding - in fact less than normal this week. Haven't personally yet had the chance to take off on 09L.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top Bunk,
Don't blame us (well, not all of us, anyway ), 09R is horrendous for landing. It is very difficult to vacate the runway quickly. If you miss 82/83, then very few are willing to vacate north onto runway 23 with the barriers there and the work, and if you're parking south side it's a tight turn. If we're landing 09R, then we add a mile on to every gap, just to ensure you've got a chance of landing.
Heathrow wasn't built for 09L deps and 09R arrivals. Doesn't really work from a Ground control point of view. If you're not careful the whole airfeild grinds to a halt.
BTW, who are AZ?
And if anyone is interested, we're having these geese problems because BAA have removed a lake to build a bit of T5, so the geese now tend to congregate on the 09L approach!
Don't blame us (well, not all of us, anyway
), 09R is horrendous for landing. It is very difficult to vacate the runway quickly. If you miss 82/83, then very few are willing to vacate north onto runway 23 with the barriers there and the work, and if you're parking south side it's a tight turn. If we're landing 09R, then we add a mile on to every gap, just to ensure you've got a chance of landing.Heathrow wasn't built for 09L deps and 09R arrivals. Doesn't really work from a Ground control point of view. If you're not careful the whole airfeild grinds to a halt.
BTW, who are AZ?
And if anyone is interested, we're having these geese problems because BAA have removed a lake to build a bit of T5, so the geese now tend to congregate on the 09L approach!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo
Far from blaming you, I was congratulating you for the handling the 09R landings! Just an orbit at LAM at 1730 yesterday with 09R for landing surprised me - was expecting at least 10 minutes.
AZ = Alitalia (at least that is who I meant).
About 09R I agree that it's not ideal for vacating - easy to miss 67/68 - ideally they would be another 200m further from t/d point(the work at 70(O) doesn't help either) and the barriers across 23 hinder. Furthermore the work at 70(O) can cause a bottleneck when inbound and outbound traffic have to share the inner. Q. Do the barriers need to be across 23 when 09R is used for landing?
Good fun! Off on vacation soon, by the time I come back hopefully the work will be finished and the geese will have migrated.
Far from blaming you, I was congratulating you for the handling the 09R landings! Just an orbit at LAM at 1730 yesterday with 09R for landing surprised me - was expecting at least 10 minutes.
AZ = Alitalia (at least that is who I meant).
About 09R I agree that it's not ideal for vacating - easy to miss 67/68 - ideally they would be another 200m further from t/d point(the work at 70(O) doesn't help either) and the barriers across 23 hinder. Furthermore the work at 70(O) can cause a bottleneck when inbound and outbound traffic have to share the inner. Q. Do the barriers need to be across 23 when 09R is used for landing?
Good fun! Off on vacation soon, by the time I come back hopefully the work will be finished and the geese will have migrated.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was congratulating you for the handling the 09R landings! Just an orbit at LAM at 1730 yesterday
I think the barriers have to be there whatever. They were put there to avoid runway incursions, I don't think SRG would let us take them away.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo
I realise that the barriers are there for that resaon, but when landing 09R, don't most runway crossings to south side happen via block 79? I totally understand the need when departures are off 09R, when 23 is the outer taxiway, but with 09R for landing, I'm not so sure. If all crossings were to be at/via 79 or at the 27L threshold, that would free up 23 to be used for vacating aircraft, especially if outbound taxying aircraft to 09L from old Echoes went anticlockwise on inner and F etc clockwise to reduce chance of incursion. Maybe the SRG never considered the 09R landing, 09L departure scenario?
I realise that the barriers are there for that resaon, but when landing 09R, don't most runway crossings to south side happen via block 79? I totally understand the need when departures are off 09R, when 23 is the outer taxiway, but with 09R for landing, I'm not so sure. If all crossings were to be at/via 79 or at the 27L threshold, that would free up 23 to be used for vacating aircraft, especially if outbound taxying aircraft to 09L from old Echoes went anticlockwise on inner and F etc clockwise to reduce chance of incursion. Maybe the SRG never considered the 09R landing, 09L departure scenario?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopBunk,
I understand where you're coming from, but since we only go to 09R arrivals for a short period, I guess it's not been considered as 'worth it'. When there was a full barrier completely blocking 78-85, it was first introduced only on easterlies, we could remove it on westerlies. Then we had incursions on westerlies, so it was permanent. I think there may be a reluctance on the part of SRG to allow us to remove what is now a semi-permanent barrier after we fought to put it there.
With the work in 77o, what tends to happen is anything from E, F and G outbound for 09L goes anticlockwise. Keeps the bottleneck one-way.
Using 85 for crossing when landing 09R is a big no-no anyway, the're no way you'd be able to get across in anything less than an 8 mile gap. Same goes for the 27L threshold. So with all the BA towers going from No.1 to T4, it's either fight all the way through to cross at 79, then struggle all the way back along the southern, or cross at the 27L threshold and ask for gaps, thus making the inbound delay even worse.
Not pretty.
I understand where you're coming from, but since we only go to 09R arrivals for a short period, I guess it's not been considered as 'worth it'. When there was a full barrier completely blocking 78-85, it was first introduced only on easterlies, we could remove it on westerlies. Then we had incursions on westerlies, so it was permanent. I think there may be a reluctance on the part of SRG to allow us to remove what is now a semi-permanent barrier after we fought to put it there.
With the work in 77o, what tends to happen is anything from E, F and G outbound for 09L goes anticlockwise. Keeps the bottleneck one-way.
Using 85 for crossing when landing 09R is a big no-no anyway, the're no way you'd be able to get across in anything less than an 8 mile gap. Same goes for the 27L threshold. So with all the BA towers going from No.1 to T4, it's either fight all the way through to cross at 79, then struggle all the way back along the southern, or cross at the 27L threshold and ask for gaps, thus making the inbound delay even worse.
Not pretty.
