LHR Southbound Sid's vs Helicopters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Staines
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Southbound Sid's vs Helicopters
First time I have posted on here, so please be gentle.
Just a quick question for you flying types.
Yesterday at LHR we had a helicopter operating a Sunbury while on 09R for deps. This means we use an amendment to southbound SIDs of straight ahead to 1500ft before commencing the right turn on the MID,SAM, and CPT sid's. Jolly old AFR, on a MID departure, read back his clearance then promptly was next seen over London levelled at 1500ft and about 6nm away from the airfield. After removing my stomach from my mouth, and assuring the RAF they did not have to launch Tornados to shoot the thing down, It was all resolved.
My,rather long time getting there but just setting the scene, question is this: Would you accept a clearance to do such a thing when it is clearly a) Sector altitude unsafe and b) Barmy?
I am assuming he missed the 'Then commence the right turn' bit of the clearance and thought 1500ft was just a bit of fun.
Hold my hand up on this for not listening to his readback as clearly as one thought I had but just putting it out for discussion
Just a quick question for you flying types.
Yesterday at LHR we had a helicopter operating a Sunbury while on 09R for deps. This means we use an amendment to southbound SIDs of straight ahead to 1500ft before commencing the right turn on the MID,SAM, and CPT sid's. Jolly old AFR, on a MID departure, read back his clearance then promptly was next seen over London levelled at 1500ft and about 6nm away from the airfield. After removing my stomach from my mouth, and assuring the RAF they did not have to launch Tornados to shoot the thing down, It was all resolved.
My,rather long time getting there but just setting the scene, question is this: Would you accept a clearance to do such a thing when it is clearly a) Sector altitude unsafe and b) Barmy?
I am assuming he missed the 'Then commence the right turn' bit of the clearance and thought 1500ft was just a bit of fun.
Hold my hand up on this for not listening to his readback as clearly as one thought I had but just putting it out for discussion
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bucks. UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a flying type I'm afraid just a controller like you.
When I used to do 09R departures with helicopter traffic to the south of the field I used to use the phrase "climb straight ahead until passing 1500ft before turning right etc."
If you did say "to 1500ft" then perhaps you should think about an alternative.
Was that gentle enough?
When I used to do 09R departures with helicopter traffic to the south of the field I used to use the phrase "climb straight ahead until passing 1500ft before turning right etc."
If you did say "to 1500ft" then perhaps you should think about an alternative.
Was that gentle enough?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Staines
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now the seed of doubt are in my mind I have no idea! I will listen to the tapes when I get in tonight.
Brimstone . Fair point. I always harp on to trainees about the English language and how foreigners have a tendancy to interpret it literally. e.g It's raining Cats and Dogs is completly unfathomable to the French. Thus to be extra carefull with what you say. Even so, I am intrigued that such a clearance (given it's my poor RT) is acceptable to any pilot?
I will be extra careful in future.
P.s Brimstone you were very gentle and I thank you for that.
Brimstone . Fair point. I always harp on to trainees about the English language and how foreigners have a tendancy to interpret it literally. e.g It's raining Cats and Dogs is completly unfathomable to the French. Thus to be extra carefull with what you say. Even so, I am intrigued that such a clearance (given it's my poor RT) is acceptable to any pilot?
I will be extra careful in future.
P.s Brimstone you were very gentle and I thank you for that.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
finelay...
Interesting one!
All I can say, is if this is an "SOP" or frequent situation, then it is inevitable due to human factors that one day it will occur. Whether it is misleading phraseology from you, or misunderstanding from him, someone sometime will make the mistake.
The BA SOP (and I suspect most others) is that one pilot enters the anticipated SID into the "box", the other independently checks it correctly relates to the paper. They then brief, again cross checking their understanding of the text / box setup. If on getting ATC clearance, it differs, the above process is repeated.
If, now, just prior to takeoff, the SID is amended, the whole of those safeguards are gone. One has a complex 3 dimensional picture in mind, and it has been "tweaked". It is quite easy to tweak in more than one way that appears to meet your mental picture of what is involved.
Probably impractical, but better would be to cancel the SID, and re-issue the departure in text, like you do for westbounds from LHR.
I am not saying AFR were "innocent". I am just saying that an amendment to a SID in this fashion increases the chance of error, and therefore it is more likely that someone will make the error.
I would accept one quite happily. Plenty of SIDs etc. involve portions below SSA etc. and similar altitude restrictions. MAP at ARN is to 1500', SID at NCE, with very high SSAs is (was?) frequently amended to 1500' - even 1000' on occasion.
Would only be fair - the French Mirages spend half their time intercepting airliners in France these days...
NoD
Interesting one!
All I can say, is if this is an "SOP" or frequent situation, then it is inevitable due to human factors that one day it will occur. Whether it is misleading phraseology from you, or misunderstanding from him, someone sometime will make the mistake.
The BA SOP (and I suspect most others) is that one pilot enters the anticipated SID into the "box", the other independently checks it correctly relates to the paper. They then brief, again cross checking their understanding of the text / box setup. If on getting ATC clearance, it differs, the above process is repeated.
If, now, just prior to takeoff, the SID is amended, the whole of those safeguards are gone. One has a complex 3 dimensional picture in mind, and it has been "tweaked". It is quite easy to tweak in more than one way that appears to meet your mental picture of what is involved.
Probably impractical, but better would be to cancel the SID, and re-issue the departure in text, like you do for westbounds from LHR.
I am not saying AFR were "innocent". I am just saying that an amendment to a SID in this fashion increases the chance of error, and therefore it is more likely that someone will make the error.
Would you accept a clearance to do such a thing when it is clearly a) Sector altitude unsafe and b) Barmy?
assuring the RAF they did not have to launch Tornados
NoD
finelay
Touching on something Nigel mentioned - How long after your re-clearance did AFR get take-off clearance? Add in the language problem and their mistake is easily understood.
The reverse happened to me at Cairo a couple of days ago, Tower cleared us to go with the added instruction "Squawk XXXX at 500'" so we blasted off and also turned on course to the first waypoint as per our clearance. Radar asked why we weren't on runway heading on first contact - turned out the Tower controller "forgot" his colleagues request for seperation!
Touching on something Nigel mentioned - How long after your re-clearance did AFR get take-off clearance? Add in the language problem and their mistake is easily understood.
The reverse happened to me at Cairo a couple of days ago, Tower cleared us to go with the added instruction "Squawk XXXX at 500'" so we blasted off and also turned on course to the first waypoint as per our clearance. Radar asked why we weren't on runway heading on first contact - turned out the Tower controller "forgot" his colleagues request for seperation!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I trained controllers at Heathrow I used to pass on a piece of advice given to me when I trained... be very careful because the pilots here will carry out your instructions implicitly. It was true during my time there and very notceable after working at lesser airfields. They trust you as a like-professional so you have to do your utmost to be always right.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why straight ahead to only 1500 ft altitude before turning right to separate from H9 / H3 (Max altitude 800 ft) ? Should this not be 1800 ft in order to provide procedural standard vertical separation ?
Have I missed something ?
Such as reduced separation in the vicinity of 'a Northolt' ?
TDM
Have I missed something ?
Such as reduced separation in the vicinity of 'a Northolt' ?
TDM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bucks. UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short history lesson. Years ago we used to operate southbound SIDs from 09R without the "straight ahead" restriction irrespective of helicopter traffic on H3 or H9, on the basis of a deemed separation. The CPT SID was also deemed separated providing the departure did not turn onto the radar vector before the 27L middle marker.
It all came unstuck when a HP7 Herald (very slow climber) departed from an intersection well up 09R and had an encounter with a helicopter on H3. The "straight ahead through 1500ft" was brought in not as a procedural separation as such but to "make sure" vertical separation would be established bearing in mind the other requirements ie, cross the noise monitoring point above 1080ft or something and then maintain a minimum climb out gradient.
This was seen as a reasonable measure without becoming too much of a restraint on capacity.
Now that H3 is not normally used during easterly operations I think it would be worth reassessing whether or not the restriction on the southbound SIDs other than the CPT is valid any more, particularly bearing in mind the potential problems for crews outlined by Nigel.
It all came unstuck when a HP7 Herald (very slow climber) departed from an intersection well up 09R and had an encounter with a helicopter on H3. The "straight ahead through 1500ft" was brought in not as a procedural separation as such but to "make sure" vertical separation would be established bearing in mind the other requirements ie, cross the noise monitoring point above 1080ft or something and then maintain a minimum climb out gradient.
This was seen as a reasonable measure without becoming too much of a restraint on capacity.
Now that H3 is not normally used during easterly operations I think it would be worth reassessing whether or not the restriction on the southbound SIDs other than the CPT is valid any more, particularly bearing in mind the potential problems for crews outlined by Nigel.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the history lesson.
So, it is a 'deemer'.......ie a fudge of the issue or, indeed, a bodge.
Lip service to safety and commercial pressure.
OK. Granted, H3 is not normally used during easterly operations. But H9 (S) continues to be used on easterlies. So what is the difference at Sunbury ?
Perhaps it should be at least 1800 ft which is the RVA min safe alt......?
Maybe a struggle for Heralds, Yorks and Deux Pontsies etc but not difficult for current equipment.
TDM
So, it is a 'deemer'.......ie a fudge of the issue or, indeed, a bodge.
Lip service to safety and commercial pressure.
OK. Granted, H3 is not normally used during easterly operations. But H9 (S) continues to be used on easterlies. So what is the difference at Sunbury ?
Perhaps it should be at least 1800 ft which is the RVA min safe alt......?
Maybe a struggle for Heralds, Yorks and Deux Pontsies etc but not difficult for current equipment.
TDM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bucks. UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TDM - there is nothing wrong with the principle of deemed separations. They are a perfectly acceptable way of keeping traffic moving. Heli-route H10 is deemed separated from the 27L ILS approach. Works fine.
The problem on H3 occurred near Teddington. By the time southbounds pass abeam Sunbury they should be well above any helicopter at 800ft. That is my point and why I thought there may well be value in revisiting that issue.
RVA minimum altitudes are altitudes to which a radar controller may descend IFR flights or at which to permit them to transit controlled airspace. They have no real relevance to departing aircraft in this instance. In fact it is much better as far as obstacle and terrain clearance are concerned for an aircraft to fly a SID which has had all these things taken into account.
Not sure of your point regarding Cat A and B flights. Yes they are given precedence, whether SVFR or IFR, over other flights. Everyone knows that.
The problem on H3 occurred near Teddington. By the time southbounds pass abeam Sunbury they should be well above any helicopter at 800ft. That is my point and why I thought there may well be value in revisiting that issue.
RVA minimum altitudes are altitudes to which a radar controller may descend IFR flights or at which to permit them to transit controlled airspace. They have no real relevance to departing aircraft in this instance. In fact it is much better as far as obstacle and terrain clearance are concerned for an aircraft to fly a SID which has had all these things taken into account.
Not sure of your point regarding Cat A and B flights. Yes they are given precedence, whether SVFR or IFR, over other flights. Everyone knows that.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deemed separation - like the A340's (and others) on DVR SID's when on Easterlies that don't always clear the "Due South from Battersea Level at 1500 ft"
Deep joy!
Deep joy!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brimstone wrote: "Cat A and B flights. Yes they are given precedence, whether SVFR or IFR, over other flights. Everyone knows that."
Everyone ?? Including ALL at Heathrow Tower ??
TDM
Everyone ?? Including ALL at Heathrow Tower ??
TDM
