No Conditional clearances "trial".
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
especially when you consider code-share or franchise operations where the company on the callsign might not match the company painted on the side of the aircraft.
I might crash my car on the way to work, I will still drive. Someone might fly the wrong SIS, doesnt mean I will stop issuing wheels-up take off clearances just incase I loose separation.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the office wallahs forget that the guys running the show are professional people
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly the 744 for BA, there is no way we could be ready to go as the one in front lifts off without a conditional clearance, you need to be over the line and preferably moving when the previous gets cleared. Especailly from full length as the piano keys are very slippery on the nosewheel and you cant do more than 4-5 kts.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always found that "Speedbird123 After the Aer Lingus A320 on the north side departs line up and wait" takes up far more R/T time than "Speedbird123 line up".
From a pilot's viewpoint - we are all cleared to the holding point and often join the que some distance before the holding point i.e. we are cleared to a position on the airfield but have to wait until aircraft ahead move out of the way before we get there.
When a runway is used in departure only mode why can we not be told to line up when the threshold is occupied by a departure i.e. when the Aer Lingus in the above example enters the runway, we are told to line up.....same effect as the "clearance" to the hold point...we get there when the other guy moves.
It seems that the current situation of conditionals is effectively doing that because most flights creep forward past the hold bars and into position as soon as possible after the previous flight departs for the reasons given previously.
For mixed use runways simply say "BAW123 line-up" as the lander passes the threshold. Seems to work other places.
If conditional clearances are such an essential requirment why have never heard "BAW123 after the landing B737 vacates cleared take-off"
One way of reducing workload at Heathrow would be the introduction of a requirement to contact the ACC imediately after departure without the requirement for the tower to initiate the frequency change as has been successfully done at other places for years. That alone would reduce the R/T load by 1 call per flight which is lots per day!
Regards,
DFC
From a pilot's viewpoint - we are all cleared to the holding point and often join the que some distance before the holding point i.e. we are cleared to a position on the airfield but have to wait until aircraft ahead move out of the way before we get there.
When a runway is used in departure only mode why can we not be told to line up when the threshold is occupied by a departure i.e. when the Aer Lingus in the above example enters the runway, we are told to line up.....same effect as the "clearance" to the hold point...we get there when the other guy moves.
It seems that the current situation of conditionals is effectively doing that because most flights creep forward past the hold bars and into position as soon as possible after the previous flight departs for the reasons given previously.
For mixed use runways simply say "BAW123 line-up" as the lander passes the threshold. Seems to work other places.
If conditional clearances are such an essential requirment why have never heard "BAW123 after the landing B737 vacates cleared take-off"
One way of reducing workload at Heathrow would be the introduction of a requirement to contact the ACC imediately after departure without the requirement for the tower to initiate the frequency change as has been successfully done at other places for years. That alone would reduce the R/T load by 1 call per flight which is lots per day!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
Scenario. You're departing on a southbound route from LHR's 27R. At 1000 feet you switch to 120.52 and start the left turn. At the same time the a/c just about to land on 27L goes around.
Tell me how we would deal with that.
But with so many tasks I need to prioritise and undertake whilst doing departures, the conditional gives me the benefit of choosing when to give that transmission.
One way of reducing workload at Heathrow would be the introduction of a requirement to contact the ACC imediately after departure without the requirement for the tower to initiate the frequency change
Tell me how we would deal with that.
I have always found that "Speedbird123 After the Aer Lingus A320 on the north side departs line up and wait" takes up far more R/T time than "Speedbird123 line up".
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE
However people do sometimes make mistakes but going on the basis it "might" go wrong at some point does that mean we should stop something?
UNQUOTE
Absolutely YES!
Otherwise, what you are saying is that you are operating in a way which you know may be dangerous but you are taking the risk with other people's lives. That is not your choice to make. In aviation we cannot get away with saying: "We know this might go wrong, but we will continue to do it". That way lies disaster.
It is not acceptable in a safety-critical industry to continue to operate in ways we know to be fail dangerous. What's next: "Well 3 miles is plenty of separation, and they all miss, so we'll AIM for 3 miles but if we get less it'll be OK"? Or for aircrew to see the other traffic and take their own separation for climb?
Just because traffic loadings get higher does not mean we can cut corners.
Back to the point: I see the logic for a conditional line up in the form of: "When the one already on the threshold departs, line up" because that is fail-safe. but: "After the third landing, cross", or "After the third from the south side departs, line up" are fail-dangerous.
However people do sometimes make mistakes but going on the basis it "might" go wrong at some point does that mean we should stop something?
UNQUOTE
Absolutely YES!
Otherwise, what you are saying is that you are operating in a way which you know may be dangerous but you are taking the risk with other people's lives. That is not your choice to make. In aviation we cannot get away with saying: "We know this might go wrong, but we will continue to do it". That way lies disaster.
It is not acceptable in a safety-critical industry to continue to operate in ways we know to be fail dangerous. What's next: "Well 3 miles is plenty of separation, and they all miss, so we'll AIM for 3 miles but if we get less it'll be OK"? Or for aircrew to see the other traffic and take their own separation for climb?
Just because traffic loadings get higher does not mean we can cut corners.
Back to the point: I see the logic for a conditional line up in the form of: "When the one already on the threshold departs, line up" because that is fail-safe. but: "After the third landing, cross", or "After the third from the south side departs, line up" are fail-dangerous.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot button my lip any longer on this one. Perhaps GT3's wording was a little bit dubious, but I know what he meant. ATCOs are NOT in the business of taking risks with other people's lives, and I resent that statement as a slight on my professionalism.
We do not say "when the one of the threshold departs, line up." We identify the subject aircraft by airline/colourscheme and aircraft type to avoid any confusion. If there is still any doubt, good airmanship should dictate that the pilot will query his instructions.
We also do not say, "after the third landing, cross." Conditional runway crossing clearances when landing aircraft are involved are subject to ONE aircraft only. Again that aircraft is accurately described in terms of company/colourscheme and type. That is why aircraft types are so assiduously checked on first contact.
Also we do not say, " after the third from the south side departs, line up". Yet again the subject aircraft will be precisely identified so there can be no confusion. If the pilot crossing the runway is not au fait with the local procedures or geography of the airport, then a conditional clearance will not be used. Simple.
If other airports adopted the strict Heathrow protocols associated with conditional clearances then perhaps ther would be no need for a "trial" such as this. The procedure is SAFE and greatly adds expedition if used correctly. I would not like to see the ability to use conditionals removed for no good reason.
We do not say "when the one of the threshold departs, line up." We identify the subject aircraft by airline/colourscheme and aircraft type to avoid any confusion. If there is still any doubt, good airmanship should dictate that the pilot will query his instructions.
We also do not say, "after the third landing, cross." Conditional runway crossing clearances when landing aircraft are involved are subject to ONE aircraft only. Again that aircraft is accurately described in terms of company/colourscheme and type. That is why aircraft types are so assiduously checked on first contact.
Also we do not say, " after the third from the south side departs, line up". Yet again the subject aircraft will be precisely identified so there can be no confusion. If the pilot crossing the runway is not au fait with the local procedures or geography of the airport, then a conditional clearance will not be used. Simple.
If other airports adopted the strict Heathrow protocols associated with conditional clearances then perhaps ther would be no need for a "trial" such as this. The procedure is SAFE and greatly adds expedition if used correctly. I would not like to see the ability to use conditionals removed for no good reason.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent summation of the ongoing scenario ATCO 2 !!
I started this post because there is a rumour (only) going around that "for safety" there may be a two month "trial" that is all.
The idea is shear folly and the eminent posts of those ATCOs that use it for real highlight how it is an essential tool (when properly and unambiguously used).
How many times have we sat at the hold waiting for a line up instruction that is missed because the controller was busy saying something else, or someone checked in on the frequency with his life story!
Gaps are often missed when use of the conditional line up clearance (within the careful constraints so ably summed up by ATCO 2) would have ensured good traffic flow.
They "CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!"
I started this post because there is a rumour (only) going around that "for safety" there may be a two month "trial" that is all.
The idea is shear folly and the eminent posts of those ATCOs that use it for real highlight how it is an essential tool (when properly and unambiguously used).
How many times have we sat at the hold waiting for a line up instruction that is missed because the controller was busy saying something else, or someone checked in on the frequency with his life story!
Gaps are often missed when use of the conditional line up clearance (within the careful constraints so ably summed up by ATCO 2) would have ensured good traffic flow.
They "CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!"
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a look at your two pages of posts from the other side of the world, the conditional clearance that is most mentioned is the "line up behind" case. Instead of throwing the blonde out with the bubble bath why not tighten up on the phraseology (assuming the examples given are accurate). Use the ICAO recommended format "Behind the [blue][Air France] 737 on final, line up behind" and only allow it after the aircraft on final has been cleared to land. (Sorry USA). That's the way we are forced to do it and regardless of the mouthfull, it gets the aircraft onto the runway more quickly.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<One way of reducing workload at Heathrow would be the introduction of a requirement to contact the ACC imediately after departure without the requirement for the tower to initiate the frequency change as has been successfully done at other places for years. That alone would reduce the R/T load by 1 call per flight which is lots per day!>>
NO NO NO!!! It's the most utterly dangerous procedure ever, especially for a 2-runway airfield. We tried it at Heathrow and it failed because it was too dangerous.. Good communication practice anywhere demands that you do not change frequency a) without being told or b) without stating that you're so doing.
NO NO NO!!! It's the most utterly dangerous procedure ever, especially for a 2-runway airfield. We tried it at Heathrow and it failed because it was too dangerous.. Good communication practice anywhere demands that you do not change frequency a) without being told or b) without stating that you're so doing.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
Scenario. You're departing on a southbound route from LHR's 27R. At 1000 feet you switch to 120.52 and start the left turn. At the same time the a/c just about to land on 27L goes around.
Same as the scenario - FK50 departs 27R on a dover Sid and just after they are transfered to 120.52, a B747 goes round on 27L.
When a FK50 say departs 27R on a dover SID, with a series of B747s landing on 27L, when do you transfer the guy to the ACC?
If it is say passing 1500ft then why not put the communication transfer into the procedure and have pilots calling the ACC at 1500ft unless told otherwise.
I remember LL before the early turns in the MAP........much more intersting in a go-arround then (pre TCAS as well!!!)
----
Heathrow Director,
It would not be something that could be brought in over night but it seems to have worked elsewhere without many collisions or is it only Heathrow Directors that have lots of go-arrounds
Or certain favourite airline?
Do they still cheer in TCR when the alarm goes off?
Regards,
DFC
Scenario. You're departing on a southbound route from LHR's 27R. At 1000 feet you switch to 120.52 and start the left turn. At the same time the a/c just about to land on 27L goes around.
Same as the scenario - FK50 departs 27R on a dover Sid and just after they are transfered to 120.52, a B747 goes round on 27L.
When a FK50 say departs 27R on a dover SID, with a series of B747s landing on 27L, when do you transfer the guy to the ACC?
If it is say passing 1500ft then why not put the communication transfer into the procedure and have pilots calling the ACC at 1500ft unless told otherwise.
I remember LL before the early turns in the MAP........much more intersting in a go-arround then (pre TCAS as well!!!)
----
Heathrow Director,
It would not be something that could be brought in over night but it seems to have worked elsewhere without many collisions or is it only Heathrow Directors that have lots of go-arrounds
Or certain favourite airline?
Do they still cheer in TCR when the alarm goes off?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
No problem, because you either wait until it's 'clean' against a possible missed approach before you chuck it, or you get a level check before you chuck it so if there is a go-around you can tell arrivals what level they're safe up to.
In the case you mention I'd wait until he's at 2.5 at least.
Same as the scenario - FK50 departs 27R on a dover Sid and just after they are transfered to 120.52, a B747 goes round on 27L.
In the case you mention I'd wait until he's at 2.5 at least.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC... can you explain why simply waiting for ATC to tell you to change isn't acceptable... and don't give me the old chestnut about cockpit workload! Over the years we trialled a number of procedures at the request of pilots but none worked and we always reverted to the sytem of telling the guy when to switch..
In my opinion, and experience, it is eminently sensible for traffic in the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome to be in contact with the Tower until the Tower is happy to transfer it to the next frequency. 99 times out of 100 it will be as soon as wheels are up.... but that odd occasion when it is necessary to be talking to you it might save lives.
The worst airmiss I ever saw was caused by a pilot changing frequency without being told, probably because he thought he was at an airfield which has that unsafe procedure. PM me if you want the story.
In my opinion, and experience, it is eminently sensible for traffic in the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome to be in contact with the Tower until the Tower is happy to transfer it to the next frequency. 99 times out of 100 it will be as soon as wheels are up.... but that odd occasion when it is necessary to be talking to you it might save lives.
The worst airmiss I ever saw was caused by a pilot changing frequency without being told, probably because he thought he was at an airfield which has that unsafe procedure. PM me if you want the story.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: near The Tall Tower
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First post, so be gentle with me.
Back to the original topic, the problem of runway incursions has been growing at Heathrow for the last few years. To give some perspective they are mostly of the "lined up in the wrong order" variety which can mean some rapid braking for the crew who should have been lining up and a minute or so of departure time lost, but no-one gets hurt. As a percentage of the total movements figure I guess it's not a lot but as a bald statistic it is a big number which has got the attention of the "office wallahs". The issue needs to be addressed or a ban on conditional clearances will be the result.
The answer lies (for Heathrow) with the Air Departures ATCO and the crews of aircraft in the holding area.
ATCOs - keep to a sensible number of conditionals, ensure your instructions can be easily understood and listen to the readback
Pilots - listen out for your clearance, ask for clarification if it doesn't make sense and please try not to badger us about your sequence number. We know you are there, and are working are socks off to get every one away with the minum overall delay. To get the best use out of the runway this may mean several aircraft get away ahead of you but the overall delay is kept to a minimum.
Speaking personally, it dosen't bother me whether I am allowed to use conditional clearances or not. I suspect the inability to use conditionals at Heathrow will result in a reduction of runway capacity. This may only be 2 or 3 an hour, but that could add up to 45 departures lost each day.
We, at the sharp end, have it in our power to keep things as they are. Remove the statistics and the office wallahs will forget about this.
Silk Merchant
Back to the original topic, the problem of runway incursions has been growing at Heathrow for the last few years. To give some perspective they are mostly of the "lined up in the wrong order" variety which can mean some rapid braking for the crew who should have been lining up and a minute or so of departure time lost, but no-one gets hurt. As a percentage of the total movements figure I guess it's not a lot but as a bald statistic it is a big number which has got the attention of the "office wallahs". The issue needs to be addressed or a ban on conditional clearances will be the result.
The answer lies (for Heathrow) with the Air Departures ATCO and the crews of aircraft in the holding area.
ATCOs - keep to a sensible number of conditionals, ensure your instructions can be easily understood and listen to the readback
Pilots - listen out for your clearance, ask for clarification if it doesn't make sense and please try not to badger us about your sequence number. We know you are there, and are working are socks off to get every one away with the minum overall delay. To get the best use out of the runway this may mean several aircraft get away ahead of you but the overall delay is kept to a minimum.
Speaking personally, it dosen't bother me whether I am allowed to use conditional clearances or not. I suspect the inability to use conditionals at Heathrow will result in a reduction of runway capacity. This may only be 2 or 3 an hour, but that could add up to 45 departures lost each day.
We, at the sharp end, have it in our power to keep things as they are. Remove the statistics and the office wallahs will forget about this.
Silk Merchant
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silk Merchant.
I agree 100%....However, who among us believe that our declared capacity would decrease? Of course, it should, but would it really?
And I find the phrase "The next aircraft to ask for its sequence will be last" quickly gives you a period of silence!
I agree 100%....However, who among us believe that our declared capacity would decrease? Of course, it should, but would it really?
And I find the phrase "The next aircraft to ask for its sequence will be last" quickly gives you a period of silence!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director,
can you explain why simply waiting for ATC to tell you to change isn't acceptable
I never said that it wasn't acceptable. In fact it is perfectly acceptable.
The ATCOs seem to use the conditional line-up as a method of doing a number of tasks in an available time period to avoid other tasks clashing with those tasks at a later time. For example - use a conditional clearance now while you have the time so that you can in 30 seconds transfer the airbourne aircraft to the ACC without having to go back and tell the crew to line up........getting two things done at once.
If the "automatic transfer" was scheduled for say 2000ft then the tower could leave the aircraft to transfer at 2000ft and get on with line-up clearances, crossing clearances and coordination.
When does the transfer of control from the tower to APP/ACC (not transfer of comms) take place for departing flights at Heathrow?
I always believed that the transfer took place as soon as the aircraft was airbourne for flights in IMC?
Anyway it was just an idea that could save r/t time which will probably be overtaken by datalink - you press the transfer button and the message in the cockpit reads - 13317 bye!
Regards,
DFC
can you explain why simply waiting for ATC to tell you to change isn't acceptable
I never said that it wasn't acceptable. In fact it is perfectly acceptable.
The ATCOs seem to use the conditional line-up as a method of doing a number of tasks in an available time period to avoid other tasks clashing with those tasks at a later time. For example - use a conditional clearance now while you have the time so that you can in 30 seconds transfer the airbourne aircraft to the ACC without having to go back and tell the crew to line up........getting two things done at once.
If the "automatic transfer" was scheduled for say 2000ft then the tower could leave the aircraft to transfer at 2000ft and get on with line-up clearances, crossing clearances and coordination.
When does the transfer of control from the tower to APP/ACC (not transfer of comms) take place for departing flights at Heathrow?
I always believed that the transfer took place as soon as the aircraft was airbourne for flights in IMC?
Anyway it was just an idea that could save r/t time which will probably be overtaken by datalink - you press the transfer button and the message in the cockpit reads - 13317 bye!
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a rumour?
Very interesting debate chaps.......but.....has anyone else heard (or know) whether this is just a rumour or is there a basis of fact that use of conditional clearances is to cease "for a trial period"?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC... If the tried, tested and safe method of Tower transferring aircraft when the controller is ready is acceptable, why change it? Good communication practice is for an instruction to be issued for a frequency change and for a proper acknowledgement to be received. The Air Departures position at Heathrow Tower is not an over-busy postion and a properly trained and experienced controller should be well capable of deciding the correct priority for his tasks to achieve the end result with the minimum of fuss and the maximum safety.. but he can't do that if he is not able to communicate with aircraft.
Transfer at 2000ft? We trialled "Contact departure 90 seconds after rolling", which is pretty close, because some pilots reckoned they couldn't cope with noise abatement and a simultaneous frequency change. I had more than one frantic call from radar asking if I still had xxx - it was passing Epsom and hadn't changed freq! Other times I needed to talk to a crew soon after take-off but they'd gone...
We trialled "contact departure when airborne".. and, believe it or not, one very well known European airline crew changed frequency whilst lined up... The radar man said "squawk ident and climb to 6000ft" so they took off, much to the amazement of the Heathrow Tower man. Many other crews contacted LATCC before take-off too, even announcing that they were "number xx at the holding point". (Maybe they were the same guys who called ready for start-up whilst their pax were still checking in?!)
"Transfer of control" at Heathrow happens when the outbound aircraft makes contact with ACC. There is no physical transfer, nor, with one or two exceptions, communication 'twixt the controllers; it's all done "blind". The London Control guy has all the information about the flight and a display indicating when the a/c is cleared for take and when it is airborne so he is anticipating a call. The Tower man instructs the crew to change frequency - and thereby relinquishes control - when it is safe to do so. Whether it's IMC makes no difference - in fact in LVPs the Tower man may have to retain control for longer to sort out go-arounds.
Transfer at 2000ft? We trialled "Contact departure 90 seconds after rolling", which is pretty close, because some pilots reckoned they couldn't cope with noise abatement and a simultaneous frequency change. I had more than one frantic call from radar asking if I still had xxx - it was passing Epsom and hadn't changed freq! Other times I needed to talk to a crew soon after take-off but they'd gone...
We trialled "contact departure when airborne".. and, believe it or not, one very well known European airline crew changed frequency whilst lined up... The radar man said "squawk ident and climb to 6000ft" so they took off, much to the amazement of the Heathrow Tower man. Many other crews contacted LATCC before take-off too, even announcing that they were "number xx at the holding point". (Maybe they were the same guys who called ready for start-up whilst their pax were still checking in?!)
"Transfer of control" at Heathrow happens when the outbound aircraft makes contact with ACC. There is no physical transfer, nor, with one or two exceptions, communication 'twixt the controllers; it's all done "blind". The London Control guy has all the information about the flight and a display indicating when the a/c is cleared for take and when it is airborne so he is anticipating a call. The Tower man instructs the crew to change frequency - and thereby relinquishes control - when it is safe to do so. Whether it's IMC makes no difference - in fact in LVPs the Tower man may have to retain control for longer to sort out go-arounds.