Today at EDI and always....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brain fade
Regarding your comment about Paris launching heavy traffic when you're at 2.5d inbound....what's your view on that as a pilot? Most ATCOs that I know, at least, appreciate feedback on certain procedures, and this issue of departing one just ahead of a lander is going to become more common at more airports as traffic levels grow. (And I know about the issue of a heavy jet causing turbulent wake in the touchdown zone on a calm evening for light traffic etc). I guess you fly something E145-size or bigger; just curious whether you come down on the side of more expedition or more room on short final.
Regarding your comment about Paris launching heavy traffic when you're at 2.5d inbound....what's your view on that as a pilot? Most ATCOs that I know, at least, appreciate feedback on certain procedures, and this issue of departing one just ahead of a lander is going to become more common at more airports as traffic levels grow. (And I know about the issue of a heavy jet causing turbulent wake in the touchdown zone on a calm evening for light traffic etc). I guess you fly something E145-size or bigger; just curious whether you come down on the side of more expedition or more room on short final.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NS,
I suspect that BF flies an E145 or something SMALLER; otherwise he'd be out spending his millions instead of slagging off EDI on here....
....or he could just be from Glasgow.
BF,
Any similar complaints about Manchester? You seem to have plenty to say!
I suspect that BF flies an E145 or something SMALLER; otherwise he'd be out spending his millions instead of slagging off EDI on here....
....or he could just be from Glasgow.
BF,
Any similar complaints about Manchester? You seem to have plenty to say!
PPRuNe's favourite BABE!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under the duvet!!!!
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did the "person in authority" whomever it may have been, pick the busiest and most unpopular time to caliberate the ILS?
As one of the controllers on that weekend I would like to say that my colleagues worked their b*llocks off that weekend. Not only was it busy with IFR traffic and a busy VFR day but with a wrong end callibration and an airshow at East Fortune, who's aircraft were all based at Edi, hence worked in and out to make good their display times, there wasn't one of us that didn't go home feeling shattered. And before anyone says "awwww shame", I'm not complaining thats the job we are payed to do.
The calibration was essential, otherwise we would have no ils, so a small delay is always going to occur. Had we not got it finished that weekend then the calibrator aircraft would have toodled away sunday night to his next job and Edi would have had to wait for another available slot, prob at the earliest the next weekend, delaying the ils by at least a week. Not really good considering fog is not uncommon!
As for your comments Brain Fade I for one am becoming tired of hearing them. As always you are welcome for a visit to ATC, perhaps for once you will accept and come over then maybe you will stop whining quite as much.
Babe
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1261
Correct on both counts. No complaints about Manch tho. Sorry.
Babe.
Nobodys forcing you to read anything but sorry for droning on anyway. I've been over before and phoned up too. Made about as much progress as here.
Nudging steel.
There seems to be no wake issue but there's sometimes a bit of rock and rolling in the flare due to engine wash. Nothing serious tho. Personally I don't mind and as someone pointed out they need to try quite hard due to traffic volume. I prefer this to the over cautious' ultra safe approach at EDI- needless to say the Paris ATC ers are as safety minded as any others.
Swift.
Takes quite a bit of nerve I expect so hats off to those who manage it. Not the end of the world either if you get the odd g/a is it. I suppose GLA has much the same ATC environment/ difficulties that EDI has (although its maybe not as busy. They seem to be right on there game at GLA tho, at least to an occassional user like me. Why don't you copy some of their ideas?
Correct on both counts. No complaints about Manch tho. Sorry.
Babe.
Nobodys forcing you to read anything but sorry for droning on anyway. I've been over before and phoned up too. Made about as much progress as here.
Nudging steel.
There seems to be no wake issue but there's sometimes a bit of rock and rolling in the flare due to engine wash. Nothing serious tho. Personally I don't mind and as someone pointed out they need to try quite hard due to traffic volume. I prefer this to the over cautious' ultra safe approach at EDI- needless to say the Paris ATC ers are as safety minded as any others.
Swift.
Takes quite a bit of nerve I expect so hats off to those who manage it. Not the end of the world either if you get the odd g/a is it. I suppose GLA has much the same ATC environment/ difficulties that EDI has (although its maybe not as busy. They seem to be right on there game at GLA tho, at least to an occassional user like me. Why don't you copy some of their ideas?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Around and About
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BF
EDI handles 20% more traffic, here are the figures
You also conveniently forget the limited view from the existing tower.
Just a thought
Would you operate in the same way if half the cockpit windows were blacked out? Somehow I think you may become more circumspect in your actions
Ex
EDI handles 20% more traffic, here are the figures
You also conveniently forget the limited view from the existing tower.
Just a thought
Would you operate in the same way if half the cockpit windows were blacked out? Somehow I think you may become more circumspect in your actions
Ex
PPRuNe's favourite BABE!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under the duvet!!!!
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose GLA has much the same ATC environment/ difficulties that EDI has (although its maybe not as busy.
You suppose wrong. Yes we are busier than gla which the figures show. However;
1- Gla have a runway which they can see. They don't just get a glimpse of 2/3rds of it. Because of this there are restrictions like no conditional lineups or clearances on 06 which all slow down operations.
2-Gla have high speed exits which do help. All of Edi's are 90 degree turns which altho I'm sure doesn't slow yourself in vacating it sure slows down the rest!
3-Gla do not work the VFR traffic we do. From what I was told they cut down what they worked a long time ago. However as I dont work there I could be wrong, but I do know we very rarely turn down transiters.
4-Edi works IFR traffic inbound to leuchars and dundee daily. These all add workload onto us but these are not added to the traffic figures published. This means we do a lot of work outside controlled airspace.
5-Gla has a much better airfield layout. From what I remember they dont pushback from 1 stand blocking a whole apron all the time. This is a regular problem at Edi which slows down ground considerably.
These are only a few of the differences between Edi and Gla but they point out that our environments/difficulties are nothing similar. As for saying that we can copy a few of Gla's ideas I think you will find that we do infact follow the same rule book as Gla and indeed most airports, so the "ideas" are or at least should be the same. As you admit you are only an occasional user there, maybe if you spent more time there you would find a few flaws as well!
And I would also like to point out that I am not minimising Gla in anyway. They have, I'm sure, their own problems and difficulties.
Babe
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCBabe,
Statistics are wonderful things 20% sounds like a lot, break it dowwn for the month it's not that much more - probably accounts for all the freight movements you have, might be worth looking at the passenger figures or aircraft types to make a decent comaprison.
1. Yes we can see the runway - we don't however have an SMR
2. Only have RET's on 23 and we are in the process of stopping using them due to possible implications of the siting of the holding points
3. I would suggest we probably work more VFR than PH, look at all the stuff flying out of PG, I've never (in the 6 years I've been at PF) nor do I know anyone that has ever refused a zone transit
4. We work IFR to PK, PG and all the crap in Class G out to the West all of which are not classed in our movement figures either.
5. Push from Stand 6, 7, 21, 31, (767 off 36) (767 off 19) and you block a whole taxiway (Just ask Easy Jet Crew how annoying this is), stand4 will block K, 10 or 16 will block L, 23 or 28 will block M, 33 will block N.
Our difficulties are as unique to us as yours are to EDI, the fact is we both work well doing what we do that is moving the traffic we have with the limitations that apply to us and the same goes for all the uniots across the land. SAFE ORDERLY EXPEDITIOUS in that order.
I am happy to say that we do it well perhaps better than anyone else in the world.
Statistics are wonderful things 20% sounds like a lot, break it dowwn for the month it's not that much more - probably accounts for all the freight movements you have, might be worth looking at the passenger figures or aircraft types to make a decent comaprison.
1. Yes we can see the runway - we don't however have an SMR
2. Only have RET's on 23 and we are in the process of stopping using them due to possible implications of the siting of the holding points
3. I would suggest we probably work more VFR than PH, look at all the stuff flying out of PG, I've never (in the 6 years I've been at PF) nor do I know anyone that has ever refused a zone transit
4. We work IFR to PK, PG and all the crap in Class G out to the West all of which are not classed in our movement figures either.
5. Push from Stand 6, 7, 21, 31, (767 off 36) (767 off 19) and you block a whole taxiway (Just ask Easy Jet Crew how annoying this is), stand4 will block K, 10 or 16 will block L, 23 or 28 will block M, 33 will block N.
Our difficulties are as unique to us as yours are to EDI, the fact is we both work well doing what we do that is moving the traffic we have with the limitations that apply to us and the same goes for all the uniots across the land. SAFE ORDERLY EXPEDITIOUS in that order.
I am happy to say that we do it well perhaps better than anyone else in the world.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look folks I've been based in Scotland for years at both GLA and EDI. (though not, obviously, at exactly the same time). GLA's always been streets ahead and IMHO it still is. It seems to me that at EDI they take some sort of delight in forming a queue from however few a/c they have in their clutches. Sometimes just one!
For example at GLA the phrase 'advise at anytime if you wish to continue visually' is heard all the time but very rarely at EDI. Sure must help keep the queues down! not to mention controller workload.
Now EDI folk, I know you're itching to come back with some reason why thats not a go-er at EDI.
Why not try doing it instead?!
For example at GLA the phrase 'advise at anytime if you wish to continue visually' is heard all the time but very rarely at EDI. Sure must help keep the queues down! not to mention controller workload.
Now EDI folk, I know you're itching to come back with some reason why thats not a go-er at EDI.
Why not try doing it instead?!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That one's pretty simple - in the UK ATC is not allowed to offer visual approaches to IFR traffic. The request has to come from the pilot.
That said, I'd be lying if I said I'd never done it.
BF, perhaps you'd like to tell us about an example of how you ignore a (CityExpress??) company SOP (or the ANO for that matter) to cut a few corners in the name of expedition?
That said, I'd be lying if I said I'd never done it.
BF, perhaps you'd like to tell us about an example of how you ignore a (CityExpress??) company SOP (or the ANO for that matter) to cut a few corners in the name of expedition?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the last time an EDI inbound got landing clearance outside 2 miles?
I believe the movement rate is regularly in the mid 30s which with the traffic mix and crap SIDs doesn't seem too bad!
I believe the movement rate is regularly in the mid 30s which with the traffic mix and crap SIDs doesn't seem too bad!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1261,
At PF we're not offering a visual approach, we are merely reminding the pilot to let us know if they do wish to make a visual approach, thereby expediting the traffic situation.
It may only save 5 or 6 miles per approach but over a day that adds up and less miles means less fuel burn which results in savings for the company, it also reduces controller workload and results in expedited arrivals - one of the reasons you will find we very rarely need to hold at LANAK no matter how many inbound a/c we are working.
At PF we're not offering a visual approach, we are merely reminding the pilot to let us know if they do wish to make a visual approach, thereby expediting the traffic situation.
It may only save 5 or 6 miles per approach but over a day that adds up and less miles means less fuel burn which results in savings for the company, it also reduces controller workload and results in expedited arrivals - one of the reasons you will find we very rarely need to hold at LANAK no matter how many inbound a/c we are working.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<That one's pretty simple - in the UK ATC is not allowed to offer visual approaches to IFR traffic>>
Presumably a recently introduced rule? My ancient MATS Pt1 says:
12 Visual Approach
12.1 To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights may be authorised to execute visual
approaches if the pilot reports that he can maintain visual reference to the surface and
a) the reported cloud ceiling is not below the initial approach level; or
b) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the
visibility will permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance
exists that this can be accomplished.
12.2 Standard separation shall be effected between such aircraft and other IFR and/or
SVFR aircraft.
Nowhere does that say ATC is not allowed to offer the procedure and I must have offered thousands during my time at Heathrow. Pilot says: "We have the field in sight", ATC says: "Do you wish to continue visually?".. Pilot agrees so ATC says "Cleared for a Visual Approach..
Presumably a recently introduced rule? My ancient MATS Pt1 says:
12 Visual Approach
12.1 To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights may be authorised to execute visual
approaches if the pilot reports that he can maintain visual reference to the surface and
a) the reported cloud ceiling is not below the initial approach level; or
b) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the
visibility will permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance
exists that this can be accomplished.
12.2 Standard separation shall be effected between such aircraft and other IFR and/or
SVFR aircraft.
Nowhere does that say ATC is not allowed to offer the procedure and I must have offered thousands during my time at Heathrow. Pilot says: "We have the field in sight", ATC says: "Do you wish to continue visually?".. Pilot agrees so ATC says "Cleared for a Visual Approach..
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual or VMC?
HD
Quick! Replace the Mats Pt1. Table's falling over.
There used to be a thing we could use when radar wasn't available , called "Approach Maintaining VMC and Own Separation" which pilots had to request - we couldn't offer, which I suspect is where the confusion is coming from.
Sadly gone now, but we used to pass the traffic info, and let them find the field, hopefully avoiding the other traffic.
Ah, those were the days. Procedural approach on a nice sunny day - from GMC.
Quick! Replace the Mats Pt1. Table's falling over.
There used to be a thing we could use when radar wasn't available , called "Approach Maintaining VMC and Own Separation" which pilots had to request - we couldn't offer, which I suspect is where the confusion is coming from.
Sadly gone now, but we used to pass the traffic info, and let them find the field, hopefully avoiding the other traffic.
Ah, those were the days. Procedural approach on a nice sunny day - from GMC.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDI v GLA
Have to agree with the majority of posters , EDI is a lot slower for arrivals and deps than GLA , however having done exactly what the controllers here suggest and visited the existing tower a few years ago , i was completely horrified . I t was like something out of a war film . Ancient equipment , quite clearly starved of investment . The airfield lighting panel looked like a school science programme gone wrong and as for the view ! .
I asked at the time why they did not include a note in the AIP , Jepp , Aerad advising crews that tower could not see 06 or most of the stands . (maybe thats been done now)
I note the contoller says they have no RET 's , with all that investment in new taxi ways , surley that could have been included .
Having said all that , i found EDI a horrendous place to work as do most of my colleagues , nothing worse than getting a roster change to operate from there . The -ve cant do attitude starts at the staff car park and permeates every aspect of the place from the top down , some of the ruddest most abbrasive people i have ever encountered in aviation work there . a special mention needs to be made of some of the security people who seem to take great delight in being as rude ,un-helpful and obstructive as they can to staff whilst the DETR are wandering about with small arms strapped to their backs. When youve made it through this lot and out to your a/c the fun really begins !
In general though , it is increasingly obvious to those of us who operate regularly in to scottish airspace and the two main airports that the current set up just cannot cope with the traffic flow as it is now at peak times and someone high up needs to take a "blank sheet of paper " approach to the whole thing .
I believe the ATC guys at area and Airport control do a good job within the physical confines of the equipment /procedures they at the moment , however to take as an example the airpsace in london is more complex and the volume of traffic they can move is of a different order . Maybe some cross-fertilisation of ideas's techniques should prevail .
GLA ATC dont get too complacent i leave you with this one , B737 call for push stand 10 , approved . ATP call for push stand 18 . 737 asked to make long push to allow ATP to push .
Both taxi to A1 , 737 offers to take B1 to speed things up , "no you are No 2 to ATP" Both on TRN SID . ATP departs , 737 waits 6 mins , thereby increasing block time by 25% for a BFS sector .
GLA ATC state ATP taxied first so gets airborne first . This type of thinking will need to change . If the 737 had gone first there would have been no delay to the ATP . 6 mins of wasted space . Would not happen like this at LHR , LGW or STN .
NF
Have to agree with the majority of posters , EDI is a lot slower for arrivals and deps than GLA , however having done exactly what the controllers here suggest and visited the existing tower a few years ago , i was completely horrified . I t was like something out of a war film . Ancient equipment , quite clearly starved of investment . The airfield lighting panel looked like a school science programme gone wrong and as for the view ! .
I asked at the time why they did not include a note in the AIP , Jepp , Aerad advising crews that tower could not see 06 or most of the stands . (maybe thats been done now)
I note the contoller says they have no RET 's , with all that investment in new taxi ways , surley that could have been included .
Having said all that , i found EDI a horrendous place to work as do most of my colleagues , nothing worse than getting a roster change to operate from there . The -ve cant do attitude starts at the staff car park and permeates every aspect of the place from the top down , some of the ruddest most abbrasive people i have ever encountered in aviation work there . a special mention needs to be made of some of the security people who seem to take great delight in being as rude ,un-helpful and obstructive as they can to staff whilst the DETR are wandering about with small arms strapped to their backs. When youve made it through this lot and out to your a/c the fun really begins !
In general though , it is increasingly obvious to those of us who operate regularly in to scottish airspace and the two main airports that the current set up just cannot cope with the traffic flow as it is now at peak times and someone high up needs to take a "blank sheet of paper " approach to the whole thing .
I believe the ATC guys at area and Airport control do a good job within the physical confines of the equipment /procedures they at the moment , however to take as an example the airpsace in london is more complex and the volume of traffic they can move is of a different order . Maybe some cross-fertilisation of ideas's techniques should prevail .
GLA ATC dont get too complacent i leave you with this one , B737 call for push stand 10 , approved . ATP call for push stand 18 . 737 asked to make long push to allow ATP to push .
Both taxi to A1 , 737 offers to take B1 to speed things up , "no you are No 2 to ATP" Both on TRN SID . ATP departs , 737 waits 6 mins , thereby increasing block time by 25% for a BFS sector .
GLA ATC state ATP taxied first so gets airborne first . This type of thinking will need to change . If the 737 had gone first there would have been no delay to the ATP . 6 mins of wasted space . Would not happen like this at LHR , LGW or STN .
NF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nil,
The situation you describe at GLA is a very rare one and something I have never done, nor witnessed, an ATP can go 1 min behind a 737 on a TRN departure whereas the 737 needs 4 mins behind ATP.
I can only assume one of 2 things happened tehre:
1. You had a slot and were early
or
2. A trainee in the tower made an incorrect decision and justified it by stating that ATP taxied first so departs first.
Definitely not the norm as I'm sure you're aware if you operate into / out of GLA as frequently as you probably do if you fly for the orange crowd.
Feel free to come and look at our antiquated equipment anytime you like, we might even be able to find a chocolate biscuit.
The situation you describe at GLA is a very rare one and something I have never done, nor witnessed, an ATP can go 1 min behind a 737 on a TRN departure whereas the 737 needs 4 mins behind ATP.
I can only assume one of 2 things happened tehre:
1. You had a slot and were early
or
2. A trainee in the tower made an incorrect decision and justified it by stating that ATP taxied first so departs first.
Definitely not the norm as I'm sure you're aware if you operate into / out of GLA as frequently as you probably do if you fly for the orange crowd.
Feel free to come and look at our antiquated equipment anytime you like, we might even be able to find a chocolate biscuit.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benedictus
Damn Right!
Nil Further
Couldn't agree more. Our handling, for example, is a fuc.ing disgrace.
Heathrow Director
Any idea why they don't then (as none of the EDI folk will tell
)
IMHO the whole place is a fuggin pain in the arse from start to finish.
Damn Right!
Nil Further
Couldn't agree more. Our handling, for example, is a fuc.ing disgrace.
Heathrow Director
Any idea why they don't then (as none of the EDI folk will tell
)IMHO the whole place is a fuggin pain in the arse from start to finish.
Last edited by brain fade; 19th Jun 2005 at 12:46.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benedictus
Didnt mean to imply that was the norm' .Was trying to insert a bit of balance to the pasting that the guys at EDI got.
GLA is a great place to operate from , the absolute opposite in terms of attitude to the deal in EDI .
I do stand by the statement that the way all of us pilots / atco's in Scotland operate at the mo' is not a useable model for the future and something radical will have to change . The problems documented on this thread about EDI are the beginings of a melt down across the area and some "blue sky" thinking by the powers that be in both Scottish and at the major airports is neccesary , it will not be long before your major customers are banging on the door looking for you guys to pick up some or all of the tab for the ATC delays . ( i know that management at Director level in a major loco are looking closely at the change in the rules later this year)
Regards
NF
Didnt mean to imply that was the norm' .Was trying to insert a bit of balance to the pasting that the guys at EDI got.
GLA is a great place to operate from , the absolute opposite in terms of attitude to the deal in EDI .
I do stand by the statement that the way all of us pilots / atco's in Scotland operate at the mo' is not a useable model for the future and something radical will have to change . The problems documented on this thread about EDI are the beginings of a melt down across the area and some "blue sky" thinking by the powers that be in both Scottish and at the major airports is neccesary , it will not be long before your major customers are banging on the door looking for you guys to pick up some or all of the tab for the ATC delays . ( i know that management at Director level in a major loco are looking closely at the change in the rules later this year)
Regards
NF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nil,
What we need is some restructuring of the SIDs, as it stands, all the SIDs go straight ahead for at least 5 miles before turning, this means that the minimum departure interval (unless we can apply early turns to the West and use reduced separation) is 2 minutes or vortex for each and every departure. This results in delays at the holding points, especially in the mornings and early evenings. Couple this with Minimum Departure Intervals (MDIs) into the Galloway sector which are now occurring on a daily basis (sometimes 1 departure every 5 minutes) means even greater delays for anyone going out on a TRN, NGY, DCS or TLA departure. This then becomes a Ground Controllers nightmare, do we stop a/c starting, try and get a departure order that will work with minimum delays or just let you guys take 20 mins at the hold. I appreciate that the norm at the likes of LHR and LGW is perhaps a good 20 mins at the hold in the queue, but you shouldn't have more than 5 or 6 at GLA. Add the fact than when we're on 23 there is nowhere for anyone to pass if we can get a slightly better order unless you can accept a 'B' departure (assuming you can get to B because of traffic ahead of you).
Our problems are numerous and by all accounts only going to get worse, radical change will be needed if things are going to improve. I saw the BAA plans for next year at GLA and the extra stands will help ease the parking problems we have, but the new taxiway design (a near 90 degree turn by the tower) will certainly slow things down and cause a lot of congestion which I don't think the airfield can actually handle.
What we need is some restructuring of the SIDs, as it stands, all the SIDs go straight ahead for at least 5 miles before turning, this means that the minimum departure interval (unless we can apply early turns to the West and use reduced separation) is 2 minutes or vortex for each and every departure. This results in delays at the holding points, especially in the mornings and early evenings. Couple this with Minimum Departure Intervals (MDIs) into the Galloway sector which are now occurring on a daily basis (sometimes 1 departure every 5 minutes) means even greater delays for anyone going out on a TRN, NGY, DCS or TLA departure. This then becomes a Ground Controllers nightmare, do we stop a/c starting, try and get a departure order that will work with minimum delays or just let you guys take 20 mins at the hold. I appreciate that the norm at the likes of LHR and LGW is perhaps a good 20 mins at the hold in the queue, but you shouldn't have more than 5 or 6 at GLA. Add the fact than when we're on 23 there is nowhere for anyone to pass if we can get a slightly better order unless you can accept a 'B' departure (assuming you can get to B because of traffic ahead of you).
Our problems are numerous and by all accounts only going to get worse, radical change will be needed if things are going to improve. I saw the BAA plans for next year at GLA and the extra stands will help ease the parking problems we have, but the new taxiway design (a near 90 degree turn by the tower) will certainly slow things down and cause a lot of congestion which I don't think the airfield can actually handle.