Take off clearance at GLA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take off clearance at GLA
Apologies if this is the wrong forum but as SLF just wanted to how often the following happens......
I was on the BA flight from GLA to LHR last night (17.15) and after waiting at the holding point the aircraft entered the runway and stopped. Thrust was then applied as normal to I guess the standard initial setting but instead of going to t/o thrust the a/c taxied and then exited at the first turning.
The PF announced on the pa that air traffic had asked them to vacate as the aircraft on finals was too close and therefore he had been asked to clear the runway.
Personally I have never seen/heard this happen before as I would have thought the the aircraft on finals would normally be sent around rather than the aircraft actually on the runway being asked to clear.
Sorry if any of the terminolgy is wrong. This maybe a relatively normal occurance but was interested to see what your thoughts were.
Thanks
I was on the BA flight from GLA to LHR last night (17.15) and after waiting at the holding point the aircraft entered the runway and stopped. Thrust was then applied as normal to I guess the standard initial setting but instead of going to t/o thrust the a/c taxied and then exited at the first turning.
The PF announced on the pa that air traffic had asked them to vacate as the aircraft on finals was too close and therefore he had been asked to clear the runway.
Personally I have never seen/heard this happen before as I would have thought the the aircraft on finals would normally be sent around rather than the aircraft actually on the runway being asked to clear.
Sorry if any of the terminolgy is wrong. This maybe a relatively normal occurance but was interested to see what your thoughts were.
Thanks
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there's time, it's usually better to get the a/c on the runway to vacate than send the landing a/c around.....think about how much fuel (and time) will be used by the aircraft doing a missed approach and rejoining the approach sequence compared to the fuel and time used by an a/c taxying another few hundred metres off the runway and back to the holding point.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swanwick, England
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember the crash that happened a few years ago with the Varig? that had been around a couple of times and ended up running out of fuel?
Getting the inbound down if you can, I'm sure it would be less hassle for everyone!
Getting the inbound down if you can, I'm sure it would be less hassle for everyone!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happens occasionally - perhaps the preceding landing missed an exit, taking longer on the runway than expected. As Gonzo says, ATC would prefer not to send aircraft round if it can be avoided. 
to the controllers.
I'd say not a common occurrence, but it happens and is quite valid.
to the controllers.I'd say not a common occurrence, but it happens and is quite valid.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, say the departing a/c is lined up and ready, and it's been asked to taxi and vacate at the first intersection.
If they have been able to move at taxi speed and vacate safely before the inbound aircraft touched down, they probably could have initiated the TO roll and be airborne before the following a/c touched down.
Is this not allowed because in case of an aborted TO the following a/c could be too low to be instructed to go around ?
Working at GLA on the apron I have seen a couple of rotations of an a/c when the inbound is maybe 50 feet over the threshold
Thanks for the clarification
HH
If they have been able to move at taxi speed and vacate safely before the inbound aircraft touched down, they probably could have initiated the TO roll and be airborne before the following a/c touched down.
Is this not allowed because in case of an aborted TO the following a/c could be too low to be instructed to go around ?
Working at GLA on the apron I have seen a couple of rotations of an a/c when the inbound is maybe 50 feet over the threshold
Thanks for the clarification
HH
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Hopes, it's a bit more complicated than that......
What happens if the traffic on final decides to go around, straight into the path of the departing traffic.
The New Galloway departure from Glasgow goes straight ahead, the missed approach goes straight ahead and conflicts with the path of the New Galloway departure.
Options to turn the missed approach right (off 23) or left (off 05), however this then puts traffic toward the hills. Left off 23 or right of 05 put traffic into conflict with inbounds being vectored for the ILS.
Our job is about safety, far too many incidents have happened because a controller got so committed to a course of action that was never going to work and didn't recognise that fact. The safest option if time is available is for the traffic on the runway to vacated at 'B' (on 23) or 'F' on 05 or as has been stated to stop the departure and send the inbound around.
In my opinion the controller made the decision based upon the facts presented top them and decided on the SAFEST course of action
What happens if the traffic on final decides to go around, straight into the path of the departing traffic.
The New Galloway departure from Glasgow goes straight ahead, the missed approach goes straight ahead and conflicts with the path of the New Galloway departure.
Options to turn the missed approach right (off 23) or left (off 05), however this then puts traffic toward the hills. Left off 23 or right of 05 put traffic into conflict with inbounds being vectored for the ILS.
Our job is about safety, far too many incidents have happened because a controller got so committed to a course of action that was never going to work and didn't recognise that fact. The safest option if time is available is for the traffic on the runway to vacated at 'B' (on 23) or 'F' on 05 or as has been stated to stop the departure and send the inbound around.
In my opinion the controller made the decision based upon the facts presented top them and decided on the SAFEST course of action
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or of course what might have happened in this case was that whilst the departing a/c was lining up, or on the threshold, it developed a problem or had an issue which prevented it taking off at that instant.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Gonzo has the most plausible answer. I would imagine there might have been a 'the cabin should be ready in 30 secs, tell them we are ready' scenario. A/C taxi's on to threshold, then cabin isn't ready (or punter gets out of seat to go to toilet etc.) - 'better tell ATC' - followed by 'vacate at first intersection' from ATC.
