UK definition of "Runway Vacated"
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What am I, as a controller, supposed to do with this new paragraph - go to the boss and say "Hey, why don't you define where runway vacated is"? Or, when there is some sort of incident, say "Yup, it would have been valuable if it had been defined"?
If someone somewhere decides to define it more precisely, the problem then arises of 'policing' its application and - especially at night unless the unit is equipped with a surface movement radar that depicts the edge of the defined area (whatever that is i.e. the edge of the instrument strip, the edge of visual strip, the boundary of the ILS Cat. 1 localiser sensitive area...) - it's pretty much impossible for a controller to 'eyeball' it out of a Tower window on all runways at any airfield, even if the Tower is directly abeam the main taxiway intersection with & holding point for the runway. Then there's the probable impact on hourly runway movement rates at the busier runway slot-constrained UK airports.
The use of a controller's common sense and judgement is what's required here - not more overly-prescriptive rules and regulation: that's why they're paid the salaries they get paid...
File this topic under "Difficult, far too. No further action considered practicable. Closed".
Guest
Posts: n/a
If it was down to the pilot of a certain mainland European low-cost that I had the 'pleasure' of speaking to recently, then 'runway vacated' would mean: coming up to the exit, still firmly on the runway centreline, not even turned the nose wheel and frankly not within 200mtrs of being off the runway.
But hey, the sun was shining and I could clearly see he was nowhere near being vacated. Let's hope he doesn't do that during LVPs, with no SMR!! Course he wouldn't. Would he?
But hey, the sun was shining and I could clearly see he was nowhere near being vacated. Let's hope he doesn't do that during LVPs, with no SMR!! Course he wouldn't. Would he?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...then 'runway vacated' would mean: coming up to the exit, still firmly on the runway centreline, not even turned the nose wheel and frankly not within 200mtrs of being off the runway.
The use of a controller's common sense and judgement is what's required here...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense and judgement is something that's being slowly eradicated from the atco toolbox in NATS these days.
I despair at some of the stuff I see coming out of offices and from people that should know better.
I despair at some of the stuff I see coming out of offices and from people that should know better.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post the Uberlingen court case it's only gonig to get worse too. One can now hear managers covering their backsides and who can blame them for that?
Where discretion and personal judegment are involved there will always be error. Take the ATCO's discretion out of the equation and it's much less likely that the managers can be dropped in it. They now want things in black and white so that it is clear who broke what rule. It follows that management legitimisation of rule breaking to move the traffic (e.g. 2nm on base leg being written off as standard technique) is likely to disappear. Which of us wouldn't do the same when it's a likely prison sentence (in the UK at least) if it all goes wrong.
.4
Where discretion and personal judegment are involved there will always be error. Take the ATCO's discretion out of the equation and it's much less likely that the managers can be dropped in it. They now want things in black and white so that it is clear who broke what rule. It follows that management legitimisation of rule breaking to move the traffic (e.g. 2nm on base leg being written off as standard technique) is likely to disappear. Which of us wouldn't do the same when it's a likely prison sentence (in the UK at least) if it all goes wrong.
.4
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True .4, but all the additional rules, restrictions, recommendations, best practices, defensive controlling guides and so on make moving the traffic more difficult yet there seems to be no consequent reduction in flow rates.
I sometimes wonder what exactly we are trying to achieve here other than causing the poor old atco sat in front of the radar to sink without trace.
I sometimes wonder what exactly we are trying to achieve here other than causing the poor old atco sat in front of the radar to sink without trace.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely right. There needs to be a full review of the governmet policy of "best use of existing runways". It has been interpreted to mean "maximum use" and that is a fundamental error in my view.
Keep packin' 'em in mate.
.4
Keep packin' 'em in mate.
.4
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless in low vis then departing aircraft should be considered a "visual" operation therefore reducing the C &GA from 105m to 75m from runway c/l, so landing or crossing aircraft have vacated when reaching the 75m from c/l point. Cat I holding points are to protect landing aircraft on instrument approach from aircraft/vehicles on the ground. They are often used to identify the runway vacation point but a closer location to the runway (75m from c/l)can be used.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post the Uberlingen court case it's only gonig to get worse too. One can now hear managers covering their backsides and who can blame them for that?
Where discretion and personal judegment are involved there will always be error. Take the ATCO's discretion out of the equation and it's much less likely that the managers can be dropped in it. They now want things in black and white so that it is clear who broke what rule. It follows that management legitimisation of rule breaking to move the traffic (e.g. 2nm on base leg being written off as standard technique) is likely to disappear. Which of us wouldn't do the same when it's a likely prison sentence (in the UK at least) if it all goes wrong.
Where discretion and personal judegment are involved there will always be error. Take the ATCO's discretion out of the equation and it's much less likely that the managers can be dropped in it. They now want things in black and white so that it is clear who broke what rule. It follows that management legitimisation of rule breaking to move the traffic (e.g. 2nm on base leg being written off as standard technique) is likely to disappear. Which of us wouldn't do the same when it's a likely prison sentence (in the UK at least) if it all goes wrong.
And the mention of prison sentences is, whilst extremely emotive, not entirely accurate. The law at the moment means that in the (God forbid) event of a serious incident that showed Nats culpability, only the people at the very top will be brought to book. The law changes next year to to define corporate responsibility will still mean that you have to be extremely senior to face a charge and, even then, Nats has a very robust policy on support of any staff involved in such a case.
P7
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning .7
There is undoubtedly truth in that and a desire to do the right thing by the ATCOs. However, managers seem to have become more focussed on these issues post the court case. Direct quote from a recent meeting involving a senior safety manager:
"If this goes wrong, I'm in jail."
It is to these that I am referring; they are beginning to demand change through the ranks.
.4
Managers are not making black and white rules to protect themselves from "being dropped in it" - they are doing it so that staff know exactly where they stand and are able to discharge their responsibilities without worrying about what constitutes within the rules and what does not.
There is undoubtedly truth in that and a desire to do the right thing by the ATCOs. However, managers seem to have become more focussed on these issues post the court case. Direct quote from a recent meeting involving a senior safety manager:
"If this goes wrong, I'm in jail."
And the mention of prison sentences is, whilst extremely emotive, not entirely accurate. The law at the moment means that in the (God forbid) event of a serious incident that showed Nats culpability, only the people at the very top will be brought to book.
.4
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ERROR
With humble apologies I alert you to this error in my figure...
It should have been .8% not 8% of arrivals seen to cross the threshold before the preceding had vacated.
Still, factor of 10, not too bad really is it!
.4
It should have been .8% not 8% of arrivals seen to cross the threshold before the preceding had vacated.
Still, factor of 10, not too bad really is it!
.4
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the mention of prison sentences is, whilst extremely emotive, not entirely accurate. The law at the moment means that in the (God forbid) event of a serious incident that showed Nats culpability, only the people at the very top will be brought to book. The law changes next year to to define corporate responsibility will still mean that you have to be extremely senior to face a charge and, even then, Nats has a very robust policy on support of any staff involved in such a case.
Unfortunately, because of its impreciseness, an assessment of whether any failure of Duty of Care has actually taken place would ultimately, be decided by the Court.
Unfortunately, because of its impreciseness, an assessment of whether any failure of Duty of Care has actually taken place would ultimately, be decided by the Court.
Remember the BA 747 which came close to a hotel on a go around to LHR in weather close to Cat 3? Unfortunately there was no AIB inquiry so the jury found the Captain guilty based on the evidence they were presented with. Sadly the Captain later committed suicide.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In these cases I think it is important that any Court is not attempting to assess technical issues for which they are not qualified.
However, we've already come quite close in the UK to a situation where a controller (and the employer) could have found themselves in Court facing a claim for damages.
This arose when a controller mistakenly transposed the radar 'labels' on two same-direction flights and when commenicing vectoring, gave instructions which actually caused the aircraft to begin converging (instead of diverging which was what was planned and expected). It was a plain case of 'human error' to which anyone, however well trained and professional, might succumb.
The flight crew took their own avoiding action and in one of the aircraft (a UK operator) a woman passenger happened to be walking in the cabin. The force of the avoiding action was so severe that it very seriously fractured and so injured her leg.
The only reason her lawyers were unable to pursue a claim for damages from the controller and the employer (note: not the airline) was because the flight crew had earlier ~ on commencing descent ~ illuminated the "fasten seat belts" sign and the cabin crew had instructed the passengers all to return to or remain in, their seats.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a certain airport in the south I was introduced to the concept of "anticipated" vacated - the aircraft was off the physical strip and still moving so that it would be outside the c&g when the succeeding aircraft got to that point on the runway so all was fine. If the vacator was slow or stopped on a right angle turn-off, you waited 'til it was moving properly again.
