LHR Airborne delay - poor information
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sean Dell
Just to save any confusion that may have arisen from Del Prados post (#29).
Your EAT will be based on the estimate for your entry into the hold. Therefore once given an EAT, if you slow down and take longer to get there, you will reduce your time in the hold.
Obviously it's a fluid situation - you're EAT not being honoured by a 4 minutes slip right is not good for you guys, but sometimes inevitable because of an unexpected occurence. Similarly I have seen EATs reduce significantly very rapidly.
Just to save any confusion that may have arisen from Del Prados post (#29).
Your EAT will be based on the estimate for your entry into the hold. Therefore once given an EAT, if you slow down and take longer to get there, you will reduce your time in the hold.
Obviously it's a fluid situation - you're EAT not being honoured by a 4 minutes slip right is not good for you guys, but sometimes inevitable because of an unexpected occurence. Similarly I have seen EATs reduce significantly very rapidly.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Farnham, UK
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scuzi
I never accused anybody of lying - my sincere apologies if that is way it came across. 
This thread is about improving the accuracy of the information about delays inbound the London TMA, LHR especially. Hopefully you agree that we are after the same thing here, but viewing from different perspectives.
Take the mere 6 extra minutes. That did not include slowing down so add a couple - an extra 8 minutes on a 15 minutes estimate is over 50% in error.
That day it did matter. The flight plan was not the most generous, but there was no reason to take more gas. I had already committed based on the 15 min, the extra delay plus extended routing all start making things a bit tight.
I'm not throwing accusations at anybody, I just agree with the original observation that the quality of inbound delay info has deteriorated.
If you want a Fam flight - PM me and we will try and get one sorted.
T'bug
However, I resent being accused of lying
This thread is about improving the accuracy of the information about delays inbound the London TMA, LHR especially. Hopefully you agree that we are after the same thing here, but viewing from different perspectives.
Take the mere 6 extra minutes. That did not include slowing down so add a couple - an extra 8 minutes on a 15 minutes estimate is over 50% in error.
That day it did matter. The flight plan was not the most generous, but there was no reason to take more gas. I had already committed based on the 15 min, the extra delay plus extended routing all start making things a bit tight.
I'm not throwing accusations at anybody, I just agree with the original observation that the quality of inbound delay info has deteriorated.
If you want a Fam flight - PM me and we will try and get one sorted.
T'bug
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIC 82/2003 is perhaps relevant in this discussion?
I still think this ultimately comes down to a single Group Sup, who has responsibility for five airports, too regularly being unable to devote the necessary time to keeping the LHR delay info/EATs up to date.
I still think this ultimately comes down to a single Group Sup, who has responsibility for five airports, too regularly being unable to devote the necessary time to keeping the LHR delay info/EATs up to date.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since that link requires registration/login, for those who haven't it reminds you to carry 20 mins into LHR which would have gone along way to eliminating a lot of the problems above.
(NB Registration for the AICs lapses if unused for 6 months)
(NB Registration for the AICs lapses if unused for 6 months)
'Bunching' doesn't help either. When there's no delay and 7 aircraft hit the stacks at the same time (not unheard of) the guy at the front gets no delay and the one at the back gets 10 mins. Now if the delay is already 10mins and the same scenario occurs the guy at the back will have 20mins.
Maybe we should go back to the days of giving either "no significant delay" or EATs as pilots clearly seem unhappy with our efforts at the moment.
Maybe we should go back to the days of giving either "no significant delay" or EATs as pilots clearly seem unhappy with our efforts at the moment.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or how about 10 to 15 minutes. etc. This one is usually reasonably easy to judge just by looking at the stacks. I always opt for the worse case e.g. 10-15 when I think it is only about 10mins-that way it's a bonus if it really does get better.
