LHR Airborne delay - poor information
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Airborne delay - poor information
Guys and Gals - please could someone explain.
Now as a pilot based at LHR - I am well aware of most of the nuances of delays and their causes at LHR. Any mention of FG/SN strong winds etc and I'm sticking the gas on.
However, lately - with pretty reasonable weather, there have been some puzzling delays. Yesterday for example (Tues) - was told on first contact with London that some holding (10-15 mins) and to slow to holding speed. When at LAM told to expect 15 mins TOTAL delay. Now my understanding is that some of this delay would have already been absorbed into our linear holding (ie slowing down along way out). Anyway imagine our surprise when after 25 minutes in the stack we were finally allowed on our way. We were told that this was due to strong upper winds on the approach. 5 mins later we were flying our approach in 'not very strong winds'.
So what's going on guys? We all know to expect some holding at LHR - and we know that when you say delays 10-15 mins - then that's what they will be. And when you give us a reason for the delay - it's usually correct.
So what is it - staff shortages? I'm confused.
Sean
ps - nearly achieved the impossible inbound from BRU the other day. LAM3A became BIG1E and then OCK to hold. Was hoping for a final trip to BNN for a full house - but no luck!
Now as a pilot based at LHR - I am well aware of most of the nuances of delays and their causes at LHR. Any mention of FG/SN strong winds etc and I'm sticking the gas on.
However, lately - with pretty reasonable weather, there have been some puzzling delays. Yesterday for example (Tues) - was told on first contact with London that some holding (10-15 mins) and to slow to holding speed. When at LAM told to expect 15 mins TOTAL delay. Now my understanding is that some of this delay would have already been absorbed into our linear holding (ie slowing down along way out). Anyway imagine our surprise when after 25 minutes in the stack we were finally allowed on our way. We were told that this was due to strong upper winds on the approach. 5 mins later we were flying our approach in 'not very strong winds'.
So what's going on guys? We all know to expect some holding at LHR - and we know that when you say delays 10-15 mins - then that's what they will be. And when you give us a reason for the delay - it's usually correct.
So what is it - staff shortages? I'm confused.
Sean
ps - nearly achieved the impossible inbound from BRU the other day. LAM3A became BIG1E and then OCK to hold. Was hoping for a final trip to BNN for a full house - but no luck!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the past the system for tracking delays and EATs used to be manned by a Heathrow approach valid atco.
Now, as there aren't enough Heathrow valid controllers around to be able to look after it it is generally left to a Supervisor who also has a myriad of other tasks to attend to as well.
As such when delays are building often no-one is actively tracking this and it's not until one of the approach atcos turns round and shouts at someone that they need to devote some time to the EAT system that said supervisor will take a look at it.
From that point it then takes time for the system to be brought up to date and reliable information gained from it.
It's not unusual for the system to be showing inaccurate delay info i.e. saying delay less than 10 minutes when it's actually 15 or more.
I don't think you'll find any of the approach controllers are particularly impressed with this, we don't enjoy being made to look stupid by giving out delay info that is simply wrong because an important tool in the system is not being actively looked after.
In your particular case I expect it was just the volume of traffic that led to your total delay and that the earlier info you were given on 10-15mins was just inaccurate info for the reasons stated above.
Now, as there aren't enough Heathrow valid controllers around to be able to look after it it is generally left to a Supervisor who also has a myriad of other tasks to attend to as well.
As such when delays are building often no-one is actively tracking this and it's not until one of the approach atcos turns round and shouts at someone that they need to devote some time to the EAT system that said supervisor will take a look at it.
From that point it then takes time for the system to be brought up to date and reliable information gained from it.
It's not unusual for the system to be showing inaccurate delay info i.e. saying delay less than 10 minutes when it's actually 15 or more.
I don't think you'll find any of the approach controllers are particularly impressed with this, we don't enjoy being made to look stupid by giving out delay info that is simply wrong because an important tool in the system is not being actively looked after.
In your particular case I expect it was just the volume of traffic that led to your total delay and that the earlier info you were given on 10-15mins was just inaccurate info for the reasons stated above.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the prompt reply Roffa - will this situation get any better or is it here to stay?
The accurate delay info is very important to us - as when we are given a delay that is significantly longer than that which we have planned - it starts those alarm bells ringing a bit sooner. We then start looking at plan B a bit sooner too. It helps us establish 'bottom lines' as a crew. eg. ' we have 10 mins holding capability with LGW/STN/LUT options - any more and we either commit or divert.' We would rather not be making these calculations as our 'expect 5-10 mins total delay' comes and goes.
Please pass on my concerns further up the chain if you are able.
Many thanks
Sean
The accurate delay info is very important to us - as when we are given a delay that is significantly longer than that which we have planned - it starts those alarm bells ringing a bit sooner. We then start looking at plan B a bit sooner too. It helps us establish 'bottom lines' as a crew. eg. ' we have 10 mins holding capability with LGW/STN/LUT options - any more and we either commit or divert.' We would rather not be making these calculations as our 'expect 5-10 mins total delay' comes and goes.
Please pass on my concerns further up the chain if you are able.
Many thanks
Sean
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are of course right that accurate delay info is usefil to have and necessary once delays build up and when I am on the radar I will always try and have a look at the stack on radar and estimate the delay. If traffic permits, I will offer you the chance to slow down en route to save fuel. All the comments so far about the updating of the EAT monitor are valid.
However, the official line that anything up to 20 mins holding is classed as no delay for Heathrow. That's why you may get some ATCOs who you ask for the delay looking at the EAT monitor and answering "Less than 20 mins" when it could be anything from zero to 19 mins. Not awfully helpful, but in line with the procedures!
Given all this, "we have 10 mins holding capability with LGW/STN/LUT options - any more and we either commit or divert." would seem a little bit tight on the fuel planning..
However, the official line that anything up to 20 mins holding is classed as no delay for Heathrow. That's why you may get some ATCOs who you ask for the delay looking at the EAT monitor and answering "Less than 20 mins" when it could be anything from zero to 19 mins. Not awfully helpful, but in line with the procedures!
Given all this, "we have 10 mins holding capability with LGW/STN/LUT options - any more and we either commit or divert." would seem a little bit tight on the fuel planning..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
little bit tight on the fuel planning..
Expect to land with Reserve Fuel + Div Fuel
Have Contingency for faffing about with - once it has gone on holding (or whatever) - a decision to comitt ie burn Div Fuel or Divert is made.
If no reason (Weather/Other problems) to take more than flight plan fuel including SCF - then that's what generally gets loaded. Hence if delays of 10-15 mentioned then = no drama. However if a big delay materialises out of nowhere then = big headache.
I do sympathise with you over the staff shortage issue. An unfortunate sign of the times.
Keep up the otherwise excellent work guys.
SD
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ATCO doing the TMA sectors, I think you are quite right to be frustrated with inaccurate information. Most of the time all we get displayed to us is a bit of paper saying what the delay is. We pass it to you and everything should be ok. It seems nowadays this bit of paper is frequently wrong. We look stupid and it places you in a tricky (or even dangerous) situation. Can I ask that you report the situation through your company (ASR? - I'm not sure what you call it)
As for slowing down a long way out, usually this is not added to your total delay, it is done to save fuel and stop you all screaming into the holds and slowing at the slp's.
There are occasions when we can see that you have already been numbered into the sequence, so we tell you to slow up and you will start absorbing your delay en route but I doubt it is ever more than 30/40 miles out.
When we issue EAT's then these are generally done much further out - perhaps up to 150 miles.
Room for improvement.....................?
As for slowing down a long way out, usually this is not added to your total delay, it is done to save fuel and stop you all screaming into the holds and slowing at the slp's.
There are occasions when we can see that you have already been numbered into the sequence, so we tell you to slow up and you will start absorbing your delay en route but I doubt it is ever more than 30/40 miles out.
When we issue EAT's then these are generally done much further out - perhaps up to 150 miles.
Room for improvement.....................?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with slowing you down from a long way out is one quite often of level restrictions.
As a TMA Bod, we often harass the en route guys to slow you down, when delays get to 15 mins or more..... it serves several purposes.
1. It saves you fuel and absorbs some of your delay en route to the hold
2. There is no point in having you come screaming in at over 300kts, just for us to tell you on first contact "when level, reduce to holding speed" (it makes it look as if ATCOs are not planning or talking to each other, and it is not in accordance with handover SOPs between AC andTC)
3. If we slow you down enough, it quite often gives just enough room to squeeze you in without resorting to using the outer holds - Tiger, Logan etc, which AC do not like doing as it greatly impacts on their operation.
The problem with the above is because of the make up of the airspace in the south east, it is imperative that you make the level restrictions otherwise you will be in someone elses airspace. This can be coordinated on a case by case basis, but the chancs are the sector that is affected is also busy and need all their levels.
Unfortunately, AC do not always get traffic early from the previous sector, so the problem gets knocked on to TC, albeit with a bit of improvement in the situation.
As for the LAM-BIG-OCK farce - this is happening more and more often. I understand the idea of taking a couple from LAM to BIG if it prevents LOGAN holding, however any more than that and we should hold at LOGAN... it's close enough to bring things off quickly - it's as simple as the TIGER hold is to operate. Holding out to the southwest, much further away when OCK is busy is a different ball game - it can take 20 or more minutes to bring an arcraft on, by which time OCK can be empty or have several spaces!
To not use a published hold (LOGAN), and avoid doing so by moving from LAM to BIG is all very well, but not when it then means that BIG becomes so full that we have to TIGER hold or move to OCK. That is a farce and is just passing the problem on to another sector.
As for updated times, I agree with Bobblehat.... since the move it feels as if we are not getting EATs as quickly updated. The amount of times I have had to demand them is ridiculous. They should be available so that we can tell the aircraft on first contact - not a difficult thing to ask considering we get them only 50 or 60 miles from the hold!
I also have reason to question the delays that are promulgated more often - it quite often says 10-15 mins when its obvious there is no delay etc etc. Yes I can see for myself and tell aircraft the true picture, however how am I to know that although there does not seem to be much traffic, the promulgated 10-15 mins delay is actually correct because of circumstances I have not been made aware about?
Although it seems like common sense to tell Aircraft what delay I see on radar, I am really supposed to tell them what is written by the Traffic Manager, who allegedly knows the full picture
As a TMA Bod, we often harass the en route guys to slow you down, when delays get to 15 mins or more..... it serves several purposes.
1. It saves you fuel and absorbs some of your delay en route to the hold
2. There is no point in having you come screaming in at over 300kts, just for us to tell you on first contact "when level, reduce to holding speed" (it makes it look as if ATCOs are not planning or talking to each other, and it is not in accordance with handover SOPs between AC andTC)
3. If we slow you down enough, it quite often gives just enough room to squeeze you in without resorting to using the outer holds - Tiger, Logan etc, which AC do not like doing as it greatly impacts on their operation.
The problem with the above is because of the make up of the airspace in the south east, it is imperative that you make the level restrictions otherwise you will be in someone elses airspace. This can be coordinated on a case by case basis, but the chancs are the sector that is affected is also busy and need all their levels.
Unfortunately, AC do not always get traffic early from the previous sector, so the problem gets knocked on to TC, albeit with a bit of improvement in the situation.
As for the LAM-BIG-OCK farce - this is happening more and more often. I understand the idea of taking a couple from LAM to BIG if it prevents LOGAN holding, however any more than that and we should hold at LOGAN... it's close enough to bring things off quickly - it's as simple as the TIGER hold is to operate. Holding out to the southwest, much further away when OCK is busy is a different ball game - it can take 20 or more minutes to bring an arcraft on, by which time OCK can be empty or have several spaces!
To not use a published hold (LOGAN), and avoid doing so by moving from LAM to BIG is all very well, but not when it then means that BIG becomes so full that we have to TIGER hold or move to OCK. That is a farce and is just passing the problem on to another sector.
As for updated times, I agree with Bobblehat.... since the move it feels as if we are not getting EATs as quickly updated. The amount of times I have had to demand them is ridiculous. They should be available so that we can tell the aircraft on first contact - not a difficult thing to ask considering we get them only 50 or 60 miles from the hold!
I also have reason to question the delays that are promulgated more often - it quite often says 10-15 mins when its obvious there is no delay etc etc. Yes I can see for myself and tell aircraft the true picture, however how am I to know that although there does not seem to be much traffic, the promulgated 10-15 mins delay is actually correct because of circumstances I have not been made aware about?
Although it seems like common sense to tell Aircraft what delay I see on radar, I am really supposed to tell them what is written by the Traffic Manager, who allegedly knows the full picture
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: nr SAM
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the LAM-BIG-OCK farce - this is happening more and more often. I understand the idea of taking a couple from LAM to BIG if it prevents LOGAN holding, however any more than that and we should hold at LOGAN...
From an AC perspective it is very frustrating to not get told of any delays at LAM, then informed to restrict arrivals to the BRASO hold with no warning that delays are increasing (our info screens for EATs only pop into life at 20mins+). If we could get at least some warning, we can slow the aircraft down as soon as we get them.
Bobblehat, I wish EATS were being issued 150 miles out, it would provide a better service from your AC colleagues. We are rarely able to issue EATS because by the time the details are on the screen we have generally already transferred the aicraft.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phantom99
I'm surprised and dismayed that you do not have a screen that tells you what they delays are for LL/KK/SS/GW. EATs only get put up if over 20 mins, however it would be helpful for you guys and ultimately us if you were given the same info we are.. if you have the facility to do it for EATs, you should have that capability when its less than 10mins/10-15 mins or whatever. Then we might not get stuff at 300kts+ when we have 15-20 mins delay promulgated!!
If you don't have the info, how can you act accordingly? Might be worth bringing it up your end, it has been raised recently on ours.
LAM-BNN is not used that often - it can cause problems to capital etc, but used on a tactical basis, it works well.... unfortunately LAM-BIG is an easy cop out, however the past few times, we have ended up then moving BIG to OCK and even TIGER holding.
Some people claim that to call a/c on from LOGAN takes too long, yet I know plenty of North Bankers (that's not cockney slang), who say it is not an issue. LAM has plenty of levels.. as soon as it is observed that the bottom a/c has a heading off, the next one can be called on and arrive in a timely fashion.
This is unlike the outer holds for WILLO/OCK which suffer for 2 reasons. 1 - they are a fair distance away, and 2 because of the lack of available levels at these holds, once they start to empty, they can do so quickly if the sequence dictates that 2 or 3 come off in succesion from that hold.
Holding out is never a good option for AC - it's not what you do and it can get messy. It's too restrictive and causes other problems. However management must be willing to use LOGAN otherwise we might as well bin it. LAM is a busy stack so often something needs to be done, LAM-BIG is often a lazy, unimaginative cop out that traffic managers/GS's who have little idea of how the sectors work foist upon us.
I'm surprised and dismayed that you do not have a screen that tells you what they delays are for LL/KK/SS/GW. EATs only get put up if over 20 mins, however it would be helpful for you guys and ultimately us if you were given the same info we are.. if you have the facility to do it for EATs, you should have that capability when its less than 10mins/10-15 mins or whatever. Then we might not get stuff at 300kts+ when we have 15-20 mins delay promulgated!!
If you don't have the info, how can you act accordingly? Might be worth bringing it up your end, it has been raised recently on ours.
LAM-BNN is not used that often - it can cause problems to capital etc, but used on a tactical basis, it works well.... unfortunately LAM-BIG is an easy cop out, however the past few times, we have ended up then moving BIG to OCK and even TIGER holding
.Some people claim that to call a/c on from LOGAN takes too long, yet I know plenty of North Bankers (that's not cockney slang), who say it is not an issue. LAM has plenty of levels.. as soon as it is observed that the bottom a/c has a heading off, the next one can be called on and arrive in a timely fashion.
This is unlike the outer holds for WILLO/OCK which suffer for 2 reasons. 1 - they are a fair distance away, and 2 because of the lack of available levels at these holds, once they start to empty, they can do so quickly if the sequence dictates that 2 or 3 come off in succesion from that hold.
Holding out is never a good option for AC - it's not what you do and it can get messy. It's too restrictive and causes other problems. However management must be willing to use LOGAN otherwise we might as well bin it. LAM is a busy stack so often something needs to be done, LAM-BIG is often a lazy, unimaginative cop out that traffic managers/GS's who have little idea of how the sectors work foist upon us.
Spink Pots
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it you all mean BRASO when you speak of LOGAN? When LAM is full (up to FL170), aircraft are held at BRASO (FL180-FL240) and when BRASO is full they are then held at LOGAN (FL250+).
LOGAN holding is not a desirable situation to be in as it screws over TC East and Clacton but the main reason being that when Heathrow approach pull 4 aircraft out of LAM at the same time, it takes quite a while (relatively) to bash the LAM stack down so aircraft can be brought on from BRASO and descended so that aircraft can then be brought on from LOGAN to BRASO. It can only be described as an accordion effect and leaves a lot of sky being used up with not a lot of planes in there, whilst the outer holds are full.
With a skilled controller and a bit of tactical rule bending, the levels can be regained fairly quickly but this isn't always the case.
Swapping from LAM to BIG is relatively easy providing that there aren't many aircraft at BIG. It's usually just a matter of TC East turning it left a bit and descending it, requiring a fairly standard co-ordination with TC South. LAM to BNN, however, goes into TC Capital's airspace and depending on the level, TC Midland's airspace too. If the traffic situation is fairly complex on NW Deps/BNN at the time, a swap from LAM can easily push it over the edge.
In answer to the thread starter, the reason that you still hold for 15 minutes at LAM after slowing down is that everyone else is slowing down too and I believe the delay calculation takes this into consideration (don't quote me on that though!)
It does seem to be a regular occurence where the delay screen is saying <10 mins yet aircraft are holding for 15 mins or on the flip side, the delay is showing as 15-20 mins yet aircraft are coming straight off. Another consideration to take into account is that if something happens to push the delay up, e.g. strong winds, it can take a considerable amount of time to get things back to normal. The winds may be long gone by the time you get there but the knock on effect is massive, especially during the busy periods.
There was one occasion last week when I was working BNN and a 744 had been holding for some time in BRASO and LAM and was eventually swapped over to BNN to make some room. As such, his EAT needed to be recalculated. They were quite tight on fuel and told me they could hold for about 10 minutes more before they'd have to declare an emergency as he was committed to Heathrow. The pilot kept asking me for the revised EAT but I must have waited almost 10 minutes before one was calculated. It was very frustrating for me and the pilot. He needed to know whether he'd have to declare or not and I needed to know if I was going to have to pull him out of the stack and drop him down. I felt quite bad as neither of us was in the picture and the pilot probably thought I was a bit of a numpty for giving him guesses rather than actual times!
I hope all that makes some sense!
LOGAN holding is not a desirable situation to be in as it screws over TC East and Clacton but the main reason being that when Heathrow approach pull 4 aircraft out of LAM at the same time, it takes quite a while (relatively) to bash the LAM stack down so aircraft can be brought on from BRASO and descended so that aircraft can then be brought on from LOGAN to BRASO. It can only be described as an accordion effect and leaves a lot of sky being used up with not a lot of planes in there, whilst the outer holds are full.
With a skilled controller and a bit of tactical rule bending, the levels can be regained fairly quickly but this isn't always the case.
Swapping from LAM to BIG is relatively easy providing that there aren't many aircraft at BIG. It's usually just a matter of TC East turning it left a bit and descending it, requiring a fairly standard co-ordination with TC South. LAM to BNN, however, goes into TC Capital's airspace and depending on the level, TC Midland's airspace too. If the traffic situation is fairly complex on NW Deps/BNN at the time, a swap from LAM can easily push it over the edge.
In answer to the thread starter, the reason that you still hold for 15 minutes at LAM after slowing down is that everyone else is slowing down too and I believe the delay calculation takes this into consideration (don't quote me on that though!)
It does seem to be a regular occurence where the delay screen is saying <10 mins yet aircraft are holding for 15 mins or on the flip side, the delay is showing as 15-20 mins yet aircraft are coming straight off. Another consideration to take into account is that if something happens to push the delay up, e.g. strong winds, it can take a considerable amount of time to get things back to normal. The winds may be long gone by the time you get there but the knock on effect is massive, especially during the busy periods.
There was one occasion last week when I was working BNN and a 744 had been holding for some time in BRASO and LAM and was eventually swapped over to BNN to make some room. As such, his EAT needed to be recalculated. They were quite tight on fuel and told me they could hold for about 10 minutes more before they'd have to declare an emergency as he was committed to Heathrow. The pilot kept asking me for the revised EAT but I must have waited almost 10 minutes before one was calculated. It was very frustrating for me and the pilot. He needed to know whether he'd have to declare or not and I needed to know if I was going to have to pull him out of the stack and drop him down. I felt quite bad as neither of us was in the picture and the pilot probably thought I was a bit of a numpty for giving him guesses rather than actual times!
I hope all that makes some sense!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scuzi,
I meant what I said, LOGAN, Not BRASO!
It's all very subjective, and I'm all for taking BIG1E, but am getting hacked off recently with getting them forced upon us when counting back we will not have levels at BIG. We are made to feel guilty by the GS if we try to refuse!
It's a team game and the BIG1E is a very simple swap, as easy as the BOV1D the other way round.
As for LAM to BOV, it can cause a pain on CAP (and MIDS), but it just never even seems to be considered, even when looking at the radar and the pending strips it's obvious that it is easily feasible!
Whats more worrying is the trend on one watch to use the BIG1E to avoid BRASO holding, which has ultimately caused the same problems regarding implementing TIGER holding or shoving stuff across to OCK.
Another bug bear is the Traffic Managers coming across and missing out both the GS and the Coordinator and telling the controller direct. How the hell is the GS or the coordinator supposed to maintain the bigger picture?!!!!
I meant what I said, LOGAN, Not BRASO!
It's all very subjective, and I'm all for taking BIG1E, but am getting hacked off recently with getting them forced upon us when counting back we will not have levels at BIG. We are made to feel guilty by the GS if we try to refuse!
It's a team game and the BIG1E is a very simple swap, as easy as the BOV1D the other way round.
As for LAM to BOV, it can cause a pain on CAP (and MIDS), but it just never even seems to be considered, even when looking at the radar and the pending strips it's obvious that it is easily feasible!
Whats more worrying is the trend on one watch to use the BIG1E to avoid BRASO holding, which has ultimately caused the same problems regarding implementing TIGER holding or shoving stuff across to OCK.
Another bug bear is the Traffic Managers coming across and missing out both the GS and the Coordinator and telling the controller direct. How the hell is the GS or the coordinator supposed to maintain the bigger picture?!!!!
Spink Pots
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very valid points there anotherthing, there is a lot of pressure when stacks swaps are being initiated but most of the time they are a necessary evil, especially during those periods when LAM and BRASO are full but all the other stacks are practically empty. Sounds stupid but it happens quite regularly!
Sometimes we just have to make the best of a bad situation. Better the "stitch up" is spread over a couple of sectors rather than just the one.
Sometimes we just have to make the best of a bad situation. Better the "stitch up" is spread over a couple of sectors rather than just the one.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scuzi
I am all for taking them if we can, as anyone else in the room will do either north to south or south to north... thats the good thing about the TC ops room, we will try to dig each other out the poo.
I would just like to see the people who get paid to 'manage' actually think about things instead of doing it by wrote.
It's almost as if they think "Bugger, Its getting busy at LAM and BRASO, tell you what, the BIG1E worked the last time, i will do that*" without any recourse to what is going to happen on the receiving sector or seemingly without a clue as to what other options are available to them!!
*You can replace scenario with any number of others and the solution will be one that 'worked last time' even if the circumstances are different.
Coupled with the lateness of EAT/delay information, it makes me think that there is a lack of planning and forethought from some TM's and GS's.... there seems to be a lot of reactive decisions and not so many proactive ones.
I am all for taking them if we can, as anyone else in the room will do either north to south or south to north... thats the good thing about the TC ops room, we will try to dig each other out the poo.
I would just like to see the people who get paid to 'manage' actually think about things instead of doing it by wrote.
It's almost as if they think "Bugger, Its getting busy at LAM and BRASO, tell you what, the BIG1E worked the last time, i will do that*" without any recourse to what is going to happen on the receiving sector or seemingly without a clue as to what other options are available to them!!
*You can replace scenario with any number of others and the solution will be one that 'worked last time' even if the circumstances are different.
Coupled with the lateness of EAT/delay information, it makes me think that there is a lack of planning and forethought from some TM's and GS's.... there seems to be a lot of reactive decisions and not so many proactive ones.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting stuff chaps - even if it's starting to go over my head a little! I think I might have unearthed an underlying problem - is it going to get worse or will your bosses in NATS actually do something about it? I mean we could submit an ASR with the MOR box ticked - but you guys seem equally annoyed by the stitch up or lack of controllers - so can you do the same please.
VBRGDS
Merry Chrimbo
S.D.
VBRGDS
Merry Chrimbo
S.D.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For ATC there is a route which doesn't seem to have been explored and thats to put something in writing for your Local Investment Review Board (LIRB), in TC its known as the TClipper.
Muttering on here or between yourselves ain't going to alert the backroom boys & girls to the problem and come up with a solution.
If anyone in LAC or LTC (or MACC or ScOACC for that matter) isn't sure what I'm talking about or how to go about kicking something off please PM me.
BD
Muttering on here or between yourselves ain't going to alert the backroom boys & girls to the problem and come up with a solution.
If anyone in LAC or LTC (or MACC or ScOACC for that matter) isn't sure what I'm talking about or how to go about kicking something off please PM me.
BD
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
however any more than that and we should hold at LOGAN... it's close enough to bring things off quickly
I meant what I said, LOGAN, Not BRASO!
Our (TC's) remit (as I'm sure you're aware) is to fill the inner holds first (hence the LAM-BIG, LAM-BNN, even LAM-OCK occasionally). Then we'll fill BRASO and finally LOGAN.
The impact of LOGAN holding on AC is the same (if not worse) as the outer holds for WILLO/OCK on you (I'm assuming you do south) and you seem dead set against using these - I'm sure CLN feel the same re: the impending use of LOGAN (that's not saying it won't doesn't get used, but why not actively manage the traffic??)
It's funny but you never hear any complaints regarding 'unimaginative cop outs' when a/c are moved from OCK to BNN first thing in the morning
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not say the BOV1D was a difficult swap.
Lookatthesky
If you read my posts for what they actually say, not what you think they say, you will see that my gripe is with when we do these stack swaps to help out others, then have to hold out with AC because of it
Something that has happened more often recently.
As per my last post (which you seem to have missed altogether), it is happening more and more often with regards to BRASO holding.
I'm all for not asking AC to hold out - it's a messy and drawn out affair. But when we start not even using BRASO because TMs are going through the motions, then it gets a bit silly.
That's my lot on this subject, as BDiONU has hit the nail squarely on the head.
Lookatthesky
If you read my posts for what they actually say, not what you think they say, you will see that my gripe is with when we do these stack swaps to help out others, then have to hold out with AC because of it
Something that has happened more often recently.
As per my last post (which you seem to have missed altogether), it is happening more and more often with regards to BRASO holding.
I'm all for not asking AC to hold out - it's a messy and drawn out affair. But when we start not even using BRASO because TMs are going through the motions, then it gets a bit silly.
That's my lot on this subject, as BDiONU has hit the nail squarely on the head.
I think it's wrong to expect to be able to issue EATs 150 miles out. That's almost an hour from touchdown, there's no way an EAT will be accurate then.
If AC or TC 'outer' sectors are pressured for an EAT can't they give a best guess estimate or quote the delay for the aircraft just entering the inner holds as a guide?
When I've done EATs I've been pushed for times by Midlands controllers but I've kept them waiting while I arranged a stack swap which facilitated a better order for TEAMing and maybe knocked 3 mins off the delays.
What are we trying to do here, expedite the traffic or give very early delay info?
Pilots should be aware that the earlier the landing order is decided the less efficient it will be.
Having said that, the biggest problem for delay management that the move to swanwick has produced is the EAT PC and landing rate monitor is not as easily accessable for the Heathrow controllers as it was. We can't update is as we used to or use it to guide the traffic manager in chosing the best landing order.
If AC or TC 'outer' sectors are pressured for an EAT can't they give a best guess estimate or quote the delay for the aircraft just entering the inner holds as a guide?
When I've done EATs I've been pushed for times by Midlands controllers but I've kept them waiting while I arranged a stack swap which facilitated a better order for TEAMing and maybe knocked 3 mins off the delays.
What are we trying to do here, expedite the traffic or give very early delay info?
Pilots should be aware that the earlier the landing order is decided the less efficient it will be.
Having said that, the biggest problem for delay management that the move to swanwick has produced is the EAT PC and landing rate monitor is not as easily accessable for the Heathrow controllers as it was. We can't update is as we used to or use it to guide the traffic manager in chosing the best landing order.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Norfolk
Age: 69
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stack swaps
anotherthing re post 12
As the controller IN CHARGE of the sector you do not have to agree/accept any stack swap proposal put to you by a g/s.Not always a popular move I grant you,but if done for the right reasons,is unarguable come the inevitable wash up/witch hunt.Been there,done it!
As the controller IN CHARGE of the sector you do not have to agree/accept any stack swap proposal put to you by a g/s.Not always a popular move I grant you,but if done for the right reasons,is unarguable come the inevitable wash up/witch hunt.Been there,done it!