UK Heathrow
Quite possibly, and some of the non-adherences came about whilst they were trying to become ICAO compliant such as the holding point names (ETTIV, HORKA etc). 5 letter names are for airborne use only and should not be used on the ground. You should also not have runway entry points named the same as the taxiway that services them, such as Alpha 4, Alpha 5 etc. on 27R that come off the Alpha taxiway. Thanks to BAA's bungling the whole place is a total mess now but then what do you expect from them.
Last edited by Max Angle; 11th Jan 2009 at 00:25.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you still need just 5 letters?
(My in-car GPS allows me to type in a town, postcode or even a whole address).
Surely it is time to revert to geographical names which mean more to both aviators and controllers alike.
(My in-car GPS allows me to type in a town, postcode or even a whole address).
Surely it is time to revert to geographical names which mean more to both aviators and controllers alike.
Guest
Posts: n/a
And another thing
Whether it's really a fair allegation or not it is true that LHR deviates from many standards. This will make it interesting in the future when EASA sets the rules for aerodromes - the last draft rules I saw said that an aerodrome would not be certified if it does not comply with European and ICAO Standards.
And it won't just be LHR that can't be certified - perhaps this is just another way they're trying to stop aviation. Still, I guess EASA must know what it's doing.....
Is it still true that London Heathrow holds the gold medal for non-adherence to international airfield standards?
And it won't just be LHR that can't be certified - perhaps this is just another way they're trying to stop aviation. Still, I guess EASA must know what it's doing.....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<5 letter names are for airborne use only and should be used on the ground.>>
I read that 50 times but still can't make sense of it.
Bring back the block numbers!!
I read that 50 times but still can't make sense of it.
Bring back the block numbers!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: LONDON England
Age: 52
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still use some of the old familiar block numbers when thinking of places to hide aircraft waiting for stands, such as 37(O) or 25(i). By the way HD, Block 85 is no longer the biggest block....its now block300!!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: southeast england
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should also not have runway entry points named the same as the taxiway that services them, such as Alpha 4, Alpha 5 etc. on 27R that come off the Alpha taxiway
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC still refers to the old days, as in "traffic coming from the old Novembers" on occasion which intuitively was the Stands N76-N90. A lot of people still think of LHR in those old terms(!)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Five letter designators are designed for easy recognition (three or five for fixes DTY, BAGSO etc) and four letters for airports - EGLL. To change the standard would require significant changes to state flight data processing systems which are somewhat expensive.
I read that 50 times but still can't make sense of it.
that's exactly how holding points should be named. Alpha 1 is the 1st holding point on taxiway A, Alpha 2 is the second etc.
And whilst I am having a rant. Why is it that at night when we are supposed to "follow the greens and stop at the reds" are the (non compliant) holding points not blocked with a red stop bar. I have lost count of the number of times that someone (including me a few times) has got a bollocking from ATC for going past Saturn or Titan or Horka when the green lights merrily carry on straight past it to a red stop bar further down the taxiway. Pretty sure they all have stop bars so please use them.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No it's not, according to ICAO recommendations the runway holding point designator should not include the same letter as the taxiway serving it. So any holding point designator leading off the Alpha taxiway should not include an A.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it's not, according to ICAO recommendations the runway holding point designator should not include the same letter as the taxiway serving it. So any holding point designator leading off the Alpha taxiway should not include an A.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have lost count of the number of times that someone (including me a few times) has got a bollocking from ATC for going past Saturn or Titan or Horka when the green lights merrily carry on straight past it to a red stop bar further down the taxiway. Pretty sure they all have stop bars so please use them.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: LONDON England
Age: 52
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max,
Whilst I agree that stop bars at clearance limits would be ideal, as Gonzo has said it would "drop" a bar for someone else giving them a green route through their clearance limit, OR by clearing the route to bring up the bar at say LOKKI the greens would go. In low vis we endeavour to keep stop bars lit at the delineation of GMC1,2 and 3 to prevent incursion into another GMC's ground space. This is fine when the movement rate is low as in LVP's but during normal conditions we have found that trying to keep the routes lit , expedites the traffic flow, reducing waiting times. At MOST points on the airfield we CAN bring up a bar at a clearance limit , such as short of Charlie or short of Link11 , but near the RHA's where space is tight and transfer of control goes from GMC to AIR it is almost impossible to bring up bars at Intermediate holding points like ETTIV or LOKKI, AND keep up the maximum departure rate off the runway. It would slow everything up too much.
Cheers A/T
Whilst I agree that stop bars at clearance limits would be ideal, as Gonzo has said it would "drop" a bar for someone else giving them a green route through their clearance limit, OR by clearing the route to bring up the bar at say LOKKI the greens would go. In low vis we endeavour to keep stop bars lit at the delineation of GMC1,2 and 3 to prevent incursion into another GMC's ground space. This is fine when the movement rate is low as in LVP's but during normal conditions we have found that trying to keep the routes lit , expedites the traffic flow, reducing waiting times. At MOST points on the airfield we CAN bring up a bar at a clearance limit , such as short of Charlie or short of Link11 , but near the RHA's where space is tight and transfer of control goes from GMC to AIR it is almost impossible to bring up bars at Intermediate holding points like ETTIV or LOKKI, AND keep up the maximum departure rate off the runway. It would slow everything up too much.
Cheers A/T