Flipping runways in thunderstorm conditions at LHR
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I understand why the differences between aircraft exist when it comes to avoiding weather. Be they more accurate wx radar, different interpretation of the radar, more nervous pilot etc etc. It can be frustrating as hell as everything goes everywhere and i will do my upmost to help no matter to let aircraft to fly whatever wx avoidance they want.
BUT you have to ask for/ request the avoidance, you can't just go ahead and do it, there are other aircraft in the sky and as such i have a responsibility to them aswell as the aircraft wanting to avoid to keep them apart. If you ask you may have your descent/climb stopped, or you may be asked if 5 degrees would do instead of 10.
In this instance if the wx avoiding a/c had carried on doing what he wanted he would have ended up having a TCAS RA as he was slightly ahead and climbing at the same rate. I had to give a stop climb at a level that he was about to pass through. He passed directly underneath the other a/c and scraped 1000' vertically. No time for avoiding action. All because he just turned without telling me until he was well in the turn. He got filed on.
Just turning is not acceptable, we have to be told and then have to approve it. Your aircraft is your responsibility i understand that, but there is a bigger picture.
I understand why the differences between aircraft exist when it comes to avoiding weather. Be they more accurate wx radar, different interpretation of the radar, more nervous pilot etc etc. It can be frustrating as hell as everything goes everywhere and i will do my upmost to help no matter to let aircraft to fly whatever wx avoidance they want.
BUT you have to ask for/ request the avoidance, you can't just go ahead and do it, there are other aircraft in the sky and as such i have a responsibility to them aswell as the aircraft wanting to avoid to keep them apart. If you ask you may have your descent/climb stopped, or you may be asked if 5 degrees would do instead of 10.
it does happen but it would be nice if we got told. Unlike a certain pilot who's first call was "turning right 20 degrees to avoid" across the nose of the parallel heading traffic 5 miles to his right
Just turning is not acceptable, we have to be told and then have to approve it. Your aircraft is your responsibility i understand that, but there is a bigger picture.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
No but it is illegal in class A airspace (which last time I checked...the TMA is!!
) and that is the point you seem to be missing.
Standard separations are exactly that...standard. And my radar colleagues are not allowed to reduce them (I am able to reduce them using reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome laws, but I'm just a glorified parking attendant anyway!!!
) so the minute you get less than 5 (or 3) miles or 1000ft it is a "loss of separation" which can result in immense stress and (probable) suspension for the controller involved!
My point being, the radar bods CANNOT, by law, approve a turn which will reduce separation, regardless of the reason (emergencies aside obviously).
As for
it is entirely possible that the controller in question didn't have a choice but to apply minimum separation due to the volume of traffic and wx etc in that situation.
And whether you buy it or not, it is a fact...you are responsible for one aircraft whereas the controller is responsible for many. And, has already been mentioned, if he/she/it has to concentrate solely on your impending loss of separation due to an unauthorised turn, while two other aircraft are coming into confliction 50 miles away, it's clear where the blame for that other incident is going to lie...squarely with the pilot making the unauthorised turn in the first incident!!
Quite what the solution is I don't know. Would the pilot in question have accepted an "orbit in present position until advised"?!? Doubtful. Also doubtful if that would even be possible. But I only get paid to say "cleared to land/takeoff" so it's not up to me to find a sloution!!
FB
My visually flying across the trail of another aircraft 1nm behind and 100ft above is not dangerous.
) and that is the point you seem to be missing.Standard separations are exactly that...standard. And my radar colleagues are not allowed to reduce them (I am able to reduce them using reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome laws, but I'm just a glorified parking attendant anyway!!!
) so the minute you get less than 5 (or 3) miles or 1000ft it is a "loss of separation" which can result in immense stress and (probable) suspension for the controller involved!My point being, the radar bods CANNOT, by law, approve a turn which will reduce separation, regardless of the reason (emergencies aside obviously).
As for
Putting two aircraft parallel with minimum separation in weather avoiding situations can result in the controller having to explain on the MOR / Airporx report why they thought it was safe to apply the minima in that situation.
And whether you buy it or not, it is a fact...you are responsible for one aircraft whereas the controller is responsible for many. And, has already been mentioned, if he/she/it has to concentrate solely on your impending loss of separation due to an unauthorised turn, while two other aircraft are coming into confliction 50 miles away, it's clear where the blame for that other incident is going to lie...squarely with the pilot making the unauthorised turn in the first incident!!
Quite what the solution is I don't know. Would the pilot in question have accepted an "orbit in present position until advised"?!? Doubtful. Also doubtful if that would even be possible. But I only get paid to say "cleared to land/takeoff" so it's not up to me to find a sloution!!
FB
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the pilot in question have accepted an "orbit in present position until advised"?!? Doubtful
And whether you buy it or not, it is a fact...you are responsible for one aircraft whereas the controller is responsible for many.
Hailstones the size of tennis balls ruin glass houses. Think of what solid metal from a CB caused by a controller putting an aircraft inside it would cause.
----------
Fly bhoy,
I don't think that you will find it illegal fro aircraft at the same level to fly closer to each other than 5nm or even 3nm in Class A. Think procedural separation for one example of when it can be done.
----------
Originally Posted by 1985
Just turning is not acceptable
-----------
Del Prado,
Agreed with regard to other traffic. Turning without clearance is not something that I did lightly the option of lossing the wings was not going to be tried.
I know that you don't have any room. The CAA likewise. However, that is a clear "shall" in the CAA's rule book and there is no option to say no!!
There are many rules that can ruin an ATCO's day if they were ever used. Imagine a pilot not being able to avoid weather because it is busy. So they declare an emergency and then impose radio silence on you before broadcasting their intentions at length.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
So when you initiate your unauthorised turn, who is responsible for issuing the numerous ensuing avoiding action instrusctions that may result? Is it you? Or is it the controller?!? Thought so...!! And that is the point we are all trying to make. Trust me, we all know your arse is at the pointy end, but we still have to apply our rules, whether you like it or not.
As for
I can't figure out how to cut and paste from a PDF but from reading the MATS pt1 i'd say its fairly obvious that it IS illegal to reduce separation unless
1) In the vicinty of an aerodrome
2) On an advisory route
3) Search and rescue escorts, and
4) Loss of separation (but the controller must use every means to obtain the required minima ASAP)
Search for CAP493 section 1-3-1 and -2 for the exact wording.
I'm sure it can't be pleasant for you to be in that position, but you have to understand that the controller simply can't authorise a turn that wil reduce separation. Scuzi's solution seems to make the best of a bad situation and is somewhat akin to out "at your own discretion" that we use occasionally, but again, on the ground is so much different to in the air.
FB
I am responsible for the consequences of my actions no matter if those actions have an effect on 1 or 100 aircraft or on 1 or a thousand people on the ground.
As for
I don't think that you will find it illegal fro aircraft at the same level to fly closer to each other than 5nm or even 3nm in Class A. Think procedural separation for one example of when it can be done.
1) In the vicinty of an aerodrome
2) On an advisory route
3) Search and rescue escorts, and
4) Loss of separation (but the controller must use every means to obtain the required minima ASAP)
Search for CAP493 section 1-3-1 and -2 for the exact wording.
I'm sure it can't be pleasant for you to be in that position, but you have to understand that the controller simply can't authorise a turn that wil reduce separation. Scuzi's solution seems to make the best of a bad situation and is somewhat akin to out "at your own discretion" that we use occasionally, but again, on the ground is so much different to in the air.
FB
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<I don't think that you will find it illegal for aircraft at the same level to fly closer to each other than 5nm or even 3nm in Class A. Think procedural separation for one example of when it can be done. >>
DFC... Pray, enlighten us further, in the context of bad weather..
DFC... Pray, enlighten us further, in the context of bad weather..
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD,
As a pilot I am not required to keep x distance between my aircraft and other aircraft. What I am required to do is to comply with the rules for avoiding collisions as contained in the Rules of the Air.
I am only required to comply with an ATC clearance when that clearance is safe.
An ATC clearance that takes me through a CB is unsafe.
Controllers are there to prevent collisions in the air.
--------------
As an aside, if you think that avoiding a CB and getting as close as 1nm from another aircraft at the same level is shockingly dangerous then get a fam flight on a Farnbough Inbound - threading it's way through gliders, para gliders, parachute drops, microlights, all manner of cessna and Piper and other flights plus the odd ex military jet doing more than 250Kt along with the military doing the same and some helicopters. The CAA says that is perfectly safe for regular Public Transport Flights. Moving a mile or 2 left or right in a controled environment must be safer than that even if one doesn't ask!!
-----------
I can see some controllers here could object to the following;
Aircraft departing runway 27 cleared straight ahead 3000ft. String of aircraft joining downwind from the west IFR. Pilot at 400ft reports turning onto a track of 180 and climbing to 4000ft due engine failure. Seems that some people here would tell the pilot not to turn because it would cause a loss of their separation standard with the traffic joining downwind!
Regards,
DFC
As a pilot I am not required to keep x distance between my aircraft and other aircraft. What I am required to do is to comply with the rules for avoiding collisions as contained in the Rules of the Air.
I am only required to comply with an ATC clearance when that clearance is safe.
An ATC clearance that takes me through a CB is unsafe.
Controllers are there to prevent collisions in the air.
--------------
As an aside, if you think that avoiding a CB and getting as close as 1nm from another aircraft at the same level is shockingly dangerous then get a fam flight on a Farnbough Inbound - threading it's way through gliders, para gliders, parachute drops, microlights, all manner of cessna and Piper and other flights plus the odd ex military jet doing more than 250Kt along with the military doing the same and some helicopters. The CAA says that is perfectly safe for regular Public Transport Flights. Moving a mile or 2 left or right in a controled environment must be safer than that even if one doesn't ask!!
-----------
I can see some controllers here could object to the following;
Aircraft departing runway 27 cleared straight ahead 3000ft. String of aircraft joining downwind from the west IFR. Pilot at 400ft reports turning onto a track of 180 and climbing to 4000ft due engine failure. Seems that some people here would tell the pilot not to turn because it would cause a loss of their separation standard with the traffic joining downwind!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC. Let's stop all the waffle about CAA saying things are safe, etc, etc., and I'm not talking about Farnborough or gliders or clockwork mice. You said: "I don't think that you will find it illegal fro aircraft at the same level to fly closer to each other than 5nm or even 3nm in Class A. Think procedural separation for one example of when it can be done." I would like YOU to tell us how this might be done procedurally in the context of bad weather in the London TMA - Class A airspace.
Aircraft departing runway 27 cleared straight ahead 3000ft. String of aircraft joining downwind from the west IFR. Pilot at 400ft reports turning onto a track of 180 and climbing to 4000ft due engine failure. Seems that some people here would tell the pilot not to turn because it would cause a loss of their separation standard with the traffic joining downwind!
So why on earth would the pilot do something like that? Every engine failure on take-off I've ever experienced has climbed straight ahead for many miles, not wanting to turn, let alone climb to 4000 ft when the clearance was to 3000 ft. I would certainly advise him not to turn - and tell him why.
Aircraft departing runway 27 cleared straight ahead 3000ft. String of aircraft joining downwind from the west IFR. Pilot at 400ft reports turning onto a track of 180 and climbing to 4000ft due engine failure. Seems that some people here would tell the pilot not to turn because it would cause a loss of their separation standard with the traffic joining downwind!
So why on earth would the pilot do something like that? Every engine failure on take-off I've ever experienced has climbed straight ahead for many miles, not wanting to turn, let alone climb to 4000 ft when the clearance was to 3000 ft. I would certainly advise him not to turn - and tell him why.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK.
Two aircraft over XYZ vor. CB sitting on 360 radial. Aircraft 1 avoids by flying outbound on the 340 radial while aircraft 2 flies outbound on the 025 radial. As soon as they are both established outbound they are separated and procedurally can be cleared to the same level because you have track separation as per MATS 1.
If the aircraft are slow enough they could in theory both only be 1 or 2nm from the VOR when no longer separated vertically.
Of course there is also the opposite direction case where two aircraft avoid weather by flying in oposite directions along the same route and habving confirmed the pass, the controller swaps levels.
Those are examples of where a controller can have aircraft very close together in class A but very much separated according to the book.
However what I really had said was that it is not illegal for me to be closer to another aircraft than what the ATCO is told to maintain between aircraft on the radar display. If it was illegal then since radar is not 100% accurate the controller can see what they judge to be 5nm when the aircraft are in fact (a bit) less than 5nm appart.
Remind me again at what distance the "snitch" makes a recording when say the required separation is 5nm?
-------------
So why on earth would the pilot do something like that?
Ever heard of an emergency turn?
I fly to lots of aerodromes where we will fly a special procedure in the event of an engine failure and it is not straight ahead or follow the SID.
Unless you have reviewed the performance manuals for every company and every type that operates from the airport, you probably would not be aware of what they have planned in case of engine failure.
However, "I would certainly advise him not to turn - and tell him why." would not be what the crew are interested in when dealing with an emergency.
Regards,
DFC
Two aircraft over XYZ vor. CB sitting on 360 radial. Aircraft 1 avoids by flying outbound on the 340 radial while aircraft 2 flies outbound on the 025 radial. As soon as they are both established outbound they are separated and procedurally can be cleared to the same level because you have track separation as per MATS 1.
If the aircraft are slow enough they could in theory both only be 1 or 2nm from the VOR when no longer separated vertically.
Of course there is also the opposite direction case where two aircraft avoid weather by flying in oposite directions along the same route and habving confirmed the pass, the controller swaps levels.
Those are examples of where a controller can have aircraft very close together in class A but very much separated according to the book.
However what I really had said was that it is not illegal for me to be closer to another aircraft than what the ATCO is told to maintain between aircraft on the radar display. If it was illegal then since radar is not 100% accurate the controller can see what they judge to be 5nm when the aircraft are in fact (a bit) less than 5nm appart.
Remind me again at what distance the "snitch" makes a recording when say the required separation is 5nm?
-------------
So why on earth would the pilot do something like that?
I fly to lots of aerodromes where we will fly a special procedure in the event of an engine failure and it is not straight ahead or follow the SID.
Unless you have reviewed the performance manuals for every company and every type that operates from the airport, you probably would not be aware of what they have planned in case of engine failure.
However, "I would certainly advise him not to turn - and tell him why." would not be what the crew are interested in when dealing with an emergency.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
In the VOR example you talk about, the point is that although the separation may only be 1-2nm at the VOR, it is only ever going to increase due to the diverging headings. In the actual incident that was mentioned earlier, the aircraft wanted to turn on a converging heading, thereby reducing the separation below the minimum we are ALLOWED to apply when following the procedures laid down that we have to follow! Therefore, I say again () we CANNOT authorise the turn.
For what it's worth, yes I agree with you that you two flying say 2nm apart at same level is probably safer for you than flying through a very active cell, but we simply cannot authorise the turn that would reduce the separation to 2nm. And therefore badgering the ATCO on an already busy frequency for something he/she cant authorise is at best futile, and at worst, dangerous and poor airmanship.
Several times I have seen two of my departures get about 1-2nm same level, but they are on diverging SIDs and I can reduce the separation in the vicinity by applying visual separation, something our radar colleagues can't do (although I did hear a funny story of someone trying that excuse on a board or check when they lost separation!! Think it went "but I had them both visual on the radar screen"!!!
).
As for the emergency turns example, all bets are off when there's an emergency and separation can obviously be reduced due to the mitigating circumstances, but i'm afraid bad weather doesn't constitute an emergency and therefore standard separation HAS to be applied.
FB
In the VOR example you talk about, the point is that although the separation may only be 1-2nm at the VOR, it is only ever going to increase due to the diverging headings. In the actual incident that was mentioned earlier, the aircraft wanted to turn on a converging heading, thereby reducing the separation below the minimum we are ALLOWED to apply when following the procedures laid down that we have to follow! Therefore, I say again (
) we CANNOT authorise the turn.For what it's worth, yes I agree with you that you two flying say 2nm apart at same level is probably safer for you than flying through a very active cell, but we simply cannot authorise the turn that would reduce the separation to 2nm. And therefore badgering the ATCO on an already busy frequency for something he/she cant authorise is at best futile, and at worst, dangerous and poor airmanship.
Several times I have seen two of my departures get about 1-2nm same level, but they are on diverging SIDs and I can reduce the separation in the vicinity by applying visual separation, something our radar colleagues can't do (although I did hear a funny story of someone trying that excuse on a board or check when they lost separation!! Think it went "but I had them both visual on the radar screen"!!!
).As for the emergency turns example, all bets are off when there's an emergency and separation can obviously be reduced due to the mitigating circumstances, but i'm afraid bad weather doesn't constitute an emergency and therefore standard separation HAS to be applied.
FB
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but we simply cannot authorise the turn that would reduce the separation to 2nm
However, what is going through every pilot's mind following the following discussion;
London ABC123 request a turn 20 degrees right to avoid weather
ABC123 negative continue present heading traffic 3 O'Clock 5 miles on a parallel heading
is
Well shift that traffic then or do you think that we are crazy enough to fly into that CB we have ahead.
Agree with your comments about aircraft in emergency. Do you want me to declare an emergency when you refuse a turn for weather. a CB in one's 12 O'Clock is certainly grave and imminent danger!!
However, what the emergency turn highlights is that there can be times that an aircraft will suddenly do something that you a) don't expect, b) don't want. Not only that but one airline can have the engine out procedure going right and the next company can have it going left. If the aircraft is light enough then it might go straight ahead. In no case can ATC refuse.
The radials bit was in response to someone saying that it was illegal for aircraft to be only 1 or 2nm appart in class A.
Look at it like this - it is not mission impossible it is mission difficult. The pay cheque is for the difficult not just the easy!!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot who has regularly visited LATCC/South Coast Sunshine over the years I can appreciate both sides of the discussion....
I was present in AC LATCC days when 'A' Watch of old experienced their 'Black Friday' - weather created.... Man and Boy operation, others running between sector suites passing messages as the Chiefs were overloaded also. Several losses of seperation, some not even seen until tape replay. Tc took their hit also, so not just an AC problem on the day....
I have to say it was a shocking experience to witness, and one I hoped would never be repeated. It left most of my ATC friends, all very experienced, quite shocked.
How has ATC learned from this experience, it seems to have happened again?
I'm NOT a controller, but I do have a few questions which may widen the debate.....
1. Were the outbounds stopped? If not, why not? I know the action causes knock on for the rest of the day (night), but if the safety of the sector is in doubt, as seems to be suggested on this occasion it seems a SAFE option?
The numerous TRUCE, LATCC ECT sessions I have been privaledged to witness seem to me to have had a remarkably quick effect on sector loading, TC especially.
2. Just how good is NATS at managing weather? I think it's wrong, personally, that Tac's can't see the weather in their sector IF they choose to do so. Having it available in LAS and 'front desk' positions helps the controller little. Also depends on the LAS/GS etc on duty (no slur intended, but perhaps a valid point?)
3. Were overloads filed on this day so that proper investigation of ALL the circumstances can be learned from? This INCLUDES Investigations contacting an airline, if considered appropriate to ask for response/feedback/education to the subject pilot who has caused such sector upset.
The pilot community at large has LITTLE understanding of ATC. A great shame, and despite many years of trying to achieve better, still receives significantly more than management lip service. Sorry ATC, airlines could, and SHOULD do better with pilot understanding of the ATC world :-(
It comes down to the same old reason, ATC'ers, in general, won't attend famil etc on days off, and management for business cost reasons won't approve it during working hours.... we all hope it will change, odd occasions occur when you think it might, but then it slips back down the non-essential, too costly route.......
I was present in AC LATCC days when 'A' Watch of old experienced their 'Black Friday' - weather created.... Man and Boy operation, others running between sector suites passing messages as the Chiefs were overloaded also. Several losses of seperation, some not even seen until tape replay. Tc took their hit also, so not just an AC problem on the day....
I have to say it was a shocking experience to witness, and one I hoped would never be repeated. It left most of my ATC friends, all very experienced, quite shocked.
How has ATC learned from this experience, it seems to have happened again?
I'm NOT a controller, but I do have a few questions which may widen the debate.....
1. Were the outbounds stopped? If not, why not? I know the action causes knock on for the rest of the day (night), but if the safety of the sector is in doubt, as seems to be suggested on this occasion it seems a SAFE option?
The numerous TRUCE, LATCC ECT sessions I have been privaledged to witness seem to me to have had a remarkably quick effect on sector loading, TC especially.
2. Just how good is NATS at managing weather? I think it's wrong, personally, that Tac's can't see the weather in their sector IF they choose to do so. Having it available in LAS and 'front desk' positions helps the controller little. Also depends on the LAS/GS etc on duty (no slur intended, but perhaps a valid point?)
3. Were overloads filed on this day so that proper investigation of ALL the circumstances can be learned from? This INCLUDES Investigations contacting an airline, if considered appropriate to ask for response/feedback/education to the subject pilot who has caused such sector upset.
The pilot community at large has LITTLE understanding of ATC. A great shame, and despite many years of trying to achieve better, still receives significantly more than management lip service. Sorry ATC, airlines could, and SHOULD do better with pilot understanding of the ATC world :-(
It comes down to the same old reason, ATC'ers, in general, won't attend famil etc on days off, and management for business cost reasons won't approve it during working hours.... we all hope it will change, odd occasions occur when you think it might, but then it slips back down the non-essential, too costly route.......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30W
In answer to some of your questions
1. yes, but the main problem was inbounds to the LTMA/MTMA - of course, they were already coming. We had been briefed on the weather but it had not moved for 4 hours before it suddenly hit us. There's only so much flow you can put on before the airlines badger us with annoying phone calls - our flag carrier being one of the worst culprits I'm afraid to say.
2. NATS is very savvy with weather, but i refer you to the above about airline Ops who don't either have a clue of the impact it can have, or don't care. As for radar controllers having weather on radar - all very well, you'll find debates about this in this forum. I'm in the camp that says 'no thank you' - I'm too busy to turn aircraft because I 'just happen' to think they might want to turn - especialy considering the differences in attitude even between crews operating from the same company flying the same aircraft on the same route! I'd rather the pilot asked and we will give it if we can - we will move heaven and earth to do so, sometimes it is just not possible.
And yes, there are some lazy GS's around - I'm sure the same can be said for the LAS role.
3. Not sure - there is a tendency in TC not to file overloads (I personaly believe that TC don't file enough and AC file too often. I believe that somewhere in the middle is probably a proper level of reporting, but if a controller feels overloaded then they should file... just seems that TC file a lot less - and that's not saying that is something to be proud of).
DFC
It is not always that simple in congested airspace I'm afraid - we will if we can and we will manufacture it to make it happen if we can.
Also, just because you have a cell, the other aircraft in your scenario might already be on a heading to avid so can't turn.
ATC is not black and white, there are so many variables to consider.
Rest assured, if we can give you the turn we will, no matter how hard it makes things for us. We will not refuse just because it makes things difficult. We will refuse if it means we will be breaking the law.
In answer to some of your questions
1. yes, but the main problem was inbounds to the LTMA/MTMA - of course, they were already coming. We had been briefed on the weather but it had not moved for 4 hours before it suddenly hit us. There's only so much flow you can put on before the airlines badger us with annoying phone calls - our flag carrier being one of the worst culprits I'm afraid to say.
2. NATS is very savvy with weather, but i refer you to the above about airline Ops who don't either have a clue of the impact it can have, or don't care. As for radar controllers having weather on radar - all very well, you'll find debates about this in this forum. I'm in the camp that says 'no thank you' - I'm too busy to turn aircraft because I 'just happen' to think they might want to turn - especialy considering the differences in attitude even between crews operating from the same company flying the same aircraft on the same route! I'd rather the pilot asked and we will give it if we can - we will move heaven and earth to do so, sometimes it is just not possible.
And yes, there are some lazy GS's around - I'm sure the same can be said for the LAS role.
3. Not sure - there is a tendency in TC not to file overloads (I personaly believe that TC don't file enough and AC file too often. I believe that somewhere in the middle is probably a proper level of reporting, but if a controller feels overloaded then they should file... just seems that TC file a lot less - and that's not saying that is something to be proud of).
DFC
ABC123 negative continue present heading traffic 3 O'Clock 5 miles on a parallel heading
is
Well shift that traffic then or do you think that we are crazy enough to fly into that CB we have ahead.
is
Well shift that traffic then or do you think that we are crazy enough to fly into that CB we have ahead.
Also, just because you have a cell, the other aircraft in your scenario might already be on a heading to avid so can't turn.
ATC is not black and white, there are so many variables to consider.
Rest assured, if we can give you the turn we will, no matter how hard it makes things for us. We will not refuse just because it makes things difficult. We will refuse if it means we will be breaking the law.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, having one on 345 radial and the second one on 025 radial you don't have separation "as soon as they are established on radials".
To anotherthing and other ATCOs - what about using "essential traffic"?
To anotherthing and other ATCOs - what about using "essential traffic"?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Essential traffic' is not there to allow you to reduce legal separation minima.
Essential traffic is traffic which is separated for any period by less than the specified standard separation. It is normally passed in situations where ATS surveillance systems are not available. Essential traffic information passed to an aircraft shall include:
a) Direction of flight of conflicting traffic;
b) Type of conflicting traffic;
c) Cruising level of conflicting traffic and ETA for the reporting point, or for aircraft passing through the level of another with less than the normal separation; the ETA for the reporting point nearest to where the aircraft will cross levels; and
d) Any alternative clearance.
CAP493 Section 1 Chap 3 Para 4
Essential traffic is traffic which is separated for any period by less than the specified standard separation. It is normally passed in situations where ATS surveillance systems are not available. Essential traffic information passed to an aircraft shall include:
a) Direction of flight of conflicting traffic;
b) Type of conflicting traffic;
c) Cruising level of conflicting traffic and ETA for the reporting point, or for aircraft passing through the level of another with less than the normal separation; the ETA for the reporting point nearest to where the aircraft will cross levels; and
d) Any alternative clearance.
CAP493 Section 1 Chap 3 Para 4
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, having one on 345 radial and the second one on 025 radial you don't have separation "as soon as they are established on radials".
However, if you read my post I said one aircraft was on the 340 radial and the other on the 025 radial which is 45 degrees and according to MATS 1 they are separated.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm, sorry RYR1234 I can't approve a left turn for weather but, if you'd be good enough to route direct to BPK and leave there on the 020 radial we might be able to work something out in a few minutes...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Essential traffic' is not there to allow you to reduce legal separation minima.
45 degrees and according to MATS 1 they are separated.
Bellwether&cloudbuster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the original poster can a pilot tell me the rules for flying under a CB? If the approach path shows them being able to get under the CB before they enter it is that within limits and if so what are the limits between aircraft and base of CB?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JH
I've been stuck under a very active CB, trying to climb out of a closed valley in Wales many moons ago - not a pleasant place to be and resulted in a call on 243.0 as we thought we were not going to climb well enough to clear terrain.
Apart from huge downdrafts, even flying in the vicinity of a big active Cb can result in lightning strikes.
As an aside - fair bit of weather around today, every pilot (on the sectors I was working) asked for a turn and did not just do it (thank you). Every pilot that requested it was given it as well - it caused extra work but that's what ATCOs are there for.
I say agin, if we say no, it is for a very good reason, and not just to bugger you guys up
I've been stuck under a very active CB, trying to climb out of a closed valley in Wales many moons ago - not a pleasant place to be and resulted in a call on 243.0 as we thought we were not going to climb well enough to clear terrain.
Apart from huge downdrafts, even flying in the vicinity of a big active Cb can result in lightning strikes.
As an aside - fair bit of weather around today, every pilot (on the sectors I was working) asked for a turn and did not just do it (thank you). Every pilot that requested it was given it as well - it caused extra work but that's what ATCOs are there for.
I say agin, if we say no, it is for a very good reason, and not just to bugger you guys up
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite correct - flying under a CB is just as bad as being in one. Think microburst, windshear, turbulence, hail.
One guy said to me today that the following was best;
London ABC123 request right 20 degrees to avoid weather
ABC123 negative continue present heading (reason)
London ABC123 that clearance is unsafe.
Quite ironic that in all the discussion of pilots having to resort to using their emergency discretion to avoid an unsafe situation not one controller has suggested that MATS 1 clearly permits controllers to use their initiative and ignore the rules therein when faced with an unusual circumstance.
Could it be that the wings coming off an aircraft in a CB that you put it in is not going to kill you. Easy to sit there and tell a pilot to fly into a CB because it isn't going to kill you is it?
Regards,
DFC
One guy said to me today that the following was best;
London ABC123 request right 20 degrees to avoid weather
ABC123 negative continue present heading (reason)
London ABC123 that clearance is unsafe.
Quite ironic that in all the discussion of pilots having to resort to using their emergency discretion to avoid an unsafe situation not one controller has suggested that MATS 1 clearly permits controllers to use their initiative and ignore the rules therein when faced with an unusual circumstance.
Could it be that the wings coming off an aircraft in a CB that you put it in is not going to kill you. Easy to sit there and tell a pilot to fly into a CB because it isn't going to kill you is it?
Regards,
DFC