Flipping runways in thunderstorm conditions at LHR

[Julian Hensey]

Just a question:

If you have a large amount of bad weather on the east side of LHR, so much so that departing traffic is having a tough time finding a route out, but the prevailing wind is from the east, can runways be changed to the west departures even with a tail wind from the east? Is there any maximum wind that this can be done or is this "it would never happen" situation?

J

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Heathrow operates a "preferential westerlies" system so the 27 runways can be used with a downwind component, but only under certain conditions. If it's tipping with rain in a storm.... probably not. OK, the departures might have a better time but how about the inbounds fighting through the CB to the east?

[hold at SATAN]

We can have upto a 5kt tailwind component in accordance with "preferential westerlies" but that requires several conditions including a dry runway.

Chasing the weather, be it wind or avoiding CBs, is an absolute nightmare. I remember a shift back in 2002ish when we swapped ends 3 times - absolute carnage.

Holding points tend to have around a dozen aircraft at time when it's busy. If we suddenly change runway direction and those aircraft need to go to the opposite end....


Usually weather tends to settle down/move over a shortish period of time. But multiple end changes can increase ATC workload to an unbearable level with delayed pilots whining about start times etc etc, all which could have much longer term ramifications. In the overall scheme of things, unless the wind is forecast to change to the opposite end, as opposed to a temporary shift brought about by CBs, we just sit tight and weather the storm

[Julian Hensey]

Ok interesting, yesterday particularly looked "difficult" as I was on the M25 very close to LHR and driving over a hail carpet under a large thunderstorm with the wheels crunching the hail down. I looked at the wind and it was very slow..but thanks for the information - I was interested because these particular storms seemed to be moving very slowly.

[anotherthing]

Sunday afternoon was particularly nasty - thank you Mr Easy Jet pilot who badgered one controller relentlessly, then did the same to the Essex controller.

If you ask for deviation for weather and we don't give it to you, there is a bloddy good reason! Despite telling you we couldn't and why, you still took up valuable R/T time.

Professional pilot? not in this case.

[Andy Rylance]

but there must be a time when there is no choice and a pilot has to take the decision to avoid a CB regardless and then inform ATC what is going to do because he/she has to and has no options for safety even if ATC it is going to be too difficult to route.. is that a common happening?

[Jerricho]

This can and certainly does happen Andy, and any controller will tell you that when storm cells are around, vertical separation is a beautiful thing..........

[1985]

but there must be a time when there is no choice and a pilot has to take the decision to avoid a CB regardless and then inform ATC what is going to do because he/she has to and has no options for safety even if ATC it is going to be too difficult to route.. is that a common happening?

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!

[anotherthing]

This can and certainly does happen Andy, and any controller will tell you that when storm cells are around, vertical separation is a beautiful thing..........

Vertical separation is indeed a beautiful thing. However on Sunday in the LTMA when the weather suddenly hit, there were aircraft all over the place, some wandering through 3 or four different sectors that they would normally never be near. Level separation was not an option!!

Clouds, however active, are softer than aluminium. Always ask first, I will MOR a pilot who puts his and other aircraft into danger because he turns before asking. I will remind a pilot of his obligation to request a trun if his actions do not happen to put himself in harms way on that day.

It will be a very rare and extremely rare happening if you are refused the turn you want - if you are, then it is because you will endanger your, and other crews, aircraft.

I know the ride isn't pleasant (I flew professionally before this career), but it is not safe to turn without permission!!

I am campaigning to get an educational DVD produced by NATS that will illustrate the effect weather can have - it will include actual radar replays with R/T and phone calls. It is initially intended for Tower controllers as part of TRUCE (cos we don't like being badgered every 5 mins to cancel MDIs etc when we are hanging on for dear life), but I have suggested it gets sent to the airlines as well.

Unfortunately the safety manager who was supposed to produce this DVD after my suggestion several months ago (about 12) has been very slow and in fact very negligent in doing so. He was given a sharp reminder by his peers very recently.

[Traffic is...]

Dare I say, but occasionally a little more info from the radar guys and girls would go a long way on the day. Tower folk do realise that the radar folk are exceptionally busy, but when we are told very little to nothing with regards to what is going on, we will call now and again to find out what sort of delay can be expected. However, I agree that some of us probably call a little too often and don't give you any respite. Sounds like the DVD would be a good idea though.

PS We realise you guys are busy because we tend to visit Swanwick now and again. How many times do radar folk visit the towers?

[anotherthing]

PS We realise you guys are busy because we tend to visit Swanwick now and again. How many times do radar folk visit the towers?

Not often enough - a lot of issue we have (rightly or wrongly) is no TOIL for doing it on a day off and not being released during rostered days, especially as our clawback days are often (and particulalry over the next 2 years) already earmarked and in fact demand for them is over the number we have to give back to the company due to various things that are coming soon.

I think that there is slightly less appreciation from all sides wrt colleagues working conditions/tasks/problems - exacerbated by the reduction in the college course length.

I know that on Sunday more info from the GS side of things may have helped you guys and reducced the phone calls from you (we appreciated the airlines badger you), but at the time, out of the 5 TC groups North, South, East, Midlands and Capital, we were running out of legal hours for personnel on 3 of them (5 mins to go) and getting close on the other 2 groups, so there was a lot of head scratching going on!! The weather seemed to catch us out a bit - we knew it was there - it had been threatening all afternoon, but had seemed to be static and did not move towards the TMA at all, then all of a sudden (it seemed like), it was upon us.

btw, Thanks to AC as well for taking some short notice (far from ideal) calls to hold out . Hopefully LAS south passed on the message at the time, she was asked to but she and you were both still busy.

[DFC]

I will MOR a pilot who puts his and other aircraft into danger because he turns before asking.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that if a pilot decides to turn when either;

a) They have asked and you say no; or

b) They have not asked

then you will file a report about the situation as you experienced it under the MOR scheme.

There is no such thing as "MOR the pilot".

From the pilot point of view, I will not fly into a CB. To do so would put the safety of the aircraft at risk. If I can I will give ATC the option of a left or righ turn. If not then while I might put it nicely by saying "request 20 right to avoid weather" what I am saying is I need to turn for safety reasons.

I have turned first and talked later in the LTMA before - unable to get in on frequency. However, it is the pilot who is responsible for the safety of the aircraft in every respect. The ATCO is only responsible for the safety of the ATS provided.

A complaint regarding a pilot having to endlessly badger a controller to avoid weather says something about the weather, about the pilot's attitude to safety and also about the ATCO's attitude to safety. 1 good thing out of 3 ain't bad!.

Regards,

DFC

[anotherthing]

DFC,

I do hope in your last paragraph you are not trying to say the pilot is in the right... the frequency was busy, the pilot was offered a different turn but would only accept a turn in the direction he stated... a direction that was not available because of the numerous aircraft that were in his way. Even a climb or descent to facilitate his turn was not feasible because of the traffic situation. The pilot was in his right to ask (and it is good that he did and did not just turn), and was well within his right to ask again when refused, stressing how much he needed the turn. However once he had got to that point, he should have stopped.

If he felt strongly about it, he could then file a report on landing and an appreciation from both sides may have been gained (but how many pilots, especially LoCo pilots with multiple sectors and minimum turn around times, will want to or can be bothered to go into paperwork? They'd rather get their way in the air - which is understandable to a degree).

The RT was extremely busy, this pilot did not help especially as the controller concerned had explicitly told him that he could not turn in that direction, told him why, and offered an alternative (which was the only one available but unfortunately was of no use to the pilot). Asking once, or even twice, stressing how much you really want to turn is acceptable, constant badgering and complaining to the point of arguing is not. It can be extremely dangerous.

As for the MOR, it would include the situation experienced, but on replay, it would highlight the poor appreciation by the pilot (a bit of a re-briefing on airmanship and appreciation of what else is going on in busy airspace methinks), particularly in similar circumstances on Sunday, when it was investigated.

ATCOs are not 'only responsible' for the safety of the ATS provided, they are responsible for the safety of all aircraft under their charge.

You are correct in stating that the ultimate responsibility for an individual aircraft lies with the Captain. Unfortunately the ATCO often has more than just one aircraft to worry about, which is why sometimes (rarely) we have to say no.

I too would not fly into a CB if at all possible (talking from experience here, NATS ATCO is my second career - I flew for a living beforehand) - you state that you will turn (and indeed have done so) before getting permission, especially when the RT is congested. That is your perogative and right, and if there is an incident, you would have good mitigating reasons... however that does not detract from the statement that the pilot on Sunday displayed poor airmanship and awareness - did he think he was the only aircraft with weather? Did he think it was acceptable to constantly transmit on an obviously very busy frequency during what was obviously a difficult time for all (aircrew and ATCOs), when he had been given explicit reasons as to why he could not be given the turn he requested?

Bad weather is not an acceptable excuse for poor airmanship... I do not know of any ATCO that would refuse a turn if they could give it, apart from the fact that that is what we are here for (whilst ensuring the safety of all our other aircraft whilst granting the turn), it is not defendable. However, what is even more indefensible, is an ATCO who would let an aircraft turn when it asks (even when asking for a very good reason), when granting that turn would create a dangerous situation for the aircraft and other aircraft besides.

Bear in mind the period we were talking about on Sunday was extreme - we often have weather but this happened at just the wrong time with regards to the inbound traffic situation and the weather was particularly nasty. Normally when we have weather we have it (traffic) flowed to the point that we can give the pilot the turn he/she wants, every time without fail. (Even though it usually then means we have to do some frantic coordination).

This should make it even more evident to aircrews that when we say no, it's for a damned good reason, not just for the hell of it!!

Regards

Anotherthing

[DFC]

I do hope in your last paragraph you are not trying to say the pilot is in the right

The only thing that the pilot did wrong was to continue to make requests. Far better to give up on a lost cause and either just turn or perhaps better to declare an emergency and turn.

If the weather needed to be avoided for safety then there would never be an option of not avoiding it.

If I need to avoid weather then I will avoid weather. In busy airspace I don't avoid every bit of cumulus that might cause a bump. If I ask to avoid weather in the LTMA there is a safety reason for my request.

If you have aircraft to my right on a parallel with min radar separation and I report that I have to turn right to avoid weather then you have to accept that you now have to move that other traffic or end up with less than min separation.

When I can see a CB ahead I am never going to ever fly into it. I will fly round it or do a 180. I don't really care as long as I am never inside that CB.

Part of the problem is that ATC can't see any of the weather. I can see a CB ahead and I know that if I move 0.5 to 1nm further right of the current track, I can avoid. However, what I request is 20 degrees right to avoid because this is the way that it is done. You don't know that I only need to move a small bit right of track and assume that this new track is going to go on for God knows how long.

I have previously done orbits, diverted miles off track and a few times even flown a new route to avoid CBs. I have never been refused such a request in any of the worlds major TMAs including London.

That is why I am so shocked to hear that an ATCO could take such a risk with a flight by forcing that flight to fly in weather that the pilot requested to avoid.

I think that ATC attitude in this case mirrors the Captain of the ship in this video;

YouTube - Battleship VS Lighthouse


Regards,

DFC

[anotherthing]

I forgot about the big sky small aircraft skygod mentality... no means no. Only used for a very good reason.

As for ending up with less than min separation, you really haven't got a clue - as evident by your post above.

No means no. Happens on very few occasions, and only for very good reason. I will file and I will be in the right.

I'm shocked that a professional pilot can't get it in his skull that turning his aircraft might actually be more dangerous - ATC has the big picture when it comes to traffic - don't even try to mention TCAS.

Lets agree to disagree, though I am correct.

[Scuzi]

A balance has to be struck in this situation. If a pilot asks for a turn to avoid weather and ATC refuses, he/she must make a decision whether to continue as cleared or to take responsibilty for a turn. Why waste precious time by asking again when you have already bee told "No". As anotherthing says, if you have been refused a turn it is for a bloody good reason, i.e. there is another aeroplane close by and if you take the turn you want, you're going to lose minimum separation.

As a pilot and a controller, in this particular scenario working as a controller I have used the following procedure. It may not be listed in the book but everyone was crystal clear.

Working TMA North last September when thunderstorms appeared to be a daily occurence, I had an aircraft outbound from EGSS on a CPT deaprture. The pilot requested a 30 degree right turn which I refused as there was traffic 3 miles northwest at the same level. The turn would have resulted in a loss of seapration hence my refusal. The pilot prevailed as was his/her right to do so, so I made it perfectly clear with something along the lines of "Callsign, traffic 2 o clock 3 miles same level, right turn will put you in conflict with it, if you choose to turn right maintain your own visual separation".

I continued with regular traffic information until the conflict was clear. They were flahsing white on my screen and I was quite frankly shi**ing myself but it worked out in the end and I wasn't held responsible. Quite luckily, even though they were reasonably close, minimum separation was maintained throughout. Through pure fluke mind you.

The downsides to the situation were the massively increased workload due to having to monitor it in a very busy and complex environment but we all kept our noses clean which must be a bonus?


I can understand the situation from both sides of the fence and I think the only way to resolve our differences (read: misunderstanding of each others jobs) in this situation is familiarisation of each other. Fam flights and visits to ATC are absolutely essential if we want to bridge the gap in knowledge.

[anotherthing]

Scuzi

I don't misunderstand pilots - I flew professionally for a number of years before joining NATS.

It's pilots with statements such as

The ATCO is only responsible for the safety of the ATS provided.

who do not understand what we do and what we are governed by law to do.

If you had lost separation in the instance you mention, you would have been suspended, albeit for a very short time. Now I don't care about being suspended if I know it is not my fault, though as you know, it is not the best thing to happen when chances are everyone is working balls out due weather.

If the situation on Sunday had resulted in a LOS, then it would have been more than one controller suspended as aircraft where all over the place flying through sectors they should never have been near. Again, not a consideration for the pilot when it is his or her ultimate responsibility for safety.

However in the LTMA, or any other airspace for that matter, turning an aircraft when you have been told 'no' could at worst, constitute 'endagerment of aircraft' either your (the pilot concerned) own or yours plus others. Now i don't have the ANO on me, but I know that there is a little bit of law about endangerment of aircraft.

You really hit the nail on the head wrt the amount of monitoring required - so it works out for the aircraft that turned, but quite possibly to the detriment of other aircraft in the sky.

Now, a pilot has ultimate responsibility for the safety of his aircraft... ATCOs are however responsible for the safety of many aircraft and a captain would not expect us to reduce the effectiveness of that safety net by focussing on aircraft unevenly.

That's why, as you know, when it's quieter on sector, you are more likely to go for the climb throughs etc because you can devote more time to monitor each aircraft... as it gets busier, you tend to play things 'safer' (in apostrophes because we are always doing things safe, it's just the degree of risk mitigation that changes).

DFC does not seem to be able to understand that point. If a pilots actions result in a LOS and suspension by an ATCO, then an MOR is written. No way round it.

In that MOR it will categorically state facts... Text written stating "... ABC123 turned right after I had refused permission, thus causing a LOS between him and XYZ987 (or even worse an incident elsewhere on sector as you were disatrcted by the actions of ABC123)..." would be included... the pilot of ABC123 would be held to account.

Reckless endangerment?? not really 'reckless' in the eyes of the law, but still possibly endangering aircraft and therefore still on sticky ground.

A lack of appreciation by pilots as to what turning could involve.

I think most ATCOs, PPL/ATPL holders or not, young or old, all know that flying through heavy Cbs is bad... it's not a difficult concept for a layman to understand (and an ATCO is not exactly a 'layman').

The lack of appreciation of traffic flows, sectorisation, coordination and separation requirements by pilots, is more of an issue in this argument - though that is why the ATCO is there we have the bigger picture even though some pilots believe TCAS is as good as a ground based radar... Hence why pilots should understand that the extremely rare 'no' is being used for exceptional reasons and not just for the Hell of it!

We are there to help, and we will do our damndest to do so... but not to the point of possibly endangering yours and other aircraft.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<When I can see a CB ahead I am never going to ever fly into it. I will fly round it or do a 180. I don't really care as long as I am never inside that CB.

Part of the problem is that ATC can't see any of the weather. >>

And the pilots can't see any of the other aeroplanes, DFC! We all know our respective responsibilities - pilot responsible for his aeroplane; air traffic controller responsible for maybe 20 aeroplanes. But the BIG problem for pilots in bad weather, DFC, is that ATC - and ONLY ATC - can see all the traffic around you and in the approach sectors of a busy airfield a lot will be at the same FL/altitude. "Vertical" is best, but you can't stay vertical with 20 aeroplanes; there is not enough room. If you suddenly turn without warning do you not consider another aeroplane alongside that you might hit?? By the time ATC has seen your unannounced turn it maybe too late to do anything with the other traffic and the stress caused to the ATCO suddenly faced with an "airmiss" would be immense and might result in him totally losing control of the whole situation. During bad weather, controllers are working flat out because many aircraft are not doing "standard" things and require constant monitoring.

I never had a pilot do some of the things mentioned on here and I cannot ever recall refusing a "weather turn", but it might have happened. However, in many years of radar control in busy airspace I never ceased to be astounded at the varying attitude of pilots to storm cells. Some were plodding along happily whilst others were frantically asking to turn left and right "to avoid".

One incident involved a 747. Heathrow was on easterlies and there were a few CBs about but the majority of traffic was following the usual pattern and landing OK. Not long after leaving LAM the pilot of the 747 wanted to turn right about 40 degrees which, after phoning my TMA colleague handling that sector, I approved. When he was a few miles NW of Bovingdon he wanted to turn south (!)... but not 220, which would have put him back into the landing stream. No, he wanted south, straight through the downwind legs for 09L... He kept going, turning further left, necessitating phone calls to the Heathrow south Director, TMA (S) and Gatwick Director. After causing some scary moments with the traffic at OCK he eventually ended up over Gatwick before he would turn right back towards Woodley and he eventually descended for landing. Meanwhile many other aircraft had flown the approach from all 4 stacks, some with one or two small heading changes "to avoid", and landed OK. Question: WHY??? The chaos in the TMA caused by that one aeroplane was incredible.

On another occasion a small turboprop made a completely normal approach whilst large jets were weaving all over. If the weather was deemed too dangerous to fly through by pilots of heavy jets, how come a small aeroplane could whizz straight through? (I'm not a pilot so apologise if the answer should be obvious).

Heathrow with storm cells on the approach..... Most aircraft held off by flying radar circuits north and south of the ILS. However, the odd one made a normal approach - right through the alleged bad weather! I had the tower telephone to say "The landing xxx says to tell everyone it's no problem on the approach" whereupon several others made approaches and landed OK, presumably ignoring their weather radar.

Weather avoidance is painfully inconsistent between pilots and ATCOs received no specific "weather training" in my day. Are pilots either not trained properly in the use of weather radar or are they are basically left to their own devices to interpret what they see? E.g string of same company 757s all on the same heading at the same level at 210kts. One turns right, one turns left, the next plods on. As an ATCO I received no official training in bad weather problems but I always told trainees that the worst situations they were going to see would be those in bad weather. It can be very, very scary. Maybe things have changed now?

It's a tragedy that so few pilots visit ATC. We used to get some at Heathrow but in the 10 years I was at West Drayton I saw less than a handful. I showed an airline captain around Heathrow once and he sat in on radar in some bad weather. He came away a very, very shaken man. I know that pilots sometimes attend controllers "unusual occurrence" training but is enough attention paid to bad weather exercises? When I did them I was usually faced with an engine failure or something similarly straightforward, or something so scary I might see it once in a lifteime, yet never ever was there an exercise devoted to a TMA full of CBs, which happens many times each year.

[DFC]

HD,

You are correct. In fact the pilot spoken of earlier who made several requests to avoid weather and then flew through that "weather" just leaves the ATCO sitting there saying "see I knew that he did not need to avoid anything".

You are totally correct - 1 goes left, one goes right and one up the middle. Part of the reson is that the CBs move but another more important thing is that weather radar need to be used correctly and even when used correctly requires quite a lot of interpretation.

I don't buy the pilots are responsible for one aircraft while the controllers are responsible for several. The pilot's actions have to ensure the safety of their aircraft - which by association requires the pilot not to endanger other aircraft. My visually flying across the trail of another aircraft 1nm behind and 100ft above is not dangerous. Don't forget that the first objective of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft in the air and not to maintain X distance between flights. The X distance is simply a tool to achieve that objective.

I always remember that separation standards are minima and shall be increased when requested by the pilot or considdered necessary by the ATCO.

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.

-----------

Originally Posted by anotherthing

I will MOR a pilot

I will file and I will be in the right

I am correct

Regards,

DFC

[Del Prado]

My visually flying across the trail of another aircraft 1nm behind and 100ft above is not dangerous

Assuming you are VMC and have identified the correct 'target'.
How do you know there's not another aircraft nearby?

I always remember that separation standards are minima and shall be increased when requested by the pilot or considered necessary by the ATCO.

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.

You really don't have much grasp of the route structures within the LTMA if you believe we have room to apply more than the minima.