Place in the Hold and EAT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Somewhere between the Airfield ops and 26L
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Place in the Hold and EAT
Hi all,
Sorry if this has been asked before....clearly my skills on searching the forum will need to improve. A minor disagreement the other day on the flight deck re place in the hold and subsequent EAT Vs time of entry into the hold.
Steaming on into LGW on a TIMBA and told to expect to hold. As PNF went into auto RT mode and asked if it was ok to come back to min clean. Was given the thumbs up by ATC but then the PF was concerned that we would be overtaken in the hold by other callsigns screming into the hold. AS it turned out another operator went past us but and entered the hold a couple of mins before but was issued an EAT later than us.
Was this just by chance or is there an 'order of battle' created before aircraft enter the hold? Does slowing down to save fuel mean giving up your EAT to someone else?
Had to hold at DAYNE a few days later due to the repair works for 30 mins or so but decided to burn more fuel and get to the hold asap so as to secure a place..... or so i thought.
TaRa for now
Sorry if this has been asked before....clearly my skills on searching the forum will need to improve. A minor disagreement the other day on the flight deck re place in the hold and subsequent EAT Vs time of entry into the hold.
Steaming on into LGW on a TIMBA and told to expect to hold. As PNF went into auto RT mode and asked if it was ok to come back to min clean. Was given the thumbs up by ATC but then the PF was concerned that we would be overtaken in the hold by other callsigns screming into the hold. AS it turned out another operator went past us but and entered the hold a couple of mins before but was issued an EAT later than us.
Was this just by chance or is there an 'order of battle' created before aircraft enter the hold? Does slowing down to save fuel mean giving up your EAT to someone else?
Had to hold at DAYNE a few days later due to the repair works for 30 mins or so but decided to burn more fuel and get to the hold asap so as to secure a place..... or so i thought.
TaRa for now
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howflytrq
At Manch, if using EAT the same procedure applies as in the LTMA, if not using EAT we try usually to bring you out of the stack in the sequence you went in, irrespective which of the 3 stacks you might be in.
ie you may be no1 into Dayne but there may be acft in Rosun or Mirsi ahead of you
At Manch, if using EAT the same procedure applies as in the LTMA, if not using EAT we try usually to bring you out of the stack in the sequence you went in, irrespective which of the 3 stacks you might be in.
ie you may be no1 into Dayne but there may be acft in Rosun or Mirsi ahead of you
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<It's not who hits the hold first that gets out first it's who is the lowest.>>
Not always the case at busiest airports. ATC will usually try to set up the best landing stream in terms of VORTEX spacing...so, several heavies might be taken off the hold together, followed by a string of mediums, etc., irrespective of where they are vertically in the hold. You'll still get the same EAT as, has already been stated, this will be set up well in advance.
Not always the case at busiest airports. ATC will usually try to set up the best landing stream in terms of VORTEX spacing...so, several heavies might be taken off the hold together, followed by a string of mediums, etc., irrespective of where they are vertically in the hold. You'll still get the same EAT as, has already been stated, this will be set up well in advance.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Barnaby... most people on here know they're dealing with an ancient old git... but I try hard!
Edited a bit later: Hmm looks like, as usual, I was too quick to apologise. I have just checked the March, 2009, edition of MATS Pt 1 and it refers to VORTEX (as in Vortex wake spacing requirements) when dealing with separations, which was what I was referring to. Wake Turbulence is only referred to in terms of turbulence (note the spelling Barnaby) experienced by aircraft and reports dealing with it.
Edited a bit later: Hmm looks like, as usual, I was too quick to apologise. I have just checked the March, 2009, edition of MATS Pt 1 and it refers to VORTEX (as in Vortex wake spacing requirements) when dealing with separations, which was what I was referring to. Wake Turbulence is only referred to in terms of turbulence (note the spelling Barnaby) experienced by aircraft and reports dealing with it.
Last edited by HEATHROW DIRECTOR; 10th Jun 2009 at 10:26.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point. I lost the art of spelling when I started using these things. Except when it comes to Colour or favour (i am not American!)
However, http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap493s...904issue04.pdf
No doubt it will change again.
However, http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap493s...904issue04.pdf
No doubt it will change again.
