Aircraft holding on Rapid Exit Taxiway

[Brian 48nav]

BOAC

Helen 49's post No32 ask 2 questions in the second paragraph!

Mike, as I have a knowledge of your CV ( our friend Mrs H!) I have the utmost respect for your accomplishments and qualifications as a pilot, particularly in the 'mob'. But!!! Vacating Instructions by 2 miles! You are having a laugh!

You are still above 600' on final, may not be visual and perhaps having already received your landing clearance, the only remaining ATC instrucion you are now tuned into is 'go-around' etc.

Meanwhile you are still at least 90 seconds from finishing your braking after landing, maybe even 120 secs - in that time all sorts of things have been happening on the ground - aircraft (including under tow) switching from inner to outer taxiway & v-v, a/c arriving at a holding block to cross the runway,runway inspection teams commencing or continuing their work, work teams requesting closure of a block etc. The situation on the ground is extremely fluid.

Of course if a particular exit is unavailable due to work or an already static aircraft waiting to cross or join,you will be given this information.

I don't want to enter an argument about military v civilian controllers but our experience at LHR of ex-the former was not always a comforting one.

My limited experience of controlling at a military unit, Boscombe Down (where ATC was provided by CAA and its predecessors until 1992), threw up many cases of the guys in the air thinking they knew best - sadly they did not!

[chevvron]

I agree with your last paragraph Brian; I was told on arrival at Farnborough that if I didn't try to sound like I was in control, the military test pilots would try to take over, and they did try quite often.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by B48

Vacating Instructions by 2 miles! You are having a laugh!

- no, Brian -serious. You presumably have no idea of the amount of work involved in re-jigging a planned landing distance at the last minute in a non-emergency situation. The landing will have been briefed and various 'stopping' bits pre-set/briefed with a sensible minimum occupancy/RET exit planned. We are supposed to work as a crew which requires interaction and checking and re-briefing. I can see no reason why a competent controller cannot anticipate a ROUTINE vacation request by 2 miles. Surely homo sapiens can anticipate what ground movements near the runway they are going to allow in the next minute or so? Any later and you might expect it to be ignored. After 2 miles, non-routine, just tell us what is NOT available. In any case, what is all this about collisions with taxying aircraft? Apart from some airfields where Notammed 'automatic' access to taxiways (eg LGW/AMS) is specified I always thought it was a requirement to obtain clearance before exiting an RET onto a taxiway? Is it not at LHR? I was involved in RET trials with ATC at LGW a few years back - they worked. LGW has always managed just fine and I cannot see the issue which appears to emanate from LHR alone.

Regarding your (and others) 'experience' at BD, RAF /civ etc., it is totally irrelevant to this thread. Presumably civil airport, civil pilot and civil control?

Those H49 'questions' were not addressed to me. The bit 'addressed' to me was a statement, not a question. It is customary to address questions to people by name. It is quite common here for posters to just spatter questions to the wide world in general. Since you think they were, the answers (from me) are:

1) By giving the crews the information in good time. EG "First rapid exit is not available". I would hope that all controllers understand "aircraft to vacate where (ever they wish and are) able" is the crucial word. I would hope most of us try to expedite runway clearance and that controllers would understand this and plan accordingly? It is not rocket science.

2) No. Hence the enquiry about AMS with which H49 claims to be familiar where the system works just fine.

As for "all sorts of things have been happening on the ground"- that is what you are paid for, just as "all sorts of things are happening in the air" is what we are paid for (plus obviously keeping a weather eye on what is 'happening' on the ground.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Originally Posted by Helen49

...ATC are, inter alia, responsible for preventing collisions between aircraft and vehicles etc on the ground. How do they comply with this requirement if they allow aircraft to vacate where ever they wish and are able?...

Moreover at many airfields there are taxiways which are not suitable (wide enough or strong enough etc) for certain types of aircraft; again the ATCO must issue instructions...

Firstly, don't park things on a RAPID EXIT taxiway. Especially small things which are not very visible. Secondly, do you think we should vacate where we are unable?

Thirdly, do you not know which taxiways are suitable for your type before you land? I do, it's in the charts and in my brief. I don't need instruction on which taxiways not to use.

Fourthly, if you don't give me enough notice of your wishes then all you'll get in reply is "unable".

[Brian 48nav]

BOAC

Although my flying experience was miniscule compared with yours I did get 2700hours on the Herc as a nav' and I do not need lecturing about flight deck duties and workload.

Perhaps as we are all long retired we could leave this thread to those who are still flying and controlling! There is nothing worse than retired boring old farts rambling on - unless its nostalgia/where are they now?

[BOAC]

Your choice.

[Helen49]

Life is too short to enter into arguments with people who obviously know best and who never accept that actually other people might sometimes be right!!! I used to know many skippers who had the same attitude...they were of a similar vintage!

[GAPSTER]

Late in on this one but I'm shaking my head somewhat at the bunfight that seems to have developed...

ATCO at two major airports previously,now in TC...poor controlling plain and simple.RET blocked = not available + traffic info before landing clearance...plus obtain a readback.

...was it a trainee? OJTI very deficient if so...his/her licence at risk as well as the occupants of both aircraft.

We should be big enough to admit the basic error made here.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Life is too short to enter into arguments with people who obviously know best

Correct.

and who never accept that actually other people might sometimes be right!!!

Nobody is displaying such an attitude. I accept that, in the past, other people were correct and I was not. See?

I used to know many skippers who had the same attitude...they were of a similar vintage!

I'm certainly not a vintage skipper.

Anyway, in light of Gapster's post are you now willing to accept that other people may have been right and you were wrong?

[criss]

Quite hilarious how native speakers of the same language can't grasp a simple fact they're talking two completely different things, while it's obvious to a foreigner... And make so much fuss about simple things....

[GAPSTER]

Addendum

In reference to my above post it has been pointed out by wiser heads that of course the error may not have been on the ATC side...the light a/c may well have ended up at a different place than that cleared to.

With that in mind we should perhaps let this one settle, in the absence of the person involved who I amongst others have prejudged.