LGW LAM4M Stepped Climb

[redED]

Departing LGW tonight on the LAM4M, couldn't get a word in on London frequency so on reaching DET29 i was about to dial in 5000 to be level at ACORN thus following the SID Vertical Profile when my Captain stopped me saying maintain 4000. Shouldn't we have followed the vertical profile? Been searching online but can't find a definitive answer/reference. For example what if terrain had been an issue?

Edited to add image of plate:

[Vortex Issues]

Yes you should have otherwise you'll end up in London City's airspace which is up to 4000ft. There's no terrain issue, just other aircraft . The chart would state if you needed ATC clearance to climb with the profile.

[redED]

Thanks Vortex, terrain was used as an example not specifically for this SID. The Captain was saying without clearance you can't climb, i was saying the clearance is written on the plate in the vertical profile as part of the SID.

[Ninja Controller]

Your captain was wrong unless you were instructed to maintain 4000ft.

[redED]

LGW had cleared us on a LAM4M but that was all, couldn't get a word in edge ways on London.

This captain is NEVER wrong if you know what I mean!

[Vortex Issues]

This captain is NEVER wrong if you know what I mean!

He must be if Controllers are always right

[Occams Razor]

Chart in the AIP also shows to be level at 5,000' at ACORN, along with the wording "...pilots must ensure strict compliance with the specified climb profile unless cleared by ATC.". Suggest you show him a copy!

[ZOOKER]

Even in the absence of terrain issues, following the SID vertical profile ensures you don't stray outside controlled airspace, as the base steps up as you leave the CTR. These areas of class G can often be quite busy with light A/C etc under the TMA.
If you ever fly the MONTY/NOKIN SIDs from EGCC, (which go to 5000ft), the vertical profile ensures you stay above the NANTI departures from EGGP, which climb to 4000ft underneath the Manch' outbounds.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

Perhaps skip should RTFP in the future during the brief.

[Cough]

This captain is NEVER wrong if you know what I mean!

He must be if Controllers are always right

I remember reaching DET10d on this SID at 6000', but following the lateral track. With the aircraft about to turn left I suggested to my oppo that keeping heading rather than turning was a good idea!

Anyhow, when I could get a word in (frequency congestion on 120.525, never!) I asked if our idea of keeping heading was a good plan... Well, the response was astonishingly appreciative!

(An LHR outbound 747 on our LHS)

[ZOOKER]

I hope all of these instances of perceived frequency congestion are included in voyage reports, ASRs or CHIRPs. Don't forget that next time you might need to shout MAYDAY at someone.
One of the questions often asked regarding the rather grey area of 'ATC overloads' is, "could you have safely handled an emergency with the volume of traffic in your airspace"? If the RTF is so busy that a distress, or a PAN call cannot be made, it adds a whole new dimension to the proceedings.

[BravoMike]

I fully agree with the issues of RTF congestion.

Just remember that a mayday can be "transmitted" using the XPDR. And a controller can impose silence, stop departures etc...

Although I can't remember doing it (imposing silence)

B.

[Talkdownman]

redED, does your captain have at least Level 4 English Language? Is the Plate really that difficult to understand? Your captain was not only wrong but DANGEROUS to maintain 4000ft without ATC clearance. I suggest that you print off this thread for your captain before he or she hits another aeroplane...

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by cough

An LHR outbound 747 on our LHS

- we need to be careful here - staying on heading COULD infringe the 747 which might be 8 miles ahead of you, and it is ATC's job to ensure separation for KNOWN traffic which in that case would be one turning left at Det/10.

In visual contact with all traffic it might be ok (as a Lightning pilot would say "One peep is worth a thousand sweeps") but in IMC I would advocate flying the SID as published. At least your widow would have the satisfaction of knowing it was not your fault......

[Cough]

Oh trust me, I only knew it was a 747, coz I'd been watching it for a while. Visually, we were in front of the 747 on a parallel track, and an airprox/tcas event would have been next had we turned. So if you are suggesting that I turn in front of a huge lump of metal that I can see just because my clearance is something else then I need to say, gulp, airmanship?

[BOAC]

No - have another look at my post? It should really have been filed as an MOR for the controller, however, if there really was no clearance for the published SID or vectoring instruction given. He/she SHOULD have been expecting you to turn left unless otherwise instructed. Controller needed botty smacking.

The point I was making was that you had little idea what might be descending/climbing/turning into the 'clear airspace' ahead of you (LCY/Biggin?) if you continued on heading and while you displayed your usual outstanding airmanship and Cough saved the day it was not a procedure to be blithely recommended. SIDs are there for a reason.

[windowjob]

But DET 10d on the SID you should have been at 5,000ft not 6,000ft. Maybe that's why the 747 at 6,000ft was in the way of a left turn
Maybe that's why it's a stepped climb, so that only after you clear that track, at LAM 15d, do you start to climb to 6,000ft.
Nevertheless Good Airmanship

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Jeeezzzzz. I never imagined there were such plonkers flying around the London TMA!

[Cough]

I tried to get the report written, but his higness didn't allow me....

That's all I'll say (this goes back a few years)