MOR'ed..... OUCH!
Controversial, moi?
Mr Fishy
Couple of points if we all did that then there would be many diversions each day, especially on a good weather day when many of us do carry flight plan fuel.
Secondly it has been pointed out that diverting at the point you suggest means you burn your diversion fuel and reach your diversion with 30 minutes reserve only. Much the same as burning it in the hold except that this time you are not where everybody wants to be!
What is worring many of us now is that with the old SWORD flightplan one nearly always burned less than planned. Presumably due to slack in the SWORD program. Now we have CIRRUS which is too clever by half and appears to have no slack. It is very, very precise, just a shame the real world isn't.
Yesterday I received a letter and multi-page notice explaining why we are now going to be using 'statistical' contingency fuel ie avaraged figure using historical data. Again a very precise tool in a very imprecise environment.
When I joined BA we always took extra above the required for comfort. In fact I was told during my route training that only managers took SWORD fuel. Gradually the culture changed led by the new (then) '400 fleet. The culture is now take plan fuel unless you need more and in the process much money was saved or should I say less money was wasted carrying unnecessary fuel.
The problem now is that many of us feel that men with calculators are trying to be too clever. It is now apparent that many of us do not trust the new CIRRUS planning system and will be reluctant to take 'statistical' contingency. As somebody pointed out in conversation we will have turned a full circle and once again nobody but managers will carry CIRRUS fuel!
I am all for being thrifty but CIRRUS and 'statistical' contingency fuel are, in my opinion, a step too far.
What is really worrying is that the CAA approve all of this.
Couple of points if we all did that then there would be many diversions each day, especially on a good weather day when many of us do carry flight plan fuel.
Secondly it has been pointed out that diverting at the point you suggest means you burn your diversion fuel and reach your diversion with 30 minutes reserve only. Much the same as burning it in the hold except that this time you are not where everybody wants to be!
What is worring many of us now is that with the old SWORD flightplan one nearly always burned less than planned. Presumably due to slack in the SWORD program. Now we have CIRRUS which is too clever by half and appears to have no slack. It is very, very precise, just a shame the real world isn't.
Yesterday I received a letter and multi-page notice explaining why we are now going to be using 'statistical' contingency fuel ie avaraged figure using historical data. Again a very precise tool in a very imprecise environment.
When I joined BA we always took extra above the required for comfort. In fact I was told during my route training that only managers took SWORD fuel. Gradually the culture changed led by the new (then) '400 fleet. The culture is now take plan fuel unless you need more and in the process much money was saved or should I say less money was wasted carrying unnecessary fuel.
The problem now is that many of us feel that men with calculators are trying to be too clever. It is now apparent that many of us do not trust the new CIRRUS planning system and will be reluctant to take 'statistical' contingency. As somebody pointed out in conversation we will have turned a full circle and once again nobody but managers will carry CIRRUS fuel!
I am all for being thrifty but CIRRUS and 'statistical' contingency fuel are, in my opinion, a step too far.
What is really worrying is that the CAA approve all of this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLANKER,
________________________
Good Morning Antigua
Whats with the ? (ENRAGED Smiley)
The long haul sky god bit was just banter at your suggestion that my known world ends at Larnaca.
Anyway all the best and keep up those Balpa subs
__________________________________
LARNACA? Luton more likely
Sorry - the enraged smiley was 'cos I pushed the wrong button,as the girlfriend keeps telling me. I am, after all, a pilot. Or was if the powers that be read some of this! Therefore the BALPA subs are safe. TWO disciplinaries in one career would be one too many!
TIC
ANTIGUA
PS I'm off to watch Hampshire try to play cricket, as I REALLY need to get out more!!
________________________
Good Morning Antigua
Whats with the ? (ENRAGED Smiley)
The long haul sky god bit was just banter at your suggestion that my known world ends at Larnaca.
Anyway all the best and keep up those Balpa subs
__________________________________
LARNACA? Luton more likely
Sorry - the enraged smiley was 'cos I pushed the wrong button,as the girlfriend keeps telling me. I am, after all, a pilot. Or was if the powers that be read some of this! Therefore the BALPA subs are safe. TWO disciplinaries in one career would be one too many!
TIC
ANTIGUA
PS I'm off to watch Hampshire try to play cricket, as I REALLY need to get out more!!
Last edited by Antigua; 26th Apr 2002 at 12:27.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there and sorry for butting in here as im not an ATCO or a pilot,
It seems that there is an awful lot of commercial pressure on both ATC and the guys in the cockpit to run the system as cost effectivly and efficiently as possible, (sorry if im repeating things here) and because of this, saftey is being compromised.
OK, long haul flight of say 15hrs, a super efficient fuel planner and soon to be out of date weather info and any other unexpected changes enroute leads to the aircraft being potentially very low on fuel on arrival at their destination, yes?
If the crew decide to add extra fuel on top of the calculated reserve for their flight and then they fail to use that extra fuel, is that fuel then wasted or can it not be removed and/or re-used?
Surely the airlines cannot justify any action against crews that add 'a bit extra' for longhaul flights when they - the crews - know that things could change quite considerably by the time they reach their destination and are just making sure saftey is NOT compromised, considering that these birds cary several hundred passengers.
It also seems as if ATC procedures are a little out dated with regard to declarations about the state of the aircraft, seems most ATCO's would appreciate the extra info ( i know i would if i was in that position )
Again i apologise for entering into this topic but i thought you may like to hear an 'unproffesional' viewpoint.
I think you all do a fabulous job and i would much rather be flying than traveling any other way.
Kind regards
George
It seems that there is an awful lot of commercial pressure on both ATC and the guys in the cockpit to run the system as cost effectivly and efficiently as possible, (sorry if im repeating things here) and because of this, saftey is being compromised.
OK, long haul flight of say 15hrs, a super efficient fuel planner and soon to be out of date weather info and any other unexpected changes enroute leads to the aircraft being potentially very low on fuel on arrival at their destination, yes?
If the crew decide to add extra fuel on top of the calculated reserve for their flight and then they fail to use that extra fuel, is that fuel then wasted or can it not be removed and/or re-used?
Surely the airlines cannot justify any action against crews that add 'a bit extra' for longhaul flights when they - the crews - know that things could change quite considerably by the time they reach their destination and are just making sure saftey is NOT compromised, considering that these birds cary several hundred passengers.
It also seems as if ATC procedures are a little out dated with regard to declarations about the state of the aircraft, seems most ATCO's would appreciate the extra info ( i know i would if i was in that position
)Again i apologise for entering into this topic but i thought you may like to hear an 'unproffesional' viewpoint.
I think you all do a fabulous job and i would much rather be flying than traveling any other way.
Kind regards
George
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if we could get back to the original point of this thread before we reach the magic 100 posts? We can discuss ideal fuel reserves as much as we like, but there will always be occations when things don't go as planned, and we get a little concerned, even if we are not in the strict Mayday or Pan situations as defined by JAR. This concern can be as a result of holding at destination or diverting, especially if we have diverted from a two runway airport to a single runway airport.
Antigua is an extremely professional and competent aviator, but he is also an excellent communicator as those of you who have met him will know. What he did was to communicate his concerns to the Director as he thought that this might be more helpful than springing a Mayday on them in the go-around. In my many visits to LTCC I have always been told that you prefer us to let you know about any problems that we have. However, in Antigua's case this communication resulted in an MOR.
So perhaps we could get back to the original question. Do you want us to inform you of any problems that we might have, or do you want us to wait until we reach the strictly defined (JAR-OPS-1.375(c)) limits before springing a Mayday on you?
Airclues
Antigua is an extremely professional and competent aviator, but he is also an excellent communicator as those of you who have met him will know. What he did was to communicate his concerns to the Director as he thought that this might be more helpful than springing a Mayday on them in the go-around. In my many visits to LTCC I have always been told that you prefer us to let you know about any problems that we have. However, in Antigua's case this communication resulted in an MOR.
So perhaps we could get back to the original question. Do you want us to inform you of any problems that we might have, or do you want us to wait until we reach the strictly defined (JAR-OPS-1.375(c)) limits before springing a Mayday on you?
Airclues
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Airclues,
As far as I'm concerned, when there is a problem or even potential problem, please let me know ASAP - the more time I have to plan any required manoeuvres and/or arrange a gap in the sequence, the better.
As far as I'm concerned, when there is a problem or even potential problem, please let me know ASAP - the more time I have to plan any required manoeuvres and/or arrange a gap in the sequence, the better.
Oops!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Guys. Can I be honest here? What worries me isn't so much the fuel (or rather lack of it) issue, but the fact that an e-mail on this forum has found it's way outside of this forum:
If, as I think I am, correct in assuming. Someone (I'll be polite and refrain from using the word lowlife) cut and pasted one of our colleagues words and took it upon themselves to distribute this around EGLL. If this is the case, then frankly, that person far from thinking that they have done some great public service has probably not only infringed Antigua's moral copyright but has breached the trust of each and every one of us users of this board. Many of the forums on Pprune are open to all and it would be a shame if they became password protected because of the pompous and misguided actions of one or two 'busy-bodies'.
Your email however has been doing the rounds at work, and I can assure you that your comments regarding the LL Directors lack of suitable final approach spacing have not gone down very well, and neither did the tone of the end of that mail.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of repeating myself - I will repeat myself.
Firstly let's all agree what the priority is here. Is it safety? Or is it getting as many aircraft as possible on the ground per hour and minimising fuel consumption?
Do not kid yourselves it is the former. We are all allowing the safety margins to be steadily eroded in the interests of the commercial imperative to maximise revenue and minimise costs. When I say "we", I mean pilots, controllers, airline managers, the CAA and the politicians that entrust them with the management of airspace and aviation.
Surely we can all see what is really going on? The bean-counters are prevailing and the experts - the pilots and controllers - are losing the argument.
I will stick my neck out here and nail my colours to the mast. It is time to reverse the trend - increase a/c spacing minima on final to 4 miles and carry at least 30 mins contingency fuel above and beyond the diversion reserve. Let safety come first for once and s*d the cost. We will all have to pay a little more for the privilege of flying - but at least we will have a safe operation at LHR.
Anybody know why the Herald of Free Enterprise rolled over?
Because a Finance Director mandated the sailing of ferries with open bow doors as it saved 20 minutes per turnround and made the company an extra £700,000 profit per year.
Anybody know why the Challenger Shuttle disaster happened?
Because the managers and politicians won the argument and the launch went ahead against the better judgement of the engineers who suspected the o-rings would not function properly and exhaust gas blow-out was likely.
Anybody know why the Hatfield rail crash happened?
Work it out for yourself.
Firstly let's all agree what the priority is here. Is it safety? Or is it getting as many aircraft as possible on the ground per hour and minimising fuel consumption?
Do not kid yourselves it is the former. We are all allowing the safety margins to be steadily eroded in the interests of the commercial imperative to maximise revenue and minimise costs. When I say "we", I mean pilots, controllers, airline managers, the CAA and the politicians that entrust them with the management of airspace and aviation.
Surely we can all see what is really going on? The bean-counters are prevailing and the experts - the pilots and controllers - are losing the argument.
I will stick my neck out here and nail my colours to the mast. It is time to reverse the trend - increase a/c spacing minima on final to 4 miles and carry at least 30 mins contingency fuel above and beyond the diversion reserve. Let safety come first for once and s*d the cost. We will all have to pay a little more for the privilege of flying - but at least we will have a safe operation at LHR.
Anybody know why the Herald of Free Enterprise rolled over?
Because a Finance Director mandated the sailing of ferries with open bow doors as it saved 20 minutes per turnround and made the company an extra £700,000 profit per year.
Anybody know why the Challenger Shuttle disaster happened?
Because the managers and politicians won the argument and the launch went ahead against the better judgement of the engineers who suspected the o-rings would not function properly and exhaust gas blow-out was likely.
Anybody know why the Hatfield rail crash happened?
Work it out for yourself.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is true that the PIC must use his judgement in deciding what fuel to load for his trip. It is equally true to say that, living in an imperfect world, things will not always work out the way they were expected to. To cover every eventuality would be financially impractical and would jeopardise the existance of many carriers. It too is not a competent thing to do. The question here is balance.
I believe the crux of the issue boils down to government policy. Airlines must be allowed to operate in a fiancially wise manner, taking a balanced view of the issues. Govenment policy has failed to balance the provision of redundant runway capacity in line with the growth in demand for Heathrow. REDUNDANT runway capacity is not wastage (as believed by many who do sums) but an essential part of the safety culture that we should be living in. Not only does it remove the need to pack traffic to the very limit, which itself is unwise, but it permits the allocation of a separate runway for traffic with difficulties of any kind, thereby protecting the need to keep the traffic moving. The refusal thus far to provide such capacity is negligent in my opinion and IS worthy of an MOR. It is something that we have got wrong and it must be put right, quickly. Lets hope the DETR sees sense and are smart about it.
In the interim I offer the following observation: Every evening at about 19:00 the outside line goes, it is always BA ops., re the CONC. Knowing they are always tight they obtain updated delay data and use that in their planning. (I have seen it divert without even getting into the hold.) I would hope that same data could be applied to other traffic.
As far as r/t calls are concerned: One never knows what unforseen problems you are going to encounter on the approach e.g. flaps or gear. If we get to PAN things have gone wrong and to that end I will always respond positively to a hint about fuel. At the same time, that gives you guys a responsibility to me to be wise in your planning. I don't have any problem with a captain making me aware that he is tight on fuel but remember, asking for a bit more room doesn't achieve a whole lot anyway because and extra .5 nm will be no good if the preceding bursts a tyre.
Antigua, I support your actions and thank you for a debate that can only further safety. We need to get back on the flight decks.
CJ
I believe the crux of the issue boils down to government policy. Airlines must be allowed to operate in a fiancially wise manner, taking a balanced view of the issues. Govenment policy has failed to balance the provision of redundant runway capacity in line with the growth in demand for Heathrow. REDUNDANT runway capacity is not wastage (as believed by many who do sums) but an essential part of the safety culture that we should be living in. Not only does it remove the need to pack traffic to the very limit, which itself is unwise, but it permits the allocation of a separate runway for traffic with difficulties of any kind, thereby protecting the need to keep the traffic moving. The refusal thus far to provide such capacity is negligent in my opinion and IS worthy of an MOR. It is something that we have got wrong and it must be put right, quickly. Lets hope the DETR sees sense and are smart about it.
In the interim I offer the following observation: Every evening at about 19:00 the outside line goes, it is always BA ops., re the CONC. Knowing they are always tight they obtain updated delay data and use that in their planning. (I have seen it divert without even getting into the hold.) I would hope that same data could be applied to other traffic.
As far as r/t calls are concerned: One never knows what unforseen problems you are going to encounter on the approach e.g. flaps or gear. If we get to PAN things have gone wrong and to that end I will always respond positively to a hint about fuel. At the same time, that gives you guys a responsibility to me to be wise in your planning. I don't have any problem with a captain making me aware that he is tight on fuel but remember, asking for a bit more room doesn't achieve a whole lot anyway because and extra .5 nm will be no good if the preceding bursts a tyre.
Antigua, I support your actions and thank you for a debate that can only further safety. We need to get back on the flight decks.
CJ
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa del CYYZ
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greatorex........
I was always told:
"Never ASSUME it makes an ASS out of U and ME".
Fraid you have fallen into that trap.
Some facts for you:
1. Work is Terminal Control not LL, as APP Radar is provided from there not the tower building.
2. The "lowlife" who sent the copy of the email to us at TC was Antigua's fleet commander (or some other such similarly titled position, cannot remember exactly who it was) at one of the World's favourite airline's, and it was not marked as confidential, controlled, or infact any other restriction placed on its distribution. It was opened for discussion as it contained "nothing controversial".
3. The email was nothing to do with this board, nor was PPRUNE ever discussed, it was an internal mail, sent from the airline to NATS, as a follow up to a CA1261 report.
I should point out too, that the airline concerned was inappropriate to name the controller concerned by including his name in the 1261 copy........1261 reports are meant to be confidential when discussed outside of the parties directly involved.
I suggest greatorex, there is only one busy body involved in this discussion..............you, sir.
I was always told:
"Never ASSUME it makes an ASS out of U and ME".
Fraid you have fallen into that trap.
Some facts for you:
1. Work is Terminal Control not LL, as APP Radar is provided from there not the tower building.
2. The "lowlife" who sent the copy of the email to us at TC was Antigua's fleet commander (or some other such similarly titled position, cannot remember exactly who it was) at one of the World's favourite airline's, and it was not marked as confidential, controlled, or infact any other restriction placed on its distribution. It was opened for discussion as it contained "nothing controversial".
3. The email was nothing to do with this board, nor was PPRUNE ever discussed, it was an internal mail, sent from the airline to NATS, as a follow up to a CA1261 report.
I should point out too, that the airline concerned was inappropriate to name the controller concerned by including his name in the 1261 copy........1261 reports are meant to be confidential when discussed outside of the parties directly involved.
I suggest greatorex, there is only one busy body involved in this discussion..............you, sir.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How leisurely it would be to go back to 4-mile spacing at Heathrow, as it was when I started back in the very early 70s! Four-mile spacing in the wind conditions we had yesterday would have given us a landing rate of around 30 an hour. Given that the traffic offering is over 40 for many hours of the day we'd end up at 10pm with about 100 a/c holding, either in our stacks or on the ground somewhere. I'm not altogether sure that the airline industry could take that. One answer is to run the place all night, then we could shift at least the same amount of traffic with 4 or 5 mile spacing..... but the noise freaks are mega powerful and they'd go bananas. (I'll bet there are some on here - I've certainly fielded irate phone calls from airline pilots complaining about aircraft noise. Can you actually believe it?)
Let's hope it's a quite afternoon today - Saturday usually is, thank God!
Let's hope it's a quite afternoon today - Saturday usually is, thank God!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua,
Thanks for starting this posting.
Interesting replies – most very useful but,
Flanker – rhymes with *anker. Rather apposite given the tone and content of his postings.
Capt Peacock. Again well named. A pompous know it all on an old TV series. Can you imagine him going to work (if he is in fact a working airline pilot) with two flight bags. One with the normal stuff and the other with his personal copy of the UK AIP (was Air Pilot), JAR’s, ANO, AIC,s and Rules of the Air.
I too am worried about Cirrus and now Statistical Contingency. We are cutting things down to far and the time is beginning to come when we will revert to the old days and carry some for Mum. Otherwise our colleagues in ATC are going to hear the words” Be advised that in the event of a go-around we will be declaring an emergency” more often. Will also bear in mind the quote from the ATC Manual that separation will be increased at the “request of the pilot”.
The only good thing we have on our side at the moment is the re-opening of Afghan airspace. Helped a lot from BKK last week.
I have not yet received the package (mail a little slow to frogland) but will read the last sentence carefully and probably react accordingly.
Enjoy the cricket – we are off for a lunch gastronomique
Beerdrinker
PS. Will not tell Mrs Antigua about the girlfriend’s buttons.
Thanks for starting this posting.
Interesting replies – most very useful but,
Flanker – rhymes with *anker. Rather apposite given the tone and content of his postings.
Capt Peacock. Again well named. A pompous know it all on an old TV series. Can you imagine him going to work (if he is in fact a working airline pilot) with two flight bags. One with the normal stuff and the other with his personal copy of the UK AIP (was Air Pilot), JAR’s, ANO, AIC,s and Rules of the Air.
I too am worried about Cirrus and now Statistical Contingency. We are cutting things down to far and the time is beginning to come when we will revert to the old days and carry some for Mum. Otherwise our colleagues in ATC are going to hear the words” Be advised that in the event of a go-around we will be declaring an emergency” more often. Will also bear in mind the quote from the ATC Manual that separation will be increased at the “request of the pilot”.
The only good thing we have on our side at the moment is the re-opening of Afghan airspace. Helped a lot from BKK last week.
I have not yet received the package (mail a little slow to frogland) but will read the last sentence carefully and probably react accordingly.
Enjoy the cricket – we are off for a lunch gastronomique
Beerdrinker
PS. Will not tell Mrs Antigua about the girlfriend’s buttons.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True enough Mr Director.
A very senior NATS manager once told me that using the argument of safety as a lever to obtain additional runway capacity would be to admit that we have already taken things too far. If we have gone too far, would we be able to admit it? An inability to acknowledge error in our game is dangerous and I am sure it is something that the crews work on in CRM.
If 4 miles is the spacing that we ought to be using then using less is to allow commercial pressure to back us into a corner that jeopardises safety. Now, if that has happened we need to be big enough to admit that we have got it wrong and act accordingly.
All the TC sectors have a target sector flow which is 80% of the sector capacity, so I am told, supposedly giving some contingency. Except Heathrow, where traffic is flowed usually 2 per hour OVER the runway capacity thereby DELIBERATELY inducing pressure on the final director to pack the traffic in. Does that not indicate that we have allowed an imbalance between capacity and demand to develop?
If the airlines are to be allowed to operate a financially competent (as well as safety conscious) fuel policy, which is essential, then SPARE runway capacity must be provided to cater for the unforseen. The government's policy therefore must be questionable.
Have a good afternoon, see you tomorrow.
Pount 4
A very senior NATS manager once told me that using the argument of safety as a lever to obtain additional runway capacity would be to admit that we have already taken things too far. If we have gone too far, would we be able to admit it? An inability to acknowledge error in our game is dangerous and I am sure it is something that the crews work on in CRM.
If 4 miles is the spacing that we ought to be using then using less is to allow commercial pressure to back us into a corner that jeopardises safety. Now, if that has happened we need to be big enough to admit that we have got it wrong and act accordingly.
All the TC sectors have a target sector flow which is 80% of the sector capacity, so I am told, supposedly giving some contingency. Except Heathrow, where traffic is flowed usually 2 per hour OVER the runway capacity thereby DELIBERATELY inducing pressure on the final director to pack the traffic in. Does that not indicate that we have allowed an imbalance between capacity and demand to develop?
If the airlines are to be allowed to operate a financially competent (as well as safety conscious) fuel policy, which is essential, then SPARE runway capacity must be provided to cater for the unforseen. The government's policy therefore must be questionable.
Have a good afternoon, see you tomorrow.
Pount 4
Last edited by 120.4; 27th Apr 2002 at 09:45.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South of Iceland
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua - one of the best threads I've had the privilege of reading, thanks for kicking off the debate. Raised multi worthwhilies.
Sounds like
2.5 miles is pushing the margins
beancounters are ruling both roosts too much
London is too busy
.... so, send those big jets on a fuel stop off to sunny Prestwick. (oh I forgot, they used to do that when they were paraffinically challenged in the 70s). That way us poor holidaymaking disadvantaged palefaces don't have to fly south to the big smoke, and then north again 4 hrs later, waving to inlaws as we flush the aerial loo over the Clyde. And the nice drivers get a nice crew rest day to play golf and buy beer for the kindly ATCOs who don't get to see them on post 9/11 non-existant fam flights.
Who loses ?
Grumpy beanies.
Who cares ?
PS I thought a Cirrus was one of those lovely plastic planes with the parachute, like wot's just arrived at Glesca - drool
Sounds like
2.5 miles is pushing the margins
beancounters are ruling both roosts too much
London is too busy
.... so, send those big jets on a fuel stop off to sunny Prestwick. (oh I forgot, they used to do that when they were paraffinically challenged in the 70s). That way us poor holidaymaking disadvantaged palefaces don't have to fly south to the big smoke, and then north again 4 hrs later, waving to inlaws as we flush the aerial loo over the Clyde. And the nice drivers get a nice crew rest day to play golf and buy beer for the kindly ATCOs who don't get to see them on post 9/11 non-existant fam flights.
Who loses ?
Grumpy beanies.
Who cares ?
PS I thought a Cirrus was one of those lovely plastic planes with the parachute, like wot's just arrived at Glesca - drool
Last edited by Captain Mayday; 27th Apr 2002 at 22:59.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua – Very interesting! Amazed to know that a go-around could result in a Mayday!!!
For that reason alone I would be grateful for the “heads up”.
Sh*t happens, I’m sure all pilots, at one time or another, (long haul to light a/c) have arrived at destination with less than planned fuel or less than they would have liked. I have!
Ok EGLL is different, but even so you’re entitled to the extra spacing. Good call and very valid reason and wouldn’t cause a too big a problem at majority of other airports.
However, a word of caution. A runway can often be taken out of use without warning, for numerous reasons, it doesn’t have to be a cockup on anyones part. Normally because of the speed of the ops people out there, it goes un-noticed, but it can easily result in 1 or 2 go-arounds!
Anyone (even Joe public if they new what one was) are entitled the file an MOR. Personally I try to avoid paper work! From the reaction here in this forum it may well be justified, after all there IS a SAFTY implication, then best to have it out in the open.
That’s my brake over, back to the desk.
For that reason alone I would be grateful for the “heads up”.
Sh*t happens, I’m sure all pilots, at one time or another, (long haul to light a/c) have arrived at destination with less than planned fuel or less than they would have liked. I have!
Ok EGLL is different, but even so you’re entitled to the extra spacing. Good call and very valid reason and wouldn’t cause a too big a problem at majority of other airports.
However, a word of caution. A runway can often be taken out of use without warning, for numerous reasons, it doesn’t have to be a cockup on anyones part. Normally because of the speed of the ops people out there, it goes un-noticed, but it can easily result in 1 or 2 go-arounds!
Anyone (even Joe public if they new what one was) are entitled the file an MOR. Personally I try to avoid paper work! From the reaction here in this forum it may well be justified, after all there IS a SAFTY implication, then best to have it out in the open.
That’s my brake over, back to the desk.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christopher James
_______________________________________
Antigua, I support your actions and thank you for a debate that can only further safety. We need to get back on the flight decks.
CJ
_______________________________________
Thank you CJ
Nearly one hundred postings. A few backs up, which means to me that my original intention of kick starting the debate worked wonders.
'Expeditedescent' hope you have calmed down. The piece of paper you circulated around LATCC appears to be my official response to the original MOR. It seems my Flight Manager, a very nice and switched on chap ('only' a First Officer too - would that happen at NATS? Or is it still 'Buggins Turn' there?), passed it on to you verbatim. I guess that is a vote of confidence in me! It was no more or less confidential than the original MOR, and like the MOR, no doubt, contained my name. So please don't get stroppy about that. It was also factual. I HAVE done go-arounds due to lack of spacing. If you find that too difficult to swallow, then I'm sorry. See my previous posting about the dangers in this game of thinking you are beyond critisism.
Hopefully I wiil get to meet the controller concerned, and he can criticise me all he likes, as long as he lets me buy him a beer.
NOW, CJ, sorry to stray again. You say.
_________________________________
We need to get back on the flight decks.
_________________________________
..........indeed! What's stopping you? Here's another 'Did You Know?'
DYK that you are still welcome on our flight decks. The extract below is from a recent missive from our Supreme Leader. However the policy NEVER changed, even after 9/11.
___________________________________________
FAMILIARISATION FLIGHTS
The financial constraints on our business and the security situation following 11th September have compelled us to review our policy towards familiarisation flights for non-British Airways employees.
Although in the past we have taken a relatively generous attitude to requests for people such as Air Training Corps cadets or serving personnel in the Armed Forces to experience a flight with us, there is a measurable cost associated with these tickets. In the present climate, we need to preserve every penny we can. Accordingly the General Management team has decided that we can only justify these tickets for our own trainee pilots as part of their curriculum or for Air Traffic Control Officers as part of the long-standing liaison programme.
_____________________________________________
So .......... from our point of view, there is nothing stopping you. Not EVEN our bean-counters. If you have been told anything different, I would suspect your own bean-counters!! Not a totally suprising thought to the average ATCO, I think.
Kind Regards to all our readers......
ANTIGUA
_______________________________________
Antigua, I support your actions and thank you for a debate that can only further safety. We need to get back on the flight decks.
CJ
_______________________________________
Thank you CJ
Nearly one hundred postings. A few backs up, which means to me that my original intention of kick starting the debate worked wonders.
'Expeditedescent' hope you have calmed down. The piece of paper you circulated around LATCC appears to be my official response to the original MOR. It seems my Flight Manager, a very nice and switched on chap ('only' a First Officer too - would that happen at NATS? Or is it still 'Buggins Turn' there?), passed it on to you verbatim. I guess that is a vote of confidence in me! It was no more or less confidential than the original MOR, and like the MOR, no doubt, contained my name. So please don't get stroppy about that. It was also factual. I HAVE done go-arounds due to lack of spacing. If you find that too difficult to swallow, then I'm sorry. See my previous posting about the dangers in this game of thinking you are beyond critisism.
Hopefully I wiil get to meet the controller concerned, and he can criticise me all he likes, as long as he lets me buy him a beer.
NOW, CJ, sorry to stray again. You say.
_________________________________
We need to get back on the flight decks.
_________________________________
..........indeed! What's stopping you? Here's another 'Did You Know?'
DYK that you are still welcome on our flight decks. The extract below is from a recent missive from our Supreme Leader. However the policy NEVER changed, even after 9/11.
___________________________________________
FAMILIARISATION FLIGHTS
The financial constraints on our business and the security situation following 11th September have compelled us to review our policy towards familiarisation flights for non-British Airways employees.
Although in the past we have taken a relatively generous attitude to requests for people such as Air Training Corps cadets or serving personnel in the Armed Forces to experience a flight with us, there is a measurable cost associated with these tickets. In the present climate, we need to preserve every penny we can. Accordingly the General Management team has decided that we can only justify these tickets for our own trainee pilots as part of their curriculum or for Air Traffic Control Officers as part of the long-standing liaison programme.
_____________________________________________
So .......... from our point of view, there is nothing stopping you. Not EVEN our bean-counters. If you have been told anything different, I would suspect your own bean-counters!! Not a totally suprising thought to the average ATCO, I think.
Kind Regards to all our readers......
ANTIGUA
So where do we go from here? Should pilots and controllers try to persuade the regulators of UK Aviation to introduce an official 'low fuel' call, without the need to declare a 'PAN'? Would such a procedure be open to abuse, and therefore fall in to disrepute, as seems to have sometimes happened in the past?
Might it give false comfort to the programmers of 'Cirrus' et al, and tempt an even meaner fuel policy?
Contentious questions perhaps, and I don't have a ready answer
Might it give false comfort to the programmers of 'Cirrus' et al, and tempt an even meaner fuel policy?
Contentious questions perhaps, and I don't have a ready answer
Last edited by spekesoftly; 28th Apr 2002 at 15:26.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua, re the flight decks:
I was under the impression, perhaps not very well informed, that it had been decided that giving non-uniformed persons access to the flight decks would alarm the pax. I had also been under the impression that our (NATS) famflight scheme had been suspended.
This is exactly the sort of issue that we need to talk to each other about but I do fear that the issue needs to be addressed in far higher circles than we are capable of reaching. As has been said, airlines must be allowed to operate in a financially competent, as well as safety conscious manner but the volume of traffic that is being scheduled onto Heathrow's two runways makes that a difficult balance to judge. Having used every last scrap of capacity to move aeroplanes we have backed ourselves into a safety issue.
To truely solve this problem we have to remove runway capacity from the equation. Is it something for our professional bodies to take up on our behalf? If the extra capacity government is planning doesn't come to Heathrow then this less than satisfactory situation is with us for the forseeable future.
CJ
I was under the impression, perhaps not very well informed, that it had been decided that giving non-uniformed persons access to the flight decks would alarm the pax. I had also been under the impression that our (NATS) famflight scheme had been suspended.
This is exactly the sort of issue that we need to talk to each other about but I do fear that the issue needs to be addressed in far higher circles than we are capable of reaching. As has been said, airlines must be allowed to operate in a financially competent, as well as safety conscious manner but the volume of traffic that is being scheduled onto Heathrow's two runways makes that a difficult balance to judge. Having used every last scrap of capacity to move aeroplanes we have backed ourselves into a safety issue.
To truely solve this problem we have to remove runway capacity from the equation. Is it something for our professional bodies to take up on our behalf? If the extra capacity government is planning doesn't come to Heathrow then this less than satisfactory situation is with us for the forseeable future.
CJ
Last edited by Christopher James; 30th Apr 2002 at 07:54.