MOR'ed..... OUCH!
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: Sarf Coast
Christopher James
Still just another number
posted 28th April 2002 18:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
__________________________________________
As you can see CJ, reports on the demise of the scheme have been exaggerated.
Flight deck occupants in civvies may leave the flight deck for physcialogical (sp?) purposes. In other words a pee etc... if (other than 400) the loo isn't on the flt. deck. This has been taken to mean a short stroll to combat DVT etc... If one was to sit and watch a movie during that short stroll.............
We still have our families up there, and if my dragon has packed her SS uniform inadvertantly...... well I guess that means civvies.
As for your point about powers above us needing to get involved, well they will say 'there is no evidence of any disquiet in the ranks'.
Well, to paraphrase Ken Woolstenhome (sp again?) ----- 'There is now'.
Regards
ANTIGUA
Still just another number
posted 28th April 2002 18:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
__________________________________________
As you can see CJ, reports on the demise of the scheme have been exaggerated.
Flight deck occupants in civvies may leave the flight deck for physcialogical (sp?) purposes. In other words a pee etc... if (other than 400) the loo isn't on the flt. deck. This has been taken to mean a short stroll to combat DVT etc... If one was to sit and watch a movie during that short stroll.............
We still have our families up there, and if my dragon has packed her SS uniform inadvertantly...... well I guess that means civvies.
As for your point about powers above us needing to get involved, well they will say 'there is no evidence of any disquiet in the ranks'.
Well, to paraphrase Ken Woolstenhome (sp again?) ----- 'There is now'.
Regards
ANTIGUA
Controversial, moi?
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,622
Likes: 22
From: UK
Antigua
I appreciate that you sometimes phrase things deliberately in a way that provokes controversy but your quote
' Flight deck occupants in civvies may leave the flight deck for physcialogical (sp?) (sic) purposes. In other words a pee etc... if (other than 400) the loo isn't on the flt. deck. This has been taken to mean a short stroll to combat DVT etc... If one was to sit and watch a movie during that short stroll............. '
is, I presume, taken from your reading of a message from the former '400 CP on the BA Compuserve forum. In order that there is no misunderstanding leading to an overzealous CC member reporting said stroll and watching of a movie it might be pertinent to point out that this interpretation of physiological need was shortly therafter contradicted and expressly ruled out by the notice dated 7th Oct 2001 from the Director of Flight Crew himself which specifically states '.........but an approved jump seat traveller must remain in the flight deck throughout the flight. The only exception to this is for an essential call of nature.'
I appreciate that you sometimes phrase things deliberately in a way that provokes controversy but your quote
' Flight deck occupants in civvies may leave the flight deck for physcialogical (sp?) (sic) purposes. In other words a pee etc... if (other than 400) the loo isn't on the flt. deck. This has been taken to mean a short stroll to combat DVT etc... If one was to sit and watch a movie during that short stroll............. '
is, I presume, taken from your reading of a message from the former '400 CP on the BA Compuserve forum. In order that there is no misunderstanding leading to an overzealous CC member reporting said stroll and watching of a movie it might be pertinent to point out that this interpretation of physiological need was shortly therafter contradicted and expressly ruled out by the notice dated 7th Oct 2001 from the Director of Flight Crew himself which specifically states '.........but an approved jump seat traveller must remain in the flight deck throughout the flight. The only exception to this is for an essential call of nature.'
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: Sarf Coast
Thanks MM
You are quite right to pick me up on that. This isn't the place to go into some of the mental manoeuvrings that went on with our now departed CP over the interpretation of the regs on this.
As I remember, they were still going on as he left!
The point is, I think, that most of the fam flights would be short(ish) in duration, and the person concerned would probably want to remain on the flt. deck anyway, that being the purpose of coming, in the first place.
Up to date 'local' instructions would I'm sure be explained on the day.
I too am a great supporter of the whole idea. I know I get a lot out of it when we are made most welcome at LATCC, (and other places, 'spekesoftly')
Like all things in this business at the moment, the situation is 'fluid'. Don't do no harm to ask, though, do it?
ATB
ANTIGUA
You are quite right to pick me up on that. This isn't the place to go into some of the mental manoeuvrings that went on with our now departed CP over the interpretation of the regs on this.
As I remember, they were still going on as he left!
The point is, I think, that most of the fam flights would be short(ish) in duration, and the person concerned would probably want to remain on the flt. deck anyway, that being the purpose of coming, in the first place.
Up to date 'local' instructions would I'm sure be explained on the day.
I too am a great supporter of the whole idea. I know I get a lot out of it when we are made most welcome at LATCC, (and other places, 'spekesoftly')
Like all things in this business at the moment, the situation is 'fluid'. Don't do no harm to ask, though, do it?
ATB
ANTIGUA
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 7
From: UK
Pilot visits to ATC, controller fam flights - yes, all good stuff, but aren't we letting the real culprits off the hook?
In an earlier post, Antigua mentions 'our bosses committees...........hiding behind risk assessment models', perhaps it's time to get these guys on fam flights, and let them see the very real consequences of their policies.
In an earlier post, Antigua mentions 'our bosses committees...........hiding behind risk assessment models', perhaps it's time to get these guys on fam flights, and let them see the very real consequences of their policies.
Last edited by spekesoftly; 29th April 2002 at 14:33.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
From: LONDON
Antigua:
This morning very strong winds rapidly built us 30 odd minutes delay. You might imagine the pressure one then feels under to get traffic tight and it takes great self discipline not to succumb. Inevitably there are "casualties", today it was BAW 84. Whilst this was going on, 3 cranes were blocking the approach to 27R leaving us perilously exposed should something have gone wrong with 27L. That is both unprofessional and unsatisfactory but is apparently a commercial decision.
Evidently the policies regarding fuel and runways are are not satisfactory and clearly there is disquiet in the ranks. The bean counters don't understand/ want to understand the position they put us in; all they see is numbers. Heathrow Airport Limited want to increase the hourly declared capacity, presumably on the basis that we often land mid 40s per hour. (This morning we did very well (acknowledged by management) to reach 39.) That they can even ask demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding.
Can BALPA not get involved and argue the cause? The issue here is safety and that ought to concern them.
Point 4
This morning very strong winds rapidly built us 30 odd minutes delay. You might imagine the pressure one then feels under to get traffic tight and it takes great self discipline not to succumb. Inevitably there are "casualties", today it was BAW 84. Whilst this was going on, 3 cranes were blocking the approach to 27R leaving us perilously exposed should something have gone wrong with 27L. That is both unprofessional and unsatisfactory but is apparently a commercial decision.
Evidently the policies regarding fuel and runways are are not satisfactory and clearly there is disquiet in the ranks. The bean counters don't understand/ want to understand the position they put us in; all they see is numbers. Heathrow Airport Limited want to increase the hourly declared capacity, presumably on the basis that we often land mid 40s per hour. (This morning we did very well (acknowledged by management) to reach 39.) That they can even ask demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding.
Can BALPA not get involved and argue the cause? The issue here is safety and that ought to concern them.
Point 4
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: Sarf Coast
Can BALPA not get involved and argue the cause? The issue here is safety and that ought to concern them.
Point 4
__________________________________________
'ANTIGUA'................................................... .................. Well you do say callsign only!
Hello once again. Thanks for sticking with us.
Probably, is probably the answer to your question. I think there may be a bit more milage left in this, but when you're all sitting back exhausted, I'm going to collate all this and ask them the very same question. BALPA are having a minor civil war at the moment but I'm sure I can get into an ATS Study Group (or whatever they call themselves this week) meeting and put it to them.
It may not suprise you to know that in my younger days I sat on this committee ( for about ten years - or so it seemed at the time). That was way back in the days of the likes of Fred Frost etc. from your side........... yeah, well I did say I'd done the rounds.
As an aside, and to show how long ago it was, I wrote the BALPA appraisal of OMEGA, and together with a collegue did the pilot side of TCAS at Malvern. (YES..... it started off as a ground based thing). At least on this side of the Pond.
Anyway, I know how slow the wheels can turn, (Dennis Leonards' alpha-numeric callsigns?). It is, however the next step unless someone has a brighter idea?
An incident/crash, God save us, would 'help' of course. But we're trying to stop that, are we not?
Regards
ANTIGUA
Point 4
__________________________________________
'ANTIGUA'................................................... .................. Well you do say callsign only!
Hello once again. Thanks for sticking with us.
Probably, is probably the answer to your question. I think there may be a bit more milage left in this, but when you're all sitting back exhausted, I'm going to collate all this and ask them the very same question. BALPA are having a minor civil war at the moment but I'm sure I can get into an ATS Study Group (or whatever they call themselves this week) meeting and put it to them.
It may not suprise you to know that in my younger days I sat on this committee ( for about ten years - or so it seemed at the time). That was way back in the days of the likes of Fred Frost etc. from your side........... yeah, well I did say I'd done the rounds.
As an aside, and to show how long ago it was, I wrote the BALPA appraisal of OMEGA, and together with a collegue did the pilot side of TCAS at Malvern. (YES..... it started off as a ground based thing). At least on this side of the Pond.
Anyway, I know how slow the wheels can turn, (Dennis Leonards' alpha-numeric callsigns?). It is, however the next step unless someone has a brighter idea?
An incident/crash, God save us, would 'help' of course. But we're trying to stop that, are we not?
Regards
ANTIGUA
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: Costa del CYYZ
Hello Antigua,
Sorry but a family crisis has stopped me replying at length to the earlier post:
I would like to add some more clarity.
I don't need to calm down because I was never that worked up, well apart from greatorex's ill informed assumptions, for which he gracefully apologised.
I replied in support of my collegue, who filed the MOR because he thought it incumbent upon him to do so in light of the events........Not out of vindictiveness or any anger or unhappiness. I repeat he was perfectly happy to accomodate your request. So please lets nobody accuse this gentleman of doing something with some intent that was not there.
I am a bit surprised that you choose to re-iterate the point about go-arounds due to spacing.....I never said that go-arounds due to that reason do not occur, but the fact is that it is not the reason for the vast majority of goarounds...........to try to claim that is a bit demeaning to your so far itelligent and reasoned arguments.
I am a TMA controller by the way, so I really do not care much about final approach spacing............except when my erstwhile collegues screw it up and they fill up the holds (joke guys !!).
I won't answer the comment about thinking we are above criticsism, as frankly I find it a bit childish.
The feedback I passed on to you was the feeling of people at work, not mine personally, so please don't shoot the messanger......sorry if you don't like it but you did get the backs up of some of our Heathrow people, the way the mail was worded.
The fact that your name was contained in the mail sent to us, is really not relevant to a 1261, which is supposed to have assured confidentiality, and again, it was not me that was upset about it, but the individual who filed the report.........that is his perogative.
The controller concerned will not criticsise you if you meet him, because as far as he is concerned you did nothing wrong in the situation. The realtive merits of fuel loadings etc etc, are all above the remit of humble ATCO's.
Respectfully
Sorry but a family crisis has stopped me replying at length to the earlier post:
I would like to add some more clarity.
I don't need to calm down because I was never that worked up, well apart from greatorex's ill informed assumptions, for which he gracefully apologised.
I replied in support of my collegue, who filed the MOR because he thought it incumbent upon him to do so in light of the events........Not out of vindictiveness or any anger or unhappiness. I repeat he was perfectly happy to accomodate your request. So please lets nobody accuse this gentleman of doing something with some intent that was not there.
I am a bit surprised that you choose to re-iterate the point about go-arounds due to spacing.....I never said that go-arounds due to that reason do not occur, but the fact is that it is not the reason for the vast majority of goarounds...........to try to claim that is a bit demeaning to your so far itelligent and reasoned arguments.
I am a TMA controller by the way, so I really do not care much about final approach spacing............except when my erstwhile collegues screw it up and they fill up the holds (joke guys !!).
I won't answer the comment about thinking we are above criticsism, as frankly I find it a bit childish.
The feedback I passed on to you was the feeling of people at work, not mine personally, so please don't shoot the messanger......sorry if you don't like it but you did get the backs up of some of our Heathrow people, the way the mail was worded.
The fact that your name was contained in the mail sent to us, is really not relevant to a 1261, which is supposed to have assured confidentiality, and again, it was not me that was upset about it, but the individual who filed the report.........that is his perogative.
The controller concerned will not criticsise you if you meet him, because as far as he is concerned you did nothing wrong in the situation. The realtive merits of fuel loadings etc etc, are all above the remit of humble ATCO's.
Respectfully
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
From: Sarf Coast
Hello ED (for short)
I'm going to knock it on the head after this, I think we're into semantics and not a million miles apart on anything.
___________________________________________
I am a bit surprised that you choose to re-iterate the point about go-arounds due to spacing.....I never said that go-arounds due to that reason do not occur, but the fact is that it is not the reason for the vast majority of goarounds...........to try to claim that is a bit demeaning to your so far itelligent and reasoned arguments.
________________________________ED
Can we agree that if spacing was MORE than 2.5 miles, by how much is up for arguement, then IF the controller got it a BIT wrong, or, if the preceeding pilot got it a BIT wrong in clearing, or if the landing pilot got it a BIT wrong on the app. speed, or any combination of the above, then a 'dodgy' go-around MIGHT be avoided, and a MAYDAY may not ruin the day? THAT'S what this is all about.
_______________________________ANTIGUA
I won't answer the comment about thinking we are above criticsism, as frankly I find it a bit childish.
_______________________________ED
Sorry about that. I'm sticking with the comment though, ONLY because ANY pilot, at any stage of his many checks and check-rides that displays any hint of being unable to accept criticism from even the lowliest of collegues, gets looked at VERY keenly these days. I kind of imagined it was the same on your side of the fence, and didn't realise that it might upset anyone.
I hope your family crisis was short lived and all is well. I honestly don't know whether us aviators are better off in being able to get away from them on the other side of the world, or worse off through not being around to deal with them before they get out of hand. I feel threadcreep coming on.
Kind Regards to all.......
ANTIGUA
I'm going to knock it on the head after this, I think we're into semantics and not a million miles apart on anything.
___________________________________________
I am a bit surprised that you choose to re-iterate the point about go-arounds due to spacing.....I never said that go-arounds due to that reason do not occur, but the fact is that it is not the reason for the vast majority of goarounds...........to try to claim that is a bit demeaning to your so far itelligent and reasoned arguments.
________________________________ED
Can we agree that if spacing was MORE than 2.5 miles, by how much is up for arguement, then IF the controller got it a BIT wrong, or, if the preceeding pilot got it a BIT wrong in clearing, or if the landing pilot got it a BIT wrong on the app. speed, or any combination of the above, then a 'dodgy' go-around MIGHT be avoided, and a MAYDAY may not ruin the day? THAT'S what this is all about.
_______________________________ANTIGUA
I won't answer the comment about thinking we are above criticsism, as frankly I find it a bit childish.
_______________________________ED
Sorry about that. I'm sticking with the comment though, ONLY because ANY pilot, at any stage of his many checks and check-rides that displays any hint of being unable to accept criticism from even the lowliest of collegues, gets looked at VERY keenly these days. I kind of imagined it was the same on your side of the fence, and didn't realise that it might upset anyone.
I hope your family crisis was short lived and all is well. I honestly don't know whether us aviators are better off in being able to get away from them on the other side of the world, or worse off through not being around to deal with them before they get out of hand. I feel threadcreep coming on.
Kind Regards to all.......
ANTIGUA
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire UK
ED and Antigua,
The bad news: the statistics show that most go arounds at Heathrow are caused by tight spacing.
The good news: only 0.24% of approaches at Heathrow result in a go around.
The bad news: the statistics show that most go arounds at Heathrow are caused by tight spacing.
The good news: only 0.24% of approaches at Heathrow result in a go around.
Last edited by ATCO Two; 30th April 2002 at 21:45.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
From: The Roman Empire
There's a road with an 80 speed limit.
Ok, I think, if the limit is valid for an old driver, at night under the rain, why can't I, young and with quicker reflexes, during the day in good weather, increase that limit to 130?
We'll try to answer this question later on.
Everybody focused on the fuel aspect in this thread.
Those who focused on the planning stage were totally wrong: if you load the legal quantity, which must also include the extra LHR holding, you are right, safe and cannot be criticised.
Also those who focused on the fuel management at destination were not on target.
I assume you, Antigua, landed with at least final reserve that day.
It's perfectly legal to land with, say, 35 minutes of fuel left in your tanks.
It is also obvious that, if you have to go around, you will have to use part of the final res. fuel, thus you will have to declare an emergency.
All this is perfectly legal scenario, and you have declared an emergency because you are using even only a few minutes of you final res. fuel, that does't mean you are going to crash five minutes after the missed approach.
The real problem, that day, was in your request for more spacing:
the director was right in MORing you, not because you were not entitled to request more spacing, but just to obtain an official explanation from you.
Not the end of the world.
Heathrow depends on that infamous 2.5nm separation like life on this planet depends on oxygen.
If everybody requested more spacing without having to give an official explanation....
I know the true reason for your request was being behind an UzbekistansecondtimetoplanetearthTu154!
Had you been behind a BA737, I'm pretty sure you would not have made such a request.
Being a Great Captain, your assessment was realistic , and that's the point.
Is it fair to get the same separation behind an UzbekistansecondtimetoplanetearthTu154 and a BA737?
The realistic answer is NO!
And I'm totally with you in your realistic way of thinking.
Unfortunately, the society doesn't allow us to always be realistic: we are not allowed to say certain truths (having a deep experience of a certain continent, I know what I mean...)
I know that having tons of experience, knowledge and abilities, leads you to think you are entitled to behave more realistically than others, sometimes.
But when it comes to rules, it's a bit different: if everybody was allowed his personal interpretation of the rules, like in the speed limit example, a mess would result, albeit you are, realistically and logically, right!
The rule at LHR is 2.5 nm separation.
You have to accept that like everybody else.
If you have to go around you will declare an emergency and get priority for a quick return.
Perfectly legal (and CAA believes that legal means safe )!
I know (well, I assume, since you didn't declare an emergency) you didn't have a real fuel problem, and you just wanted to be cooperative in playing this crazy LHR game, but that raises a big question: are we allowed to be realistic? are we allowed to increase the speed limit because we are young, it's daylight and the weather is good? are we allowed to request more spacing because the preceding is a TU154?
In a better world, we would be.
Actually we can't, and we, the Great Realistic Captains in this case,have to find a way to obtain the same result cheating a little bit, since officially we can't say the truth.
Maybe the magic word is "appreciate ": it doesn't commit yourself like an official "request ", and if the controller is smart he will understand immediately, if not you will have to accept a slightly higher risk of a go around.
" We appreciate a few more yards behind the tupolev..." with the right voice inflection, should obtain the result, if you are lucky, without riskink a MOR.
LEM
a fluff-jet captain
Ok, I think, if the limit is valid for an old driver, at night under the rain, why can't I, young and with quicker reflexes, during the day in good weather, increase that limit to 130?
We'll try to answer this question later on.
Everybody focused on the fuel aspect in this thread.
Those who focused on the planning stage were totally wrong: if you load the legal quantity, which must also include the extra LHR holding, you are right, safe and cannot be criticised.
Also those who focused on the fuel management at destination were not on target.
I assume you, Antigua, landed with at least final reserve that day.
It's perfectly legal to land with, say, 35 minutes of fuel left in your tanks.
It is also obvious that, if you have to go around, you will have to use part of the final res. fuel, thus you will have to declare an emergency.
All this is perfectly legal scenario, and you have declared an emergency because you are using even only a few minutes of you final res. fuel, that does't mean you are going to crash five minutes after the missed approach.
The real problem, that day, was in your request for more spacing:
the director was right in MORing you, not because you were not entitled to request more spacing, but just to obtain an official explanation from you.
Not the end of the world.
Heathrow depends on that infamous 2.5nm separation like life on this planet depends on oxygen.
If everybody requested more spacing without having to give an official explanation....
I know the true reason for your request was being behind an UzbekistansecondtimetoplanetearthTu154!
Had you been behind a BA737, I'm pretty sure you would not have made such a request.
Being a Great Captain, your assessment was realistic , and that's the point.
Is it fair to get the same separation behind an UzbekistansecondtimetoplanetearthTu154 and a BA737?
The realistic answer is NO!
And I'm totally with you in your realistic way of thinking.
Unfortunately, the society doesn't allow us to always be realistic: we are not allowed to say certain truths (having a deep experience of a certain continent, I know what I mean...)
I know that having tons of experience, knowledge and abilities, leads you to think you are entitled to behave more realistically than others, sometimes.
But when it comes to rules, it's a bit different: if everybody was allowed his personal interpretation of the rules, like in the speed limit example, a mess would result, albeit you are, realistically and logically, right!
The rule at LHR is 2.5 nm separation.
You have to accept that like everybody else.
If you have to go around you will declare an emergency and get priority for a quick return.
Perfectly legal (and CAA believes that legal means safe )!
I know (well, I assume, since you didn't declare an emergency) you didn't have a real fuel problem, and you just wanted to be cooperative in playing this crazy LHR game, but that raises a big question: are we allowed to be realistic? are we allowed to increase the speed limit because we are young, it's daylight and the weather is good? are we allowed to request more spacing because the preceding is a TU154?
In a better world, we would be.
Actually we can't, and we, the Great Realistic Captains in this case,have to find a way to obtain the same result cheating a little bit, since officially we can't say the truth.
Maybe the magic word is "appreciate ": it doesn't commit yourself like an official "request ", and if the controller is smart he will understand immediately, if not you will have to accept a slightly higher risk of a go around.
" We appreciate a few more yards behind the tupolev..." with the right voice inflection, should obtain the result, if you are lucky, without riskink a MOR.
LEM
a fluff-jet captain
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 892
Likes: 6
From: southampton,hampshire,england
Spacing on Final Approach
Hello there Antigua....bet you've forgotten the original post.....this has been a good read. If perchance this happens again and you want to keep it in-cockpit I recommend you get hold of a copy of the AIC on Wake Vortex. A pilot is entitled to ask for increased space from the one ahead....if the controller asks why I would respond "for operational reasons"....if the controller asks a second time then YOU report him/her......and respond that you will discuss it after landing with his/her supervisor. The London TMA is not a good venue for protracted negotiation over the RT. This solution is not intended to exactly address your original post but offers a practical alternative to get round the problem, at least until you land and the adrenalin levels have settled.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 892
Likes: 6
From: southampton,hampshire,england
Space on Final
The point of the response was to be positive and to recognise and respect the authority of the commander of one of the world's biggest passenger-carrying aircraft....easy to overlook isn't it?......and a response given after landing would, I am sure, be forthcoming. A discussion of the various viewpoints could take place off the shopfloor. I will never try to second guess the decision of an aircraft captain.....I am not qualified to do so!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with groundzero. Some ATCers file MORs for silly reasons and most of them have no idea of fuel requirements, what is safe and what is not. Someone once MORd an aircraft for arriving at OCK with no holding fuel because they didnt know what the rules actually are.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
From: The Roman Empire
055166k, if all controllers were like you, it would be a wonderful world, like back in the time, when a captain was a CAPTAIN.
Today, and it's a pity, automation and the big system prevail on the human being, and even a 744 Captain is subject to the same rules of a bank employee!
Safety first?
Actually, MONEY first, and safety second.
Today, and it's a pity, automation and the big system prevail on the human being, and even a 744 Captain is subject to the same rules of a bank employee!
Safety first?
Actually, MONEY first, and safety second.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
From: netherlands, amsterdam
Some very very good reading, this post.
All the reasons behind landing with minimum fuel in tanks is fully understandable. It has happened to me, and at some point in everyones career will happen to you. There are allways factors not accounted for. If they add up on one flight you land with less fuel then you (or the computer) planned for. Thanks to the way we USED to think in aviation practice, some margins are build in to the rules, company procedures and education. So if one day you stepped out of bed with the wrong leg does not mean you'll crash as a result. Thanks to the back up designed into the system.
IF however people are trying to run an airport stretched to its limits. With procedures in the margin of whats legally, human performance wise and technically possible. Than think what will happen if all the bad factors play up on one day. If you arrive on that day with minimum fuel in tanks on short final with that aircraft with a blown tire/ rejected take-off etc....in front of you.
I love to go to Heathrow, and admire the people making it work. But I still got that feeling that its an accident waiting to happen. Again, no offense to people making it happen, but more to the system driving us all in the wrong direction. The reason being either being money, companies or politics. probably a combination of these three which is the worst of all. As this combination is ussually the most difficult to pursue to a change. Everybody waiting for somebody else to make the thirst move, in the mean time saying; we have done it now for years and it's been going great...
If you think safety is expensive. Try an accident.
Keep up the good work at Heathtrow
All the reasons behind landing with minimum fuel in tanks is fully understandable. It has happened to me, and at some point in everyones career will happen to you. There are allways factors not accounted for. If they add up on one flight you land with less fuel then you (or the computer) planned for. Thanks to the way we USED to think in aviation practice, some margins are build in to the rules, company procedures and education. So if one day you stepped out of bed with the wrong leg does not mean you'll crash as a result. Thanks to the back up designed into the system.
IF however people are trying to run an airport stretched to its limits. With procedures in the margin of whats legally, human performance wise and technically possible. Than think what will happen if all the bad factors play up on one day. If you arrive on that day with minimum fuel in tanks on short final with that aircraft with a blown tire/ rejected take-off etc....in front of you.
I love to go to Heathrow, and admire the people making it work. But I still got that feeling that its an accident waiting to happen. Again, no offense to people making it happen, but more to the system driving us all in the wrong direction. The reason being either being money, companies or politics. probably a combination of these three which is the worst of all. As this combination is ussually the most difficult to pursue to a change. Everybody waiting for somebody else to make the thirst move, in the mean time saying; we have done it now for years and it's been going great...
If you think safety is expensive. Try an accident.
Keep up the good work at Heathtrow
