Birmingham EGBB Tower on departures
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birmingham EGBB Tower on departures
What's the reason that the Tower doesn't hand over departing aircraft once airborne like most UK airfields. Birmingham clears them for take off on the assumption they will contact the next frequency on wheels up whereas it's usual in the UK to remain with the Tower until handed off. I know the Birmingham method is common overseas, but why so rare in the UK?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite an assumption and also not "wheels up" SID notes state "after TKOF and after passing 2000ft contact Birmingham Radar 118.050"
Not a Brum regular (except when the wind is gusting across LHR at 46 kts) so waiting for a BHX regular to explain how long this has been SOP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been the case since summer 2012 as I recall. "Cleared for take off runway 15, goodbye!"
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its very easy you stay on tower frequency until you go through 2000ft then once your finished doing the flying bit you flick the switch and book in with radar.
Now the 2000ft thing can be a bit of pain on some types and SOP's because they do noise abatement V2+10 climbs then accelerate at 1500ft agl. So they might be slightly higher than 2000ft or they might go early in the hope of continuous climb.
Most European departures that have it just have contact radar after departure with no alt specified.
On my TP it will be either 750ft agl or 1200ft because this just fits with our SOP's and the way we handle the aircraft. The jets from listening on frequency tend to do it at 1200ft or 2500ft more than likely for the same reasons.
Now the 2000ft thing can be a bit of pain on some types and SOP's because they do noise abatement V2+10 climbs then accelerate at 1500ft agl. So they might be slightly higher than 2000ft or they might go early in the hope of continuous climb.
Most European departures that have it just have contact radar after departure with no alt specified.
On my TP it will be either 750ft agl or 1200ft because this just fits with our SOP's and the way we handle the aircraft. The jets from listening on frequency tend to do it at 1200ft or 2500ft more than likely for the same reasons.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two incidents spring to mind.
1. Bad weather.. Departing northbound a/c on south runway.... go-around on north runway. Departure controller instructs departure to fly a heading to maintain separation.... no reply. Tries again.. no reply. A very, very scary minute or two ensued. The departure had changed frequency on getting airborne without being told.
2. Another one during a trial - "Contact xxx (freq) when airborne". Pilot decided to call the centre whilst approaching the holding point. Centre controller assumes it was just airborne and clears it to climb. Pilot assumes this means he can go, which he did. Tower controller totally bemused.
In my book, the controller should decide when a frequency change is appropriate and that is after no possible conflict can exist.
1. Bad weather.. Departing northbound a/c on south runway.... go-around on north runway. Departure controller instructs departure to fly a heading to maintain separation.... no reply. Tries again.. no reply. A very, very scary minute or two ensued. The departure had changed frequency on getting airborne without being told.
2. Another one during a trial - "Contact xxx (freq) when airborne". Pilot decided to call the centre whilst approaching the holding point. Centre controller assumes it was just airborne and clears it to climb. Pilot assumes this means he can go, which he did. Tower controller totally bemused.
In my book, the controller should decide when a frequency change is appropriate and that is after no possible conflict can exist.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. That's because the ANSP did not, at the time, have robust procedures which ensured separation between departing traffic and go-around traffic. It only had reactive 'avoiding-action' procedures which had the potential to temporarily overload the tower controllers.
2. That's because the pilot did not comply with the procedure and assumptions were made. Procedures will never accommodate idiots.
Provided that the IFR procedures are robust I don't see anything wrong with an automatic 'After departure contact xxx'. My unit uses this procedure. It's simple, effective, the crew can choose to call when convenient. An ATC instruction once airborne will invariably interrupt the flow of cockpit SOPs, possibly to its detriment. Also means fewer RT transmissions and therefore more air time for more important communications.
2. That's because the pilot did not comply with the procedure and assumptions were made. Procedures will never accommodate idiots.
Provided that the IFR procedures are robust I don't see anything wrong with an automatic 'After departure contact xxx'. My unit uses this procedure. It's simple, effective, the crew can choose to call when convenient. An ATC instruction once airborne will invariably interrupt the flow of cockpit SOPs, possibly to its detriment. Also means fewer RT transmissions and therefore more air time for more important communications.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: EGPF/EGPK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furher to the various points raised under this thread, could someone explain, please, the circumstances at Birmingham which require contact with Birmingham Radar on departure and not the appropriate London or Scottish Control frequency ?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albaman,
Not sure what your current understanding of BHX is compared to London airports and those in Scotland but Birmingham is a unit where approach/radar is carried out at the unit, below the tower.
This is not the case at London airports such as LHR, LGW etc where all their radar and approach functions are carried out at TC Swanwick.
Not sure what your current understanding of BHX is compared to London airports and those in Scotland but Birmingham is a unit where approach/radar is carried out at the unit, below the tower.
This is not the case at London airports such as LHR, LGW etc where all their radar and approach functions are carried out at TC Swanwick.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a guess, the location of the approach radar radar unit doesn't really play a part.
At Manchester, approach is carried out from the base of the tower, but outbounds are still transferred straight to Scottish Control. When they were in the old tower block, approach was on the 4th floor, in the same room as the area control function, (a great system), and again a/c went straight from tower to area control. When Manchester Centre moved to Scottish, Manchester Approach continued to be carried out from the same suite until the new tower went operational, again not working the EGCC outbounds.
When Heathrow and Gatwick approach were co-located with the towers at those airfields, (prior to their move to LATCC and later, Swanwick), the majority of outbounds went from tower to London area control.
Although I have never worked at EGBB, (or seen their MATS Pt.2 for many years), I believe the reason approach work their outbounds is due to geography. The runway orientation and the geometry of the Birmingham CTR/CTA make it quite a 'tight' bit of airspace. Even with the extensions out to the west, the traffic flows and traffic mix at EGBB make it a challenging unit to work at. Historically EGBB was one of the first to trial the 'hub system', with many aircraft arriving over a short period of time. Also bear in mind that EGBB sits on the dividing line between London and Scottish areas of responsibility. This is further complicated by the airspace geometry, which has many of the SID's turning back into the areas where approach are vectoring their inbounds. When 15 is in use, the northbound SIDs are in conflict, and on 33, the south bounds are. The proximity of EGNX and M605, (Amber One), doesn't help.
Please accept that this is just my own theory, based on years of observation. hopefully someone from Elmdon will give us the full picture later. They earn their money there.
At Manchester, approach is carried out from the base of the tower, but outbounds are still transferred straight to Scottish Control. When they were in the old tower block, approach was on the 4th floor, in the same room as the area control function, (a great system), and again a/c went straight from tower to area control. When Manchester Centre moved to Scottish, Manchester Approach continued to be carried out from the same suite until the new tower went operational, again not working the EGCC outbounds.
When Heathrow and Gatwick approach were co-located with the towers at those airfields, (prior to their move to LATCC and later, Swanwick), the majority of outbounds went from tower to London area control.
Although I have never worked at EGBB, (or seen their MATS Pt.2 for many years), I believe the reason approach work their outbounds is due to geography. The runway orientation and the geometry of the Birmingham CTR/CTA make it quite a 'tight' bit of airspace. Even with the extensions out to the west, the traffic flows and traffic mix at EGBB make it a challenging unit to work at. Historically EGBB was one of the first to trial the 'hub system', with many aircraft arriving over a short period of time. Also bear in mind that EGBB sits on the dividing line between London and Scottish areas of responsibility. This is further complicated by the airspace geometry, which has many of the SID's turning back into the areas where approach are vectoring their inbounds. When 15 is in use, the northbound SIDs are in conflict, and on 33, the south bounds are. The proximity of EGNX and M605, (Amber One), doesn't help.
Please accept that this is just my own theory, based on years of observation. hopefully someone from Elmdon will give us the full picture later. They earn their money there.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 25th Feb 2014 at 17:42. Reason: Poor proof-reading.
