Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

A couple LGW of specific questions

ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

A couple LGW of specific questions

Old 8th Nov 2017, 09:01
  #1 (permalink)  
RMC
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 494
A couple LGW of specific questions

On a thread last year this was posted
A380 and RNAV. If you get offered an RNAV too late then turn it down and you'll get an extra 2/3 minutes 'delay' for an ILS (usually extended vectoring rather than round the hold). The spacing behind an A380 is 15/20 miles. This may be reduced through RNAV approaches but if you don't feel you have enough time to set up for it then take the delay.
I mentioned it to my F/O yesterday who had not heard about this and asked where was it published. Re. The 15 to 20 mile gap behind an A380.....is this behind a departing or arriving a/c.

Also we used to have a reference to 20 mins delay should be plannned for aircraft arriving into LGW.....this has been withdrawn......if it is still written somewhere a link to this and /or the A380 question would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
RMC is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2017, 18:26
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 52
Posts: 238
The A380 procedure is an ATC local instruction, it won't be published anywhere. If we can reduce delay and increase runway utilisation by doing an 8 mile gap using an RNAV approach instead of 15 miles using an ILS then that's what will happen.

By not accepting an RNAV will probably mean you miss out on one maybe 2 places in the sequence.

I remember the expect a 20 minute delay instruction, I don't know what happened to that. Will try and find out.
Nimmer is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2017, 13:51
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,141
Was it not that an EAT will not be issued if the delay is less than 20 minutes, rather than expect a 20 minute delay?
LlamaFarmer is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2017, 14:24
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,275
That's what it used to be...
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2017, 17:35
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 544
This was posted by ‘The Wrong Trousers’ on a similar thread 01/11/2015;


UK AIP ENR 1.9-4

9 Inbound Flow Management

9.1 In congested terminal areas serving busy airports, holding can often occur at short notice through the need for the tactical integration of arrival traffic flows to achieve optimum airspace and runway utilisation.

9.2 In the United Kingdom, Area Control Centres (ACC) will not issue Expected Approach Times (EAT) to aircraft when the terminal area delay is likely to be less than 20 minutes.

9.3 Where radar sequencing of traffic from the appropriate terminal holding facility is in operation, Approach Control will not normally calculate or issue EATs to aircraft when the delay is expected to be less than 20 minutes.

9.4 If a pilot requests information on the expected delay they will be given a general indication of the delay, eg 'Delay less than 20 minutes', based on the best information available to the controller at that time.

9.5 Additionally, for London Gatwick, London Heathrow and London Stansted arrivals, when London TMA inbound delays are likely to exceed 20 minutes, inbound aircraft will be given a general statement concerning the anticipated delay based on the best information available to the controller at the time. Subsequently, when the aircraft is within 20 minutes of its original ETA for the appropriate terminal holding facility, an EAT will be issued. London Area Control (Swanwick) will endeavour to frequently update this data to ensure that the information provided to pilots is as accurate as possible. These procedures will remain applicable when ground equipment unserviceability or traffic demand requires the use of an alternative to the main holding facility.

9.6 Operators should consider the carriage of an extra fuel allowance when the flight includes operation in a congested traffic area or where ATC delays are likely.
Del Prado is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2017, 18:48
  #6 (permalink)  
RMC
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 494
Thanks guys..will brief for a back up RNAV in future. Is the 15 miles behind an A380 on approach (had heard there was a problem with the fin affecting signal on line up also).
RMC is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.