One for EGPH ATCO's

[Gaza]

This letter was published in todays Edinburgh Evening News.

It is full of inaccuracies so perhaps someone from EGPH would like to write a rebuttal. E-mail address is [email protected]

Planes too low

EASYJET enjoys too many routes over Edinburgh. Along with other airlines, easyJet often flies unnecessarily over Edinburgh city centre at low altitude.

While this is a safety issue, especially during these times of increased terrorist threats, there are also long-term issues of noise and fuel pollution, both from jet engine exhaust and surplus fuel dumping.

Your readers may not know that incoming flights are not tied to a strictly prescribed route - unlike departing flights - and that they are given free rein by Edinburgh air traffic control to choose their own approach into the airport, within a dictated track.

It seems difficult to obtain statistics, but the feeling is that budget airlines, in particular, are prone to literally cut corners to make up time, rather than taking the more leisurely, traditional route over the Firth of Forth.

Harald Tobermann, Chairman, Pilrig Residents Association, Pilrig Street, Edinburgh

[callyoushortly]

OOoooooooooohhh how we laughed!!!!!

People like this guy never cease to amaze me. They're just do-gooders with more time than sense on their hands.
I'd be intruiged to know if the guy has ever flown with the airline in question for a start, and since he's worried about aircraft fuel dumping when taking routings into Edinburgh, if he's ever been on an aircraft that in the course of a normal flight has dumped fuel. I know it's not a long time, but I've been a controller for 4 years and haven't seen it happen yet.

It has to be said to that due to noise restrictions the shortest final allowed for aircraft over 5700kgs is 5 miles, which then makes flying over the city somewhat more difficult. Not impossible I admit. Needless to say, if aircraft chose their own track onto approach we'd have chaos!!!

I'm not eloquent enough to reply to this guy but I'd like to see someone do so. Even if it's not an EDI based person, the point he brings up about low cost carriers 'cutting corners' into the airfield is ludicrous, as I'm sure other controllers could testify. We all know some do it more quickly than others but I think cutting corners is harsh.
Where this guy gets his 'feelings' about low cost carriers is beyond me........I wish these people would butt out

[Gaza]

I'm not eloquent enough to reply to this guy but I'd like to see someone do so.

Your posts seems perfectly eloquent to me!

I have fired off a letter saying what total crap he is talking (especially about fuel dumping) and tried to give an insight in to EGPH approach procedures. I am only a lowly PPL (with IMC) and feel a letter from EGPH ATC Management or BAA Management may carry more weight.

Any chance of forwarding the webpage link to someone who can comment officially.

One of my parents neighbours is a similar pain in the ass do-gooder. Any time 30 is in use he calls to complain.

[1261]

Anyone who has been on the receiving end of an outburst from the Barclay Brothers' Comic knows that they'll print anything. I'm sure that nobody will take any more notice of this ill-informed rant than of anything else they've printed concerning EGPH.

As to the correspondent, alas, Mr. Tobermann seems to be somewhat confused about the structure of the aviation industry in the UK; last time I checked the Civil Aviation Authority was the safety regulator. Failing that, I'd certainly have directed my low-flying complaint to Lothian and Borders Police.

Of course, the Royal Mail is having some problems at the moment - it could be that Mr. Tobermann's letter ended up in Holyrood instead of Stirling by mistake.

[tampabay]

do-gooders

One of my parents neighbours is a similar pain in the ass do-gooder. Any time 30 is in use he calls to complain.

I hate people like that, what do they think is more important, them not getting a little noise or a major airport which brings hundreds of millions of pounds( depends on the airport obviously ) into the economy!

I know this is a little off topic but when i was doing work experience at Glasgow airport i spent one afternoon in the tower and was lucky enough to see a fly by - by an RAF Tornado, the people in the tower told me he wasn't meant to put his boosters ( or something like that ) on till he reached 2000ft but he turned them on after 500ft. About 10 minutes later the guy that was "looking after" me told me that there had been something in the region of 80 calls complaining about the noise. I mean seriously how sad must their lives be if they can be bothered to phone because of a few seconds of noise? I would say to these people "Unless you've lived in your home since before the airport was built, STOP COMPLAINING!" i mean they bought a house next to the airport flightpath, what do they expect? Meadows of peace and tranquility? These people really get on my nerves!

Sorry i went into a bit of a rant but thats me got it off my chest now

[Gaza]

easyJet set the record straight.

[Mooney]

Cally you'll be waiting a long time before you see a easyJet a/c dump fuel going into EDI- quite simply it's impossible unless you rip off the fuel tanks yourself, not some thing pilots can be bothered to do

Does any one know where this guy lives? Just so we can make sure we are a bit lower and louder in the future

[Lost_luggage34]

Comical Ali re-incarnated

[45 before POL]

Statements like this help no-one. Fuel dumping, I don't think so
Comments like this and calls to complain must be justified. Anyony in breach of regs should be brought to book but speculaton is not a good thing. Pilots are not prepared to cut corners compromising safety, the guys are as professional as most of the personnel within the aviation industry.(regardless of company).

Sidetracking a bit...I remember taking a flying complaint back in '91 from a very irate new homeowner, who had just paid nearly £400k (a lot for a property then) in an idilic location to find out that having viewed at the weekend- peace and tranquility.....Monday morning the RAF came to life and good ol' VC10s' approaching at Brize flew straight over the top at 3 miles finals to rwy 26....What could I say " sorry you may find that the the airfield has been around for some time...I'll pass on your objections but i'm afraid there is not much else can be done" ...triple glazing and a loud TV may be needed?
How many people have had that scenario ? Quite a few I think.
The worst person for noise complaints I had was a retired ATCO

[1261]

"£400k (a lot for a property then)"

How the other half live, eh..........

[Fancy Navigator]

Well... I have to say that this letter is not totally inaccurate....

Without pointing at Easyjet or any other carriers, it is not rare to see traffic above the city centre.... The guy writing the letter is from Pilrig, and I can confirm that sometimes, planes are overhead Pilrig, which is north east of Edinburgh, and sometimes even closer to the city centre (if we assume Princes Street is the city centre)... As far as I know, Pilrig is not that far from the city centre after all (approx. 1.5 mile)
The guy writing the letter is therefore partly RIGHT on flying above the city!!! However, I cannot comment on fuel dumping over the city....
I perfectly know that pilots do not choose their approach paths, but the fact is that sometimes, you can see planes above the city, and that is a FACT !! Are controllers to be blamed for that or is it the pilots who put pressure on the controllers to get closer vectors.... I do not know! it would be interesting to find out...
Aircraft should normally be vectored towards Portobello or Musselburgh, then above the Firth of Forth for approach into runway 24.... Well, that is not always the case, far from it !!!

So please guys...., if you have no local knowledge, you'd better not write nonsense in this forum....
Cheers

PS: Callyoushortly, if aircraft are vectored from Talla for a 5 mile final approach, they fly right above Edinburgh city centre.... just to let you know

[1261]

At least two of the contributors above have - shall we say - expert local knowledge, so let's not start slinging mud around the forum!

Low flying [to me] suggests unreasonably low; IFR aircraft are never below 2100' over Edinburgh City Centre - if they were, they'd be prosecuted.

The one part of the letter that was correct is that pilots who have been cleared for a visual approach DO choose their own approach path; subject of course to the notified noise abatement.

Aircraft from the south are NEVER vectored for a five-mile final by ATC (except those not in performance group A).

[Deeko01]

Ummm....Fancy Navigator l think you should take your own advice and not write nonsense on this forum.

As was pointed out in a posting above no aircraft will be below 2100ft over the city so how that can contestute low flying.....care to elaborate?

I really dont know what the problem is as when you see these aicraft overhead presumeably making a visual for runway 24, if they are over the city then in noise terms its not loud at all.

As for fuel dumping well there is not too many aircraft that operate into EDI that have the ability to fuel dump and any that can most certainly would not be dumping directly over the city centre and would only be dumping if there was an emergency

Your post is extremely misleading and l think you should do some research of your own before you dive in all guns blazing.

Oh and btw Callyoushortly is an ATCO at EDI so that said person would know a great deal more than you when it came to vectoring aicraft from Talla what there position was.......just to let you know!

[ATCbabe]

so let's not start slinging mud around the forum!

Awww 1261 on't be such a spoil sport!! This is the funniest post I've read in a while. Made me laff anyway

Just for the record Fancy Navigator would you care to say what your local knowledge of the airspace is based on? Do you fly it or are you only a ground based person?

[Mr Pointy]

OK obvious point, but it seems to be missed here. Its quite dificult to say accurately where an aircraft is when you are watching from the ground. Thats why the great unwashed phone up to report "airmisses" when the planes are miles apart in reality

[Fancy Navigator]

... My whole point was to say that it is not rare to see aircraft being vectored over the city, and that is a FACT nobody can deny!
.... Obviously, they are not low flying (which is technically 500 feet or below agl) otherwise, as someone said previously, they would have been prosecuted!!! I am sure they also respect the 1500 feet clearance over built up areas (if you consider that Edinburgh's highest point is at 600 feet) and therefore descending to a maximum of 2100 feet before engaging on the ILS approach. I am not questioning that.... (by the way, all aircraft should be at 3000 feet until above the Firth of Forth, so here, we are a bit far from 2100 feet....)
My only point is that you can sometimes see aircraft being vectored over the city, and even though I am not one of these people who moan about aircraft noise, etc..., it has to be recognised that you actually can see aircraft right over the city. Therefore, you have to understand why some people are not happy to see aircraft over a city, even if they are not technically low flying.... I enjoy seeing aircraft over the city, but try also to understand that some people don't....
It is funny how nobody actually answered the question I asked in the previous post:
"Are controllers to be blamed for that or is it the pilots who put pressure on the controllers to get closer vectors.... ?"
I would like to find out about this.... I suspect controllers in general (not particularly at EGPH) are pressured by pilots 'cause after all, it is not rare to see Ryanair pilots at Prestwick, for example, taking off or landing with a tailwind, cutting you on the radio....all examples of good practice (authorised by the controllers??) I have personally witnessed this several times! Any info on this would be welcome...
As far as fuel dumping is concerned, as I have already said, I can't comment.
Cheers

PS: If you vector planes DIRECT (I forgot to say direct) from Talla VOR to a point 5 miles on the ILS, you vector them right above the city... I can visualize vectors, thanks!

[yaffs]

how about before you start throwing accusations around, you check out the relevant documents first?

as from your posts you quite obviously have not

maybe you should have a visit to atc, to find out first hand -

but then its not quite as much fun to find out that what you've been spouting is gossip and hearsay, and that the pilots and atcos are actually professional people doing theirs jobs adhering to the procedures laid down is it?


(the funniest thing i heard years ago was the "aircraft are dumping fuel over the city"
- it was actually contrails from aircraft in flight)

[flower]

daftest statement I have ever seen

I suspect controllers are pressurised by pilots

I don't think so mate , you have obviously never met any of us, and have never had a pilot ask us to do something which they know will break the rules .

[1261]

FN,

The only restrictions on visual approaches to Edinburgh (from the south) are:

1. Not below 2000' (Edinburgh QFE - hence 2100' QNH) until crossing the coast. This means that aircraft positioning visually can legitimately be at this level well south of the estuary.

2. Join final not less than 5 Nm.

3. At no point be below the vertical profile of the ILS approach.

You can check this all out at AD 2-EGPH-1-11 [www.ais.org.uk]; any other figures you may have to hand are - I can assure you - a work of fiction.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Come now Navigator .... you need to do a little more Air Law revision

Obviously, they are not low flying (which is technically 500 feet or below agl)

Technically it has nothing to do with agl. Aircraft are not permitted to fly closer than 500' to any person, vehicle or structure. It is a minimum distance NOT a minimum height and applies horizontally as well as vertically. Therefore, away from a congested area, and in the abscence of any person, vehicle or structure, I could quite happily fly at 1 foot agl and be totally legal. In fact, I could fly at 1 foot agl near any of those things as long as they were 500' horizontally away from me.

I am sure they also respect the 1500 feet clearance over built up areas (if you consider that Edinburgh's highest point is at 600 feet)

I have pulled out the charts to investigate the background to this thread and there seems to be a hill rising to 824' quite near the city centre. Bear that in mind when navigating

(by the way, all aircraft should be at 3000 feet until above the Firth of Forth, so here, we are a bit far from 2100 feet....)

The 3000' figure is applicable to Instrument Approaches, that is, those where the pilot positions himself for the approach using Precision or Non Precision navigation aids. I am sure that for the vast majority of approaches made at Edinburgh, in common with other large airports, that the controllers will provide radar vectoring as a more efficient and expeditious method of handling arrivals. Which would bring the Radar Vectoring Area chart in to play initially. This gives a minimum level of 3000' until approximately abeam the aforesaid hill (824 feet), then 2300', with a further reduction to 1700' on final approach (or on the 40 degree leg to final approach).

Of course these RVA heights are for safety when the ground can't be seen. When making a visual approach, the terrain clearance is the responsibility of the pilot and the 1500' above the highest fixed obstacle within 600M of the aircraft comes in to play. I can't judge from the scale of the map but presumably flights over the City Centre are more than 600M from the said hill. The other highest fixed obstacle then becomes 505' (might be that castle thingy they have up there). ATC would probably round that up to 600', add in the 1500' rule and voila ... you have the minimum level of 2100' over the City Centre which the people who work there are quoting !!!

I suspect controllers in general (not particularly at EGPH) are pressured by pilots

I would concur with my professional colleagues. Controllers will never be pressured by pilots into cutting corners or allwoing them to do anything which is unsafe. It is just not the way that we are trained to operate. It is more likely that any pilot who whinges and moans and badgers us for something will actually be given less freedom than they might otherwise have expected (Speed control, holding, and vectoring are all legitimate things which we have at our disposal .... for traffic reasons only you understand )

it is not rare to see Ryanair pilots at Prestwick, for example, taking off or landing with a tailwind

That is not illegal. It will be in the Pilot Operating Handbook as to what limits the pilot can accept. ATC do not have the knowledge to know what can and can't be accepted and it is the pilots decision. All ATC will do is decide whether the pilots request can be accomdated within the existing traffic scenario.

cutting you on the radio

Happens at every unit in the country, with every conceivable airline.

If you vector planes DIRECT (I forgot to say direct) from Talla VOR to a point 5 miles on the ILS, you vector them right above the city... I can visualize vectors, thanks!

Looking at the chart again, the Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) actually goes to waypoint called TARTN, then one called TWEED. No route goes through TLA VOR. Again, no scale, but I would estimate the track is 5 to 10 miles East of TLA VOR ... so you may need to rethink the visualisation

Quite amazing the stuff you can pull together when looking at the ANO and the AIP