"Break-Off" Approach
 

Question for LHR controllers. Yesterday we were told to break-off our approach at approx 700-600' with a heading but no climb instructions. We were also given a frequency change at the same time. Given that the 09R was also in use earlier in the day for landings we were left in a pretty uncomfortable position. We were reconfiguring the aircraft, changing frequencies, heading towards a possibly active runway (as far as we knew), at low level without a climb altitude.

The reason for the discontinued approach was a police helicopter operating in the zone which was obviously a no-notice event.

I suppose my question is really whether you would normally expect to give an altitude and heading if you instruct an aircraft to "break-off" an approach? A go-around is straight forward but we had little idea of what you expected from us at a time of high workload.

From our perspective an instruction of "break-off approach, heading 180, climb 3000'" would have saved us some anxiety.

To add to the stress levels we had committed to Heathrow following a lengthyish hold at LAM hence the PAN call as well!

Not sure what went on yesterday, however, I would always expect heading and altitude to be given, no brainer.

HP,

If it was yesterday morning you'd be really impressed if you knew what the police heli was up to on this particular occasion!

You would have been talking to the tower at that point on the approach so I can't really comment for them, but I'd expect them to do similar to the radar controllers.

I'd expect, and teach, that the first thing to say if you're going to break off traffic on the final approach is give a quick pre-amble to the a/c that you're going to have to break it off the approach then "stop your descent, climb to altitude x" then either once that is read back or at the same time follow it up with any heading instructions.

The climb altitude will usually be to 3,000ft to start with unless there are traffic reasons for it to be otherwise.

The break off direction will usually be to the north from the north runway or to the south from the south runway though, as you found, if other traffic is in the way it may not be!

If it's one a/c being broken off it's fairly straightforward, if it's more than one as was the case with this heli then it can be a bit more complicated, especially if you can't turn in all directions.

But in short, yes, turn and climb when breaking off the approach inside 10nm should be pretty much co-incidental.

What were they up to then? :)

Thanks for the reply, Roffa, and I'm relieved to hear what should have happened! Unfortunately in this instance the lack of climb instruction added to the confusion at a time of high workload and increasing stress :eek:

As an aside, chap on Director freq was speaking unbelievably quickly yesterday and we missed several calls for us earlier in the approach. I don't know whether he was new or feeling stressed but his rapid delivery was actually making things slower rather than quicker!

Was amused when Gnd told us that the helicopter was higher priority traffic than us.... until we transmitted the Pan :E

HP, the police helicopters on routine ops in the London area are always Cat B therefore they will always have priority over normal flights, i.e. you, under normal circumstances.

Your PAN would have trumped their Cat B though :)

Re the fast talker, will feed it back...

Does the standard phraseology as listed in MATS pt1 for sending an aircraft around not apply at Heathrow, i.e. "Go-around, I say again, go-around (instructions), acknowledge".

Just curious.

HP, hi, I was the GMC controller who you enquired about the reason for the go-around to.

Its all been explained really, Cat B police helicopter racing towards Slough which meant 3 go-arounds and a few broken off by radar.

I wasnt in the tower at the time of the airshow but I would always expect the initial instruction to be the standard "Go around, I say again go-around acknowledge" after which any non-standard turns/altitudes would be passed. Were you the third to be sent around? As far as I am aware the first followed the standard missed approach, second straight ahead and the third went to the right.

We have a lot of trainees in the tower at the moment which may have led to the lack of information being passed straight away. Multiple go-arounds are challenging even for a valid controller, never mind a trainee.

Glad we helped make your day a little more interesting! :) At least the stand guidance was on when you got to T5 :ok:

Cheers!

Dizzee, yes it does, but when you're sending multiple a/c around, or breaking them off further back on the approach and at minimum spacing it isn't always the most appropriate thing to say.

Roffa, is that a local procedure at Heathrow? At Gatwick police helicopters on routine ops are treated as normal flights. If they upgrade to Cat A they change callsign to reflect that, but I don't recall ever seeing one as Cat B.

Great info so thanks to all who've contributed.

Also thanks, in general, for consistently high level of controlling generally at Heathrow. :ok:

vespasia, it's in the LHR section of the TC Pt 2. Routine ops are always 'B', we'll be notified of upgrade to 'A' or downgrade to 'Z'.

Essentially the same notification is also in the LGW (10.5.4) section of the TC Pt 2 for P37, he's 'B' unless he specifically tells you otherwise. In fact the same notification is in all the approach sections of the Pt 2.

HP, thanks for the kind words :)

.5 I have fed this back to the Twr before... If you call an aircraft to GA and acknowledge, then fine, but please do not expect on it to do anything other than the Std GA. You might be able to pass it subsequent Hdg/Ht instructions, but please don't assume these will be heard / actioned.

When we start a GA, our Mgmt/Manuals dictate a long tirade of actions, calls, acknowledgments. It is very busy, and I know from experience that hearing is the first thing to go, especially unexpected calls e.g. from ATC. With ANR "mono" headsets, you are competing against our intercom (rather than the old style ATC in one ear, verbal comms in the other). I did a GA @ LHR and never heard (nor acknowledged) the subsequent "climb straight ahead"... so did the standard turn. It was only someone in the Ac behind who later told me :eek:

I would suggest, as I did in my feedback, that any instructions are passed prior the GA action call, and/or as a "in the event of a GA..." ;)

NoD

<<I have fed this back to the Twr before... If you call an aircraft to GA and acknowledge, then fine, but please do not expect on it to do anything other than the Std GA. You might be able to pass it subsequent Hdg/Ht instructions, but please don't assume these will be heard / actioned.>>

OK... I'm out of the loop but, Nigel, don't you realise that this might cause very serious problems? I had plenty of go-arounds at Heathrow which required immediate ATC intervention from the "standard" because of other traffic and nobody ever cried out to me that they were too busy... If the headsets are a problem they need fixing fast. Conflictions might still occur, no matter how the GA instructions are worded, and ATC issues instructions in the expectation that they will be acted upon..

If what has been said - that the Police can cause 3 aircraft to go around and Radar to break off approaches to another two aircraft, then things need to change. The Police seem to believe that they can disrupt anything they want at any time. Close motorways, effectively close LHR, (at least for a while) etc.

Someone with guts needs to sit down with the Police and get the situation at Heathrow changed. If the Police behave arrogantly and refuse to change, then that person with guts should go higher. Causing go-arounds from 600 ft is absolutely stupid.

What if they were chasing someone suspected of having SAM-7s or RPGs in their car? Or, a bunch of fuel drums in a Jeep?

Exactly, or a Brazillian electrician?

I know the police cameras are good, but I don't they can see quite THAT much detail :p

I was in the tower working GND at the time and saw the airshow. It was most impressive if a little bizzare looking to see something approaching 09L turning hard right. I think the first two a/c turned right and the next headed north...only for the policeman to suddenly head back north east away from the field!!!

Dizzee

We do obviously use the MATS standard phraseology if we want someone to do something standard, like the standard MAP. In this case, however, I would agree with Roffa and start with an (brief!!) explanation of what you're doing and why, followed by turn/climb instructions (i.e. "c/s i'm going to have to break you off this approach due to category B traffic approaching from the north, so turn right now heading 180, climb to 3A") But the climb should definitely be in there somewhere!

Ham

It wasn't a trainee in the seat at the time but I reckon the suddenness of it all happening came as a surprise to the controller involved and unfortunately the climb insruction was forgotten. Did the controller go back into you later on to tell you to climb?

Nigel

I'm also with HD in that the possible missing of subsequent calls due to headsets is a worry!!:eek: What if the subsequent call is for traffic information or more importantly, avoiding action??

FB:ok:

HD... Of course we do not cry we are too busy... please read my post, we just might not "hear" the instructions, as happened in my case.

They will not get altered for H&S reasons (loss of hearing)... All discussed hear ages ago, I believe ATCOs noticed the increase in missed calls at the time...

I thought not? I thought ATCOs issue instructions, and expect them to be acted upon after a readback? No readback... expectation must be they will not be acted upon.

I could write out hear the litany of calls and processes we have to do on a GA. All our training / unusual situation handling is "fly the ac first" etc. (e.g. Aviate Navigate Comunicate), and in the GA process various factors may end up with communicate being low down the list. As I said one of them is pure human design - when the workload gets high (it is rarely higher than in an unexpected GA) hearing is the first sensory loss.

Of course if we hear them, then it is likely they will be actioned. All I am suggesting, as I did before and was told it would be fed back, that if you want a non-standard GA, the best way to do it, IMHO, is to get those instructions across first, then order the GA.

NoD

Or why not issue it all as one instruction? As a pilot, when I am told to go around, I assume there is a safety issue and immediately initiate action based on what is in the call, even before I acknowledge the instruction. While the phaseology might not resemble word for word what is in the book, would have an instruction "XYZ Go-Around, Immediate Right Turn Heading 180 Climb 3000ft" not been sufficient? Everything is then contained in a concise message. I would hope in a critical situation the pilot would begin go-around action before even thinking about reading back the instruction, even in busy airspace such as Heathrow. Once the aircraft is not heading towards the ground the call can be acknowledged, then the checklists can be done...

For Info, from MATS part 1 since last year:

Instructions to aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land
15.3.1 The final approach represents an increased period of flight deck workload. Unusual situations and emergencies during this period can be particularly demanding for the pilot. Therefore, with the exception of instructions to go-around, instructions shall not be issued to aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land that would require it to deviate from its expected flight path unless exceptional and overriding safety considerations apply.

So who judges whether it is an exceptional and overriding safety consideration??

212man:especially when the watchers are taking a p**s:eek:
NS

Riverboat - I'm surprised there's been no response to this - and baffled that a single helicopter is 'allowed' to create this level of disruption. :confused:

Nearly had another one today. About 700' on 09L we were told to break-off and establish on 09R. Then we were told than 09R still had an aircraft on the threshold so we re-established on 09R. All good fun at the end of a 4 day early tour! :sad:

Speaking as a retired Heathrow ATCO I thought it was ridiculous at the time when Police routine operations were upgraded from Cat Z to CAT B a few years ago. This does put controllers in a very difficult situation but I think breaking off traffic established in the late stages of an approach is frankly wrong and potentially dangerous both from the aircraft's and the ATC situation point of view. If the Police helicopter is responding to a really urgent situation then he has the option to declare a Police Emergency and is automatically upgraded to Cat A. Everybody then knows where they stand and an airshow can be justified.

Interesting! The Airfield MATS Pt 2 states that Police helicopters are to be treated as normal flights unless the crew specifically state that they are Cat A,B or Z, and that's certainly the way we treat them. Can't speak for the TC guys and girls, but I've never had co-ordination, or even got the impression, that a routine police flight is treated as anything other than normal.

vapourer may recall that in the far off days we sometimes refused Cat B flights on the grounds of disruption to commercial traffic. Been there, done that.

Not that it counts for much, but I don't like the sound of this event.

From what I have seen on tv, there is a lot about Police Helicopter operations in the UK that as a society we could do without entirely.

Much of what they do for the tv audience at least looks like a jolly with not a lot of accountability and a lot of unsurprisingly apprehended dimwit teenagers who are released to do it all over again next day. Unsurprise because if you throw that much resource at such a tiny part of society's crime problems then you'd look bloody daft if you failed.

There, I've said it, told you it wouldn't count for much!

vespasia, your ops may need to speak to our ops but as far as we're concerned they are Cat B unless they explicitly state otherwise.

HD, times change, we live in a slightly different world now.

s and t correct, it didn't.

Yeah what do I know, eh Roffa?:p

But did you see the episode where the Police heli captain chased some kids on a motorbike, called up the local fuzz to say "Come Quick, they're hiding under a tree" and then got the same answer as I usually get when I call ours "Sorry too busy with other higher priority incidents" (high priority means someone has to bleed profusely in my neck of the woods or alternatively utter a racist comment within someone's earshot).

So said heli-captain (he was the one with a helmet that wouldn't fit in the first part of the same episode) then decides to land craftily downwind behind the next rise and deploy two of his observer/whatevers wearing full black flying suits and full face black helmets and darkened visors :p

Then he takes off and reconfirms that they are still under the same tree and the two robocops sneak up & nab the blighters :ok:

They are so shocked when the black leather gloves collar them that they offer no struggle - their subconscious tells them they must be in a dream or a movie, and indeed they are in the latter :p

Trouble is, two Robocops, two arrested teenagers, and a stolen motorbike just don't all fit in a Police Bolkow so Captain has run out of human resources and has to return to base, while the robocops do a bit of local liaison and ultimately find their way home by road sometime before their duty period ends ... good telly, but I ask you, ...:rolleyes:

errm, maybe a silly question but...

why not use reduced seperation in the vicinity?

"Can you see the police heli and mantain your own separation?"

"Affirm"

Sorted.

NZscion

Or why not issue it all as one instruction?

Because a while ago a student spun in, apparently because he was confused by his missed approach instructions and pulled the stick back but didn't put the power on.

We've been told to send you around so there's no ambiguity, then pass further instructions seperately, ideally once you have a positive rate of climb.

cdb,

When we can, we do. On the occasion that started this thread, it wasn't possible.

So yes, a slightly silly question.

Causing an ac to go-around at 600ft isn't ideal so why wasn't the decision made earlier? Did the police helicopter give late notice of his intentions? Is it a case of "comercial pressures" that LHR press-on until the last moment before sending traffic around? (not a dig, genuine curiosity!)
Category of flight is to allow aviation on high priority tasks to be able to execute those tasks. If an ac is involved in safety of life/security then surely he has to be given priority over aviation involved in commercial enterprise. That said, carte blanche issue of CAT B to police heli's has to be wrong. Traffic monitoring or routine security checks do not warrant category B status IMHO.

From my experience, working as both a radar and tower controller within the london area, I have found the Police Helis to be very very flexible in how they do business. They won't just get in the way because they can and they are more than aware of the outcome of their decisions, but at the end of the day if the aircraft is Cat B then everyone else gets out of his/her way. (and before anyone says it; unless you are Cat A etc...)

P251/252 will only be non standard if they are on an actual shout, so cut them some slack- you never know what they are responding to.

MM

Like almost every other thread on pprune this has gone off on a tangent! My initial point was that we were given a non-standard and incomplete instruction which we hadn't been expecting. We had no gripe with the police helicopter being given priority over us (it's not as though we're ever on time anyway!) we just wanted re-assurance that controllers should give heading and climb information if they don't want us to complete the standard missed approach.

Many thanks to all for their contribution. My colleague and I have both found the thread very informative.

HP