UK Heathrow
 

Is it still true that London Heathrow holds the gold medal for non-adherence to international airfield standards?

Quite possibly, and some of the non-adherences came about whilst they were trying to become ICAO compliant such as the holding point names (ETTIV, HORKA etc). 5 letter names are for airborne use only and should not be used on the ground. You should also not have runway entry points named the same as the taxiway that services them, such as Alpha 4, Alpha 5 etc. on 27R that come off the Alpha taxiway. Thanks to BAA's bungling the whole place is a total mess now but then what do you expect from them.

what, you mean like goodwood and southampton???

Max, how should runway access points be named????

And another thingWhether it's really a fair allegation or not it is true that LHR deviates from many standards. This will make it interesting in the future when EASA sets the rules for aerodromes - the last draft rules I saw said that an aerodrome would not be certified if it does not comply with European and ICAO Standards.

And it won't just be LHR that can't be certified - perhaps this is just another way they're trying to stop aviation. Still, I guess EASA must know what it's doing.....

<<5 letter names are for airborne use only and should be used on the ground.>>

I read that 50 times but still can't make sense of it.

Bring back the block numbers!!

Still use some of the old familiar block numbers when thinking of places to hide aircraft waiting for stands, such as 37(O) or 25(i). By the way HD, Block 85 is no longer the biggest block....its now block300!!!

IIRC, that's exactly how holding points should be named. Alpha 1 is the 1st holding point on taxiway A, Alpha 2 is the second etc.

Seems to me the answer is Yes!

ATC still refers to the old days, as in "traffic coming from the old Novembers" on occasion which intuitively was the Stands N76-N90. A lot of people still think of LHR in those old terms(!)

Five letter designators are designed for easy recognition (three or five for fixes DTY, BAGSO etc) and four letters for airports - EGLL. To change the standard would require significant changes to state flight data processing systems which are somewhat expensive.

It'll always be "Block 17"; hands up anyone who knows what that exit from 09L is called (without looking at the chart!!!)

Sorry, it had been a long day in the fog. What I meant to write was "should NOT be used on the ground". Nowhere else I have ever flown to uses 5 letter designators for ground holding points, it causes confusion every day at LHR with ATC often having to repeat the message 3 or 4 times to an overseas visitor who simply does not understand what is being said when Pluto or Saturn or Ettiv are mentioned.

No it's not, according to ICAO recommendations the runway holding point designator should not include the same letter as the taxiway serving it. So any holding point designator leading off the Alpha taxiway should not include an A. The only place at LHR where this recommendation is implemented (no doubt by chance) is the North side of 27L/09R. There are plenty of other airports around the world where the same applies but all the ones I have used that have recently been changed to be ICAO compliant don't do it. Just fly 30 minutes East to AMS to see how it should be done, LHR is a total mess by comparison.

And whilst I am having a rant. Why is it that at night when we are supposed to "follow the greens and stop at the reds" are the (non compliant) holding points not blocked with a red stop bar. I have lost count of the number of times that someone (including me a few times) has got a bollocking from ATC for going past Saturn or Titan or Horka when the green lights merrily carry on straight past it to a red stop bar further down the taxiway. Pretty sure they all have stop bars so please use them.

Max, a reference for this would be useful. If you're not sure where to go you might like to look at Annex 14 para 4.2.16 as a starting point.

If this is true, then that means most aerodromes in the UK are non-ICAO compliant (not that I think that's a bad thing).

I'm afraid that to bring up a stop bar at, say, LOKKI, means either someone else somewhere has a green route, or in some cases, the only other way to bring up stop bars at all runway holding area entry points would be to do what we call 'junction clear' the block(s) subsequent to those points. This would mean any a/c in those block(s) would be faced with no greens and lit stop bars, even though they would have been cleared to a runway entry point.

Max,

Whilst I agree that stop bars at clearance limits would be ideal, as Gonzo has said it would "drop" a bar for someone else giving them a green route through their clearance limit, OR by clearing the route to bring up the bar at say LOKKI the greens would go. In low vis we endeavour to keep stop bars lit at the delineation of GMC1,2 and 3 to prevent incursion into another GMC's ground space. This is fine when the movement rate is low as in LVP's but during normal conditions we have found that trying to keep the routes lit , expedites the traffic flow, reducing waiting times. At MOST points on the airfield we CAN bring up a bar at a clearance limit , such as short of Charlie or short of Link11 , but near the RHA's where space is tight and transfer of control goes from GMC to AIR it is almost impossible to bring up bars at Intermediate holding points like ETTIV or LOKKI, AND keep up the maximum departure rate off the runway. It would slow everything up too much.

Cheers A/T

I fly into LHR quite often, can you guys explain why the ATC vortex requirements are different at LHR from elsewhere in the world

In what way are they supposedly different?