EX FTE,. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Hold in the air at 6am would seem odd, I thought that Heathrow is relatively queit at that time?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">The 6am to 7am hour is pretty busy these days.. .. .We're usually holding by 05.45am as the traffic that is not allowed to land before 6am for noise reasons starts to turn up.. .. .Because of the above holding delays just after 6am are routinely 20mins or so. . .. .There's probably between 30 and 40 arrivals every morning between 6am and 7am.. .. .WF.

Serves him right, the p***k.. . . . <small>[ 07 March 2002, 18:49: Message edited by: Standard Speeds ]</small>

Having said that, I could not conceive that it could ever be done deliberately! Maybe a third runway, sixth terminal (assuming the fifth gets completed) and blind eye to the noise lobby would prevent some of the delays!. .. .Hope not to have caused too much upset with pseudo anti-labour/President Blair dissent!

informed opinion.i was informed by another friend working that morning , that the pm arrived during an extremely busy period associated with typical south side lack of stands.his a/c rolled to block81 and would normally vacate to the south for the royal suite.however several a/c were already insitu just off the runway awaiting the xsanadu of an available stand.to follow them would have meant further delay and consequently he was instructed to vacate right to expedite his arrival to the rs.in summary , he got there as quick as possible but more importantly as quickly as he deserved.

Hi DS,. .. .I was on duty at the time, and what you describe was exactly what happened. The flight was given priority in the air, and was subjected to much less delay on the ground than comparable T4 traffic at that time in the morning. Vacating 27L to the North was the most expeditious option in the circumstances.

EX FTE. I'm curious about your knowledge of ATC operations - just how does a "supervisor" become involved and how come delaying one aeroplane means delaying everyone else? We routinely take traffic off the holds out of their natural sequence to provide for the best landing rate. However, I do agree that a "NATS protest" is simply not on... and any airline type who would even think of such a thing is barking mad.

EX FTE. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">since he flies BA and is the PM you think that there would be some priority allocated to him!! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">He was given priority you fool. He was delayed only around 15 minutes on the ground rather than the 30 minutes - 1 hour which most T4 operators face on arrival. Do some research before telling others how to do their jobs.

mmmmmm you don't get much choice when STS/STATE FLT is in Field 18 and someone reminds you to put a D in a circle at the end of yr strip - whether you love him or hate him.. .. .B-L

RogerOut, B'Ling has a point. Whilst you may not wholeheartedly agree with the categorisation system, it is quite clearly defined in MATS Pt1.

A technical question for you ATCO's. In the UK would you put STS/HEAD or STS/STATE in block 18 if PM Blair on board? . .. .In the U.S. our President would be denoted by STS/HEAD, and other officials below him would be denoted as STS/STATE.. .. .How does this differ in the UK?. .. .Cheers,

Check 6, STS/STATE FLT. As much as he thinks he's the head, old Queenie still wins, and she has her own callsign as such. However, I had and Italian flight once which read 'STS/HEAD OF STATE', so its probably just what our flight plan inputters decide to put in!!

Bright-Ling and Whipping Boys SATCO. .. .Read your MATS. It actually says that the flight priorities are:. .. . "for use with tactical handling by ATC, and not as flow control priorites" . .. .Therefore, if an ATCO makes a tactical decision which results in a delay to the Cat D flight, there is not a problem.

What happened to the aircraft carrying Blair was as follows:. .Arrangements were being made for Blair's aircraft to be descended below the Lambourne stack for no delay when the controller checked with the pilot if he was required to comply with the night noise restrictions. Unfortunately this meant that he couldn't land before 0602. As is the norm at this time of day about 20 aircraft were also waiting to land after 0602 so Blair joined the Lambourne hold at the top and waited his turn. This resulted in him landing at about 0630. This was not therefore a Nats protest as has been suggested but purely ATC complying with Government night noise restrictions.