Mr Fishy

Couple of points if we all did that then there would be many diversions each day, especially on a good weather day when many of us do carry flight plan fuel.

Secondly it has been pointed out that diverting at the point you suggest means you burn your diversion fuel and reach your diversion with 30 minutes reserve only. Much the same as burning it in the hold except that this time you are not where everybody wants to be!

What is worring many of us now is that with the old SWORD flightplan one nearly always burned less than planned. Presumably due to slack in the SWORD program. Now we have CIRRUS which is too clever by half and appears to have no slack. It is very, very precise, just a shame the real world isn't.

Yesterday I received a letter and multi-page notice explaining why we are now going to be using 'statistical' contingency fuel ie avaraged figure using historical data. Again a very precise tool in a very imprecise environment.

When I joined BA we always took extra above the required for comfort. In fact I was told during my route training that only managers took SWORD fuel. Gradually the culture changed led by the new (then) '400 fleet. The culture is now take plan fuel unless you need more and in the process much money was saved or should I say less money was wasted carrying unnecessary fuel.

The problem now is that many of us feel that men with calculators are trying to be too clever. It is now apparent that many of us do not trust the new CIRRUS planning system and will be reluctant to take 'statistical' contingency. As somebody pointed out in conversation we will have turned a full circle and once again nobody but managers will carry CIRRUS fuel!

I am all for being thrifty but CIRRUS and 'statistical' contingency fuel are, in my opinion, a step too far.

What is really worrying is that the CAA approve all of this.

FLANKER,
________________________
Good Morning Antigua

Whats with the ? (ENRAGED Smiley)

The long haul sky god bit was just banter at your suggestion that my known world ends at Larnaca.

Anyway all the best and keep up those Balpa subs
__________________________________

LARNACA? Luton more likely
:)

Sorry - the enraged smiley was 'cos I pushed the wrong button,as the girlfriend keeps telling me. I am, after all, a pilot. Or was if the powers that be read some of this! Therefore the BALPA subs are safe. TWO disciplinaries in one career would be one too many!

TIC

ANTIGUA

PS I'm off to watch Hampshire try to play cricket, as I REALLY need to get out more!!

:cool:

Hi there and sorry for butting in here as im not an ATCO or a pilot,

It seems that there is an awful lot of commercial pressure on both ATC and the guys in the cockpit to run the system as cost effectivly and efficiently as possible, (sorry if im repeating things here) and because of this, saftey is being compromised.

OK, long haul flight of say 15hrs, a super efficient fuel planner and soon to be out of date weather info and any other unexpected changes enroute leads to the aircraft being potentially very low on fuel on arrival at their destination, yes?

If the crew decide to add extra fuel on top of the calculated reserve for their flight and then they fail to use that extra fuel, is that fuel then wasted or can it not be removed and/or re-used?

Surely the airlines cannot justify any action against crews that add 'a bit extra' for longhaul flights when they - the crews - know that things could change quite considerably by the time they reach their destination and are just making sure saftey is NOT compromised, considering that these birds cary several hundred passengers.

It also seems as if ATC procedures are a little out dated with regard to declarations about the state of the aircraft, seems most ATCO's would appreciate the extra info ( i know i would if i was in that position :) )

Again i apologise for entering into this topic but i thought you may like to hear an 'unproffesional' viewpoint.

I think you all do a fabulous job and i would much rather be flying than traveling any other way.

Kind regards

George

I wonder if we could get back to the original point of this thread before we reach the magic 100 posts? We can discuss ideal fuel reserves as much as we like, but there will always be occations when things don't go as planned, and we get a little concerned, even if we are not in the strict Mayday or Pan situations as defined by JAR. This concern can be as a result of holding at destination or diverting, especially if we have diverted from a two runway airport to a single runway airport.
Antigua is an extremely professional and competent aviator, but he is also an excellent communicator as those of you who have met him will know. What he did was to communicate his concerns to the Director as he thought that this might be more helpful than springing a Mayday on them in the go-around. In my many visits to LTCC I have always been told that you prefer us to let you know about any problems that we have. However, in Antigua's case this communication resulted in an MOR.
So perhaps we could get back to the original question. Do you want us to inform you of any problems that we might have, or do you want us to wait until we reach the strictly defined (JAR-OPS-1.375(c)) limits before springing a Mayday on you?

Airclues

Captain Airclues,

As far as I'm concerned, when there is a problem or even potential problem, please let me know ASAP - the more time I have to plan any required manoeuvres and/or arrange a gap in the sequence, the better.

OK, Guys. Can I be honest here? What worries me isn't so much the fuel (or rather lack of it) issue, but the fact that an e-mail on this forum has found it's way outside of this forum:

If, as I think I am, correct in assuming. Someone (I'll be polite and refrain from using the word lowlife) cut and pasted one of our colleagues words and took it upon themselves to distribute this around EGLL. If this is the case, then frankly, that person far from thinking that they have done some great public service has probably not only infringed Antigua's moral copyright but has breached the trust of each and every one of us users of this board. Many of the forums on Pprune are open to all and it would be a shame if they became password protected because of the pompous and misguided actions of one or two 'busy-bodies'.

At the risk of repeating myself - I will repeat myself.

Firstly let's all agree what the priority is here. Is it safety? Or is it getting as many aircraft as possible on the ground per hour and minimising fuel consumption?

Do not kid yourselves it is the former. We are all allowing the safety margins to be steadily eroded in the interests of the commercial imperative to maximise revenue and minimise costs. When I say "we", I mean pilots, controllers, airline managers, the CAA and the politicians that entrust them with the management of airspace and aviation.

Surely we can all see what is really going on? The bean-counters are prevailing and the experts - the pilots and controllers - are losing the argument.

I will stick my neck out here and nail my colours to the mast. It is time to reverse the trend - increase a/c spacing minima on final to 4 miles and carry at least 30 mins contingency fuel above and beyond the diversion reserve. Let safety come first for once and s*d the cost. We will all have to pay a little more for the privilege of flying - but at least we will have a safe operation at LHR.

Anybody know why the Herald of Free Enterprise rolled over?
Because a Finance Director mandated the sailing of ferries with open bow doors as it saved 20 minutes per turnround and made the company an extra £700,000 profit per year.

Anybody know why the Challenger Shuttle disaster happened?
Because the managers and politicians won the argument and the launch went ahead against the better judgement of the engineers who suspected the o-rings would not function properly and exhaust gas blow-out was likely.

Anybody know why the Hatfield rail crash happened?
Work it out for yourself.

It is true that the PIC must use his judgement in deciding what fuel to load for his trip. It is equally true to say that, living in an imperfect world, things will not always work out the way they were expected to. To cover every eventuality would be financially impractical and would jeopardise the existance of many carriers. It too is not a competent thing to do. The question here is balance.

I believe the crux of the issue boils down to government policy. Airlines must be allowed to operate in a fiancially wise manner, taking a balanced view of the issues. Govenment policy has failed to balance the provision of redundant runway capacity in line with the growth in demand for Heathrow. REDUNDANT runway capacity is not wastage (as believed by many who do sums) but an essential part of the safety culture that we should be living in. Not only does it remove the need to pack traffic to the very limit, which itself is unwise, but it permits the allocation of a separate runway for traffic with difficulties of any kind, thereby protecting the need to keep the traffic moving. The refusal thus far to provide such capacity is negligent in my opinion and IS worthy of an MOR. It is something that we have got wrong and it must be put right, quickly. Lets hope the DETR sees sense and are smart about it.

In the interim I offer the following observation: Every evening at about 19:00 the outside line goes, it is always BA ops., re the CONC. Knowing they are always tight they obtain updated delay data and use that in their planning. (I have seen it divert without even getting into the hold.) I would hope that same data could be applied to other traffic.

As far as r/t calls are concerned: One never knows what unforseen problems you are going to encounter on the approach e.g. flaps or gear. If we get to PAN things have gone wrong and to that end I will always respond positively to a hint about fuel. At the same time, that gives you guys a responsibility to me to be wise in your planning. I don't have any problem with a captain making me aware that he is tight on fuel but remember, asking for a bit more room doesn't achieve a whole lot anyway because and extra .5 nm will be no good if the preceding bursts a tyre.

Antigua, I support your actions and thank you for a debate that can only further safety. We need to get back on the flight decks.

CJ

Greatorex........

I was always told:

"Never ASSUME it makes an ASS out of U and ME".

Fraid you have fallen into that trap.

Some facts for you:

1. Work is Terminal Control not LL, as APP Radar is provided from there not the tower building.

2. The "lowlife" who sent the copy of the email to us at TC was Antigua's fleet commander (or some other such similarly titled position, cannot remember exactly who it was) at one of the World's favourite airline's, and it was not marked as confidential, controlled, or infact any other restriction placed on its distribution. It was opened for discussion as it contained "nothing controversial".

3. The email was nothing to do with this board, nor was PPRUNE ever discussed, it was an internal mail, sent from the airline to NATS, as a follow up to a CA1261 report.

I should point out too, that the airline concerned was inappropriate to name the controller concerned by including his name in the 1261 copy........1261 reports are meant to be confidential when discussed outside of the parties directly involved.

I suggest greatorex, there is only one busy body involved in this discussion..............you, sir.

In which case, I was wrong and apologise.

How leisurely it would be to go back to 4-mile spacing at Heathrow, as it was when I started back in the very early 70s! Four-mile spacing in the wind conditions we had yesterday would have given us a landing rate of around 30 an hour. Given that the traffic offering is over 40 for many hours of the day we'd end up at 10pm with about 100 a/c holding, either in our stacks or on the ground somewhere. I'm not altogether sure that the airline industry could take that. One answer is to run the place all night, then we could shift at least the same amount of traffic with 4 or 5 mile spacing..... but the noise freaks are mega powerful and they'd go bananas. (I'll bet there are some on here - I've certainly fielded irate phone calls from airline pilots complaining about aircraft noise. Can you actually believe it?)

Let's hope it's a quite afternoon today - Saturday usually is, thank God!

Antigua,

Thanks for starting this posting.

Interesting replies – most very useful but,

Flanker – rhymes with *anker. Rather apposite given the tone and content of his postings.

Capt Peacock. Again well named. A pompous know it all on an old TV series. Can you imagine him going to work (if he is in fact a working airline pilot) with two flight bags. One with the normal stuff and the other with his personal copy of the UK AIP (was Air Pilot), JAR’s, ANO, AIC,s and Rules of the Air.

I too am worried about Cirrus and now Statistical Contingency. We are cutting things down to far and the time is beginning to come when we will revert to the old days and carry some for Mum. Otherwise our colleagues in ATC are going to hear the words” Be advised that in the event of a go-around we will be declaring an emergency” more often. Will also bear in mind the quote from the ATC Manual that separation will be increased at the “request of the pilot”.

The only good thing we have on our side at the moment is the re-opening of Afghan airspace. Helped a lot from BKK last week.

I have not yet received the package (mail a little slow to frogland) but will read the last sentence carefully and probably react accordingly.

Enjoy the cricket – we are off for a lunch gastronomique


Beerdrinker

PS. Will not tell Mrs Antigua about the girlfriend’s buttons.

True enough Mr Director.

A very senior NATS manager once told me that using the argument of safety as a lever to obtain additional runway capacity would be to admit that we have already taken things too far. If we have gone too far, would we be able to admit it? An inability to acknowledge error in our game is dangerous and I am sure it is something that the crews work on in CRM.

If 4 miles is the spacing that we ought to be using then using less is to allow commercial pressure to back us into a corner that jeopardises safety. Now, if that has happened we need to be big enough to admit that we have got it wrong and act accordingly.

All the TC sectors have a target sector flow which is 80% of the sector capacity, so I am told, supposedly giving some contingency. Except Heathrow, where traffic is flowed usually 2 per hour OVER the runway capacity thereby DELIBERATELY inducing pressure on the final director to pack the traffic in. Does that not indicate that we have allowed an imbalance between capacity and demand to develop?

If the airlines are to be allowed to operate a financially competent (as well as safety conscious) fuel policy, which is essential, then SPARE runway capacity must be provided to cater for the unforseen. The government's policy therefore must be questionable.

Have a good afternoon, see you tomorrow.

Pount 4

:)

beerdrinker

Thanks for calling by and insulting me,very helpful.

Since you then go on to more or less back up what I've been saying, what does that make you? :mad:

Antigua - one of the best threads I've had the privilege of reading, thanks for kicking off the debate. Raised multi worthwhilies.

Sounds like
2.5 miles is pushing the margins
beancounters are ruling both roosts too much
London is too busy
.... so, send those big jets on a fuel stop off to sunny Prestwick. (oh I forgot, they used to do that when they were paraffinically challenged in the 70s). That way us poor holidaymaking disadvantaged palefaces don't have to fly south to the big smoke, and then north again 4 hrs later, waving to inlaws as we flush the aerial loo over the Clyde. And the nice drivers get a nice crew rest day to play golf and buy beer for the kindly ATCOs who don't get to see them on post 9/11 non-existant fam flights.

Who loses ?

Grumpy beanies.

Who cares ?

PS I thought a Cirrus was one of those lovely plastic planes with the parachute, like wot's just arrived at Glesca - drool

Beerdrinker
I actually found Flanker and Captain Peacock`s comment`s very valid and it is obvious that their main concern is SAFETY, I don`t have a problem with that!!

Antigua – Very interesting! Amazed to know that a go-around could result in a Mayday!!!

For that reason alone I would be grateful for the “heads up”.
!!!!! happens, I’m sure all pilots, at one time or another, (long haul to light a/c) have arrived at destination with less than planned fuel or less than they would have liked. I have!

Ok EGLL is different, but even so you’re entitled to the extra spacing. Good call and very valid reason and wouldn’t cause a too big a problem at majority of other airports.

However, a word of caution. A runway can often be taken out of use without warning, for numerous reasons, it doesn’t have to be a cockup on anyones part. Normally because of the speed of the ops people out there, it goes un-noticed, but it can easily result in 1 or 2 go-arounds!

Anyone (even Joe public if they new what one was) are entitled the file an MOR. Personally I try to avoid paper work! From the reaction here in this forum it may well be justified, after all there IS a SAFTY implication, then best to have it out in the open.
That’s my brake over, back to the desk.
:cool:

Christopher James
_______________________________________
Antigua, I support your actions and thank you for a debate that can only further safety. We need to get back on the flight decks.

CJ
_______________________________________

Thank you CJ

Nearly one hundred postings. A few backs up, which means to me that my original intention of kick starting the debate worked wonders.

'Expeditedescent' hope you have calmed down. The piece of paper you circulated around LATCC appears to be my official response to the original MOR. It seems my Flight Manager, a very nice and switched on chap ('only' a First Officer too - would that happen at NATS? Or is it still 'Buggins Turn' there?), passed it on to you verbatim. I guess that is a vote of confidence in me! It was no more or less confidential than the original MOR, and like the MOR, no doubt, contained my name. So please don't get stroppy about that. It was also factual. I HAVE done go-arounds due to lack of spacing. If you find that too difficult to swallow, then I'm sorry. See my previous posting about the dangers in this game of thinking you are beyond critisism.

Hopefully I wiil get to meet the controller concerned, and he can criticise me all he likes, as long as he lets me buy him a beer.

NOW, CJ, sorry to stray again. You say.
_________________________________

We need to get back on the flight decks.
_________________________________

..........indeed! What's stopping you? Here's another 'Did You Know?'

DYK that you are still welcome on our flight decks. The extract below is from a recent missive from our Supreme Leader. However the policy NEVER changed, even after 9/11.
___________________________________________

FAMILIARISATION FLIGHTS

The financial constraints on our business and the security situation following 11th September have compelled us to review our policy towards familiarisation flights for non-British Airways employees.

Although in the past we have taken a relatively generous attitude to requests for people such as Air Training Corps cadets or serving personnel in the Armed Forces to experience a flight with us, there is a measurable cost associated with these tickets. In the present climate, we need to preserve every penny we can. Accordingly the General Management team has decided that we can only justify these tickets for our own trainee pilots as part of their curriculum or for Air Traffic Control Officers as part of the long-standing liaison programme.
_____________________________________________

So .......... from our point of view, there is nothing stopping you. Not EVEN our bean-counters. If you have been told anything different, I would suspect your own bean-counters!! Not a totally suprising thought to the average ATCO, I think.

Kind Regards to all our readers......

ANTIGUA
:)

So where do we go from here? Should pilots and controllers try to persuade the regulators of UK Aviation to introduce an official 'low fuel' call, without the need to declare a 'PAN'? Would such a procedure be open to abuse, and therefore fall in to disrepute, as seems to have sometimes happened in the past?
Might it give false comfort to the programmers of 'Cirrus' et al, and tempt an even meaner fuel policy?

Contentious questions perhaps, and I don't have a ready answer :(

Antigua, re the flight decks:

I was under the impression, perhaps not very well informed, that it had been decided that giving non-uniformed persons access to the flight decks would alarm the pax. I had also been under the impression that our (NATS) famflight scheme had been suspended.

This is exactly the sort of issue that we need to talk to each other about but I do fear that the issue needs to be addressed in far higher circles than we are capable of reaching. As has been said, airlines must be allowed to operate in a financially competent, as well as safety conscious manner but the volume of traffic that is being scheduled onto Heathrow's two runways makes that a difficult balance to judge. Having used every last scrap of capacity to move aeroplanes we have backed ourselves into a safety issue.

To truely solve this problem we have to remove runway capacity from the equation. Is it something for our professional bodies to take up on our behalf? If the extra capacity government is planning doesn't come to Heathrow then this less than satisfactory situation is with us for the forseeable future.

CJ

Christopher James
Still just another number
posted 28th April 2002 18:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antigua, re the flight decks:

I was under the impression, perhaps not very well informed, that it had been decided that giving non-uniformed persons access to the flight decks would alarm the pax. I had also been under the impression that our (NATS) famflight scheme had been suspended.
__________________________________________

As you can see CJ, reports on the demise of the scheme have been exaggerated.

Flight deck occupants in civvies may leave the flight deck for physcialogical (sp?) purposes. In other words a pee etc... if (other than 400) the loo isn't on the flt. deck. This has been taken to mean a short stroll to combat DVT etc... If one was to sit and watch a movie during that short stroll.............

We still have our families up there, and if my dragon has packed her SS uniform inadvertantly...... well I guess that means civvies.

As for your point about powers above us needing to get involved, well they will say 'there is no evidence of any disquiet in the ranks'.

Well, to paraphrase Ken Woolstenhome (sp again?) ----- 'There is now'.

Regards

ANTIGUA

;)

Antigua

I appreciate that you sometimes phrase things deliberately in a way that provokes controversy but your quote

' Flight deck occupants in civvies may leave the flight deck for physcialogical (sp?) (sic) purposes. In other words a pee etc... if (other than 400) the loo isn't on the flt. deck. This has been taken to mean a short stroll to combat DVT etc... If one was to sit and watch a movie during that short stroll............. '

is, I presume, taken from your reading of a message from the former '400 CP on the BA Compuserve forum. In order that there is no misunderstanding leading to an overzealous CC member reporting said stroll and watching of a movie it might be pertinent to point out that this interpretation of physiological need was shortly therafter contradicted and expressly ruled out by the notice dated 7th Oct 2001 from the Director of Flight Crew himself which specifically states '.........but an approved jump seat traveller must remain in the flight deck throughout the flight. The only exception to this is for an essential call of nature.'

Thanks MM

You are quite right to pick me up on that. This isn't the place to go into some of the mental manoeuvrings that went on with our now departed CP over the interpretation of the regs on this.

As I remember, they were still going on as he left!

The point is, I think, that most of the fam flights would be short(ish) in duration, and the person concerned would probably want to remain on the flt. deck anyway, that being the purpose of coming, in the first place.

Up to date 'local' instructions would I'm sure be explained on the day.

I too am a great supporter of the whole idea. I know I get a lot out of it when we are made most welcome at LATCC, (and other places, 'spekesoftly')

Like all things in this business at the moment, the situation is 'fluid'. Don't do no harm to ask, though, do it?

ATB

ANTIGUA

Pilot visits to ATC, controller fam flights - yes, all good stuff, but aren't we letting the real culprits off the hook?

In an earlier post, Antigua mentions 'our bosses committees...........hiding behind risk assessment models', perhaps it's time to get these guys on fam flights, and let them see the very real consequences of their policies.

Antigua:

This morning very strong winds rapidly built us 30 odd minutes delay. You might imagine the pressure one then feels under to get traffic tight and it takes great self discipline not to succumb. Inevitably there are "casualties", today it was BAW 84. Whilst this was going on, 3 cranes were blocking the approach to 27R leaving us perilously exposed should something have gone wrong with 27L. That is both unprofessional and unsatisfactory but is apparently a commercial decision.

Evidently the policies regarding fuel and runways are are not satisfactory and clearly there is disquiet in the ranks. The bean counters don't understand/ want to understand the position they put us in; all they see is numbers. Heathrow Airport Limited want to increase the hourly declared capacity, presumably on the basis that we often land mid 40s per hour. (This morning we did very well (acknowledged by management) to reach 39.) That they can even ask demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding.

Can BALPA not get involved and argue the cause? The issue here is safety and that ought to concern them.

Point 4

:confused:

Thanks Antigua, I will be actively persuing a fam flight in the near future.

I take your point about disquiet in the ranks. Lets hope that somebody takes notice.

CJ

Can BALPA not get involved and argue the cause? The issue here is safety and that ought to concern them.

Point 4
__________________________________________

'ANTIGUA'................................................... .................. Well you do say callsign only!

Hello once again. Thanks for sticking with us.

Probably, is probably the answer to your question. I think there may be a bit more milage left in this, but when you're all sitting back exhausted, I'm going to collate all this and ask them the very same question. BALPA are having a minor civil war at the moment but I'm sure I can get into an ATS Study Group (or whatever they call themselves this week) meeting and put it to them.

It may not suprise you to know that in my younger days I sat on this committee ( for about ten years - or so it seemed at the time). That was way back in the days of the likes of Fred Frost etc. from your side........... yeah, well I did say I'd done the rounds.

As an aside, and to show how long ago it was, I wrote the BALPA appraisal of OMEGA, and together with a collegue did the pilot side of TCAS at Malvern. (YES..... it started off as a ground based thing). At least on this side of the Pond.

Anyway, I know how slow the wheels can turn, (Dennis Leonards' alpha-numeric callsigns?). It is, however the next step unless someone has a brighter idea?

An incident/crash, God save us, would 'help' of course. But we're trying to stop that, are we not?

Regards

ANTIGUA

:eek:

Hello Antigua,

Sorry but a family crisis has stopped me replying at length to the earlier post:

I would like to add some more clarity.

I don't need to calm down because I was never that worked up, well apart from greatorex's ill informed assumptions, for which he gracefully apologised.

I replied in support of my collegue, who filed the MOR because he thought it incumbent upon him to do so in light of the events........Not out of vindictiveness or any anger or unhappiness. I repeat he was perfectly happy to accomodate your request. So please lets nobody accuse this gentleman of doing something with some intent that was not there.

I am a bit surprised that you choose to re-iterate the point about go-arounds due to spacing.....I never said that go-arounds due to that reason do not occur, but the fact is that it is not the reason for the vast majority of goarounds...........to try to claim that is a bit demeaning to your so far itelligent and reasoned arguments.
I am a TMA controller by the way, so I really do not care much about final approach spacing............except when my erstwhile collegues screw it up and they fill up the holds (joke guys !!).

I won't answer the comment about thinking we are above criticsism, as frankly I find it a bit childish.

The feedback I passed on to you was the feeling of people at work, not mine personally, so please don't shoot the messanger......sorry if you don't like it but you did get the backs up of some of our Heathrow people, the way the mail was worded.

The fact that your name was contained in the mail sent to us, is really not relevant to a 1261, which is supposed to have assured confidentiality, and again, it was not me that was upset about it, but the individual who filed the report.........that is his perogative.

The controller concerned will not criticsise you if you meet him, because as far as he is concerned you did nothing wrong in the situation. The realtive merits of fuel loadings etc etc, are all above the remit of humble ATCO's.

Respectfully

Keep us posted, I would be interested to know what BALPA have to say.

Point 4

:)

Hello ED (for short)

I'm going to knock it on the head after this, I think we're into semantics and not a million miles apart on anything.
___________________________________________

I am a bit surprised that you choose to re-iterate the point about go-arounds due to spacing.....I never said that go-arounds due to that reason do not occur, but the fact is that it is not the reason for the vast majority of goarounds...........to try to claim that is a bit demeaning to your so far itelligent and reasoned arguments.
________________________________ED

Can we agree that if spacing was MORE than 2.5 miles, by how much is up for arguement, then IF the controller got it a BIT wrong, or, if the preceeding pilot got it a BIT wrong in clearing, or if the landing pilot got it a BIT wrong on the app. speed, or any combination of the above, then a 'dodgy' go-around MIGHT be avoided, and a MAYDAY may not ruin the day? THAT'S what this is all about.
_______________________________ANTIGUA

I won't answer the comment about thinking we are above criticsism, as frankly I find it a bit childish.
_______________________________ED

Sorry about that. I'm sticking with the comment though, ONLY because ANY pilot, at any stage of his many checks and check-rides that displays any hint of being unable to accept criticism from even the lowliest of collegues, gets looked at VERY keenly these days. I kind of imagined it was the same on your side of the fence, and didn't realise that it might upset anyone.

I hope your family crisis was short lived and all is well. I honestly don't know whether us aviators are better off in being able to get away from them on the other side of the world, or worse off through not being around to deal with them before they get out of hand. I feel threadcreep coming on.

Kind Regards to all.......

ANTIGUA
:confused:

ED and Antigua,

The bad news: the statistics show that most go arounds at Heathrow are caused by tight spacing.
The good news: only 0.24% of approaches at Heathrow result in a go around.

That would be a touch & go then? :rolleyes:
I know what you meant..... :p

Smartears! ;) Did I spell that right?

There's a road with an 80 speed limit.
Ok, I think, if the limit is valid for an old driver, at night under the rain, why can't I, young and with quicker reflexes, during the day in good weather, increase that limit to 130?

We'll try to answer this question later on.


Everybody focused on the fuel aspect in this thread.
Those who focused on the planning stage were totally wrong: if you load the legal quantity, which must also include the extra LHR holding, you are right, safe and cannot be criticised.

Also those who focused on the fuel management at destination were not on target.
I assume you, Antigua, landed with at least final reserve that day.
It's perfectly legal to land with, say, 35 minutes of fuel left in your tanks.
It is also obvious that, if you have to go around, you will have to use part of the final res. fuel, thus you will have to declare an emergency.
All this is perfectly legal scenario, and you have declared an emergency because you are using even only a few minutes of you final res. fuel, that does't mean you are going to crash five minutes after the missed approach.

The real problem, that day, was in your request for more spacing:
the director was right in MORing you, not because you were not entitled to request more spacing, but just to obtain an official explanation from you.
Not the end of the world.

Heathrow depends on that infamous 2.5nm separation like life on this planet depends on oxygen.
If everybody requested more spacing without having to give an official explanation....


I know the true reason for your request was being behind an UzbekistansecondtimetoplanetearthTu154!

Had you been behind a BA737, I'm pretty sure you would not have made such a request.

Being a Great Captain, your assessment was realistic , and that's the point.
Is it fair to get the same separation behind an UzbekistansecondtimetoplanetearthTu154 and a BA737?
The realistic answer is NO!
And I'm totally with you in your realistic way of thinking.
Unfortunately, the society doesn't allow us to always be realistic: we are not allowed to say certain truths (having a deep experience of a certain continent, I know what I mean...)

I know that having tons of experience, knowledge and abilities, leads you to think you are entitled to behave more realistically than others, sometimes.
But when it comes to rules, it's a bit different: if everybody was allowed his personal interpretation of the rules, like in the speed limit example, a mess would result, albeit you are, realistically and logically, right!

The rule at LHR is 2.5 nm separation.
You have to accept that like everybody else.
If you have to go around you will declare an emergency and get priority for a quick return.
Perfectly legal (and CAA believes that legal means safe )!

I know (well, I assume, since you didn't declare an emergency) you didn't have a real fuel problem, and you just wanted to be cooperative in playing this crazy LHR game, but that raises a big question: are we allowed to be realistic? are we allowed to increase the speed limit because we are young, it's daylight and the weather is good? are we allowed to request more spacing because the preceding is a TU154?

In a better world, we would be.
Actually we can't, and we, the Great Realistic Captains in this case,have to find a way to obtain the same result cheating a little bit, since officially we can't say the truth.

Maybe the magic word is "appreciate ": it doesn't commit yourself like an official "request ", and if the controller is smart he will understand immediately, if not you will have to accept a slightly higher risk of a go around.
" We appreciate a few more yards behind the tupolev..." with the right voice inflection, should obtain the result, if you are lucky, without riskink a MOR.


LEM
a fluff-jet captain
;)

Spacing on Final Approach
 

Hello there Antigua....bet you've forgotten the original post.....this has been a good read. If perchance this happens again and you want to keep it in-cockpit I recommend you get hold of a copy of the AIC on Wake Vortex. A pilot is entitled to ask for increased space from the one ahead....if the controller asks why I would respond "for operational reasons"....if the controller asks a second time then YOU report him/her......and respond that you will discuss it after landing with his/her supervisor. The London TMA is not a good venue for protracted negotiation over the RT. This solution is not intended to exactly address your original post but offers a practical alternative to get round the problem, at least until you land and the adrenalin levels have settled.

I like your idea too, 055166k, but it's gonna be a bit hard to explain, later on, why a 747-400 needs more spacing because of the Tu154 vortex...

LEM

Space on Final
 

The point of the response was to be positive and to recognise and respect the authority of the commander of one of the world's biggest passenger-carrying aircraft....easy to overlook isn't it?......and a response given after landing would, I am sure, be forthcoming. A discussion of the various viewpoints could take place off the shopfloor. I will never try to second guess the decision of an aircraft captain.....I am not qualified to do so!

I agree with groundzero. Some ATCers file MORs for silly reasons and most of them have no idea of fuel requirements, what is safe and what is not. Someone once MORd an aircraft for arriving at OCK with no holding fuel because they didnt know what the rules actually are.

055166k, if all controllers were like you, it would be a wonderful world, like back in the time, when a captain was a CAPTAIN.

Today, and it's a pity, automation and the big system prevail on the human being, and even a 744 Captain is subject to the same rules of a bank employee!

Safety first?
Actually, MONEY first, and safety second. :ugh:

Some very very good reading, this post.

All the reasons behind landing with minimum fuel in tanks is fully understandable. It has happened to me, and at some point in everyones career will happen to you. There are allways factors not accounted for. If they add up on one flight you land with less fuel then you (or the computer) planned for. Thanks to the way we USED to think in aviation practice, some margins are build in to the rules, company procedures and education. So if one day you stepped out of bed with the wrong leg does not mean you'll crash as a result. Thanks to the back up designed into the system.
IF however people are trying to run an airport stretched to its limits. With procedures in the margin of whats legally, human performance wise and technically possible. Than think what will happen if all the bad factors play up on one day. If you arrive on that day with minimum fuel in tanks on short final with that aircraft with a blown tire/ rejected take-off etc....in front of you.
I love to go to Heathrow, and admire the people making it work. But I still got that feeling that its an accident waiting to happen. Again, no offense to people making it happen, but more to the system driving us all in the wrong direction. The reason being either being money, companies or politics. probably a combination of these three which is the worst of all. As this combination is ussually the most difficult to pursue to a change. Everybody waiting for somebody else to make the thirst move, in the mean time saying; we have done it now for years and it's been going great...

If you think safety is expensive. Try an accident.

Keep up the good work at Heathtrow:ok: