Heathrow Landing Fee
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Io
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an air traffic controller at Heathrow you will NOT BE MADE WELCOME!! Do you not think we have better things to do than find ways to squeeze you and your stupid little single into an already overcrowded system.
am all for the "Service" part, and a lot of these people get their ATSOCA services paid for by the Airlines. The hardworking people of Cardiff, Farnborough, Birmingham, etc provide these services to them free of charge.... They have plenty of airfields to visit elsewhere that won't cause disruption to the very people who pay for their "free" services.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are of course correct Maxflyer...... and for my outburst I apologise. These comments were made in light of the past few months of some serious pressure for the boys and girls in ATC at Heathrow which is made worse by some difficult issues surrounding our new control casting their shadow over us, and the ever overbearing presence of our customers.
To top it all off, I had a deep and meaningless conversation with an ops manager for a large airline the other night about us delaying a 737BBJ that they were handling... He failed to see the correlation between a delay that happened to occur on the ground to the BBJ, and the fact that we had just landed 8 of his widebodies on the departure runway over the course of an hour and a half (the BBJ was waiting at N4E while we landed one, departed one for a period to help the TC boys out with their holding delay). When presented with the option as to whether we left his 8 widebodies in the hold for another 20 mins and cost them some more money, just for the sake of the BBJ he was reluctant to comment. Hence, telephone call terminated, temper flared, etc
The sad fact of the matter is that we are under strict instructions to refuse all requests for the slow performers to come into Heathrow due to the potential for widespread disruption. I too am a taxpayer and would be extremely happy that my tax is going towards keeping ATSOCA free for the GA community. Sadly, the government no longer fund us, even though they own a share in NATS, and the CAA continue to turn the thumbscrews with the en-route price capping that they are forcing upon us. We have little choice but to do all we can for our biggest customers. Like it or not, they have the say. My suggestion to the GA community is make use of places like EGNX (I have a former housemate who works there who strongly supports GA) while you still can
To top it all off, I had a deep and meaningless conversation with an ops manager for a large airline the other night about us delaying a 737BBJ that they were handling... He failed to see the correlation between a delay that happened to occur on the ground to the BBJ, and the fact that we had just landed 8 of his widebodies on the departure runway over the course of an hour and a half (the BBJ was waiting at N4E while we landed one, departed one for a period to help the TC boys out with their holding delay). When presented with the option as to whether we left his 8 widebodies in the hold for another 20 mins and cost them some more money, just for the sake of the BBJ he was reluctant to comment. Hence, telephone call terminated, temper flared, etc
The sad fact of the matter is that we are under strict instructions to refuse all requests for the slow performers to come into Heathrow due to the potential for widespread disruption. I too am a taxpayer and would be extremely happy that my tax is going towards keeping ATSOCA free for the GA community. Sadly, the government no longer fund us, even though they own a share in NATS, and the CAA continue to turn the thumbscrews with the en-route price capping that they are forcing upon us. We have little choice but to do all we can for our biggest customers. Like it or not, they have the say. My suggestion to the GA community is make use of places like EGNX (I have a former housemate who works there who strongly supports GA) while you still can
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Van Nuys (Class D) has more movements that LHR I believe, on two runways, all little aircraft. Good controllers. Same with LGB in the late 90s, Class D during the day and 4th busiest airfield in the world at the time. Good controllers. PHX used to move more heavy traffic than Heathrow when it had two runways and there were a couple of flight schools on the field. ATC would fit a light single in there without too much difficulty and in my experience more often than not with no holding at all. Good controllers. Don't know why LHR should be any different from an ATC point of view. Would think a spamcan coming in would add some variety.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never really understood why the speed of light singles is an issue for ATC'ers at large airports.
Yes it would be, if you think in terms of aircraft coming down the glide slope following the localiser, but light aircraft don't have to do that. We can quite happily orbit on base, then when released from the orbits, we'd have a very short final. We'd be only on the extended centreline for a minute of so, and at that speed should make little or no difference.
Is it something to do with seperating IFR traffic from us?
As for the issue of ATC costs, ATC is largely there to protect commerical traffic. It's not their for our benefit, although we do get a benefit. If there was no commerical traffic, there would be very little ATC. Why should we be asked to pay for a service to protect someone else?
dp
Yes it would be, if you think in terms of aircraft coming down the glide slope following the localiser, but light aircraft don't have to do that. We can quite happily orbit on base, then when released from the orbits, we'd have a very short final. We'd be only on the extended centreline for a minute of so, and at that speed should make little or no difference.
Is it something to do with seperating IFR traffic from us?
As for the issue of ATC costs, ATC is largely there to protect commerical traffic. It's not their for our benefit, although we do get a benefit. If there was no commerical traffic, there would be very little ATC. Why should we be asked to pay for a service to protect someone else?
dp
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DP,
I don't believe Heathrow accepts VFR fixed wing traffic (could be wrong, Heli's being a different matter) so any light aircraft arriving will be IFR & will be put into the traffic pattern.
FC
I don't believe Heathrow accepts VFR fixed wing traffic (could be wrong, Heli's being a different matter) so any light aircraft arriving will be IFR & will be put into the traffic pattern.
FC
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FC
You mean SVFR of course being a Class A zone...and yes we do have SVFR traffic.
As I said, the Aeromed light twins often take SVFR.
As for the short pattern stuff, that is what we do with SVFR traffic, normally holding abeam a 5 mile final. However, this then blocks the Helicopter routes.
The biggest problem with light traffic is the face that if it arrives amongst a lod of heavies it has to have 7nm vortex and a larger gap behind because of the lower speeds.
You mean SVFR of course being a Class A zone...and yes we do have SVFR traffic.
As I said, the Aeromed light twins often take SVFR.
As for the short pattern stuff, that is what we do with SVFR traffic, normally holding abeam a 5 mile final. However, this then blocks the Helicopter routes.
The biggest problem with light traffic is the face that if it arrives amongst a lod of heavies it has to have 7nm vortex and a larger gap behind because of the lower speeds.
I recall once having this problem landing a lightweight aeroplane at a busy military field. The solution was straightforward - they had me land crosswind on a runway which had about double the length I needed BEFORE the intersection.
Possibly civil rules won't permit that, but it made life easier for everybody that day.
G
Possibly civil rules won't permit that, but it made life easier for everybody that day.
G
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 69
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first went to LHR - in the Arrow - we were asked by ATC if we could maintain 180 knots to the outer marker. Negative.
We did offer 140kts to the threshold if we could "land long", as we needed to slow down before extending the undercarriage (in the flare and subsequent "float").
I was told that light twins are allowed into LHR but a single could not approach the 27's and still be able to glide clear in the event of an engine failure - dunno about the 09's.
I also thought, however, that a licensed aerodrome was PROHIBITED from political selection of which aircraft it WOULD accept, and that all operators were to be given equal access (assuming air law, runway slots, handling etc).
We did offer 140kts to the threshold if we could "land long", as we needed to slow down before extending the undercarriage (in the flare and subsequent "float").
I was told that light twins are allowed into LHR but a single could not approach the 27's and still be able to glide clear in the event of an engine failure - dunno about the 09's.
I also thought, however, that a licensed aerodrome was PROHIBITED from political selection of which aircraft it WOULD accept, and that all operators were to be given equal access (assuming air law, runway slots, handling etc).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, if you fit a light single in then some airline jockey in an LHR stack is going to get delayed by a couple of minutes or so. No doubt somebody will moan and that will be transmitted down to the guys on the coal face who will no doubt think it's not worth the bother. A shame but seems to be the way things are.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has nothing to do with ATC - purely a decision for the Airport Authority.
If they want to land only 38 per hour instead of 44, receiving less money in doing so, and upsetting their resident airlines what do I care!?
(obviously I do care if I have to sit at OCK for an extra 20 mins when off a 14hr flight)
ATCOs get paid the same either way (and go home at shift end regardless of the delays)
I think the airlines may have the largest grumble at the delay.
And to re-iterate what is already said - any inbound form outside CAS gets the same delay, irrespective of a light single or B747. When a light aircraft arrives they get to hold for the same amount of time as aircraft in the 4 stacks (Often outside CAS) and with an EAT if they are in use.
When they depart, they get the same start up delays as everyone else (often up to 30 mins) and sit amongst 20 others at the hold - which if they are departing one a minute is another 20+ minutes of delays.
....and I say again.... LIGHT TWINS CAN LAND ANY RUNWAY!
If they want to land only 38 per hour instead of 44, receiving less money in doing so, and upsetting their resident airlines what do I care!?
(obviously I do care if I have to sit at OCK for an extra 20 mins when off a 14hr flight)
ATCOs get paid the same either way (and go home at shift end regardless of the delays
)I think the airlines may have the largest grumble at the delay.
And to re-iterate what is already said - any inbound form outside CAS gets the same delay, irrespective of a light single or B747. When a light aircraft arrives they get to hold for the same amount of time as aircraft in the 4 stacks (Often outside CAS) and with an EAT if they are in use.
When they depart, they get the same start up delays as everyone else (often up to 30 mins) and sit amongst 20 others at the hold - which if they are departing one a minute is another 20+ minutes of delays.
....and I say again.... LIGHT TWINS CAN LAND ANY RUNWAY!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis - that's called LAHSO (Land and Hold Short Operations) and they do it (and I've done it) in the US, but not here.
I'm a bit ambivalent about it: it scares me a bit. Think about the go-around.
Tim
I'm a bit ambivalent about it: it scares me a bit. Think about the go-around.
Tim
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a worker bee at LHR may I ask why anyone in their right mind would want to go there in a light or corporate aircraft unless it was absolutely necessary.
I've operated at LHR for two different airlines and I've been in and out as a corporate - it's a huge nightmare (although professionally run) as a sked carrier but private... whew! Awful.
Go to F'Boro, Fairoaks, Blackbushe, Denham or Northolt. They are much better (spesh F'boro)
Sort of related but am I right in thinking that the 'published' delays that we are told at LHR are now on the pessimistic side of things? My expectations are seemingly now better managed and (more importantly) I don't end up whistling around the hold with a lengthening delay.
Does this mean that my ASRs got listened to! Hurrah!
I've operated at LHR for two different airlines and I've been in and out as a corporate - it's a huge nightmare (although professionally run) as a sked carrier but private... whew! Awful.
Go to F'Boro, Fairoaks, Blackbushe, Denham or Northolt. They are much better (spesh F'boro)
Sort of related but am I right in thinking that the 'published' delays that we are told at LHR are now on the pessimistic side of things? My expectations are seemingly now better managed and (more importantly) I don't end up whistling around the hold with a lengthening delay.
Does this mean that my ASRs got listened to! Hurrah!
Guest
Posts: n/a
halo doesn't speak for all of us Heathrow folks...well not for me anyway
I'd welcome the diversion of the occasional light single into the airport as was fairly common in the past, would make a pleasant change from the usual "leave Lambourne heading the same as you did yesterday, and the day before that as well" routine
Oh for the days when approach was where it was meant to be and we used to get interesting passing trade to give us a flypast down one of the runways, he said wistfully.
WF.
I'd welcome the diversion of the occasional light single into the airport as was fairly common in the past, would make a pleasant change from the usual "leave Lambourne heading the same as you did yesterday, and the day before that as well" routine
Oh for the days when approach was where it was meant to be and we used to get interesting passing trade to give us a flypast down one of the runways, he said wistfully.
WF.
Genghis - that's called LAHSO (Land and Hold Short Operations) and they do it (and I've done it) in the US, but not here.
Whenever I've seen it, it's in a controlled field, where it's timed so that in the event of a go-around you are doing it in a time-slot that ensures no prang. Seems sensible, but not something that you could possibly allow traffic to sort out for itself.
G
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warped Factor is indeed correct.... I don't speak for everybody at Heathrow.... However, ask yourself how many go-arounds we have had because the front aircraft was a 146 and because he slowed right down inside 4 DME. Would the problem not be worse with something even slower? How many singles can do 160kts to 4DME?? Once somebody in his 172 corks the speed back inside 4DME the jet behind is going to catch up pretty quickly. Do we need to make the Heathrow Radar peoples lives more difficult with speed control and vectoring, on top of their already heavy workload with weather avoiding and large holding delays?
Alan M is almost correct, except in that the MATS 2 says "Propeller driven aircraft MTOW not above 5700kgs may land on the departure runway PROVIDED IT DOES NOT AFFECT DEPARTURES" . How often during the day do you get a planned gap in departure traffic so that you can land somebody? Everybody moans about doing TEAM, so imagine what it would be like TEAMing with loads of lows and slows.
As mentioned earlier there is the problem of wake vortex inbound (following a heavy requires 7 miles which has to be applied in Class A airspace), and also the problem of departure seps outbound. A standard 2 minute route sep would require 5 minutes for a jet to follow something a bit quicker than a single like a light twin. A few of each of these every hour would soon reduce our runway utilisation and cause some serious delays for the airlines.
From purely an ATC point of view as well there is the added problem of losing the little fellas on the airfield. How many controllers have sat there an wondered where the Learjet has gone to or the Navajo that has come in on a medical flight? By day it is tricky.... by night it is almost impossible to keep tabs on them
I have no bones whether you guys come or not. All get the same excellent service from the radar folk and the tower folk. All I am trying to do is give you a feel for why these type of aircraft are difficult to deal with in that particular environment
Alan M is almost correct, except in that the MATS 2 says "Propeller driven aircraft MTOW not above 5700kgs may land on the departure runway PROVIDED IT DOES NOT AFFECT DEPARTURES" . How often during the day do you get a planned gap in departure traffic so that you can land somebody? Everybody moans about doing TEAM, so imagine what it would be like TEAMing with loads of lows and slows.
As mentioned earlier there is the problem of wake vortex inbound (following a heavy requires 7 miles which has to be applied in Class A airspace), and also the problem of departure seps outbound. A standard 2 minute route sep would require 5 minutes for a jet to follow something a bit quicker than a single like a light twin. A few of each of these every hour would soon reduce our runway utilisation and cause some serious delays for the airlines.
From purely an ATC point of view as well there is the added problem of losing the little fellas on the airfield. How many controllers have sat there an wondered where the Learjet has gone to or the Navajo that has come in on a medical flight? By day it is tricky.... by night it is almost impossible to keep tabs on them
I have no bones whether you guys come or not. All get the same excellent service from the radar folk and the tower folk. All I am trying to do is give you a feel for why these type of aircraft are difficult to deal with in that particular environment
Guest
Posts: n/a
halo, the point is light a/c are not difficult to deal with in a Heathrow type environment, we just make it much more difficult than it has to be. Often because many in the system these days, through no fault of their own, have no experience of seeing light a/c in amongst the heavier stuff.
Given reasonable weather a light single operating SVFR would not need any wake vortex separation inbound...it gets vectored to hold on a base leg, gets told its traffic coming down the ILS, reports it in sight, positions visually behind number 2 having been told "caution vortex wake etc", turns in close behind and always above the jet traffic and given the length of the runway lands long and safely. Little time lost in the arrival sequence. There is no rule that says just because it is Class A you can't use reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome
Departing SVFR it doesn't follow a SID, it goes off on a radar heading and aside from probably waiting two minutes behind the departure ahead it is airborne and out the way barely holding the next departure up at all.
We, that is ATC as a group, do tend to have more of a "can't do" than "can do" attitude at times
WF.
Given reasonable weather a light single operating SVFR would not need any wake vortex separation inbound...it gets vectored to hold on a base leg, gets told its traffic coming down the ILS, reports it in sight, positions visually behind number 2 having been told "caution vortex wake etc", turns in close behind and always above the jet traffic and given the length of the runway lands long and safely. Little time lost in the arrival sequence. There is no rule that says just because it is Class A you can't use reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome
Departing SVFR it doesn't follow a SID, it goes off on a radar heading and aside from probably waiting two minutes behind the departure ahead it is airborne and out the way barely holding the next departure up at all.
We, that is ATC as a group, do tend to have more of a "can't do" than "can do" attitude at times
WF.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, would using Rwy 23 for landing get around any of these problems?
As WF says, I can't see any problems with departures - I can be out of the way of jet traffic taking off behind me whilst still inside the airfield boundary, it's something I do on occassion at my home airfield when I've got jet or turboprop traffic departing behind me.
Someone mentioned the glide-clear rule. I suppose it would theoretically be possible to plan to be high enough to be able to carry out a power-off approach. In this case, no problem about glide-clear, although I can see that the lack of flexibility on the glide approach might cause further traffic problems. I would be more concerned with glide-clear on departure than on arrival, as long as I was allowed to maintain a sensible height.
M14P - I understand what you're saying. The delays would certainly preclude me from wanting to be a regular visitor. But I think for many of us GA pilot, simply having LHR in the logbook would justify the delays, just as a one-off. Of course I understand that British Airways (and their pax) don't want to be delayed just so I can put an interesting line in my logbook, but it would be nice to see the airport authorities trying slightly harder to find ways of fitting us in, during the least busy periods maybe, in a way which would cause little or no delays. Ah well, I couldn't afford the landing and handling fees even if it was allowed, so it doesn't really bother me......
FFF
--------------
As WF says, I can't see any problems with departures - I can be out of the way of jet traffic taking off behind me whilst still inside the airfield boundary, it's something I do on occassion at my home airfield when I've got jet or turboprop traffic departing behind me.
Someone mentioned the glide-clear rule. I suppose it would theoretically be possible to plan to be high enough to be able to carry out a power-off approach. In this case, no problem about glide-clear, although I can see that the lack of flexibility on the glide approach might cause further traffic problems. I would be more concerned with glide-clear on departure than on arrival, as long as I was allowed to maintain a sensible height.
M14P - I understand what you're saying. The delays would certainly preclude me from wanting to be a regular visitor. But I think for many of us GA pilot, simply having LHR in the logbook would justify the delays, just as a one-off. Of course I understand that British Airways (and their pax) don't want to be delayed just so I can put an interesting line in my logbook, but it would be nice to see the airport authorities trying slightly harder to find ways of fitting us in, during the least busy periods maybe, in a way which would cause little or no delays. Ah well, I couldn't afford the landing and handling fees even if it was allowed, so it doesn't really bother me......
FFF
--------------