Heathrow Zone Infringement
Thread Starter
Heathrow Zone Infringement
Take a look at flyontrack.co.uk for an interesting radar replay of an incident caused by a zone infringer.
Last edited by chevvron; 4th Dec 2006 at 14:46.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is a good idea to show clips like these. I have been asking for a long time now for permission to use clips like that on here to show people what actually happens.
I have seen three real eye-openers in the past on a visit to LATCC and had a controller sitting with us explaining what was going on. It was really eye opening as I said when you see things like that and know what the brilliant controllers have to do when it happens.
I have also seen one happen for real when visiting LATCC with a few people from here. We watched silently as the aeroplane went into the Luton zone heading straight for the approach to 08. The controller was great, he was calm, he had to divert a few heavies and he still had time to explain to us what was going on as he was doing it, why he had to divert and what was going to happen next, he was always one step ahead.
I just wish some one at NATS would let me host those files/clips on here for everyone to see. They should be distributed to all flying schools and clubs to enable as many pilots as possible to see these things.
I have seen three real eye-openers in the past on a visit to LATCC and had a controller sitting with us explaining what was going on. It was really eye opening as I said when you see things like that and know what the brilliant controllers have to do when it happens.
I have also seen one happen for real when visiting LATCC with a few people from here. We watched silently as the aeroplane went into the Luton zone heading straight for the approach to 08. The controller was great, he was calm, he had to divert a few heavies and he still had time to explain to us what was going on as he was doing it, why he had to divert and what was going to happen next, he was always one step ahead.
I just wish some one at NATS would let me host those files/clips on here for everyone to see. They should be distributed to all flying schools and clubs to enable as many pilots as possible to see these things.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like it to be shown at a big meeting of ICAO and JAA and CAA representatives, and then somebody stands up and asks the collected regulators about what kind of navigation techniques they have in the PPL training syllabus 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
I think it would have been far more interesting with sound.
(The call sign could have been bleeped out to protect the "innocent".)
(The call sign could have been bleeped out to protect the "innocent".)
Heathrow Director telling two aircraft to break off their approaches and turn right heading 180?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was castigated by heathrow ATC for an alleged zone infringement, they called up and bollocked me for flying through Northolt whilst en route to Denham. The guy was very insistent that it was me and became very aggressive and threathening when I said it wasn't.
I "confessed" and put the phone down despite the fact that I had been to Blackbush via Wycombe and reading and my passenger had video of the route.
Made me realise that they don't always get the right "blip" and they sometimes do get it very wrong. If you are accused ask for the radar track as evidence and demand to see conclusive proof that the radar blip is your aircraft !
I "confessed" and put the phone down despite the fact that I had been to Blackbush via Wycombe and reading and my passenger had video of the route.
Made me realise that they don't always get the right "blip" and they sometimes do get it very wrong. If you are accused ask for the radar track as evidence and demand to see conclusive proof that the radar blip is your aircraft !
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Otamatata
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see the point where the first aircraft was called off. S/he appeared past the track of the infringing aircraft and would have had greater speed. Keen to understand a controllers perspective as to why s/he was not allowed to continue the approach.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This video has been all over the internet. In another forum there was an ATCO (working at Heathrow I believe) who accepted the first aircraft need not have been called off, with hindsight.
I saw another emergency video at NATS which included the sound track. The audience was specifically requested to not discuss it on PPRUNE so I won't but I didn't think it was anything particularly exciting. I don't think infringing pilots would generally be on the NATS sound track; if they were it means they are in contact and they would be told to go away long before it gets serious! All you would hear would be calm instructions to transports to break off, etc.
I saw another emergency video at NATS which included the sound track. The audience was specifically requested to not discuss it on PPRUNE so I won't but I didn't think it was anything particularly exciting. I don't think infringing pilots would generally be on the NATS sound track; if they were it means they are in contact and they would be told to go away long before it gets serious! All you would hear would be calm instructions to transports to break off, etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's easy to say in hindsight that the first a/c may not need to have been broken off but the trouble with infringements is their unpredictable nature. Did you know the infringing a/c wasn't going to turn left to appear to further close the distance at any time?
If the infringing a/c had turned left separation would have been further reduced and in these circumstances we are required to try and keep the IFR traffic 5nm away from the unknown. Separation was already less than this.
There's also the fact that it's likely the instruction to break off the approach would have been given a reasonable amount of time before you see anything happen on the radar replay. It's possible the inbound was with the tower adding further time delay whilst radar tell tower what to do and even if not large aircraft in approach configuration do not do anything very quickly.
Better to be safe than explaining your inaction at a later date.
If the infringing a/c had turned left separation would have been further reduced and in these circumstances we are required to try and keep the IFR traffic 5nm away from the unknown. Separation was already less than this.
There's also the fact that it's likely the instruction to break off the approach would have been given a reasonable amount of time before you see anything happen on the radar replay. It's possible the inbound was with the tower adding further time delay whilst radar tell tower what to do and even if not large aircraft in approach configuration do not do anything very quickly.
Better to be safe than explaining your inaction at a later date.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who is "their"?
Our (ATC's) concern is nothing more than safety though there is a knock on effect in increased delay and often a greatly increased workload as you run out of airspace with traffic you didn't expect to be there having to come back around for another approach, assuming the infringer isn't hanging about.
If you know any of the PPLs who had a go in the TC sim a while ago ask them about how such incidents increase workload and ask if that's a good thing.
Our (ATC's) concern is nothing more than safety though there is a knock on effect in increased delay and often a greatly increased workload as you run out of airspace with traffic you didn't expect to be there having to come back around for another approach, assuming the infringer isn't hanging about.
If you know any of the PPLs who had a go in the TC sim a while ago ask them about how such incidents increase workload and ask if that's a good thing.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What sound is that then?
Heathrow Director telling two aircraft to break off their approaches and turn right heading 180?
See you dont go that way very often Rustle - I think you will find the break off calls would be on a different frequency to the infrnger.
You may well disagree, but I would have found whatever communication that took place with the pilot interesting - how quickly was he warned, how did he cope with the infringement etc. Presumably he was talking to someone or someone got him talking to Heathrow or how else did he know to break off in the way he did.
Personally, I think a rather dull replay of an infringement without sound has minimal impact, the human element is hearing how the incident unfolded.
Ho hum - each to their own I suppose.
Heathrow Director telling two aircraft to break off their approaches and turn right heading 180?
See you dont go that way very often Rustle - I think you will find the break off calls would be on a different frequency to the infrnger.
You may well disagree, but I would have found whatever communication that took place with the pilot interesting - how quickly was he warned, how did he cope with the infringement etc. Presumably he was talking to someone or someone got him talking to Heathrow or how else did he know to break off in the way he did.
Personally, I think a rather dull replay of an infringement without sound has minimal impact, the human element is hearing how the incident unfolded.
Ho hum - each to their own I suppose.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the first radar replay on the FoT site, the one being discussed here, there was no ATC communication with the infringing aircraft whilst it was inside the London Zone so nothing to be heard anyway in that respect. The pilot turned right of their own accord once the error was realised.
The legal people stop us having callsigns and r/t on anything that goes outside of a NATS controlled environment. If you visit TC we can show unedited in terms of r/t, phone and radar labels replays.
The legal people stop us having callsigns and r/t on anything that goes outside of a NATS controlled environment. If you visit TC we can show unedited in terms of r/t, phone and radar labels replays.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Warped Factor
If you know any of the PPLs who had a go in the TC sim a while ago ask them about how such incidents increase workload and ask if that's a good thing.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was cut up on final into a controlled airport and had to go around I would be annoyed and I would expect the controller to be equally annoyed I had to go around and that he now had a bunch of work to do to get me resequenced whether I was in a 747 or a 152.
I would also be a bit p**ssed if I was on the inbound flight (normally pressed for time anyhow) and spent an extra 10 minutes faffing about because someone infringed.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
too late to prevent delays to two commercials!
Shows what their concern is !
"their" primary concern is to look after commercial transport flights in as safe a manner as possible. GA aircraft are not on the "commercial radar" unfortunately as they do not bring in the income and it is the airlines who pay for ATC.
Personally I believe that it would be SAFER if all were treated more equally as some other systems do
too late to prevent delays to two commercials!
Shows what their concern is !
"their" primary concern is to look after commercial transport flights in as safe a manner as possible. GA aircraft are not on the "commercial radar" unfortunately as they do not bring in the income and it is the airlines who pay for ATC.
Personally I believe that it would be SAFER if all were treated more equally as some other systems do
Guest
Posts: n/a
Prehaps GPS should be "mandatory" around the LTMA?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I believe that it would be SAFER if all were treated more equally as some other systems do
No doubt someone will harp on about "too busy", "not enough time", "too much traffic". Well if zone infringements really ARE a safety hazard, then more ATCOs should be employed, and GA traffic should be encouraged to talk to these controllers - make it madatory around London if you want ("Contact London Approach within 30nm" etc ). Had the chap in the video been talking to ATC the bust would never have happened, ATC could have given avoiding vectors which obviously would have jogged the pilots mind that he had f**ked up his navigation.
I also agree that Mode C vales should be incorporated around all major airfields, whether in CAS or not.