Aberdeen delay question
To be honest I am not interested in a helicopters fuel state unless they declare an emergency
If we have landing clearance that is it we are clear to land and i dont see why we should rush.
A real question - I appreciate that large helicopters can seriously upset fixed wing so understand the separation required between a heli and a following plank, but does vortex wake separation have to apply between heli and heli - although I have hit the occasional vortex from another heli, and it can be quite powerful, the control power of a helicopter is such that this is nothing more than annoying - there is no danger of losing control.
Does ATC have to apply vortex separation between helis? If so, is this because no thought has been given to it (just lumping helis in with planks)? Is it the dreaded arse-covering being top priority? Or is it actually necessary for some reason that I don't understand (and I don't mean "because it says so in the ATC manual").
These days Abz does seem very bad at making the best use of its infrastructure - just very occasionally we get to take off on 14, but it seems to me that this could substantially increase the departure rate (1 heli going off on 16, one on 14 very shortly before or after). Or are you going to tell me its the phantom vortex separation again?
HC
From an outside view I'd wonder why ATC has not adapted further to an airport with heavy helicopter operations. We had a thread on wake turbulence a while ago, and it is obvious that the ATC in different countries hold up a different rule book, and that pilots have different levels of fear based on where they operate.
A few things different out here, and not suggesting it is possible in Aberdeen, just saying it is done different elsewhere. We'd takeoff and land from any reasonable surface with a reject area, not necessarily a runway. You look like you've got a lot of ramp space and taxiway at Aberdeen. At some large airports I've even seen taxiways used for takeoff by smaller fixed-wing aircraft. We never hold for anything except for a "heavy" on wake turbulence because we can't waive it. Tower will always indicate they are holding you for say, a 737, and they expect the very next thing a helicopter will say is "waiving wake turbulence". Must be the magic words they need to hear. Likewise we never land on a runway off an IFR approach unless the visibility is "real bad". The approach is always broken off as soon as you get visual and you'll sidestep over to the taxiway or pad and free up the approach and runway for the guy behind you. Also lets ATC position aircraft on the runway for takeoff because they don't expect you to need it for landing. Do that a few times and ATC gets real friendly slotting you onto the ILS. Another friendly thing you can do is keep your speed up to airliner approach speeds as long as possible. We no longer fly Bell 212's at 90 knots, and again providing you have some reasonable weather at the bottom you can keep the speed up in the 150 range until the last mile or two. Never been held up from landing for wake turbulence. Never heard a helicopter ever say "we're not going to accept a landing clearance because we're worried about turbulence" either. Oh, and when you say "ready for takeoff", ATC expects you to be airborne a couple of seconds after they clear you.
Our helicopter operators meet with the local ATC on a regular basis to work out how to smooth out operations. Surely with the size of helicopter operations in Aberdeen you must be doing this on a formal basis.
A few things different out here, and not suggesting it is possible in Aberdeen, just saying it is done different elsewhere. We'd takeoff and land from any reasonable surface with a reject area, not necessarily a runway. You look like you've got a lot of ramp space and taxiway at Aberdeen. At some large airports I've even seen taxiways used for takeoff by smaller fixed-wing aircraft. We never hold for anything except for a "heavy" on wake turbulence because we can't waive it. Tower will always indicate they are holding you for say, a 737, and they expect the very next thing a helicopter will say is "waiving wake turbulence". Must be the magic words they need to hear. Likewise we never land on a runway off an IFR approach unless the visibility is "real bad". The approach is always broken off as soon as you get visual and you'll sidestep over to the taxiway or pad and free up the approach and runway for the guy behind you. Also lets ATC position aircraft on the runway for takeoff because they don't expect you to need it for landing. Do that a few times and ATC gets real friendly slotting you onto the ILS. Another friendly thing you can do is keep your speed up to airliner approach speeds as long as possible. We no longer fly Bell 212's at 90 knots, and again providing you have some reasonable weather at the bottom you can keep the speed up in the 150 range until the last mile or two. Never been held up from landing for wake turbulence. Never heard a helicopter ever say "we're not going to accept a landing clearance because we're worried about turbulence" either. Oh, and when you say "ready for takeoff", ATC expects you to be airborne a couple of seconds after they clear you.
Our helicopter operators meet with the local ATC on a regular basis to work out how to smooth out operations. Surely with the size of helicopter operations in Aberdeen you must be doing this on a formal basis.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest I am not interested in a helicopters fuel state unless they declare an emergency
...another outside observation (only helpful for your inbounds of course):
Although it is not a regulation and merely advisory in nature, on this side of the pond we have a procedure that states "minimum fuel". Controllers are requested to keep an eye on the aircrafts expected progress and try to avoid undue delays:
Minimum Fuel. The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and the Pilot/Controller Glossary both provide the following definition, which states that, Minimum Fuel:
“Indicates that an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.”
Note: Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by a pilot that his/her fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, he/she cannot accept any undue delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations. If, at any time, the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare an emergency and report fuel remaining in minutes.
“Indicates that an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.”
Note: Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by a pilot that his/her fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, he/she cannot accept any undue delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations. If, at any time, the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare an emergency and report fuel remaining in minutes.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicomparator
Yes, ATC have to apply the Wake Turbulence criteria (name changed from Vortex Wake separation a while back) Heli - Heli. Up until a serious incident two years ago we operated on the basis that you put forward - that heli-heli was no big deal - and CAA/SRG effectively/tacitly turned a 'blind eye'. That has now gone and we are left with having to apply it. There were a number of meetings between CAA/SRG, ATC and the Operators to 'sort it' (I am pretty sure at Bristow DW was involved). The CAA view is that there is NO Scientific evidence to support the 'no effect' approach and no doubt with liability very much to the forefront of their minds, we are left with the situation as now.
At the risk of reminiscing, the ATC/Helicopter airport operation has changed beyond recognition over the nearly 30 years I have been controlling them. Queueing side by side at what is now D2? Holding on the left at D2 whilst a heli lands and crosses (also keeping left) on 23? two-way taxying on the Delta taxiway - right in front of the side stands? Hover taxying on the same? Vacating left 'over the grass' for the east side operators and to Spot 1 at what is now Scotia? taxying behind one waiting at C3/D2? Land on the taxyway? And many more 'speedy' methods...... my newer colleagues are often obviously left incredulous when I tell the way it used to be!
DD
Yes, ATC have to apply the Wake Turbulence criteria (name changed from Vortex Wake separation a while back) Heli - Heli. Up until a serious incident two years ago we operated on the basis that you put forward - that heli-heli was no big deal - and CAA/SRG effectively/tacitly turned a 'blind eye'. That has now gone and we are left with having to apply it. There were a number of meetings between CAA/SRG, ATC and the Operators to 'sort it' (I am pretty sure at Bristow DW was involved). The CAA view is that there is NO Scientific evidence to support the 'no effect' approach and no doubt with liability very much to the forefront of their minds, we are left with the situation as now.
At the risk of reminiscing, the ATC/Helicopter airport operation has changed beyond recognition over the nearly 30 years I have been controlling them. Queueing side by side at what is now D2? Holding on the left at D2 whilst a heli lands and crosses (also keeping left) on 23? two-way taxying on the Delta taxiway - right in front of the side stands? Hover taxying on the same? Vacating left 'over the grass' for the east side operators and to Spot 1 at what is now Scotia? taxying behind one waiting at C3/D2? Land on the taxyway? And many more 'speedy' methods...... my newer colleagues are often obviously left incredulous when I tell the way it used to be!
DD
Last edited by Data Dad; 23rd Feb 2010 at 15:39.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I am tired of looking at the Glacier at my front door and this is an interesting thread I will pick up on some of the comments - all meant in good spirit and with the aim of improving understanding......
Toroidal Vortex
Quite correct, we don’t want you to ‘rush’ or be unsafe. However, a landing clearance bears with it a certain amount of responsibility to other airport users – in other words occupy the runway for the minimum amount of time that it safe to do so. In the ATC world, 90 secs to 2 mins (absolute tops) is the accepted time frame before controllers get ‘jittery’ and go-arounds start to occur. That is 90secs from crossing the threshold to vacating or lined-up cleared for take off and airborne. In those 90 secs the aircraft that was 5 miles behind you is now only 2 miles from the threshold – or less if it’s a 225 on the ILS 
Make it 2 mins and it is only 1 mile out. Any longer and it’s ‘see you in 10’ as it goes around. And that’s on a GOOD weather day…… We work to Standard Gaps to accommodate Wake Turbulence requirements, time to vacate etc but those Gaps have to be based on what is (pre-)determined as a reasonable time to occupy the runway. IIRC the runway capacity at Aberdeen is declared as 36 or 38 movements per hour depending on the runway configuration in use. Divide 60 mins by 38 and see how long you get for your take-off or landing clearance.
TTFD
From the rest of your post I guess that you know the answer – however others might not!
In SVFR conditions <5Km vis/Cloud Ceiling <1500ft or at Night, SVFR aircraft have to be separated (by ATC) from other SVFR and IFR aircraft. This is done by using deemed separated points which are geographical locations. Around Aberdeen these are Hackley Head, Balmedie (the village/town), Bridge of Don, Greg Ness (usually referred to as Girdle Ness) Clashfarquhar Bay, Loch of Skene, Kintore, Inverurie and Insch. NOBAL, BALIS, SHRUB etc are NOT deemed separated points and so cannot be used by us to separate aircraft hence the request to ‘Hold at Balmedie’. In the distant past, the inbound clearance was via the Peterhead Lane of which Balmedie forms a part. So my tongue-in-cheek recommendation if you want to fly SVFR around Aberdeen – get the points above loaded in your FMC or carry a half-mil VFR chart with you
Cyclic
Except when the runway is ‘closed’ for de-icing, snow clearing, WIP, etc. then invariably the reason will be ‘due traffic’ – it would get a bit repetitive to constantly say or (from your point of view) hear, this – and it doesn’t tell you something that you wouldn’t already know really.
DD
More to follow....
Toroidal Vortex
If we have landing clearance that is it we are clear to land and i dont see why we should rush.
Make it 2 mins and it is only 1 mile out. Any longer and it’s ‘see you in 10’ as it goes around. And that’s on a GOOD weather day…… We work to Standard Gaps to accommodate Wake Turbulence requirements, time to vacate etc but those Gaps have to be based on what is (pre-)determined as a reasonable time to occupy the runway. IIRC the runway capacity at Aberdeen is declared as 36 or 38 movements per hour depending on the runway configuration in use. Divide 60 mins by 38 and see how long you get for your take-off or landing clearance.TTFD
(Where exactly is the Balmedie hold? - we have NOBAL and BALIS in our systems, but not "Balmedie")
In SVFR conditions <5Km vis/Cloud Ceiling <1500ft or at Night, SVFR aircraft have to be separated (by ATC) from other SVFR and IFR aircraft. This is done by using deemed separated points which are geographical locations. Around Aberdeen these are Hackley Head, Balmedie (the village/town), Bridge of Don, Greg Ness (usually referred to as Girdle Ness) Clashfarquhar Bay, Loch of Skene, Kintore, Inverurie and Insch. NOBAL, BALIS, SHRUB etc are NOT deemed separated points and so cannot be used by us to separate aircraft hence the request to ‘Hold at Balmedie’. In the distant past, the inbound clearance was via the Peterhead Lane of which Balmedie forms a part. So my tongue-in-cheek recommendation if you want to fly SVFR around Aberdeen – get the points above loaded in your FMC or carry a half-mil VFR chart with you
Cyclic
often a two second explanation can do a lot to placate even the most impatient crews - "hold at XXXX due to blah"
DD
More to follow....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD,
You forgot about departing off 06 threshold,Bristow ramp.Also Bolkow 105 doing circuits off the grass,in snow.Also 5 (that's right five)in VMC night circuits, I was a trainee and Radar trying to co-ordinate a visual through the middle of it.
Oh you'll think of something.
Helicomparator
One of the reasons we don't use 14 so much,is partially because it is shorter as you have to depart from A4.The other was that the L2 and 225s couldn't take it.So we have been informed.
Also 14 was only really useful to get one away between fixed wings,but with standard gaps it makes little difference.Unless you want to jump the Q of course.
I got taught a big lesson on vortex early on.Chinook (remember them
) departing from W5 with a Loganair Twin Otter at 4 miles.This is legal even now.The Twotter Hit the vortex over the threshold and nearly crashed.The spacing was in excess of the vortex required for a light passing through the vortex of a 747.
Phantom vortex.
You forgot about departing off 06 threshold,Bristow ramp.Also Bolkow 105 doing circuits off the grass,in snow.Also 5 (that's right five)in VMC night circuits, I was a trainee and Radar trying to co-ordinate a visual through the middle of it.
Oh you'll think of something.Helicomparator
One of the reasons we don't use 14 so much,is partially because it is shorter as you have to depart from A4.The other was that the L2 and 225s couldn't take it.So we have been informed.
Also 14 was only really useful to get one away between fixed wings,but with standard gaps it makes little difference.Unless you want to jump the Q of course.
I got taught a big lesson on vortex early on.Chinook (remember them
) departing from W5 with a Loganair Twin Otter at 4 miles.This is legal even now.The Twotter Hit the vortex over the threshold and nearly crashed.The spacing was in excess of the vortex required for a light passing through the vortex of a 747.Phantom vortex.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: La La Land
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Data Dad
DD, I'm playing devils advocate here but according to the AIP there is no Balmedie as part of the VFR/SVFR route structure. In fact BALIS only comes in to it when VFR/SVFR and 34 is in use for the helicopter routes. Some of the other places you mention are not in there either. I have to admit I have never heard of Clashfarquhar Bay and have never heard this point mentioned on the radio.
I was told about BALIS not being used because of the separation issue you mention with an aircraft holding at Bridge of Don, and that NOBAL couldn't be used becasue of a similar issue with Hackley Head (plus it is an outbound IFR point). I know that some crews still continue to BALIS and take up the hold because that point is already in the FMS (and it is easy to set up a hold there with the FMS), not fully understanding the issues you have to deal with regarding separation SVFR to SVFR. We all know where Balmedie village is, but the point is that many crews are still not aware of the difference between BALIS and Balmedie when SVFR. Hence my comment about a "Balmedie" point.
I see that in the AIP (AD 2-EGPD-3-2) the route structure for a VFR/SVFR 34 arrival clearly shows SHRUB-BALIS (as does the text) and Balmedie is on the map as if only to show where the village is. However, it is shown SOUTH of BALIS! There is nothing in the text or maps to state a Balmedie Hold or even a VRP. In fact Balmedie isn't even shown in the Class D Airspace Chart - Entry/Exit Lanes & VRPs (mind you nor are the points the helicopters use as I presume the chart is designed for light aircraft/visitors to Aberdeen).
I'm sure the residents of the ever-growing Balmedie would not appreciate a 225 or S92 holding over the top at 1000ft.
Bit of a thread drift I know.
TTFD
Around Aberdeen these are Hackley Head, Balmedie (the village/town), Bridge of Don, Greg Ness (usually referred to as Girdle Ness) Clashfarquhar Bay, Loch of Skene, Kintore, Inverurie and Insch.
I was told about BALIS not being used because of the separation issue you mention with an aircraft holding at Bridge of Don, and that NOBAL couldn't be used becasue of a similar issue with Hackley Head (plus it is an outbound IFR point). I know that some crews still continue to BALIS and take up the hold because that point is already in the FMS (and it is easy to set up a hold there with the FMS), not fully understanding the issues you have to deal with regarding separation SVFR to SVFR. We all know where Balmedie village is, but the point is that many crews are still not aware of the difference between BALIS and Balmedie when SVFR. Hence my comment about a "Balmedie" point.
I see that in the AIP (AD 2-EGPD-3-2) the route structure for a VFR/SVFR 34 arrival clearly shows SHRUB-BALIS (as does the text) and Balmedie is on the map as if only to show where the village is. However, it is shown SOUTH of BALIS! There is nothing in the text or maps to state a Balmedie Hold or even a VRP. In fact Balmedie isn't even shown in the Class D Airspace Chart - Entry/Exit Lanes & VRPs (mind you nor are the points the helicopters use as I presume the chart is designed for light aircraft/visitors to Aberdeen).
I'm sure the residents of the ever-growing Balmedie would not appreciate a 225 or S92 holding over the top at 1000ft.
Bit of a thread drift I know.
TTFD
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTFD
you are of course completely correct - I have just rechecked the relevant pages and see that these are now at odds with what our 'Bible' says...... Either the charts are wrong/incomplete or what we have been doing for many, many years is now wrong.
Strangely, just today a non-resident VFR fixed wing (on his own volition) requested a route via Balmedie - so it 'may' still appear on the 1/4 or 1/2 mil VFR charts - I don't have a copy here to check.
Will chase it up tomorrow....
DD
you are of course completely correct - I have just rechecked the relevant pages and see that these are now at odds with what our 'Bible' says...... Either the charts are wrong/incomplete or what we have been doing for many, many years is now wrong.
Strangely, just today a non-resident VFR fixed wing (on his own volition) requested a route via Balmedie - so it 'may' still appear on the 1/4 or 1/2 mil VFR charts - I don't have a copy here to check.
Will chase it up tomorrow....
DD
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you ever hold me inbound and I am short of fuel I will reply with my available fuel (less final reserve) expressed in holding minutes so you can then prioritise.
Pilots who announce that their aircraft is short of fuel are to confirm that they are declaring an emergency before being given priority over other flights.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
eglnyt (what the f...)...I see you live in the "Real World" where everything happens like it says so in the book.
The "reality" is that we are not "Short" of fuel until we expect to land with less than the "Final Reserve" fuel figure.
Maybe you should spend some time watching "Air Crash Investigation" there was a great one recently where the crew of a Columbian tried in vain to get the message to ATC that they were "Short" of fuel. Many dead people!!!
If I give my endurance I expect the ATC controller to spark....if not he will eventually get the PAN call.
Books do not have all the answers and even if they did do you really expect us to start reading one as the sh*t impacts the fan. We can only retain so much knowledge. Thank god that flying is 99% common sense!! and hopefully the likes of yourself are kept far far away from the rest of us!!
DB
The "reality" is that we are not "Short" of fuel until we expect to land with less than the "Final Reserve" fuel figure.
Maybe you should spend some time watching "Air Crash Investigation" there was a great one recently where the crew of a Columbian tried in vain to get the message to ATC that they were "Short" of fuel. Many dead people!!!
If I give my endurance I expect the ATC controller to spark....if not he will eventually get the PAN call.
Books do not have all the answers and even if they did do you really expect us to start reading one as the sh*t impacts the fan. We can only retain so much knowledge. Thank god that flying is 99% common sense!! and hopefully the likes of yourself are kept far far away from the rest of us!!
DB
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as a PPL instructor the students and later qualified PPL's without instrument training wouldn't know to use the IFR points or to be honest what they actually mean.
They would see Balmedie and that will do for them.
Same with the inverurie lane.
They would see Balmedie and that will do for them.
Same with the inverurie lane.
DataDad
Thanks for that - I rather thought that was you would say! There may be no scientific evidence to the CAA that there is no effect of large heli on large heli, but equally there is no evidence to the contrary either. Unfortunately its yet another example of ivory towerites making decisions based on their own agenda and on the basis of "why make a decision that might possibly have a come-back when I can decide the other way and be totally safe from criticism". Campaign Against Aviation stikes again! Its a pity these sorts of decisions are based only on the whims of a few uninformed arse-coverers and not on the basis of science!
If they got a bonus that related to how many movements/hr their arbitrary policies allowed...
Throw a Dyce - 225s can certainly use 14 as I did the other day. It might get difficult on a hot and windless day (since we need to use a higher decision speed) but we are not getting many of those at the moment! It can be frustrating to be sitting at C3 for 20 mins with gaps in the traffic that could easily allow a departure on 14 with good safety margins. Any fixed-wing intending to land on 16 but not on the ground by 14 has a problem anyway!
Whilst many of the guys in NATS are good guys and conscientious, unfortunately there is always the minority...!
I guess eglnyt is not aware of the pilot's bible which says that its better to address a developing problem before it becomes critical, rather than ignoring it and then screaming once you are nearly dead. But then sitting in the tower with a nice cup of coffee, why would he worry?
It is a pity to see some controllers who consider aircraft to be their personal playthings. We need to remember why we are here - ATC is here to provide a service to pilots. And its not that pilots are on some higher plane of existence than controllers (pun almost intended!) - pilots are here to provide a service to their passengers and (in the case of Abz helis) their oil company paymasters. So we are all here to provide a service to others, lets try not to forget that!
HC
Thanks for that - I rather thought that was you would say! There may be no scientific evidence to the CAA that there is no effect of large heli on large heli, but equally there is no evidence to the contrary either. Unfortunately its yet another example of ivory towerites making decisions based on their own agenda and on the basis of "why make a decision that might possibly have a come-back when I can decide the other way and be totally safe from criticism". Campaign Against Aviation stikes again! Its a pity these sorts of decisions are based only on the whims of a few uninformed arse-coverers and not on the basis of science!
If they got a bonus that related to how many movements/hr their arbitrary policies allowed...
Throw a Dyce - 225s can certainly use 14 as I did the other day. It might get difficult on a hot and windless day (since we need to use a higher decision speed) but we are not getting many of those at the moment! It can be frustrating to be sitting at C3 for 20 mins with gaps in the traffic that could easily allow a departure on 14 with good safety margins. Any fixed-wing intending to land on 16 but not on the ground by 14 has a problem anyway!
Whilst many of the guys in NATS are good guys and conscientious, unfortunately there is always the minority...!
You might not be aware but MATS Part 1, the controllers bible, contains the following statement under the heading Flight Priorities
It is a pity to see some controllers who consider aircraft to be their personal playthings. We need to remember why we are here - ATC is here to provide a service to pilots. And its not that pilots are on some higher plane of existence than controllers (pun almost intended!) - pilots are here to provide a service to their passengers and (in the case of Abz helis) their oil company paymasters. So we are all here to provide a service to others, lets try not to forget that!
HC
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like many CAA Documents CAP 493 the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 does contain the Regulator's get out clause that controller's can use their own initiative and discretion in response to unusual circumstances but in the real world controllers are generally expected to comply with it whether or not they think it is common sense.
Further south there have been incidents where controllers who "spark" in the way you suggest have found themselves with a problem as the attempt to prioritise leads to pan calls from those moved out of the way. That is why the CAA periodically publishes AICs on the subject.
Further south there have been incidents where controllers who "spark" in the way you suggest have found themselves with a problem as the attempt to prioritise leads to pan calls from those moved out of the way. That is why the CAA periodically publishes AICs on the subject.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
RWY 14 - assume an engine failure at TDP and at MAUM for the day - obstacle clearance in 1st Segment? I don't think so.
Now, if they were to move the aerial (and the chimneys for 2nd segment?) then perhaps.
TC
RWY 14 - assume an engine failure at TDP and at MAUM for the day - obstacle clearance in 1st Segment? I don't think so.
Now, if they were to move the aerial (and the chimneys for 2nd segment?) then perhaps.
TC
Training Centre
Of course it depends on AUW, wind and density altitude - but the day I referred to we were averagely heavy, it was cold, the wind was SE and we could nominate a Vtoss well in excess of the minimum, so rate of climb when OEI would have been 500'/min or so. We had plenty of safety margin over 35' miss (but thanks for your concern!).
Just checked the distance again - 581m so you can do Vtoss 55 in nil wind with spare in terms of accel stop distance. The aerial (assuming you mean the one just beyond the end of 14) is only 18'. In nil wind you will be at 35' less than 1/2 way along the runway (before 16 centreline) with the remaining distance to climb the 18'. With Vtoss +10 from minimum the graphs show 430'/min or so, ie 8% or 4.5 degrees. And that is with no headwind.
Certainly it would be foolish to do it at min Vtoss (100'/min RoC). You can't do it every day but when you can, its frustrating not to be allowed to.
HC
Of course it depends on AUW, wind and density altitude - but the day I referred to we were averagely heavy, it was cold, the wind was SE and we could nominate a Vtoss well in excess of the minimum, so rate of climb when OEI would have been 500'/min or so. We had plenty of safety margin over 35' miss (but thanks for your concern!).
Just checked the distance again - 581m so you can do Vtoss 55 in nil wind with spare in terms of accel stop distance. The aerial (assuming you mean the one just beyond the end of 14) is only 18'. In nil wind you will be at 35' less than 1/2 way along the runway (before 16 centreline) with the remaining distance to climb the 18'. With Vtoss +10 from minimum the graphs show 430'/min or so, ie 8% or 4.5 degrees. And that is with no headwind.
Certainly it would be foolish to do it at min Vtoss (100'/min RoC). You can't do it every day but when you can, its frustrating not to be allowed to.
HC
RW 14
Surely a quick prompt to the ground or Tower controller "By the way we could accept 14" is all that's required. I have seen times when controllers are busy, (especially in the morning rush, where there have been lots of FW slots and they have been delayed into the Heli rush) they get into the mindset of one runway operation and when they are focused on that one runway its easier to forget they have another option.
A quick prompt from the heli early enough in the taxi phase would be enough to break into the single runway train of thought.
Surely the points raised in this thread confirm the need for more Heli operator/pilot controller face to face meetings. After all we are all trying to achieve the same goals, just being constrained by different rules and regulations.
A quick prompt from the heli early enough in the taxi phase would be enough to break into the single runway train of thought.
Surely the points raised in this thread confirm the need for more Heli operator/pilot controller face to face meetings. After all we are all trying to achieve the same goals, just being constrained by different rules and regulations.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: La La Land
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Data Dad
Thanks for your reply and look forward to hearing what you find out. Even the half-mil provided by airpolice shows "Balmedie" next to the BALIS point and not next to the yellow dot of the village itself. (Only making the point for those not familiar with Aberdeen).
exlatccatsa
I have on a few occasions stated that I can accept 14 for departure and have still been sent to C3, W4 (and even D2 on one occasion) and been held in the early morning departures rush hour for about 30 minutes. Not a gripe, as it does depend I guess on the experience of the Tower Controller both overall and at Aberdeen, plus I do not know his mental plot on things. There maybe something going on that I am not aware of. I can only ask.
What did annoy me and a couple of my colleagues one morning was taxying out, being held at D2 and then seeing three rotary depart who had taxied from their respective ramps well after me - that was frustrating. I am sure there was a reason but it would have been nice to have been told. One of the aircraft that taxied out after me went off 14 as well to add insult to injury.
Fortunately the above is extremely rare in my experience. As I said in an earlier post (and I think someone else from overseas alluded to this as well), perhaps it is time for another get together, plus a bigger push for more visits of aircrew to ATC and vice versa?
TTFN, TTFD
Thanks for your reply and look forward to hearing what you find out. Even the half-mil provided by airpolice shows "Balmedie" next to the BALIS point and not next to the yellow dot of the village itself. (Only making the point for those not familiar with Aberdeen).
exlatccatsa
I have on a few occasions stated that I can accept 14 for departure and have still been sent to C3, W4 (and even D2 on one occasion) and been held in the early morning departures rush hour for about 30 minutes. Not a gripe, as it does depend I guess on the experience of the Tower Controller both overall and at Aberdeen, plus I do not know his mental plot on things. There maybe something going on that I am not aware of. I can only ask.
What did annoy me and a couple of my colleagues one morning was taxying out, being held at D2 and then seeing three rotary depart who had taxied from their respective ramps well after me - that was frustrating. I am sure there was a reason but it would have been nice to have been told. One of the aircraft that taxied out after me went off 14 as well to add insult to injury.
Fortunately the above is extremely rare in my experience. As I said in an earlier post (and I think someone else from overseas alluded to this as well), perhaps it is time for another get together, plus a bigger push for more visits of aircrew to ATC and vice versa?
TTFN, TTFD
DataDad
Whilst I think of it, I meant to pick up on your point about Vortex Wake being changed to "Wake Turbulence" - seems to me to be the rule-writers being in denial of the existence of helicopters once again! Wake is something you leave behind you as you move along, doesn't really fit a hovering helicopter does it! At least Vortex sounded like something a heli might produce! Or maybe I am just bitter and twisted!
exlatccatsa
Unfortunately it became not unusual for ATC to snap at you if you suggested such a thing. The tone was pretty much "I'll decide which runway you will use, you just do as you're told". Once you have had a few of those, you give in and stop offering. Which is a pity because most of the controllers at Abz are very courteous and professional, but of course you always remember the ones that permanently get out of bed on the wrong side!
As TTFD points out, things could be improved with better communications and understanding between the two roles. Long gone are the days when ATC trainees would take a jump seat ride out to a rig, not to mention the days when NATS provided some flying training for its controllers (and ditto for tower visits by pilots - now its a major expedition to get through security to the Tower!). All part of the cuts and world being ruled by the HSE brigade.
HC
Whilst I think of it, I meant to pick up on your point about Vortex Wake being changed to "Wake Turbulence" - seems to me to be the rule-writers being in denial of the existence of helicopters once again! Wake is something you leave behind you as you move along, doesn't really fit a hovering helicopter does it! At least Vortex sounded like something a heli might produce! Or maybe I am just bitter and twisted!
exlatccatsa
Unfortunately it became not unusual for ATC to snap at you if you suggested such a thing. The tone was pretty much "I'll decide which runway you will use, you just do as you're told". Once you have had a few of those, you give in and stop offering. Which is a pity because most of the controllers at Abz are very courteous and professional, but of course you always remember the ones that permanently get out of bed on the wrong side!
As TTFD points out, things could be improved with better communications and understanding between the two roles. Long gone are the days when ATC trainees would take a jump seat ride out to a rig, not to mention the days when NATS provided some flying training for its controllers (and ditto for tower visits by pilots - now its a major expedition to get through security to the Tower!). All part of the cuts and world being ruled by the HSE brigade.
HC