Heathrow Tornado causes BA diversions

[Human Factor]

Just to add more fuel to the fire (actually a lot less), BA has CAA approval to use statistical contingency fuel rather than the 5%/15 mins on the CAA document. This is subject to a number of criteria but as ETOPS suggested, Cirrus can plan you to arrive early morning into LHR with 6 mins contingency. It's very rare for anyone to take this 'minimum legal' (my words) amount. It's usual to add to this figure. However, with prudent tactical planning (ie. once you're up there fighting for the optimum level) you can sometimes eke out another ten minutes worth.

[Jerricho]

Ahhh, was waiting for this. Starting the "you are disrespecting those who gave their lives for us!". Garbage. I hold the utmost respect for those who served their country.

The fact is this.....the route the formation took to get to the Memorial was absurd.

The route was never going to take them over LHR, just a mile or so to the west- look at a map of where the Memorial is and how it is orientated. There didn't seem to be anything wrong with either the timekeeping or the navigation from where I was standing.

You're right about the first bit....the crossed just to the west of the airport. However, the fact that approaches were halted from 1121 for 9 minutes did cause excessive delays. Now, before slinging starts, it was approved by Ops. But, as been mentioned, the cost in fuel etc is a consideration for operators.

[The Wake Knot]

Stormin Norman - Adopt The Callsign T WAT For All Further Transmissions

60024 – you beat me to it, although your int seems too good to have been on the ground talking to a policeman. I fear you may actually sit in a seat very close to me – about 6 feet in front to be precise. Wasn’t going to rise to the bait but given the reason we conducted the flypast (in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen) I feel compelled to respond. The flypast today was to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Ruddymede Memorial, a memorial to the 20000 aircrew from the Allied Air Forces that laid down their lives in the Second World War and who have no known grave. To answer some of the comments, in no particular order :

Jerricho - Ref your first post, thank you. Ref your last post - how else were we to get to the memorial? It is pretty much on the extended centreline of LHR. Whichever way we approached from would have had the same effect. 9 mins. Wow. How many lives per second is that.

Hobie – why are you speechless?

G-ALAN – Yes, it was NOTAM’d.

Douglas Bader – You don’t know how true your last comment is!!!!

ONAN – Practice makes perfect.

Slingsby – Didn’t need to shoot an approach at Heathrow, plenty of gizmos on board that mean we don’t need to conduct an airfield approach to get into low level. Never climbed above 2000’ AMSL all sortie.

topofthestack – You are an ar$e, but then perhaps you thought we were aiming for Heathrow. Have successfully found plenty of targets over the last few years and left smoking holes where they were. I hope your talkdowns are better than your attempt at "witty" remarks.

Oncemorealoft – As said earlier, flypast was never over Heathrow. Stealthy is something the Tornado isn’t. Hope the egg came off ok.

Roger Dodge – Get your facts right. The original TOT was 1129 local. At 1126 local (ie 3mins out) we were asked by the organisers if we could be 2 minutes early. Even the mighty (!) Tornado can’t crack 18 miles a minute at 1000’.

Oiseau2 – Send the bill to HM The Queen, c/o Buckingham Palace. Or perhaps you could send the bill to the relatives of the 20000 aircrew commemorated at Runnymede. Oiseau sounds very like wazzock, a local term for pillock.

Stormin Norman – I have never read such an ill thought out comment before – and I’ve seen plenty on this website. You are a disgrace to the aviation community (assuming you are really a 777 pilot and not some wannabee who thinks he might get laid if he tells everyone he’s a pilot). As someone who seems to dislike the MOD, in particular the RAF, it seems strange that you have adopted the handle of one of the greatest military leaders in recent times. You're definately a wannabee!!!

As for the so called chaos caused. Yes we flew through the approach lane into Heathrow but it was all carefully co-ordinated with the various agencies (as opposed to the armchair to55ers who seem to have a smart ar$e comment to everything). Air traffic were fantastic (and that’s not something you hear from a military aviator that often, particularly given that some of the more pathetic comments on this thread came from "ATCO"s....), in fact the only bleating we got were from the mil radar at Brize as we transited low level past Brize Norton (and no closer than 3 miles south of their zone, bless them).

As you can tell I have first hand experience of this flypast as I was part of it and have the pictures to prove it!!! However, apologies to Mr Els, Mr Singh and all the others at Wentworth. Hope we didn’t put you off your stroke!!! Not often we get to fly down that part of the world – some nice houses in the undershoot of Heathrow!!!

As for stormin norman and his little “pilot pals” get your heads out of your own selfish little ar$es and show some respect to 20000 brave and courageous aviators who gave up the ultimate sacrifice.

Oh, advance warning - Lord Mayors procession on Sat 8th Nov. Check your NOTAMs carefully and carry a bit nof fuel in reserve!!!!!

[60024]

Jericho, I dare say you are correct about the cost implications to the operators if the airliners didn't fly again. After all, if there's spare fuel in the tanks after landing, then that fuel is available for the next leg so less fuel will need to be uplifted but as a frequent passenger in and out of Heathrow, I'm surprised by some of the comments about fuel reserves that some folk seem to think are acceptable.

[TangoZulu]

The Wake Knot

Point well made, a pity that some people are unable to understand the basic principle of commemorating those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

I do not know which Sqn flew todays fly past but I had the privilege to be on the receiving end of a different fly by of two Tornados from 9 Sqn early in September at a Beating Retreat ceremony. They were perfectly on target and exactly on time as one would expect

Ignoring all the childish comments from others regarding the apparent disruption to their little schedules - thank you.

TZ

[Wee Jock]

My other half's uncle is one of the pilots commerated by the Air Force Memorial. He'd like to pass on his apologies to everyone inconvenienced by the flypast, but his Beaufighter was shot down over the Friesan Islands in 1944, resulting in his death at the age of 21.

Pilot Officer William Arthur Lynch, RAFVR, panel 22 on the memorial.

The Wake Knot - my 88 year-old mother in law, sister of the above, says thanks.

Go and have a look some time, and remember that not one of them was ever found.

Especially you, stormin norman. You dishonour a young man who gave his life to let you attend to your business in quite difficult times, you poor lamb.

[Liam Gallagher]

The Wake Knot,

Don't know if I can say "Dogs Knob" on PPrune...

.....it seems I can...

.....Dogs Knob.....

[ghost-rider]

The Wake Knot ...

Well said ! Excellent reply.

Any chance of posting some of the photos ?

Respect !

ps : Stormin' Norman ! You really are a Tw@t !

[Jerricho]

As I have said, I don't detract from honouring the memories of those fallen. Nor am I haveing a go at the RAF drivers (and it looked bloody impressive on the radar as well, fast moving jets over London!!!).

Personally, my beef is with the somewhat poor lead-up, with the massive effects the practice on Wednesday had on our inbound delays, and the actual on Friday. Sometimes, the poor sector driver sitting there doesn't have the luxury of being able to explain to pilots why they are holding for and unexpected extra 10/15 minutes (especially as to what happened on Wednesday!). And there were one or two unimpressed pilots holding.

As to the actual route and the orientation of the Memorial, there were suggestions of routing from the NW, crossing the approach path further out, but as I'm not in Ops or anything like that, and I 'm sure all these avenues (well, hope) were considered.

[Capt H Peacock]

>>BA has CAA approval to use statistical contingency fuel rather than the 5%/15 mins on the CAA document<<

There is no current permission for any operator to carry less than the permitted contingency fuel figure promulgated in JAROPS D 1.255. Perhaps the CAA approved your policy conditional on its carriage of a figure not less than that given in JAROPS, and it can never be less than 5 minutes at 1500ft and that only after ‘dispatch’.

I don’t know what it is with Big, but you must not operate into Heathrow without having at least the ability to hold for 20 minutes without having to compromise your reserves. If you don’t burn 20 minutes fuel then the remainder is still in the tanks for next trip. If the MINISCULE amount of extra fuel burnt in increased weight carriage is that important, then Big is in worse trouble than I thought.

You are professionals in a big boy’s environment. The CAA asked you nicely to bring 20 minutes holding fuel. If you can’t take professional advice from the experts then you deserve everything you get. You’re making the ATCO’s life incrementally more stressful, and you’re adding extra burden on those whose operations upon whom you impinge. What the passengers think of an airline that cannot plan a flight from XXX-LHR without diverting to SND is anybody’s guess.

We’ve had this argument so many times before. Some people just don’t listen. Perhaps BA should publish the statistical chance of reaching the planned destination so the customers can plan accordingly?

[Boy_From_Brazil]

The Wake Knot

I am 100% behind everything you have said. I have paid my respects at the Air Force memorial on several occasions, I would have loved to been there at the same time as you guys.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many d1ck heads are associated with the airline industry.

BFB

[L337]

Capt H Peacock:

Sorry, but BA does have CAA approval to use statistical contingency fuel rather than the 5%/15 mins on the CAA document.

Accusing BA of not operating to JAROPs is a serious accusation. If you believe, and clearly you do, that BA is breaking the law. Either retract the accusation, or go to the CAA and make your complaint.

L337

[Capt H Peacock]

The legislation as laid down permits no less than an equivalent level of safety for the operational interpretation of JAR-OPS 1 Part D 1.255. In the guidance to that interpretation the Authority states that the absolute minimum contingency fuel shall be:

AMC Ops 1.255 1.3b An amount to fly for 5 minutes at holding speed at 1500 ft (450 m) above the destination aerodrome in Standard Conditions.

If British Airways has secured an exemption to this policy it can only be of a temporary nature, for operational exigencies, and must be disclosed to the European Council as specified in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91


Article 8:

3. Member States may grant exemptions from the technical requirements and administrative procedures specified by this Regulation in the case of unforeseen urgent operational circumstances or operational needs of a limited duration. In these cases the Commission and the other Member States shall be informed as soon as possible of the exemptions granted.

5. In circumstances where a safety level equivalent to that attained by the application of the common technical requirements and administrative procedures included in Annexes I, II and III to this Regulation can be achieved by other means, Member States may, without discrimination on grounds of nationality of the applicants and having regard to the need not to distort competition, grant approval derogating from these provisions. In such cases, the Member State concerned shall notify the Commission before granting such approval and give reasons demonstrating the need to derogate from the common technical requirements and administrative procedures, as well as the conditions foreseen to ensure an equivalent level of safety is achieved.

If your policy does not allow the reduction below 5 minutes at 1500ft then my previous assertion stands – that the authority allows you to use any method you wish so long as the minimum contingency fuel is no less than that figure. If your policy does allow contingency fuel of less than this figure then it can only be under the circumstances specified above. There is no extant exemption to this rule, and so therefore perhaps you might enlighten us all as to how this can be achieved within the current legislation.

The CAA Safety Regulation Group has made its interpretation of the reserves inbound to UK aerodromes very clear. Most operators seem to have no issue with the opinion of this august group. I am at a loss to understand how anyone can choose to ignore the advice of the Authority that licences operation of public transport aeroplanes in the UK.

You appear to be asking me to put up or shut up. If this is to be a discussion forum, then I would expect a full and frank exchange of views. If however you wish to make some form of ultimatum, then perhaps you would furnish us instrument of variation to Annex III EEC 3922/91. I have no doubt that the CAA SRG are well aware of custom and practice within the industry, and their concerns about this issue are well documented. It seems odd therefore for them to relax these regulations for one company, in the opposite direction to the thrust of policy.

Either way the CAA will get to know. The rest of the industry has a right to ask why.

[Airbus Unplugged]

The Air Force Memorial in Runnymede is a beautiful and fitting tribute to those truly gallant airman who laid down their lives for their friends. They came from an era when personal sacrifice by people who did something really worthwhile was the stuff of adulation and heroism. That quality is lost on our valueless and barren society.

Good luck on the flypast. Take extra fuel.

[ratarsedagain]

Capt. H. Peacock,
Just to clarify, and I quote "British Airways have been authorised by the CAA to operate a Statistical Contingency Fuel policy since 2002"
And also, just to confirm, BA fully comply with AMC Ops 1.255 1.3b in that the lower limit for SCF will be 5 mins holding at 1500ft.
They are also not alone in using Statistical Contingency fuel, both KLM and Lufthansa have operated an SCF policy for some time.
In each case, an airline has to devise their own policy, before submitting it to the requisite authority for approval (In BA's case, the CAA, for KLM and Lufthansa, their respective local authorities).

[Basil]

BA (or any other airline) can have dispensations to do anything they can bully out of the CAA but the final respnsibility is that of the AIRCRAFT COMMANDER.
No-one tells the boss how little fuel to carry: not the DFO, not the chief pilot, not the check-captain, no-one!
I had to explain the foregoing to a line checker a couple of years ago and then backed it up by restating to the FO for future ref when he's a skipper.

[LTNman]

Strange that LTN had three different BA aircraft types land for fuel while no other Heathrow airline paid us a visit. So are BA Commanders looking over their shoulders when it comes to justifying carrying more than the minimum?

[normally left blank]

I'm on the sideline here, but would like to pose a few questions:

The event was NOTAM'ed? But nobody had read, or understood the NOTAM. Not the first time that has happened. The NOTAM system doesn't work as intended.

Why 10 min. blocking? What is the time requirements for a TOT - Time On Target - isn't that in seconds?

Hopefully it was just a "coppers story":

"called in early"

Practise run - what did that accomplish? (Apart from a lot of
etc. )

regards

[Capt H Peacock]

So as I said in my post 181329OCT, BA is subject to the same minimum contingency carriage as everyone else, using the approval granted by

AMC OPS 1.255. Fuel Policy

1.3. Contingency fuel, which should be the higher of (a) or (b) below:

a. Either:
i. 5% of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight replanning, trip fuel for the remainder of the flight; or
ii. Not less than 3% of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight replanning, trip fuel for the remainder of the flight, subject to the approval of the Authority, provided that an en-route alternate is available; or
iii. An amount of fuel sufficient for 20 minutes flying time based upon the planned trip fuel consumption provided that the operator has established a fuel consumption monitoring programme for individual aeroplanes and uses valid data determined by means of such a programme for fuel calculation; or
iv. An amount of fuel of not less than that which would be required to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 1500 ft (450 m) above the destination aerodrome in standard conditions, when an operator has established a programme, approved by the Authority, to monitor the fuel consumption on each individual route/aeroplane combination and uses this Data for a statistical analysis to calculate contingency fuel for that route/aeroplane combination; or
b. An amount to fly for 5 minutes at holding speed at 1500 ft (450 m) above the destination aerodrome in Standard Conditions.

So you are required to consider the statistical data when calculating the fuel load. In other words if the 5pm from Shuttleville burns on average an extra tonne, then you are to add it to your fuel load, subject to the absolute minimum contingency of 5 minutes at 1500ft.

As regards the interpretation of official guidance from the CAA such as that given in AIC 82/2003 advising operators to routinely expect 20 minutes holding, JAR OPS further specifies:

1.255 b (b) An operator shall ensure that the planning of flights is [based upon]…

(2) The operating conditions under which the flight is to be conducted including:
(iv) Air Traffic Services procedures and restrictions.

So it appears that BA has a method of statistical analysis of fuel data which is acceptable to the Authority under 1.255 a. (iv), as do many other operators. It is bound by that regulation to use that statistical data to calculate the fuel load, and it is bound by that regulation to carry not less than 5 minutes at 1500ft. None of which is any different to the assertion that I made in my previous post.

For those who get all uppity about being called to account, let’s summarise as follows:

• British Airways is bound by JAR OPS Part 1 in the same way as all other compliant operators
• British Airways has a statistical fuel policy which the Authority has passed as an Acceptable Means of Compliance under 1.255 a.(iv).
• British Airways remains bound by the requirement to use that data to calculate fuel loads, and is bound by the requirement to load no less than 5 minutes contingency at 1500ft.
• British Airways remains subject to the requirement to consider such procedures and restrictions as the Authority promulgate for the planning of their flights
• British Airways has no special exemption to these rules

Over to you.

[Smudger]

Re Clumsy - To all ex-mil guys (yes, I'm one) don't rise to the bait guys, he's just kidding!!