Shock horror - Nigel has to wait.
Just a word from the construction industry world here, it is quite possible to engineer the assembly of a building so that any cranage used is not outside the physical dimensions of the resulting building. It just means a bit more ingenuity (crane industry experts, by the way, take great pride in working out clever solutions to such tricky situations for their clients, and often do articles in trade magazines about it afterwards). Now it costs more, which the client would have to bear. But it's all been done before. And it would not impinge on the aircraft envelope.
Remind me, just what business are the client, BAA, actually in ?
(Oh, and I am presuming that the final buildings will not impinge on anything!)
Remind me, just what business are the client, BAA, actually in ?
(Oh, and I am presuming that the final buildings will not impinge on anything!)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD
You have raised some very valid points. I was just trying to highlight the fact that "committing" does not necessarily imply that the landing has to be at LL. After all, downwind right hand for LL on easterlies is also downwind left hand for KK etc. I don't for one second believe that a switch like this would be easy (see previous post for how much beer would be owed to TC!) but it is not outside the realms of possibility if the situation gets tricky.
I guess the reason the discussion has been confined mainly to LL is that this is the only place to which people commit on a regular basis.
Your idea about reconsidering when the distress/urgency calls should be made has merit, as would introducing some sort of "minimum fuel advisory"?
Bring back proper Fam flights.
Visit ATC.
G W-H
You have raised some very valid points. I was just trying to highlight the fact that "committing" does not necessarily imply that the landing has to be at LL. After all, downwind right hand for LL on easterlies is also downwind left hand for KK etc. I don't for one second believe that a switch like this would be easy (see previous post for how much beer would be owed to TC!) but it is not outside the realms of possibility if the situation gets tricky.
I guess the reason the discussion has been confined mainly to LL is that this is the only place to which people commit on a regular basis.
Your idea about reconsidering when the distress/urgency calls should be made has merit, as would introducing some sort of "minimum fuel advisory"?
Bring back proper Fam flights.
Visit ATC.
G W-H
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to emphasise a point made earlier.
When the departure runway is not available for landing the ILS on that runway will be switched off.
If you're going round the hold and planning on committing to LL, tune in the dep rwy ILS and see if it's radiating. I don't know how the info that it's not will affect your decision making but I suppose it's all extra information to help the process.
When the inevitable does hit the proverbial fan and there are 20 or so of you in the inner holds with no airport to go to, well.....
WF.
When the departure runway is not available for landing the ILS on that runway will be switched off.
If you're going round the hold and planning on committing to LL, tune in the dep rwy ILS and see if it's radiating. I don't know how the info that it's not will affect your decision making but I suppose it's all extra information to help the process.
When the inevitable does hit the proverbial fan and there are 20 or so of you in the inner holds with no airport to go to, well.....
WF.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WF...
Does that hold true for incidents like yesterday (Mon am) when the VS A340, despite being excellently handled all round (including a reasonably quick tow-off) still caused aircraft to go from "no delay" (not "up to 20mins", but told to expect no holding) to 30min+ EATs being issued as LHR went single runway.
Once the A340 was down, can you confirm the ILS for 27R was immediately turned off? If so, it certainly came back on quickly, since we then were switched at 8 miles to 27R as the runway re-opened...
TIA
NoD
When the departure runway is not available for landing the ILS on that runway will be switched off.
Once the A340 was down, can you confirm the ILS for 27R was immediately turned off? If so, it certainly came back on quickly, since we then were switched at 8 miles to 27R as the runway re-opened...
TIA
NoD
Guest
Posts: n/a
NoD,
You probably need someone from the tower to give you the definitive answer, but I suspect that both ILSs in the scenario you mention wold have stayed on as any closure of a runway would be expected to be short term.
Checking whether the ILS for the departure runway is on or not is not foolproof, but it will most likely be a good indication of the availability of that runway for landing at short notice as most (but not all) unavailability at the moment is due to the T5 works. E&OE.
WF.
You probably need someone from the tower to give you the definitive answer, but I suspect that both ILSs in the scenario you mention wold have stayed on as any closure of a runway would be expected to be short term.
Checking whether the ILS for the departure runway is on or not is not foolproof, but it will most likely be a good indication of the availability of that runway for landing at short notice as most (but not all) unavailability at the moment is due to the T5 works. E&OE.
WF.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR indef delay...opps
About seven years ago was holding at LAM at FL110, awaiting further descent.
ATIS was indicating 4000 metres in mist, sky clear, temp and dew point very close to one another.
Expected approach clearance in about seven minutes, as I recall.
Asked the F/E to check the ground control frequency...and he mentioned that the airport was now going to LVP, with the visibility dropping rapidly, no mention of this by the approach controller or ATIS...so off we went to LGW, pronto.
If you 'commit' to LHR, you had absolutely better be sure about the landing conditions/runway availability.
ATIS was indicating 4000 metres in mist, sky clear, temp and dew point very close to one another.
Expected approach clearance in about seven minutes, as I recall.
Asked the F/E to check the ground control frequency...and he mentioned that the airport was now going to LVP, with the visibility dropping rapidly, no mention of this by the approach controller or ATIS...so off we went to LGW, pronto.
If you 'commit' to LHR, you had absolutely better be sure about the landing conditions/runway availability.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a runway was lost and it was expected to be short term, then yes, the ILS would probably stay on. It makes it easier to bring the first few in if you don't have to wait for the ILS to get up and running.
However, it should be borne in mind that sometimes an ILS may be radiating at the other end for test purposes or whatever, but this does not mean that the runway is NOT available in an emergency.
The T5 works do throw a spanner in the works and this was highlighted at a recent TRUCE when some BA guys were shocked to find that the NOTAMs don't provide nearly enough info on crane erection (tee hee) times. Food for thought if you're about to commit.
P7
However, it should be borne in mind that sometimes an ILS may be radiating at the other end for test purposes or whatever, but this does not mean that the runway is NOT available in an emergency.
The T5 works do throw a spanner in the works and this was highlighted at a recent TRUCE when some BA guys were shocked to find that the NOTAMs don't provide nearly enough info on crane erection (tee hee) times. Food for thought if you're about to commit.
P7
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pt Seven
Problem is, that once you have an EAT, there is (rules wise) no difference between committing to a single or multi runway airport.
Amazing...but true... I suspect individuals might apply it differently however...
NoD
Food for thought if you're about to commit
Amazing...but true... I suspect individuals might apply it differently however...
NoD
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As NOD says, it is the JAROPS 'option' which is the root problem. I was (and am) aghast at the thought of 'committing' to a single runway - whatever the weather and which can so easily be closed at a moment's notice - with no other options. It happens in remote places because it has to. In other places, IMO, it does not need to. I am not sure that the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' fully understands this 'approved' procedure?
I firmly (and sadly!) believe it will take the dumping of several hundred passengers in a largish flatish field or on a motorway with nowhere else to land before this particular rule is changed. I am approaching the end of my flying career. I have 'grown up' in aviation to always have an alternative (except in one or two military situations) when things went wrong.
Where DO you land when your only landing runway becomes unavailable? You can yell the 'M' word until you are blue in the face but that will not 'open' a runway blocked by a disabled aircraft. It is NOT 'M' for 'Magic'. In the naval carrier world (single runway ops) the disabled aircraft is pushed over the side if it cannot be moved off. Easy!
Do other regulatory authorities permit this?
Answers on a postcard or on pprune?
I firmly (and sadly!) believe it will take the dumping of several hundred passengers in a largish flatish field or on a motorway with nowhere else to land before this particular rule is changed. I am approaching the end of my flying career. I have 'grown up' in aviation to always have an alternative (except in one or two military situations) when things went wrong.
Where DO you land when your only landing runway becomes unavailable? You can yell the 'M' word until you are blue in the face but that will not 'open' a runway blocked by a disabled aircraft. It is NOT 'M' for 'Magic'. In the naval carrier world (single runway ops) the disabled aircraft is pushed over the side if it cannot be moved off. Easy!
Do other regulatory authorities permit this?
Answers on a postcard or on pprune?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going round in circles in any of the London holds means you have access to a lot of long bits of tarmac. Even though you have "committed" to LHR you still have lots of options availiable to you if it things get really nasty. Think it will be a long time before anybody goes for the motorway option before using the last drops of reserve to go to Stanstead, Luton, Gatwick, Southampton, Bournmouth, Northolt, Manston et al.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Justbelowcap,
Just be aware though that when it all goes really nasty everyone else will be going for the same few airports, which already have their own reasonable amount of traffic as well.
In what would probably be a slightly chaotic (for want of a better word) situation you may not get that instantaneous direct routeing to a straight in approach at the airfield of your choice.
WF.
Just be aware though that when it all goes really nasty everyone else will be going for the same few airports, which already have their own reasonable amount of traffic as well.
In what would probably be a slightly chaotic (for want of a better word) situation you may not get that instantaneous direct routeing to a straight in approach at the airfield of your choice.
WF.
And justbelowcap don't forget that once you're late on the approach and comitted you've used the fuel for anywhere else, so a blocked runway may mean a taxiway is your only option!
Sooner or later it WILL happen.
Sooner or later it WILL happen.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a few years back having to go around at London City with a hydraulic problem on a 146(you kind of need all your brakes and spoilers at LCY!!). We diverted to STN, but it was major nightmare- we had to go and do a scenic tour of Kent whilst waiting for ATC to thread us through all the other traffic. We used ALL our holding and divert fuel getting to STN. The point? If a major airport shuts for some reason, the ensuing melee may take quite a lot of sorting out.
If I had known that night that I would end up waiting so long for the transit to STN, I would have lobbed in to Southend or Biggin and to hell with pax convenience.
Although many don't seem to understand the concept of maximising your options, my real argument is with the culture that sees arriving with minimum fuel and having to commit to a single runway as somehow acceptable.
It isn't.
If I had known that night that I would end up waiting so long for the transit to STN, I would have lobbed in to Southend or Biggin and to hell with pax convenience.
Although many don't seem to understand the concept of maximising your options, my real argument is with the culture that sees arriving with minimum fuel and having to commit to a single runway as somehow acceptable.
It isn't.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 4 years ago we were flying LAX to PHX in late july which is "monsoon" season for us here in the desert. TAFs were for clear skies with a slight chance of Thunderstorms. Well just as we were turned over to PHX approach we were put in a hold due to a dust storm that brought visibilities to below a mile and a 40 KT crosswind. We had just above normal fuel for a 'bus - planned to land at 8500 ponds - 4.5 k pounds with another 4.0 extra. No alternate fuel, just the extra. we quickly figured a burn to TUS and entered the hold. Sure as sh##, the minute we declared for TUS they cancelled holding. I can tell you I was a little antsy until we touched down at PHX. We landed with our 4.5 reserve but we would have diverted to Luke AFB with all the attendent paperwork to fill out had something else gone wrong.
We later had some diversions to Willie and Luke so now dispatch is a lot more apt to throw an alternate on the release. I'm now on the 757 and we are routinely landing with 12000 lbs of fuel on a VFR day. Remember, 2 of the most useless things in aviation are runway behind you and fuel in the tank farm (or bowser).
We later had some diversions to Willie and Luke so now dispatch is a lot more apt to throw an alternate on the release. I'm now on the 757 and we are routinely landing with 12000 lbs of fuel on a VFR day. Remember, 2 of the most useless things in aviation are runway behind you and fuel in the tank farm (or bowser).
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snooky you said
But that would be the case at any diversion airport with a single runway. Going round the holds in the London TMA gives a lot of options. Also Warped Factor you make a good point
When things get really nasty (only been there once) you give your own directs. Have been in a busy TMA where ATC have just given up, multiple MAYDAYs and aircraft all self positioning. The rules get changed mighty quick when running dry becomes a real possibilty. The standard of ATC is just so high in the UK that I can't see it happening over London. Faced with that sort of scenario are you really bothered about a few cranes in the GA safety cone? Those are the times that we earn our money.
Full tanks please Eng
And justbelowcap don't forget that once you're late on the approach and comitted you've used the fuel for anywhere else, so a blocked runway may mean a taxiway is your only option!
In what would probably be a slightly chaotic (for want of a better word) situation you may not get that instantaneous direct routeing to a straight in approach at the airfield of your choice.
Full tanks please Eng
Exactly my point, it is always much safer to be on finals with enough fuel to divert elsewhere.
If the runway blocks and you've diverted early enough, you've still got enough for somewhere else. The risk lies in comitting on a regular basis, which is what is happening at the moment. Whether you commit to your destination or your alternate is irrelevant, as is whether the airfield has one or two runways, since a quick circuit will take up the reserve fuel.
Do it often enough and someone will get caught out, and presently it's happening all day every day.
If the runway blocks and you've diverted early enough, you've still got enough for somewhere else. The risk lies in comitting on a regular basis, which is what is happening at the moment. Whether you commit to your destination or your alternate is irrelevant, as is whether the airfield has one or two runways, since a quick circuit will take up the reserve fuel.
Do it often enough and someone will get caught out, and presently it's happening all day every day.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting thread this.
I must confess that the following exchange a few weeks back did alarm me.
Only about 10 mins holding at LAM for LL. There had been some early morning fog and winds at altitude were from the west at c. 50kts. A certain operator arrived from the Far East and announced that in the event of a go around at LL he would be unable to turn left (i.e.South) as this would leave him with insufficient fuel to reach his diversion airfield of Manchester.
From reading this thread, I appreciate that he was not about to run out of fuel over London as he had enough to reach Manch, but I still think that's cutting it a bit fine. I understand that this operator uses Frankfurt as a preferred fuelling stop in the case of strong headwinds, and only when all looks good at LL do they opt to continue without refuelling.
Given that there was early morning fog and reasonable headwinds, it would have seemed prudent to drop into Frankfurt rather than be right on the limits as he obviously was. Had holding been up to 20 mins, as we know it can be and still be technically 'No Delay', I assume he would have diverted early. Or would he?
On another related point: I try and give an accurate estimate of the holding (if there is any) using my judgement from the radar (if there are no EATs). Officially all we have to say is "Less than 20 mins". Given that someone earlier on complained that they had been given an indication of minimal delays only for it to be 20 mins or so, my question is: Would you rather have a blanket "Less than 20 mins" (which could be no holding) or a best guess estimate of the actual delay which might change?
I must confess that the following exchange a few weeks back did alarm me.
Only about 10 mins holding at LAM for LL. There had been some early morning fog and winds at altitude were from the west at c. 50kts. A certain operator arrived from the Far East and announced that in the event of a go around at LL he would be unable to turn left (i.e.South) as this would leave him with insufficient fuel to reach his diversion airfield of Manchester.
From reading this thread, I appreciate that he was not about to run out of fuel over London as he had enough to reach Manch, but I still think that's cutting it a bit fine. I understand that this operator uses Frankfurt as a preferred fuelling stop in the case of strong headwinds, and only when all looks good at LL do they opt to continue without refuelling.
Given that there was early morning fog and reasonable headwinds, it would have seemed prudent to drop into Frankfurt rather than be right on the limits as he obviously was. Had holding been up to 20 mins, as we know it can be and still be technically 'No Delay', I assume he would have diverted early. Or would he?
On another related point: I try and give an accurate estimate of the holding (if there is any) using my judgement from the radar (if there are no EATs). Officially all we have to say is "Less than 20 mins". Given that someone earlier on complained that they had been given an indication of minimal delays only for it to be 20 mins or so, my question is: Would you rather have a blanket "Less than 20 mins" (which could be no holding) or a best guess estimate of the actual delay which might change?