EGLL/LHR Temp. Closed?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can be worth clarifying this is "30 mins holding" - not 30mins flying
Personally I have always thought JAROPS incorrect in allowing this and feel they should have set a higher minimum fuel, say 45 mins?
If you want a further laugh, JAROPS do not consider a runway as part of the 'ground equipment' required to assure a landing
We differ on that point.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WF...
I've done that in the past... and the "Roger" reply means at least I know you've understood what I mean by that. I am not expecting you to do anything with it, other than maybe a dry "well, that makes 10 of you right now" which ought to get us all thinking. And given a comment like that, one of us, and/or you, might consider an MOR 
The problem with the "committing rules", almost by consensus, is that they work well for 1 aircraft. They will all fall apart with 10+ aircraft and one other spanner thrown in...
No... I would only hope for a bit more room if I subsequently stated "fyi, if we GA we will call Mayday". If the latter was a PAN, then maybe, maybe not depending on traffic etc. And I have no right to the room, you just might decide to give it to me to make your life easier
The trouble is we cannot solve this situation as "individuals". it's only with the bigger picture, and getting them "up the chain" to see the problems we might get a better fallback plan. But as usual, "they" will stick their heads in the sands until the **** does hit the fan, and then deny they were aware of a problem. All I can do today, is cover my own backside...
said words along the lines of "be advised we are now committed to landing at Heathrow"..."roger" was my reply because I couldn't think of anything else to say.
The problem with the "committing rules", almost by consensus, is that they work well for 1 aircraft. They will all fall apart with 10+ aircraft and one other spanner thrown in...
would you expect to be given more room in front of you so that you're fairly aassured of a landing clearance
The trouble is we cannot solve this situation as "individuals". it's only with the bigger picture, and getting them "up the chain" to see the problems we might get a better fallback plan. But as usual, "they" will stick their heads in the sands until the **** does hit the fan, and then deny they were aware of a problem. All I can do today, is cover my own backside...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Raynham incident
As I say, I am sure someone will find a link / relate the whole story. IMHO there is a lesson or more from it that could be related to this subject matter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD said:
I'm going to take a wild guess: how long do you think before we see transponders that encode a summary of fuel state data? I give it ten years plus one major incident.
R1
The lack of liasion between the operator side (i.e. airlines / crews) and the ATC side about what fuel levels we now can/do plan to land with, and indeed lots of pressure from the airlines to almost routinely do so
R1
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM
I think you miss the point about Runway 23 and crane Operations at Heathrow.
First of all there were 78 cancellations and 7 diversions due to the KLM incident and the CX aborted take off. I cant remember the exact figure but approx 70 of those dep/arr were BA. There were no BMI cancellations or Diversions. That probably tells a story in itself.
i presume all your colleagues flew BA ???
Runway 23 is closed and yes because of the need for more aircraft parking areas. The amount of times runway 23 was used is insignificant compared to aircraft awaiting stands to park. This was mainly due to pressure from BA to the BAA especially for T4. Anyway what good would 23 have been because we were on easterly ops !!!!
Departing 09L and landing 23 , now that would be interesting for ATC to manage not to mention aircraft landing with a tail wind.
The Terminal 5 cranes are only allowed to affect one runway at a time and are Notam'd as such with strict controls by ops. There is an agreement which says they must be lowered within 10 minutes if required to do so.
Night work would be too expensive and also the noise from the site would be unbearable for the local residents
This is in agreement with the CAA.
These types of incidents when both runways are out of action are few and far betwen and you cannot legislate for every eventuality.
By the way whats Low Viz got to do with anything ?? Most airports suffer at one stage or other and the flow rate goes down which is normal practice. Perhaps you should have a word with the great one and get him to stop lozw viz, high winds, thunderstorms etc etc
Perhaps you should fly from Luton in the future.
I think you miss the point about Runway 23 and crane Operations at Heathrow.
First of all there were 78 cancellations and 7 diversions due to the KLM incident and the CX aborted take off. I cant remember the exact figure but approx 70 of those dep/arr were BA. There were no BMI cancellations or Diversions. That probably tells a story in itself.
i presume all your colleagues flew BA ???
Runway 23 is closed and yes because of the need for more aircraft parking areas. The amount of times runway 23 was used is insignificant compared to aircraft awaiting stands to park. This was mainly due to pressure from BA to the BAA especially for T4. Anyway what good would 23 have been because we were on easterly ops !!!!
Departing 09L and landing 23 , now that would be interesting for ATC to manage not to mention aircraft landing with a tail wind.
The Terminal 5 cranes are only allowed to affect one runway at a time and are Notam'd as such with strict controls by ops. There is an agreement which says they must be lowered within 10 minutes if required to do so.
Night work would be too expensive and also the noise from the site would be unbearable for the local residents
This is in agreement with the CAA.
These types of incidents when both runways are out of action are few and far betwen and you cannot legislate for every eventuality.
By the way whats Low Viz got to do with anything ?? Most airports suffer at one stage or other and the flow rate goes down which is normal practice. Perhaps you should have a word with the great one and get him to stop lozw viz, high winds, thunderstorms etc etc
Perhaps you should fly from Luton in the future.
The 'West Raynham Incident' took place on 8 Feb 56. 8 Hunters got airborne in low cloud and mist which was expected to improve. It didn't - it worsened. They arrived back at 20000ft over West Raynham to find low cloud and fog. Despite the fact that 2 other a/c had already diverted to Waterbeach, the 8 Hunters set off at 2000ft to Marham in pairs at 30 sec intervals. Marham's weather also deteriorated and the GCA controllers were unprepared for 8 a/c with critical fuel states all planning to arrive within 4 minutes of each other; of the first pair 1 lost sight of his leader but landed successfully more by luck than judgement, the leader flew 3 timed circuits at below 500ft, landed successfully but flamed out taxying in. The others weren't quite so lucky, 4 climbed up and ejected as their fuel ran out, 1 crashed into a field and was killed, the 8th flew a 150ft circuit but force landed when his engine flamed out on final.
Whenever someone 'commits' to a single aerodrome, they should consider what would happen if that aerodrome became unavailable or that multiple diversions might be required. Despite what airline beancounters may want, intending to land at the planned destination without enough fuel to divert anywhere else seems the height of folly to me. But then I'm old-fashioned about such things!
Worringly, a new ba skipper recently told me "Our landing fuel policies will kill people one of these days".
If beancounters think that paying to carry extra fuel is expensive, let them consider the cost of an accident.....
Whenever someone 'commits' to a single aerodrome, they should consider what would happen if that aerodrome became unavailable or that multiple diversions might be required. Despite what airline beancounters may want, intending to land at the planned destination without enough fuel to divert anywhere else seems the height of folly to me. But then I'm old-fashioned about such things!
Worringly, a new ba skipper recently told me "Our landing fuel policies will kill people one of these days".
If beancounters think that paying to carry extra fuel is expensive, let them consider the cost of an accident.....
Last edited by BEagle; 13th May 2005 at 16:08.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote 'skylion'
"BA shorthaul suffers disproportionate knockons from disruputions because the aircraft, tech crew and cabin crew are all rostered separately. Crew and aircraft seldom stay together for the next sector out of LHR . This is compounded by cabin crews minimum turnaround time agreements which illogically and expensively treat LHR differently from any other point on the network."
----
Oh skylion , grow up
We had operated a 8 hr duty day with a link , which was retimed for our 3rd sector to nightstop.
We had a 50 min break reduced to 23mins at the CAT lounge , and had been so busy on the preceding 2 sectors , we had no break whatsoever ALL DAY , plus a delay with passengers onboard...
So are you telling everyone , that despite you being sat on your *** a**e all day , that the cabin crew should be on their feet for 12-14 hours with no 'getting away from it' whatsoever ?
We don't scuttle off with handfuls of newspapers to read all flight - we work ,. .try to have a little appreciation and wind your neck in..........
Perhaps if we removed your flight deck seats and made you stand all flight, you may see things from a different perspective....
"BA shorthaul suffers disproportionate knockons from disruputions because the aircraft, tech crew and cabin crew are all rostered separately. Crew and aircraft seldom stay together for the next sector out of LHR . This is compounded by cabin crews minimum turnaround time agreements which illogically and expensively treat LHR differently from any other point on the network."
----
Oh skylion , grow up
We had operated a 8 hr duty day with a link , which was retimed for our 3rd sector to nightstop.
We had a 50 min break reduced to 23mins at the CAT lounge , and had been so busy on the preceding 2 sectors , we had no break whatsoever ALL DAY , plus a delay with passengers onboard...
So are you telling everyone , that despite you being sat on your *** a**e all day , that the cabin crew should be on their feet for 12-14 hours with no 'getting away from it' whatsoever ?
We don't scuttle off with handfuls of newspapers to read all flight - we work ,. .try to have a little appreciation and wind your neck in..........
Perhaps if we removed your flight deck seats and made you stand all flight, you may see things from a different perspective....
Well, when this happened, I posted, that I thought TC were probably busy and it was lucky that it happened at a quiet time of the day. My post was deleted for some reason and looking at Dude's recent post , it obviously happened to him/her as well. Why was this? I have an opinion. Mods are you part of NATS management? Anyway, well done TC and LACC, the incident obviously had some knock on effect later on that evening.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-Ice.
If you were with Easyjet, Ryan and a host of others, you, the pilots and the aircraft would probably have all been together on the stand,- not in the lounge,- for 25 minutes and then off again, not for one sector, but two.
BA suffered disproportionately, not because of ATC,( who did a good job for everyone), the BAA, KLM, Cathay or anyone else but because of its own arrangements. Why do you think BMi, and their customers, in comparaison came away pretty much unscathed?
If you were with Easyjet, Ryan and a host of others, you, the pilots and the aircraft would probably have all been together on the stand,- not in the lounge,- for 25 minutes and then off again, not for one sector, but two.
BA suffered disproportionately, not because of ATC,( who did a good job for everyone), the BAA, KLM, Cathay or anyone else but because of its own arrangements. Why do you think BMi, and their customers, in comparaison came away pretty much unscathed?
