Another very close ORD near hit.
Pegase Driver
Most, il not all , non-US Airlines do not accept LAHSO ( or SIRO in Canada) .
The procedure is against both IFALPA and IFATCA policy ( but accepted by US ALPA and NATCA )
Normally US controllers should not " offer" it to non-US airlines.
The procedure is against both IFALPA and IFATCA policy ( but accepted by US ALPA and NATCA )
Normally US controllers should not " offer" it to non-US airlines.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
"Some years ago (pre 9/11) I was fortunate to be allowed in the jumpseat for a landing at ORD. ATC offered a LAHSO but the Captain (BA) declined. Is that SOP for BA or Captain’s discretion?
I didn’t think of asking at the time."
I retired from the BA Classic in 99. You could well have been my guest during those, what now seem like, halcyon days.
It is my recollection that the BA ban on LAHSO came in as a SOP in the mid 90s. Before the ban came in, many of us declined LAHSO as a matter of prudence, but it was at our discretion. Unfortunately, both before and after it became a SOP, the US ATC system found it hard to handle. You would advise them on first contact with Approach: "Unable to accept LAHSO". As often as not Tower would not get the message and would advise you to LAHSO despite your initial message. If this happened early enough, you could advise "unable" and the system usually seemed to cope.
On one memorable, for me, occasion - I went into print - having initially advised we could not accept LAHSO, we were given the instruction to LAHSO just before the flare. This was at ORD and after it had become a BA SOP not to accept LAHSO. In the event, I decided that it was safer to land and hammer the brakes rather than to go around back into the manic ORD sky.
Once at BOS, as I recall, we declined 27 on first contact as too short for comfort, and were given 22L instead. But immediately after touching down, we were instructed to hold short of 27 resulting, if my memory is correct, in a slightly shorter stopping distance than landing on 27 itself.
Happy days!
Regards
Stoic
I didn’t think of asking at the time."
I retired from the BA Classic in 99. You could well have been my guest during those, what now seem like, halcyon days.
It is my recollection that the BA ban on LAHSO came in as a SOP in the mid 90s. Before the ban came in, many of us declined LAHSO as a matter of prudence, but it was at our discretion. Unfortunately, both before and after it became a SOP, the US ATC system found it hard to handle. You would advise them on first contact with Approach: "Unable to accept LAHSO". As often as not Tower would not get the message and would advise you to LAHSO despite your initial message. If this happened early enough, you could advise "unable" and the system usually seemed to cope.
On one memorable, for me, occasion - I went into print - having initially advised we could not accept LAHSO, we were given the instruction to LAHSO just before the flare. This was at ORD and after it had become a BA SOP not to accept LAHSO. In the event, I decided that it was safer to land and hammer the brakes rather than to go around back into the manic ORD sky.
Once at BOS, as I recall, we declined 27 on first contact as too short for comfort, and were given 22L instead. But immediately after touching down, we were instructed to hold short of 27 resulting, if my memory is correct, in a slightly shorter stopping distance than landing on 27 itself.
Happy days!
Regards
Stoic
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: EDDM
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange that documents on LAHSO at the FAA never mention that some may decline to accept the procedure...
http://www.faa.gov/ats/atp/atx/lahso118.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/ats/atp/atx/lahso118.pdf
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That animation seriously gave me the creeps... just watching the constant relative bearing hold true...... nasty.
As I recall from my time in BA longhaul, the requirement to not accept LAHSO is on the filed flight plan as a remark... however, as I now know, controllers don't see the flight plan without specifically searching for it in a seperate system.
LAHSO is probably the biggest accident waiting to happen in global aviation. When it happens, who will be held to blame? That is the question that should be asked now, and the procedure stopped. Unfortunately, time on runway equals money, and money talks. But that's now...
The single best thing that could happen here would be unilateral action by the Commanders of aircraft into fields operating LAHSO to refuse to accept the procedure. Well within the rights of a Captain, though it would be interesting to see what, if any behind the scenes pressure came from the operators.
This is one area where we can see the tombstone technology before it happens. Do not let the complacency of "Well, it's worked for me till now, why shouldn't it continue to work" affect judgement; this is an unacceptable risk for the innocent people who pay our wages. It must stop.
As I recall from my time in BA longhaul, the requirement to not accept LAHSO is on the filed flight plan as a remark... however, as I now know, controllers don't see the flight plan without specifically searching for it in a seperate system.
LAHSO is probably the biggest accident waiting to happen in global aviation. When it happens, who will be held to blame? That is the question that should be asked now, and the procedure stopped. Unfortunately, time on runway equals money, and money talks. But that's now...
The single best thing that could happen here would be unilateral action by the Commanders of aircraft into fields operating LAHSO to refuse to accept the procedure. Well within the rights of a Captain, though it would be interesting to see what, if any behind the scenes pressure came from the operators.
This is one area where we can see the tombstone technology before it happens. Do not let the complacency of "Well, it's worked for me till now, why shouldn't it continue to work" affect judgement; this is an unacceptable risk for the innocent people who pay our wages. It must stop.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Age: 47
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORD ops from an anglo-yank
Post after post on this thread have crucified either ORD's runway layout or ORD's controllers as being crap. I've been in and out of ORD, LGA, BOS, ATL, JFK, EWR, IAD for the last 5 years now and nowhere have I been more impressed by ATC's skills than at ORD. I've never flown into Heathrow or DXB, but lets everyone realise here that ORD has at least double the number runways in use at any one time as any of these other airports. Agreed, ORD is controlled chaos, but given what the controllers there have to work with I believe they do an exceptional job. What does Heathrow have? 2 or 3 parallel (sp?) runways. Not to throw spears here, but the attidude that some of the UK pilots have taken on this thread is a bit pompous. Understood that many of them may not come into these airports here in the US as often as some of the natives, and are therefore going to be a bit more cautious, but it seems to me that European operators are so 'by the book.' There are times when safety is a factor and in those circumstances the rules should be followed. But for example, you never see a European operated aircraft turn off its taxi to light to avoid absolutely blinding a facing aircraft. Its not a safety factor. Not as though anyone is going to miss a fully lighted 777 on the ramp if they turn out there taxi light for 30 seconds to avoid blinding a fellow pilot. And no, im not some George Bush loving cowboy yank, I tend to side with the euros on most issues, but insuating that the FAA and US are running a less safe operation in ORD is outrageous. In the UK there you folks have to deal with LHR. Here in the states we have MSP, EWR, IAD, PHL, JFK, LGA, ORD, ATL, MIA, MCO, SEA, LAX, SFO, IAH, DFW, DEN.
And to finish, it is worth adding that im a 30 year old yank who would rather live in the UK because I enjoy the culture and weather over there. This is not an anti-UK post, I'm simply arguing against this notion of ORD being an uncivilised mess.
Now take aim and......FIRE!
And to finish, it is worth adding that im a 30 year old yank who would rather live in the UK because I enjoy the culture and weather over there. This is not an anti-UK post, I'm simply arguing against this notion of ORD being an uncivilised mess.
Now take aim and......FIRE!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Britain
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway incursions ..........!!1
""That saddens me. I worked for 21 years in Heathrow Tower and never experienced a runway incursion. The only "near" ones I had were one or two caused by pilots but, luckily, I was able to stop them in time. If runway incursions caused by ATC are increasing then something is drastically wrong with controller training."""
Heatrhow Director,
Although I am new to this field, even I can notice that LHR has no corss runways but many apts across UA have many cross runways........ and thats what is a major issue here. LHR has only 2 runways parellel to each other and is relatively easy to manage ...
Heatrhow Director,
Although I am new to this field, even I can notice that LHR has no corss runways but many apts across UA have many cross runways........ and thats what is a major issue here. LHR has only 2 runways parellel to each other and is relatively easy to manage ...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For comparison purposes:
LHR
Two long widely separated parallel runways and simple taxiway routings. Mostly benign weather. Mostly jet transport aircraft with experienced pilots; rarely general aviation/private or turboprop aircraft. Rare use of visual approaches. Few go-arounds due weather/traffic.
Medium density simple operation.
ORD
Multiple closely spaced crossing runways, some are short. Complex and unusual taxiways. Thunderstorms/windshear/snow/lightning. A mix of jet transport/
turboprop/general aviation/freighter/private operators; some not experienced. Many simultaneous visual approaches.
Frequent go-arounds due windshear/traffic separation etc.
Very high density complex operation.
I admire and respect the controllers at both airports for their skills but they are not similar operations.
LHR
Two long widely separated parallel runways and simple taxiway routings. Mostly benign weather. Mostly jet transport aircraft with experienced pilots; rarely general aviation/private or turboprop aircraft. Rare use of visual approaches. Few go-arounds due weather/traffic.
Medium density simple operation.
ORD
Multiple closely spaced crossing runways, some are short. Complex and unusual taxiways. Thunderstorms/windshear/snow/lightning. A mix of jet transport/
turboprop/general aviation/freighter/private operators; some not experienced. Many simultaneous visual approaches.
Frequent go-arounds due windshear/traffic separation etc.
Very high density complex operation.
I admire and respect the controllers at both airports for their skills but they are not similar operations.
Last edited by Tree; 14th Jan 2007 at 18:16.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tree
On the surface Heathrow may appear to be a simple operation to you. However Heathrow is probably the busiest airport with only two runways. LHR shifts about half the traffic of somewhere like O'hare or Atlanta. The runways are approximately 1400 yds apart (stand to be corrected on that one) not quite far enough for mixed mode ops to come in easily. Therefore I think you will find heathrow is a high density operation. Have you ever seen the controlers at heathrow moving traffic around this small airport? I have and it is pretty complex at times. As to the rest of your post about heathrow, sounds about right.
As to missed approaches, it sounds like something is not working well in ORD if they have frequent missed approaches due traffic, or am I missing something here?
I agree with your sentiments about the comparison, they are wildly different airports and the ORD guys are working flat out at a complex airport. Roll on their runway realignmet program to cut down on the cross runway ops I say!
On the surface Heathrow may appear to be a simple operation to you. However Heathrow is probably the busiest airport with only two runways. LHR shifts about half the traffic of somewhere like O'hare or Atlanta. The runways are approximately 1400 yds apart (stand to be corrected on that one) not quite far enough for mixed mode ops to come in easily. Therefore I think you will find heathrow is a high density operation. Have you ever seen the controlers at heathrow moving traffic around this small airport? I have and it is pretty complex at times. As to the rest of your post about heathrow, sounds about right.
As to missed approaches, it sounds like something is not working well in ORD if they have frequent missed approaches due traffic, or am I missing something here?
I agree with your sentiments about the comparison, they are wildly different airports and the ORD guys are working flat out at a complex airport. Roll on their runway realignmet program to cut down on the cross runway ops I say!
Last edited by Geffen; 15th Jan 2007 at 08:40.
Is mine bigger than yours?
Heathrow. 2 runways (parallel but not separated). Peak movements 98 per hour?
Gatwick. Single runway. Record hourly movement 60.
How does that compare?
Heathrow. 2 runways (parallel but not separated). Peak movements 98 per hour?
Gatwick. Single runway. Record hourly movement 60.
How does that compare?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 stats ORD 972,248 LHR 477,884
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%2...ffic_movements
Geffen;
Many pilots operating to ORD (and other NA airports) complete a visual to improve efficiency. It does not always work out in a very high density operation. We may have difficulty descending quickly enough (especially with Airbus products), the preceeding traffic (plural) also on a visual may slow more than expected or not clear the runway quickly enough, we may have that unexpected midwest tailwind etc. I do not see it as something not working well at ORD. It is just a very "tight" operation and go-arounds come with the territory (been there done that). The controllers are very skilled at getting you quickly back in the approach sequence.
I agree that LHR ground movements are high density but it is still a very civilized and professional operation thanks to the controllers there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%2...ffic_movements
Geffen;
Many pilots operating to ORD (and other NA airports) complete a visual to improve efficiency. It does not always work out in a very high density operation. We may have difficulty descending quickly enough (especially with Airbus products), the preceeding traffic (plural) also on a visual may slow more than expected or not clear the runway quickly enough, we may have that unexpected midwest tailwind etc. I do not see it as something not working well at ORD. It is just a very "tight" operation and go-arounds come with the territory (been there done that). The controllers are very skilled at getting you quickly back in the approach sequence.
I agree that LHR ground movements are high density but it is still a very civilized and professional operation thanks to the controllers there.
What's that per runway?
I don't see how switching to a visual approach can be a more efficient use of the runway. If ATC have no control of speed of the inbounds (or length of base leg/final?) how can the spacing be more efficient?
Not points scoring I'm genuinely interested.
I don't see how switching to a visual approach can be a more efficient use of the runway. If ATC have no control of speed of the inbounds (or length of base leg/final?) how can the spacing be more efficient?
Not points scoring I'm genuinely interested.
The London equiv until a recent third runway was KPHX. Busy enough with two runways, however in no way could it compare to ORD as far as volume, complexity or most any other comparison using any type of weighted or sliding scale because of the differing number of runways.
Have LHR's arrival runway cross its departure runway and the notional third runway I've heard about (in litigation?) cross both and then you might have an appreciation for what ORD controllers have to work with. Its a screwed up airport, I bet the controllers there would agree. They however didn't ask for many of the runways to cross one another once or twice over thier length. To their credit however they make it work, running numbers of aircraft that are stunning.
Geffen
KVNY north of LAX is busier than LHR, to correct your claim. There may be busier ones, that is however the one that comes to mind. Yes I know different types of traffic, however your claim is all encompassing.
Have LHR's arrival runway cross its departure runway and the notional third runway I've heard about (in litigation?) cross both and then you might have an appreciation for what ORD controllers have to work with. Its a screwed up airport, I bet the controllers there would agree. They however didn't ask for many of the runways to cross one another once or twice over thier length. To their credit however they make it work, running numbers of aircraft that are stunning.
Geffen
KVNY north of LAX is busier than LHR, to correct your claim. There may be busier ones, that is however the one that comes to mind. Yes I know different types of traffic, however your claim is all encompassing.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast,
I think you will find I said "probably" and anyhow according to ACI Van Nuys is about 65,000 flights behing LHR. I agree that EGLL and KORD cannot be compared in terms of traffic flow around and through the airport, they are radically different. EGLL when it was first built maybe, with its multiple crossing runways, but not today.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the controllers at KORD. As I have said previously roll on the O'hare modernisation programme.
One more thing, thread drift!
I think you will find I said "probably" and anyhow according to ACI Van Nuys is about 65,000 flights behing LHR. I agree that EGLL and KORD cannot be compared in terms of traffic flow around and through the airport, they are radically different. EGLL when it was first built maybe, with its multiple crossing runways, but not today.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the controllers at KORD. As I have said previously roll on the O'hare modernisation programme.
One more thing, thread drift!
Last edited by Geffen; 16th Jan 2007 at 10:21.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado;
For example: You are on left base leg vector for 09R and the controller is using IFR separation standards. He has a short window of opportunity just opening up for 09L and points out the traffic for 09R and offers the visual 09L. You report sighting the traffic and "field in sight" (meaning you are able the visual). You are cleared the visual 09L-revert to visual separation standards (pilot controlled and much less than IFR standards)-turn in and land 09L saving several minutes flight time=efficiency. You may also use this procedure on the same runway. By changing to the visual you would turn to final sooner and reduce your in-trail distance from the preceding traffic and increase the efficiency.
Many NA airports would be much less less efficient without this practice. For comparison purposes you may note the incidence and length of inbound holds when the weather is not suitable for visual approaches at ORD,LGA,LAX,BOS,YYZ,YVR etc.
Also for your information: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...aid+ADS-B.html
For example: You are on left base leg vector for 09R and the controller is using IFR separation standards. He has a short window of opportunity just opening up for 09L and points out the traffic for 09R and offers the visual 09L. You report sighting the traffic and "field in sight" (meaning you are able the visual). You are cleared the visual 09L-revert to visual separation standards (pilot controlled and much less than IFR standards)-turn in and land 09L saving several minutes flight time=efficiency. You may also use this procedure on the same runway. By changing to the visual you would turn to final sooner and reduce your in-trail distance from the preceding traffic and increase the efficiency.
Many NA airports would be much less less efficient without this practice. For comparison purposes you may note the incidence and length of inbound holds when the weather is not suitable for visual approaches at ORD,LGA,LAX,BOS,YYZ,YVR etc.
Also for your information: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...aid+ADS-B.html
Last edited by Tree; 16th Jan 2007 at 18:53.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure you're understanding eachother...
He is not saying that we, in north america, routinely clear aircraft for take-off based on some sort of formula and hope luck will carry us through the day.
... I mean PLEASE!!If that is really how you understand that situation then you need to re-read the last few posts. This pilot had to think outside the box. Safety ALREADY HAD been jeopardized.
LX
CYOW Approach
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm struggling to understand quite how it can be inefficient to constantly have the situation where the next to land is over the numbers when the one ahead is just vacating. That's using tightly controlled radar vectoring and speed control. Just how would making more use of visual approaches improve that?
And how much capacity is wasted by all those
?
Tree: In your example of the switch to 09L, what becomes of the 'gap' that now appears on the approach to 09R? Isn't that a waste? Also, we need to provide the a/c following the one now on a visual with standard IFR separation. If he doesn't go visual too and maintain his own separation, if it were me I'd be very conservative because I wouldn't know how tight/wide this guy on a visual is going to turn.
And how much capacity is wasted by all those
frequent go-arounds
Tree: In your example of the switch to 09L, what becomes of the 'gap' that now appears on the approach to 09R? Isn't that a waste? Also, we need to provide the a/c following the one now on a visual with standard IFR separation. If he doesn't go visual too and maintain his own separation, if it were me I'd be very conservative because I wouldn't know how tight/wide this guy on a visual is going to turn.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAO,
Wow, I thought I had one too many glasses of wine last night and couldn't remember posting anything until I saw my post was over six months old. I always try to read what I said before hitting that dreaded enter key. You can never get it back. Have a great new year and be careful at KORD.
Wow, I thought I had one too many glasses of wine last night and couldn't remember posting anything until I saw my post was over six months old. I always try to read what I said before hitting that dreaded enter key. You can never get it back. Have a great new year and be careful at KORD.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
At airports with parallel runways, there usually isn't enough space between them to let you vector to each without applying some sort of IFR separation. Usually, that means that you'll have to keep vertical separation until both are established on the LOC.
That can be circumvented however by pointing out trafic on final for the other runway and issuing a visual approach.
In this case, the traffic Tree is refering to is on a left downwind for 09R, maybe number 4 or 5, and then is "slam-dunked" to 09L which is probably a departure runway but with a few "arrival options".
You'll find that at airports that use visual approaches effectively, vectoring to final is always given to ensure efficient spacing.
Cheers,
LX
At airports with parallel runways, there usually isn't enough space between them to let you vector to each without applying some sort of IFR separation. Usually, that means that you'll have to keep vertical separation until both are established on the LOC.
That can be circumvented however by pointing out trafic on final for the other runway and issuing a visual approach.
In your example of the switch to 09L, what becomes of the 'gap' that now appears on the approach to 09R? Isn't that a waste?
Also, we need to provide the a/c following the one now on a visual with standard IFR separation. If he doesn't go visual too and maintain his own separation, if it were me I'd be very conservative because I wouldn't know how tight/wide this guy on a visual is going to turn.
Cheers,
LX