Easy Incident..?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fraggle Rock
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Incident..?
Sounded like a bit of an altercation last night between ATC and 2 orange 737s last night near LPL.
One of them admitted level busting by 250ft, ATC said it was more.
Much debate on the RT over who was at fault and who was filing what.
Sounded bloody busy at the time !
One of them admitted level busting by 250ft, ATC said it was more.
Much debate on the RT over who was at fault and who was filing what.
Sounded bloody busy at the time !
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less than 300' is not a bust. So do you mean busting THAT by 250', i.e. departing from assigned level by 550'?
I have to say that I like it when things like level busts occur (without further incident) because it means that we can all learn something new about how incidents arise, and we can all (hopefully) plug one more hole in the swiss cheese.
I have to say that I like it when things like level busts occur (without further incident) because it means that we can all learn something new about how incidents arise, and we can all (hopefully) plug one more hole in the swiss cheese.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fraggle Rock
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off the top of my head, there was more discussion over what was being filed as they both had TCAS RAs as a result of the level "bust" or "excursion." (I think ATC claimed it was 400').
Agree totally with you that things are learned from such situations, which is why my curiosity prompted me to post the original message.
Agree totally with you that things are learned from such situations, which is why my curiosity prompted me to post the original message.
Food for thought:-
Scenario - base of controlled airspace 3000'. IFR traffic instructed to fly at 3500' (ATC are required to keep such flights 500' above the base), but descends to 3250'.
Another aircraft in the vicinity, ostensibly flying at 2900', outside and below CAS, inadvertently climbs to 3150'. Vertical separation 100' - but by definition neither aircraft is deemed to have 'bust its level' - that's OK then !!
Scenario - base of controlled airspace 3000'. IFR traffic instructed to fly at 3500' (ATC are required to keep such flights 500' above the base), but descends to 3250'.
Another aircraft in the vicinity, ostensibly flying at 2900', outside and below CAS, inadvertently climbs to 3150'. Vertical separation 100' - but by definition neither aircraft is deemed to have 'bust its level' - that's OK then !!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fraggle Rock
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spekesoftly
Food for thought indeed.
Another one I have trouble with ex-LPL is the heading 180 climbing to 3,000'. In the event we can't get 2-way when transferred to Manchester, we're heading for alot of busy FIR, not least Tilstock Para drop zone
Food for thought indeed.
Another one I have trouble with ex-LPL is the heading 180 climbing to 3,000'. In the event we can't get 2-way when transferred to Manchester, we're heading for alot of busy FIR, not least Tilstock Para drop zone
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fraggle Rock
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still thinking about what I just posted......
180 degrees to 3,000' is a non-standard given to LPL NANTIs when MAN is on easterlies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all IFR deps off LPL contact the same MACC sector (128.05).
If this is so, would a left turn out off 09, as for a WAL SID, then a turn to NANTI or HON when clear of MAN inbounds be safer, with only a couple of minute's loss of expedition incurred by the extra track mileage ?
Another question too, if I may !?
My Met. studies are recent enough to recall the difference between inland and coastal winds.
However, as per MAN and their preferred runway policy (i.e. westerlies), could there not be a policy whereby MAN and LPL have an agreed runway policy, eg when MAN on westerlies, LPL do also, subject to an agreed wind component table.?
180 degrees to 3,000' is a non-standard given to LPL NANTIs when MAN is on easterlies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all IFR deps off LPL contact the same MACC sector (128.05).
If this is so, would a left turn out off 09, as for a WAL SID, then a turn to NANTI or HON when clear of MAN inbounds be safer, with only a couple of minute's loss of expedition incurred by the extra track mileage ?
Another question too, if I may !?
My Met. studies are recent enough to recall the difference between inland and coastal winds.
However, as per MAN and their preferred runway policy (i.e. westerlies), could there not be a policy whereby MAN and LPL have an agreed runway policy, eg when MAN on westerlies, LPL do also, subject to an agreed wind component table.?
Last edited by Gladfa; 24th Apr 2002 at 10:21.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speke, that's not a level bust, since outside CAS there is no assignment of level. That would come under the "unauthorised incursion into CAS" category, for which various people would probably want a little chat with the guy!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: england
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gladfa:
The runway in use policy has been muted before, but as you rightly say there can be sig differences in the winds even though the airports are only 20+ miles apart. Remember also there is 30deg difference between the respective rwy directions. For example if the wind is 150/15, EGCC would use 24 as its a x-wind and EGGP would use 09.
The runway in use policy has been muted before, but as you rightly say there can be sig differences in the winds even though the airports are only 20+ miles apart. Remember also there is 30deg difference between the respective rwy directions. For example if the wind is 150/15, EGCC would use 24 as its a x-wind and EGGP would use 09.
Gladfa,
Agreed that 180/3000' has almost become 'SOP' for the NANTI 2V, and I do sympathise with your concerns. I also appreciate that the a/c kit has been programmed, that you brief for EFATO etc, and so any late change from the SID is less than ideal. Ultimately of course, for any of the above reasons, a pilot could refuse a 'tactical solution' to expedite departure. Trouble is, as I'm sure you know, the ensuing delay due to traffic density could be considerable. So ATC try to do their best, with a revised clearance, to get you airborne quickly and safely.
A left turn from 09 to NANTI/HON ....... I have seen it done, but the initial reaction from the pilot was perhaps predictable! ("Confirm left turn" etc.) It can also involve as many co-ordination and confliction problems (09 inbounds ?) as it tries to solve, and may very well add more than just a few track miles. Generally not in favour, but we try to remain flexible.
Agreed that 180/3000' has almost become 'SOP' for the NANTI 2V, and I do sympathise with your concerns. I also appreciate that the a/c kit has been programmed, that you brief for EFATO etc, and so any late change from the SID is less than ideal. Ultimately of course, for any of the above reasons, a pilot could refuse a 'tactical solution' to expedite departure. Trouble is, as I'm sure you know, the ensuing delay due to traffic density could be considerable. So ATC try to do their best, with a revised clearance, to get you airborne quickly and safely.
A left turn from 09 to NANTI/HON ....... I have seen it done, but the initial reaction from the pilot was perhaps predictable! ("Confirm left turn" etc.) It can also involve as many co-ordination and confliction problems (09 inbounds ?) as it tries to solve, and may very well add more than just a few track miles. Generally not in favour, but we try to remain flexible.
Last edited by spekesoftly; 24th Apr 2002 at 14:36.
