BA 479 08 June over Surrey. Any info

[beamender99]

BA 479 08 June BCN LHR appeared to do two circuits around Leatherhead before continuing to Croydon and round to LHR.
It certainly concerned folks in the Esher area. Not the normal tracks or DB levels.The noise level suggested it was at a much much lower altitude than the norm.
I have lived within 10 miles of LHR all my life so am quite familiar with aircraft sounds / levels.
I assume there was some sort of delay at LHR and a last minute hold was called.
Any more info ?

Thanks.

[Hotel Tango]

Wrong forum mate. This is Rumour & News

[N1OL]

Track is here, looks kosher but only SLF.

dub dub dub flightradar24 com / data/ flights ba479#20d08094

(only a newbie)

[Meester proach]

“ concerned of Esher “ eh ? How low was it , 300 ‘ ?

Probably Nigel doing laps over his house checking the postman is not stopping too long .

[Cremeegg]

Looking at FR24 the track and height of BA479 this afternoon was absolutely normal. Into the Ockham hold at around FL110, twice round the hold leaving at around FL70 then east over Croydon at around FL60 then north to join the ILS near the Isle of Dogs around FL45.

The later flight BA475 was similar. Absolutely standard

[jthg]

Identical track to 2nd June and as said above perfectly common.

[flyboyike]

Originally Posted by beamender99

It certainly concerned folks in the Esher area.

By "folks" you mean you and four others?

[beamender99]

Thanks for your comments but no progress.
The flight path was not absolutely standard at all hence my posting. If that is being posted as accurate around the the Ockham hold then so much for technology and the Nigels . The aircraft was certainly a few miles north of what I believe is normal and judging by the noise was lower than any commercial airliner has been near my house.
I have lived in my present house for 40 years, prior to that worked for a major airline for 35 years and am quite aware of aircraft and paths around here.
I have never been aware of the sound or sight of aircraft in the Ockham stack. The aircraft was exceptionally loud.

By "folks" you mean you and four others?

It means that others were also concerned at the the totally non standard event.

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by beamender99

Thanks for your comments but no progress.
The flight path was not absolutely standard at all hence my posting.

I’ve had a look at the replay of the 479 of the 8th and if flightradar is to be believed then, as has been said already, it flew an absolutely standard Ockham hold in the right place at the appropriate levels before heading off downwind for the ILS...

So either flight radar has tracked that one flight incorrectly, or the aircraft you saw wasn’t the BA 479.

[WingNut60]

Noise? What was the cloud cover like at the time?

[KelvinD]

I think the OP should be given the benefit of the doubt. He has the benefit of knowing the area well and is familiar with all that goes on above him. Secondly, it is not wise to rely 100% on tracks shown on the various tracking sihets. They are not updating/recording data by the millisecond and there is a tendency to extrapolate when showing tracks, a sort of "join the dots" thing. If beamender99 says it was unusual, then I think we should accept there was probably something unusual. After all, he was on the scene and I don't suppose any of us were.
I have just looked at the historical track on Planefinder and this show the aircraft going round the Ockham stack 3 times. Cremeegg qutoed FR24 as showing 2 circuits. I neither know nor care which is accurate but it does seem to prove my point about relying on tracking sites to be 100% accurate. It may be more informative to use Webtrak: https://webtrak.emsbk.com/lhr4

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by KelvinD

I think the OP should be given the benefit of the doubt. He has the benefit of knowing the area well and is familiar with all that goes on above him.

..and some of us have the benefit of regularly flying the Ockham hold and are familiar with the area- do we get given the benefit of being allowed to be slightly sceptical?

I have just looked at the historical track on Planefinder and this show the aircraft going round the Ockham stack 3 times. Cremeegg qutoed FR24 as showing 2 circuits. I neither know nor care which is accurate but it does seem to prove my point about relying on tracking sites to be 100% accurate.

Actually it doesn’t prove it, because Flight Radar shows the aircraft doing three times around the pattern, (the initial join plus two subsequent times around) so both sites seem to tie for accuracy in that department. Last time over OCK the aircraft then turns right onto whatever heading ATC will have wanted for downwind. I do understand the general point about the tracking sites “joining the dots” but in the case of the flight in question it would have to quite a fluke for the site to consistently“join the dots” in a manner that exactly replicates the published OCK procedure if it actually wasn’t doing so, and the height data consistently indicates the sort of levels you fly entering that hold, in the hold, and when you head off down wind...there is absolutely no hint of it ever being “at a much lower altitude than the norm”..anyhow be interesting if one of our tracking site gurus has any thoughts on this.

TBH one thing that does puzzle me is why the OP was certain right from the start of this thread that the aircraft they claim was involved here was the BA479....

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by wiggy

So either flight radar has tracked that one flight incorrectly, or the aircraft you saw wasn’t the BA 479.

Almost certainly the latter. As Kelvin noted, Heathrow's own WebTrak system (based on NATS radars rather than the ADS-B that the flight trackers use) is the best reference source to use for LHR arrival/departure tracks.

WebTrak shows a horizontal and vertical profile absolutely typical of an Ockham STAR and hold on westerlies:



(we'll ignore the jink over Greenwich Park )

I too would be very interested to know how the OP positively ID'd the flight.

As an aside, the question of whether BA479 flew two or three orbits of the hold is interesting - while it looks like two in the above graphic, zooming in shows that it was three and is a great illustration of just how accurately modern airliners can execute a holding pattern:

[wiggy]

Thanks for the added info Dave, I thought this might interest you.

ATB.

[netstruggler]

I heard it too.

I can confirm there was a particularly load aircraft around sometime between 12 an 2pm yesterday. No idea of exact time.

I was pruning trees in my garden about 4 miles from Croydon. I'm used to aircraft noise but one was so load that I climbed down the ladder to look.

Couldn't see anything. Lots of huge fluffy clouds to the North and heavy black rain clouds to the West - very breezy too.

[Large Dave]

9 small red ones? Amongst others on the Queen's Birthday Flypast yesterday at 1300L.

Originally Posted by netstruggler

I can confirm there was a particularly load aircraft around sometime between 12 an 2pm yesterday. No idea of exact time.

I was pruning trees in my garden about 4 miles from Croydon. I'm used to aircraft noise but one was so load that I climbed down the ladder to look.

Couldn't see anything. Lots of huge fluffy clouds to the North and heavy black rain clouds to the West - very breezy too.

[pilotmike]

Originally Posted by netstruggler

I can confirm there was a particularly load aircraft around sometime between 12 an 2pm yesterday.

... but one was so load that I climbed down the ladder to look.

A heavily loaded aircraft, possibly? You're not making yourself clear.

Originally Posted by netstruggler

I was pruning trees in my garden about 4 miles from Croydon.

Was that PPRuNing?

[Airclues]

Could it be that beamender99 saw the BA479 but heard the Queens flypast?

[Meester proach]

Originally Posted by Airclues

Could it be that beamender99 saw the BA479 but heard the Queens flypast?

I think you may have nailed it.

[netstruggler]

Originally Posted by Large Dave

9 small red ones? Amongst others on the Queen's Birthday Flypast yesterday at 1300L.

Yeah - that would explain it.