Practice runs? From what I hear about happened yesterday the answer is Yes! Those guys should talk to the Pathfinders about finding targets (or waypoints!).:D

Any truth in the rumours that it was a US F15 and he was actually meant to be overflying Gatwick?

Just for the record, a BA 757 also diverted into Luton yesterday for the same reasons.

411A / Angels...

We've debated this endlessly in the past, and whatever the CAA leaflet referred to can be interpreted as, the BA policy complies with it (IMHO).

This new Flt Plannng system (Cirrus) uses the same principles (Trip, 5%/15mins contingency, Divn, 30mins Reserve).

For the Bus (A319 figs here), the 30mins Rsv has not altered. However, the LGW diversion now takes ~20% less. The aircraft seem to burn a little more than Flt Plan, previously a little less.

In my mind, so long as everyone understands the rules, there is little safety implication. However, it does appear to me to be a large commerical risk... This weeks combination of strong easterlies at height, but not on the sfc - else good wx, and Tornado flypasts, has maybe brought it home with a few diversions...

NoD

Why did the aircraft divert to LTN and not to LGW, where BA have an ops base?

Jordan

Because LGW is so busy. All these a/c want is a couple of tons of fuel and a quick departure, neither of which would happen as quickly at LGW than at LTN. Even if it if it was a tech problem it would probably be easier to bus people from there than LGW anyway (and theres no BA airbus engineers at LGW in any case).

As to turning up with less than minimum fuel, as mentioned we dont - we aim to arrive with the CAA's legal amounts. Carrying any more without reason (and theres plenty of those!!) is a waste & harmful to the environment :) Its rare that Ive carried any extra - and Ive never diverted yet in 400+ arrivals.

I think you'll find that what the CAA specifies are not 'legal amounts' but minimum amounts. The way things are these days, operators are expected to plan to do what they do safely - the minimums are set to stop idiots doing really stoopid things. In the ATC world this is known as SMS and means that we have to look at what we do and decide what is necessary to make sure it's safe. And, surprise surprise, sometimes it's more than the minimum that the CAP says. I'd like to think that pilots look at the minimum fuel requirements as a useful guide to what is borderline stoopid rather than always trying to do it!!! Not wishing to appear disparraging to someone who has 400+ arrivals under their belt, but I'd like to know what someone who's done 4000+ arrivals does.

And btw, I thought airlines did SMS too - I read about it in CAP712 - am I living in a dream world?

Spitoon...

Having reviewed the CAA AIC/FODN, BA comply with them (except maybe as below). And in fact do not "aim to arrive with the minimum", but with more than that... And safety wise, its not too relevant what they plan to get into the LHR area with - its their actions as it runs out. The Avianca 707 left Columbia with plenty of fuel - it was the subsequent handling after extensive delays that caused the problem. Extra fuel might not have saved them - decisive, earlier actions / comms would have saved them, even with less original fuel.

One qu. I do have, if you (or anyone else caring to respond) are a LHR/LGW area controller. The latest AIC says, for div fuel:
".... track miles on which fuel rqmt for flying to altn is calculated should be realistically assessed taking into account of the extended routing which can reasonably be expected during busy periods".

That's the CAAs language, and as a pilot, I do not know what this distance would be. So given the following:
1. LHR landing 27R
2. LGW landing 26L
3. Aircraft goes around at 100' over LHR 27R, follows MAP, and say, at 1500' (now heading 320), states "and we wish/need to divert to LGW".
4. Assume at no stage does the aircraft declare an emergency.
5. The aircraft follows ATCs routings to get to LGW.

what NM distance would be realistic to use for planning??

TIA
NoD

Thanks 52049er .... is LTN the preferable diversionary for all airlines going into LHR?

Jordan

Blimey, I'd forgotten how careful you have to be on this board with shorthand. Jordan D... to answer your Q - no idea. LTN is a goodie because its close - but obviously shares its weather with LHR so may not be an ideal wx diversion.

Spitoon - point taken but I called them that cos I assumed jordan was not a pro aviator & was trying (!) to be non-techie. We are planned to arrive with 5%/15mins contingency, Divn and 30mins reserve fuel, and my point was that with no other factors we often will. Perhaps Ill leave my next posting until I have 400 000 approaches at LHR & am worthy of inclusion.

;)

OK, Nige, I was being a bit provocative but I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone plans to arrive with minimum contingency etc. it doesn't take much to create a domino effect - every aircraft that needs priority handling creates delays for many other aircraft in the sequence.

I don't do LTMA so I'm afraid I can't asnwer your questions about track distance but if there are two or three aircraft diverting at the same time I suspect that it could take quite a distance.

In my experience it take an awful lot longer to clear a disabled aircraft from a runway that it takes for a Tornado to do a flight past!

And apologies to 52049er, I guess I'm just feeling particularly grumpy today - due respect for 400 approaches to LL. But I notice that of the pilots that I know, it only seems to take one arrival with rather less fuel than they feel comfortable with and they start adding a little bit extra for those events that, to use the SMS terminology, are supposed to be 'extremely remote' but seem to crop up rather more often!

Thanks again 52049er .... you are indeed correct ... I'm far from a pro aviator ... distincly amateur! ... Maybe sometime in the future.

I'm flying into LTN tomorrow, out of STN on Monday, so I'll just hope EZY get their fuel right!

Jordan

Help.

Having got everyone in the office expectant for 4 x Tornadoes over LHR at 1115L today, nothing's happened! Anyone know the time they're due.

Egg on my face or what!

Well they held up the traffic for several mins and have just started t/o's again. So they've been and gone. Stealth Tornadoes may be?

Trust me.....they were there!

They were supposed to flyby at 1123(L), but of course they were late!! 1126(L), probably took a long time to find 4 serviceable jets :} :E

Just came back from DEN this morning, loaded an extra 2 tonnes on because of this ego trip. Held for 15 minutes, due to fly past?
Do we get any compensation from the Tornado operators?

Intersting point. NATS's attributable delays lead to fines. Thoughts?

NoD wrote:

In the scenario you describe you'd likely be turned righthand downwind and climbed up to min stack level or thereabouts.

At a suitable point turned right again to head off towards the TIMBA neck of the woods routeing probably between BIG and EPM.

If you've not declared an emergency you may be expected to hold again for Gatwick.

Track mileage from the missed approach to reaching TIMBA will, I reckon, be in the region of 60nm give or take a few.

If Gatwick are quiet at the time and you get a right base straight onto the ILS expect around 50nm from the missed approach to touching down at Gatwick.

Those w....ers at the MOD should keep ther flypasts to air displays
at those nice RAF stations................The rest of the world is trying,
in quite difficult times, to run a business.

The 20,000 plus names on the Air Forces Memorial might have had a few choice words to say about some of the posts on this subject if they were still around......(oiseau2, roger dodge and stormin norman please take note)

I was told by a copper at the Memorial the jets were due overhead Runnymede at 1129L, but got called in early due to proceedings on the ground not running to time. The route was never going to take them over LHR, just a mile or so to the west- look at a map of where the Memorial is and how it is orientated. There didn't seem to be anything wrong with either the timekeeping or the navigation from where I was standing.