Heathrow Tornado causes BA diversions
 

LTN has seen a couple of BA fuel diversions this lunchtime. An A319 and A320 came in due to a Tornado GR4 doing a flypast at or near Heathrow. So why do BA Airbuses carry so little fuel that they can't cope with a delay caused by a quick flypast???

Down to cirrus I suspect!

During this QUICK fly-by, nothing landed at Heathrow for 10 minutes, and EAT's were about 30 - 40 minutes!!!

Lucky more aircraft didn't divert.

why on earth would a Tornado do a Fly By at LHR ??? ....

cheers .... hobie ....

Probably looking out for spotters - a dry run for the 24th! ;)

BA SH has a new "Flight Planning System" as of 10 days ago (Cirrus - as mentioned above).

For Airbus, work on ~10-15mins less holding time than previous before diversion / PAN into LHR...

The previous system had a little fat - the new one, no fat, and seems to actually burn a bit more then Flt Plan (& FMGS for that matter).

Once holding gets much >20mins, and if people continue to take Flt Plan fuel, we are going to see more of these diversions... I am sure there will (have to) be some "tweaking" of the system soon...

NoD

NoD wrote:

Worth bearing in mind that once anyone shouts PAN in these circumstances it will inevitably lead to even greater delays for those still waiting in the queue behind as landing slots will be lost whilst providing the PAN a/c with an expeditious approach and a large gap in front of it on final.

BA could be shooting themselves in the foot with this depending on how it pans (groan) out.

WF.

As is mentioned above, why the hell was a Tornado GR4 conducting a fly by at Heathrow???:confused:

Hobie,

Flypast was a practice run for an Air Force Memorial Day flyby at the WW2 Air Force Memorial at Runnymede, Egham, Surrey. 1 Tornado today - I think planned for 4 a/c on the actual day. Not sure of the date of the real flypast.

Was there any warning that this was going to happen? Was it NOTAMed?

It seems that this sort of thing is becoming quite common. I got caught out with the flypast for the Queen's Birthday. Forecast great at LHR. No hint of a flypast or reasons for a delay, so we took flight plan fuel. Long delays out of our departure field, headwinds en-route and then 30 minutes going around the hold on a CAVOK day. We were very tight.

I did write it up - but chances of a reply are nil. :hmm:

T'bug

So that's what woke me up from my little snooze today:(

thanks Conn for the reason ........

I'm speechless !!!! ..... lol

cheers ... hobie ...

Interesting about the Tornado, EGSC (Cambridge) ATC had been complaining about the violation of the approach to R23 by low flying Tornado's, which fell on deaf ears at high command until an Air Vice Marshall was on deck of an L1011 RAF Freighter 10 miles out on the centre line R23 (pre ILS at Cambridge) when low and behold left to right 500ft approx came another offending Tornado, needless to say it hasn't happened again since, probably because all the aircraft are constantly U/S nowadays.

Actual flypast is on Friday. Routing BPK - LHR - RUNNYMEDE - BAGSHOT - M4 J11 !! Not sure of the time. Using freq 132.7

Odd that BAA close the airport for over 10 mins for 2 days in one week and then don't allow Concorder any flypast/parallel landings.

erm...do they really need to practice a flypast? I mean aren't the military trained to have a quick squint at a map and some photos, and watch some chap with a handlebar moustache and a big pointer saying "enemy concentrations are here, here and here" then just come whizzing over the ridge, drop the eggs bang on target and then they're off back home to the mess and their black labrador?

I mean, did they practice flying over Berlin a few times first, just to get a handle on the Reichstag and the Brandenburg Gate? :confused:

More importantly...
Why are aircraft continually dispatched toward LHR with absolute minimum fuel in the first place, considering the delays often encountered?

This seems to be a recurring problem.

Hasn't anyone actually learned by now that this ain't a good idea?:sad:

Onan, no they did not. That maybe why neither of those 2 monuments were actually destroyed. The old church near Ku'Damm got hit by mistake!

Surely 411a has a valid point here.

I was on an MAS flight from KUL that achieved some notoriety when it landed at LHR flying on fumes some seven or eight (??) years ago.

I'm not a pilot, so just how much pressure is put on you drivers not to err on the cautionary side when it comes to fuel?

Must have blinked and missed it....

Can't see why 1 aircraft could cause so much difficulty and problems, surely it could have been fitted into the existing pattern completed it's approach, executed a go-around, flypast and then completed it's run in over runnymede. No conflict of interests or diruptions, just a short delay to some departures perhaps.

Captain Sensible
 

Having been subject to Cirrus flight plans in BA longhaul for some time now I have to say that I use the fuel fig as a guide to minimum acceptable and then add suitable amounts to that.
For instance, on shorter flights the 5% contingency figure can be way below 1000kg and if arriving at LHR at say 0615 you will need at least 20 mins holding - 2000kg or more. Add a bit of typical early mist and drizzle and I would not consider anything less than 5000-6000kg over and above Cirrus. The cost of diverting just for a "fuel & go" far outweighs the marginal extra cost of the fuel, the majority of which remains on board to used on the next sector......