Urgent:all Pilots In/out Lhr/lgw
 

Firstly may I ask the moderator NOT to move this thread as opinions of PILOTS is what I am looking for on a safety matter that MAY affect ALL pilots who operate into/out of LHR and LGW.

At LHR and LGW there MAY be some significant changes to the way aircraft are handled at night or in low visibility operations. At present LHR/LGW use a system called AGLCS whenever the Areodrome Ground Lighting is switched on . Basically this system means that instead of all GREEN routes on the taxiways being lit (ie ALL TAXIWAYS, CUL-DE-SACS ETC) ALL the time and verbal "daylight " instructions being given , we can change the taxiway lighting so as to guide aircraft around each other , around obstructions , into the correct cul-de-sacs, towards the correct runway for departure or runway crossings. This job is done by the Lighting Operator, a specialist position who works directly with the GMC controller. It takes a long time to train them up as they learn all sorts of tricks to help keep traffic moving when traffic loadings are high. They are also a second pair of eyes and ears, watching and listening to ensure readbacks are correct and aircraft follow instructions or the routes they are given. Effectively they are a GMC specialist as that is ALL they do. Even during the day their job is to monitor GMC and be that second pair of eyes and ears, liase with the BAA/HAL to get leader vehicles etc etc.

Most airports in the world use the fixed green light system, with stop bars only being in place to guard runways.

It has come to light that BRITISH AIRWAYS want to change this system, one that a lot of pilots like as it is simple and keeps RT to a MINIMUM(it can be difficult to get a word in edgeways sometimes). Visiting pilots from other countries like it and describe it as "SUPER " OR "NEAT". BRITISH AIRWAYS asked for a meeting with the BAA/HAL to discuss a fixed system of greens. Their reasons are; to avoid having to CROSS stopbars, ALL other airports manage ok with the fixed system, and they were not happy in NOVEMBER when a Lighting Operator shortage delayed aircraft.
I want your opinions on the Switcheable REDS AND GREENS at LHR and LGW. Do you like them or do you not care? Remember LHR is 3 TIMES SMALLER than CDG but handles the same level of traffic upwards of 90 movements an hour ( not including towing movements which easily push movements handled over 100/hour). This is accomplished on such a SMALL airport( reletive to american or major european airports.) LHR IS SMALL in tterms of area but is complex with over two hundred parking stands.
Lastly two things to think about. First remember the citation that entered the wrong runway in MILAN and collided with an SAS aircraft. ALL the routes were green. VERBAL instructions were given and MISUNDERSTOOD. With switchable system this could have been prevented as NO GREENS would have been lit onthat particular route. Second remember the SIA that departed the WRONG runway in TAIWAN. Again ALL green routes lit. Misunderstood verbal instructions and took off hitting diggers on aclosed runway. NO GREEN route would have been lit leading to that runway if a SWICHEABLE system was in place.

Let me know what you think of LHR and LGW systems of switcheable GREENS and REDS.

Not operated in your neck of the woods, but have seen a similar system in use in Singapore and 'I like it!'. These sort of systems add to safety and that gets my vote. What is the issue with the stop bars?

I think it is SUPER.:ok:

Surely this system is current worlds best practice...with runway incursions on the rise why **** with it?

It always bemuses me that LHR works so well...when it looks like it was built (words like planned/designed just don't apply) by a retard.;)

I think the system at LGW is good and I would be disappointed if it changed.MAN does not have it and I always find it very confusing taxi-ing around there on a wet night.

I know that I am in the minority (as the topic has been aired before) but I dislike the system. Great for the 2 days a year when you can't see the taxiways because of fog but a pain at any other time. In the bin please.

MA why is it a pain 'at other times'?

first time i flew in to london heathrow was at night, i really liked the moving lights .. we don't have many flights into heathrow, most of them are codeshared and operated by BAW, so it really reduces workload of finding your way around .. in three months time i have only been once to heathrow so for us who do not know the airport very well, it's a great system ..

I'm Lhr based (longhaul)and I would say it's the best system in the world and has saved many from coming a cropper.. it has to stay

The issue would appear to be that on one occasion a failure of the stop bar system caused delays. Sadly, the be all and end all of certain sections of the industry (or rather certain people within the industry) is the Holy Grail of On Time Departures. We get endless missives on the subject and there endless league tables. Outside of the industry (Flight Internationals accident reviews)I have yet to see a "league table" on safety. Apparently it forms a major decision making factor in the mind of the travelling public as to whether one operator has an average delay 0.1 minute less than another. The issue of how that better on time performance was achieved gets quietly ignored as does the fact that another 6 seconds of eternity makes the cube root of cock all difference should the wrong corner be cut!
I heard a great analogy to this the other day: "You need a hip replacement but the NHS can't do it until next year. However, we can get you done in Outerthirdworldwartorngrotspot by an unqualified carpenter tomorrow". No sane person would chose a surgery provider on that basis so why do they chose a flight provider on a similar basis?
So, back to stop bars. I've seen both the all green and the stop bar systems. From a purely personal viewpoint there is no great difference by day but at night or in LVP, at a busy, unfamiliar airport it cuts down on workload and increases situational awareness. Granted, perhaps not by a huge amount but why remove anything that adds even a little safety, especcially on such a half baked premise as "it fails occassionally and has caused a delay in the past"?
Yet another statistician with no background in Ops grasping at tagets who needs boning in on "If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident"?

The system works very well at LGW and is a high value safety factor at that airport. It not only provides for ease of use, but in effect provides a secondary set of instructions where any discrepancies can be highlighted ( excuse the pun) and questioned. The system shows the intended initial routes off the runway exits thereby assisiting in reduced blockages during periods of high R/T useage.

The system is clear and easy to follow compared with the often confusing mess at Manchester where such a system is not employed.

Don't get rid of it !

Operated in and out of LHR for nearly 20 years (Longhaul) and I lagree that is probably the best system in the World.

Envoy604,

Thanks for the reply. I have to say I am not sure about the stop bar issue. They hold traffic in position for a variety of reasons like opposite direction traffic , outbound traffic from cul-de-sacs or inbound, allowing traffic to safely vacate ahead of other traffic on taxiways adjacent to runways AND also gaurantee wing tip clearance, if you stay behind the bar you will be clear of other traffic. They do have a reason for being there so I can't see how removing them will do anything other than erode safety. Its NOT ALL about runway incursions, collisions can happen on taxiways as well.

Most crews who come up to visit ATC like it, as it reduces heads down time looking at charts and 99.9 % of the time if the pilots follow it , it massively reduces RT which can REALLY slow thing down if you can't get in on the RT. It also removes ambiguity about exactly where an aircraft should hold as marker boards can be confusing...take a look at the route ALPHA-MIKE-UNIFORM or ALPHA-MIKE-HOLD SHORT OF ALPHA. Not easy to find...follow the GREENS and STOP at the BAR and we will get you there!

It works.
It works WELL.

Don't change it.

My first flying job involved a night mail run into LGW, and it made getting about a doddle. Daytime by contrast was an absolute nightmare.

Now I'm LHR based and really like the reds and greens. The only snag I've had was when an inexperienced lights operator removed the runway exit lights just before we got there, and the tower gave me a bo*****ing for not coming off fast enough and nearly sending the next guy around. However a swift apology, plus explanation was given by ground. All in all its so much easier to use than trying to look for taxyway markings on a wet night. And when the frequency is rally busy, it keeps you moving, without guessing or adding to the chatter.:ok:

KEEP IT

Thanks everyone for the replies , very interesting ...keep them coming ...it might help?!

Used it for many years - a really good system with no faults as far as I can see. Please leave well alone.

If British Bl@@dy Airways wants it changed, kindly inform them that they don't own the airfield, they are merely users and must abide by the same set of rules that govern everybody else.

I would be willing to bet that, should the system not be installed, one of their bright sparks would have seen it in operation in Singapore and there would be a great cry of " We want it here", from the same source.

LEAVE IT ALONE, please.

I like it Oscarh!!!!

based at lhr with ba and i think its blooming brill. causing delays? yeh maybe a couple of seconds if they forget to drop the reds for you but thats gotta be it?

I can't see how the company want lhr to ditch the lights, what was the source?

d2k
and yeh, we are only users so should be told where to go.

No big secret...BA want to raise it with BAA/HAL at next meeting.

No doubt at all that the system has prevented taxyway conflict/near collisions and runway incursions in the past. It adds that level of safety which, late at night (LGW), when you are completely exhausted, gives you a great deal of comfort. On the down side one could argue that pilots have too much faith in the system and therefore they relax too much during the taxy phase but I feel that the advantages far out way this.

The occasion when the GMC operator is slightly slow to respond to changing the sequence and an aircraft encounters an unneccessary stop-bar is easily rectified within seconds by a gentle enquiry and a little patience!

Far better than writing of two hulls!

DON'T CHANGE IT... Everywhere should have it!!

BA want to look at the issue of NOT BEING ABLE TO PARK. IT BLOCKS TAXIWAYS AND IS A B@@@dy NUISANCE!

It is brilliant

Do not change it please.

Ignore BA:)

With all the work done to PREVENT runway incursions in the last few years, it is curious as to why BA (alledgedly) want to remove this excellent system. What do they think they will "gain" by its removal - more time at the hold for T/O or parking.......... :confused:

A4

I agree that it is an excellent system, and have enjoyed using for close on 18 years now, but we must be open enough to review options.

That doesn't mean that the lack of an operator should spell disaster though. A series of fixed green and ambers at crossing points for caution and reds for runway entry points would be sufficient. Cross amber with caution, obey all reds.

That would work just as well, as it does virtually everywhere else around the world. The size of LHR is I believe a red herring - the complexity of JFK is equally great (not that I'm suggesting stooping to that level!).

The analogy is to the continent where after the evening rush hour the traffic lights are changed to flashing amber to advise caution - why can't the nanny UK state adopt that principle - quite often when the lights fail, the traffic does a better job itself anyway.

I would rather you pushed for leaving the stand guidance on permanently to allow us to park without blocking taxiways than keeping the red/greens switcheable.

Do you remember the fuss when they got rid of all the Block numbers at LHR? Who misses them now - anyone 'fess up to that? Not me.

It's a shame that we (ATC) might not get much input into the decision. It's BAA's airport at the end of the day, and if they decide to get rid of the AGLCS then they will get rid of the AGLCS. I'm sure our people will be attempting to convince BAA that it's not a good idea. Especially given that the recent 'customer service' questionnaire that came back from LHR airlines cited the AGLCS as one of the top positives of the ATC experience at LHR.

The L/Op is a necessary and vital part of the ATC team at LHR, even during the day. Even more so in our new tower with our new electronic strip system. If I'm asked to do GMC with no L/Op in the new tower during the day, I'll be demanding greater inbound spacing.

I absolutely agree it works great and please don't change.I was in LHR last night and that was the first time for a couple months.After vacated 9R found myself challenging with the chart to find my way how to join Twy B then realized the greens lighting up my way through the parking pos.
It is really effective no unnecessary R/T and no risk of being lost or misinrpretetion of the charts.

Top Bunk,

I only miss the blocks on the odd occasion; it does cut down on the flexibility of holding a/c in some situations, and also when describing a location to the emergency services in an emergency.

WRT Stand guidance, we've been pushing for permanent guidance for years, believe me. :ugh:

I recall landing at SIN years ago: "Welcome to Singapore. Follow the greens to your stand." Fantastic.

Although it's not obvious to the casual observer, taxying around a large and complex airport is one of the more challenging things we do, especially if it's not your home base. Anything that makes it easier and safer should remain.

It will be a brave person at BAA who in this day and age takes a step that so obviously downgrades safety. At the subsequent board of enquiry etc etc...

Keep it.

Gonzo old chap,
Where is this customer service ATC survey to be found? It would be interesting to look at.
I like it Bernoulli/Coolkiller!
More comments please chaps/ladies

Always liked the system when operating out of LHR & LGW, it should be standard fit at all major airports. It has also impressed many a jump seat pax in the good old days. If it aint broke dont tinker with it. :=

The best way to secure the option of keeping the AGLCS is to use the "green" word. I agree that it is a fantastic system that enhances safety at busy complex airports.

With todays apparent need by many managers to be seen to be doing what is fashionable rather than what is prudent, just mention that they will be saving the world from extintion because the AGLCS only uses the lights it needs. Must save X tonnes of CO2 a year. Never mind the other X tonnes of fuel saved and emissions not produced because of the more expeditious taxiing times thanks to the system.

Perhaps we should be told who is the person responsible and his or her job title, that wants to raise the issue with BAA.

Danny,

Interesting point, with the present system only 65-70% of AGL can be on all at once because of the loads on CCR and resistors. If you have all of them on at once it uses 30% more electricity...not good in these days of environmental responsibility!

I have operated out of LGW for over 10 years. The guidance system is superb and should not be removed. Even though I am very familiar with the airfield, I find the system of 'Follow the greens' much easier and less challenging. I believe it has a significant influence on safety. I, like a previous poster, find the system at MAN confusing at times and have often had to ask for instructions to be clarified.

Just to add my support to LHR retaining it's excellent system of taxiway lighting.
It is by far the best system I have seen and used. Whoever is questioning it should be banished to MAN or somewhere equally confusing for a day! They will subsequently become lost and we won't have to worry about them and their interfering ways for a long time!!!!

This thread is an April Fool's joke, right?

The 'greens' taxiway system at Heathrow, Gatwick and Singapore is the best thing since sliced bread. For the life of me, I can't understand why ICAO hasn't made it mandatory in any new airport.

I was once told it's installed at the new HKG, but not used for some reason. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

It's a bloody brilliant system and saves everyone a lot of brainpower after landing in crap vis having done a 14hr sector back of the clock.

And Wiley I heard the same thing about HKG, also makes me wonder why the new airport at Bangkok didn't get one either - it needs a system like that big time!

Fantastic system!!! It needs to stay!

17 years of using the greens at LHR, there's nothing to beat it. Discontinue the system and you get more r/t and more time spent with eyes in looking at taxy/parking charts instead of outside looking for hazards.

TopBunk
I regret that I cannot support you on that one. Red Cap/Dispatcher/whoever should only switch on the guidance when they have ensured that the stand is clear. In that confined space (especially at night) I like the belt to go with my braces.

YS

Yellow Sun,

Agreed

Slight thread divergence, but to back up Yellow Sun, I understand it is outwith BAA rules to leave stand guidance on. It is the internal airline workings that need to be 'left on':)