EXCESSIVE FUEL WASTAGE..
 

Once again this morning we were treated to the spectre of a British registered heavy jet asking to hold in one of the London TMA inner stacks (OCK) for nearly 15 minutes apparently because his stand wasn't available. No, not at 5.30am... but a couple of hours later and well outside "curfew" time.

We gathered from the pilot that as Heathrow was on easterlies he was not allowed to land as he was some 20 minutes ahead of his scheduled time. We spent some time trying to pin down the exact reason prior... the airline denied that they placed any restriction on crews landing early.. we checked with the airport authority - absolutely no problem with a/c landing before a stand is available. We checked with Heathrow Tower regarding possible congestion on the ground - absolutely NO problem in finding a place for traffic to hold for a stand.

So.. at this time of major airline problems and aviation cut-backs world-wide can someone please explain the reasoning behind this bizarre procedure? Apart from the severe problems it could cause by holding in a busy piece of airspace for no good reason, the fuel burned would probably keep my aged Ford Escort going for ten years... I know little about the technical aspects of flying heavy jets but would it not be cheaper to sit on the ground for ten minutes with two engines off?

It is possible that because of the reduced flying time vs. plan that he may not have burned down to max landing weight yet. Sometimes a short cut is not always a good thing. Being over max landing weight would have either required dumping or holding till it was burned off.

Cheers
Wino

Sure is interesting that....those that were NOT in command want to try to second-guess the fellow that was.
Some, it appears, have NOTHING better to do.
Get a life, guys.

We've got a few of you busybody blokes at our company too! Sad Gits! :rolleyes:

Wino - he'd come about 6,000 miles so I don't think it was a weight problem. This was not an isolated occurrence either - it's happened many times in the past.

Tex - I sincerely trust that your comment was not directed to me..!

Not sure if this is the sitution here, but BA would, (possibly still do), push on schedule from SIN to LHR but then slow right down en route in order not to arrive too early at LHR. This is very aggravating for following traffic as the ATC clearance for BA would invariably contain a mach number of "not less than" but once out of SIN airspace this was abandoned totally and everyone following then suffered from the imposition of unrealistic speeds and/or flight levels. Conversations on freq 123.45 generally, (but not always), revealed a "stuff you Jack, I'm alright" kind of response. Possibly, in this instance, ATC were able to chase them up along the way and ensure they kept a reasonable speed at the risk of being descended to a seriously unrealistic FL?
From a friend in BA on the B747-400 I understand that on time departures and arrivals within twenty minutes of schedule are paramount?

This sounds like a co-ordinated slot problem - the runway slot held is, say 0800, and because of the generous sched and light winds the aircraft turns up STA -40, the slot committee review this and summarise that the operator is not adhering to it's slot.

Potentially very serious and after series of warnings, operators will have the slot revoked - worst case they can be banned from operating to the airport.

Always the problem with operating padded schedules. ACL (Airport Co-ordination lLd) are the people to ask)

Moody.... ATC does not employ "runway slots", as such, for commercial traffic at Heathrow. It appears to be down to some internal airline problem. I've heard that a magazine ("Three Fleets"?) mentions this procedure but I know no more.

Hang on a minute Tex and 411A, here is a London ATCer - among the best and busiest in the world - merely trying to find out why he was required to control an ac which would have been better off on the ground. If there was more to it, as wino suggests, then surely the crew owed ATC some clarification. This is just the sort of traffic which can lead to congestion and, therefore, flow control restrictions.
On a similar theme, I get seriously p**ssed off when, coming back to LGW at the speed of heat just before 0600L, with a night r/w slot, I find the airspace clogged up with the world's favourite airline's 74s and 77s slowing down and whingeing about not having night slots, thereby denying me, and all the others like me, the use of our night slots. Land and take the hit or manage your flight better guys.
Cheers
mcdhu

411a and Tex wind your necks in! Director has asked a reasonable question.

If LHR Director wants to be an aircraft Commander, he should sign up immediately for flying lessons.
Always amazing to me that ATC folks want to step into the pilots' shoes. IF they really want to know, why not call the airline management concerned?

Looks like 411A's 'How to be a jerk in only 1265 posts' is a complete success.

No I think he wants to know why his difficult job is complicated by a company's idiotic sop to delay in the air instead of delaying on the ground. London's airspace is busy enough as it is without this going on. And as someone else said earlier, going into LGW at night following the worlds favorite doing 180kts at 25 miles is not much fun either.

If the Director really wants to know the answer to his question, all he has to do is pick up the telephone and call the respective airline OPS department.
The crew in the concerned aircraft does NOT owe any explanation to ATC, and the Director should know this. ATC has the responsibility of providing positive separation, not to engage in "question time".
Have noticed over the years that the LHR ATC controllers, although very talanted at their job, continue to question and are otherwise sarcastic to some crews. Would suggest that these controllers pick up the phone for their answers. THEN, if they don't like the replies, ask here.
It's called mutual cooperation.

411A your contradict yourself saying that that crew "does NOT owe any explanation" and then saying "it's called mutual cooperation"!

Surely Director may ask here or on the telephone - if no-one wants to answer then fine, Director and the rest of us will remain in the dark. I suggest that you engage in more "mutual cooperation" and less worthless replies, if you don't won't to answer the question then don't. Just don't bother with this diatribe - open another thread in Jetblast.

411a.. It was because telephone calls to various offices failed to elicit a reason that I posted my note on here. The airline concerned, the airport authority and the local ATC unit all denied that it had anything to do with local procedures. When crews adopt non-standard procedures in a busy TMA I respectfully suggest that ATC has every right to ask why so that steps may be taken to prevent a recurrence.

Keep taking the tablets...

Never concerned with Jet Blast... and I am sure that LHR Director is a profesional of the highest order but....
"Some" airlines have very strange ideas indeed, and the best way is to query the OPS department to find the answers. Therein lies the problem, he may well not find a suitable or rational explanition...not surprising from a British aircarrier...and some (all) of our American carriers as well.
Still, if they want to hold, why not further from LHR, so as not to disrupt traffic?
Surely a "penalty box" can be devised for these guys.
It's called, "don't call us we'll call you".

411A, Your profile gives little away about any experience you might have in flying around Europe and UK in particular. You seem to be unaware of several factors related to this subject.
Firstly, we don't have room in the airspace here for what you call 'sin bins'. It is seriously congested over here from 0600 to 2200L every day and an ac abusing the airspace by boring holes in the sky is compounding ATC's problem.
Secondly, I hesitate to say 'without exception', but I think it holds good, the UK airlines operate in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect between ATC and pilots; we never forget that, when the chips are down, the man or woman in ATC is your best friend and that the service they routinely give us is excellent. My personal view is that UK ATC is probably the best in the world - but I haven't been everywhere! Thus, when we have a problem that requires more than the usual cooperation from ATC, we are quick to declare it in the knowledge that all possible and reasonable help will be forthcoming. Isn't it called CRM?
And thirdly, telephone calls to airline ops to enquire about the conduct of a particular crew can, for all the wrong reasons, bring about an atmosphere of mistrust and I am sure that is the last thing that Heathrow Director would wish to do. His was a reasonable post and did not deserve your dismissive and rather unpleasant attitude.
I have attempted to be constructive in this post and hope that perhaps we can continue in this mood - if at all.
Bring back the Preston FIR!
Cheers all,
mcdhu

Am all to aware of the UK airspace, mcdhu, as I started to fly into LHR (and Europe) on a regular basis in 1974.
I should think that a sin bin could be devised without too much difficulty, how about (for handoffs from Europe)...holding over DVR at, say FL100, max speed 180 knots, one minute pattern (for high fuel flow) with a "don't call us, we'll call you" policy.
Shouldn't take too long for them to get the message.

411a..re holding at DVR, not as simple as you state. Inbounds from Europe Don't route via DVR to the LTMA (G1/UG1 is effectively Eastbound only). LTMA outbounds DO route via DVR to Europe, and London City outbounds (not there in 1974) regularly cross abeam DVR climbing slowly thru your proposed hold to Fl120. DVR holding at ANY level is a nightmare for ATC. I know, I am valid on the DVR sector (amongst others).

We still do not have a rational answer to LL DIRs reasonable question. These slow guys outside the accepted 0600 curfew cause a lot of problems to AREA Control as well. I'm also interested in the reasons behind this.

Rgds BEX