ATC taking risks at Heathrow

The actual loss of the aircraft will be yes, in fact it's illegal to fly the aircraft without insurance. But it'd be the loss in revenue as nobody will fly with them again that would send them bust.
 
Moses99p said:
But they have safety margins for a reason, no? So in extraordinary circumstances, if there's a mistake, there's some leeway...
Click to expand...

Thats what disturbs me to be honest, the regular breaking of safety margins. The rules exist for a reason, if it's safe to break them a bit then surely the margins should be reduced, if it isn't safe to officially reduce them then surely nobody should be breaking them. The idea that it's fine in the hands of an experienced controller bothers me, the rules should be the rules.

It does seem that safety maybe isn't the first priority when things like this happen. I'm comparing it to some of the rules I have to work within..

I do a fair bit of work with a few different banks, and one of their things is that a computer room has to be cleared of transactions completely before anybody can enter it, the risk is purely financial and very small due to the checks on employees and contractors and the supervision in place but the rule is completely unbreakable. I just can't help thinking I'd expect the same when people's lives are at stake.
 
Facinating insight Scuzi, so much better than regurgitated hear say which forms the basis of the vast majority of tabloid press.
 
bigredshark said:
The idea that it's fine in the hands of an experienced controller bothers me, the rules should be the rules.
Click to expand...

And where is that implied at all? He says they cut the safety magins "a bit too fine", but in no way does this imply that safety precautions are being broken.
 
MarcLister said:
What does diverging and same track mean?
Click to expand...

If they are both going up on the same heading (direction) then they have to leave more time for planes to seperate, but if one is going east, and one is going west then they can take off closer to each other as they wont be at risk of collision once they have started heading in the direction they are flying.

Pretty sure thats right, could be wrong though.
 
Stellios said:
If they are both going up on the same heading (direction) then they have to leave more time for planes to seperate, but if one is going east, and one is going west then they can take off closer to each other as they wont be at risk of collision once they have started heading in the direction they are flying.

Pretty sure thats right, could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Cheers. :)
 
bigredshark said:
Thats what disturbs me to be honest, the regular breaking of safety margins. The rules exist for a reason, if it's safe to break them a bit then surely the margins should be reduced, if it isn't safe to officially reduce them then surely nobody should be breaking them. The idea that it's fine in the hands of an experienced controller bothers me, the rules should be the rules.
Click to expand...

That isn't the case. The safety margins are never purposely breached in order to achieve expedition. Sometimes we run it so tight to the line whilst still within the rules that an error in judgement or another factor may well cause them to become a wee bit closer than allowed. This does not happen in day to day operations and it is not a standard operating procedure. Because Heathrow is so busy and the airspace surrounding it is the most complex in the world, every second makes a big difference. We have to use the minimum separation allowed by the rules in order to shift the traffic efficiently and occasionally, mistakes or errors of judgement are made. It's a fact of life - we're humans.

Whilst separation minima may occasionally be breached due to an error, there are very rarely incidents where it has been deemed that the aircraft are likely to collide.

Given what is commonly regarded as the busiest and most complex airspace in the world is also considered the safest in the world, I am of the opinion that the media are as usual making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
Scuzi said:
That isn't the case. The safety margins are never purposely breached in order to achieve expedition. Sometimes we run it so tight to the line whilst still within the rules that an error in judgement or another factor may well cause them to become a wee bit closer than allowed. This does not happen in day to day operations and it is not a standard operating procedure. Because Heathrow is so busy and the airspace surrounding it is the most complex in the world, every second makes a big difference. We have to use the minimum separation allowed by the rules in order to shift the traffic efficiently and occasionally, mistakes or errors of judgement are made. It's a fact of life - we're humans.

Whilst separation minima may occasionally be breached due to an error, there are very rarely incidents where it has been deemed that the aircraft are likely to collide.

Given what is commonly regarded as the busiest and most complex airspace in the world is also considered the safest in the world, I am of the opinion that the media are as usual making a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...

I've slightly misread your post it would seem. I took when you said 'sometimes the safety margins do have to be reduced in order to allow it. This is perfectly fine in the hands of an experienced controller' to mean that the safety margins were intruded into, if not regularly, then at least on occasion by experienced controllers.

I know that ATC do a high pressure job very well and the failing of the system aren't the fault of the controllers. The fact that heathrow is close to 100% utilised is ridiculous, in my line of work we'd never let a system get beyond 80% of capacity without beginning a project to expand that capacity.

Obviously they are making a mountain out a molehill, how many flights were affected out of how many thousands? 0.1% ?? I doubt it's even that much!
 
bigredshark said:
Obviously they are making a mountain out a molehill, how many flights were affected out of how many thousands? 0.1% ?? I doubt it's even that much!
Click to expand...

Heathrow alone has ~1350 movements each day. There is also Luton, Stansted, Gatwick, London City and the traffic of many more in the mix. I don't have the figures to hand but I'd hazard a guess at an 'incident' occuring once ever 1-2 weeks, sometimes less often, occasionally more. It's a very small fraction of the overall traffic handled. An incident can encompass anything that is reportable so not necessarily controller error.
 
I think the addition of a third runway is inevitable... It is ridiculous when you look at other European hubs and they have more runways available, yet handle less traffic!

LHR is already losing its grip as a hub- Frankfurt and Paris CDG (And Maybe Schipol) already offer more destinations, and LHR must be in the postion where it simply cannot catch them in its current state... Add in the horrendous queues, creaking infrastructure, and massive aircraft queues.

If LHR does not get its third runway, then the expansion of regional airports in large cities like Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle is essential to relieve some pressure at LHR IMO. People travel from all over the country to fly from LHR- I am sure a better "wheel- and spoke" hub system, connecting 'regional' airports to major business centres in the Middle East, Far East, and North America would help alleviate LHR's pressures. Newer, quieter aircraft requiring shorter runways and less fuel to carry x passengers y miles make this possible.
 
Last edited:
Safety margins aside, someone need's to have a word with Air France's pilots.

I've had three failed landings the last 8 or so times i've flown with them! Touched down only to go straight back up. Today was pretty bad weather wise, but the pilot tried to land upside down I think and bounced back up :(
 
Bes said:
I think the addition of a third runway is inevitable... It is ridiculous when you look at other European hubs and they have more runways available, yet handle less traffic!

LHR is already losing its grip as a hub- Frankfurt and Paris CDG (And Maybe Schipol) already offer more destinations, and LHR must be in the postion where it simply cannot catch them in its current state... Add in the horrendous queues, creaking infrastructure, and massive aircraft queues.

If LHR does not get its third runway, then the expansion of regional airports in large cities like Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle is essential to relieve some pressure at LHR IMO. People travel from all over the country to fly from LHR- I am sure a better "wheel- and spoke" hub system, connecting 'regional' airports to major business centres in the Middle East, Far East, and North America would help alleviate LHR's pressures. Newer, quieter aircraft requiring shorter runways and less fuel to carry x passengers y miles make this possible.
Click to expand...

Not likely to help really, for a few reasons, among them that LHR is hub for europe as well as the UK. A lot of traffic is passengers in transit from outside the UK, when I was working in spain we had to fly to San Fran every few months and it was always through london (sometimes Gatwick though). There are direct flights available from many european cities but they're less frequent and more expensive.

That last reason also applies to flights from regional airports to the US, middle east or wherever. They exist in some circumstances but are infrequent (compared to heathrow at least) and not that cheap, probably because demand is quite low.

To be honest I'd say expanding heathrow is the right move, the UK is small enough that there shouldn't be much need for internal flights and given that one gateway with a huge range of destinations makes the most sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom