Concorde – An alternative view.

[overload]

I have to admit that as a UK ATCO that has to control Concorde (London Centre) I’m not overly ecstatic about its return.

Fantastic though it may be, it’s a pain to control both outbound and inbound.

Outbound whilst initially it has a low rate (angle) of climb as it accelerates, once the speed builds up, it climbs around 4000 ft/min to it’s initial subsonic cruise around FL 260-280, and needs plenty of warning as it doesn’t like to have to stop off at intermediate levels.

To get to it’s supersonic acceleration point over the Bristol channel, it has to cross through the London TMA inbound flow, effectively going the wrong way down a one way street.

Once given its clearance to climb and accelerate to supersonic speeds it won’t take any vectors, everything that’s in its way has to scatter. Trying to decide what is in its way is not as easy as you might think. London centre doesn’t have ground speed read out on the radar (can you believe that!) so as it starts it acceleration from subsonic to 1500 mph, working out if traffic a 100 miles away crossing its track is going to come close can be tricky. Especially in view that when Conc first started it was unusual to have traffic above FL 370, whereas now FL410 is common place.

Also because the British and French Concordes depart to KJFK at similar times, much brainpower is engaged even whilst the aircraft are on the ground to decide if they both can have the optimum oceanic track. As they cruise so high above the jetstreams they have a fixed route system. We need 15 mins between them at 15 degrees west, (from memory, will re-read procedures before next shift, honest), if we don’t have it, amazingly the Air France Conc takes track “SO” which involves a longer routing.

Out of interest although we clear the aircraft to FL600, it never actually gets there with a commercial load, but cruise climbs its way across the pond. Coming eastbound towards the UK it’s usually passing around FL573 going towards FL590 when it asks for descent.

Inbound to UK it fairly quickly drops to FL 370 and subsonic speeds and for a while it’s fine. The problem then is that it likes to leaves its descent as late as possible (we all know fuel is tight), whilst converging towards a two-way air-route. All westbound traffic on this Air-route between Flight levels 150-350 are potential conflicts, and our normal solution of parallel headings can’t be applied until it hits the Air-route. Trying to think of a safe initial level to descend to isn’t always easy.

Finally, it motors in at around 370 kts indicated, which is fine if you want to overtake traffic, but trying to slow it down is next to impossible.

I would like to say that my heart lifts when I hear Conc getting airborne (it’s very audible even from London Centre about 5 miles from Heathrow, the only aircraft I can hear take-off), the reality is I start scouring the radar for traffic hundreds of miles west of the UK trying to workout which are best re-routed and which I’m likely to miss.

I’m just thankful there are so few of them.


I’d be interested to know how the controllers in New York centre deal with it, are you glad it’s back?

[vertigo]

overload,

It doesn't get any easier as it approaches Heathrow. Knowing any significant delay will cause a diversion costing several thousands of pounds. The same potential problem in the event of a go around.

After over a year out of service, ATC is expected to provide the unique handling concorde requires with no practise, training or liason. Some people have become valid in the last year and never worked concorde.

Do you think someone is being over looked here ?

En-route charging is a function of weight and time spent in airspace, does that mean Nats earns less from concorde than a 747 ?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I don't find any real problem with Conc in the approach phase. When it first started it was a pain becuase some genius dreamt up "Concorde Standard Approaches" and we had to fit other traffic around it. However, within a few days the crews were opting for "hand jobs" (ie radar vectored approaches like everyone else). In recent years, apart from occasional fuel problems if we're holding, it has behaved much like everyone else and will happily come back to 210kts downwind and 170kts on final.... although most of us like to whack it around faster than that!!

I agree that some recently validated controllers won't have worked Concorde, but neither will many of them have seen 23 in use or certain other less usual procedures. One just has to rely on one's experience to cope.

[ock1f]

Well, in all my years reading PPRUNE, I've not read a more pathetic entry than that filed by Overload.. What a precious thing he/she is, a super duper air traffic controller, migh what a clever thing you are.. How can you seriously say that 1 (that's ONE) aeroplane can cause that much of a problem? What's wrong with FL260 w/bound "against the e'bound flow"..? Something wrong with the North side of UG1? And as for the problems anticipating the rate of climb.. Is it really that difficult getting the odd a/c out of the way? Marvellous things headings, you should try using them... And so what if the a/c descends at high speed? What's the problem? If it's catching up another a/c you can use vectors.. (remember them?)
Honestly, if you can't cope with ONE a/c, you really are in the wrong job. Perhaps you should offer your services to the canteen, assuming, of course, that you feel you can cope with the breakfast rush..

[Bewli-Begto]

I agree with ock1f, overload must be a very delicate creature who can`t cope with the strange and unusual! It`s what you`re paid to do, plan and anticipate and after all it`s not like it just appears without warning and nobody has a clue what to do with it! I think it`s fantastic to see this fine old lady back in the skies again and we should all feel proud to be a part of this quite unique operation!

[TrafficTraffic]

Damn you blokes Ock and Bewli.....just when I was in the middle of writing how disgusted I am reading this bunch of dribble. The Concorde is one of the most beautiful and exciting aircraft around. It is a symbol that Europe, yes the Poms too, can be proud of and all should be proud as new parents to see her flying again.

I cannot believe that any person connected to aviation in a professional manner would even consider writing something like this. As a fellow ATC I am embarassed and apologise to anybody who thinks this is any ATC that I know thinks.

How many Concorde flights do you see a day? What is it 1 BA & 1 AF? each way? Ever worked Airforce 1?

And I also cant believe you would consider letting this goose serve you food, I mean what if the carrot got in the way of the potato?

This must be a joke....or is this how all you blokes in LATCC think? - Tell me its not so, I was just starting to like you lot.

OK so LIKE is a strong word....lets try...ummm......TOLERATE !


Lets all chip in buy pprune a spell checker...!

[ 09 November 2001: Message edited by: TrafficTraffic ]

[ZIP250]

I'm from LATCC and however much it hurts I have to agree completely with TrafficTraffic.

Welcome back Needle Nose.

Z :)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Note - Zip referred to "LATCC" whereas the guy who started this thread kept calling it "London Centre". Don't think I've heard a civil ATCO use that name previously.... makes mwe wonder..???

[Warped Factor]

Well, I spoke to BAW 2 on the EGLL approach freq a little earlier this evening. First Concorde I've spoken to since last year.

"BAW 2 it's good to see you back".

And I meant it.

WF.

[Mr Simple]

Och, and here was me complaining about 2 Loganair flights a day at Tiree spoiling the peace and quiet ... at least they weren't supersonic. :D

[Flick the switch]

I agree with overload. Why should one plane get so much preferential treatment, does it pay more route charges??

[gul dukat]

traffic traffic AIR FORCE ONE ? Fed up with the ****** ..used to be almost resident at BFS .......now where is it when I need the traffic? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :confused:

[Staff Number]

Overload - what colour is the sun on your planet? I think you probably got overloaded getting out of bed. Why don't you empty your nappy someplace else? There are dozens of flights with individual characteristics which make them a pain in the butt - isn't that 1)what we're paid for 2)what makes the job challenging & enjoyable? If you want an easy ride go push some paperclips. SN :D

[Dan Dare]

I think that it is inappropriate for any of you to criticise Overload until you have stood in his shoes!

I don't see many critical posts coming from people who control supersonic traffic. While it is excellet to see the old bird flying again, it does increase workload disproportionately. I have not worked the West End at LATCC, but much respect to those of you who do at 11:00 each morning!

[Big Nose1]

Frankly Dan Dare I would go no where near Overload`s shoes.....but then I know where they have been. :D
On a slightly different matter I wonder if that friend of all LATCC ATCO`s, thats you Traffic Traffic, can tell us the common link:
21-15
20-12. :eek: :eek:

[TrafficTraffic]

On a slightly different matter I wonder if that friend of all LATCC ATCO`s, thats you Traffic Traffic, can tell us the common link:
21-15
20-12.

I know what they are....thats what the Clacton sector thinks parallel headings look like.
Hdg 021 & 015 or 020 & 012???? ;)


OK OK that hurts, I suppose you are willing to forget about the Lions tour downunder....Oh and I see we are forgetting about the Ashes cricket this summer too....let me see have we missed anything else..?

TT

[PPRuNe Radar]

Yeah Traffic Traffic, you forgot the Oz Rugby Union and League results at the weekend. As ATCOs are supposed to have good short term memory retention, are you sure you remember where you left your sweeping brush after your last cleaning duty ?? ;)

Throws pebble into big pool, followed by boulder .... the NATS Forum is coming soon :D

[PETERJ]

Was out for a walk this afternoon and ended up at a pond with about 200 wee ducks swimming around..........suddenly a swan appeared on downwind...turned base and made a perfect (for a swan !) landing ....splash..........splash...splash. in clear water without coming even close to any of the ducks.Thought of you guys and this thread !!!!!!! Outstanding work guys.
PS.. didn't have the Tower freqs for this pond so couldn't anorak it. Will try again tomorow !!!!.... :)

[TrafficTraffic]

Ahh...Mr RADAR Sir...I think they were the Rugby Scores! But I must admit I was watching the cricket! Too much time moderating perhaps?

Thanks for asking about my broom, It is big and green and cleans up the mess just across the channel.

.... the NATS Forum is coming soon
I'll see you in there ;) ;)


Oh yeah...BTW Mr RADAR Sir...you shouldnt really hijack threads..somebody was complaining about the flagship of commercial aviation.

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: TrafficTraffic ]

[overload]

Nice to see another mature, reasoned, debate amongst aviation professionals, ever sympathetic to one of their colleagues problems.

Ock1f

Is it really necessary to sink to that level of personal abuse in order to disagree with an opinion?

I Concede that your comments on it’s outbound sub-sonic periods are valid, but notice that you didn’t address the trickier period of when it starts it’s acceleration. There are now 9 upper air routes crossing its acceleration flight path in UK airspace, 6 at Merly, the other 3 between Merly and Shannon’s airspace. Crossing traffic either requires wholesale re-routing to go behind the acceleration point, or fairly savage level changes (say 7000 feet lower for traffic at FL390 ) plus vectoring west of Merly to achieve a safe crossover. Another option is heroic vectoring well west (say 50 miles or more west of Merly) for traffic not wishing to descend, at levels between 320-370. Flights routing Lands End to Dublin at FL390 for example, cross the acceleration track about 90 miles west of it’s start and need a sharp descent to stay below Concorde, no problem for traffic inbound Dublin, but not so popular with Icelandic traffic going home from Spain, or even UK inbound traffic going to Glasgow. London TMA outbounds going through Merly need to stay down at FL250 in order to stay below it at the acceleration point. None of this is exact as there are so many variables such as upper winds, Concorde’s performance (“round the bay” charter flights perform better than transatlantics), accessing it’s forward motion whist it’s accelerating, which is why I find it a difficult aircraft to manage.

The airspace west of Cardiff used to be relatively empty when Concorde first started, but now on summers Weekend with a southerly Oceanic track structure, it is mighty busy.

Incidentally, the re-routes, level changes, and vectoring the other aircraft suffer, is to facilitate an aircraft that has the same priority as the rest of the aircraft flying around.

I noticed that no tips or advice were offered on the other problem of picking safe levels for it’s dirty dive from FL370 whilst on a converging track towards Malby.

TT

Yes I have worked Airforce 1, don’t recall it going supersonic though, just seemed to cruise along with all the other traffic, what was your point?

Heathrow D

No need to smell a rat.
As this is an international forum I thought “London Centre” would mean more to our overseas colleagues that Latcc or even that well-known council estate, West Drayton.

Staff Number

Sticking smilies on the end of statements like “you probably got overloaded getting out of bed. Why don't you empty your nappy someplace else?” doesn’t alter the tone of the abuse.

For those of you tuning in, who have no real idea from these posts whether or not Concorde is a problem, I can assure that there are many normal, moderate and well balanced individuals who agree with me, and I Concur there are those who don’t. Unfortunately you don’t find that many “normal, moderate and well balanced individuals” posting on Prune, why lay yourself open to wholesale abuse just for expressing an opinion?

You will note that I only mention the British Concorde, as the French Concorde is a delight to work. By the time it hits UK airspace it is well into it’s climb and soars above almost all the traffic, just needing to watch a couple of well known hot spots.

My thanks to the few of you that offered some support, or at least were prepared to listen to the debate, not ever having been directly involved in it operationally, and those that managed to disagree without descending into a slagging match.

I’m not anti Concorde, I’ve done 30 years in ATC, and am a committed aviation person. I could have left to get a flying job (hold an ATPL, Instrument rating, 6000 flying, about half turbine), but stayed with ATC because I enjoy the job, and have no desire to see Concorde grounded. But as I stated, I find it a difficult aircraft to deal with, the title of the post being “Concorde- An alternative view”, not the only view.

If this is the type of debate everyone want’s in Pprune, so be it, but you won’t catch me posting here again,

It’s over to the literary lager louts.

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: overload ]

[TrafficTraffic]

See you in the New NATS Forum...hey Overload

It should be safer in there ...
:o

[expediter]

don't go OVERLOAD, it won't be the same without you!!

[Gonzo]

Overload, without wanting to sound patronising, I thought that was well-handled ;) .

In the Aerodrome environment, Concorde is not terribly different to anything else (the other day a colleague of mine had to tell a Midland 320 to slow down because he was catching Concorde up, thus eroding the vortex spacing on final! :eek: ), plus we get to see it out the window every day, fantastic!

However, I would have to plug in on Bristol, Strumble and Lands End sectors for a while before I started branding people 'pathetic' for what appears to be a quite legitimate post.

Gonzo.

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: Gonzo ]

[crowman]

Overload, I consider that you have raised a discussion point completely professionally. Having been a BHD controller in the past and subsequentally a BHD CSC the problems that you have raised are completely valid. We are able to cope with Concorde solely because there are only 2 a day. Imagine if the projections of the 1960's were correct and there had been 40-50 a day! I suspect that your severest critics would have been totally unable to cope with that level. I know that I, even when radar valid, would have been totally out of my depth in that situation. It is very easy to criticise others who have the honesty to admit their shortfalls and limits!! I certainly would not have been able to radar control at LATCC over the age of 50. I WILL NOT CRITICISE SOMEONE WHO DOES :eek:

[ock1f]

I would like to start off by thanking Overload for his thoughtful, considered reply to various criticisms which were levelled at him. In addition I am sorry if you were offended by any criticisms I had, although I should point out that I am not critical of you as a person, purely your percieved inability to deal with one aircraft.
I would be delighted to respond to your post, and give an "alternative" view of things down the west end, lest our Pilot colleagues feel that the job is beyond all of us.
You point out that, to the west of the Accel point, there are 9 UAR's that can come in to conflict with the Concorde. Agreed. But how many of these track North/South? 3.. Now surely these are the routes that affect the Concorde. The reason? Well, all the other routes are predominently E/W, and due to the off-route status we have, A/c on these routes can be vectored away from the UAR's. Indeed, in most cases, you find that by sending A/C direct to their OEPs, they stay nicely away from the UARs.. It is the N/S routes which predominantly affect the acceleration of the Concorde, and of these, I am sure you will agree that LND-BANBA is the main culprit. Now how many A/C do you actually get on this route? Well, not too many, let's be honest. EIDW i/b do not really come in to play as they are always descended early, so what is left, as you rightly say, are i/b for EGPF/PK, etc, &, er, Iceland i/b traffic. hhmm, now be honest, there's not really TOO much of that, is there?. So if you are unfortunate to have one of these conflicts, and we've all been there, what are the options? Descent or vectoring. I would suggest that descent is the preferred option (although I have had one A/C request to be vectored behind the Concorde); so the problem, in your mind, is that an A/C routing LND-BANBA has to be descended earlier than he wants.. So is that any different from descending LTMA i/b tfc early on UG1 against conflicting traffic N/S through BCN? Or descending EIDW/EICK traffic coming up through LIZAD early against traffic crossing at LND. Of course not. It is the same principle, and that is what we are paid to do. I know it is tough luck on the operators, but that's life. What can you do? Stop all UA25 traffic so that LTMA i/b can be descended "when ready"? Or stop A/C tracking west of DAWLY to allow EIDW/EICK to descend "when ready"? That is an ideal world, but, of course, an unrealistic one. The point I am trying to make is that when looked at from this point of view, Concorde is EXACTLY the same as any other A/C in the problems it presents. Every A/C creates difficulties which have to be solved. The "problems" caused by Concorde can be transposed to lots of other areas and situations in the sector..
You also mention that LTMA o/b tfc via EXMOR-MERLY has to be held down at FL250. Er, yes, and your point is..? That often happens when turbulence is around at upper levels, A/C are happy to stay down. It is not a problem. What's more, they are in the Upper Air when west of EXMOR, so I can't see what you are getting at..Furthermore, EIDW & EICK outbounds are now filed at low levels for the cruise; Flying at these levels is not a problem for the A/C..
I see that the I/B Concorde routing to MALBY at FL370 descending also causes you problems. This, of course, is not the case if there is no East or Westbound conflicting A/C. On the occasions where there are, might I suggest that you accept Concorde in to your sector at a level which IS safe? I often ask for Concorde to be FL290 (or whatever) Level abeam EGFF.. Never have I experienced opposition to this from the Pilots, and it EASILY solves any conflictions you may have. At subsonic levels, treat Concorde pretty much as you would any other A/C and you won't go wrong.

Your colleague Crowman points out that there are only 2 Concordes a day. Well that really is the point, isn't it? How many EGDL outbounds do we see every day heading East? Or EGVN outbounds? Or EGCC outbounds conflicting with LTMA inbounds. These all, I would suggest, cause far more thought and test ones ATC skills to a far greater extent, than TWO Concordes..

Your colleague also points out that it is "easy to criticise others who have the honesty to admit their shortfalls and limits". I am trying to point out that Concorde really presents no more problems, when all is considered, than any other A/C or scenario in the sector. If you want to tackle a real problem, how about 5 A/C converging at GIBSO at 6am when you've been up all night...

The West End is a great sector, and different problems and scenarios are presented every day. It is the ability to use flair and initiative in solving these problems which, surely, make the job so enjoyable. Enjoy these times, cos when we get to NERC, flair and initiative will be things of the past..

[Staff Number]

OVERLOAD : I'd just like to point out that isn't a smilie at the end of my post - more of a sneerie...........
If, as you say, you've been in the business for 30 years plus - then surely you must have worked out how to deal with the problems concorde poses. If you've forgotten over the last 18 months then perhaps you should get off the radar.
If you have been on duty recently you'll know just how QUIET it is. NATS is now in such a precarious financial position that ANY extra custom is welcome. I think any pilot reading your 'bleetings' must question the calibre of such an ATCO providing a service at LATCC.

[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: Staff Number ]

[250 kts]

SN, harsh, very harsh------------but true!!

[Flick the switch]

SN
as you feel the need to repeat yourself,then so shall I..
What is so special about concorde that the seas have to part for it? Does it pay more route charges than any other a/c???

[PavloVa]

Staff Number and 250kts,
good to see you have lived down to Overloads expectations. If either of you are still performing at your best after 30 years then you are not an ATCO at a busy unit, cut the guy some slack.

Staff Number... been on duty recently, yes, the West End split 5 ways with a STU co-ordinator....king busy. Where do you work !!!!!! I doubt its the West End otherwise you would wind your neck in. :mad: :mad:

[Big Nose1]

Been offline for a couple of days, the Lions tour......obviously the Lions were the better team, our only mistake was employing a kiwi( thats someone from Queensland isnt it?) coach. But then i was too busy watching the cricket from India...thats where Aussies play like the Poms.

[TrafficTraffic]

40 - 12

oh and Hewitt...

...wasnt this thread about the inability of some people to handle traffic?
:rolleyes:

[NW1]

Hi Overload

Been reading this thread, saw it was all getting a little out of hand (as these things can!) and thought I'd drop you a line - hopefully you haven't dropped out of the thread.

I fly the Conc., and must admit was a little surprised to hear that you experienced such problems dealing with us. I offer the following in an attempt to find a fix for the problems you perceive, and if you have any outstanding issues please come back at me - if I cannot resolve them, I'll take them to someone on the fleet who can.

I take your point about departure climb rates, but as soon as noise abate is over (effectively once we've cleared 'WOD' and know we're going to make the subsequent 6000' restriction) we achieve 300+kts very quickly which gives us a consistant 3-4000'fpm climb. It is a little more sporty than the 757 (but not much) but it is consistant (and therefore plannable) - but please: if you want to level us off then do so, of course we'd rather not (no more than any other jet type - again my previous 757 comes to mind) - believe me we'd rather level off than bang into someone else. Most LHR departures do unavoidably involve many level-offs, I have perceived no special handling here over my previous fleet.

Regarding one-way against inbound flow, don't really understand this. I guess there must be a predominant flow according to time of day, but surely these airways are not actually one-way streets, aircraft fly in both directions all day (not just the Conc.)and ATC and its equipment is there to coordinate this? We fly a standard SID and fly standard published routes and very often we even get cleared direct to the accel, if this causes problems then give us vectors - we won't get cross!! And anyway, at F260, aren't we below most conventional jet traffic?

I take your point about the accel itself - it must take a bit of juggling to manage it. Vectors are possible, but we can end up "focussing" a boom on someone's greenhouse - but if it is needed it would be better than a collision! And surely the lack of GS readout is an ATC deficiency? (If you need it just ask us - we've got one :-)

You say we are cleared to F600 and add that we never meet it. The first part of that comment is actually untrue - you clear us to the *block* F450-F600, and we adhere to that clearance with altitude fluctuating with the OAT affecting engine efficiency, but averaging a climb - usually to about F580 on the Atlantic and F600 to Barbados.

Regarding the inbound subsonic bit - yes we descend at the optimum point, but so do all jets - that's the idea. Contrary to popular belief fuel is no tighter than other types - on the inbound sector we can carry as much (and sometimes more) holding fuel as I could doing the same sector on a 767. If you want us to descend at a certain point - please tell us. And if you think the standard routing isn't working then there must be an alternative, but I must say I have perceived no more or less vectoring in the Conc inbound to LHR than other types - and no perceivable extra conflicts on the R/T. We descend at 350kts (not 370) but 320 would be fine too, if you asked for it (320 is actually min. drag at landing weight) - and subsequently standard speeds are not a problem either. We could offer everything from 190 to 380 knots up to base leg - it is a remarkably flexible beastie :cool: !!

(admittedly less than 250 when still significantly before OCK would be less than ideal!!)

To sum up, please don't feel you have to handle us with kid gloves - if we can do something to make your job easier, tell us - it may be an unconventional aircraft, but we can be more flexible than you seem to think. :D

[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]

[Big Nose1]

NW1 thanks for the post, been controlling you guys for over 10 years and have learnt more about your operation tonight than I care to mention. Good to see that PPrune still has its uses occasionally. Could you tell us exactly how long we could delay the acceleration after the accel point if we really had to, sometimes just 5 miles would help us greatly to keep you clear of the Exmor-Stu traffic.

[TrafficTraffic]

NW1 thanks for the post, been controlling you guys for over 10 years and have learnt more about your operation tonight than I care to mention.

Never thought to ask?

10 years?

Wouldnt have learnt that much on a NATS ONLY forum would you!

[NW1]

Hi Big Nose (Monty Python fan?!)

Couln't agree more - this is really what the forum's for.

Could you tell us exactly how long we could delay the acceleration after the accel point if we really had to, sometimes just 5 miles would help us greatly

If you needed it, I'll stick my neck out and say 5 miles would not be a problem - I cannot see a fuel/time issue arising from a accel delay of 30 seconds - and if it makes the wheels turn more smoothly, well that's all of our responsibilities isn't it..... Bottom line; if you judge that its needed then please ask.

I for one (and I'm sure my colleagues would agree) would be far happier to discuss the problem at accel-20 miles and see if we could work something out than have atc feel we a causing them an insolvable problem.

If you find us repeatedly asking for the clearance at accel-5 miles, its not impatience - its only because we need to start shifting fuel (hence CofG) about and many other jobs well before the burners go in, so if you cannot issue the clearance until accel+5, please warn us in advance (rather than just delaying the clearance) and all would be cool :cool:

Like a lot of problems in this job, it boils down to communications - if you have a problem then share it with us and we'll work it out.

[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]

[spekesoftly]

Hi NW1

Just read your recent Concorde posts, and find them interesting, enjoyable and informative. May I also be bold enough to add that I find your "let's get it sorted" attitude a welcome breath of fresh air!

Cheers :)

[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: spekesoftly ]

[overload]

NW1


Deep, Deep Joy and I mean it!

Just the type of response I was hoping to elicit when I started the thread. I’m starting to learn!


I don’t have time now for a full response to your questions, but will be posting this evening, with further requests for information.

Thanks for the input.


Overload

[overload]

Hi NW1,

Back with you,

Our (probably my) depth of knowledge on Concorde’s operational performance is not as high as I would like. I’ve never heard anyone mention the “operational band between 450-600”, although, as we transfer you to Shannon by 8 degrees west it isn’t of much practical significance to us, but still nice to know.

I’m not surprised that Concorde is unaware of some of the problems, as there has always been a “parting of the waves” scenario, particularly during the acceleration period, that rightly should be transparent to the flight crew.

The problem of going out against the inbound flow was always the weakest part of my post. I just threw it in for completeness, and I was happy to concede that one to Ock1f.

Regarding inbound descent. If its too busy for individual co-ordination between the Strumble sector and the Brecon sector, (that’s the one you hit inbound after Exmor), they agree FL310 15 miles before Numpo for all TMA inbounds, with the equivalent for you being FL310 15 before Exmor, would that be much of a penalty for you? How about FL290 once in awhile?

In respect of the descent problems as you approach Malby. There are a number of East and West-bound routes that Concorde converges towards. This converging scenario doesn’t easily lend itself to our usual method of operation.

As I’m sure you are aware, Latcc is very big on parallel headings. If your pointing north-east towards Malby and there is Westbound traffic radar vectored on the north side of G1, at various levels, we only clear you to safe levels on top of that traffic until you too, can be placed on a radar heading on the south side of G1, unless we are certain there is no risk.

We are not allowed to clear you down through traffic on the understanding that we will remember to turn you when you hit the southern boundary of the airway. It’s been tried, but it’s a ****** when you lose the frequency!

As you approach the southern boundary of G1 you start to integrate with the TMA inbound flow and until the corner is turned, it can require tedious (for both of us) step-down descents on top of descending traffic.

If we asked for a 320kt descent speed, would you need some warning and an earlier descent point? How much earlier say than from FL370 unspeeded? If left up at FL370 unspeeded, then given 320kts when say passing through FL280, is that going to mess up your descent profile and cause problems with your FL140 40 from OCK?

Looking at the outbound picture, the perceived wisdom at Latcc is that radar headings whilst accelerating to supersonic speeds were not an option, due to sonic boom considerations. If necessary would five or ten degrees left away from Eire, crossing the boundary with Shannon about 10-15 miles south of the normal Lesu exit point (used to be 51N 08W) be acceptable?

I assume delaying acceleration even by 20 or 30 miles is out of the question except in dire straits, is that right?

I would hopefully not need to use the above alternatives on a regular basis, but just to know what or what is not available in my armoury of tools if necessary, would be extremely useful.

The point I made about the ground speed, which we will have displayed when we go to Swanwick, isn’t really answered by asking you for a “snapshot” speed as you accelerate. If you can imagine 2 jets equidistant from a conflict point at around the same speed, you can tell just by looking at the radar that it’s going to be a problem. Even if one of them is going twice as fast, it’s still possible to “eyeball” it, as the faster one will need to be around twice the distance from the conflict point for it to start becoming a problem. But if an aircraft, say Concorde! is initially around the same ground speed as the possible conflict, then a short while later is 1.2 times its ground speed, then 1.5, 1.7, etc, my initial assessment of “no problem”, can start to become “well, maybe a ten degree turn” or “better go for twenty, maybe twenty five”, “and how about some descent just to be on the safe side”. Very often because of the uncertainty and a natural inclination for caution, the traffic misses you by many miles laterally or thousands of feet below vertically. Once we get the ground-speed readout, our (my) conflict prediction skills should improve.

Just out of curiosity, is an initial cleared level after acceleration commences of say FL390, whilst we ensure that traffic in the way is vectored clear, but always planning on continuous climb, an acceptable procedure?


How does it work for you at the other end (JFK)? I thought New York liked to get traffic down early, do you have special routes in/out or just the normal STARS/SIDS?

It goes without saying that none of the above will of any interest to the Latcc (and other) Ace Controllers, who will by now be deriving huge amusement from the old boys embarrassing disclosures.

Keep in touch

Overload

[Big Nose1]

Traffic, dear chap, never let intelligent debate between fellow professionals get in the way of NATS baiting eh. :(
I for one am always learning new things in this job and long may it continue, when i stop learning i reckon it is time to give up. Afraid i can only aspire to your level of magnificence........Australian you say!?! :eek: :eek:


[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]
Wouldn`t be speaking to a Concorde pilot on a NATS only forum..........would you?

[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]

[Big Nose1]

NW1,
Thanx for the reply, early warning is not a problem, but it seems from your reply that the extra workload for you is greater than my "turn right 10 degrees" to any conflicting traffic so i think i leave you to a standard accel.
Are you much more flexible on the "round the bay" charters in the Summer, these are frequently much more problamatic than the transatlantics, due to the time of day and year they tend to take place.
Good to see you guys back in the air by the way, must have been very frustrating over the last year.

[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]

[TrafficTraffic]

Ahh BigNose....There is absoultely no need for me to bait you blokes in LATCC...you just jump in the boat....

But I feel you miss my point. Have a look at the various threads started by your colleagues and do yo see a trend where everything is a problem, everybody is a problem...then just like this one, someone in the know pipes up and says "no problems, why didnt you just ask" rather than taking a logical progression in problem solving it appears the first step in the LATCC change management book is to post on PPRUNE.

It is great to see our colleagues and friends the tech crews venturing into the ATC forum, esp someone as respected as a Concorde driver.


Never said I was better than anyone, just trying to better myself

[expediter]

Hey Overload

By not having time to reply on the 19th, guess you must have been on an afternoon shift!!

:eek: :eek:

[NW1]

Thanks for the +ve comments on the feedback - I personally think flight deck crews and atc have nothing like enough 2-way exchanges like this, and when we do get together it is invariably enormously useful for all of us, as this message thread shows.

BigNose - I can imagine the round-the-bay trips being a problem from atc's point of view. I think it will be a little while before these resume - and I think there will probably be a "strategy" heads-up between the fleet and atc beforehand.

O/Load - thanks for the detailed reply. Sorry about the delay in getting back - been out blowing the cobwebs off SM!!

Regarding the accel, it is essentially an all or nothing clearance we do need because we're time-limited on the afterburners, and a level-off would involve maintaining Mach. At transonic speeds (about .99-> 1.7, which is F280->F440ish)the aircraft is in a very high drag regeme (afterburners on), shock waves dancing on the wings, and whilst the aircraft is designed to handle it admirably, we get through it as quickly as possible to non-reheated stable supersonic flight above F440/M1.7 (tech. point worth noting - you can equate Mach No. with FL here - both must go up together).

We have a standard requirement to cross 15W above F430 and 20W above F450 to help with the accel planning.

Transonic vectoring carries a few technical issues making it difficult - but not impossible. It would be better to plan up a heading pre-accel and "point and squirt". We need to be clear of land by 20nm for boom considerations. Off-track traffic avoidance is no more or less inconvenient than conventional traffic, but an accel delay of 20nm+ would really start to have more serious time/fuel penalties. I take your point regarding instantaneous g/s readings, would detailed ETAs help - eg. @ Merly, Banlo, SM15W and maybe even intermediate points?

The descent planning. Well our "ideal" is a subsonic cruise at about F370 M0.95 to a top of descent based on (Ht in 000s*2 plus 12) miles at M0.93/350kts (that changoever is @ about F310). We can change those numbers tactically to suit - the bigger the change the bigger the impact it has on the ideal (obviously). But a temporary restriction of 320kts should be OK with a bit of notice. Or, say, "make your speed 320kts by OCK55d"?

F330 would not be a problem, F290 OK if you needed it (RVSM is, of course, another hair-ball - but should be with us soon: thanks for putting up with us until then!!!). A stepped descent before intercepting our "ideal" profile is available if you need it - again, please don't feel you'll offend by asking - we know your reasons are of mutual benefit :D

I do worry about the routing problems, though. It sounds as though there is an airspace structure problem here, our flight plan is Barix SL3 Malby G1 -> OCK STAR as you know. If this needs changing (maybe SL3 has been left behind by recent fundamental airspace changes) it possibly needs representation at a higher level. I honestly don't know what the isses here would be.

But with problems on the day, we will happily collude with you to sort it out. Please raise it on the r/t as soon as you see a problem and with notice we should be able to oblige with as little disturbance as possible.

Obviously, we could get bogged down in an infinate list of "what ifs" with all of this, so I think the bottom line has got to be please ask us if you foresee a problem and we should be able to reach a compromise tactically. It personally makes my toes curl to think that there's a perception that we need to have a red carpet treatment - what we need is to work together to everyone's benefit.

From our conversations here, I will talk to our fleet management and see if we can produce a detailed document for atcos who work with Concorde and give you a better in-depth understanding of the performance and other considerations of the aircraft which would help us work better together. Would this be useful for you?

It there's anything else I could help you with - please ask. Send me an email and I'll email you my phone number, if we need to cover more than we have already here it may be more efficient to do it 2-way - these messages could get too big to read...!

[surfingatco]

Conc - no problem to handle in the Approach phase - however I take issue with the comment about being able to hold as long as others, but as the 1261 has been filed will say no more as the matter is subjudice!

[eyeinthesky]

I too remember many occasions when Conc was on the way back from Barbados on a Sunday night and was told of a 10-15 minute delay as is usual at that time.
"Er.. we can only accept one hold" came the reply.
"Roger, what is your diversion airfield or do you wish to declare an emerency?"
"Negative, we can only accept one hold. Standby."

After a pause, it transpires that the company frequency has been busy and we are informed that a 767 in the hold at BNN or somewhere has agreed to swap approach times with the Conc to save embarrassment. Not really in the spirit of things, I suppose, but if you are paying £X,000 for a seat you have the right to queue jump, don't you?

[overload]

NW1

Many thanks for the info, very informative.

Just a couple more general interest questions:

How does the fuel flow compare at un-reheated supersonic cruise with subsonic cruise flows?

What sort of level (or longitude) are you back subsonic when descending inbound. On the radar it looks fairly soon after passing our boundary at 8 degrees west.

I think the best chance of helping ATC without penalising Concorde, would be
a small adjustment to the inbound route to take Concorde Barix – Numpo or once subsonic direct Numpo, (then Nigit – Ock, which is the standard routing on the Ock star from UP4), enabling it to be vectored away from the west bounds and integrated more quickly into the east bound flow.

This would help Brecon and Bristol sectors, add very little track mileage, whilst giving Concorde a higher chance of remaining at FL370 until the optimum descent point.

I’ll trawl the idea at Latcc, and if there is a consensus of opinion (between ATCO’s!) in favour , will ask the powers that be to make a formal approach to BA.

Any Bristol/Brecon/Strumble bods care to comment, I think it’s safe to remove tin hat. Doh!


A Concorde document for ATCO’s would be an excellent idea, our information on Concorde hasn’t been updated much since the aircraft was first introduced. Most of the information new trainees get is word of mouth, there is little printed material, apart from the actual train of events that have to be action once Concorde is on its way in or out.

I agree I think we’ve probably got as far as we can for now in this type of forum,

I’ve got a much clearer idea of how it behaves operationally,


Many, many thanks for your help,


overload

[TrafficTraffic]

767 in the hold at BNN or somewhere has agreed to swap approach times with the Conc to save embarrassment. Not really in the spirit of things, I suppose, but if you are paying £X,000 for a seat you have the right to queue jump, don't you?


I see no problem with that at all, (maybe if I was in the 767 I might see differently! The 747-400's that travel the Pacific (~13.5 hrs- 14.5) on a daily basis receive dispensations on fuel reserves, and holding requirements at I believe SYD, LAX and SFO, effectively jumping the queue.

Aviation is all about innovation (look it up) compromise (how do think the things actually bloody fly!) and coordination...looks like BA and the crews did all 3 three to me in this case...you blokes might try it one day.

[Warped Factor]

A Concorde document for ATCO’s would be an excellent idea, our information on Concorde hasn’t been updated much since the aircraft was first introduced.

MATS Pt 1 SI 4/83 is about the most recent info I've seen :rolleyes:

WF.

[NW1]

surfing: Well, arrivals from JFK can load up (BGI is different, very little opportunity to carry extra). Whether you do or not is down to the same judgment (luck) as any other type - s'easy to be caught out, but just like any other type, you can burn your extra in the hold then its cards on the table time - no difference there.

What *is* different is the post-hold bit. 320kts is min-drag at landing weight, and any less piles up the drag (hence fuel flow). By 210kts the wing is really biting the breeze, and below 190kts the fuel flow is almost what it is at 1150kts. Speed can be more important than track miles for that reason.

Eye: Slot swaps (as I know you know!!) go on all the time. As long as they remain within the same company, its all fair - a flexible way of managing resources as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone else. All the hardware and fuel is owned by the same company - it makes sense for the company to optimise the way they are used.

O/Load: A rule of thumb is that about 25% of range is lost by decelerating from M" to subsonic cruise - 33% if you do it on 3 engines.

Inbound for a subsonic cruise segment, we reduce the rate of descent at about F410, go subsonic, and descend to F370 at M0.95 to maintain. You'll see the ROD drop off around F410 - that's about the M1 point.

If you see a good solution to the routing issue - have a go at suggesting it; I'm sure it would be in all our interests to sort that one out. Let me know how you get on.

You're more than welcome - its been very interesting talking to you guys - I'd like to think we could get more face 2 face meetings organised, like latcc visits and fam. rides etc. - we work too closely to let misunderstanings develop, eh?

Thanks for the atc input - it is much appreciated (and your very professional handling of our aircraft, too - I know the fleet appreciates it both here and equally in the US).

[Numpo-Nigit]

I suspect that Overload's suggested inbound route BARIX-NUMPO would be likely to aim the "boom" towards the South Wales coast. Whilst I don't have a problem with that, I don't think it would find "a welcome in the hillside". Of course, the option of slowing to subsonic speeds a bit earlier to mitigate the perceived problem might be acceptable if it meant that Concorde was able to maintain its optimum subsonic level/speed until closer in.

[Warped Factor]

NW1,

What *is* different is the post-hold bit. 320kts is min-drag at landing weight, and any less piles up the drag (hence fuel flow). By 210kts the wing is really biting the breeze, and below 190kts the fuel flow is almost what it is at 1150kts. Speed can be more important than track miles for that reason.

You can probably appreciate why we have to stick to the 250/210/190 speed regime off the stack under most circumstances.

If you went much quicker you'd need more space in front which would effectively mean further lost arrival slots. One Conc arrival at standard speeds takes up about an 11 mile chunk of the final approach, a significantly faster approach would probably require much more.

Eye: Slot swaps (as I know you know!!) go on all the time. As long as they remain within the same company, its all fair - a flexible way of managing resources as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone else. All the hardware and fuel is owned by the same company - it makes sense for the company to optimise the way they are used.

I understood that EAT swopping had been stopped in the TMA by edict from above.

You're more than welcome - its been very interesting talking to you guys - I'd like to think we could get more face 2 face meetings organised, like latcc visits and fam. rides etc. - we work too closely to let misunderstanings develop, eh?

Feel free to get in touch anytime you want to come in for a visit, you're always welcome. Maybe you could come on the same day I show TrafficTraffic around ;)

Many years ago, when approach was still over at the airport, and on a lovely clear night BAW4 came back from NYC and reported visual south abeam the airfield at FL70.

"Cleared visual approach 27L" said I.

Amazing......dropped like a brick, turned final inside 4 miles and landed, all over in about 30 secs :eek:

Then the phones started ringing :)

WF.

[TrafficTraffic]

Maybe you could come on the same day I show TrafficTraffic around


I am up for it.

Are there enough parking spots for 2 visitors?
;)

[Warped Factor]

TT,

I am up for it.

Are there enough parking spots for 2 visitors?

Check your e-mail.....

WF.

[NW1]

Hi Warped

Yes - the standard speeds off the hold work fine (my feeling is that we fit fairly well into the LHR pattern - we certainly have a more flexible decelleration / energy managemnt issue than conventional types as your visual approach experience shows!!!) - the only point I was trying to make was that speeds significantly lower than standard have an out of proportion penalty - "leave OCK heading 090 speed 170kts" would be a problem on minimum flt. plan fuel. Big problem - more track miles at 210 would be better.

No, slot swaps are still used. Thing is, if you own a 737 which burns (say) and extra 30kgs of sector fuel to carry a tonne for holding at LHR and a 747 which needs an extra 500kgs to carry a tonne for holding (and gets less holding out of it) then dynamic management of EATs makes a lot of sense. Keep it within each company, and it disadvantages nobody else - just amounts to efficient use of airtime. It can be even more practical than just cash - you may have an inbound which cannot carry extra for many technical reasons, and a 757 from CDG which can carry oodles - why unecessarily (sp?) drop your NRT 747-400 into LGW at vast expense?

[overload]

Hi Numpo,


Any convenient subsonic fix inbound then direct Numpo, or even direct Numpo when subsonic, should do the trick,

er Numpo,

[PavloVa]

Numpo i cant believe its taken you so long to post, after all Concorde is one of your favourite pet hates!!
You seem to miss Overloads point, slowing to subsonic speed earlier would achieve nothing, it is the integration into the eastbound flow which is important. A routeing to Numpo once subsonic would solve many of the Radar controllers problems.
Hope the OCT is going well!!!

[eyeinthesky]

Slot-swaps: OK, yes it is OK for companies to sort out their own aircraft if they wish, but have you considered the impact upon ATC and other companies if the BA767 at FL90 at BNN suddenly is No10 in the sequence instead of No3, so all the other companies' aircraft above him have to be vectored away from the hold and descended to keep their rightful places. Late descents ensue, can cause separation difficulties and generally get in the way. My point in raising it was only to note that, contrary to some points raised hitherto in this thread, the Conc does get preferential treatment, however subtle, more often than other more 'normal' types.

Having said that, it has been interesting to see the detailed explanation of operating it from the inside. I suppose that the fam flight scheme has gone by the board??