EDI Radar [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Headset starter

8th Dec 2005, 22:38

Howdy ho all,

Appologies firstly if I came across as being rude to the turbo-prop, not intended, just that a number of occaisions we are slowed down to the speed of, say, a Dash8-300, when if we maintained speed, it appeared we would have been able to fit in ahead, and not delayed the Dash.

A couple of examples...

Returning from over the North Sea via SAB, or even GOMOT, Scottish give a direct centre-fix for 24. Now, sometimes we ask, sometimes its just offered, but on either occaision one would only assume the clearance could be offered if first discussed with Radar that this would fit in with their sequence. If not, then let us go high speed to say TARTN, then slow down and enter a sensible sequence at the correct approach speed.

One the main points coming out of this is we're trying to maintain a constant descent profile, with minimum thrust, so if from SAB we get direct to an 8 mile final, it's spoilers open and dive for the hard-deck. If then we're told actually, you're going to be vectored back in a southwesterly direction to fit in behind aircraft coming from the south, then it's thrust back on and the whole arrival feels messy.

Secondly, arriving from the South, on the TWEED1A, there are many times when arriving on the Scottish frequency, we're told we have to slow to 270kts, then 250kts, which is quite a way before reaching the SLP just after ESKDO. Why if we're behind with other high speed aircraft, do we have to slow down?Somewhere like Manchester has given points to slow down, ie 12D before ROSUN, or as you get there if on vectors, and it works. Only if it's a very busy morning will they suggest you slow down early to avoid flying around in the hold. Why is EDI different?

Obviously you guys in ATC aren't out to slow us intentionally, and there is certainly no pressure from the Company to fly 250kts to 4miles, that would be daft! :E

AlanM - Yes, indeed a visit to the new tower is required, and also a trip to Scottish Control, which is at Prestiwck isn't it?

Edinburgh just feels a little odd, but maybe it's just us.

Cheers,

HS

Ops and Mops

8th Dec 2005, 22:57

Sounds possibly like Scottish trying to stream inbounds with speed control instead of letting them run toward the holds. This then leaves Radar having to vector to either close up or create gaps for the arrival sequence. The airspace around the Scottish TMA doesnt leave much room for manouvre within the vectoring areas of either EDI or GLA when there are lots of aircraft in and outbound.

Scottish also work to 5 and 10 mile radar seps where as approach radar units can work down to 3 miles which is why Radar can tighten you up in the sequence if required.

Invariably EDI and GLA Radar have to work with what they get given from Scottish, and this may mean that there is little to no room for resequencing depending on the inbound flow from other sectors.

Anyone from Atlantic House care to comment?

I think that a visit to both units would be beneficial for you to see what is trying to be achieved, and for the controllers to take on board what is preferrable for you.

PS: Don't forget the flip side too! Approach also have to create gaps in the inbound sequence for departures to get away...no luxury Parallel Runway ops up North!!!!

Wheelybin

9th Dec 2005, 01:52

When The figures come out at the end of the year. It will be seen that Edinburgh is now the 5th busiest airport within Britain ( in terms of aircraft movements). It overtook Glasgow some years ago and has now overtaken Birmingham. Yet still there is an attitude that this is a sleepy provincial hollow.
At airports that have less than half the traffic, aircraft are automatically cleared to the hold and consider themselves lucky that they are given more direct approaches. At Edinburgh my colleauges will strive to give the most expeditious approach to all aircraft and only resort to holding when traffic conditions insist that it is the best course of action.
I believe I am familiar with the type of flight that the poster is referring to (124-5 gave it away) And so you were given a direct routeing, from I expect a considerable distance, by an area controller who would have no idea of the other aircraft that were inbound to Edinburgh at the time. As they got closer, a discussion took place between controllers and you were given a turn to fit into the traffic pattern....You dont like it...then fly airways all the way. I think you will find it considerably longer!
Controllers are Area or Approach trained and having worked in both I can tell you the two are chalk and cheese.
Aircraft performances change considerably with levels and I am sympathetic to the poster in a turboprop who can indeed give high speed to 4 miles before pulling it all out and plonking it on the runway, who has been slowed down prematurely cos a jet is alongside ( 240knots below fl100 due to airframe!)
What we do, constantly ,is try to provide the most efficient service to all flights. If that means giving you a direct. Believe me youll get it. The less time you are on my frequency the better! But please dont moan when for once you end up at the back of the queue!
Ps..made me chuckle...Thought it was just area controllers who didnt know about turboprop performance at lower levels.....Nice to know its jet pilots too!!!

Lock n' Load

9th Dec 2005, 04:28

Going back to the original question, the basics of deciding the order are these:

Range from touchdown. Simple and obvious, and certainly the first consideration.

Speed. A C172 with 20 miles to run will end up behind a 737 with 40 miles to run. But... a jet with 40 to run behind a turboprop with 35 to run could still be No2. The jet WILL have to slow down and this is part of the decision-making process. Something like an ATP will usually be screwed regardless in a busy sequence, because 215kts from 50 miles away doesn't fit the flow. A D328 or DHC8-400 will be able to do 250kts+ all the way to base leg, which is more than most jets will manage.

Orderliness. When you have a busy sequence, and certainly if you're No6 or higher you can bet the approach controller is working pretty hard, it's in everyones' interests that the sequence be manageable. This may end up, on occasion, being slightly unfair to someone, but avoids situations getting out of hand. Using the ATP at 215 kts as an example, putting in a downwind and running in a couple of straight-ins ahead of it, or cutting somebody fast infront via a base leg with vertical separation from the ATP, can expedite the overall sequence and make it easier to control. Peeling aircraft off opposing downwinds is easy and you can pretty much keep doing it all day, so when the guy at the back calls MAYDAY you have easier option to get him on the ground quickly (peel him off while everybody else continues downwind, for one).
As an adjunct to that, straight-in approaches are a relative rarity at Edinburgh, usually the guys from Northern Europe coming accross the North Sea for 24. Judging a straight-in against one in the rush from the south is made much harder by the fact that with , say, 30 miles from touchdown, the 2 aircraft are 20 miles or so apart. If there is a busy sequence already when the straight-in arrives on the screen, it's more manageable to give him a dogleg onto base.

And finally.... if there are enough aircraft that you have one infront of you by 6 miles (or maybe 4 miles these days?) on final and one behind you by the same distance, approach is doing a pretty good job and you aren't being punished! There are simply enough aircraft inbound to make runway capacity a limiting factor.

callyoushortly

9th Dec 2005, 13:49

Headset starter

Come and have a visit and then you'll see the picture like we do and see how we adapt to situations within/beyond our control

Hootin an a roarin

9th Dec 2005, 18:22

Hi Headset starter

I'm afraid in a lot of cases the order is selected by Scottish and not the Approach Professionals. We are forever having aircraft handed over which have been told to keep their speed up ( over 300kts and more) and in some cases on 06 very high and struggling for the mileage to descend. It isn't as much of a problem on 24 however a strong southerly wind causes the same problems on approach to this runway. Incidentally we do have SLP's on all STAR's but as they are rarely adhered to by Scottish they fall by the way side.

I believe Scottish have a lack of appreciation of aircraft performance and company procedures, as some aircraft which have been made number one for approach hit FL100 and slam on the anchors and the guy who is number two is happy to keep his speed up. Dash 8D's and especially the D328's seem to be penalised by Scottish and always made number 2/3/etc whereas they can keep a good speed, 250kts all the way and a fairly rapid speed down the ILS as well. All traffic should be vectored to the hold or follow the STAR and then we at the airport can decide who comes straight off or needs to hold (part of our standing agreement but hardly ever practised by Scottish). As for yourself sneaking in from St Abbs you should be routeing to the hold automatically ( Standing agreement again )but Scottish always seem to route you to a 10 mile final, sometimes with disregard for the current traffic situation. Mistifies me how controllers situated in the same room can't seem to communicate with each other (Tay and Talla).

As previously suggested come and have a visit, you'd be most welcome (just bring the biscuits). We are trying to solve many problems, primarily arrival procedures with Scottish at the moment but this public forum is not the place to discuss our many gripes with the ATCO 2's.

;)

Wheelybin

10th Dec 2005, 00:18

Respect Hooting,
very well put. Just hope you are ready for the band 2 backlash!

PH-UKU

10th Dec 2005, 10:19

Scottish always seem to route you to a 10 mile final, sometimes with disregard for the current traffic situation. Mistifies me how controllers situated in the same room can't seem to communicate with each other (Tay and Talla).

Bear in mind that Talla CAN'T see 100 miles east of the TMA, but Tay CAN see the impending stream from the south, so Tay needs to exercise a bit of judgement and look to see if the traffic 'fits'. Doesn't take rocket science to plot distance to the 10 mile point - if in doubt .. route via TLA VOR.... that gives Edinburgh and TMA the flexible option.

Now this probably varies a bit from watch to watch, but from my experience ... what I would do (as a Tay controller) is co-ordinate with Talla - if they are busy, then clearance into the TMA is 90% likely to be toward TLA VOR (where you're going to get a 90-150 degree turn anyway!).

However, there are a few occasions when there is a lull in the traffic and Talla and Tay decide to offer a direct routing to 10 mile file - SO LONG AS EDINBURGH AGREE - I wouldn't have thought anyone (from Tay) would point aircraft direct without Edinburgh's agreement ... although that agreement is no doubt based on the hope that Scottish won't present a total :mad: up.

Early handover at St Abbs head is then preferred so that Edinburgh can start the fine tuning.

Other considerations ... military fighter ops south of Leuchars ... aaaaargh - this can throw the whole plan out and will necessitate a reroute in upper air (either via NEW or PTH-STIRA)to avoid descending through busy busy bandit country Class G airspace on a RIS .. but that's not really the issue.

If we are giving a direct routing it is only because we are trying to be helpful.

As to 'Hootin and a Roarins' comment ..

I believe Scottish have a lack of appreciation of aircraft performance and company procedures

You could be simplistic and say that all you really need is

1 - an idea of what climbs fast and what doesn't
2 - don't reduce speed and expect a fast rate of descent

Anything beyond that is finesse and professional interest.

However .. how many ATCOs fly ? how many get jumpseat rides/famflights ?

IMHO famflights should be compulsory.

Do you really expect us to know/anticipate individual company procedures ?? :hmm:

Sorry but it's hard enough remembering the :mad: ing callsign changes without wondering which of the 100 regular airlines would prefer 250 or 350 kts ......

Anyway .... I agree with H+R, that's why we publish STARs ...... STANDARD arrival routes ... but if the situation allows ... there's always room for improvement.

PS say hi to Ron and GB ;)

Wheelybin

10th Dec 2005, 14:47

PH-UKU, company procedures are not about finesse or professional interest. Whilst I agree that they have little relevance in an area environment, they are essential tools of the trade to an approach controller.
-E145 coming back to 240 knots below fl100 due to an airframe restriction.
- Ezy 737's prefer 170 knots on the final approach as opposed to the more standard 160.
-KLM Fokkers prefer to stay high and fast and descend late.
-Airbus 320/1/319 are very "slippery" aircraft and need to bleed off speed over a long distance.
-FlyBEE DH8-D's land and select taxi power on the runway taking them forever to vacate.
Just a few of the examples that you learn with experience as an approach controller and pass on to your colleauges
Which is exactly why we would prefer for the Stars to be adhered to, so that we can use the tools of our trade to determine the most efficient arrival sequence. Rather than as often happens an Area controller without this knowledge trying to present the traffic in the way they consider to be most suitable.
Aircraft performances within the terminal environment are significantly different and often at odds with what occurs in an area environment.

10W

10th Dec 2005, 20:43

Perhaps the occasional inefficient clearing of the hold (aircraft coming off with 15-20NM gaps, vacant level bands of 3000' to 4000' feet with traffic sauntering slowly down instead of the more regimented and efficient holding management seen in the likes of the London TMA where things bump down naturally as levels are vacated and a tight pack of aircraft and level useage exists) might be part of the reason that ScACC prefer to try and go for a sequence instead of everything to the hold. A few of us have been bitten.

And then there's the non existent reporting of vacated levels by APC (as per the MATS Part 2s requirements) which makes ScACC uncertain as to what levels have been freed up.

The 'book' says that ScACC can sequence 3 simultaneous arrivals (that's sequence, not to the hold) with subsequent arrivals for that sequence then being put to the hold. This is open to interpretation because if the 3 arrivals are far enough ahead to allow the Standing Agreement conditions to be met by following aircraft then I believe the next arrivals form another new sequence and would not expect them to hold unless directed by APC to do so (provided I give the minimum spacing and appropriate vectors or speed control to maintain or increase it).

All traffic should be vectored to the hold or follow the STAR and then we at the airport can decide who comes straight off or needs to hold (part of our standing agreement but hardly ever practised by Scottish).

A disjoint here - because the ScACC Agreement states that the aircraft should be routeing to the holding fix (not necessarily on the STAR as long as it gets there in the end) OR on a heading 'towards' the holding fix. Note the 'towards' which is again not as black and white as to take the aircraft directly to the fix on a heading. This provides the leeway to have 2 aircraft on parallel headings 'towards' the holding fix area since if one was vectored to the fix then the other could not be and still maintain separation. As most traffic is handed off about 10NM or more before the holding fix, then APC still have the option to take the aircraft off the heading and direct to the holding fix if that's a better plan for them.

Just trying to show that, as with most things ATC, the blame is never solely on one side or the other. It's a team game, so get talking with your opposite numbers or visiting adjacent units to resolve your own personal gripes and improve your knowledge folks :ok:

Hootin an a roarin

11th Dec 2005, 15:13

Perhaps the occasional inefficient clearing of the hold (aircraft coming off with 15-20NM gaps, vacant level bands of 3000' to 4000' feet with traffic sauntering slowly down instead of the more regimented and efficient holding management seen in the likes of the London TMA where things bump down naturally as levels are vacated and a tight pack of aircraft and level useage exists) might be part of the reason that ScACC prefer to try and go for a sequence instead of everything to the hold. A few of us have been bitten.

You are right with the vacant bands of 3000' to 4000' with traffic sauntering down. However what you fail to say is that it is Scottish who control the hold and so is your responsibility for descent, the approach controllers control most of the hold in the London TMA. Maybe if we controlled the hold with our larger radar screens and a specific stack controller then we could perform a better job, as at T.C. Don't get me wrong there are people who need to improve their stack management at the airport, but we are forever sitting on radar having told TLA that say FL80 is free and then twiddling our thumbs whilst the aircraft descends through FL100, then FL90 etc. Just give him to us in the descent. We are not going to level him off and if we did there is something called co-ordination. So you prefer to go for a sequence that mightn't suit the airport because YOU can't manage the stack efficiently as YOU have just stated above. Call me old fashioned but who has had incidents before now in the stack, I don't believe it was us at Edinburgh

Aircraft coming off the hold with 15-20 mile gaps is irrelevant. Through your vast experience of the approach job you must realise that they do not end up 15-20 miles apart on the ILS i.e usually the requisite 6 mile gap is achieved. It is called vectoring and speed control which I understand you at Scottish know little about with the 'No ATC speed restriction route direct to an 8 mile final' Also the main reason for the initial large gap is Scottish very rarely give us control of more than one aircraft in the stack and so by the time we can bring an aircraft off the stack the gap is already there! improve your knowledge folks :ok: How about improve your attitude, have you ever met an ATCO3?

As most traffic is handed off about 10NM or more before the holding fix, then APC still have the option to take the aircraft off the heading and direct to the holding fix if that's a better plan for them.

So you think that is sufficient room for a Captain to prepare his aircraft for the hold? The aircraft should already be going into the hold like in the London TMA and if they then don't hold then it is a bonus for them, not the norm.

Sometimes it's like banging your head against a brick wall!
:{

cossack

11th Dec 2005, 15:46

Hootin

Sounds like nothing's changed since I was in EDI 89-97. 4 abreast abeam TLA for 06; traffic over TLA for 06 above traffic inbound 05 at GLA; traffic from the north east handed over late, direct and fast.

Eventually, if you bang your head against the wall long enough, it starts to feel good! One day they may realise that stack management is an airport task, but I wouldn't hold your breath!

10W

11th Dec 2005, 17:39

You are right with the vacant bands of 3000' to 4000' with traffic sauntering down. However what you fail to say is that it is Scottish who control the hold and so is your responsibility for descent, the approach controllers control most of the hold in the London TMA.

You obviously 'rang off' before you read my last comment about some of us having been bitten. Are we likely to be talking about biting ourselves ?? :rolleyes: I am referring to occasions where we have transferred traffic above the Min Stack (I can recall having done so at least up to FL130 or higher with 4 aircraft approaching the hold - to allow APC to manage the arrivals I foolishly thought.) It is not every controller at EDI by any means but certainly on my Watch we recognise the voices of those who we would rather not give anything above Min Stack too. I guess you'll recognise voices at other units too where you'd rather do it exactly by the book. Once you've been bitten then the trust disappears.

but we are forever sitting on radar having told TLA that say FL80 is free

Hand on heart, I have NEVER been told when Min Stack is vacated (or other levels if delegated). Usually the P man has to call to find out. Fortunately we have had the MATS Part 2 changed recently so we can use Mode C (based on MATS Part 1 level occupancy rules and 'anticipated manner') so it does at least now allow us other options than sitting on our hands :ok: .

So you prefer to go for a sequence that mightn't suit the airport because YOU can't manage the stack efficiently as YOU have just stated above.

Your premise is based on a false assumption which was because you didn't pick up that I was talking about when traffic in the hold had been transferred to EDI. See above. Why would we complain about 3-4000' gaps if we had the traffic ourselves ? :hmm: Doh !!! Also, the MATS Part 2 allows sequences. Don't like it ?? Then ask for it to be changed by inter unit agreement.

It is also true that you have the aircraft ETAs. You know when the expected busy peaks are inbound (as well as knowing the outbound plans as well). If you want things to the hold, for departure gaps or because you expect to get swamped, is there any reason you can't phone up and co-ordinate thus ?? The blame seems all a one way street with you, yet you also have an ability to forward plan I guarantee. Things may not end the way they are expected (+/- 5 mins on ETAs for example can provide a slightly false picture), but at least if you told ScACC what you would like then things can be done early for the benefit of all. Don't say it can't be done because I have had EDI controllers do exactly that with me before - e.g ''I'll take the first 2 on headings and would like 10 miles between subsequent arrivals in trail otherwise to the hold.'' I get an early heads up - the pilots get an early heads up - and I can put some effort in to delivering what the APC wants so no one gets held. And as we know the guys and girls who do the things like that by their voice, we are totally comfortable and have a high degree of belief in them and don't expect any problems.

Also the main reason for the initial large gap is Scottish very rarely give us control of more than one aircraft in the stack and so by the time we can bring an aircraft off the stack the gap is already there!

Sorry, still talking about my usual experience of where EDI has all the holding traffic. Your point may be relevant if it was not that specific case.

Call me old fashioned but who has had incidents before now in the stack, I don't believe it was us at Edinburgh

Actually 'old fashioned' was not a phrase I'd associate with that kind of comment. Maybe your personal forte is launching aircraft with less than 5 miles and a catch up situation instead ?? Don't play the whiter than white card, because statistics and incident reports can shoot you down in flames in a second. And there's plenty ammo there for whatever side you wish to take. A dead end argument.

How about improve your attitude, have you ever met an ATCO3?

ATCO Grade has nothing to do with anything. I am sure you can find idiots at all levels, even yours.

So you think that is sufficient room for a Captain to prepare his aircraft for the hold? The aircraft should already be going into the hold like in the London TMA and if they then don't hold then it is a bonus for them, not the norm.

I guess you don't fly ?? Traffic is cleared by Scottish predominantly on the STAR on first contact. Therefore the Captain will be briefing to enter the hold at the STAR terminal fix. That's SOP in IFR flying. Still with me ?? Good. Now, unless it's one of the ones that has been cleared to an 8 mile final (unlikely if you have a sequence where there is an inkling there might be a hold, and it should also be subject to prior co-ordination - unless locked on a heading which meets the spirit of the Standing Agreement), nothing has changed in that pilots expectations. The fact he is on a vector still doesn't take away the fact the aircraft is set up for the STAR entry fix in the nav system, UNLESS someone in ATC tells him otherwise. Which would probably be EDI APC. Scottish have no idea what kind of approach will be given so the aircraft should be routeing as per the book and EDI then have the options to carry out APC.

As a final couple of points ...

weren't EDI offered places attending ScACC TRUCE last year where TMA Holding was the core exercise ?? EDI could have gained experience of managing holds in the sim, both sides could have discussed the scenarios and outcomes and how things could be improved, plus built up some understanding. Oh yeah, nobody appeared !!

And how come GLA seem to manage their hold OK even although it used less ?? Food for thought perhaps ??

Cossack

4 abreast abeam TLA for 06; traffic over TLA for 06 above traffic inbound 05 at GLA; traffic from the north east handed over late, direct and fast.

Yeah, yeah ..... glass houses and all that :) 4 abreast not allowed in the book - PF below PH without co-ordination, get real - traffic from the Northeast goes to STIRA, onward clearance is EDIs prerogative.

One day they may realise that stack management is an airport task, but I wouldn't hold your breath!

Most definitely a Terminal Controllers task. Airport are good at launching and doing DIR and FIN approach. :cool: Stack management at TWEED by APC - could do better in some instances !!

Hootin an a roarin

11th Dec 2005, 18:35

Typically arrogant in your reply 10w, not unexpected!

Your premise is based on a false assumption which was because you didn't pick up that I was talking about when traffic in the hold had been transferred to EDI. See above. Why would we complain about 3-4000' gaps if we had the traffic ourselves ? Doh !!! Also, the MATS Part 2 allows sequences. Don't like it ?? Then ask for it to be changed by inter unit agreement.

We are just trying that, its called Involve to Improve, but the initial meeting didn't sound very fruitful but we shall persevere.

but at least if you told ScACC what you would like then things can be done early for the benefit of all. Don't say it can't be done because I have had EDI controllers do exactly that with me before - e.g ''I'll take the first 2 on headings and would like 10 miles between subsequent arrivals in trail otherwise to the hold.''
My watch all try to do that, that is our job, end of story. We are not here to deliberately delay aircraft. My gripe is the reticence to use the hold by Scottish. When you were trialing the streaming it worked well and the Scottish watch opposite me were and are very good ,and to be honest are usually very helpful and proactive with suggesting that we may need to use the hold, lets face it you can see what traffic is coming to Edinburgh far earlier than we can. Also we are not sure what you are going to do with the individual aircraft i.e. widen one out, keep one's speed up etc. that is the point. Come next summer we need to standardise the inbounds so everyone is on a level playing field and knows what to expect which is why we want traffic automatically routeing to Tweed expecting to hold (not on a heading, in trail or 3 abreast but level separated and maybe only 1000' apart)

Maybe your personal forte is launching aircraft with less than 5 miles and a catch up situation instead ??
A bit of a personal slur I think, are you questioning my Professionalism? I thought we were talking about inbounds and stack management. Also seeing as you are a moderator of Pprune I think you should tone down your labelling of people as idiots.

I guess you don't fly ?? Traffic is cleared by Scottish predominantly on the STAR on first contact. Therefore the Captain will be briefing to enter the hold at the STAR terminal fix. That's SOP in IFR flying. Still with me ??
Ooooh how patronising anybody would think you are an ATCO1!!!!!!

weren't EDI offered places attending ScACC TRUCE last year where TMA Holding was the core exercise ?? EDI could have gained experience of managing holds in the sim, both sides could have discussed the scenarios and outcomes and how things could be improved, plus built up some understanding. Oh yeah, nobody appeared !!
No idea, i'm a shopfloor Atco and knew nothing but we wouldn't be able to release people to attend unless it is on rest days and lets face it after the banding issues and the last pay farce the lower end of the scales feel left behind and not willing to give up this time (but that is another can of worms)

These issues I agree need settling and before next summer as really the whole TMA needs looking at as lets face it it is not very efficient compared to down south. We are hoping to move forward and meet again with your colleagues but it takes BOTH sides to budge a little not just us.

colmac747

11th Dec 2005, 18:40

Is STIRA still used?

Wheelybin

11th Dec 2005, 18:53

10 W, you certainly know your bookwork but seem a little blind to what actually happens on a daily basis. The 4 abeam TLA happens so frequently that we actually have a term for it at EDI. We call it Scottish giving us the 4 finger f**k.

Colmac Stira is still used. It is a joint holding facility used by EDI and GLA for traffic inbound from the North.

colmac747

11th Dec 2005, 19:12

Thanks, Wheely..

One remembers the STIRA point being used during Concordes farewell..anyway,

Best not bring eavesdropping/airband into this disco- I got flamed recently(and probably rightly too)!:ouch:

Lock n' Load

11th Dec 2005, 21:04

Wheely, there were definitely occasions when it was the 5 finger f*ck, though may I promise a change of terminology to "fisting"?
I'll get me coat....

and may I exchange the word \"promise\" for \"propose\"? Really should proof-read before hitting submit.
Here in the far west, we don\'t get \"fisted\" (hey, think it\'ll catch on?) since most arrivals are on STARs, but we do get pancakes. Also, vectoring to 2 airports can be rather interesting at times. On the plus side, all the airspace below FL250 belongs to us.

Headset starter

11th Dec 2005, 21:58

Hey all,

Well this has turned out to be rather unsavoury. Why should there be this competition between you guys on Area and on Approach?

And so you were given a direct routeing, from I expect a considerable distance, by an area controller who would have no idea of the other aircraft that were inbound to Edinburgh at the time. As they got closer, a discussion took place between controllers and you were given a turn to fit into the traffic pattern....You dont like it...then fly airways all the way. I think you will find it considerably longer!

This just goes back to my previous question, that surely Area Controllors who provide a direct to 8/10 mile final have co-ordinated this with Radar? When arriving from SURAT-GOMOT, etc its obviously a bonus to be given the direct routing, but it's no good if it's not been agreed all the way.

I would quite happily take an airway route to a holding fix, fly one pattern, be picked off and given a short approach track, rather than be flown all over the sky and slowed down. It makes our job easier, in planning a constant descent profile, and also provides great spacial awareness as to where the other aircraft are and how we all fit into the picture.

Is it true that it's the location of the TWEED hold, ie not directly at the end of the STAR, that discourages controllers from using it?

Callyoushortly - Are you Area or Approach? I would love to come and say hello, who would one contact to make the arrangements?

Cheers,

HS

rolaaand

11th Dec 2005, 22:42

Apologies to the original poster who has had thier opinions and questions turned into an EDI ScATCC slanging match....but I can't let this one go without adding my two pence worth so here goes.
I work at Scottish and spend the vast majority of my time doing the terminal control side of things.The airspace that we both hav e to work with at PH and Scottish is tight, restrictive, and just not designed to cope with the throughput of traffic that occurs during the extremely busy inbound flows that happen at PH now. Controllers at both units could do with getting together and thrashing out problems that they have with each other.
Due to the way flow control works there can be no PH arrivals for half an hour, then an hours worth in the next 30 minutes. I'm sure this is the same at most European airfields however.
The way i tend to work is to at least attempt to get a sequence going. I will make sure that the traffic by the time PH radar get it is all 6-10 miles in trail and doing max 250kts,with perhaps the first two or three in the sequence keeping high speed. Bear in mind that there are arrivals coming into the Talla sector from three directions for PH and this might mean aircraft getting slowed to 250kts 100 miles from PH-note to Airbus drivers-I know your aircraft can do 340kts but if I ask you to do 250 at SHAPP or MARGO it's for a good reason. I have never had any complaints from PH about my choice for the sequence and am well aware about the restrictions of some regional jets and the abitities of some turboprops at the lower levels. If holding is necessary as it inevitably will be then all it takes is a call from the radar controller to say "hold everything after the ABC123". This is not to say that my presentation of traffic is perfect, it never will be, I'm human, but I do my best. Some Scottish controllers will very rarely use speed control at all and do end up handing over traffic on parallel headings,never seen four abreast though. But even if you do get four abreast, as you say hootin' you're the approach proffesional,fill your boots and get them sequenced.
On my watch at Scottish we have a pretty good working relationship with our opposite watch at PH and any differences of opinion tend to be worked out with a friendly chat on the blower.
As 10W points out though, you do get to recognise voices on the phone and one PH controller in particular makes me cringe when i hear them. Ended up in the hold on Thursday morning and gave the traffic to PH radar(three or four in the hold,nothing major). It was a holocaust with stuff being 15 to 20 miles apart and none closer than twelve miles or so on final.Utter crap,it must be embarrasing to look over at PF and see them smashing them down the approach six(and occasionally three) miles apart.
I know that at Scottish we won't have a full picture of the traffic you work and that is a two way thing. If you do get a less than perfect traffic presentation from Talla sector then bear in mind what they are also doing at the time-all your arrivals from TRN, NEW, and MARGO,all PF arrivals from NEW and MARGO, all PK arrivals from NEW and MARGO all PH, PF and PK departures via NEW and PH prop. departures to DCS,as well as the many low level overflights going north. All of which can detract from their primary task of making sure you are not having a moan about us!
There are no plans for this to happen but I believe a good way to help appease the problem would be to have PH and PF radar move down to the shiny new centre when it opens.Traffic presentation would improve both ways due to the threat of someone a few seats down hurling abuse at you because it was crap!
Also it would end the ATCO2 baiting nonsense from PH radar controllers because you would get paid the same.

Headset
In my last post i completely neglected to put an opinion to any of your queries,sorry \'bout that chief. As you can read in this whole thread there are issue shall we say, between Scootish and PH. We all do our best and occasionally if you are given a direct routeing from Scottish because you are number one in that sector, you can get to PH to find out you are number four or five,cue extra track miles and a pissed off pilot! All it takes is for PH to have say an IFR inbound from Glasgow and a go around to fit back in the sequence, all of which Scottish will know nothing about when you arrive high and fast expecting a straight in. It happens and I don\'t think at the moment there is much that can be done about it, except making you adhere to all the level and speed restrictions on the STAR even during exceptionally quiet periods. All controllers will work hard to get you moving the most expeditious way we can,unfortunately we are not always on the same wavelength.
As for the direct routeings from SURAT/GOMOT in through SAB,ask as early as you can when you cross the Copenhagen Scottish boundary. Bear in mind that you transit a fair chunk of class G on your way down and RAF Leuchars is only a few miles north of PH. A few weeks back the BMA E145 from Copenhagen to PH gave his TCAS a good workout at FL170 ish near SAB. I hope it wasn\'t yourself dodging the Tornadoes. I know it saves a bit of time/fuel taking that route but for peace of mind join at NEW and fly the TWEED1d arrival. Much safer and you also have the added bonus of flying through my much maligned sector!

10W

12th Dec 2005, 00:04

rolaaand

My experiences are identical to yours. Guess our colleague Hootin works opposite a different kind of ScACC Watch to the 2 we work on. In which case, if they are regularly handed rubbish, then why are there no complaints ever made to the ScACC Supervisor AT THE TIME ?? (Cathartic though whinging on PPRuNE might be - and all of us use it for that from time to time.)

Headset Starter

Is it true that it's the location of the TWEED hold, ie not directly at the end of the STAR, that discourages controllers from using it?

In spite of allegedley not knowing about what happens on a daily basis (even although I regularly work the sector involved and am an examiner on it), I do see people using routeings to the entry fix (TARTN) all the time, or on headings 'towards' it (which as stated is allowed in our instructions). The only time I don't is when it is quiet and prior co-ordination has taken place either individually or on a block basis for routes to final approach fixes - or when it's not so quiet and it is a better plan to take traffic from the SAB direction straight in to get ahead of an inbound sequence from the South, again after co-ordination by the sector controlling SAB carried out with BOTH EDI and the TMA sector. That's certainly the general and accepted way my Watch works, but I can't guarantee all others do the same (nor even my own 100% of the time). Every unit has it's loose cannons or those who are sometimes less precise or behind the drag curve. It's just part of having individuals in the system and we won't ever eradicate it.

Wheelybin

As Rolaaand said, if you are getting that regularly, then get on the blower and get it sorted out. There's no leeway for the guy at ScACC to be giving it to you so why not let them know you're not happy ? Or look ahead and when you see it coming ask for the first 2 and the rest either 10NM behind or to the hold. Then it remains ScACC's problem. In fact .. give me dates and times (by PM if necessary) and I'll look at the radar replays. If it happens so frequently then there must be plenty examples you can give me :ok: We can in turn use those for LCE purposes to tackle the problem at this end.

Hootin

We are just trying that, its called Involve to Improve, but the initial meeting didn't sound very fruitful but we shall persevere.

And does this involve ScACC ?? I hope so because then the issues on both sides can be addressed.

Just as an aside, some of the biggest critics of some of the things that we see APC doing are the ex APC controllers who are now here and used to be at EDI. Maybe it's akin to ex smokers being the worst critics of smokers but all their experience and knowledge can't all be wrong. Before you jump up and down again, I will once again reiterate that this doesn't mean that all the fault is on one side or the other. Just an observation that there are a fair percentage of TMA controllers who also possess very many years of airfield and APC experience, so we're not all the uneducated ATCOs that you seem to wish to tar us as.

Come next summer we need to standardise the inbounds so everyone is on a level playing field and knows what to expect which is why we want traffic automatically routeing to Tweed expecting to hold (not on a heading, in trail or 3 abreast but level separated and maybe only 1000' apart)

In all circumstances ?? Or if you have more than 2 .. 3 ... how many ?? I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. If traffic is streamed and spaced to your requirements (which could be specified in a Standing Agreement) then why does everything need to go to the hold ?? It's not LHR, it's EDI. I don't see how you are not going to build in more delay. ScACC are going to have to keep the traffic until it's passed TARTN and heading back towards TWEED before giving it to you (that's what you stated as your condition) so it's already having to do once round the hold before it can turn back North on a vector to final. For every flight. A waste of fuel and time. Much better for EDI to agree with ScACC what delivery they want (spacing or timing) and then let ScACC achieve that or where it can't be, then to the hold to let EDI play catch up.

A bit of a personal slur I think, are you questioning my Professionalism? I thought we were talking about inbounds and stack management. Also seeing as you are a moderator of Pprune I think you should tone down your labelling of people as idiots.

Sorry, but didn't you slur ScACC as having incidents in the holds ?? Is that questioning my professionalism then ?? If you start throwing accusations around, don't go bleating if someone throws some stuff back at you (that's EDI generically, rather than an individual specifically). Glass houses and stones don't go together. The incident rates at both units are very low but don't try and pretend that it's only ScACC that has them when talking about TMA operations (inbounds and stack management being an integral but not exclusive part).

I moderate JetBlast not the ATC Forum, but that aside, are you saying there are no examples of idiots in our company at all levels ?? I say again, that like any organisation, there most certainly are. If you haven't spotted any, I would be amazed.

Ooooh how patronising anybody would think you are an ATCO1!!!!!!

I guess you have a grading chip on the shoulder. Your grading is not within my power to change but it is certainly within yours. Live with it, or come and do an Area APC (Assessment of Prior Competence) and move here and take the pay rise. Plenty people have, the same as plenty people are happy to stay at airfields and make a lifestyle choice.

These issues I agree need settling and before next summer as really the whole TMA needs looking at as lets face it it is not very efficient compared to down south. We are hoping to move forward and meet again with your colleagues but it takes BOTH sides to budge a little not just us.

Who's to say you won't be meeting with me ?? :E Incidentally, there have been some folk up from London TC to look at the TMA and report on it with a view to providing their impartial expertise and offer suggestions for improvements. It will be interesting to see what they come up with bearing in mind the airspace and the operating environments we all face.

Lock n' Load

12th Dec 2005, 04:36

10W. Just a quick note. I'm far enough away from the EGPH action these days to be take a reasonably balanced view, I believe. One of the big problems is actually the ATCO2/ATCO3 split. It's seen within EGPH as far harder for them to complain about Scottish than for Scottish to complain about Edinburgh. An Edinburgh WM is after all the same grade as a bog-standard ATCO at the centre.
I'm sure more liaison between the units would help enormously, as perhaps would imposition of flow restrictions into EGPH more often.
The acrimony displayed in this thread is unlikely to be helpful to either EHPH or the TALLA and TAY sectors, and while in general I'm in favour of TWR and APR being in the same building, I can see some benefit in having enroute and terminal (including what is APR in the UK) in the same ops room. The enroute guy is unlikely to shaft me too much when I'll see him in the break room soon after!

callyoushortly

12th Dec 2005, 09:11

Headset starter

See your PM's

rolaaand and 10W

I'm not slinging too much into the bunfight, just wanted to pick up a couple of points.

The Involve to Improve meeting was 3 weeks ago, and was a forum to put forward gripes (if you will) in manner to help things progress and change, however, things seemed to be mostly one way and the arguments behind some of the decisions didn't seem to be too strong either, so as it is we seem to be at a "no-change" junction which doesn't help ill-feeling.

Differences between watches WILL occur, and yes, I agree you learn to trust voices, which I guess is why the standing agreement NEEDS change. We think we have a perfectly good 10 year old agreement which is hardly ever used, so either there's something wrong with it or people are happy to disregard it for some other unknown reason.

Complaints don't usually come up because by the time you've finished a sequence which didn't start in the best way you just want to hit the rest room and forget it. (I always feel petty grassing up to the watch manager when it was something that got my goat but wasn't necessarily dangerous, MY OPINION THOUGH) Course you have a bit of a whinge to whoever is sitting there too, but we all realise that poeple are human and make mistakes. This brings me back to my original point, if you made the TMA based on a strong standing agreement, then there's no "interpretation" of it to come in, and as 10W proved in an earlier post there's lots of mis/interpretation going on at the moment. Firm it up, make it the same for everybody NO EXCEPTIONS then I'd imagine that it would become an easier and more productive place to work on both sides of the screen with little room for argument and sniping.

10W

12th Dec 2005, 12:35

Thanks Lock'n'Load and Callyoushortly. Some good information there explaining why things are the way they are.

I always find it hard to understand why grade comes in to a reticence to report something. Both units have professionals who are licenced and move air traffic. On that side of things, they are equals as far as I am concerned. Grading is a company tool more concerned with pay and conditions and keeping the masses divided, not anything to do with anyones professional skills or performances. Don't be shy to bring up things you don't like. If no one mentions anything then it's understandable that the unit that's 'shafting' you doesn't think they are doing anything wrong -after all, no one has complained.

Part of the answer to the whole thing does lie in EDI looking at its flow rates for inbounds. It's finger in the wind at the moment rather than scientific. Someone in unit management needs to sit down and work out exactly what delivery rate you can provide per hour (with the health warning that they can all arrive in the first 30 minutes of course = holding). The problem that will then arise is that the BAA will get all upset because they will want more than you can provide and they might also be forced to go in to slot allocation agreements with airlines through Airport Co-ordination Ltd. So suddenly EDI ATC will come under pressure from external agencies and NATS HQ as they will be contributing heavilly to NATS delay figures and possibly hitting the companies bottom line. But if it's a Standing Agreement which puts everything to the hold regardless, then that's what will need to be done to ensure that the maximum of 8 in the hold at any time is not (generally) exceeded. Allied to this will be some work to beef up the issuing of EATs. EDI will need to specify either the landing rate and the first EAT (allowing ScACC to let subsequent pilots know their EAT), or be very disciplined in passing EATs to ScACC for traffic under their control. This is especially so in poor weather conditions where pilots may have very limited fuel before a diversion is being considered. At the moment, it's another area in which, between the units, pilots get a relatively poor service. There is always an embarrassed silence when the pilot asks us at ScACC and we have to tell him we'll get back to him, or we are waiting for an EAT from EDI.

The other main thing that will have to be done is education for the airlines and crews. EDI will have to be very high profile in explaining what the new procedures are there to achieve and how taking away high speeds (let's assume they are appropriate for an individual case - there's only a couple of inbounds) and vectoring towards base leg and replacing them with standard speeds and holds as the norm will overall improve their lot. You are going to have to convince them that the reduced efficiency in flight ops is far outweighed by a massive increase in capacity which allows their schedules to be unaffected by delay. Because believe me, the companies will want to see something in return when their EDI fuel burns go up. I guess I am just trying to point out the possible Pandora's box here, because if you go for the more regimented system (for entirely valid reasons from EDI's view) and you maintain the current arrival 'rate' or possibly even reduce it, then you will be put in a very uncomfortable position by the beancounters of the airlines and NATS. Just be prepared for that potential backlash - or else motivate everyone to move the traffic a lot quicker on final approach :ok:

rolaaand

12th Dec 2005, 16:18

Good to see the two way abuse has settled down. 10W you point out that you're experience of the TALLA PH interface is the same as mine, good reason for that, as a new ppruner you haven't realised that as well as being my watch sup. you're also my LCE!
Headset Starter i realise it's difficult to grab time away from work for visits to ATC units but you pilot boys and girls are always more than welcome at Scottish. If you're interested you can PM myself, PH-UKU or 10W(probably your best bet), we're all on the same watch. I'm sure my PH radar colleagues will be just as happy to see you at their unit too.

10W

12th Dec 2005, 17:45

What makes you think I wasn't trying to protect your anonymity ? ;)

Use of the word 'Chief' is a big clue of course :ok: although I don't think you look anything like Rolaaand from Grange Hill :p

http://www.grangehillfans.co.uk/starfile/images/Erkan_Mustafa.jpg

Mmmm, unless you start wearing glasses like his of course !!

brain fade

12th Dec 2005, 18:35

Great to see a bit of discussion on the subject of EDI. I think I'll keep schtum for the time being apart from saying that this thread is jolly interesting.

Not just me that thinks things could get better at edi.:ok:

callyoushortly

12th Dec 2005, 20:01

What?! You're not going to start causing trouble?!?! ;) :p

Lock n' Load

13th Dec 2005, 04:28

Callyoushortly
I was a bit harsh with BrainFart last time and he withdrew the thread... First rule of posting - have a couple of beers first to remove inhibitions.
PS - EGPH bods, most of you anyway, you're now welcome to pop over for a skiing holiday, but bring British chocolate and Marly Lights.

rolaaand

13th Dec 2005, 05:20

Where did you get my school photo? You'll get yours for that 10W!

NorthSouth

13th Dec 2005, 10:02

Just wondered if any of this has been exacerbated by the airspace changes at EDI last month? With the base of CAS raised by 1000ft all round it's now impossible to establish on the localiser below 3000ft outside the CTR and there's no joining final closer than 7D. Is that making it harder for EDI controllers to get inbounds in a position to get the height off, so they have to be vectored wider?

NS

callyoushortly

13th Dec 2005, 10:37

NorthSouth,

I wouldn't necessarily say any of the problems have been exacerbated by the airspace changes.
Ok there's no flexibility with descent outside the control zone below 3000ft but, then again, even when we could use 2300ft out there, you still had to be careful bringing the next one down to 3000ft because you didn't have the required 1000ft separation.
The joining final no less than D7 is only on visual approaches to 24, so I suppose this does have an impact, but not as much as the pilots flying in seem to think. Unless you're number one with not a great deal around visuals aren't a great tool for sequencing traffic.
I would say that the airspace changes make life more difficult on 06. There's less airspace that side, the 3000ft descent point is pretty much where the turn for the localiser is (unless you're being vectored wide outside 10 miles) and often (sorry 10W) the traffic comes 'hot and high' for 06 with more than enough problems getting it's height off.

A question for you pilot types: Is it more beneficial to your planning/fuel consumption/company SOP's etc to be vectored around the sky an extra 10 miles to lose height/fit the sequence or would you prefer once around the hold?

brain fade

13th Dec 2005, 14:28

Callyoushortly

Hi.

Heard you on 121.2 the other week. You must have got your approach qualification so well done you!

As you know I have some 'form' on EDI ATC as far as pprune is concerned so this time I though I'd just have a wee listen in.

Some folk seem to be mighty touchy about the subject (especially as they now seem to work on a different continent)- don't want poor old L&L to have a feckin coronary!

I don't really understand exactly why there seems to be such a big difference twixt GLA & EDI- but there certainly is one!

No one could ever accuse EDI of 'Smashing them down the approach at 6 or 3 miles' as rolaand mentioned earlier! Could they?

Maybe the EDI operation is simply 'normal' while the guys at GLA are just talented- how would I know!

Sure it will run better with your help anyway. Up to see you soon I hope.

Cheers

BF:ok:

Edited to add: I'd prefer anything in totaking up the hold. Even better if the reason's pointed out. (time permitting, naturally)

NorthSouth

13th Dec 2005, 15:11

I don't really understand exactly why there seems to be such a big difference twixt GLA & EDI- but there certainly is one! No one could ever accuse EDI of 'Smashing them down the approach at 6 or 3 miles'One of the differences between GLA & EDI is that the latter has about 20% more ATMs than Glasgow. That means more departures to get away between arrivals apart from anything else. I've heard "cleared immediate takeoff landing traffic at 4 miles" many times at EDI. By simple arithmetic that's not going to happen so often at Glasgow so they're more likely to have the room to bunch the inbounds up to min spacing on approach.

May also be relevant that LANAK arrivals for 05 have a lot further to go therefore more room to slow down/descend than TWEED arrivals for 06 at EDI.

NS

brain fade

13th Dec 2005, 15:45

They seem about the same 'business' to me. At least when I'm there. Anyway, aren't most of EDI's extra moves in the middle of the night? You know, freight etc?

Also (although some folk are decidedly slow to get going) what's so immediate if the lander's at 4 miles? Be an 'immediate' if he was at two surely? Also 4 miles still air ain't 4 miles into 60Kt is it?
Which sort of neatly illustrates EDI's overall approach (to me anyway!).

Now I've said it!;)

Captain Mayday

13th Dec 2005, 15:54

Edinburgh may be busier than Glasgow now, but perhaps the old increased spacings on final (due to having to backtrack?) are just that bit slow to disappear?

Often looks from an end users point of view that Glasgow can pack them in that bit tighter, perhaps it's just the 'gallus' Glasgow attitude - or extreme talent as someone said :ok:?

Is there still a lack of high-speed turnoffs at Edinburgh? Be intersted to know who has the most go arounds .... Or who has the most trainees .......or who has the most experience?

I've heard "cleared immediate takeoff landing traffic at 4 miles" many times at EDI.

And I've heard "cleared immediate takeoff landing traffic at 2 and a half miles" many times at Glasgow. ;)

Seriously though,.... all this talk of ATCO2/ATCO3 divides is very sad - you are all ATCOs. ...... but what happens when EDN go down to ATCO4 if ...

1- your management claim that the job is easier due to the new tower ..?

2- it becomes tower only when radar is centralised at New Scottish ...?

:oh:

Hootin an a roarin

13th Dec 2005, 18:25

Don't worry this is not me :mad: stirring again or annoying Del Boy with the Atco 1 comments!

Seriously though,.... all this talk of ATCO2/ATCO3 divides is very sad - you are all ATCOs. ...... but what happens when EDN go down to ATCO4 if ...
1- your management claim that the job is easier due to the new tower ..?

2- it becomes tower only when radar is centralised at New Scottish ...?

ATCO4 doesn't exist and officially neither do ATCO 2 or 3's we are Band 1,2,3 etc ATCO's now.
In a way I agree the job at EDI is slightly easier due the new tower but that was always going to be the case and was expected which is why at the last Union conference we didn't push for a review of regrading our Band. However I believe we will not be split from the other Scottish airports in the near future anyway as it is too political. We should have been in the band with Birmingham who had similar problems AND TRAFFIC LEVELS at the time of grading but the ridiculous formula made it that way (We were way ahead of Glasgow but just short, and I mean by a few points of Brum,and then Duo went bust and we overtook Brum!) There was uproar at the Scottish airports at the banding system anyway which due to our Union representing the majority i.e. Doon Sooth and Area and not looking after the minority (isn't that what a union is all about?) we couldn't outvote it, but imagine if the Scottish airports were in separate bands.

WHEN radar is centralised at SCATCC I expect that the 'lucky' few who get chosen will be upgraded to the equivalent of ATCO2 pay like T.C. which again is going to be another can of worms but wouldn't expect the controllers left behind to be downgraded as the airport is only going to expand and get busier.

Brainfade (Long time no moan) and Captain Mayday

Differences between EDI and Glasgow. I can only comment on what I see on the radar and before we go any further I DO NOT want to slag off Glasgow, we have a very good working relationship.
Glasgow are not as busy as EDI so that is one factor. I still believe traffic is presented differently to Glasgow than to EDI. I hardly see them holding at LANAK but it does happen. We didn't seem to hold much when months back Scottish were trialing streaming and as I said in my previous post it did work, to an extent ,and the area controllers then as now get a phone call off me and a thankyou (See 10W, I do appreciate my colleagues at Scottish).
Before you say that they don't hold because they are better controllers, I see traffic given to Glasgow at a lower level for the distance to run than at EDI. I believe this is because Glasgow traffic needs to be under EDI's outbounds whereas our inbounds conflict with each other but nothing else which is why there is less pressure for the area controllers to descend the aircraft.
As mentioned before we have a committee called Involve to Improve which is looking at this to improve our service. We are looking at pack and gap procedures and general packing of traffic etc and hopefully things will improve but it is not fair to say that Glasgow are better controllers or more talented than us. I certainly do not think the opposite.
High speed turn offs would help but have not been built. If you are following a DH8D, even with a six mile standard gap we are lucky to have the DH8D off the runway, never mind have a departure as well. They take forever to clear the runway but we are led to believe this is due to having to slow right down for the turn off.

Brainfade

Also (although some folk are decidedly slow to get going) what's so immediate if the lander's at 4 miles? Be an 'immediate' if he was at two surely?
Totally agree with you. Certain people need to improve or just stop panicking. Don't need an immediate outside 2/3 miles as long as you on approach have your speed back and the departure doesn't fanny about on the runway BUT I would tee you up to expect a late landing clearance.

I see you will be visiting us shortly, we all can't wait :}

callyoushortly

13th Dec 2005, 18:55

Brain Fade

You're striking a nerve asking if PF controllers are better than PH :mad: It's a bit unfair to compare when they're totally different traffic situations!!
As for packing the traffic, my watch do our best (I can't speak for the others) and don't get me wrong, it's not perfect and we're probably not destined for LL approach but we try. We also get it wrong :O but I'd say it's the thought that counts, and practice will hopefully make perfect!!
Do let me know when you want to visit, I'd love to question some of your thoughts over a brew :ok:

Capt Mayday

There's no throw-back at all to the backtrack days. The standard gap is (and has been for the few years I've been here) six miles. When a backtrack gap was requested it then became 8-10 miles depending on several factors. Why they pack them tighter at PF I dunno, you'd have to ask them!!
High speed turnoffs are not in place at PH which would help efficiency, but I believe there's not enough space between the runway and 'A' taxiway to allow an aircraft to turn off after a rapid exit turnoff, so they're not going to happen anytime soon.
As for your other points re trainees and experienced controllers, I fail to see it's relevance. Trainees will sometimes push things tighter than an old hand as they haven't learnt the art of licence preservation and it's not their licence to lose. Conversely, old hands may push it tighter as they've got the experience to fall back on. It's not a black and white situation either way, you'll find it depends on the individual controller. Maybe the PF controllers are just a bit daring than us ;) or maybe it's down to other factors, I honestly don't know. There'll always be a difference between controlling styles, that's the nature of humans, but why there's such a stark difference between units escapes me, surely there must be other factors involved not just controlling ability.......

radar707

13th Dec 2005, 19:00

Hootin,

don't want to turn this into any sort of PH - PF argument, like you said you can only coment on what you see on the radar.
Yes, PH has more movements than Glasgow, break it down into additional movements per day and it ain't that many probably accounts for the mail flights you get and maybe the EGLC flights.

As for holding, we rarely hold because we prefer to vector traffic i.e left turn off LANAK nto a downwind leg followed by a square circuit with speed control applied. It's how we teach it at PF when the trainees start. We only hold when it starts getting sily with 5 or 6 inbound via Talla, a couple via Turnberry and any others from West or Tay.

We also have a greater mix of traffic which necessitates odd sequencing, we get lots of heavies inbound from the west in the morning coupled with the usual glut of Loganair saabs, twin otters and the islander ambulance make sequencing difficult, especially with the usual "Glasgow winds"

Add to that all the crap we deal with out of PG, the stuff out in the Class G to the West (which we ALWAYS provide with a service), makes the job as complicated and awkward as at any unit anywhere else in the UK.

Each and every unit has it's own problems and I've said it before the whole re-grading system was a farce, we at the Scottish airports might not move the traffic like LL or KK but we have our own problems.

As for problems from Scottish, can't say I have anything major to criticise them for apart from the odd 2 descending to min stack to LANAK at the same time and the occasional 3/4 abreast, but it's nothing I can't sort out and 9 times out of 10, TLA will call and ask if it's ok.

My watch has a good working relationship with Scottish and PH and long may it continue.

As for moving the apc function to Scottish, can't see it happening, at least not in my time, would cause too much friction.

Hootin an a roarin

13th Dec 2005, 19:14

Hello radar707

Don't agree with all of your points, funny old thing!

As for holding, we rarely hold because we prefer to vector traffic i.e left turn off LANAK onto a downwind leg followed by a square circuit with speed control applied. It's how we teach it at PF when the trainees start. We only hold when it starts getting sily with 5 or 6 inbound via Talla, a couple via Turnberry and any others from West or Tay.
Oh the luxury! That is where this 'discussion' started. I dream of vectoring off Tweed with a right or left turn downwind but since our traffic doesn't route there this option is not available unless we mess the aircraft around and turn them back towards the hold. Thankyou for verifying my point to the Scatcc controllers and the others as this may be the big difference between the 2 airports.

As for problems from Scottish, can't say I have anything major to criticise them for apart from the odd 2 descending to min stack to LANAK at the same time and the occasional 3/4 abreast, but it's nothing I can't sort out and 9 times out of 10, TLA will call and ask if it's ok.
The odd 2!!!! and occasional 3/4 abreast!!!!! Again point proven as this seems to be the norm at EDI. Maybe you just don't take it and tell Scatcc to :mad: off when you get a lot of traffic presented in this way. we must be too nice ;)

Exasperated

13th Dec 2005, 22:30

Often looks from an end users point of view that Glasgow can pack them in that bit tighter

This may be too simplistic a view.

Two points to note

EDI is about 15% busier than GLA (movement wise) and is working at capacity and therefore slot constrained at peak periods.

Queues increase exponentially the nearer you get to capacity.

Having made these two points, how does this affect EDI.

A useful analogy is the wondrous traffic jams you encounter each and every day. During the school holidays they are small, but when the schools go back and the traffic increases, typically by about 7 to 8%, the queues are often 10 times as long.

Once a queue starts, normally a 1 to 2% increase in volumes will produce a 100% increase in the queue length.

Also, the busier you are the more likely multiple arrivals will appear at the same time and this causes more queues (extended routing and all that). Unfortunately, during busy times, once the queue develops there is not the slack to clear it (as the operation is working to capacity) and, as a byproduct, everything also becomes more inefficient as time is taken managing the queue.

So the perception may be that GLA can pack them in better, the truth is that the volumes are lower making the management of the arrival traffic easier. That does not mean that GLA ATC may not also be better, but may explain why EDI is perceived as worse (which may or may not be the case).

In this sort of environment, it is extremely difficult to operate much is excess of 90% capacity without a queue building up and the closer you get to capacity the quicker the queue will grow. So a busy ATC operation has my deepest respect wherever you are.

Ex (Not a pilot but a statistician to trade)

Captain Mayday

13th Dec 2005, 23:04

This may be too simplistic a view.

I agree - Glasgow also get a hell of a lot more Heavies (767s, A330s and A310s) and Lights (DHC6s BN2s and C310s) giving more complex vortex wake mixes, I think Edinburgh is much more Medium/Small oriented - so you could argue that the extra miles spacing required in the Glasgow sequence use up any 'spare capacity'. The old "bigger aircraft/bigger gaps" conundrum.

However, most of Edinburgh's traffic comes up from the south, where a reasonable %age of the Glasgow traffic is mixed from all directions - still needs spacing on final, but more tricky in the Embra case if they are all coming up through TLA.

I still think they should build one Central Scotland airport at Grangemouth/Stirling with dual runways. Let Glasgow do the North Runway and Edinburgh the South - that would be fun ;)

brain fade

13th Dec 2005, 23:23

It's not the WHOLE solution and won't work on bad weather days...............but.

Why do the GLA boys often tx 'advise if at any time you'd like to continually visually' .............thus preventing the Q building!!!!!!!!

While EDI never does?

It can't be illegal as they do it at SOU too (virtually every sector!)

:}

Edited to add. 'Yes I've asked his one before but would some ATCO from both ends! mind answering the sucker!

BOTH ends!:ok:

Callyou. reply tomorrow as just back from the pub. You're owed a more considered response:zzz:

Exasperated.

On the other hand it may not.

rolaaand

14th Dec 2005, 04:30

Hmm. The last thing i wanted to do was suggest that PF were better than PH and kick off another argument. Too late,and looking at my original reply,I sort of did just that. Having just finished my six days and arrived back from a club, I'm a bit tired and pished, so this post may well poke a stick into somebody as well.
I have no idea about the actual figures but PH has noticably more movements than PF. Between perhaps 2300 and 0600 at a guess there may be 10-20 movements of cargo aircraft.So these extra night movements don't make a significant difference in the runway movements between the two airports. PH has consistently more movements throughout the whole day from the morning rush to the late night(2100-2230)bunch of arrivals.
The differences that i can see from my TALLA sector point of view is that PF has a larger and more effective radar vectoring area that can allow the radar controller to,within reason,sequence anything handed to them from the four Scottish sectors that they accept arrivals from, no matter how disjointed or poor the presentation of traffic is,without the need to hold. At PH it is a little different,the RVA is boxed in by the PF-PH buffer to the west, the edge of the TMA to the north and east and also at the south if TALLA hands over traffic late. So despite the fact that PH only accepts arrivals from TALLA and TAY, they can have a much harder job getting them slowed down and on the ILS than PF have. As someone else has pointed out,part of the reason is that the PF arrivals are ALWAYS cleared to be min. stack at LANAK due to the interaction with the Deancross departures from PH,but the arrivals to PH on any of the TWEED arrivals have no interaction with any SIDS and TALLA can get away with giving traffic a when ready clearance to min. stack instead of giving a level by TARTN stipulation as per the standing agreement. I have been guilty of this myself at times and this can really hinder the PH radar controller with high and fast traffic being unable to "go down and slow down". A point taken on board by myself and I think one that has to be universally adopted by all TALLA controllers. It has been pointed out that most of the PH movements are of small or medium wake vortex category which allows shorter gaps on final,and departure, with the slow smalls being able to go a minute behind the fast mediums, can't remember the exact speed differential necessary. However with the exception of Emirates at lunchtime and the new Pakistan service at night, the vast majority of the PF heavies are early morning transatlantic arrivals, so I don't think this constitutes a major difference in the ops. between the two airfiels either.

Just a little early morning opinion from a tipsy TMA controller with absolutely no approach control experience, so feel free to tear it to shreds!
As an aside for the airfield controllers I am interested in visiting for a look about and a chat. Visited PF twice before i was valid but another visit can certainly do no harm, would like to visit PH to discuss some of the problems raised in this thread and for a look at your new home,and also the Scottish TMA's forgotten airfield,at least in terms of this thread,Prestwick, which in the coming years is going to have an ever increasing impact on TMA operations at Scottish. A busy airfield in the mornings too now, don't think O'Leary liked it when we started putting MDI's on there as well! Fell free to PM me or speak to me on the phone, back in on Sunday morning,cheers Rolaaand.

NorthSouth

14th Dec 2005, 08:48

Re "how much more busy is EDI?", figs for Sept show an average of 42 additional ATMs per day compared to Glasgow.

On the question of spacing on final, obviously some controllers cut it finer than others and there are times when I've sat at D1 looking at a distant landing light and wondering when I'm going to get line-up clearance but on the other hand there have also been many times when I've been given 'cleared immediate' and had to go like the clappers with someone bearing down on me - and it's great when that works because everyone's happy.

A plea from the little guys though: I hope you don't tighten the spacing up so much that you can't get the VFRs in or out.

Dare I suggest 12/30 with displaced thresholds a la Norwich 04/22?

NS

callyoushortly

14th Dec 2005, 09:16

Brain Fade

You've got your big stirring spoon out again haven't you?!
Visuals are not an effective tool for sequencing traffic and therefore will only be employed by controllers in a quiet traffic environment. Visuals don't always save a queue either, maybe you're great at visuals but some pilots aren't and it's often the case that I could vector the aircraft closer than he's prepared to put himself, thus compounding the problem.
Also, I'm sure I've said before, if you want a visual ASK, I'm not genius mind reader and as such don't want to be asking aircraft each time their opinions on visual approaches when I've much better things to do.

rolaaand

I think you've hit one of our gripes on the head! Why, if you can put the traffic to PF to be level by the holding fix, is it not possible to do the same for PH? I'm guessing that 9/10 responses would be 'because I don't have to' . This would be an easy change to make and would then allow us chance to get things in tighter without needing extra miles for descent.

NorthSouth

I have the figures from the NATS intranet for airport movements in front of me. The figures for week 49 (week ending 11/12) show PH with 2224 ATM's and PF 1760. By my humble calculations this is approx 66 more ATM's a day. No, these most certainly don't all happen at night, and therefore will impact on streams of traffic inbound. I hasten to add busier doesn't necessarily mean better OR worse at your job, just a stream of traffic you're presented with!
As for your point about 12/30...... we wish it was more readily available, but it's not! Ho hum!

brain fade

14th Dec 2005, 10:30

Hi call you

Yes, Stirring spoon deployed.;) Can't help it sometimes!

I promise not to go on and on about it, BUT....... IMHO one of the ways they are 'better' than EDI is they don't allow queues to build up to the same extent as invariably happens at EDI.

Queues are a pain in the ass!

IF the wx is good, GLA often seem to remind folk that a visual would be offered should they ask for it (which they frequently do), the one behind is then asked if he can see the one ahead, which often he can. He then gets cleared viz 'no 2 to the one ahead'.

You say that dont help. Seems to, to me!;)

radar707

14th Dec 2005, 10:57

66 more ATM's so that's 33 arrivals, take out the freight movements at night say 5 arrivals that makes 28 more arrivals throughout the day say 0800 to 2200 gives a 14 hour period so that's an average of 2 more arrivals per hour. Hardly a large amount.

Each unit has it's individual complexities be it lack of CAS limited space in the RVA lack of high speed exits, conflicting tracks between SIDs and STARs, and every controller does the best job they can with what they are presented with.

Bagheera

14th Dec 2005, 14:55

Lies, damned lies and statistics huh!
The law according to sod dictates that 28 extra inbounds in a 14 hour period does not equate to 2 extra inbounds per hour. It equals 7 extra inbounds during each of your 4 busiest periods.:(
Also you cant just discount the outbounds cos theyve got to get on the runway at some point, thereby affecting your inbounds.;)

Edited to ask brainfade. So when you are no.2,3 etc in the sequence at pf and offered a visual approach,who decides on your spacing against the traffic in front? If the controller asked you for a specific gap against the traffic in front, would you adhere to it?

brain fade

14th Dec 2005, 15:36

Hi Baggy

Just do the standard seperation by eye and TCAS I suppose. ATC no doubt would give you a shout if it gets close. Remember even if number 3, you're only following the one immediately in front, ie the number two.

As far as giving/ keeping a gap goes. Yes I will always try to give ATC what they ask for and it's easy to do. Frankly catching the one in front up would be quite hard to do even if you wanted to.

BF
ps. I'm no expert but it seems to work. No one seems to know why they do it at GLA but not EDI. Do you?;)

Hootin an a roarin

14th Dec 2005, 16:22

Brainfade

Your question has been answered many times before reference visual approaches. At Edinburgh we cannot OFFER a visual approach but if you ASK you will more often than not be cleared for one.

I pray that this answers your question AGAIN!

Bagheera

14th Dec 2005, 16:27

Brain Fade,
Im sure its nothing that you havent been told before but Edinburgh Airport management has always had a reluctance to allow aircraft to perform visual approaches. When I first arrived it was an instruction from EAL that controllers were not allowed to offer visual approaches, since then visual approaches at night have been banned and more recently, that on 24 you can now not join final at less than 7 miles. I cannot be sure about the reasons for this but given the procedures seem to be more restrictive on 24, I dont think it takes a psychic to realise that there may be certain influential people living along the south shore of the Forth, who have a say in the matter. I know of one individual who tracks inbounds for 24 and outbounds from 06. He is on the phone the moment he believes any aircraft has deviated from the appropriate route.

PH-UKU

14th Dec 2005, 17:25

controllers were not allowed to offer visual approaches

Glasgow have a very useful wee phrase ... "report at any time if you wish to continue visually", thereby putting the initiative with the pilot, but letting them know that ATC are receptive to it if circumstances permit.

That is very distinct from "Can you accept a visual approach" - which in my book is 'offering'.

on 24 you can now not join final at less than 7 miles

Glasgow are restricted on 23 to not joining less than 5 miles final. And if you go outside 10 miles you have the dreaded Campsie Line which keeps you up at 3500 and then a 12/13 miles final.

(Visuals are also very handy for SAABs etc coming in from the north and northwest - sure that applies at Eddy too.)

I would say a visual at Glasgow (via 5 mile final) saves a minimum of 8 miles and possibly up to 12 - now if there is a sequence running behind, then that saving can add up and is pretty significant if numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 etc consequently get to save mileage by the very fact that number 1 is 8 miles closer to touchdown.

I would estimate a visual for 24 at PH might save about 6 miles?

Rolaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the party animal wrote
vast majority of the PF heavies are early morning transatlantic arrivals

Summer transatlantic schedules are only 4 or 5 767s in the morning, actually I would reckon there is a much bigger amount of other 'Heavies' during the rest of day (particularly in the summer) - BAL, TCX, FCL, OOM, TSC, UAE, MYT, MON.... I'm sure all of them operate 767s, A330s etc

Is there still the additional spacing required for Mediums/Smalls behind 757s too ? Doesn't Glasgow get many more 757s ?

Glad to see too that there is still a flying club and UAS (just) at Glasgow which chuck about another 8 light aircraft into the mix - as one caller said ... please don't squeeze out the little guys ...

:}

brain fade

14th Dec 2005, 17:51

Baggy/ Hootin

I refer you to PH-UKU's post re visuals.

Contrary to what you wrote nobody has ever explained why EDI can't do what GLA does. ie use the phrase 'advise if at any time you wish to continue visually'

I'm all ears!:rolleyes:

PS Thanks for explaining why visuals are less than welcome to some, but until they ban em.

callyoushortly

14th Dec 2005, 18:05

Brain Fade

I refer you to my previous post.......

Because I've better things to be doing with my time than wasting it on you guys saying:
"advise if you'd like to go visual"
"advise if you want to go visual"
"report at any time if you've got the field in sight"

Just because you get that service at PF doesn't mean you'll get it at PH, I bet they don't offer all the time in Paris!!

Just accept it, it's the way it is ;)

brain fade

14th Dec 2005, 18:40

Call you

OK - I will! Since it's you.:ok:

Bagheera

14th Dec 2005, 18:50

PH-UKU and Brain Fade,
whilst I understand the phrase "Report at any time if you wish to continue visually" Is not as blatant as "offering" a visual approach. I think you would be hard put to use it as a defence if anybody were to question whether you were working within the spirit of the rules.
I may have seemed critical of the airport authority in my previous post. This was not my intention. An airport needs to show a certain amount of sensitivity to the people who live on its flight paths and close to its boundarys.
With decisions to be made at the highest levels on expansion plans at both airports ( building on the RHS and a possible second runway at one or t'other or both.) The airport authorities are going to need all the friends they can get!

Baggy;)

Edited to ask a question of the Scottish controllers.
After reading this thread I was a little confused about the comments regarding pf banging the aircraft down the approach in comparison to ph. It confused me because I know we regularly achieve 38-40 movements per hour during the peak periods. As I mused, I was looking at our long range radar screen which runs off lowther. Due to the pentland hills ph traffic disappears off this when at roughly 1200 ft or 4 miles from touchdown whereas the pf traffic was still visible down to 300 feet. Could this give the perception that ph only ever seems to have an a/c at 8/9/10 miles with nothng in front whereas you can see the whole of the sequence going into pf?
Just a thought:D

throw a dyce

15th Dec 2005, 12:16

What percentage of traffic that departs PH and PF goes straight to Scottish? Does either Approach unit talk to departures? Just curious about workload :cool:

radar707

15th Dec 2005, 14:01

All depends on where the inbounds are.
When PF are on 23, any DCS or TLA (non jet departures) will be worked against inbounds via Turnberry, any departures to the west will be worked against anything inbound from the west.

When on 05 any DCS, TRN (Non Jet), Tla (Non Jet) departures will be worked against anything inbound via LANAK or STIRA
All other departures will be worked against traffic inbound from the North and West.

In the mornings at about 9am, we end up working just about everything outbound if on 05 or about 25% of deps if on 23.

TATC

20th Dec 2005, 18:07

POSSIBLE PROCEDURE FOR PRESENTATION OF TRAFFIC INTO EDINBURGH.

Inbound aircraft routed via the STAR to TARTAN expecting to hold. Aircraft are released to Edinburgh descending to a specified level, and transferred to Edinburgh Radar when in the descent to the agreed level and either steady on track TARTAN or in the hold.

The first inbound is released as Min Stack, and subsequent arrivals are released at levels above this in order. The release level does not have to be vacant when the phone call is made to Edinburgh releasing the aircraft (this enbales multiple aircraft to be released in one phone call).

The TMA controller descends the aircraft when levels become free( it was mentioned earlier that ScACC can now use SSR to descend in the stack so no need for Edinburgh to phone with vacate reports).

If the stack becomes full ( ie aircraft holding up to FL120 for example - subsequent aircraft released at FL120a, FL120b etc.., which indicates that they will be descended FL120 when it is free and transferred to Edinburgh then.

Obviously it might be possible for Edinburgh to sequence aircraft without them holding, in this case then they phone TLA to coordinate a heading and level for those aircraft which do not need to hold.

This obviously means that the standard arrival procedure is to take up the hold. Also the onus is on Edinburgh to tell scottich when the hold is not needed.(perhaps a more fail safe system as if there are any comms problems they will be routing to the hold and onto a published procedure, rather than on a heading)

The problem mentioned earlier of all aircraft going to the hold increasing delays is not there because the aircraft can be transferred before the holding fix if they are descending to their release level. This means that edinburgh can vector aircraft to avoid the hold if possible. There is also nothing stopping the TLA controller, or the EDI radar controller coordinating a heading or alternative release level for an aircraft not descending to its release level

For those of you doubting whether telephone releases for all inbounds are a good idea because of the increase in workload, well all inbounds to LL, KK, SS and LC are subject to a telephone release between TMA and APC controllers, and it works wellin the London TMA

Wheelybin

21st Dec 2005, 09:12

TATC,
yep sounds exactly like the sort of thing we are after. If it should ever happen we'll rename the STAR after you!:ok:

Wheely

Flap40

22nd Dec 2005, 19:22

Speaking as a user of the service I would much rather fly the published STAR at the pupblished speeds to the hold fix and then be picked off from there for an approach. We seem to get everything but. There seems to be an extreme reluctance by Scottish to use the holds. Speed seems to be the prefered option and varies from "fast as you can" until well after Peebles to "250 or less" upto 30 BEFORE NEW. If 10W think that we will always be expecting to go to the hold then he is mistaken. It is only entered in the FMS if (rarely) we think we are going there.
However the service we get from Scottish nbound to GLA generally seems to be better.

10W

22nd Dec 2005, 23:42

If 10W think that we will always be expecting to go to the hold then he is mistaken. It is only entered in the FMS if (rarely) we think we are going there.

On the assumption you are inbound on a STAR routeing (as you will be unless you have negotiated a clearance to join direct outside the Airways CAS structure), what will be the terminal fix you have in front of you on your chart and presumably in the FMS as its your filed route, and what conditions apply to it in the absence of any ATC instruction otherwise (e.g information from EDI that you are being radar vectored for an ILS, Scottish can't clear you for an approach of course) ?

Will be interested to see if the AIP answer matches your expectations ;)

250Kts or less 30 before NEW is pretty unbelievable to be honest mainly because the guys who do the speed control and sequnces don't work (or look) that far out and many who work that airspace don't do TMA and would not be looking at TMA 'sequences' which are well below their base level of FL255 anyway. After NEW is a distinct possibility since the TMA will now spot how you are going to fit in with the arrivals from the South and may ask the TAY sector to allocate you a speed.

From the South via MARGO being speeded early would be a fair cop since they start to feed in to the TMA directly and many are also valid TMA controllers so will try to start spacings early since they can see the traffic below them.

I guess you'd hate to work in the USA where speed control hundreds of miles out can be experienced regularly, but they do, to their credit, move a heck of a lot of aircraft with little airborne holding (ground delays in the conga line for departure are another thing of course !!)

To be honest, if you'd rather hold (and back to holding speed by the entry fix to keep you in the holding area, designed for 210Kts I think) when given speed control, then why not make the request ? It might save the controller a bit of work, especially if he knows you're happy to take an extra 10 minutes or so in the air without whinging about it. :ok: The only risk is that one or two others might slip in ahead of you depending on the dynamics of your hold entry and entry level. But that's one of lifes unknowns till it happens.