UK Airspace Changes - 16 March

[EGCC Rwy 24]

It's been a long haul, but all the points and routes are now updated on my site (http://www.reportingpoints.info).

Look under Recent Changes.

Feel free to use the Overview Map to get a feel for how the new routes etc hang together. More to the point, feel free to contribute any fact or rumour about the new points and their names!

Nick

[EGCC Rwy 24]

Wow! I've never known you lot to be so quiet!!

[Carbide Finger]

I would have said something, but I've been trying to get my head round all the new routes. To be honest, I still am.

Only two and a bit weeks to go

[BigGrecian]

They can't remove ADSON where are all the IR students at Bournemouth going to go? :}

[EGCC Rwy 24]

Come on Grecian, you're going to have to explain that! Sounds like some knowledge that should be on the site to me!!

Nick

[BigGrecian]

Not that I can think of...but when I did my IR at Bournemouth quite a few of the routes involved departing bournemouth to ADSON(Well I think ADSON was actually quite a bit above us but...fond to all IR students lol) then tracking 283 I think outbound to EXMOR before wherever is required next. :bored:

Edit : AH roger now - for the reportingpoints site!

[javelin]

So does that mean that the 2 lane airway heading south from MAN is being withdrawn ?

We could never make the alts in a 320/321 in any case !

[055166k]

BigGrecian
The weekend climb-out fillet from SAM to EXMOR [M140] will be withdrawn, leaving the upper route [UM140] intact but difficult to access for London TMA outbound traffic. Pity because I used it a lot myself to resolve over-controlling at GIBSO and to give a short-cut.
javelin
Fantastic new route structure will really help us to move metal with less stress and less yap-yap in most cases. You will be familiar with "FL270 20 miles before CUMRI"....the new one will be " FL270 25 miles before PERUP". This may seem to be slightly more demanding but the people that built your aeroplane say that it is achievable in most conditions; if you can't make it let us know quickly because all London TMA outbounds will be climbing westbound up to FL260 and working a different sector [23].....completely safe procedures cater for slow climbers.......and for strong northerly tailwinds.
You can expect a little more speed control and level adjustment when homeward bound via BHD.....the upside is an increase in sector capacity and fewer delays, so be ready for "streaming" quite a long way out.

[bagpuss lives]

My dearest MONTY SID - when we had rubbish climbers you were a friend to us all at Manch. Now, alas, you have vanished into the annals, or should it be anals, of air traffic history and I want to salute your passing.

Oh Monty SID, we had some good times, we had some bad times, and we had some darn right dangerous times - I will miss you my friend.

MONTY SID.

R.I.P.

:{

[BN2A]

Is this a North West equivalent of the demise of BARLU??

:sad:

[EGCC Rwy 24]

Thanks guys - keep it coming!

[javelin]

055166k

Ta for that - Here is where I come from.

Going south from MAN, I do the normal clean up and let the machine climb at it's managed speed, which with our fuel saving cost indices, is about 280kts. In an 320 or 321, you really don't have too much option to expedite - yep it will increase for a short while but then you run out of molecules over the wing and we return to 500 f.p.m. I much prefer (after speaking with MAN area) to say what I can do and take the vector if nec. That way, we keep a continuous climb and I don't embarrass the next sector by flying level putting some energy back into the thing.

One flight deck visit on a southbound from MAN will show you perfectly. PM me if you want one organised !

[bagpuss lives]

Poor Monty :(

Not only have you been cast aside. You've moved out and moved on. To Hawarden. Keep those Belugas safe my friend, keep them safe.

[chiglet]

Monty is [not] DEAD Monty is "Circle C" [Can't find "copyright"] to MA PLC [apparently]
Sooo All Monty/Nokin Deps willbe Nokin1 whatever. AFAIK, the airspace has been "re-arranged", so slow climbers can be "accomodated"
wef 16/03/06
watp,iktch

[ATCO1987]

RVSM question on the new airspace....N864 becomes northbound only, correct? (Im guessing that since the EGGD standard arrivals are via N862 DOBEM from Thurs). Does this mean that N864 northbound will be odd levels rather than even since it has no southbound route? (Unless Im wrong in thinking its one way now).
Thanks.

[Widger]

Midnight tonight, the airspace changes...brace yersel's!

[BDiONU]

Midnight tonight, the airspace changes...brace yersel's!
Only outside UK, we won't be implementing it until about 02.30 ish :)

BD

[Scott Voigt]

So nice for all of you in the UK to change everything for my 50th Birthday <G>... How thoughtful. How did the changes go?????

regards

Scott

[Carbide Finger]

They're still going. Flow regs will stay on for a while yet.

Should be interesting when we start to get towards 100%!

Scott, PM me for a more detailed report

[BDiONU]

The changes went in well in UK, first couple of days only a few small problemettes really. For such an enormous change its been amazingly good.

BD

[30W]

Can someone confirm routing now for what was the BBP (Birmingham Brecon Procedure)?

Looking at the new Route Doc, it suggests BB inbounds now route NUMPO-GROVE? If so, what is the new expected descent clearance into S23?

Outbounds from BB - do they route to NUMPO in reverse or still toeards BCN ?

30W

[LostThePicture]

Yes, coming from the south, expect NUMPO-GROVE. This new routeing keeps you away from the traffic coming from the north descending into Cardiff and Bristol - this traffic is now positioned much further east than it used to be.

As far as descent profiles go, you can expect the same FL240 at EXMOR / 25 before BCN, with the next sector probably descending you to FL170 before you leave controlled airspace. One change that you might not like is that Brest are supposed to descend you to be FL300 by SALCO - this is to keep you out of the new high level sector (FL305+). Pretty restrictive, I guess?

Outbound from BB, the military should send you to position MOSUN, which marks the edge of controlled airspace to the north-east of BCN. Once again, this routeing is to keep you clear of FF and GD arrivals from the north. After MOSUN, expected routeing southbound would be PERUP-LAMAT-BHD on the new and improved airway UN862. You will probably be expected to be FL170+ by MOSUN - this to keep you out of airspace delegated to "Cardiff Control".

LTP

[30W]

LTP,

Thanks for that! Yes, FL300 SALCO is pretty restrictive, but sadly typical of all Midlands Group Arrivals anywhere within the UK nowdays. In fact I think it's fair to say that the Midlands traffic is penalised more by NATS than any other user group.

Airway profiles through Hurn/Lydd/CLN are ALL very restrictive to avoid LUS. SA's put us 250-270 depending on entry point prior to LMS/LUS boundaries, and ofetn 200 miles from touchdown when BB 15 is in use.

New NOTAM now actually refuses jet traffic on the MOSUN route? Turboprops only, and then only at night or weekends. What is NATS reason for this now. West End changes were meant to be a positive thing - obviously not as NO consultation took place on this ban for BB traffic. The route closure was never discussed with operators by NATS.

As usual those at the 'coalface' have nothing I'm sure to do with this - but the feeling to operators effected is sadly the same.

30W

[LostThePicture]

New NOTAM now actually refuses jet traffic on the MOSUN route? Turboprops only, and then only at night or weekends. As far as I'm aware, that's not quite right. Jet traffic from/to BB is allowed to join and leave controlled airspace in the vicinity of BCN between 1700 and 0900 on weekdays, and for the whole of the weekend. Not quite sure of the reasons why the procedure isn't allowed during a working day - I would suspect that LJAO have refused it on the basis that the little triangle of airspace "outside" is getting too small to safely provide a RAS to climbing/descending traffic when it is busy. I'm not pointing the finger - I certainly wouldn't want to provide RAS out there on an average weekday and safety must always come first.

Sadly the restrictive levels business is becoming the norm in UK airspace - each time air traffic levels grow and the airspace starts to creak, those responsible for planning new airspace introduce a new raft of restrictions which are designed to make our lives easier but ultimately cost the airlines in fuel.

LTP

[Widger]

The ban has NOT come from LJAO. It is specifically imposed by NATS to reduce complexity in the BCN area, during the "working day". It is complicated enough in that area with downbounds, upbounds, CDF and BRI ins and outs, east and westies without having to integrate the BB ins and outs as well.

[30W]

Widger,

I understand some concern. However BCN joiners/leavers have been handled perfectly safely within the system now foe some years without real issue. The BB figures are flowed and are part of the TSF as per any other traffic within it.

NATS has not consulted on this, and under the UK Airspace charter IS required to do so. Whilst I fully agree and accept, that BB traffic in these sectors is not it's priority, compared with say GD/FF traffic, that fact does not forego NATS going about what it proposes in a proper, acceptable way.

BB departures via the West end, DO have the impact of reducing traffic in TC COWLY, a sector often subject to embarrassing Midlands MDI's at times in the summer. Also LMS is often subject to flow when West End sector delays are less penalising.

Yes, everyone works hard - I've observed it for myself on many occasions. To pretend however that at all times during the day, it is just impossible to handle BB traffic is I'm afraid an excuse to achieve another goal (political perhaps?)

30W

[LostThePicture]

The ban has NOT come from LJAO. It is specifically imposed by NATS to reduce complexity in the BCN area, during the "working day". It is complicated enough in that area with downbounds, upbounds, CDF and BRI ins and outs, east and westies without having to integrate the BB ins and outs as well. Well good on LJAO. With respect, the complexity you speak of rarely exists on S23 with BB joiners and leavers. The procedures should ensure they get nowhere near Cardiff and Bristol traffic at any point, and they should also be beneath nearly all the weekday traffic operating N/S/E/W. The complexity actually arises at weekends, when all manner of puddle jumpers trog slowly up and down N862/N864 on day trips to Jersey at FL200-240. This is what makes handling BB leavers and joiners difficult. As usual, it appears NATS Ops have showed a jaw-dropping lack of understanding about what actually occurs, arbitrarily implementing procedures that are unhelpful to everybody.

It is senseless to prohibit a procedure when there is so often capacity there to allow it. Seems NATS would rather impose a blanket ban than issue the odd slot time ("Must.....keep.....NATS......attributable.........delays....d own!"). Or maybe we are being told, in a roundabout way, that there won't be the capacity because sectors 5 and 23 are going to be bandboxed all summer, due to the fact that we don't have enough staff to run all our shiny new sectors? Better get some MOR forms ready. Overloads inevitable. :eek:

LTP

[30W]

LTP,

Your comments seem to generally back up my view.

I accept that occasionally, for whatever reason there may be reasons the route can't be utilised. There are however ways of coping with this rather than just applying blanket bans. How about a zero flow rate on BB's when required?

The airlines have recognised Mils requirements in the past also. In times of major UK exercises we have refrained from the route so that their workload can be correctly applied in a military direction.

It's interesting that turboprops have no restriction. I would have thought that they pose a greater problem to CDF airspace than rates of climb achieved in a jet? Also, how do they integrate into the rest of the sector workload any better than jet traffic?

If it's genuinely the case that they don't effect sector workload or complexity, then I'll acept that as part of NATS reasoning. It doesn't seem likely however - and hasn't been the case to work I've witnessed.

30W

[055166k]

BCN joiners have always been a bit dodgy on the safety front.
A/C flying through the FIR working military radar shown as a background track on my display. Transferred to me almost on top of BCN and thereby completely uncontrollable from a tactical positioning point of view....and I only see the converted bright label block which shows the next-sector co-ordination at a late stage once the SSR code change has been affected.
Pilot says he can make FL230 by BCN.....mil ask for join at FL230.....clearance given[never never ever by me at that level]....A/C enters controlled airspace nort-east of BCN climbing through FL190.....however on the basis of the issued clearance I may have climbed the six or seven London TMA outbounds to what should be a procedurally safe FL220.
Saw that about 50 times last year. With the new airspace it would be a killer...where do you go if you can't make the level.....you can't turn left or right once you get too close to the airways.....turboprops are much much less of a problem. The increased use of the lowered N862 route will mean Severn clutch arrivals from the north descending to FL160 10 miles before RILES......a quick-look at a chart will show how incredibly dangerous it would be to continue with the BCN procedure in all but the quietest periods.

[30W]

055166k,

Many thanks for your comments, and insight.

As a pilot, I have always had 'some' reservations about the procedure. However, I have been operating the route now since it's inception, and have never had one single incident upon it. Whilst always having a heightened awareness upon it, I find it difficult to argue against the lack of true incidents on the route.

Indeed, depite some claims, there has not been a single Airprox filed and investigated since the Aer Lingus one on the edge of the BB zone about 12-13years ago.

The joining problem, I accept is a problem if that is what is truly regularly happening. personally, I and all who fly with me are made to join at the cleared level. There is an education issue here - on several fronts:-

1. Us, the pilot community of what is required, and acceptable.

2. Lon (ok, Swanwick) Mil. Often they ask 'what level can you make by BCN?'
Those who don't understand what 'really' is required give a genuine answer, hence the problem you experience. Other ask for a level 10nm NE BCN. As we both know the now old stub of the Cotswold CTA really is about 12-13nm NE BCN. Again, personally, because I have taken the time to learn these issues, I am always level by that point.

In short, with proper communication, and education, I don't think this is an area which really is beyond sorting out.

Having now flown the route both directions, FL 170+ by MOSUN was not an issue. A few years ago it would have been as we had to maintain FL80 till clear of TC COWLY airspace. Agreement was reached where MIL can now take us to FL140 without co-ordination (LTMA arrivals drop to 150 within COWLY).

My biggest issue with this is that it has NOT been discussed with operators - the customers..... Swanwick Ops have failed to raise this as an issue prior to introduction. Surely everone agrees that they should have done so? IF the route practicalities, and specific unit difficulties can't be co-ordinated and overcome, then I would support it's closure. I don't however think that fair work has been investigated and co-ordinated on this issue, prior to reaching this sort of decision.

Strategically to us it is a very important route. I have operated a lot of T16 routes across the winter period - they save a fair amount of money, and obviously offer the only option at times when the French take action. BB is pretty unaccesible to T16 without escape through this routing.

Think I'm going to be visiting again late April - so might see you then and gladly buy you a coffee to discuss......

30W

[whowhenwhy]

Have to say that I'm slightly concerned by what 055166K has said. If Swanwick (Mil) have been given a joining clearance AT FL230 then the ac should be transferred at FL230, not climbing to it, in plenty of time before it reaches BCN. If however the clearance was to join climbing to FL230, then Swanwick (Mil) are not to blame.

As you say, the former case is procedurally unsafe, even if there is nothing to directly conflict.

[055166k]

www
You are completely correct.
The problem lies with the Swanwick training regime, there is so much emphasis and priority given to the Tactical [radar] half of the controller task that sometimes the procedural safety build-in to the formulation and verbal transmission of the ATC joining clearance is overlooked.
30W
Sorry about your problems, I do sympathise.There are one or two easy solutions which would require minor route change [actually beneficial to you]; however my opinion and experience are unlikely to be called upon in the modern NATS. I actually remember traffic on the old advisory route that went abeam Droitwich.....pretty much co-incident with the route in question.
RGDS

[whowhenwhy]

055166K, that'll be the solution to your problem then! I know your guys have got a good ops team down there, it sounds like you need to push this problem through them to the trainers.

30W, any Mil controller worth their salt should be asking what level can you make 10nms prior to BCN. As you say, you know what they're actually asking for because your SA is better than most because you're experienced and you've taken the time to find out. I dare say that there are others around who do not or cannot take your view.

LJAO (Swanwick (Mil)) just aint what it used to be.........:E