UK ATC: 'Secret' descent gates [Archive]

rab-k

27th May 2006, 21:06

Great - so some pilots are intent on telling us how we should do our jobs, again...:\

So let's consider the proposal that every standing agreement should be published so that the fancy computers that calculate fuel burn in relation to FL and track miles can have you all parking at the gate with nothing more than the legal minimum required to make a single approach to your alternate in the tanks. Fantastic idea!!!

Crews would be clogging the r/t in even greater numbers continuously bleating about how they were "fuel critical", "possibility may not make it do destination", "would really help us if we could route direct", blah blah blah... "Do you wish to declare a fuel emergency?"

...................was that tumbleweed that just went by the ops room door?..

"Ummm, negative..."

Standing agreements are there to facilitate maximum use of airspace with minimal co-ordination (via telephone) so as to give ATCOs more opportunity to spend time devoted to stopping the cigar tubes from welding themselves together. They are not, and this may come as no surprise to you, there for the benefit of the "customer".

When sectors are combined or 'band-boxed', such standing agreements may not be in force. Some sectors have flexible boundaries which move in relation to peak traffic flow and some agreements may be altered on a daily, or several times daily, tactical basis depending again upon traffic flow, runway in use, equipment serviceabilities, staffing levels etc, etc, etc..

Do you seriously think you would benefit from having every single ATC sector in the FMS, with every single possible standing agreement, which for a variety of reasons, all invisible to you, may not be adhered to on any given day?

Please!

You can only shave so much of your fuel bill before you get into the realms of the lunatics running the asylum.
What do your shareholders want:

a) Profit with fuel expended aircraft that had CBs and delay not determined at destination AND alternate smearing itself plus pax over a muddy field somewhere with subsequent litigation?

or..

b) A safe but never the less profitable operation?

The fueling situation is bad enough as it is without increasingly congested skies resulting in reroutes and lower levels and time delays and speed restrictions and slot times combining to make the situation even more critical than it is currently.

Then YOU would have even more gas scooped out of the tanks, increasing the pressure on often fatigued crews and overloaded ATCOs and all at risk to all on board to keep the shareholders happy!

Who do you work for again? I must make a note to fly with someone else.

BOAC

27th May 2006, 21:43

Who do you work for again? I must make a note to fly with someone else. - yes, fly with us - we care about our passengers - Yes, 'fuel' is one thing, but passenger comfort

757manipulator

27th May 2006, 21:57

Standing agreements are there to facilitate maximum use of airspace with minimal co-ordination (via telephone) so as to give ATCOs more opportunity to spend time devoted to stopping the cigar tubes from welding themselves together. They are not, and this may come as no surprise to you, there for the benefit of the "customer

Did I miss something here?....I don't recall anyone else mentioning "customers"

Do you seriously think you would benefit from having every single ATC sector in the FMS, with every single possible standing agreement, which for a variety of reasons, all invisible to you, may not be adhered to on any given day?

Please!

Nooooo but it would also help us with our "tactical" picture and planning to have some idea of what kind of descent or whatever it is you decide we as "customers" require....:hmm:

The fueling situation is bad enough as it is without increasingly congested skies resulting in reroutes and lower levels and time delays and speed restrictions and slot times combining to make the situation even more critical than it is currently.

You don't say?.....your not the one getting vectors and descents that haven't been planned for..thanks for that by the way...after all theres no such thing as customers right?

Crews would be clogging the r/t in even greater numbers continuously bleating about how they were "fuel critical", "possibility may not make it do destination", "would really help us if we could route direct", blah blah blah... "Do you wish to declare a fuel emergency?"

Nice to know you think so much of the aircrew that rely on your professionalism to help get their thousands of passengers to their destinations safe and sound.

What disgraceful comments..you should be ashamed of yourself:yuk:

bagpuss lives

27th May 2006, 22:29

I agree actually. I see no tangible reason why certain sections of the MATS Part 2 (instructions on a unit by unit basis - one for Scottish, one for LACC, one for MACC etc etc) can't be distributed sensibly amongst airline ops departments, as long as they were used for reference purposes only. You are our customers after all :E

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, I think they actually may be?

There are a multitude of standing agreements between sectors, and between units, as someone else on this thread has stated. Amongst other things they're to ensure you keep out of other people's airspace, so they more often than not coincide with sector and/or centre airspace boundaries.

Why not try to arrange a visit for yourselves to MACC, ScACC, LTCC or LACC to see the whys and wherefores of why we have them, and how they facilitate your safe and expeditious paths through the little bits of sky we each have. Most units accept visits from aircrew more than happily - this is definitely the case at MACC.

Alternatively, have a word with your Ops departments and see if they do indeed get any gen from our ops departments. I seem to recall there is a fluid passage of data between the two, but I could be wrong.

Ops and Mops

28th May 2006, 01:28

your not the one getting vectors and descents that haven't been planned for..thanks for that by the way...

That's called tactical controlling, and no matter how much you plan for it, you may still get "unexpected" vectors and decents if the "big picture" changes due weather, blocked runway, Nav/Approach aid unserviceability, Emergency traffic et al.

As I understand it, the human element is still in the cockpit and in the Air Traffic Control Centres/Towers as a higher degree of flexibility is required than leaving it solely to computers to carry out pre-prepared programs.

May I suggest that too much information may be a bad thing, as if the unexpected comes along, this is going to generate confusion, conversation and debate on an already congested frequency? Standing agreements between controllers are there for ATC purposes, and may be varied by co-ordination at any time! (Along the same lines with a CTOT. The -5, +10 mins is there for ATC TACTICAL use, and shouldn't be used by crews to plan on. Some crews don't half get grumpy when they miss a slot by starting at CTOT +5 ,when they are fully notified aware of the slot either from GND or Ops, only to be told it is impossible to get them airborne within the CTOT tolerance due to the outbound queue!)

Nooooo but it would also help us with our "tactical" picture and planning to have some idea of what kind of descent or whatever it is you decide we as "customers" require

The standing agreements are there to ensure that traffic is presented to the next ATC sector in an acceptable fashion without handing over each individual track. They are not there for crew descent planning, or to plan arrival/departure routes. That is the purpose of a SID/STAR. Most SID's and STARS are designed to take into account of these standing agreements i.e. the FL260 restriction at MARGO heading up North. If the restriction is not required, then Scottish will normally remove it on the RT then allowing the aircraft to fly their optimum descent profile to their cleared level. traffic then has to be presented to TMA airfields at or above Min Stack Level level by the final hold on the STAR.

There may be many things that do not directly affect your flight that mean you must be at a certain level by a certain point (traffic in/out of adjacent aerodromes, activated danger areas, co-ordinated airspace with the military, CDR's yada yada yada).

I would advocate that you do not query instructions given by ATC over the RT, or question the rationale behind it. If it affects you as operators to the degree that you infer by your Ops department not planning in sufficient fuel to take tactical ATC instructions, either file a Safety Report, MOR, or raise it as a safety/policy issue with your ops department.

We are not some secret society trying our best to push you round the sky for no reason. Again, use the old telephone call or take a couple of hours out of your day to visit your local friendly tower and/or Centre!

BDiONU

28th May 2006, 06:00

Alternatively, have a word with your Ops departments and see if they do indeed get any gen from our ops departments. I seem to recall there is a fluid passage of data between the two, but I could be wrong.
There is indeed open and honest discussion between NATS and the airline operators Ops departments. If you feel you have a 'problem' then you need to bring it to the attention of your Ops manager who can get an explanation from NATS.

BD

Shitsu_Tonka

28th May 2006, 07:42

The 'Customer' is always right:

While we're here, let me ask another question. What does the typical "customer" know about Air Traffic Control? Does the customer want a "safe, orderly and expeditious" service or does he want to go direct to the airport? What if those two goals are contradictory?

I live on Dunkin' Donuts coffee. What do you think would happen if I entered the exit lane, went around all the cars waiting at the squawk box at the drive-thru and went straight to the window at the drive-thru? Would I get my coffee faster? Would I get my coffee at all? What would their other customers think of me? Would they be sitting in their cars thinking, "The customer is always right?"

Source: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/192257-1.html

757manipulator

28th May 2006, 09:15

The standing agreements are there to ensure that traffic is presented to the next ATC sector in an acceptable fashion without handing over each individual track. They are not there for crew descent planning, or to plan arrival/departure routes. That is the purpose of a SID/STAR. Most SID's and STARS are designed to take into account of these standing agreements i.e. the FL260 restriction at MARGO heading up North.

Yes I'm not disputing your point, it would be nice however as Ive stated before to have a clearer idea of what to expect! Ultimately the one time we don't want to be heads down adding or removing restrictions..re-routes etc as we get something unexpected:confused:

I would advocate that you do not query instructions given by ATC over the RT, or question the rationale behind it. If it affects you as operators to the degree that you infer by your Ops department not planning in sufficient fuel to take tactical ATC instructions, either file a Safety Report, MOR, or raise it as a safety/policy issue with your ops department.

Couple of things here.......If I get an ATC instruction that I don't think is safe or clear, I'm certainly going to query it:eek:
Secondly, yes it does affect EVERY operator to a lesser or greater degree, most of the time planning contingencies are such that it doesn't cause any undue concern..furthermore, aircrew hopefully take the time to read the notams produced each day to get as clear a picture of whats going on that particular day.
I go back to my point again however..why the big secret? can't you ATCO's just accept that by giving us the information it helps us as well?

BOAC

28th May 2006, 09:47

Well, I did not want to start a war here, although I expected it:bored: .

I certainly do NOT advocate all these 'gates' being published (heaven's sake, we have enough to master with all the stuff across the world that IS published:eek: ), but could it all not be sorted out if the 'target' were given in the clearance - ie 'descend FL140, be level 40 before POL' rather than just 'descend FL170' then' 'you have to be blah blah' as I drift economically down in blissful ignorance? Overall that would be less R/T time, and far more 'controlled'. Some sectors worldwide are better than others.

You guys and girls can have as many 'gates' as you wish between sectors - I would suggest that if a particular gate is really MUCH lower than the logical 'economical' level it would be helpful to publish it so the plate publishers can put it on a STAR plate, and planning departments can adjust the fuel burns accordingly. After some time we now have the 'FL200 25 before TNT' on the MAN Dayne Star. That helps.

MancBoy

28th May 2006, 10:01

If the 200 25nm before TNT is published on the STAR then why do more and more pilots get it wrong and read back 20 nms before TNT!

If the information is there infront of you then how can it not be accurate every time therefore reducing RT?

More pilots needed down here which may open a few more eyes

MONT BLANC

28th May 2006, 10:16

An interesting debate, but one that is not new.

Take a look at the STAR plates published in the AIP. There you will find that there is data relating to standing agreements. It is called "Descent Planning", and actually stipulates the SA.

To get this data into the AIP was a huge exercise in overcoming some entrenched views of the world. An Air 2000 pilot and an ATCO at West Drayton wrote the paper that presented the arguments "for", and it included the results of meetings with the then Hd of CAP1 (Mike Wildin in those days), as to how to ensure the accuracy of these inclusions. This all came about because of the interface the FMS and the ATC operational environment.

In the case of Leeds, there are no STARs. In such circumstances, it was recomended that standing agreement levels were included in the textual section of the aerodrome entry in the AIP. It was also recommended that certain level restrictions - target levels etc were also published here. Such as FL 270 20< CUMRI, for NOKIN SIDS ex EGCC ( OK I know that it is FL270 25 <PERUP before today, but when the paper was written PERUP was not even a twinkle in PLGs or Lee Boultons eye).

One of the concerns was that flight crews would act upon this information independently from an ATC instruction. At the time I seem to recall at West Drayton, it was a live issue.

Looks like it needs to be reviewed again. Maybe there should be STARs for Leeds?

haughtney1

28th May 2006, 10:38

Is it time to get a few more ATCO's doing familiarisation flights?...I know this has been covered before, but it is becoming apparent that there is a real lack of understanding in what is essentially two parties playing for the same team.

I was fortunate enough to visit West Drayton not so long ago with AEU, and that gave me a much better understanding of the challenges facing ATCO's, perhaps it takes a bit of goodwill from both sides? Or am I being unrealistic?

flyingwingofjazzdestiny

28th May 2006, 14:34

Great post Gary.

This whole thing is becoming a bit of an issue these days. As has been pointed
out the practice of issuing descent clearances followed by an 'expected' lower level is very much frowned upon due to the potential for level busts. In my mind its a pity because I used to use it a lot. Believe me, when you're busy with a lot of inbound stack traffic the last thing you need is an aircraft (invariably american) 'wafting' down to its cleared level blissfully unaware that it will need to be at or around min stack by the holding fix. This can seriously ruin your day.

I personally don't use 'expect' type clearances anymore but it can be frustrating as I feel more and more we do things in ATC because the pilot might make a mistake. I appreciate the potential for confusion but must we treat pilots as children/thickies?

Ops and Mops

28th May 2006, 14:37

If I get an ATC instruction that I don't think is safe or clear, I'm certainly going to query it

And indeed we would expect you to, however an "Unsafe clearance" such as you suggest is not really what is being discussed within the context of this thread. (Standing agreements and descent planning as a primary argument)

go back to my point again however..why the big secret? can't you ATCO's just accept that by giving us the information it helps us as well?

Again back to my point, there is no big secret. Why can't you accept that the information that is (or is not) published is done so by Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA and not by Air Traffic Control Units. The discrepancy of the amount of information that is submitted for publication against what is actually published, is bigger than you think. And this has related to potentially unsafe IAP Plates! Perhaps it is something the UKFSC could look at if it is such a big concern to all operators.

Perhaps you should look further up the food chain before bashing ATCO's on here for doing their job?

BOAC

28th May 2006, 16:28

We have wandered a bit from my request to give us a clue as to your descent planning into the realms of publishing minute detail of every route altitude restriction which was not my intent.

Most ATC units manage to give us the 'plan' - Maastricht for example are good at that, Frankfurt approach, etc etc. Inbound to LHR/LGW normally not a problem either. It is just the few places where it does not happen that cause the difficulties. The potential is for a higher work load for us, a screaming descent with a possible RA with traffic below and discomfort for the pax. Given 'the plan' we can set up a descent profile to suit. Otherwise, given a descent up to 50 miles earlier than 'economic' we will indeed 'waft down' as put above until we are told otherwise. No need for visits, good as they are, or famil flights (ditto) - it is just common sense:)

757manipulator

28th May 2006, 16:50

Just got back from the gym....(in the hope of retaining ones medical) and it seems the discussion has moved on a bit.

And indeed we would expect you to, however an "Unsafe clearance" such as you suggest is not really what is being discussed within the context of this thread. (Standing agreements and descent planning as a primary argument)

Point taken, I did however make mine for no other reason than for the sake of clarity.

Again back to my point, there is no big secret. Why can't you accept that the information that is (or is not) published is done so by Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA and not by Air Traffic Control Units.

From what Ive read (and hopefully understood) of this discussion, the nuts and bolts of it relate to the tactical expectation of what is likely to be asked for/complied with, rather than digging through endless volumes of minutia to find a point that may or may not be relevant on any given day. As BOAC so succinctly puts it..give us a clue:ok:

Perhaps you should look further up the food chain before bashing ATCO's on here for doing their job?

If you call constructive criticism bashing, perhaps you are getting a little emotive about this issue.
I can only agree with BOAC LGW/LHR and even MAN are generally very very good, why this is I have no idea..I am a mere button pusher after all:sad:

Chesty Morgan

28th May 2006, 17:14

A little more information would help both parties in this case.

If we are cleared to a level earlier than expected we do tend to "Waft down". If we become higher than you want us to be we can't then magically appear at your desired level. All it needs is a quick heads up for us and we'll do the rest.

Ops and Mops

28th May 2006, 17:25

perhaps you are getting a little emotive about this issue
No more emotive than
can't you ATCO's just accept that... :p :E

BOAC and Chesty

With that info, the argument makes much more sense, and will probably institute a bit more understanding to those concerned. Perhaps a point to raise in CHIRP to try and raise awareness outwith the realms of PPRuNe?

:ok:

30W

28th May 2006, 18:40

As has been pointed
out the practice of issuing descent clearances followed by an 'expected' lower level is very much frowned upon due to the potential for level busts.

If NATS were to study the paper mentioned by MONT BLANC properly again, it will find the issue of level busts from 'expect' clearances was fully covered and investigated. A great deal of effort was done with SD into level bust occurances - the result concluding that 'expect' clearances were NOT directly contributable to level busts.

What was VERY apparant during the period of that papers production was that LATCC Ops (as was in those days....) did not want the extra workload of publishing, in any form other than MATS pt2, such restrictions.

The report was finally accepted however, and NATS agreed to publish, but with a delay of over approx 1 yr due to workload issues. ScOACC were VERY helpfull throughout the consultation, and fully supported it's findings. Their restrictions were published without delay - and incorporated into STARS where applicable.

I still believe the restrictions should be published - there ARE big aircrew issues here, mainly in the planning and management areas of the descent and approach. UK airspace is unique in the hugely early descnts for some airfields.
LTMA and MTMA airfields aren't too badly off descent wise, and so one isn't badly caught out.

Descents to 'regional' airfields such as NM as BOAC mentions CAN create unnecessary issues for the flight deck. Midlands Group airfields are also another classic. Descent is SO far ahead of what is ideal/economic, one CAN be badly caught out.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not bemoaning the system for this. The UK has a tremendous ATC system, held together mainly by it's frontline, operational staff (controllers). The SA's are there for good reason, and provide a system capacity benefit that ALL operators benefit from.

BOAC does have a perfectly valid point however, and I know exactly where he is coming from.......

I suggest NATS pull out that working paper from what is several years back now and give it a bloody good read!

30W (pilot)

javelin

28th May 2006, 18:51

Sorry folks, dinner is nearly ready and I haven't had time to trawl through all the posts - however...............................

Our flight plans are produced by Jeppeson vis Bytron. They calculate a fuel burn based on a variety of things, wind, route, etc but the descent is usually planned on an economical thrust to idle at TOD basis.

Now if you ATC guys ask us to do something often a lot different to what we would really like to do, my fuel burn goes up be a couple or 3 hundred kilos on the 320 but by up to a tonne on the 330.

I don't fly around on fumes, never have, never will but it just seems ludicrous that you have a secret and we aren't told.

Give our flight planners the info, they will factor it into our plans, we won't creep down at 500 feet per minute because I really don't want to descend yet.

Yes, get out on fam flights, see how we operate and perhaps then you will realise why we gripe at such matters.

Yes dear,I'll have the Merlot please...

rab-k

28th May 2006, 19:53

Oh dear - seems I previously forgot to move the 'Jetblast Booster Switch' to the 'Off' position. Alcohol induced lapse I'm afraid - apologies to any/all who took offence. (This contribution I hasten to add is 'pre-pub'!)

Despite the strong arguments I have read on the part of those in the cockpit, I have this over riding concern regarding the habit 'some', I say again to stress not all but 'some', crews have of questioning ATC instructions on the RT for reasons other than straightforward confirmation.

If, for whatever reason, many having been listed previously, a standing agreement was not adhered to on a given day, I fear RT exchanges along the lines of: "confirm that was descend to FLXX to be level abeam ABC for the XYZ123?" followed by "Affirm XYZ123, be FLXX abeam ABC", "But isn't it usually FLYY? Any reason..." and so on becoming increasingly common.

I do see some benefit for Flight Ops/Dispatch being given a greater insight into the application of agreed levels for the sake of fuel planning. However, my gut instinct I'm afraid remains to keep you 'drivers' out of the loop for fear of, and again I stress a minority, your erstwhile colleagues taking it upon themselves to question ATC whilst on the RT. I'm all for communication between the professions, but there is definitely a time and a place best suited for such and debating chambers are best left off the airwaves, and kept in the pubs (Or Jetblast:rolleyes:)!

Cheers:)...

PPRuNe Towers

28th May 2006, 20:35

Two groups of pros at the glass face.

One says those who need to know, know.

The others are telling you that, unless they have local knowledge, they know nothing about these standing arrangements.

In particular there has been a history of using low level trigger waypoints that are inhibited and thus invisible on FMC's until aircraft are within, for example, 40 miles of them. Favourites in the past have been ones like GOLES coming in from the North sea or the ones that used to be offered for expeditious right hand downwinds to Stansted's 05. It took years to get some of this trigger waypoints into our main databases.

The proof to controllers is that the fuel plans do not reflect the early drops and the extra fuel. If 20 mins 'no delay' is promulgated for the London area what logic prevents notices for other fields indicating that aircraft must be expected regularly to leave cruise altitude 50, 60 or more miles early?

Without fam flights controllers aren't seeing the difference it makes to arrival fuel for crews without local knowledge.

Regards
Rob

055166k

29th May 2006, 07:34

I think a reasonable viewer would conclude that the lack of any kind of official ATC/Aircrew liaison such the old Familiarisation Flight scheme is directly responsible for this us-and-them situation.
This is in blatent contravention of a safety recommendation from the AAIB, and supposedly accepted by the Regulator [CAA] and NATS.
Never assume that SAFETY figures as highly in new-NATS as it did in old-NATS.........although the figures show the opposite......a significant reduction in incident reporting of both serious and non-serious events over recent months!
Could this be a result of the unbelievably complex computerised report form which takes 30+ minutes to fill in, overseen directly by a management "assister" in the middle of the OPS room, and replaces a paper sheet which could be filled in whilst having a post-incident cup of coffee in the canteen??

30W

29th May 2006, 19:34

055166k,

I really hope it hasn't become an us and them situation - despite the difficulties in getting people airborne on our side of the industry nowdays, I still visit, reasonably regularly your establishment.

I have never felt any such situation during visits, indeed quite the opposite.

I do offer fam flights - hard as they are to organise, they can be done, currently however I spend so much time training that non training flights are rare upon which famils can take place. Hopefully this will ease over the next couple of months - then any ATCO welcome.....

30W

055166k

30th May 2006, 06:07

30W
The point of the post was aimed at NATS, and the complete reversal of any kind of coherent professional-standard policy towards controller/aircrew liaison and aircraft performance appreciation in the interest of enhancing service provision. There is money in abundance for any kind of management training, and plenty of time off.......even when there was a Fam Flight scheme the controller had to do it on a day off and cover most of the cost.
By the way......the nightmare to come is the much-heralded i-Facts system...absolutely £millions being spent for no benefit at all.....what do I know?......well I correctly forecast 5 major operational-use problems with the current Swanwick system about 6 years before it went live.....and every one happened!
I tried to look up the AAIB report reference yesterday.......however it was a Bank Holiday and the Swanwick Library was shut......another example of contempt for the worker......we work 24/7.....168 hours a week.....our library is available 35 hours a week at times when we are so busy that no-one can use it anyway......except non-operational staff......you see we may pinch a copy of something if it is left unlocked!!!!!!

BDiONU

30th May 2006, 08:40

By the way......the nightmare to come is the much-heralded i-Facts system...absolutely £millions being spent for no benefit at all.....what do I know?......well I correctly forecast 5 major operational-use problems with the current Swanwick system about 6 years before it went live.....and every one happened!
I tried to look up the AAIB report reference yesterday.......however it was a Bank Holiday and the Swanwick Library was shut......another example of contempt for the worker......we work 24/7.....168 hours a week.....our library is available 35 hours a week at times when we are so busy that no-one can use it anyway......except non-operational staff......you see we may pinch a copy of something if it is left unlocked!!!!!!
You're right! We should all head off back up to LATCC and the old Ops room. We never had it so good.

BD

zkdli

1st Jun 2006, 19:25

055166K
Think you may have moved slightly off track about incident reporting but it seems that at LTCC the number of reports that have been filed since the computerised system was introduced has risen by at least 40%. Begs the question why is Swanwick having so many problems?

anotherthing

2nd Jun 2006, 18:29

055166k

I've used the computerised (STAR) system twice now - IMHO it's a breeze. We can fill it in at any terminal (whilst having a coffee if not in the OPs room), then send it off to management - just the same way as you would send off the written report to your manager in days of old - it has not changed our way of doing things with regards to 'supervision'.

As for the liaison visits... at TC we actively encourage airlines to send pilots down and quite often have training captains and below in our TRUCEs.

In fact there is hardly a cycle goes by when there is not aircrew of some description are wandering round the OPs room on a visit.

As for getting on the jumpseat - a lot of that has to do with 9/11 and the requirements by DfT regarding unauthorised people in the cockpit - slowly being relaxed now.

Maybe your problems stem from a management problem at LACC?? - not that I am saying we have good managers, but we do get a lot of aircrew visitors.

YourFriendlyATCO!

20th Jun 2006, 15:24

I agree that we should keep pilots informed of possible descent rates. If R/T time permits i tend to use "Descend FL280, expect FL200 10nm before MONTY". Helps keep everyone in the know, and even helps me, as if i forget to descend an a/c, i often have pilots remind me that they request descent if they are to make that restriction.

I really don't understand this us and them attitude. I never seem to see it at work, from either pilots or air traffic, just on this web site!

BOAC

7th Jul 2006, 14:14

I would like to revisit this thread. The other day inbound to EGNM from LIFFY I was given descent almost 120 miles before the 'economic' point, and then further step-downs (again not geographically specified until almost - and in one case - too late:)). This resulted in my burning about 400kg of my 380kg 'contingency fuel', so it is a serious issue in terms of fuel planning for pilots and airlines.

I have received two very helpful replies to this issue from PPRuning ATC'ers (blushes spared:)) and it appears that the info is buried in AIRACs. I have had a sneak look at one and it does indeed have some of these 'hidden' descent gates aka 'Standing Agreements'.

I asked our company to move top of descent back to before LIFFY as a 'ballpark' attempt to get closer to the fuel needed to make these 'gates'. I am seeking ideas for a way to get this info into the airlines flight planning systems. All inputs gratefully received. Is there a matrix somewhere that we can access?

Leaving aside this major safety issue, once again - as we have requested here - can ATC PLEASE give us the requirements in the clearance, just as 'YFA' says? Maastricht manage it regularly - "be level 40 before xxx" or "1500 or more" not "increase your rate - you now need to lose xxxx feet in 4 miles" (I just didn't tell you). You know the 'gates' - we don't - it is that simple. Unless we can get them onto the PLOG, we never will - unless of course we fly the same route day in day out. It really does not increase the overall R/T loading. If you prefer we can ask for clarification with each level change?

javelin

7th Jul 2006, 15:03

And - please stop the be level x before somewhere. Either create a more appropriate waypoint or syncronise it to an existing waypoint :ok:

5milesbaby

7th Jul 2006, 19:09

No chance Javelin, if that were the case then we'll need an RP every 5 miles along every airway/UAR, as there are times we adapt or introduce a level restriction due to other situations than just everyday normal flows of traffic. Anyone into LGW from AKIKI may have been subject to a FL180 lvl/below by KATHY. Its not a standing agreement, just ensuring that when the turn at KATHY is taken toward GWC that the a/c is below those into Stansted via AVANT. Not every ATCO uses it, and those that do choose their times to use it.

On the other hand, the last one I know that was introduced was ARTEP to replace the Paris inbounds being cleared to be level 20 nms before Dieppe (DPE), unfortunately our wonderful comms coupled with our Toys'R'Us headsets and the English communications barrier meant that we were repeating nearly every transmission to clarify the point for about a week, as ARTEP sounded far too similar to Dieppe across the airwaves. After a week, every controller reverted to using 20 nms before Dieppe :ugh:

javelin

8th Jul 2006, 16:55

To be constructive, it would help if there was a bit more cooperation, after all we want to help keep things moving 'cos we don't like delays. Then we are asked to keep fuel burn down so we try balance common sense with prudence. Then ATC ask us to do something which creates MCDU workload in the descent - I know I can 'wing it' but it is simply not the way we are taught to operate in a modern glass cockpit.

I would dearly like to take more ATC folks on Fam flights, we can offer it at MAN, I know the constraints - has to be a day off etc - another problem to be overcome.

A final comment, for the moment. Came back into MAN yesterday, medium weight - about 160 tonnes, high speed as approved, stopped at various levels then cleared down to FL70 by DANE, normal inbound speed. When I said not possible, I was politely challenged, we nearly did it with full speed brake all the way and about 270kts.

Let's all work together then we can really enjoy :ok:

haughtney1

8th Jul 2006, 17:18

Those MAN people, seem to enjoy keeping you hot and high coming off DANE. Just out of interest Javelin....was it onto 24R?
Everytime I can remember recently been vectored off Dane for 24R, its needed damn near full brake 250-270kts (I could slow down earlier...but then you get it in the ear as well!), if you need the anti-ice.........its down with rubber speed brakes, even then its a bloody struggle to get stabilised by 1000 AGL in IMC:ok:

I called a duty controller about 2 months ago regarding this (number on our crewroom wall) and was basically told to like it or lump it:sad:

Rather unsportsman behaviour if you ask me

Scott Voigt

8th Jul 2006, 18:57

This sort of thing is always an interesting thread... But as both a pilot and a controller, it is always interesting to note that most commercial pilots have no concept of air traffic control. The feel that everything is the same, that we have static routes, static restrictions for everything just doesn't meet with reality. We COULD have a very static system that you can plan for every event. But that would cut down on the flexibility of the system and cut back on the rates of aircraft we could get through the system. Something that the airlines would really not like...

I see the problem as multifold. One is that the skies just keep getting busier and busier with aircraft that are less and less compatible together. In the old days everyone pretty much operated the same and there was a lot of stratification of traffic between the military, airlines and GA... No longer is this true and going to become even worse with the advent of the VLJ.

We also have the problem with airlines trying to squeeze every ounce of fuel out of a flight. They bet on the cum as it were that most of the time things are going to work our well and they can plan for very little contingency fuel if the destination airport is VFR. There are crews that are trying to be good little employees and who take for gospel what the dispatcher has load planned for them fuel wise. Sometimes this isn't quite good enough due to winds not being what is forecast, or crews going direct somewhere that takes them out of the favorable winds. (Not our problem one way or another.). Then there are the issues of unrealistic planning, and that is of going to a major metro airport and expecting that you are going to be able to get a throttle off decent from your requested TOD point. To try to make everything fit correctly, you just can't expect this all the time. There are just too many aircraft all vying for the same bit of airspace going to and fro that make it a crap shoot at best on where you are going to get to start down.

We could publish all of our Letters of Agreement (standing agreements) for the pilot community, but for one, it would probably just cause a lot of confusion as well as weigh down the flight bag pretty bad. Aviation is VERY fluid and we are going to change routes and altitudes of aircraft based on traffic, weather and sector loading. There are no standing agreements for that per se, but there are common sense ATC principals in use... Oh and there are also different levels of controllers just as there are pilots. You have to take that into account too.

As to commercial pilots getting a better handle on what is going on downstairs. I wish that we had more than a bare 1% of the commercial crowd come to classes to actually learn what we do. Unfortunately the more educated pilots seem to come from the GA crowd who have a larger interest in what goes on all inclusive of aviation. The people that do come to the classes do get a very good overview of what it takes to move aircraft around the system and why we do what we do. They also come out of it with a very very good understanding of the dynamics of it... Probably has something to do with straping a headset on and working traffic in the simulator <EG>... But also a lot of info from the classroom portion too.

Do controllers need to know more of what goes on in the cockpit? We certainly do, but for most of us, it isn't even an option anymore unless we were to go out and pay for lessons. There are some seminars that we can try to go to, but those too are expensive to attend. The airlines for the most part to not help us to understand... In the US there is probably only one source of getting pilots and controllers together to try to understand differences and that is Communicating for Safety, and then some of the Raincheck classes that are provided at some ATC facilities. It's NOT enough, and there needs to be some real understanding about the complexities of the system by both the dispatchers and airline managment who sometimes have no clue as to what they are doing to the flight crews by shorting them fuel...

Oh well enough for now, time to head out of the house...

regards

Scott

BOAC

9th Jul 2006, 09:27

YourFriendlyATCO!

11th Jul 2006, 22:56

I hope you get somewhere with them. If there is anything i can help with, feel free to pm me.

Best of Luck!

And Javelin, i do agree with you about the use of "be level 10 before MONTY", but unfortunately we have no say in it. Airspace and sectors change all the time as we try to make things better and cut delays for you guys. As a result restrictions have to move, which unfortunately means we have to, in effect, make up points. There'd be far too many reporting points around if we didn't use existing ones. Sorry! I know it's a pain in the back-side for you guys

javelin

11th Jul 2006, 23:32

Haughtney - yep 24R

Scott - revelation ! we got a standard descent into LAS 2 days ago.

Sadly they spoiled it by insisting on 190kts to 4d - with windshear reported and a large storm to our left.

We just about did it, but it wasn't pretty :sad:

Ta for the input Mr ATCO !

BOAC

12th Jul 2006, 07:45

Likewise Mr Friendly! I will update as/when appropriate. The query is in the system.

Regarding creating new waypoints - I do not feel the need for this (although it would be nice:)) and, from the interface with controllers, ask only for enough 'notice' of your requirements to enable me to make the descent planned and comfortable.

30W

13th Jul 2006, 14:45

I think you'll find some of the answers within the UK's SRD (Standard Routing Document). This is available freely via the AIS website.

It's not a pilot friendly document, nor some would argue does it need to be. It does however allow Nav/Ops departments to see level restrictions upon certain inbound/outbound routes from the UK. My company uses this, builds the early descents into the PLOGS and so we have adequate fuel. Encourage yours to do the same........

I pushed heavily for the publication of all this years ago. The problem with places like Leeds, Midlands Group airfields etc, is that many of the descent profiles are before the start of the STAR. There is no easy place to put the expected descent restrictions on such arrivals.

I do believe there is an argument for extending STARS for some airfields beyond their current starting point, and hence including descent data. RT loading could also be reduced.

eg: BB arrival through S19:- typical 1st call response " ABC123 goodafternoon, maintain FL350, routing AVANT, MIDHURST,OCKHAM, HEMEL, GROVE 1C Birmingham."

Extend the STAR back to HEMEL. Include the EXPEXTED descent data and RT now "ABC123 goodafternoon, maintain FL350, routing AVANT GROVE 1C Birmingham."

Valuable RT time saved on both ATC transmission and aircraft readback!

30W

BOAC

13th Jul 2006, 17:22

Thanks 30W - (eventually) downloaded but I cannot see how it can help with FIR 'entry' level at LIFFY nor the step-down altitudes thereafter? Have I missed something?

LIFFY -EGNM

LIFFY MC 245 L975 WAL DCT POL DCT LBA EGNM RAD EG4039

LIFFY 245 660 UL975 LYNAS L975 WAL DCT POL DCT LBA EGNM RAD EG4039

The RAD does not really help either. What we need is a ball-park 'level FLXXX by YYY' at major waypoints eg LIFFY into London FIR, 'level FLXXX by 45 before POL' inbound EGNM etc.

Nice idea for STARS, BTW! Then maybe we could get these gates printed on them. I cannot believe it is necessary for ATC to 'fiddle' with them so much that they cannot be issued.

30W

13th Jul 2006, 19:28

BOAC,
My appologies, I thought the RAD used to have some level guidance in it, having just looked I see that it doesn't:( Either it's changed, or more likely I'm having another one of those days!! Definately some guidance (not all) was published somewhere - can anyone help with where it was??
The STAR issue became political because nobody wanted 'ownership' of such a large route section. To any ATC Ops folk, it means more ammendment etc..... Also there was the issue of the route segment being so long it being difficult to fit on one page:(
There's an email address for NATS Ops in the RAD [email protected], I suggest those who feel strongly that the level restrictions should be published email and tell them so. Certainly NATS agreed to publish them some years ago, but I've run out of the chasing enthusiasm I had in those days:(
30W

BOAC

13th Jul 2006, 20:04

No sweat! Good to see you got your airline planners on to it.
I'll pin my faith on CHIRP - they never normally fail!

30W

13th Jul 2006, 20:13

I'll pin my faith on CHIRP - they never normally fail!
They have been a fantastic outlet, for all areas of the industry over the last few years. Don't pin all your faith on it though - this is (or at least was) a hugely political issue behind the scenes. :ugh:
Good luck!
30W

Farty Flaps

14th Jul 2006, 21:16

Now now girls its very simple. Everytime i come across an agreement ie otbed 280, or latan 330(li/lg), or ncl 260 i confirm that it a full time agreement with the sector at an appropiate quiet time. Then I send an email to head of flight planning ,or asr, and they incorporate it into the burn/plog or however they want. We get more fuel, atcos get their stress down and it isnt rocket science. Situational awareness is a behavioural marker item for crm assessment. So if you are aware pass it on, possibly in your own time, if you can drag yourselves away from your incredibly full lives arguing on pprune.

Scott Voigt

19th Jul 2006, 16:03

Scott - as usual a thorough analysis, but I'm not clear whether this a response to post #1 or later ones?

To answer on my points - IF we were given the restrictions with the descent clearance our lives would be easier.

My 'contingency' figures were what I used against what the PLOG calculates as the airline 'minimum', and quoted only to show the significance of the early descents.

There is still a need for airlines (I refer to UK - I have no experience of the US) to have some way of predicting non-economic and fuel wasting UK descent profiles, and as I have said to those who kindly responded with information by PM, I now consider this to be of enough relevance to 'safety' as to warrant an approach to CHIRP in the hope they can communicate with SRG (ATC) to try and get some BASIC idea of descent gates into our planning system (Jeppesen in my case). EXACT altitudes are not needed, and can, indeed, change on a day-to-day basis if need-be, but we need some idea of where top of descent is going to be.

Edit to add I have raised a query through Chirp

Hi BOAC;

We in ATC still work most everything in the short term. If we were to try to just fit everything in with the long term outlook, we would hamper the system with undo restrictions. In the US we fill the bag to full just a bit more than they normally do in Europe, and this is why you see a lot of vectoring about and speed control in trying to make everything fit, as well as many intermediate altitudes. We are just trying to be as flexible as possible without having to put in static restrictions that place a bigger burdeon on the airspace. About the best you are going to get out of most of our controllers if they have the time is to get expect lower in 30 miles. But, I doubt that is going to happen. We for the most part, expect flight crews to understand that whent hey get within about 200 miles of a major airport that they can expect vectoring, speed control and altitude changes to start getting in line for the sequence for that stream (know that there are normally at least four streams going to one airport with the way that we do it in the US.

The only thing that I can say of help to the pilot community is to not let the airlines short you on fuel. There are going to be days where you land with a lot more fuel than you needed, but unless you are willing to go to an alternate and take the time and wasted money of a divert, plan to carry some extra fuel. That is indeed the price of doing business...

Oh, there is also that ability for ALL flight crews to come and attend Communicating for Safety in Dallas <G>... I believe that it is 12 and 13 October this year...

regards

Scott

5milesbaby

20th Jul 2006, 23:41

30W, as a S19 controller I would love to give you AVANT GROVE 1C, but this would mean the STAR starting at AVANT if I were to be doing my job properly, and if that was to be the case, then we'd also need a new STAR starting at 40 dme before BIG, and whatever the Lambourne restriction is too. Apply this to every other airfield and I think you'll need more fingers and toes to count the new ones on. I do agree that restrictions like the FL250 10nm before AVANT should be published and known, but as for now I'll still use the "expect" I always do.

Ideally I'd like to give you no routing at all, but we all know how useless your Ops Dept are at filing flightplans :ugh:

BOAC

21st Jul 2006, 08:30

Scott - it IS simply a question of making sure that we DO take the right fuel! It does not make commercial sense to always carry X00 extra kg in case we are descended 100 miles early or to always carry x00kg in case we are held for 40 minutes or vectored for 60 miles when we probably will not, so IF we could establish the expected parameters and get those fed in to our planning systems it would be far better. As pilots we fly into different airspace every day of our working lives. You as a controller have a pretty good chance of knowing the waypoints/altitude blocks (even airway names:) ) and routing in your area. We generally do not, unless we are employed on regular 'bus runs' in which case it is easy.

The second issue is how these things are handled on the day. As I began, it is much easier to be given the altitude/position target at the outset than to be 'chased' for not achieving something you did not know about.

5miles - if I coud always get "expect xxx" my 'short term' problems would be over!

30W

22nd Jul 2006, 10:15

5miles,

I don't think having more STARS is a huge problem personally. It's mainly areas like Midlands Group airfields and NM's etc that have such far out descent sectorisation restrictions. The LL's and KK's and alike all have stars that include all restrictions, because they are not forced down so early relative to where they would like economically to start descent.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that overall system capacity is better for the restrictions you have, and I support that.

When I come through 19 and the SC is working his balls off, I believe the last thing he really needs is a string of routing instructions to relay, and hear read back - it makes keeping on top of a difficult and tight tactical situation so much more difficult. Recognising that, extended STARS to those particular airfields must be a solution. I pushed heavily for it back in LATCC days, but LATCC Ops in those days didn't want the extra workload involved with extra amendments etc.

As for flight plans, routings should be right - I know all my companies are, as they get very direct feedback if they deviate from the RAD rest assured - I phone straight away and get them to sort it! IFPS should reject any plan that doesn't conform to the RAD and require operators to re-file accordingly.

Hope to catch you for a coffee sometime when I'm next visiting!

30W