New DXB tower/radar procedures - flightcrew please read

[Yellow Snow]

Greetings pilots of the Middle East. On March 10th at 00:00Z (04:00L) DXB tower and radar will implement new procedures that, with your co-operation, will greatly increase capacity and efficiency whilst maintaining a safe ATC service.

As a bit of background you guys often pick up delays at the holding point on departure as the tower controller is severely restricted in when they can issue a takeoff clearance in relation to the arriving traffic on the parallel runway. Dubai’s offset parallel runways are too close together for ICAO/GCAA approval to operate departures and arrivals independently. As such, in standard dual operations (dependant mode) the tower has to have the departure rolling by the time the inbound on the parallel runway is at 2 DME to ensure the departure passes the upwind end of the staggered parallel runway before the arrival crosses the threshold of the landing runway, to ensure separation in the event of a go around, eg departure 12R has to be passing abeam M13B airborne or rolling before arrival crosses threshold 12L or the controller is relieved of duty as a technical loss of runway separation has occurred. This results in huge inefficiencies on departure when tower marshalls aircraft at holding points to get north/south SID splits for radar but can’t issue a takeoff clearance as arriving traffic is now close to 2 miles from touchdown on the parallel. Furthermore, once you finally get airborne radar cannot give you expeditious turns until you climb out of very conservative altitudes dependant on the runway in use.

So what are the changes?

For the past few months we’ve been training hard to introduce early turns on departure at 1000’ but more importantly tactical turning missed approaches that will allow the tower to operate in a considerably more efficient independent runway mode. Both these two procedures are different though so I’ll explain them both in turn, however one thing remains constant at all times, from March 10th, all departures must remain on tower frequency until instructed to contact radar, without exception.

Omni directional departures
Tower may, following co-ordination with radar, issue departures with an instruction to turn onto a heading between 090-160 degrees off 12 L/R passing 1000’ and not before the upwind end of the departure runway, and heading 270–350 degrees off 30 R/L with the same above restrictions. It is most likely though that this early turn instruction shall come from the departures radar controller once tower has transferred you and you have reported your passing altitude (verified at above 1000’ on our radar screens).

Missed approach departure turning area
To facilitate independent departure operations and ensure seperation from any missed approaches from the parallel, the tower now have a section of airspace they can turn both the missed approach and the departures at low level to create the minimum ICAO/GCAA acceptable 30degree track seperation. In 12 ops , a missed approach off 12L can now be turned at 600’ onto a ‘track’ of between 090 and 120 and a departure off 12R can be turned at 800’ onto a ‘track’ of 120 and 150. In 30 ops, a missed approach off 30L can be turned at 800’ onto a ‘track’ of between 270 and 300 and a departure off 30R can be turned at 600’ onto a ‘track’ of 330 and 300. The key things being that it’s a track being flown not a heading here and that the level of turn is low but approved by the regulator for terrain clearance, hence the critical need for a track to be flown, also tower will not issue these turns prior to the missed approach crossing the landing runway threshold.
I hope from reading the above you can appreciate the critical need to remain on tower frequency at all times until instructed otherwise. Further, if tower does turn you onto a track then be aware that this is to be carried out immediately as it's to ensure seperation from other traffic, and will result in an earlier transfer to radar.
Also as Dubai is surrounded by a class D control zone we only have to provide traffic info to IFR vs VFR and vice versa, so early turn for seperation from IFR traffic may also get a ‘significant’ RT transmission in respect of VFR traffic, that said we’ll be restricting the levels at which the VFR operate and timing the turn of the IFR traffic to ensure that there should never be a chance of traffic getting too close and the increased RT will hopefully be the only headache.
As nothing in life is ever simple…..On 30 ops providing we have VMC we can operate independent departures 24/7, however on 12 ops the the full length (K1, K2, M4 and M5) take off points of 12R are too close to the touchdown point of 12L for ICAO/GCAA to permit independent operations. So if met conditions force us to operate in 12 mode we shall be expecting you to help us out and depart from the intersections K3,4,5 or M7, thereby ensuring we can remain efficient and continue idependant operations. If your performance does require full length 12R then you must advise GMP on first contact so the tower can plan ahead, be advised though that this request may incur a delay for your flight as it will be treated as an ‘arrival dependant’ departure. We understand that certain destination flights, especially in the summer, will have no choice but to request 12R full length, but please tell us in advance.


If you’ve read this far then congratulations, we hope you’ll agree the above new procedures will offer you a more expeditious, orderly and equally safe service and thanks in advance for helping to make them work.

If you have any questions by all means post them on here. DXB ATC operations would appreciate any feedback on the new procedures and you can do that by emailing us at the following address:-

atc-operations(at)dubaiairnav.gov.ae (substitute (at) for @) as it's not always displaying correctly below.

[email protected]

All the best Yellow Snow.

[Kamelchaser]

Fantastic. Lets hope these new procedures work. Well done working your way aroud the dependant rwy ops thing.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

will this generate, and is it good for night ops also....

glf

[Yellow Snow]

Kamel thanks for the feedback.

glf - yep it's 24/7. and yep, increased capacity on departures due to greater efficiency mentioned and plans at an advanced stage to allow us to reduce spacing on final approach from the current standard 5 miles to 3 miles or vortex whichever is greater (subject GCAA approval), we're aware the runway exits aren't best positioned for mediums 3 miles apart but we'll see how things go.

[flaphandlemover]

well done :ok:...
let's hope it works the way in real life as well....

the only thing i would love to see, is to improve the long taxiing after landing on RWY 12L.
Ek hasn't crossed 12R without clearance... It was FlyDubai... Why are we being penalized with the additional fuel burning?

Keep it up gents... You are doing a gr8 job.

THANKS FOR KEEPING US SAFE :ok:

[mickrobbo]

...and the others who have all crossed lit stopbars aswell at M10 and elsewhere around the airfield. It isn't just one operator who made the mistakes you are now all paying for, there is a fairly decent size list of them.

Stay safe!

[yardman]

Yellow Snow,

Thanks for taking the time to keep us informed of the changes. This is clearly a step in the right direction. It may not always appear so but most of us appreciate the work that you guys do for us.

Yardman

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Re the taxi situation, if we in our puddle jumper are landing 30L, and as usually the case drop at Jet/Execujet, why must we clear left, and do the 20 min taxi ride, rather than the first right, and then cross...or is it to do with the incursions.

Several moons ago, this was the norm, but to be honest with the amount of hard surface,and so many yellow, and red stop bars, it was always confusing, but at lease it was safe, and speedy. I have never crossed a RED Stop Bar, but followed wrong yellows.........

Perhaps someone with the technology can post the ground chart in the facility of M10.

Is DXB a mandated taxi with tpr on airport as yet.

Hope to be back in town next week, to test the theory....



glf

[Guy D'ageradar]

what extra capacity will this generate, and is it good for night ops also....

Initially......little. What it WILL do is allow the departure guy in the TWR to depart traffic irrespective of the landing traffic on the other runway. In that sense, there will be a bit of improvement on departure but if you're all going through RANBI, it won't make much difference, you still need to be 10 miles apart at RANBI.

Once everyone gets used to things, the potential is there to start tightening up the arrival sequence, as there will no longer be a requirement to provide gaps for departures. HOWEVER, this will be a complete waste of time if everyone keeps completely disregarding speed control instructions to fly what they like! A tight sequence can only be done if the speeds are flown. WE DO NOT HAVE THE DISPENSATION TO FORGET ABOUT VORTEX WAKE SEPARATION INSIDE 4NM THAT HEATHROW ET AL HAVE! That means that if you ignore the speeds and sep is going to be lost, YOU WILL BE SENT AROUND. It is either that or the radar guy is suspended / fired! PLease play the game gents and we'll be able to start making progress. :ok:

[Yellow Snow]

Hi all,

Firstly, thanks to the mods for making this a sticky. And thanks to other posters for positive feedback.

Secondly, ladies and gents at the sharp end, we in ATC understand your pain about elongated taxi routes, and yes glf all traffic landing 30L must vacate left off the runway regardless because of too many runway incursions, and yes landing 12L and then taxing to M13B is a pain but it's all in response to a few extremely serious/close runway incursions where flightcrew crossed red stop bars and taxied onto the departing runway into the path of rolling aircraft without any clearance, it wouldn't be fair or right to say anymore than that on a public forum. Unfortunately we are allowed very little flexibility in regards to taxi routes for inbound aircraft, much to ours and your frustration.

Can you help us and each other?

Yes, please do not cross red stop bars, challenge us on the RT, and refuse to move unless we switch it off, bear in mind though that if you are slow on the line up as EK 777 and 380's are for various reasons, then the stop bar will time out after 60 seconds and we will have to deactivate it again, we do try to be proactive with this. And just before there are any complaints, EK are very good at not crossing reds, but anecdotal evidence suggests that operators from other parts of the GCC and sub continent may be used to a slack approach to the reds at their base airports and as such there's a belief that it's ok to cross the red bar here at DXB.

Finally, can I ask you to maybe print off the original posting and show it to colleagues on your next trip so that we can get as much flight crew exposure to the theory of the new procedures.

Much appreciated,

Yellow Snow.

[FrankR]

Thank you Gulfstream Aviator.

I landed on 30L last night and did that 20 minute taxi. Since I'm not building time, and tested at proficiency for ability to taxi a G550, I found it somewhat a bother. How is it that the right turn at the high-speed is a runway incursion problem and doing the taxi drill is not?

FR

[Gulfstreamaviator]

nuff said.........

Re the taxi route, it does ensure that all post flight documentation is completed.

glf

[fatbus]

When given a speed reduction how fast do you expect the A/C to reduce to that speed?
Note: 330/340 in descent can be seen to be taking a long time to slow when given a speed reduction.

[SANDBLASTER]

Hi Yellow Snow,

Just worked the difference in figures out for a 380 departing from either K2 or K3 in winter weather. Can still get out at max weight but change from K2, which most calculate from currently, to K3 equates to a 3 degree difference in flex( assumed temperature ) for T/O. This applies equally to the ULR flights and the European departures.
I am not a performance expert, but we are informed those few degrees make quite a big difference in engine life expectancy.
Suspect you will still get requests for K2 in the morning unless there is going to be a big delay.

As others have said. Nice if we can all work together on this one!

[falconeasydriver]

Yellow Snow, thanks very much for the info.

A quick check of our EK portal 5 minutes ago, reveals no company guidance regarding these new DXB procedures, just wondering if they have been official promulgated through the channels? Or is this more a suck it and see approach?
BTW anything would be an improvement on the clusterfu*k ATC environment here (no ones fault other that the idjit who designed the place with rwy's tooooo close together)

Lets hope it helps :ok:

[Yellow Snow]

As stated before all, ATC's hands are tied with regard to taxi routes, applying common sense and giving shortened routes at times of low workload/risk simply isn't allowed for inbounds. If you're unhappy about it then complain to the airport authority, they are the only one's who can authorise the change.

Fatbus, hopefully a radar bod will come on to answer properly, but the earlier post refers to crews not flying the instructed 160 to 4 dme, some do not start to reduce to 160 for a few miles and some reduce reduce from 160 to VREF well before 4 DME destroying the sequence creating losses of wake and getting radar controllers suspended!

Cheers,

YS

[Yellow Snow]

Sandblasted thanks for that info, definitely gonna be some issues with the big 'uns but we will try to stay 30 ops whenever possible....

Falcon your post made me smile. We decided to use PPRUNE for this to not only get the message out to non EK but also reinforce the crew brief's that EK have produced for you guys on this. I know they've been written would've hoped they'd been sent out by EK already, any chance one of you could nudge your flight safety department.......

[iflytb20]

@Yellow Snow

Thanks for the head up. I had one query / crib. We are a 737 operator from the sub-continent and a frequent sight at DXB. During night times, there are occasions when we are #2 behind a A380. At times we have to ask for extra separation from the super as the APP tends to position us about 4-5 NM behind. Now the problem we face is that our approach speed are higher [typically 155 KIAS] than the A380 and closer to the runway we end up catching up with the wake and it is no fun at 100 feet. Could it be possible for the APP guys to keep this in mind the next time they vector us behind a Super??

Cheers:)

[vbrules]

Notwithstanding all the above I wish all Dubai controllers could be rotated through London area control to see how it should and can work.
It seems to me we have too many here who are linked to the second best ATC in the world.

[atiuta]

I think the majority of controllers in Dubai do a BETTER job in their profession than the majority of EK pilots do in ours. Perhaps we should rotate our pilots somewhere instead? Oh we do...never mind. I agree, London is great. But then again, how far apart are the runways, how big is the airspace and they also aren't quite as "open skies" as we are...if you get my drift.

We need to get behind these controllers and support them as best we can, i.e. standard calls, give them the exact speed when & where they want it, minimise runway occupancy on line up etc.

To the controllers, there are just as many frustrated pilots, either in one of the seats or listening in on the airwaves. "Can we do 185 instead of 180", releasing the park brake only as the landing traffic passes by, the long blurb on first contact with director.

EK is one of the largest airlines in the world and TC attempts to squeeze us all into a relatively small piece of airspace at the same time. Great work given the resources you have and the straight jacket you wear. We know its not easy so thank you for the feedback on the new procedures.

[Yellow Snow]

Hello again,

iflytb20, I can promise you that if any of our approach controllers put your 737 4-5 miles behind a A380 they will be suspended and the regulator (GCAA) will demand a full investigation. Minima is 7 miles and you should be vectored onto the ILS with 8 miles seperation to allow for catch up, if this catch up infringes the 7 miles minima then tower must send you around. Read the previous postings about speed control and wake seperation, the regulator and our safety department are very hot on this.

vbrules, I appreciate that your intention was not to offend but I think some of my radar bretheren may 'bite' on your remarks so allow me to attempt to answer first as an ex LHR tower controller. Your comments do not compare apples for apples, yes the London TMA is handled fantastically well but it is also designed and refined incredibly well for this purpose. The DXB TMA is askin to a chocolate tea pot when it comes to handling large peaks of traffic that we get here, ie not very efficient. That combined with a wide variety of pilot backgrounds, no inbound holds controlled by Dubai approach, huge amount of airspace owned by the military, lot's or restricted airspace and other stuff I can't talk about on here, oh and SHJ constantly getting into the mix, I think on the whole the majority of the radar guys do a fantastic job with the tools and airspace they have. Simply it's not fair to compare the two TMA's. Come for a visit and sit in on arrivals or departures and you'll soon see how tough they have it.

As for the world's second best, with a PPRUNE name like VB rules I'd have thought you'd be used to this standard:)

[Heritage 1]

I am surprised that the 160 to 4 speed on final has not been tackled before. It is extremely difficult to to stabilized according to EK standards whilst complying with this requirement. Especially on 12L with a tailwind! The result is most start to reduce speed before or face going unstable with the obvious consequences.

[Guy D'ageradar]

AHA - the vagaries of itsaslut have finally deigned me to be worthy of responding!

As one of the aforementioned radar bods, I would first like to state that yes - we are aware that airbuses like (NEED) to slow down, boeings DON'T like to slow down and everyone wants to fly the most efficient / easiest profile for THEM. However, IF you want us to tighten up the sequence, then we all have to be reading from the same crib sheet.

So, to answer a few questions -

I believe the "norm" for speed instructions is 1kt per second. I await your corrections...

VBRULES FYI, on my watch alone, we have ex LHR tower AND radar controllers - so I'll venture to say that the bods in the seats are not neccessarily the problem!

As for a few knots here or there, I am prepared to admit that I myself was recently suspended for a wake vortex loss of separation on final. It transpires that aircraft 1 (emirates A340), having been instructed to fly "160 kts to 4 DME") reduced to 135 (or thereabouts) kts at 5.5 DME (of course, without a word) - meanwhile, the following aircraft (emirates B777), having been instructed to fly "160 kts to 4 DME"), was found (by his own admission) to still be flying 180 kts 5.5 miles after the instruction - 7 miles final. As a result of this, my 4.8 mile gap reduced to below the REQUIRED 4 miles and I spent two days sitting at home while my wife wondered if I still had a job to go back to.

I say this NOT to have a go at those who "interpret" speed control instructions as they see fit - but to demonstrate that IF you want us to provide the best service that we can, with the optimal runway utilisation available, we all have to play by the same rules. I KNOW that the airbus wants to slow down. I KNOW that the B777 doesn't. 160 to 4 is (to the best of my knowledge) the best compromise between the two. It may mean that you have to drop the gear earlier than required etc. etc. - so be it. I'm sorry , but if you wouldn't do it at LHR (where they have much more leeway than here), then give us a fighting chance and don't do it here!

iflytb20

Anyone who vectors your 737 a scant 5 miles behind an A380 doesn't deserve to have a license. As previously stated, the minimum is 7 miles AT TOUCHDOWN, so if you don't get them - a) go around and b) report it.

Hopefully, we can all make it work a bit better!! :ok:

Guy.

[Three Wire]

Guy,
if I might make a small comment re the speed.
We are all multi-cultural here - and the Englishes we speak don't all mean the same thing to everybody. I have often listened to "160 to 4" and wondered if that is what you really mean.
In Emirates, no matter what type we fly, we will be perilously close to breaching the stabilisation criteria, and that will probably trigger our equivalent of your two days at home. Equally in my B777 (of which EK manages to operate all 7 variants) I can arrive with a Vref of 137 one day and the next day it will be 149. It doesn't sound much but the 50 tons difference gives a major problem in managing inertia, configuration and ultimately fuel (although dispatch is suddenly giving everyone extra fuel now).
For myself, I interpret "160 to 4" given at 10 miles as meaning ok, I am doing 190 with F5, I can go ahead and start configuring. I personally aim to be F30 at 1500 feet and within 20 kts of Vref, and I am one of the adventurous ones.

ATCers, I think you have made a giant leap, and I hope we can assist and not wreck this. But it is only a start, and we all have to communicate better and co-operate.

[Guy D'ageradar]

Three wire

Thanks for your reply. As I said, although we are not experts, we do have some idea of performance differences and the problems they create. We are also aware of emirates' stabilisation criteria and the lack of leeway they give you.

Speaking as a radar bod, if there's one thing that comes out of this for us, it's that you guys LET US KNOW (BEFORE 6nm final!) if you can't fly the "normal" speeds - then we can vector accordingly, whilst still keeping the optimum landing rate and avoiding go-arounds. :ok:

One other knock-on effect of this change is that air arabia etc. can pretty much forget about opposite end departures / arrivals at SJ. With the tower guys now able to turn an aircraft, for example, going around from a 12L approach LEFT 30 degrees (pretty much straight at SJ) but having NO knowledge of SJ actual / pending traffic, I, for one, am not prepared to put my head on that particular chopping block. Now consider the possibilities of a simultaneous go around at SJ from an approach to 30 - not much "protection" of the overshoot, is there?

Air Arabia take note.

my 2 fils for today...

[donpizmeov]

If you can't take 160kts to 4nm tell the controller that, and do it early. This is not rocket science. The EK stability criteria is +20kts at 1000' IMC. A lot of the time 160kts is even within this margin.
To say you can fly the speed required and not do so is just irresponsible. To tell the controller at 10 to 8nm you can't do this does not give him much chance to space the guy behind you. You know what the limit is, if on the day you can't do it, tell the controller what you can do early, 160kts to 5 or 6nm perhaps.

[pool]

Dear ATC fellows

This is a laudable effort, wherever it came from, thanks for that.

Allow me to raise a weak spot, in my opinion:

Missed approach departure turning area
To facilitate independent departure operations and ensure seperation from any missed approaches from the parallel, the tower now have a section of airspace they can turn both the missed approach and the departures at low level to create the minimum ICAO/GCAA acceptable 30degree track seperation. In 12 ops , a missed approach off 12L can now be turned at 600’ onto a ‘track’ of between 090 and 120 and a departure off 12R can be turned at 800’ onto a ‘track’ of 120 and 150. In 30 ops, a missed approach off 30L can be turned at 800’ onto a ‘track’ of between 270 and 300 and a departure off 30R can be turned at 600’ onto a ‘track’ of 330 and 300. The key things being that it’s a track being flown not a heading here and that the level of turn is low but approved by the regulator for terrain clearance, hence the critical need for a track to be flown, also tower will not issue these turns prior to the missed approach crossing the landing runway threshold.


They way I understand these lines, is that we might face a late go around, with a low level turn (600') only advised after crossing the landing threshold.

- This will create problems -

As you certainly know, the major part of incoming flights are crewed by pilots who are fatigued to various degrees (especially the home carrier). A sudden go around at low level represents a high level of stress which more often than not creates an initial few moments of confusion that needs some regaining of all our exhausted spirits. After a few seconds the switchings, sop's and their extensive babblings are done with and the go around proceeds mostly smoohtly.
It should be considered, that such proposed low level alterations happen exactly during this initial critical phase. This will lead to regaining composure later and interfering with the supposedly easy and well trained initial procedures.
In my oppinion there are two critical flight phases where pilots should be left alone, letting them fly wings level and get full control of their aircraft to at least up to 1000 feet. Only then the need of a turn should arise. This is in case of engine trouble after lift off and after a sudden low level go around.
Any need to intervene in flight path during these segments is potentially dangerous.

my 2cts

[Yellow Snow]

Guys and gals thanks for the great feedback and debate.

Pool, it's a fair point and one we've discussed in training the procedure. If you get a turn at min alt from tower it will be because the ATCO feels it critical. Part of our checklist in the tower is for the two runway controllers to talk to each other and establish the best separation plan for the traffic scenario before giving any turns. When we've done this in our sim the missed approach is invariably at or above 1000'.

Your workload issues at the early stage of a go around are known to ATC.

[atiuta]

What's worse, flying one of these new go arounds in Dubai (with auto pilot) or arriving in SFO after a 16hr journey and getting a "Traffic Alert" from an ILS PRM and hand flying the maneuver?

Flying is potentially dangerous. Mitigate the risk by slowing up, configuring early, and listening out for potential go around situations.

I agree with the Don, 160 is almost always achievable to 4nm. OK, I have to hang everything out to do it, but so what?

[singleseater]

Going flying shortly after the start of these new procedures, so this got my attention. Just checked GABI and the notam briefs contain 2 references to it.
1 Company notam 155/11 refers to the attachment in Gabi.
2 notam A209/11 refers to Dubai weekly notams and ATC Safety concerns briefing package.
Niether of these are included in the packages.
Just rang Dispatch to see if they had any idea where I might get them. They knew/know NOTHING
If I get to work and these are not available, will be home early!!
If they are, suspect the flight will leave late while I read and attain "Full Knowledge".
Another example of our 1st world flight support.

[Marcellus Wallace]

Let's all pitch in and help the guys in ATC.

180kts to 10nm and 160kts to 4 nm is achievable. If you can do it in EDDM, EDDF, EGLL, EGKK, LFPG etc. I am sure we can all do it here at our home base. You just have to forget/give up the idea of "Decelerated/Delayed Flap Approach". Too bad you may have to dangle everything out but that's the cost of doing business in a very tight environment/busy airspace.

Another reason guys end up unstable is the failure to trade altitude for speed and vv. - simple distance x 3. How often have you seen guys with 10 plus track miles to go and at 2000 feet get clearances to 1500 - seem to like to continue the descent at 180 knots instead of chopping speed first maintaining level flight.

Already below profile, need to slow down pronto, chop speed first then descent.

[ironbutt57]

Seem to recall when they were re-hashing the DXB airport a while back, it was noted that the runway spacing was not too well planned, seems the new procedures will loosen the logjam a bit..but...

"EK is one of the largest airlines in the world" ?? Widebody operator perhaps...

[acegreaser]

Good job Yellow Snow.
Good to see the ATCers are pro-active.

Is this going to be NOTAMed or an AIP issued.
I've already e-mail as many guys I know to this link
But a NOTAM would make it official.

Just a query here...no criticisms intended.

[emratty]

From a 330/340 perspective! 160kts to 4nm in a light 330 ( as is often the case on the short ME sectors with low pax loads ) is just asking for trouble and I will always decline this instruction. The 343/345 it is generally not a problem as they are no where near as "slippery" as the A330.
The 500 feet should not be a target for being stable on every approach into Dubai which i seem to think some of the previous posts are hinting at!!!
Good thread nice to see something sensible being discussed on pprune:ok:

[Visual Procedures]

Emratty, MW, and all..

I think the point about speed is that if you're asked, do it. If you can't, be it because you're too heavy or too light, TELL THEM! And, TELL THEM EARLY!

The response to a quick "I need 170" (eg heavy 777-300) or "I need 140" (light 330) is usually "approved!", followed by a tighter or wider radar vector. Not a problem if they know early enough.

If the pattern is full and I can hear everyone else is getting 160 from 15 miles, I speak up, tell them I'll need 170, take the 20 sec radar vector penalty and not have to have gear and landing flaps out from 15 miles. (or more)

:ok:

[White Knight]

From a 330/340 perspective! 160kts to 4nm in a light 330 ( as is often the case on the short ME sectors with low pax loads )

Sorry felleh, never had a problem with even very light 330 - even below 145 tonnes!!! The thing is a wuss!!!

[diplomat-not]

It seems that our 'base carrier' has NOT informed/briefed it's crews on what has been 'discussed' in the thread.

I would not be surprised IF other operators have neither informed their crews about this.

Just a 'short note' regarding what has been ADDED to the ATIS for OMDB/DXB;

""Crews must advise Delivery on 120.35 if they are UNABLE TO DEPART FROM M7, K3 K4 K5 INTERSECTIONS!""

In short we would also appreciate if crews would advise Delivery on 120.35, IF THEY REQUIRE FULL LENGTH, which is one of these 4 holding points M4 M5 K1 & K2!

So far, it was a non event, so let's try to improve on this also!

Regards

[fliion]

Any chance ATC in DXB can catch up with the real world and drop the necessity to;

1. State Star, type, ATIS, QNH (isnt it implied you have it by default of the ATIS!?), SPD assignment.

2. Contact tower on taxi-out instead of monitor.

3. State SID flying when leaving DXB

4. Call LOC established

5. Check in with tower instead of monitor on final

All completely unnecessary 95% of time.

The amount of unnecessary R/T clutter by stating the obvious is puzzling. And to articulate the point, the busiest terminal radar environments in the world will ignore or berate you for telling your life story on check-in.

For example:

Checking in with NY centre. (sometimes call sign only)

"Emirates 123 descending 12000 with yankee"

"Emirates 123 Roger"


Checking in with DXB:

"Emirates 123, descending 12000 on the the Desdi four victor, Boeing seven seven Lima, QNH one zero one three with information Yankee"

"Emirates 123 QNH one zero one three, yankee is current, descend 12000'"

"Descend 12000 on QNH one zero one three"

....at this point I want to tear my hair out. What is the problem here?

F.

[atiuta]

Read your AOI pages recently?

[fliion]

Sure have...read your Co-notams recently...specifically says to keep stating type and Star along with everything else and notes that the AOI omission of requiring crews to give aircraft type was an error...

...next

f

[ruserious]

Excellent thread, thanks for this. I think we can all recognize that the controllers are doing their best given the limitations of their system design and procedures.

[Yellow Snow]

Hi Fliion I'm intrigued by your comments/questions.

Any chance ATC in DXB can catch up with the real world and drop the necessity to;


Your points below and my response:-
1. Required by the regulator we can't change it.
2. Ah? We use monitor now as it cuts down on RT, surely you'd prefer this so why would you want us to go back to monitor?
3. ICAO standard
4. ICAO standard
5. Not a good idea if you guys don't fly the speeds as instructed.

As an ex LHR controller all the above stuff you've complained about is standard operating practise there, would you say that LHR is not in the real world also?

I had to laugh that you used USA ATC as the shining light in your example......

Believe me the will to change things for the better here exists, but as you should know well, change happens slowly here.

As stated before, you'd be welcome to pop over for a visit to tell us how better we could join the real ATC world!:rolleyes:

[Oakape]

Bit confused as to exactly what you guys want after this mornings departure & was left wondering if all the ATC people are on the same page.

Worked the data for a K5 departure, then got sent around the northern end of the terminal via 'J', for a K1 departure. I thought that we only had to advise if we required K1 or K2 & would other wise be sent for K3, K4, or K5. Perhaps something to do with the MCT slot, but all departures were going from K1 or K2 when we left.

Then, when given take-off clearance, we were given the departures frequency as well, but not directed when to call. So stayed on tower until my F/O spat the dummy at 6 miles out, asked the tower if he wanted us to call departures & we were changed straight over.

Happy to help you guys & girls out, but do need to know excatly what it is you want, rather than briefing & then following the new procedures for no apparent reason. Confusion & incorrect briefings don't help to make a safe operation.

[kimoki]

Wasn't the case when we left (8am LT). Specifically told that we should plan K3/4/5 or expect delay and everyone was going off from K3 or K4 or M7. Only wish that had been added to the NOTAMs so the ATC guys/gals didn't have to tell everyone individually. If someone insists on full length then a lot of people will get stuck behind them anyway coming from the Western end. We are getting there slowly however so it is a step in the right direction

:ok:

[Tin-Bullet]

@Yellow Snow

I had to laugh that you used USA ATC as the shining light in your example......

We have tried the FAA Version of ATC here.. didn't we???? not so shiny at all!
Perhaps our dear friend 'fliion' needs to 'UNDERSTAND' that FAA & ICAO are NOT THE SAME, apart from that we have to deal with GCAA et al.........


@Oakape

Worked the data for a K5 departure, then got sent around the northern end of the terminal via 'J', for a K1 departure. I thought that we only had to advise if we required K1 or K2 & would other wise be sent for K3, K4, or K5. Perhaps something to do with the MCT slot, but all departures were going from K1 or K2 when we left.

Ideally & Preferably we would prefer if you are able to depart from M7, K3,K4 or K5 to remain in 'STAGGERED' Mode & not revert to 'DEPENDENT' Mode.

It could be that due to your DST when exiting through MCT FIR, the most expeditious h/p for you to depart on DST given was via K1.

Although we understand that you require more thrust & therefore reducing 'engine-life' when departing from intersections which result in a shorter TORA, you have to understand that IF there are NO Arrivals on parallel rwy, then we can depart you from FULL LENGTH, WITHOUT the consequence of reverting to 'DEPENDENT' Mode.

Having said this, especially when 'MEDIUMS' or even 'HEAVIES' are behind a 'SUPER', (preceding aircraft with more WAKE) & even though you shall be departing from intersections M7, K3, K4 or K5, it would be adding that extra minute or two for the succeeding departure, therefore, you may be requested to depart from FULL LENGTH to avoid the Intersection Departure Wake Turbulence delay!

Happy to help you guys & girls out, but do need to know excatly what it is you want, rather than briefing & then following the new procedures for no apparent reason. Confusion & incorrect briefings don't help to make a safe operation.

Appreciate your cooperation, bottom line is, we are 'pushing' to avoid any unnecessary delays, AND to REVERT to 'DEPENDENT' Mode (with 2nm cut-off on landings on parallel rwy)... So if you can help us, rest assured we will try our best to minimize delays & depart you once you are at the h/p.

[O.I.C.]

"Sure have...read your Co-notams recently...specifically says to keep stating type and Star along with everything else and notes that the AOI omission of requiring crews to give aircraft type was an error......next"

I'm sorry fliion, help me to understand.

you are saying that what's in AOI pages:

"On inital contact with ARR report:
􏰀 ACFT callsign
􏰀 Passing LVL
􏰀 STAR designator if applicable Advice if full RWY length is required.

departure:
Contact Delivery 10min before start-up, report:
􏰀 ACFT callsign/type
􏰀 Parking stand
􏰀 Requested FL, DEST, RTE
􏰀 ACFT routing via A418/P574 or A419 (north) report crossing LVL for PAPAR/DARAX
Start-up during push-back. ACFT wishing to start ENG either before or after push-back should notify ATC (in case of cargo APN operations 10min PN).
Contact Dubai DEP when passing 500ft and report:
􏰀 ACFT callsign
􏰀 Passing LVL
􏰀 SID designator if applicable"

is actually wrong/incomplete? Where is it mention about ATIS/QHN etc?
Than you refer to a Co-notam which is not a Co-notam but is a change to AIP where it says to pass a/c type on arrival only.

I'm just trying to understand if I'm on the wrong page.

Thanks

[Yellow Snow]

Hi Oakape, thanks for the feedback.

There will be some 'bedding in' issues with the new procedures as it's still very early days, Tin-Bullet is correct in his reply that there may be times when we'll give you K1 (or other full length) as there are few if any inbounds, so you may as well have full length and enjoy the benefits of a derated departure.

As for remaining on tower frequency, you did the right thing if in doubt, I think maybe the fact that the tower gave you the deps frequency on take off the intention was for you to contact them at your convenience, but maybe this wasn't implied well enough. (this in itself explains that there were no arrivals to threaten a go around and may explain why you got K1!):)

[Bird On]

Maybe a valiant attempt by someone at trying to be "seen" to be doing something.....very little gain for a lot of pain, for everyone. Doubt it will last long in its current form. Summer will be such fun:).

[Visual Procedures]

For Yellow Snow et al..

Thanks for the heads up here. :D The lack of information from Dubai's major carrier to its pilots is quite astounding. :ugh:

As we listened out on Delivery the other morning during the rush, aircraft were repeatedly told that if they didn't accept K3/4/5 there would be significant delays until all aircraft that could accept the intersection had departed. This statement from the controller had the desired effect, as all aircraft we heard suddenly no longer 'required' K2 and departed from K3 or greater.

This is all well and good on a 25 degree morning.

2 questions for you..

1) As the hotter temperatures approach, the above situation won't be acceptable as the ULR (Americas, Australia etc) flights will begin to genuinely require K2 and K1. Do you have provisions (exceptions?) to be put in place so as these flights don't receive these delays?

2) Would you prefer us to plan our performance on K3, K4/M7, or K5? We really don't care which one, as most departures should be able K5 even during the summer. And if we plan on K5, then get a 'longer' intersection, it suits us just fine. A NOTAM, similar to the old "request all a/c to plan performance from K2/M5" one would definitely help.

Cheers,

Visual Procedures

[ruserious]

yes I heard the "significant delays if you don't take K3", to be honest, while I understand what is trying to be achieved, the tone was somewhat bullying, would not be a good look on a accident or incident investigation.

If there is a delay for not accepting an intersection take off, you need to remove the autocratic bullying tangent and make it more objective.

[ironbutt57]

Just please dont ask for "passing level" when we are already below transition level..:ok:

[Chaos Controller]

Sorry, level can be used even if you are below the transition altitude. ICAO DOC 4444 definition of level:

Level. A generic term relating to the vertical position of an
aircraft in flight and meaning variously, height, altitude or
flight level.

[Yellow Snow]

Bird on, believe me this is no single attempt by 'some one' person this is huge effort by the unit to improve the way things work here and make the operation more efficient for you, not us. We still go home at the same time every day and pick up the same salary.

Visual procedures
1) the honest answer is no. It needs your company to come to us with a proposal, as at the end of the day with 60% of the runway slots you guys are the ones who benefit most from these new procedures. It is concerning the amount of feedback on here about lack of comms from your company on these new procedures. All I can say is that we appreciate that summer temps will bring challenges but it's a work in progress so we shall play it by ear unless EK come to us with some suggestions.....
2) Yep K5 ticks all the boxes and then we'll offer you a 'better' intersection if we can. There's still a lot of bedding down to be done, I'd ideally like it if on receipt of pushback GMC could give you an expected holding point to tee you up in advance, but this isn't always gonna be practical. As for Notam's they seem difficult for us to get approval from the regulator for at the mo, so I'll forward your suggestion that we incorporate this into the ATIS.

Ruserious, agreed hopefully a one off ATCO.

ironbutt57 'passing level' is standard ICAO phraseology regardless of what the transition level is. Your reply is an altitude if below TL and a level if above. US background by any chance?:)

[fliion]

Gents,

The above defensive posts about change are typical as to why it wont happen...

Yawn, ‘Americans have it wrong and we have it right’

Convinced LHR/DXB is superior than ATL/JFK/ORD/DFW/IAH or other ....Clearly I wont change your view (as can be seen)...but they are a lot busier...

With ATL, Start with three t/off and three landing runways (6) going at once . Thats threble LHR and DXB. Yet you think (LHR) is where its at...maybe you should visit them, or more importantly spend time flying in and out of them...because it works very well, in no small part to lack of clutter.

Reminds me of the old debate about buying the AWACS as against the MRA4...one is logical the other is principle…and we know how that worked out …’nuff said. Or the Boeing v. Airbus debate, ahh that’s right, that debate is over – there is no debate..:)

In the meantime, I will continue to tell the controllers what STAR, TYPE,ATIS, QNH (its in ATIS), LOC established, SID we're on, check in with tower on taxi, etc until the US changes their system to this one...but wait a minute the US controller has that info in front of him...oh never mind, ...

And dont forget to throw in the third QNH after the controller has said it the second time repeating what you just told him the first time you checked in with him....(Does it get said a fourth time to confirm the third time was correct?)...

I haven’t even started on PDC, "Sllaaam Malaykum" & "Inshallah"

Crikey, if the US pilot checked in with his God (goose and gander you know) and your system...could you imagine ATC!

DXB example:
"May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you, Delta 7 Heavy on the Bubin three tango, one three thousand, descending one-one eleven thousand, Boeing Seven Seven Lima, with information Sierra, two niner niner two inches of mercury” …....”Delta 7 heavy, Happy Yom Kippur to you Sir..Inches of Mercury is two niner niner two."…”Delta 7 Heavy two niner niner two Inches of mercury”

US example:
"Delta 7 heavy, Sierra, thirteen,descending eleven thousand"...
..."Delta 7 Heavy"

And a Harri Krishna to all that!

; >

Fliion

ps The Tone is tongue in cheek...so dont get your knickers twisted...

See you out there...and DXB ATC thanks for all you do…sincerely

[Yellow Snow]

Thanks for clearing that up then:)

[atiuta]

Thanks O.I.C.

I couldn't be bothered.

[Oakape]

Hi Yellow Snow. Thanks for the reply.

There will be some 'bedding in' issues with the new procedures as it's still very early days, Tin-Bullet is correct in his reply that there may be times when we'll give you K1 (or other full length) as there are few if any inbounds, so you may as well have full length and enjoy the benefits of a derated departure.

The trouble is that once the information has been worked for K3/4/5, it is somewhat difficult to rework it for K1/K2 once you are already taxing. It can be done, but safety is reduced & it should be avoided if at all possible. In fact, I wouldn't even contemplate it for something as minor as this. Other captains may but it could lead some to stop the aircraft until the process has been completed.

We could work the figures for both intersections prior to pushback, but that will still require entires into the FMC during taxi, once we are made aware of the availability of the longer runway length. I think a lot of crews would not change things, so the extra runway length would not lead to bigger de-rates in most cases & therefore the savings would not eventuate. The only real advantage would be more runway for a reject.


As for remaining on tower frequency, you did the right thing if in doubt, I think maybe the fact that the tower gave you the deps frequency on take off the intention was for you to contact them at your convenience, but maybe this wasn't implied well enough.


Yes, I don't think it was implied well enough. In fact though, I really don't think ATC instructions should ever be 'implied', but should always be clear & concise. Maybe I am being a little pedantic, but ".... departures frequency 126.2, runway 12R, clear for take-off" does not give any direction as to when to change & therefore indicates that the call is at the standard time. And that standard time has been modified by Notam to 'when instructed by the tower controller'.

If the controller doesn't require us to remain on tower frequency airbourne, I would expect an instruction along the lines of ".... contact departures 126.2 airbourne, runway 12R, cleared for take-off".


(this in itself explains that there were no arrivals to threaten a go around and may explain why you got K1!)

We were pushed back to face west from B23, so I think we were programed to go from K1/K2 right from the start. It would have been nice to have been advised of that when we were waiting for our slot, as we could have reworked the numbers for K2 & saved quite a bit over the K5 figures.

I just don't think that everyone had it all together at that stage - as you said, early days.

[atiuta]

Why not just keep it simple, work and use the figures for K4 if able (which will be most of the time).

The savings come with improved runway utilization which ultimately benefits the airlines.

[The Jolly Roger]

First ofall, well done on trying to improve things. Its getting quite busy and everybody needs to move with the increased traffic. Just wondering how you think these new procs will affect the traffic inbound from DESDI and BUBIN? We at the ACC had again the other night, a situation where both holds filled up quickly because of unrealistic gate spacing requirements from DXB. 20nm both sides. For some time, the director had only 1 aircraft max on his frequency (I know that by the way because I was monitoring it) and 3 aircraft on the DXB arrs freq. Its just simply frustrating when you have to give an aircraft an hour of a delay due to these requirements. I find it fascinating that one crew can be so much more efficient than the next. I dont wish to start a spat but I do hope these procedures are designed to increase the landing rate. Many thanks and good luck. :ok:

[diplomat-not]

Just wondering how you think these new procs will affect the traffic inbound from DESDI and BUBIN?

We are 'tightening' the gaps on final, but at the same time keeping in mind wake turbulence separation & also depending if we are in either 'dual rwy mode' or 'single rwy mode'.......

We at the ACC had again the other night, a situation where both holds filled up quickly because of unrealistic gate spacing requirements from DXB. 20nm both sides.

Which night are you refering to?

I find it fascinating that one crew can be so much more efficient than the next.

We are trying our best to 'balance' the crews, yes there can be room for improvement, but not from ATC only, but all around........

[The Jolly Roger]

Nice one. We shall wait and see then. I think youll find if you run back through the traffic at night, youll find that it happens on more than one occassion. At the time Im referring to, dual mode was in operation as it is most nights around midnight I guess. Good luck. :ok:

[Yellow Snow]

G'day,

I've mentioned on here a few times that flight crew are more than welcome to visit us at DXB ATC.

If you are EK crew then can I ask you to contact a lady called Charlotte De Souza who is the VP-FOS secretary.

[email protected]

She'll then liase with our admin team and sort out a visit for you.:ok:

If you are Dubai based crew from other airlines and want a visit to us drop me a personal message.

Thanks Yellow Snow

[MrMachfivepointfive]

... and be patient. Charlotte is on leave right now.