Expected STAR on first contact with London?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expected STAR on first contact with London?
Dear all,
Was talking to a friend who flies for BA about BA mentioning the expected STAR on first contact with London.
BA: London, Shuttle 234, FL340, Expecting Willo 4 Charlie.
According to my friend this was normal procedure when checking in with London. However I have never heard any other airline doing it and have never done it myself. (not saying that BA is wrong, I might be wrong)
Is this required when checking in with London and is there a reference to it?
Thanks
Was talking to a friend who flies for BA about BA mentioning the expected STAR on first contact with London.
BA: London, Shuttle 234, FL340, Expecting Willo 4 Charlie.
According to my friend this was normal procedure when checking in with London. However I have never heard any other airline doing it and have never done it myself. (not saying that BA is wrong, I might be wrong)
Is this required when checking in with London and is there a reference to it?
Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The South
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some airlines have an agreement to give the STAR on first contact with London to cut down on RT loading when inbound to certain London airfields. ATC will correct it if the wrong STAR is said by the pilot.
British Airways, Midland, Lufthansa, Thomson off the top of my head.
British Airways, Midland, Lufthansa, Thomson off the top of my head.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the sooner it is brought in for all airlines the better.
If you know your expected STAR then don't hesitate to tell us on first contact-we will appreciate it and advise you if you're not correct or if there is a change. Maybe this way we'll get it introduced as the norm quicker.
If you know your expected STAR then don't hesitate to tell us on first contact-we will appreciate it and advise you if you're not correct or if there is a change. Maybe this way we'll get it introduced as the norm quicker.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for your replies. I have been looking through the books to see if I missed something but obviously not.
I can see how it cuts down on RTF. So from now on I will let you know on first contact what we expect.
Thanks again.
CEJM
I can see how it cuts down on RTF. So from now on I will let you know on first contact what we expect.
Thanks again.
CEJM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So two years further on, is there any progress on this RT phraseology? I have been using it but was recently questioned by my colleague on the flight deck as to whether I had seen written confirmation allowing it's use. It turns out I have not (thought I had!) or perhaps I've just missed it? CAP413 v20 does not refer to it as far as I can tell.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Walking the dogs along the Thames
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't mean to go too far off topic, so forgive me.
While it is clearly very much appreciated by radar if the expected STAR is included in the first call, I would really appreciate it if pilots did not include their expected stand on first call when vacating the runway.
When the rt is really busy, the last thing you need is the pilot checking in like this: USA 123 vacating 27L.... Uuummmmm, Goooiinnnggg tooooooooo, uuummmmmmmm 33 uuummm 4.
Often the information given to the pilot is incorrect and extra time is spent giving the correct stand. We have the stand info on the strip and even if we didn't, hearing it from the pilot is not confirmation enough for us.
Bottom line - keep mentioning the expected STAR (if that is still preferred by radar) but please don't mention where you think you're parking when vacating the runway.
Just my opinion. Other ATCOs may disagree
While it is clearly very much appreciated by radar if the expected STAR is included in the first call, I would really appreciate it if pilots did not include their expected stand on first call when vacating the runway.
When the rt is really busy, the last thing you need is the pilot checking in like this: USA 123 vacating 27L.... Uuummmmm, Goooiinnnggg tooooooooo, uuummmmmmmm 33 uuummm 4.
Often the information given to the pilot is incorrect and extra time is spent giving the correct stand. We have the stand info on the strip and even if we didn't, hearing it from the pilot is not confirmation enough for us.
Bottom line - keep mentioning the expected STAR (if that is still preferred by radar) but please don't mention where you think you're parking when vacating the runway.
Just my opinion. Other ATCOs may disagree
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The South
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a few of the BA guys aren't checking in with expected STARs anymore. Don't know if it's all just fizzled out, but from my point of view, I'm all for a pilot telling me what STAR he's expecting to fly, regardless of whether they're part of an 'official' agreement with NATS. If every EZY, MON, TCX, TOM, VIR, BAW, BEE, DLH, EIN into a UK airfield with a STAR reported it on first contact, I'd be a fan.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say from a personal perspective with regards to BA, it's probably around 50% of the time from the long haul fleet and higher from the short haul.
The other airlines are much the same. It would certainly make my life easier if you all reported it as all I need to do is say "Roger" or give you a direct somewhere
The other airlines are much the same. It would certainly make my life easier if you all reported it as all I need to do is say "Roger" or give you a direct somewhere
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware this is still a "trial" about 5 years after it was first introduced. A few more operators were included beyond the initial BAW, BMI and DLH to see if there were any issues with traffic going beyond their clearance limit eg BRASO if holding there on a LAM arrival otr TIGER on a BIG. There was also a requirement from CAA to ensure that this was not happening.
I certainly haven't seen or heard of anyone going beyond the CL. It's really about time it was formalised as stated before. Or binned completely which I think would be a retrograde step.
I certainly haven't seen or heard of anyone going beyond the CL. It's really about time it was formalised as stated before. Or binned completely which I think would be a retrograde step.
Last edited by 250 kts; 25th Jul 2013 at 17:57.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's mainly to cover against RT fail, at least then you've been cleared to the CL and we might have an idea of what the aircraft will do.
Last edited by The Many Tentacles; 26th Jul 2013 at 06:40.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the rain
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were told to do it when the Olympics came along, and it stuck. Unfortunately we were also told to remind you what airport we're landing at, in my opinion a ridiculous stupid thing to do that wastes some of the R/T we've just tried to save, but that also stuck.
US carriers will call in with their stand (having "checked in" with TC descending to something thousand feet) as in many american airports ATC have nothing to do with stand allocation - it's done by ramp/apron, a completely separate system - and many times won't even know where the pilot is going... It's a bit like British pilots who insist on informing every approach unit everywhere of their aircraft time, ATIS and the QNH when it isn't required.
Unfortunately what to and what not to say is usually hidden deep down in the Jeppesen briefing notes, if any guidance is given at all and gets quickly forgotten. Big bold lettering with simple bullet points about the essentials on page 1 of each booklet wouldn't go amiss.
US carriers will call in with their stand (having "checked in" with TC descending to something thousand feet) as in many american airports ATC have nothing to do with stand allocation - it's done by ramp/apron, a completely separate system - and many times won't even know where the pilot is going... It's a bit like British pilots who insist on informing every approach unit everywhere of their aircraft time, ATIS and the QNH when it isn't required.
Unfortunately what to and what not to say is usually hidden deep down in the Jeppesen briefing notes, if any guidance is given at all and gets quickly forgotten. Big bold lettering with simple bullet points about the essentials on page 1 of each booklet wouldn't go amiss.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the STAR could be something to send to pilots on CPDLC when first entering UK airspace, when CPDLC comes in of course 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10W - I quite agree. Though I'm in TC so thankfully don't have the 'nause of having to issue a STAR, it sounds like a perfectly sensible addition for datalink. Some would argue it would increase it's useful applications to one....
However the significant issue was illuded to by 250kts. The problem of a crew saying they are 'expecting a WILLO 4C' is that they haven't actually been issued with a clearance and have not read back a clearance limit, which is obviously a compulsory item. The potential problem is then passed down the line as, given no further clarification, perhaps two-thirds of European crews just hold at the inner hold, most of the remainder would (and do) ask for confirmation whether to hold, and [I]some[I] will make up their own approach and toddle off downwind.
So extending this is not entirely without risk, unless proper procedures are agreed with robust SOPs for each airline.
However the significant issue was illuded to by 250kts. The problem of a crew saying they are 'expecting a WILLO 4C' is that they haven't actually been issued with a clearance and have not read back a clearance limit, which is obviously a compulsory item. The potential problem is then passed down the line as, given no further clarification, perhaps two-thirds of European crews just hold at the inner hold, most of the remainder would (and do) ask for confirmation whether to hold, and [I]some[I] will make up their own approach and toddle off downwind.
So extending this is not entirely without risk, unless proper procedures are agreed with robust SOPs for each airline.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The South
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10W - STARS can't be given via CPDLC by AC, at least not in the first iteration of the software. Opportunity missed by the project. Don't know if PC will be able to or not.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We won't be able to at PC either in Phase 1 or 2, but if there's a need, then someone at the Project could look in to it.
Or when 'free text' comes in, ATCOs could type it in if workload permits.
Or when 'free text' comes in, ATCOs could type it in if workload permits.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My issue with CPDLC is the significant potential loss of spatial awareness for flight crews. At the moment if a crew is just hearing 8 inbounds being given the STAR they are on then there is a nudge that they may get a delay or that the sector is busy. Do it on CPDLC and that hint,awareness or whatever you want to call it is gone. I suspect the use of CPDLC will be extremely limited or even nada.