EGTT CPDLC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGTT CPDLC
Logged onto CPDLC today and my colleague came out with " they don't like you doing that". We obviously log on when Oceanic but also Canadian domestic. Is it of any value us logging on in EGTT....I am assuming he is incorrect when he says you are actually averse to domestic use of CPDLC ? Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earthville
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting how you have worded it. A lot of London controllers don't like CPDLC but logging on is not going to hamper their day, the ones that don't like it will just simply not use it. So no harm in logging on.
There are a lot of limitations placed on controllers when using it so most don't bother. Such as:
We're not allowed to use it below FL195.
We're not allowed to transfer aircraft on a heading using CPDLC unless it is to another London Area sector.
We're not allowed to give route instructions with multiple way points if one or more of those points has a three letter designator.
Also if you are a FANS equipped aircraft and the message times out, there is a big spiel we have to give the pilot about disregarding the message and disconnecting from CPDLC. So no controllers bother with FANS aircraft. ATN doesn't have this problem and so you're more likely to get controllers using it, however, there is also the time lag involved with aircraft acting upon any message sent which more or less rules out any tactical use of it (i.e. heading/level/speed instructions).
It is useful for finding out an aircraft's requested FL and to check for stuck mics however, so I would still use it if I were you. Maybe one day it will become more common place.
There are a lot of limitations placed on controllers when using it so most don't bother. Such as:
We're not allowed to use it below FL195.
We're not allowed to transfer aircraft on a heading using CPDLC unless it is to another London Area sector.
We're not allowed to give route instructions with multiple way points if one or more of those points has a three letter designator.
Also if you are a FANS equipped aircraft and the message times out, there is a big spiel we have to give the pilot about disregarding the message and disconnecting from CPDLC. So no controllers bother with FANS aircraft. ATN doesn't have this problem and so you're more likely to get controllers using it, however, there is also the time lag involved with aircraft acting upon any message sent which more or less rules out any tactical use of it (i.e. heading/level/speed instructions).
It is useful for finding out an aircraft's requested FL and to check for stuck mics however, so I would still use it if I were you. Maybe one day it will become more common place.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's helpful thanks. I will continue to log on! When you say most controllers don't bother with FANS ...the log on page has a separate FANS activation check box. Do I understand that most controllers would rather us not select FANS in domestic airspace as there is the possibility of an increased workload ( I wasn't aware FANS timed out)?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RMC, if you have a choice, use ATN! If not, still log on however expect very little CPDLC contact. The only time I use CPDLC to a FANS aircraft is to transfer to another cross-border agency as if the message fails, we do not need to give the spiel Juggler refers to instructing you to disconnect, we just transfer you via voice and then your CPDLC disconnects anyway to log on to the next FIR. The issue with FANS aircraft is that we have a 40 second window for the message to be read and acknowledged, however the message could still be sent to a FANS aircraft after the timeout, subsequently read and acknowledged and acted upon. The instruction could be stale and already superseded via voice, hence the spiel for you to disregard the message and to disconnect. With ATN aircraft, if the message hasn't been acknowledged after 40 seconds, it is completely deleted so it will never display in the cockpit and we can send it again if we wish.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is (FANS issues...Shannon controllers please correct me on this one if I'm off on the wrong path!!)
If you log on with FANS (going west) then EISN can auto transfer you to EGGX. If you are on ATN then the auto transfer then doesn't occur.
Now the other week we logged on to EGTT via CPDLC on ATN and got handed over to EISN (Still ATN...). Logged off, but couldn't then log on again with them via FANS so gave up. So then we straight to EGGX. Faff, combined with lots of RT traffic on the issues about it. Also heard other aircraft with similar issues...
When EGTT accepts the FANS logon then you get to transferred seamlessly all the way to Canada without issues...
(Poor hengrish - long day!)
If you log on with FANS (going west) then EISN can auto transfer you to EGGX. If you are on ATN then the auto transfer then doesn't occur.
Now the other week we logged on to EGTT via CPDLC on ATN and got handed over to EISN (Still ATN...). Logged off, but couldn't then log on again with them via FANS so gave up. So then we straight to EGGX. Faff, combined with lots of RT traffic on the issues about it. Also heard other aircraft with similar issues...
When EGTT accepts the FANS logon then you get to transferred seamlessly all the way to Canada without issues...
(Poor hengrish - long day!)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cough, if Shannons system is anything similar to the one I am familiar with, having logged on with ATN and then logged off, it will not let you log back on again with any system as it assumes there was an error, so prohibits the log on so any stale message doesn't find it's way through. Try using ATN with EGTT and when you get transfer to Shannon, use FANS to log on to them and see if it connects, is the system simple enough to manage that????
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zonoma - When EGTT hands us to EISN the login passes over to the Irish. So whatever method we log in with London carries forward and we are unable to swap.
Its interesting to think about the 40 sec restriction on FANS though. During the climb out from London we get our Oceanic clearance via ACARS which pops up on the same screen as the CPDLC clearances - We normally have a quick think about that clearance and print it prior to clearing it, so the FANS clearance could be sitting 'behind' that leading to the 40 second restriction timing out... Nothings perfect is it!
Its interesting to think about the 40 sec restriction on FANS though. During the climb out from London we get our Oceanic clearance via ACARS which pops up on the same screen as the CPDLC clearances - We normally have a quick think about that clearance and print it prior to clearing it, so the FANS clearance could be sitting 'behind' that leading to the 40 second restriction timing out... Nothings perfect is it!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 40 second timeout isn't just FANS, it is for both FANS and ATN and is a feature of the ATC system as we cannot have hundreds of messages just sitting there awaiting action that may never come. Your reason for timing out is exactly the issue, the message can just sit there behind other messages and not get responded to. Because of the way FANS is, there is no way of deleting the message from the ground so you will always be able to read it even after our timeout, but with ATN any unactioned message is removed instantly. The spiel can be something like "BIgJet123, disregard CPDLC message for RFL, disconnect CPDLC and continue with voice comms" and then we have to go back and ask/instruct whatever the timeout message was. Then you wait for the inevitable "Say again London???" hence the reluctance to use it with FANS.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough - I have to say though, with the exception of the Oceanic clearance most CPDLC messages are cleared in about 5-10 seconds at our end...
e.g. Freq change - press accept, freq auto pops up in the Com box - tap it into the active field and transmit! Sooooo easy (787)
e.g. Freq change - press accept, freq auto pops up in the Com box - tap it into the active field and transmit! Sooooo easy (787)
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: EDYY
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reluctance
At the moment there is still quite some reluctance in the ATCO and pilot community to use CPDLC.
There are numerous reasons that can be raised. And some are more local than others.
But in a lot of cases it can help reduce the RT workload.
The time-outs can be frustrating, but keeping an eye on the statistics we see, at least at Maastricht/EDYY, a steady decrease in time outs (or provider aborts/PA's).
The ATN network has a better connection than FANS. Having said that we do notice that around 2200Z-0500Z FANS is working very well as the FANS network is relatively quiet.
Eventually we will see more usage of CPDLC. It was set for feb 2015 to be compulsory for all to be CPDLC ready. But this has been delayed to feb 2018 for the ATCO world and feb 2020 for the pilots.
However, I personally, would like to encourage you to always log on to CPDLC when possible. As it is an extra means of communication.
As well that if you do have a request, it is for us easier to deal with through CPDLC than through a busy frequency. These requests are then spotted by the Assistant Controller and he/she will deal with the coordination if needed. While a request on the frequency still has to be coordinated by the Assistant Controller.
The more pilots and controllers use CPDLC the more we are familiar with it's capabilities and limitations. As for at Maastricht, we see an improvement in the stability and functionality. And we are working on further (long a due) improvements. Therefor we hope to lower the reluctance with both the ATCO's and the pilot community.
There are numerous reasons that can be raised. And some are more local than others.
But in a lot of cases it can help reduce the RT workload.
The time-outs can be frustrating, but keeping an eye on the statistics we see, at least at Maastricht/EDYY, a steady decrease in time outs (or provider aborts/PA's).
The ATN network has a better connection than FANS. Having said that we do notice that around 2200Z-0500Z FANS is working very well as the FANS network is relatively quiet.
Eventually we will see more usage of CPDLC. It was set for feb 2015 to be compulsory for all to be CPDLC ready. But this has been delayed to feb 2018 for the ATCO world and feb 2020 for the pilots.
However, I personally, would like to encourage you to always log on to CPDLC when possible. As it is an extra means of communication.
As well that if you do have a request, it is for us easier to deal with through CPDLC than through a busy frequency. These requests are then spotted by the Assistant Controller and he/she will deal with the coordination if needed. While a request on the frequency still has to be coordinated by the Assistant Controller.
The more pilots and controllers use CPDLC the more we are familiar with it's capabilities and limitations. As for at Maastricht, we see an improvement in the stability and functionality. And we are working on further (long a due) improvements. Therefor we hope to lower the reluctance with both the ATCO's and the pilot community.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get the response time down to less than 10 seconds then it would become a little more of a consideration! Keep it at 40 and even with EVERY aircraft logged on and equipped, there will still be a big need for voice, even for transfer of control 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting how you have worded it. A lot of London controllers don't like CPDLC but logging on is not going to hamper their day, the ones that don't like it will just simply not use it. So no harm in logging on.
There are a lot of limitations placed on controllers when using it so most don't bother. Such as:
We're not allowed to use it below FL195.
We're not allowed to transfer aircraft on a heading using CPDLC unless it is to another London Area sector.
We're not allowed to give route instructions with multiple way points if one or more of those points has a three letter designator.
Also if you are a FANS equipped aircraft and the message times out, there is a big spiel we have to give the pilot about disregarding the message and disconnecting from CPDLC. So no controllers bother with FANS aircraft. ATN doesn't have this problem and so you're more likely to get controllers using it, however, there is also the time lag involved with aircraft acting upon any message sent which more or less rules out any tactical use of it (i.e. heading/level/speed instructions).
It is useful for finding out an aircraft's requested FL and to check for stuck mics however, so I would still use it if I were you. Maybe one day it will become more common place.
There are a lot of limitations placed on controllers when using it so most don't bother. Such as:
We're not allowed to use it below FL195.
We're not allowed to transfer aircraft on a heading using CPDLC unless it is to another London Area sector.
We're not allowed to give route instructions with multiple way points if one or more of those points has a three letter designator.
Also if you are a FANS equipped aircraft and the message times out, there is a big spiel we have to give the pilot about disregarding the message and disconnecting from CPDLC. So no controllers bother with FANS aircraft. ATN doesn't have this problem and so you're more likely to get controllers using it, however, there is also the time lag involved with aircraft acting upon any message sent which more or less rules out any tactical use of it (i.e. heading/level/speed instructions).
It is useful for finding out an aircraft's requested FL and to check for stuck mics however, so I would still use it if I were you. Maybe one day it will become more common place.
There is a massive ability to use CPDLC if you adjust your technique to allow for the rules of use. Controllers on WEST sectors use this a significant amount. Pilots need to log in more and controllers need to use it more. This is the only capacity gain enroute sectors have on the horizon, so that's at least 10 years with no other planned capacity gain.
Transferring traffic to the next frequency is the most obvious r/t saver. It is really crucially that aircrew stay logged in and allow controllers to use this particular function. It has been reported that some pilots have been logging off from EGTT in the middle of the sector to log in to SHANWICK or SHANNON. Why? There can be no gain to doing this. Transferring traffic is probably the biggest waste of r/t time with frequencies having to be repeated so often. If this function alone is used controllers will be able to concentrate more on giving more direct routes and continuous climbs and descents thereby saving fuel. The controller has more thinking time.
Moving on to the limitations. Its about time the relevant NATS department looked at the restrictions of use. Some were only arbitrarily introduced as its a new system, but could now be lifted. Particularly the use of frequency change below FL 195 or the request for requested flight level. What could go wrong?
I'm addition FANS is not as good as ATN but it is still useful. Pilots need to be more attentive to it on FANS flights as messages can be left covered over with a previous message. B747, b767 and b757 are also poorly equipped and route messages do not display very well. Pilots of these aircraft need more training to be aware of how routes are displayed on these aircraft.
If you are a pilot please log in. If you are a controller I'd recommend getting used to using it. It's all you are going to have to help you for a significant period of time.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KORUL, Have you been writing to CHIRP recently? Your post mirrors a comment in the latest 'Feedback' very well indeed.
I bet you are a big fan of text-messaging too.
I bet you are a big fan of text-messaging too.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: EDYY
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give it time
@RMC, thank you for pointing this out.
The original posts are quite some time ago and I do hope some change has been seen with EGTT in the usage of CPDLC.
At Maastricht we had quite a large group with the same reservations as described here a couple of years ago.
The group has gotten smaller. We did have a couple of similar restrictions and a couple of odd ones.
Back in the day there was a need for crew to give a readback on frequency to any message sent... bringing the r/t offload back to a minimum or even increasing it.
Luckily all these things belong to the past now.
What is needed is for the right people on the critical positions to realize the potential of CPDLC and therefor increasing the priority in improving the functionallity and HMI for the ATCO’s at ANSP level.
As for FANS1/A indeed it can have quite some limitation to the operational use. You need to be patient when dealing with those flights. And most of us are not patient. Having said that from the moment ATN moved more and more to dedicated frequencies we saw an improvement with FANS1/A as well. During the night time, as the frequencies are not congested, CPDLC messages to FANS1/A are (almost) as quick as ATN.
It is a shame however that EGTT automatically send out a message to crews that CPDLC is not in use with the next centre when they transfer to Maastricht. Which is obviously incorrect.
For ANSP’s it has become official to use CPDLC as from February 5th 2018. (Some still need to do some work)
As for AO’s the deadline is February 5th 2020.
so please log on and use it as much as possible.
Not only will it save time it will show more and more the benefit and potantial of CPDLC and hopefully expedite improvements to the system at all levels (ANSP’s/AO’s/aircraft manufactorers).
The original posts are quite some time ago and I do hope some change has been seen with EGTT in the usage of CPDLC.
At Maastricht we had quite a large group with the same reservations as described here a couple of years ago.
The group has gotten smaller. We did have a couple of similar restrictions and a couple of odd ones.
Back in the day there was a need for crew to give a readback on frequency to any message sent... bringing the r/t offload back to a minimum or even increasing it.
Luckily all these things belong to the past now.
What is needed is for the right people on the critical positions to realize the potential of CPDLC and therefor increasing the priority in improving the functionallity and HMI for the ATCO’s at ANSP level.
As for FANS1/A indeed it can have quite some limitation to the operational use. You need to be patient when dealing with those flights. And most of us are not patient. Having said that from the moment ATN moved more and more to dedicated frequencies we saw an improvement with FANS1/A as well. During the night time, as the frequencies are not congested, CPDLC messages to FANS1/A are (almost) as quick as ATN.
It is a shame however that EGTT automatically send out a message to crews that CPDLC is not in use with the next centre when they transfer to Maastricht. Which is obviously incorrect.
For ANSP’s it has become official to use CPDLC as from February 5th 2018. (Some still need to do some work)
As for AO’s the deadline is February 5th 2020.
so please log on and use it as much as possible.
Not only will it save time it will show more and more the benefit and potantial of CPDLC and hopefully expedite improvements to the system at all levels (ANSP’s/AO’s/aircraft manufactorers).
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much has changed this side of the Channel, FANS still needs disconnecting if not acknowledged within 40 seconds so is very rarely used unless it is to transfer an aircraft to another ANSP, but there is a bit more usage of ATN simply as more aircraft are logging on. But as was two years ago, on the shorter "point and shoot" sectors it isn't used much for heading/level changes as waiting for up to 40 seconds is far too long. It's a tool, it has shown some safety benefits over the 2 years too, but the voice will always be the primary communication.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much has changed this side of the Channel, FANS still needs disconnecting if not acknowledged within 40 seconds so is very rarely used unless it is to transfer an aircraft to another ANSP, but there is a bit more usage of ATN simply as more aircraft are logging on. But as was two years ago, on the shorter "point and shoot" sectors it isn't used much for heading/level changes as waiting for up to 40 seconds is far too long. It's a tool, it has shown some safety benefits over the 2 years too, but the voice will always be the primary communication.
Personally I'm a fan and will use it whenever I can and that does include levels, speeds and headings upto moderate traffic levels (on one of the "point and shoot" sectors too). I find it does reduce my RT loading when I need it too. I'll still use it for Freq changes as much as I can when im busy.
I also find it depends on the airline for when I use it. I find it gets to, responded to and acknowledged by easyJet very quickly for example sometimes much quicker than me saying the clearance. Other airlines I will be more dubious of.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: EDYY
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have different time out setting for FANS1/A and ATN users. During the day you need to be able to be patient with FANS1/A aircraft. During the night they normally as quick as ATN.
And although the comment is often that it takes too long with FANS1/A it is often forgotten that you still can do other things in the meantime. There is still net gain in frequency load.
On the ATN side the responses are good. Provider Aborts are less and less. We do notice a big difference with certain companies and the provider they use.
As for EZY (EZS) using ATN with ARINC for us is a great partner to work with. The crews are well trained and very quick with CPDLC.
Certain tasks can be delegated and the gain we have in reduction in r/t is really big. At times underestimated. You would be surprised by the amount of time saved if calculated.
Even the critics of CPDLC could feel the difference in workload when it once was unavailable to them. It was quite an eye-opener.
As we are more and more confronted with higher traffic numbers, shortage in staff and airspace congestion with flight plan restrictions, CPDLC at least has the potential to really make a difference in workload. It might need to get a higher priority to work on improving the system so ATCO can have the maximum benefit. Specially with all the hurdles on the way any help is more than welcome
And although the comment is often that it takes too long with FANS1/A it is often forgotten that you still can do other things in the meantime. There is still net gain in frequency load.
On the ATN side the responses are good. Provider Aborts are less and less. We do notice a big difference with certain companies and the provider they use.
As for EZY (EZS) using ATN with ARINC for us is a great partner to work with. The crews are well trained and very quick with CPDLC.
Certain tasks can be delegated and the gain we have in reduction in r/t is really big. At times underestimated. You would be surprised by the amount of time saved if calculated.
Even the critics of CPDLC could feel the difference in workload when it once was unavailable to them. It was quite an eye-opener.
As we are more and more confronted with higher traffic numbers, shortage in staff and airspace congestion with flight plan restrictions, CPDLC at least has the potential to really make a difference in workload. It might need to get a higher priority to work on improving the system so ATCO can have the maximum benefit. Specially with all the hurdles on the way any help is more than welcome
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we still have to disconnect 1985. I'm like you, will use it more than most of my fellow controllers and take a "risk" with a FANS equipped and send more than just a TX to the next foreign agency if I think they will be switched on enough. I like it and definitely use it to my advantage, but there aren't many of us out there.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: EDYY
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we still have to disconnect 1985. I'm like you, will use it more than most of my fellow controllers and take a "risk" with a FANS equipped and send more than just a TX to the next foreign agency if I think they will be switched on enough. I like it and definitely use it to my advantage, but there aren't many of us out there.
Than please always consider Maastricht as switched on ;-)
The ATCO population that will use it more and more will grow as soon as the the response times are as quick as for example with EZY and your HMI is just as quick or quicker to use as for standard inputs. Give it time and hang in there.
Management will see that this is a relative easy step as opposed to solving the other hurdles on the way
