Do you know how this can happen?

[The name is Porter]

Sorry tank, that didn't come across well (embarrassment ) apologies!

[5miles]

It's simply not acceptable to be tracked from one side of the country to the other, with a slot time, and COBT compliant to then be treated as a shock/ surprise at 200 miles.

Not acceptable..hmmm. I suppose one of the solutions to this then is to deny any weather deviations as it may delay following traffic who are otherwise compliant. That ain't gonna happen.

BTW, we used to give higher priority to certain long haul flights, but the airlines (ie. your bosses) felt it no longer required or didn't negotiate for it's continuance.

These complaints are about as fruitful as your pax whingeing when a flight is cancelled 2 hours before their flight, even though they booked 6 months ahead.

[le Pingouin]

Originally Posted by psycho joe

That would be easier to swallow if we didn't have schedules and slot times, and if we weren't sitting at the gate watching a clock wind down as part of a Ground Delay Program. If I were to push back outside -5/+10 of my COBT then my friendly controller would remind me that I'm non compliant and can expect up to 60 holding. If I am compliant, then I can expect the same holding/last minute slow down/now quick speed up, as before the implementation of ground delay programs.

It's simply not acceptable to be tracked from one side of the country to the other, with a slot time, and COBT compliant to then be treated as a shock/ surprise at 200 miles. As airline Pilots, we work hard to be fuel efficient, only to then throw that efficiency out the window with a ridiculously inefficient descent.

You misunderstand the purpose of the ground delay program. It's to reduce delays, not eliminate them, by limiting the number of arrivals over a given time. Given the -5+10 "slack" in the system it can't prevent multiple aircraft trying to arrive at the same time, but reduces how many aircraft that is.

Seriously, into ML we rarely hold these day when conditions are as forecast and nothing untoward happens to interfere with the sequence. Delays don't often get above 8 minutes. Used to be we'd hold any day when conditions meant we had to reduce the acceptance rate, so we'd often have several bouts of holding a day.

It's a dynamic world and things don't always go as planned. You can stamp your feet as much as you want but that's the reality. I understand that you'd like your fix delay as early as possible but we just don't know what it will be with any certainty 2 hours out, 90 minutes out, even an hour out. We can give you a current guess but it will almost certainly be revised at least several times.

[Adamastor]

Slight drift but since it's been repeatedly brought up I find it interesting that the idea that GDPs should mean every flight gets zero delay on every flight still pervades the pilot community. The official target is that there will be a 60:40 split between ground holding assigned by the GDPs and airborne holding, not 100:0 as most people seem to think. The realists understand that flights do not operate precisely to schedule - never have, never will - and that introduces delays. If we really could operate to the minute, every operator, every flight, every day, then perhaps zero delay might actually be viable, but until that cold day in hell...... I'm with Cap'n Bloggs - I've seen huge reductions in airborne holding. As a further aside, ALL ground holding delay is absorbed by domestic operators only, internationals only get airborne holding, and since they get the same amount as domestics, i.e. only the 40%, they probably shouldn't be whinging too much about their lot - they already benefit from SIGNIFICANT preferential treatment!

[Capt Claret]

Imagine the howls of protest were the PPRuNe ATCOs to get on here and tell us how to fly our jets!

[Capt Claret]

A better way of handling that situation would be something like "Reduce to minimum Mach no., 250kt on descent, expect vectors. Landing time is xxxx".

And if they did that, there would be a band of pilots saying, "why do that, I can descent to a lower level and absorb the delay and the pax won't be any the wiser. I should be given the landing time and be allowed to manage it as I see fit."

[donkdonk]

post deleted

[haughtney1]

I don't think Haughney's having a go at the system so much as the unrealistic expectation of the ATC.

Puddle, exactly...perhaps my hyperbole was a bit much for some.

There is nothing like travelling full speed into the hold in London/Dubai/Hong Kong. Or getting vectored all over the sky without knowing where you are going to end up, except finally on a runway, like Singapore/JFK.

Rat, you are misrepresenting the concept of an EAT, or haven't been to London or DXB recently (The UK in particular is superb at providing track miles and EATs, and DXB will happily let you slow down if you ask). I'm glad you feel the Oz system is as you prefer it, for me getting thumped with a 10 minute delay 200nm from dest is nothing short of a scandal, particularly now given the comments previously made by others.
As I've said, I've got NO issue with delays, but give me some notice for fecks sake...unless its an emergency, delays are known quantities as the nature of the planning process to provide a delay actually ensures and plans for this. I cant believe it can be that hard to pass on the impending delay to an airborne inbound aircraft in a timely manner, after all don't most approach and enroute controllers talk to each other across the room or on the phone?
Or have I missed something?

[chuboy]

Ok, so you don't know whether it's going to be ten minutes' delay at 200nm or fifteen minutes... we all understand it's a dynamic beast. But surely you're going to know well ahead of time that there will be a delay of some sort?

[le Pingouin]

haughtney, it boils down to the fact that quite often I'm more than busy enough dealing with the traffic I have right now. I don't have time to go searching for aircraft 30 minutes outside my airspace. On many routes the first time I'll even bother looking at you is just before you call - not because I'm lazy or uncaring but because my priority is separation. If you aren't conflicting with anyone I can safely ignore you for now and deal with separating someone else.

Half the time I don't even have a coord line to the sector you're in 30 minutes prior to my airspace.

[willadvise]

chuboy
Sometimes.
At any given time I can see your delay but the sequence doesn't become set until all the aircraft ahead of you become "stable". If you ask what your delay is before all the aircraft ahead of your are stable you are probably not going to get an inaccurate time because
a) the flow has not had a chance to optimise the sequence by closing up any gaps in the sequence by direct tracking/max speed/different runway assignments.
b) aircraft have yet to depart that will be ahead of you in the sequence.
Because of these effects it is common to see a given aircrafts delay vary by 10 min within the space of 20-30 min.
We all know that you want your delay as early as possible. We all know that you hate "slow down, no speed up, no slow down again" If you are given a slow down before the sequence is stable there is a high probability it is going to be wrong. You can have your delay early and inaccurate or later and more accurate. Now think of this from an ATC point of view:- do I give out a bunch of inaccurate times only having to revise them later adding to my workload or wait until they become stable and do it once. If a give you a slow down to early and a gap opens up, you may not be able to increase enough to get back into that gap and a slot is lost and everyone loses. You may not be given your slowdown until you have overtaken an aircraft that you are ahead of in the sequence because you will restricted on descent. Particularly if there is a track miles issue with instrument vs visual stars.

haughtney1
If you can't understand why you are thumped with a 10 min delay at 200nm after reading all this then I cant help you anymore. But I will try to help you with the "unrealistic expectation"
We know that you probably can't make that time. It is just our way of saying that this is the time you are going to cross. Like any instructions we give, it is always subject to pilots ability to comply.
For example "ABC 123 turn left heading 360...ABC123 Unable due thunderstorms, best we could do is heading 340,
"ABC123 climb F390.....ABC123 unable we're to heavy we can accept F380"
"ABC123 increase to maximum speed....ABC123 unable due turbulence"

Do you see where I'm going with this? We make the assumption that you will tell us what you can do and I personally think it is a waste of time to add "let me know if you need vectors or holding" to every feeder fix time I issue.

[haughtney1]

Le Pin, so if I've got this right, your imperative is separation (which is of course your primary function, no argument from me).
Will advise, nicely put, and from your perspective it makes perfect sense, why wouldn't it, it is after all the system you operate in.
Like I keep saying..and repeating, I have NO problem with an ATC mandated delay.
If you guys genuinely believe that the level of service I've described previously is perfectly acceptable, then I guess no amount of customer input will change the way you think.

[le Pingouin]

As I've said previously, you're talking to the wrong end of the ATC animal. Your management needs to talk to our management for change to be implemented. We work within a system so, as such, work the way the system is designed to work. I have to work within the confines of the system as it exists. Provide me with a system that works the way you want it and I'll do it.

I'm sorry but as a line controller I sometimes don't have time to worry about the niceties. Maybe I'm too damn busy to consider you earlier than I absolutely have to so you get your 10 minute delay when you call me. Other times I'll have enough time to look out a bit and tell the sector that has you there's roughly a 10 minute delay so speed reduction approved. Assuming I can get a word in. Maybe they're really busy and here I am trying to bother them with non safety-critical information.

You have one aircraft to manage. I have 20 or however many so my attention is spread accordingly thinly.

I fully understand it's more efficient to manage a delay over a longer period and that more can be achieved the more warning you have but sometimes I just don't have the time to do anything about it.

I'll give you unrestricted climb to your desired level at the speed you want via your preferred routing when I can. When I can't you'll be held down, slowed down and vectored. Same goes for the delays. Sometimes you'll get it the way you want and other times you won't.

[Keg]

I'm glad you feel the Oz system is as you prefer it, for me getting thumped with a 10 minute delay 200nm from dest is nothing short of a scandal

And yet haughtney this is precisely what happens in Dubai and London! On occasion in Dubai the delay can be much more significant as well. It was also a regular thing into Singapore and Bangkok back in 2007. Sure they let you slow down, as will Ausse ATCO not that it does much good at 200 miles.

I'll admit that my international destination list is not extensive but four of my regular destinations are amongst the busiest in the world- and I operate into them at their busiest times of day. The Aussie system ain't perfect but it's no worse than anywhere else.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Keg, I think the difference is, unlike Dubai, or London, they don't say for example - "Make Rivet at xx" which is undoable in the time frame they give. WILL ADVISE says to just say that we "can't make it" like in a heading during vectors in weather. But it is not the same, as with the heading, there is a chance the aircraft can take the heading, but with a 10min delay from 200nm, there is no chance of getting the jet to hover. So effectively it is a waste of bandwith. Like I said, Dubai, and London just put you in the hold and give you an ETA. Muscat, assign you a mach no in prep to for UAE's sequencing. Both these methods appear more effective that the way its being done in OZ.

Haugtntey- I hear you, and I get that you are not complaining about the delay.

[ACMS]

Hong Kong ATC simply say holding required, hold at Betty EFC 15, reduce speed as required if you wish. They don't give crossing times.
Then later on when you are in the hold they may advise a time to cross Mango but they invariably break you out of the hold at a required speed for radar vectors towards Mango anyway.......

They too slow you down speed you up and then slow you down again.

I remember going into Singapore years ago and being delayed around FL200 north of Nylon. Aircraft were being vectored for delaying tactics all over the shop, we passed just above the same QF 744. ( QF10 I think? ) 3 times 3 different directions!! It was a mess and thank goodness their Radar didn't fail......

I much prefer London sending you into the LAM hold, it's more orderly.

[willadvise]

Capn Rex Havoc
To address your point.
The instruction has to be issued at some point in time to make it clear that you have a required time to arrive at the feeder fix. So what should the phraseology be if you don't like the current way? "ABC123 can you cross ARBEY at time 46? .... ABC123 negative best time is 43....ABC123 roger expect vectors, cross ARBEY 46 at 250kts .... ABC123 ARBEY 46 250kts " or "ABC123 can you cross ARBEY at 46? ... ABC123 affirm ... ABC123 cross ARBEY at 46 at 250kts....ABC123 ARBEY 46 250kts"
How is this better than "ABC123 cross ARBEY at 46 at 250kts .... ABC123 ARBEY 46 250kts (we'll need vectors/holding)"

So you don't like being issued with unrealistic reductions. You are in essence asking us to make a judgement call as to who we think might be able to meet the time without holding or vectors. Easy for this example of a heavy for 10mins at 200nm, I am sure you won't make it. But what if was 7mins at 250nm or 4 mins at 210nm, we simply don't have the time to make a judgement about it being unreasonable or not. When we first started issuing feeder fix times I was amazed at how slow some aircraft can go especially after the pilots got the hang of it and would often issue times which I thought they would have no hope of making without vectors but they did. It is just much easier to issue the time then you tell us what you need. Don't take it personally or think that we have no understanding.

[willadvise]

If you guys genuinely believe that the level of service I've described previously is perfectly acceptable, then I guess no amount of customer input will change the way you think.

So you are still not happy?

You have asked "Do you know how this can happen?" We have explained why it can happen to you. I'll summarise for you:-
1) The sequence was not stable or has changed rapidly.
2) The controller was too busy.

If this doesn't convince you then I'll give it one last shot but then I give up.

"Safety, Comfort, Schedule". I believe most airlines have something along these lines. Schedule is the lower priority. Translate this to ATC, sequencing is the lower priority.

I invite you to tell us how the system can be improved considering all the factors raised in the previous posts. I am genuinely interested because it is something that we have all pondered for many years.

[haughtney1]

Sure Will

2 things would be a good start.

1.Advise me in good time (being pragmatic here) of expected or planned delays... (Given I'm datalink equipped it's a few strokes on the keyboard)

2. In the event of a delay...do as they do in the UK and Europe and increasingly in the US, advise us, send us to a fix to hold, and give us an onward EAT.

There 2 things that would make planet haughtney better for me.

P.S. If the controller is to busy, then isn't that an issue relating to safety and SA? Are you guys understaffed or something? Knowing about a delay in good time also allows me to plan further on the basis of a contingency, prudence being what it is, my priority is also safety, knowing about that 10 minute delay in advance could be the difference between me legally being able to get to destination or divert.
We can go back and forth as much as we like, I want this...you can only give me that etc..ultimately my neck is on the line everytime I plant my fat butt in the chair, yes you guys have enormous responsibility as well but your safety and well being is hardly an issue, to me when I hear "I'm too busy" it's the thin end of the wedge, what else one day might someone be too busy to pass on, you guys have that luxury, that safety valve, I don't.
In an imperfect world we make do, we improvise and we get the job done, if you use system and workload practicalities as reasons for being unable to provide some basic information..then maybe your organisation needs to look at how others seem to manage.
Not the guys on the front lines problem I know, god knows you have a bloody tough and thankless job at times, but as a team, we ought to be all moving in the same direction.
Too idealistic?

[Shark Patrol]

Not trying to take a shot at Australian ATC - I'm sure you (like us) are all working within constraints imposed by others. I also accept the point re last minute changes to the sequence, go-rounds etc, but humour me if you will.

I have probably been into JFK more than two dozen times and always arriving around 5pm local time (peak hour). In those two dozen times, I think I have been put in the holding pattern precisely twice. Granted that there is usually extensive vectoring in the Terminal Area, but I have also been given enroute speed instructions when not even half-way across the US that suggest that the JFK sequence is being worked on more than two hours out from the destination. Does anyone in the ATC world have knowledge of how the US system works compared to Australia, and why a sequence can be worked on two hours in advance into one of the busiest airports in the world, yet in Australia it happens at 200nm?

I also remember tracking through western Queensland very early one morning soon after the very short-lived ALOFT system (remember that one) had been scrapped. I asked the controller if the sequence into Sydney was being worked on yet and his response was "No ... the Flow doesn't start work till 5!" I must say that I had a bit of a chuckle about that one.

Once again, can I re-iterate that I am not taking shots here. I am genuinely intrigued as to how the US and AUS systems differ.