Thanks for the +ve comments on the feedback - I personally think flight deck crews and atc have nothing like enough 2-way exchanges like this, and when we do get together it is invariably enormously useful for all of us, as this message thread shows.
BigNose - I can imagine the round-the-bay trips being a problem from atc's point of view. I think it will be a little while before these resume - and I think there will probably be a "strategy" heads-up between the fleet and atc beforehand.
O/Load - thanks for the detailed reply. Sorry about the delay in getting back - been out blowing the cobwebs off SM!!
Regarding the accel, it is essentially an all or nothing clearance we do need because we're time-limited on the afterburners, and a level-off would involve maintaining Mach. At transonic speeds (about .99-> 1.7, which is F280->F440ish)the aircraft is in a very high drag regeme (afterburners on), shock waves dancing on the wings, and whilst the aircraft is designed to handle it admirably, we get through it as quickly as possible to non-reheated stable supersonic flight above F440/M1.7 (tech. point worth noting - you can equate Mach No. with FL here - both must go up together).
We have a standard requirement to cross 15W above F430 and 20W above F450 to help with the accel planning.
Transonic vectoring carries a few technical issues making it difficult - but not impossible. It would be better to plan up a heading pre-accel and "point and squirt". We need to be clear of land by 20nm for boom considerations. Off-track traffic avoidance is no more or less inconvenient than conventional traffic, but an accel delay of 20nm+ would really start to have more serious time/fuel penalties. I take your point regarding instantaneous g/s readings, would detailed ETAs help - eg. @ Merly, Banlo, SM15W and maybe even intermediate points?
The descent planning. Well our "ideal" is a subsonic cruise at about F370 M0.95 to a top of descent based on (Ht in 000s*2 plus 12) miles at M0.93/350kts (that changoever is @ about F310). We can change those numbers tactically to suit - the bigger the change the bigger the impact it has on the ideal (obviously). But a temporary restriction of 320kts should be OK with a bit of notice. Or, say, "make your speed 320kts by OCK55d"?
F330 would not be a problem, F290 OK if you needed it (RVSM is, of course, another hair-ball - but should be with us soon: thanks for putting up with us until then!!!). A stepped descent before intercepting our "ideal" profile is available if you need it - again, please don't feel you'll offend by asking - we know your reasons are of mutual benefit
I do worry about the routing problems, though. It sounds as though there is an airspace structure problem here, our flight plan is Barix SL3 Malby G1 -> OCK STAR as you know. If this needs changing (maybe SL3 has been left behind by recent fundamental airspace changes) it possibly needs representation at a higher level. I honestly don't know what the isses here would be.
But with problems on the day, we will happily collude with you to sort it out. Please raise it on the r/t as soon as you see a problem and with notice we should be able to oblige with as little disturbance as possible.
Obviously, we could get bogged down in an infinate list of "what ifs" with all of this, so I think the bottom line has got to be
please ask us if you foresee a problem and we should be able to reach a compromise tactically. It personally makes my toes curl to think that there's a perception that we need to have a red carpet treatment - what we need is to work together to everyone's benefit.
From our conversations here, I will talk to our fleet management and see if we can produce a detailed document for atcos who work with Concorde and give you a better in-depth understanding of the performance and other considerations of the aircraft which would help us work better together. Would this be useful for you?
It there's anything else I could help you with - please ask. Send me an email and I'll email you my phone number, if we need to cover more than we have already here it may be more efficient to do it 2-way - these messages could get too big to read...!