Indeed I expect nothing other than a testing Summer 16' ar KK, for all parties!
A few observations from a nowadays KK pilot - not necessarily correct ones, but intended to widen debate:-
1. Should airport scheduling allow for ATCO's U/T? In my opinion not - how can you schedule when a U/T is plugged in or isn't? I also expect a few opportunities to be missed- the very slick KK operation comes from experience and competence, but you have to be allowed to gain it in a safe supervised manner, which is what happens. Missed opportunities, points of view, alternative methods are hopefully for debrief?
2. Can flow rates be set because a newly validated ATCO is in position - surely not - many slots effect departures many hours down route and the rate can't be accurate as to who 'may' be in position or not that many hours away from the point in question.
3. KK was testing for all last Summer, this year, as expected, it will be even more so.... A few ideas follow:-
4. Greater co-ordination on gapping: there at times seems a bit of an issue on delays, airport taking knock on departure delays and NATS on holding delays. Changes in gapping to help clear departure backlog clearly have an impact on airborne delays. This combined with other factors DID result in at least a few/several enroute S17 overloads last summer. Should these controllers be subjected to this stress without exploring more intelligent ways to mitigate it?
5. Late TWR changes to gapping to allow more departures seems to impact the above ( not deliberately so I know), pushing a problem 'upstream' without conscious knowledge of the effect.
6. AMAN struggles to cope with the above, and EATS at KK sometimes appear to struggle at times to be realistic to the AMAN initial prediction. More manual oversight/control of AMAN for KK??
7. Several times last Summer was slowed to minimum speed at FIR entry by en-route due 15-20 minute delay expected at KK. On transfer to TC told no delay (yes, appreciate officially that means not greater than 20'). On query told no idea where 'next door' got that from and indeed on arrival not more than once round the hold, on several occasions 'straight off' without even a 'spin'.....
Now en-route have done what is right and good management under the information available to them (AMAN?), but that information has proved to be totally inaccurate....
Extend XMAN to include KK? But for this AMAN timings need to be accurate and reliable!
As an extra, is there now a need this Summer to formally put a formal rate on KK arr for the protection of the system and ATCO's?
8. Speed control - poor conformance by some pilots/operators led to go-arounds. This area has to improve! I observe decisions being made sometimes by crew to 'protect' themselves from go-around by 'reducing' early so to ensure the runway is clear when they get there. The impact on the stream selfishly doesn't concern them at the time
I would suggest that mode 'S' is monitored in a more controlled fashion, and the offender is sent around regardless rather than an impact on either the next departure or arrival? Harsh perhaps, but perhaps the only way such offenders will learn?
9. Greater understanding/forewarning for pilots of A380 operation (yes I've been here before - sorry!). Late reversion to RNAV ops still occur at KK when it seems far better warning could have been given. Can't a better 'heads up' of sequencing be given to TC TIMBA/WILLO so aircraft can be forewarned in advance of only finding out with KK INT?
10. Use of 'Super' by EK and ATC alike would help crew situational awareness and warning of impending RNAV likelihood.
11. Interestingly followed an EK into CC this week one evening - vectored and cleared for the ILS behind. Now I'm not CC based and presumed (silly I know!) that it was a 'triple' as 'super' not used by either party and not told to expect of, or fly the VOR/DME app. Only heads up was when been transferred to TWR to "expect LOC deviations as I was 7miles behind an A380...."
12. Re above - different standards? This wouldn't have been allowed at KK, I would have been informed and flown an RNAV. Why are there different procedures for CC/KK? Surely the risk associated to aircraft following A380 with respect to ILS signals is the same at both? These UK standards/differences re A380 ops are still not published in the AIP or MATS Pt1 so we can all be aware/understand them.
Please take the above as its's meant - a widening of discussion, learning for myself etc. KK, TC et al all do a great job!
There is no doubt however KK last year was an eye opener for many, this year will only be worse given more movements taken on. We all need to evolve, and to perhaps take a slightly different systematic approach going forward (pilots and controllers alike).....
30W