ATC Speed Restrictions FAJS
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The World, although sometimes I wonder
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty simple actually.
1. 5nm between the aircraft in a TMA with primary radar
2. 3nm in a TMA with primary radar being fed from 2 independent sources
3. 10nm between aircraft en-route with no primary radar
4. 5nm between aircraft en-route with independent primary radar
At Cape Town we only have 1 and 3 - hence our spacing of 10 nm apart.
Then add to it, a magnificent airfield layout and having to land on 19 and turn off at Charlie you need 8 - 10 nm between heavies on final, as they have to come to a complete stop before they can turn off (turn angle is 135degrees).
Likewise with 01 - no E UFN. They have to go all the way to 34 and that includes ALL aircraft except Light singles, so the spacing has to be increased slightly.
The only thing we are scared of is a high speed aircraft not know ing what they are doing!!!!
1. 5nm between the aircraft in a TMA with primary radar
2. 3nm in a TMA with primary radar being fed from 2 independent sources
3. 10nm between aircraft en-route with no primary radar
4. 5nm between aircraft en-route with independent primary radar
At Cape Town we only have 1 and 3 - hence our spacing of 10 nm apart.
Then add to it, a magnificent airfield layout and having to land on 19 and turn off at Charlie you need 8 - 10 nm between heavies on final, as they have to come to a complete stop before they can turn off (turn angle is 135degrees).
Likewise with 01 - no E UFN. They have to go all the way to 34 and that includes ALL aircraft except Light singles, so the spacing has to be increased slightly.
The only thing we are scared of is a high speed aircraft not know ing what they are doing!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: on root
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said, the Actuator.
Perhaps the descent speed (and, thus, the point too) should be given on first contact with ATC, after ATC has calculated it to keep optimum spacing? Controllers – as you know, we like ‘perfect’ descents where we go to idle at top of descent and take power at 1000’ kind of thing. We don’t like having to take power either to speed up or to maintain level flight during the descent, especially at lower levels. That’s why it’s so nice to see a controller is really switched on and you get further descent in time to stop you from having to level out during a step descent. If we knew your preferred descent point and speed/rate and it meant no power change and less delays we’d fly it happily.
Easy with the increps – I’m sure we can file them too. What I have noticed is that whilst when controllers make a boo-boo the pilots involved mostly shrug it off with a laugh, but when the pilots make the boo-boo the controllers (especially the newer ones) get on your case a bit. We know the problems you face and wouldn’t deliberately ignore any instruction. When we screw up, we’re the ones who feel like tits and are eager to make hasty amends. There’s no need to get nasty with each other, we all work in the same place. The other day I asked “speed in the descent?” just to get an idea of how the picture was and I was snapped at that ATC speeds ALWAYS apply in the descent…until of course, ATC tell you otherwise. And they often seem to forget to tell you and then inform you at a later stage. It would be nice if we were told ‘own speeds’ or ‘ATC speeds’ every time we ask for descent.
Question for the ATC’s. If the computers are doing the spacing calculations, then could we do away with the different sectors? North, South etc. seeing as the computer will see 360 degrees of radar. Would it just be radio congestion that meant we still needed sectors? In that case a ‘steady-state’ descent would require no controlling other than vectors and a handover so this would relieve the channel, no?
Clogging the channels with ‘the bigger picture’ – this would only happen if you told every pilot the picture on first contact. We can work it out after we’ve been on frequency a bit, but its nice to know any traffic to affect us, like a slower machine in the queue, when we first join.
What about slow-traffic holding fixes abeam close to the thresholds? The Vans can literally circle a couple of thousand feet from the threshold and be in and landed short and off at Sierra all in a short time, rather than being vectored to fit in with the jet traffic and causing havoc. (If they miss Sierra they can fly to echo)
High-speed turnoffs. Jeez that would have cost about R95-million … then we wouldn’t have been able to have had an inauguration party….
Perhaps the descent speed (and, thus, the point too) should be given on first contact with ATC, after ATC has calculated it to keep optimum spacing? Controllers – as you know, we like ‘perfect’ descents where we go to idle at top of descent and take power at 1000’ kind of thing. We don’t like having to take power either to speed up or to maintain level flight during the descent, especially at lower levels. That’s why it’s so nice to see a controller is really switched on and you get further descent in time to stop you from having to level out during a step descent. If we knew your preferred descent point and speed/rate and it meant no power change and less delays we’d fly it happily.
Easy with the increps – I’m sure we can file them too. What I have noticed is that whilst when controllers make a boo-boo the pilots involved mostly shrug it off with a laugh, but when the pilots make the boo-boo the controllers (especially the newer ones) get on your case a bit. We know the problems you face and wouldn’t deliberately ignore any instruction. When we screw up, we’re the ones who feel like tits and are eager to make hasty amends. There’s no need to get nasty with each other, we all work in the same place. The other day I asked “speed in the descent?” just to get an idea of how the picture was and I was snapped at that ATC speeds ALWAYS apply in the descent…until of course, ATC tell you otherwise. And they often seem to forget to tell you and then inform you at a later stage. It would be nice if we were told ‘own speeds’ or ‘ATC speeds’ every time we ask for descent.
Question for the ATC’s. If the computers are doing the spacing calculations, then could we do away with the different sectors? North, South etc. seeing as the computer will see 360 degrees of radar. Would it just be radio congestion that meant we still needed sectors? In that case a ‘steady-state’ descent would require no controlling other than vectors and a handover so this would relieve the channel, no?
Clogging the channels with ‘the bigger picture’ – this would only happen if you told every pilot the picture on first contact. We can work it out after we’ve been on frequency a bit, but its nice to know any traffic to affect us, like a slower machine in the queue, when we first join.
What about slow-traffic holding fixes abeam close to the thresholds? The Vans can literally circle a couple of thousand feet from the threshold and be in and landed short and off at Sierra all in a short time, rather than being vectored to fit in with the jet traffic and causing havoc. (If they miss Sierra they can fly to echo)
High-speed turnoffs. Jeez that would have cost about R95-million … then we wouldn’t have been able to have had an inauguration party….
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UAE
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar seperation minimas are prescribed in PANS-OPS (Doc 4444) as being a minimum of 5nm. Their is no requirement other than you must have primary and/OR SSR. It is up to the independant states to keep to the ICAO SARPS or increase the sep based on the reliability of the radar and other technical issues. The technical issues are more related to older generation radar facilities and outdated equipment. In view of this and ATNS's SARRIP (South African Radar Replacement Program) for which the user is paying the radar seperation minima in SA should be 5nm wherever radar coverage exists.
Once again I am bewildered at sweeping statements that bare no facts. GFJ if your 4 points are in fact the truth then there are thousands of reductions taking place every minute of the day all over the world. Bottom line is the users are paying for a service for which they are not getting. SSR coverage over the 'golden triangle' is currently sufficient to not only provide 5nm seperation but also reduced seperation on all routes.
Users need to start asking questions. The questions need to be directed at the correct channels. ATNS management and SACAA are 2 places to start. ATC's are merely following the laid down archaic procedures that are forced on them. Go into a restuarant and get a bad meal, do you complain to the manager or waiter???? The SACAA is still the regulator for South African skies. ATNS is the designated manager of those skies. Currently ATNS dictates to the SACAA how to do things as the SACAA lacks the expertise. At the moment users are paying both ATNS and SACAA for a ******* service. The user is ultimately going to pay for the new equipment at JS it will be interesting to see if you guys are going to get value for money.
Once again I am bewildered at sweeping statements that bare no facts. GFJ if your 4 points are in fact the truth then there are thousands of reductions taking place every minute of the day all over the world. Bottom line is the users are paying for a service for which they are not getting. SSR coverage over the 'golden triangle' is currently sufficient to not only provide 5nm seperation but also reduced seperation on all routes.
Users need to start asking questions. The questions need to be directed at the correct channels. ATNS management and SACAA are 2 places to start. ATC's are merely following the laid down archaic procedures that are forced on them. Go into a restuarant and get a bad meal, do you complain to the manager or waiter???? The SACAA is still the regulator for South African skies. ATNS is the designated manager of those skies. Currently ATNS dictates to the SACAA how to do things as the SACAA lacks the expertise. At the moment users are paying both ATNS and SACAA for a ******* service. The user is ultimately going to pay for the new equipment at JS it will be interesting to see if you guys are going to get value for money.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings JG1
Methinx (happily), you may be overestimating our skills and/or the equipment we work on.
I have no idea what the preferred speed/point for descent is for every a/c, you can only say from the feeling in yr butt that someone is 2 high / 2 fast. The only thing we need is everyone 2 b doing similar speeds when vectoring - i.e. 250kt inside 40nm and 210kt later. This makes 80% of the inbounds virtually the same for us.
You also need 2 remember that, to save frequency space, if nothing is said - it is expected that you do what is on the SID/STAR. If everyone was "Just asking", it could get out of hand quite fast.
As to the PCs holding next to the field, that's actually what we do, it's just not a published procedure. They r generally not held at the TMA beacons, but rather orbited on base if there is no space. This is done since the locals r quite adept @ ramming them in at max speed - they r as fast, if not faster than the jets inside 15nm!
Also, I'm not sure what BS the press releases have been saying, but there are no computer calculated anythings! That would be part of the SAAATS system, which will come on line in stages (read wait a long time for any benefits). All the decisions about sequencing, speed etc are purely educated guesses - and I must admit some blokes r pretty good @ it!
Lastly, methinx this kind of thread is gr8 for all aviation professionals using FAJS. We seldom get to yak to the tube drivers 2 get there points of view on our performance - and vice-versa.
So, keep the questions and opinions coming.
Methinx (happily), you may be overestimating our skills and/or the equipment we work on.
I have no idea what the preferred speed/point for descent is for every a/c, you can only say from the feeling in yr butt that someone is 2 high / 2 fast. The only thing we need is everyone 2 b doing similar speeds when vectoring - i.e. 250kt inside 40nm and 210kt later. This makes 80% of the inbounds virtually the same for us.
You also need 2 remember that, to save frequency space, if nothing is said - it is expected that you do what is on the SID/STAR. If everyone was "Just asking", it could get out of hand quite fast.
As to the PCs holding next to the field, that's actually what we do, it's just not a published procedure. They r generally not held at the TMA beacons, but rather orbited on base if there is no space. This is done since the locals r quite adept @ ramming them in at max speed - they r as fast, if not faster than the jets inside 15nm!
Also, I'm not sure what BS the press releases have been saying, but there are no computer calculated anythings! That would be part of the SAAATS system, which will come on line in stages (read wait a long time for any benefits). All the decisions about sequencing, speed etc are purely educated guesses - and I must admit some blokes r pretty good @ it!
Lastly, methinx this kind of thread is gr8 for all aviation professionals using FAJS. We seldom get to yak to the tube drivers 2 get there points of view on our performance - and vice-versa.
So, keep the questions and opinions coming.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done you guys in FAJS. You're doing a stirling job with blunt tools. I've sat and watched you magicians at work and in comparison FACT is a holiday camp. I would not for one moment coment or criticise on a sector I have not had the balls to validate on. Keep up the good work and good luck for the equipment switchover.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get back to your original question, you're sped up to get you into a position so you can fly the approach at normal speeds. Acc will pre-seq you and the App will blend you with TMA tfc. It has nothing to do with specialisation. Secondly, in Cpt you're decended above tfc 17 nm ahead of you because we still have pilots that won't monitor their tcas' and will do their best to pass the tfc ahead even if it means flying into the back of them.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try to post a little more helpfull comments than saying you still have pilots who don't know how to use their TCAS or will try to fly into something. Clearly your knowledge of flying needs a little brushing up.
We don't expect the controller to know when we want to descent or what speed we would like to fly but we would love to know, WHEN he/she WANTS us to descent and, WHAT speed he/she WANTS us to fly - EARLY!!
As I said it all goes about being able to plan so that I can make the ride as smooth as possible for my customers, and with as little typing on the FMC and as little switching on the FMA as possible. This allows us the time to keep our eyes on the TCAS (so that I don't fly into anyone else)as well being able to be heads up, and free to concentrate on listening to and answering the radio so we don't join the gang of Say Again Airlines whilst building up a mental picture of other aircraft, weather and any other factors that could operationally affect my flight.
We don't expect the controller to know when we want to descent or what speed we would like to fly but we would love to know, WHEN he/she WANTS us to descent and, WHAT speed he/she WANTS us to fly - EARLY!!
As I said it all goes about being able to plan so that I can make the ride as smooth as possible for my customers, and with as little typing on the FMC and as little switching on the FMA as possible. This allows us the time to keep our eyes on the TCAS (so that I don't fly into anyone else)as well being able to be heads up, and free to concentrate on listening to and answering the radio so we don't join the gang of Say Again Airlines whilst building up a mental picture of other aircraft, weather and any other factors that could operationally affect my flight.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SOUTH AFRICA
Age: 66
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul2004
Some aircraft, and they are in the majority for the company I work for, only indicate conflicting traffic within15NM around and within 7000'.
About flying into a/c ahead, we are all cleared on arrivals into FACT with speed restriction at specific points. If one a/c is catching up with the one ahead, and he has not reached the decel points, it is your job as ATC to slow him down or speed the other one up! Just maybe the guy in the back is not aware of the closing speed.
You are the controller- now control boet!
Some aircraft, and they are in the majority for the company I work for, only indicate conflicting traffic within15NM around and within 7000'.
About flying into a/c ahead, we are all cleared on arrivals into FACT with speed restriction at specific points. If one a/c is catching up with the one ahead, and he has not reached the decel points, it is your job as ATC to slow him down or speed the other one up! Just maybe the guy in the back is not aware of the closing speed.
You are the controller- now control boet!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gauteng
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify my post about the descents into CPT: Sure, you need spacing on final after heavies, and to make room for departures. We all understand that. When CPT has a bunch of 737's inbound from JNB in a trail they do issue descent speeds well ahead of time. When I'm at the back of the trail, I've got the slowest speed, so I can't catch the guy ahead, certainly not if he's more than 10nm. So why can't I just have the luxury of a slow, uninterrupted descent? The spacing on final approach and a step descent 70nm out are not really related.
Some ATCs ask why we do not just use speedbrake to fix the profile, when we go high caused by step descents. Well, it's less effective at low speeds (250kt) and it causes passenger discomfort. So come on guys, just let us down!
Some ATCs ask why we do not just use speedbrake to fix the profile, when we go high caused by step descents. Well, it's less effective at low speeds (250kt) and it causes passenger discomfort. So come on guys, just let us down!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UAE
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul2004
To rely on pilots to monitor their tcas is just not right. We each need to do our own job and stop meddling in others. Pilots fly and ATC's manage the airspace.
As a basic rule ATC's go for the 3 degree rule plus some. It is a thumb suck but gives the ATC something to work on. If you want the a/c to fly slower than a 'normal' profile force the a/c down early - low and slow or hot and high. Generally do not keep a/c above the 3 degree profile. These are general rules that ATC's use and are by no means a hard and fast rule.
linuxgal
You got it right. That's how we do it in the UAE. The a/c that is last is pushed down early with speed reductions to create the extra space required to fit a/c in between. We work on a principle of 'Radar backed by procedural' which gives us greater flexibility than JS as they work 'procedural backed by radar'. It may not mean much to pilots but the gist of this is that in the UAE we sequence 10nm in trail and hand off to the next sector (Dubai or Abu Dhabi) regardless of level but in the correct sequence, i.e. number one is passing FL200 and the number 2 is passing FL150. In FAJS they sequence 15nm in trail but have to ensure traffic is procedurally seperated when handed to APP, i.e. number 1 is descended to FL160 and number 2 is only descended to FL 160 when number 1 is clear of FL160 (passing FL150). This does have a knock on affect when you are trying to keep number 6 in the sequence slow AND still need to get his height off.
I hope this gives you guys a little insight in what is required. I do stand to be corrected on the FAJS procedural backed by radar, but when I was last there that was the status quo. Generally speaking, SA can upgrade the procedures as they should have their redundancy levels by now. Once again the paying customer needs to ask these questions as they are the ones paying. The SA radar replacement program (SARRIP) should be close to finalisation giving triple radar coverage over the 'Golden Triangle" (join JS,CT and DN). Therein are the redundancy levels required to improve procedures. Question is will ATNS management modernise procedures? I feel they could have started this at least 3 years ago when De Aar Radar and Potgietersrus came on line.
To rely on pilots to monitor their tcas is just not right. We each need to do our own job and stop meddling in others. Pilots fly and ATC's manage the airspace.
As a basic rule ATC's go for the 3 degree rule plus some. It is a thumb suck but gives the ATC something to work on. If you want the a/c to fly slower than a 'normal' profile force the a/c down early - low and slow or hot and high. Generally do not keep a/c above the 3 degree profile. These are general rules that ATC's use and are by no means a hard and fast rule.
linuxgal
You got it right. That's how we do it in the UAE. The a/c that is last is pushed down early with speed reductions to create the extra space required to fit a/c in between. We work on a principle of 'Radar backed by procedural' which gives us greater flexibility than JS as they work 'procedural backed by radar'. It may not mean much to pilots but the gist of this is that in the UAE we sequence 10nm in trail and hand off to the next sector (Dubai or Abu Dhabi) regardless of level but in the correct sequence, i.e. number one is passing FL200 and the number 2 is passing FL150. In FAJS they sequence 15nm in trail but have to ensure traffic is procedurally seperated when handed to APP, i.e. number 1 is descended to FL160 and number 2 is only descended to FL 160 when number 1 is clear of FL160 (passing FL150). This does have a knock on affect when you are trying to keep number 6 in the sequence slow AND still need to get his height off.
I hope this gives you guys a little insight in what is required. I do stand to be corrected on the FAJS procedural backed by radar, but when I was last there that was the status quo. Generally speaking, SA can upgrade the procedures as they should have their redundancy levels by now. Once again the paying customer needs to ask these questions as they are the ones paying. The SA radar replacement program (SARRIP) should be close to finalisation giving triple radar coverage over the 'Golden Triangle" (join JS,CT and DN). Therein are the redundancy levels required to improve procedures. Question is will ATNS management modernise procedures? I feel they could have started this at least 3 years ago when De Aar Radar and Potgietersrus came on line.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gauteng
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PILOT/ATC SHINDIG - 27 MAY at HI-FLYERZ, Boksburg
Based on the discussions on this thread, it is overdue to have a social get-together. I have taken matters into my own hands and arranged a PILOT/ATC SHINDIG at HI-FLYERZ AVIATION PUB, 27 MAY, 5PM ONWARDS.
Hi-Flyerz management is kindly donating platters of snacks and possibly a nice surprise in the beverage department.
I'll send out notices to my contacts at ATC and the other airlines in a short while as an invite to the airline community. In the meantime spread the word! In the past these bashes have always led to just a little bit of greater understanding and a better relationship between pilots and ATC's.
Based on the discussions on this thread, it is overdue to have a social get-together. I have taken matters into my own hands and arranged a PILOT/ATC SHINDIG at HI-FLYERZ AVIATION PUB, 27 MAY, 5PM ONWARDS.
Hi-Flyerz management is kindly donating platters of snacks and possibly a nice surprise in the beverage department.
I'll send out notices to my contacts at ATC and the other airlines in a short while as an invite to the airline community. In the meantime spread the word! In the past these bashes have always led to just a little bit of greater understanding and a better relationship between pilots and ATC's.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, okay. I apologise most humbly about the tcas statement. You do have to admit though that there are some renegades who don't try create a mental picture of what's happening around them. They're intent on being number one, in fact it's there right to be number one. Appreciate please that this is a great source of frustration for ATC. Luckily they are by far in the minority. I'm all for cooperation and team work and believe that we're all here to make each others life easier and less stress free. As far as I understand most tcas see further than 15 nm. Is this correct?
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linuxgal writes:"Hi-Flyerz management is kindly donating platters of snacks and possibly a nice surprise in the beverage department. "
Here I am again missing a South African party and I dont even know what this thread is about......
Here I am again missing a South African party and I dont even know what this thread is about......
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The frequency jungle
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he he he Bert, dont worry. It doesn't affect helicopter ops unless your shooting an ILS at the big JS and are TCAS equiped and doing speeds in excess of mach critical
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day all.
Question for ATC. If I am flying a PC at FL150 (for example) inbound to Lanseria, why are we asked to descent to FL130 by xx miles JSV almost every time?
Hope to meet you guys/gals on the 27th...
Question for ATC. If I am flying a PC at FL150 (for example) inbound to Lanseria, why are we asked to descent to FL130 by xx miles JSV almost every time?
Hope to meet you guys/gals on the 27th...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hooray Linuxgal!
Good on ya! Its about time 4 a chindig with all the diferent hooligans 2getha. Will c u guys there.
p.s. I'll b the drunk, obnoxious one - now that doesn't help eh?
Good on ya! Its about time 4 a chindig with all the diferent hooligans 2getha. Will c u guys there.
p.s. I'll b the drunk, obnoxious one - now that doesn't help eh?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: around
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey there zslhf- i think the simple answer is that app climb traffic out to FL150 ,(acc descend to FL160), you coming in at FL150 versus o/bound FL150 radio failure not a good idea. I colud be wrong but i think thats why.
