2 straight-in, or not 2 straight-in @ FAJS?

[EltorroLoco]

Here's a question 4 all the drivers into FAJS...

With coming of the new SAAATS (South African Advanced somethingorother) radar system, the procedures into and out of FAJS are 2 b revised. This includes the SIDs & STARs, which is gr8 cos most of us ATCs think the current ones r, how should we say, not the best.

Anyhow, the ATCs have been pushing 4 all STARs into FAJS 2 end on the downwind, i.e. no straight-in arrivals. The powers that be, have stated that this will not b possible since the airlines will no b happy with it. Here is our reasoning 4 it:

-It is much easier 2 get the min sep between arrivals when one is turning them off the downwind, whereas straight-ins, although not impossible, require a lot more work with speeds etc.
-The aircraft's profile is not as important as with a straight in - e.g. if 2 high u just continue a little longer on the downwind.
-As it is now, as soon if more than 2 straight-ins arrive at more or less the same time, they have to be vectored off the arrival, and then back again which is very frequency intensive. Any more than this and they have 2 hold since it's not really woth the effort of vectoring some poor bloke 5 times throught the localizer for some spacing.
-There is not much consitency as it is at the moment. If u r no. 1 in a sequence of straight-ins u may get 320+ etc and mak FACT-FAJS in 1h40, but if u r no. 5 it may end up being 2h10 with the holds etc. If they r all on the downwind, it should make things more predictable.
-With the straight-ins it requires a lot of inter-sector liason when it gets busy. i.e. Who 2 hold, when etc. If they r on the downwind u just leave them alone when it gets busy, but nothing stops u form short-cutting when it is quiet.

So, pls give us yr impressions. We gotta make ouselves heard now, or the new procedures will be in stone 4 another 20 years and all u will hear on freq is "Cancel the arrival (depature), fly heading" which is not very efficient.
-

[George Tower]

The powers that be, have stated that this will not b possible since the airlines will no b happy with it.

As goldfishbowl operators you guys are in the best position to know what is most efficient so what's the reasoning behind the above quote. I seem to recall a post on here which said that SAA had banned visual approaches to RWY 19 at FACT - not sure whether that is true or not. But surely any changes that mean any airport can have more efficient arrivals and departures must be a good thing for the airlines.

[126.9]

Having operated in and out of JNB for a lot of years before moving to Europe, I believe that a lot could be learned from MUC and applied at JNB in terms of arrivals and departures. If you have access to a MUC Jepp section, take a look at that, and I reckon it won't be too far from what you're talking about right now...?

:}

[Radar Pete]

Spot on 126.9. Lessons must be taken from airports overseas that are far busier than JS. I believe the system at Heathrow is pretty efficient and they have been using it for a number of years now.

I am not entirely sure how it works but something along the lines of STARS ending at a base leg position (not at 5nm but further out at say 10-15nm) as opposed to a downwind. You would then have 4 positions around the airport which could be used for whichever runway is in used, i.e. one point as the beginning of downwind and the other the baseleg. The tradional straight-ins would then route to the baseleg position. Hope it all makes sense. These positions would then double as holds IF required. Somebody from Heathrow is more than welcome to shed some light on this.

The other thing is to reduce the number of STARS. Seven arrivals into FAJS is crazy. I would reckon that as a maximum 4 would be more than sufficient, add to this that the STARS are set up from 60nm as opposed to the current 40 with the RNP routes also commencing/ending at 60nm.

Essentially the STARS (and SIDS for that matter) need to be simplified in order for the ATC system and the flying fraternity to benefit from SAAATS.

EltorroLoco, I sincerely hope the powers that be will actually listen. Good luck.

[TheVeryRightOne]

Just as a small thought. Instead of European airports, which can often have quite complicated arrivals and departures, how about looking to US Airports for ideas. Chicago O'Hare which is one of the busiest airports in the world, makes things very easy. One departure for the entire airport. Ord One. Take a look.

[White Knight]

Please, 4, for or four

2, two, too or to....as well as u or you!!

I got halfway through your post ETL but it's bollocks!! Too much work decyphering it at the end of a long day.It really is a lot easier to type the whole damn thing out, at least from the readers point of view.... you sound like that idiot swish266 who text talks on various other forums.

Nothing personal.:cool: :cool:

Now what was this thread about???

[126,7]

White Knight
wtf r u on about? Just imagine its a mobile phone with a monster big screen and you received one hell of a long text message. Easy.
Have to agree with you about decyfering the whole lot. What a pain. I suppose it would be a lot easier if I was a teenager and thats the way I talk, type and read all the time.
Now back to the subject: Procedures at JNB are a little outdated and it would make sense for the STAR to terminate on downwind or base. The ATC chappy could always cancel the STAR when there is no traffic to affect. Many many airports to choose from when and if ATNS is looking for examples.

[gofor]

The 727 boys , who did 340 knots or greater for as long as possible and whoever took thrust b4 the OM were moffies(I might add!!!) or the spoories fluff's who did 320 to 20. Just so they could get the straight in from the south. To Become days of the past ?? and we will only be able to reminisce - yep those were the days.

JNB still has to move 6 times the traffic and get 10(yes 10) more runways (i.e. 5 strips of tar)!! And even then there are not enough app controllers in SA to even man such a centre(tracon) as KORD (O'Hare). LHR is a good comparrison to JNB with a similar airport layout - but being at sea level can afford closer spacing of aircraft - space them that close at JNB and you see go arounds all day (Though high speed turn offs would help)

The idea is great to have all the arrivals stacked on downwind same speed - makes for very safe , easy controlling to just peel them off by a director - but at the cost of the carrier having to carry an extra 20mins of gas:uhoh:

[EltorroLoco]

Ta 4 the replies dudes,

I thought I was not completely dilly.

I gotta agree that the airlines & ATCs actually have the same goal in mind, i.e. I want the 'planes on the ground and outta my airspace even more than the pilots want to be there!

Also agree that there r 2 many arrivals. The inbounds need 2 b funnelled @ some stage since they r landin on the same piece of tar eventually.

Gotta agree with the departures as well, if the aircraft r under radar control, they might as well be vectored 4 unrestriced climb and as direct a routing as possible.

Will keep hitting me head against the powers that be, methinx all I'm gonna get is a headache - but one has 2 try.

Thanx again.

[makeapullup]

So here we are. A few days in. Any comments, notes or obsevations?

[Maurice Chavez]

As far as you ATC guys are concerned, I think you guys are doing a great job! Just somethings I don't understand. When being vectored on a downwind for 03R and you guys ask speed 210 or more. Now base vector 180, final 150 to 5 miles... Number of times there's no departing traffic on 03L, but at least 3 on final for 03R. Why don't ask us to side step to 03L if in VMC? I for one would have no problem with that...Anyway, haven't seen the new arrivals yet, will see on Monday morning.

Hope you guys had a Happy Wellington's day last week! :suspect: :suspect:

[Solid Rust Twotter]

STARs ending on a 10-15nm base leg position for vectoring makes more sense to me. The arrivals can be fanned out to space them and there would be no crossing of tracks to make the turn to downwind, sometimes 180 deg or more. The final point of the STAR would also give a far better idea of runway to be given for landing and approach sector control would also be a bit simpler (I'm guessing here).

As usual, the powers that be will do as they please and sod the users....:rolleyes:

[EltorroLoco]

It's been 3 days since the earthquake, and I have yet to met a controller who actually likes the new SIDs & STARs etc. What a mess ACC SE is with all the right turns off 03 and the DN, PE, EL and GG arivals having to cross. Lotsa levelling off and lotsa "too high to turn base".

I'm a little disappointed too, since we have no terrain, and only noise abatement to A085 to worry about, the arrivals and deps should be a model of how it should be done. 4 SID right turns on heading 100, jets and props together? No PANS OPS, you guys should have a wee look at this and at least be scratching your heads, if not hanging them!

It's always a good idea to have change, if it is necessary. I believe it was, but we are no better off - and I'm willing to bet the stats will back this up.

I'd like to hear some drivers comments about them too.

Anyway, it is of no real consequence, everyone is in controlled airspace, so it won't be long till non-standard clearances are issued and lotsa "Cancel arrival, fly heading" are heard. We are used to catching the ball in the dungeon when those in the light drop it. It's not a bad attitude, it's QBE (Qualified By Experience).

P.S. Maurice, the runway allocation is done by the tower, with the default being 03R, so if the dude in the tower says nothing, even if nothing is moving on the airfeld - 03R it is, unfortunately. Unfortunately because he/she is 10-1 very new at this, and he/she also knows that go-around = "chop yr nads off", even if the pilot elects to go-around for reasons out of the towers control, e.g. too high, too fast etc.