London ATC ?

[Bealzebub]

English ATCO's may be the "best in the world", but I am afraid that the ATC system isn't any more. Hand over to London from Brest, France or Maastricht and these days my heart sinks. It is often difficult to establish contact because of the plethora of instructions being given to aircraft without any break in between. When a break occurs it is often corrupted by the queue of aircraft then simultaneously transmitting their check in. At the FIR/UIR boundaries most aircraft are starting or in the early stages of their descent profile which only adds to the imperitive.

I appreciate the need to better utilize spacings for the benefit of everybody and this often requires heading and speed variations from those associated with the SID's & STAR's. I don't doubt that lack of investment is also a factor in pushing the system to its limits. However the constant overlap of transmissions does nothing to enhance safety or efficiency and seems to be at least in some significant measure a result of the stream of instructions and lack of adequate transmission breaks.

Obviously this is a one way viewpoint, and I would be interested in hearing the ATCO's views. This criticism is not particularly levelled at ATCO's for the reasons I have already stated. However arriving into UK airspace may once have felt like arriving home, now it feels more like shooting the last class 5 rapid before arriving home ( only not as enjoyable!). Is there anything that can be done to improve the communications aspect ? Can SID's & STARS be better utilized or adjusted to cut down on multiple instructions without causing undue additional delays ? Any suggestions, comments, observations ?

[RAFAT]

As I share the same aerial viewpoint as yourself, I cannot offer any suggestions or solutions. All I can say is that I echo your comments exactly.

[toon]

Yep, couldn't agree more, for all the 'safety this and that' money talks.

[Captain Windsock]

Bealzebub I wonder if you fly for one of the carriers which form the Airline Group? This group bought almost half of the part privatised NATS but they did it with borrowed money and then left NATS to pay the intrest on the loan. That is just one of many reasons why NATS is so underfunded. When an organisation is underfunded R&D is one of the first things to suffer. You are seeing the results.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

A few weeks ago it took us 14minutes to check in on a London frequency. Eastbound over the top of Stansted we selected the freq abeam Heathrow and finally managed to get our callsign heard as the east coastline approached. First time I've seen it really really stupidly busy.

I tip my hat to the controller though - I couldn't keep that up for more than 5 minutes without totally losing it.

Cheers


WWW

[Bobby Guzzler]

Always seems to be ok for us until we get onto that ****in 118.82 frequency just before we pass into Essex. Never heard anything like it, don't think I hear people ever check in - take a breath Mr Controller! :bored:

[Baywatcher]

Often better to wait until they call you; they know you have been handed over!

[CrashDive]

Baywatcher.... ditto that, i.e. just continue with your nominated SID / STAR / flight plan route, comply with it's latteral, vertical and speed constraints and wait for ATC to call you.

[Over+Out]

I am one of those on 118.82. Thank you for your kind words.
We work to standard procedures and levels. We see you on radar on departure and coming towards the stacks. If you have not checked in, because it is too busy, don't worry too much we know you are there and can see you. We will call you ASAP.
When you first check in to UK Airspace you are given your route and SID info, it would be great if this info could come on a data-link. Do all aircraft carry ACARS ? I wonder if a link like that could be used. It would certainly cut R/T TX.

[Capt H Peacock]

Data-link clearance trials have been going on for some time in Europe. It would be an improvement clearly. But on a busy frequency, the concern is that we may be unable to interject with a safety critical message, for example a TCAS resolution.

Whilst I might be broadly happy to accept the increasing use of ‘negative handovers’, ie the assumption that an aircraft will have arrived on a frequency without a formal check-in, this would have to be backed up by vigorous protocols. For instance both pilots should cross-check the frequency has been correctly selected, and that the traffic on the new frequency involves the expected stations. 121.5 must be monitored in case the frequency hand-off was erroneous. This procedure might be suitable for some ground stations such as Apron, Tower, and en-route sectors, but it is unlikely to ever be suitable for a TMA/RAPCON controller.

Still more reason for us all to strictly adhere to RT discipline.

[Del Prado]

Bealzebub,

as an ATCO, I couldn't agree with you more. many of our frequencies are getting overloaded and the problem is getting worse not better with barely enough time for a basic service provision and no capacity for when things go wrong.

NATS is short of controllers, particularly on the busy sectors. Market forces over the last decade have forced NATS to cut costs and privitisation has led to a serious funding problem.

That said, privitisation makes NATS more customer focused and comments like yours, from pilots or from airlines should force NATS to address your concerns. Have you tried getting these issues raised with NATS, through your chief pilot or ATC liason ?

"Still more reason for us all to strictly adhere to RT discipline."
- well said Capt H.

[Bigmouth]

All the above true, and data link certainly wont hurt. Meanwhile, us drivers could help a little while we wait for funding and solutions, by cutting down on the chatter.
There´s always some joker who insists on his good mornings and good afternoons, others feel like they have to read back everything word for word with callsign front and back. Essentials only will do just fine when it´s busy. With a simple frequency change, a simple ¨roger¨ will do. Maybe not quite what the book says, but so what. If you fly the leg every day and know what´s coming, it´s ok. (If it´s your first time in 3 months, then it might not be, but use your head.)
One major airline flying into LHR has a lot of pilots who for some reason insist on giving certain ¨descend¨ info that´s not required, yet at the same time leave out present altitude when checking in. So atc has to make an extra transmition ¨verify altitude...¨
So guys: help out, cut the niceties and keep it short and sweet.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Bigmouth

I don't think your reply of "roger" to a frequency change is really ideal. All the seconds you save will be lost in spades the first time someone gets it wrong and comes back to ask again. As for familiarity, just look at the confusion between 129.2 and 129.225 that happens every day (is it Scottish and DTY high?).

G W-H

[square leg]

I don't know how much this is appreciated, but when we fail to get into contact with ATCO's into or out of the London area, we simply squawk IDENT to say: "We are here". That's when they then call us and the problem is solved pronto.

[JuniorX]

As another one of the ATCOs who works 118.82 (and the even more frantic 119.77) I can only say that at times it is just as frustrating for us when the R/T is really going. All of us working those sectors are aware that aircraft are waiting to check in, and often are waiting for you to do so, but we are keen to "keep control of the R/T". The trouble with this is that, as mentioned previously, we end up with a backlog of aircraft waiting to check in, which means that as soon as there is a suitable gap in transmissions three or four different aircraft try to transmit at once! This means that we then take over the R/T again by saying "Three at once there, was one the BAW***?" Once that crew have responded we are likely to say "Was the other RYR***?" They respond and off we go again doing what is needed with those aircraft. The trouble now is that another two or three aircraft come on freq, and cannot get in on the R/T and so the cycle continues!:rolleyes:

How we can solve this problem is difficult to answer at the moment, as sectors will always be split as far as traffic dictates, subject to the appropiate number of staff being available. In the meantime stick with us, and keep the R/T standard!:ok:

[250 kts]

As Over+Out states you will get your route on first contact with a LACC frequency. Couldn't we come up with a system that on first call the crew tell ATC which STAR they are flying and then we only amend it as and when required. eg. London BAW292 FL370 on a BNN2A. I accept that there will inevitably be headings required but at least we know that if you Radio fail you will follow the STAR that we expect. We would also be required to amend it if any en-route holding was required

[izatrue]

squawk IDENT?

square leg, nice way to get your anxiety level down a few notches when failing to make first contact in terminal area, but then again, i imagine a couple of us doing so, i'm not sure the atco would appreciate his scope burgeonning with a/c symbols going two or three times larger...

i've been taught to avoid doing so, unless requested by atc, due to the corresponding plot/symbol getting much bigger and overlapping others for a significant lenth of time, thus making things worse in a crowded atco scope.

happy landings

[Suggs]

127.95, 131.92 on the Lam's out of EGKK, can be just as bad, even with the DB controllers that we have.

Clacton Sector is always a bit silly.

Paris has got a couple of airports, 4 runways using not much capacitiy

We've got 4 airports 5 runways 100% + at peak times capacity.

No wonder as with all our transport systems there are probs.

[fireflybob]

Maybe a slight tangent to the thread but would not the fitting of Contran to all aircraft avoid the crossed transmission issue?

[ElNino]

Busy as London ATC may be, its always a relief to leave Paris ATC and get handed over. Nice to get instructions in clear concise English without the "benefit" of numerous "aaaahhhhh"s, "disregard"s and "call you back"s... And of course none of the lunacy of half the transmissions not being in English.

[Over+Out]

Izatrue. Squawk ident on the radar is a small circle flashing around the position cross. Therefore it does not hinder normal labels on the tube.

[zkdli]

Yes the frequencies are busy and it is good that pilots are noticing! But why, when it is busy do alot of the pilots insist on asking for high speed beyond speed limit points, direct routings or diferent levels to those flight planned, when they can hear how busy it is? :O

On a slightly different note I was on an easterly sector yesterday. One pilot was obviously late and had been speeded behind a low cost carrier (yes thats right, he was being slowed behind a low cost carrier). He was adamant that he could overtake and kept telling ATC that.
Now the sector was LHR to AMS, and he could give a 40kt overtake at 340kts. We worked out that he would need 200 miles about to do it. But the pilot continued nagging until he got another level to try. He didn't make it and still came second after runnning at high speed. All that aggro for not very much except more fuel burn:D

[Random Electron]

The other problem of 'Sqawking Ident' without being asked to by the ATCO is that he/she may already be expecting an ident from another, nearby aircraft, and could get misled by your, unasked for squawk. I would only squawk ident if instructed to do so. Like a previous poster said, the controller knows you are there. If you can't call him/her, they will call you if necessary.

[salzkorn]

"Busy as London ATC may be, its always a relief to leave Paris ATC and get handed over. Nice to get instructions in clear concise English without the "benefit" of numerous "aaaahhhhh"s, "disregard"s and "call you back"s... And of course none of the lunacy of half the transmissions not being in English. "

yep, maybe...

but at least, our radars work... and checking-in pilots can pass their messages...

As far as the language used is concerned, the day you will understand we just answer in the language the pilot uses (even English with a strong French accent), you'll have made tremendous progress...

and thanks to the BA pilot who was very satisfied with my approach vectors at CDG, and said it was worth thanking me...
we might not be the best atcos in the world, but at least we are capable of good work and some open minded British pilots can even acknowledge it...

[PODKNOCKER]

Departing London, the departure frequency is OK, but the next two (westbound) frequencies sound like they have their heads in a bucket of cotton wool. We turn the volume up to max to hear ATC then get our eardrums shattered by aircraft transmissions.
After turning the volume down again, the next ATC transmission is missed...and so on. No problems with Shannon, Shanwick, Prestwick or Scottish (or the USA)...unique to London. I have been told Swanwick are still using the old transmitter via a link.
Arriving London, the biggest secret in the world is the runway in use at Heathrow. Why no digital ATIS via ACARS?

[NigelOnDraft]

It is getting stupidly busy on some sectors. However, "adapting" to it e.g. by not reading back frequencies etc. just covers this up.

As Capt P say, stick to the correct discipline, no more, no less. And if it gets beyond a reasonable time to get a call in, then ASR / MOR it.

And whilst here might be a time for requesting non-standard speeds etc., or other non-safety related requests, when the freq's busy commonsense needs to be used...

[Bigmouth]

Very true, podknocker.

And to the by-the-book guys: If it works, it´s right.

[eyeinthesky]

Another problem is the 'cover your back' mentality which now prevails. A few examples:

1) Ever since a certain US carrier landed at Brussels instead of Frankfurt we have to give full route information to aircraft landing in the UK and the next two reporting points to overflights. You can imagine how much time this uses up in saying it and getting a CORRECT readback. There are very few cases when the route we give is different than the one the crew have, and often these hav been identified by the Flight Plans dept. Why can't we just assume they will file the route on the strip unless we have reason to think they are different? Often a route to a reporting point wll suffice, since if it is an unexpected one the crew will query it and we can sort it then. How many times a day do we say to the Brit crew on its umpteenth rotation : "Lambourne 3A Heathrow"? Surely we only need to specify it if it is different to usual (e.g a stack swap onto BIG 1E).

2) As discussed several times on these fora, the sectors rely on target descent points to keep aircraft out of other sectors. But we're told we must restate level restrictions based upon one point if we clear them to a new place. Why? Surely it's better to assume that the restrictions will still apply UNLESS we lift them. That's fail-safe and probably MORE restrictive so we can specify when we DON'T need it.

3) We are supposed to say 'Maintain' to all aircraft on first contact (but not "MAINTAIN FL XXX" in case we say the wrong number and our US colleagues decide to demonstrate their own exceptions to ICAO and take it as a climb or descent clearance). An instruction to 'maintain' is a mandatory readback item. Of course they will maintain the level as we have not told them to do anything else. Another back-covering waste of time.

All of these take up RT time in a transmission and readback and are basically unnecessary. Meantime some poor bloke is hurtling towards TOD unable to get a word in while the third attempt to get a correct route readback is made!

However, thanks for the kind comments about Clacton Sector. It can be a bit 'sporty' at times!:eek: :D

[whatunion]

On some frequencies it is noticable that the controller never has any break in conversation. This continual speech is surely not in the best interests of safety as well as putting the controller under pressure. i am suprised that the relevant authorities including the atc union allow this.

generallyI give up after three calls, if atc want to speak to me they can call me. in regard to volume of calls its time to start filing some asr's

[Doug the Head]

Slightly off topic, but why do some airports (like LTN) require you to "advice aircraft type and QNH on innitial contact?" IMHO this really blocks the frequency and this is not done anywhere else.

1) Radar heading, or cleared to point
2) Altitude
3) ATIS information
4) QNH
5) Aircraft type

As far as aircraft type is concerned, can´t ATC read that off those cards?

QNH, this should be picked up on the ATIS.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Doug the Head

I can't comment on Luton specifically, but most large UK airfields ask you to "report aircraft type and INFORMATION xx received". (They are not asking for the QNH). Knowing what information you have received alerts the controller if you need to be updated about a change in the weather/runway in use etc.

The aircraft type is written on the strip, but airlines do change aircraft occassionally and the change doesn't get picked up until you call Approach/Director. This is more important in the UK than elsewhere beacause there are more wake vortex groups here than standard and controllers routinely use the minimum spacing allowed between aircraft. So if you are in a 737 following an aircraft which the strip says is a 757 but is actually a 767.. your day might not have the happiest of endings.

G W-H

[Doug the Head]

THX for the info Giles Wembley-Hogg.

At LTN they want you to also (in addition to ATIS info Letter and aircraft type) confirm and readback the QNH "on initial contact."

I understand the wake turb cat point you make, but it´s a trade off against blocking the frequency for something that should be correct on the flightplan/strip.

Perhaps a silly idea, but couldn´t ATC make an exeption for airlines that operate only one wake turbulence category aircraft anyway, like Ryanair and easyJet? It would reduce a lot of unnecesary radio chatter in the London TMA on the APP frequencies near LTN, LGW and STN. ;)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Doug the Head.... How does ATC know that a particular airline only operates a particular category of aircraft? I have several times seen "small" airlines lease a "heavy" jet and you can't expect ATC to know what types every airline uses.. As has been pointed out, airlines often change types without telling ATC. If they didn't this particular safeguard would not be needed.

As for getting the QNH off the ATIS, that's really asking for trouble. If you knew how often pilots quote the wrong ATIS info you wouldn't make such a suggestion. I've had countless - and I mean COUNTLESS - aircraft lock on to the wrong runway at Heathrow because they listened to the ATIS an hour ago and, despite being told the up-to-date info and being reminded about it during the approach, have STILL used the wrong data. And how about some of our US friends who suggest we don't need readbacks and, when prompted, read back 992 as 29.92???

We can never be too safe. Further to what eyeinthesky said about the Brussels flight... I was on watch at Heathrow when a DC8 landed and during taxy-in the pilot said "Jeez; we should be at Gatwick". That's one reason why the radar controllers remind you about the runway several times during the approach. It might seem over-the-top, but it would probably have avoided that particular incident.

[chiglet]

Doug,
At Manch we have an Arrival ATIS [A-M ] and a Departure ATIS [N-Z ]
BOTH have different bits of info on them.....It really is amazing how Departures listen to the ARRIVAL ATIS
We also have a lot of "Type Changes" that the company "forget" to let ATC know...so it helps us [just a little bit....:hmm: ]
watp,iktch

[Lon More]

Over+Out

At Maastricht data link trials have been carried out for several years.

They were terminated for a while when the new display system came on line but were re-introduced towards the end of last year.
Unfortunately the info, and instructions for which we may use it was limited at the request of certain National Administrations, which has probably deterred a number of operators from joining the scheme.

It certainly has a place in tomorrow's ATC, however at the moment it is still piggybacked onto the input system and, at Maastricht at least, not very user friendly,especially when busy.
I retired a few months ago so maybe some one like Traffic Traffic or Four Three Three - BTW, loved the score last night, salut les copins - would be able to provide more info, otherwise look at the Eurocontrol website.

FWIW, when it's that busy, and the traffic is following SIDs/STARs/is en-route, and is identified to the controller, would not a better instruction be, "C/S monitor unit on freq.."? Then the next controller can call them up as , and when, he needs to work them. Unfortunately requires a more intense monitoring of the freq., and probably 121.5 than is now the case.

Lon More, more than just an ATCO
Here before Pontius was a Pilot or Mortus was a Rigger

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<"C/S monitor unit on freq.."?>>

That's a procedure employed at Heathrow Tower, and no doubt elsewhere but as a lifelong communicator, both in ATC and elsewhere, I do not favour it and have never used it. It may not be too dangerous with a/c on the ground but when they're up in the sky I suggest it's fraught with danger. How often have you waited patiently for someone to call and then immediately gone in with the next best thing to avoiding action? I've certainly seen it and done it in the LTMA. It can take some pilots several l-o-n-g seconds to make contact so you never know if he's actually there.... and how about if the guy is twiddling his thumbs and listening on the wrong frequency? No - communication MUST be properly established, then by all means just monitor.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

I suppose we as pilots could do our bit to cut down on frequency congestion by getting our initial call to the departure controller correct. I think it is worth reiterating that in the UK you must report:

1. Passing level
2. Cleared level
3. SID designator

when you first check in. No exceptions. Every day many flights miss at least one of these items out leading to calls from the controller to extract the information.

G W-H

[Bright-Ling]

And another thing....!

PLEASE DON'T SQUAWK IDENT UNTIL ASKED! Just means we have to wait until it stops and ask you again! I appreciate it is done to help but it doesn't:)

Back to the topic.....

I agree with HD - and there is a definite overloading problem on most frequencies in the LTMA. Answers on a postcard! (actually, the whole airpsace would need redesigning so answers on a FlipChart!)

[refplus20]

Reading back the QNH, Aircraft type and ATIS ident on first contact with Luton approach is fine and understandable, but why do they read all the same information back to you even when you've gotten all the bits correct? Seems to take up a lot of air time!

:ugh:

[Stu Bigzorst]

Heathrow Director,

Sir, in our operation we are specifically NOT allowed to listen to the ATIS in the descent. So it will nearly always be out of date.

A question for atcos, please. As I understand it (reading CAP) when being transferred to a new unit we should check in with:

ATC name
Callsign
Passing FL / Alt
Cleared FL / Alt
Heading / SID / STAR / Routing

Do we need to pass the "Passing" bit when going from one frequency to another if both are, say, London?

Also have to add that 119.77 is overloaded, to say the least.

Stu

[Jerricho]

Doug,

Just as a further to your suggestion of airlines that only operate one wake category, where conditional line up clearances are being used eg "After the landing A320/737....", there are instances for whatever the reason, where the aircraft is different to what is on the flight progress strip (as chiglet mentions), hence the requirement to check type on first contact. It's a very small point, however could lead to a little confusion for a pilot if he's told to line up something that doesn't turn up!

[LightTwin Driver]

One way to cut down on the length of RT transmissions would be to ban the prefixing of one's callsign with the word "The".

You may think it sounds slick,but we don't,ok ?

:ok:

[Over+Out]

I am one of those TC Controllers.
I would like to say' Thank You ' to all those pilots who give me their read back as quickly as I deliver a clearance to them. Some Nationalities speak v--e--r--y slowly and take ages to read back, even when it is very busy.
It is a slow read back that takes up most time, saying 'the' does not matter at all. I say bring back '' The Speedbird Concorde 1 ''

[Justforkix]

Some Nationalities speak v--e--r--y slowly and take ages to read back

As English is not the native language for many of us, requesting us to read back in the speed that you deliver the clearence, is simply stupid.

I'll say if you speed down a little, we would be able to understand better and you would not have to repeat the message. That way rt time is saved, NOT the other way around!

One thing that could save time on a busy freq into London is this:

LON:"XXX123 Intercept and follow locelizer rwy 25 left, report established"
XXX123:"intercept and follow locelizer rwy 25 left, will report established XXX123"
XXX123:"Established locelizer rwy 25 left"
LON:"XXX123 Follow the glide"
XXX123:"Follow the glide XXX123"

In other countries the sequence is as follows:

Lon:"XXX123 cleared ILS RWY 25 left"
XXX123:"Cleared ILS RWY 25 left XXX123"
Simple is'nt it?

Regards from a scandihooligan, that thinks that most controllers in the London area is doing a very good job, with out of date equipment.

[NW1]

I say bring back '' The Speedbird Concorde 1 ''
Thanks, O+O! "No speed restriction" doesn't bring quite the same rush of adrenaline as it used to, and remembering all those callsigns >4 is proving challenging too...:(

Back on topic, though, more use of ACARS and standard R/T must help. And would it be possible to dispense with the "Descend FL280, expect FL140 40dme OCK" if a) that restriction is published anyway and b) we're going to have to hear it and read it back all over again when it's actually issued? (I know its been said before)...

[Danny]

Just out of curiosity, I prefixed my callsign with "THE" a few days ago when arriving back in UK airspace. I really emphasised it the few times I could remember to use it. I waited for a flash of lightning and a thunderclap... but nothing (Might be because it was pretty much CAVOK everywhere). Neither the controller nor other pilots so much as added an extra sigh to their transmissions. :(

I then rushed home to check PPRuNe for the torrent of abuse that my deliberate provocation should have caused... but nothing! :uhoh: So, I guess that delivering the prefix "THE" must only cause irritation when spoken with an accent that sounds like you've got a stone from a plum in your mouth. It would seem that us common garden (without the garden) yokels from the provinces with our Scouse accents just don't get up noses in the same way as all those Public School educated, ex RAF types that fly for companies that provide final salary pensions. :ooh: :}

[Feather #3]

On Justforkix point, we had to pull a big offset on the LLZ a few weeks ago [go-around was my initial choice] because of this very instruction; we couldn't get a word in edgeways to report "established 09R LLZ"!!

Please, set us on a vector and clear us for the ILS.:) It will save a heap of transmissions and make for an easier day after a very long sector.

G'day ;)

[Danny]

One thing that does seem to be a waste of time is all those clearances that tell you to be level XX miles before YYY waypoint. (Standing agreement)

For example, when departing MAN on a HON1 departure you will eventually be cleared up to FL190. On handover to London on 131.12 you will eventually get a clearance to climb to FL310. No problem with that but I remember only a few years ago you would be cleared to FL310 to be level 50NM before BIG. Again, no problem. Then they created a waypoint (SOTED?) which was exactly 50NM from BIG. Not once in the few years that I remember noticing this new waypoint was I ever actually cleared to it or to be abeam it at FL310. Now, I have noticed that we are always cleared to BIG and to climb to FL310 to be level by 55NM before BIG.

How long will it be before they create a new waypoint 55NM from BIG? And... if they do, will the controllers ever use it?

Same goes for arrivals into MAN. At least they haven't created a waypoint for this one (although why, I don't know?) but you were always cleared to descend to FL200 to be level 20NM before TNT. Now it is 25NM before TNT.

Invariably, the restriction is always given so why not publish the restriction and only use up valuable RT time when the restriction is not necessary rather than the other way around? At the end of the day, if you had an RT failure you're going to fly what's published anyway.

Finally, whilst I'm on a roll here, why do MAN Clearance Delivery insist on reading back the ATIS identifier AND the QNH even when you have already passed both on your initial contact with them? Not usually a problem but I have noticed that some controllers do so even in the middle of rush hour when getting a word in edgeways can mean the difference between achieving your slot or being stuck waiting for a new one.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Feather #3 and Justforkix

I don't think you will ever get your preferred phraseology adopted at Heathrow because of the interaction between such things as Helicopter Routes, London City, White Waltham etc. and the approach. It can be a pain I admit, but I think that the "cleared ILS" phraseology would end up generating more paperwork in the long run, especially as speed control is vital and some pilots may assume that the clearance removes the ATC imposed speed.

The phraseology could find application at some quieter airports in the UK though.

G W-H

[Over+Out]

Justforkix
I accept your point. I always do try and speak more slowly for non native English speakers. The ones I was talking about were our friends from the US of A.
As a TC Controller I am not allowed to let an aircraft intercept the ILS, this can only be done by APP Controllers. I can only tell an aircraft to intercept the LLZ.

[M609]

especially as speed control is vital and some pilots may assume that the clearance removes the ATC imposed speed.

Not a problem at terminal controls other places, and it's the phrase at most pilots are used to hear. (Non UK ones)
Don't see the problem speedcontrol wise, the other points, well one would not know.....

[Warped Factor]

Giles et al,


I don't think you will ever get your preferred phraseology adopted at Heathrow because of the interaction between such things as Helicopter Routes, London City, White Waltham etc. and the approach. It can be a pain I admit, but I think that the "cleared ILS" phraseology would end up generating more paperwork in the long run, especially as speed control is vital and some pilots may assume that the clearance removes the ATC imposed speed.

This particular item has been covered here before.

There is r/t phraseology available at Heathrow, and all other UK airports, that allows what is being requested. Just a shame more don't use it.

We are allowed to say "when localiser established descend on the ILS".

At Heathrow it would be along the lines of "turn left heading 300 degrees report localiser established 27L" as normal then when appropriate and before the arrival has reported loc established "descend to altitude 3,000ft, when localiser established descend with the ILS". It's also recommended these days, following instances of a/c slowing unexpectedly, to say "maintain speed xxx knots" when giving descent on the ILS.

It's a bit more cumbersome than just saying "cleared ILS" but it works and also protects the numerous a/c and helicopters that operate under the approaches.

WF.

[moo]

Just out of interest, how often do you get 'two at once', where two aircraft simultaneously transmit and tread on each others toes as it were? I can see that gaps in RT over London are scarce and at the smallest gap it would seem that two aircraft could quite easily transmit simultaneously.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

M609

I have never flown anywhere that speed control is used as it is at Heathrow and Gatwick. I can't think of anywhere else that it is used to maintain the bare minimum separation between aircraft. There can be no room for the confusion over whether the speed control exists after hearing "cleared ILS" that sometimes occurs as we bimble around the world. Checking with ATC is not an acceptable response either, since this thread is mainly concerned with R/T congestion!! Better to avoid the situation first, and I think that the current phraseology goes some way towards that.

moo

Aircraft step on each other and ATC all the time. I don't know if any statistics exist, but "not infrequently" is how I would characterise it.

G W-H

[Justforkix]

Just go to Copenhagen, the same is used here. Often 180 to five when there is a good headwind otherwise mostly 160 till four.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Justforkix

I have visited Copenhagen (and a very big thank you to the staff who showed me around whilst I was on a long turnaround), but I am sure they would be the first to admit that they don't "pack" almost continuously for large parts of the day. (I don't think they use 2.5nm spacing either, though I could be wrong).

If you get the chance to visit Copenhagen, or any TWR/APP unit during a turnaround, I thoroughly recommend it. It may take a bit of work to organise, but you would be amazed at what you learn.

To take Copenhagen as an example, they don't seem to use the phrase "report callsign only" when they transfer you to the final director like they do at Heathrow, but it is included in the approach plate notes. Talking to them brought my attention to this (especially as they said my company was one that got it wrong quite often) and hopefully that is one goof-up I can avoid.

G W-H

[M609]

though I could be wrong

I belive you are actually! I think Copenhagen are the only scandinavian airport allowed to go to 2.5 miles. Gardermoen and Arlanda use 3
I know for a fact that Arlanda use speedcontrol all the time as well, in the same manner as described above. Oslo a bit less i think. (Maybe FinalVectors can enlighten us??)

Granted the peaks are less freqent there, compared to Heathrow, but I don't see why there shold bee any difference in RT.....

As for protection from traffic below/close etc.....how does that factor in? ILS is ILS, and if aircrew decend/slow/(turn) before fully est. they are in vilolation of air law..... (assuming under vectors)
If things need to be highlighted, do so on the plates, not on RT 20000+ times a day?

Don't anyone allso think, that once you have to assume that pilots will f*** up as a rule, that you are walking down a dangerous street?

[Warped Factor]

M609,

As for protection from traffic below/close etc.....how does that factor in? ILS is ILS, and if aircrew decend/slow/(turn) before fully est. they are in vilolation of air law..... (assuming under vectors)

At Heathrow we generally run around a 12-15nm final with a/c establishing on the loc somewhere between 4,000ft and 3,000ft.

On the westerly approaches London City departures climb to an altitude below the Heathrow arrivals (LHR descend to 4A, LCY climb to 3A).

In both directions under the final approach there are numerous helicopter and light a/c movements including one of the country's busiest GA fields almost directly under a 10nm final for the 09s.

The Heathrow arrivals on the 09s descending to 3A are also descending to only 500ft above the base of controlled airspace.

The approach plate that the crew have in front of them will show that the ILS approach starts from 2,500ft on the procedure.

Experience has taught us that although the a/c has only been cleared to either 4A or 3A saying "turn right heading 240 degrees cleared ILS 27L" is likely to be interpreted as a clearance to continue to descend to 2,500ft, the altitude shown on the approach plate.

This would be bad news for any number of reasons given the circumstances described above.

We appreciate that perhaps our system is less than perfect but on the whole it works for us and allows maximum utilisation of the busy airspace around and under the final approaches consistent with keeping the whole operation as safe as possible.

WF.

[Preppy]

WARPED FACTOR

The approach plate that the crew have in front of them will show that the ILS approach starts from 2,500ft on the procedure.

Quick solution: change the (LHR) ILS approach procedure so that it starts at 3000ft.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

M609

I stand corrected!! Thanks for the information - I shall add it to my mental model.

Warped Factor

Thank you. You explained the whole situation very succinctly.

Preppy

Good idea, although 4000' would be better against City departures. In an ideal world of course, we would take a blank sheet of paper and start redesigning UK airspace from scratch.

G W-H

[Justforkix]

Copenhagen uses 2,5 miles spacing and its stated on the ATIS and the general airport information to use "callsign only when checking in on director", although a lot of people still insist on giving precent altitude, altitude descending to, atis info, their speed and so on, aaaaaaaarrrrgh.... I'm going through the loc at this time. :hmm:

I'll give you that CPH don't have as much traffic all day, but at peak hours, they are have at least as many landing movements if not more than LHR, since they don't have as many heavy's to mix in with the mediums.

[fireflybob]

The issue of "stepped on" transmissions is curable by requiring all aircraft in the congested airspaces of, for example, London to be equipped with Contran - I believe Britannia have this fitted to their aircraft. Yes, it costs money but so does every other bit of hardware which enhances safety.

Many incidents and accidents may have been prevented by the fitting of Contran.

[whatunion]

what we need is budget air traffic control, get o'leary in to run everything. he could charge atc for every call they make, that would ease up the frequencies!?

ps isnt contran 80s furniture

[chiglet]

Danny,
I think that the GMP Controller could be on "automatic".......However,
As a "Ground" assistant, it's amazing how many Arrival ATIS are called. To be fair, a lot ["most"] Aircrew obtain the [D]ATIS when "settling in", and perhaps 10-20 mins later call for clearance, and guess what, yup new DATIS is in operation.
Don't forget, correct info twice, is better than wrong info once....
watp,iktch

[Justforkix]

Thanks for excellent service on the 16'th, we were asked if ready from intersection, we were, then imidiately cleared for takeoff. Sorry for the five aircraft waiting at the runway end though... Gues it was our lucky day..... :ok:

[bagpuss lives]

I agree, it would be so much easier if standing agreement restrictions could be backed up with a suitable fix. There are some cases whereby this has happened (the L70 / L975 section between WAL/PENIL and LIFFY/BAGSO being a prime example with the borderlines of the delegated bits of airspace all given nice easy to remember names like GINIS and BABRA).

Sadly though I'm pretty sure there's some kind of ICAO / Eurocontrol ruling against the creating of fixes for this sole purpose.

Most standing agreement levels are obviously coincident with sector boundaries and to keep you in or out of the various surrounding sectors and we've been strenuously re-told recently to ensure we state the restriction every time we pass a related instruction. So, instead of just "climb FL190" you'll now get "climb FL190 to be level 10 miles before HONILEY" southbound out of 'CC. This keeps you nicely out of TC COWLY's airspace :)

At least, that's the theory :E

I suppose if one were to put a fix at every point whereby this sort of thing was the case, the country would be covered in the blighter's and we poor ATC'ers wouldn't know our ARSATs from our ELBOWs :)

But surely too that's the whole point of having fixes in the first place?

As for why these restrictions aren't openly published, I have no idea. It would seem to make sense.

Do airline ops departments / crews have access to MACC / LACC / ScOACC MATS Part 2s I wonder?

As for the Manch QNH / ATIS checks on delivery I expect one of my VCR colleagues would be more suited to answer the question in the correct way, but I suspect it's a case of better to check than not, especially when it can be a long period of time between initial contact with GMP and the push-back/start/clearance phase. There could also be something in the local instructions regarding this but I've not noticed it.

[Norma Stitz]

Danny et al

I think you'll find most if not all ATC standing agreements are published as 'level notes' in the NATS Standard Route Document, availble on the AIS CD-ROM or via the Eurocontrol AGORA website (you have to register for this). A friend of mine in Brussels says that CFMU are looking are following the UK's lead and publishing all such level info to help ops planners calculate standard fuel-burn profiles, etc..

Norma

[Panman]

"........I think you'll find most if not all ATC standing agreements are published as 'level notes' in the NATS Standard Route Document, availble on the AIS CD-ROM........" as well as in pdf format from the AIS website.

[Gainesy]

Holiday flights in peril from traffic jam in our skies


...is the title of a story in the Sunday Express* based on and quoting this thread.

Their web site appears to run a day in arrears though, still has yesterday's Daily Express on it.

* NB Only bought the rag 'cos of the front-page headline
The Red Arrows Face Axe

[Danny]

Just found out about this. Anyone care to post the content of the article here or send me a copy of it? I always like to know what the media use from these forums. :ooh:

[eastern wiseguy]

Just curious....but how come "wake vortex" apparently ceases to exist at LHR and I presume CPH when the rest of us tower and approach radar bods have to apply it?

[5milesbaby]

Wake Vortex exists at LHR just like everywhere else, the reduced spacing is only permitted between same vortex catergories such as B737's and A318/319/320/321's etc.

[toon]

couldn't agree more Danny, often wondered when climbing out of Manchester why i am now required to be level 5 miles before the point they put in for that purpose (50 before BIG) and why no mention has ever been made to me of this point ?
perhaps ATC dont have it on their screens yet ? same goes for inbound 25 instead of 20nm before TNT ??

Always wondered why ATC put us on a heading to avoid traffic when if they said go direct to * you could draw a straight line from the a/c to the point and they would see our exact track ?

[eyeinthesky]

Toon/Danny

Someone who does the Daventry sector and LUS/LMS will give you the correct details, but I believe that it is something like this:

The reporting points were established to get rid of all these DME restrictions to which you refer. Then the Clacton Sector was resectorised, and with it there were minor changes to London Upper and Middle sector airspaces. Then it was discovered that the new reporting points did not keep aircraft in the right bit of sky by the right time, so the new '5 before' restrictions have to be brought in. Nothing like some forward planning, eh?

With regard to:

"Always wondered why ATC put us on a heading to avoid traffic when if they said go direct to * you could draw a straight line from the a/c to the point and they would see our exact track ?"

Well yes! We all know an FMS will fly a track far more accurately than we can achieve using a radar heading. But our regulators insist we must used headings between traffic and not a specified track such as '3 mile offset' or whatever. So we must select a heading and monitor the track it achieves as the wind changes until we have another form of separation.

I have always thought it reasonable to specify: 'Continue on your present track' (to prevent weaving around clouds etc), or 'Fly 3 miles left of track' on two FMS-equipped aircraft would be far more effective but we are not yet allowed to do it.