Today at EDI and always....

[moist]

I felt sorry for the ATCO this afternoon at EDI.
He was under pressure from all sides. There were light aircraft coming and going, there were 6 or 7 jets/turboprops trying to leave AND worst of all a bloody Calibrator flying the WRONG way up 24 when 06 was in use, which has caused idiotic delays.

Now what I don't understand is:

Why did the "person in authority" whomever it may have been, pick the busiest and most unpopular time to caliberate the ILS?
Why could it not wait for an hour or so, when everyone would have been gone????? Why Why Why???

Why is it that always at EDI the controller waits until the landing aircraft almost vacates, before issuing a line-up clearance to the next waiting/eager aircraft? Why? And... often says "be ready for an immediate"???? Why can WE always see these things coming but "they" can't? It's most frustrating to us knowing that the next aircraft on approach will be tight and he/she COULD have lined us up earlier. Don't they think/anticipate or what then???

That's enough for today, more tomorrow!

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoist

[POLICE]

eastern wiseguy + HEATHROW DIRECTOR

Both of you are out of order as neither have given even a smidgen of a reply to quite an irritating situation at EDI as moist is not the only one to feel frustrated about the lack of "rhythm" at EDI.

Remember, we operate into 3 other fields each day potentially as you just sit at the same office day in day out. You pick up habits from one another and it doesn't half come through the "operation" quite transparently.
We get to experience the difference daily and thus have the gauges to judge "your" performances. Unfortunately moist is quite right.

[Stelios]

eastern wiseguy -

At seeing a guy who is doing his best when there is all sorts of cr4p going on and doing his/her best to keep a SAFE system running despite everything....YES

I thought that moist has actually made THAT point inasmuch as saying that the ATCO was being worked too hard by the situation he's found himself in:

Why did the "person in authority" whomever it may have been, pick the busiest and most unpopular time to caliberate the ILS?

Not blaming the chap but questioning the validity of a possible stupid decision to caliberate the ILS at that very time by someone else!

[PPRuNe Radar]

Edited this thread to remove the pointless banter which always follows pointless 'spelling police' posts.

POLICE

Remember also that we see different operators day in and day out. Some of our judgements and instructions are based accordingly :E

Some tell porkies about their indicated speed (must be a 20 minute turnaround thing), some native English speakers can't, some can't be trusted to follow published tracks (an aircraft equipment problem we are told), some immediate departure pilots then want to sit on the runway for a few minutes, and so on and so forth.

All that can be said is that there are levels of performance at both ends of the scale and on both ends of the mike. It's just life.

[eastern wiseguy]

Seems we have all been edited ......my previous posts will now be removed ....Stelios maybe if you had tried that approach rather than the inflammatory approach the situation could have been discussed in a civil fashion .

[NudgingSteel]

I've only just seen this thread and already all the juicy stuff seems to have been deleted!

Can't comment on the specific case, but instead of lining one up in a tightish gap, I've found it often worth waiting a few extra seconds to see just how fast / long the previous lander touches down, ie if it's going to make a particular (or the only!) turn-off. This always was the case if the difference was between a go-around for the next inbound, or saving 2 minutes for a waiting departure, no matter how eager to roll!
Naturally this depends on spacing, wind, aircraft type etc. Friends who fly commercially admit that there is a perceived difference over what's acceptable, depending upon whether you're lining up and ready to expedite, or winding back to minimum approach speed and waiting for a landing clearance.....

As for the Calibrator - ILS's don't actually need any calibration at all. The aircraft is employed to travel round the country providing live TRUCE training for ATC staff....

[Wheelybin]

Just a couple of points.

The current calibration of the 24 localiser is not a normal inspection but because it is a brand new installation. It has taken 2 full days to complete ( therefore holding off for a hour would not have made any difference.) Therefore the decision was made to do it at the weekend rather than 2 consecutive weekdays.

Also dont forget that until the shiny new control tower becomes operational, the controllers at EDI cannot see the 06 end of the runway. Landing a/c disappear behind the terminal building at about 1 mile final and do not re-emerge until the midpoint of the runway. Given these circumstances it is forbidden for the controllers to use conditional clearances and should the SMR be out of service ( as it has recently) cannot instruct an a/c to line up until the lander becomes visible to the controllers eye halfway down the runway.

Hope thats helped to clear a couple of points up.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Apologies - my comment was intended to be humorous. However, may I respectfully suggest that far more would be gained if the originator took time to visit Edinburgh Tower for a few hours to appreciate the ATC problems? There are reasons why certain procedures are employed and Wheelybin has detailed them. Perhaps now we may be spared the next instalment of Mr Moist's rantings?

[flying scotsman]

it would be very simple for ATC in EDI to send an e-mail to the airline ops rooms in EDI entitled.

'How to get the best out of EDI ATC'

in it you could mention all the usual point raised in these topics. As an EDI based Pilot I reckon it'd stop half the guys moaning if they understood the limitations on ATCO's and the airport itself.

most of the base captains / crew managers would be only too happy to pass it on.

as for the bickering. well done, very helpful. I'll give you all a hand putting your toys back in your pram when you've finished...:ok:

[The Greaser]

Although I don't fly into EDI frequently I have always found ATC helpful and efficient. Keep up the good work.

[Scott Voigt]

Scotsman;

I agree with you that the facility should have a users meeting to let folks know what is going on, however, having been to a few of these, I expect that they may have and that airline management may not have gotten the word out to the troops. But even if not, how many flight crews have bothered to take the time to stop by the facility to see what actually goes on??? In the US it is almost criminal to see how few "professional" flight crews take the time to come and learn a little bit about the other side of the mike. We do classes at our facility for pilots and for the most part, it is all GA pilots wanting to learn more and be more professional. I would say that 99.6% of the paid pilots couldn't be bothered to come out on a day off. We see a lot of this at safety conferences that we put on too... I see far many more controllers going to these events than I do pilots.

regards

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety Committee Chairman

[moist]

Wheelybin

Thanks for your informative reply.

It seems there are some others that are simply there to snap at anything!

I for one didn't realise you couldn't see the 06 end and that you are not allowed to issue conditional line up clearances. That is a reply I can live with.

Not sure about the calibration at exactly that time, but I am sure it wasn't the ATCO's decision.

I look forward to the big tower's improvement!

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoist

[stopp the climb]

On the subject of EDI, whats with all these departure delays first thing in the morning?

[Wheelybin]

Stopp The Climb, I am sure my friends and colleagues at Scottish control will correct any inaccuracies here but this is my understanding for the reasons for the delays in the morning.
A resectorisation Of the Talla sector has taken place, such that at the busiest times of day a new sector called Talla North opens up. Unfortunately there were no new frequencies available for this new sector to utilise and so instead they use a frequency that is normally used to split the Dean Cross high sector.
The Talla North sector is considered the busier of the two during the morning rush and so gets priority over use of the frequency. However Dean Cross is almost as busy dealing with the Southbound flow and so Scottish Control impose Minimum Departure Intervals (MDI's) between successive departures from Edinburgh via the Galloway sector. These are usually of the order of 1 a/c every 4 minutes. These MDI's take priority over any slot time that your flight might hold but does not mean that the slot can be ignored. Therefore if the MDI restriction puts your flight outside of the normal slot tolerance then a new slot must be negotiated.
What with this, remote holding, restrictive pushback procedures and trying to work out whether it is more expeditious to get a Talla departure away between 2 Galloways, all within minutes of first arriving on shift, if you listen very carefully to the frequency you can just about hear the ground controllers brains trickling out of their ears!

[Evil J]

Well said Scott-same deal over here.

Be nice though if we can also get on a flight deck once in a while without having to give 3 years notice!!

[BALIX]

Wheelybin

Good explaination of the rather ridiculous Talla sector split we have at the moment. The frequency of Talla North is shared with Deancross North (not high) so it is a case of fingers crossed that we don't need both sectors open at the same time. How they've got away with this half-arsed arrangement God only knows.

However, the MDIs you are talking about are applied because the Galloway sector, which handles the bulk of the outbound traffic, gets overloaded. Splitting the deancross sector would not normally make any difference. Galloway sector is, in effect, full between 0700 and 0730. It can handle 42 movements per hour but the morning rush can put most of these 42 movements in half an hour. Hence slowing the departure rate to spread 'em out a bit.

Splitting the Galloway sector needs to be looked at. Hopefully they will do it right this time :rolleyes:

[radar707]

This issue of MDI's has always puzzled me, the traffic is forecast to flow through the relevant sectors at the relevant times, therefore flow control should be applied if the potential for exists.

Therefore is this NATS was of meeting its destination with regards to NATS attributable delays by imposing MDI's which are no doubt not counted as delays since they are not measured by Brussels

[Wheelybin]

Not exactly Radar707. A sectors capacity is measured in movements per hour ( as in Balix's example of 42 movements per hour for the galloway sector). If demand for a sector exceeds its capacity over that hour, then a flow restriction is imposed. Therefore by the very nature of this calculation a flow restriction must apply for a minimum of sixty minutes.
However it can sometimes occur ( such as during the morning rush) that a large number of departures are expected through a sectors airspace within a short period of time.( Say 36 a/c in 30 minutes). Although the number may be less than the sectors capacity, the concentration of flights demands a restriction be applied, hence MDI's are used. MDI's are therefore always applied for less than 60 minutes, typically 30 to 45 minutes. This is a practice that has been going on for many years at Southern airfields. It is just that with the growth of traffic North of the border we are starting to see them more frequently here too.

[eyeinthesky]

Radar 707: Wheelybin has adequately explained the reasons for MDIs. However, your apparent disapproval of this method of managing traffic intrigues me.

If we can use MDIs or speak to neighbouring units and get them to give us radar headings or miles in trail or whatever, and thereby protect the sectors whilst moving the traffic with minimal delay then surely that is a good thing. A flow restriction is actually a very blunt tool, for the reasons Wheelybin has already explained. If we were to put in a flow measure to achieve the same result as is managed with an MDI you would probably find the delays are much larger than a 1/3 or 1/5 MDI will create. The workload for ATC and Airline ops in managing the slots would also increase.

Traffic management is developing, and flow restrictions are only one of the methods. It has nothing to do with fudging it to meet delay destinations, and everything to do with balancing the demands of the airlines with the limitations of the sectors and protecting the controllers from overload.

[BEXIL160]

Minor point here..

Sector Capacity = The absolute limit

Target Sector Flow (TSF) = What can be safely handled by the sector team leaving room for emergencies etc.

TSF is (or should be) the "limiting factor", not the absolute capacity of a particular sector.

There are no prizes for those that raise rates above TSF and then have incidents occur.

BEX

[BALIX]

Fair point BEXIL. The 42/60 I alluded to in respect ot the Galloway sector is indeed the TSF. We are told that this is set at 80% of the sector capacity. If we could be assured that traffic is evenly presented to us over a given 60 minute period we would be able to handle the sector capacity of 51 without much problem. Of course that doesn't happen, there are always 'clumps' of traffic and also the possibility of something unusual happening like an emergency.

[Talla Radar]

"Good explaination of the rather ridiculous Talla sector split we have at the moment. The frequency of Talla North is shared with Deancross North (not high) so it is a case of fingers crossed that we don't need both sectors open at the same time. How they've got away with this half-arsed arrangement God only knows."

Balix, I've read many of your recent posts with interest. Some points you make are well said but some of them cause me concern, and the above certainly does. I find your comments offensive in that they do not recognise the professional manner in which your TTCs protect the whole operation and ensure that keeping "fingers crossed" is not a factor in maintaining safety. By all means point out the shortcomings of the system, but do not scaremonger.

[1261]

And as for MDIs always lasting less than an hour.....

CC has a permanent MDI for all HONILEY and LISTO departures (1 per 3 on each route) every day between 0700L and 0815L.

I would like to believe that this was nothing to do with meeting destination whatever-it-is (and everything to do with protecting the sectors) but I'm afraid that I can't make that leap of faith! We are always under trenmendous pressure not to flow traffic in or out of CC at any time - but MDIs are frequently imposed during the traffic surges, and often for more than an hour.

[Evil J]

Thats nothing-MACC have a long term MDI that lasts for 3 HOURS in the morning and 3 HOURS in the afternoon, 1 every 5 out of EGNX northbound!! 30 mins my a*$e!!!

[BALIX]

Talla Radar

Apologies for sending out the wrong signals. Believe me, I'm not having a go at the TTCs or indeed any of the watch management teams that have to somehow cope this part time piece of sectorisation. Indeed, the 'fingers crossed' comment was not alluding to the safety of the system but the hassle that we all face, TTCs, sector controllers and ATSAs in running part time sectors. I have a lot of sympathy with the TTCs.

When it gets down to it, though, Talla should have been properly resectorised, properly equipped and properly staffed. I'm not scaremongering, simply frustrated.

[Scott Voigt]

Right now we have NO access to the flight deck and it doesn't look good for getting it back anytime soon...

regards

Scott

[West Coast]

"I would say that 99.6% of the paid pilots couldn't be bothered to come out on a day off."

Operative term, day off. When ATC used to fam with us, it was on guv time. If it was a day off they were headed to Vegas or family reunions, etc. Just as with controllers, my time off is my time off, I try not to think about aviation unless I'm being paid to do so.

[The Sad ATCO]

Balix,

When you have finished your nasty scaremongering, can I enquire whether you will be employing those finely crafted suggestions from the new, anonymous TMA working group? :8

I, for one, feel that by not removing speed control, keeping aircraft on the SIDs and by not allowing anyone else to phone me for coord I can deliver the extra capacity to more easily manage that exciting morning rush on GAL. Not. :mad:

I think that generally we are well protected by our TTCs (although we lack a little consistency between watches); however, with our TLA split we have only addressed half the problem with the TMA. As it will need money to find an effective, holistic solution, I think that it is unlikely that we will see any improvement.

Cynically yours with a flat strip board,

Sad

[BALIX]

Oh Sad One...

I think you are even more cynical than I am :rolleyes:

Seriously, I didn't used to be a grumpy old man. But time has taken care of the 'old' bit and recent developments in our ops room have not done anything to delay the onset of grumpyness. Oh, and I'm not looking for promotion so I don't mind if I piss off unit management by moaning about it on Pruune. I'm certain they know who I am...

But Talla Radar has a point and I should have expressed my concerns in a way that didn't appear to the casual observer that safety is in the hands of the gods. And no, I don't mean the Watch Managers :}

Oh, and my strip board is always propped up with a strip holder. But I'm ever so glad that it has been pointed out to me by the ops boys that the bottom two inches of the display are no longer visible if I do that. I wondered where they had gone :E

[AyrTC]

It was not like that in my day:E .But hey lets drag Tay down because the TMA are trying to use a less than perfect system:mad: Is it really that difficult for a "P" man to answer a telephone and say climb approved.

AyrTC

[stopp the climb]

Would I be right in thinking that Scottish imposing MDI,s is the equivalent of EDI holding at Tweed and Stira.

[brain fade]

I see this thread is titled 'today at EDI and always....'

Could I ask EDI ATC two quick questions?

1. You always used 6 miles before you got your Runway end taxiways 'in case someone misses the turn and has to backtrack'. Now the RET's are operational it's still six. Why no change?

2. Why do you take no notice of the wind? ie using the 6 mile gap means approaching a/c can take vastly longer to reach the airfield when there is 60kt Head Wind over the Firth than they do when it's still air. I've seen the queue build up some mornings with gigantic pauses between a/c getting cleared to go.

Thanks

[Swift]

BF - You seem to have a very poor memory as both of your EDI questions were replied to in one of your previous topics two months ago: "EDI Approaches".

Although EDI now has a full length taxiway, we still don't have RET's; hence why we still need 5 to 6 miles between landing a/c.

The point about strong headwinds is an interesting one. If we're dealing with medium-size jets (73's/75's/A320's etc) then I agree that final approach spacing could be reduced to 4.5/5 miles. However, as soon as you get Dash 8's, D328's and Saab 340's landing with a strong headwind they end up virtually stopping at the midpoint and then taking a considerable amount of time to vacate the runway. At times like these 6 mile gaps is almost not enough!

As EDI gets busier we're going to need to utilise the runway far more efficiently, employing similar techniques to Manchester and the London airports.

What we need is another one of those Pilot/ATCO forum thingy's where you can tell us what you'd like to see and we can tell you why it ain't being done.

Feel free to drop by the tower anytime for a vist.

Swift

[brain fade]

Swift
THanks for your reply. My memory plainly ain't what it was but I still don't see why, since backtracking will not be required due to being able to roll to the end, that you've stuck with the six miles.

Specifically, if there is nothing waiting to depart, I am completely mystified by your assertion that you still need 5-6 miles gap. Even still air. Why? How long do you think it takes for a landing a/c to vacate the runway? (especially as most still dont go to the end anyway!

Thanks for your comments on the wind. I hadn't thought about really slow a/c needing to speed up to get off at the intersection! However you've ignored my q. about taking the wind into account generally.

I agree with your comment about needing to improve your utilisation of the runway. It's painfully slow at the moment. I'll come up to the tower soon for another look round but you need to go somewhere else too and the same for your colleagues because nowhere is as slow as EDI!:{

[Lock n' Load]

I see brain fart is still slagging off EDI ATC without justification.
The 6 mile gaps were never "in case one missed the turn". If an arrival was expected to miss the turn (A340, VC10, B741, etc) 6 miles was not enough. Yes, if there a strong headwind there was plenty of room for a landing clearance, but that's not the whole story.
An aircraft taking off into a strong headwind makes less headway than one taking off into still wind. If 4 miles gaps were used between arrivals in strong headwind situations, every departure would lose separation from the departures ahead and behind.

[brain fade]

Lock n load.
So you need six mile gaps even if there's not going to be one launched in between. That what you're saying?

Oh for a straight answer.

[BALIX]

Would I be right in thinking that Scottish imposing MDI,s is the equivalent of EDI holding at Tweed and Stira

Well, both are a result of too many aircraft fitting into a given bit of airspace at any one time but there the similarities end. The holding happens when more aircraft arrive at the holding fixes than can be accepted by Edinburgh on a free flow basis. Aircraft enter the hold and await their turn.

MDIs, on te other hand, are a way of spreading out the outbound traffic that could otherwise overload the Galloway sector.

[Lock n' Load]

No, brain fart. When I was there, my watch routinely went to 4 mile gaps when there were no departures, and we weren't alone in that.

[brain fade]

Lock n' load
There's little evidence of '4' these days but I agree that it happens now and then. On the other hand its not at all unusual for Paris to launch a 747/340 etc when we are at 2.5 miles which is the sort of thing you don't often see at EDI!

I don't quite get what you're saying about loss of seperation. departing a/c move faster than landers so
1. wouldn't seperation be increasing
2. Not a problem elsewhere, as outlined above, so why at EDI?

Wish I'd thought of 'Brain Fart' myself. In British armed forces we use the term 'Ready' instead of the rather girly 'Lock and Load'. Why use three words when one will suffice?

Didn't you see Swifts comment about trying to achieve better runway utilisation? I agree with him. How exactly this is achieved is up to ATC I suppose. I simply pointed out a few obvious things which look to me like areas that might yield some improvement. However, as usual, back comes the usual defensive diatribe. Are you saying it is so hot at EDI that it can't be improved? Don't make me laugh!:confused:

[Swift]

BF - If you have departures you need a 5/6 mile gap, if you don't then 3/4 miles should suffice.

When there are no departures the tower controller should instruct the radar controller to pack inbound a/c to minimum vortex spacing.

However, EDI has still to master the art employed at TC and Manch of pack-one, gap-one (etc), when there are just a few outbounds but a load of inbounds. Although some controllers endeavour to expedite the traffic in this manner there are no procedures/guidance laid down at EDI to facilitate this method of working.':rolleyes:'

[NudgingSteel]

brain fade

Regarding your comment about Paris launching heavy traffic when you're at 2.5d inbound....what's your view on that as a pilot? Most ATCOs that I know, at least, appreciate feedback on certain procedures, and this issue of departing one just ahead of a lander is going to become more common at more airports as traffic levels grow. (And I know about the issue of a heavy jet causing turbulent wake in the touchdown zone on a calm evening for light traffic etc). I guess you fly something E145-size or bigger; just curious whether you come down on the side of more expedition or more room on short final.

[1261]

NS,

I suspect that BF flies an E145 or something SMALLER; otherwise he'd be out spending his millions instead of slagging off EDI on here....

....or he could just be from Glasgow.

BF,

Any similar complaints about Manchester? You seem to have plenty to say!

[ATCbabe]

Why did the "person in authority" whomever it may have been, pick the busiest and most unpopular time to caliberate the ILS?

To get back to the original topic there is never a good time to have a calibration, let alone a wrong end calibration!!!

As one of the controllers on that weekend I would like to say that my colleagues worked their b*llocks off that weekend. Not only was it busy with IFR traffic and a busy VFR day but with a wrong end callibration and an airshow at East Fortune, who's aircraft were all based at Edi, hence worked in and out to make good their display times, there wasn't one of us that didn't go home feeling shattered. And before anyone says "awwww shame", I'm not complaining thats the job we are payed to do.

The calibration was essential, otherwise we would have no ils, so a small delay is always going to occur. Had we not got it finished that weekend then the calibrator aircraft would have toodled away sunday night to his next job and Edi would have had to wait for another available slot, prob at the earliest the next weekend, delaying the ils by at least a week. Not really good considering fog is not uncommon!


As for your comments Brain Fade I for one am becoming tired of hearing them. As always you are welcome for a visit to ATC, perhaps for once you will accept and come over then maybe you will stop whining quite as much.

Babe

[brain fade]

1261
Correct on both counts. No complaints about Manch tho. Sorry.

Babe.
Nobodys forcing you to read anything but sorry for droning on anyway. I've been over before and phoned up too. Made about as much progress as here.

Nudging steel.
There seems to be no wake issue but there's sometimes a bit of rock and rolling in the flare due to engine wash. Nothing serious tho. Personally I don't mind and as someone pointed out they need to try quite hard due to traffic volume. I prefer this to the over cautious' ultra safe approach at EDI- needless to say the Paris ATC ers are as safety minded as any others.

Swift.
Takes quite a bit of nerve I expect so hats off to those who manage it. Not the end of the world either if you get the odd g/a is it. I suppose GLA has much the same ATC environment/ difficulties that EDI has (although its maybe not as busy. They seem to be right on there game at GLA tho, at least to an occassional user like me. Why don't you copy some of their ideas?

[Exasperated]

BF

EDI handles 20% more traffic, here are the figures

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/exasperateduk/ScreenShot002.bmp

You also conveniently forget the limited view from the existing tower.

Just a thought

Would you operate in the same way if half the cockpit windows were blacked out? Somehow I think you may become more circumspect in your actions

Ex

[ATCbabe]

I suppose GLA has much the same ATC environment/ difficulties that EDI has (although its maybe not as busy.


You suppose wrong. Yes we are busier than gla which the figures show. However;


1- Gla have a runway which they can see. They don't just get a glimpse of 2/3rds of it. Because of this there are restrictions like no conditional lineups or clearances on 06 which all slow down operations.

2-Gla have high speed exits which do help. All of Edi's are 90 degree turns which altho I'm sure doesn't slow yourself in vacating it sure slows down the rest!

3-Gla do not work the VFR traffic we do. From what I was told they cut down what they worked a long time ago. However as I dont work there I could be wrong, but I do know we very rarely turn down transiters.

4-Edi works IFR traffic inbound to leuchars and dundee daily. These all add workload onto us but these are not added to the traffic figures published. This means we do a lot of work outside controlled airspace.

5-Gla has a much better airfield layout. From what I remember they dont pushback from 1 stand blocking a whole apron all the time. This is a regular problem at Edi which slows down ground considerably.

These are only a few of the differences between Edi and Gla but they point out that our environments/difficulties are nothing similar. As for saying that we can copy a few of Gla's ideas I think you will find that we do infact follow the same rule book as Gla and indeed most airports, so the "ideas" are or at least should be the same. As you admit you are only an occasional user there, maybe if you spent more time there you would find a few flaws as well!

And I would also like to point out that I am not minimising Gla in anyway. They have, I'm sure, their own problems and difficulties.

Babe

[benedictus]

ATCBabe,

Statistics are wonderful things 20% sounds like a lot, break it dowwn for the month it's not that much more - probably accounts for all the freight movements you have, might be worth looking at the passenger figures or aircraft types to make a decent comaprison.

1. Yes we can see the runway - we don't however have an SMR

2. Only have RET's on 23 and we are in the process of stopping using them due to possible implications of the siting of the holding points

3. I would suggest we probably work more VFR than PH, look at all the stuff flying out of PG, I've never (in the 6 years I've been at PF) nor do I know anyone that has ever refused a zone transit

4. We work IFR to PK, PG and all the crap in Class G out to the West all of which are not classed in our movement figures either.

5. Push from Stand 6, 7, 21, 31, (767 off 36) (767 off 19) and you block a whole taxiway (Just ask Easy Jet Crew how annoying this is), stand4 will block K, 10 or 16 will block L, 23 or 28 will block M, 33 will block N.

Our difficulties are as unique to us as yours are to EDI, the fact is we both work well doing what we do that is moving the traffic we have with the limitations that apply to us and the same goes for all the uniots across the land. SAFE ORDERLY EXPEDITIOUS in that order.

I am happy to say that we do it well perhaps better than anyone else in the world.

[brain fade]

Look folks I've been based in Scotland for years at both GLA and EDI. (though not, obviously, at exactly the same time). GLA's always been streets ahead and IMHO it still is. It seems to me that at EDI they take some sort of delight in forming a queue from however few a/c they have in their clutches. Sometimes just one!
For example at GLA the phrase 'advise at anytime if you wish to continue visually' is heard all the time but very rarely at EDI. Sure must help keep the queues down! not to mention controller workload.

Now EDI folk, I know you're itching to come back with some reason why thats not a go-er at EDI.

Why not try doing it instead?!:ok:

[1261]

That one's pretty simple - in the UK ATC is not allowed to offer visual approaches to IFR traffic. The request has to come from the pilot.

That said, I'd be lying if I said I'd never done it. :)

BF, perhaps you'd like to tell us about an example of how you ignore a (CityExpress??) company SOP (or the ANO for that matter) to cut a few corners in the name of expedition?

[stopp the climb]

When was the last time an EDI inbound got landing clearance outside 2 miles?

I believe the movement rate is regularly in the mid 30s which with the traffic mix and crap SIDs doesn't seem too bad!

[benedictus]

1261,

At PF we're not offering a visual approach, we are merely reminding the pilot to let us know if they do wish to make a visual approach, thereby expediting the traffic situation.

It may only save 5 or 6 miles per approach but over a day that adds up and less miles means less fuel burn which results in savings for the company, it also reduces controller workload and results in expedited arrivals - one of the reasons you will find we very rarely need to hold at LANAK no matter how many inbound a/c we are working.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<That one's pretty simple - in the UK ATC is not allowed to offer visual approaches to IFR traffic>>

Presumably a recently introduced rule? My ancient MATS Pt1 says:

12 Visual Approach
12.1 To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights may be authorised to execute visual
approaches if the pilot reports that he can maintain visual reference to the surface and
a) the reported cloud ceiling is not below the initial approach level; or
b) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the
visibility will permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance
exists that this can be accomplished.
12.2 Standard separation shall be effected between such aircraft and other IFR and/or
SVFR aircraft.

Nowhere does that say ATC is not allowed to offer the procedure and I must have offered thousands during my time at Heathrow. Pilot says: "We have the field in sight", ATC says: "Do you wish to continue visually?".. Pilot agrees so ATC says "Cleared for a Visual Approach..

[161R]

HD

Quick! Replace the Mats Pt1. Table's falling over.

There used to be a thing we could use when radar wasn't available , called "Approach Maintaining VMC and Own Separation" which pilots had to request - we couldn't offer, which I suspect is where the confusion is coming from.

Sadly gone now, but we used to pass the traffic info, and let them find the field, hopefully avoiding the other traffic.

Ah, those were the days. Procedural approach on a nice sunny day - from GMC.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

161R - it's me that's falling sideways, not the table! Never able to use VMC procs at Heathrow due to Class 1 airspace, but used it abroad in Area Control!

[Nil further]

EDI v GLA

Have to agree with the majority of posters , EDI is a lot slower for arrivals and deps than GLA , however having done exactly what the controllers here suggest and visited the existing tower a few years ago , i was completely horrified . I t was like something out of a war film . Ancient equipment , quite clearly starved of investment . The airfield lighting panel looked like a school science programme gone wrong and as for the view ! .

I asked at the time why they did not include a note in the AIP , Jepp , Aerad advising crews that tower could not see 06 or most of the stands . (maybe thats been done now)

I note the contoller says they have no RET 's , with all that investment in new taxi ways , surley that could have been included .

Having said all that , i found EDI a horrendous place to work as do most of my colleagues , nothing worse than getting a roster change to operate from there . The -ve cant do attitude starts at the staff car park and permeates every aspect of the place from the top down , some of the ruddest most abbrasive people i have ever encountered in aviation work there . a special mention needs to be made of some of the security people who seem to take great delight in being as rude ,un-helpful and obstructive as they can to staff whilst the DETR are wandering about with small arms strapped to their backs. When youve made it through this lot and out to your a/c the fun really begins !

In general though , it is increasingly obvious to those of us who operate regularly in to scottish airspace and the two main airports that the current set up just cannot cope with the traffic flow as it is now at peak times and someone high up needs to take a "blank sheet of paper " approach to the whole thing .

I believe the ATC guys at area and Airport control do a good job within the physical confines of the equipment /procedures they at the moment , however to take as an example the airpsace in london is more complex and the volume of traffic they can move is of a different order . Maybe some cross-fertilisation of ideas's techniques should prevail .

GLA ATC dont get too complacent i leave you with this one , B737 call for push stand 10 , approved . ATP call for push stand 18 . 737 asked to make long push to allow ATP to push .

Both taxi to A1 , 737 offers to take B1 to speed things up , "no you are No 2 to ATP" Both on TRN SID . ATP departs , 737 waits 6 mins , thereby increasing block time by 25% for a BFS sector .
GLA ATC state ATP taxied first so gets airborne first . This type of thinking will need to change . If the 737 had gone first there would have been no delay to the ATP . 6 mins of wasted space . Would not happen like this at LHR , LGW or STN .

NF

[benedictus]

Nil,

The situation you describe at GLA is a very rare one and something I have never done, nor witnessed, an ATP can go 1 min behind a 737 on a TRN departure whereas the 737 needs 4 mins behind ATP.
I can only assume one of 2 things happened tehre:

1. You had a slot and were early

or

2. A trainee in the tower made an incorrect decision and justified it by stating that ATP taxied first so departs first.

Definitely not the norm as I'm sure you're aware if you operate into / out of GLA as frequently as you probably do if you fly for the orange crowd.

Feel free to come and look at our antiquated equipment anytime you like, we might even be able to find a chocolate biscuit.

[brain fade]

Benedictus
Damn Right!

Nil Further
Couldn't agree more. Our handling, for example, is a fuc.ing disgrace.

Heathrow Director
Any idea why they don't then (as none of the EDI folk will tell:confused: )

IMHO the whole place is a fuggin pain in the arse from start to finish.

[Nil further]

Benedictus

Didnt mean to imply that was the norm' .Was trying to insert a bit of balance to the pasting that the guys at EDI got.

GLA is a great place to operate from , the absolute opposite in terms of attitude to the deal in EDI .

I do stand by the statement that the way all of us pilots / atco's in Scotland operate at the mo' is not a useable model for the future and something radical will have to change . The problems documented on this thread about EDI are the beginings of a melt down across the area and some "blue sky" thinking by the powers that be in both Scottish and at the major airports is neccesary , it will not be long before your major customers are banging on the door looking for you guys to pick up some or all of the tab for the ATC delays . ( i know that management at Director level in a major loco are looking closely at the change in the rules later this year)

Regards
NF

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Heathrow Director
Any idea why they don't then (as none of the EDI folk will tell )>>

No, sorry... but there must surely be a valid reason.

[benedictus]

Nil,

What we need is some restructuring of the SIDs, as it stands, all the SIDs go straight ahead for at least 5 miles before turning, this means that the minimum departure interval (unless we can apply early turns to the West and use reduced separation) is 2 minutes or vortex for each and every departure. This results in delays at the holding points, especially in the mornings and early evenings. Couple this with Minimum Departure Intervals (MDIs) into the Galloway sector which are now occurring on a daily basis (sometimes 1 departure every 5 minutes) means even greater delays for anyone going out on a TRN, NGY, DCS or TLA departure. This then becomes a Ground Controllers nightmare, do we stop a/c starting, try and get a departure order that will work with minimum delays or just let you guys take 20 mins at the hold. I appreciate that the norm at the likes of LHR and LGW is perhaps a good 20 mins at the hold in the queue, but you shouldn't have more than 5 or 6 at GLA. Add the fact than when we're on 23 there is nowhere for anyone to pass if we can get a slightly better order unless you can accept a 'B' departure (assuming you can get to B because of traffic ahead of you).

Our problems are numerous and by all accounts only going to get worse, radical change will be needed if things are going to improve. I saw the BAA plans for next year at GLA and the extra stands will help ease the parking problems we have, but the new taxiway design (a near 90 degree turn by the tower) will certainly slow things down and cause a lot of congestion which I don't think the airfield can actually handle.

[Nil further]

Benedictus

Ta for that ,seems we are broadly in agreement about the need for radical change . Too bad no-one further up the tree seems to be listening .

As i mentioned earlier , maybe they will when the customer starts demanding some money back.

NF

[moist]

Having started this thread a while ago, it seems I am not the only one that feels that EDI ATC needs to start adapting to their ever increasing workload. The new tower is a realistic step in the right direction.

What worries me at the moment is the attitude of some controllers, with defensive answers to a real problem. The problem isn't just ours as pilots but theirs as well.

The way BF has been related to here and the way he was just not given the answers to his genuine questions, goes in the same bag.

Regarding other comments about "nor can do" attitude, I wholeheartedly agree with the poster. It is just a huge pain in the ar$e to try and do a day's work efficiently from EDI when all this negativity is going on.

The place is clearly being run slowly and inefficiently and needs to wake up and smell the coffee. We operate all over the place and have the right tools/gauges to compare EDI with any other airport in Europe, but our comments, which could be taken as a free of charge market survey, with a few suggestions therein, seems to be falling on deaf ears or being attacked by defensive attitudes.

We are your customers, we need change, you need to listen and provide. Simple. Make an effort. Place jets before turboprops, use gaps efficiently, predict well ahead, expedite where need be and let us do our 4 sectors on time.


mmmmmmmmmmmoist

[PPRuNe Radar]

Place jets before turboprops,

For departures, of course, and presumably vice versa for arrivals :cool: At least props can keep the speed well up until well in on approach :ok: Which will help this airfield pack them in :E

[moist]

PR,

Yes but can they do 330kts 20 miles out???
I believe sequencing gets slower if a TP is ahead, but the last 6 or 7 miles where it could be faster than a jet. So all in all can you as a controller work out which should be put first, what would be more expeditious?

cheers - mmmmmmmmoist

[callyoushortly]

I've been sitting in the background reading this but I feel it's time to reply now.

I don't think anyone is under any illusion, pilot or ATC, that the Scottish TMA needs an overhaul. The SID's were designed at a time when expedition wasn't key, as there weren't enough aircraft for it to make any difference, the airspace was designed at a similar time with rules and regs to fit and the fact that (I think) Scottish centre still work on a 14" portable TV for the TMA makes keeping things tight almost impossible!

The infrastructure at EDI is far from ideal, new taxiways do help, however, the question about RET's was nothing to do with ATC, I believe they weren't built as the distance between the runway and the Alpha taxiway is not wide enough to allow space for the RET and then a suitable turn onto the taxiway. The new tower will also improve matters, but wil not necessarily solve the majority of our problems.
Stand occupancy offers further problems, it's not something that ATC have any control over but have to react to as it happens. Holding for stands is becoming commonplace and can be frustatrating from an ATC point of view when, between the aerodrome authority and airline companies it is decided that aircraft should hold for particular stands when there are vacant stands, all for the price of a bus! Furthermore, the already stretched Operations department is being further depleted thus impacting on the whole expedition of the airfield.

"Make an effort. Place jets before turboprops, use gaps efficiently, predict well ahead, expedite where need be......" :ugh:
I just wonder what Moist thinks I spent 2+ years training to do, and try to do each shift to the best of my ability.
Moist also mentioned that it might be a good idea to plan ahead and put props behind jets for departure, good thinking Batman, I wish I'd thought of that...... only thing is, where do you decide to stop farming out jets at the expense of a prop? They have to depart somewhere and pay for our service just like the jets do, so why should they be delayed more than any other? If you were a prop driver do you think you'd be happy watching a stream of jets depart while you waited for a 'gap'? I can think of a particular BA Dash8 driver that would have immediate complaints.

You have to remember that your TCAS doesn't show you everything, I don't remember seeing slot times for other aircraft, the need to vacate a particular stand, aircraft tech problems and the like appear on it last time I did a fam flight....... (any offers??)

That said, I'm by no means saying we're perfect but we try. If feedback on forums such as this was a little more educated and constructive then you might find that the ATC workforce may be a little less defensive and more likely to take on board your comments.

Feel free to visit, there's always a seat and a spare headset..... :ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Yes but can they do 330kts 20 miles out???>>

And who wants to do 330kts 20 miles out? No pilot I ever met in 31+ years of controlling at Heathrow. You don't need that sort of speed to land lots of jets.

[callyoushortly]

Moist,
Just read your latest rant.......

20 miles from the field, that's below FL 100 in Class D orE airspace isn't it??
I always thought that 250kts below FL100 was standard unless, quoting our manual:

"in Class D airspace when authorised by an air traffic control unit" or "in Class E, conflicting traffic may not be known to ATC and so it is necessary for all flights to make use of the see and avoid principle. In order for this to operate effectively, controllers shall NOT authorise a relaxation of the airspace speed limit"

This makes you all similar speeds doesn't it??

Before you make off the cuff comments, make sure you know what you're talking about.

[Wee Jock McPlop]

Moist/Brain Fade,

The reason why you have received such a hostile response from Edi controllers, and others, is because you have failed to grasp the facts and blame Edi ATC for what is in fact a far wider issue. The reasons for your frustrations are understandable up to a point, but do not necessarily lie at the door of Edi ATC. Try reading (again) the comments about airfield layout/infrastructure, less than expeditious SID routeings, ScATCC limitations etc, etc. They have been explained a number of times over on this and other previous posts. The issue is more far ranging and you should have realised that by now. Yet you still come back to it being an Edi ATC issue, choose to air your ill-informed complaints on the www and wonder why you're being chewed-out!

There are ways to go about things and ways not to. To tell us to 'make an effort' is a poor joke. We at Edi, like all the ATC staff at Gla, ScATCC and elsewhere, work bloody hard on a daily basis to give you guys what you want - given the limitations placed on us. To infer we are not making an effort is an insult. If I have an issue with a pilot, I do not choose to air it on PPRUNE and give them/their company a very public slagging - possibly because it might turn out to be me that is wrong, not them! Yes, there are areas for improvement and yes, some of those areas are being looked at - but not all. Just remember, there are ways to go about gettings these improvements and ways not to. I strongly suggest you both find a more professional/constructive way of furthering your complaints/issues and then you might get a different response.

[moist]

callyoushortly

I DO know what I am talking about. I have more than once been asked to keep my speed up at EDI, like it or not and have delivered 330kts to within 20 miles of touchdown. Easily done, controller, pilot satisfied.

Wee Jock McPlop

Just remember, there are a load of airfields around Europe. All have their problems. EDI is the slowest in handling aircraft, either departing or arriving. FACT.
When you begin to grasp that - changes can start occuring to the better.
Good luck EDI.

[callyoushortly]

Moist,

If the controller's asking you to keep up your speed then that's fine, he has removed the speed restriction for PLANNING purposes, I thought we didn't do that!!! Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you have to.

EDI is the slowest handling airport FACT, you say..... back this up please, I'd like to see where your info comes from.
As for things changing, until pilots like you are more constructive in your arguments quoting reality (Fact) not opinions then no-one can move on in a safe and expeditious, not to mention friendly environment. Maybe try putting things forward in writing to the unit or through your rep at the local safety meetings (or whatever they're called) until then expect more surliness.......

[moist]

callyoushortly

Look, EDI does and has asked to keep your speed up if you're number one or there's a large gap ahead. That is a fact.
In saying so, I probably seem to contradict myself as when I said EDI is the slowest, how could I be doing 330 then.

I could perhaps amend this by saying, EDI is pretty normal compared to others in arrival sequencing.
It is the departures that are much more frustrating, because the constant cul de sac problems, push back, then waiting for a long time - longer than usual, compared to other airports (Not LHR of course) to line up and take off.

I know it is not YOUR fault that the cul de sac is blocked, or that I have to wait for an inbound before I could push. That happens anywhere really. But once you're on the move things seem to slow down a lot more than elsewhere. The allocation of C or B for departure sometimes would make a difference, even if there's a TP at the end just about to line up. Here we could get out of your hair faster, the airspace wouldn't be so empty for so much longer etc... By the way I have spent my time on TPs.

Perhaps a bit more flexibility is in order. How many of you have been on a flight recently. Fair enough to invite us to the tower, hows about you guys joining us for 4 sectors soon??

cheers - moist

[callyoushortly]

Moist,

Probably the reason things seem to slow at EDI after taxi, more than anywhere else is again due infrastructure, final approach sequencing and general mix of traffic, I still maintain my point that a turboprop has to go somewhere in the sequence, and just because you arrive at C1 able to go, as he's lining up at D1 doesn't mean you should necessarily get to. Remember it's generally one departure per approach gap, and the 20 minute queue that only we seem to form has only just cleared in front of him, now it's his turn.
Also, having asked a few pilots over the past couple of cycles are they able to go from the intersection to expedite traffic, I've been faced with the response, "we haven't done the figures for it".
The other thing you're probably not aware of is a silly requirement that if someone is sitting at B1 or C1, ATC are not allowed to taxi an aircraft behind, thus slowing the operation, easier if everyone goes from the same point thus no unnecessary waiting on the taxiway.

Final approach spacing as we've thrashed to death, is the way it is, 6 miles and not too many improvements upon that.

When did I last do a fam flight?? Probably about 18 months back, what about my colleagues? I couldn't say for sure, but I'd imagine similar responses from some longer for others. We were under the impression that 9/11 had made them almost impossible unless you "knew someone", if this isn't the case do tell, I for one would be up for a few jumpseat rides......

[Wee Jock McPlop]

Moist,

We are talking about your mis-informed/ill-judged rant at Edi ATC - FACT.

Lets have your FACTS about our ability to move traffic.

You plainly have not read, or maybe digested, what has been submitted before by other Prooners regarding the overall issues -FACT.

Regarding departures, there are limitations as to what can be done within the existing SID structure/current ScATCC sector capacity - FACT

Those issues are not going to go away quickly, but we are all doing our best to make it work - FACT.

As an aside, if I were to slag off your piloting skills on PPRUNE you would be a little agrieved would'nt you? Fact is, you and BF can do this in glory of anonymity. And you wonder why......!

Best wishes,

WJMcP

[brain fade]

Wee Jock
I can take criticism and I'm not afraid of it, either here or on line/ in the Sim. When I get criticised I don't fall out with the guy giving me a hard time! I listen and learn. I turn all self doubting and self critical, then I try to fix the problem.
Denial is not an option. I'm sure you get my drift.

Now tell me why at GLA they use the phrase (in suitable met conditions) "Advise at any time if you wish to continue visually" in order to prompt pilots to go visual to speed up the flow, and you never do it at EDI?
Don't mumble on about not being able to offer a visual clearance as this is NOT a clearance, just a prompt which plainly may be declined or accepted.

I don't know how many miles/minutes I've spent over the Firth in CAVOK weather when this simple phrase could have shortened/ eliminated the queue. It can be very rough out there for the folks down the back too especially as the queue is biggest on windy (SW) days and it gets very rough over the water. ATC dont take any notice of the wind tho (as they told me last time I phoned!). 6 miles come what may. Still air or 75Kts!

Anyway please just answer my Q. about that phrase. (at least)

Thanks. BF :ok:

[callyoushortly]

BF

If you're so desperate for visual approaches, and are happy to take them, what's wrong with asking?? If you don't ask, you don't get, how am I supposed to know you're visual when I'm sitting in a darkened room with no windows??

Maybe try it out once, if it's a no, I'm sure you'll get a good reason, if it's a yes, we're all happy and it negates any problems with legalities of offering visuals.

[Wee Jock McPlop]

Brain Fade,

Nice to hear from you old chap! Thought it would not be too long before you chipped-in!

With respect, I think that if you read my previous posts, I am not in denial, indeed I accept that there are indeed areas that can be improved. I have been in this profession in one guise or another for some time now and one thing is for sure, I am big enough and hairy enough to take constructive comments/points and learn from them. What is ever so slightly annoying, is despite being told the varied and valid reasons behind many of the issues that you and Moist have raised, you are still hell bent on pounding away solely at Edi ATC - when a number of the issues are not necessarily attributable to us. The way you have both done so invites the replies you have received - what goes around etc etc.

Forgive me, but if you are visual and want to continue visually, why do you need to wait for me to give you a hint? You're a big lad (so to speak), press the transmit button and tell me. Why do you feel the need to pandered to by ATC? If it fits with my plan (yes, I do normally have one), i'll happily let you do it. If it does'nt, then sorry no can do and no, I will not go into a long winded explanation of why we cannot sometimes give you the visual approach - that has been covered at length with you before.

As for your wind issue, the very fact that you say the wind in the Edi area can be problematic to you does in fact make my answer for me. Sometimes it can be a pig and sometimes those gaps can increase/reduce - soz. Or is that because a certain pilot has not kept to their allocated speed or that one written down in the AIP - something that I believe that you made mention of in a previous contribution?

Anyway, my old chap, the fact remains that there are better ways of getting you message across - this is not one of them. Perhaps the airline, BAA, NATS forum mentioned earlier. Or through your airline FS rep, or your line Management/Senior Captain. Just a thought..... Or have those not worked?

All the best to you,

WJMcP

[brain fade]

Call you....

I DO ask. But not if the Queue has already built up and we're at the back of it.

My point is, although apparantly it's not easy to grasp:rolleyes: , that if YOU took the initiative (as they do in GLA), and gently prompted the number 1 "to advise if at any time you'd like to continue visually" you'd not get the queue building up in the first place!

Look, read that again a couple of times before you post your reply. Fuxxackes Rocket Science it ain't!


Jock
must have posted together there. Answer my Question old fruit. Why at GLA but not at EDI?

Spit it oot!:ok:

[Right Way Up]

Callyoushortly,
The problem that I think BF is getting at is the reluctance of a lot of pilots to go visual. Certainly not ATCs fault, but I could imagine a prompt by ATC might wake these people up. I do find it mildly irritating being held for 10 mins then getting extended vectors because the no1 aircraft would not go visual on a 30k+ CAVOK day. I am sure the setup of EDI causes a lot of the problem, but I think us pilots could do our bit!

[brain fade]

Right way up

Correct!;) On both counts!

[callyoushortly]

BF

And if you know you're number one and you are happy to continue visually then take the initiative yourself and TELL me you're visual, communication makes for a happy ship.

It seems that right way up is a pilot talking a lot of sense, not much of it around here before this! If number one is not prepared to go visual it's not my fault and I work round it, and also I'll end up with a steady 6 miles on final. Visuals are the bane of your life when requested in a sequence, because I haven't found too many pilots who are able to keep a gap when they're told one is needed.

You do your job and I'll do mine.

[brain fade]

Call you.
Answer the Question . Why at GLA but not at EDI.

Don't worry mate. There's no way I'll be NOT requesting a visual if traffic/weather permit. Some folk tho will only do so with a little hint/prod from ATC.

It works sooooooooooo well at GLA, so come on. Why at GLA but not at EDI?:confused:

[beaver eager]

The trouble is, we get used to being refused visual approaches at BAA airports. Sometimes you can get one at LGW with the magic words "Can we have a visual avoiding East Grindstead/Horsham?" We get a feel for when they may be available (i.e. there's not much going on on the RT!).

However, there's no point asking when it's busy, it would just use up unnecessary airtime to get a refusal so we do get out of the habit. I don't think it's being lazy, just making everyone's job a little smoother.

Contrast this though with Jersey and Glasgow where they regularly use the phrase "Let us know if you want a visual approach at any time". It sets the tone and we'll accept probably 50% of the time on average (there are often reasons why we may not want to accept anyway).

No axe to grind, just my take on the situation.

But I do visuals more often at JER and GLA than anywhere else simply because they always tell us when they're available. It must mean something, eh?

I've only read the first and last page of this thread, but I was there on the day (at the time of calibration) that triggered this thread and the guy was under so much pressure that he was making some mistakes. Little wonder his runway utilisation wasn't at its best.

I have to say that I thought it strange to be calibrating at the same time that there were loads of aircraft using EDI as a base for attending a local airshow (I'm guessing that was what was going on - how often do you get a Catalina at EDI?).

Regards to all.

[Hootin an a roarin]

Brain Fade

My Mats pt2 states

Section 4-5
2.1.4

Visual Approaches and Self-Positioning Approaches

"ATC WILL NOT suggest visual or self-positioning approaches; such clearances should only be approved in response to a positive request from a pilot."

That is the difference between us and GLA. I don't know the reasoning behind this discrepancy, but it is there in black and white.

Now you know the reason I hope this will put an end to your incessant whingeing on this particular point

[brain fade]

Hootin
It was a question, not a whinge.

Like you, I remain in the dark as to why it's plainly OK at some places and a no-no at others. Perhaps it's in the particular wording used. In any case your po-faced attitude is entirely in keeping with the rest of Edinburgh.

Re end of whinging. Unlikely!:ok:

[Scott Voigt]

Brain Fade;

If the tower needs a 6 mile final to get depatures out due to the visiblity restrictions that the tower has, what good does it do to go visual and tighten things up when they can't have you tighten it up???

By reading here, I can see the issues that they have at EDI. I am NOT a controller there nor do I fly in and out of there, but I can understand the constrictions that they have. If they didn't have the vis problems from the tower, I am sure that they could load the runway up and get folks off faster, but that isn't going to happen, nor would it be safe...

I sit on a lot of different boards that oversee aviation safety issues. I also get to hear from the pilot community a LOT and they always want things FASTER and NOW as well as wanting to be first because THEY can fly better or faster than the person that they are being made to follow... But when we want them to do something that really makes them perform to make things work then we get the, well that is NOT safe, we don't want our members to have to comply with those sorts of restrictions etc... It goes around both ways... The folks at EDI have explained why you have to fly the way that you do there. No two airfields are exactly alike. Many have problems or restrictions that other places don't have and aren't readily noticible to those in the cockpit, but none the less the restrictions are there. If the pilot community has constructive ideas as to how EDI can possibly move aircraft faster then I would suggest that the pilot groups that fly in there sit down with the controller groups and airfield management to try to work out a SAFE solution.

regards

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman

[brain fade]

Thanks for that Scott.
You are correct of course. There are the official channels and I am being lazy by not using them.
However if I want to bang my head off a wall I can do it at the side of my house which will save me driving to Edinburgh. There will, I can assure you, be no change to the outcome!
Cheers BF:ok:

[Nil further]

Would be nice to hear from someone from Scottish area on the above.

Is it not time that the whole TMA , SID's STARS etc are reworked completely ?

Is anyone in management at Scottish looking at this ? Simply applying MDI's every day is not the answer .

Not having a go at the controllers in any sense . They can only work within the resources supplied by their management team .

Its time for change .

[cossack]

Its been over 8 years since I worked at EDI, but on a recent visit it was apparent that apart from new taxiways and the soon-to-open tower, nothing much has changed. A runway has closed and the other runway is parked on for most of the day. Are these problems caused by ATC? No. They are caused by the BAA.

After the then 13/31 was resurfaced in the early 90's, we were encouraged to use it as much as we could. We did. Departures from 13 and arrivals on 31 were the norm. This was great. It took the pressure of the then 07/25 to the tune of over 10,000 movements in the year. Crews loved it. ATC loved it. The vocal residents of the new expensive housing developments in the Gyle, constructed whilst the runway was being resurfaced, hated it. Overnight, we were told not to use it unless it was really necessary, i.e. strong crosswinds or closure of the other runway. Who told us not to use it? The BAA.

All the SIDs (except the DCS/TRN from 06) go "straight ahead" for at leat 5 and usually 7 miles. Why? The BAA want them to. Why? Noise abatement. OK, you can live with the turn to 050 after departure to avoid Cramond but why stay on that heading for 7 miles? Noise abatement they say. If the Talla SID from 06 turned right at 3D (like the DCS/TRN turn left) but remained offshore, departure separations could be improved greatly.

I worked on the ATC Technical Committee for several years and tried to get the Class E airspace upgraded to D. That still hasn't happened. Too much pressure from GA and military interests.

I tried to get the SIDs realigned to make things more efficient. You need "track guidance" for any new SIDs they said. OK, I said try these, sending them new ideas. Nothing. I go and work at Manchester and we get new SIDs which do not have any track guidance in them. Dual standards or something else?

Most of the ideas proposed at EDI were scuppered by the BAA for either noise or cost reasons.

Back to departure separations for a minute. EDI and GLA still use the speed table for departure separations. This was designed in the 1970's and with a few tweaks is still in use today. 2 minutes between a couple of BAC1-11s wasn't much more than the 5 miles Scottish required. 2 minutes between a couple of today's modern jets is about 8 miles. Can we reduce the time standard? No. Can we use radar to give you 5 miles? No. There's progress. I work in a tower where controllers are given the tools and the responsibility to give departure 3 miles in trail separation, based on radar information. The UK CAA does not allow tower controllers to use the ATM to do this. Why? Who knows.

Why do all departures go directly to Scottish, who use old equipment and procedures and are having to slow the traffic down to cope, rather than to an airport departure controller who uses better equipment and can use 3 miles separation? IMHO it comes down to money for staff at the airports and the unwillingness of Scottish to give up a task that somebody else could do better.

Until somebody plucks up the courage to make a decision that would improve matters, be it BAA, NATS or even CAA, then nothing will improve much, no matter how shiny that new tower is.

[air vent]

Have a look at EDI's masterplan released on 19th May. It's on BAA's website.

The boss has been quoted as saying "we don't have a build it and they will come mentality. You have to attract operators to fly to destinations and then build the facilities necessary"

With that sort of forward thinking my friends is it no wonder the infrastructure isn't adequate.

[BALIX]

Nil further

Yes, it probably is the time the SIDs, STARs etc were looked at. The current TMA procedures were introduced in the early 90s and had not been significantly changed since the Talla sector 'split' was introduced a couple of months back. This has resulted in an increase in sector capacity for the few hours that the sector can be split each day. Whether 38/60 instead of 32/60 will significantly reduce delays remains to be seen but at if the increase in traffic continues at the same rate as it has I can see it being only a short term solution.

The Galloway sector hasn't been changed at all and remains at 42/60. That is not sufficient to allow free flow first thing in the morning so it will certainly need looking at. We can only hope that we get proper resectorisation this time rather than the half-arsed sectorisation we suffered with Talla.

The worrying thing is that on the floor plans for NPC I only saw one Galloway sector :rolleyes:

[Scott Voigt]

Great post Cossack...

It's a shame that the controllers there are so constrained. We get to use visual separation on nice days with divergiing courses here. 15degrees or more and as long as the front one isn't a heavy, all we need is 6000 feet down the runway and wheels coming off the ground to roll the next one <G>... It is sweet indeed...

regards

Scott

[callyoushortly]

BALIX

Do you have any info on the thinking behind the decision to make all departures from EDI (and I presume GLA) subject to flow restriction in the morning? Doesn't this just prove that knee jerking is preferable (apparently) to actually redesigning and retraining to achieve maximum sector flow just when you need it in the morning?
Although that is a vast improvement on 1 per 3 or 4 MDI's which from a tower point of view is a disaster at short notice.

Cossack

There is a small change to the days you mention, tower controllers are now able to use additional uses to the ATM, which basically means so long as there's no radar unserviceabilities and ground is open, the controller is able to use the ATM for identification, validating mode A and verifying mode C, gaining separation between departures and also in the event of a go around. It's definitely an improvement on what was allowed, and does allow for SOME flexibility on the speed table. :ok:

[Right Way Up]

Following this thread it is obvious that pilots and ATCers alike have the same ambition i.e. to have efficient and expeditious departures & arrivals at EDI. Unfortunately the powers that be have different ideas! In the day of global warming and $60 barrels of oil this is clearly unacceptable.

[BALIX]

callyoushortly

Are you meaning proper, CFMU flow control in place of the MDIs? Well, it might not be an bad idea in theory but the problem is not the Galloway sector capacity of 42/60 it is more one of all those 42 coming in the 0700-0730 period. MDIs are therefore put in place to spread the traffic out a bit.

Anyway, you are right, money needs to be invested (much more acceptable word than 'spent', isn't it?) as the current short term arrangement is not a long term fix.

The truth of the matter is that there are far busier TMAs in the UK than the Scottish one. They have evolved with the times - smaller sectors, more controllers. Up here, meanwhile, they have tried address increased traffic levels with one very much part time new sector and no increase in controller numbers.

But, I suppose, they papered over the LATCC cracks in the run-up to Swanwick and that is what they are doing here prior to NPC.

[callyoushortly]

BALIX

I believe it's a new trial of CFMU restrictions into the Galloway sector until 4th July. About 90% of the aircraft outbound from EDI are subject to slots which is causing a little bit of whingeing (not surprisingly) where the pilots are concerned.
I guess it does make for easier times for all, Galloway get exactly the flow rate they want, and EDI are not lumped with last minute MDI's when the queue has already formed at the holding point.

It'll be interesting to see if it's adopted in the long term.

[Gonzo]

The UK CAA does not allow tower controllers to use the ATM to do this. Why? Who knows.

They don't?

Uh oh.

Better not tell 'em what we do!

[Hootin an a roarin]

Balix

"they have tried to address increased traffic levels with one very much part time new sector and no increase in controller numbers"

Better get the Manchester lot up there as soon as possible then unless management lets even more of them sidestep and take our approach jobs and promotion prospects!!!!

:E :E :E :E :E :E

[NudgingSteel]

If the SIDs out of EDI headed the same way initially for "environmental" reasons ie noise...
and given the increasing priority that politicians, environmentalists and people generally are giving to reducing emissions for the sake of the environment....
Is it not time to start looking at ways to minimise aircraft sitting at the holding point burning many many kg of fuel, in order that no departures turn early and cause some noise for someone on the ground?
After all, an early turn might cause more noise for some people, but it also reduces noise for the other people who would have been overflown by the SID but now don't!
Have I missed something here? Or am I just cynical 'cos I've never been able to afford a house in any village that has a SID bent around / away from it?!

[flying scotsman]

hi

I'm interested in a visit to EDI atc ( I'm based there ) can any of you ATCO's PM me a number to call or and e-mail to write to.

if not no probs. just curious.

cheers

FS:ok:

[BALIX]

Callyoushortly

Yes, I understand what you were talking about now as it has been explained to me by someone in the know down at the pub the other night. Galloway restriction reduced to 39/60. Don't know if it has helped as I haven't had the pleasure of a morning rush for a while. I guess it is better than MDIs and if the customer suffers delays it might galvanise the management boys into action in trying to find a more satisfactory solution.

Hootin

The Manchester boys will love it up here - especially when the various banks merge and some of them will have to get West Coast validations ;)

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Came to this thread late.

There are several Great Lies in this world;

There's a Cheque in the post
I'll love you in the morning
"Coordination agreed" from a Fighter Controller
and
Welcome to the calibrators!

The Law of Sod dictates that the calibrators will always be required to check the opposite end of the RW in use. Fact.

It was the same when 06 was being commissioned a couple of weeks earlier - 24 was in use. We expected that! See LoS above. At the request of the airport, the engineers and BAA the commissioning of the new ILSs was conducted at the weekend(s) to reduce impact on operations as much as possible. However, the commissioning on 06 encountered difficulties (which is why these things are flight checked) and had to continue during the week. THAT also incurred the wrath of various posters on this site. So as a previous poster said - there is never a good time a to conduct a calibration. But it has to be done. It's your interests we are looking after.