Question for London ATC

[galaxy flyer]

Why does every ATCO in London insist on, "Contact London on xxx.xxx, report heading". Do you do hand-offs and coordinate radar headings, BEFORE, effecting the hand-off? Or do you give a plane a heading, hand them off, and let the next ATCO work out the details.

Ranting again,

GF

[Carbide Finger]

We work on a silent handover principle.

The electronic offer from one sector to another is for level only. If the aircraft is on a heading or speed, the tactical can tell the aircraft to report on first contact with the next sector. This cuts down on phone calls that would be made by the planner.

Just out of interest, why the rant?

CF

[ImnotanERIC]

In the london TMA, there is no planner and one coordinator takes and makes the phone calls for up to 4 or 5 "tactical controllers", So the need for a phone call to say "so and so is on a heading," would take up a lot of time. Asking the pilot to report it cuts this out. the same goes for speed restrictions. Sometimes you can even ask the pilot to giv e you his speed restriction if he forgets as traffic right up his chuff not working you yet tends to be a giveaway!!

[ollie_a]

So I presume the TMA does not use the same computerised system as surrounding sectors? If they did it would be more straightforward as they could simply place the current heading in the label for the next sector to see.

[galaxy flyer]

Ollie A: that's what I thought happened.

The rant is that it does clutters up the freq and is UNHEARD of elsewhere. Reporting heading has gone out with the Carter administration or was it the PATCO strike. Anyway, our system uses vectors and is obsolete, but doesn't require it. Controllers do the coord on hotline.

[Lookatthesky]

So I presume the TMA does not use the same computerised system as surrounding sectors? If they did it would be more straightforward as they could simply place the current heading in the label for the next sector to see.

The (London) TMA doesn't have a 'computerised system,' so we can't 'offer' a/c to another sector. Our primary strip display is the good old paper strips in plastic holders which we write on.

Were we to have to make a telephone call to the next sector to advise the hdg that each a/c is on (as 90% will be on a hdg given the number of a/c in such a small piece of airspace), then the operation would grind to a halt. Hence we simply ask you to report the hdg we have assigned you to the next sector.

In terms of it 'cluttering up the freq', well yes, I guess it's 2 words that in an ideal world we wouldn't have you saying but hey, we're not living in an ideal world.

To try and compare the UK ATC system to yours (I guess USA??) is slightly bizarre given the amount of airspace you get to play with ;)

[Avman]

No, it's not only London ATC that do this. Telling you to report your heading (speed etc.) to the next sector also serves as a reminder that you are still on a vector (or other pertinent restriction). Believe it or not, although rare, there are some cowboys out there who (unless reminded) mistakenly think that switching to another frequency cancels all previous ATC assigned instructions.

[galaxy flyer]

OK, I'll bite-what bizarre and unsafe procedures are you thinking of? :confused:

[MANAGP]

You are number 9, cleared to land - would be a good start!

[Hand Solo]

Land and hold short operations for another.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

"Maintain FL370" = climb FL370

"Position and hold" vs "hold position"

Generally poor use of speed control in the approach phase...

[mm_flynn]

To try and compare the UK ATC system to yours (I guess USA??) is slightly bizarre given the amount of airspace you get to play with ;)
Looking at the airspace designs the big US terminal airspaces seem to have significantly more movements/ km3 of Class D or above sky (some pretty small 'TMAs' compared to London) than the UK. But it is a different system, technology, set of rules so would agree comparison is tough.

[galaxy flyer]

Giles:
Line and Wait is much better than position and hold. We do use much US lingo that is terrible, but bizarre or unsafe? LAHSO is useful for some airports at moving more tin, but a number of operators refuse it. "Moving tin" is the operational motto of ATC, we still only have slots at a few airports. I can file a flight plan Hartford to Greensboro, NC through the Northeast region and get a clearance in 10 minutes. True, we have only one country to worry 'bout.

I don't understand "number 9, cleared to land" either. Trying to figure out what the point is? OTOH, I don't find it unsafe, if the guy ahead doesn't make the turn-off, I'm going around! Chicago IS bizarre and earns its rep everyday.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

GF

I'd put "position and hold" in the bizarre category simply because, as you rightly say, there is a better phrase available and yet in all the years I've been flying the FAA have not taken it up.

You raise an interesting point about "number 9 cleared to land". There are places in the world where, subject to certain conditions, an aircraft can land on an already occupied runway. Is it the case that at all US airports if the preceeding traffic is still on the runway (but far enough down to be of no concern) that I have to go around, even if I have been told "cleared to land number 9"? The phraseology used, combined with experience gained by a pilot in other parts of the world, may lead to an unexpected outcome for the controller.

As for LAHSO... well anyone who uses that must be barking (in my humble opinion of course!!!)

G W-H

[Married a Canadian]

Giles

What is wrong with saying Maintain?...I found it odd when I moved over but soon got used to it.

You already said that "Maintain XXX" to you means "climb XXX" so should be no issue. Just different phraseology. Not bizarre or unsafe surely?

[galaxy flyer]

MaC I agree, if you are at 270, a transmission to "Maintain FL 370" is pretty obvious.

GF

[dunadan06]

galaxy flyer, "Maintain FLxxx" is obvious... for you, not necessarily for a non-US.
Why not using the good old "Climb FLxxx"? :)

[anotherthing]

If you are already level at a level, then use "maintain" (but why even bother?)

If you need to climb to reach a level, use "climb"

If you need to descend to reach a level, use "descend"

Why screw about with basic English language?

Ollie A

As for the computerised system - Swanwick have the computerised system but they still tell you to report heading - why? well apart from the fact that even though each tactical controller has a planner (coordinator), for him or her to make a phone call for each A/C on a heading would be a huge, pointles workload.

But you ask why would they have to do this if it is computerised? The fact is unless the planner (who listens in on calls), actually input a symbol every time a Tactical Controller put an A/C on a heading to indicate it was under a heading instruction and similarly used the keyboard to remove the symbol every time an A/C is instructed to resume own navigation, then how is the next (receiving) sector to know that the A/C is on a heading and not it's own navigation merely by looking at the screen?

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Married A Canadian

The Collins Pocket Dictionary gives us "maintain vb 1. to continue or retain" yet in your part of the world you are using it to cause us to change or discontinue our present level. Surely that comes nicely under the heading "bizarre"?

As for the further ramifications of the use of "maintain" in this way, I believe UK ATCOs have recently been issued with an ATSIN warning against the use of "maintain" with a level following an incident with an aircraft from your side of the Atlantic which changed levels following a slip of the tongue when a UK ATCO used "maintain" to mean "continue/retain your level".

GF

Your example illustrates my point perfectly. Everywhere else in the world it would be reasonable to assume that the controller wants me to continue at my present level and one of us has misheard two/three (especially since the use of "tree" does not seem fashionable). I would therefore have to go back and check whether I should be maintaining FL270 or climbing FL370. Yet there is a phrase available which would remove this potential for misunderstanding and uses words that retain the same meaning as in the world outside aviation. That phrase..........


"Climb FL370"

I know it has been this way a long time, so this foible is well known. I still think it is bizarre.

G W-H

[dunadan06]

Back to the question of asking Acft to "report heading/speed".
As said above, using the phone each and every time to announce the heading (or speed) to the next sector would be a huge workload (in approach), and is not justified (most of the time).
Another factor is that it takes time to place the phone call. I mean, if you place that call, you have to wait for the OK of the next ATCO before you can "shoot" the acft on the next frequency. The delay is not very long for 1 acft (let's say 30sec), but if you do it every time... :=

[Hold West]

I guess I'm a little confused as to all the random slamming of the US, since my FAA handbook says to use:

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLIMB/DESCEND AND MAINTAIN (altitude).

Which I do everyday, and have for the last 23 years.

Don't like position and hold? OK, I'll buy it's different from what you use, but does that make it wrong? Let's see, it could be mistaken for "hold position". So the worst thing that happens is an aircraft doesn't move.

Personally I find your conditional line-up clearances quite bizarre, and more dangerous. If you are going to let the pilots decide when to take the runway, why have a controller at all? And you really need to explain the difference between "Cleared to land #2 following a B737 two mile final" and "Land after the B737".

Every system has its quirks. And in a modern ATC system, I pass the heading to the next controller via the data block scratchpad! :ok:

[dunadan06]

Hold West, we use the same phraseology:" Climb/Descent and maintain", not "maintain" alone as said above. It makes all the difference.

For the difference between "position and hold" and "hold position".
I agree with you,... on your side of the world.

Think of what can append, correction what does append, when a US acft gets a "hold position" clearance (hold short of RWY), and understands "position and hold" (quite the opposite).:sad:

As far as I know, the Std phraseology around a RWY is "Hold short of..." or "Line up and wait".:O

For the "conditional line-up", I use them with a lot of caution (VMC conditions, same holding point, specialised RWY), but it's only my humble self:}

As for your "land and hold short", I don't even begins to understand how it's possible to use it, without ending up with a Tenerife like "incident"...:eek:

[galaxy flyer]

Hold West

Quite agree on conditional line-ups-potentially dangerous and I don't the point; it doesn't save time or radio comms.

One bizarre US procedure (apart from language silliness on the radio) is the constant use of visual ground references. Something you do NOT hear around the world, but is a constant at major US airports. It is like pilots and ATCOs are trying to outsmart each other on local knowledge.

While the US certainly has its oddities, travel the world. For example, try to understand a Russian airways clearance, they just give the squawk code-zippo else. Then I found out why-in Soviet times the navigator filed the flight plan, which was countersigned and entered into the system, ta da-the airways clearance. The only remaining item was the squawk code-routing and level was assumed as planned, freqs on charts, so code and take-off clearance.

The idea of a million transition levels seems antiquated-why cannot the ICAO agree on one, hell, why can't the UK CAA agree on one. Once flew from Mildenhall to Yeovilton-RIS, RAS, and controlled airspace in 40 minutes, in and out of CAS by changing level one thousand feet.

[galaxy flyer]

LAHSO is easy, day VMC, the restricted distance remaining is given and pilots treat it as a shortened runway. Simple. Night, not so much!!

[mm_flynn]

I thought the near misses were generally around simultaneous ops on intersecting runways (as in land/depart full length on 18 and sequence another landing/departure on 15 so he goes after the first one has gone through the intersection and he then rolls through the intersection) not LAHSO

[eastern wiseguy]

Don't pre-empt..but this sounds scary



http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=287941

[Simonblaine]

As for the Maintain FL***, I wonder if it came about because of errors from the pilots and a controller missing a readback....

IE - BAW356 is level at FL180 - Controller: BAW356 Decend to 5000 feet
Pilot - Roger Descend 5000 ft BAW356 (missing the "to" part of the transmission and controller missing the correct readback). The pilot then leaves FL 180 and stops at 13,000ft, descending only 5000 feet.

Maintain 5000 feet reduces the possibility of listening and readback error.

I think I remember the correct phraseology at some point being Descend and maintain FL*** or climb and maintain FL***, but that drew complaints because the descend or climb part made it far to obvious. IE, if I am at FL180 and given clearance to FL270 I am not going to decend to get there am I? Which makes the UK version of it seem a bit silly too doesn't it? Wich is better? As long as no one bumps they both seem fine to me!

[vespasia]

Hold West.
Don't like position and hold? OK, I'll buy it's different from what you use, but does that make it wrong? Let's see, it could be mistaken for "hold position". So the worst thing that happens is an aircraft doesn't move.
Or the real worst thing is you say "Hold position" which gets mistaken for "position and hold" and you've instantly got a runway incursion at best, a collision at worst!
:ugh:

[gone_fishing]

In the UK, the ATCOs also addon something like the following when instructing an altitude or height.

"BAW123, descend to altitude 5,000ft"

"BAW123, descend to height 2,000ft"

This means the pilot would have to be a really stupid, or very hard of hearing not to notice that what was instructed was not a vertical speed. I don't even believe vertical speed instructions are given like that in the UK, I certainly have never heard anything other than something like, "Descend FL80, expedite descent" or "Climb FL240, best rate through 160". etc - the closest examples I can think of, where it is remotely specifying vertical speed.

[galaxy flyer]

Respectfully to all the UK ATCOs and, I truly respect the service there, I persist in asking why is it standard procedure to have the pilot "report heading" on a handover? I don't doubt it is easier for the controller, especially under heavy traffic, but CAP 493, just like FAAO 7110.65, requires the controllers to coordinate on a vector prior to the hand-off. (Chap5 page 12) It almost unheard of elsewhere. It seems to me, effectively, the pilot is entering another sector (vertical or horizontal) without assurance of separation due to lack of coordination. And it happens in the busiest airspace at the busiest time, almost by definition. While done in the US, it has been strongly discouraged by management and NATCA safety reps.

GF

Also, read where reading back QNH was a requirement with the ATIS at some airports. So much for that thread.

[gone_fishing]

Although I'm not a UK ATCO, I'll have a bash at answering your question, from what I've heard from a friend who is in TC. CAP493 is also known as the MATS Pt1 (Manual Air Traffic Services Part 1). Now... every unit has it's own MATS Pt2. MATS Pt2 for the LTCC and for other units, such as the MACC I believe, state that to make handling of aircraft easier without having to telephone other units and co-ordinate like that etc, a heading should be reported off to the other controller. Because this is a MATS Pt2 document, it overrides what CAP493 says, for the particular unit. There are other things which are laid down in the MATS Pt2 which are opposite requirements from CAP493.

Regards,
G_F

[ayrprox]

Galaxy flyer,
May i suggest that next time you're over that you set aside time and try and visit TC while its still there to see the operation in action??,
As you rightly say headings, speeds etc do indeed need coordinating with the next sector, however, as gone fishing states it says in our mats pt 2 that we can get the pilot to report this information on first contact and that is the act of coordination, and that if we think you are on a heading but you dont report it we will ask you on first contact. I really dont understand your grievance with this. By you doing this we are able to cut down on the r/t loading, making us feel more comfortable and being able to handle the traffic, and therefore less delay to yourself. By you reporting it on first contact we can move on to the next aircraft and transfer you with no problem. If we have to do as you suggest and make a phone call for this situation you get this:
Planner phones for coordination but as his counterpart is fielding lots of other phone calls from other sectors about the same thing there is a delay in answering. Planner gets stressed coz he is not being answered, meanwhile you approach his sector boundary,but coordination hasnt been affected so what?? he turns you around?? Planner is now getting behind in his work as he waits on the phone, and gets more stressed!!. Eventually the phone is answered and coordination done but now he has to get on the phone again for another one!!! repeat ad nauseum..
or......
'
report heading to london on'.........
WHich do you think is better??? seriously!
Now this is in no way a slur on anybody who uses the handoff system, but until the technology in the uk is bought (remember we are privatised and for profit) tested and in place in the 2 centres ,we dont have the facility to transfer stuff electronically,(and wont have for at least 10 years the way i see it). so for the sake of controllers stress and sanity please, oh please just 'report your heading....'

[stue]

just a quick question........

what actually is LAHSO? what does it stand for and mean?

Ta!:)

[bookworm]

WHich do you think is better??? seriously!

What would be better is if the company that charges the highest route charge rates in Europe had the systems in place to coordinate clearances and instructions between people sitting at adjacent consoles using that modern miracle of IT the local area network, like every cheaper ATS provider. But apparently it doesn't, so it relays a three-digit number safety critical number through two VHF AM comms links over hundreds of nautical miles with three error-prone people as decoders.

That's not your fault it's NATS's, and galaxy flyer is not the first person to point out how pathetic it is... So let's move on. ;)

[eastern wiseguy]

LAHSO?

land and hold short ops

[mm_flynn]

LAHSO = Land And Hold Short Operation - I believe it means the controller doesn't need to treat the runways as intersecting or converging with regard to separation - because the pilot WILL? stop before he crosses the intersecting runway. If the pilot has to go around or overshoots, then the assumption that they don't intersect is blown! This compares to interleaving full length operations off of intersecting or converging runways, which goes pear shaped if the controller (or controllers) don't get the co-ordination right (or pilot doesn't hear/follow instructions) - which appears to have been the issue KLAS situation in the earlier link.

[Roffa]

bookworm, if you factor in traffic density and complexity NATS actually looks a lot better.

There's an interesting document here (http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/PRR_2006.pdf) with enough facts, figures and statistics to keep anyone occupied for a very long time.

The sort of stats that I find mildly interesting though are ones like DSNA (France) in 2005 handling circa 2.6m IFR flights with just under 9,000 total staff of whom circa 2,500 are controllers and NATS handling circa 2.4m IFR flights with around 4,900 staff of whom around 1,300 are controllers (and at lower ATM/CNS costs) and yet it's NATS that always gets the bashing for being costly and inefficient?

There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

[BDiONU]

What would be better is if the company that charges the highest route charge rates in Europe
LOL!! A very very contentious statement and one which does not compare like with like as NATS is the only private ANSP in Europe.
had the systems in place to coordinate clearances and instructions between people sitting at adjacent consoles using that modern miracle of IT the local area network, like every cheaper ATS provider. But apparently it doesn't,
NATS controllers still use paper flight strips so the information is not stored electronically, therefore cannot be transmitted across the LAN. The Swanwick Area Control operation will be the first NATS ACC (excluding the military) to transfer onto an electronic system when iFACTS is deployed in a couple of years. As only Swanwick AC will have iFACTS they will be unable to transmit the Electronic Flight Data (EFD) to any of the other 2 centres (at this point they'll be Swanwick TC and Prestwick). The other two centres will have EFD deployed in coming years but the demise of the collaborative project between NATS and AENA has delayed the start of the work and NATS is now having to work on this by itself.
When all the ACC's are using EFD and the very large capacity WAN which is planned has been built then they'll be able to communicate with each other electronically.
NATS is also working in collaboration with DFS and AENA to build a replacement Flight Data Processing (FDP) system. This will replace its current FDP system NAS, which will face problems of sustainment in a few years time. My personal hope is that other European ANSPs will also buy iTEC and there could then be further electronic integration across Europe instead of reliance on OLDI messages.
NATS has installed a new VCCS system for use by the TC ACC when it moves down to Swanwick in November. This system is being installed in its contingent facility, then in the new Prestwick centre and will replace the VCS system in Swanwick AC.
NATS has nearly completed its radar replacement program and is working on replacing its radar tracking system and STCA which will provide a common system across all 3 ACCs.
NATS will install common controller workstations across all 3 sites and will introduce a common HMI.
Eventually the goal is that you could work at any of the 3 (probably 2 when Swanwick AC and TC combine) ACCs on exactly the same kit which uses exactly the same type of systems in exactly the same way.

BD

[galaxy flyer]

Thanks everyone for their replies, even the rants.

Next, I will admit that US FAA has more than its share of oddities, non-ICAO and downright stupid procedures and limitations, least of all, an out-of-date technology. So anyone calling our kettle black is absolutely right. Don't get me started about seppo R/T-wildly worth condemning.

Lastly, in my job, two years out of USAF, I have flown to more overseas locations than I ever did in the Service. My question was merely trying to make sense out of a procedures rarely used here and nearly everywhere else. At Luton, I listen to pilots reading back QNH, I do so if only to fit in. I refuse to be the ugly Yank, but I also refuse to operate clueless as to local procedure and why it has evolved that way. Not a "just do it" kind of guy.

Thanks GF

[heathrow, easy life]

Hi GF
"At Luton, I listen to pilots reading back QNH, I do so if only to fit in. I refuse to be the ugly Yank"
Why do you feel that you only read back QNH "because others do it". You must be able to see the common sense of setting correct pressure what with the number of level bust that occur especially in busy airspace as London TMA.
I personally have seen horrendous lb's because of wrong pressure setting and to get a readback of the setting is a means of trying to alleviate these busts.

[bookworm]

A very very contentious statement and one which does not compare like with like as NATS is the only private ANSP in Europe.

I'm not afraid to make contentious statements but I'm not really see how that one qualifies:

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/gallery/content/public/docs/unit_rates/ur200708.txt

It is a fact that if I fly a non-exempt aircraft under IFR in the UK, I get a bill that's bigger than if I'd flown the same distance anywhere else.

NATS <lots of future tense stuff>

Excellent. We all look forward to it.

[1985]

G.F

While the Mats 1 (CAP493) does say that we should inform the next controller of any heading or speed instructions under the terms of a silent handover, its does also say that with a standing aggreement a perfectly appropriate way of informing the next controller is to get the pilot to report on first contact. I don't the exact page but it is there.;)

In London's airspace (both AC and TC) most traffic will be transferred under the terms of a standing aggreement so this practise will be used. When we coordinate non-standing aggreement traffic the next sector is informed of any heading etc (usually they ask for them).

[Canoehead]

Let me address the 'advise them of your heading' thing. As any approach controller will tell you, one glance at the aircraft's track on radar and you can immediately tell (within 5 degrees) what that aircraft's heading is. So why should the pilot tell you? Really don't get it.
'Advise your speed' is good, as someone posted earlier, it eliminates internal coordination and lets the next controller know that speeds (between 2 A/C) are ajusted.
'Position and Hold'..in Canada, after several incidents, it was determined that it sounded like position and roll, so the phraseology now is 'position and WAIT.
Another thing that's beyond me is that 'report established on the localizer' thing... Nowhere in North America would anyone say something so ridiculous. We have RADAR,we can SEE YOU! It serves absolutely no usefull purpose in everyday life.
The last issue are the ICAO regulations. Seem to be the holy grail for many.
Dispensations are requested and approved. Easy.

[Roffa]

bookworm,

It is a fact that if I fly a non-exempt aircraft under IFR in the UK, I get a bill that's bigger than if I'd flown the same distance anywhere else.


Do you accept some of the rationale why though or do you just consider that UK airspace should be the same cost as, say, Irish airspace irrespective?

I'd also like to know who appears to be subsidising some of the others?

[BDiONU]

It is a fact that if I fly a non-exempt aircraft under IFR in the UK, I get a bill that's bigger than if I'd flown the same distance anywhere else.
As a bald fact your statement is correct, however Roffa's link (http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/PRR_2006.pdf) goes some way to explaining why but I have a simpler explanation. Only in the UK with a private ANSP are all the costs included in the service provided. Nothing gets hidden, nothing is swept under the carpet, there are no government (i.e. non flying public) subsidies, no infrastructure provided for free, no services of any kind provided for free. There are attempts to make other European ANSPs charges more transparent but its very difficult when so much is hidden under the surface.

BD

[bookworm]

Do you accept some of the rationale why though or do you just consider that UK airspace should be the same cost as, say, Irish airspace irrespective?

I certainly accept the rationale. But it doesn't change the fact that from the pilot's perspective the most expensive service provider often appears to be the least well equipped, relying on the pilot to pass information from sector to sector.

Perhaps to say "it's NATS's fault" is unnecessary finger pointing, but when I have to carry my own luggage at a premium hotel, my first thoughts are not to sympathise with the "complexity" of its operation. ;)

[BDiONU]

Perhaps to say "it's NATS's fault" is unnecessary finger pointing, but when I have to carry my own luggage at a premium hotel, my first thoughts are not to sympathise with the "complexity" of its operation. ;)
:) What you have now is the result of years of government underfunding. What I wrote about the future is a result of privatisation, despite being saddled with a massive £600m+ debt when NATS was sold off. NATS is getting its act together and has a 'Roadmap' of the future, with funding in place to achieve it.

BD

[Roffa]

I certainly accept the rationale. But it doesn't change the fact that from the pilot's perspective the most expensive service provider often appears to be the least well equipped, relying on the pilot to pass information from sector to sector.

And we can solve that one fairly simply tomorrow, just expect delays (and ergo costs) to go up as flow rates go down whilst we make more calls on the landlines.

Sometimes even in the poshest of establishments it's quicker and more efficient to lug your suitcase yourself. For the hard pressed route charges payer it saves a tip as well :)

[galaxy flyer]

Heathrow, easy life

Hello, yes, I quite agree on ensuring the correct QNH is set, what I found odd was reading it back to clearance delivery. Until last week I had never seen or heard it done, hence my doing it because everyone else was doing it. It appears to be exclusive to LATCC. I would think most level busts are caused by pilots failing to set QNE, another solution to that problem would be raising the transition altitude. Perhaps FL 100 or 180, heavens NO, that would be too Yank! Actually, I started this on the subject of reporting heading to the next controller, also pretty much exclusive to LATCC, but never mind.

GF

[ImnotanERIC]

why would raising the transition altitude help? would that not just move the level bust problem to higher levels?

as for being less equipped by having to get pilots to report info to the next controller.For all the computer wizardry that some countries atc provider have, I have heard on many occasion that they are not as well equipped in air traffic abilities as us brits!

[tired-flyboy]

Galaxy...as was stated earlier the MATS pt1 is superceeded by the local orders contained within the MATS pt2.
From TC MATS pt2 this is the wording that allows us to hand-off aircraft on a speed/heading

2.9 Silent Handovers
2.9.2 Restrictions
Where an aircraft is to be transferred from one sector to another with a heading or speed restriction, the information is to be passed to the receiving sector by one of the following methods:
• by telephone before communication is transferred;
or
• instructing the pilot to report the restrictions on his first call to the receiving sector.


normally the fact that we (or the sector you are being handed to) are so busy that the telephone is not used.

HTH

TFB :ok:

[5milesbaby]

Some stats to join the debate with:
I work the busiest sector at LACC (highest flow rate that is) and in a 35 minute session I had 23 a/c check in on frequency, of these 22 were transferred on headings, all necessary. 14 of these a/c came from the London TMA from the same controller who was also feeding another sector where a/c are normally transferred on headings.
A little later I was working a busy inbound sector where in 20 minutes I transferred 12 a/c to the TMA, ALL were on both headings and speeds.
Individual co-ordination simply isn't possible.
Canoehead wrote:
As any approach controller will tell you, one glance at the aircraft's track on radar and you can immediately tell (within 5 degrees) what that aircraft's heading is. So why should the pilot tell you? Really don't get it.
As an area controller we have a good idea too, but thats not taking direct control. Are you sure the last controller has applied a heading? How about if you have 2 side by side on a tight minimum separation, are they converging by 5 degrees? Plus our manual says we HAVE to ascertain any instruction applied before taking direct control of the flight - which is why it gets nausiating every time I have to ask "are you on a heading" or " report cleared level" when its not given on check in :ugh:

[heathrow, easy life]

"As any approach controller will tell you, one glance at the aircraft's track on radar and you can immediately tell (within 5 degrees) what that aircraft's heading is. So why should the pilot tell you? Really don't get it."
Inbound ac to Heathrow approaching the stacks are never on headings as the are own nav to one of the 4 main stacks, headings were used previous to that to ensure that all inbound ac could be at their stack entry level asap thus giving the APC controllers the chance to vector of the stacks and keep "delays" down. Important to all.
As an approach controller I will not ask the pilot to report heading to the final director as normally as an int director i am sitting next to the final director and handover is done by giving the flight progress strip to the next controller along with all headings/speed etc.
Howver on Area/TC the receiving controller may be some distance away and thus the direct transfer of data by passing the FPS is not possible.

[250 kts]

bookworm,
You really should pay a visit to a busy area ATC unit.

[bookworm]

You really should pay a visit to a busy area ATC unit.

where, on the assumption that I have not done so in the recent past, I would learn exactly what, 250 kts?

[PPRuNe Radar]

As any approach controller will tell you, one glance at the aircraft's track on radar and you can immediately tell (within 5 degrees) what that aircraft's heading is. So why should the pilot tell you? Really don't get it.

But can you tell if the pilot is suddenly going to turn at the next waypoint or continue on an assigned heading, simply by looking at the radar ? I certainly can't.

The point is not for us to know the heading of the aircraft as an arbitrary fact, it is to know that he is following a heading assigned by the previous controller.

Assuming a pilot is doing one thing or another without actually knowing positively is not a very safe ATC technique.

[West Coast]

Does the automation used in London allow for any degree of information to be passed from one sector to another, as in possibly a scratch pad within the data block?

[BDiONU]

Does the automation used in London allow for any degree of information to be passed from one sector to another, as in possibly a scratch pad within the data block?
Area Control at Swanwick can electronically send levels from one sector to another (although most are standing agreements which the system 'knows' and passes automatically). Thats all they can send. Terminal Control based currently at West drayton have no method of electronic messaging between internal sectors, although they obviously can pass OLDI messages to adjacent external ACCs. Having said all the above Swanwick Military can, and does, interact electronically with their own internal sectors and with London East (currently based at West Drayton) including scratch pad etc.

BD

[galaxy flyer]

To answer earlier questions:

The point of a higher transition is to "push" off the selection of QNE to a less busy regime of flight for the pilots. At 5000', it is quite early, usually a checklist drill to do, several freq changes, and rapid climb rate, it is busy, especially for the unfamiliar or new. Changing right over to 1013 as soon as cleared in FLs seems to help.

Yes, I got the message, LON TMA has the authority on "report heading", no argument as to that.

GF