270KT outer speed limit for london TMA

[wanderingdon]

Just wanted to get peoples (both atcos and pilots) reactions to the new 270kt outer speed limit restriction.

We`ve been told that unless traffic reasons dictate we should make all a/c inbound to the ltma fly at 270kts. Apparently this will reduce holding times at the stacks.

To people on my sector it seems a bit pointless and just adds rt when rt loading on some sectors (clacton especially) is at a premium.

Do pilots want to fly this speed- it seems we`re starting to interfere in how pilots fly their a/c by imposing more and more restrictions further and further from the airfields.

Just looking for peoples thoughts

[NigelOnDraft]

My reading is that Ac will be issued a "fixed" IAS to fly... maybe our company's interpretation of the "rule"?

Problem today was, even before LTMA, we were asked to slow "Min Clean". Fine - we did, and planned descent on that basis (~200KIAS). Then in descent asked to go to 250K, then 280K level :{ And then a different LHR STAR (BIG v LAM), and finally held for 10+ mins.

The acceleration to a low altitude 280K, level segment cost us a lot of fuel, especially when combined with an early descent, and a need to hold anyway.

So if you want some feedback, then being given a (fixed?) IAS to fly, prior ToD, great... it can save fuel / holding etc. But, to later increase that gets costly, and if you can, a "rule of thumb" of never requiring a subsequent increase in that IAS will be helpful in fuel terms. An "offer" of an increase might be fine, and may be accepted on occasion ;)

NoD

[Mr Red]

nigel, were you on 701 or 905u ?

i was planning at the time and you were asked to go minimum clean as you were bringing up the rear of a huge bunch of heathrow inbounds at the time, nothing to with the 270kts restriction i may add!

min clean is used to create gaps when bunches arrive, so once achieved it should usually be lifted as invariably you'll be caught by the next bunch behind if we don't!!

we were planning on you being given the standard 3a arrival when our colleagues down the line selected you for a big 1e, there were two guys at 240 that would have been a better choice but there we go!
for what its worth i think the 270 restriction is a pile of cack, far too restrictive and only there cos ba don't want to be overtaken by every other bugger in the stacks!! i think the carbon emissions angle is there as a smokescreen.........anyone agree??

[NigelOnDraft]

Mr Red... Thanks for the reply - we were the 701 ;)

The "problem" is we want to plan for min fuel use, so when we are told to "slow Min Clean" we can only assume that is all the way to the hold... and probably holding as well. The ToD point is a long way different (earlier) for 200KIAS and 280KIAS etc. and then once committed to the descent the rate/angle of descent is very speed dependant, hence I presume the whinge from the 905U about Tanet - the restriction of which curiously is no longer on our charts :ooh:

i think the carbon emissions angle is there as a smokescreen.........anyone agree??Sod the carbon blah... the result of yesterday was that if ATC had asked us for a go around at a late stage we had already discussed/decided that the first reply to ATC thereafter would have had to include an 'M' prefix :{

Thanks again anyway - at some point this LHR planning will become possible, with everyone sharing the same picture, and perhaps an accurate "touchdown" time uplinked / updated etc. At the moment, as you illustrate, we can all end up with different mental models of who wants/expects what...

NoD

[1985]

we were planning on you being given the standard 3a arrival when our colleagues down the line selected you for a big 1e, there were two guys at 240 that would have been a better choice but there we go!



You don't have to agree to their choice, if it works better for you then tell them one of the two at 240 is going to do it. They only want one taken away from LAM is doesn't matter which one. In my experience the BIG stack swaps are always the crap choice of aircraft because the traffic manager making the choice doesn't make it on the basis of where the traffic actually is.

As for the 270kts speed limit.... worst idea ever, it really limits flexibility when you need it. CLN is hard enough without slowing the first ones up so that the rear ones catch up thus increasing the bunching. :ugh: I also don't get the idea that it will reduce holding times, it will just delay it by a few minutes, everyone still wants to land at the same time, so wether they all get there at 300 or 270 makes no difference IMO. To reduce holding times in the TMA they need to reduce the amount of traffic in total, but that won't happen will it? :rolleyes:

[Del Prado]

it really limits flexibility when you need it. CLN is hard enough without slowing the first ones up so that the rear ones catch up thus increasing the bunching

this.


fair enough if there are delays but what if there's no holding? better to get the first few of a bunch in quickly to reduce the holding for following traffic.

[1985]

Del Prado

Good point and i totally agree but we have been told to reduce the speed to 270 kts on all LTMA traffic because it will save the environment.....:ugh:

but won't getting them in quickly and on the ground asap save more fuel???? and thus carbon emissions....

its an idiotic rule thought up by some numpty in an office somewhere whos trying to justify their existence by jumping on the "green" bandwagon and hasn't thought or been told how it will affect day to day ops. There are other measures that would save fuel and carbon emissions, like direct routes, that would be better off being investigated rather than some arbitary speed restriction.

[anotherthing]

It is an advisory instruction only.

If as an ATCO you want to issue speeds greater than 270kts, you can do so. As pointed out, you need more flexibility to stream aircraft.

Having everything at 270Kts could actually cause holding in situations where normally the use of high speed on the first couple means everything comes straight off.

[downwindabeam]

here's a question from an uneducated american.

Why does EGLL have so many a/c holdings at the various HPs every morning and every afternoon?

Why can't the various center controllers sequence the traffic destined to EGLL with a good in-trail of 20NM then have the mid center sectors leading to the London LTMA reduce that to 10NM...? I know we do it here in the states alot and it seems like that's always never a problem. A lil delay vector here and there and everybody is sequenced with the correct in trail.

I'm just looking for an explanation, as I realize you guys have probably thought of that way before i was born and figured out it didn't work for one reason or another. I'm cruious why and what makes the TMA there such a complex airspace.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Some current people will surely respond but allow me to relate a little tale from long, long ago. I showed a few controllers from Chicago round Heathrow Approach and we were looking at the radar. One of the guys, pointing to the range rings said something like: "Now let's see - that must be 50, 100, 150.. miles?" I said "No, 10, 20, 30 miles". All of a sudden they realised what a very tiny little place the UK is compared to "back home".

[Del Prado]

It is an advisory instruction only.

If as an ATCO you want to issue speeds greater than 270kts, you can do so. As pointed out, you need more flexibility to stream aircraft.

Having everything at 270Kts could actually cause holding in situations where normally the use of high speed on the first couple means everything comes straight off.


how will the sectors know there will be no holding? CLN, for example are working traffic 20 minutes from LAM, how do they know what traffic is pending for OCK, BIG, BNN?

The 'habit' very quickly will become 270kts for everything. There's no way Heathrow will phone TC NE to tell TC EAST to tell CLN to keep the first few high speed (that's assuming LL identify a gap in the traffic 20 minutes away!)
At best you'll get 270kts from CLN, 270kts from EAST then 320kts from NE/LAM which is a waste of fuel along the lines of BOAC's post.

[055166k]

In ATC a little knowledge can be worse than no knowledge sometimes. Unfortunately NATS, being the monopoly Area service provider, seems to write peculiar rules and instructions daily. The bulging offices are awash with wunderkind ideology. The increasing [en route] use of "minimum clean" takes no account of the savage fuel penalty. The latest "270knots" instruction is no more than a band-aid solution to chronic "full stack" scheduling. The only capacity/movement gains in the last 5 years have been a result of chipping away at the already reduced separation criteria.
[Tongue-in-cheek of course.....I would add that this is why UK uses different air to the rest of the world.....this enables a completely unique set of wake vortex separations to be used.]

[1985]

The 'habit' very quickly will become 270kts for everything.

Won't become my habit. Its a sh1t idea. If a pilot wants to fly at 270 kts i'll try to accomodate him but he'll probably be asked to fly quicker if hes at the front. I won't impose an arbitary speed on aircraft just because someone has decided that its a good idea, i don't know what the ideal economy speed for a A319 or B747 is but i bet they're different and not 270kts. Let pilots fly the aircraft and i'll concentrate on keeping them apart.


Why can't the various center controllers sequence the traffic destined to EGLL with a good in-trail of 20NM then have the mid center sectors leading to the London LTMA reduce that to 10NM...? I know we do it here in the states alot and it seems like that's always never a problem. A lil delay vector here and there and everybody is sequenced with the correct in trail.

I'm just looking for an explanation, as I realize you guys have probably thought of that way before i was born and figured out it didn't work for one reason or another. I'm cruious why and what makes the TMA there such a complex airspace.


The TMA is so complex because of the number of airports within 60 miles of each other. There are 10 LTMA airports plus another 10 ish whose aircraft fly through the TMA's airspace.

The problem with trying to get LL inbounds in trail is all to do with the size of the UK. For example coming from the east (northern europe, eastern europe, far east, middle east and scandinavia) you have about 60 miles in which to stream the traffic and you very regularly get 6-8 at a time and another 4 very close behind, you can't get 10 miles in trail let alone 20. To do that MAAS would have to start streaming for us over northern europe and to be frank they are far to busy with their own problems to do that.

Also as the LTMA get attacked from at least 4 directions you couldn't ever get all the LL inbounds in a sequence without them circling the UK twice :ok:

The problem with EGLL is simply the shear weight of traffic, there are too many aircraft trying to land at the same time. The only solution as i see it is to reduce the amount of traffic by half but that is never going to happen.

[Over+Out]

Here are a few thoughts from a controller in the LTMA.
The 270 kts is a very poorly thought out idea, causes many problems and solves none. I agree with the comment that it is from an office worker 'trying to make a name for themselves' It should be scrapped immediately and let the pilots and controllers get on with their jobs.
If the landing rate is 38 and 42 are flowed in to LL, then there will always be holding. If you want to reduce holding, reduce the numbers of aircraft flowed into LL to match the achieved landing rate.
The choice of which aircraft to stack swop is complex. The person taking the decision will normally be one of the Group Supervisors (GS) in TC. The CLN sector should be prepared for the aircraft to be at FL150 level by SABER. Height is normally more important than speed.
The GS will be looking at the overall picture of inbounds to LL eg, is the cruising level OK to hold at BRASO? or how does this aircraft fit in with the inbounds to BIG from the SE? or which is the easiest for TC. Often the aircraft chosen will be the one(s) to the south of a bunch.
The problem on Saturday was more to do with flow. It was very quiet all afternoon and then a large bunch of planes arrived together. If flow was more precise, then perhaps these planes would be more spread out. Would it be better to issue an arrival time at BRASO/LAM rather than a slot departure time that can be 20 minutes wide?

[anotherthing]

Del Prado

Heathrow App quite often phone the TMA sectors and ask us to keep certain a/c high speed.

Until this 270kt 'advice' came out, there was no need for TC to then call AC and ask for certain aircraft at certain sppeds (or just simply ask for a/c a&b to be high speed) - they all usually came in like that anyways.

With the 270Kt 'advice' now here, maybe the TC N and TC S controllers will need to phone more often and ask the AC sectors to keep certain aircraft high speed... It's something that TC Capital quite often does to enable the streaming of 3 sets of traffic through VATON.

It's not been done before because it's not been an issue - if controllers now blindly follow the 270Kts advice then no doubt these telephone calls will increase.

As for CLN working in isolation etc - they have a radar, they can wind out and have a look at the holds, if there are only a couple of aircraft in each, then best practice would be to keep their front couple high speed - or certainly not bust a gut to get everything back to 270Kts.

The rule was thought up under the auspices of Vision 2011, allegedly by an office worker who has never been a valid ATCO nor worked in the Ops room... it's been jumped on as a good idea by people who want to be seen to be doing things 'green'.

It's not workable all the time and should not be blindly followed... remember the paragraph in MATS part 1 about (paraphrased) 'nothing in this manual shall prevent an ATCO from being allowed to do what they want if the situation merits it'?

If there is holding taking place then yes, 270Kts or less is good - at the moment when we have 15 mins delay we get a/c at 300Kts plus* - it's about educating all the controllers that a bit of thought about speed control might actually help - very much in the same way that they 250Kts outbound trial below FL100 in the LTMA, although mostly ignored, has made TC controllers think about which a/c they remove the speed restriction from on first contact instead of doing it with every aircraft which is what used to happen!

270Kts for everything is unworkable if it was a rule - it's not a rule, it's advice, any ATCO that would blindly follow it needs to think about the 'C' in ATCO i.e. they should take control.

* I know that sometimes this is the only way that A/C can be presented in a manner that gives TC a fighting chance - that's the whole point about this advice being flawed if followed blindly - controllers are paid to control, we are not sheep.


Over+Out

I don't think anyone that works in aviation will argue that Heathrow is bursting at the seams - it causes problems for the tower workers, the TMA and en-route workers. The only solution is to make Heathrow run at a lower %age of capacity in order to give it some breathing space and some flex.

The reason it is always flowed over the landing rate is again, for flexibility. The landing rate fluctuates - flowing for about a 10 min delay allows EGLL Dir to squeeze and extra aircraft or two in if the situation allows, thus helping maintain the overall %age of capacity use per day.

If Heathrow were to be capped at say 10% less capacity useage per day than at the moment, then no doubt it could be flowed for either the landing rate or even one or 2 below the landing rate... that's a slots and airline problem though, ATC just provide the best solution.

The overall result is a crap situation, for an overworked airfield, in an overworked piece of airspace - until the airlines start dropping slots, it will continue. Maybe the 'credit crunch' (used to be called a recession in my day) will help if the cost of fuel rises in the manner some people think it will.

[wizad]

its a load of s**t.

the first thing being done at the start of a shift is to call the LAS and agree to cancel the 270k procedure.
as noted in our comments book:
1) another crap procedure forced on us with no consultation and by those who have never held a licence... it looks good on paper so it 'must' be a good idea.
2)to fly 270k for 30 miles over 3000 mile flight, what a massive difference that will make.
3)nats and airlines seen to be doing something about carbon emissions so they look all concerned if any outsiders poke their noses in.... when in fact it causes more hassle and increases work load.

i suppose next we will be told we are not to take aircraft off sids on deaparture fro things like P-RNAV and then get moaned at for not moving anywhere near as much traffic and crap presentation to adjacent sectors because we cant make standing agreement levels.

[Phantom99]

I am a Clacton controller and have not and will not issue 270kts as a result of this "suggestion", but rather as part of my plan (yes I have them sometimes!) to stream as effectively I can for TC East.

I wrote quite a bit in the comments book yesterday all of which were negative. Having studied and worked in environmental management before ATC I am all for "saving the world" and think it is a good idea...in principal. Sadly in my opinion it is unworkable in the current configuration of airspace, amount of traffic etc.

I am always suspicious when an instruction (or trial procedure) appears and no valid ATCOs seem to have been consulted..especially just at the start of the peak summer season - great timing!!! We have just started to reduce the congestion on S13 frequency 128.160 (westbound towards LAM) with the excellent idea of getting pilots to report their expected STAR on first contact, and we now have to use up that saved time to issue 270kts? I don't think so!!

Maybe I am too cynical but I would be interested to know why we are being asked to slow down aircraft in the interest of reducing emissions, when we could just impose a more restrictive flow control and reduce the amount of arrivals in the first place? The other day I was controlling when EGLL lost one of their runways. Delays shot up to almost an hour and flow control was apparently immediately applied. Yet 20-30 minutes later two aircraft departed for EGLL, one from EBBR and one from EHAM, only to hold for 30 mins at BRASO and LAM - where is the sense of that?

Thinking about it though, would NATS get penalised for the extra minutes delay? oops, better not do that then :ugh:

If ATCOs on the coal face can have access to ACCURATE and up to date EATs we can intelligently (don't laugh) issue speed control based on the situation. The guys I work with will use the radar to look at the situation at LAM, but for all we know it might just be that 3 appeared there at once, and there is no holding at the other stacks.

Sorry for waffling, but I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this. :)

[mr.777]

If only I'd thought o this idea...then I could have won myself an iPod. Bet some other idiot at CTC has got now instead....as usual.

[Phantom99]

Over+Out,

Thanks for the information about stack swaps, I have to admit though we are increasingly getting late requests for coordination (although I understand the stack swaps talked about on Saturday were done before the boundary).

If S13 and S14 are split then I will not as S13 planner agree to a lower level for BIG1E if either S14 is busy and/or has EGKK arrivals as we need to coordinate the descent with them.

I think more planners are starting to do this therefore we need to be told preferably by KEGIT or BULAM - any later and we are becoming more inclined to hand the aircraft over as per the standing agreement RFD and RFT for TC east to sort out. If it's quiet then we will do our best, but stack swaps and quiet don't really happen together very much! This probably doesn't help you very much to achieve FL130 by TANET but I have to protect my Tacticals as well.

This was discussed with the guys on Saturday I think by one of our LASs

[mr.777]

If only I'd thought of this idea...then I could have won myself an iPod. Bet some other idiot at CTC has got it now instead....as usual.

[garp]

The problem with trying to get LL inbounds in trail is all to do with the size of the UK. For example coming from the east (northern europe, eastern europe, far east, middle east and scandinavia) you have about 60 miles in which to stream the traffic and you very regularly get 6-8 at a time and another 4 very close behind, you can't get 10 miles in trail let alone 20. To do that MAAS would have to start streaming for us over northern europe and to be frank they are far to busy with their own problems to do that.


1985, I salute you from MAAS (via COA & DENUT) and lift my hat gracefully for your understanding of our situation. As you rightfully say we do have our own problems (the Belgian UIR with up to 2300 flights per 24h is as full as an egg) but whenever we can we will try (on demand or on own initiative) to provide longitudinal (preferred) or lateral separation. Despite ourselves being busy I never cease to be amazed at the amount of traffic we are throwing at you guys down the line and how you are handling it.

[1985]

1985, I salute you


well its about time someone did :p

In all seriousness though, hopefully someone will realise when they get the CLN comments book back (there are no positive ones) that it just isn't feasible for the short sectors to do it. The west end might manage it occasionally, but if one side does it and the others don't whats the point?

I also don't think the stack swap issue is that complex, surely its about relieving pressure on LAM, so any aircraft will do? I realise there is a plan but it needs to be flexible, if there are two running together and the BIG is to the north why not take the arrival to the south instead? It makes life easier for me and the TC bods. The whole point of plans in ATC is that they change from minute to minute so why continue with one that was made 20 mins ago by a GS who can't even see the radar? CLN needs to be told really early so they can set it up or not at all, and it needs to be sensible choice, the northerly of four because its a speedbird and therefore should speak better english (debatable) is not sensible.

[Del Prado]

1985, another consideration when choosing the stack swap is whether it's a good TEAM arrival. If it's going to land on the southerly runway, it's better routed to a southerly stack. Then FIN's job is easier so the landing rate remains robust and the delays go down.

[Over+Out]

1985. I think you need to come into the TC room. The GS is looking at a long range radar, filtered for LL. They also may be using Mode 'S' info. They always try and make the best judgement for the system. If they do something you do not like, come and have a discussion. You may not be looking at 'the big picture', they are.

[1985]

I have, i've seen the long range radar but that still doesn't make the choices that are made the correct ones at the time, they may have been the correct aircraft to choose 200 miles away but that doesn't make them correct when we get told to stack swap. It needs to be sorted over europe so that we can do it early or done in TC's airspace.

As for the big picture, recently we were holding at LOGAN, and TC rang up and said the next one that was going into the hold was a stack swap and was needed at 220 so TC could get it under BRASO. This was at FL300 10 miles from LOGAN with two in LOGAN, how possibly are we going to do that? Stupid call from someone very clearly not looking at the "bigger" picture. :ugh:

[zkdli]

Just out of interest, what did LTC say when you pointed out the difficulties?

[1985]

zkdli

The TC east controller was fine after i said no, the point i was making is that the GS or traffic manager shouldn't be making these decisions so late or without looking at the radar, which is the impression that it gives off.

I've since spoken to TC and hopefully some of us are on the same songsheet now at least on our watch

[zkdli]

1985
Thanks for your reply I was hoping that you would say something along those lines:) it is doing just as you have done that will get the system working better.

[eyeinthesky]

The 270 kts idea is only a suggestion. It came from some of the major airlines working with NATS to try to reduce fuel burn in the hold and the ridiculous practice of doing 300kts + to get the lowest level in the hold and then fly around in circles for 20 mins. Of course the CTC people were involved in evaluating the ideas, but I don't think anyone won an IPOD for it.

It's all part of being aware of the big picture:

If there is no holding, then don't apply it.
If the aircraft's ECON speed is 290kts and you don't need to increase that for separation then don't.
Why do so many people impose a speed differential of 10 kts (300/290/280) on aircraft which are ALREADY 5 miles or more in trail? If they didn't do that they wouldn't feel the need to make the first one do 300 or more just to stop the back one from falling out of the sky.
How many Ts or Ps regularly assess the delays at LAM by looking at the radar at the stack compared with the 'Less than 20 mins' response derived from the SIS page? Very few planners I've observed keep their tacticals appraised of the delays (10 mins or whatever) on a regular basis unless they are into or just coming out of EATs.
Why would anyone with half an idea of ATC feed traffic at 300 kts into a hold 'for separation reasons'? Sort them out earlier and use headings and early descents to get them at a reasonable speed. Accelerating towards a red traffic light seems a daft idea!

[1985]

If there is no holding, then don't apply it

I don't and won't

If the aircraft's ECON speed is 290kts and you don't need to increase that for separation then don't

I don't but how do i know what an aircrafts econ speed is if they don't tell me? It varies from type to type, series to series within a type and from airline to airline. And to be frank i don't have enough RT time to ask.

Why do so many people impose a speed differential of 10 kts (300/290/280) on aircraft which are ALREADY 5 miles or more in trail? If they didn't do that they wouldn't feel the need to make the first one do 300 or more just to stop the back one from falling out of the sky.


Its would be because of the relationship between IAS and ground speed at different levels, i thinks its something like 7 kts IAS per 1000 feet equates to the same ground speed. If i'm streaming two or three with about 3000 feet between each then i'll use a less IAS to keep them separated. AFAIK TC do not appreciated 7 miles in trail with a 30 kt catch up.

How many Ts or Ps regularly assess the delays at LAM by looking at the radar at the stack compared with the 'Less than 20 mins' response derived from the SIS page? Very few planners I've observed keep their tacticals appraised of the delays (10 mins or whatever) on a regular basis unless they are into or just coming out of EATs.

All of us i hope. SIS is sh*t and everyone knows that, the problem with looking at LAM and trying to judge the delay, is that you can look at it not see many there and then be told its BRASO holding. Happens more than you think.

[ImnotanERIC]

spot on 1985

[big paddy]

maybe another £50 in your pockets, (per hour probably!!) or a few less hours work and you'd agree to the 270kts :ok:

[anotherthing]

Big Paddy

I assume that's a wind up if not, you really haven't got a clue have you?

The reason we think it's a crap idea is it removes flexibility.

Speed control is a major tool used for inbound aircraft. Only a non ATCO would fail to understand that.

Maybe you are a failed ATCO? What was the probelm - inability to be flexible or lack of ability to be able to think for yourself and come up with solutions in an ever changing and fluid environment??:ugh:

Can you suggest how to merge 3 or 4 streams of aircraft into one orderly line without the use of speed in UK airspace?
These are aircraft that when the streaming commences are in excess of 100 miles from the hold... how the hell is 270Kts or any speed set down by some numpty in an office going to work and how can it be more green if aircraft have to fly for longer?

The speed is just a suggestion, but here's a better suggestion - ignore it.

Blindly following it will reduce controller's capacity and thus drive up delays.
It will also cause unnecessary holding because A/C that could have been high speed to get a no delay approach will often end up arriving at the same time as aircraft approaching the hold facility from other sectors.

270Kts is a stab in the dark speed thought up by someone who has not got a clue about the fact that different types of aircraft have different econ characteristics.

[9th Dan Vectors]

Some interesting stuff here. How a blanket 270kts can be imposed is beyond me.

As has been mentioned, if everything comes over over to the TMA sector at 270kts (or 300 or 250) no matter what the grouping, then that is not speed control - it's a mess which may require dog-legs, speeding up and slowing down of certain aircraft. R/T loading is increased and fuel is actually wasted not saved.

If the En-route sector has to get everything at 270kts and in trail then that could be a lot of work (especially if their hands are tied with the speed). If there is no holding it's wasted R/T time (and in the LTMA especially it could actually lead to wasted runway utilisiation). If there is holding it may not help TMA out enough.

The only thing I can think of for introducing it is tenuous:
If an aircraft meets the Standing Agreed level between En-route and Terminal, as well as being at 270kts; the TMA Tac can ask for the aircraft to increase speed and get a slightly better rate of descent or reduce speed on an aircraft, and with less speed to lose, their rate of descent won't be as bad for as long as it would be reducing from 310kts+.

I'm at MACC and would hate to see this 270kts come in for us. The presentation between TMA and En-route is getting better all the time and we are speaking to each other more about sequencing.

I think the key to all this is awareness of what the receiving guy is trying to do as well as understanding the possible difficulties the offering guy may face in trying to help.

Being aware of other sectors around you whilst you are busy yourself is an art - possibly even a luxury you can't afford when things are really hot.

As a Tactical at MACC, when you're busy, it means you need a good Planner at your side.

And/or good coordination between TTM/GS/LAS/Bank Sups? (4 centres 4 names!) can help. This has to be done with reference to the radar/TSD, workloads and the other stacks being fed at the relevent airfield.

Until we get arrival manager tools which tell us on the radar what speed to assign from medium to long range, we'll all have to earn our corn Controlling and that includes choosing the speed which suits us, adjacent sectors and as many aircraft as possible. That speed is not a blanket 270kts. Good luck and pardon my input on matters LTMA!

[055166k]

I was happy with some of your input until you shot yourself down in flames with a couple of howlers.
300/290/280 for three in trail.....anyone using the same speed for all three is probably an office-hero doing his/her 6 hours a month "I'm-lowering-myself-to-work-with-you-peasants-to-show-you-how-its-done" moron. An experienced operational controller will be mindful of wake vortex and the 2% per thousand feet IAS/TAS differential, and the fact that 5 miles can become 4 miles very easily.
As for appreciation of delays......if you can arrange for the supervisor to actually tell the poor bloody infantry scope-jockey what the delays are...then we can slow everything down.
P.S. Of the 20 or so pilots that I asked the other day.......not one single pilot requested an econ descent of 270......they were all in the 300-280 range with one exeption who asked for 250 because he was early and the stand wasn't available yet.
P.P.S. I don't like the trend for supervisors and even more remote non-operational personnel trying to influence tried and tested controlling technique at too late a stage in the proceedings when flow control and pro-active traffic planning have utterly failed. If you want to control my sector then get a validation, put a headset on, plug in and get on with it.
P.P.P.S. Anyone read the LACC Swanwick MATS 2 ? We are supposed to get the traffic into the TMA.....not keep it out! Please advise if there has been a major policy change.

[wizad]

eye in the sky, you must be some sort of ctc office monkey, probably one who dreamed up this jackass procedure... yet again this morning aircraft high due doing 270kts... a quick phonecall and procedure cancelled for the day... again.

tell you what, come into one of our ops rooms when its going hell for leather and come see what happens when planes dont make level restrictions for standing agreements:
1) conflict with traffic from other directions that it should be under and is now aiming at and going straight through it. if i have to fill out a star, my first line will be ' due to the 270 knot speed trial.....'
2) aircraft high may not be able to get the height off when there is no delay and end up in the hold to loose it..... cos thats going to help us all.
3)getting 5 abreast instead of streamed as youve taken AC's flexibility away... guess what matey. if they are not streamed into the stacks.... they enter the hold when they normally wouldnt have to.
4) if there is no delay, why not let the pilot fly at his desired speed (usually faster) for another 60 miles plus, if he wants to slow down to save an iceberg near santas house they will tell us.

you can drag me into as many meetings as you like and tell me to do it, i still wont.

funny thing is, we get all emails and lovely signs and bits of paper telling us what a great idea this is and how its going to work.... why dont you get out from under your desks and come plug in with us and have a proper discussion about it.... you would get a lot less resistance and probably learn more than reading about procedures in your bedtime story book.

with one hand the company wants more planes rammed through our sectors, then with the other starts to take away our tools to get this done.
oh and while im here.... the best idea that probably took 15 of you tie wearing tools to decide was to bring this in during summer traffic... well done... complete lack of understanding.

feedback welcome.

W

[eyeinthesky]

Thanks for the feedback, at least from those of you who didn't feel the need to be abusive about it...:=

Just because someone offers an opinion with which you disagree doesn't give you permission to resort to personal abuse: "you tie wearing tools", "you must be some sort of ctc office monkey" etc. At least try and have a reasoned debate. Otherwise YOU are the monkey. If you must resort to abuse, at least try and write in properly punctuated sentences.;)

Back to the point:

It's a trial: Try it properly, give people the chace to get used to it and its timely imposition and then give proper feedback and suggestions for improvements. If you keep cancelling it then it will never be properly evaluated, adapted, changed or abandoned.

Speed control is about matching groundspeeds not airspeeds. If a 10kt IAS differential is actually achieving an increasing distance between aircraft which already have enough separation then it is an incorrect application of speed control.

Couldn't agree more about the need for communication across the board. But we all have to do our bit, and some of the attitudes displayed on this thread don't encourage me to think that it's happening every day!

By the way, the experts tell us that variable speed limits on the M25 reduce bunching. They only come in when traffic is heavy enough to merit it. 270kts could be seen to be like them.

[mr.777]

I just want to know one thing eyeinthesky....did you win the iPod this month?
Oh no, hold on....the ipod went to the person who suggested that, as a safety measure, we should routinely cross out vacated levels on our flight progress strips. Wish I'd thought of that........:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[NigelOnDraft]

P.S. Of the 20 or so pilots that I asked the other day.......not one single pilot requested an econ descent of 270......they were all in the 300-280 range with one exeption who asked for 250 because he was early and the stand wasn't available yetFor a BA A319/320/321 "Econ Descent" is invariably in the ~270KIAS area. However, this is "best range speed" (adjusted for Cost Index i.e. an element of slightly increased Fuel Comsumption against Time in the air) and is instantly invalidated if there is to be any holding.

If the aircraft is to hold (and I appreciate it is hard for you to determine), then "Econ speed" is Holding speed throughout the descent. This is "Endurance speed" and we are told the landing order is determined "40 minutes out". The sooner we can be told "there is ~x minutes @ LAM, reduce to Holding Speed if you wish, or when FL150 @ SABER met.." the better :ok:

As alluded to above, this is why (some) get a little grumpy when told to accelerate to 280K / 290K / 300K and then to hold. It is very costly in terms of fuel, both £, but as crucially, in "holding time" then remaining available (very roughly, every 2 minutes @ 280K equates to 3 minutes holding i.e. loses a minute of total holding capability/endurance).

I fully appreciate you will get 20 different stories from 20 different pilots... and this is why a consistent line is needed from the airlines ;)

NoD

[eyeinthesky]

QUOTE

I just want to know one thing eyeinthesky....did you win the iPod this month?
Oh no, hold on....the ipod went to the person who suggested that, as a safety measure, we should routinely cross out vacated levels on our flight progress strips. Wish I'd thought of that........

UNQUOTE

And of course you, being perfect Mr777, do that every time anyway because the strip marking requirements in the MATS say you should? Yeah, right!:suspect:

[tubby linton]

My old Airbus does not allow you to change the descent speed in the fms.The only way to fudge it is change the cost index until you get a speed approximating what is required.Once it is in the descent phase you can change the speed but this then screws up the path and you end up using speedbrakes to get the height off at Bexil.The whole profile descent in the fms becomes meaningless and you are back to vertical speed or level change.A direct to timba but be 150 abeam Bexil increase the workload as the fms does not generate abeams and the symbol generator of the efis cannot cope with the amount of waypoints in the South East of England and consequently hides Bexil on the ND!!A speed change again at Bexil further complicates the matter and the fms becomes just a navigation tool.Does the originator of this trial have a feel for the workload increase in the cockpit yet?

[ImnotanERIC]

eye in the sky,

Here is a free idea you can table at your next "tie wearing fool" meeting.

ban the use of headings in the london tma, too many headings means increased track miles which means we all dies of global warming.

[wizad]

its not just this procedure, its the latest on a growing list of these noddy ideas that get dreamed up in an office and we are then told to get on with it.

tell you what, i reckon we should all drive with our handbrakes on..... god knows what the effect will be. but without asking the people having to do it lets give it a shot then get all defensive when im told its a s**t idea.

and eyeinthesky, i couldnt give a damn about how my punctuation and sentence structure is appearing. i dont work at a computer all day, well except from the times im filling in forms about how crap this procedure is.

how about you give being an ATCO a shot and i can sit here and criticise you.

[055166k]

Interesting silence from the CAA. We know from evidence that NATS would like to airbrush the Regulator out of the picture. A monopoly area service provider is not healthy; and without competition there is no pressure to trim over 1000 non-productive jobs.
One way to cut costs would be to halve navigation charges and negate the need to flight-plan economical cost routes out of UK airspace at the expense of higher overall fuelburn.
If the concern over global warming and CO2 is genuine, may I suggest cancelling "Delayfest 2008" [RIAT Fairford] which should save a billion or so litres; disband the Red Sparrows to stop them pumping coloured diesel fumes all over the beautiful Shires. The hundreds of volunteer NATS staff that make RIAT possible could donate their time to reduce summer delays.
A note of caution to all airlline operators.......consider your fleet replacement programmes with care......"Nigel" alluded that the speed value may have been chosen with Airbus in mind......I wonder if that will affect potential Dreamliner sales? Not much point buying a sports car if you have to trail in behind a line of milk floats.

[Not Long Now]

Now now, let's not pick on Fairford alone, there's also Farnborough....

[bekolblockage]

Not much point buying a sports car if you have to trail in behind a line of milk floats.

Bit like driving on the A96.
Ignored the warning once. Never again.:{

[zkdli]

just checked, I don't seem to be able to find the ipod winner that was for crossing out levels on strips:ooh:
And I don't think Investigations have recieved any reports on the speed restriction - Stands well away and awaits incoming....

[cavok9999]

Varying the speed in the descent is the most efficient way of managing the descent profile. The Airbus is pretty clever and knows this. If the aircraft is allowed to make a managed descent it uses a variable speed band in order to achieve the correct profile thus reducing the requirement to use highly inefficient speed brakes. This ruling has taken away a huge amount of flexibility, could actually increase fuel burn in some cases and will increase R/T loading as pilots will have to keep asking if they can fly at higher speeds in order to make the numerous altitude constraints.

I think the 250kt below FL100 ruling is a great idea but to remove the ability of the pilot and aircraft to efficiently manage the descent profile for the entire descent phase is, quite frankly, a step too far and may actually defeat the original objective of saving fuel.

Surely better for the airlines to tell ATC that most aircraft these days are descending at about 270 kt anyway due to the low Cost index, but allow us the flexibility to alter this, for instance, if we have a late descent clearance and can't make an altitude constraint. If ATC need a fixed speed for separation and streaming then we’ll do it. Common sense please!

[anotherthing]

Nigelondraft

I understand your point about being told to fly a high speed, only to be told a few minutes later to hold... unfortunately thats often the only way we can maintain an order and also get aircraft safely into the hold.

If we let aircraft wallow down at a poor descent rate then there's going to be alot of avoiding action handed out as a blob of aircraft arrive at holds at levels which are not seperated from adjacent holding areas, nor from other aircaft wanting to enter the same hold!

It's not a probelm unique to the LTMA, but it is exacerbated by the large number of busy airports crammed into a relatively small area.

[trialtrial]

The point here is...customer service.

The customers asked for it via the Operational Partnership Agreement. We are here to serve them so we comply. It's that simple!

If the consequences mean that complexity rises cos we can't make the levels then we restrict the traffic, the customer gets the feedback, then they, the customer, decide what they want us to do after the trial ends based on this info.

Whatever they decide, be it reduced capacity due to the 270kt restriction or going back to the way we've always done it, we have to do what they want. Like it or not, we are not here to only serve the pilot customers, we have to serve the airlines who buy the fuel that goes on their planes as well, and they are the ones with the say so, not us or the pilots, cos they are the ones who ultimately pay our wages.

Get on with it, feed back what you think and let nature take its course. We're only going to get more of these daft requests in future so I guess we ought to get used to it and remember that the customer is always right - even when he's wrong.

[055166k]

Band-aid to fix a systemic problem. The NATS monopoly has designed an airspace utilisation model that favours certain airlines and routes whilst at the same time imposes draconian financial penalties on others.
A flight from Bristol to Glasgow or Inverness is capped at FL260/280 whereas a flight from Exeter to Glasgow regularly achieves FL380/400 because it is not included in the capping.
A flight from Bristol to Belfast is capped at FL240 [just one example]. Should NATS pay compensation for the fuel cost difference to the airlines affected by level capping?
Rationale....level capping is necessary to enable a more efficient volume traffic flow by best use of ATC sector resources..HOWEVER..as NATS is the beneficiary and has designed the airspace utilisation system, then it is only right to suggest that NATS compensates any operator who incurs fuel cost penalties in the current economic climate [ perhaps by a rebate of route charges].

[Not Long Now]

I may have read it wrong but I'm sure the SI said "...shall not be used if it will prevent level restrictions being reached.." or words to that effect. So presumably anyone who uses it then wonders why the planes are high hasn't got the proverbial leg to stand on, and should only be using the 270kts if the levels will be made. So basically with most of the current routes and levels, should never be used....

[anotherthing]

NotLongNow

you are correct, and there are still numerous aircraft coming into theTMA stating on first call that they will be unable to make the level by restriction... I can only assume that they do not tell the previous sector that

[9th Dan Vectors]

The customer is always right...

So they got together to decide this as a group?
Then demanded this from NATS?
Did they pitch it to NATS via the OPA explaining how it would definately have cost and environmental savings whilst being a viable proposition for the controllers to achieve with the airpace they have available?
Maybe they got together to work out complimentary departure times so their arrival times at the clearance limits are all staggered. I use clearance limit instead of holding fix as with this grand plan the holding will be reduced somehow?
If they asked for it without detailed knowledge of the consequences surely someone from NATS with that detailed knowledge explained the importance of aircraft meeting agreed levels and standing agreements and the use of good vectoring and good speed control to try to achieve some order with expedition.
Maybe the customer sat in the sectors required to do it and observed what was going on.
The customer should have what they want, I agree. But what they want should be decided with NATS and be sensible and achievable, not a daft request.
Controllers are professional and take a pride in their work generally and will probably bust a gut to make this work which is sometimes why trial procedures come in even when they offer little benefit.
Those who object being accused of disliking any change.

[Del Prado]

Like it or not, we are not here to only serve the pilot customers, we have to serve the airlines who buy the fuel that goes on their planes as well, and they are the ones with the say so, not us or the pilots, cos they are the ones who ultimately pay our wages.

TrialTrail, that concept is not being questioned but how much will it cost the airlines when their planes go round the hold because they slowed down at TOD and missed a 'delay free approach'? or how much will it cost the airline whose aircraft has to orbit because of missed Standing Agreement levels? or miss their EAT because traffic cannot be presented well due to bunching.


Wha's the point of getting the most efficient cost index in descent only to lose 3 or 4 places in the landing sequence.

[wizad]

trialtrail,

what the customer wants they get?????

this aint asda mate, i suppose the 'customer' would like straight in approaches on every aircraft into the LTMA... yeah right.

quite simply, im not doing it... and especially as ive not seen any one in our ops rooms who think this is a good idea....

they may be the 'customer' but when youve got both pilots and atcos saying its a bad idea and doesnt work... alarm bells should be ringing my friend.

[anotherthing]

It would help if controllers used their brains and did not control 'by numbers'

15-20 mins delays promulgated at EGLL today and stuff still coming in at 270Kts - how about slowing it down further and being even more 'green'?

Traffic for EGKK being presented poorly because it seemed that the controller was more interested in complying with 270Kts than common sense...

It's not hard - 2 A/C running to GWC 5 miles abreast, both on headings doing 270Kts is not efficient or good air traffic management, if you have to use 270Kts because you can't think for yourself, how about sticking the other one on a slower speed.. instead of letting a colleague down the line do the work :ugh:

Also EGKK inbound NW of GWC, high and heading north, chucked without coordination in conflict with SAM departures - again, not exactly an advertisement for good ATC practices, in fact downright lazy

Maybe the office workers are correct - maybe as a whole we are becoming de-skilled as ATCOs and we should do things by numbers.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, there was also some very good use of different speeds by presenting sectors for TMA a/c today - nice to see some people like to exercise the rights their licence gives them instead of being lazy!!

I'm also sure that there was some poor presentation going outbound from the TMA today, but FFS people, don't blindly follow something just because it is in a TOI!!

[wizad]

anotherthing......put simply, i couldnt agree with you more.

[055166k]

London Terminal and Approach controllers are the world's finest. In the UK IFR operation they achieve a 98% landing rate efficiency at Heathrow over prolonged periods. HOW? Well they need a ready and available supply [or reservoir] of the correct mix of aircraft types to stream and sequence for best results. This is realised by the "full stack" principle which translates into absolutely no wasted space. If aircraft are streaming slowly towards the stack there will be an inevitable reduction in efficiency and I suspect there will need to be a 5% reduction in landing slots during peak demand.
THE CON: this is being "sold" to the airlines on the premise that the long 270 knot econ descent will result in minimum stack holding......in fact the gains can only be short term for the leading aircraft....eventually the stacks will still fill up but the aircraft will have burnt more gas at lower levels before they get there due to the flatter profile. Remember that hundreds of flights will still converge on London from all points of the planet, and they are catching up at a higher closure rate than pre-trial.
On the Area side these aircraft will be in my sector for longer and will be less "controllable". I expect the sector capacity to be modified accordingly...any bets on that?
Regards 055....[NATS third most experienced operational controller]

[big paddy]

No not a failed cadet, but a 13 1/2 year valid controller on the most busiest airspace that is being discussed at high level interfaces here....not been a problem to do 270kts and made not one ounce of workload difference!!.
3rd most experienced NATS controller....wishing you a happy retirement soon, long may you live in the dark ages of ATC :ooh:, bring on 21st century ATC where people use radars, speeds and all levels available to move the eco friendly tin around the skies :cool::cool::D

[wizad]

if they want to save money and the planet (in that order) get cracking with more environment friendly aircraft.
the billions airbus and boeing must rake in, car companies are getting onto it so im sure it must be top of the agenda.
rather than looking outward at what an overstretched ATC can do in very confined, busy and complex airspace, that given time im sure will attribute to a safety error of some sort, how about looking inward at the people they are buying these aircraft from and demanding a greener solution.
Seemingly now every month we turn up to work to find our procedures changed via the EBS, jesus.... the national curriculum gets changed less than that.

W

[yoCu]

A/C today calling well over France 25 miles before RFD/RDT requesting descent.
If this trial is to be done then the French sectors at Brest and Reims need to get these a/c down earlier.
Do the office bods want us to call the French when we receive an estimate and tell them it cannot be accepted. Maybe the Watch sup should do it at the start of a shift, even better NOTAM the restriction for the remainder of the trial and cap all KK + LL inbounds to max level 280. See how that goes.

[Mister Geezer]

This is an extract from NATS....

Modelling and simulations have indicated that approximately 1 minute of airborne holding can be avoided with an earlier and consistent application of econ descent speeds. By reducing the speed earlier, this procedure simply transfers part of the anticipated stack holding delay to the descent phase, thus reducing fuel burn and aviation related emissions. Total potential savings for LTMA arrivals are expected to exceed 12,000 tonnes of fuel per annum.

[1985]

Reducing emissions is all very well and good but i can't see how it'll save holding time. Instead of all the inbounds arriving at the holds at 300kts at the same time they will all arrive at the same time at 270kts. If they are all arriving at the same time how does it reduce holding? :ugh:

At the end of the day it's all about reducing fuel costs and burn, nowt to do with CO2 emissions, the fact that they may reduce is a bonus that the airlines and NATS will be able to trumpet later on when they announce their save the planet scheme.

If certain airlines want their pilots to fly more economically then thats fine i will accomodate them aslong as they let me know. But i'm an ATCO not a pilot, its not for me to impose a descent speed on an aircraft when its not for streaming purposes. I'll leave the flying to the guys in the cockpit thanks. I'll stop them from getting too close and to do that i need all the tools that i can get, having a imposed speed restriction (cos thats what it will turn into) reduces the amount of flexibility that i have. :(

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

I've been subjected to this 270kts trial a few times now and frankly I wish it would be withdrawn immediately. Some observations:

1. The trial is costing fuel. When we were allowed to use our own speeds, if I was going high on the profile I'd add accelerate a bit and conversely if I was starting to get a bit low I would reduce speed thereby altering the glide angle. This would be done with the thrust levers remaining at idle.

Under the new regime the only options available to me are to use speedbrake if I am high or thrust if I am low. During some descents I am now having to use speedbrake to meet (say) the TIGER restriction yet I am also having to apply power to fly level at FL120 at 270kts. Previously I would have dived off the excess height and reduced speed below FL150 to either prevent levelling off at FL120 or to level off, thrust at idle and start slowing down for the hold.

2. Because of the trial I am more likely to be further from the ideal profile than before the trial. At 270kts we need to be starting down before we enter London airspace. Typically we ask the French for descent, they (quite rightly) QSY us to London and by the time we check in we are above the profile. Because we are restricted to 270kts diving the height off is not possible so out comes the speedbrake.

In recent years the boffins at NATS/SRG have come up with some schemes which probably seem reasonable and sensible in a meeting room, but which operationally aren't so smart and risk introducing a lack of respect for the UK ATC system (eg. current taxiway position included in line up clearance, new ATSOCAS, 270kt trial, full spiel given to GMP when details passed during DCL request etc.). The 270kts trial falls in to this category because it quite plainly does not achieve its stated aim yet we persist with it. Because we can end up above the profile the risk exists that people will carry on towards TIGER, for instance, knowing that they will not meet the restriction but confident that the next controller will issue a lower level thereby cancelling the previous restriction. Alternatively people will use the expression "on transition" to their own advantage and choose to "transition" at FL150!

3. The 270kts seems to be increasing the workload for some ATCOs. I have had the restriction applied and then the controller has used vertical separation against the preceeding traffic. If I am close enough to the preceeding traffic that vertical separation is required instead of just speed control, it stands to reason that if they are on the correct profile, I must be above it. Furthermore because we must fly AT 270kts, we can no longer give you guys bursts of high ROD (to do that we used to dial the speed up and pull the speedbrake out). So waiting until we are almost on top of a level restriction before issuing it will now lead to non-compliance.

4. The trial seems to remove the ability for ATCOs to take maximum tactical advantage from a given traffic situation. Coming off the Atlantic recently with the 270kts in place we were given to TC OCK who not only lifted the restriction but asked us for high speed to help with the flow in to LL. We gratefully gave them and INT S 330kts. I don't mind doing that, but I could have arrived at the same point and time in space if I'd been allowed to fly my normal speeds. Not only that, I could have done it at idle thrust the whole way.

Conclusion: This trial is costing me fuel, time and grey hairs.

G W-H

[The Real Slim Shady]

as one who is forced by the present route structure which hasn't changed in years - not since OTR etc vanished in 02 - maybe it would be beneficial to revamp the route structure and enlarge the London TMA.

When I depart EMA in my 737NG I invariably have to fly through London to go anywhere south or east: I have to explain to the newbies why we always get a radar heading t the west and then vectors to BIG or DVR or SAM.

There doesn't exist a route that I can take from the North towards norwich and then out over Amsterdam to avoid London if I'm going to Poland or Germany.

If I'm going to Spain or the Canaries I can't take a diagonal SW towards Brecon to go around the TMA.

Similarly inbound i have to be at FL270 35 before LAM to be FL220 by HEMEL from the east when I could route further north and keep out of your way.

From Spain and the Canaries I have to route around the west of London - normally smack over the top of LHR to make 220 by HEMEL again.

It strikes me that working with old routes with modern high performance jet aircraft ( most of them don't like low speed descent as they simply don't go down!) with very accurute nav kit ( 2 x GPS, 2X IRs, DME DME upadting and 2 x FMC) is creating huge mounts of unnecessary work for you.

Is there a meachanism whereby you can, based on your knowledge of the inbound stream schedule, allocate a time and level at an inbound "gate" to each arriving aircraft?

The crew can then just plug that in to the FMC and let the airplane calculate it's cruise speed to make that "gate"; if it was done early enough, e.g. when BAW / VIR XXX calls for clearance to LHR at JFK and is given the gate time / FL as part of the clearance it makes the job easy as there is a lot of time to make adjustments.

Obviously slightly tricker for a shorter flight time e.g LBA to LHR or GLA to LHR but they can absorb the delay on the ground.

Something has to be done as the capacity of the airspace to absorb all the traffic is limited by the ATC capability.

[Medway Control]

Slim,
In some ways, I totally agree with you. As a TMA Controller, there is some limitations to what we can do as controllers. But there have been airspace developments, and there will continue to be...
To say that you cant go east without flying over london from EMA is not true, P155 goes east... via a point called SIVDA i think. This was a development a while back. Its true that if you want to go to DVR, you gotta go over london, but if you drew a straight line from EMA to DVR, I dont think you'd find it goes far away from LHR, and it would fly right over the top of stansted...

Your gate idea sounds grand... And very simple for you as pilots... Just type it into the FMC and bobs your fathers brother... But the route structure around London is a little more complicated than that. EMA is lucky, its right out of the way... But if you want to go south, its slap bang in the way. Outbound, you must climb through every TMA inbound, inbound, you've gotta go through every TMA outbound. At night, you are pretty much routed direct from the south coast for a 10 mile final at EMA, during the day its not that easy unfortunately. Not only for us, but for LMS, LUS and the host of other London sectors that try and get you and your 737NG from 380 to ground level.

And you're 737ng is a great performing aircraft, and we as controllers love their performance. But what about the 747s of this world? Great planes, but not great performance. Will they have to route a different direction just because you can outperform them? Should you get a more direct routing because you can do 4000ft a min? The route strucutre is there so every aircraft can make all the level restrictions across the board... (Oh and the LHR-GLA aircraft are gonna love delays on the ground, thats really gonna cheer them up lol)

Something is being done about the capacity issue... PRNAV... But thats a whole other topic for a whole other day... :ugh:

Any more specific questions about why things happen, please PM me, I'll try and explain it best i can...

[1985]

Slim, medway is right you can route via sivda and UP155 to either somva or redfa on the london/maas boundary that would take you way from london.

as for the FL270 35 B4 Lam restriction, its hard we are aware its restrictive and that you would like to stay higher but the idea is to get you below all the crusing traffic over london at FL300 plus, it would be an absolute bugger to get you down when you want. Routeing you further north is not really an option as you would crossing the tracks of and be descending into the teeth of all the departures from the TMA going east. And obviously we don't have the option leaving you high and descending later because of the military/uncontrolled airspace over East anglia, lincolnshire etc. The mil wouldn't want to know and we are too busy to provide you with a RIS/RAS and against the traffic out there. We are simply too busy with the stuff inside CAS to do that.

you should be able to route SW to BCN on weekends and in the evenings if you are happy with a service from the mil, EGBB departures do it so i can't think why EMA depts can't. I'm sure someone else will tell me if i'm wrong. :ok:

[The Real Slim Shady]

Guys, sorry I probably didn't make myself clear enough.

We do route via SIVDA and I'm not complaining about the routings I'm given because I have a small understanding of the route structure inbound to the TMA from the north and how we, on our departures, tend to be in the way of arrivals and departures north.

Our arrivals from the east though often chuck us in to a sector, Clacton probably, when we are descending towards LAM, where the mate working the sector can hardly draw breath he / she is so busy. Any soltion to take non essential traffic away from these busy areas must be welcome.

I just feel that with the quality of navigation accuracy now, laterally and vertically, a massive restructure of European, not just UK airspace, which would offer benefits all round, is long overdue.

Any discussion / plan, however, should be done in close consultation with the workers at the coalface who have to implement the procedures.

[The Many Tentacles]

This is an extract from NATS....

Quote:
Modelling and simulations have indicated that approximately 1 minute of airborne holding can be avoided with an earlier and consistent application of econ descent speeds. By reducing the speed earlier, this procedure simply transfers part of the anticipated stack holding delay to the descent phase, thus reducing fuel burn and aviation related emissions. Total potential savings for LTMA arrivals are expected to exceed 12,000 tonnes of fuel per annum.

What no one seems to have pointed out to the office jockey that thought this up is that if everyone arrives at the holding stack doing 270 kts and one minute later, then the problem still isn't going to go away.

Personally, I've not used it and won't unless I'm forced to. More often than not, traffic patterns won't allow me to do this - if the front aircraft I'm streaming is doing 270kts, then the back one will have to be doing 220 which isn't going to work. If there's no need for speed control, then I'll let the plane fly its own speed

[Max Angle]

Personally I don't really care what speed we fly in the descent, the priority at $1300 a tonne is to make an efficient descent which now generally means slow not fast.

The really important thing is to know what speed is required BEFORE you start down, planning a 250kt descent and then having to fly at 300kts for spacing is hugely inefficient, you need to add power to stay on profile (bad) or fly level at the bottom (even worse). Conversely having planned a fast descent and being told to slow down means you have spent a few minutes more in the cruise (100+kgs even for a small Airbus) and have to speedbrake the height off to stay on profile. In an A320 the difference between an efficient descent and a bad one (power on to keep the speed up etc.) can be 200+kgs which is around $260 per descent at today's prices.

I would think we (bmi) do about 30,000 sectors a year into LHR so we are talking about huge sums of money that can potentially be wasted or saved and we really need ATC on side to help us out. If it's possible to tell us what speed you want before we start the descent it's a big help.

[1985]

Max, i understand that. I am willing to do my bit to help you save fuel etc but what i am not willing to do is have my hands tied by a directive from some wally in a office telling me i must do it this way. It isn't sensible and they've tied it into environmental issues which it isn't about at all. The request for the trial AFAIK came from some of the airlines and is obviously about saving fuel while it costs so much. If you want to fly an economical speed then tell us. If you are at the front of a large queue then expect to be told to go faster than you want, but the number of times you are the front will be equalled by the number of times you are at the back.

Don't forget though that this is being treated as EGLL arrivals only, when infact the trial is for all LTMA inbounds. Whats the point of EGGW's doing 270kts when there is no holding and they are going straight in? Or EGLC's when 270kts is right at the top of their speed range? Its the blanket "All LTMA's must be doing 270kts to save the planet" rubbish that hacks me off. :ugh:

[londoncontrol1]

Folks,

this proposal originally came from BA. Funnily enough, the points at which they proposed the 270 SLPs just happened to coincide with the EAT capture box for the TMA; in other words, BA (suits) were happy to fly balls-out to the capture box, then reduce speed to save a marginal amount of fuel (when compared to a transatlantic flight for instance), thereby guaranteeing their place in the queue. This matter was then raised at the OPA and the other airlines apparently agreed to it. The environment angle was introduced at a later stage, as initially the concern was the high cost of fuel.

As far as the speed restriction itself goes, it is NOT mandatory; ATCOs should only apply it in accordance with the current traffic situation. For example, if you have a bunch and are endeavouring to get them into a stream for the TC boys, then sod the 270kts - do what you have to do!

The first time i used the 270kts restriction, i had a BA pilot bitching at me about the reduction - not appreciated as i was very busy at the time. Said pilot was then advised (once the RT had quietened down a bit) about the origins of the restriction and sounded suitably embarrassed. Since then, i have refused to issue the instruction - if the airlines want this, why don't they instruct their pilots to do it and if it fits with my plans, great!!!

Quite frankly, whenever i can, i give 'when ready' clearances, thereby shifting the onus onto the flight deck to determine their optimum profile (i am not a pilot); unfortunately, sometimes i am unable to to do this and so have to use the ATC tools at my disposal to achieve a safe and orderly flow of traffic. It comes down to the fundamental question: efficiency vs capacity

With regard to the comment above about routeings, airspace changes/ old routes/new navigation: remember, it's not only Commercial Air Traffic that uses UK airspace - the military must also be given the space to do what they have to do, otherwise how can we as a country expect them to fight on our behalf? Also, any new airspace route changes are subject to the Airspace Change Process, which can be lengthy and costly, as well as being subject to public scrutiny - and let's face it, regardless of the environmental benefits a more direct route would realise, realistically, the general public only consider noise/visual pollution and have a 'Not In My Backyard' mentality.:ugh:

Nuff said!

[055166k]

Doubtless "Big Airways" will benefit from NATS preferential treatment. Others do not. I reckon Baby/Easy burn at least a third of a ton extra on every flight from Bristol to Scotland due level capping, and Ryan/Easy/Baby must burn at least an extra half a ton from Bristol to NI capped at FL240. I suggest that two days a week the level capping should be reversed and selected London-Scotland/NI's should be capped in favour of Bristol/Cardiff deps.
So far my personal experience of "270knots" indicates that there has been no effect on reducing stack holding....but there has been an increase in R/T loading on already congested frequencies.
Additionally....for years I've used my professionalism and experience to monitor stack delays....and my colleagues and I have informed the crews in timely manner and applied speeds as required.....but only when required.

[mr ripley]

Regulated Airspeed trial - All flts inbound to LONDON TMA
will be required to fly a designated IAS in the descent of
270kts within an 80-100nm radius. Level clearances as
directed by ATC will not change and are mandatory.
This will result in improvements to average holding times
on arrival. Crews should note that holding and landing
sequences are set 40mins prior to arrival.This procedure
will not disadvantage your place in the arrival sequence

...may be look similar to an extract from our NOTAM brief

I don't like it from a pilot pov for reasons mentioned with regard to energy management. As LH we don't do this every day so there is some confusion as some pilots pre-plan a 270 kt descent and others the normal 300 kts ish (777) Sounds like its a roaring success. Mmmm

[Flagon]

This involves flying the jet towards the best glide speed. Thomsonfly have worked with Nats to come up with a compromise speed for the London TMA of 270 kts in the decent. - so now the ATC coal face knows who to blame:mad: Which dreamy-eyed, Latte-swilling suit at TF did this without airline-wide consultation? Hardly 'decent':)

[busav8r]

I know this is an old subject, but does anyone know if the 270 kts instruction still applies on the London TMA?
Thanks!

[The Many Tentacles]

Not at the moment :}

In more normal times, it was a blanket 250kts if your delay went above 5 minutes at the holds unless we needed different speeds for the gaps. Delay predictions have got a lot better since 2008 though - there's tools that look out to 500 odd miles and start working out the order. It's not perfect, but it's way better than what we had 13 years ago.