Vectoring vs. climb/descent

[Clerval]

In an en-route environment what do you prefer in order to solve a conflict vectoring or climbing/descending the a/c?
Both ATCOs and pilots views would be great, of course with a rationale. What is better in terms of fuel efficiency, time etc
An old debate...

[Z10]

as long as traffic levels permit, I always issue vectors or some kind of routing that will give the aircrafts a free rate of climb or descend.

Of course, this will give you some kind of extra workload, so if the workload is too high, you'll stick to giving level changes instead, and just give direct routing.

Been working area control for 2 years now, and twr/app before that - so maybe I'm still a bit into the "there is no substitute for a good vector"-thinking.. :)

ENBD ACC

[The Many Tentacles]

If both aircraft are in the cruise, then I'll look to vector, if it's going to be a huge dog leg then I'll find out what level you get on the Ocean should you be heading west. That's usually a good get-out, failing that a direct routing to your OEP can sometimes help me out if Shannon are willing, and being generally all-round nice people, they usually are.

Stuff through my sector going Eastbound is usually coming to the end of its flight and as such can usually be persuaded to go up a level or two and coming down a level or two isn't a huge issue either

If one is in the cruise and the other is climbing out, then it's obviously easier to go level safe instead.

The above all depends on my workload at the time, if I'm going balls-out then I'm not going to faff around with vectors unless I absolutely have to, when going for different levels would make my life a whole lot easier

[45 before POL]

As said going flat out, you want as few on vectors as possible....requires a lot of monitoring and increase in workload. Vectors can sometimes be the best option to resolve a potential conflict, and keep aircraft climbing and descending. With radar, no situation is ever the same so going vertical, using vectors... your call. Good communication with the pilots can help, some are happy to sit and wait for the other traffic to pass if they get continuous climb after, but there are others that would prefer to take a vector to get a climb/descent.

[GetTheFlick]

*Think* altitude. I was told that the first day I walked into a control room and it was good advice for 25 years. Vectoring is a lot more fun. It ain't about fun. Think altitude.

Don Brown

[Spodman]

A bit of 'vert' never hurt...

[Clerval]

Any preference from the flying side?
If you are cruising at, say FL350, would you fly on a vector for x minutes or be satisfied with climbing or descending 2000 feet?
If it is an intersection - vectors or an opposite level for short time?

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Or slight speed control.

Much better than climb.

But then I live at 470/490.

glf

[rumouroid]

I'll always go vertical as I think time is everything to an airline, vectoring normally involves a dog leg for at least one a/c. A few dog legs a day could have quite a big impact by the last rotation.

Plus it's alot safer. Safety first 'n all that jazz.

[Lon More]

From a purely economic point of view. Got involved in a simulation on this once many moons ago. Three aircraft converging. Do nothing and all three hit.... Five miles separation always seemed to require five less track miles for one, no change for the second, and five more for the third, Level changed for two were financially more punitive - not to mention negative effects on cabin service etc.

OK very artificial situation but i tried it with students in the Sim later and 99% of the time it worked, vertical is easier (lazier?) for the controller. but if you're reallly busy it isn't always a viable solution, Especially when traffic is alrady at cruising level through several sectors it doesn't always look professional. Would use it when traffic has to perform level change before exiting the sector


Remember the 1 in 60 rule.