Radar Headings vs. Flight Planned Route

[mm_flynn]

Can someone help me understand the behind the scenes processes that make Radar Headings so popular with London.

On a recent flight from EHRD (FL100) the various Continental Controllers all had me flying either the filed route or DCT. However, the moment I arrived in London I was on headings (which exactly matched my filed route).

Similarly a flight to Scotland and back, on the way up I was on headings issued every 40 miles or so that tracked about 3 miles East of my planned route (until TNT). Coming back down, I was cleared own nav via several waypoints, but the handover to London once again went, 'Say Heading ... Make that a Radar Heading' and once again tracked exactly over my planned route but on Radar Headings.


Given the radar headings and the dct links between the waypoints followed the same path over the ground, there must be some procedural advantage for London of having everyone on headings (but the same advantage doesn't seem to apply to Amsterdam).

[Roffa]

On headings minimum lateral separation can be used, on own nav it can't be.

So you're on headings so that other traffic, also on headings, can be climbed/descended through your level at no less than 3nm lateral separation.

If you're at FL100 there will be a lot of other traffic in the TMA that needs to be climbed above you or descended below you.

[Vector361]

Is that a "local" rule or procedure or an ICAO standard? I'll be using ICAO regs. for the first time in my career very soon. In the US we can use 3 miles regardless of whether the aircraft is on a heading, on route, or "direct."

[Eric T Cartman]

I guess your system works else the FAA wouldn't approve it , but if you're using 3 miles separation & one guy, not on an assigned heading, deviates just slightly, say to avoid a bit of wx, have you not got a "deal" ? Or is the assumption that no one will deviate without asking first ?

[mm_flynn]

What surprised me a little, and prompted the question, is that with one exception (traffic crossing 1000 ft below) there was no one visually or on the traffic system showing within 6-8 miles anywhere close to my altitude for the whole time I was on headings. (I don't have full TCAS, but generally would expect to detect large aircraft transponders quite well.) It was from this that I guessed there must be some procedural rule or mental advantage London Controllers have when putting someone on headings. It doesn't seem to happen anywhere else and certainly my US, Dutch and German experience is that getting a heading means you are consciously being vectored off ones flight path rather than just ensuring you remain on the flight path.

[TWR]

It's certainly not ICAO. We use it "out of common sense" when tfc will come pretty close, high speed & nearly opposite. But all the time ? Sounds like overkill...

[Scuzi]

Due to the congestion and complexity of the route structure in the London TMA, tactical positioning of traffic with the use of headings is absolutely essential for an expeditious traffic flow. If all aircraft were routinely left on their own navigation the TMA would grind to a halt.

You may not require a heading to be separated from conflicting traffic in the immediate vicinity, but tactical positioning early on can prevent numerous conflictions from happening 20, 30 or even 50 miles ahead.

If you were overflying the TMA at FL100, you can be assured that if left on your own navigation, the result would be a significant reduction in the expedition of pretty much all the other traffic.

[climbwithagoodrate]

Lots of aircraft; complex airspace/sector design; separation standards; presentation to next sector, etc.

Why don't you arrange a visit to Swanwick and have a look for yourself; you'll get the picture fairly quickly I would imagine...

[mm_flynn]

Lots of aircraft; complex airspace/sector design; separation standards; presentation to next sector, etc.

Why don't you arrange a visit to Swanwick and have a look for yourself; you'll get the picture fairly quickly I would imagine...
Thank you for the suggestion. I will do so.

I can understand the logic for tactical positioning of traffic. I also routinely experience in any busy TMA (with no complaints or surprise - because I know that's what's needed to keep things flowing).

What surprised me was being 'tactically positioned' exactly on my flight planned route (which out of interest on the South Coast was KONAN DCT LYD R803 SFD (The headings kept me within about 1 NM of my original magenta line) and going North was tactically vectored about 2 miles east of DTY DCT SAPCO N57 (to about TIPIL where it was own nav POL)

[5milesbaby]

More reasons then from the route you gave first:

KOK-KONAN-DVR is opposite direction to all the London TMA traffic departing via DVR so giving you a heading nudging you slightly south of track gives us the best amount of space to get the TMA traffic quickly through your level. The LCY traffic will be passing FL100 somewhere between DET and DVR as is the Stanstead & Luton departures. Next you cross N613 between SOVAT & SANDY, all LCY, Biggin Hill, Southend and Rochester traffic have to be FL80 by SANDY, if you are on your track in conflict with one of these arrivals, we cannot achieve FL80 by SANDY unless you are vectored slightly southwards. The next track you conflict with is again traffic into LCY etc inbound along G27 (HASTY-BEXIL-ROKOS-SANDY that have to be FL100 by HASTY. Being your level, you will be vectored off track to avoid this route. Next, as you approach SFD (or 10nm before it) you will have a steady stream of LGW arrivals crossing from right to left attempting FL70/80 around TIMBA, again, if you are on track, that is not achievable. Once you cross that track, then depending on the LGW runway direction, you could be in direct conflict with departures if they are on easterlies. If on westerlies, then you will be in conflict head on with LGW arrivals via GWC-HOLLY-WILLO which also need to descend through your level.

For all those conflictions, you need to be on a heading to ensure separation or to tactically position you so other aircraft can achieve agreed levels. As to why it, in your opinion, only happens in the London TMA, then I guess that we are just that busy that you have to be.

[spekesoftly]

Excellent detailed explanation there 5mb, PPRuNe at its best! :ok:

[criss]

And one would be more surprised by vectoring that would have taken you much further from your route - as this would have required lots of coordination, killing the entire idea. You get 2nm off, someone else 2nm off on the other side, et voila.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Agree with Spekesoftly. I bet Mr Flynn knew nothing about all that!

[mm_flynn]

Thank you all for your replies. Some of which I knew, some of which I didn't. Probably most interestingly, I hadn't appreciated that London requires one to be on headings to achieve reduced separation.


Equally, I had expected by the time I was 4 miles off track of L9 on my way to LYD I was clear of everyone climbing out DVR KOK (equally, I had thought most of the traffic was FL150+ by the time they reach DVR).

Live and learn! And I will take up the various offers of a visit.


Thanks.

[Vector361]

In a case where the pilot deviates without asking, should it result in less than standard separation, it would be a "pilot deviation," and not a controller error/airprox here in the US. It is certainly not unusual to put aircraft on headings when in close proximity. BTW does ICAO have a "degree divergence" rule where you can use less than 3 miles if aircraft are assigned diverging headings by ??? degrees? If so that may explain why London TMA puts so many aircraft on headings. It's only allowed in terminals in the US last I knew, but center/area has been trying to get it in areas where 3 miles separation is available.

[Eric T Cartman]

Thanks for the reply. Sorry, can't help with the ICAO query - I do Apc Rad in the UK. We can use 3nm separation but with quite a few restrictions e.g. both aircraft identified, intentions known, within certain range of radar head, & separation must be back to 5nm or more before transfer to the Centre. I suspect this it the same at most units.

[Ballstroker]

Vector 361 - there's no such thing in the UK, can't speak for ICAO

In the London TMA 3 miles separation is subject to a host of other conditions - below FL245, a minimum distance from the radar head (depends on the radar source) , identified and talking to a co-located controller with a rapid means of co-ordination.

However approach controllers can use 2.5 nm on base leg and final within 20nm of touchdown and I understand that is ICAO too.

From your post it seems that it's common in the US to allow aircraft to be on their Own Nav 3nm from each other? Maybe we're overly cautious but it wouldn't happen here - at least one and usually both would be on headings if that close.

[gumpfgrumpfl]

Here in Austria its completely up to the controller how to use the 3nm sep; outcome has to be 3nm or 1000ft, no matter how.

That doesn't mean everyone here is pushing his/hers adrenaline by letting 3.1nm happen with a/c almost opposite or sharply crossing, but it surely is handy at almost parallel SIDs which are still close to each other (must be bloody inconvenient to assign headings to a/c on parallel tracks, one overtaking the other with min sep of 4,5nm when staying on the sid).

What's the real advantage of headings vs planned route? Don't mistake me, I love headings and use them whenever things take a closer look.
One argument I heard often is wx-deviations. Well, I sure count on any a/c to report any deviation, as is required (flight planned route doesn't allow for any deviation without reporting, at least in my FIR; same with heading)
Below the line I should feel even better when letting 3.1nm happen on flight planned route, because that is what is tracked. A heading's track might change when descending/climbing because of different wind.

[ron83]

and final within 20nm of touchdown and I understand that is ICAO too.

I think ICAO says 10 nm from touchdown.

[Denti]

I have to say i was allways puzzled about the use of radar headings within the UK. Our flights from stansted to glasgow, manchester or even belfast were quite often completely on radar vectors from shortly after take off until the ILS whereas domestic flights within germany or spain are usually done using directs or flight planned route until within the TMA of the destination where radar vectors are used for positioning onto the approach.

That said i allways felt safe that way as the ATCOs are obviously knew what they were doing, it just was a source of conversation on the flightdeck as it is unusual when compared with the rest of europe.

[DTY/LKS]

Denti

You mention that apart from in the TMA in Germany then headings are rarely used;
In your examples about flying from EGSS to EGCC, you basically remain in TMA airspace the whole flight. As soon as you leave the London TMA then you will be soon entering the Manchester TMA.

Flying EGSS to EGPF then you will be on headings coming out of TMA due to the complexity of traffic around you, then as you climb up through the Daventry sector then you will be on a heading against fellow London TMA deps and also against high level Manchester TMA inbounds that need to descend through your level, not to mention all the cruising traffic in the low 200 flight levels. Once cruising then you will probably be released from your heading to POL or MARGO. Then the ATCO needs to start thinking about positioning you in relation to other Scottish TMA inbounds, so will set you up on a heading for Scottish ATC, then before you know it you are in the Scottish TMA.

We don't put aircraft on a heading for the fun of it. Our little country has a lot of traffic taking off rom it, landing in it & overflying it. If you are on a heading then 99.9% of the time it will be for separation purposes.

[daisy120]

This 3 miles thingy is quite interesting but on the LAM3A arrivals LHR, the headings are mostly within1nm of NAV track. Does that really make a difference baring in mind that once a heading is issued, an Airbus managed descent has to be controlled in HDG/OPEN DESC..not a big deal but more of an irritation since one then has to focus more on the profile. Also. within the London TMA, what are the ATC heading and speed ACTUAL, realistic tollerances for the a/c you're controlling? BTW...still don't buy that QNH and type readback mallarcky at LHR!!!!:O

[Showa Cho]

So I gather if you use radar headings for aircraft in close proximity in case they deviate, then you must also use 1500ft instead of 1000ft for aircraft that will pass overhead each other in case they bust their level a bit?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<still don't buy that QNH and type readback mallarcky at LHR!>>

Why ever not? It surely happens at many other airfields and it's to do with SAFETY. It is obviously essential to have the correct QNH and the aircraft type information is required because airlines frequently switch aircraft types without telling ATC. If you were in an MD-80, or 737 or similar and ended up 2.5 nm behind an A340 or 747-400 you might then understand why it is done.

It matters not what people say on here, UK ATC will continue to function the way it always does. So far as my old brain recalls, there has not been a mid-air collision in UK controlled airspace since 1946, which is something we're jealously proud of.

[1985]

This 3 miles thingy is quite interesting but on the LAM3A arrivals LHR, the headings are mostly within1nm of NAV track. Does that really make a difference

Daisy120, if you are coming from Hong Kong then you will probably be kept on route or slightly north of it because of where you enter the CLN sector (REFSO), if you are on a heading then it will be so that we can either parallel other EGLL traffic against you from the south, descend traffic thats inbound to other places in the LTMA against you or get you through the overflights that are always there. The times of day that the Hong Kong flights arrive is busy with all the other far east arrivals at the same time as well as the early arrivals from less distant places. CLN (the westbound side) is only about 50nm wide at its widest point and narrows like a funnel with all the airways meeting at LAM. So you have to put aircraft on headings to achieve what you have to do, especially if there is a large mix of traffic.

[jackieofalltrades]

So I gather if you use radar headings for aircraft in close proximity in case they deviate, then you must also use 1500ft instead of 1000ft for aircraft that will pass overhead each other in case they bust their level a bit?


Aircraft on their own nav may deviate to avoid weather without first informing the controller, whereas if they're on a radar heading they have to request first before changing. The whole point of radar headings is to ensure separation and safety.
We don't use 1500ft just in case they bust their level a bit, but it's not unusual for controllers to give a 2000ft separation buffer in the instructed level if an aircraft will be rapidly climbing/descending and the two aircraft are likely to pass overhead, especially when there are military fast jets involved.

[Roffa]

Also. within the London TMA, what are the ATC heading and speed ACTUAL, realistic tollerances for the a/c you're controlling?

There are no tolerances, you should fly them as accurately as possible and always remembering that if you're Mode S equipped you are downlinking what you are doing to ATC.

This is important because a small heading deviation may well lose lateral separation and, especially on final approach, not flying the requested speeds may at best result in you being broken off the approach or at worst a wake encounter at low level.

If for any reason you're unable to fly requested speeds/headings don't just surreptitiously try and do your own thing, say something and ATC will accommodate as that's what we're there for.

[gumpfgrumpfl]

so.... just to get this straight at last: in the uk you do not have to ask first to deviate because of wx when own nav? creepy.
I can't check my documents right now, but anyway, it never happened to me that a pilot deviated before asking me if he may. And every pilot I asked stated that he/she had learned from the beginning to ask for a deviation before turning.

@ron83: its 2.5nm 18miles from touchdown here... and I can't remember having the authorities here daring something ICAO didn't cover, so 20nm maybe right (or 20nm from runway end, which would be around 18nm touchdown). anyway, would like to look it up, pity I'm at home :E

[ferris]

Aircraft on their own nav may deviate to avoid weather without first informing the controller, BS- absolute BS. UK AIP "track keeping" refers. This has been done to death on this forum before.

[Scuzi]

BS- absolute BS. UK AIP "track keeping" refers. This has been done to death on this forum before.
Experience proves otherwise.

[jackieofalltrades]

Quote:
Aircraft on their own nav may deviate to avoid weather without first informing the controller,

I should clarify: the use of the word "may" is in the sense that aircraft might do it, not that they are authorised to.
Pilots should, and normally will, ask first before deviating to avoid weather, but like Scuzi says, experience is that they don't always.

[Showa Cho]

Jackie: I understand that sometimes aircraft will wander, but to preemptively cater for pilot violations is another great example of dumbing things down instead of making aviation smarter.

If a pilot deviates without a clearance to do so NAIL HIM/HER! Why do you plan for preventable errors? Prevent them in the first place.

The message will get through if enough companies/pilots get nice letters from the CAA.

Domo,

Showa Cho.

[jackieofalltrades]

Why do you plan for preventable errors? Prevent them in the first place.


Showa, that is my exact point I was making earlier in this thread. That is why in the UK so many aircraft are placed on radar headings, to prevent the planes wandering and thus ensure separation.

to preemptively cater for pilot violations is another great example of dumbing things down

I will have to disagree here. It's called defensive controlling. And gives rise to much safer skies by identifying potential errors and setting up actions to prevent anything untoward happening before it does.

[dcb2008uk]

Some of the comments made in this thread I think serve to highlight why a greater effort should be made for pilots to visit operational centres in the U.K particularly those in a TMA environment so they can see just why the controlling in this country differs from our colleagues overseas.

I'm sorry that it comes across that some of the things we do are unnecessary, or add excessively to your workload, but its the quality of the training that we recieve in this country, coupled with the complexity of many sectors, which makes much of this work necessary.

[gumpfgrumpfl]

quote: 'but its the quality of the training that we recieve in this country'

so not applying radar vectors when separating with 3nm is unprofessional?

quote:
Quote:
to preemptively cater for pilot violations is another great example of dumbing things down
I will have to disagree here. It's called defensive controlling. And gives rise to much safer skies by identifying potential errors and setting up actions to prevent anything untoward happening before it does.

Personally, I rely on pilots to stay on their route almost as much as to stay on their assigned altitude. Actually, more level busts happened to me than misnavigations. So what you call defensive controlling would in the first place call for 2000ft vertical sep.

I do not cater for pilot violations either. I control my traffic so that normal separation is assured, counting on pilots to do what I tell them. I do have a plan to prevent collisions when violations happen.

What potential errors do you mean? You really sit at your scope and control like any of your targets is likely to deviate or violate at the next possible moment?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I control my traffic so that normal separation is assured, counting on pilots to do what I tell them.>>

Which is precisely what the London controllers do!

[dcb2008uk]

I'm not quite sure how me emphasising why it is that we use so many headings in this country was ever me having a dig at the professionalism of other ATCO's in other countries.

I personally, and I imagine almost every other ATCO valid in the UK would not rely on pilots remaining on their own navigation when using 3nm separation.

The purpose of my reply was purely to highlight to pilots why it is that we use so many headings. Dont spin that round to suggest that I was being arrogant as to the quality of ATCO's in this country compared to others.

[On the beach]

Surely the routes can be designed so that they are all laterally separated with built-in height requirements (I hesitate to use the word "restrictions" because this has negative connotations) and don't need the intervention of controllers. I appreciate that the London TMA is small but surely this is possible in this day and age, I mean we're only talking a mile or two. It would certainly increase the capacity handling ability of controllers if they were not constantly having to control the tracking of all aircraft under their control, which seems to be the case from previous posts.

I haven't worked the London TMA so am happy to be contradicted, but having worked the "Celtic Fringes" after a life of working in ATC overseas I am somewhat astounded at how far behind current control techniques and practices NATS is lagging. I feel that there is an in-bred, blinkered culture of "we're the best and the rest of the world can learn from us". Whereas the reality is that the rest of the world has moved on and NATS seems to have been left behind in an anachronistic bubble. If I mention RNP or PBN in the UK, I am normally met with blank stares, which astounds me.

Surely, the only way to increase en-route capacity is to not have controllers putting all aircraft on their frequency on headings. I mean, this is so labour-intensive and distracting from one of the other primary functions of controlling after safety which is expedition.

The current methods of controlling in the London TMA must have an in-built limit as to how much traffic this method of controlling can handle. How close are you to that limit? What are the plans when that limit is reached? Or do you just sit back and watch all the traffic overfly to Paris/Amsterdam/Frankfurt or re-route to avoid the "weak link" in the chain?

On the beach

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Surely the routes can be designed so that they are all laterally separated with built-in height requirements (I hesitate to use the word "restrictions" because this has negative connotations) and don't need the intervention of controllers. I appreciate that the London TMA is small but surely this is possible in this day and age, I mean we're only talking a mile or two.>>

On the beach.. With respect, you do not seem to appreciate the workings of ATC in a TMA. "A mile or two" is a huge amount in busy airspace with inbound, outbound and overflying traffic with enormous speed variations. Radar is there precisely to expedite traffic yet you appear to be advocating a return almost to procedural control.

I know what RNP and PBN mean but flying particular routes with a hgh degree of accuracy does not solve the problem of many aircraft climbing and descending on crossing tracks; some form of control has to be imposed. Some of the earlier postings on this thread from DTY/LKS and others explain the problems very well.

I do very strongly urge you to visit Swanwick when you are next in the UK so that you can appreciate the problems they face. It might assist you with your consultancy work.

[daisy120]

DCB and 1985, thanks for the heads up. Definitely, a trip to Swanwick on the cards...is there a laid down protocol for the guys to organise a visit??(letter, e/mail etc). I fully understand that traffic density, especially with 'funnelleing' occurring close in, increases collision threat but surely if, eg LAM3A, all inbounds are mandated to fly the STAR, obey the SLP's etc, headings would be minimised....?
Now then, this QNH business, inclusive with the departure ATIS:if we are underlining QNH readback as a safety issue then why do we not include it with the confirmation of the arrival ATIS? For London, its simply a/c type. Outside UK, its a rarity to read back QNH until one has been cleared in the descent to an altitude; after all, one of the fundamentals, even at the basic stages in R/T education, was to keep the R/T broadcast, short, concise and clear. I do find that at LHR and particularly with London East, there can be so much R/T traffic on freq, that simply getting a word in, incurs quite a delay. By acknowledging, prior to start request, that you are.."callsign, stand, type and atis "X ray", you are confirming that ALL the essentials have been received. Afterall, if this is to recap the absolute safety issue of setting the correct QNH, then prevalent in other matters of safety to the a/c operation would be surface wind gust(to possible a/c limit across the runway and temp with dew point..Eng anti ice procedures etc...so why not read back the whole ATIS verbatim???...anyway, last on this one since I fear its becoming a polemic!!;)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Now then, this QNH business, inclusive with the departure ATIS:if we are underlining QNH readback as a safety issue then why do we not include it with the confirmation of the arrival ATIS?>>

Perhaps because within a few minutes you will be given the QNH on descent to an altitude.

There are laid down items which must be read-back. That's it.

As for the LAM arrivals, you do not comprehend - nor should you need to - the complexity of traffic in the London TMA. I'm sure that my ex-colleagues would love to simply issue a STAR to inbounds and then ignore them..... but what if you get a dozen arrivals all at once, or the varying descent rates, or variations in speed before SLPs, or climbing and descending traffic from/to other airfields, slow or fast overflights??

Hope your trip to Swanwick proves enjoyable. It might just blow your mind!!

[daisy120]

LHR Director...points taken. In future, I shall only follow orders! Yes, will check out the Swanwick venue for sure!!!

[ZOOKER]

This is interesting and quite sad.
Both this and the 'Tiring RTF' thread are partly due to the ATCO/pilot communities drifting apart, due to the geographical location of today's ATC units, and the pressures of business/modern life.
Many years ago at my local airport, pilot/controller forums were regularly arranged where ATCOs would meet commercial/private pilots for an evening and discuss, over beers, chilli and/or hotpot the mutual problems and misunderstandings of the day.
Attendances of 50-100 people were not uncommon at such events, which were usually sponsored by based airlines, the local flying clubs or GATCO.
Also pilot visits to ATC and ATC flight-deck trips appear to be less common, due in part to 9/11, but also due to corporate red tape. Accountants cannot quantify, and therefore do not understand the benefits of 'famil'.
- A shame.

[phantomlurker]

Zooker

Spot on. An absolute case of cause and effect.
If only some of those accountants were reading these threads :ugh:

[5milesbaby]

It may be only a small portion of the flying community attending but NATS have been organising days where controllers and pilots alike attend for a day's "discussion". I found mine very useful - attended by AC, TC and LHR APP controllers with Virgin & BA captains & FO's as well as a couple of corporate jet guys (I forget their ranks). NATS have been running this for over 6 months now, I actually wish it could have been run over 3 days but at least one day was a start.

As for staying on the STAR's - impossible. Far too many tracks all on the same route for this to happen, vectors have to be used to provide 5nm laterally so descents can be given to both. If our colleagues over the waters could actually help by initiating streaming.......... But that would be ground breaking work that we've only been trying for 25 years to happen......... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Bomber Harris]

i have to disagree with most of the ATC responses (duck!!)

The vectored deviations from arrivals from TOD into most UK airports are so predictable I almost get suckered into repeating "not what I hear, but what I expected to hear". It is the same deviation from the arrival day after day after day. The question is obvious, why not change the arrival to suit reality?

The 3nm separation has been done to death. It appears (argueably) not to be fully correct, however, it is highly rare to come within 3nm of another aircraft in London or anywhere for that matter. Therefore it is a moot point.

If controllers were given good quality achievable STARs to work with and streaming was half decent then we wouldn't be having this problem. There is an inherent weakness in the system which nobody is addressing.

My experience with this kind of problem......force people to deal with it and let it expose the problems....and eventually the intelligent with step forward with resolutions. For example, run a trial, in slightly less busy airpspace, where ATC's are forced to give STARs where possible and patiently watch. For god's sake.....aren't STARs there to REDUCE workload. We really have gone the full circle on this. It's time for a fundemental revisit.

Thanks to the original poster for asking what seems to be an innocent question, but actually questions the fundemental functionality of SIDs and STARs

[Scuzi]

The London TMA is an old design which hasn't changed much since everythign revolved around Heathrow. The airspace hasn't changed to accommodate the relatively massive increase in traffic from Stansted, Luton, Gatwick, Birmingham, Northolt, London City, Southend, Oxford, Cranfield etc.....

I also disagree with the 3nm argument to a certain degree. Yes, when dispensing with vertical separation when two aircraft are 3nm apart, it is more often than not necessary to have them on headings in the UK. That's how we are trained. If someone makes a habit of not using headings on aircraft which are 3nm apart, they could very well lose their validation. This is a given but as has been said, headings are often used when there are no aircraft apparently in the vicinity. (Remember though, TCAS is rubbish in the horizontal plane and is not a substitute for radar). The reason for this is positioning.

From a personal perspective, most aircraft I work are placed on headings for positioning to the next sector to prevent conflictions further up the line, and not for separation. For example, all the northbound traffic from the TMA is is usually ordered geographically for it's desitnation within 30nm of departure.
Take for example a Heathrow WOBUN departure going to Aberdeen and a Stansted BUZAD departure going to Belfast. A good controller will endeavour to position the Heathrow departure to the east of the Stansted departure before around FL140. That requires "harsh" headings which take the aircraft quite a bit from the SID route but it solves many conflictions further up the line and makes things easier for the subsequent sectors. It also makes giving continuous climb easier.

This is the result of ancient airspace design. A new design is on the drawing board but it is currently posing a lot of problems and it may well be some time before it is implemented. In the meantime we have to suck it up and do our best with what we have.

We don't take you off the SID to make life harder for the flight crew, we do it to provide the best service we can to all aircraft in our airspace.

[Bomber Harris]

Scuzi....we speak the same language.....

but I ask you think bigger......the reason that a clever person came up with SID's n STARs 50 years ago, is to reduce the same ATC patter over and over again. In London today we have, guess what, the same ATC patter over and over again, but it's headings.

You give a good example of aircraft seperation up the line. But, I say design SID's to take care of it.....make them SID A or SID B. Think outside the box, make SID's dynamic. Change from type A to type B depending on separation. Just a wild example, but something needs to be addressed. I don't know how to fix it, but guess what, it's somebody's job. He/she is paid a sh1t load of money to manage, and it's ignored. For me thats a sackable offence. If i was in charge there would have been change a long time ago.

Personally, i think heads should roll over the 'outdated airspace' issue in London. What do ATCO's think?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<it is highly rare to come within 3nm of another aircraft in London or anywhere for that matter.>>

Well, Bomber Harris, you have obviously never seen an ATC radar in all your life! Presumably one of thosse flying types who believes that he is the only one in the air? I'm not being rude - it is just abundantly obvious. I showed a friend of mine round London Approach, long before it got really busy. He was a fairly senior BA captain. He went away visibly shaken at how close we were directing aircraft.

In the LTMA, and especially in the approach sectors, aircraft get to within 3nm all day, every day, 365 days a year. Why not spend a few hours at Swanwick and see the real world?

Of course the LTMA is not perfect, but how many TMAs are? I've worked overseas where there was no approach radar and everything was procedural. It was a screaming nightmare. Given the very small amount of room there is to play with, LTMA does a pretty fine job.

[Vortex Issues]

The one benefit of putting you on headings rather than keeping you on the SID is that you get climbed quicker. All the SID routes are level separated against each other :bored: but it would mean you being held down at 3,4,5,6 thousand feet for much much longer.

Is it really much more work load for you to a fly a heading instead of following the route?

[Scuzi]

Bomber Harris,

A new airspace design along with a new set of PRNAV SIDs and STARs, extra holding patterns and routes has been on the drawing board for years and still is. It's not something that can be implemented overnight and if the owners of stud farms and stables get their way, it will continue to be on the drawing board for the forseeable future!

[daisy120]

Personally, I don't have any problems with headings, certainly after the initial segment of the SID has been flown in NAV. Frequently it means early hi speeds and higher levels, early on in the piece, which means generally, on my routes, being handed over to Maaaaarstricht(sp) at initial cruise level and then getting a humungous direct CDA.
For the Bus, popping out of NAV and into OPEN DESC etc is no big deal in the descent, more of an irritation really, since it appears we just mirror the SID, give or take a mile...LHR DIRECTOR..I have assimilated your comments and will comply btw, but after a 14 hr sector, in ice and a TCAS RA, its slightly more comforting to remain in NAV!!!
ATC visits: hows about a dedicated day per month for an open visit to Swanwick???

[divingduck]

If our colleagues over the waters could actually help by initiating streaming.......... But that would be ground breaking work that we've only been trying for 25 years to happen......

5miles....as the good book says...ask and ye shall receive....:ok:

At least from the West...if its any easier, you can give me all the airspace to NUMPO and we can stream the STU and EVRIN guys for you:ok:

[Arkady]

I think 5mb is talking about traffic from a more southerly direction.

[Gonzo]

As has been touched on above, all of us who work in UK ATC know the deficiencies of the airspace we work in, and there are lots of plans for RNP route etc etc, however, to change a published route by a fraction of a mile legally requires so much consultation and environmental enquiry that the timescales seem to be measured in decades. Much of the London TMA ATC 'system' is designed around the major airports' SIDs, and these are in turn predicated on Minimum Noise Routes close in to those airports.

I'd love to be able to sit in Air Deps and allocate dynamic low- and high-performance RNAV SIDs out on tracks diverging by 40 degrees to give a minimum 50 per hour departure rate, just as the guys doing Clacton would love to be able to give you a 4D RNAV route from the FIR boundary to the hold fix, then Director to give you an RNP0.1 track CDA to an 8nm final but that isn't going to happen with the current requirements for airspace change and the modern environmental sensitivities.

5milesbaby, are there any tower controllers involved in these days?

[Weirdo Earthtorch]

It may be only a small portion of the flying community attending but NATS have been organising days where controllers and pilots alike attend for a day's "discussion". I found mine very useful - attended by AC, TC and LHR APP controllers with Virgin & BA captains & FO's as well as a couple of corporate jet guys (I forget their ranks). NATS have been running this for over 6 months now, I actually wish it could have been run over 3 days but at least one day was a start.

5milesbaby, are there any tower controllers involved in these days?

I find it ironic, but par for the course, that an anonymous internet forum is the first I've heard about such days too.

[5milesbaby]

Gonzo, not that I know of. As great as NATS has been in organising these days, they have probably then frustrated those that do not work in Swanwick. That said, the day is on a quick agenda & having a 3rd discipline in the room could have possibly disrupted the flow. I would highly recommend nagging your next in line & trying to get something sorted out down at LHR with base crews involved & try get some approach bods down too.

DD, Arkady - yup, talking about traffic from due south being delivered from three different agencies to two inbound London sectors. 2, 3 or even 4 allowed to merge at the point of transfer without a hint of speed control applied or even the decency to actually transfer the aircraft early so we could initiate streaming ourselves. Year in year out we call them, get something initiated only to find out the speed was given on transfer half the time. Useless. It's almost like they are shocked when we ask sometimes like its something new or out of the ordinary. Ops are continuously trying & we may actually get somewhere later in the year but still not near ideal. :ugh:

Bomber Harris, if I get your suggestion correctly then you are sort of saying we need to expand the STARs and say introduce lanes like a motorway, and then we tell you to either fly the inside, middle or outside lane on first contact? First problem, space. There is no where enough airspace to cope with that. The second problem is what do you put in your FMS on departure? Is the FMS dynamic enough to be easily programmed at TOD for either of the 3 routes on offer? Another reason for aircraft to be put onto headings is taking an example of flying into LHR & LGW from the south via the OCK4B & WLO4C. Due to all the other tracks of traffic & the danger areas surrounding them, these routes are the same up until KATHY where they diverge by about 10 to 15 degs. Both have a standing agreed level of FL130, one at GWC and one at HAZEL - only 10nm apart. If controllers have two a/c together, one into each airfield (quite common), they will be wanting to transfer a/c to the next frequency as soon as possible after KATHY so the ONLY way to do this is put them on headings, the LHR pointed at HAZEL & the LGW positioned about 7nm south of it, usually on the same heading. The LHR will follow its route within 3nm by doing this but the heading is crucial against the LGW. We cannot have different routes for LHR & LGW, and we also cannot have 2 routes for LHR for when a bunch arrive together. Getting streaming initiated far earlier (ie halfway over France) would be beneficial for London ACC & for you to avoid excessive headings, however, with the varying types of aircraft now around coupled with the huge variance on the way individual PILOTS let alone Operators fly similar types, this still wouldn't solve enough. Finally, PLEASE get down to a centre and see how its done these days & hopefully we'll blow your mind just like we do most other pilots who come to visit and leave saying "I had no idea..." :ok:

[Bomber Harris]

heathrow director...you made some factual mistakes. You said you were not being rude. Well....you were. Stating that I think I am the only one up there is obviously incorrect...and rude. But you are right that I have not been to a 'busy' radar (being correct doesn't give you the right to be rude though)

5miles thanks for the answer. what i was really getting at is the fact that i am able to predict headings and clearances which differ from the stars. if i am told the same thing day after day, why dont they make stars fit what the controllers are doing? surely that would eliminate a lot of air time. how do i go about going to see a centre?

scuzi, i have seen some of the new PRNAV stars. do you think that we will actually be allowed to fly them or will we still be on headings?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<You said you were not being rude. Well....you were. Stating that I think I am the only one up there is obviously incorrect...and rude.>>

Not intentional, old boy; never been intentionally rude to anyone in my life, but I could learn!! :)

Keep taking the tablets... they worked for me.

[PeltonLevel]

The London TMA is an old design which hasn't changed muchWhatever happened to CCF Stage 5?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Whatever happened to the Beecher (?) Plan - Tunnels in the Sky, which some on here might favour?

[5milesbaby]

CCF/tunnels in the sky got binned - absolutely no flexibility during weather avoiding & couldn't handle multiple inbounds to one airfield with varying speed differentials. However the current methods do have similarities & when we need, we have the ability TO USE RADAR HEADINGS to solve these kind of situations to ensure each aircraft is given the best possible service. By best possible service, I mean that with RADAR HEADINGS more aircraft can be given continuous climb & descents & also more "when ready"'s. As I have previously said, STAR's don't cater for multiple arrivals bunched together & airspace packs several STAR's together so we are very limited on solutions to guarantee safe passage.

Bomber H - to get a visit I'd start with whoever you fly for, see if they can arrange a visit on your behalf. Another way is to look out on PPRuNe late summer/early autumn & get involved with our winter TRUCE program where we always ask for cockpit crews to come advise us on our yearly emergency training. Finally, if you happen to know an ATCO, nag them to take you around - the experience will probably be far better than any of the other options as you get to see the real deal for a good length of time & soak it all in :) Where are you based?

[orangemonster]

Unfortunatley in the UK many routes are not separated from other, even by 3 miles so leaving adjacent aircraft on own nav is simply a no no as far as the powers that be are concerned.
PRNAV routes, we will be allowed to use as and trust as they have approved that track keeping etc is all up tothe required standards and aircraft can adhere to them. However....many of these routes even with much work on the design cannot ensure lateral sep. Its just too complicated to design allowing for the combinations of where aircraft want or need to route.
So i guess its "yep" more will be left on the route to follow without instruction but some will need to be vectored or suffer step climbs. By standardising the system (ie: you will stay at lower levels longer, less early climbs and no shortcuts) more traffic can be squeezed in, but when there is weather or emergencies to intervene is incredibly complex and difficult.
Progress or not? I think the jury is still out on that at the mo.