European Adherance Day?

[TCXCadet]

Hello ATCers,

Coming back across Europe today we, as well as many other aircraft, were not being allowed to step climb or being asked to climb whilst still being too heavy. The reason given was 'European Adhearance Day'.

I've seen the memo from Eurocontrol about directs and the need to be strict on CTOTs, but this only seemed to be affecting level changes, we were still getting directs.

It seemed to be increasing the amount of RT and doesn't seem very practical - if we load extra fuel we'll obviously be heavier than Ops will have planned for and unable to climb at exactly the point on the flight plan. Winds/temperature could be different to forecast, turbulance and weather to be avoided etc.

Has this just been a few days trial or is this going to become the norm? Can someone explain the expected benefits?

Thanks

[Thunderbug]

30th Sept - 1st Oct. It will all be over by tonight....

The official adherence day website (http://www.adherencedays.com/)

Might be worth leaving some constructive feedback......

[BrATCO]

From my point of view, there was less requests for level changes. Thus less RT.
On the other hand, much more paper work.

[EBBU]

Eurocontrol has been looking into the reason for sector overloads and one factor was that flights were being assigned cruising levels other than the ones in the flight plan. This resulted in flights entering sectors that they were not planned in and thus creating an overload. To test their theory we just had two days of 'level adherance'. ATCOs were requested not to change the filed cruising altitude from the flightplan.

[BobAgg]

A big poster in our place said 'Flight Plan Adherence Days, 29/30 September, providing more predictability in ATM."

Underneath read, " Delayed due to Spanish ATC strike"

I'm sure I'm not the only ATCO who saw the irony in that poster!

[kontrolor]

this RFL adherance day is a show of how Eurocontrol is looking at the burocratic problem created by burocratic way of thinking. Instead of creating a system, where sector overload would be solved by means of NOT imposing too much of a hassle for aircrews and enabling them to fly as freely as possible, it adds just another barrier.

we are in 21st century for god's sake!

for me, ATCO, this kind of thinking (you get only what you fill in) is total rubbish and stands against why we are there in the first place.

[samotnik]

kontrolor, I'm just curious - how do you manage not to overload sectors, which are already at their maximum rate and cannot be further divided vertically and horizontally, without imposing flow restrictions?

[EGBKFLYER]

Puzzling. I understood that the days were 30 sep and 1 oct due to the Spanish strikes. Flew both days and got levels that weren't as filed both days, no questions asked...

[Avoiding_Action]

Were they domestic flights?

[Not Long Now]

Some slightly woolly paperwork at our unit. Could request a higher level if the flight was purely domestic and you checked down-route. Also paperwork said only to refuse requests for higher, nothing about lower, which could just as easily cause overload in a different sector. Perhaps everyone could file FL510 then request lower when airborne?
Anyway, was completely irrelevant for me as I do TMA and everyone wants higher than the outbound standing agreement level.
Always good to have more rules though!

[5milesbaby]

Was a waste of time as far as most of the Uk are concerned, we do this anyway and don't need an adherence day to pull us in line. There are always exceptions but when are there ever not exceptions? We just weigh up the odds and use experience and other available data to choose when to climb and when not to. Was interesting to see that Brest complied with it - almost....... :ugh:

[andrepilota]

I laugh like a monkey when I see these kind of complaints coming from pilots and/or airlines.

The reason why we've reached this point is that LOADS of aircraft operators file super weird levels (seen with my own eyes at least 20 times a day) and then they COMPLAIN if we tell them that they HAVE to fly that way...:ugh:

some centers are super flexible (as Maastricht,where I work) and they always try and to their best to keep a smooth profile,but some other centers (read RHEIN radar) would NOT accept anything different from what has been filed (zei say not approved!!!!)

We can argue that this flow management might not be working at 100% and it could be improved,but if operators try to avoid restrictions by filing completely f#@ked up levels and routes there's not much to be surprised if you (pilots) get restricted!

Cheers

[flowman]

Just to underline what Andrepilota says, the first compliance day was a very busy day traffic wise. There were well over 30,000 movements, normally we would be quite busy with that level of traffic. From a flow management perspective it was a very quiet day despite having some weather issues. There were less than the usual number of regulation requests from the FMPs, less changes to the pretactical plan and therefore less interventions from us.

That's just my impression. Hopefully the boffins will produce and publish some meaningful analysis of the results in the near future.

[BrATCO]

Was interesting to see that Brest complied with it - almost....... :ugh:What did we "... almost :ugh:" comply with ?

AFAIK, levels were adhered to.
"RFL adherence" has been part of our SOPs for more than 3 months now (pilots get a reminder each time they ask to diverge from RFL !). So that wasn't a big deal for us (except the paper work). The trick is that we adhere to the sectors, not to the actual RFL, in order to keep the thing a bit flexible.
French ATC did not discover Flow management yesterday evening. (I won't explain you history of Flow Management in Europe)

In the trial, one of the questions being : "How many ACFTs entered a wrong sector ?",
The answer will be close to nothing over the two days in Brest.

I remember one day (2 months ago ?), when I worked our "North" sectors (south of LND, BHD, LORKU, LELNA, above FL345) when I should have been protected by a scenario for London's departures (no delay involved, just FL330 max entry France).
I had to deal with a 150% overload for more than one hour and a half because London ACC disregarded the scenario.
Criticism is easy.

Happy to help the Flow Management guys when they try to protect us.
Hope they will find (good) answers to their questions.

The only thing I don't understand is why we didn't file the papers without telling the companies, two days before and/or after, in order to get a "raw sample" of the usual traffic. Just to have something to compare to.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

BrATCO, can you tell us why both the Brest sectors we spoke to the other day asked us, and many other flights, several times what our requested flight level was?

In an attempt at better efficiency we requested a level higher than filed and were immediately told that this is Adherence Day you must fly at your filed level.

Not pointing fingers just genuinely curious why you'd bother asking.

[Spitoon]

Whilst I find it difficult to support something that you don't offer as good a service as is possible (within my view of the world, anyway), I think I understand the intent of the adherence days.

We've invested in all of the systems that Eurocontrol CFMU have put in place to try to get the maximum capacity out of the system without overloading any part of it.....but we still get overloads. The planning (and, thus, the departure slots) that CFMU does is based on FPL data - the idea is that if flights follow the trajectory defined by the FPL, the plan will work. What screws things up is that controllers allow aircraft to fly a different trajectory because it can be accommodated within their sector and aircraft operators file FPLs for trajectories which they have no wish/intention of following. The result is that, further down the route, the plan falls apart. 5miles comment 'We just weigh up the odds and use experience and other available data to choose when to climb and when not to.' illustrates the problem - the CFMU system is designed to manage the 'network' as a whole, whilst individual controllers typically only see a very small part of the network.

Hopefully, what has been achieved by the adherence days is the collection of useful data which indicate just how much influence adherence to FPL trajectories actually has on the overall capacity of the European network. Armed with this information, one hopes that future development of network management systems can be better focussed. The alternative, and more scary possibility is that the politicians see that FPL adherence gives some overall improvement (however small) and decide that this should be the norm.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Spitoon, you think all the directs and shortcuts we got in Spain (more in two days than the last 8 months) helped the accuracy of that data?

Seems they're still playing games!

[mikk_13]

but some other centers (read RHEIN radar) would NOT accept anything different from what has been filed (zei say not approved!!!!)


I think this really depends on what part of the UIR you are talking about. The center part of the UIR has a massive number of splits all in very close proximity and with the current system is a coordination nightmare. In the east part (where i work) i think it is quite rare for anything to be flying anything but the most direct point at the pilots RFLavailable from the surrounding sectors.

This level adherence was nonsense. We got a heap of flights that were all at different levels then planed because of traffic in previous sectors. There is no way that an early decent 250miles from prague under an empty sector because of the RLF is optimal.

We used short cut anyway that put aircraft in totally different sectors so I don't think the results of these days are going to indicate anything much at all.

[Lon More]

Not pointing fingers just genuinely curious why you'd bother asking

Possibly a list of airlines that are habitual offenders is being compiled. You wouldn't be Lyin'Air by any chance?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

No! And I resent the accusation.

If you're going to ask me what level I'd like then I'll tell you. I know you know what my filed level is. In the past if we're asked what level we'd like it means that you are able to offer us something different to the filed level, you know - flexibility.

So why ask if you have no intention of giving it to me?

[5milesbaby]

BrATCO, doing some of the UK southern sectors I see alot of the games you boys and girls play, I know that a couple of aircraft we gave you were climbed above filed levels. A EGKK to LSZH was climbed to FL330 and an inbound to LFML I think was given a conditional clearance to FL270 level 20nm before ETRAT, transferred at FL310 not yet in descent, and the descent clearance was cancelled and the aircraft actually climbed FL330. There were a couple of others but I cannot remember the situations. We did laugh however when Paris demanded that an aircraft Brest had climbed was descended into their airspace to comply.
Your comment about the restriction limiting the London outbounds to FL330, I assume this is via LELNA/LORKU. We very rarely climb most of the London TMA departures above this anyway. The EGGW traffic sometimes is, but would never be when this restriction is in place, and the EGSS was exempt from the restriction. I know this because I was in for several days when that restriction was in and if there was a problem with us not complying, where is the paperwork about it???

[BrATCO]

Lord Spandex Masher,
I'll take your question as "genuine" :).
BrATCO, can you tell us why both the Brest sectors we spoke to the other day asked us, and many other flights, several times what our requested flight level was?

Some facts have to be taken in acount.

The "briefing" we got about adherence days were nothing else than a sheet of paper telling us about the dates (29th and 30th). Our management didn't have time to explain us more than that as they were too busy checking us in...
We had no formal advice about the change in dates.

When we began the adherence days, we assumed directs could be used as we haden't find any reference in the CFMU informations.
We also discovered the papers we had to fill while (or just before) taking over the sectors.
I had read somewhere that we shouldn't ask for your requested level. And don't insist if you had to change this level. I imagine some may have made some minor "presentation" mistakes.

Those adherence days were ment for statistics. Controllers still had real traffic to deal with.
Generally speaking, "Say your requested level" doesn't exactly mean that we're able to give you the said level. That's only a way to anticipate and build a "strategy".

Back in time, when I was a trainee, one of my instructors told me : "Don't lose time in asking, just read the level written on the strip. It works 9 times out of 10." He was right.
Now, he would be wrong. A third (if not more) of the climbing ACFT can't make the level their Ops requested. Discovering this too late can result in a mess.
That's why we ask now on first contact, if the pilot doesn't mention first.
Please, don't ask us to change our phraseology SOPs just for 2 days.

I know you know what my filed level is
Yes, we do, but sometimes, the RFL is weird. (Even level going south...). Oceanic traffic entering the transition area, the level we read is the oceanic clearance level. Usually, pilots want to change it.
Back to "flexibility", if the RFL is 370 or above, it doesn't change anything if the actual level is 390, 410, 430, 450, or above. The sectors will be the same.
The problem is not the same if RFL is 350 or 360.
Different again if it is between 290 and 340.
Depends on ACCs on the route between 250 and 280.
The same, but different below 240.

Some company(ies) are used to file 270 to avoid regulation, then ask 390... The flight is counted in one lower sectors, but will enter 3 sectors during climb and will enter unexpected sectors afterwards if we let go.
In order to keep the thing flexible, we can think about doing it. But that's a huge amount of over work for the co-ordinator ("planner"?) to check whether there are regulations on the route, ask if there will not be an overload, ask other sectors if they accept,...
Sometimes, a better level can be given.

At least, adherence days have the advantage that we talk about pros and cons of flow management.

[BrATCO]

5milesbaby,
Glad you have fun in watching us work ! Those new "East" sectors in Brest are kind of a big joke. I've been told that there's nothing in common with what was recommended by controllers during the think-tank...

My above post might have explained why some dest LSZH were climbed FL330.
The "box" around VEULE (FL265-285) makes that the flight is already counted in the lower "la Manche +" sector at FL270. If this sector is collapsed with the one after INPAX, then it's also counted in the same regulation.
Keeping the flight below FL335 makes that the flight will enter the same sector in Paris East (same "SLot Allocation Procedure", if there is one).
Changing the level from 270 to 330 just removes a flight in Paris West, doesn't change anything else. Doesn't even remove it, if the flight comes from below.
The only thing is that we have to make a co-ordination with 3 sectors. And we can't begin the co-ordination before we know the real requested level (first contact).

Wanting to help CFMU as much as possible, but we don't control statistics. We deal with real ACFT, burning real fuel.
The "FL270 max" restriction is a strategical protection in the LOA. As control is still a human activity, flexibility/improvements remain available in a tactical (co-ordination) context.

Sometimes, for destinations like LFBL (via SITET), on pilot's request, we can try and climb them up to FL330 (same sectors), but they have to be below FL190 before AMB, around 100NM later, from memory. This to avoid Paris then Bordeaux to deal with this flight to be opposite direction with the dest-Paris sequencings from the south.
If they want to climb then descend, if the traffic permits it, why not try it?
Now, this depends on the co-ordination, if Paris wants it lower, they have a good reason.

I could also complain/lough about some situations you send us sometimes. I won't.
Your control situation is not ours. You've got your reasons, we've got ours. I'm unable to work your sectors, your unable to work mine. That's why we need secured phone lines.

I know this because I was in for several days when that restriction was in and if there was a problem with us not complying, where is the paperwork about it???
I don't know (care ?) about where the paperwork is.
When my supervisor came and told me there could be an overload, I answered him we seemed to be already in it. No time to say more then. I think my supervisor called yours. Maybe he made the paperwork.
I just waited for the traffic to ease a bit, handed it over to one of my colleagues and left to have my breakfast.

[kontrolor]

@samotnik - what we need is totaly new way of thinking in ECAC region at least. cross-border sectorisation, technology which enables tactical planning of exit/enty FL coupled with flow managment and so on. SESAR is a way to it, but to my mind it is still way to modest, it should be much more proactive.

CFMU has information about every IFR flight (position/level), there are many things you can do with such info. or precise speed control via Datalink for sequencing, off-track routes etc. CFMU now operates with two main inputs, on which all the calculations are based - RFL and EOBT. Upon those two informations sector load is calculated. But as you know sector load is not same as traffic volume. I can easily handle 200% of our sector limit, but with condition that the workload is not high (i.e. no many vertical movements and crossing traffic). There is a lot of room for improvement in this matter, but burocratic thinking is only going to put lid on the stove, but in long term it will not solve the problem. It only helps us coping with traffic volumes.

@BrAtco - your way of thinking is in the right direction. If only one sector on the route is at its limits, RFL will not be accepted by CFMU and then SLOT is imposed. Airliners of course don't want to wait for too long on the airports and they re-fill the FPL with much lower RFL and level change on rote. But they don't know where the congestion is, CFMU knows. CFMU could be the source and initiater of level-changes on route to avoid congestion. And ATCO on the sector + flow manager should be involved in the tactical/strategical decision making about accepting/refusing the demand for overflight. Some sophisticated software could be at their disposal in order to help in deciding process. This of course means that ATCO's job will be more of managment than traffic separation as it is now.

[flowman]

@kontroler
"But they don't know where the congestion is",
They DO know where the congestion is, the reg i/d is contained in the slot message and the location is plotted on the map in the NOP, that's how they file levels to avoid these areas as you indicated!

"CFMU could be the source and initiater of level-changes on route to avoid congestion"
The CAMES project was designed to look at the feasibility of exactly such a procedure. It has since become referred to as STAM (short term ATFCM measures). I believe, ironically, one of the stumbling blocks is the legality of ATC changing the FPL to reflect the type of measures you describe!

"precise speed control via Datalink for sequencing"
They do this in the USA and I have proposed it for Europe. Politically it would be a complete nightmare to introduce but I firmly agree with you that it is an excellent way to regulate traffic. The US controllers speak very highly of it. It is done by some ACCs already, Munich for one in collaboration with Vienna. To be most effective it needs to be applied over long distances, in Europe that means over many states, so perfect for CFMU. It would take years to be accepted though and even longer to raise the money I suspect.

Politics is never far away from European ATFCM.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

BrATCO, thank you for your explanation.

[millerman]

@ Lord Spandex Masher

The quick answer would have been that it was FLIGHT LEVEL adherence day so direct routes weren't even considered and there are many more working groups and meetings planned for that day!!:E:eek:

I must admit it did feel uncomfortable when someone asked for a higher level for optimal performance and I had to refuse it - but I think it is a sign of things to come :sad:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Cheers millerman, just seemed strange that they chose those days in particular to not make us comply with the filed route.

[kontrolor]

@flowman, thanks for extra info, and again you are right about politics and Eurocontrol. that's why an independent agency should have been established, away from any political influence. but we are light years from there... it is shame, that our "industry" lags so much behind the technological and operational advances in our age....in certain aspects we are still working as if there was only procedural service...