When Able Higher? A pilots take (Pain in the @r$£)...

[Jumpjim]

Just come back from Florida, and as usual on the pond we got a flurry of WAH requests from New York ATC.

Looked at it and decided we were ABLE at 0330, and sent this back. We were then told to climb to F390 by 0308 and report level.

Two things that nark me (Maybe I'm just being oversensitive...):

1) I'd told him we were able at 0330. WHY issue a climb clearance to FL390 prior to that time??

2) The fact that we are ABLE F390 does NOT mean that we want it or that it is a desirable level. The performance of the aircraft meant that with an absolute max of FL401 we were up in coffin corner. Plus with turbulence forecast on route it is desirable to maintain a higher speed margin.

Now should I be more economical with the truth is the question? Should there be a differentiation between when we are ABLE and when it is DESIRABLE? By saying I am able higher, are ATC pushing us up to an undesirable level to allow somebody else to climb to his optimum?

IMHO there seems to be a lack of understanding on ATC's part about aircraft performance at higher levels. The same is now really prevalent with Shanwick ATC in that if we suffix an Oceanic clearance request with the MAX FL as we are supposed to, then Shanwick seem to use this as a target and nearly always stuff us up at the higher level. This happens SO often that the guys are now beginning to leave it off and the view is that it encourages them to put you at higher levels.

What's the view? On one hand I try to be as accomodating as possible on a professional level and quite often help out by moving my aircraft early to allow other aircraft to climb, but it seems that by being accomodating you can stuff yourself and your fuel plan severely. It will be a shame if it carries on along this lines and NY ATC start getting UNABLE responses to WAH reports.:ugh:

[BeT]

Cant speak for Oceanic, not my part of the world.

In general if you are asked, its for a reason and quite often to help you - we have to 'sell' you to the next sector according to prescribed agreements, by taking higher it may well negate you having to take lower ;) However ill always try and explain this to pilots if the RT load allows.

At the end of the day if you get a request and you dont want to go higher, just reply with UAB, not brain surgery ;)

[ferris]

I was going to respond with a detailed answer until I thought about this IMHO there seems to be a lack of understanding on ATC's part about aircraft performance at higher levels. Then I thought I had better not, as it would be fairly stupid to provide responses about an area I lack understanding in. :rolleyes: IYHO.

[felixthecat]

I tend to be a little 'economical'. I use ABLE as the earliest time I would accept the higher FL, its not a lie because if its due turbulence etc you are in effect unable, just due to other reasons than the aircraft performance still air.

Why they gave you higher earlier than your estimate is anyones guess… just say no.

[Jumpjim]

It's an observation Ferris.

It's similar to the lack of understanding of our in-flight fuel planning I came across at Swanwick last time I was down there for TRUCE training.

It's not a criticism..just an observation.. Jeez....

[Jumpjim]

It's an observation Ferris.

It's similar to the lack of understanding of our in-flight fuel planning I came across at Swanwick last time I was down there for TRUCE training.

It's not a criticism..just an observation.. Jeez....

(mutter, mutter... like me complaining when asked about pipe failures and ramming...gawd...mutter...)

[On the beach]

The problem is level availability (a growing problem that isn't going to go away anytime soon). ATC assume that as you burn off fuel you are lighter, and are then able to climb to a higher level. This allows the guy at the uneconomical level, way underneath you to climb to a more economical level (not necessarily his optimum level). Or, simply allows another aircraft onto that particular airway.

There is a lack of understanding on aircrews' part that the guy at the lower, uneconomical level is often from their own company.

Obviously, if you can't climb due to weight, or don't want to because it will put you at an uneconomical level, then just say no. Nobody in ATC is going to insist on you climbing to a level that you say you can't take. But if you can, then do it. Remember that it may be you next time at the bottom of the level pile, sitting at the uneconomical level or stuck in moderate turbulence, or stuck on the ground waiting for an oceanic clearance.

It really boils down to being aurally aware of what's going on around you. ATC are just there to facilitate the greatest number of aircraft using a particular route without undue delay.

ATCs "lack of understanding" of aircraft performance at higher levels, as you put it, is nothing of the sort. We do not have details of your load factor or weight restrictions, unless you put it on your flight plan or tell us. All we know, generally, is that a B747 doesn't fly very well above FL450 and then only at the end of a very long flight and that it can descend at M0.86 into 340kts and is generally a bit faster than a B757/B767/B737 in the cruise. And we probably know the general performance characteristics of all the other aircraft operating in our airspace, funnily enough, we do it everyday, many of us for many years.

So, to summarise. If you get a level request that you can't comply with - reject it. If you get a level request that you can comply with - think about the reason for the request, ATC don't just ask you for the hell of it. And if you are stuck on the ground, waiting for a clearance, take a moment to wonder why that is.

On the beach

[Jumpjim]

Thanks for a sensible response.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that ATC APPEAR to want to put us at our maximum achievable level constantly.

I have 11,000 heavy jet hours so I guess I fall into the reasonably experienced category, and on that basis as a professional I fall over backwards trying to accomodate ATC requests on a daily basis, some of them eminently reasonable and some much less so.

I appreciate that levels get congested and that NAT tracks particularly get very congested. It's just that we flight plan for a fuel efficient climb profile and my experience is that if I try and accomodate ATC requests it ends up screwing us over for fuel.

So is it just me trying to be TOO reasonable? Should I say "Stuff them, I want to fly at my economical flight level" a bit more? And if everybody did this then where would it leave us?

It's a cyclical argument and not one with an easy solution. I guess I'm just having a bit of a whinge but it's becoming more and more of an issue and I hope it doesn't end up with people refusing to be flexible due to being taken advantage of..:hmm:

[055166k]

As a controller at London ACC I would just offer the following guideline which has served me well over several decades.....Let the PILOT fly the plane! Remember that You are ultimately responsible for just about everything. A lot of the modern ATC systems reduce the art of ATC to not much more than a giant video game......and some of the less experienced controllers treat it as such. Don't take crap......complain a bit more.....put it on your voyage report...you pay enough for route/nav charges......demand better service.
If you came in eastbound off the ocean this morning I sympathise......turb almost all levels through STU and LND.....lot of depressed-sounding pilots on my sectors. CAUTION, new ATC system being introduced at London ACC Swanwick towards the end of the summer.....my tip to all my pilot buddies...carry extra underwear.....seriously!

[Jumpjim]

So what does this new one do? Is this the system to allow us to climb through somebody elses level predicting aircraft performance that the guys mentioned?

Yes I did come through LND, but coming up from Santa Maria the turbulence was minor and having been stuffed up at F390 by trying to be helpful we actually avoided the worst of it more by luck than judgement :rolleyes:

I never cease to be amazed how patient you guys are faced with a couple of hundred dopey, half-asleep airline pilots streaming of the NAT tracks. I do appreciate the service but it's nice to be able to discuss something thats been bugging me with somebody who can give me an answer for a change.

[On the beach]

ATC APPEAR to want to put us at our maximum achievable level

Ok, look at that statement from an ATC point of view. You have said that that is your maximum achievable level on this particular flight (bearing in mind that you have made that statement based on your own reading of winds, weight, turbulence etc for that particular flight). So, ATC will assume that, unless you say otherwise, at some point in your flight you can climb to that level. Remember, that we already know what your maximum level attainable for your type, generally, is. So, is it not unreasonable for ATC to ask you, at some point in your particular flight, when you can climb to your stated maximum achievable level?

I think, maybe, this is one of those boxes that is filled in without proper thought being made to the consequences i.e. actually being asked to climb to that level. Just my own thought, happy to be corrected.

If you don't think you would be happy, from an efficiency point of view, climbing to that maximum achievable level, then file a maximum achievable level that you will be happy at. No one will criticise you. But at least ATC have a level that they know you are happy to be at or climb to. It all boils down to communication. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The trouble is that Middle Eastern airlines have something like 450 aircraft on order and which will be delivered in the next few years, quite a few of which will be scheduled on Gulf direct North America and return flights. Of course, by the time they enter the NAT track structure they will have burned off enough fuel to be at their optimum levels. So, although currently, your maximum achievable level may not necessarily be your most fuel efficient, it may be more fuel efficient than a much lower level.

That's a dilemna, I would suggest, you need to pose to your company, because the situation is changing very rapidly.

If you really want to see where the competition for levels is going to come from in the near future have a look at Chinas' latest 5 year plan, their 12th. 2011 - 2016, particularly the growth plan for aviation. They are building 45 new airports, plus they are taking 25% of the total production of Boeing and Airbus for the next 10 years. My guess is that some of those may also be entering the NAT track structure at optimum levels.

We live in interesting times, as the Chinese say.

On the beach

[Mike_Retired_ATC]

This problem you encountered is why it is so important for controllers to be able to ride jumpseat with you guys so that we can see what problems some of our instructions may cause you.

Another thing you might consider is visiting New York Center and talk with the controllers over in the oceananic sector and discussing some of these issues.

NATCA (the controllers union) in conjunction with the ALPA holds an annual Communicating for SAFETY conference that would be an awesome venue for you to discuss this. You can get more information on this on www.natca.org (http://www.natca.org)

[Jumpjim]

Okay On The Beach..

Firstly our optimum level is variable depending on our fuel load, where we are going, how much diversion and extra gas we have extra etc. MY optimum level maybe F310 on entering the ocean whereas the next guys might be F350 for example. Sorry to be basic but your statements about the Chinese entering at optimum levels doesn't make sense.

As for not giving it any thought before entering our max in the box...hmmm... Maybe as much thought as the controller blindly sticking me at my max level EVERY time I get an oceanic clearance.

You are missing the point completely which leads me to think you're not an oceanic controller.

I request a crossing level via CPDLC. I am REQUIRED to put my max
achievable flight level in the clearance request. I don't put something in the
box that I cant fly at because I do this for a living. Regardless of what I ask for the oceanic controllers seem to put us at our max flight level most of the time.

Are they doing this to get us out of the way? Should I be asking my company to flight plan my fuel load assuming that I will constantly be asked to fly higher than optimum? What do you think they would say? Or should I be loading extra fuel with all the extra fuel burn to carry it just in case?

Less of the parent/child responses please and answer the question.

[BrATCO]

I usually use a mix of :

- "Say requested level" : because I don't trust much the figures your ops filed. Only you know the level you wish.

- "Are you able FLxxx ?" : only when I think changing level would be an easier/faster solution to solve a conflict than a strong vector.

- "Due to converging traffic, do you prefer FLyy or a right/left turn xx deg for XX minutes ?" : If I've got time to sell my carpet, you've got time to think about it and tell me your price. And the solution should fit.

- And some other tricks of that sort...

One advantage I have is that I still use my voice on a VHF frequency. CPDLC will certainly kill that.
I don't know much about oceanic control (I just do what they ask me to do), but I believe ACARS and HF don't help them for human-human negociations.

[rab-k]

Shout loud enough and long enough and one of us'll show up, eventually...

The reason we (Shanwick) ask for the MAX on the ORCA/ACARS or VHF/HF requests is that we, and those "customers" who are happy for us to adopt this procedure, would prefer to clear you 1 or 2k above your requested level rather than dump you 3-5k below should your requested level be occupied. The alternative being you're stuck down in the weeds with no chance of higher on a busy track from OCA entry all the way to landfall.

The work load issues for us were such that dumping flights only to then have them come up on VHF/HF to say they would prefer +1000' to -3000' meant that we adopted this procedure to try and get ahead of the game. We know those driving a 777 or 330 can get to the parts that the 767 ot 747 boys can't reach, therefore even if no MAX appears on the clearance we will, if needed, make an educated guess and, for example, bump the A330 out of EDDF up to 370 despite the request only showing us the requested level of 360.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would you prefer 370 coast to coast having requested 360, or 320 with no chance of higher until Gander get you under radar some 3.5 hours later?

All we can do is operate on a first come first served basis and for everyone who can't get what they want, 'cause somebody else got there first, spread the pain as evenly as we can. As had been said previously, we don't ask if we've no good reason and we're trying to provide a service to you ALL.

We're also aware of the factors that come into play and many of us, self included, have sat up front traversing the pond on more than one occasion and been happy to chat about the 'bigger picture', from both sides. We also realise that you guys can and will go that bit extra under certain circumstances; we've all asked if somebody can take higher to help traffic below and been told negative, only to have a different reply when it is pointed out that it is company traffic which is below.

If you ever get a stop in EGPF/PH/PK then come see us; it's worth it for the cooked breakfast if nothing else. :ok:

PS I was working early hours this a.m and had to deal with the c@@p south of the Shannon FIR. I felt most sorry for an AFR who I had to dump from 340 to 290 due traffic above wanting lower, only for everybody to get bounced around at every level between 270 and 370. AFR eventually got 380 once everybody above was out the way, but rest assured we understand how frustrated you can get being moved around and all the while being stuck in the you know what.

[Jumpjim]

Thanks for the response Rab.

Normally it's not much of an issue and we are happy to accommodate requests as far as possible.

I think nights like last night when every man and his dog spends the evening chucking his tea all over the ceiling whatever level he's at concentrate the mind when making level requests.

I did suspect it was more on an issue for those of us on triples than other types due to the higher levels we can achieve at entry so not entirely surprised by your response.

Out of interest while I have got you how many tracks are running 5 minute separation now and how much spacing do I need to climb through somebody elses level on the tracks? Is it the full 10minutes?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<This problem you encountered is why it is so important for controllers to be able to ride jumpseat with you guys so that we can see what problems some of our instructions may cause you. >>

Be nice to see the odd aircrew in ATC too because, with great respect, most pilots don't understand our Black Arts. During 31 years as a Heathrow controller I saw less than couple of dozen crews in ATC, and several of those were foreign. Where I worked abroad, local pilots regularly visited ATC so most of them understood what we were about..

[Jumpjim]

Director, I'd love to come up to see you guys. I popped up a couple of times when we were in the central area and it was very interesting. Bit more difficult now we are in T5...

I've also done TRUCE training at Swanwick so I'm one of the more interested ones. Any chance of shadowing you for a day? Maybe I could reciprocate and take you somewhere sunny to show you the other side?

Not having ATC jumpseat passengers is a great loss to both sides as this thread seems to demonstrate. Still nice to have somewhere where you can get your questions answered though! :ok:

[10W]

Rab can confirm, but the Reduced Longitudinal separation trial has been delayed and it's still a basic 10 minutes on all tracks for now.

The Shanwick boys and girls also operate, as stated, on a first come first served basis. That means that if you request FL340 with a MAX of FL360, and no one else has already taken FL340, you get it. They won't give you a higher level just on the off chance that someone else might come along who can only take 340. It really is that simple. If you don't really want to go to 360, then don't give it as your MAX. Your options then, if 340 is already taken, will be a track change or a lower level. On a busy day, the level could be down at 280 if everyone else has got in ahead of you and grabbed all the other levels. Shanwick do have stats on the number of aircraft getting their requested level and entry point. I believe the % getting it is in the 90's. Maybe Rab can confirm ?

The point about Chinese and Middle East aircraft is that there will potentially be more competition for prime levels. These aircraft will already be up at those levels and can make very early clearance requests with Shanwick, often before a UK departing aircraft has even left the ground. The further away you depart from the Oceanic boundary, the earlier you can get in with your request. Increasingly, you might start to find there are fewer economical levels left when you have departed Heathrow, negotiated the London TMA, and then settled your cockpit workload down enough to put in the Oceanic request.

Ultimately you have to ask ATC for what you really want, but if that's not available, then you need to consider what is your least worst next option and give ATC the information to allow them the chance to provide it.

[rab-k]

Jumpjin

The full 10 mins is still in place, but all going well by the end of next month we'll have introduced the reduced longitudinal separation minima (R-LONGSM) within Shanwick.

Gander were due to come online with this at the same time, but their new kit has pushed back their own introduction; therefore it'll only apply to eastbound traffic once our side of 30W initially.

It will also only be applied between those flights with CDPLC and ADS contracts, therefore if the guy 5 mins ahead and 1000' above you doesn't have both these boxes ticked then I'm afraid it won't help those, like yourself, who do.

I understand that in a couple of years carriage of CPDLC and ADS will become mandatory within a specific level band therefore this, plus Gander being up and running, will make the R-LONGSM procedure far more benefitial than its initial staged introduction might suggest.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I've also done TRUCE training at Swanwick so I'm one of the more interested ones. Any chance of shadowing you for a day? Maybe I could reciprocate and take you somewhere sunny to show you the other side?>>

I'm out of it now but I'm sure some of the current controllers will be in touch with you..

[MONT BLANC]

Hi Jumping Jim,

see your PMs

MB

[Jumpjim]

Thanks guys. Very helpful thread... You have to love the Internet!

"Getting our oar in early" comes fairly high up the priority list after takeoff actually as we are aware that the longer you leave it the more likely you are to get stuffed.

It gets even more complicated coming out of the far east. We have to look at who is leaving around our time, who transits the airspace as we are leaving and try to work out whether to go for an economical flight level, or go for a tactically higher level on the basis that the bl@@dy A340 in front of you is going to nick your level and then fly at M0.80:sad:

Fairly easy to get stuffed all the way from Beijing to Helsinki... Not easy this piloting lark :)

[Topjet]

Looks like MONT BLANC beat me too it! :ok:

[rab-k]

Don't forget, if you're not happy with what we fire up to you on ACARS then call on VHF and, provided we've got time, we'll do our best to give you a couple of alternatives; thereby enabling you to pick the best of what I'll admit may be a bad(ish) bunch. But you're absolutely right, getting in early is the key. (Keeping in mind the not more than 90mins prior to ETA over the entry fix; not such a prob ex-LL admitedly).:ok:

[Willise]

Having worked in QX ACC for a number of years, being an ocean controller as well as a planner, I can offer my take on this subject.

When NY calls QX with an estimate, if the aircraft is not on a track, the QX planner has to join or cross that traffic with the oceanic track traffic. A join or cross requires 15 minutes of procedural separation. Vertical is always the easiest answer, if a pilot indicates that he is able the requested level.

In my current unit, not QX, when we pass an estimate to NY, we are required to give them the highest level the aircraft is able to maintain prior to leaving radar coverage. This again, is to allow NY to accept the aircraft against the primarily east-west flow. It is easier to use vertical sometimes than to figure out the crossing point, determine if you have the required time standard, then monitor it constantly. In my experience, however, the requested FL is the one that is usually approved.

Unless things have changed in QX, the planner would have the actual altitude and requested altitude for the ocean in the database. They don't receive the max altitude. Fedex is a prime example of the problem. They regularly flight plan the same routing across the ocean, about 5 minutes apart, and both requesting FL330 in the daytime. So that means, either reroute or level change to FL290 for one of the flights.

[Lon More]

I am REQUIRED to put my max achievable flight level in the clearance request
If at FL 370 you are in coffin corner and expect turbulence then surely FL370 is not an acheivable FL? Unless it was entered by your Ops as the RFL few on the ground will know.

[Jumpjim]

If it was right at the top corner in terms of weight and we were expecting turbulence then you are quite correct and no, I would not be putting down as an achievable level.

[max1]

On the Beach

It really boils down to being aurally aware of what's going on around you.

Bit hard with CPDLC.

Jumpjim, we ask what is the highest level you can achieve for forward planning. If you say you can accept F XXX now, and by putting you up to this level NOW it opens a lot more options for separating others, we will probably do it. That problem is solved for us and we move on to fixing others. If you can't accept the level, tell us. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Most times we (the experienced ones) can tell when pilots are saying we can't take a level because they really can't or it is a huge stretch for them, or because they are trying to stay close to their optimum level, e.g. you have been in my airspace at FL360 for the last 2 1/2 hours (and have been flying for 7 hours) and tell me you can't accept FL380 ( I think you are a self centred git that is unwilling to divert from your flight profile to help out those around you). When I tell them that they will have to go down to FL 320 they do a recalculation and realise that they actually can accept FL380.
Who wudda thunk it?

Jumpjim, if it is really pushing the friendship say no. If it is not that great for you but achievable say yes. I have always tried to reward the pilot who helps me out with something better down the track. Saying that, sometimes nothing comes up down the track and the pilot feels that they have been dudded the whole way.
Sometimes your the windscreen, and sometimes your the bug!!!!

[SMT Member]

Just a thought on the ME carriers and their future plans for crossing the pond. Imaging a GC track, and I hasten to add I don't know if such a track is practically possible, wouldn't they be able to fly north of the tracks and thus suffer from less restrictions/more freedom in planning an optimum track?

http://i55.tinypic.com/micd3b.gif

Route displayed is GC ORD-DXB