UK ATC Direct Routings late at night

[beamer]

So there we were flogging through Germany on a sunday night inbound to BHX.
Fear not we thought, Maastricht will sort out direct to Honily long before we get to Denut.

Cleared direct to Rapix - mmmm - we don't want to do the full Grove arrival via LAM - lets see what London say on handover.

'May we route direct to HON ?'

'Er, no, the next sector won't let you do that unless you originally filed RAPIX-WELIN. Very sorry but you can go to LAM if you wish' Controller a bit sheepish and apologetic.

Thinks bubble - very, very quiet tonight, what's the problem. Change of sector.
Continue to LAM but eventually given direct to Hemel which saves about forty three metres!

Change of sector - 'OK cleared direct Honily' - no problem.

So, is there some internal politics going on here within London ATC ? Has my Company upset someone ? Perhaps we have just been spoilt all these years getting expeditious direct routes late at night when there is little traffic about.

We take a lot of time and trouble to reduce track miles and consequent fuel burn - it seems that just for the moment we are not being helped as much as we have previously been.

[1985]

Sounds like one of two things.

Firstly the directs to Hon/Velag might not have been tied up with the TC Midlands controller yet so if you hadn't filed Rapid - Welin then sorry.

Or the TC mids or TC east controller said no to the directs when Cln asked them. As its an ad- hoc procedure they are within their rights to do so. I've never had it turned down when i do night's though. Maybe the TC bod was having a bad day or doesn't like the procedure?

Hope this helps.

[Conspiracy Theories]

First of all, sorry to hear about your experience......

That is very strange that that has happened. When exactly did this happen? i have just finished a night duty and that is the first thing we think about doing is going direct (it's the first thing i do and sometimes get a slap on the wrist for doing it too early).
Having said that, to organise the direct routeings, there are 5 sectors that have to agree to it i'm afraid. If just one of them (for whatever reason) refuses, then it is the long way round i'm afraid and getting direct routeings the closer you get to your destination to miss out the sector that has refused the direct routeing.
I haven't heard the one that you can only go direct if you have filed RAPIX-WELIN. i don't give a monkeys what you have filed, if allowed, i go direct and make sure all coordinations are effective with relevant sectors.

It sounds to me like a tit-for-tat thing going on there.

[beamer]

Thanks Chaps

Hopefully just a one off. Normally we get offered direct to HON from Maastricht or even Rhine without even asking for it after midnight - saves a few minutes and some fuel with the added bonus of improving morale after a long night sector home.:ok:

[Talkdownman]

Could it be something to do with Flight Plan Adherence? (http://www.eurocontrol.int/dmean/gallery/content/public/Library/Adherence_brochure_Apr09.pdf)

[BeT]

I have done a few N duties this week @ MUAC.

We also had a sheepish 'sorry, no can do' when we asked for the night directs. Clacton controller said it was down to the next sector not wanting to take directs. Sounds like internal politics.

[beamer]

Talkdown

Not at that time of the night surely...........................

[1985]

Wasn't a problem Friday and Saturday night's. Much as it pains me to say our tc are very good with directs at night.

[BeT]

Sunday and Monday night there were definitely no directs.

All we had from the East was TNT for the Manchester traffic, im presuming that was allowed because it tracks more to the North?

The TNT and UPS flights out of Koln were all quite surprised to be routing via DENUT rather than VELAG etc.

[Topjet]

It all depends on the TC controller on Midlands unfortunately. 95% of them allow direct HON and VELAG. Some are pedantic and won't allow them to route to VELAG as apparently it drops below CAS- there's a lot of traffic around at that time of night(!!) :ugh:

Then you have the MACC guys, some allow you to go to DAYNE and NANTI, others want it all via TNT. Depends who's on there unfortunately.

TC East seem pretty good, often giving DCT LAM for right base when EGSS is on 04 rather than follow the whole ABBOT arrival or direct the LUT etc.

Oh and most directs are tied up after 2300 local usually or when the traffic dies down....

[ZOOKER]

If you route direct to DAYNE from, say, Clacton, it increases the chance of a hold at DAYNE to lose the height. Due to the geometry of controlled airspace east of Manch, it can make it awkward for Manchester Approach to give continuous descents. while keeping traffic inside CAS. One of the problems is a portion of the TMA known as The Camphill Fillet, where the base is FL65. Routing to TNT works better. NANTI, for EGGP is not usually a problem.

[5milesbaby]

I would guess that the whole "remaining inside CAS" argument is the cause. On top of that, no radar service can be given below FL70 so it'll be a basic, at which point pilot says they cannot accept the basic service........ Just not worth it, if the flightplan has been filed to remain inside CAS then give the appropriate directs which may be different to those pilots are used to.

REVTU - MAY into EGKK is another hit and miss route now too, some TC controllers will take them descending FL200 and offer the deconfliction service if necessary, some will not, some aircraft won't descend outside CAS and they then end up high and fast.....

[Topjet]

ZOOKER - a hold would only be necessary if the pilot messes up his descent(speed brakes are for their mistakes, not ours?) Everyone is on a 'when ready' so i think it's safe to say that they will all be descending on profile for an idle thrust CDA. What's probably most frustrating for pilots is the inconsistencys.

[30W]

Beamers experience really is a pretty poor service provision given that time of night and very low traffic level.

Direct HON for BB inbounds at that time of night does not involve leaving CAS, and has been the 'norm' for years (many thanks to those who do their BEST to provide that).

As a balance, Fri and Sat night operated inbound EGCN from the Canaries. Upon request on both occasions BHD planner co-ordinated BHD-HON-EGCN. A huge saving was achieved if you look at that on a chart as compared with routing via MONTY.

Many thanks - as it should be! Blue Watch both nights:ok:

[beamer]

30W

Hi how's things.

Last sunday night it was the evident 'embarrasment' of the CLN controller that made us wonder !

Beamer

[30W]

Beamer,

All is good:ok:

Excellent avionics, gentle roster, and everything ACARS :-)

Not sure what caused Sunday nights problems, but as we both know it's not normal. Do email me if it becomes so and I'll push from a customer perspective. 99.9% of guys are fantastic, and would have given best service, however we all have the .1% on both sides of the industry, so I'll put it down to that unless it becomes repetative (which I highly doubt!).

Must appologise to 10W, forgot Scottish in my first post, but both nights FULLY played their part in co-ordinating and accepting non standard routing from the West End and Group North guys. It's more the norm than not from both centres.

Rgds to all at Brum.

Cheers
30W

[collegethrowback]

I've heard about this happening. ALLEGEDLY, there is one controller on TC Mids who refuses to allow clacton (and therefore Maastricht) any directs.

It has been complained about from the area side but as I understand it, the controller isn't technically doing anything wrong and therefore not much can be done. I'm sure though that if enough pilots alert their ops departments that it is happening, then external pressure may result in something being done.

From what I've heard its embarrasing for the Claction controllers to have to not allow directs because one person in another room is on a misguided one man mission. Fingers crossed it will get sorted out soon.

Must stress, that it is only one person and the rest of TC are very helpful in sorting directs out.

[Loki]

Reminds me of years back late one evening on Clacton....Phoned Maastricht; "Can I send Big Jet 123 direct any where?" (expecting Gerninghausen) .....a very German voice answered " Negative it must route via Redfa" . That's odd, I thought. Phone from Maastricht goes about 30 seconds later. This time a Dutch voice said "why don't you send Big Jet 123 direct to Gerninghausen?" I thanked him and explained what his colleague had said only seconds earlier. "ah" he said "we have a special technical term for him". "Whats that then? " I asked. "We call him a f***ing idiot" he said.

[anotherthing]

I'm sure though that if enough pilots alert their ops departments that it is happening, then external pressure may result in something being done.
If the aircraft are being given the route they have flight planned, then no amount of external pressure can force a change.

You, or NATS, cannot force a controller to give a short cut, however sensible the routing might be. The fact that I have heard of this, know the controller concerned, and think they are being a bit of an arse is beside the point!

Make it a Flight Plannable route, then get airlines to file it.

[Talkdownman]

Day 1. I telephone nats for a clearance on the flight-planned route A-B-C, get told "no thanks, send him D-E-F".
Day 2. Flight-planned route A-B-C, requested D-E-F based on Day 1 experience, cleared D-E-F, launched D-E-F.
Subsequent snotto-call from nats "why hasn't he routed A-B-C as per FPL ?".

Can't win.

If D-E-F is acceptable to nats then make it a Flight Plannable route, so that the operator may file it. Otherwise don't suggest it or accept it.

It's called consistency...

[eastern wiseguy]

are pedantic and won't allow them to route to VELAG as apparently it drops below CAS

And if he did you have a deliberate non conformance right there. Just saying.....

[30W]

Anotherthing,

ATC is responsible for the safe, orderly and EFFICIENT flow of traffic is it not?

I don't doubt that your colleague is managing the first two, but when the third item clearly does not impede the first two, would you maintain that he is FULLY carrying out his role?

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why for most of the day the first two items impede on the third, and rightly so. This is not the situation being discussed however.....

NATS is a SERVICE PROVIDER, and PAID for its service. If an employee can't be customer focused I suggest strongly that his/her employer DOES have the right to speak to that individual and mutually try and solve the problem. Any responsible employer in any form of business has both the right and the duty to itself, it shareholders, it's customers and indeed the rest of its employees to do so does it not?

It's also fair to repeat that we're talking about the .1% here and NOT the 99.9% who aim to deliver all three of the opening aims, and in order of priority. Indeed they take a professional pride in doing so. Total lack of interest in one third of ones job description however at times which DONT impede the first two simply doesn't meet the required standard these days I.M.H.O

Rgds
30W

[zkdli]

I thought that it was "safe, orderly and expeditious" rather than efficient :O

[30W]

Believe your right:* but the difference between the two 'E' words make little difference and amount to the same thing in the specifics scenario under discussion.

[ZOOKER]

If this 'problem' relates to one individual, then it is a UCE issue which should have been resolved by now.

[5milesbaby]

Its a fine line between a UCE issue, non-conformance issue etc if they are doing their job correctly by getting aircraft safely to their destination along the flight planned route. You cannot FORCE someone to accept traffic off route therefore outside their normal working parameters (comfort zone).

I don't know about this CLN route, but the one I mentioned in an earlier post (REVTU - MAY to EGKK) has been looked at for over a year to make it an official night time fuel saver route and has been rejected. It isn't as simple as you might think.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but having seen how air traffic and its management has evolved over the last 10 years, it isn't surprising that more controllers are refusing to accept none standard situations.

[ZOOKER]

5miles
Agree with you 100%. If there is a safety issue, then it's a non-starter. But, one way or another, there should be reports in the system, somewhere.
As Robert Zimmerman once observed:-
"Two men say they're Jesus, One of them must be wrong".

As a fairly keen environmentalist, if we want to save some fuel, forget raising the Transition Altitude, let's concentrate on the Flexible Use Of Airspace.

[anotherthing]

30W

don't doubt that your colleague is managing the first two, but when the third item clearly does not impede the first two, would you maintain that he is FULLY carrying out his role?
Are you saying that he is not carrying out his role because he refuses to take an aircraft off the route that it has planned to fly, in order to give it an unofficial routeing i.e. a short cut?

If it is not in the RAD, then there is absolutely no reason why the ATCO should allow it. The 'expeditious' part relates to aircraft on a filed route i.e. not vectoring them miles out of their way and adding to distance flown... it does not mean giving short cuts off route!

I'm playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate here, because, despite what I said above (and the veracity of it), I always try to give shortcuts where able.

However, having spoken to a different Midlands controller about this yesterday (i am not Mids qualified), he has said that there is sometimes a safety implication in the way that these flights are given a direct. Something to do with the fact that level restrictions are not always imposed by en-route and that this can cause issues with EGGW/EGSS traffic.

The only proper way to go about this is, as 5milesbaby alludes to, is to make this a flight plannable route (at night - the RAD can impose any restrictions it wants), with proper descent profiles/checks to ensure that it fully complies with safety requirements.

An ad hoc short cut might not always fulfill this.

If NATS and the airlines are truly intent on cutting CO2 etc, then they should be spending some time on this. Again 5milesbaby has indicated that things are not as straightforward as we would like them to be... the REVTU-MAY track is relatively simple but I bet that SRG would not be happy with any route that makes an aircraft dip out of then back into CAS. Proper descent profiles need to be established... not just back of the fag packet ideas!

[5milesbaby]

anotherthing, was even worse than that! The new route would have had a base of FL125 (to tie in with the rest of the airways over the Portsmouth DA's) however the French would not guarantee delivery of the aircraft LEVEL at different flight levels through the 3 entry points down there. It is still being worked on to find a solution.......

[1985]

The problem with making it a flight planable route is that while it can finish at hon/velag there is nowhere for it to start over Europe because the traffic comes from all over the place. It should stay as a direct that is coordinated between Maas Cln and tc. If someone doesn't like it then they are within their rights to refuse. I don't agree with them doing that in the spirit of customer service but it is upto them.

As for the potential safety issue between Hon/velag directs v egss/gw inbounds then I will sort that with the dav controller sat next to me on nights. My traffic comes down on top of theirs. On a dav/ Cln night then they work both so it comes separated. If there is an issue then it needs to be pointed out so that ac can sort it out.

[On the beach]

If SRG won't approve the "procedure" then, in the event of anything untoward happening, the legal eagles are not going to be on your side.

I'm all for improving the efficiency of the system, it obviously needs it in this case, but NATS management and SRG need to be onside. At the moment it seems like the old adage "If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem" applies to both of them. Time for the airlines to rattle the cage of "Airspace Policy" or whatever their current title is.

As usual in ATC, the controllers and pilots know the shortcomings of the system years before those that are paid to solve these anomalies even wake up and get out of bed.

In the meantime, beware the "first hole in the cheese lining up".

[le Pingouin]

It's all about those "holes in the cheese". By tracking direct you've bypassed the safety features designed into the route structure. i.e. there are fewer layers of cheese remaining. The controllers are shouldering extra repsonsibility because if something goes wrong the direct tracking will be the first contributing factor pointed out. They've authorised something outside official procedure. I'm all for direct tracking but it's my balls on the line when I authorise it.

As a pilot are there certain things you won't do, despite conditions being suitable? Some companies insist on full instrument approaches despite it being sky clear.

[beamer]

As the originator of the thread perhaps I could just make a couple of points.

The incident which provoked my interest occurred gone midnight in what appeared to almost empty skies.

The CLN and DTY ( apologies if I have the incorrect sector names but you can work it out for yourself ) seemed sheepish about what went on.

Most controllers do I'm sure appreciate that the airlines have launched countless initiatives to save fuel - as our head honcho said recently ' we've just about exhausted the options'. However some operators and indeed pilots are still reluctant to fly visual approaches even in CAVOK conditions thus wasting fuel on full instrument arrivals; this observation relating more to airfields outside UK and Western Europe - makes you weep sometimes.

We appreciate direct routes but fully understand that at certain times of day/night they are simply not possible due to congestion, noise or whatever perfectly valid reason.

Thanks to all who have contributed particuarly to those from ATC.

[5milesbaby]

beamer, it doesn't matter what time of day or night it is, I'm sure you'll appreciate it only takes two to have an incident. At the subsequent board of enquiry, it is inevitable to be asked "why was that one coming in from over there?". The only response is because the controller approved it, which will be an instant noose for going against procedure.

Just not worth it.

[collegethrowback]

I appreciate what some folks on here are saying about safety implications and holes in cheeses etc.

However, these directs are not unsafe. They are used on every watch and by every controller (in both TC and AC) for many years with the exception of one person. If this person is correct and they refuse these direct routes on the basis of them being unsafe does that mean every other controller is by definition unsafe?? Absolute nonsense.

Many of us who work the sectors involved know the reason why the controller involved is refusing directs. It is nothing to do with the safety of these directs. It is to do with something else that happened on another sector and this controller is trying to make a point.

It is unprofessional in my opinion and most controllers feel this way. The fact is, when you call TC and ask for these direct routes they say it is fine and then tell us when this person is working so we know when we have to go back to standard routes until the controller involved goes on another break.

Hopefully, this controller is given the chance to air his grievances to management soon and then hopefully directs will be allowed again when they are working.

[Avoiding_Action]

So did the controller previously issue a direct routing and subsequently got persecuted by management for it after something that arose from that direct routing?

[5milesbaby]

However, these directs are not unsafe. They are used on every watch and by every controller (in both TC and AC) for many years with the exception of one person.
There have been several controllers over the years that have refused certain directs, and they all played an untouchable safety card if questioned.

As for being safe vs unsafe, there have been instances, fair enough with other circumstances involved, but the direct routing played its part.

[Talkdownman]

Safe, orderly, and expeditious....in that order...

[Topjet]

The route in question here is available from about 2300 local until about 0400 local when there's pretty much zero happening in the skies.

The night time fuel saving route from RAPIX-HON/WELIN specifically is flight plannable and perfectly acceptable. Occasionally we are given direct VELAG instead of WELIN for EGNX inbounds, this might mean the a/c drops outside of CAS if given continuous descent. Why are people so against ATSOCAS these days, is it too dangerous from 2300-0400 with multi radar tracking both Primary and Secondary radars? I totally get not even considering doing it during the day, but at night?

Here's a copy of UK CAS below FL195, looking at it inbound to VELAG, worst case scenario(aircraft coming direct from the east) would be at FL160 with 23 miles to go to VELAG to stay inside CAS, then being 25 track miles approx to runway 27 at EGNX.

(http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-402C87E1893D53D9506B00BC7914B980/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/ENR/AIRAC/EG_ENR_6_1_4_1_en_2011-06-30.pdf)
Also the 'lawyer card' is getting boring now, these procedures are done every night and as long as they are correctly followed/co-ordinated, no-one should have to end up in the 'subsequent inquiry' nor should the holes in that cheese start lining up.

The main problem as I see it is the inconsistency. It's 0100, this guy is probably one of few in the skies, the previous weeks this particular route was flown he always routes direct VELAG from Maastricht, why all of a sudden can't he do this? :ugh:

[le Pingouin]

He's done it at FL380 all this week. Why can't he do it tonight? Conditions change :ugh:

[Topjet]

If you're going to be patronising Le Penguin, at least read the post properly first. You're missing the point. We're talking about en-route ATC here, conditions don't change THAT much to all of a sudden deny a standard direct route :ok:

[10W]

Thanks for the mention 30W :ok:

Like our Swanwick friends, most of our controllers will also offer direct routeings where they can (although we are not limited to just doing it at night :E ). The important point though, is that those who are not offering them are not doing anything wrong, they are just not offering pilots any sort of bonus.

Some won't do it for bloody mindedness, which although within the letter of conformance and procedures, is not in the spirit of an ATC service in my opinion.

Some won't do it because they are scared of the consequences if it all goes wrong. For those who say we do it all the time and it's not unsafe, there are incidents which disprove that. A very very small percentage versus the number of aircraft handled, but it's there nonetheless. For those controllers, it would benefit both NATS environmental goals and allay the fears of these individuals if proper procedures were analysed for hazards, mitigated, and then introduced. It's exactly what happened for the Night Time Fuel Savings Routes which were done unofficially for tens of years but then became formalised. Apart from occasional lapses where some controllers still want to try and cut even more corners, they work pretty well.

Some won't do it for operational circumstances which exist at the time and are unknown to external agencies and possibly even other sectors which are adjacent. The refusal of co-ordination is of course the receiving controllers chance to let everyone know why it's not going to happen. Whether they all do this, is another thing.

And finally some won't do it because the probability of the guy way down the line sending a pilot direct and telling him he will have to drop outside Controlled Airspace is almost zero. The controller receiving the aircraft is then left with asking the pilot what service he requires and on the receiving end of some grumpiness when the pilot says he can't accept ATSOCAS or demands a higher service than available.

The best way forward is to formalise any commonly used routes after appropriate consultation and deliberation. It's then in procedures and conforms. It also has an analysis which shows it is safe. And finally, it makes the airlines happy, as well as the occasional grumpy sod in ATC ;)

[le Pingouin]

Topjet, if you don't want to be patronised don't be first to use the head banger smiley?

As 10W sagely says there are reasons that aren't evident externally. Aside from sheer bloody-mindedness (the stated cause here) a few others come to mind. Gun shyness having been bitten recently by direct tracking & you see a similar scenario, wanting to keep ones nose clean due to another incident, a supervisor with a bug up his arse. Been there done all that.

The best way forward *is* to formalise it, then everyone knows where they stand.

You might find the "lawyer card" boring but managers don't, it's the lingo they understand. If a procedure isn't officially sanctioned you *will* be hanged by it when the wheels fall off.

[Andy Mayes]

I wonder if SRG have been reading this thread and decided to produce Information Notice 2012/031?:O

[Flying Wild]

Certainly sounds like it!

The CAA has become aware that ad-hoc procedures may be being used, for example, during periods of low traffic such as those that can occur overnight.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2012031.pdf

[1985]

As far as i'm concerned i am using a procedure that is approved and risk assessed. Its called "co-ordination" where everyone agrees and knows what is going on.:ugh:

[The Many Tentacles]

As far as i'm concerned i am using a procedure that is approved and risk assessed. Its called "co-ordination" where everyone agrees and knows what is going on.

Well said:D:D

[Topjet]

RAPIX-WELIN+REFSO-WELIN are night time fuel saving routes as written down in MATS part 2 and have laid down procedures so as long as we're within 5nm of these routes then we are still good to give these directs :ok: I will be.

[BuzzLightyear]

Got a 43metre shortcut....what you complaining about :p

1985 - Well said, but you should know the good old days of co-ordination to actually do something that was either good for you or the customer are probably kicking their final death throes in these days of corporate liability, systemisation and non-conformance.

I fondly remember the caveat which allowed you to do anything as long as you co-ordinated...."Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance".

As more tools become available there will be less room for manoeuvre, less direct routing and more tools to help us maintain a "flexible" ATC system.