EGLL ATC instruction question?

[noi747]

What exactly are phraseologies " transition to 270 kts or speed 270 kts on transition" mean? and when do we have to comply?

Thank you so much.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

You sure that's from Heathrow ATC and not London Control?

[noi747]

Sorry, that what I mentioned is not clear. Yes it's from London control.

:ok:

[craig1231]

The transition they refer to is the transition between IAS and Mach

[Talkdownman]

...which is a 'conversion' from Mach to IAS or v.v.

From CAP413:

The following phraseology shall be used by controllers when providing speed control to aircraft at or above FL280 that have been cleared to levels below FL280.

eg. "BIGJET 347, Mach ·78, on speed conversion, 250 knots" (where the controller requires the aircraft to fly at a specific Mach number until the changeover to IAS and then fly a specified IAS)

In reverse:

"BIGJET 347, on speed conversion, Mach ·7"

" transition to 270 kts or speed 270 kts on transition" ...does not appear to be UK standard phraseology, neither is it likely to be an EGLL ATC instruction.

[camisa10]

"Indicated speed xxx knots on transition "is something you'll hear a lot if you fly in the Gulf region, I think that habbit is brought here either by Ozzies/Kiwis or S.Africans? I've never heard such phrase in Europe before?

UAE123, descend to FL200, cross PASOV at FL 270 or below, indicated speed on transition 300 kts or greater...

cheerz :ok:

[noi747]

Thank you for every replies.

Actually, I heard these unfamiliar phraseology for more than 2 times.

Usually, I fly to LHR once or twice a month.


I thought the same way as some replies here about speed transition.

Upon descending, there is no speed control required.

but after passing change-over altitude of that aircraft.

Mach target will be automatically changed to speed.

This speed is required to continue descending by ATC instruction

"transition to 270 kts or speed 270 kts on transition"

[On the beach]

And if you are a B747 and want to be No.1 in the sequence expect to descend at M.84 into 340 knots. If you're in an Airbus just wave as the 74 goes past you. :E

[Eau de Boeing]

not in our airbus!

[ILS 119.5]

Do you mean "transitional approaches"? Such as inbound to eddf where they are standard and the speeds are published for the transition and mandatory unless the controller instructs otherwise. I have flown int there quite a lot and the chart, from what I remember, states 250kt at the start of the transition reducing to 220kt later on. I've never known it to be used from Mach to IAS in an instruction.

[Talkdownman]

...as in Post 4... ;)

[DaveReidUK]

...as in Post 4You're wasting your breath.

Spambot, long since gone.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

?? Post #4 is precisely what TDM is referring to.

[DaveReidUK]

?? Post #4 is precisely what TDM is referring to. A spambot will typically make a post that's identical to one made earlier in a thread (since the bot obviously isn't capable of making an original contribution), as TDM correctly remarked.

My point was that the bot won't be hanging around to read TDM's response, and if it did it wouldn't understand it.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I thought spam was a tin of meat.

[zoneman]

:rolleyes:
Another UK's speciality..."Let's be different in order to prove our excellence".

People invented standard (read ICAO doc's) long time ago...Why don't you accept that? Or try to improve it on a global scale?

[anotherthing]

Zoneman,

It has nothing to do with"Let's be different in order to prove our excellence"it has all to do with the need for speed control when trying to stream a lot of inbounds into a busy TMA. Using this phraseology allows the en-route controllers to quickly, without the need for multiple transmissions, set up spacing into the TMA. If there was only one or two aircraft on frequency then they would have the luxury of having plenty of time to do it the 'ICAO standard' way.

If they didn't use this instruction then us controllers in the LTMA would be presented with a complete mess of aircraft.

As for needing to prove our/their excellence... we/they don't need to... pilot feedback is very positive - that's all the proof needed. Much as it is the way with all the other excellent service providers that are working worldwide.

[GAPSTER]

Anotherthing :D.....admirable restraint.

[LookingForAJob]

Another UK's speciality..."Let's be different in order to prove our excellence".

People invented standard (read ICAO doc's) long time ago...Why don't you accept that? Or try to improve it on a global scale?Whilst it's quite correct to point out that CAPs are not 'international' documents - something often not realised or appreciated by Brits - it's not a case of let's be different in order to prove our excellence but rather (where phraseology is involved) a desire to resolve ambiguity or to set a standard to support UK operations.

In the former case the ambiguity may not be immediately obvious to a non-native English speaker but the difference has, in the past, been based on real data that shows a problem or that the change has benefits.

The latter case is no different to any other State that wishes to define a national standard to better support its own peculiarities. Notifying a difference to ICAO SARPs may be necessary in such cases and it's true that the UK was not very good at that at one time.

As for trying to improve things on a global scale, the UK has done this with respect to phraseology in the past - for example, the introduction of "flight level one hundred" (and again, this example was clearly based on evidence that it was better).

But getting global standards changed is no small task and can (and usually does) take years. Should the benefits be lost (especially if they are safety benefits) to those seeking to make the change throughout those years?

The fact that 'people invented standard long time ago' (sic) doesn't mean that the standard was right/perfect, or that it is still appropriate after the passage of time, or that the standard is immutable. Indeed changing things on a global scale happens - just slowly, and often for good reasons - and the amendment of ICAO SARPs is just one example.

I'll hold my hand up to being a Brit but I don't suggest that everything that comes out of the UK is perfect but neither can it all be dismissed.

And just for the pedants out there, I do know there's a difference between being British and coming from the UK.

[zoneman]

I just wanted to point out that publishing those differencies (which I'm sure you/they find purposeful with a reason) should be a must. It would surely lead to complete understanding... as noi747 did not.

Another question regarding 1st thread ....Don't you think that "Below FLxxx speed 290kts" or similar could be used?

PS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find "FL one hundred" introduced in any ICAO doc. :E

[LookingForAJob]

To your first point - look in any AIP, GEN 1.7, and you should find a listing of the differences filed by the State.

On your second point - I offer my apologies, you are quite right, the UK's phraseology for FL100 (and all other hundreds) remains a UK difference. When I was last involved with that stuff I thought that the change had been accepted in principle and was going to be adopted - either something changed or my memory is letting me down. :O