'Point-Merge'.

[ZOOKER]

How's it going?

[zonoma]

It's still going!

Expect it in the London TMA for Gatwick and London City soon (April 2014?).

Think Paris will have theirs up and running even sooner, but not sure on exact dates.

[Rossoneri]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was led to believe this style of approach system falls apart somewhat during less than favourable weather, requires a large area of airspace to work, and costs the airlines more money in fuel burn due to the fact they have to be lower and slower earlier, whilst flying an arc. I was under the impression that an Aer Lingus skipper visiting Swanwick in the last 12 months said the point merge at Dublin costs the airline just shy of €1million extra in fuel per year.

[flying apple]

In Dublin if you have to fly some of the level segments you won't save any fuel.
But 80% of the time they give you a direct so there isn't any level segment which also saves at least 5 mins in flight time

[Nimmer]

London city and Gatwick 2015, sometime in the year!!!!

Aer Lingus fuel issue is due to their company fuel policy. They fuel for the whole point merge arc, when in reality the point merge arc is just a RNAV vector/lateral hold. Thus this part of the route should be part of an airlines 'contingency or vectoring' fuel allocation. Discussions are ongoing with other airlines also to overcome this issue.

Been interesting to discover how airlines have adapted the amount of fuel they carry into the london TMA, depending on which airport and what time of the day they are landing. Not all carry 'holding' fuel however the ultimate decision what to carry isup to the captain.


Weather and point merge???? Exactly the same as a hold and weather, or any other route and weather. Nothing flies the specified route, or allocated heading, flow control, MDI's, etc all come into play.

Hope this info helps.

[anotherthing]

You've changed :}

[soaringhigh650]

How's it going?

Looking good.

Hopefully paves the way for all this Class A airspace to be reclassified once and for all. :D

[Nimmer]

Yep, need more airspace so lowering bases to more class A!!!!

[MCDU2]

To correct a poster above concerning AL fuel and point merge in Dublin.....At off peak times our flight plans have the shorter Xray point merge arcs. At peak times they have the full Lima arrivals. The LIDO flight plans will take into account the burn and constraints depending on which arrival is filed. ATC cannot and will never ever give us the shorter Xray point merge STAR as it doesn't exist in their world. But it does in LIDO and Jeppesen charts and presumably the Irish AIP.

As pilots we plan on the worst case scenario since we cannot at this point in time do a midair refuel in an Airbus. Consequently if filed on the shorter X-ray arrival most will carry extra to account for having to do the full Lima arrival if its busy.

I understand a half way house between the two is under consideration.

On another note what's the end game? If it ain't broke why try and fix something when a radar vector will suffice. Is it all about reducing the number of controllers? A side effect will surely be a loss of radar vectoring skills.

If you need some tips on how a single runway airport should operate then Lgw is a short ride away. If you want to see 3nm separation in action then LHR is by slick. 250kt below 10, 220 on base, 180 on loc capture and 160 till 4 down the glide covers all types at LHR. If you let an RJ or ATR slow up at 15nm cos they want to then clearly you aren't going to get the best runway utilisation levels.

[flying apple]

same for us.
I remember a video from the DAA (Dublin airport authority) that the X-ray arrivals are used for planning purposes but in the aircraft you should plan for the Lima arrival

[soaringhigh650]

Yep, need more airspace so lowering bases to more class A!!!!


And more incompetence from National Airline Traffic Services Ltd... :rolleyes:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

But more damned safe too.

[Nimmer]

Well said HD!!!!

As for the future LTMA designs and ideas, please come and see what is being planned, there is too much mis- information. Agree vectoring skills need to be retained, that is what is being planned.

Anybody who wants more information PM me.

[Gonzo]

One can recommend the use of the ignore function, does wonders for the signal:noise.

[eastern wiseguy]

National Airline Traffic Services Ltd.

Who they ?

[soaringhigh650]

Yeah, these are the very words coming out of the organization that telling GA air traffic to f**k off and fly elsewhere (instead of integrating them) actually improves safety. :ugh:

Then they get upset when GA accidentally enters their "sacred" airspace who are not on frequency. They blame GA for disrupting all their air traffic.

Flip the problem on its head and the message still hasn't got through to deaf ears: there is no frequency to call and no transit possible!!!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

sh650. So now you have descended to gutter language, which further reduces respect for you.

[2 sheds]

there is no frequency to call and no transit possible!!!
.........:D

[Nimmer]

Soaring high, how much are you willing to pay for your VFR "integrated" service??

Money talks, show any ANSP some green stuff and they may well
accommodate, up until,that time, stay away!!!

[MCDU2]

Soaringhigh...The system will never change as its conceptually different to the US.

In the US the FAA gives you a certificate. That says that you have demonstrated proficiency to a certain level depending on what is written on the bit of paper.

In Europe you are licensed. As well as ticking boxes based on proficiency the regulators can take away your licence whenever they wish to change the law.

The system will never change over here as it would involve a complete reversal of funding policies etc which ain't going to happen.

[soaringhigh650]

Soaring high, how much are you willing to pay for your VFR "integrated" service?? Money talks, show any ANSP some green stuff and they may well
accommodate, up until,that time, stay away!!!


NAT$ NAT$$ NAT$$$$ - you seem to have forgotten that GA was flying in the days long before the airlines started flying.

Your existing terminal navigation charges and en-route charges are already high enough.

You want to make us pay AGAIN for using free airspace the you're taking AWAY from us?

Start by removing Nimmer from his job and you might find some extra £100k to fund the service, oh sorry, the CEO's bonus. :}

[GAPSTER]

You're an arse mate,and one who persists in banging the same old drum.Because someone is employed by NATS (National Air Traffic Services Ltd in your book) doesn't mean they are either responsible for or supportive of what they are tasked and paid to do by the company.Go away and lobby the right people.

[The Many Tentacles]

What Gapster said

[Nimmer]

I think I got a bite, what does everyone else think???

[Rossoneri]

Your existing terminal navigation charges and en-route charges are already high enough.

End of the day, you get what you pay for. Continuous climbs/descents, direct routings, low delay figures, high safety standards. We are also not the most expensive European provider, nor do we get the state funding much of Europe do.

soaringhigh650 - You're not really helping the point merge debate. Your comments aren't especially constructive or helpful. You're talking to people who provide the service, not make the rules. We work within the limits we're legally allowed to, you need to find the right people to lobby for more airspace.

[chevvron]

You mustn't blame SH650 for being 'mentally challenged' when it comes to understanding the UK airspace management system. His mind is blurred from operating in class E airspace where it would be the freedom of class G in the UK.
By the way, just how much class G is available up to FL195 in the USA?

[MarcK]

By the way, just how much class G is available up to FL195 in the USA?
Not much. Most of the USA is class E. Free flight VFR, IFR with no en-route charges. Mostly covered with WAAS and precision GPS approaches to GA airports, even ones without towers or radar coverage. Radar service and flight following with no en-route charges. Pop-up IFR clearances available at most places. No class A below FL 180. VFR transits through class B in most places. Other than that, it's just like the UK.

[soaringhigh650]

End of the day, you get what you pay for. Continuous climbs/descents, direct routings, low delay figures, high safety standards. We are also not the most expensive European provider, nor do we get the state funding much of Europe do. You're not really helping the point merge debate. Your comments aren't especially constructive or helpful

But declaring even more Class A airspace as "the highest safety and efficient standard" with the deliberate intention of removing all non IFR/airline traffic *IS A COMPLETE NON-STARTER* in any debate. Why should GA sacrifice their own safety and efficiency just because some airline can BUY the airspace for themselves?

Because someone is employed by NATS (National Air Traffic Services Ltd in your book) doesn't mean they are either responsible for or supportive of what they are tasked and paid to do by the company

Everyone is entitled to their own view here as I do with mine.

The bottom line is that it concerns me deeply about the ATTITUDE of some employees within the organization they work for. If I run into trouble I would never want to be talking to Nimmer and some others here. He has essentially told me to f-off already and would probably never ever want to exercise his "duty of care"....

If you want lots of money and hate GA air traffic, go somewhere else to control the airlines - like the Atlantic Ocean. Leave London alone or pro-actively work to integrate all its air traffic.

[anotherthing]

SH650

London has a high concentration of busy airports with very complex traffic. GA would add to that complexity.

Or do you propose that Heathrow, Gatwick et al reduce their slots by a given amount, say 50% or 75%, to allow GA to fly around?

YOU sound like the type of pilot who thinks they should be allowed to fly anywhere they wish... to paraphrase you GA was around long before airlines. Does that mean that time should stand still so that you can do what you want, whenever you want?

I would like to ride a horse around the M25 but it isn't going to happen :ugh:

You add nothing to the debate and nothing to the relationship between GA and Commercial Aviation.

Go away and actually read up on the roles and responsibilities of the CAA and ANSPs before you start pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

As for the integrity of Nimmer - he happens to be an extremely proficient controller who does his utmost to accommodate all flights in the airspace he is controlling.

Hi remit, first and foremost is safety. You are calling that into question. He operates the airspace as governed by the regulating authority.

If you want lots of money and hate GA air traffic, go somewhere else to control the airlines - like the Atlantic Ocean. Leave London alone or pro-actively work to integrate all its air traffic.

May I suggest if you want lots of airspace and hate commercial traffic, go somewhere else to fly - like the Atlantic Ocean. Preferably in a light single.

[soaringhigh650]

I have no dislike towards commercial aviation.

The starting point for GA is Class G or E airspace.
The starting point for airlines may be Class A airspace or a known traffic environment.

There are several other classifications of airspace in-between that are available that works for everyone : win-win.

That might been some holding or re-routing or altitude changes. No problem. We don't want to collide. But a lockout of airspace based on FLIGHT RULES is clearly a problem.

For the record I transition LAX Class B frequently with no interruption to other traffic - airline or otherwise.

So go look at air traffic integration, stop tarnishing GA with a "dangerous" brush or go elsewhere with your NAT$$$$ colleagues that you supervise.

[Del Prado]

Yeah, these are the very words coming out of the organization that telling GA air traffic to f**k off and fly elsewhere (instead of integrating them) actually improves safety.

Then they get upset when GA accidentally enters their "sacred" airspace who are not on frequency. They blame GA for disrupting all their air traffic.

Flip the problem on its head and the message still hasn't got through to deaf ears: there is no frequency to call and no transit possible!!!


He does make a point though albeit in a very bad way.



Back on topic, I was interested in this exchange on page one with an Aer Lingus skipper saying Point Merge costing them €1 million extra in fuel.
Nimmer said that's because of their fuel policy not Point Merge and then another Shamrock pilot said they have to fuel like that so it is down to Point Merge. Forgive me for summarising but it'd be interested to get this back on track.

So is Point Merge really costing them an extra €1 million a year or are Aer Lingus happy to waste all that fuel rather than amend their fuel policy?

To me, LAMP and other recent trials are characterised by the projects team telling the coal face workers "this is what the airlines want" but when we speak to the pilots it doesn't seem to ring true.
I do wonder whether the project team are so eager to please the customer that they don't explain the downside and the fact there will always be a trade off therefore the customer is in the end left disappointed rather than 'educated' at the beginning of the process. Are expectations being managed?

Which leads me to repeat the question from MCDU2....

"..what's the end game? If it ain't broke why try and fix something when a radar vector will suffice."

[Jwscud]

I would agree - I work for another DUB user, and our flight planning system fuels us for the full arc on the arrival. I have been in and out fairly regularly over the last few months and generally gone at least half way round the arc, with the odd bit of holding thrown in too.

Suggesting we fuel for only a part of it and use our contingency if need be is a bad, bad idea. Imagine we have burned our contingency avoiding CBs en route for example. I just can't see how level flight at 230kts round the arc is in any way more efficient than doing a CDA under vectors, even with frequent use of VS.

[mad_jock]

its more than likely not more fuel efficient.

But instead of having 2 sectors of approach controllers and one Director or what ever you want to call the position that hooks them off the down wind and merges them onto finals you can get rid of 2 controllers and just have one doing the whole lot.

Of course once it gets implemented and the head count drops and the airlines start bitching about the increased fuel costs. The airports say sorry no can do we only have enough controllers to do it this way and it will take 2 years to increase our head count etc etc.

[Nimmer]

Totally wrong about the staffing, again PM me if you want some proper information.

As for the fuel issue, totally agree work needs to be done. We are listening to the workers at the "coal face', I am still one. A new system needs to work, as I will be one working it.

Vectors will stil be used, a lot of mis-information being thrown around here, again PM me or for those at Swanwick visit the LAMP office.

[The Many Tentacles]

If it's that successful at Dublin, it should really work well at Gatwick then. Considerably less and more complex airspace to make it work in would I imagine result in some fairly restrictive level capping on traffic inbound, especially from the South

[Del Prado]

Nimmer, if there is so much wrong/mis-information would it not be more helpful to continue the debate here rather than a PM?

It's a shame if you don't have enough time or don't feel comfortable discussing it on this forum but I'd be very interested in a more open debate about the issues.
TBH, any time I've raised my concerns informally I don't feel they have been completely addressed and it would be nice to have a discussion including experts (you) and those experienced in the Dublin operation.

[zonoma]

The Many Tentacles - last time I saw it, both profiles from the south are the same via GWC (new track may go slightly further south) and BEXIL (other than trying to get traffic transferred from Reims at lower levels to allow better descents) but not entirely sure beyond that, but think the arcs are flown at FL90/100.

DelPrado, LAMP has many functions and Point Merge is a "and you will do it by also implementing this". There was no option whether is was better or not, if it saved controllers/fuel etc or fitted into the airspace available. The fuel benefit of LAMP is to eventually get the departures airbourne with a much better climb profile (I saw ridiculous figures for savings for a heavy from Heathrow to Singapore on a DET/DVR sid getting airbourne climbing to 10,000ft and further expected by BIG instead of fuelling to remain at 6,000ft to DET.)

Soringhigh650, I try so hard to ignore your rubbish, but you got me biting.
That might been some holding or re-routing or altitude changes. No problem.
In the London TMA that is a MASSIVE problem, there is no rerouting space available or extra holding time available (no delay means up to 20 minutes which the airport/airlines already plans for) UNLESS the amount of traffic currently moved through the airspace is vastly reduced. The LAMP project redesigning elements of the London TMA is a lengthy project that NEEDS MORE Class A to work (it may become Class C, but VFR will be on prior approval for special flights only). Just accept that in the London TMA it is the way it has to be and that will not change for a long long time, if at all.

[soaringhigh650]

there is no rerouting space available

Why not? I can think of several other pieces of Class B or C terminal airspace across the world that are smaller, equally if not more complex, handles more traffic, and fully capable of handling "popup" VFR and IFR transit flights.

Just accept that in the London TMA it is the way it has to be and that will not change for a long long time, if at all.

Not really. This is an unacceptable starter. If you must demand Class A, GA will be demanding Class G and somewhere you will have to strike a balance in the center as is being used worldwide.

Justifying Class A on the basis of airlines and airports PAYING for the establishment of such airspace so that they cannot be "interfered" by other valid airspace users is also an unacceptable starter.

Class C sounds like a good compromise.

I must remind you that your organization is "charged with permitting access to airspace on the part of all users, whilst making the most efficient overall use of airspace" :ok:

[Gonzo]

SH, as I've said many times, there is nothing stopping you putting in your own Airspace Change Proposal to the UK CAA and complying with all the consultation requirements therein to change the airspace around London to B or C.:ok:

[055166k]

Good discussion.....lots of reasons to favour "Boris" International green field [or sky] planning. Has "EGLE" been reserved for London East??

[Warped Factor]

SH650, for someone ostensibly based in the USA why such an interest and such strong feelings about UK ATC in general and the London area in particular?

Are you actually who/what you suggest you are, or an alter ego for someone else, or one of the sciolists we're all warned about at the bottom of the page?

I just don't get why a USA based pilot should have such strong feelings about one small area of European airspace?

[Jwscud]

I have fairly strong feelings about some of the CTRs around London too with my GA hat on, but fundamentally, the big problem with SE GA is their inability to comply with the glide clear rule within the London CTR. SVFR traffic (helicopters and light twins) is dealt with very well by Heathrow Special and Thames Radar.

On Point Merge, what is the London flavour going to do to CDAs?

[soaringhigh650]

SH650, for someone ostensibly based in the USA why such an interest and such strong feelings about UK ATC in general and the London area in particular?


It's historical. I also have a base in SE England so fly there sometimes. Generally no problems in the air and work with some excellent controllers. Main issue is being kept unnecessarily low: less than 2400ft due to Class A above. I am not IFR rated. What mainly winds me up are the NAT$$$ trolls on here who see GA as a dangerous interference and keep asking for loads and loads of money if I want to fly higher and use their sacred airspace.

London airspace is beginning to be redesigned therefore the founding design principles must be correct or else it will be Class A down to the ground and Nimmer, anotherthing, HD, and several others here drinking plenty of champagne having run their successful secret agenda of eradicating GA.

Jwscud, the CTRs seem largely a non-issue compared with everything else in SE England. They actually allow (S)VFR flight. However we don't all fly less than 2000 ft.

[Gonzo]

I'm sure you've spent time visiting Swanwick to find out why the airspace limits are as they are.

What did you find out?

[Rossoneri]

Some of the the NAT$$$ trolls as you so eloquently put it, happen to be very capable and professional controllers. I would suggest arranging a visit to Swanwick on a busy summer morning.

Back to the original point merge debate....I'm not sure what the main benefits are. I'm not sure how it fits into our fuel saving / carbon saving plans? It feels like it's being introduced because it's a fancy new system and therefore should be introduced. I'd love to be proven wrong. Before anyone says anything, I'm not a grumpy old fart adverse to change, I'm all for improvements to the service we provide. I know my watch colleagues will also go out of their way to facilitate directs or the removal of level capping on a daily basis.

[055166k]

Point Merge results in increased fuel consumption..."fact". One location where it might work is an airport with little adjacent airport airspace complexity and vast amounts of sky available. Lots of data from Oslo...for a quick overview google Oslo pointmerge. Please take time to advise airlines not to go out and buy fast aeroplanes, it is a complete waste of money if speeding and sequencing start over a hundred miles out!

[EastofKoksy]

Point Merge can have benefits at some locations. As in a lot of cases it depends on factors like how busy the airport is, how effective ATC already are at achieving high runway utilisation, how much airspace is available etc. The problem is that PM is often seen as a new technique and therefore "sexy" by ATC and Airport managements who are under pressure to innovate and reduce environmental impacts. It is also being pushed hard by equipment manufacturers keen to sell their black boxes, i.e controller support tools, that are needed to implement PM.

The acid test will be real fuel burn numbers as opposed to projections. For me the critical issue for Gatwick with its high intensity single runway ops is, does the use of PM reduce runway utilisation?

[Nimmer]

SH, I suggest when flying in the UK you change your name to soaring low!!!!!!

[soaringhigh650]

happen to be very capable and professional controllers

Yes. So capable and professional that they can't mix IFR and VFR traffic where VFR does not affect IFR.... and so capable and professional that I have to keep:

soaring low!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

[Warped Factor]

Vent all you like to the people here SH650, but they are not the policy makers. They apply the rules they are given, they don't make them. That you repeatedly fail to understand this is unfortunate.

Anyway, keep banging away if it makes you feel better and is somehow cathartic, but don't expect anything to happen because of it bar you alienating just about everyone here.

[Gonzo]

Yes. So capable and professional that they can't mix IFR and VFR traffic where VFR does not affect IFR....

SH, please make up your mind. I thought your problem was with the amount of Class A. Are you now changing your tune to lambast ATC in Class D?

Which is it?

[soaringhigh650]

Gonzo - No I am not lambasting ATC in Class D.

Warped Factor - OKAY I get your point. This Class A issue will be referred to those who make up the RULE$ to see if they would even LI$TEN.

Or whether it'll fall onto DEAF EAR$ again for another 50 years.

[Gonzo]

So which controllers are you talking about here then....?




Yes. So capable and professional that they can't mix IFR and VFR traffic where VFR does not affect IFRYou must be talking about controllers who have the option of permitting IFR and VFR to mix, but choose not to. I'm sure you're not referring to controllers who work airspace where VFR flight is not permitted, as that would be a rather spurious argument.

[mad_jock]

If a PA28 says they can climb over the top of Something at FL180 can you get the medics to meet them on the ground please they are more than likely on drugs.

[Nimmer]

I have had my fun, time to put SH out of his misery. Any new regulated airspace in the UK has to be class C!!!!!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Pity its not all Class A - keep them clockwork mice away! I think it's time for my evening bottle of Krug... so much nicer than Horlicks don't you know.

[anotherthing]

Nimmer, anotherthing, HD, and several others here drinking plenty of champagne having run their successful secret agenda of eradicating GAPrefer a decent vintage Chateau Margaux myself, although had a rather pleasant bottle of Ruinart this weekend...

As for our secret agenda, NAT$ controller$ do a pretty good job in the main, working to the rules that NAT$ are bound by as part of the licence they have which is stipulated by the CAA.

However SH; I'm sure the facts of how UK airspace is governed and controlled is of no interest to you as you seem to have a beef with the controller$ themselves...

[Plazbot]

Can someone explain how tooling around a hold at 4000 feet with a 180 every minute less efficient than point merge?

[1Charlie]

I thought point merge is just RNAV vectoring. Nothing more

Join an RNAV arc and wait for direct to the merge instead of "fly heading - direct to merge"

[tubby linton]

Will a CDA still be required for the descent from the turn in point?

[Jwscud]

My experience with point merge is rather more that getting a slippery aircraft down, configured and stable with a bit of a tailwind is a far more likely issue than worrying about busting a CDA. Even with a howling headwind, you shouldn't have too much of a problem.

Yet to avoid having to reach for the lever of shame on one ;)

[tubby linton]

I am not quite sure what was meant to be contained in the previous post by Jwscud but from personal observation the current ability to fly a CDA @ LGW seems very poor by certain operators. It doesn't help that NATS deleted the applicable page from the UKAIP a while ago, hence the lack of any reference to it in charts provided by the commercial publishers.

[Jwscud]

Sorry Tubby - Dublin is not a "thou shalt CDA or else" airport, but the point I was trying to make was that the way point merge at DUB is structured in terms of distances, when given direct LAPMO (10nm on the ILS) from anywhere on the arc, you are slightly high and fast on profile, especially when one has a tailwind.

I think point merge will make doing a CDA (from the level segment on the arc) fairly simple, though as a driver not a controller I obviously don't know the ins and outs of the plans.

[1Charlie]

Now that Point Merge has been operating at a few airports in Europe for a while, I'm interested in pilots and controllers opinions in this method of final approach sequencing compared to vectors-to-final and the trombone style star. Is it working as well as everyone had hoped?

[mad_jock]

I hate to imagine how much fuel has been burnt compared to before.

If your negative PRNAV its cracking we are regularly on the ground 5-10mins in front of the jet that was 5 miles ahead of us coming in from a down wind direction which is PRNAV.

[manusa]

Point-Merge has been (half-) implemented in both GCFV and GCRR... We'll see how that works out!

[PointMergeArrival]

For anyone interested.
https://beta.avinor.no/en/avinor-air-navigations-services/about/point-merge-conference/

[tubby linton]

My experience of using it in GCRR is that it makes the atcos life easier as the traffic flows are now better seperated but the arrival now takes you miles to the south.

[Rust Cohle]

Does it matter where the arrival takes you, if the alternative is sitting in a hold, or vectors for spacing? AIUI you land at the same time, but with a better chance of making a CDA, and reducing speed earlier to save fuel.