View Full Version : EGLC Point Merge

good egg
4th Feb 2016, 19:35
Just curious...anyone at pointy end have any comments about point merge at EGLC that started today?

good egg
4th Feb 2016, 19:36
(Both from departing & arriving point-of-view)

4th Feb 2016, 20:54

Faire d'income
7th Feb 2016, 20:32
If it is anything like the award winning EIDW point merge, pilots will detest it. One also gets the impression ATCOs aren't fans either. But no one usually bothers to ask the users, so thank you for asking.

It increases workload, creates ambiguity and reduces situational awareness.

EGLL should be the model, not this nonsense.

8th Feb 2016, 09:48
I've flown it for a few days now and it seems fine. It is a longer routing but at least it's consistent! On the previous arrivals , especially from the north , you never knew whether you would get cut straight in via lambourne or sent miles east, you very rarely flew the actual arrival! The departures are pretty much the same.

8th Feb 2016, 11:38
Hi All,
Interesting idea. Trust it will work. I've followed the link, post three above, to the discussion on the ATC forum, and the clear graphics. No mention of what happens when the world in this area is on 'easterlies'
Just curious, as never likely to operate through EGLC.

good egg
8th Feb 2016, 13:25
Thanks for your reply, good to know it seems to be working ok :)
How's the fuel burn? Or is it too early to say?

Same point-merge route structure exists on easterlies except that as aircraft route west towards the airport they jink to the southwest then parallel the runway to the south (downwind leg) until just before Vauxhall Bridge, then north (base leg) before leaving the transition on a heading/track of approx 040/050 (I can't remember the exact detail off the top of my head) to intercept the ILS.
Will probably find out late on Thursday/Friday when the forecast wind goes to easterly.

good egg
8th Feb 2016, 13:28

Sorry, meant to add...departures to the north unaffected so no difference, however southbound deps should get higher initial climb so that they can jump the arrival stream. (Previously these southbounds sometimes got stuck underneath the arrivals)

8th Feb 2016, 14:19
Good egg,
Yes southbound departures do get higher sooner so should improve fuel burn. As for the arrivals it's too early for me to tell how burn is affected but it should now be more consistent allowing better fuel planning. We've had diverts before due to taking minimum fuel but then being given a hugely extended routing than expected so the new arrivals should hopefully eliminate this.

Little Blue
8th Feb 2016, 14:26
I hope it's nothing like the cluster-f*** when LEJ decided to implement it, last December?

My airline had a large influx of ASR's being filed due to longer routings being flown compared to that on the OFP.
The answer was for us to now only file the company route but always using the longest STAR. Not brilliant for fuel efficiency but at least it's safe and legal.

Good luck at LCY !

good egg
8th Feb 2016, 14:34

Thanks for the further info. If you have any other comments about it (good or bad) please let me know

12th Feb 2016, 09:56
Imagine that the priority is something else. Imagine that ATC managers loathe and detest the highly skilled professionals that provide a quality ATC service day after day using expertise and skills honed for every eventuality. Imagine some guy knocks on the door with the latest vacuum cleaner....I beg your pardon...ATC wonder system....and managers have to at least pretend that they know something about the job....and they sign up.
OK, there are a few drawbacks such as VAST amounts of airspace, up to a hundred extra track miles, more fuel, no EAT because you are technically in the approach system.
Benefits include scenic flight over the Channel to see Belgium and Northern France.
Perhaps the main goal is to DUMB DOWN ATC ??

good egg
12th Feb 2016, 12:17
OK, there are a few drawbacks such as VAST amounts of airspace, up to a hundred extra track miles, more fuel, no EAT because you are technically in the approach system.
Benefits include scenic flight over the Channel to see Belgium and Northern France.

I don't agree with you.

Airspace - Pretty sure that there wasn't an "airspace grab" needed for this? - happy to concede this point though if someone knows better?

Track miles - early days yet but from what I've seen during peak traffic hours the track miles flown seem comparable, some less, some more (although nothing like 100 miles more!). During quieter periods I'll grant you that the track miles flown appear to be greater - suspect though that when experience of the system grows that more shortcuts will be given.

Fuel - Given the aircraft are staying higher for longer with much less low-level vectoring/holding I suspect that fuel burn is, in fact, much less on average than pre-LAMP. This is one of the reasons I started the thread - to find out from the crews what difference it has made.

EAT - Not sure how familiar you are with how things operated pre-LAMP...at least now if aircraft are put in the holding stacks a realistic estimate could be given.

Not sure I'd describe the Thames estuary as "over the channel" - and does mean that any airborne holding is done at much higher levels/over unpopulated areas thereby reducing noise effect to those on the ground.

12th Feb 2016, 17:37
Good egg,

Good try. You may find you get better feedback if you use fewer facts and overlay it with much more cynicism. I think that is how it works here. Or you could always try playing the man and not the ball, that seems to work well too.

good egg
12th Feb 2016, 20:48
You mean like this...

It's a ploy so that ATC managers can employ monkeys(/vacuum cleaner salespersons) with stopwatches to peel aircraft off the holds/arcs and pay them bananas because, obviously, there's no skill involved and emergencies will never happen with the new system.
With any luck they won't sling too much faeces around as they do it, and certainly not on the fans.

Better Fortissimo? ;)

His dudeness
12th Feb 2016, 21:20
Will operate into EGLC in 2 weeks time. If we could stay up for longer, that would be nice. if we could climb earlier going back home via DVR that would be a very good thing - we are usually very light going out of LCY and could climb at 5000-6000 fpm til passing FL200 - but out of the London area it always was loads of low level flying and a lot of step climbs.

Maybe we now can zoom out of the main traffic ?

12th Feb 2016, 21:33
You have the idea, good egg. If you had managed to take a pop at someone in the same post, you would have almost certainly earned a few :D:D:D

12th Feb 2016, 21:45
Could somone explain what EGLC is pse.

13th Feb 2016, 00:10
Could somone explain what EGLC is pse.

EGLC is an ICAO airport code (like the ones you would put on your flightplans).

As 30 seconds with Google would reveal, it's the code for London City Airport.

14th Feb 2016, 18:07
I've flown in about 20 times now from the North and South and it seems to be working okay. The first few days we were flying a lot of the STAR but as the transition process has happened progressively we have been getting great shortcuts even as far out as Jacko. We are defiantly flying more track miles but it's too early to tell about fuel burn due to being at higher altitudes whilst flying the extra miles.

The departures have been great usually getting at least FL70 or above shortly after levelling off at 3000' on the Ekniv 1A SID.

All in all it seems to be working well so far, and I'm sure it will only get better as the controllers get more experienced with it and work out the shortcuts.

14th Feb 2016, 18:24
We're not that keen on you defiant fliers though:E

good egg
16th Feb 2016, 14:56
Thanks for the feedback Skydreamer1

Glad it seems to be working OK for you :)