Question for Scottish Controllers

[WoopWoop]

Just a quick question. How come when you get your clearance from say ABZ you are given an initial FL restriction followed by a "FLxxx en-route", that isn't even close to your planned cruise level. Couldn't this result in a possible level bust if the second read FL were entered into the MCP?

[Gugaflot]

It applies to outbound 'Lonodn' flights only, everyone else is OK.

Well, so I'm told.

[Findo]

All Aberdeen departures on airways or advisory routes should have a clearance on the ground "climb to maintain XX climb when instructed to FPL level".

Southbound departures via Findo (ahhh) will then be climbed to FL250 as the standing agreement between Tay and the next sector. Pretty bog standard procedure you will find on any airways flight in the UK.

Don't know what the "FLxxx en-route" is meant to mean.

[10W]

Don't know what the "FLxxx en-route" is meant to mean.

Can only think that whoever is giving the clearance is using the phrase 'Climb to maintain FLXXX, request level change to FLZZZ en route'.

Aberdeen have agreements with Scottish for departures including agreed levels on Advisory and Airway routes and so Scottish normally never have the need to pass them a specific clearance and would not to my knowledge ever have to use a 'Request Level Change Enroute'.

If it was ABZ you got these clearances from, then someone there is who this query should really be aimed at. Anyone at Ice Station Zebra willing to step up to the stand ??

[BOAC]

It is the only place on the network I fly where this sort of clearance is given, and I cannot see the need for it?

'Climb FL80' is sufficient and would be all we get elsewhere.

[throw a dyce]

At ISZ it used to be Maintain FL xx Request level change en-route Flxxx ,but the latter was changed to Climb when instructed by Radar FLxxx some months back.Something to do with radio fail procedures but I'm not sure why.The first level you get,say FL 80 is the agreed outbound level with Scottish and the important one.
I agree that the second level can be confusing and was indirectly the cause of a level bust recently.Often with BA it's wrong anyway as that's what the flight plan spits out and it's always FL280. Why do we do it?Cos we are told to by management.Is it necessary,not sure as elsewhere with SID's it isn't done,so why here?
Agree with BOAC ,but don't blame the troops for a steam driven system.After all they are the among the lowest paid in all of Nats,with a tricky little airport and there are a lot of greater minds paid vastly more higher up to sort this out.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Why not have SIDs at ABZ then for Airways deps ?? Problem solved.

[Stupendous Man]

Would SIDs introduce a Banding issue?

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

For anyone not familiar with EGPD, the type of clearance we are talking about here is:

"After departure right turn direct GLESK, climb to altitude 4000', climb when instructed by radar FL80, RLCE FL280"

With the new radio failure procedures, does anyone know if there is any point to the FL80 instruction? In the old days we would have had to leave controlled airspace to climb above this level, but that is no longer required. I haven't got the books in front of me, but I think that the change in procedures might have made "climb when instructed by radar" clearances obsolete.

Interested in any ideas, as I think 7 minutes of radio failure would pass before I could find the answer in real life!!!

Whilst we are asking Scottish Control questions, is it in your MATS Part 2 to repeat the full squawk when instructing people to ident?

G W-H

[BALIX]

Whilst we are asking Scottish Control questions, is it in your MATS Part 2 to repeat the full squawk when instructing people to ident?

Good question. Answer - yes it is. The appropriate bit in the MATS 2 is as follows:

Before providing a radar service using Scottish Systems Radars, aircraft must be identified as required
by MATS Part 1. Additionally, when SSR is used the Mode 3/A code must be validated and the Mode C
height read-out verified. If code/callsign conversion is in use, the correct correlation of the code to
the callsign must also be confirmed.
Traffic, whose radar target symbol indicates that callsign data is held in the Code/Callsign Distribution
System (CCDS), entering Scottish radar cover from a London ACC or Manchester ACC sector (excluding
Pennine Radar) and wearing a recognisable validated code, is identified. The code and callsign are
correlated, provided that the callsign and SSR code printed on the flight progress strip have not been
hand amended.

All well and good - a/c departing any airfield or entering Scottish airspce from somewhere other than LACC/Manchester need to be identified. Then:

The following procedure allows identification, validation and confirmation of code/callsign correlation
to be completed simultaneously when using LM Skyline processed displays:
On first contact transmit: ’Callsign; Squawk NNNN and Ident’ (where NNNN is the 4 figure code shown
on the radar FPS bearing the associated callsign).

I personally think it is a throwback to the old days of manual data handling and a simple 'Squark ident' would suffice but there you go. Interestingly when aircraft are coming off the an ocean track wearing a 2000 squark, I simply give them the new squark and identify them by observing the code change (and not bother with the ident). I'll probably get a bollocking from my LCE now I've admited it but it seems to satisfy all the requirements for identification, validation and confirmation of the code/callsign correlation.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

BALIX

Thanks for that. I have been flying about hoping that this was just a piece of old phraseology that would eventually die out, especially as MATS Pt1 says that one method of identification is "Observing an IDENT feature when it has been requested".

Since it is in your Part 2 I guess I will have to live with it, but if I had a penny for every time someone retyped their already allocated code (or a mixed up version of it) I would be on a Captain's salary!

G W-H

[U R NumberOne]

These initial levels form an important part of the Standing Agreement between Aberdeen and Scottish - enabling us to cut down on the amount of telephone co-ordination required whenever a flight departs. Just to clear up a few points here as far as ISZ/ABZ is concerned...

It applies to outbound 'Lonodn' flights only, everyone else is OK

It applies almost every flight departing here and routing via P600, W4D, W5D, P600D and a Class G route which crosses any of the above within 40 miles of Aberdeen.

Why not have SIDs at ABZ then for Airways deps ?? Problem solved.

It might solve the problem and is an option certainly, but given our varying IFR traffic mix anything from 120kt helicopters to fast jets and everthing in between, we could lose more flexibility than we gain.

Would SIDs introduce a Banding issue?

Don't think so. Other ATCO3/Band 2 units have them.

"After departure right turn direct GLESK, climb to altitude 4000', climb when instructed by radar FL80, RLCE FL280"

A bit more long winded than we actually issue. It goes "Cleared to (destination) via P600, maintain FL80, climb when instructed by radar FL280, squawk xxxx". Only two levels there - if we had to issue a level below FL80, for traffic reasons for example, this would be given just prior to departure. That aspect is not ideal, I know, and when combined with an immediate take off clearance or something is just not on - but we usually only issue a further level restriction when a heading is not an option.


If our clearances become a big problem for crew then no doubt it'll end up at my door . These things have worked OK for a long time now - yes, there may be better ways, but is it a case of "not broke, don't fix it"?

[Data Dad]

SID's for the Ice Station have been looked at a number of times and there are a number of drawbacks....

Majority of Traffic departs into Class F (Advisory) or Class G (uncontrolled) Airspace. Having SID's into such airspace is probably not a good idea with all those very fast swing-wing things zipping about.

There is a paucity of ground based Nav aids to construct the SID's from.

A SID for P600 departures would in all probablity have to terminate at a Flight Level rather than an Altitude because of the Base Level of the Airway.

SID's would mean STAR's as well and on 16 inbounds from the South would have to stay up at FL90 or FL80 til at least abeam the Airport (and on 34 inbounds from the North would also suffer) thereby extending the approach track distance considerably and also putting an end to the short visual approach!

As anyone who operates in/out of Aberdeen has probably noticed, the traffic has a remarkable tendency to "direction bunch" - 4 or 5 all going the same way at the same time. To get them all airborne in the minimum time we would still have to use Radar Headings to provide seperation - as now - kind of makes the SID superfluous! Alternative is to have Departure Tables (time based seperation) which would mean you sit on the ground for much longer waiting for the one ahead to get far enough away.

So, IMHO, the present system works well for the traffic type and flows we get, is very flexible and leads to minimum delays (usually!) for both inbounds and outbounds. It may be different from a lot of Airports today but there have been recommendations to "improve" the "user friendliness" of the system for aircrew - No 1, dust off the APRG report and look at SDR's

And as BA flight plans have already been mentioned..... if any BA crew read this - please telll your ops dept that the daily flight plans they file are a) often wrong - departing off of 34 you do NOT go to the AQ! and b) are so long winded that our printed Strips do not show the correct Flight Planned Level!

DD

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Data Dad

I am sorry that we don't seem to be able to file flight plans correctly. The last EGPD trip I did was filed as:

N0440F280 DCT AQ DCT PTH UP600 GOW/N0447F390 UN615 HON BNN2A

Is it just when you are using 16 that we get the plans wrong or are there other problems? The plans are probably long winded to avoid flow control somewhere later in the route, so I can't see them getting any shorter!!

I guess that as crew we only ever see a version corrected by someone in Flight Plans, otherwise it would have been rejected somewhere.

I am glad that there are no SIDs and STARs at Aberdeen, as it alows a high degree of flexibility which I think we all need with the complex mix of traffic there.

Anyone have an answer to my question about "Climb when instructed by radar" clearances in the light of the new RTF fail procedures?

G W-H

[simfly]

To help clarify (if it's not been done already....) just heard lunchtime BA flight to LHR, clearance- "TO LONDON HEATHROW VIA UP600, CLIMB AND MAINTAIN FL80, CLIMB WHEN INSTRUCTED BY RADAR FL370 SQAWK ####.

[BOAC]

DD - I think the routing problem is caused by the new super-dooper BA planning programme 'CIRRUS' which is designed to enable crews to cut fuel even further. It DEPENDS on someone getting the departure (and arrival) runway right since this is what the fuel and route (hence 'SID') are calculated on.

Unfortunately it is wrong about 30% of the time in my experience in the choice of landing/take-off runway thus rendering fuel and departure route invalid. Numerous reports have come to nought. Good programme

I have been told ( I know not the truth) that it relies on local ops inputting the necessary info into the system, and I guess they are not doing it, which is why we sometimes find a plan to take-off on a southerly runway with a howling northerly wind, and a few hundred kilos short of fuel unless you are 'on the ball'.

Rest assured, the crews know where they are going

[Data Dad]

I will just clarify the point about the "length" of the routeing I was referring to....

Its not the TOTAL length that causes the problem but the initial route - reads for example, DCT AQ DCT GLESK P600 PTH UP600 GOW etc, etc. This can not be accomodated on our Flight Progress Strips (and we have no desire to see the full route!) BUT with limited room they print as much as they can. This causes the almost inevitable Speed/Level change after GOW to drop off so all we get is the inital cruise level of FL280 not the actual intended cruise level.

Must admit that I am all for dropping the "Climb when instructed by Radar" bit altogether! I think the RT fail procedures are now such that it ain't needed anymore. Vote anyone?

DD

[BOAC]

dropping the "Climb when instructed by Radar"

Go for it, DD! It will cut down the R/T both ways.

I'm pretty sure ABZ is the only place I visit where it is issued and we get clearances to below cruise altitude at ALL airfields, so it serves no useful purpose in my book. FL80 is well above MSA - both sector and en-route - and TA, so there is no safety problem.

If it is 'in the rules' then ABZ is alone in those rules

[PPRuNe Radar]

The only thing that Aberdeen would need to add is where the Level Restriction ends ... and thus designate a point after which the aircraft could climb if experiencing RT Failure (in accordance with the AIP procedure of course). SIDs always have a termination point which specifies this by default, so clearances with initial level restrictions should too ??

[letMfly]

I'm with DD on this. The present system is unnecessarily long winded and, as WoopWoop pointed out in his initial post, it can cause level busts.

Recently a B737 was given "maintain FL90, climb when instructed by radar FL330" and went straight up to FL330, much to the consternation of the receiving controller at Scottish.