Be Level By..............
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this thread for a while, these things always seem to turn into a battle of egos between atco's and pilots. It seems to me everybody is missing the point. It is written in the ICAO definition of Air Traffic Control, "...a safe and expeditious flow of air traffic...." its that word "safe" which is the buzzword. It really doesnt matter what a pilots optimum descent profile is, if its not safe we wont let you do it.
We also try to provide a service to pilots, this means understanding the needs of pilots and their companies, and trying to deliver the best descent profile we can. If I have time, and there is an option, I will always ask the pilot what he/she prefers, otherwise I issue descents which keep you separated from other pilots, and comply with the LOA's with my adjacent/subjacent sectors.
These LOA restrictions might also interfere with your ideal descent, but theres nothing I can do about that, they are rules we have to abide by.
West Coast
I agree, if I give a PD descent, then it means exactly that, however, bear in mind that a descent of less than 500fpm requires you to inform us.
As for the original point, standard descent profiles no longer exist in reality, the skies are too busy. Its true that many controllers give level by XYZ when the a/c has been given direct ABC, this is a fault. But to say that every time you fly inbound a certain destination you can always expect a certain level by a certain position is pie in the sky. Use those as a guideline only but if we need you to go down early, trust that there is a reason for it. Also if we give you a restriction which you will struggle to comply with, let us know on the frequency, not on pprune forums, we can always run to a plan B.
Its all about teamwork.....
We also try to provide a service to pilots, this means understanding the needs of pilots and their companies, and trying to deliver the best descent profile we can. If I have time, and there is an option, I will always ask the pilot what he/she prefers, otherwise I issue descents which keep you separated from other pilots, and comply with the LOA's with my adjacent/subjacent sectors.
These LOA restrictions might also interfere with your ideal descent, but theres nothing I can do about that, they are rules we have to abide by.
West Coast
I agree, if I give a PD descent, then it means exactly that, however, bear in mind that a descent of less than 500fpm requires you to inform us.
As for the original point, standard descent profiles no longer exist in reality, the skies are too busy. Its true that many controllers give level by XYZ when the a/c has been given direct ABC, this is a fault. But to say that every time you fly inbound a certain destination you can always expect a certain level by a certain position is pie in the sky. Use those as a guideline only but if we need you to go down early, trust that there is a reason for it. Also if we give you a restriction which you will struggle to comply with, let us know on the frequency, not on pprune forums, we can always run to a plan B.
Its all about teamwork.....
Last edited by fourthreethree; 11th Jul 2004 at 16:51.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West coast;
I think that you were directing that to me... f If so, the PD that was given was not descend at PD maintain 240. It was cross XXX at 090. They hung it up and then couldn't make it down thinking that they were going to come down at 320 KIAS the whole way. <shrug> I don't give the other PD clearances when I am busy.
regards
Scott
I think that you were directing that to me... f If so, the PD that was given was not descend at PD maintain 240. It was cross XXX at 090. They hung it up and then couldn't make it down thinking that they were going to come down at 320 KIAS the whole way. <shrug> I don't give the other PD clearances when I am busy.
regards
Scott
Join Date: May 2004
Location: alton
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some of the pilots replying on this thread have sadly been left out of the loop. When descent restrictions are given they are almost always part of procedures that have been written in consultation with your airlines. They accept that they may not give the ideal descent profile for all aircraft in all conditions but are willing to compromise on this for increased global flowrates.
It is a shame that this info is not promulgated to line pilots who have a natural desire to fly the most economic profiles at all times.
It is a shame that this info is not promulgated to line pilots who have a natural desire to fly the most economic profiles at all times.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again this issues identifies the need of the Cockpit FAM program being started up again so that controllers can see the pilots side of the microphone, and just as important that the pilots should have to sit with a controller several times a year, to see what our side of the microphone is like. Education is another KEY to SAFETY.
If you as a pilot are given a control instruction that you know you can not comply with then all you need to do is use the word, "UNABLE", and a very short reason why, then we controllers can whip out plan "B".
I agree with Scott, all too often I see RJ's maintaining altitude and speed and then trying to dive for the approach or runway, if you are the only aircraft out there that works fine, but it doesn't work within an approach stream (conga line).
I've see some controllers switch runways at the last minute on pilots not realizing the workload that they are creating within the cockpit. Again when a controller does this, the word "UNABLE" we want to stay with the approach.
As for the route amendment where ATC wants to give you direct to a fix, you can always say "UNABLE" or how about direct XXX which is in your programed route. I personnally try to avoid issuing direct to a fix unless I can use a fix within the route of flight.
This is a good topic,
Mike
NATCA FWA
If you as a pilot are given a control instruction that you know you can not comply with then all you need to do is use the word, "UNABLE", and a very short reason why, then we controllers can whip out plan "B".
I agree with Scott, all too often I see RJ's maintaining altitude and speed and then trying to dive for the approach or runway, if you are the only aircraft out there that works fine, but it doesn't work within an approach stream (conga line).
I've see some controllers switch runways at the last minute on pilots not realizing the workload that they are creating within the cockpit. Again when a controller does this, the word "UNABLE" we want to stay with the approach.
As for the route amendment where ATC wants to give you direct to a fix, you can always say "UNABLE" or how about direct XXX which is in your programed route. I personnally try to avoid issuing direct to a fix unless I can use a fix within the route of flight.
This is a good topic,
Mike
NATCA FWA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ifaxu,
We struggle with our company to remember to put early descents into the flight plans ! The number of times we have to add 500kg for the obvious descent we know we get, or the reroute that isn't in the PLOG.........
I am trying to get our company to get on to MAN to get this restriction removed - no success yet !
We struggle with our company to remember to put early descents into the flight plans ! The number of times we have to add 500kg for the obvious descent we know we get, or the reroute that isn't in the PLOG.........
I am trying to get our company to get on to MAN to get this restriction removed - no success yet !
"They hung it up and then couldn't make it down thinking that they were going to come down at 320 KIAS the whole way"
Did you give them an expected speed, was it published somewhere to cross at a slower speed?
Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying. If you simply said cross ABC at a particular altitude and they missed it then bad on them and they deserve what comes their way. If however you say cross ABC at some altitude with no reference to speed or expected speed to cross same at (and its not a hard speed published on the STAR) then later on throw in a restriction that requires a large speed reduction at the crossing fix you may or may not get it. In my case I was a bit low on gas. I stayed till past my TOD and came down at about 4000 FPM above profile speed to cross the fix about a mile prior. If ATC had thrown a speed late in the game there would likely be no way to make it. If however we were told to plan to cross ABC at 250 Kts we would have descended earlier as to comply. You have to communicate to us early what you want. The later it is the less chance of compliance. It has to be done before TOD for the most part because after TOD the math is all done and it is what it is.
"I agree with Scott, all too often I see RJ's maintaining altitude and speed and then trying to dive for the approach or runway, if you are the only aircraft out there that works fine, but it doesn't work within an approach stream (conga line)"
Again, it goes back to communication. RJ's are slow climbers and try to make up for it by screaming downhill. Give them an idea of what you need and they will comply. Wait till the last minute when they are flying the profile may be too late. You can choose to do this in the future and see if it helps but they are going to continue to fly profile speeds at optimal descent rates so I don't see your problem getting any better.
Did you give them an expected speed, was it published somewhere to cross at a slower speed?
Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying. If you simply said cross ABC at a particular altitude and they missed it then bad on them and they deserve what comes their way. If however you say cross ABC at some altitude with no reference to speed or expected speed to cross same at (and its not a hard speed published on the STAR) then later on throw in a restriction that requires a large speed reduction at the crossing fix you may or may not get it. In my case I was a bit low on gas. I stayed till past my TOD and came down at about 4000 FPM above profile speed to cross the fix about a mile prior. If ATC had thrown a speed late in the game there would likely be no way to make it. If however we were told to plan to cross ABC at 250 Kts we would have descended earlier as to comply. You have to communicate to us early what you want. The later it is the less chance of compliance. It has to be done before TOD for the most part because after TOD the math is all done and it is what it is.
"I agree with Scott, all too often I see RJ's maintaining altitude and speed and then trying to dive for the approach or runway, if you are the only aircraft out there that works fine, but it doesn't work within an approach stream (conga line)"
Again, it goes back to communication. RJ's are slow climbers and try to make up for it by screaming downhill. Give them an idea of what you need and they will comply. Wait till the last minute when they are flying the profile may be too late. You can choose to do this in the future and see if it helps but they are going to continue to fly profile speeds at optimal descent rates so I don't see your problem getting any better.
Last edited by West Coast; 14th Jul 2004 at 07:16.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am trying to get our company to get on to MAN to get this restriction removed - no success yet !
And even then they'll probably disadvantage another set of airspace users. That's not a criticism of what your airline might come up with, just a fact that the system never can provide everyone with their ideal world.In every consultation process I have seen, the airlines stand together at the corporate level in wanting no delay as much as they can, at the expense of economic profiles.
As has been mentioned, the airline operators need to educate their staff on what their overall policy is. That might bring about some acceptance of why things are the way they are.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, another day, another dollar - tried a different approach on the NCL thing today and slid down at minimum descent rate and we reached the handover point to NCL without further delay. Mind you we were on 25 with a chance to 'head on down' as they say !
See how it works out on 07
See how it works out on 07
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southampton
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to agree with West Coast on this one - after all we can't expect aircrew to be mind-readers as well!
I know it sounds long winded but it gets the point across - I use something like;
"xxx123 Descend FL250, expect FL150 by ABC"
"xxx123 Roger, (readback) is that PD?"
"I'd like you to start down now please, I may have to speed restrict you in the descent"
One of my favourite closing lines-
No complaints yet!
I know it sounds long winded but it gets the point across - I use something like;
"xxx123 Descend FL250, expect FL150 by ABC"
"xxx123 Roger, (readback) is that PD?"
"I'd like you to start down now please, I may have to speed restrict you in the descent"
One of my favourite closing lines-
No complaints yet!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi West Coast,
There is a speed reduction on the STAR, but not where I was going to issue it... More along the lines of issuing the clearances and being VERY busy with slowing everyone on frequency (situational awareness that they keep telling us they have by listening to the radio in our meetings <G>). When going into a major hub, unless told to keep your speed up, no one should expect a unhindered high speed arrival. Especially when things are very, very busy. If a pilot wants to do something out of the ordinary, such as keep it above the TOD for whatever reason and things are busy, they should be asking if it is going to muck things up any. Not much different than letting us know if they are going to slow for whatever reason...
regards
Scott
There is a speed reduction on the STAR, but not where I was going to issue it... More along the lines of issuing the clearances and being VERY busy with slowing everyone on frequency (situational awareness that they keep telling us they have by listening to the radio in our meetings <G>). When going into a major hub, unless told to keep your speed up, no one should expect a unhindered high speed arrival. Especially when things are very, very busy. If a pilot wants to do something out of the ordinary, such as keep it above the TOD for whatever reason and things are busy, they should be asking if it is going to muck things up any. Not much different than letting us know if they are going to slow for whatever reason...
regards
Scott
The problem with that mentality is its provincial. Perhaps that's what you like at Fort Worth center but it doesn't work everywhere as a patent rule. Slow down going in to ORD without being told or otherwise restricted and you will have Chicago center breathing down your neck. Ask me how I know.
For all I know I am leading the conga line and you want me balls to the walls. Do you want me throwing out the anchor when I am because I second guessed your plan wrong thinking I am tail end charlie? Its your job to tell me to slow in a reasonable time frame with respect to altitude. I can't read your mind. Do you really want me trying to figure out your game plan. I slow at what I think is a reasonable point minus any direction from you. The guy behind me believes that reasonable point is 15 miles further down the road and is sniffing my burner cans suddenly while you deconflict something elsewhere on your screen.
What your asking me for is to fly the aircraft inefficiently. We ain't exactly breaking the bank these days. While the state of the coffers takes a back seat to operational considerations, minus any ATC restrictions I am going to burn as little gas as possible rather than second guess what you want.
Its comes down to planning. If you need me slowed you have to tell me to slow or tell me what to expect. It sounds like from your story you already had planned to slow them later. Tell the crew as soon as you knew it instead of keeping it a secret. The extra verbiage would pay dividends later rather than having to go to plan B when as Mike says the crew throws an "unable" at you, or simply don't comply despite accepting the clearance.
I understand best laid plans need to be changed at the last minute, and I accommodate that the best I can. If however your not communicating already planned restrictions ahead of time and then making an artificial crisis, you get what you get. If the traffic is to much, use some of the traffic management programs along with holding. I would much rather deal with a hold than receive late restrictions.
"(situational awareness that they keep telling us they have by listening to the radio in our meetings <G>"
I am SA as one can be when I am not calling the shots as to traffic flow. Positive communication would add to my SA tremendously. Would add to yours also.
For all I know I am leading the conga line and you want me balls to the walls. Do you want me throwing out the anchor when I am because I second guessed your plan wrong thinking I am tail end charlie? Its your job to tell me to slow in a reasonable time frame with respect to altitude. I can't read your mind. Do you really want me trying to figure out your game plan. I slow at what I think is a reasonable point minus any direction from you. The guy behind me believes that reasonable point is 15 miles further down the road and is sniffing my burner cans suddenly while you deconflict something elsewhere on your screen.
What your asking me for is to fly the aircraft inefficiently. We ain't exactly breaking the bank these days. While the state of the coffers takes a back seat to operational considerations, minus any ATC restrictions I am going to burn as little gas as possible rather than second guess what you want.
Its comes down to planning. If you need me slowed you have to tell me to slow or tell me what to expect. It sounds like from your story you already had planned to slow them later. Tell the crew as soon as you knew it instead of keeping it a secret. The extra verbiage would pay dividends later rather than having to go to plan B when as Mike says the crew throws an "unable" at you, or simply don't comply despite accepting the clearance.
I understand best laid plans need to be changed at the last minute, and I accommodate that the best I can. If however your not communicating already planned restrictions ahead of time and then making an artificial crisis, you get what you get. If the traffic is to much, use some of the traffic management programs along with holding. I would much rather deal with a hold than receive late restrictions.
"(situational awareness that they keep telling us they have by listening to the radio in our meetings <G>"
I am SA as one can be when I am not calling the shots as to traffic flow. Positive communication would add to my SA tremendously. Would add to yours also.
Last edited by West Coast; 15th Jul 2004 at 14:04.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We use vector to establish seperation, then use speed control to maintain it. It's a balancing act that requires controllers and pilots to work together.
Mike
NATCA FWA
Mike
NATCA FWA
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi West Coast;
I guess we are talking across each other. I am not expecting you nor do I want you to slow on your own... What I am saying is that I think that it is not prudent for a pilot to think that they are going to get an unrestricted descent going into a major metro airport and not to just expect to be able to hang it up high and then be able to continue at high speed all the way down and in. If you are leading the pack, we will indeed tell you to go fast. If you are 10 miles behind someone we are going to leave you alone until you close and then slow you to keep you in the conga line.
What I am trying to say is that if you are going into a busy place, plan on a "normal" descent and speed, not to be able to hang it high and then be able to come down fast at high speed. Sometimes it works out, but many times it doesn't. I have many times given to the crossing restriction to have to come back later and tell the crew to start down now comply with the crossing restrictions and then get a lot of resitance from the flight crew. We don't do this to punish the crews or the airlines, but to try to keep everyone in line, use the least amount of space between aircraft and keep all the finals full for the destination airport, cause once you lose a slot on final, you don't get it back. As long as everything is nice VMC and no towering Cu's are around to mess things up, we pack things in nice an tight and it doesn't allow for much margin either side... It's the old capacity game that has to be balanced with safety.
This would be a whole lot easier to explain over a beer and a white board <G>...
regards
Scott
I guess we are talking across each other. I am not expecting you nor do I want you to slow on your own... What I am saying is that I think that it is not prudent for a pilot to think that they are going to get an unrestricted descent going into a major metro airport and not to just expect to be able to hang it up high and then be able to continue at high speed all the way down and in. If you are leading the pack, we will indeed tell you to go fast. If you are 10 miles behind someone we are going to leave you alone until you close and then slow you to keep you in the conga line.
What I am trying to say is that if you are going into a busy place, plan on a "normal" descent and speed, not to be able to hang it high and then be able to come down fast at high speed. Sometimes it works out, but many times it doesn't. I have many times given to the crossing restriction to have to come back later and tell the crew to start down now comply with the crossing restrictions and then get a lot of resitance from the flight crew. We don't do this to punish the crews or the airlines, but to try to keep everyone in line, use the least amount of space between aircraft and keep all the finals full for the destination airport, cause once you lose a slot on final, you don't get it back. As long as everything is nice VMC and no towering Cu's are around to mess things up, we pack things in nice an tight and it doesn't allow for much margin either side... It's the old capacity game that has to be balanced with safety.
This would be a whole lot easier to explain over a beer and a white board <G>...
regards
Scott
Scott
At first I thought we might be cross channeling here also, but I'm pretty sure now we are simply on differing ends of the point.
"plan on a "normal" descent and speed"
This is really the crux of it.
I do fly a normal descent and speed. What your alluding to is a less than normal rate and speed to meet restrctions that may or may not be given.
My normal (read profile, POI approved) descent rate to cross ABC may not allow me to cross it (or a prior fix as in your example) at a reduced speed if the speed restriction is given much later than TOD. Once I commit to one, its hard to make both. Let me stress, this a normal profile. I can stand on the boards to try and help but we do need advance notice. Really the bottom line from the flying standpoint is that we do expect to expect to fly the aircraft to its capabilities unless you tell us otherwise. I am not going to come down at say 1000 ft/min because I'm landing DFW/ATL/ORD/LAX instead of the normal 3000ft/min simply because I think you might throw some last minute restriction at me. That is inefficient flying on my part. In my mind it really comes down to communication on the part of the controller. I'll bend over backwards to make your plan work-if you tell me about it in time.
"I have many times given to the crossing restriction to have to come back later and tell the crew to start down now comply with the crossing restrictions and then get a lot of resistance from the flight crew"
Many times this has happened to me when we were no where remotely close to the TOD. If you need it for the mix of traffic, fine. I however can't help but feel ATC is trying to fly the plane for me at that point. I am given a crossing restriction, it up to me to make it at whatever descent rate I feel is appropriate. Again, communication, "start own now, cross ABC at xxx" if you think you need it for your traffic. Otherwise if the crew wants to use the space shuttle descent profile, that's their business as long as the restriction they received is met.
I don't want you thinking I am a trouble maker. I work with ATC as best I can. For example if XYZ says to expect 250 Kts and 10,000 but only the altitude restriction is received, I will plan as if I will receive both restrictions. This allows max forward yet still allows the decel to be made if its given as close as 7 miles from the fix (classic slow formula is 10Kts/mile) I will also ask if I can expect one or both restrictions to further figure out your plan.
Perhaps you need to get your plans and procedures specialist (or what ever the title) together with the charting committee and place a few more expects as far as airspeed on the DFW arrivals. This would allow me to plan and help your cause.
At first I thought we might be cross channeling here also, but I'm pretty sure now we are simply on differing ends of the point.
"plan on a "normal" descent and speed"
This is really the crux of it.
I do fly a normal descent and speed. What your alluding to is a less than normal rate and speed to meet restrctions that may or may not be given.
My normal (read profile, POI approved) descent rate to cross ABC may not allow me to cross it (or a prior fix as in your example) at a reduced speed if the speed restriction is given much later than TOD. Once I commit to one, its hard to make both. Let me stress, this a normal profile. I can stand on the boards to try and help but we do need advance notice. Really the bottom line from the flying standpoint is that we do expect to expect to fly the aircraft to its capabilities unless you tell us otherwise. I am not going to come down at say 1000 ft/min because I'm landing DFW/ATL/ORD/LAX instead of the normal 3000ft/min simply because I think you might throw some last minute restriction at me. That is inefficient flying on my part. In my mind it really comes down to communication on the part of the controller. I'll bend over backwards to make your plan work-if you tell me about it in time.
"I have many times given to the crossing restriction to have to come back later and tell the crew to start down now comply with the crossing restrictions and then get a lot of resistance from the flight crew"
Many times this has happened to me when we were no where remotely close to the TOD. If you need it for the mix of traffic, fine. I however can't help but feel ATC is trying to fly the plane for me at that point. I am given a crossing restriction, it up to me to make it at whatever descent rate I feel is appropriate. Again, communication, "start own now, cross ABC at xxx" if you think you need it for your traffic. Otherwise if the crew wants to use the space shuttle descent profile, that's their business as long as the restriction they received is met.
I don't want you thinking I am a trouble maker. I work with ATC as best I can. For example if XYZ says to expect 250 Kts and 10,000 but only the altitude restriction is received, I will plan as if I will receive both restrictions. This allows max forward yet still allows the decel to be made if its given as close as 7 miles from the fix (classic slow formula is 10Kts/mile) I will also ask if I can expect one or both restrictions to further figure out your plan.
Perhaps you need to get your plans and procedures specialist (or what ever the title) together with the charting committee and place a few more expects as far as airspeed on the DFW arrivals. This would allow me to plan and help your cause.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I would resurrect this thread in order to relay to you a brief exchange over the R/T a couple of hours ago.
ATC: ABC123 decsend FL260 to be level in seven minutes
ABC123: Is that seven minutes from now or seven minutes from when we start our descent?
I kid you not.
ATC: ABC123 decsend FL260 to be level in seven minutes
ABC123: Is that seven minutes from now or seven minutes from when we start our descent?
I kid you not.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fourthreethree
Your post does make me chuckle, but standing back a bit and analysing it a little bit more it raises some interesting points.
By asking the question it is evident that the flight crew don't really understand what you are trying to achieve. So the question becomes, why? Did you issue the clearance to avoid other traffic or to meet co-ordination/standing agreement?
Flying around Europe I am exposed to the varying techniques used to provide ATC. For example London make extensive use of headings and "level by" instructions, the French assign Mach numbers and re-routes and it seems that Maastricht and Brussels use rates of climb and descent a lot.
Of all these techniques, rates of climb and descent seem to add least to the flight crew's situational awareness and are arguably harder to fly (the 757/767 speed protection is overridden by using the ROC/ROD mode). They are often issued when least expected and for no reason that is obvious to the crew. In my humble opinion "level by" instructions allow the crew to fly the aircraft more simply are easier to interpret, and the restrictions are learnt by the crew and so can be planned for.
Does your unit have any prohibition on issuing these type of clearances and what are your views as an ATCO?
Interested as ever
G W-H
Your post does make me chuckle, but standing back a bit and analysing it a little bit more it raises some interesting points.
By asking the question it is evident that the flight crew don't really understand what you are trying to achieve. So the question becomes, why? Did you issue the clearance to avoid other traffic or to meet co-ordination/standing agreement?
Flying around Europe I am exposed to the varying techniques used to provide ATC. For example London make extensive use of headings and "level by" instructions, the French assign Mach numbers and re-routes and it seems that Maastricht and Brussels use rates of climb and descent a lot.
Of all these techniques, rates of climb and descent seem to add least to the flight crew's situational awareness and are arguably harder to fly (the 757/767 speed protection is overridden by using the ROC/ROD mode). They are often issued when least expected and for no reason that is obvious to the crew. In my humble opinion "level by" instructions allow the crew to fly the aircraft more simply are easier to interpret, and the restrictions are learnt by the crew and so can be planned for.
Does your unit have any prohibition on issuing these type of clearances and what are your views as an ATCO?
Interested as ever
G W-H
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giles
I started what turned out to be a very interesting discussion on this topic here which makes some interesting reading.
As regards the clearance described above, is it not patently obvious that level in 7 minutes means exactly what it says...ie TOD your discretion, ROD your discretion, as long as you are level in 7 minutes from the time the clearance was issued.
If your wife told you to be home in an hour you wouldn't ask if that was an hour from now or an hour from whenever you decide to set off......would you?
I started what turned out to be a very interesting discussion on this topic here which makes some interesting reading.
As regards the clearance described above, is it not patently obvious that level in 7 minutes means exactly what it says...ie TOD your discretion, ROD your discretion, as long as you are level in 7 minutes from the time the clearance was issued.
If your wife told you to be home in an hour you wouldn't ask if that was an hour from now or an hour from whenever you decide to set off......would you?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fourthreethree
What an excellent analogy!!!
But, if my wife told me at breakfast to "expect dinner at six", later called me to tell me to be home for dinner was at six, and I had it written down somewhere (say, on an approach plate). I think it is fair to say I would be home for dinner at six.
If, however, she calls me up at 5pm and says "get home in an hour" I need to suddenly work out if I can make it from wherever I am, which route to take and how fast to drive. (See where I am going with this!!!)
We could expand on this further. If she tells me to get home in an houir to cut the garden - I will only just make it. If she suggests a roll in the hay - I will be there with time to spare!!
Upshot - I personally believe "level by" clearances are better than ROD/ROC type clearances in the vast magority of cases.
Yours analogously
G W-H
What an excellent analogy!!!
But, if my wife told me at breakfast to "expect dinner at six", later called me to tell me to be home for dinner was at six, and I had it written down somewhere (say, on an approach plate). I think it is fair to say I would be home for dinner at six.
If, however, she calls me up at 5pm and says "get home in an hour" I need to suddenly work out if I can make it from wherever I am, which route to take and how fast to drive. (See where I am going with this!!!)
We could expand on this further. If she tells me to get home in an houir to cut the garden - I will only just make it. If she suggests a roll in the hay - I will be there with time to spare!!
Upshot - I personally believe "level by" clearances are better than ROD/ROC type clearances in the vast magority of cases.
Yours analogously
G W-H