Be Level By..............
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be Level By..............
OK, we have had, be level 270 by TNT. We are now having, be level 270 45 miles before POL. Today we get be level 270 50 miles before POL.
Can we have some of these published somewhere please and why can't they standardise on waypoints - after all, there are plenty around these days !
I know it's a minor whinge but to have to reprogramme the FMC, while in the descent to accomodate a new and quite frankly - too early descent is becoming a pain. We have all this magic in the box to help us plan our descents so we save fuel and time - I don't see why I should have to revert to the FCU boogie to achieve something that could have been programmed 30 minutes before.
Put the levels on the Jepp plates, it is on some, why not others.
Thank you, back in the box for me then
Can we have some of these published somewhere please and why can't they standardise on waypoints - after all, there are plenty around these days !
I know it's a minor whinge but to have to reprogramme the FMC, while in the descent to accomodate a new and quite frankly - too early descent is becoming a pain. We have all this magic in the box to help us plan our descents so we save fuel and time - I don't see why I should have to revert to the FCU boogie to achieve something that could have been programmed 30 minutes before.
Put the levels on the Jepp plates, it is on some, why not others.
Thank you, back in the box for me then
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London Control, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it can be frustrating. The problem is connected with the fact that in this case you have to be at FL270 in order for you to pass beneath a line in the sky, which happens to pass through TNT, ensuring you enter Manchester's Sector 29 'box' which has a ceiling of FL285 and below their overflights at FL280. This is then complicated by the fact that you as a pilot have to be level by a point, rather than a line, which is fine if you are on route via TNT, when we will say 'level by TNT'. If, as is most likely in the Daventry sector, you are off route, on a radar heading, this now becomes 'abeam TNT'. The next navaid into EGNT or EGNV is POL, and if it looks like on that heading you'll pass closer to POL than TNT we'll use '45 before POL'. This would happen to be TNT if you were on route as POL is 45 from TNT. If we're using 50 before POL there's probably a good reason we need you lower sooner, ( errant mil traffic immediately springs to mind, but there are other reasons.)
It would be wonderful to have points for all these restrictions as a) it's much shorter to say, which is important when you're busy and b) it's less open to confusion. We had some created for Manchester departures routing south via SAM, MID and BIG. The restrictions were be level 50 before Southampton, Midhurst or Biggin, as appropriate. Quite a mouthful - so after a lot of wrangling and discussion, we had some points created. It takes a few months going through committees and finally we have KIDLI, PEKOX and SOTED. 'Be level SOTED', much quicker and simpler - lovely. Until eight weeks later they move the restriction 5 miles further north. So we now have 'be level 55 before Southampton, Midhurst or Biggin'or 'be level 5 miles before SOTED', or '5 miles before PEKOX'. This is progress, in a NATS sort of way.
Still, to return to EGNT, it would be great to have a point, but in this case because by the time you are approaching TNT you are likely to be some way off route, and therefore away from the point, it would be as easy to say 'abeam TNT' as 'abeam XXXXX', so they won't make a point. As for putting it on the plates, there must be a reason for it, but I don't know it. And we would still have to say 'abeam TNT' or '45 before POL' and sometimes '50 before POL'
If this all seems terribly confusing, I'm very sorry, I'll have another go later. Good Luck
It would be wonderful to have points for all these restrictions as a) it's much shorter to say, which is important when you're busy and b) it's less open to confusion. We had some created for Manchester departures routing south via SAM, MID and BIG. The restrictions were be level 50 before Southampton, Midhurst or Biggin, as appropriate. Quite a mouthful - so after a lot of wrangling and discussion, we had some points created. It takes a few months going through committees and finally we have KIDLI, PEKOX and SOTED. 'Be level SOTED', much quicker and simpler - lovely. Until eight weeks later they move the restriction 5 miles further north. So we now have 'be level 55 before Southampton, Midhurst or Biggin'or 'be level 5 miles before SOTED', or '5 miles before PEKOX'. This is progress, in a NATS sort of way.
Still, to return to EGNT, it would be great to have a point, but in this case because by the time you are approaching TNT you are likely to be some way off route, and therefore away from the point, it would be as easy to say 'abeam TNT' as 'abeam XXXXX', so they won't make a point. As for putting it on the plates, there must be a reason for it, but I don't know it. And we would still have to say 'abeam TNT' or '45 before POL' and sometimes '50 before POL'
If this all seems terribly confusing, I'm very sorry, I'll have another go later. Good Luck
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swanwick, England
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin.
This may be a shock but you are not the only aircraft in the sky.
May I suggest you arrange a visit to your friendly ATC centre down here in sunny Hampshire, where you will be able to see the one or two or twenty aircraft tracking west from the North Sea direction from FL300 up to FL380 and you will see exactly why you have to be descended early.
In relation to the reprogramming of the FMC, me and my colleagues give a clearance to expect a level by in the Luton area, so I'm sure it's not that difficult to add an extra five miles to the distance, or have you forgotten how to work it.
The 45 miles before POL is usually standard practice, but when you've got a whole gaggle of traffic going to Lakes and Manchester that you want to transfer, a NT inbound doing a last minute dirty dive is not comfortable, that's why an extra few comfort miles is added to the restriction.
As an example of a last minute descent, into CC I know but very similar, a 'professional charter airline, was given FL200 25nm before TNT with lots of time to achieve it. Our rate of descent readout on the TDB indicated he was doing 8000 ft per min at one point. How comfortable was that for the passengers?
I asked how his eardrums were before I transferred him but was unable to understand the garble, maybe he couldn't hear me!!
This may be a shock but you are not the only aircraft in the sky.
May I suggest you arrange a visit to your friendly ATC centre down here in sunny Hampshire, where you will be able to see the one or two or twenty aircraft tracking west from the North Sea direction from FL300 up to FL380 and you will see exactly why you have to be descended early.
In relation to the reprogramming of the FMC, me and my colleagues give a clearance to expect a level by in the Luton area, so I'm sure it's not that difficult to add an extra five miles to the distance, or have you forgotten how to work it.
The 45 miles before POL is usually standard practice, but when you've got a whole gaggle of traffic going to Lakes and Manchester that you want to transfer, a NT inbound doing a last minute dirty dive is not comfortable, that's why an extra few comfort miles is added to the restriction.
As an example of a last minute descent, into CC I know but very similar, a 'professional charter airline, was given FL200 25nm before TNT with lots of time to achieve it. Our rate of descent readout on the TDB indicated he was doing 8000 ft per min at one point. How comfortable was that for the passengers?
I asked how his eardrums were before I transferred him but was unable to understand the garble, maybe he couldn't hear me!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North of the UK's no.1 aircraft carrier parking spot
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys
I posted something to a similar forum recently - a lot of the level planning info (as it's called) is in the back of the NATS Standard Route Doc. Although the information is conditional (i.e. like levels on SID/STAR plates, all are subject to tactical instruction by ATC), airline ops planners should be using this info to plan 'fuel' flight plans and where possible get the info into the FMS. Suggest the pilots on this thread ask their ops folk what they're doing with the SRD info.
Byeee
Norma
I posted something to a similar forum recently - a lot of the level planning info (as it's called) is in the back of the NATS Standard Route Doc. Although the information is conditional (i.e. like levels on SID/STAR plates, all are subject to tactical instruction by ATC), airline ops planners should be using this info to plan 'fuel' flight plans and where possible get the info into the FMS. Suggest the pilots on this thread ask their ops folk what they're doing with the SRD info.
Byeee
Norma
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
javelin
Controllers are hampered by our manuals. The Ops and ATC procedures office bods will dictate the peculiar target levels; initially they make good sense, but with continually-changing airspace and procedures they are not so easy to understand.
e.g. ......FL200 level 20 miles before MONTY.....[20 miles before MONTY is actually a point ...exactly at NITON]
e.g.......FL140 level 40 miles before OCK/MID....we are forbidden to say xxxxxx miles before NIGIT as it appears on the STAR level planning chart.
e.g.......FL180 level 15 miles before NIGIT......in this case we are forbidden to say xxxxxmiles before OCK....even though the LRL1S goes via OCK.
Reason .......different people in the office at different times write different instructions.
43% of controlling at Swanwick is done by trainees, they will clear you to one waypoint.....wait until you have deleted previous from the "Brain"....and then clear you to be level by a place you've just deleted......ever thought of having a controller along for a FAM flight?
e.g. ......FL200 level 20 miles before MONTY.....[20 miles before MONTY is actually a point ...exactly at NITON]
e.g.......FL140 level 40 miles before OCK/MID....we are forbidden to say xxxxxx miles before NIGIT as it appears on the STAR level planning chart.
e.g.......FL180 level 15 miles before NIGIT......in this case we are forbidden to say xxxxxmiles before OCK....even though the LRL1S goes via OCK.
Reason .......different people in the office at different times write different instructions.
43% of controlling at Swanwick is done by trainees, they will clear you to one waypoint.....wait until you have deleted previous from the "Brain"....and then clear you to be level by a place you've just deleted......ever thought of having a controller along for a FAM flight?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
055166k
It is constantly said on THIS forum chaps - famil flights ARE available (or at least, were, a few weeks ago!).
It is up to YOU to ask for them, and badger your managers until you get them.
ever thought of having a controller along for a FAM flight?
It is up to YOU to ask for them, and badger your managers until you get them.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
055166k
Do you know why you are forbidden from using a clearance relative to NIGIT rather than OCK? I must admit I find this one a bit of a pain. I think it is because I don't come this way very often, when I do I have been awake for too many hours and I have the sun rising in my eyes - all of which makes my poor brain a tad sluggish!
I suppose it could be because the descent planning shows to expect 140 10DME before NIGIT and NIGIT is at OCK 27DME, thereby not quite making the "140 level OCK 40DME" required by the standing agreement to TC OCK?
Maybe the people from the office need to come on a Fam flight?
G W-H
Do you know why you are forbidden from using a clearance relative to NIGIT rather than OCK? I must admit I find this one a bit of a pain. I think it is because I don't come this way very often, when I do I have been awake for too many hours and I have the sun rising in my eyes - all of which makes my poor brain a tad sluggish!
I suppose it could be because the descent planning shows to expect 140 10DME before NIGIT and NIGIT is at OCK 27DME, thereby not quite making the "140 level OCK 40DME" required by the standing agreement to TC OCK?
Maybe the people from the office need to come on a Fam flight?
G W-H
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MancBoy.
I do visit ATC, at area level at MAN and at local level at LBA and NCL. I try and encourage fam flights and have done dozens over the last 10 years.
Yes I can reprogramme the box quickly, my question was why can't we have a bit more standardisation regarding locations and publications of levels.
The other posters have given a valuable insight into the - er - interesting way that NATS does their business and to that, I sympathise.
Now, to stay with the thread but wander from side to side a bit -
What is MAN up to by not letting us down below FL140 until we are north of the MME centreline inbound NCL ?
This puts us 3,000' high on profile for 07 with nack all chance of getting the height off without full speedbrake. After the fuel guzzling descent over the Midlands, to then be held high is just a real pisser !
Feedback welcome please
I do visit ATC, at area level at MAN and at local level at LBA and NCL. I try and encourage fam flights and have done dozens over the last 10 years.
Yes I can reprogramme the box quickly, my question was why can't we have a bit more standardisation regarding locations and publications of levels.
The other posters have given a valuable insight into the - er - interesting way that NATS does their business and to that, I sympathise.
Now, to stay with the thread but wander from side to side a bit -
What is MAN up to by not letting us down below FL140 until we are north of the MME centreline inbound NCL ?
This puts us 3,000' high on profile for 07 with nack all chance of getting the height off without full speedbrake. After the fuel guzzling descent over the Midlands, to then be held high is just a real pisser !
Feedback welcome please
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swanwick, England
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin, when visiting Manc do they pop the filters off so you can see the oceanic traffic transiting the Lakes sector?
Oops, sorry, Manc never turn their filters off!
Javelin, standardisation can only go so far, as every day in the world of ATC is different. Whilst one method may work in one situation, it might well not work in another.
As an aside, we need to see more pilots coming to the centres and sitting next to us on the radars.
-
Oops, sorry, Manc never turn their filters off!
Javelin, standardisation can only go so far, as every day in the world of ATC is different. Whilst one method may work in one situation, it might well not work in another.
As an aside, we need to see more pilots coming to the centres and sitting next to us on the radars.
-
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot, I have no doubt at all that you do an excellent job, and the skies are very full of lots of little squares - I have enough work trying to maintain situational awareness of the few miles around me, so I know that doing it for one or two whole LATCC sectors at a time is hard work.
HOWEVER, a few questions.....
Once we have been routed direct to WCO, we've lost TOBID from the flight plan. If you want to apply level restrictions inbound to WCO or BNN, then why not just send us to TOBID? The 200 extra yards it "saves" by giving us the more direct routine is a lot less significant than the actual hassle (and potential inaccuracies) of reprogramming waypoints and restrictions into the FMGC - when as has been pointed out - they were correctly set up 30 minutes ago.
Why, when it is no longer on the flight plan, are we still being sent to MCT on the way back south? We then have to concoct something in our computer which isn't an airway at all to get an onward routing. OK, we're going to be put back on a heading at some stage - but this being so, just put us on a heading.
It's always the way that the days we are held at 6000' out of LHR are the days when we are expected to make a completely unfeasible level 45 before POL. Likewise (so as not to miss out ScATCC) FL290 at KELLY. Yes, technically, i might be able to make these restrictions - but I'll waste 5 minutes coming back to about 230 knots to achieve it and then have to fly another 5 minutes at full power to accelerate back to a sensible cruise speed. It's easier just to say "max level at TNT is FL300" or "max level at KELLY is FL260". I trust you'd rather know what we can easily and safely achieve, not have us staggering up to unachievable levels at all sorts of non-standard speeds, just to demonstrate our manhood. Wouldn't you? If not, then perhaps more realistic boxes wouldn't go amiss.
What is it with the descent towards Belfast? FL260 by REMSI? Actually, I want to be at about FL190 by then, on a normal day. And why is it that some days (regardless of traffic) we are not given descent below FL120, some days we are given an apparently radar control continuous descent, and some days, we are given a descent on the basis that we accept RIS or RAS?
And back into my box now .....
HOWEVER, a few questions.....
Once we have been routed direct to WCO, we've lost TOBID from the flight plan. If you want to apply level restrictions inbound to WCO or BNN, then why not just send us to TOBID? The 200 extra yards it "saves" by giving us the more direct routine is a lot less significant than the actual hassle (and potential inaccuracies) of reprogramming waypoints and restrictions into the FMGC - when as has been pointed out - they were correctly set up 30 minutes ago.
Why, when it is no longer on the flight plan, are we still being sent to MCT on the way back south? We then have to concoct something in our computer which isn't an airway at all to get an onward routing. OK, we're going to be put back on a heading at some stage - but this being so, just put us on a heading.
It's always the way that the days we are held at 6000' out of LHR are the days when we are expected to make a completely unfeasible level 45 before POL. Likewise (so as not to miss out ScATCC) FL290 at KELLY. Yes, technically, i might be able to make these restrictions - but I'll waste 5 minutes coming back to about 230 knots to achieve it and then have to fly another 5 minutes at full power to accelerate back to a sensible cruise speed. It's easier just to say "max level at TNT is FL300" or "max level at KELLY is FL260". I trust you'd rather know what we can easily and safely achieve, not have us staggering up to unachievable levels at all sorts of non-standard speeds, just to demonstrate our manhood. Wouldn't you? If not, then perhaps more realistic boxes wouldn't go amiss.
What is it with the descent towards Belfast? FL260 by REMSI? Actually, I want to be at about FL190 by then, on a normal day. And why is it that some days (regardless of traffic) we are not given descent below FL120, some days we are given an apparently radar control continuous descent, and some days, we are given a descent on the basis that we accept RIS or RAS?
And back into my box now .....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the 'level by' is to ensure that you make internal co-ordination levels (amongst ATC units) - I think it unlikely that these will are integrated into Jepps or Airads. Hence the 'expect FLxxx' on many flights - eg climbouts from Belshaft. If you can't make these levels, we really need to know ... BEFORE it happens ! Perhaps our route creators need to get out the office more and speak to Jepps etc.. ...... but then again everyting changes so often and so much that we loose track anyway 
Young Paul wrote ...
<What is it with the descent towards Belfast? FL260 by REMSI? Actually, I want to be at about FL190 by then, on a normal day.>
The descent restriction is to ensure that you will be out of the Southwest (HiLevel) Sector (and into Antrim (LowLevel) Sector) by IOM. Trouble with FL190 is that it would drop you out the bottom (ooh err) of controlled airspace (which is why you might get RIS (or RAS if the controller decides that because you are technically 'crossing' the Advisory Route W911D and in Class F airspace, he might upgrade it to a RAS. (Note. we at ScACC Civil are forbidden by our management from providing a RAS outside controlled airspace unless you are flying on an Advisory Route - henced RIS for all the Eastflights out of Aberdeeen)
<And why is it that some days (regardless of traffic) we are not given descent below FL120, some days we are given an apparently radar control continuous descent, and some days, we are given a descent on the basis that we accept RIS or RAS?>
Standing Agreement level into Aldergrove/City is FL100, however if there were a couple of inbounds coming through Turnberry, or a slow descending inbound ahead of you that hadn't vacated FL100, we might just stop you at FL120, co-ordinate that with EGAA and then we can transfer you earlier .. to enable EGAA to start working you into their radar pattern. Or there might be a 'survey flight' over the city up to FL110, or radar off and procedural approaches, or an overflight, or .... or .... controller whim
Some controllers (particularly trainees) will religiously not clear you to a level which 'might' drop you out the bottom of controlled airspace - hence 'stepped' descents ... FL200, FL140 then FL100 ... however old lags (who don't have an instructor to please or impending validation board to pass) will just anticipate your rate of descent, decide that you're unlikely to drop out and clear you 'when ready' all the way down to FL100.
Does that make sense ?
Young Paul wrote ...
<What is it with the descent towards Belfast? FL260 by REMSI? Actually, I want to be at about FL190 by then, on a normal day.>
The descent restriction is to ensure that you will be out of the Southwest (HiLevel) Sector (and into Antrim (LowLevel) Sector) by IOM. Trouble with FL190 is that it would drop you out the bottom (ooh err) of controlled airspace (which is why you might get RIS (or RAS if the controller decides that because you are technically 'crossing' the Advisory Route W911D and in Class F airspace, he might upgrade it to a RAS. (Note. we at ScACC Civil are forbidden by our management from providing a RAS outside controlled airspace unless you are flying on an Advisory Route - henced RIS for all the Eastflights out of Aberdeeen)
<And why is it that some days (regardless of traffic) we are not given descent below FL120, some days we are given an apparently radar control continuous descent, and some days, we are given a descent on the basis that we accept RIS or RAS?>
Standing Agreement level into Aldergrove/City is FL100, however if there were a couple of inbounds coming through Turnberry, or a slow descending inbound ahead of you that hadn't vacated FL100, we might just stop you at FL120, co-ordinate that with EGAA and then we can transfer you earlier .. to enable EGAA to start working you into their radar pattern. Or there might be a 'survey flight' over the city up to FL110, or radar off and procedural approaches, or an overflight, or .... or .... controller whim
Some controllers (particularly trainees) will religiously not clear you to a level which 'might' drop you out the bottom of controlled airspace - hence 'stepped' descents ... FL200, FL140 then FL100 ... however old lags (who don't have an instructor to please or impending validation board to pass) will just anticipate your rate of descent, decide that you're unlikely to drop out and clear you 'when ready' all the way down to FL100.
Does that make sense ?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's always amusing to hear a pilot talk about having to start down and figure this or that out with all of the fancy avionics. Most (not all obviously) fail to think that there are many other aircraft out there all crossing here and there on direct routes and hardly anyone on airways.
If we leave them up to long and try to slow them for sequence then they aren't happy. If we try to get them below all the crossing traffic so that we can ensure that they are going to make the crossing restrictions and be able to have enough control of speeds at the lower altitudes to sequence, they aren't happy. There just don't seem to be anyone out there but them <sigh>.
Then the issue of "that fix isn't on my FMS route, how do I find it." It almost makes you wonder if anyone has a chart out or if they are keeping up with it while flying. (yes folks, I am a pilot too.) Far to many folks seem to have forgotten the basics and are letting the aircraft and avionics do everything and have forgotten the rudements of flying. How do I make my crossing restriction without first getting it into the FMS and let it figure out everything. It can't be done aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! What did we do prior to all of this wonderful glass stuff?
Oh well, enough of my rant. Sorry folks, I am tired, it has been a long day and a day of no use of call signs, is that for me or no response at all while "safe" at cruise just is wearing...
regards
Scott
PS. I've probably visited ATC in London and Frankfurt more than most pilots who use those airports on a regular basis.
If we leave them up to long and try to slow them for sequence then they aren't happy. If we try to get them below all the crossing traffic so that we can ensure that they are going to make the crossing restrictions and be able to have enough control of speeds at the lower altitudes to sequence, they aren't happy. There just don't seem to be anyone out there but them <sigh>.
Then the issue of "that fix isn't on my FMS route, how do I find it." It almost makes you wonder if anyone has a chart out or if they are keeping up with it while flying. (yes folks, I am a pilot too.) Far to many folks seem to have forgotten the basics and are letting the aircraft and avionics do everything and have forgotten the rudements of flying. How do I make my crossing restriction without first getting it into the FMS and let it figure out everything. It can't be done aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! What did we do prior to all of this wonderful glass stuff?
Oh well, enough of my rant. Sorry folks, I am tired, it has been a long day and a day of no use of call signs, is that for me or no response at all while "safe" at cruise just is wearing...
regards
Scott
PS. I've probably visited ATC in London and Frankfurt more than most pilots who use those airports on a regular basis.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southampton
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to put my oar in for the moment . . . . . .
055...
and,
Unless I'm very much mistaken nothing forbids you from giving that restriction - I have regularly given 13 miles before NIGIT to a Heathrow inbound and a Lightening Bolt has yet to strike me down. You're not being monitored all the time you know - and, if your LCE does catch you please pass on what his/her arguement was please.
Young Paul..
Couldn't agree more - I have spent, and will spend, hours of my time instructing on just this point. My rule is "If you are going to give a level restriction by a point then that's where the plane should go". You should see me cringe on my high chair when I hear my UT saying "xxxx route direct DUB descend FL240 by VATRY"
I don't actually do those sectors but, correct me if I'm wrong, If a controller gives a restriction in the descent "to be level by xxx" there is nothing to stop you descending earlier! We do have a similar situation with Dublin inbounds via TOLKA where, officially, we have to give a restriction of FL240, to ensure descent below Shannon airspace although on the 9 days out of 10 that they are on Westerlies I've regularly seen aircraft passing TOLKA at FL100!
I can see your point here but I have to agree with Scott here - If I clear you to somewhere that you're not expecting then tell me! I will then do 1 of 2 things - Tell you I've made an error 
(these overflying routes change all the bl**dy time) or, tell you why I want you to route via xxx and then how to get back on to your flight planned route. Let's please not all forget that we are Controllers here, and a good "direct xxx" can do wonders for setting up a conflict resolution! One of our "WestEnd regulars" is the budget airline who flight plan L9 for Gatwick - again I tell my UT's when giving a route give NIGIT WLO1H, the crew might not be expecting it but say it's where you want them to go!
Have had no lasting complaints yet
055...
e.g.......FL140 level 40 miles before OCK/MID....we are forbidden to say xxxxxx miles before NIGIT as it appears on the STAR level planning chart.
e.g.......FL180 level 15 miles before NIGIT......in this case we are forbidden to say xxxxxmiles before OCK....even though the LRL1S goes via OCK.
Young Paul..
Once we have been routed direct to WCO, we've lost TOBID from the flight plan. If you want to apply level restrictions inbound to WCO or BNN, then why not just send us to TOBID? The 200 extra yards it "saves" by giving us the more direct routine is a lot less significant than the actual hassle (and potential inaccuracies) of reprogramming waypoints and restrictions into the FMGC - when as has been pointed out - they were correctly set up 30 minutes ago.
What is it with the descent towards Belfast? FL260 by REMSI? Actually, I want to be at about FL190 by then
Why, when it is no longer on the flight plan, are we still being sent to MCT on the way back south?
(these overflying routes change all the bl**dy time) or, tell you why I want you to route via xxx and then how to get back on to your flight planned route. Let's please not all forget that we are Controllers here, and a good "direct xxx" can do wonders for setting up a conflict resolution! One of our "WestEnd regulars" is the budget airline who flight plan L9 for Gatwick - again I tell my UT's when giving a route give NIGIT WLO1H, the crew might not be expecting it but say it's where you want them to go!Have had no lasting complaints yet
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StillDark&Hungry
I am pleased to hear you are allowed to issue 140 13DME before NIGIT, now if the chart makers would just show the corrct position instead of 10DME... (still - might explain if aircraft are often ending up 1000' high!)
Scott
I think that Young Paul was merely pointing out that MCT was removed from the STAR a while back. Anyone can put MCT in the box, but where next in the event of R/T failure/congestion? (I won't even ask if it was co-ordinated with TC COWLY!!). We all know that WCO used to follow MCT, but what about TOBID? Maybe I am wrong and the controller did give a full route to BNN to Young Paul, but they didn't to me a while back.
(As an aside - I can never join controlled airspace level at FL260 and I personally find it easier to join the xxx track inbound WCO rather than intercept the MCT-WCO track - especially as MCT is not on my route southbound, and is no longer displayed on the STAR chart and my memory for frequencies is biased southwards).
Incedentally, on short haul we very rarely get the charts out (except SIDs/STARs). Maybe that needs to be addressed?
Just to prove that you can't please all the people all of the time, I would rather get the 200yrd shortcut that Young Paul doesn't want and put up with the hassle of putting it in the tin brain (or just press FLCH).
Just my thoughts
G W-H
I am pleased to hear you are allowed to issue 140 13DME before NIGIT, now if the chart makers would just show the corrct position instead of 10DME... (still - might explain if aircraft are often ending up 1000' high!)
Scott
I think that Young Paul was merely pointing out that MCT was removed from the STAR a while back. Anyone can put MCT in the box, but where next in the event of R/T failure/congestion? (I won't even ask if it was co-ordinated with TC COWLY!!). We all know that WCO used to follow MCT, but what about TOBID? Maybe I am wrong and the controller did give a full route to BNN to Young Paul, but they didn't to me a while back.
(As an aside - I can never join controlled airspace level at FL260 and I personally find it easier to join the xxx track inbound WCO rather than intercept the MCT-WCO track - especially as MCT is not on my route southbound, and is no longer displayed on the STAR chart and my memory for frequencies is biased southwards).
Incedentally, on short haul we very rarely get the charts out (except SIDs/STARs). Maybe that needs to be addressed?
Just to prove that you can't please all the people all of the time, I would rather get the 200yrd shortcut that Young Paul doesn't want and put up with the hassle of putting it in the tin brain (or just press FLCH).
Just my thoughts
G W-H
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can put restrictions and waypoints back in fairly easily. But we may only have 5 minutes in the cruise - during which time we are supposed to get the weather from destination and alternate; program and brief the approach; and talk to the passengers. Reprogramming the arrival - (direct routing, then working out abeam positions and putting in new restrictions) is perfectly doable, and I'm not looking for anybody's sympathy - but when we have set it all up perfectly adequately before we departed - its an extra unnecessary task at a busy stage of the flight.
I'm not disputing the busy-ness of the airspace and the workload on the controllers, Scott - but I don't deliberately increase their workload, I do what I can to comply with their instructions. Can't they do their bit to help us out? Or at least know what our concerns are?
Thanks for the replies, BTW - this is a very informative thread.
I'm not disputing the busy-ness of the airspace and the workload on the controllers, Scott - but I don't deliberately increase their workload, I do what I can to comply with their instructions. Can't they do their bit to help us out? Or at least know what our concerns are?
Thanks for the replies, BTW - this is a very informative thread.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott,
As you folks embrace new technology in the ATC side, we as pilots have to embrace new technology in the flying side. The aeroplane designers improve things, automate things and devise SOP's to operate the aeroplane as it was designed. Our company trains us to operate the aeroplane in that manner and it requires of us a good knowledge of programming the MCDU.
Now we throw in locked flight deck door, CRM, sterile cockpits, no paperwork in climb and descent and you may see where the problem lies.
We do sectors of 1.5 to 10.5 hours on 3 different aeroplane types with 4 different engine types - a good brief is recommended and hopefully by top of descent, we have a cunning plan for the rest of the flight.
If ATC start throwing different routes, level by here etc, we either reprogramme, or drop back to clockwork techniques which may or may not work. All in all it adds to the workload in a busy environment, when we should be focussed on a safe and expeditious arrival.
I get on and do it, as do all my colleagues. What this thread seems to highlight is a lack of communication between the grown ups on both sides. They need to establish how one side wants do divide airspace blocks and the other side wants to efficiently fly modern glass cockpit aeroplanes.
As usual, the workers get the brown end of the stick and get on in an unsatisfactory environment !
As you folks embrace new technology in the ATC side, we as pilots have to embrace new technology in the flying side. The aeroplane designers improve things, automate things and devise SOP's to operate the aeroplane as it was designed. Our company trains us to operate the aeroplane in that manner and it requires of us a good knowledge of programming the MCDU.
Now we throw in locked flight deck door, CRM, sterile cockpits, no paperwork in climb and descent and you may see where the problem lies.
We do sectors of 1.5 to 10.5 hours on 3 different aeroplane types with 4 different engine types - a good brief is recommended and hopefully by top of descent, we have a cunning plan for the rest of the flight.
If ATC start throwing different routes, level by here etc, we either reprogramme, or drop back to clockwork techniques which may or may not work. All in all it adds to the workload in a busy environment, when we should be focussed on a safe and expeditious arrival.
I get on and do it, as do all my colleagues. What this thread seems to highlight is a lack of communication between the grown ups on both sides. They need to establish how one side wants do divide airspace blocks and the other side wants to efficiently fly modern glass cockpit aeroplanes.
As usual, the workers get the brown end of the stick and get on in an unsatisfactory environment !
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and that's another thing. Leaving us high and slowing us down completely stuffs us - a slow descent means a small angle of descent, so if we have been left high as well, we are never going to get close to our desired profile. Either tell us early that we will be doing a low speed descent so that we can plan on it (and request an earlier TOD in accordance with it), or give us late descent then let us manage the speed. Please!
... and asking us to reduce to 160 kts just as we start down the glideslope makes it hard work for us, too. A speed reduction 1.5 or 2 miles before the glideslope would make the whole thing much better.
... and asking us to reduce to 160 kts just as we start down the glideslope makes it hard work for us, too. A speed reduction 1.5 or 2 miles before the glideslope would make the whole thing much better.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonderful discussion going on here <G>... The lovely stuff of automated aircraft...
One particular fam flight going into LAX and got to watch an F/O get further and further behind trying to reprogram the FMS for a runway change at the last moment so that the controllers could MAXIMIZE the amount of aircraft they could get on the ground and cut down on the delay time of aircraft trying to get in. The old and rather crusty Capt. finally shaking his head leaned over and said "Son, we're going to be over the Pacific and still westbound by the time you figure that out. How about putting all that electronic crap down and grabbing a hand full of airplane and flying it like it meant to be <G>..." Then the Capt. stated, I have the airplane. Instructed the F/O to tune in the ILS manually with the VOR and grabbed a handfull of throttle and pulled back to start the puppy down. Worked like a charm <G>. Now, I do know that it is a bit more difficult for those flying some airbus products to do some of that. But not to sound crass, that is your airlines problem and not mine for buying them.
We as always are going to have to juggle sequences and routes to get the MOST out of the system to get as many aircraft both off the ground and in the air as well as back on the ground. We could indeed allow all aircraft to fly coupled and completely stable arrivals and approachs from hundreds of miles out. But you would have to start carrying a LOT more fuel on board to take care of all the holding that you would have to do so that everyone could do what it was that they wanted to do. It isn't pretty.
Not only do the same aircraft not fly the same on arrival or departure profiles, even the same aircraft from the same company who are supposed to be trained the same and have the same operating profiles don't. Now that they have thrown the RJ's into the mix it is even WORSE... Then lets talk about the folks who KNOW that they are going to have to cross a fix at a certain altitude at a certain speed going into a busy airport. ( in my case, the worlds third busiest. Heathrow is behind it.) and they see no problem when given a PD decent and hold it up to the very last moment and expect to be able to do 320 KIAS all the way down, while the controller is talking a mile a minute. Granted, hopefully the controller should have noticed that this person was still at FL410 80 miles from the crossing point, but we sometimes get a bit busy with the 25 aircraft that we are working with both sequencing and missing those pesky overflights. <G> Or those who you tell to start down 150 miles out due to traffic and trying to get those folks who are cruising along at FL390 down so that you can get them at the same speed as those Hawkers or Citations who are also in the conga line trying to get into the airport. You start the guy down (NO PD) and when you look back they have gone down a whopping 1500 feet in 30 miles. Yes gents, when we start you down we want you to come down like it is YOUR idea <G>... Then since they are way high, we have to start the vector game to keep them in the conga line as well as slow them, and now they aren't happy. Well they already weren't happy because we started them down before the god of FMS told them it was optimal <G>. Shoot, if we were able to do things optimal, the airlines wouldn't schedule 120 arrivals for a 15 minute window <G>...
Well enough of this for now, time for a bit of dinner.... Let the fun continue <G>...
regards
Scott
One particular fam flight going into LAX and got to watch an F/O get further and further behind trying to reprogram the FMS for a runway change at the last moment so that the controllers could MAXIMIZE the amount of aircraft they could get on the ground and cut down on the delay time of aircraft trying to get in. The old and rather crusty Capt. finally shaking his head leaned over and said "Son, we're going to be over the Pacific and still westbound by the time you figure that out. How about putting all that electronic crap down and grabbing a hand full of airplane and flying it like it meant to be <G>..." Then the Capt. stated, I have the airplane. Instructed the F/O to tune in the ILS manually with the VOR and grabbed a handfull of throttle and pulled back to start the puppy down. Worked like a charm <G>. Now, I do know that it is a bit more difficult for those flying some airbus products to do some of that. But not to sound crass, that is your airlines problem and not mine for buying them.
We as always are going to have to juggle sequences and routes to get the MOST out of the system to get as many aircraft both off the ground and in the air as well as back on the ground. We could indeed allow all aircraft to fly coupled and completely stable arrivals and approachs from hundreds of miles out. But you would have to start carrying a LOT more fuel on board to take care of all the holding that you would have to do so that everyone could do what it was that they wanted to do. It isn't pretty.
Not only do the same aircraft not fly the same on arrival or departure profiles, even the same aircraft from the same company who are supposed to be trained the same and have the same operating profiles don't. Now that they have thrown the RJ's into the mix it is even WORSE... Then lets talk about the folks who KNOW that they are going to have to cross a fix at a certain altitude at a certain speed going into a busy airport. ( in my case, the worlds third busiest. Heathrow is behind it.) and they see no problem when given a PD decent and hold it up to the very last moment and expect to be able to do 320 KIAS all the way down, while the controller is talking a mile a minute. Granted, hopefully the controller should have noticed that this person was still at FL410 80 miles from the crossing point, but we sometimes get a bit busy with the 25 aircraft that we are working with both sequencing and missing those pesky overflights. <G> Or those who you tell to start down 150 miles out due to traffic and trying to get those folks who are cruising along at FL390 down so that you can get them at the same speed as those Hawkers or Citations who are also in the conga line trying to get into the airport. You start the guy down (NO PD) and when you look back they have gone down a whopping 1500 feet in 30 miles. Yes gents, when we start you down we want you to come down like it is YOUR idea <G>... Then since they are way high, we have to start the vector game to keep them in the conga line as well as slow them, and now they aren't happy. Well they already weren't happy because we started them down before the god of FMS told them it was optimal <G>. Shoot, if we were able to do things optimal, the airlines wouldn't schedule 120 arrivals for a 15 minute window <G>...
Well enough of this for now, time for a bit of dinner.... Let the fun continue <G>...
regards
Scott
If you don't like the the variable a PD descent comes with, don't issue it. I had a three week old on board a few weeks back. Asked for and started down early so as to be easy on his/her ears(couldn't tell) Same arrival different day I was a bit lower than desired on gas because of a long hold down earlier. I stayed as high as I could as long as I could. Same arrival, different day, different set of circumstances. Lateral and vertical nav restrictions met both days on differing profiles.
Lets not turn this in to your little pilot bitchfest as you have a tendancy to do. I don't pretend to have your big picture, try not to fly the plane for me.
Okay?
Lets not turn this in to your little pilot bitchfest as you have a tendancy to do. I don't pretend to have your big picture, try not to fly the plane for me.
Okay?