Concorde – An alternative view.
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
Overload, without wanting to sound patronising, I thought that was well-handled 
.
In the Aerodrome environment, Concorde is not terribly different to anything else (the other day a colleague of mine had to tell a Midland 320 to slow down because he was catching Concorde up, thus eroding the vortex spacing on final!
), plus we get to see it out the window every day, fantastic!
However, I would have to plug in on Bristol, Strumble and Lands End sectors for a while before I started branding people 'pathetic' for what appears to be a quite legitimate post.
Gonzo.
[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: Gonzo ]
.In the Aerodrome environment, Concorde is not terribly different to anything else (the other day a colleague of mine had to tell a Midland 320 to slow down because he was catching Concorde up, thus eroding the vortex spacing on final!
), plus we get to see it out the window every day, fantastic!However, I would have to plug in on Bristol, Strumble and Lands End sectors for a while before I started branding people 'pathetic' for what appears to be a quite legitimate post.
Gonzo.
[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: Gonzo ]
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: Fareham U.K.
Overload, I consider that you have raised a discussion point completely professionally. Having been a BHD controller in the past and subsequentally a BHD CSC the problems that you have raised are completely valid. We are able to cope with Concorde solely because there are only 2 a day. Imagine if the projections of the 1960's were correct and there had been 40-50 a day! I suspect that your severest critics would have been totally unable to cope with that level. I know that I, even when radar valid, would have been totally out of my depth in that situation. It is very easy to criticise others who have the honesty to admit their shortfalls and limits!! I certainly would not have been able to radar control at LATCC over the age of 50. I WILL NOT CRITICISE SOMEONE WHO DOES
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would like to start off by thanking Overload for his thoughtful, considered reply to various criticisms which were levelled at him. In addition I am sorry if you were offended by any criticisms I had, although I should point out that I am not critical of you as a person, purely your percieved inability to deal with one aircraft.
I would be delighted to respond to your post, and give an "alternative" view of things down the west end, lest our Pilot colleagues feel that the job is beyond all of us.
You point out that, to the west of the Accel point, there are 9 UAR's that can come in to conflict with the Concorde. Agreed. But how many of these track North/South? 3.. Now surely these are the routes that affect the Concorde. The reason? Well, all the other routes are predominently E/W, and due to the off-route status we have, A/c on these routes can be vectored away from the UAR's. Indeed, in most cases, you find that by sending A/C direct to their OEPs, they stay nicely away from the UARs.. It is the N/S routes which predominantly affect the acceleration of the Concorde, and of these, I am sure you will agree that LND-BANBA is the main culprit. Now how many A/C do you actually get on this route? Well, not too many, let's be honest. EIDW i/b do not really come in to play as they are always descended early, so what is left, as you rightly say, are i/b for EGPF/PK, etc, &, er, Iceland i/b traffic. hhmm, now be honest, there's not really TOO much of that, is there?. So if you are unfortunate to have one of these conflicts, and we've all been there, what are the options? Descent or vectoring. I would suggest that descent is the preferred option (although I have had one A/C request to be vectored behind the Concorde); so the problem, in your mind, is that an A/C routing LND-BANBA has to be descended earlier than he wants.. So is that any different from descending LTMA i/b tfc early on UG1 against conflicting traffic N/S through BCN? Or descending EIDW/EICK traffic coming up through LIZAD early against traffic crossing at LND. Of course not. It is the same principle, and that is what we are paid to do. I know it is tough luck on the operators, but that's life. What can you do? Stop all UA25 traffic so that LTMA i/b can be descended "when ready"? Or stop A/C tracking west of DAWLY to allow EIDW/EICK to descend "when ready"? That is an ideal world, but, of course, an unrealistic one. The point I am trying to make is that when looked at from this point of view, Concorde is EXACTLY the same as any other A/C in the problems it presents. Every A/C creates difficulties which have to be solved. The "problems" caused by Concorde can be transposed to lots of other areas and situations in the sector..
You also mention that LTMA o/b tfc via EXMOR-MERLY has to be held down at FL250. Er, yes, and your point is..? That often happens when turbulence is around at upper levels, A/C are happy to stay down. It is not a problem. What's more, they are in the Upper Air when west of EXMOR, so I can't see what you are getting at..Furthermore, EIDW & EICK outbounds are now filed at low levels for the cruise; Flying at these levels is not a problem for the A/C..
I see that the I/B Concorde routing to MALBY at FL370 descending also causes you problems. This, of course, is not the case if there is no East or Westbound conflicting A/C. On the occasions where there are, might I suggest that you accept Concorde in to your sector at a level which IS safe? I often ask for Concorde to be FL290 (or whatever) Level abeam EGFF.. Never have I experienced opposition to this from the Pilots, and it EASILY solves any conflictions you may have. At subsonic levels, treat Concorde pretty much as you would any other A/C and you won't go wrong.
Your colleague Crowman points out that there are only 2 Concordes a day. Well that really is the point, isn't it? How many EGDL outbounds do we see every day heading East? Or EGVN outbounds? Or EGCC outbounds conflicting with LTMA inbounds. These all, I would suggest, cause far more thought and test ones ATC skills to a far greater extent, than TWO Concordes..
Your colleague also points out that it is "easy to criticise others who have the honesty to admit their shortfalls and limits". I am trying to point out that Concorde really presents no more problems, when all is considered, than any other A/C or scenario in the sector. If you want to tackle a real problem, how about 5 A/C converging at GIBSO at 6am when you've been up all night...
The West End is a great sector, and different problems and scenarios are presented every day. It is the ability to use flair and initiative in solving these problems which, surely, make the job so enjoyable. Enjoy these times, cos when we get to NERC, flair and initiative will be things of the past..
I would be delighted to respond to your post, and give an "alternative" view of things down the west end, lest our Pilot colleagues feel that the job is beyond all of us.
You point out that, to the west of the Accel point, there are 9 UAR's that can come in to conflict with the Concorde. Agreed. But how many of these track North/South? 3.. Now surely these are the routes that affect the Concorde. The reason? Well, all the other routes are predominently E/W, and due to the off-route status we have, A/c on these routes can be vectored away from the UAR's. Indeed, in most cases, you find that by sending A/C direct to their OEPs, they stay nicely away from the UARs.. It is the N/S routes which predominantly affect the acceleration of the Concorde, and of these, I am sure you will agree that LND-BANBA is the main culprit. Now how many A/C do you actually get on this route? Well, not too many, let's be honest. EIDW i/b do not really come in to play as they are always descended early, so what is left, as you rightly say, are i/b for EGPF/PK, etc, &, er, Iceland i/b traffic. hhmm, now be honest, there's not really TOO much of that, is there?. So if you are unfortunate to have one of these conflicts, and we've all been there, what are the options? Descent or vectoring. I would suggest that descent is the preferred option (although I have had one A/C request to be vectored behind the Concorde); so the problem, in your mind, is that an A/C routing LND-BANBA has to be descended earlier than he wants.. So is that any different from descending LTMA i/b tfc early on UG1 against conflicting traffic N/S through BCN? Or descending EIDW/EICK traffic coming up through LIZAD early against traffic crossing at LND. Of course not. It is the same principle, and that is what we are paid to do. I know it is tough luck on the operators, but that's life. What can you do? Stop all UA25 traffic so that LTMA i/b can be descended "when ready"? Or stop A/C tracking west of DAWLY to allow EIDW/EICK to descend "when ready"? That is an ideal world, but, of course, an unrealistic one. The point I am trying to make is that when looked at from this point of view, Concorde is EXACTLY the same as any other A/C in the problems it presents. Every A/C creates difficulties which have to be solved. The "problems" caused by Concorde can be transposed to lots of other areas and situations in the sector..
You also mention that LTMA o/b tfc via EXMOR-MERLY has to be held down at FL250. Er, yes, and your point is..? That often happens when turbulence is around at upper levels, A/C are happy to stay down. It is not a problem. What's more, they are in the Upper Air when west of EXMOR, so I can't see what you are getting at..Furthermore, EIDW & EICK outbounds are now filed at low levels for the cruise; Flying at these levels is not a problem for the A/C..
I see that the I/B Concorde routing to MALBY at FL370 descending also causes you problems. This, of course, is not the case if there is no East or Westbound conflicting A/C. On the occasions where there are, might I suggest that you accept Concorde in to your sector at a level which IS safe? I often ask for Concorde to be FL290 (or whatever) Level abeam EGFF.. Never have I experienced opposition to this from the Pilots, and it EASILY solves any conflictions you may have. At subsonic levels, treat Concorde pretty much as you would any other A/C and you won't go wrong.
Your colleague Crowman points out that there are only 2 Concordes a day. Well that really is the point, isn't it? How many EGDL outbounds do we see every day heading East? Or EGVN outbounds? Or EGCC outbounds conflicting with LTMA inbounds. These all, I would suggest, cause far more thought and test ones ATC skills to a far greater extent, than TWO Concordes..
Your colleague also points out that it is "easy to criticise others who have the honesty to admit their shortfalls and limits". I am trying to point out that Concorde really presents no more problems, when all is considered, than any other A/C or scenario in the sector. If you want to tackle a real problem, how about 5 A/C converging at GIBSO at 6am when you've been up all night...
The West End is a great sector, and different problems and scenarios are presented every day. It is the ability to use flair and initiative in solving these problems which, surely, make the job so enjoyable. Enjoy these times, cos when we get to NERC, flair and initiative will be things of the past..
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: LATCC
OVERLOAD : I'd just like to point out that isn't a smilie at the end of my post - more of a sneerie...........
If, as you say, you've been in the business for 30 years plus - then surely you must have worked out how to deal with the problems concorde poses. If you've forgotten over the last 18 months then perhaps you should get off the radar.
If you have been on duty recently you'll know just how QUIET it is. NATS is now in such a precarious financial position that ANY extra custom is welcome. I think any pilot reading your 'bleetings' must question the calibre of such an ATCO providing a service at LATCC.
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: Staff Number ]
If, as you say, you've been in the business for 30 years plus - then surely you must have worked out how to deal with the problems concorde poses. If you've forgotten over the last 18 months then perhaps you should get off the radar.
If you have been on duty recently you'll know just how QUIET it is. NATS is now in such a precarious financial position that ANY extra custom is welcome. I think any pilot reading your 'bleetings' must question the calibre of such an ATCO providing a service at LATCC.
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: Staff Number ]
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: UK
Staff Number and 250kts,
good to see you have lived down to Overloads expectations. If either of you are still performing at your best after 30 years then you are not an ATCO at a busy unit, cut the guy some slack.
Staff Number... been on duty recently, yes, the West End split 5 ways with a STU co-ordinator....king busy. Where do you work !!!!!! I doubt its the West End otherwise you would wind your neck in.
good to see you have lived down to Overloads expectations. If either of you are still performing at your best after 30 years then you are not an ATCO at a busy unit, cut the guy some slack.
Staff Number... been on duty recently, yes, the West End split 5 ways with a STU co-ordinator....king busy. Where do you work !!!!!! I doubt its the West End otherwise you would wind your neck in.
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
From: LACC
Been offline for a couple of days, the Lions tour......obviously the Lions were the better team, our only mistake was employing a kiwi( thats someone from Queensland isnt it?) coach. But then i was too busy watching the cricket from India...thats where Aussies play like the Poms.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hi Overload
Been reading this thread, saw it was all getting a little out of hand (as these things can!) and thought I'd drop you a line - hopefully you haven't dropped out of the thread.
I fly the Conc., and must admit was a little surprised to hear that you experienced such problems dealing with us. I offer the following in an attempt to find a fix for the problems you perceive, and if you have any outstanding issues please come back at me - if I cannot resolve them, I'll take them to someone on the fleet who can.
I take your point about departure climb rates, but as soon as noise abate is over (effectively once we've cleared 'WOD' and know we're going to make the subsequent 6000' restriction) we achieve 300+kts very quickly which gives us a consistant 3-4000'fpm climb. It is a little more sporty than the 757 (but not much) but it is consistant (and therefore plannable) - but please: if you want to level us off then do so, of course we'd rather not (no more than any other jet type - again my previous 757 comes to mind) - believe me we'd rather level off than bang into someone else. Most LHR departures do unavoidably involve many level-offs, I have perceived no special handling here over my previous fleet.
Regarding one-way against inbound flow, don't really understand this. I guess there must be a predominant flow according to time of day, but surely these airways are not actually one-way streets, aircraft fly in both directions all day (not just the Conc.)and ATC and its equipment is there to coordinate this? We fly a standard SID and fly standard published routes and very often we even get cleared direct to the accel, if this causes problems then give us vectors - we won't get cross!! And anyway, at F260, aren't we below most conventional jet traffic?
I take your point about the accel itself - it must take a bit of juggling to manage it. Vectors are possible, but we can end up "focussing" a boom on someone's greenhouse - but if it is needed it would be better than a collision! And surely the lack of GS readout is an ATC deficiency? (If you need it just ask us - we've got one :-)
You say we are cleared to F600 and add that we never meet it. The first part of that comment is actually untrue - you clear us to the *block* F450-F600, and we adhere to that clearance with altitude fluctuating with the OAT affecting engine efficiency, but averaging a climb - usually to about F580 on the Atlantic and F600 to Barbados.
Regarding the inbound subsonic bit - yes we descend at the optimum point, but so do all jets - that's the idea. Contrary to popular belief fuel is no tighter than other types - on the inbound sector we can carry as much (and sometimes more) holding fuel as I could doing the same sector on a 767. If you want us to descend at a certain point - please tell us. And if you think the standard routing isn't working then there must be an alternative, but I must say I have perceived no more or less vectoring in the Conc inbound to LHR than other types - and no perceivable extra conflicts on the R/T. We descend at 350kts (not 370) but 320 would be fine too, if you asked for it (320 is actually min. drag at landing weight) - and subsequently standard speeds are not a problem either. We could offer everything from 190 to 380 knots up to base leg - it is a remarkably flexible beastie
!!
(admittedly less than 250 when still significantly before OCK would be less than ideal!!)
To sum up, please don't feel you have to handle us with kid gloves - if we can do something to make your job easier, tell us - it may be an unconventional aircraft, but we can be more flexible than you seem to think.
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]
Been reading this thread, saw it was all getting a little out of hand (as these things can!) and thought I'd drop you a line - hopefully you haven't dropped out of the thread.
I fly the Conc., and must admit was a little surprised to hear that you experienced such problems dealing with us. I offer the following in an attempt to find a fix for the problems you perceive, and if you have any outstanding issues please come back at me - if I cannot resolve them, I'll take them to someone on the fleet who can.
I take your point about departure climb rates, but as soon as noise abate is over (effectively once we've cleared 'WOD' and know we're going to make the subsequent 6000' restriction) we achieve 300+kts very quickly which gives us a consistant 3-4000'fpm climb. It is a little more sporty than the 757 (but not much) but it is consistant (and therefore plannable) - but please: if you want to level us off then do so, of course we'd rather not (no more than any other jet type - again my previous 757 comes to mind) - believe me we'd rather level off than bang into someone else. Most LHR departures do unavoidably involve many level-offs, I have perceived no special handling here over my previous fleet.
Regarding one-way against inbound flow, don't really understand this. I guess there must be a predominant flow according to time of day, but surely these airways are not actually one-way streets, aircraft fly in both directions all day (not just the Conc.)and ATC and its equipment is there to coordinate this? We fly a standard SID and fly standard published routes and very often we even get cleared direct to the accel, if this causes problems then give us vectors - we won't get cross!! And anyway, at F260, aren't we below most conventional jet traffic?
I take your point about the accel itself - it must take a bit of juggling to manage it. Vectors are possible, but we can end up "focussing" a boom on someone's greenhouse - but if it is needed it would be better than a collision! And surely the lack of GS readout is an ATC deficiency? (If you need it just ask us - we've got one :-)
You say we are cleared to F600 and add that we never meet it. The first part of that comment is actually untrue - you clear us to the *block* F450-F600, and we adhere to that clearance with altitude fluctuating with the OAT affecting engine efficiency, but averaging a climb - usually to about F580 on the Atlantic and F600 to Barbados.
Regarding the inbound subsonic bit - yes we descend at the optimum point, but so do all jets - that's the idea. Contrary to popular belief fuel is no tighter than other types - on the inbound sector we can carry as much (and sometimes more) holding fuel as I could doing the same sector on a 767. If you want us to descend at a certain point - please tell us. And if you think the standard routing isn't working then there must be an alternative, but I must say I have perceived no more or less vectoring in the Conc inbound to LHR than other types - and no perceivable extra conflicts on the R/T. We descend at 350kts (not 370) but 320 would be fine too, if you asked for it (320 is actually min. drag at landing weight) - and subsequently standard speeds are not a problem either. We could offer everything from 190 to 380 knots up to base leg - it is a remarkably flexible beastie
!! (admittedly less than 250 when still significantly before OCK would be less than ideal!!)
To sum up, please don't feel you have to handle us with kid gloves - if we can do something to make your job easier, tell us - it may be an unconventional aircraft, but we can be more flexible than you seem to think.
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
From: LACC
NW1 thanks for the post, been controlling you guys for over 10 years and have learnt more about your operation tonight than I care to mention. Good to see that PPrune still has its uses occasionally. Could you tell us exactly how long we could delay the acceleration after the accel point if we really had to, sometimes just 5 miles would help us greatly to keep you clear of the Exmor-Stu traffic.
Pardoned PPRuNer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
From: GlassGumtree
NW1 thanks for the post, been controlling you guys for over 10 years and have learnt more about your operation tonight than I care to mention.
10 years?
Wouldnt have learnt that much on a NATS ONLY forum would you!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hi Big Nose (Monty Python fan?!)
Couln't agree more - this is really what the forum's for.
If you needed it, I'll stick my neck out and say 5 miles would not be a problem - I cannot see a fuel/time issue arising from a accel delay of 30 seconds - and if it makes the wheels turn more smoothly, well that's all of our responsibilities isn't it..... Bottom line; if you judge that its needed then please ask.
I for one (and I'm sure my colleagues would agree) would be far happier to discuss the problem at accel-20 miles and see if we could work something out than have atc feel we a causing them an insolvable problem.
If you find us repeatedly asking for the clearance at accel-5 miles, its not impatience - its only because we need to start shifting fuel (hence CofG) about and many other jobs well before the burners go in, so if you cannot issue the clearance until accel+5, please warn us in advance (rather than just delaying the clearance) and all would be cool
Like a lot of problems in this job, it boils down to communications - if you have a problem then share it with us and we'll work it out.
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]
Couln't agree more - this is really what the forum's for.
Could you tell us exactly how long we could delay the acceleration after the accel point if we really had to, sometimes just 5 miles would help us greatly
I for one (and I'm sure my colleagues would agree) would be far happier to discuss the problem at accel-20 miles and see if we could work something out than have atc feel we a causing them an insolvable problem.
If you find us repeatedly asking for the clearance at accel-5 miles, its not impatience - its only because we need to start shifting fuel (hence CofG) about and many other jobs well before the burners go in, so if you cannot issue the clearance until accel+5, please warn us in advance (rather than just delaying the clearance) and all would be cool
Like a lot of problems in this job, it boils down to communications - if you have a problem then share it with us and we'll work it out.
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: NW1 ]
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 7
From: UK
Hi NW1
Just read your recent Concorde posts, and find them interesting, enjoyable and informative. May I also be bold enough to add that I find your "let's get it sorted" attitude a welcome breath of fresh air!
Cheers
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: spekesoftly ]
Just read your recent Concorde posts, and find them interesting, enjoyable and informative. May I also be bold enough to add that I find your "let's get it sorted" attitude a welcome breath of fresh air!
Cheers
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: spekesoftly ]
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: UK
NW1
Deep, Deep Joy and I mean it!
Just the type of response I was hoping to elicit when I started the thread. I’m starting to learn!
I don’t have time now for a full response to your questions, but will be posting this evening, with further requests for information.
Thanks for the input.
Overload
Deep, Deep Joy and I mean it!
Just the type of response I was hoping to elicit when I started the thread. I’m starting to learn!
I don’t have time now for a full response to your questions, but will be posting this evening, with further requests for information.
Thanks for the input.
Overload
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hi NW1,
Back with you,
Our (probably my) depth of knowledge on Concorde’s operational performance is not as high as I would like. I’ve never heard anyone mention the “operational band between 450-600”, although, as we transfer you to Shannon by 8 degrees west it isn’t of much practical significance to us, but still nice to know.
I’m not surprised that Concorde is unaware of some of the problems, as there has always been a “parting of the waves” scenario, particularly during the acceleration period, that rightly should be transparent to the flight crew.
The problem of going out against the inbound flow was always the weakest part of my post. I just threw it in for completeness, and I was happy to concede that one to Ock1f.
Regarding inbound descent. If its too busy for individual co-ordination between the Strumble sector and the Brecon sector, (that’s the one you hit inbound after Exmor), they agree FL310 15 miles before Numpo for all TMA inbounds, with the equivalent for you being FL310 15 before Exmor, would that be much of a penalty for you? How about FL290 once in awhile?
In respect of the descent problems as you approach Malby. There are a number of East and West-bound routes that Concorde converges towards. This converging scenario doesn’t easily lend itself to our usual method of operation.
As I’m sure you are aware, Latcc is very big on parallel headings. If your pointing north-east towards Malby and there is Westbound traffic radar vectored on the north side of G1, at various levels, we only clear you to safe levels on top of that traffic until you too, can be placed on a radar heading on the south side of G1, unless we are certain there is no risk.
We are not allowed to clear you down through traffic on the understanding that we will remember to turn you when you hit the southern boundary of the airway. It’s been tried, but it’s a ****** when you lose the frequency!
As you approach the southern boundary of G1 you start to integrate with the TMA inbound flow and until the corner is turned, it can require tedious (for both of us) step-down descents on top of descending traffic.
If we asked for a 320kt descent speed, would you need some warning and an earlier descent point? How much earlier say than from FL370 unspeeded? If left up at FL370 unspeeded, then given 320kts when say passing through FL280, is that going to mess up your descent profile and cause problems with your FL140 40 from OCK?
Looking at the outbound picture, the perceived wisdom at Latcc is that radar headings whilst accelerating to supersonic speeds were not an option, due to sonic boom considerations. If necessary would five or ten degrees left away from Eire, crossing the boundary with Shannon about 10-15 miles south of the normal Lesu exit point (used to be 51N 08W) be acceptable?
I assume delaying acceleration even by 20 or 30 miles is out of the question except in dire straits, is that right?
I would hopefully not need to use the above alternatives on a regular basis, but just to know what or what is not available in my armoury of tools if necessary, would be extremely useful.
The point I made about the ground speed, which we will have displayed when we go to Swanwick, isn’t really answered by asking you for a “snapshot” speed as you accelerate. If you can imagine 2 jets equidistant from a conflict point at around the same speed, you can tell just by looking at the radar that it’s going to be a problem. Even if one of them is going twice as fast, it’s still possible to “eyeball” it, as the faster one will need to be around twice the distance from the conflict point for it to start becoming a problem. But if an aircraft, say Concorde! is initially around the same ground speed as the possible conflict, then a short while later is 1.2 times its ground speed, then 1.5, 1.7, etc, my initial assessment of “no problem”, can start to become “well, maybe a ten degree turn” or “better go for twenty, maybe twenty five”, “and how about some descent just to be on the safe side”. Very often because of the uncertainty and a natural inclination for caution, the traffic misses you by many miles laterally or thousands of feet below vertically. Once we get the ground-speed readout, our (my) conflict prediction skills should improve.
Just out of curiosity, is an initial cleared level after acceleration commences of say FL390, whilst we ensure that traffic in the way is vectored clear, but always planning on continuous climb, an acceptable procedure?
How does it work for you at the other end (JFK)? I thought New York liked to get traffic down early, do you have special routes in/out or just the normal STARS/SIDS?
It goes without saying that none of the above will of any interest to the Latcc (and other) Ace Controllers, who will by now be deriving huge amusement from the old boys embarrassing disclosures.
Keep in touch
Overload
Back with you,
Our (probably my) depth of knowledge on Concorde’s operational performance is not as high as I would like. I’ve never heard anyone mention the “operational band between 450-600”, although, as we transfer you to Shannon by 8 degrees west it isn’t of much practical significance to us, but still nice to know.
I’m not surprised that Concorde is unaware of some of the problems, as there has always been a “parting of the waves” scenario, particularly during the acceleration period, that rightly should be transparent to the flight crew.
The problem of going out against the inbound flow was always the weakest part of my post. I just threw it in for completeness, and I was happy to concede that one to Ock1f.
Regarding inbound descent. If its too busy for individual co-ordination between the Strumble sector and the Brecon sector, (that’s the one you hit inbound after Exmor), they agree FL310 15 miles before Numpo for all TMA inbounds, with the equivalent for you being FL310 15 before Exmor, would that be much of a penalty for you? How about FL290 once in awhile?
In respect of the descent problems as you approach Malby. There are a number of East and West-bound routes that Concorde converges towards. This converging scenario doesn’t easily lend itself to our usual method of operation.
As I’m sure you are aware, Latcc is very big on parallel headings. If your pointing north-east towards Malby and there is Westbound traffic radar vectored on the north side of G1, at various levels, we only clear you to safe levels on top of that traffic until you too, can be placed on a radar heading on the south side of G1, unless we are certain there is no risk.
We are not allowed to clear you down through traffic on the understanding that we will remember to turn you when you hit the southern boundary of the airway. It’s been tried, but it’s a ****** when you lose the frequency!
As you approach the southern boundary of G1 you start to integrate with the TMA inbound flow and until the corner is turned, it can require tedious (for both of us) step-down descents on top of descending traffic.
If we asked for a 320kt descent speed, would you need some warning and an earlier descent point? How much earlier say than from FL370 unspeeded? If left up at FL370 unspeeded, then given 320kts when say passing through FL280, is that going to mess up your descent profile and cause problems with your FL140 40 from OCK?
Looking at the outbound picture, the perceived wisdom at Latcc is that radar headings whilst accelerating to supersonic speeds were not an option, due to sonic boom considerations. If necessary would five or ten degrees left away from Eire, crossing the boundary with Shannon about 10-15 miles south of the normal Lesu exit point (used to be 51N 08W) be acceptable?
I assume delaying acceleration even by 20 or 30 miles is out of the question except in dire straits, is that right?
I would hopefully not need to use the above alternatives on a regular basis, but just to know what or what is not available in my armoury of tools if necessary, would be extremely useful.
The point I made about the ground speed, which we will have displayed when we go to Swanwick, isn’t really answered by asking you for a “snapshot” speed as you accelerate. If you can imagine 2 jets equidistant from a conflict point at around the same speed, you can tell just by looking at the radar that it’s going to be a problem. Even if one of them is going twice as fast, it’s still possible to “eyeball” it, as the faster one will need to be around twice the distance from the conflict point for it to start becoming a problem. But if an aircraft, say Concorde! is initially around the same ground speed as the possible conflict, then a short while later is 1.2 times its ground speed, then 1.5, 1.7, etc, my initial assessment of “no problem”, can start to become “well, maybe a ten degree turn” or “better go for twenty, maybe twenty five”, “and how about some descent just to be on the safe side”. Very often because of the uncertainty and a natural inclination for caution, the traffic misses you by many miles laterally or thousands of feet below vertically. Once we get the ground-speed readout, our (my) conflict prediction skills should improve.
Just out of curiosity, is an initial cleared level after acceleration commences of say FL390, whilst we ensure that traffic in the way is vectored clear, but always planning on continuous climb, an acceptable procedure?
How does it work for you at the other end (JFK)? I thought New York liked to get traffic down early, do you have special routes in/out or just the normal STARS/SIDS?
It goes without saying that none of the above will of any interest to the Latcc (and other) Ace Controllers, who will by now be deriving huge amusement from the old boys embarrassing disclosures.
Keep in touch
Overload
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
From: LACC
Traffic, dear chap, never let intelligent debate between fellow professionals get in the way of NATS baiting eh. 
I for one am always learning new things in this job and long may it continue, when i stop learning i reckon it is time to give up. Afraid i can only aspire to your level of magnificence........Australian you say!?!
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]
Wouldn`t be speaking to a Concorde pilot on a NATS only forum..........would you?
[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]
I for one am always learning new things in this job and long may it continue, when i stop learning i reckon it is time to give up. Afraid i can only aspire to your level of magnificence........Australian you say!?!
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]
Wouldn`t be speaking to a Concorde pilot on a NATS only forum..........would you?
[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
From: LACC
NW1,
Thanx for the reply, early warning is not a problem, but it seems from your reply that the extra workload for you is greater than my "turn right 10 degrees" to any conflicting traffic so i think i leave you to a standard accel.
Are you much more flexible on the "round the bay" charters in the Summer, these are frequently much more problamatic than the transatlantics, due to the time of day and year they tend to take place.
Good to see you guys back in the air by the way, must have been very frustrating over the last year.
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]
Thanx for the reply, early warning is not a problem, but it seems from your reply that the extra workload for you is greater than my "turn right 10 degrees" to any conflicting traffic so i think i leave you to a standard accel.
Are you much more flexible on the "round the bay" charters in the Summer, these are frequently much more problamatic than the transatlantics, due to the time of day and year they tend to take place.
Good to see you guys back in the air by the way, must have been very frustrating over the last year.
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: Big Nose1 ]