Height or Speed?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Height or Speed?
A question for controllers.
What is the best course of action for pilots when clearing the london area. We want to get cleared as high as possible as soon as possible yet it is not generally worth giving a high rate of climb for just a couple of thousand feet, people normally go for speed at the expense of climb performance. If we want to get up there and on our way quicker is it best to give you a high rate of climb or go for the speed? Or in fact is it just traffic dependant?
What is the best course of action for pilots when clearing the london area. We want to get cleared as high as possible as soon as possible yet it is not generally worth giving a high rate of climb for just a couple of thousand feet, people normally go for speed at the expense of climb performance. If we want to get up there and on our way quicker is it best to give you a high rate of climb or go for the speed? Or in fact is it just traffic dependant?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good rates of climb can be useful if we are planning on using an upper air route (i.e FL245+) to give a shortcut or move you out of conflict with another airway. (eg if you depart LL/KK for Scandinavia via UM604 you will get a shortcut via UN866 if you can make FL 245+ by the time you are 10 miles past SS. The sooner you make FL245+ out of EGCC via OTR the sooner you will get turned on track to Blufa and aid separation with traffic into EGCC from that direction). Good rates are particularly useful if you are jumping the LL stacks in the TMA.
I had always thought that the easiest way to move aeroplanes (and stop them bothering you!!) was to give them climb to cruise level ASAP. Up until very recently controlled airspace and sectorisation has reflected this and the improved climb performance of modern aircraft. The resectorisation of LUS/LMS (over London) and the imposition of TC Capital are in my mind a backward step in this process, as there are several level steps and procedures during which a high rate of climb will put you in the airspace of people who are not expecting you. The controller will then have to coordinate you if he/she has time, and even then there's no guarantee that the next sector will accept you. Once NERC opens (whenever that will be!!) then the chances for climb into sectors which were not expecting you will be almost nil. The computer won't allow it!
To summarise, then, the offer of a high rate of climb in the TMA aids planning, but don't be offended if it's not taken up. The LUS/LMS problem outlined above would seem to favour a high forward speed (complying with any 'level by' instructions) so that you reach the next step up in the sectors as quickly as possible. (See the thread about RVSM however before you try to go into orbit southbound out of EGCC).
Any help?
I had always thought that the easiest way to move aeroplanes (and stop them bothering you!!) was to give them climb to cruise level ASAP. Up until very recently controlled airspace and sectorisation has reflected this and the improved climb performance of modern aircraft. The resectorisation of LUS/LMS (over London) and the imposition of TC Capital are in my mind a backward step in this process, as there are several level steps and procedures during which a high rate of climb will put you in the airspace of people who are not expecting you. The controller will then have to coordinate you if he/she has time, and even then there's no guarantee that the next sector will accept you. Once NERC opens (whenever that will be!!) then the chances for climb into sectors which were not expecting you will be almost nil. The computer won't allow it!
To summarise, then, the offer of a high rate of climb in the TMA aids planning, but don't be offended if it's not taken up. The LUS/LMS problem outlined above would seem to favour a high forward speed (complying with any 'level by' instructions) so that you reach the next step up in the sectors as quickly as possible. (See the thread about RVSM however before you try to go into orbit southbound out of EGCC).
Any help?
