EDI Approaches (Split topic)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah parkfell, the towers's coming along nicely. i wonder if it will improve their landing rate which is fecking abysmal compared to other places
We all thought it would get better with the parallel taxiway extensions but it's made sod all difference as far as I can tell.
Also one has to wonder if EDI will ever realise that their old runway can be used for landing aeroplanes on as well as for overflow parking!
Here's hoping.
We all thought it would get better with the parallel taxiway extensions but it's made sod all difference as far as I can tell.
Also one has to wonder if EDI will ever realise that their old runway can be used for landing aeroplanes on as well as for overflow parking!
Here's hoping.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain fade
I totally agree about the abysmal landing rate. The other day, after holding we arrived on finals 9 miles behind the preceeding aircraft. The unfortunate behind us landed just as we pulled on stand! (There were no departures between either lander).
I totally agree about the abysmal landing rate. The other day, after holding we arrived on finals 9 miles behind the preceeding aircraft. The unfortunate behind us landed just as we pulled on stand! (There were no departures between either lander).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair to my colleagues at EDI, the landing rate there is largely outwith their control once they get into a holding situation.
The Scottish TMA was never designed to permit any "real" holding (think back to a couple of Tridents a day). When the all-too-common barrage of EDI traffic arrives at the Talla sector (126.3) the radar controller is really working his nuts off and simply processing the traffic through the Tweed hold slips down the priority list as they sort it out. This is why (I would imagine) you end up with the situation you describe.
Edinburgh radar has modern equipment and will almost always have both radar and final director manned (or at least available), so if the traffic arrives in the right order through Tweed it is possible to acheive a very good landing rate.
This situation should be eased somewhat when the Scottish TMA is further split; I understand that this is imminent.
From the airfield point of view, bear in mind also that EDI doesn't currently have any RETs so they can't "pack" (i.e. 3Nm or vortex) like some airfields can, but on a mixed-mode runway that's generally not possible anyway.
The Scottish TMA was never designed to permit any "real" holding (think back to a couple of Tridents a day). When the all-too-common barrage of EDI traffic arrives at the Talla sector (126.3) the radar controller is really working his nuts off and simply processing the traffic through the Tweed hold slips down the priority list as they sort it out. This is why (I would imagine) you end up with the situation you describe.
Edinburgh radar has modern equipment and will almost always have both radar and final director manned (or at least available), so if the traffic arrives in the right order through Tweed it is possible to acheive a very good landing rate.
This situation should be eased somewhat when the Scottish TMA is further split; I understand that this is imminent.
From the airfield point of view, bear in mind also that EDI doesn't currently have any RETs so they can't "pack" (i.e. 3Nm or vortex) like some airfields can, but on a mixed-mode runway that's generally not possible anyway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1261
Talk about missing the point!
EDI always use 6 miles irrespective. They used to say it was 'in case anyone misses the turn' Well now if that happens they can roll to the end- no need to backtrack. But it's STILL 6 miles.
I can assure you, heard from the horses mouth, that they make NO repeat NO allowance for the effect of headwind on approach speeds. It's the same old routine still air or 60Kt HWC. So if you are waiting at the hold they still won't launch you if the next lander is inside x miles, even when his GS is only 75KT!
Also have you ever, EVER, heard EDI air traffic use the phrase 'advise any time you wish to go visual' or similar? Thought not. They never do, apparantly they are forbidden to!
The contrast between GLA and EDI ATC is stark.
One of the ATCO's the other day told me that there are 5 watches at EDI and only 2 are any good. I'll not repeat his comments about the others.
I wish they'd get a wiggle on at EDI, IMHO there's plenty scope for it!
Talk about missing the point!
EDI always use 6 miles irrespective. They used to say it was 'in case anyone misses the turn' Well now if that happens they can roll to the end- no need to backtrack. But it's STILL 6 miles.
I can assure you, heard from the horses mouth, that they make NO repeat NO allowance for the effect of headwind on approach speeds. It's the same old routine still air or 60Kt HWC. So if you are waiting at the hold they still won't launch you if the next lander is inside x miles, even when his GS is only 75KT!
Also have you ever, EVER, heard EDI air traffic use the phrase 'advise any time you wish to go visual' or similar? Thought not. They never do, apparantly they are forbidden to!
The contrast between GLA and EDI ATC is stark.
One of the ATCO's the other day told me that there are 5 watches at EDI and only 2 are any good. I'll not repeat his comments about the others.
I wish they'd get a wiggle on at EDI, IMHO there's plenty scope for it!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brain fade,
I also feel I should stick up for Edinburgh ATC at this point. Although the full length taxiway wasn't built when I worked there, I'm fairly sure the new entry / exit points at the full length are 90 degree turns and therefore very speed limited, which instantly builds in some extra spacing required.
And yes, EDI ATC are forbidden to offer a visual approach to aircrew, the initial request must come from the flightdeck. The reason is apparently to reduce noise nuisance, although many of my colleagues felt that vectoring traffic to 7 miles rather than permitting them to turn visual to 5 mile final added a couple of miles, hence another minute of airborne noise. And don't start me on the lack of expeditious departure routes - somebody feel free to explain how it's better for the local environment to have a line of jets burning hundreds of pounds of fuel per minute awaiting a slow departure order, than some early turns after departure and firing 'em off somewhat quicker...
Regarding the headwind allowance, I find your comments hard to believe (although you say it's "from the horse's mouth", maybe not your own experience?). The AIR controller has a radar screen showing the final approach track with aircraft labels displaying groundspeed - we have to take the pilot's word for what airspeed he's flying, and also what the upper winds are, but the radar easily plots groundspeed and this is what we see and use to calculate time to touchdown. Notwithstanding all that, I can't speak for the current mob as I haven't been back for a while! However...
Consider that there is some movement between (particularly) NATS units by ATCOs, so any given unit will have a mix of experience and backgrounds from all sorts of airports. If one airport seems particularly pedestrian then perhaps there are other conditions pertaining to operations at that airport.
Any clues as to the identity (company or airport) of your headwind-gripe co-complainant and the ATCO who commented on the EDI watches? Just 'cos I reckon I can guess both........!
I also feel I should stick up for Edinburgh ATC at this point. Although the full length taxiway wasn't built when I worked there, I'm fairly sure the new entry / exit points at the full length are 90 degree turns and therefore very speed limited, which instantly builds in some extra spacing required.
And yes, EDI ATC are forbidden to offer a visual approach to aircrew, the initial request must come from the flightdeck. The reason is apparently to reduce noise nuisance, although many of my colleagues felt that vectoring traffic to 7 miles rather than permitting them to turn visual to 5 mile final added a couple of miles, hence another minute of airborne noise. And don't start me on the lack of expeditious departure routes - somebody feel free to explain how it's better for the local environment to have a line of jets burning hundreds of pounds of fuel per minute awaiting a slow departure order, than some early turns after departure and firing 'em off somewhat quicker...
Regarding the headwind allowance, I find your comments hard to believe (although you say it's "from the horse's mouth", maybe not your own experience?). The AIR controller has a radar screen showing the final approach track with aircraft labels displaying groundspeed - we have to take the pilot's word for what airspeed he's flying, and also what the upper winds are, but the radar easily plots groundspeed and this is what we see and use to calculate time to touchdown. Notwithstanding all that, I can't speak for the current mob as I haven't been back for a while! However...
Consider that there is some movement between (particularly) NATS units by ATCOs, so any given unit will have a mix of experience and backgrounds from all sorts of airports. If one airport seems particularly pedestrian then perhaps there are other conditions pertaining to operations at that airport.
Any clues as to the identity (company or airport) of your headwind-gripe co-complainant and the ATCO who commented on the EDI watches? Just 'cos I reckon I can guess both........!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV-8 Guilty, sorry. Not the end of the world tho eh? It's a LLZ AE.
Steel
For info, yes 90 degree turns but surely a hell of a lot better than no 'end of runway' exit. So why no reduction in spacing now they've got 'em? We all had to put up with the 6 miles for years 'just in case the one ahead misses the turn'. Well I've been based there for 7 years and I've seen ONE a/c do that. So what if you get the odd GA. Not the end of the bloody world is it? Bit like skiing- if you never fall over ya aint trying hard enough! (like EDI ATC!)
Re visuals. Who the **** told them never to offer one. That's completely stupid (as you infer). I've seen us doing 20 mile finals and all after vectoring about all over the city on nights when you could see half of the UK. Must be about 4 times as noisy as swerving in visually. and take about 10 mins extra- more noise! (+ it's as rough as f+ck out over the firth when the wind is a bit southerly)
Re headwinds. After a particularly frustrating experience one evening I phoned the tower up too see what the hell was going on. My comments are from that conversation and are borne out by experience day in day out. YOU find it hard to believe? So did I! It's true. By the way you are correct, if you decide to ignore the towers (standard) '160 to 4' call they never complain as their awareness of your speed is zero. Often there is that much feckin room behind the one ahead you could go 260 to 4 and never catch him!
re clue. that would be unsporting! You give me a clue who you think it is first.
I know it's a bit hurtful to put it so bluntly but these folk need a kick up the arse, or at least those who put the daft rules in place do! The ATCO I quoted earlier was of the opinion that even with the new tower it would stay crap. How depressing.
Trouble is it's not just ATC at EDI thats cack! The handling is **** too!
I hate the bloody place!
Rant over
Steel
For info, yes 90 degree turns but surely a hell of a lot better than no 'end of runway' exit. So why no reduction in spacing now they've got 'em? We all had to put up with the 6 miles for years 'just in case the one ahead misses the turn'. Well I've been based there for 7 years and I've seen ONE a/c do that. So what if you get the odd GA. Not the end of the bloody world is it? Bit like skiing- if you never fall over ya aint trying hard enough! (like EDI ATC!)
Re visuals. Who the **** told them never to offer one. That's completely stupid (as you infer). I've seen us doing 20 mile finals and all after vectoring about all over the city on nights when you could see half of the UK. Must be about 4 times as noisy as swerving in visually. and take about 10 mins extra- more noise! (+ it's as rough as f+ck out over the firth when the wind is a bit southerly)
Re headwinds. After a particularly frustrating experience one evening I phoned the tower up too see what the hell was going on. My comments are from that conversation and are borne out by experience day in day out. YOU find it hard to believe? So did I! It's true. By the way you are correct, if you decide to ignore the towers (standard) '160 to 4' call they never complain as their awareness of your speed is zero. Often there is that much feckin room behind the one ahead you could go 260 to 4 and never catch him!
re clue. that would be unsporting! You give me a clue who you think it is first.
I know it's a bit hurtful to put it so bluntly but these folk need a kick up the arse, or at least those who put the daft rules in place do! The ATCO I quoted earlier was of the opinion that even with the new tower it would stay crap. How depressing.
Trouble is it's not just ATC at EDI thats cack! The handling is **** too!
I hate the bloody place!
Rant over
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BF - you've just stated that you ignore the speed control on final. Who needs a kick up the arse?
If you've only ever seen one aircraft missing the turn - you've either not been into EDI very often or you're not looking out the window!
I work at an airfield that has several RETs, rigid speed control and is optimized for a decent arrival rate; we still have several go-arounds every day because crews apply for citizenship on the runway.
Perhaps you'd care to let us know which the two watches at EDI are that help you out so much, just so we can all learn from "best practice".
A final point; use of 12/30 and the noise abatement stuff (including being offered a visual) are absolutely nothing to do with ATC - take them up with BAA. If we could, we would. One more flight on the ground is one less flight talking to me!
If you've only ever seen one aircraft missing the turn - you've either not been into EDI very often or you're not looking out the window!
I work at an airfield that has several RETs, rigid speed control and is optimized for a decent arrival rate; we still have several go-arounds every day because crews apply for citizenship on the runway.
Perhaps you'd care to let us know which the two watches at EDI are that help you out so much, just so we can all learn from "best practice".
A final point; use of 12/30 and the noise abatement stuff (including being offered a visual) are absolutely nothing to do with ATC - take them up with BAA. If we could, we would. One more flight on the ground is one less flight talking to me!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And of course you've written to Manager ATC at Edinburgh to express these concerns, and visited the tower yourself. If not, then something's wrong. If you have, what was the reply?
I'd imagine that it's BAA Edinburgh Ltd who have told ATC to not offer visual approaches, just as we at Heathrow have many many restrictions due to noise imposed on us by BAA Heathrow Ltd.
I'd imagine that it's BAA Edinburgh Ltd who have told ATC to not offer visual approaches, just as we at Heathrow have many many restrictions due to noise imposed on us by BAA Heathrow Ltd.
Panthera pardus puella
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here, sometimes there
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 mile gap means a departure can go in between arrivals
the layout of edi means there is little scope for packing aircraft on the basis that tower can tell approach when they want a gap - all that would happen is the dep would have to wait for the ones already committed to the approach to land til he could depart - and dont tell me you'd be happy with that either
and by not adhering to the speed put on by app - you're being less than helpful
re the holding - as edi doesnt have the last few levels in the hold - sometimes trying to get the aircraft from scottish can be a work of art which may be why there were big gaps -
or maybe there was something else going on at the time which you were not aware of
as gonzo says - go and have a look for a few hours and have a listen in at a busy time of the day - ie around half eight til just after ten at night - or maybe the morning rush bit and then you can make your whines
ps - just because no one comments on the fact you havent flown the instructed speed doesnt mean it hasnt been noticed - if you fly faster - never noticed that the departure at the hold doesnt go because the gap has disappeared because you are unable to follow an instruction? ( note instruction and not a request!)
the layout of edi means there is little scope for packing aircraft on the basis that tower can tell approach when they want a gap - all that would happen is the dep would have to wait for the ones already committed to the approach to land til he could depart - and dont tell me you'd be happy with that either
and by not adhering to the speed put on by app - you're being less than helpful
re the holding - as edi doesnt have the last few levels in the hold - sometimes trying to get the aircraft from scottish can be a work of art which may be why there were big gaps -
or maybe there was something else going on at the time which you were not aware of
as gonzo says - go and have a look for a few hours and have a listen in at a busy time of the day - ie around half eight til just after ten at night - or maybe the morning rush bit and then you can make your whines
ps - just because no one comments on the fact you havent flown the instructed speed doesnt mean it hasnt been noticed - if you fly faster - never noticed that the departure at the hold doesnt go because the gap has disappeared because you are unable to follow an instruction? ( note instruction and not a request!)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It actually makes me pretty angry to see such complaints about EDI ATC, especially as these comments never came up during ATCO/pilot forums or the annual customer satisfaction survey.
I worked at EDI until last year and now I work in Canada doing Terminal Control into the 3rd busiest airport in the country, so I am qualified to comment.
Gatwick works to 5 or 6 mile gaps depending on requirements at the time. They have high speed turn-offs. My current airport has 3 runways and high speed turn-offs, and tower requires 5 mile gaps generally, and 4 mile gaps if no departures. For EDI to require 6 mile gaps is entirely reasonable and is nothing to do with one missing the turn. If a L101/VC10/A340 or the like turned up before the full-length taxiway was built, a good controller would give you a 9 miles spacing behind because it WOULD miss the turn, no question.
Yes, when there was strong headwind, the 6 mile gap could be used for a backtracking departure but it still took clenched buttocks and switched-on pilots to achieve. Most tower people at EDI, when there were no deps for a while, would instruct the radar controller to "pack"; that is, use 4 mile gaps instead of 6. Given a decent headwind and switched on crews, the odd departure could be got away in those smaller gaps too, but to do so all day is not worth my pension or anyone else's.
For years, EDI controllers have bent over backwards to give a good service despite inadequate infrastructure and, in recent years, significantly more traffic than Glasgow (thus making comparison meaningless now). For some of you to complain despite such efforts, and those efforts were many and great in my time there, makes you sound like a bunch of spoilt ingrates. There are a hell of a lot more screw-ups made by pilots than by controllers, and we work our asses off not just to be expeditious, but more importantly to KEEP YOU SAFE.
Now grow up the lot of you.
I worked at EDI until last year and now I work in Canada doing Terminal Control into the 3rd busiest airport in the country, so I am qualified to comment.
Gatwick works to 5 or 6 mile gaps depending on requirements at the time. They have high speed turn-offs. My current airport has 3 runways and high speed turn-offs, and tower requires 5 mile gaps generally, and 4 mile gaps if no departures. For EDI to require 6 mile gaps is entirely reasonable and is nothing to do with one missing the turn. If a L101/VC10/A340 or the like turned up before the full-length taxiway was built, a good controller would give you a 9 miles spacing behind because it WOULD miss the turn, no question.
Yes, when there was strong headwind, the 6 mile gap could be used for a backtracking departure but it still took clenched buttocks and switched-on pilots to achieve. Most tower people at EDI, when there were no deps for a while, would instruct the radar controller to "pack"; that is, use 4 mile gaps instead of 6. Given a decent headwind and switched on crews, the odd departure could be got away in those smaller gaps too, but to do so all day is not worth my pension or anyone else's.
For years, EDI controllers have bent over backwards to give a good service despite inadequate infrastructure and, in recent years, significantly more traffic than Glasgow (thus making comparison meaningless now). For some of you to complain despite such efforts, and those efforts were many and great in my time there, makes you sound like a bunch of spoilt ingrates. There are a hell of a lot more screw-ups made by pilots than by controllers, and we work our asses off not just to be expeditious, but more importantly to KEEP YOU SAFE.
Now grow up the lot of you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thats clear then! Giving myself a kick up the arse right now for 'speeding'!
Lock n' load. Not surprised you're angry. I'd be too if i read comments like mine referring to what I do. Think I'm making it up do you?
I've seen a VC 10 make the turn before despite ATC warning us he definately would be missing it.
Re headwinds. A tower controller TOLD ME they make NO allowance for it. I'm only reporting what he said. My own observations support his statement and I think thats crap. Do you agree?
Heaven forbid you folk stop 'keeping us safe'. A balance has to be struck twixt safety and expediency (and this is always done), sometimes tho the emphasis goes a bit too much one one or other of these two. Plainly too much expediency would be unsafe, but too much pedantry is inefficient, tedious, slow, irritatiting and annoying. EDI is a bit like this latter scenario IMHO.
yaffs.
re 6 miles. of couse that allows a dep to go. what about 6 miles with the landing a/c at half it's normal GS. All i'm saying is that on windy days perhaps they could make an allowance for this. what do you think? I mean they could launch a squadron of B-52's in some of the gaps when it's real windy! Re speeding, I exaggerate!
Gonzo.
Oh yes I must write in, that will be sure to make a difference. There is no way they will change anything and last time I phoned the Tower (also spoke to the approach controller) that was made clear. In fact they think they do a terriffic job. I have also visited the tower and seen the very lovely 3 colour radar, thanks for asking. I really would like to see them get quicker and to be honest although I see the problem, I don't know where the origin of it lies. BAA? EDI ATC? bit of both maybe?
1261 I'm based at EDI and I look out the window a lot. Are you in denial?
Fecks sake are you saying that visual approaches, runway allocation are nothing to do with ATC? Give me a break! I'm not offering comment or complaint about noise. We could go there tho if you want.
I have no way of telling between watches. Must say I hadn't noticed much difference. There are some ATCO's tho who are particularly slow.
Look, it's not my wish to 'burst your bubble' (hang on, maybe it is!) but it's not just me who thinks it could stand a bit of a wake-up. Most everyone has similar opinion. One (senior) chap calls EDI ATC 'the flat earth society!'
Now that really is Rant Over!
Lock n' load. Not surprised you're angry. I'd be too if i read comments like mine referring to what I do. Think I'm making it up do you?
I've seen a VC 10 make the turn before despite ATC warning us he definately would be missing it.
Re headwinds. A tower controller TOLD ME they make NO allowance for it. I'm only reporting what he said. My own observations support his statement and I think thats crap. Do you agree?
Heaven forbid you folk stop 'keeping us safe'. A balance has to be struck twixt safety and expediency (and this is always done), sometimes tho the emphasis goes a bit too much one one or other of these two. Plainly too much expediency would be unsafe, but too much pedantry is inefficient, tedious, slow, irritatiting and annoying. EDI is a bit like this latter scenario IMHO.
yaffs.
re 6 miles. of couse that allows a dep to go. what about 6 miles with the landing a/c at half it's normal GS. All i'm saying is that on windy days perhaps they could make an allowance for this. what do you think? I mean they could launch a squadron of B-52's in some of the gaps when it's real windy! Re speeding, I exaggerate!
Gonzo.
Oh yes I must write in, that will be sure to make a difference. There is no way they will change anything and last time I phoned the Tower (also spoke to the approach controller) that was made clear. In fact they think they do a terriffic job. I have also visited the tower and seen the very lovely 3 colour radar, thanks for asking. I really would like to see them get quicker and to be honest although I see the problem, I don't know where the origin of it lies. BAA? EDI ATC? bit of both maybe?
1261 I'm based at EDI and I look out the window a lot. Are you in denial?
Fecks sake are you saying that visual approaches, runway allocation are nothing to do with ATC? Give me a break! I'm not offering comment or complaint about noise. We could go there tho if you want.
I have no way of telling between watches. Must say I hadn't noticed much difference. There are some ATCO's tho who are particularly slow.
Look, it's not my wish to 'burst your bubble' (hang on, maybe it is!) but it's not just me who thinks it could stand a bit of a wake-up. Most everyone has similar opinion. One (senior) chap calls EDI ATC 'the flat earth society!'
Now that really is Rant Over!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain Fade - You've seen one VC10 make the turn. I've seen twenty miss it.
Guess what? You can't really change from 6nm gaps with no wind to 5.5nm with a 5kt headwind, 5nm with a 10kt headwind, etc etc. If it's a howling westerly, sure the tower controller can tell the approach radar guy/guyess to pack at 4nm and still get deps away. There are probably a couple of people here who'd tell you that I seldom decided against using a 4nm gap to get a departure away IF it was safe to do so. Such a pity that we've all been burned by issuing "landing traffic 3 miles, cleared for take-off", only to hear "roger, we're just waiting for our figures" or "cabin not ready" or "we need 30 seconds on the runway to get the engines up to temp".
And no, we can't "strike a balance twixt safety and expedition." Our job is to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic IN THAT ORDER.
No ATC provider will change procedures on the basis of one pilot's views, which is just as well. A locally based bizjet pilot complained about being sequenced 6 miles behind preceeding medium traffic (hmm, light behind a medium, let's see, 6nm for wake vortex, THAT'S A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT IN THE UK, DOOFUS). In fact, here's a thought, maybe you are that pilot. If so, no one takes you seriously.
As for visuals, they work fine when you're number one or number last. If you're in the middle of sequence, forget it unless you've already been vectored to a point at which you can't screw up the sequence.
Noise abatement procedures are only applied by ATC, not set by us. The 5 mile final requirement came in after a 767 on a visual joined at 1nm final. Yes, there were noise complaints. I was standing on the beach at Cramond at the time he made that approach and it was, as we Scots say, well dodgy.
Runway allocations at Edinburgh are often scuppered by overflow parking and work in progress shutting 12/30 and there's another reason why it often won't work. If there are departures on the way out to the hold for 24 (this at least was the case before the full-length taxiway), they sit on the overshoot to 30.
If you have all the facts, by all means complain. Or perhaps you could take a look at the movement figures. A capacity expert spent a few days at Edinburgh a couple of years ago and worked out that the MAX movement rate was 24 per hour. I know that my watch regularly moved 35 or so an hour. From a runway with no high-speed exits, that's going some, especially as the mix of departures often means more than 2 minutes is required between departures. And no, Edinburgh ATC does not set the time requirement between deps. That's worked out by Scottish Control for their benefit, with a small amount of input from EDI and GLA.
One wonders what reaction there would be if ATCOs singled out a particular airline for a bashing on PPRUNE....
And another thing.... 1261, check your PMs!
Guess what? You can't really change from 6nm gaps with no wind to 5.5nm with a 5kt headwind, 5nm with a 10kt headwind, etc etc. If it's a howling westerly, sure the tower controller can tell the approach radar guy/guyess to pack at 4nm and still get deps away. There are probably a couple of people here who'd tell you that I seldom decided against using a 4nm gap to get a departure away IF it was safe to do so. Such a pity that we've all been burned by issuing "landing traffic 3 miles, cleared for take-off", only to hear "roger, we're just waiting for our figures" or "cabin not ready" or "we need 30 seconds on the runway to get the engines up to temp".
And no, we can't "strike a balance twixt safety and expedition." Our job is to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic IN THAT ORDER.
No ATC provider will change procedures on the basis of one pilot's views, which is just as well. A locally based bizjet pilot complained about being sequenced 6 miles behind preceeding medium traffic (hmm, light behind a medium, let's see, 6nm for wake vortex, THAT'S A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT IN THE UK, DOOFUS). In fact, here's a thought, maybe you are that pilot. If so, no one takes you seriously.
As for visuals, they work fine when you're number one or number last. If you're in the middle of sequence, forget it unless you've already been vectored to a point at which you can't screw up the sequence.
Noise abatement procedures are only applied by ATC, not set by us. The 5 mile final requirement came in after a 767 on a visual joined at 1nm final. Yes, there were noise complaints. I was standing on the beach at Cramond at the time he made that approach and it was, as we Scots say, well dodgy.
Runway allocations at Edinburgh are often scuppered by overflow parking and work in progress shutting 12/30 and there's another reason why it often won't work. If there are departures on the way out to the hold for 24 (this at least was the case before the full-length taxiway), they sit on the overshoot to 30.
If you have all the facts, by all means complain. Or perhaps you could take a look at the movement figures. A capacity expert spent a few days at Edinburgh a couple of years ago and worked out that the MAX movement rate was 24 per hour. I know that my watch regularly moved 35 or so an hour. From a runway with no high-speed exits, that's going some, especially as the mix of departures often means more than 2 minutes is required between departures. And no, Edinburgh ATC does not set the time requirement between deps. That's worked out by Scottish Control for their benefit, with a small amount of input from EDI and GLA.
One wonders what reaction there would be if ATCOs singled out a particular airline for a bashing on PPRUNE....
And another thing.... 1261, check your PMs!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lock 'n Load
It's all so clear to me now. Thankyou.
Specifically: Why can GLA atc say \'advise if you wish to continue visually\' (on rwy 23, flying right over Glasgow) thus preventing the queue building up as it always does at EDI. But this same call is NEVEr used at EDI. Std noise in both cases.
It's all so clear to me now. Thankyou.
Specifically: Why can GLA atc say \'advise if you wish to continue visually\' (on rwy 23, flying right over Glasgow) thus preventing the queue building up as it always does at EDI. But this same call is NEVEr used at EDI. Std noise in both cases.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, agreed that there always seems to be a largish gap between you and the one in front, but so what?
In all honesty when have you had any significant delay going into EDI? how often do they deny any request you might have? and if they do offer you a visual or put you closer to the one in front, what are you going to do with the extra minute or so you do save?
On the grand scale of things EDI might not be making max use of there runway, but then they don't need to. I rarely suffer any delay and i find the airport one of the easier ones to operate in and out of.
Brain fade,
Not sure whats got your back up at EDI, but I always find the controllers very pleasant and accomodating, not sure who you work for but if each and every minute counts so much that you feel you can do your own thing with regards to speed control, perhaps you should look a little closer at where the problems lie!
EDI are by no means alone in doing things a little different, have you tried the U.S!
In all honesty when have you had any significant delay going into EDI? how often do they deny any request you might have? and if they do offer you a visual or put you closer to the one in front, what are you going to do with the extra minute or so you do save?
On the grand scale of things EDI might not be making max use of there runway, but then they don't need to. I rarely suffer any delay and i find the airport one of the easier ones to operate in and out of.
Brain fade,
Not sure whats got your back up at EDI, but I always find the controllers very pleasant and accomodating, not sure who you work for but if each and every minute counts so much that you feel you can do your own thing with regards to speed control, perhaps you should look a little closer at where the problems lie!
EDI are by no means alone in doing things a little different, have you tried the U.S!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoilers.
Perhaps my rather intemperate writing style makes me seem angrier than I really am. Ultimately a minute or two either way is never going to be more than simply that. What gets my goat is arriving south of EDI on a gin clear evening to be told you're number 7 and the getting vectored over half of bleeding Scotland (alomg with everyone else).
re 'my back up'. Didn't really intend to have such a go at EDI but quite glad I did if it gets people thinking. I'm based there (for several years now)and fed up with what i see as frankly extremely sloooooooow ATC. (not unsafe, just slow). The tower controller telling me how they ignore the wind was just the 'straw for the camels back'.
1261 I saw your post re GLA 'bending the rules' on the other bit of the thread. Surely you're not accusing them of anything. Actually I fully understand what you mean and without offering any other comment I'd just like to add that they are not alone in offering helpful suggestions like this one. Why not 'bend' the rules at EDI also? You've got your std noise to rely on and your 2300' over the city too.
Perhaps my rather intemperate writing style makes me seem angrier than I really am. Ultimately a minute or two either way is never going to be more than simply that. What gets my goat is arriving south of EDI on a gin clear evening to be told you're number 7 and the getting vectored over half of bleeding Scotland (alomg with everyone else).
re 'my back up'. Didn't really intend to have such a go at EDI but quite glad I did if it gets people thinking. I'm based there (for several years now)and fed up with what i see as frankly extremely sloooooooow ATC. (not unsafe, just slow). The tower controller telling me how they ignore the wind was just the 'straw for the camels back'.
1261 I saw your post re GLA 'bending the rules' on the other bit of the thread. Surely you're not accusing them of anything. Actually I fully understand what you mean and without offering any other comment I'd just like to add that they are not alone in offering helpful suggestions like this one. Why not 'bend' the rules at EDI also? You've got your std noise to rely on and your 2300' over the city too.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee, brain fade, you expect a visual approach when you're number 7??? keep taking the pills, why don't you.
As already explained, a visual can only be offered when requested unless it's on the ATIS as the promulgated approach. Secondly, a visual approach allows a pilot to fly anywhere he damn well pleases and EVERY controller has cleared someone for a visual expecting him to turn straight towards 5 mile final, only to have him fly "all over Scotland" of his own accord, as is his right on a visual approach. Thirdly, if you've number 7, and we require 6 miles between succeeding aircraft on final, that's a minimum of 42 flying miles IF you're flying at 160 knots like the ones on final. Given that you're probably passing FL150 at 300 knots, the choice is to slow you down till it hurts or to vector you around the sky for a bit.
Finally, you may think you have a right to be cleared for a visual over Selkirk to nip in ahead of everyone else, but the multiple separation losses that would result would be on ATC's head. If you're number 7, do exactly what the controller says without whinging and you'll get on the ground quicker. Hell, if you were number 7 for a runway at my current place of work, you'd be at 210 kts from 35 miles out, and you'd probably fly the STAR to downwind and be on downwind for 20 miles at 180 kts.
Rant over.
As already explained, a visual can only be offered when requested unless it's on the ATIS as the promulgated approach. Secondly, a visual approach allows a pilot to fly anywhere he damn well pleases and EVERY controller has cleared someone for a visual expecting him to turn straight towards 5 mile final, only to have him fly "all over Scotland" of his own accord, as is his right on a visual approach. Thirdly, if you've number 7, and we require 6 miles between succeeding aircraft on final, that's a minimum of 42 flying miles IF you're flying at 160 knots like the ones on final. Given that you're probably passing FL150 at 300 knots, the choice is to slow you down till it hurts or to vector you around the sky for a bit.
Finally, you may think you have a right to be cleared for a visual over Selkirk to nip in ahead of everyone else, but the multiple separation losses that would result would be on ATC's head. If you're number 7, do exactly what the controller says without whinging and you'll get on the ground quicker. Hell, if you were number 7 for a runway at my current place of work, you'd be at 210 kts from 35 miles out, and you'd probably fly the STAR to downwind and be on downwind for 20 miles at 180 kts.
Rant over.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lock and Load
Don't be a bleedin' nugget!
What I meant was that if you'd offered no.1 a viz and he'd taken it then the queue might not build up in the first place. As you never offer anyone a visual it means that the queue inevitably builds up even when its unlimited cavok. For pitys sake don't you think I realise that if you're at the no.7 you're stuck?
The whole point of this thread is that if you expedited the arrival of the FIRST a/c to fall into your clutches (and then the next one) nobody would have to be no.7.
This is like banging ones head off a wall!
I can't speak for anybody else but when I get a visual I turn straight towards a 5 mile final. Why would anyone do otherwise?
Don't be a bleedin' nugget!
What I meant was that if you'd offered no.1 a viz and he'd taken it then the queue might not build up in the first place. As you never offer anyone a visual it means that the queue inevitably builds up even when its unlimited cavok. For pitys sake don't you think I realise that if you're at the no.7 you're stuck?
The whole point of this thread is that if you expedited the arrival of the FIRST a/c to fall into your clutches (and then the next one) nobody would have to be no.7.
This is like banging ones head off a wall!
I can't speak for anybody else but when I get a visual I turn straight towards a 5 mile final. Why would anyone do otherwise?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" I can't speak for anybody else but when I get a visual I turn straight towards a 5 mile final. Why would anyone do otherwise?"
Well, they do. I for one always gave a visual when asked for to number one, but then I had to hold off on turning number two to base until I'd seen number one turning in. The fact that a visual approach isn't predictable actually makes it harder to get a consistent gap behind him.
What methinks you haven't considered (among many other things beyond your ken) is that tower may have a reason for not wanting approach to allow a visual.
It's been rammed into me on this side of the pond not to give a visual if there's any kind of sequence happening unless you've got the aircraft to a point where the visual will ape an instrument approach.
In all seriousness brain fade, and getting away from the acrimony for a moment, you haven't got the big picture in the cockpit, even with TCAS. Besides that, ATC usually don't make the rules but we do have to follow them.
Well, they do. I for one always gave a visual when asked for to number one, but then I had to hold off on turning number two to base until I'd seen number one turning in. The fact that a visual approach isn't predictable actually makes it harder to get a consistent gap behind him.
What methinks you haven't considered (among many other things beyond your ken) is that tower may have a reason for not wanting approach to allow a visual.
It's been rammed into me on this side of the pond not to give a visual if there's any kind of sequence happening unless you've got the aircraft to a point where the visual will ape an instrument approach.
In all seriousness brain fade, and getting away from the acrimony for a moment, you haven't got the big picture in the cockpit, even with TCAS. Besides that, ATC usually don't make the rules but we do have to follow them.