Today at EDI and always....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call you.
Answer the Question . Why at GLA but not at EDI.
Don't worry mate. There's no way I'll be NOT requesting a visual if traffic/weather permit. Some folk tho will only do so with a little hint/prod from ATC.
It works sooooooooooo well at GLA, so come on. Why at GLA but not at EDI?
Answer the Question . Why at GLA but not at EDI.
Don't worry mate. There's no way I'll be NOT requesting a visual if traffic/weather permit. Some folk tho will only do so with a little hint/prod from ATC.
It works sooooooooooo well at GLA, so come on. Why at GLA but not at EDI?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is, we get used to being refused visual approaches at BAA airports. Sometimes you can get one at LGW with the magic words "Can we have a visual avoiding East Grindstead/Horsham?" We get a feel for when they may be available (i.e. there's not much going on on the RT!).
However, there's no point asking when it's busy, it would just use up unnecessary airtime to get a refusal so we do get out of the habit. I don't think it's being lazy, just making everyone's job a little smoother.
Contrast this though with Jersey and Glasgow where they regularly use the phrase "Let us know if you want a visual approach at any time". It sets the tone and we'll accept probably 50% of the time on average (there are often reasons why we may not want to accept anyway).
No axe to grind, just my take on the situation.
But I do visuals more often at JER and GLA than anywhere else simply because they always tell us when they're available. It must mean something, eh?
I've only read the first and last page of this thread, but I was there on the day (at the time of calibration) that triggered this thread and the guy was under so much pressure that he was making some mistakes. Little wonder his runway utilisation wasn't at its best.
I have to say that I thought it strange to be calibrating at the same time that there were loads of aircraft using EDI as a base for attending a local airshow (I'm guessing that was what was going on - how often do you get a Catalina at EDI?).
Regards to all.
However, there's no point asking when it's busy, it would just use up unnecessary airtime to get a refusal so we do get out of the habit. I don't think it's being lazy, just making everyone's job a little smoother.
Contrast this though with Jersey and Glasgow where they regularly use the phrase "Let us know if you want a visual approach at any time". It sets the tone and we'll accept probably 50% of the time on average (there are often reasons why we may not want to accept anyway).
No axe to grind, just my take on the situation.
But I do visuals more often at JER and GLA than anywhere else simply because they always tell us when they're available. It must mean something, eh?
I've only read the first and last page of this thread, but I was there on the day (at the time of calibration) that triggered this thread and the guy was under so much pressure that he was making some mistakes. Little wonder his runway utilisation wasn't at its best.
I have to say that I thought it strange to be calibrating at the same time that there were loads of aircraft using EDI as a base for attending a local airshow (I'm guessing that was what was going on - how often do you get a Catalina at EDI?).
Regards to all.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain Fade
My Mats pt2 states
Section 4-5
2.1.4
Visual Approaches and Self-Positioning Approaches
"ATC WILL NOT suggest visual or self-positioning approaches; such clearances should only be approved in response to a positive request from a pilot."
That is the difference between us and GLA. I don't know the reasoning behind this discrepancy, but it is there in black and white.
Now you know the reason I hope this will put an end to your incessant whingeing on this particular point
My Mats pt2 states
Section 4-5
2.1.4
Visual Approaches and Self-Positioning Approaches
"ATC WILL NOT suggest visual or self-positioning approaches; such clearances should only be approved in response to a positive request from a pilot."
That is the difference between us and GLA. I don't know the reasoning behind this discrepancy, but it is there in black and white.
Now you know the reason I hope this will put an end to your incessant whingeing on this particular point
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hootin
It was a question, not a whinge.
Like you, I remain in the dark as to why it's plainly OK at some places and a no-no at others. Perhaps it's in the particular wording used. In any case your po-faced attitude is entirely in keeping with the rest of Edinburgh.
Re end of whinging. Unlikely!
It was a question, not a whinge.
Like you, I remain in the dark as to why it's plainly OK at some places and a no-no at others. Perhaps it's in the particular wording used. In any case your po-faced attitude is entirely in keeping with the rest of Edinburgh.
Re end of whinging. Unlikely!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain Fade;
If the tower needs a 6 mile final to get depatures out due to the visiblity restrictions that the tower has, what good does it do to go visual and tighten things up when they can't have you tighten it up???
By reading here, I can see the issues that they have at EDI. I am NOT a controller there nor do I fly in and out of there, but I can understand the constrictions that they have. If they didn't have the vis problems from the tower, I am sure that they could load the runway up and get folks off faster, but that isn't going to happen, nor would it be safe...
I sit on a lot of different boards that oversee aviation safety issues. I also get to hear from the pilot community a LOT and they always want things FASTER and NOW as well as wanting to be first because THEY can fly better or faster than the person that they are being made to follow... But when we want them to do something that really makes them perform to make things work then we get the, well that is NOT safe, we don't want our members to have to comply with those sorts of restrictions etc... It goes around both ways... The folks at EDI have explained why you have to fly the way that you do there. No two airfields are exactly alike. Many have problems or restrictions that other places don't have and aren't readily noticible to those in the cockpit, but none the less the restrictions are there. If the pilot community has constructive ideas as to how EDI can possibly move aircraft faster then I would suggest that the pilot groups that fly in there sit down with the controller groups and airfield management to try to work out a SAFE solution.
regards
Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman
If the tower needs a 6 mile final to get depatures out due to the visiblity restrictions that the tower has, what good does it do to go visual and tighten things up when they can't have you tighten it up???
By reading here, I can see the issues that they have at EDI. I am NOT a controller there nor do I fly in and out of there, but I can understand the constrictions that they have. If they didn't have the vis problems from the tower, I am sure that they could load the runway up and get folks off faster, but that isn't going to happen, nor would it be safe...
I sit on a lot of different boards that oversee aviation safety issues. I also get to hear from the pilot community a LOT and they always want things FASTER and NOW as well as wanting to be first because THEY can fly better or faster than the person that they are being made to follow... But when we want them to do something that really makes them perform to make things work then we get the, well that is NOT safe, we don't want our members to have to comply with those sorts of restrictions etc... It goes around both ways... The folks at EDI have explained why you have to fly the way that you do there. No two airfields are exactly alike. Many have problems or restrictions that other places don't have and aren't readily noticible to those in the cockpit, but none the less the restrictions are there. If the pilot community has constructive ideas as to how EDI can possibly move aircraft faster then I would suggest that the pilot groups that fly in there sit down with the controller groups and airfield management to try to work out a SAFE solution.
regards
Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Scott.
You are correct of course. There are the official channels and I am being lazy by not using them.
However if I want to bang my head off a wall I can do it at the side of my house which will save me driving to Edinburgh. There will, I can assure you, be no change to the outcome!
Cheers BF
You are correct of course. There are the official channels and I am being lazy by not using them.
However if I want to bang my head off a wall I can do it at the side of my house which will save me driving to Edinburgh. There will, I can assure you, be no change to the outcome!
Cheers BF
Would be nice to hear from someone from Scottish area on the above.
Is it not time that the whole TMA , SID's STARS etc are reworked completely ?
Is anyone in management at Scottish looking at this ? Simply applying MDI's every day is not the answer .
Not having a go at the controllers in any sense . They can only work within the resources supplied by their management team .
Its time for change .
Is it not time that the whole TMA , SID's STARS etc are reworked completely ?
Is anyone in management at Scottish looking at this ? Simply applying MDI's every day is not the answer .
Not having a go at the controllers in any sense . They can only work within the resources supplied by their management team .
Its time for change .
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been over 8 years since I worked at EDI, but on a recent visit it was apparent that apart from new taxiways and the soon-to-open tower, nothing much has changed. A runway has closed and the other runway is parked on for most of the day. Are these problems caused by ATC? No. They are caused by the BAA.
After the then 13/31 was resurfaced in the early 90's, we were encouraged to use it as much as we could. We did. Departures from 13 and arrivals on 31 were the norm. This was great. It took the pressure of the then 07/25 to the tune of over 10,000 movements in the year. Crews loved it. ATC loved it. The vocal residents of the new expensive housing developments in the Gyle, constructed whilst the runway was being resurfaced, hated it. Overnight, we were told not to use it unless it was really necessary, i.e. strong crosswinds or closure of the other runway. Who told us not to use it? The BAA.
All the SIDs (except the DCS/TRN from 06) go "straight ahead" for at leat 5 and usually 7 miles. Why? The BAA want them to. Why? Noise abatement. OK, you can live with the turn to 050 after departure to avoid Cramond but why stay on that heading for 7 miles? Noise abatement they say. If the Talla SID from 06 turned right at 3D (like the DCS/TRN turn left) but remained offshore, departure separations could be improved greatly.
I worked on the ATC Technical Committee for several years and tried to get the Class E airspace upgraded to D. That still hasn't happened. Too much pressure from GA and military interests.
I tried to get the SIDs realigned to make things more efficient. You need "track guidance" for any new SIDs they said. OK, I said try these, sending them new ideas. Nothing. I go and work at Manchester and we get new SIDs which do not have any track guidance in them. Dual standards or something else?
Most of the ideas proposed at EDI were scuppered by the BAA for either noise or cost reasons.
Back to departure separations for a minute. EDI and GLA still use the speed table for departure separations. This was designed in the 1970's and with a few tweaks is still in use today. 2 minutes between a couple of BAC1-11s wasn't much more than the 5 miles Scottish required. 2 minutes between a couple of today's modern jets is about 8 miles. Can we reduce the time standard? No. Can we use radar to give you 5 miles? No. There's progress. I work in a tower where controllers are given the tools and the responsibility to give departure 3 miles in trail separation, based on radar information. The UK CAA does not allow tower controllers to use the ATM to do this. Why? Who knows.
Why do all departures go directly to Scottish, who use old equipment and procedures and are having to slow the traffic down to cope, rather than to an airport departure controller who uses better equipment and can use 3 miles separation? IMHO it comes down to money for staff at the airports and the unwillingness of Scottish to give up a task that somebody else could do better.
Until somebody plucks up the courage to make a decision that would improve matters, be it BAA, NATS or even CAA, then nothing will improve much, no matter how shiny that new tower is.
After the then 13/31 was resurfaced in the early 90's, we were encouraged to use it as much as we could. We did. Departures from 13 and arrivals on 31 were the norm. This was great. It took the pressure of the then 07/25 to the tune of over 10,000 movements in the year. Crews loved it. ATC loved it. The vocal residents of the new expensive housing developments in the Gyle, constructed whilst the runway was being resurfaced, hated it. Overnight, we were told not to use it unless it was really necessary, i.e. strong crosswinds or closure of the other runway. Who told us not to use it? The BAA.
All the SIDs (except the DCS/TRN from 06) go "straight ahead" for at leat 5 and usually 7 miles. Why? The BAA want them to. Why? Noise abatement. OK, you can live with the turn to 050 after departure to avoid Cramond but why stay on that heading for 7 miles? Noise abatement they say. If the Talla SID from 06 turned right at 3D (like the DCS/TRN turn left) but remained offshore, departure separations could be improved greatly.
I worked on the ATC Technical Committee for several years and tried to get the Class E airspace upgraded to D. That still hasn't happened. Too much pressure from GA and military interests.
I tried to get the SIDs realigned to make things more efficient. You need "track guidance" for any new SIDs they said. OK, I said try these, sending them new ideas. Nothing. I go and work at Manchester and we get new SIDs which do not have any track guidance in them. Dual standards or something else?
Most of the ideas proposed at EDI were scuppered by the BAA for either noise or cost reasons.
Back to departure separations for a minute. EDI and GLA still use the speed table for departure separations. This was designed in the 1970's and with a few tweaks is still in use today. 2 minutes between a couple of BAC1-11s wasn't much more than the 5 miles Scottish required. 2 minutes between a couple of today's modern jets is about 8 miles. Can we reduce the time standard? No. Can we use radar to give you 5 miles? No. There's progress. I work in a tower where controllers are given the tools and the responsibility to give departure 3 miles in trail separation, based on radar information. The UK CAA does not allow tower controllers to use the ATM to do this. Why? Who knows.
Why do all departures go directly to Scottish, who use old equipment and procedures and are having to slow the traffic down to cope, rather than to an airport departure controller who uses better equipment and can use 3 miles separation? IMHO it comes down to money for staff at the airports and the unwillingness of Scottish to give up a task that somebody else could do better.
Until somebody plucks up the courage to make a decision that would improve matters, be it BAA, NATS or even CAA, then nothing will improve much, no matter how shiny that new tower is.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: down here
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at EDI's masterplan released on 19th May. It's on BAA's website.
The boss has been quoted as saying "we don't have a build it and they will come mentality. You have to attract operators to fly to destinations and then build the facilities necessary"
With that sort of forward thinking my friends is it no wonder the infrastructure isn't adequate.
The boss has been quoted as saying "we don't have a build it and they will come mentality. You have to attract operators to fly to destinations and then build the facilities necessary"
With that sort of forward thinking my friends is it no wonder the infrastructure isn't adequate.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nil further
Yes, it probably is the time the SIDs, STARs etc were looked at. The current TMA procedures were introduced in the early 90s and had not been significantly changed since the Talla sector 'split' was introduced a couple of months back. This has resulted in an increase in sector capacity for the few hours that the sector can be split each day. Whether 38/60 instead of 32/60 will significantly reduce delays remains to be seen but at if the increase in traffic continues at the same rate as it has I can see it being only a short term solution.
The Galloway sector hasn't been changed at all and remains at 42/60. That is not sufficient to allow free flow first thing in the morning so it will certainly need looking at. We can only hope that we get proper resectorisation this time rather than the half-arsed sectorisation we suffered with Talla.
The worrying thing is that on the floor plans for NPC I only saw one Galloway sector
Yes, it probably is the time the SIDs, STARs etc were looked at. The current TMA procedures were introduced in the early 90s and had not been significantly changed since the Talla sector 'split' was introduced a couple of months back. This has resulted in an increase in sector capacity for the few hours that the sector can be split each day. Whether 38/60 instead of 32/60 will significantly reduce delays remains to be seen but at if the increase in traffic continues at the same rate as it has I can see it being only a short term solution.
The Galloway sector hasn't been changed at all and remains at 42/60. That is not sufficient to allow free flow first thing in the morning so it will certainly need looking at. We can only hope that we get proper resectorisation this time rather than the half-arsed sectorisation we suffered with Talla.
The worrying thing is that on the floor plans for NPC I only saw one Galloway sector
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post Cossack...
It's a shame that the controllers there are so constrained. We get to use visual separation on nice days with divergiing courses here. 15degrees or more and as long as the front one isn't a heavy, all we need is 6000 feet down the runway and wheels coming off the ground to roll the next one <G>... It is sweet indeed...
regards
Scott
It's a shame that the controllers there are so constrained. We get to use visual separation on nice days with divergiing courses here. 15degrees or more and as long as the front one isn't a heavy, all we need is 6000 feet down the runway and wheels coming off the ground to roll the next one <G>... It is sweet indeed...
regards
Scott
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Auld Reekie
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALIX
Do you have any info on the thinking behind the decision to make all departures from EDI (and I presume GLA) subject to flow restriction in the morning? Doesn't this just prove that knee jerking is preferable (apparently) to actually redesigning and retraining to achieve maximum sector flow just when you need it in the morning?
Although that is a vast improvement on 1 per 3 or 4 MDI's which from a tower point of view is a disaster at short notice.
Cossack
There is a small change to the days you mention, tower controllers are now able to use additional uses to the ATM, which basically means so long as there's no radar unserviceabilities and ground is open, the controller is able to use the ATM for identification, validating mode A and verifying mode C, gaining separation between departures and also in the event of a go around. It's definitely an improvement on what was allowed, and does allow for SOME flexibility on the speed table.
Do you have any info on the thinking behind the decision to make all departures from EDI (and I presume GLA) subject to flow restriction in the morning? Doesn't this just prove that knee jerking is preferable (apparently) to actually redesigning and retraining to achieve maximum sector flow just when you need it in the morning?
Although that is a vast improvement on 1 per 3 or 4 MDI's which from a tower point of view is a disaster at short notice.
Cossack
There is a small change to the days you mention, tower controllers are now able to use additional uses to the ATM, which basically means so long as there's no radar unserviceabilities and ground is open, the controller is able to use the ATM for identification, validating mode A and verifying mode C, gaining separation between departures and also in the event of a go around. It's definitely an improvement on what was allowed, and does allow for SOME flexibility on the speed table.
Following this thread it is obvious that pilots and ATCers alike have the same ambition i.e. to have efficient and expeditious departures & arrivals at EDI. Unfortunately the powers that be have different ideas! In the day of global warming and $60 barrels of oil this is clearly unacceptable.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
callyoushortly
Are you meaning proper, CFMU flow control in place of the MDIs? Well, it might not be an bad idea in theory but the problem is not the Galloway sector capacity of 42/60 it is more one of all those 42 coming in the 0700-0730 period. MDIs are therefore put in place to spread the traffic out a bit.
Anyway, you are right, money needs to be invested (much more acceptable word than 'spent', isn't it?) as the current short term arrangement is not a long term fix.
The truth of the matter is that there are far busier TMAs in the UK than the Scottish one. They have evolved with the times - smaller sectors, more controllers. Up here, meanwhile, they have tried address increased traffic levels with one very much part time new sector and no increase in controller numbers.
But, I suppose, they papered over the LATCC cracks in the run-up to Swanwick and that is what they are doing here prior to NPC.
Are you meaning proper, CFMU flow control in place of the MDIs? Well, it might not be an bad idea in theory but the problem is not the Galloway sector capacity of 42/60 it is more one of all those 42 coming in the 0700-0730 period. MDIs are therefore put in place to spread the traffic out a bit.
Anyway, you are right, money needs to be invested (much more acceptable word than 'spent', isn't it?) as the current short term arrangement is not a long term fix.
The truth of the matter is that there are far busier TMAs in the UK than the Scottish one. They have evolved with the times - smaller sectors, more controllers. Up here, meanwhile, they have tried address increased traffic levels with one very much part time new sector and no increase in controller numbers.
But, I suppose, they papered over the LATCC cracks in the run-up to Swanwick and that is what they are doing here prior to NPC.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Auld Reekie
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALIX
I believe it's a new trial of CFMU restrictions into the Galloway sector until 4th July. About 90% of the aircraft outbound from EDI are subject to slots which is causing a little bit of whingeing (not surprisingly) where the pilots are concerned.
I guess it does make for easier times for all, Galloway get exactly the flow rate they want, and EDI are not lumped with last minute MDI's when the queue has already formed at the holding point.
It'll be interesting to see if it's adopted in the long term.
I believe it's a new trial of CFMU restrictions into the Galloway sector until 4th July. About 90% of the aircraft outbound from EDI are subject to slots which is causing a little bit of whingeing (not surprisingly) where the pilots are concerned.
I guess it does make for easier times for all, Galloway get exactly the flow rate they want, and EDI are not lumped with last minute MDI's when the queue has already formed at the holding point.
It'll be interesting to see if it's adopted in the long term.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balix
"they have tried to address increased traffic levels with one very much part time new sector and no increase in controller numbers"
Better get the Manchester lot up there as soon as possible then unless management lets even more of them sidestep and take our approach jobs and promotion prospects!!!!
"they have tried to address increased traffic levels with one very much part time new sector and no increase in controller numbers"
Better get the Manchester lot up there as soon as possible then unless management lets even more of them sidestep and take our approach jobs and promotion prospects!!!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the SIDs out of EDI headed the same way initially for "environmental" reasons ie noise...
and given the increasing priority that politicians, environmentalists and people generally are giving to reducing emissions for the sake of the environment....
Is it not time to start looking at ways to minimise aircraft sitting at the holding point burning many many kg of fuel, in order that no departures turn early and cause some noise for someone on the ground?
After all, an early turn might cause more noise for some people, but it also reduces noise for the other people who would have been overflown by the SID but now don't!
Have I missed something here? Or am I just cynical 'cos I've never been able to afford a house in any village that has a SID bent around / away from it?!
and given the increasing priority that politicians, environmentalists and people generally are giving to reducing emissions for the sake of the environment....
Is it not time to start looking at ways to minimise aircraft sitting at the holding point burning many many kg of fuel, in order that no departures turn early and cause some noise for someone on the ground?
After all, an early turn might cause more noise for some people, but it also reduces noise for the other people who would have been overflown by the SID but now don't!
Have I missed something here? Or am I just cynical 'cos I've never been able to afford a house in any village that has a SID bent around / away from it?!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: wishing I were over there
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi
I'm interested in a visit to EDI atc ( I'm based there ) can any of you ATCO's PM me a number to call or and e-mail to write to.
if not no probs. just curious.
cheers
FS
I'm interested in a visit to EDI atc ( I'm based there ) can any of you ATCO's PM me a number to call or and e-mail to write to.
if not no probs. just curious.
cheers
FS
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Callyoushortly
Yes, I understand what you were talking about now as it has been explained to me by someone in the know down at the pub the other night. Galloway restriction reduced to 39/60. Don't know if it has helped as I haven't had the pleasure of a morning rush for a while. I guess it is better than MDIs and if the customer suffers delays it might galvanise the management boys into action in trying to find a more satisfactory solution.
Hootin
The Manchester boys will love it up here - especially when the various banks merge and some of them will have to get West Coast validations
Yes, I understand what you were talking about now as it has been explained to me by someone in the know down at the pub the other night. Galloway restriction reduced to 39/60. Don't know if it has helped as I haven't had the pleasure of a morning rush for a while. I guess it is better than MDIs and if the customer suffers delays it might galvanise the management boys into action in trying to find a more satisfactory solution.
Hootin
The Manchester boys will love it up here - especially when the various banks merge and some of them will have to get West Coast validations