Question for London ATCO's
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
From: Gatwick
Question for London ATCO's
I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere, but I'm a bit of a lazy sod.
Can a London ATCO answer me this please.
An aircraft, which has been cleared by the French to Gubar, is handed over to London when approaching Gubar.
London issue, say, the Timba 2 Bravo STAR for RW 08R Gatwick, descend when ready FL150, level Bexil.
Easy so far. What happens if a subsequent instruction is issued before the aircraft reaches Bexil to proceed direct Midhurst for RW 08. In the absence of any further instruction, is the requirement to be FL150 at Bexil now automatically changed to "be FL150 abeam Bexil", by virtue of the fact we are now longer actually going to overfly Bexil?
Thanks in advance.
Can a London ATCO answer me this please.
An aircraft, which has been cleared by the French to Gubar, is handed over to London when approaching Gubar.
London issue, say, the Timba 2 Bravo STAR for RW 08R Gatwick, descend when ready FL150, level Bexil.
Easy so far. What happens if a subsequent instruction is issued before the aircraft reaches Bexil to proceed direct Midhurst for RW 08. In the absence of any further instruction, is the requirement to be FL150 at Bexil now automatically changed to "be FL150 abeam Bexil", by virtue of the fact we are now longer actually going to overfly Bexil?
Thanks in advance.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: OK (it's okay)
Although this does not answer your question about London specifically, the procedure in the U.S. is covered in the 7110.65, 4-2-5 b.:
"NOTE-
Restating previously issued altitude to "maintain" is an amended clearance. If altitude to "maintain" is changed or restated, whether prior to departure or while airborne, and previously issued altitude restrictions are omitted, altitude restrictions are canceled, including DP/FMSP/STAR altitude restrictions if any."
---
ATC Live Chat 24/7
"NOTE-
Restating previously issued altitude to "maintain" is an amended clearance. If altitude to "maintain" is changed or restated, whether prior to departure or while airborne, and previously issued altitude restrictions are omitted, altitude restrictions are canceled, including DP/FMSP/STAR altitude restrictions if any."
---
ATC Live Chat 24/7
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
From: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Random E,
We've done this a few times, but to paraphrase, just like the US, if the level restriction is still required it should be re-iterated (i.e. DCT MID cross abeam BEXIL 150)
I can't see that it would be needed if you're going to MID for 08R. Was this at night somewhen?
Rgds BEX
We've done this a few times, but to paraphrase, just like the US, if the level restriction is still required it should be re-iterated (i.e. DCT MID cross abeam BEXIL 150)
I can't see that it would be needed if you're going to MID for 08R. Was this at night somewhen?
Rgds BEX
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
From: Gatwick
Thanks for the replies guys, an I'm sorry if this is going over old ground, but it is a constant topic of debate in crew rooms.
We have an examiner of airmen in my own company who insists the requirement would still apply, albiet abeam the previous fix. Seems he is mistaken. Now I've got him. Lovely!
We have an examiner of airmen in my own company who insists the requirement would still apply, albiet abeam the previous fix. Seems he is mistaken. Now I've got him. Lovely!
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
From: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Random E,
No problem.... Perhaps a visit to either LTCC at West Drayton, or LACC at Swanwick would be useful for all?
We rarely see pilots in either ACC, and you and any of your colleagues would be very welcome (as they would at any ATCU anywhere, I reckon)
Just pick up the phone......
Rgds BEX
No problem.... Perhaps a visit to either LTCC at West Drayton, or LACC at Swanwick would be useful for all?
We rarely see pilots in either ACC, and you and any of your colleagues would be very welcome (as they would at any ATCU anywhere, I reckon)
Just pick up the phone......
Rgds BEX
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 762
Likes: 198
From: London
That answer is correct and by the book, however.....
The restriction is there to keep you out of someone else's airspace and it can help tremendously if you do in fact abide by the restriction even though it hasn't been restated.
Don't forget, in your example, there may still be traffic routing via MID or GWC towards HOLLY, if you are too high you can expect a spin or dog leg.
If you get in that situation, take comfort in the fact you were perfectly correct to ignore the 150 BEXIL restriction and hope that examiner isn't sitting behind you to say 'I told you so'
The restriction is there to keep you out of someone else's airspace and it can help tremendously if you do in fact abide by the restriction even though it hasn't been restated.
Don't forget, in your example, there may still be traffic routing via MID or GWC towards HOLLY, if you are too high you can expect a spin or dog leg.
If you get in that situation, take comfort in the fact you were perfectly correct to ignore the 150 BEXIL restriction and hope that examiner isn't sitting behind you to say 'I told you so'
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Del;
How would a pilot know that the restriction is still needed on a different route if not restated???? We don't expect to have controllers read pilots minds, so it goes the other way around. If you still need the restriction, then do it the right way...
regards
Scott
How would a pilot know that the restriction is still needed on a different route if not restated???? We don't expect to have controllers read pilots minds, so it goes the other way around. If you still need the restriction, then do it the right way...
regards
Scott
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
From: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Del,
Think Track Miles....
In the scenario given for 08R what level do you think the inbound from BEXIL is likely to be at say, due south of EGKK, even without a level restriction? It's gonna be about 24 track miles to touch down from there, so say about FL80 (love CDAs)
I'm with Scott, If you need a level restriction, re-state it.
Rgds BEX
Think Track Miles....
In the scenario given for 08R what level do you think the inbound from BEXIL is likely to be at say, due south of EGKK, even without a level restriction? It's gonna be about 24 track miles to touch down from there, so say about FL80 (love CDAs)
I'm with Scott, If you need a level restriction, re-state it.
Rgds BEX
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 762
Likes: 198
From: London
Bex,
To be honest, I've seen traffic up at 9 or 10 abeam the field on a night shift but the point of conflict is further east than abeam the field and if it's an opposite direction confliction(GWC-HOLLY versus BEXIL-MID), one would like to see the aircraft at min stack well before the conflict point.
With respect to Scott, he doesn't operate in our TMA (although his view is fully correct, accurate and in accordance with ICAO and Uk procedures).
However when the position (on restating of restrictions) was clarified a few years ago, many of our colleagues felt it would increase congestion on already busy frequencies.
If the restriction is not restated it no longer applies, however pilots can do a great deal in helping the smooth running of the London TMA by doing their best to comply with the restrictions anyway (unless the frequency is very quiet and they can ask specifically)
I really don't want to open this one up again, more info can be found here
and here
To be honest, I've seen traffic up at 9 or 10 abeam the field on a night shift but the point of conflict is further east than abeam the field and if it's an opposite direction confliction(GWC-HOLLY versus BEXIL-MID), one would like to see the aircraft at min stack well before the conflict point.
With respect to Scott, he doesn't operate in our TMA (although his view is fully correct, accurate and in accordance with ICAO and Uk procedures).
However when the position (on restating of restrictions) was clarified a few years ago, many of our colleagues felt it would increase congestion on already busy frequencies.
If the restriction is not restated it no longer applies, however pilots can do a great deal in helping the smooth running of the London TMA by doing their best to comply with the restrictions anyway (unless the frequency is very quiet and they can ask specifically)
I really don't want to open this one up again, more info can be found here
and here
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 762
Likes: 198
From: London
Yes Scott, but I'm led to believe you only have more traffic because you have twice the airspace, twelve times the runways, ropey procedures that british pilots would never follow and cowboy controllers who have no idea how to use the queen's english never mind standard phraseology.
Ooops sorry wrong thread
Ooops sorry wrong thread
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
From: California USA
you have twice the airspace, twelve times the runways, ropey procedures that british pilots would never follow and cowboy controllers who have no idea how to use the queen's english never mind standard phraseology.
Unless, of course, that was supposed to be humorous. In addition to being cowboy-controllers, we Americans have no feel for irony you know...
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
From: Daansaaf
Moving back. Del is correct in stating that it helps ATC when pilots adhere to the original descent restriction. Generally, it's easily achievable by retaining the previous rate of descent. Is it time to change the book rather than having people quote it, be "correct", and score points when there's no need?
The main reason that the descent restriction is not repeated ad-nauseum is because there isn't the transmission space on the R/T. If every pilot were to query the previous descent restriction and every ATCO were to re-qualify it with every subsequent descent clearance, we'd have to decrease the flow rate on the sector.
Are the descent restrictions generally due to standing agreements and not only do they allow silent handovers but also keep vertical sectors separated? Would a sudden change from a high rate of descent to a lower cause problems further up the chain?
The main reason that the descent restriction is not repeated ad-nauseum is because there isn't the transmission space on the R/T. If every pilot were to query the previous descent restriction and every ATCO were to re-qualify it with every subsequent descent clearance, we'd have to decrease the flow rate on the sector.
Are the descent restrictions generally due to standing agreements and not only do they allow silent handovers but also keep vertical sectors separated? Would a sudden change from a high rate of descent to a lower cause problems further up the chain?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Hi Del;
Yup we did build the airport correctly <G>... Oh as to the Queens English, nope we don't have to use it anymore, we won < BG >, happy fourth of July...
<grining, ducking and running like hell.)
reagrds
Scott
Yup we did build the airport correctly <G>... Oh as to the Queens English, nope we don't have to use it anymore, we won < BG >, happy fourth of July...
<grining, ducking and running like hell.)
reagrds
Scott
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
From: Greystation
Why do we always beat this one to death every year?
We ALL (ATC) know the restriction is void if not re-stated, so if you need it for separation - REISSUE IT.
5 seconds of RTF is much better than 50 years in jail, if you think that under no circumstances the restriction could be re-issued, file an overload.
We ALL (ATC) know the restriction is void if not re-stated, so if you need it for separation - REISSUE IT.
5 seconds of RTF is much better than 50 years in jail, if you think that under no circumstances the restriction could be re-issued, file an overload.
