Entry to UK Airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entry to UK Airspace
Apologies if this has been asked before – I did try a search. Please just post a link if this has been covered.
On hand over to London from France why do you read aircraft their whole flight-planned route? Eg: “SpazAir 123, route Avant – Ockham – Midhurst – Hemel – Trent – Dayne 1A Manchester”.
Isn’t this a waste of R/T bandwidth? I’m sure you haven’t always done it as I’ve only noticed it in the last couple of years. Do you expect a full read-back or will just a, “SpazAir 123, direct Avant, flight-planned route,” do? (Or just, “SpazAir 123, direct Avant”).
Other ATC units don’t do this with such zeal, and neither do London when we attack the UK from the BHD or WAL directions.
Thanks.
On hand over to London from France why do you read aircraft their whole flight-planned route? Eg: “SpazAir 123, route Avant – Ockham – Midhurst – Hemel – Trent – Dayne 1A Manchester”.
Isn’t this a waste of R/T bandwidth? I’m sure you haven’t always done it as I’ve only noticed it in the last couple of years. Do you expect a full read-back or will just a, “SpazAir 123, direct Avant, flight-planned route,” do? (Or just, “SpazAir 123, direct Avant”).
Other ATC units don’t do this with such zeal, and neither do London when we attack the UK from the BHD or WAL directions.
Thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid it's because the big book of air traffic rules says we must, presumably to prevent you wandering off in unexpected directions should your flight plan be different to the one we have. This does seem somewhat of a throwback to non-radar years, where being on a different route would have been much more dangerous if applying time estimates and position report seperation.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and neither do London when we attack the UK from the BHD or WAL directions.
Further to NLN's reply, in the current political climate people get a bit jumpy if you start wandering off the route that we expect you to be flying, particularly if this is accompanied by a temporary loss of R/T contact.
LTP
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
earnest
We are required to read the route, and monitor the read-back, as per unit instructions. There are several good reasons:
1 no ambiguity or mis-interpretation
2 radio failure....we know where you're going
3 your flight plan may not be the same as ours
4 the STAR probably contains important descent planning
The south-east is extremely dense and complex airspace and in order to accommodate more and more aircraft we use more sectors....each being like a box....and all the boxes look like a stack of dominoes; your flight will have a slot and a route through a sequence of these sectors and it is important that you do not stray into some-one elses.
Couple of other points of interest, when traffic levels permit, some of these sectors are joined, for instance at night, and some parts of the route can be straightened because one controller has authority over more than one sector. Daytime maximum sectorisation [staff numbers permitting ] enables a massive amount of traffic to be shifted with minimum or no delay.....the complex route/sector structure reduces the amount of individual co-ordination required between controllers.
Whenever weather prevents traffic from being able to follow these routes there is likelihood of incursion into an unplanned sector and a gross increase in controller workload .......and the result is a significant reduction in traffic handling capacity leading to imposition of reduced flow regulations.
You mention BHD......the sectors are simpler and fewer, although the intersections are a nightmare....you may get SALCO direct MONTY quite often......there is a little kink in the airway by DIKAS/BCN and the "direct" keeps you within the route, it also positions you just west of DIKAS and the eventual heading assignment is perfect to allow southbound traffic to climb on the eastern side with plenty of room for three or four abreast .
Welcome down here anytime....plug in and be amazed....can we have a ride in return....we don't get fam flights.
RGDS
1 no ambiguity or mis-interpretation
2 radio failure....we know where you're going
3 your flight plan may not be the same as ours
4 the STAR probably contains important descent planning
The south-east is extremely dense and complex airspace and in order to accommodate more and more aircraft we use more sectors....each being like a box....and all the boxes look like a stack of dominoes; your flight will have a slot and a route through a sequence of these sectors and it is important that you do not stray into some-one elses.
Couple of other points of interest, when traffic levels permit, some of these sectors are joined, for instance at night, and some parts of the route can be straightened because one controller has authority over more than one sector. Daytime maximum sectorisation [staff numbers permitting ] enables a massive amount of traffic to be shifted with minimum or no delay.....the complex route/sector structure reduces the amount of individual co-ordination required between controllers.
Whenever weather prevents traffic from being able to follow these routes there is likelihood of incursion into an unplanned sector and a gross increase in controller workload .......and the result is a significant reduction in traffic handling capacity leading to imposition of reduced flow regulations.
You mention BHD......the sectors are simpler and fewer, although the intersections are a nightmare....you may get SALCO direct MONTY quite often......there is a little kink in the airway by DIKAS/BCN and the "direct" keeps you within the route, it also positions you just west of DIKAS and the eventual heading assignment is perfect to allow southbound traffic to climb on the eastern side with plenty of room for three or four abreast .
Welcome down here anytime....plug in and be amazed....can we have a ride in return....we don't get fam flights.
RGDS
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to the replies, I know that routes have been issued in full like this for at least 10 years and a full readback is required. However I know that on occasions it isn't done but these aren't normally left that way. It is a bit of a nause, but its necessary as there are occasions when our routings have been different to that expected due to tactical re-routes (both ours and airline trying to avoid flow) so as we know you know exactly where to go. We have too many aircraft packed into too little airspace to be able to monitor that every aircraft is following the expected route all the time, and will not take kindly to any unexpected deviations which could lead into a very dangerous situation.
On a lighter note, I'd prefer you to route AVANT-MID-OCK-HEMEL for the DAYNE2A, your way may give you and your pax a few suprises over London!!
On a lighter note, I'd prefer you to route AVANT-MID-OCK-HEMEL for the DAYNE2A, your way may give you and your pax a few suprises over London!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Centre of old Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. Two observations if I may.
1. A few weeks ago there was a thread on Entry to French Airspace :
I note a marked difference in the replies concerning UK and French airspace. While the emphasis for British airspace is on justifications for this additional R/T load which apparently is just a bit of a nause, for the French there was an overtone of criticism about the peculiar French habit of exchanging unnecessary route details: long winded on the RT, irritating, frustrating, cumbersome. Also Swiss airspace was lumped in the same basket, the full route (re)clearance explained as a historical thing.
Measuring by different standards?
2. The heart of the problem has been given above:
Now, in what day and age do we live. Has the communications revolution not reached the different players in our aviation sector? AO (LIDO an the lot), airborne FMS, local ATC, CFMU-IFPS, CFMU-flow, all may have a different version of the flightplan, compelling to check on overloaded R/T channels which of the flightplans should be followed. If you don't, for other compelling reasons, you run the risk of being accused of human error if something goes wrong.
Isn't it time to invest a few pennies to clear out the inconsistencies between the systems that produce different versions of the flight plan, rather than leaving it to pilots and controllers to waste their scarce time and effort by repeating route details.
It is really not necessary for AO systems, CFMU-IFPS, CFMU-flow and local ATC to stick to their own versions of the flightplan. Just give up a little power and not-invented-here syndrome. Construct together one flightpan instead of four different ones. Each specialism can add his particular knowledge to the common goal from his or her perspective. That's what we have automated communication between systems for. It will be somewhat more difficult to continuously connect to FMS, but even that should not be impossible through an air-ground link between systems, perhaps at a later stage.
Pilots and controllers should require their management to go for real solutions rather than passing the buck to the flight deck and control room on overloaded R/T.
1. A few weeks ago there was a thread on Entry to French Airspace :
Very often when you check in with a French ATC-facility the conversation goes like this:
Plane: "Marseille, Bonjour, Airliner123, FL360 to ATN"
ATC: "Airliner123, bonjour, maintain Fl 360, proceed direct to ATN"
Since his reply is an instruction I have to reply again:
"Airliner123, maintaining FL360 to ATN"
(Exactly what I already told him in my initial call)
This causes unnecessary frequency occupation.
This is something typically French. In almost all other countries the ATC will reply with "airliner123, good morning, radarcontact" (or similar) when they don't issue a new instruction and this doesn't need acknowledgment from my side.
Plane: "Marseille, Bonjour, Airliner123, FL360 to ATN"
ATC: "Airliner123, bonjour, maintain Fl 360, proceed direct to ATN"
Since his reply is an instruction I have to reply again:
"Airliner123, maintaining FL360 to ATN"
(Exactly what I already told him in my initial call)
This causes unnecessary frequency occupation.
This is something typically French. In almost all other countries the ATC will reply with "airliner123, good morning, radarcontact" (or similar) when they don't issue a new instruction and this doesn't need acknowledgment from my side.
Measuring by different standards?
2. The heart of the problem has been given above:
your flight plan may not be the same as ours
Isn't it time to invest a few pennies to clear out the inconsistencies between the systems that produce different versions of the flight plan, rather than leaving it to pilots and controllers to waste their scarce time and effort by repeating route details.
It is really not necessary for AO systems, CFMU-IFPS, CFMU-flow and local ATC to stick to their own versions of the flightplan. Just give up a little power and not-invented-here syndrome. Construct together one flightpan instead of four different ones. Each specialism can add his particular knowledge to the common goal from his or her perspective. That's what we have automated communication between systems for. It will be somewhat more difficult to continuously connect to FMS, but even that should not be impossible through an air-ground link between systems, perhaps at a later stage.
Pilots and controllers should require their management to go for real solutions rather than passing the buck to the flight deck and control room on overloaded R/T.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% of the flight plan mismatches I have seen have been because of human error, not because the system hasn't done it's job.
Predominantly it's been 'Ops' not giving the crew a refiled plan. Not being airline staff, I don't know why that happens or the possible solution.
Occasionally, it's because a plan has been changed (or refiled) and the ATC unit responsible for inputting the plan in to the UK system hasn't actioned it. The 'Night Shift' usually end up getting the blame
. The solution to that is an 'Automated Flight Plan Reception System'. Like the one we've had coming for the last 5 or 6 years and isn't quite here yet 
Predominantly it's been 'Ops' not giving the crew a refiled plan. Not being airline staff, I don't know why that happens or the possible solution.
Occasionally, it's because a plan has been changed (or refiled) and the ATC unit responsible for inputting the plan in to the UK system hasn't actioned it. The 'Night Shift' usually end up getting the blame
. The solution to that is an 'Automated Flight Plan Reception System'. Like the one we've had coming for the last 5 or 6 years and isn't quite here yet
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MATS 2 for LACC says that a/c landing in your FIR should get the full routeing ie LND GIBSO OCK1E EGLL.
If your overflying the FIR the first sector should get the a/c to the end of the next sector ie STU CPT BPK.
Usually we'll get you to the other side of the FIR if we're not too busy and the route is not too long.
CF
If your overflying the FIR the first sector should get the a/c to the end of the next sector ie STU CPT BPK.
Usually we'll get you to the other side of the FIR if we're not too busy and the route is not too long.
CF
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Close to Lutecia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it time to invest a few pennies to clear out the inconsistencies between the systems that produce different versions of the flight plan, rather than leaving it to pilots and controllers to waste their scarce time and effort by repeating route details.
On that subject, the link for an interesting presentation:
http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.be/cfmu/...single_fpl.pdf
The actual mandate plus all the documentation on the Single Initial Flight Plan: http://www.eurocontrol.int/enprm/pub...nprm04007.html
rgds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the replies, Ladies & Gentlemen. If these are the rules and reasons behind it, however archaic, then so be it. I still don't see why the whole route should be read out in the "busy airspace" on the way in, when it isn't on the way out which is equally busy (IMHO). Other busy ATC units abroad don't find it necessary.
Songbird 29: yes, the French method is annoying for the reasons you say.
5milesbaby: you're right! It is AVANT-MID-OCK-HEMEL. No wonder I've been flying in circles all these years but, as denachtenmai says, after a 3 waypoint instruction we're struggling a bit.
055166k: have been to both Drayton and Swanwick in my time and both visits were terrific value. Thoroughly recommended. I believe fam flights are still allowed it's just that the paperwork involved has increased exponentially. To have someone on the flight deck saying, "No dipstick, it's MID before OCK!" would have saved my company millions over the years.
Songbird 29: yes, the French method is annoying for the reasons you say.
5milesbaby: you're right! It is AVANT-MID-OCK-HEMEL. No wonder I've been flying in circles all these years but, as denachtenmai says, after a 3 waypoint instruction we're struggling a bit.
055166k: have been to both Drayton and Swanwick in my time and both visits were terrific value. Thoroughly recommended. I believe fam flights are still allowed it's just that the paperwork involved has increased exponentially. To have someone on the flight deck saying, "No dipstick, it's MID before OCK!" would have saved my company millions over the years.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
earnest,
As has been said before, the route is mandatory because there have been case of planes not flying what we have on the strip. An example of this would be XXX who thought they were going to fly down UN864 (MONTY - BCN - BHD) but we thought they would fly UN862 (NOKIN - CUMRI - TUTON - BHD). When we started giving them their own nav back, they didn't have the points in the FMS and it could have caused problems for different sectors if they had flown on their plan and not what was one the strips.
As an aside, if an aircraft strays too far from it's NAS flightplan route, NAS no longer processes the coordination for us and we get out of association grey strips.
CF
As has been said before, the route is mandatory because there have been case of planes not flying what we have on the strip. An example of this would be XXX who thought they were going to fly down UN864 (MONTY - BCN - BHD) but we thought they would fly UN862 (NOKIN - CUMRI - TUTON - BHD). When we started giving them their own nav back, they didn't have the points in the FMS and it could have caused problems for different sectors if they had flown on their plan and not what was one the strips.
As an aside, if an aircraft strays too far from it's NAS flightplan route, NAS no longer processes the coordination for us and we get out of association grey strips.
CF
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar mentions re-routes by Airline Ops not getting to the flight deck. To add to this, I would say about 10 times each summer I give a new flight plan over the RTf due to this. Normally its traffic routing south to Spain that have reflied to use a different exit point, but sometimes its one coming north that is avoiding either Hurn or Berryhead sectors. However occasionally the discrepancy our fault as the flightplan has been incorrectly entered into the system.
Its not good for the RTF loading doing this, but its reassuring that everyone knows what they should be doing. I sometimes wonder if there should be an initial frequency for pilots to check in on to get the full routing before proper handover from the adjacent FIR, but that means more ATC bodies that are in short supply as it is, and why should the UK get even more different than it already is, but I expect when datalinking is fully operational the need would then be gone.
Its not good for the RTF loading doing this, but its reassuring that everyone knows what they should be doing. I sometimes wonder if there should be an initial frequency for pilots to check in on to get the full routing before proper handover from the adjacent FIR, but that means more ATC bodies that are in short supply as it is, and why should the UK get even more different than it already is, but I expect when datalinking is fully operational the need would then be gone.
