EDI Radar
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 W, you certainly know your bookwork but seem a little blind to what actually happens on a daily basis. The 4 abeam TLA happens so frequently that we actually have a term for it at EDI. We call it Scottish giving us the 4 finger f**k.
Colmac Stira is still used. It is a joint holding facility used by EDI and GLA for traffic inbound from the North.
Colmac Stira is still used. It is a joint holding facility used by EDI and GLA for traffic inbound from the North.
Whatthef***!?!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Isle of Rockall
Age: 48
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Wheely..
One remembers the STIRA point being used during Concordes farewell..anyway,
Best not bring eavesdropping/airband into this disco- I got flamed recently(and probably rightly too)!
One remembers the STIRA point being used during Concordes farewell..anyway,
Best not bring eavesdropping/airband into this disco- I got flamed recently(and probably rightly too)!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheely, there were definitely occasions when it was the 5 finger f*ck, though may I promise a change of terminology to "fisting"?
I'll get me coat....
and may I exchange the word \"promise\" for \"propose\"? Really should proof-read before hitting submit.
Here in the far west, we don\'t get \"fisted\" (hey, think it\'ll catch on?) since most arrivals are on STARs, but we do get pancakes. Also, vectoring to 2 airports can be rather interesting at times. On the plus side, all the airspace below FL250 belongs to us.
I'll get me coat....
and may I exchange the word \"promise\" for \"propose\"? Really should proof-read before hitting submit.
Here in the far west, we don\'t get \"fisted\" (hey, think it\'ll catch on?) since most arrivals are on STARs, but we do get pancakes. Also, vectoring to 2 airports can be rather interesting at times. On the plus side, all the airspace below FL250 belongs to us.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Up Norf
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey
Hey all,
Well this has turned out to be rather unsavoury. Why should there be this competition between you guys on Area and on Approach?
This just goes back to my previous question, that surely Area Controllors who provide a direct to 8/10 mile final have co-ordinated this with Radar? When arriving from SURAT-GOMOT, etc its obviously a bonus to be given the direct routing, but it's no good if it's not been agreed all the way.
I would quite happily take an airway route to a holding fix, fly one pattern, be picked off and given a short approach track, rather than be flown all over the sky and slowed down. It makes our job easier, in planning a constant descent profile, and also provides great spacial awareness as to where the other aircraft are and how we all fit into the picture.
Is it true that it's the location of the TWEED hold, ie not directly at the end of the STAR, that discourages controllers from using it?
Callyoushortly - Are you Area or Approach? I would love to come and say hello, who would one contact to make the arrangements?
Cheers,
HS
Well this has turned out to be rather unsavoury. Why should there be this competition between you guys on Area and on Approach?
And so you were given a direct routeing, from I expect a considerable distance, by an area controller who would have no idea of the other aircraft that were inbound to Edinburgh at the time. As they got closer, a discussion took place between controllers and you were given a turn to fit into the traffic pattern....You dont like it...then fly airways all the way. I think you will find it considerably longer!
This just goes back to my previous question, that surely Area Controllors who provide a direct to 8/10 mile final have co-ordinated this with Radar? When arriving from SURAT-GOMOT, etc its obviously a bonus to be given the direct routing, but it's no good if it's not been agreed all the way.
I would quite happily take an airway route to a holding fix, fly one pattern, be picked off and given a short approach track, rather than be flown all over the sky and slowed down. It makes our job easier, in planning a constant descent profile, and also provides great spacial awareness as to where the other aircraft are and how we all fit into the picture.
Is it true that it's the location of the TWEED hold, ie not directly at the end of the STAR, that discourages controllers from using it?
Callyoushortly - Are you Area or Approach? I would love to come and say hello, who would one contact to make the arrangements?
Cheers,
HS
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies to the original poster who has had thier opinions and questions turned into an EDI ScATCC slanging match....but I can't let this one go without adding my two pence worth so here goes.
I work at Scottish and spend the vast majority of my time doing the terminal control side of things.The airspace that we both hav e to work with at PH and Scottish is tight, restrictive, and just not designed to cope with the throughput of traffic that occurs during the extremely busy inbound flows that happen at PH now. Controllers at both units could do with getting together and thrashing out problems that they have with each other.
Due to the way flow control works there can be no PH arrivals for half an hour, then an hours worth in the next 30 minutes. I'm sure this is the same at most European airfields however.
The way i tend to work is to at least attempt to get a sequence going. I will make sure that the traffic by the time PH radar get it is all 6-10 miles in trail and doing max 250kts,with perhaps the first two or three in the sequence keeping high speed. Bear in mind that there are arrivals coming into the Talla sector from three directions for PH and this might mean aircraft getting slowed to 250kts 100 miles from PH-note to Airbus drivers-I know your aircraft can do 340kts but if I ask you to do 250 at SHAPP or MARGO it's for a good reason. I have never had any complaints from PH about my choice for the sequence and am well aware about the restrictions of some regional jets and the abitities of some turboprops at the lower levels. If holding is necessary as it inevitably will be then all it takes is a call from the radar controller to say "hold everything after the ABC123". This is not to say that my presentation of traffic is perfect, it never will be, I'm human, but I do my best. Some Scottish controllers will very rarely use speed control at all and do end up handing over traffic on parallel headings,never seen four abreast though. But even if you do get four abreast, as you say hootin' you're the approach proffesional,fill your boots and get them sequenced.
On my watch at Scottish we have a pretty good working relationship with our opposite watch at PH and any differences of opinion tend to be worked out with a friendly chat on the blower.
As 10W points out though, you do get to recognise voices on the phone and one PH controller in particular makes me cringe when i hear them. Ended up in the hold on Thursday morning and gave the traffic to PH radar(three or four in the hold,nothing major). It was a holocaust with stuff being 15 to 20 miles apart and none closer than twelve miles or so on final.Utter crap,it must be embarrasing to look over at PF and see them smashing them down the approach six(and occasionally three) miles apart.
I know that at Scottish we won't have a full picture of the traffic you work and that is a two way thing. If you do get a less than perfect traffic presentation from Talla sector then bear in mind what they are also doing at the time-all your arrivals from TRN, NEW, and MARGO,all PF arrivals from NEW and MARGO, all PK arrivals from NEW and MARGO all PH, PF and PK departures via NEW and PH prop. departures to DCS,as well as the many low level overflights going north. All of which can detract from their primary task of making sure you are not having a moan about us!
There are no plans for this to happen but I believe a good way to help appease the problem would be to have PH and PF radar move down to the shiny new centre when it opens.Traffic presentation would improve both ways due to the threat of someone a few seats down hurling abuse at you because it was crap!
Also it would end the ATCO2 baiting nonsense from PH radar controllers because you would get paid the same.
Headset
In my last post i completely neglected to put an opinion to any of your queries,sorry \'bout that chief. As you can read in this whole thread there are issue shall we say, between Scootish and PH. We all do our best and occasionally if you are given a direct routeing from Scottish because you are number one in that sector, you can get to PH to find out you are number four or five,cue extra track miles and a pissed off pilot! All it takes is for PH to have say an IFR inbound from Glasgow and a go around to fit back in the sequence, all of which Scottish will know nothing about when you arrive high and fast expecting a straight in. It happens and I don\'t think at the moment there is much that can be done about it, except making you adhere to all the level and speed restrictions on the STAR even during exceptionally quiet periods. All controllers will work hard to get you moving the most expeditious way we can,unfortunately we are not always on the same wavelength.
As for the direct routeings from SURAT/GOMOT in through SAB,ask as early as you can when you cross the Copenhagen Scottish boundary. Bear in mind that you transit a fair chunk of class G on your way down and RAF Leuchars is only a few miles north of PH. A few weeks back the BMA E145 from Copenhagen to PH gave his TCAS a good workout at FL170 ish near SAB. I hope it wasn\'t yourself dodging the Tornadoes. I know it saves a bit of time/fuel taking that route but for peace of mind join at NEW and fly the TWEED1d arrival. Much safer and you also have the added bonus of flying through my much maligned sector!
I work at Scottish and spend the vast majority of my time doing the terminal control side of things.The airspace that we both hav e to work with at PH and Scottish is tight, restrictive, and just not designed to cope with the throughput of traffic that occurs during the extremely busy inbound flows that happen at PH now. Controllers at both units could do with getting together and thrashing out problems that they have with each other.
Due to the way flow control works there can be no PH arrivals for half an hour, then an hours worth in the next 30 minutes. I'm sure this is the same at most European airfields however.
The way i tend to work is to at least attempt to get a sequence going. I will make sure that the traffic by the time PH radar get it is all 6-10 miles in trail and doing max 250kts,with perhaps the first two or three in the sequence keeping high speed. Bear in mind that there are arrivals coming into the Talla sector from three directions for PH and this might mean aircraft getting slowed to 250kts 100 miles from PH-note to Airbus drivers-I know your aircraft can do 340kts but if I ask you to do 250 at SHAPP or MARGO it's for a good reason. I have never had any complaints from PH about my choice for the sequence and am well aware about the restrictions of some regional jets and the abitities of some turboprops at the lower levels. If holding is necessary as it inevitably will be then all it takes is a call from the radar controller to say "hold everything after the ABC123". This is not to say that my presentation of traffic is perfect, it never will be, I'm human, but I do my best. Some Scottish controllers will very rarely use speed control at all and do end up handing over traffic on parallel headings,never seen four abreast though. But even if you do get four abreast, as you say hootin' you're the approach proffesional,fill your boots and get them sequenced.
On my watch at Scottish we have a pretty good working relationship with our opposite watch at PH and any differences of opinion tend to be worked out with a friendly chat on the blower.
As 10W points out though, you do get to recognise voices on the phone and one PH controller in particular makes me cringe when i hear them. Ended up in the hold on Thursday morning and gave the traffic to PH radar(three or four in the hold,nothing major). It was a holocaust with stuff being 15 to 20 miles apart and none closer than twelve miles or so on final.Utter crap,it must be embarrasing to look over at PF and see them smashing them down the approach six(and occasionally three) miles apart.
I know that at Scottish we won't have a full picture of the traffic you work and that is a two way thing. If you do get a less than perfect traffic presentation from Talla sector then bear in mind what they are also doing at the time-all your arrivals from TRN, NEW, and MARGO,all PF arrivals from NEW and MARGO, all PK arrivals from NEW and MARGO all PH, PF and PK departures via NEW and PH prop. departures to DCS,as well as the many low level overflights going north. All of which can detract from their primary task of making sure you are not having a moan about us!
There are no plans for this to happen but I believe a good way to help appease the problem would be to have PH and PF radar move down to the shiny new centre when it opens.Traffic presentation would improve both ways due to the threat of someone a few seats down hurling abuse at you because it was crap!
Also it would end the ATCO2 baiting nonsense from PH radar controllers because you would get paid the same.
Headset
In my last post i completely neglected to put an opinion to any of your queries,sorry \'bout that chief. As you can read in this whole thread there are issue shall we say, between Scootish and PH. We all do our best and occasionally if you are given a direct routeing from Scottish because you are number one in that sector, you can get to PH to find out you are number four or five,cue extra track miles and a pissed off pilot! All it takes is for PH to have say an IFR inbound from Glasgow and a go around to fit back in the sequence, all of which Scottish will know nothing about when you arrive high and fast expecting a straight in. It happens and I don\'t think at the moment there is much that can be done about it, except making you adhere to all the level and speed restrictions on the STAR even during exceptionally quiet periods. All controllers will work hard to get you moving the most expeditious way we can,unfortunately we are not always on the same wavelength.
As for the direct routeings from SURAT/GOMOT in through SAB,ask as early as you can when you cross the Copenhagen Scottish boundary. Bear in mind that you transit a fair chunk of class G on your way down and RAF Leuchars is only a few miles north of PH. A few weeks back the BMA E145 from Copenhagen to PH gave his TCAS a good workout at FL170 ish near SAB. I hope it wasn\'t yourself dodging the Tornadoes. I know it saves a bit of time/fuel taking that route but for peace of mind join at NEW and fly the TWEED1d arrival. Much safer and you also have the added bonus of flying through my much maligned sector!
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rolaaand
My experiences are identical to yours. Guess our colleague Hootin works opposite a different kind of ScACC Watch to the 2 we work on. In which case, if they are regularly handed rubbish, then why are there no complaints ever made to the ScACC Supervisor AT THE TIME ?? (Cathartic though whinging on PPRuNE might be - and all of us use it for that from time to time.)
Headset Starter
In spite of allegedley not knowing about what happens on a daily basis (even although I regularly work the sector involved and am an examiner on it), I do see people using routeings to the entry fix (TARTN) all the time, or on headings 'towards' it (which as stated is allowed in our instructions). The only time I don't is when it is quiet and prior co-ordination has taken place either individually or on a block basis for routes to final approach fixes - or when it's not so quiet and it is a better plan to take traffic from the SAB direction straight in to get ahead of an inbound sequence from the South, again after co-ordination by the sector controlling SAB carried out with BOTH EDI and the TMA sector. That's certainly the general and accepted way my Watch works, but I can't guarantee all others do the same (nor even my own 100% of the time). Every unit has it's loose cannons or those who are sometimes less precise or behind the drag curve. It's just part of having individuals in the system and we won't ever eradicate it.
Wheelybin
As Rolaaand said, if you are getting that regularly, then get on the blower and get it sorted out. There's no leeway for the guy at ScACC to be giving it to you so why not let them know you're not happy ? Or look ahead and when you see it coming ask for the first 2 and the rest either 10NM behind or to the hold. Then it remains ScACC's problem. In fact .. give me dates and times (by PM if necessary) and I'll look at the radar replays. If it happens so frequently then there must be plenty examples you can give me
We can in turn use those for LCE purposes to tackle the problem at this end.
Hootin
And does this involve ScACC ?? I hope so because then the issues on both sides can be addressed.
Just as an aside, some of the biggest critics of some of the things that we see APC doing are the ex APC controllers who are now here and used to be at EDI. Maybe it's akin to ex smokers being the worst critics of smokers but all their experience and knowledge can't all be wrong. Before you jump up and down again, I will once again reiterate that this doesn't mean that all the fault is on one side or the other. Just an observation that there are a fair percentage of TMA controllers who also possess very many years of airfield and APC experience, so we're not all the uneducated ATCOs that you seem to wish to tar us as.
In all circumstances ?? Or if you have more than 2 .. 3 ... how many ?? I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. If traffic is streamed and spaced to your requirements (which could be specified in a Standing Agreement) then why does everything need to go to the hold ?? It's not LHR, it's EDI. I don't see how you are not going to build in more delay. ScACC are going to have to keep the traffic until it's passed TARTN and heading back towards TWEED before giving it to you (that's what you stated as your condition) so it's already having to do once round the hold before it can turn back North on a vector to final. For every flight. A waste of fuel and time. Much better for EDI to agree with ScACC what delivery they want (spacing or timing) and then let ScACC achieve that or where it can't be, then to the hold to let EDI play catch up.
Sorry, but didn't you slur ScACC as having incidents in the holds ?? Is that questioning my professionalism then ?? If you start throwing accusations around, don't go bleating if someone throws some stuff back at you (that's EDI generically, rather than an individual specifically). Glass houses and stones don't go together. The incident rates at both units are very low but don't try and pretend that it's only ScACC that has them when talking about TMA operations (inbounds and stack management being an integral but not exclusive part).
I moderate JetBlast not the ATC Forum, but that aside, are you saying there are no examples of idiots in our company at all levels ?? I say again, that like any organisation, there most certainly are. If you haven't spotted any, I would be amazed.
I guess you have a grading chip on the shoulder. Your grading is not within my power to change but it is certainly within yours. Live with it, or come and do an Area APC (Assessment of Prior Competence) and move here and take the pay rise. Plenty people have, the same as plenty people are happy to stay at airfields and make a lifestyle choice.
Who's to say you won't be meeting with me ?? 
Incidentally, there have been some folk up from London TC to look at the TMA and report on it with a view to providing their impartial expertise and offer suggestions for improvements. It will be interesting to see what they come up with bearing in mind the airspace and the operating environments we all face.
My experiences are identical to yours. Guess our colleague Hootin works opposite a different kind of ScACC Watch to the 2 we work on. In which case, if they are regularly handed rubbish, then why are there no complaints ever made to the ScACC Supervisor AT THE TIME ?? (Cathartic though whinging on PPRuNE might be - and all of us use it for that from time to time.)
Headset Starter
Is it true that it's the location of the TWEED hold, ie not directly at the end of the STAR, that discourages controllers from using it?
Wheelybin
As Rolaaand said, if you are getting that regularly, then get on the blower and get it sorted out. There's no leeway for the guy at ScACC to be giving it to you so why not let them know you're not happy ? Or look ahead and when you see it coming ask for the first 2 and the rest either 10NM behind or to the hold. Then it remains ScACC's problem. In fact .. give me dates and times (by PM if necessary) and I'll look at the radar replays. If it happens so frequently then there must be plenty examples you can give me
We can in turn use those for LCE purposes to tackle the problem at this end. Hootin
We are just trying that, its called Involve to Improve, but the initial meeting didn't sound very fruitful but we shall persevere.
Just as an aside, some of the biggest critics of some of the things that we see APC doing are the ex APC controllers who are now here and used to be at EDI. Maybe it's akin to ex smokers being the worst critics of smokers but all their experience and knowledge can't all be wrong. Before you jump up and down again, I will once again reiterate that this doesn't mean that all the fault is on one side or the other. Just an observation that there are a fair percentage of TMA controllers who also possess very many years of airfield and APC experience, so we're not all the uneducated ATCOs that you seem to wish to tar us as.
Come next summer we need to standardise the inbounds so everyone is on a level playing field and knows what to expect which is why we want traffic automatically routeing to Tweed expecting to hold (not on a heading, in trail or 3 abreast but level separated and maybe only 1000' apart)
A bit of a personal slur I think, are you questioning my Professionalism? I thought we were talking about inbounds and stack management. Also seeing as you are a moderator of Pprune I think you should tone down your labelling of people as idiots.
I moderate JetBlast not the ATC Forum, but that aside, are you saying there are no examples of idiots in our company at all levels ?? I say again, that like any organisation, there most certainly are. If you haven't spotted any, I would be amazed.
Ooooh how patronising anybody would think you are an ATCO1!!!!!!
These issues I agree need settling and before next summer as really the whole TMA needs looking at as lets face it it is not very efficient compared to down south. We are hoping to move forward and meet again with your colleagues but it takes BOTH sides to budge a little not just us.
Incidentally, there have been some folk up from London TC to look at the TMA and report on it with a view to providing their impartial expertise and offer suggestions for improvements. It will be interesting to see what they come up with bearing in mind the airspace and the operating environments we all face.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10W. Just a quick note. I'm far enough away from the EGPH action these days to be take a reasonably balanced view, I believe. One of the big problems is actually the ATCO2/ATCO3 split. It's seen within EGPH as far harder for them to complain about Scottish than for Scottish to complain about Edinburgh. An Edinburgh WM is after all the same grade as a bog-standard ATCO at the centre.
I'm sure more liaison between the units would help enormously, as perhaps would imposition of flow restrictions into EGPH more often.
The acrimony displayed in this thread is unlikely to be helpful to either EHPH or the TALLA and TAY sectors, and while in general I'm in favour of TWR and APR being in the same building, I can see some benefit in having enroute and terminal (including what is APR in the UK) in the same ops room. The enroute guy is unlikely to shaft me too much when I'll see him in the break room soon after!
I'm sure more liaison between the units would help enormously, as perhaps would imposition of flow restrictions into EGPH more often.
The acrimony displayed in this thread is unlikely to be helpful to either EHPH or the TALLA and TAY sectors, and while in general I'm in favour of TWR and APR being in the same building, I can see some benefit in having enroute and terminal (including what is APR in the UK) in the same ops room. The enroute guy is unlikely to shaft me too much when I'll see him in the break room soon after!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Auld Reekie
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headset starter
See your PM's
rolaaand and 10W
I'm not slinging too much into the bunfight, just wanted to pick up a couple of points.
The Involve to Improve meeting was 3 weeks ago, and was a forum to put forward gripes (if you will) in manner to help things progress and change, however, things seemed to be mostly one way and the arguments behind some of the decisions didn't seem to be too strong either, so as it is we seem to be at a "no-change" junction which doesn't help ill-feeling.
Differences between watches WILL occur, and yes, I agree you learn to trust voices, which I guess is why the standing agreement NEEDS change. We think we have a perfectly good 10 year old agreement which is hardly ever used, so either there's something wrong with it or people are happy to disregard it for some other unknown reason.
Complaints don't usually come up because by the time you've finished a sequence which didn't start in the best way you just want to hit the rest room and forget it. (I always feel petty grassing up to the watch manager when it was something that got my goat but wasn't necessarily dangerous, MY OPINION THOUGH) Course you have a bit of a whinge to whoever is sitting there too, but we all realise that poeple are human and make mistakes. This brings me back to my original point, if you made the TMA based on a strong standing agreement, then there's no "interpretation" of it to come in, and as 10W proved in an earlier post there's lots of mis/interpretation going on at the moment. Firm it up, make it the same for everybody NO EXCEPTIONS then I'd imagine that it would become an easier and more productive place to work on both sides of the screen with little room for argument and sniping.
See your PM's
rolaaand and 10W
I'm not slinging too much into the bunfight, just wanted to pick up a couple of points.
The Involve to Improve meeting was 3 weeks ago, and was a forum to put forward gripes (if you will) in manner to help things progress and change, however, things seemed to be mostly one way and the arguments behind some of the decisions didn't seem to be too strong either, so as it is we seem to be at a "no-change" junction which doesn't help ill-feeling.
Differences between watches WILL occur, and yes, I agree you learn to trust voices, which I guess is why the standing agreement NEEDS change. We think we have a perfectly good 10 year old agreement which is hardly ever used, so either there's something wrong with it or people are happy to disregard it for some other unknown reason.
Complaints don't usually come up because by the time you've finished a sequence which didn't start in the best way you just want to hit the rest room and forget it. (I always feel petty grassing up to the watch manager when it was something that got my goat but wasn't necessarily dangerous, MY OPINION THOUGH) Course you have a bit of a whinge to whoever is sitting there too, but we all realise that poeple are human and make mistakes. This brings me back to my original point, if you made the TMA based on a strong standing agreement, then there's no "interpretation" of it to come in, and as 10W proved in an earlier post there's lots of mis/interpretation going on at the moment. Firm it up, make it the same for everybody NO EXCEPTIONS then I'd imagine that it would become an easier and more productive place to work on both sides of the screen with little room for argument and sniping.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Lock'n'Load and Callyoushortly. Some good information there explaining why things are the way they are.
I always find it hard to understand why grade comes in to a reticence to report something. Both units have professionals who are licenced and move air traffic. On that side of things, they are equals as far as I am concerned. Grading is a company tool more concerned with pay and conditions and keeping the masses divided, not anything to do with anyones professional skills or performances. Don't be shy to bring up things you don't like. If no one mentions anything then it's understandable that the unit that's 'shafting' you doesn't think they are doing anything wrong -after all, no one has complained.
Part of the answer to the whole thing does lie in EDI looking at its flow rates for inbounds. It's finger in the wind at the moment rather than scientific. Someone in unit management needs to sit down and work out exactly what delivery rate you can provide per hour (with the health warning that they can all arrive in the first 30 minutes of course = holding). The problem that will then arise is that the BAA will get all upset because they will want more than you can provide and they might also be forced to go in to slot allocation agreements with airlines through Airport Co-ordination Ltd. So suddenly EDI ATC will come under pressure from external agencies and NATS HQ as they will be contributing heavilly to NATS delay figures and possibly hitting the companies bottom line. But if it's a Standing Agreement which puts everything to the hold regardless, then that's what will need to be done to ensure that the maximum of 8 in the hold at any time is not (generally) exceeded. Allied to this will be some work to beef up the issuing of EATs. EDI will need to specify either the landing rate and the first EAT (allowing ScACC to let subsequent pilots know their EAT), or be very disciplined in passing EATs to ScACC for traffic under their control. This is especially so in poor weather conditions where pilots may have very limited fuel before a diversion is being considered. At the moment, it's another area in which, between the units, pilots get a relatively poor service. There is always an embarrassed silence when the pilot asks us at ScACC and we have to tell him we'll get back to him, or we are waiting for an EAT from EDI.
The other main thing that will have to be done is education for the airlines and crews. EDI will have to be very high profile in explaining what the new procedures are there to achieve and how taking away high speeds (let's assume they are appropriate for an individual case - there's only a couple of inbounds) and vectoring towards base leg and replacing them with standard speeds and holds as the norm will overall improve their lot. You are going to have to convince them that the reduced efficiency in flight ops is far outweighed by a massive increase in capacity which allows their schedules to be unaffected by delay. Because believe me, the companies will want to see something in return when their EDI fuel burns go up. I guess I am just trying to point out the possible Pandora's box here, because if you go for the more regimented system (for entirely valid reasons from EDI's view) and you maintain the current arrival 'rate' or possibly even reduce it, then you will be put in a very uncomfortable position by the beancounters of the airlines and NATS. Just be prepared for that potential backlash - or else motivate everyone to move the traffic a lot quicker on final approach
I always find it hard to understand why grade comes in to a reticence to report something. Both units have professionals who are licenced and move air traffic. On that side of things, they are equals as far as I am concerned. Grading is a company tool more concerned with pay and conditions and keeping the masses divided, not anything to do with anyones professional skills or performances. Don't be shy to bring up things you don't like. If no one mentions anything then it's understandable that the unit that's 'shafting' you doesn't think they are doing anything wrong -after all, no one has complained.
Part of the answer to the whole thing does lie in EDI looking at its flow rates for inbounds. It's finger in the wind at the moment rather than scientific. Someone in unit management needs to sit down and work out exactly what delivery rate you can provide per hour (with the health warning that they can all arrive in the first 30 minutes of course = holding). The problem that will then arise is that the BAA will get all upset because they will want more than you can provide and they might also be forced to go in to slot allocation agreements with airlines through Airport Co-ordination Ltd. So suddenly EDI ATC will come under pressure from external agencies and NATS HQ as they will be contributing heavilly to NATS delay figures and possibly hitting the companies bottom line. But if it's a Standing Agreement which puts everything to the hold regardless, then that's what will need to be done to ensure that the maximum of 8 in the hold at any time is not (generally) exceeded. Allied to this will be some work to beef up the issuing of EATs. EDI will need to specify either the landing rate and the first EAT (allowing ScACC to let subsequent pilots know their EAT), or be very disciplined in passing EATs to ScACC for traffic under their control. This is especially so in poor weather conditions where pilots may have very limited fuel before a diversion is being considered. At the moment, it's another area in which, between the units, pilots get a relatively poor service. There is always an embarrassed silence when the pilot asks us at ScACC and we have to tell him we'll get back to him, or we are waiting for an EAT from EDI.
The other main thing that will have to be done is education for the airlines and crews. EDI will have to be very high profile in explaining what the new procedures are there to achieve and how taking away high speeds (let's assume they are appropriate for an individual case - there's only a couple of inbounds) and vectoring towards base leg and replacing them with standard speeds and holds as the norm will overall improve their lot. You are going to have to convince them that the reduced efficiency in flight ops is far outweighed by a massive increase in capacity which allows their schedules to be unaffected by delay. Because believe me, the companies will want to see something in return when their EDI fuel burns go up. I guess I am just trying to point out the possible Pandora's box here, because if you go for the more regimented system (for entirely valid reasons from EDI's view) and you maintain the current arrival 'rate' or possibly even reduce it, then you will be put in a very uncomfortable position by the beancounters of the airlines and NATS. Just be prepared for that potential backlash - or else motivate everyone to move the traffic a lot quicker on final approach
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see the two way abuse has settled down. 10W you point out that you're experience of the TALLA PH interface is the same as mine, good reason for that, as a new ppruner you haven't realised that as well as being my watch sup. you're also my LCE!
Headset Starter i realise it's difficult to grab time away from work for visits to ATC units but you pilot boys and girls are always more than welcome at Scottish. If you're interested you can PM myself, PH-UKU or 10W(probably your best bet), we're all on the same watch. I'm sure my PH radar colleagues will be just as happy to see you at their unit too.
Headset Starter i realise it's difficult to grab time away from work for visits to ATC units but you pilot boys and girls are always more than welcome at Scottish. If you're interested you can PM myself, PH-UKU or 10W(probably your best bet), we're all on the same watch. I'm sure my PH radar colleagues will be just as happy to see you at their unit too.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes you think I wasn't trying to protect your anonymity ? 
Use of the word 'Chief' is a big clue of course although I don't think you look anything like Rolaaand from Grange Hill 
Mmmm, unless you start wearing glasses like his of course !!
Use of the word 'Chief' is a big clue of course
although I don't think you look anything like Rolaaand from Grange Hill Mmmm, unless you start wearing glasses like his of course !!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great to see a bit of discussion on the subject of EDI. I think I'll keep schtum for the time being apart from saying that this thread is jolly interesting.
Not just me that thinks things could get better at edi.
Not just me that thinks things could get better at edi.
Brain Fade
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Callyoushortly
I was a bit harsh with BrainFart last time and he withdrew the thread... First rule of posting - have a couple of beers first to remove inhibitions.
PS - EGPH bods, most of you anyway, you're now welcome to pop over for a skiing holiday, but bring British chocolate and Marly Lights.
I was a bit harsh with BrainFart last time and he withdrew the thread... First rule of posting - have a couple of beers first to remove inhibitions.
PS - EGPH bods, most of you anyway, you're now welcome to pop over for a skiing holiday, but bring British chocolate and Marly Lights.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Just wondered if any of this has been exacerbated by the airspace changes at EDI last month? With the base of CAS raised by 1000ft all round it's now impossible to establish on the localiser below 3000ft outside the CTR and there's no joining final closer than 7D. Is that making it harder for EDI controllers to get inbounds in a position to get the height off, so they have to be vectored wider?
NS
NS
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Auld Reekie
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth,
I wouldn't necessarily say any of the problems have been exacerbated by the airspace changes.
Ok there's no flexibility with descent outside the control zone below 3000ft but, then again, even when we could use 2300ft out there, you still had to be careful bringing the next one down to 3000ft because you didn't have the required 1000ft separation.
The joining final no less than D7 is only on visual approaches to 24, so I suppose this does have an impact, but not as much as the pilots flying in seem to think. Unless you're number one with not a great deal around visuals aren't a great tool for sequencing traffic.
I would say that the airspace changes make life more difficult on 06. There's less airspace that side, the 3000ft descent point is pretty much where the turn for the localiser is (unless you're being vectored wide outside 10 miles) and often (sorry 10W) the traffic comes 'hot and high' for 06 with more than enough problems getting it's height off.
A question for you pilot types: Is it more beneficial to your planning/fuel consumption/company SOP's etc to be vectored around the sky an extra 10 miles to lose height/fit the sequence or would you prefer once around the hold?
I wouldn't necessarily say any of the problems have been exacerbated by the airspace changes.
Ok there's no flexibility with descent outside the control zone below 3000ft but, then again, even when we could use 2300ft out there, you still had to be careful bringing the next one down to 3000ft because you didn't have the required 1000ft separation.
The joining final no less than D7 is only on visual approaches to 24, so I suppose this does have an impact, but not as much as the pilots flying in seem to think. Unless you're number one with not a great deal around visuals aren't a great tool for sequencing traffic.
I would say that the airspace changes make life more difficult on 06. There's less airspace that side, the 3000ft descent point is pretty much where the turn for the localiser is (unless you're being vectored wide outside 10 miles) and often (sorry 10W) the traffic comes 'hot and high' for 06 with more than enough problems getting it's height off.
A question for you pilot types: Is it more beneficial to your planning/fuel consumption/company SOP's etc to be vectored around the sky an extra 10 miles to lose height/fit the sequence or would you prefer once around the hold?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Callyoushortly
Hi.
Heard you on 121.2 the other week. You must have got your approach qualification so well done you!
As you know I have some 'form' on EDI ATC as far as pprune is concerned so this time I though I'd just have a wee listen in.
Some folk seem to be mighty touchy about the subject (especially as they now seem to work on a different continent)- don't want poor old L&L to have a feckin coronary!
I don't really understand exactly why there seems to be such a big difference twixt GLA & EDI- but there certainly is one!
No one could ever accuse EDI of 'Smashing them down the approach at 6 or 3 miles' as rolaand mentioned earlier! Could they?
Maybe the EDI operation is simply 'normal' while the guys at GLA are just talented- how would I know!
Sure it will run better with your help anyway. Up to see you soon I hope.
Cheers
BF
Edited to add: I'd prefer anything in totaking up the hold. Even better if the reason's pointed out. (time permitting, naturally)
Hi.
Heard you on 121.2 the other week. You must have got your approach qualification so well done you!
As you know I have some 'form' on EDI ATC as far as pprune is concerned so this time I though I'd just have a wee listen in.
Some folk seem to be mighty touchy about the subject (especially as they now seem to work on a different continent)- don't want poor old L&L to have a feckin coronary!
I don't really understand exactly why there seems to be such a big difference twixt GLA & EDI- but there certainly is one!
No one could ever accuse EDI of 'Smashing them down the approach at 6 or 3 miles' as rolaand mentioned earlier! Could they?
Maybe the EDI operation is simply 'normal' while the guys at GLA are just talented- how would I know!
Sure it will run better with your help anyway. Up to see you soon I hope.
Cheers
BF
Edited to add: I'd prefer anything in totaking up the hold. Even better if the reason's pointed out. (time permitting, naturally)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I don't really understand exactly why there seems to be such a big difference twixt GLA & EDI- but there certainly is one! No one could ever accuse EDI of 'Smashing them down the approach at 6 or 3 miles'
May also be relevant that LANAK arrivals for 05 have a lot further to go therefore more room to slow down/descend than TWEED arrivals for 06 at EDI.
NS