EDI Radar

[Headset starter]

Hi all,

Quick question regarding Edinburgh Arrivals... Who makes the decision as to how aircraft fit into the stream, and how is that decision made, ie how do you decide who is #1 #2 #3 etc etc when arriving for the approach?

I pose the question because it is becoming a quite frequent occurance that we may be given direct to an 8/10mile final by Scottish Control on 126.3/124.5, then as soon as we're passed to Edi Radar 121.2, we're turned 90 degrees plus off, slowed from 300 to 250 knots, and told we are #6 for the approach. There have been many times when we could have been sequenced ahead of, or within the other arriving aircraft from the other direction instead of slowing to turbo-prop speeds to go behind.

I'm sure there is a big picture, but it's becoming a tad frustrating when we've been running early all day only into much larger airports only to be slowed at the last hurdle coming home.

Cheers,

HS

[PPRuNeUser0178]

"slowing to turbo prop speeds"

What you mean keeping 265kts to 4 miles then???

Honestly some people get so up about this, but having flown both there is nothing more frustrating than being in a turbo prop and having to SLOW DOWN to jet speeds on the approach because of the 737 ahead!! ( I now fly 737's).

The capabilities of the Turbo Prop in the final maneuvering area are far greater than that of a jet, plus the jet doesnt need the spacing behind the turbo prop that the opposite would require!

Now if we were to discuss something like a 30 something seater turbo prop on a main stand at EDI while I park at A12 with my 149 seats we could mybe get a more reasoned disscussion going!!!!!

[opnot]

Headset Starter
If you are offered direct to a 8/10 final at any airfield do you assume that you will be no1 in any sequence of traffic.
ATC may offer a direct routing to a 8/10 mile final to save miles on the STAR but it does not mean that you will not be vectored to fit into the sequence as you get nearer the airfield

[AlanM]

Happens all the time to airfields with a steady mix of fast prop (Saab 2000/Dornier 328 etc) and jets.

In the LTMA we get this too. Probably a difference between the AREA controllers and APPROACH controllers (Two separate "trades" if you like") not knowing each others jobs.

There are a million reasons why an order is decided - sometimes for the wake vortex if you all arrive at the same time, thus saving the total track miles of all involved, sometimes depending on departures. Also depends on levels as well as speeds to 4 or 6 DME. (If you can do 250 kts til 4 then that would help sometimes!!)

All I can say is that as an Approach person, I have NEVER (and no controller I know does) deliberately delayed jets for the fun of it. Everything is done for the good of ALL.

I guess you have never visited EDI tower and seen why this may happen? DO SO fella.

[opnot]

Head Starter
Another point, how many times have you been given t/o ahead of a turbo prop because you may,intially be quicker on departure.
At the end of the day it all evens its self out.

[Ops and Mops]

There have been many times when we could have been sequenced ahead of, or within the other arriving aircraft from the other direction instead of slowing to turbo-prop speeds to go behind.

And that comment is based on what exactly? Would this be another case of "Pilot's own judgement of the sequence" based on what is seen on TCAS?! That is something else that is becoming more common...crews bleating about the arrival order based on what THEY see and NOT the big picture on the radar that looks out to 60 miles!

Remember that you may be handed over to your destination from a different Area sector from other traffic. Therefore what you hear inbound from your particular Scottish sector may not be representative of other traffic inbound to the same airfield.

The chaps and chapeesses in ATC are not out to penalise you, however you CANNOT always "jump the queue" just because your company is putting pressure on you. What about every other operator that is in the same position?

Just some food for thought...

[Headset starter]

Howdy ho all,

Appologies firstly if I came across as being rude to the turbo-prop, not intended, just that a number of occaisions we are slowed down to the speed of, say, a Dash8-300, when if we maintained speed, it appeared we would have been able to fit in ahead, and not delayed the Dash.

A couple of examples...

Returning from over the North Sea via SAB, or even GOMOT, Scottish give a direct centre-fix for 24. Now, sometimes we ask, sometimes its just offered, but on either occaision one would only assume the clearance could be offered if first discussed with Radar that this would fit in with their sequence. If not, then let us go high speed to say TARTN, then slow down and enter a sensible sequence at the correct approach speed.

One the main points coming out of this is we're trying to maintain a constant descent profile, with minimum thrust, so if from SAB we get direct to an 8 mile final, it's spoilers open and dive for the hard-deck. If then we're told actually, you're going to be vectored back in a southwesterly direction to fit in behind aircraft coming from the south, then it's thrust back on and the whole arrival feels messy.

Secondly, arriving from the South, on the TWEED1A, there are many times when arriving on the Scottish frequency, we're told we have to slow to 270kts, then 250kts, which is quite a way before reaching the SLP just after ESKDO. Why if we're behind with other high speed aircraft, do we have to slow down?Somewhere like Manchester has given points to slow down, ie 12D before ROSUN, or as you get there if on vectors, and it works. Only if it's a very busy morning will they suggest you slow down early to avoid flying around in the hold. Why is EDI different?

Obviously you guys in ATC aren't out to slow us intentionally, and there is certainly no pressure from the Company to fly 250kts to 4miles, that would be daft!

AlanM - Yes, indeed a visit to the new tower is required, and also a trip to Scottish Control, which is at Prestiwck isn't it?

Edinburgh just feels a little odd, but maybe it's just us.


Cheers,


HS

[Ops and Mops]

Sounds possibly like Scottish trying to stream inbounds with speed control instead of letting them run toward the holds. This then leaves Radar having to vector to either close up or create gaps for the arrival sequence. The airspace around the Scottish TMA doesnt leave much room for manouvre within the vectoring areas of either EDI or GLA when there are lots of aircraft in and outbound.

Scottish also work to 5 and 10 mile radar seps where as approach radar units can work down to 3 miles which is why Radar can tighten you up in the sequence if required.

Invariably EDI and GLA Radar have to work with what they get given from Scottish, and this may mean that there is little to no room for resequencing depending on the inbound flow from other sectors.

Anyone from Atlantic House care to comment?

I think that a visit to both units would be beneficial for you to see what is trying to be achieved, and for the controllers to take on board what is preferrable for you.

PS: Don't forget the flip side too! Approach also have to create gaps in the inbound sequence for departures to get away...no luxury Parallel Runway ops up North!!!!

[Wheelybin]

When The figures come out at the end of the year. It will be seen that Edinburgh is now the 5th busiest airport within Britain ( in terms of aircraft movements). It overtook Glasgow some years ago and has now overtaken Birmingham. Yet still there is an attitude that this is a sleepy provincial hollow.
At airports that have less than half the traffic, aircraft are automatically cleared to the hold and consider themselves lucky that they are given more direct approaches. At Edinburgh my colleauges will strive to give the most expeditious approach to all aircraft and only resort to holding when traffic conditions insist that it is the best course of action.
I believe I am familiar with the type of flight that the poster is referring to (124-5 gave it away) 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!
Controllers are Area or Approach trained and having worked in both I can tell you the two are chalk and cheese.
Aircraft performances change considerably with levels and I am sympathetic to the poster in a turboprop who can indeed give high speed to 4 miles before pulling it all out and plonking it on the runway, who has been slowed down prematurely cos a jet is alongside ( 240knots below fl100 due to airframe!)
What we do, constantly ,is try to provide the most efficient service to all flights. If that means giving you a direct. Believe me youll get it. The less time you are on my frequency the better! But please dont moan when for once you end up at the back of the queue!
Ps..made me chuckle...Thought it was just area controllers who didnt know about turboprop performance at lower levels.....Nice to know its jet pilots too!!!

[Lock n' Load]

Going back to the original question, the basics of deciding the order are these:

Range from touchdown. Simple and obvious, and certainly the first consideration.

Speed. A C172 with 20 miles to run will end up behind a 737 with 40 miles to run. But... a jet with 40 to run behind a turboprop with 35 to run could still be No2. The jet WILL have to slow down and this is part of the decision-making process. Something like an ATP will usually be screwed regardless in a busy sequence, because 215kts from 50 miles away doesn't fit the flow. A D328 or DHC8-400 will be able to do 250kts+ all the way to base leg, which is more than most jets will manage.

Orderliness. When you have a busy sequence, and certainly if you're No6 or higher you can bet the approach controller is working pretty hard, it's in everyones' interests that the sequence be manageable. This may end up, on occasion, being slightly unfair to someone, but avoids situations getting out of hand. Using the ATP at 215 kts as an example, putting in a downwind and running in a couple of straight-ins ahead of it, or cutting somebody fast infront via a base leg with vertical separation from the ATP, can expedite the overall sequence and make it easier to control. Peeling aircraft off opposing downwinds is easy and you can pretty much keep doing it all day, so when the guy at the back calls MAYDAY you have easier option to get him on the ground quickly (peel him off while everybody else continues downwind, for one).
As an adjunct to that, straight-in approaches are a relative rarity at Edinburgh, usually the guys from Northern Europe coming accross the North Sea for 24. Judging a straight-in against one in the rush from the south is made much harder by the fact that with , say, 30 miles from touchdown, the 2 aircraft are 20 miles or so apart. If there is a busy sequence already when the straight-in arrives on the screen, it's more manageable to give him a dogleg onto base.

And finally.... if there are enough aircraft that you have one infront of you by 6 miles (or maybe 4 miles these days?) on final and one behind you by the same distance, approach is doing a pretty good job and you aren't being punished! There are simply enough aircraft inbound to make runway capacity a limiting factor.

[callyoushortly]

Headset starter

Come and have a visit and then you'll see the picture like we do and see how we adapt to situations within/beyond our control

[Hootin an a roarin]

Hi Headset starter

I'm afraid in a lot of cases the order is selected by Scottish and not the Approach Professionals. We are forever having aircraft handed over which have been told to keep their speed up ( over 300kts and more) and in some cases on 06 very high and struggling for the mileage to descend. It isn't as much of a problem on 24 however a strong southerly wind causes the same problems on approach to this runway. Incidentally we do have SLP's on all STAR's but as they are rarely adhered to by Scottish they fall by the way side.

I believe Scottish have a lack of appreciation of aircraft performance and company procedures, as some aircraft which have been made number one for approach hit FL100 and slam on the anchors and the guy who is number two is happy to keep his speed up. Dash 8D's and especially the D328's seem to be penalised by Scottish and always made number 2/3/etc whereas they can keep a good speed, 250kts all the way and a fairly rapid speed down the ILS as well. All traffic should be vectored to the hold or follow the STAR and then we at the airport can decide who comes straight off or needs to hold (part of our standing agreement but hardly ever practised by Scottish). As for yourself sneaking in from St Abbs you should be routeing to the hold automatically ( Standing agreement again )but Scottish always seem to route you to a 10 mile final, sometimes with disregard for the current traffic situation. Mistifies me how controllers situated in the same room can't seem to communicate with each other (Tay and Talla).

As previously suggested come and have a visit, you'd be most welcome (just bring the biscuits). We are trying to solve many problems, primarily arrival procedures with Scottish at the moment but this public forum is not the place to discuss our many gripes with the ATCO 2's.

[Wheelybin]

Respect Hooting,
very well put. Just hope you are ready for the band 2 backlash!

[PH-UKU]

.. inbounds via St Abbs ... ?

Scottish always seem to route you to a 10 mile final, sometimes with disregard for the current traffic situation. Mistifies me how controllers situated in the same room can't seem to communicate with each other (Tay and Talla).

Bear in mind that Talla CAN'T see 100 miles east of the TMA, but Tay CAN see the impending stream from the south, so Tay needs to exercise a bit of judgement and look to see if the traffic 'fits'. Doesn't take rocket science to plot distance to the 10 mile point - if in doubt .. route via TLA VOR.... that gives Edinburgh and TMA the flexible option.

Now this probably varies a bit from watch to watch, but from my experience ... what I would do (as a Tay controller) is co-ordinate with Talla - if they are busy, then clearance into the TMA is 90% likely to be toward TLA VOR (where you're going to get a 90-150 degree turn anyway!).

However, there are a few occasions when there is a lull in the traffic and Talla and Tay decide to offer a direct routing to 10 mile file - SO LONG AS EDINBURGH AGREE - I wouldn't have thought anyone (from Tay) would point aircraft direct without Edinburgh's agreement ... although that agreement is no doubt based on the hope that Scottish won't present a total up.

Early handover at St Abbs head is then preferred so that Edinburgh can start the fine tuning.

Other considerations ... military fighter ops south of Leuchars ... aaaaargh - this can throw the whole plan out and will necessitate a reroute in upper air (either via NEW or PTH-STIRA)to avoid descending through busy busy bandit country Class G airspace on a RIS .. but that's not really the issue.

If we are giving a direct routing it is only because we are trying to be helpful.

As to 'Hootin and a Roarins' comment ..

I believe Scottish have a lack of appreciation of aircraft performance and company procedures

You could be simplistic and say that all you really need is

1 - an idea of what climbs fast and what doesn't
2 - don't reduce speed and expect a fast rate of descent

Anything beyond that is finesse and professional interest.

However .. how many ATCOs fly ? how many get jumpseat rides/famflights ?

IMHO famflights should be compulsory.

Do you really expect us to know/anticipate individual company procedures ??

Sorry but it's hard enough remembering the ing callsign changes without wondering which of the 100 regular airlines would prefer 250 or 350 kts ......

Anyway .... I agree with H+R, that's why we publish STARs ...... STANDARD arrival routes ... but if the situation allows ... there's always room for improvement.

PS say hi to Ron and GB

[Wheelybin]

PH-UKU, company procedures are not about finesse or professional interest. Whilst I agree that they have little relevance in an area environment, they are essential tools of the trade to an approach controller.
-E145 coming back to 240 knots below fl100 due to an airframe restriction.
- Ezy 737's prefer 170 knots on the final approach as opposed to the more standard 160.
-KLM Fokkers prefer to stay high and fast and descend late.
-Airbus 320/1/319 are very "slippery" aircraft and need to bleed off speed over a long distance.
-FlyBEE DH8-D's land and select taxi power on the runway taking them forever to vacate.
Just a few of the examples that you learn with experience as an approach controller and pass on to your colleauges
Which is exactly why we would prefer for the Stars to be adhered to, so that we can use the tools of our trade to determine the most efficient arrival sequence. Rather than as often happens an Area controller without this knowledge trying to present the traffic in the way they consider to be most suitable.
Aircraft performances within the terminal environment are significantly different and often at odds with what occurs in an area environment.

[10W]

Perhaps the occasional inefficient clearing of the hold (aircraft coming off with 15-20NM gaps, vacant level bands of 3000' to 4000' feet with traffic sauntering slowly down instead of the more regimented and efficient holding management seen in the likes of the London TMA where things bump down naturally as levels are vacated and a tight pack of aircraft and level useage exists) might be part of the reason that ScACC prefer to try and go for a sequence instead of everything to the hold. A few of us have been bitten.

And then there's the non existent reporting of vacated levels by APC (as per the MATS Part 2s requirements) which makes ScACC uncertain as to what levels have been freed up.

The 'book' says that ScACC can sequence 3 simultaneous arrivals (that's sequence, not to the hold) with subsequent arrivals for that sequence then being put to the hold. This is open to interpretation because if the 3 arrivals are far enough ahead to allow the Standing Agreement conditions to be met by following aircraft then I believe the next arrivals form another new sequence and would not expect them to hold unless directed by APC to do so (provided I give the minimum spacing and appropriate vectors or speed control to maintain or increase it).

All traffic should be vectored to the hold or follow the STAR and then we at the airport can decide who comes straight off or needs to hold (part of our standing agreement but hardly ever practised by Scottish).

A disjoint here - because the ScACC Agreement states that the aircraft should be routeing to the holding fix (not necessarily on the STAR as long as it gets there in the end) OR on a heading 'towards' the holding fix. Note the 'towards' which is again not as black and white as to take the aircraft directly to the fix on a heading. This provides the leeway to have 2 aircraft on parallel headings 'towards' the holding fix area since if one was vectored to the fix then the other could not be and still maintain separation. As most traffic is handed off about 10NM or more before the holding fix, then APC still have the option to take the aircraft off the heading and direct to the holding fix if that's a better plan for them.

Just trying to show that, as with most things ATC, the blame is never solely on one side or the other. It's a team game, so get talking with your opposite numbers or visiting adjacent units to resolve your own personal gripes and improve your knowledge folks

[Hootin an a roarin]

Perhaps the occasional inefficient clearing of the hold (aircraft coming off with 15-20NM gaps, vacant level bands of 3000' to 4000' feet with traffic sauntering slowly down instead of the more regimented and efficient holding management seen in the likes of the London TMA where things bump down naturally as levels are vacated and a tight pack of aircraft and level useage exists) might be part of the reason that ScACC prefer to try and go for a sequence instead of everything to the hold. A few of us have been bitten.

You are right with the vacant bands of 3000' to 4000' with traffic sauntering down. However what you fail to say is that it is Scottish who control the hold and so is your responsibility for descent, the approach controllers control most of the hold in the London TMA. Maybe if we controlled the hold with our larger radar screens and a specific stack controller then we could perform a better job, as at T.C. Don't get me wrong there are people who need to improve their stack management at the airport, but we are forever sitting on radar having told TLA that say FL80 is free and then twiddling our thumbs whilst the aircraft descends through FL100, then FL90 etc. Just give him to us in the descent. We are not going to level him off and if we did there is something called co-ordination. So you prefer to go for a sequence that mightn't suit the airport because YOU can't manage the stack efficiently as YOU have just stated above. Call me old fashioned but who has had incidents before now in the stack, I don't believe it was us at Edinburgh

Aircraft coming off the hold with 15-20 mile gaps is irrelevant. Through your vast experience of the approach job you must realise that they do not end up 15-20 miles apart on the ILS i.e usually the requisite 6 mile gap is achieved. It is called vectoring and speed control which I understand you at Scottish know little about with the 'No ATC speed restriction route direct to an 8 mile final' Also the main reason for the initial large gap is Scottish very rarely give us control of more than one aircraft in the stack and so by the time we can bring an aircraft off the stack the gap is already there!

improve your knowledge folks

How about improve your attitude, have you ever met an ATCO3?

As most traffic is handed off about 10NM or more before the holding fix, then APC still have the option to take the aircraft off the heading and direct to the holding fix if that's a better plan for them.

So you think that is sufficient room for a Captain to prepare his aircraft for the hold? The aircraft should already be going into the hold like in the London TMA and if they then don't hold then it is a bonus for them, not the norm.

Sometimes it's like banging your head against a brick wall!

[cossack]

Hootin

Sounds like nothing's changed since I was in EDI 89-97. 4 abreast abeam TLA for 06; traffic over TLA for 06 above traffic inbound 05 at GLA; traffic from the north east handed over late, direct and fast.

Eventually, if you bang your head against the wall long enough, it starts to feel good! One day they may realise that stack management is an airport task, but I wouldn't hold your breath!

[10W]

You are right with the vacant bands of 3000' to 4000' with traffic sauntering down. However what you fail to say is that it is Scottish who control the hold and so is your responsibility for descent, the approach controllers control most of the hold in the London TMA.

You obviously 'rang off' before you read my last comment about some of us having been bitten. Are we likely to be talking about biting ourselves ?? I am referring to occasions where we have transferred traffic above the Min Stack (I can recall having done so at least up to FL130 or higher with 4 aircraft approaching the hold - to allow APC to manage the arrivals I foolishly thought.) It is not every controller at EDI by any means but certainly on my Watch we recognise the voices of those who we would rather not give anything above Min Stack too. I guess you'll recognise voices at other units too where you'd rather do it exactly by the book. Once you've been bitten then the trust disappears.

but we are forever sitting on radar having told TLA that say FL80 is free

Hand on heart, I have NEVER been told when Min Stack is vacated (or other levels if delegated). Usually the P man has to call to find out. Fortunately we have had the MATS Part 2 changed recently so we can use Mode C (based on MATS Part 1 level occupancy rules and 'anticipated manner') so it does at least now allow us other options than sitting on our hands .

So you prefer to go for a sequence that mightn't suit the airport because YOU can't manage the stack efficiently as YOU have just stated above.

Your premise is based on a false assumption which was because you didn't pick up that I was talking about when traffic in the hold had been transferred to EDI. See above. Why would we complain about 3-4000' gaps if we had the traffic ourselves ? Doh !!! Also, the MATS Part 2 allows sequences. Don't like it ?? Then ask for it to be changed by inter unit agreement.

It is also true that you have the aircraft ETAs. You know when the expected busy peaks are inbound (as well as knowing the outbound plans as well). If you want things to the hold, for departure gaps or because you expect to get swamped, is there any reason you can't phone up and co-ordinate thus ?? The blame seems all a one way street with you, yet you also have an ability to forward plan I guarantee. Things may not end the way they are expected (+/- 5 mins on ETAs for example can provide a slightly false picture), but at least if you told ScACC what you would like then things can be done early for the benefit of all. Don't say it can't be done because I have had EDI controllers do exactly that with me before - e.g ''I'll take the first 2 on headings and would like 10 miles between subsequent arrivals in trail otherwise to the hold.'' I get an early heads up - the pilots get an early heads up - and I can put some effort in to delivering what the APC wants so no one gets held. And as we know the guys and girls who do the things like that by their voice, we are totally comfortable and have a high degree of belief in them and don't expect any problems.

Also the main reason for the initial large gap is Scottish very rarely give us control of more than one aircraft in the stack and so by the time we can bring an aircraft off the stack the gap is already there!

Sorry, still talking about my usual experience of where EDI has all the holding traffic. Your point may be relevant if it was not that specific case.

Call me old fashioned but who has had incidents before now in the stack, I don't believe it was us at Edinburgh

Actually 'old fashioned' was not a phrase I'd associate with that kind of comment. Maybe your personal forte is launching aircraft with less than 5 miles and a catch up situation instead ?? Don't play the whiter than white card, because statistics and incident reports can shoot you down in flames in a second. And there's plenty ammo there for whatever side you wish to take. A dead end argument.

How about improve your attitude, have you ever met an ATCO3?

ATCO Grade has nothing to do with anything. I am sure you can find idiots at all levels, even yours.

So you think that is sufficient room for a Captain to prepare his aircraft for the hold? The aircraft should already be going into the hold like in the London TMA and if they then don't hold then it is a bonus for them, not the norm.

I guess you don't fly ?? Traffic is cleared by Scottish predominantly on the STAR on first contact. Therefore the Captain will be briefing to enter the hold at the STAR terminal fix. That's SOP in IFR flying. Still with me ?? Good. Now, unless it's one of the ones that has been cleared to an 8 mile final (unlikely if you have a sequence where there is an inkling there might be a hold, and it should also be subject to prior co-ordination - unless locked on a heading which meets the spirit of the Standing Agreement), nothing has changed in that pilots expectations. The fact he is on a vector still doesn't take away the fact the aircraft is set up for the STAR entry fix in the nav system, UNLESS someone in ATC tells him otherwise. Which would probably be EDI APC. Scottish have no idea what kind of approach will be given so the aircraft should be routeing as per the book and EDI then have the options to carry out APC.


As a final couple of points ...

weren't EDI offered places attending ScACC TRUCE last year where TMA Holding was the core exercise ?? EDI could have gained experience of managing holds in the sim, both sides could have discussed the scenarios and outcomes and how things could be improved, plus built up some understanding. Oh yeah, nobody appeared !!

And how come GLA seem to manage their hold OK even although it used less ?? Food for thought perhaps ??

Cossack

4 abreast abeam TLA for 06; traffic over TLA for 06 above traffic inbound 05 at GLA; traffic from the north east handed over late, direct and fast.

Yeah, yeah ..... glass houses and all that 4 abreast not allowed in the book - PF below PH without co-ordination, get real - traffic from the Northeast goes to STIRA, onward clearance is EDIs prerogative.

One day they may realise that stack management is an airport task, but I wouldn't hold your breath!

Most definitely a Terminal Controllers task. Airport are good at launching and doing DIR and FIN approach. Stack management at TWEED by APC - could do better in some instances !!

[Hootin an a roarin]

Typically arrogant in your reply 10w, not unexpected!

Your premise is based on a false assumption which was because you didn't pick up that I was talking about when traffic in the hold had been transferred to EDI. See above. Why would we complain about 3-4000' gaps if we had the traffic ourselves ? Doh !!! Also, the MATS Part 2 allows sequences. Don't like it ?? Then ask for it to be changed by inter unit agreement.

We are just trying that, its called Involve to Improve, but the initial meeting didn't sound very fruitful but we shall persevere.

but at least if you told ScACC what you would like then things can be done early for the benefit of all. Don't say it can't be done because I have had EDI controllers do exactly that with me before - e.g ''I'll take the first 2 on headings and would like 10 miles between subsequent arrivals in trail otherwise to the hold.''

My watch all try to do that, that is our job, end of story. We are not here to deliberately delay aircraft. My gripe is the reticence to use the hold by Scottish. When you were trialing the streaming it worked well and the Scottish watch opposite me were and are very good ,and to be honest are usually very helpful and proactive with suggesting that we may need to use the hold, lets face it you can see what traffic is coming to Edinburgh far earlier than we can. Also we are not sure what you are going to do with the individual aircraft i.e. widen one out, keep one's speed up etc. that is the point. 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)

Maybe your personal forte is launching aircraft with less than 5 miles and a catch up situation instead ??

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 guess you don't fly ?? Traffic is cleared by Scottish predominantly on the STAR on first contact. Therefore the Captain will be briefing to enter the hold at the STAR terminal fix. That's SOP in IFR flying. Still with me ??

Ooooh how patronising anybody would think you are an ATCO1!!!!!!

weren't EDI offered places attending ScACC TRUCE last year where TMA Holding was the core exercise ?? EDI could have gained experience of managing holds in the sim, both sides could have discussed the scenarios and outcomes and how things could be improved, plus built up some understanding. Oh yeah, nobody appeared !!

No idea, i'm a shopfloor Atco and knew nothing but we wouldn't be able to release people to attend unless it is on rest days and lets face it after the banding issues and the last pay farce the lower end of the scales feel left behind and not willing to give up this time (but that is another can of worms)

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.