Coordination with Brussels
Thread Starter
Coordination with Brussels
I want to fly Cambridge to Antwerp at or below FL100.
If I were overflying Brussels I'd simply file CLN SASKI COA NIK. But for EBBRTMA arrivals, that gets caught by a routing restriction and I have to file CLN JACKO DVR KOK NIK. I have a feeling that Brussels would be very happy to accept me CLN COA even if I'm landing at Antwerp, because the restriction is designed for EBBR arrivals at a much higher level.
On which frequency would it be most appropriate to make my rerouting request, which will require coordination with Brussels? Presumably it's better to wait until TC hands me over to AC (where), or should I just ask Essex once airborne? Does a RMK (e.g. "REQ CLN SASKI COA") on the FPL get onto the strip, and if so does that help?
Thanks
If I were overflying Brussels I'd simply file CLN SASKI COA NIK. But for EBBRTMA arrivals, that gets caught by a routing restriction and I have to file CLN JACKO DVR KOK NIK. I have a feeling that Brussels would be very happy to accept me CLN COA even if I'm landing at Antwerp, because the restriction is designed for EBBR arrivals at a much higher level.
On which frequency would it be most appropriate to make my rerouting request, which will require coordination with Brussels? Presumably it's better to wait until TC hands me over to AC (where), or should I just ask Essex once airborne? Does a RMK (e.g. "REQ CLN SASKI COA") on the FPL get onto the strip, and if so does that help?
Thanks
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't give much for your chances, although I have seen it done in the past. To a large extent it depends on the time of day and the mood of those involved.
The route does partially lie in Dutch airspace, however it is delegated to Brussel ACC - they therefore decide what can and can't be done. There is a very good reason for the one direction
As you already know the route you want to fly gets rejected; if you ask when airborne the first controller may approve it, and pass the request down the line but then discover that the next sector won't and you have to navigate back to the original, filed route.
There is a very god reason for the uni-directional airway. A considerable amount of the inbounds to London TMA route along it and all have to descend. The complexity of the airspace requires them to cross certain points at certain levels and by going against the flow
you are creating a much higher workload for all concerned. It is also the route followed by most of the EBBR departures to the west and they will be climbing all the way against you. I've seen 747s cross NIK at about 4000'.
Despite this, most controllers would do their best to accommodate your wishes, the easiest way to formulate it would be "Request direct NIK when available", on the frequency - would make you sound like a Ryanair pilot
The route does partially lie in Dutch airspace, however it is delegated to Brussel ACC - they therefore decide what can and can't be done. There is a very good reason for the one direction
As you already know the route you want to fly gets rejected; if you ask when airborne the first controller may approve it, and pass the request down the line but then discover that the next sector won't and you have to navigate back to the original, filed route.
There is a very god reason for the uni-directional airway. A considerable amount of the inbounds to London TMA route along it and all have to descend. The complexity of the airspace requires them to cross certain points at certain levels and by going against the flow
you are creating a much higher workload for all concerned. It is also the route followed by most of the EBBR departures to the west and they will be climbing all the way against you. I've seen 747s cross NIK at about 4000'.Despite this, most controllers would do their best to accommodate your wishes, the easiest way to formulate it would be "Request direct NIK when available", on the frequency - would make you sound like a Ryanair pilot
Thread Starter
Thanks for the tips.
That's understood, but there doesn't appear to be a problem with flying that exact route and overflying Brussels at, say FL90. That's permitted by the RAD. Only if my destination is in the Brussels TMA is it prohibited. Since I'm going to be at FL90 at COA in either case, it seems odd to permit the route for overflights but not Antwerp arrivals -- Antwerp has no STARs by the way. The alternative, permitted route also goes through NIK.
Originally Posted by Lon More
There is a very god reason for the uni-directional airway. A considerable amount of the inbounds to London TMA route along it and all have to descend. The complexity of the airspace requires them to cross certain points at certain levels and by going against the flow you are creating a much higher workload for all concerned. It is also the route followed by most of the EBBR departures to the west and they will be climbing all the way against you.
you are creating a much higher workload for all concerned. It is also the route followed by most of the EBBR departures to the west and they will be climbing all the way against you.
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contact Belgocontrol. The help desk shold be able to give you a definite answer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 46
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bookworm,
The routing CLN-COA IS available below FL110. I personally don't see a problem with that routing, especially for Antwerp inbounds. They'll have to descend anyway and stay well below the Brussels outbounds. And we still have radar to vector that 747 at 4000' around you...
As said: don't worry about the Dutch airspace, that's delegated to Brussels anyway.
Best thing to do: before you depart, call the Brussels ACC supervisor (+32 2 206 27 22) and make your request. When approved by him, once in the air, ask the UK controller for this routing and tell him this has been approved beforehand.
Good luck!
The routing CLN-COA IS available below FL110. I personally don't see a problem with that routing, especially for Antwerp inbounds. They'll have to descend anyway and stay well below the Brussels outbounds. And we still have radar to vector that 747 at 4000' around you...
As said: don't worry about the Dutch airspace, that's delegated to Brussels anyway.
Best thing to do: before you depart, call the Brussels ACC supervisor (+32 2 206 27 22) and make your request. When approved by him, once in the air, ask the UK controller for this routing and tell him this has been approved beforehand.
Good luck!
Thread Starter
matsATC
Thanks for that. What would be even better is to get the RAD changed to reflect that (e.g. to exempt Antwerp), so that what is filed is the same as what everyone wants me to fly. Any idea who is responsible for putting together the restrictions that go into the RAD?
The Dutch are only relevant to this because the restriction on L179 actually appears in the EH RAD, since officially it's NL airspace. That may make the admin a bit harder.
Thanks for that. What would be even better is to get the RAD changed to reflect that (e.g. to exempt Antwerp), so that what is filed is the same as what everyone wants me to fly. Any idea who is responsible for putting together the restrictions that go into the RAD?
The Dutch are only relevant to this because the restriction on L179 actually appears in the EH RAD, since officially it's NL airspace. That may make the admin a bit harder.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 46
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is published in the LoA's between London TCC and Brussels ACC is this:
Flights on L179:
Flights with destination EBOS, EBBR TMA (EBBR, EBMB, EBAW, EBCV) and EBCI may be accepted via L179. FL170 will be the maximum level. An approval request is required for traffic above FL115.
I'm not sure who is responsible for the information published in the RAD within Belgocontrol. Maybe you can use the contacts on the Eurocontrol RAD site: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/rad/contact.htm
Flights on L179:
Flights with destination EBOS, EBBR TMA (EBBR, EBMB, EBAW, EBCV) and EBCI may be accepted via L179. FL170 will be the maximum level. An approval request is required for traffic above FL115.
I'm not sure who is responsible for the information published in the RAD within Belgocontrol. Maybe you can use the contacts on the Eurocontrol RAD site: http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/rad/contact.htm
Thread Starter
Well I finally got to make this flight on Tuesday afternoon.
First my thanks to the guys at TC who were, as always, brilliantly accommodating and obliging. If any of my comments come across as critical, these are criticisms of the ATM system, not of the individuals who, time and again, bend over backward to make every flight safe and operationally achievable.
So I filed:
EGSC DCT CLN M189 DVR L9 KONAN L607 KOK DCT NIK
at FL90 which was accepted without amendment.
Unlike, I suspect, most flight crew, I also took a copy of the Flight Route page from the CFMU Internet Application, which gave my routing as DVR6R DET DVR.
As I departed Cambridge, the issue was complicated by a large CB apparently sitting right over Stansted. The initial heading from Director took me straight towards it, and a discussion ensued as to whether deviation east or west around Stansted would be better, and it became explicit for the first time that the intended routing was via DET. Because of the stacks to the west, deviating east around the weather was clearly preferable and I ended up tracking about 070.
After handover to 121.22, I needed to continue the heading before eventually turning south for CLN, but the controller was still expecting to take me back towards DET. I asked for a routing via CLN JACKO as flight planned, and was handed to 135.42 (is that AC or TC?). I then asked for coordination with Brussels for a routing direct to COA, and got it after an apparently short negotiation.
This raises some questions:
1) Why does the routing in the CFMU Flight log differ from my flight planned routing?
2) What does ATC see on the strip? (Also, do you see the RMK?)
3) Does routing BKY CLN JACKO DVR require more coordination for some reason than BKY DET DVR? The latter takes me much closer to the stacks, seems like a Bad Thing?
Thanks again to those who made it work on the day.
First my thanks to the guys at TC who were, as always, brilliantly accommodating and obliging. If any of my comments come across as critical, these are criticisms of the ATM system, not of the individuals who, time and again, bend over backward to make every flight safe and operationally achievable.
So I filed:
EGSC DCT CLN M189 DVR L9 KONAN L607 KOK DCT NIK
at FL90 which was accepted without amendment.
Unlike, I suspect, most flight crew, I also took a copy of the Flight Route page from the CFMU Internet Application, which gave my routing as DVR6R DET DVR.
As I departed Cambridge, the issue was complicated by a large CB apparently sitting right over Stansted. The initial heading from Director took me straight towards it, and a discussion ensued as to whether deviation east or west around Stansted would be better, and it became explicit for the first time that the intended routing was via DET. Because of the stacks to the west, deviating east around the weather was clearly preferable and I ended up tracking about 070.
After handover to 121.22, I needed to continue the heading before eventually turning south for CLN, but the controller was still expecting to take me back towards DET. I asked for a routing via CLN JACKO as flight planned, and was handed to 135.42 (is that AC or TC?). I then asked for coordination with Brussels for a routing direct to COA, and got it after an apparently short negotiation.
This raises some questions:
1) Why does the routing in the CFMU Flight log differ from my flight planned routing?
2) What does ATC see on the strip? (Also, do you see the RMK?)
3) Does routing BKY CLN JACKO DVR require more coordination for some reason than BKY DET DVR? The latter takes me much closer to the stacks, seems like a Bad Thing?
Thanks again to those who made it work on the day.
