Cardiff ATC
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight plans are obvious they do file what they are doing Chilli, so no excuses.
Anyhow I am not fully conversant with the new procedure, but if it does go someway to reduce the chance of overloads then it is fine with me.
Anyhow I am not fully conversant with the new procedure, but if it does go someway to reduce the chance of overloads then it is fine with me.
Last edited by flower; 28th Mar 2006 at 13:02.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was a Cardiff management bod then I'd ........
Establish an airspace volume with Brussels CFMU for the airspace concerned. Agree routes, levels, etc, to be captured, thus allowing Brussels to create the 'environment'.
Declare a traffic capacity (monitor value or Target Sector Flow).
Insist the trainers file IFR plans through IFPS (assuming they don't already).
Have LFMP monitor the capacity versus demand, and if capacity exceeded, put on a Regulation with agreement of Cardiff or allow Cardiff to take other tactical measures to manage traffic efficiently (this can also mean taking extra aircraft or improving slots, as well as restricting them by things such as MDIs). If there's Regulation delays, then that is because the airspace is too busy. The trainers will get their share of airspace slots in this system like everyone else. Whether that matches their airport authority slot is not really a Flow Management problem, it's one for the pilot to resolve. The airspace slot is part of an ATC clearance and is the one which overrides any other arrangement.
Issue ATC clearances, approach times, etc in accordance with MATS Part 1 priorities. Note that this may mean joining training aircraft holding outside CAS until workload permits their acceptance. Or holding en route to facilitate Normal category flight sequencing. A CFMU slot is never a guarantee of an unhindered flight path.
Any IFR trainers calling 'cold' should be accomodated as workload permits. If they didn't file a plan through the correct channels, then they will have to take their chances.
Errr, that's it
Establish an airspace volume with Brussels CFMU for the airspace concerned. Agree routes, levels, etc, to be captured, thus allowing Brussels to create the 'environment'.
Declare a traffic capacity (monitor value or Target Sector Flow).
Insist the trainers file IFR plans through IFPS (assuming they don't already).
Have LFMP monitor the capacity versus demand, and if capacity exceeded, put on a Regulation with agreement of Cardiff or allow Cardiff to take other tactical measures to manage traffic efficiently (this can also mean taking extra aircraft or improving slots, as well as restricting them by things such as MDIs). If there's Regulation delays, then that is because the airspace is too busy. The trainers will get their share of airspace slots in this system like everyone else. Whether that matches their airport authority slot is not really a Flow Management problem, it's one for the pilot to resolve. The airspace slot is part of an ATC clearance and is the one which overrides any other arrangement.
Issue ATC clearances, approach times, etc in accordance with MATS Part 1 priorities. Note that this may mean joining training aircraft holding outside CAS until workload permits their acceptance. Or holding en route to facilitate Normal category flight sequencing. A CFMU slot is never a guarantee of an unhindered flight path.
Any IFR trainers calling 'cold' should be accomodated as workload permits. If they didn't file a plan through the correct channels, then they will have to take their chances.
Errr, that's it
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The top of the tower
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPrune Radar
That's pretty much what is going to happen, AFAIK...
Chilli
Chill out! You won't have anything to worry about up there!!!
The trainers DO file FPL's with IFPS in the normal way. Type of flight is 'X', indicating the training status, which does, indeed equate to Z priority in ccordance with MATS Part 1.
Personally, I think Cardiff and Bristol are doing a great job with the GA and training traffic....
That's pretty much what is going to happen, AFAIK...
Chilli
Chill out! You won't have anything to worry about up there!!!
The trainers DO file FPL's with IFPS in the normal way. Type of flight is 'X', indicating the training status, which does, indeed equate to Z priority in ccordance with MATS Part 1.
Personally, I think Cardiff and Bristol are doing a great job with the GA and training traffic....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: behind the drag curve
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
something had to be done, there was a major incident waiting to happen involving too many training flights wanting access to the airways system between Exmor and BCN at the same levels and at the same time. no longer my problem (at least for now ) but my ex-colleagues at Cardiff have my heartfelt sympathies and indeed admiration for the way they go about their work.
Cardiff ATC are a hard-working, diligent and conscientious bunch of guys who do a particularly difficult job very well.
) but my ex-colleagues at Cardiff have my heartfelt sympathies and indeed admiration for the way they go about their work. Cardiff ATC are a hard-working, diligent and conscientious bunch of guys who do a particularly difficult job very well.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: behind the drag curve
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...furthermore, with new west end airspace already established and Bristol/Cardiff CTA developements yet to be implemented, surely for safety reasons it's better to regulate the flow of traffic whilst controllers and pilots alike get used to it, no?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about :
- Flow Rate is 0/60 unless prior permission received from Cardiff ATC this applies to training aircraft only. (Don't believe that contravenes anything, although I don't believe the current procedure does either).
Happy now??
TIO
- Flow Rate is 0/60 unless prior permission received from Cardiff ATC this applies to training aircraft only. (Don't believe that contravenes anything, although I don't believe the current procedure does either).
Happy now??
TIO
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIO
May I refer you to THIS document. The following extracts from Condition 2 of NATS operating licence are particularly relevant
Para 7 may be your "get out clause" - but has the unit (or NERL) obtained CAA approval for it?
May I refer you to THIS document. The following extracts from Condition 2 of NATS operating licence are particularly relevant
Condition 2: General obligation to provide Core Services and Specified Services
1. Without prejudice to the general power conferred under this Licence, the
Licensee shall make available:
(a) the Core Services so as to be capable of meeting on a continuing basis
any reasonable level of overall demand for such services;
1. Without prejudice to the general power conferred under this Licence, the
Licensee shall make available:
(a) the Core Services so as to be capable of meeting on a continuing basis
any reasonable level of overall demand for such services;
5. Without extending the obligation as to the overall level of services to be provided under paragraph 1(a), the Licensee shall meet each request for the provision of the Core Services reasonably made by any person.
6. For the purposes of paragraph 5 above, a person shall be held to have
reasonably made a request for the relevant services where:
(a) the Licensee has been notified of, and has not rejected, a legitimate
flight plan from the commander of an aircraft or a recognised flight plan
processing centre to a bona fide flight which is required by applicable
safety requirements to submit to the instructions of a person providing
air traffic control in the relevant area;
6. For the purposes of paragraph 5 above, a person shall be held to have
reasonably made a request for the relevant services where:
(a) the Licensee has been notified of, and has not rejected, a legitimate
flight plan from the commander of an aircraft or a recognised flight plan
processing centre to a bona fide flight which is required by applicable
safety requirements to submit to the instructions of a person providing
air traffic control in the relevant area;
7. In providing services under paragraph 1 the Licensee shall not unduly prefer or discriminate against any person or class of person in respect of the operation of the Licensee’s systems, after taking into account the need to maintain the most expeditious flow of air traffic as a whole without unreasonably delaying or diverting individual aircraft or such other criteria as the Licensee may apply from time to time with the approval of the CAA.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulating airspace (and any subsequent slot allocations) and/or complying with MATS Part 1 priorities to issue clearances would meet the En Route licence requirements.
Otherwise the CAA will have to change the rules with Europe, and itself
However, you can't factor in training aircraft for a 0 rate. It is all or nothing and any 'exclusion' or 'inclusion' would have to be done manually by FMP.
But let's not get confused by the 2 'access' issues.
On one hand, the 'environment' is an en route or arrival regulation. It consists of designated airspace or airfields and is automated, using FPL data to populate it's traffic volumes. It is not exclusive, anyone filing an appropriate FPL will figure in the big scheme of things, and get given a slot if regulations are in force.
On the other hand, the airport operator can set access rules (PPR, slots, etc) to its facilities as it sees fit. Whilst ATC can be given information on this and possibly be contracted by the airport authority to 'police' it, it is not for ATC to set the policy or the access rules. That is between the pilot and the airport authority.
You also have to bear in mind the licenced and unlicenced areas of NATS (in terms of the CAA economic En Route licence to provide ATS). Cardiff provides a service in the licenced arena to traffic on the Airways. In its unlicenced function, it is providing a service on behalf of the airport authority. So, the rules Chilli quotes apply to the Airways under Cardiff Control only. Trainers can plan to fly within them, and are dealt with as other en route traffic (see first paragraph of this post). For traffic which wishes to make an approach, then the airport operator (administered in the air through NATS ATC) can probably say no or set conditions (such as timing) to any operator it wishes with impunity. And I don't think this breaks any 'licence' set by the CAA.
Otherwise the CAA will have to change the rules with Europe, and itself
However, you can't factor in training aircraft for a 0 rate. It is all or nothing and any 'exclusion' or 'inclusion' would have to be done manually by FMP.
But let's not get confused by the 2 'access' issues.
On one hand, the 'environment' is an en route or arrival regulation. It consists of designated airspace or airfields and is automated, using FPL data to populate it's traffic volumes. It is not exclusive, anyone filing an appropriate FPL will figure in the big scheme of things, and get given a slot if regulations are in force.
On the other hand, the airport operator can set access rules (PPR, slots, etc) to its facilities as it sees fit. Whilst ATC can be given information on this and possibly be contracted by the airport authority to 'police' it, it is not for ATC to set the policy or the access rules. That is between the pilot and the airport authority.
You also have to bear in mind the licenced and unlicenced areas of NATS (in terms of the CAA economic En Route licence to provide ATS). Cardiff provides a service in the licenced arena to traffic on the Airways. In its unlicenced function, it is providing a service on behalf of the airport authority. So, the rules Chilli quotes apply to the Airways under Cardiff Control only. Trainers can plan to fly within them, and are dealt with as other en route traffic (see first paragraph of this post). For traffic which wishes to make an approach, then the airport operator (administered in the air through NATS ATC) can probably say no or set conditions (such as timing) to any operator it wishes with impunity. And I don't think this breaks any 'licence' set by the CAA.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey, I'm getting confused now,
I cant be ar5ed to read the license document but have downloaded a copy, it might come in useful when winter traffic levels begin again.
One thing I did spot in the quotes that were extracted,
2.1.a -
I would say that the slot booking system does meet a reasonable demand on a continuing basis. The airway is restricted to the number of movements booked as per beacons, to stop overloading in any one area at any one time.
IRO of section 5, the requests shall be met, but maybe not at an 'ideal' time for the training school involved.
IRO section 7
I think there is a reasonable argument to be maintained that the amount of slower aircraft in the system would affect expedition.
I may even be playing devils advocat a little here, however, I know how these low slow flights affect the operation.
Maybe for a change these aircraft could file to route Compton, lambourne, Bovingdon, hold at LON followed by 1 x Radar vectored ILS to fly an asymetric missed approach at EGLL and then a hold and NDB approach at EGKK, asymetric for the approach and climb out, then operate the block between FL45 and FL65 in the EGSS overhead? If they cannot do this, why not?
Some common sense is needed and, although I dread to say it, I think Cardiff ATC has provided this.
Sorry to Chilli et al who believe that FF ATC are breaking rules, its better than breaking planes
Oh yeah, and why should we be busting our pans for people who are using the airway on a freebie anyway?
edit:
Sorry Chilli, I only just saw ure question on the bottom. I do not know if an exemption was saught, if indeed required.
I cant be ar5ed to read the license document but have downloaded a copy, it might come in useful when winter traffic levels begin again.
One thing I did spot in the quotes that were extracted,
2.1.a -
the Core Services so as to be capable of meeting on a continuing basis any reasonable level of overall demand for such services;
IRO of section 5, the requests shall be met, but maybe not at an 'ideal' time for the training school involved.
IRO section 7
after taking into account the need to maintain the most expeditious flow of air traffic
I may even be playing devils advocat a little here, however, I know how these low slow flights affect the operation.
Maybe for a change these aircraft could file to route Compton, lambourne, Bovingdon, hold at LON followed by 1 x Radar vectored ILS to fly an asymetric missed approach at EGLL and then a hold and NDB approach at EGKK, asymetric for the approach and climb out, then operate the block between FL45 and FL65 in the EGSS overhead? If they cannot do this, why not?
Some common sense is needed and, although I dread to say it, I think Cardiff ATC has provided this.
Sorry to Chilli et al who believe that FF ATC are breaking rules, its better than breaking planes
Oh yeah, and why should we be busting our pans for people who are using the airway on a freebie anyway?
edit:
Sorry Chilli, I only just saw ure question on the bottom. I do not know if an exemption was saught, if indeed required.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo - the licence does apply to Cardiff inasmuch as they are controlling airspace specified in the licence as the responsibility of NERL, and as such are acting as a "sub-contractor" to NERL. The restriction being talked about is an en-route restriction, not an airfield restriction.
Do keep up
Do keep up
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So all these years I have been working for NERL
So what about the work we are contracted to do for the military Chilli, whose rules do we apply there ?
Cardiff have been working exceptionally closing with the traffic managers at LACC , DAP and numerous other organisations including SRG, all new procedures have to go before the regulator before they can be brought into use.
The charter regarding the airspace has been to the fore in everything we have done of late, I would expect that it has been looked at to check that it is in line with all the regulations we have to abide by, the question about can we flow trainers has been raised I know I raised it myself some months back.
I don't know what your beef is, we are not denying access to anyone we are applying a flow restriction on traffic a common tool used to manage traffic in NATS.
So what about the work we are contracted to do for the military Chilli, whose rules do we apply there ?
Cardiff have been working exceptionally closing with the traffic managers at LACC , DAP and numerous other organisations including SRG, all new procedures have to go before the regulator before they can be brought into use.
The charter regarding the airspace has been to the fore in everything we have done of late, I would expect that it has been looked at to check that it is in line with all the regulations we have to abide by, the question about can we flow trainers has been raised I know I raised it myself some months back.
I don't know what your beef is, we are not denying access to anyone we are applying a flow restriction on traffic a common tool used to manage traffic in NATS.
Last edited by flower; 29th Mar 2006 at 22:07.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: behind the drag curve
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chilli Monster
Gonzo - the licence does apply to Cardiff inasmuch as they are controlling airspace specified in the licence as the responsibility of NERL, and as such are acting as a "sub-contractor" to NERL. The restriction being talked about is an en-route restriction, not an airfield restriction.
Do keep up
Do keep up
