Atlantic clearances.....why?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atlantic clearances.....why?
Can anybody tell me why we keep having to go through this hoohaa of getting an oceanic clearance and then having to read back all the lats and longs (if on a random route) or a TMI on the Nats? It doesn't happen anywhere else in the world that I am aware of.
The point I would like to make is that if your flight plan is the same as the oceanic clearance why does there have to be any communication at all? It should be just like any other route. If there is a requirement for ATC to make a change then issue a reclearance.....just like anywhere else. The whole system borders on being comical and just clogs up the airways.
I have heard that it is industrially related. Is this true? Could explain why the FANS is such a mess too. Even Fiji has a proper CPDLC and ADS system.
The point I would like to make is that if your flight plan is the same as the oceanic clearance why does there have to be any communication at all? It should be just like any other route. If there is a requirement for ATC to make a change then issue a reclearance.....just like anywhere else. The whole system borders on being comical and just clogs up the airways.
I have heard that it is industrially related. Is this true? Could explain why the FANS is such a mess too. Even Fiji has a proper CPDLC and ADS system.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guessing (since I don't work the ocean) is that because Oceanic Airspace is a procedural environment and as such if everybody flew their flight plan route then you will have lots of welded metal over the ocean.
An oceanic clearance is like any other clearance and is a mandatory readback to ensure that you have correctly undestood the route you are required to fly.
The TMI is there to ensure that you have the correct route for that NAT track.
An oceanic clearance is like any other clearance and is a mandatory readback to ensure that you have correctly undestood the route you are required to fly.
The TMI is there to ensure that you have the correct route for that NAT track.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cowpatz
you don't have to go through all the hoohaa if you are acars equpped you can make your request by that method and receive your clearance the same way.
the reason its done on a cdo (clearance delivery officer) frequency is that during the westbound rush its too damn busy for us to have to read every adjustment to your clearance as for a reclearance we are required to read the clearance in full ,including all the lats and longs if on a random route. as radar707 said it cannot be a silent system at the moment because of the procedural nature of the oceanic airspace. we need 10 mins between aircraft at the same level following the same route and everybody wants the same levels, so there is negotiation that goes on which would more than likely tip the controller into an overload if he had to read it all out on his/her own frequency. It may be that with the new sats system's implementation that the seperations required may reduce but at the moment we need that spacing.
hope this helps a little
you don't have to go through all the hoohaa if you are acars equpped you can make your request by that method and receive your clearance the same way.
the reason its done on a cdo (clearance delivery officer) frequency is that during the westbound rush its too damn busy for us to have to read every adjustment to your clearance as for a reclearance we are required to read the clearance in full ,including all the lats and longs if on a random route. as radar707 said it cannot be a silent system at the moment because of the procedural nature of the oceanic airspace. we need 10 mins between aircraft at the same level following the same route and everybody wants the same levels, so there is negotiation that goes on which would more than likely tip the controller into an overload if he had to read it all out on his/her own frequency. It may be that with the new sats system's implementation that the seperations required may reduce but at the moment we need that spacing.
hope this helps a little
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the ocean is a procedural environment; just like any other controlled piece of sky we operate in. You seem to have missed the point here. A flight plan is filed which includes a full routing description so why the need to get a seperate clearance for just one part of it? If it is your flight planned route it is your flight planned route .........period. All the controlling centres will have a copy of your flight plan so what is the story? If, for example, you are late running or there is a projected conflict down track then a simple reclearance would be given to you enroute, just like anwhere else in the world. We now have acars clearances so why the need for a full readback and clog the airwaves. The clearance procedures across the pond haven't changed since the comet!!! Even the continued use of HF radio. Come on that was used in WW2 !!!! Just because we have done something ever since Adam and Eve walked the earth does not mean we should keep doing it. Why aren't we using SATCOM? Also the datalink trials have taken far too long. Years, when other areas have only taken months. Someone, somewhere is stalling the program and I suspect it is job related . The Atlantic is a sorry mess.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most controlled pieces of sky in europe though have radar available so they are not a procedural environment,hence the increased seperation.as for the voice interface, as i said more and more carriers are using acars so they are making their position reports,requests for clearance,getting reclearances on that which is reducing the hf use. i know its still horrible to use but its worked for 60years and will not i think be fully disposed of, its always nice to have a backup.also if a pilot wishes to discuss a clearance it is sometimes easier to discuss it by voice rather than acars. There is also the point that not everybody flies across the ocean in a brand new all singing all dancing uber jet so we have to cater for them as well.
like i said in my previous post though, things are changing.Training has begun on the sats system and yes i'm sure as far as you are concerned it should happen faster, but the training and implementation of such systems requires a rigorous testing phase to iron out any bugs and to try and cover every eventuality.we are all after the same thing,after all. a safe ,efficient system. all i'm saying is have patience change takes time.
like i said in my previous post though, things are changing.Training has begun on the sats system and yes i'm sure as far as you are concerned it should happen faster, but the training and implementation of such systems requires a rigorous testing phase to iron out any bugs and to try and cover every eventuality.we are all after the same thing,after all. a safe ,efficient system. all i'm saying is have patience change takes time.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In these fuel conscious times, what grips me is when we come out of the Caribbean to the UK - file FL370, can achieve it by the ocean entry point only to be told by ARINC that 280 is max until 30W.
I had to explain in very plain english why I wouldn't accept the clearance - I know they are radio operators but there should be more cooperation or a slot onto the ocean
I had to explain in very plain english why I wouldn't accept the clearance - I know they are radio operators but there should be more cooperation or a slot onto the ocean
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, let me say that cowpatz is very welcome to a visit and personal briefing at Shanwick so he / she can see first hand what a day on the NAT looks like from the other side
Second, let me echo and clarifiy some of what AYRPROX and RADAR707 has said .. to start with some clarification, the NAT is a non-radar environment and the Target Level of Separation is therefor more exacting than other environments. Any change to this needs to be supported by detailed analysis and evidence that the higher level would be achievable and supportable in operation - introducing a new flight data processing system (FDPS) such as SAATS cannot do this in isolation (though it will achieve many other benefits !).
When considering the Flight Plan -v- Oceanic Clearance issue, please consider that there is no guarantee that the FPL, as submitted, is what will enter an OAC FDPS - hence you might think we have the same route ... but we don't. This may be because there are syntax errors in the FPL, you may not have complied with ROS / TOS requirements at either side of the NAT, you may not have complied with various other parameters that our systems need or the data may have been corrupted credibly between you hitting the send button and us receiveing it.
AYPROX makes a good point about datalink. Around two thrids of all westbound NAT traffic use ORCA (datalink) to get their Oceanic clearance (one third for making en-route position repots). This is quick, easy and less prone to human error [on the ground and in the air !] than manual methods ... we'll come back to this point though ! You'd also be surprised of the number of FPLs that include "extra" en-route waypoints (by extra I mean FIR crossing points, certain prime merideans etc.) Oceanic providers may remove these to enable traffic to be parralleled (Sp. ?) against each other and separation to be maintained at 10 minutes longitudinally rather than 15.
So why have a clearance issued ? because that way we are clear where you should be as, if you get it wrong, it'll take a while for us to know since we can't see you ! At best this may lead to the safety evidence to support separation standards being eroded (and separations increased), at worst you might just meet something coming the other way you should be avoiding
The whole issue with SATCOM is far more complicated than we have space for here however your trade assocsiation (IATA, IACA etc.) should be able to fill you in. Alternatvely for general information, have a look here.
Finally, Ocean can be a difficult job and those who work there [who'll no-doubt provide more clarification .. and correct me in a few places !] take great pride in what they do. There is no doubt that technologically, there are many solutions that would satisfy your need for a 21st century service ... deploying it for £55 per flight is then the challenge ! ... unless of course you are happy to pay more
Second, let me echo and clarifiy some of what AYRPROX and RADAR707 has said .. to start with some clarification, the NAT is a non-radar environment and the Target Level of Separation is therefor more exacting than other environments. Any change to this needs to be supported by detailed analysis and evidence that the higher level would be achievable and supportable in operation - introducing a new flight data processing system (FDPS) such as SAATS cannot do this in isolation (though it will achieve many other benefits !).
When considering the Flight Plan -v- Oceanic Clearance issue, please consider that there is no guarantee that the FPL, as submitted, is what will enter an OAC FDPS - hence you might think we have the same route ... but we don't. This may be because there are syntax errors in the FPL, you may not have complied with ROS / TOS requirements at either side of the NAT, you may not have complied with various other parameters that our systems need or the data may have been corrupted credibly between you hitting the send button and us receiveing it.
AYPROX makes a good point about datalink. Around two thrids of all westbound NAT traffic use ORCA (datalink) to get their Oceanic clearance (one third for making en-route position repots). This is quick, easy and less prone to human error [on the ground and in the air !] than manual methods ... we'll come back to this point though ! You'd also be surprised of the number of FPLs that include "extra" en-route waypoints (by extra I mean FIR crossing points, certain prime merideans etc.) Oceanic providers may remove these to enable traffic to be parralleled (Sp. ?) against each other and separation to be maintained at 10 minutes longitudinally rather than 15.
So why have a clearance issued ? because that way we are clear where you should be as, if you get it wrong, it'll take a while for us to know since we can't see you ! At best this may lead to the safety evidence to support separation standards being eroded (and separations increased), at worst you might just meet something coming the other way you should be avoiding
The whole issue with SATCOM is far more complicated than we have space for here however your trade assocsiation (IATA, IACA etc.) should be able to fill you in. Alternatvely for general information, have a look here.
Finally, Ocean can be a difficult job and those who work there [who'll no-doubt provide more clarification .. and correct me in a few places !] take great pride in what they do. There is no doubt that technologically, there are many solutions that would satisfy your need for a 21st century service ... deploying it for £55 per flight is then the challenge ! ... unless of course you are happy to pay more
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for responding Avrprox and I hear what you say. The testing of datalink on the Atlantic has so far taken in excess of 3 years if my memory serves me correctly. This is just plan nonsense.....who or what is dragging the chain? I believe Gander has dropped back to stage 2 testing again. We are not dealing with rocket science here just a communication conduit. If coral atolls in the pacific can do it (and do it well) then surely they can sort it out on the Atlantic.
Yes we do get ACARS clearances and when they are received are usually the same as the flight planned route.....so as I said why send anything at all?? Why should the rule not be We will only send you a clearance if there is a change to your route. Would save a huge amount of air time. Also why the need to read back every Lat/Long.....how draconian. Why not just read back an identifier if we really have to acknowledge a clearance. Departing the UK is another shambles. To get an oceanic clearance we need to type in the requested information in a very rigid format or it wont work. The information we send is mostly available on the filed flight plan. What you are suggesting is that these clearances are issued "on the fly". Surely there is a bit more planning involved than this?
Yes we do get ACARS clearances and when they are received are usually the same as the flight planned route.....so as I said why send anything at all?? Why should the rule not be We will only send you a clearance if there is a change to your route. Would save a huge amount of air time. Also why the need to read back every Lat/Long.....how draconian. Why not just read back an identifier if we really have to acknowledge a clearance. Departing the UK is another shambles. To get an oceanic clearance we need to type in the requested information in a very rigid format or it wont work. The information we send is mostly available on the filed flight plan. What you are suggesting is that these clearances are issued "on the fly". Surely there is a bit more planning involved than this?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cowpatz
Welcome to my world
Judging by your location I will hazard a guess at who you fly for/what you drive and what your experience of 'Shanwick' consists of. My apologies now if I am wide of the mark.
Firstly, on the issue of readbacks, the ARINC 620 kit presently fitted on your company's aircraft does not allow you to automatically acknowledge receipt of the Oceanic Clearance you receive from us via ACARS using our 'ORCA' system. >66% of Oceanic Clearances are now issued via this system to aircraft, >99% of which are ARINC 623 compliant and therefore acknowledge receipt of the clearance by the press of a button!
Yours is the only commercial operator transiting Shanwick with ARINC 620 compliant kit and is therefore required to voice readback!
The format in which you send the request via ACARS is rigid because otherwise the system cannot accept the data you input. This is neither rocket science nor unique to ATC but symptomatic of the world in which we operate.
ADS is used in Shanwick as is CPDLC, and although CPDLC is currently available only for requesting changes in speed/level once within the OCA, it will be expanded to permit other types of clearance request/formats once all the users can agree the standards required, for reasons of safety, continuity, language issues, technical issues, etc. (Being the busiest Oceanic airspace in the world with 1200+ flights a day during peak periods, you can imagine that such a process takes time. Your 'Atolls' perhaps deal with a few dozen per day).
The reading back of an Oceanic Clearance "identifier" is a procedure currently employed by Gander OACC. However, we chose to fully automate the system and as I've said >99% of users are able to take advantage of this. (Gander are also going forward to a totally automated system whereby the read back of the clearance I-D will not be a requirement, so long as you have the kit to do it automatically).
Your FPL route often does not vary from your Oceanic Cleared Route because the route you generally transit Shanwick to Reykjavik is invariably not subject to high density East/West - West/East traffic flows.
If anything, you may be penalised in terms of FL rather than route as the separation standards used that far north would mean huge changes to your route to enable you to be separated laterally from any conflicting traffic on parallel/converging routes at the same FL. It is easier for all to 'go vertical' in the knowledge that our colleagues in Reykjavik, with the benefit of radar, will get you higher ASAP, subject to traffic.
Your weight also keeps you out of the FLs that the majority of transatlantic traffic request. Therefore, your situation can be regarded as the exception, rather than the rule, and what works for the 'majority' will as I'm sure you'll appreciate, prevail.
With regard to FPLs, and as stated previously, not all companies include Shanwick in the AFTN address and sometimes any change may not be received either for technical or human shortcomings, or indeed combinations of both. It is fairly common even these days for a flight to call up requesting an Oceanic Clearance for which no FPL details are held.
I can also assure you, that if we see a procedure which can be changed for the better or completely done away with, we are the first to shout about it. We are not in the business of making work for ourselves or our jobs unnecessarily difficult.
I'm sure you're only ever likely to be in our neck of the woods while on holiday and therefore unlikely that you'll ever visit in person. (You'd be more than welcome to do so however). Therefore, perhaps you can have your fleet manager contact us and request what info we have, DVDs/CDs etc. created for the benefit of crews transiting Shanwick, to be forwarded to you. You may find more comprehensive answers to your questions using this method as there is indeed "a bit more planning involved".
Welcome to my world
Judging by your location I will hazard a guess at who you fly for/what you drive and what your experience of 'Shanwick' consists of. My apologies now if I am wide of the mark.
Firstly, on the issue of readbacks, the ARINC 620 kit presently fitted on your company's aircraft does not allow you to automatically acknowledge receipt of the Oceanic Clearance you receive from us via ACARS using our 'ORCA' system. >66% of Oceanic Clearances are now issued via this system to aircraft, >99% of which are ARINC 623 compliant and therefore acknowledge receipt of the clearance by the press of a button!
Yours is the only commercial operator transiting Shanwick with ARINC 620 compliant kit and is therefore required to voice readback!
The format in which you send the request via ACARS is rigid because otherwise the system cannot accept the data you input. This is neither rocket science nor unique to ATC but symptomatic of the world in which we operate.
ADS is used in Shanwick as is CPDLC, and although CPDLC is currently available only for requesting changes in speed/level once within the OCA, it will be expanded to permit other types of clearance request/formats once all the users can agree the standards required, for reasons of safety, continuity, language issues, technical issues, etc. (Being the busiest Oceanic airspace in the world with 1200+ flights a day during peak periods, you can imagine that such a process takes time. Your 'Atolls' perhaps deal with a few dozen per day).
The reading back of an Oceanic Clearance "identifier" is a procedure currently employed by Gander OACC. However, we chose to fully automate the system and as I've said >99% of users are able to take advantage of this. (Gander are also going forward to a totally automated system whereby the read back of the clearance I-D will not be a requirement, so long as you have the kit to do it automatically).
Your FPL route often does not vary from your Oceanic Cleared Route because the route you generally transit Shanwick to Reykjavik is invariably not subject to high density East/West - West/East traffic flows.
If anything, you may be penalised in terms of FL rather than route as the separation standards used that far north would mean huge changes to your route to enable you to be separated laterally from any conflicting traffic on parallel/converging routes at the same FL. It is easier for all to 'go vertical' in the knowledge that our colleagues in Reykjavik, with the benefit of radar, will get you higher ASAP, subject to traffic.
Your weight also keeps you out of the FLs that the majority of transatlantic traffic request. Therefore, your situation can be regarded as the exception, rather than the rule, and what works for the 'majority' will as I'm sure you'll appreciate, prevail.
With regard to FPLs, and as stated previously, not all companies include Shanwick in the AFTN address and sometimes any change may not be received either for technical or human shortcomings, or indeed combinations of both. It is fairly common even these days for a flight to call up requesting an Oceanic Clearance for which no FPL details are held.
I can also assure you, that if we see a procedure which can be changed for the better or completely done away with, we are the first to shout about it. We are not in the business of making work for ourselves or our jobs unnecessarily difficult.
I'm sure you're only ever likely to be in our neck of the woods while on holiday and therefore unlikely that you'll ever visit in person. (You'd be more than welcome to do so however). Therefore, perhaps you can have your fleet manager contact us and request what info we have, DVDs/CDs etc. created for the benefit of crews transiting Shanwick, to be forwarded to you. You may find more comprehensive answers to your questions using this method as there is indeed "a bit more planning involved".
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post Rab-K, and if your assumptions about cowpatz aren't correct, you certainly educated me!
Thank you for reminding us all what PPRuNe used to be like all the time....
Thank you for reminding us all what PPRuNe used to be like all the time....
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
Good post Rab-K.
Cowpatz, as suggested take a day off work and visit a centre, you'll probably find it a real eye opener.
Part of the problem with the data link is that it has to be all things to all men. Any changes which might have to be made to satisfy one section of ATC have also to be evaluated for any repercussions in another. Also the controller's kit has to be compatible with the rest of the system - ideally no larger than a Tx switch! - unfortunately it is often piggy-backed onto another system and the resultant complication often outweighs any benefit and therefore delays the program's implementation
Cowpatz, as suggested take a day off work and visit a centre, you'll probably find it a real eye opener.
Part of the problem with the data link is that it has to be all things to all men. Any changes which might have to be made to satisfy one section of ATC have also to be evaluated for any repercussions in another. Also the controller's kit has to be compatible with the rest of the system - ideally no larger than a Tx switch! - unfortunately it is often piggy-backed onto another system and the resultant complication often outweighs any benefit and therefore delays the program's implementation
