UK ATC: 'Secret' descent gates
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haughtney - yep 24R
Scott - revelation ! we got a standard descent into LAS 2 days ago.
Sadly they spoiled it by insisting on 190kts to 4d - with windshear reported and a large storm to our left.
We just about did it, but it wasn't pretty
Ta for the input Mr ATCO !
Scott - revelation ! we got a standard descent into LAS 2 days ago.
Sadly they spoiled it by insisting on 190kts to 4d - with windshear reported and a large storm to our left.
We just about did it, but it wasn't pretty
Ta for the input Mr ATCO !
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Likewise Mr Friendly! I will update as/when appropriate. The query is in the system.
Regarding creating new waypoints - I do not feel the need for this (although it would be nice
) and, from the interface with controllers, ask only for enough 'notice' of your requirements to enable me to make the descent planned and comfortable.
Regarding creating new waypoints - I do not feel the need for this (although it would be nice
) and, from the interface with controllers, ask only for enough 'notice' of your requirements to enable me to make the descent planned and comfortable.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find some of the answers within the UK's SRD (Standard Routing Document). This is available freely via the AIS website.
It's not a pilot friendly document, nor some would argue does it need to be. It does however allow Nav/Ops departments to see level restrictions upon certain inbound/outbound routes from the UK. My company uses this, builds the early descents into the PLOGS and so we have adequate fuel. Encourage yours to do the same........
I pushed heavily for the publication of all this years ago. The problem with places like Leeds, Midlands Group airfields etc, is that many of the descent profiles are before the start of the STAR. There is no easy place to put the expected descent restrictions on such arrivals.
I do believe there is an argument for extending STARS for some airfields beyond their current starting point, and hence including descent data. RT loading could also be reduced.
eg: BB arrival through S19:- typical 1st call response " ABC123 goodafternoon, maintain FL350, routing AVANT, MIDHURST,OCKHAM, HEMEL, GROVE 1C Birmingham."
Extend the STAR back to HEMEL. Include the EXPEXTED descent data and RT now "ABC123 goodafternoon, maintain FL350, routing AVANT GROVE 1C Birmingham."
Valuable RT time saved on both ATC transmission and aircraft readback!
30W
It's not a pilot friendly document, nor some would argue does it need to be. It does however allow Nav/Ops departments to see level restrictions upon certain inbound/outbound routes from the UK. My company uses this, builds the early descents into the PLOGS and so we have adequate fuel. Encourage yours to do the same........
I pushed heavily for the publication of all this years ago. The problem with places like Leeds, Midlands Group airfields etc, is that many of the descent profiles are before the start of the STAR. There is no easy place to put the expected descent restrictions on such arrivals.
I do believe there is an argument for extending STARS for some airfields beyond their current starting point, and hence including descent data. RT loading could also be reduced.
eg: BB arrival through S19:- typical 1st call response " ABC123 goodafternoon, maintain FL350, routing AVANT, MIDHURST,OCKHAM, HEMEL, GROVE 1C Birmingham."
Extend the STAR back to HEMEL. Include the EXPEXTED descent data and RT now "ABC123 goodafternoon, maintain FL350, routing AVANT GROVE 1C Birmingham."
Valuable RT time saved on both ATC transmission and aircraft readback!
30W
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 30W - (eventually) downloaded but I cannot see how it can help with FIR 'entry' level at LIFFY nor the step-down altitudes thereafter? Have I missed something?
LIFFY -EGNM
LIFFY MC 245 L975 WAL DCT POL DCT LBA EGNM RAD EG4039
LIFFY 245 660 UL975 LYNAS L975 WAL DCT POL DCT LBA EGNM RAD EG4039
The RAD does not really help either. What we need is a ball-park 'level FLXXX by YYY' at major waypoints eg LIFFY into London FIR, 'level FLXXX by 45 before POL' inbound EGNM etc.
Nice idea for STARS, BTW! Then maybe we could get these gates printed on them. I cannot believe it is necessary for ATC to 'fiddle' with them so much that they cannot be issued.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
My appologies, I thought the RAD used to have some level guidance in it, having just looked I see that it doesn't
Either it's changed, or more likely I'm having another one of those days!! Definately some guidance (not all) was published somewhere - can anyone help with where it was??
The STAR issue became political because nobody wanted 'ownership' of such a large route section. To any ATC Ops folk, it means more ammendment etc..... Also there was the issue of the route segment being so long it being difficult to fit on one page
There's an email address for NATS Ops in the RAD [email protected], I suggest those who feel strongly that the level restrictions should be published email and tell them so. Certainly NATS agreed to publish them some years ago, but I've run out of the chasing enthusiasm I had in those days
30W
My appologies, I thought the RAD used to have some level guidance in it, having just looked I see that it doesn't
Either it's changed, or more likely I'm having another one of those days!! Definately some guidance (not all) was published somewhere - can anyone help with where it was??The STAR issue became political because nobody wanted 'ownership' of such a large route section. To any ATC Ops folk, it means more ammendment etc..... Also there was the issue of the route segment being so long it being difficult to fit on one page
There's an email address for NATS Ops in the RAD [email protected], I suggest those who feel strongly that the level restrictions should be published email and tell them so. Certainly NATS agreed to publish them some years ago, but I've run out of the chasing enthusiasm I had in those days
30W
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll pin my faith on CHIRP - they never normally fail!
Good luck!
30W
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here and there but mostly lgw
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now now girls its very simple. Everytime i come across an agreement ie otbed 280, or latan 330(li/lg), or ncl 260 i confirm that it a full time agreement with the sector at an appropiate quiet time. Then I send an email to head of flight planning ,or asr, and they incorporate it into the burn/plog or however they want. We get more fuel, atcos get their stress down and it isnt rocket science. Situational awareness is a behavioural marker item for crm assessment. So if you are aware pass it on, possibly in your own time, if you can drag yourselves away from your incredibly full lives arguing on pprune.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOAC
Scott - as usual a thorough analysis, but I'm not clear whether this a response to post #1 or later ones?
To answer on my points - IF we were given the restrictions with the descent clearance our lives would be easier.
My 'contingency' figures were what I used against what the PLOG calculates as the airline 'minimum', and quoted only to show the significance of the early descents.
There is still a need for airlines (I refer to UK - I have no experience of the US) to have some way of predicting non-economic and fuel wasting UK descent profiles, and as I have said to those who kindly responded with information by PM, I now consider this to be of enough relevance to 'safety' as to warrant an approach to CHIRP in the hope they can communicate with SRG (ATC) to try and get some BASIC idea of descent gates into our planning system (Jeppesen in my case). EXACT altitudes are not needed, and can, indeed, change on a day-to-day basis if need-be, but we need some idea of where top of descent is going to be.
Edit to add I have raised a query through Chirp
To answer on my points - IF we were given the restrictions with the descent clearance our lives would be easier.
My 'contingency' figures were what I used against what the PLOG calculates as the airline 'minimum', and quoted only to show the significance of the early descents.
There is still a need for airlines (I refer to UK - I have no experience of the US) to have some way of predicting non-economic and fuel wasting UK descent profiles, and as I have said to those who kindly responded with information by PM, I now consider this to be of enough relevance to 'safety' as to warrant an approach to CHIRP in the hope they can communicate with SRG (ATC) to try and get some BASIC idea of descent gates into our planning system (Jeppesen in my case). EXACT altitudes are not needed, and can, indeed, change on a day-to-day basis if need-be, but we need some idea of where top of descent is going to be.
Edit to add I have raised a query through Chirp
We in ATC still work most everything in the short term. If we were to try to just fit everything in with the long term outlook, we would hamper the system with undo restrictions. In the US we fill the bag to full just a bit more than they normally do in Europe, and this is why you see a lot of vectoring about and speed control in trying to make everything fit, as well as many intermediate altitudes. We are just trying to be as flexible as possible without having to put in static restrictions that place a bigger burdeon on the airspace. About the best you are going to get out of most of our controllers if they have the time is to get expect lower in 30 miles. But, I doubt that is going to happen. We for the most part, expect flight crews to understand that whent hey get within about 200 miles of a major airport that they can expect vectoring, speed control and altitude changes to start getting in line for the sequence for that stream (know that there are normally at least four streams going to one airport with the way that we do it in the US.
The only thing that I can say of help to the pilot community is to not let the airlines short you on fuel. There are going to be days where you land with a lot more fuel than you needed, but unless you are willing to go to an alternate and take the time and wasted money of a divert, plan to carry some extra fuel. That is indeed the price of doing business...
Oh, there is also that ability for ALL flight crews to come and attend Communicating for Safety in Dallas <G>... I believe that it is 12 and 13 October this year...
regards
Scott
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30W, as a S19 controller I would love to give you AVANT GROVE 1C, but this would mean the STAR starting at AVANT if I were to be doing my job properly, and if that was to be the case, then we'd also need a new STAR starting at 40 dme before BIG, and whatever the Lambourne restriction is too. Apply this to every other airfield and I think you'll need more fingers and toes to count the new ones on. I do agree that restrictions like the FL250 10nm before AVANT should be published and known, but as for now I'll still use the "expect" I always do.
Ideally I'd like to give you no routing at all, but we all know how useless your Ops Dept are at filing flightplans
Ideally I'd like to give you no routing at all, but we all know how useless your Ops Dept are at filing flightplans
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott - it IS simply a question of making sure that we DO take the right fuel! It does not make commercial sense to always carry X00 extra kg in case we are descended 100 miles early or to always carry x00kg in case we are held for 40 minutes or vectored for 60 miles when we probably will not, so IF we could establish the expected parameters and get those fed in to our planning systems it would be far better. As pilots we fly into different airspace every day of our working lives. You as a controller have a pretty good chance of knowing the waypoints/altitude blocks (even airway names ) and routing in your area. We generally do not, unless we are employed on regular 'bus runs' in which case it is easy.
The second issue is how these things are handled on the day. As I began, it is much easier to be given the altitude/position target at the outset than to be 'chased' for not achieving something you did not know about.
5miles - if I coud always get "expect xxx" my 'short term' problems would be over!
) and routing in your area. We generally do not, unless we are employed on regular 'bus runs' in which case it is easy.The second issue is how these things are handled on the day. As I began, it is much easier to be given the altitude/position target at the outset than to be 'chased' for not achieving something you did not know about.
5miles - if I coud always get "expect xxx" my 'short term' problems would be over!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5miles,
I don't think having more STARS is a huge problem personally. It's mainly areas like Midlands Group airfields and NM's etc that have such far out descent sectorisation restrictions. The LL's and KK's and alike all have stars that include all restrictions, because they are not forced down so early relative to where they would like economically to start descent.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that overall system capacity is better for the restrictions you have, and I support that.
When I come through 19 and the SC is working his balls off, I believe the last thing he really needs is a string of routing instructions to relay, and hear read back - it makes keeping on top of a difficult and tight tactical situation so much more difficult. Recognising that, extended STARS to those particular airfields must be a solution. I pushed heavily for it back in LATCC days, but LATCC Ops in those days didn't want the extra workload involved with extra amendments etc.
As for flight plans, routings should be right - I know all my companies are, as they get very direct feedback if they deviate from the RAD rest assured - I phone straight away and get them to sort it! IFPS should reject any plan that doesn't conform to the RAD and require operators to re-file accordingly.
Hope to catch you for a coffee sometime when I'm next visiting!
30W
I don't think having more STARS is a huge problem personally. It's mainly areas like Midlands Group airfields and NM's etc that have such far out descent sectorisation restrictions. The LL's and KK's and alike all have stars that include all restrictions, because they are not forced down so early relative to where they would like economically to start descent.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that overall system capacity is better for the restrictions you have, and I support that.
When I come through 19 and the SC is working his balls off, I believe the last thing he really needs is a string of routing instructions to relay, and hear read back - it makes keeping on top of a difficult and tight tactical situation so much more difficult. Recognising that, extended STARS to those particular airfields must be a solution. I pushed heavily for it back in LATCC days, but LATCC Ops in those days didn't want the extra workload involved with extra amendments etc.
As for flight plans, routings should be right - I know all my companies are, as they get very direct feedback if they deviate from the RAD rest assured - I phone straight away and get them to sort it! IFPS should reject any plan that doesn't conform to the RAD and require operators to re-file accordingly.
Hope to catch you for a coffee sometime when I'm next visiting!
30W
