UK ATC: 'Secret' descent gates
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK ATC: 'Secret' descent gates
I've just done a few arrivals from the west into LBA and there appear to be some 'gates' for descent along the 'Welsh' airway and around WAL and POL. Since these are not published for aircrew, can I make a plea for them to be given with initial descent clearances rather than sprung on me during a slow (and very early) descent? MAN area ATC seem particularly poor in this respect, but LONDON have been guilty in the past.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mostly these are called block standing agreements and they are between sectors and areas. They are published, but as you say, they are not openly published.
This is an area where ATC and Operators really need to communicate better becasue we as operators are expected to fly min fuel, our planning department work on what they know, yet we are still expected to descend to some unexpected level, so many miles before a point.
Why can't you ATC types just organise things so we have to be level by X waypoint and publish it widely.
This is not a secret society, this is an industry that is trying it's best to save fuel.
It makes me seeth
This is an area where ATC and Operators really need to communicate better becasue we as operators are expected to fly min fuel, our planning department work on what they know, yet we are still expected to descend to some unexpected level, so many miles before a point.
Why can't you ATC types just organise things so we have to be level by X waypoint and publish it widely.
This is not a secret society, this is an industry that is trying it's best to save fuel.
It makes me seeth
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We obviously followed each other from IBZ yesterday.
Yes, 'fuel' is one thing, but passenger comfort/ageing pilot heart-rate two others. The only solution is to clog up the R/T with "is there any descent restriction" following EVERY clearance. They would love that!
Yes, 'fuel' is one thing, but passenger comfort/ageing pilot heart-rate two others. The only solution is to clog up the R/T with "is there any descent restriction" following EVERY clearance. They would love that!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great - so some pilots are intent on telling us how we should do our jobs, again...
So let's consider the proposal that every standing agreement should be published so that the fancy computers that calculate fuel burn in relation to FL and track miles can have you all parking at the gate with nothing more than the legal minimum required to make a single approach to your alternate in the tanks. Fantastic idea!!!
Crews would be clogging the r/t in even greater numbers continuously bleating about how they were "fuel critical", "possibility may not make it do destination", "would really help us if we could route direct", blah blah blah... "Do you wish to declare a fuel emergency?"
...................was that tumbleweed that just went by the ops room door?..
"Ummm, negative..."
Standing agreements are there to facilitate maximum use of airspace with minimal co-ordination (via telephone) so as to give ATCOs more opportunity to spend time devoted to stopping the cigar tubes from welding themselves together. They are not, and this may come as no surprise to you, there for the benefit of the "customer".
When sectors are combined or 'band-boxed', such standing agreements may not be in force. Some sectors have flexible boundaries which move in relation to peak traffic flow and some agreements may be altered on a daily, or several times daily, tactical basis depending again upon traffic flow, runway in use, equipment serviceabilities, staffing levels etc, etc, etc..
Do you seriously think you would benefit from having every single ATC sector in the FMS, with every single possible standing agreement, which for a variety of reasons, all invisible to you, may not be adhered to on any given day?
Please!
You can only shave so much of your fuel bill before you get into the realms of the lunatics running the asylum.
What do your shareholders want:
a) Profit with fuel expended aircraft that had CBs and delay not determined at destination AND alternate smearing itself plus pax over a muddy field somewhere with subsequent litigation?
or..
b) A safe but never the less profitable operation?
The fueling situation is bad enough as it is without increasingly congested skies resulting in reroutes and lower levels and time delays and speed restrictions and slot times combining to make the situation even more critical than it is currently.
Then YOU would have even more gas scooped out of the tanks, increasing the pressure on often fatigued crews and overloaded ATCOs and all at risk to all on board to keep the shareholders happy!
Who do you work for again? I must make a note to fly with someone else.
So let's consider the proposal that every standing agreement should be published so that the fancy computers that calculate fuel burn in relation to FL and track miles can have you all parking at the gate with nothing more than the legal minimum required to make a single approach to your alternate in the tanks. Fantastic idea!!!
Crews would be clogging the r/t in even greater numbers continuously bleating about how they were "fuel critical", "possibility may not make it do destination", "would really help us if we could route direct", blah blah blah... "Do you wish to declare a fuel emergency?"
...................was that tumbleweed that just went by the ops room door?..
"Ummm, negative..."
Standing agreements are there to facilitate maximum use of airspace with minimal co-ordination (via telephone) so as to give ATCOs more opportunity to spend time devoted to stopping the cigar tubes from welding themselves together. They are not, and this may come as no surprise to you, there for the benefit of the "customer".
When sectors are combined or 'band-boxed', such standing agreements may not be in force. Some sectors have flexible boundaries which move in relation to peak traffic flow and some agreements may be altered on a daily, or several times daily, tactical basis depending again upon traffic flow, runway in use, equipment serviceabilities, staffing levels etc, etc, etc..
Do you seriously think you would benefit from having every single ATC sector in the FMS, with every single possible standing agreement, which for a variety of reasons, all invisible to you, may not be adhered to on any given day?
Please!
You can only shave so much of your fuel bill before you get into the realms of the lunatics running the asylum.
What do your shareholders want:
a) Profit with fuel expended aircraft that had CBs and delay not determined at destination AND alternate smearing itself plus pax over a muddy field somewhere with subsequent litigation?
or..
b) A safe but never the less profitable operation?
The fueling situation is bad enough as it is without increasingly congested skies resulting in reroutes and lower levels and time delays and speed restrictions and slot times combining to make the situation even more critical than it is currently.
Then YOU would have even more gas scooped out of the tanks, increasing the pressure on often fatigued crews and overloaded ATCOs and all at risk to all on board to keep the shareholders happy!
Who do you work for again? I must make a note to fly with someone else.
Last edited by rab-k; 27th May 2006 at 21:17.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who do you work for again? I must make a note to fly with someone else.
Yes, 'fuel' is one thing, but passenger comfort
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standing agreements are there to facilitate maximum use of airspace with minimal co-ordination (via telephone) so as to give ATCOs more opportunity to spend time devoted to stopping the cigar tubes from welding themselves together. They are not, and this may come as no surprise to you, there for the benefit of the "customer
Do you seriously think you would benefit from having every single ATC sector in the FMS, with every single possible standing agreement, which for a variety of reasons, all invisible to you, may not be adhered to on any given day?
Please!
Please!
The fueling situation is bad enough as it is without increasingly congested skies resulting in reroutes and lower levels and time delays and speed restrictions and slot times combining to make the situation even more critical than it is currently.
Crews would be clogging the r/t in even greater numbers continuously bleating about how they were "fuel critical", "possibility may not make it do destination", "would really help us if we could route direct", blah blah blah... "Do you wish to declare a fuel emergency?"
What disgraceful comments..you should be ashamed of yourself
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree actually. I see no tangible reason why certain sections of the MATS Part 2 (instructions on a unit by unit basis - one for Scottish, one for LACC, one for MACC etc etc) can't be distributed sensibly amongst airline ops departments, as long as they were used for reference purposes only. You are our customers after all
In fact, if memory serves me correctly, I think they actually may be?
There are a multitude of standing agreements between sectors, and between units, as someone else on this thread has stated. Amongst other things they're to ensure you keep out of other people's airspace, so they more often than not coincide with sector and/or centre airspace boundaries.
Why not try to arrange a visit for yourselves to MACC, ScACC, LTCC or LACC to see the whys and wherefores of why we have them, and how they facilitate your safe and expeditious paths through the little bits of sky we each have. Most units accept visits from aircrew more than happily - this is definitely the case at MACC.
Alternatively, have a word with your Ops departments and see if they do indeed get any gen from our ops departments. I seem to recall there is a fluid passage of data between the two, but I could be wrong.
In fact, if memory serves me correctly, I think they actually may be?
There are a multitude of standing agreements between sectors, and between units, as someone else on this thread has stated. Amongst other things they're to ensure you keep out of other people's airspace, so they more often than not coincide with sector and/or centre airspace boundaries.
Why not try to arrange a visit for yourselves to MACC, ScACC, LTCC or LACC to see the whys and wherefores of why we have them, and how they facilitate your safe and expeditious paths through the little bits of sky we each have. Most units accept visits from aircrew more than happily - this is definitely the case at MACC.
Alternatively, have a word with your Ops departments and see if they do indeed get any gen from our ops departments. I seem to recall there is a fluid passage of data between the two, but I could be wrong.
Last edited by bagpuss lives; 27th May 2006 at 22:39.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your not the one getting vectors and descents that haven't been planned for..thanks for that by the way...
As I understand it, the human element is still in the cockpit and in the Air Traffic Control Centres/Towers as a higher degree of flexibility is required than leaving it solely to computers to carry out pre-prepared programs.
May I suggest that too much information may be a bad thing, as if the unexpected comes along, this is going to generate confusion, conversation and debate on an already congested frequency? Standing agreements between controllers are there for ATC purposes, and may be varied by co-ordination at any time! (Along the same lines with a CTOT. The -5, +10 mins is there for ATC TACTICAL use, and shouldn't be used by crews to plan on. Some crews don't half get grumpy when they miss a slot by starting at CTOT +5 ,when they are fully notified aware of the slot either from GND or Ops, only to be told it is impossible to get them airborne within the CTOT tolerance due to the outbound queue!)
Nooooo but it would also help us with our "tactical" picture and planning to have some idea of what kind of descent or whatever it is you decide we as "customers" require
There may be many things that do not directly affect your flight that mean you must be at a certain level by a certain point (traffic in/out of adjacent aerodromes, activated danger areas, co-ordinated airspace with the military, CDR's yada yada yada).
I would advocate that you do not query instructions given by ATC over the RT, or question the rationale behind it. If it affects you as operators to the degree that you infer by your Ops department not planning in sufficient fuel to take tactical ATC instructions, either file a Safety Report, MOR, or raise it as a safety/policy issue with your ops department.
We are not some secret society trying our best to push you round the sky for no reason. Again, use the old telephone call or take a couple of hours out of your day to visit your local friendly tower and/or Centre!
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by niteflite01
Alternatively, have a word with your Ops departments and see if they do indeed get any gen from our ops departments. I seem to recall there is a fluid passage of data between the two, but I could be wrong.
BD
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'Customer' is always right:
Source: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/192257-1.html
While we're here, let me ask another question. What does the typical "customer" know about Air Traffic Control? Does the customer want a "safe, orderly and expeditious" service or does he want to go direct to the airport? What if those two goals are contradictory?
I live on Dunkin' Donuts coffee. What do you think would happen if I entered the exit lane, went around all the cars waiting at the squawk box at the drive-thru and went straight to the window at the drive-thru? Would I get my coffee faster? Would I get my coffee at all? What would their other customers think of me? Would they be sitting in their cars thinking, "The customer is always right?"
I live on Dunkin' Donuts coffee. What do you think would happen if I entered the exit lane, went around all the cars waiting at the squawk box at the drive-thru and went straight to the window at the drive-thru? Would I get my coffee faster? Would I get my coffee at all? What would their other customers think of me? Would they be sitting in their cars thinking, "The customer is always right?"
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The standing agreements are there to ensure that traffic is presented to the next ATC sector in an acceptable fashion without handing over each individual track. They are not there for crew descent planning, or to plan arrival/departure routes. That is the purpose of a SID/STAR. Most SID's and STARS are designed to take into account of these standing agreements i.e. the FL260 restriction at MARGO heading up North.
I would advocate that you do not query instructions given by ATC over the RT, or question the rationale behind it. If it affects you as operators to the degree that you infer by your Ops department not planning in sufficient fuel to take tactical ATC instructions, either file a Safety Report, MOR, or raise it as a safety/policy issue with your ops department.
Secondly, yes it does affect EVERY operator to a lesser or greater degree, most of the time planning contingencies are such that it doesn't cause any undue concern..furthermore, aircrew hopefully take the time to read the notams produced each day to get as clear a picture of whats going on that particular day.
I go back to my point again however..why the big secret? can't you ATCO's just accept that by giving us the information it helps us as well?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I did not want to start a war here, although I expected it
.
I certainly do NOT advocate all these 'gates' being published (heaven's sake, we have enough to master with all the stuff across the world that IS published ), but could it all not be sorted out if the 'target' were given in the clearance - ie 'descend FL140, be level 40 before POL' rather than just 'descend FL170' then' 'you have to be blah blah' as I drift economically down in blissful ignorance? Overall that would be less R/T time, and far more 'controlled'. Some sectors worldwide are better than others.
You guys and girls can have as many 'gates' as you wish between sectors - I would suggest that if a particular gate is really MUCH lower than the logical 'economical' level it would be helpful to publish it so the plate publishers can put it on a STAR plate, and planning departments can adjust the fuel burns accordingly. After some time we now have the 'FL200 25 before TNT' on the MAN Dayne Star. That helps.
.I certainly do NOT advocate all these 'gates' being published (heaven's sake, we have enough to master with all the stuff across the world that IS published
), but could it all not be sorted out if the 'target' were given in the clearance - ie 'descend FL140, be level 40 before POL' rather than just 'descend FL170' then' 'you have to be blah blah' as I drift economically down in blissful ignorance? Overall that would be less R/T time, and far more 'controlled'. Some sectors worldwide are better than others.You guys and girls can have as many 'gates' as you wish between sectors - I would suggest that if a particular gate is really MUCH lower than the logical 'economical' level it would be helpful to publish it so the plate publishers can put it on a STAR plate, and planning departments can adjust the fuel burns accordingly. After some time we now have the 'FL200 25 before TNT' on the MAN Dayne Star. That helps.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swanwick, England
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the 200 25nm before TNT is published on the STAR then why do more and more pilots get it wrong and read back 20 nms before TNT!
If the information is there infront of you then how can it not be accurate every time therefore reducing RT?
More pilots needed down here which may open a few more eyes
If the information is there infront of you then how can it not be accurate every time therefore reducing RT?
More pilots needed down here which may open a few more eyes
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sussex
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting debate, but one that is not new.
Take a look at the STAR plates published in the AIP. There you will find that there is data relating to standing agreements. It is called "Descent Planning", and actually stipulates the SA.
To get this data into the AIP was a huge exercise in overcoming some entrenched views of the world. An Air 2000 pilot and an ATCO at West Drayton wrote the paper that presented the arguments "for", and it included the results of meetings with the then Hd of CAP1 (Mike Wildin in those days), as to how to ensure the accuracy of these inclusions. This all came about because of the interface the FMS and the ATC operational environment.
In the case of Leeds, there are no STARs. In such circumstances, it was recomended that standing agreement levels were included in the textual section of the aerodrome entry in the AIP. It was also recommended that certain level restrictions - target levels etc were also published here. Such as FL 270 20< CUMRI, for NOKIN SIDS ex EGCC ( OK I know that it is FL270 25 <PERUP before today, but when the paper was written PERUP was not even a twinkle in PLGs or Lee Boultons eye).
One of the concerns was that flight crews would act upon this information independently from an ATC instruction. At the time I seem to recall at West Drayton, it was a live issue.
Looks like it needs to be reviewed again. Maybe there should be STARs for Leeds?
Take a look at the STAR plates published in the AIP. There you will find that there is data relating to standing agreements. It is called "Descent Planning", and actually stipulates the SA.
To get this data into the AIP was a huge exercise in overcoming some entrenched views of the world. An Air 2000 pilot and an ATCO at West Drayton wrote the paper that presented the arguments "for", and it included the results of meetings with the then Hd of CAP1 (Mike Wildin in those days), as to how to ensure the accuracy of these inclusions. This all came about because of the interface the FMS and the ATC operational environment.
In the case of Leeds, there are no STARs. In such circumstances, it was recomended that standing agreement levels were included in the textual section of the aerodrome entry in the AIP. It was also recommended that certain level restrictions - target levels etc were also published here. Such as FL 270 20< CUMRI, for NOKIN SIDS ex EGCC ( OK I know that it is FL270 25 <PERUP before today, but when the paper was written PERUP was not even a twinkle in PLGs or Lee Boultons eye).
One of the concerns was that flight crews would act upon this information independently from an ATC instruction. At the time I seem to recall at West Drayton, it was a live issue.
Looks like it needs to be reviewed again. Maybe there should be STARs for Leeds?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Is it time to get a few more ATCO's doing familiarisation flights?...I know this has been covered before, but it is becoming apparent that there is a real lack of understanding in what is essentially two parties playing for the same team.
I was fortunate enough to visit West Drayton not so long ago with AEU, and that gave me a much better understanding of the challenges facing ATCO's, perhaps it takes a bit of goodwill from both sides? Or am I being unrealistic?
I was fortunate enough to visit West Drayton not so long ago with AEU, and that gave me a much better understanding of the challenges facing ATCO's, perhaps it takes a bit of goodwill from both sides? Or am I being unrealistic?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post Gary.
This whole thing is becoming a bit of an issue these days. As has been pointed
out the practice of issuing descent clearances followed by an 'expected' lower level is very much frowned upon due to the potential for level busts. In my mind its a pity because I used to use it a lot. Believe me, when you're busy with a lot of inbound stack traffic the last thing you need is an aircraft (invariably american) 'wafting' down to its cleared level blissfully unaware that it will need to be at or around min stack by the holding fix. This can seriously ruin your day.
I personally don't use 'expect' type clearances anymore but it can be frustrating as I feel more and more we do things in ATC because the pilot might make a mistake. I appreciate the potential for confusion but must we treat pilots as children/thickies?
This whole thing is becoming a bit of an issue these days. As has been pointed
out the practice of issuing descent clearances followed by an 'expected' lower level is very much frowned upon due to the potential for level busts. In my mind its a pity because I used to use it a lot. Believe me, when you're busy with a lot of inbound stack traffic the last thing you need is an aircraft (invariably american) 'wafting' down to its cleared level blissfully unaware that it will need to be at or around min stack by the holding fix. This can seriously ruin your day.
I personally don't use 'expect' type clearances anymore but it can be frustrating as I feel more and more we do things in ATC because the pilot might make a mistake. I appreciate the potential for confusion but must we treat pilots as children/thickies?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I get an ATC instruction that I don't think is safe or clear, I'm certainly going to query it
go back to my point again however..why the big secret? can't you ATCO's just accept that by giving us the information it helps us as well?
Perhaps you should look further up the food chain before bashing ATCO's on here for doing their job?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have wandered a bit from my request to give us a clue as to your descent planning into the realms of publishing minute detail of every route altitude restriction which was not my intent.
Most ATC units manage to give us the 'plan' - Maastricht for example are good at that, Frankfurt approach, etc etc. Inbound to LHR/LGW normally not a problem either. It is just the few places where it does not happen that cause the difficulties. The potential is for a higher work load for us, a screaming descent with a possible RA with traffic below and discomfort for the pax. Given 'the plan' we can set up a descent profile to suit. Otherwise, given a descent up to 50 miles earlier than 'economic' we will indeed 'waft down' as put above until we are told otherwise. No need for visits, good as they are, or famil flights (ditto) - it is just common sense
Most ATC units manage to give us the 'plan' - Maastricht for example are good at that, Frankfurt approach, etc etc. Inbound to LHR/LGW normally not a problem either. It is just the few places where it does not happen that cause the difficulties. The potential is for a higher work load for us, a screaming descent with a possible RA with traffic below and discomfort for the pax. Given 'the plan' we can set up a descent profile to suit. Otherwise, given a descent up to 50 miles earlier than 'economic' we will indeed 'waft down' as put above until we are told otherwise. No need for visits, good as they are, or famil flights (ditto) - it is just common sense
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got back from the gym....(in the hope of retaining ones medical) and it seems the discussion has moved on a bit.
Point taken, I did however make mine for no other reason than for the sake of clarity.
From what Ive read (and hopefully understood) of this discussion, the nuts and bolts of it relate to the tactical expectation of what is likely to be asked for/complied with, rather than digging through endless volumes of minutia to find a point that may or may not be relevant on any given day. As BOAC so succinctly puts it..give us a clue
If you call constructive criticism bashing, perhaps you are getting a little emotive about this issue.
I can only agree with BOAC LGW/LHR and even MAN are generally very very good, why this is I have no idea..I am a mere button pusher after all
And indeed we would expect you to, however an "Unsafe clearance" such as you suggest is not really what is being discussed within the context of this thread. (Standing agreements and descent planning as a primary argument)
Again back to my point, there is no big secret. Why can't you accept that the information that is (or is not) published is done so by Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA and not by Air Traffic Control Units.
Perhaps you should look further up the food chain before bashing ATCO's on here for doing their job?
I can only agree with BOAC LGW/LHR and even MAN are generally very very good, why this is I have no idea..I am a mere button pusher after all
Gender Faculty Specialist
A little more information would help both parties in this case.
If we are cleared to a level earlier than expected we do tend to "Waft down". If we become higher than you want us to be we can't then magically appear at your desired level. All it needs is a quick heads up for us and we'll do the rest.
If we are cleared to a level earlier than expected we do tend to "Waft down". If we become higher than you want us to be we can't then magically appear at your desired level. All it needs is a quick heads up for us and we'll do the rest.