RYR taking shortcuts
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Oslo, Norway
RYR taking shortcuts
Hiya!
Work at an approach sector and are quite often surprised by ryr doing it's own thing. i.e cleared to a fix but goes direct 10nm final instead etc etc. It's now come as far as we're reporting every single occasion they do this and it gets sent to the chief pilot. anyhow, anyone else having the same sort of trouble or is it just me they're bothering?
Work at an approach sector and are quite often surprised by ryr doing it's own thing. i.e cleared to a fix but goes direct 10nm final instead etc etc. It's now come as far as we're reporting every single occasion they do this and it gets sent to the chief pilot. anyhow, anyone else having the same sort of trouble or is it just me they're bothering?
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: Planet Earth
... in the same context , only different ... why don`t ATC offer " direct - to ..." more often than they do at present. I`m always asking , and you may find it annoying , but after all , that`s why we fly , - the quickest we can get where we are going , the better for all , - I`m out of your hair earlier and I`m in the pub sooner and the punters or the packages get where they intend to go , hopefully near to schedule. Seriously , how many times have I sat there at FL 360 wondering if ATC has a reason for us going all around the looong way ( this includes all of Europe and a lot of Asia too ). And by the way , does the UK really think the Germans are still going to invade from the East , they sure make it inconvenient with all the military airspace on the Eastern side of the British Isles. You open that airspace up to civilian traffic more , then you`d see some fuel savings. Rant on !
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Awaiting Redundancies
Us miltary fly in that airspace just to p*ss you off! ..... Or is it to train for Operations such as those in Afghanistan where the boys are regularly risking their butts to make your life safer at home and in the air!
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: Planet Earth
I find it difficult to blame the USAF for that which is truly a European ATC issue / NATS or whoever you want to point the finger at , it`s an economic waste for airlines to circumnavigate this airspace.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Awaiting Redundancies
You may note that the second letter in Us was of lower case. This was not a typing error it was intended this way. Therefore, by Us i was referring to the RAF (The Royal 'Us'!), and did not infer any reference to our American cousins. However, they also use the airspace over the North Sea so you could include them as part of your problem! May i also add that the use of aviation for widescale military purpose preceeded it's widescale use for civilian travel - so join the back of the queue or we'll shoot you down too!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
From: On a Ship Near You
... in the same context , only different ... why don`t ATC offer " direct - to ..." more often than they do at present. I`m always asking , and you may find it annoying , but after all , that`s why we fly , - the quickest we can get where we are going , the better for all , ...
The flex track / UPR and even standard non normal tracks are usually "best guessed" as the fastest way; we take you off by offering track shortening and cost you time; the most direct route is often not the quickest, of course there are many examples where it is.
I saved an aircraft 30NM once by cutting a dog-leg and cost them two minutes over the 250NMs from Point A to C instead of via B; courtesy of the jet stream winds etc.
As for military airspace; this is a world wide problem... But from what I see daily, I prefer the current situation of keeping civi's as far from military types doing military things in those types of airspace as we need.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: in a house
Dont mention the war....
Maybe if you stopped asking for direct everywhere you might get it. As for the airspace – go round it, big deal. Europe is not one country ( tip - it’s the bit below the UK on the map ) and hence can be some difficulties. Asia – that’s that place near China right 
?
As for ze Germans, well who knows….
) and hence can be some difficulties. Asia – that’s that place near China right ?As for ze Germans, well who knows….
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Oslo, Norway
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Centre of old Europe
On a limited basis, in low traffic, mostly at night, direct routes have been given by ATC all over Europe since it was technically possible to fly them with INS in the seventies.
With a few local exceptions, ATC software has not been adapted to accommodate more direct routes on a larger scale. Technically, there should be no serious problem to let aircraft fly from TMA-exit to TMA-entry. The ATC computers can calculate the significant points and eta's along any random route to a fix. Operationally it would require adaptation of ATC area control working habits including reliance on computer assisted conflict detection (by the planner controller, the executive controller should use but not rely).
The main stumbling block is political, see the uncompromising reaction of Adanakebab. It used to be the Russian threat (and in Eastern Europe I'm sure it was called the NATO threat leading to the same inflexibility), today it is the training for Afghanistan, there will always be some argument to cut off large chunks of airspace from civil use.
More flexible use of airspace brings some relief but that should only be the beginning of opening up more airspace when there is an economic and environmental demand for it.
Keep the pressure on, 6000PIC, you are absolutely right, it's an economic and environmental waste to circumnavigate unnecessarily.
With a few local exceptions, ATC software has not been adapted to accommodate more direct routes on a larger scale. Technically, there should be no serious problem to let aircraft fly from TMA-exit to TMA-entry. The ATC computers can calculate the significant points and eta's along any random route to a fix. Operationally it would require adaptation of ATC area control working habits including reliance on computer assisted conflict detection (by the planner controller, the executive controller should use but not rely).
The main stumbling block is political, see the uncompromising reaction of Adanakebab. It used to be the Russian threat (and in Eastern Europe I'm sure it was called the NATO threat leading to the same inflexibility), today it is the training for Afghanistan, there will always be some argument to cut off large chunks of airspace from civil use.
More flexible use of airspace brings some relief but that should only be the beginning of opening up more airspace when there is an economic and environmental demand for it.
Keep the pressure on, 6000PIC, you are absolutely right, it's an economic and environmental waste to circumnavigate unnecessarily.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: in a house
Brussels
Songbird29 – why so serious ? Brussels is the home of europeanness, bureaucracy, fat men in Mercedes and the chip – or should I say chipp ed pooomes de terrre a la mode.
You cant expect direct routes, the issue needs to mulled over for a few more years, moaned about by the French, applauded by the Dutch for non- infringement of human rights and after a couple of reports and a discussion with the UN we will arrive back where we started. Waiting for the impending sociologists report about how this creates inequalities in sandal manufacturing – or something. I mean next you’ll be wanting everybody to speak English in the air…
You cant expect direct routes, the issue needs to mulled over for a few more years, moaned about by the French, applauded by the Dutch for non- infringement of human rights and after a couple of reports and a discussion with the UN we will arrive back where we started. Waiting for the impending sociologists report about how this creates inequalities in sandal manufacturing – or something. I mean next you’ll be wanting everybody to speak English in the air…
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: Gatwick
Torp
Well, clearing someone to the TOR VOR is not much use, I don't want to go to the VOR, so just give a clearance to the Center Fix for 36 or 18, there's not that much difference in TRK from far away ie 100NM+ that's usually when I get cleared there.
I accept your point, guys are putting in the CD18/FD36 becaure they are just too lazy to create a point 10NM prior to the VOR and then joining it up with the center fix. It's just sloppy.
MK
I accept your point, guys are putting in the CD18/FD36 becaure they are just too lazy to create a point 10NM prior to the VOR and then joining it up with the center fix. It's just sloppy.
MK
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Poland
Back to the topic: I found WZZ pilots more likely to take their own shortcuts than RYR. I'd say RYR is following the rules much more strictly than others.
Few weeks ago one of Polish airports had ILS in some sort of maintenance, with non-precision approach still available. RYR divertered all their flights that were scheduled to land there after sunset to alternates; other company(ies) didn't.
Few weeks ago one of Polish airports had ILS in some sort of maintenance, with non-precision approach still available. RYR divertered all their flights that were scheduled to land there after sunset to alternates; other company(ies) didn't.
