A question for Swiss Radar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for Swiss Radar
Hi, Working for an airline based out of the Milan area and spend a lot of time transiting through Swiss Airspace. I am more familiar with the rules in the UK and the R/T proceedures contained in CAP 413 . I need to ask a few questions on what seems to happen daily in Swiss airspace. In the Uk for example I believe that it is not allowed for a controller to issue a heading and a FL at the same time due to the risk of a level bust. A very typical exchange on first contact with Swiss radar goes like this:
Airline: "Swiss good morning Airline110, climbing FL260 Abesi"
Swiss Radar:"Morning Airline110, squawk 4100"
Airline""squawk 4100 Airline 110"
(Straight Away)Swiss Radar " Climb 290, direct Kudes Lokta Tango, change frequency 133.075"
I have to say that first thing in morning on first contact to have so many instructions, three waypoints, a FL, a squak, and a frequency change in two transmissions can be a little overloading sometimes. I have the callsign number in my head, a FL and a freq, I sometimes feel it is a matter of time before I put the FL into the transponder and the climb to the squawk!
Our company is suffering from a rise in level busts and for me it seems that exchanges on the radio like these are maybe a contributing factor. We also have a lot of new F/Os line training who are not familiar with the waypoints and for who English is not a first language and they often get overwhelmed by all the info.
I find that I am trying to keep the squak in my head as I get issued another two numbers ( A FL and a Freq change) which I have to dial in and readback before I forget them. I know this sounds like a minor complaint but I have discussed this with colleagues and all have brought it up.
I have also counted that from take off to top of climb in 95 or so track miles one can have up to 7 frequency changes. It seems sometimes that you have to change frequency every 1500 feet or so?
I guess the two questions I have for you are:
1. Is it allowed to issue so many instructions at once, including a combined climb and Freq change? Is it a rule that is just being ignored?
2. Do you feel that so many different sectors and frequency changes is a genuine improvment to safety, or like I feel, that it has a negative impact on safety?
Airline: "Swiss good morning Airline110, climbing FL260 Abesi"
Swiss Radar:"Morning Airline110, squawk 4100"
Airline""squawk 4100 Airline 110"
(Straight Away)Swiss Radar " Climb 290, direct Kudes Lokta Tango, change frequency 133.075"
I have to say that first thing in morning on first contact to have so many instructions, three waypoints, a FL, a squak, and a frequency change in two transmissions can be a little overloading sometimes. I have the callsign number in my head, a FL and a freq, I sometimes feel it is a matter of time before I put the FL into the transponder and the climb to the squawk!
Our company is suffering from a rise in level busts and for me it seems that exchanges on the radio like these are maybe a contributing factor. We also have a lot of new F/Os line training who are not familiar with the waypoints and for who English is not a first language and they often get overwhelmed by all the info.I find that I am trying to keep the squak in my head as I get issued another two numbers ( A FL and a Freq change) which I have to dial in and readback before I forget them. I know this sounds like a minor complaint but I have discussed this with colleagues and all have brought it up.
I have also counted that from take off to top of climb in 95 or so track miles one can have up to 7 frequency changes. It seems sometimes that you have to change frequency every 1500 feet or so?
I guess the two questions I have for you are:
1. Is it allowed to issue so many instructions at once, including a combined climb and Freq change? Is it a rule that is just being ignored?
2. Do you feel that so many different sectors and frequency changes is a genuine improvment to safety, or like I feel, that it has a negative impact on safety?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The South
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK you are allowed to give a heading change & a new flight level in the 1 sentence. The heading should be followed by the words "degrees" to avoid confusion.
ATCO`s in the UK should not give more than 3 instructions in a single transmission.
There is a list of instructions that require a mandatory readback such as a change in heading, level & speed & therefore should not be given in the same sentence as a frequency change incase of an incorrect readback.
Hope this helps, from A UK perspective.
ATCO`s in the UK should not give more than 3 instructions in a single transmission.
There is a list of instructions that require a mandatory readback such as a change in heading, level & speed & therefore should not be given in the same sentence as a frequency change incase of an incorrect readback.
Hope this helps, from A UK perspective.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the TMA, if I used a seperate instruction for heading and then for level Id be going under very very quickly. However it is sometimes done that way when you get a feel that a pilot is not able to get multiple bits of info all in one. (very rarely I might add, and almost always a non frequent crew)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I should point out that I have nothing to do with Swiss Radar so I offer the below as comment rather than definitive answers to the original question.
The reason for the frequent frequency changes is almost certainly because of the type of sectorisation used in Switzerland. Because it is at the centre of Europe it has many crossing routes and relatively few airports generating arrivals and departures. In broad terms, most of the ATC problems come from aircraft in level flight at intersections of routes rather than traffic climbing or descending. This means that the most efficient way to sectorise the airspace is horizontally (i.e. a sector covers a wide area but only controls traffic from, say, FL270 to 320). If you happen to be one of the relatively few climbers or descenders it does, unfortunately, mean that you will have to change to each sector as you climb or descend through - but no system can is perfect!
If you compare this to the UK situation, where there are lots of airports generating traffic, many of the sectors cover a geographic area, sometimes quite small, and significantly more levels. This enables the sector to manage the traffic in and out of the airports more effectively - but sectorisation isusually a compromise between many factors, and sadly traffic flows sometimes aren't the determining factor!
As to RTF, as Telstar points out, the UK has quite a good book which has a lot of good guidance which ges beyond (and sometimes differs from) the international standard. I think the limits on what should be passed in a single transmission is generally guidance and probably better described as good practice in an international context. Strictly speaking CAP 413 phraseology etc., where it differs from ICAO Standards, should only be used in the UK - and I'm not sure that there's any real reason to expect anyone in other States to be aware of the UK way of doing things. There's also the problem of what to do when the Swiss version of CAP 413 (if there is one) differs from the UK version.
The reason for the frequent frequency changes is almost certainly because of the type of sectorisation used in Switzerland. Because it is at the centre of Europe it has many crossing routes and relatively few airports generating arrivals and departures. In broad terms, most of the ATC problems come from aircraft in level flight at intersections of routes rather than traffic climbing or descending. This means that the most efficient way to sectorise the airspace is horizontally (i.e. a sector covers a wide area but only controls traffic from, say, FL270 to 320). If you happen to be one of the relatively few climbers or descenders it does, unfortunately, mean that you will have to change to each sector as you climb or descend through - but no system can is perfect!
If you compare this to the UK situation, where there are lots of airports generating traffic, many of the sectors cover a geographic area, sometimes quite small, and significantly more levels. This enables the sector to manage the traffic in and out of the airports more effectively - but sectorisation isusually a compromise between many factors, and sadly traffic flows sometimes aren't the determining factor!
As to RTF, as Telstar points out, the UK has quite a good book which has a lot of good guidance which ges beyond (and sometimes differs from) the international standard. I think the limits on what should be passed in a single transmission is generally guidance and probably better described as good practice in an international context. Strictly speaking CAP 413 phraseology etc., where it differs from ICAO Standards, should only be used in the UK - and I'm not sure that there's any real reason to expect anyone in other States to be aware of the UK way of doing things. There's also the problem of what to do when the Swiss version of CAP 413 (if there is one) differs from the UK version.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a lot of vertical movements in our relatively small airspace, which makes it (also due to our location in the center of Europe as Spitoon correctly stated) a very complex airspace.
All traffic ex EDDF/EDDS/EDDM/LIMF/LIMC/LIML/LIME/LIPZ/LSGG is calling us on an intermediate level to be eventually cleared to the requested FL, as well as traffic to those destinations has to descend to an intermediate level in our area.
Traffic in level flight mainly consists of flights from Turkey/Greece to the UK (a lot of them!) Germany (except for the above mentioned) to France/Spain/Italy/Africa and v.v., France to Eastern Europe/the Middle East/Asia and v.v.
As for the original question: It is indeed a matter of sectorisation, as it is one of the means to be able to offer a reasonable acceptance rate per hour (staffing is a different matter...). This of course has the negative side effect of a lot of frequency changes.
Usual procedure in your case, Telstar, would be that you be sent to Swiss Radar 133.050 (FL250 - FL280) by Milan, you would then be given the new squawk, after the readback you would be identified, given the route clearance and the FL to climb to. After the readback of this clearance you would be sent to 132.815 (FL290 - FL320).
On top of those sectors we have another two (FL330- FL350 and FL360+).
I don't see it to be safety relevant; it would be if we had less sectors with the same amount of traffic...
All traffic ex EDDF/EDDS/EDDM/LIMF/LIMC/LIML/LIME/LIPZ/LSGG is calling us on an intermediate level to be eventually cleared to the requested FL, as well as traffic to those destinations has to descend to an intermediate level in our area.
Traffic in level flight mainly consists of flights from Turkey/Greece to the UK (a lot of them!) Germany (except for the above mentioned) to France/Spain/Italy/Africa and v.v., France to Eastern Europe/the Middle East/Asia and v.v.
As for the original question: It is indeed a matter of sectorisation, as it is one of the means to be able to offer a reasonable acceptance rate per hour (staffing is a different matter...). This of course has the negative side effect of a lot of frequency changes.
Usual procedure in your case, Telstar, would be that you be sent to Swiss Radar 133.050 (FL250 - FL280) by Milan, you would then be given the new squawk, after the readback you would be identified, given the route clearance and the FL to climb to. After the readback of this clearance you would be sent to 132.815 (FL290 - FL320).
On top of those sectors we have another two (FL330- FL350 and FL360+).
I don't see it to be safety relevant; it would be if we had less sectors with the same amount of traffic...
