DFL 195+ UK airspace re-configuration

[1985]

There hasn't been a change to the Abbot stars.

The AIP in error deleted the Abbot 1C, realised their error and then issued a NOTAM saying it was a mistake and that all flights should plan for the Abbot 1C. Some airlines missed the NOTAM and updated their FMS's with the Abbot 1D which is incorrect (its a non-rnav route only available below FL100).

Didn't affect anything really just had to explain a couple of times.

[songbird29]

ludicrous situation on several routes where the aircraft can have (depending on levels and time of day) up to 4 or 5 different service changes in the space of 15-50 miles.

Apart from bemusement and mirth, something must be wrong here. I gather there are two issues at stake. One is a very complicated airspace structure which endeavours to give each category of users a piece of the cake. Perhaps once workable, but the lowering of the DFL has made it an awful mess.

Personally I blame Europe for this.

That's a half truth. Yes, Europe is at the origin. But it is not 'Europe' who decides. 'Europe' comes up with proposals only, for decision by national authorities, like CAA/NATS. Harmonisation of the DFL is an easy (but meaningless) success for 'Europe' and looks harmless for the national authority. Sorry for the ATCO in some outpost who can be told off. That's the reason why the national ATM decision makers have agreed.

for the vast majority of GAT flights and civil ATSPs DFL195 is of little impact.

Right, once again this proves that the whole concept of DFL is obsolete in the first place. Whatever you choose, little impact (again apart from the ATCObugger who etc.)
The institution of the DFL was invented more than 40 years back for a concept which was killed politically, but which is resuscitated from time to time, as if nothing has changed since 1960.

Either the artificial DFL should be abolished, or it should be included in an entirely new concept where aircraft can fly in upper airspace directly from end of SID to beginning of STAR in the whole of Europe, instead of being forced to remain within the old corridors, airways or ATS routes whatever they are called. That would be the new challenge where a DFL could be meaningful. The Mosaic project?

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by songbird29

That would be the new challenge where a DFL could be meaningful. The Mosaic project?

First I'd heard of Mosaic so looked it up. Sounds like some sort of unofficial SESAR Project.

an entirely new concept where aircraft can fly in upper airspace directly from end of SID to beginning of STAR in the whole of Europe, instead of being forced to remain within the old corridors, airways or ATS routes whatever they are called.

Sounds like yea olde Free Flight.

BD

[Single Spey]

an entirely new concept where aircraft can fly in upper airspace directly from end of SID to beginning of STAR in the whole of Europe, instead of being forced to remain within the old corridors, airways or ATS routes whatever they are called.

Also sounds a bit like what the military do - both in the Upper Air and in all that nice Class G airspace! Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt there!

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Single Spey

Also sounds a bit like what the military do - both in the Upper Air and in all that nice Class G airspace! Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt there!

But civil tend to have more than a handful of aircraft

BD

[London Mil]

... and that is becaase they choose to shove the aircraft along narrow corridors and don't like going off-route. Just think of all that new Class C (including the off-route bits that have now appeared below the UARs) that no one is using!!

Touche.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by London Mil

... and that is becaase they choose to shove the aircraft along narrow corridors and don't like going off-route. Just think of all that new Class C (including the off-route bits that have now appeared below the UARs) that no one is using!!
Touche.

Au contraire mon brave! Remember that many mil controllers are restricted to working only 3 tracks (not LJAO) I dare say it would theoretically be possible to allow off route if civil controllers were restricted to a handful of flights so that they could devote the required time to ensuring they were kept clear of everything else. Not forgetting that in the more congested areas (cause although you could give direct tracks they still have to land in one place, imagine a railway system, you could have the lines running every which way but they've ALL got to terminate in a railway station) civil are climbing and descending a LOT of aircraft. If only it were as simple (and as safe) to allow all en route traffic to fly direct (obviously avoiding all the military danger areas).

BD

[London Mil]

Let me au contrair your au contrair!! The guidance is that mil controllers should work 3-4 tracks, there is no regulation.
As far as off-route is concerned, I agree that it isn't as simple as I previously suggested. However, take an example. Aircraft routeing NCL UMBEL are traditionally worked by LATCC(Mil) until they reach the upper air. Under the old system that made imminent sense as there was a significant proportion of Class G malarkey. Now, the aircraft are protected in the FL 195-245 bit as long as the follow the alignment of the UAR (ie they are outside a TRA). Common sense would dictate that London(Mil) stepped out of the equation and NCL did their business direct with MACC E. However, becuase the 195-245 bit is classed as off-route, MACC aren't allowed/keen to operate in there. Consequently, you still have London (Mil) providing ATS to GAT in airspace which is now safe.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by London Mil

Let me au contrair your au contrair!! The guidance is that mil controllers should work 3-4 tracks, there is no regulation.

But civil controllers regularly work 10 - 20 tracks

However, take an example. Aircraft routeing NCL UMBEL are traditionally worked by LATCC(Mil) until they reach the upper air. Under the old system that made imminent sense as there was a significant proportion of Class G malarkey. Now, the aircraft are protected in the FL 195-245 bit as long as the follow the alignment of the UAR (ie they are outside a TRA). Common sense would dictate that London(Mil) stepped out of the equation and NCL did their business direct with MACC E. However, becuase the 195-245 bit is classed as off-route, MACC aren't allowed/keen to operate in there. Consequently, you still have London (Mil) providing ATS to GAT in airspace which is now safe.

To quote DAP:
1 En-Route Operations ICAO defines these as operations conducted on published air routes, direct point-to-point operations between defined waypoints , or along great circle routes, which are other than take-off, landing, departure, arrival or terminal operations . This includes all transit flights outside published ATS routes in receipt of an ATS from either a civil or military ATS provider.

2 On-Route (ATS) This term is used routinely by ATC for coordination purposes within the UK. Civil/military aircraft are considered to be “On-route (ATS)” when flying along the alignment and within 5nm of the centre-line of published parameters of an upper ATS route (UAR) and other areas defined for the application of reduced coordination procedures.

3 Off-Route (ATS) This term is used routinely by ATC for coordination purposes within the UK; aircraft are considered to be “off-route (ATS)” when not complying with the conditions at paragraph 2.

The airspace may be 'safe' but its not an airway or the Upper ATS route UL602 so not On-route. To quote from the CAA paper:
1 Upper ATS Routes. Routes above FL245 will continue to be depicted as upper ATS routes embedded within Class C airspace.
2 Airways. Existing Class A and D airways between FL195 and FL245 will be re-designated as Class C airways (embedded within background Class C airspace when TRA not active).
3 Advisory Routes (ADR). The ADR route structure will be reviewed. Where there is no requirement for connectivity with Upper ATS Routes, ADRs will be notified with an upper vertical limit of FL195. Where connectivity with the ATS route structure above FL245 is required, Class C airways between FL195 and FL245 will be introduced.

Since CAA decided not to introduce a class C airway NCL - UMBEL nothing has changed for MACC.

BD

[Single Spey]

But civil controllers regularly work 10 - 20 tracks

So are the civil ANSPs failing to provide airlines with their desired routings due to not employing enough controllers? Three times as many controllers gives each with 3-7 tracks - about equivalent to military controllers who ARE able to offer the more direct routings. Surley they should do something about this...

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Single Spey

So are the civil ANSPs failing to provide airlines with their desired routings due to not employing enough controllers? Three times as many controllers gives each with 3-7 tracks - about equivalent to military controllers who ARE able to offer the more direct routings. Surley they should do something about this...

Given that there is already a shortage of ATCO's throughout Europe and thinking of the huge rise in en route charges to support the staff and infra structure required I don't think its a valid option Also don't forget my point about lots of aircraft converging on one point

BD

[songbird29]

Sounds like yea olde Free Flight.

No, yea olde free flight has a connotation of ATC from the cockpit; imo feasable for Oceanic and its organised traffic streams, but not for Europe including UK. Indeed I meant Direct Routes, as I said from end of SID to beginning of STAR.
With today's ATC equipment and tools, as any civil controller applying direct routes during night time knows, it is only possible if you only have a handful of aircraft (I learn that military ATCO capacity is no more than three). When in the civil it gets more than a handful, the system reverts to 'normal procedure', i.e. the waistjacket of narrow corridors where the aircraft are shoved in search for conflicts with other aircraft.
Direct routing requires different working habits, more strategic planning fifteen minutes ahead using MTCD, or as it is called in UK iFACTS and in the US URET, to prevent sudden conflicts. Technically it requires a common shared database of actual traffic positions and good trajectory prediction, ideally connected to aircraft intent as available in the aircraft FMS. This is all technically feasible, if we want it.

although you could give direct tracks they still have to land in one place, imagine a railway system, you could have the lines running every which way but they've ALL got to terminate in a railway station)

The beginning of STAR, which should be somewhere around the habitual start of descent could be compared to the termination of lines having run every which way in the railway station.

It's funny btw how railway comparisons continue to influence the thinking of some ATC planners. I remember how in the seventies the then director of my ATC organisation fulminated against those comparisons, as if aircraft didn't have that extra dimension in space. The man had a very good understanding of technical progress for the benefit of ATC and created a very modern ATC system with a good arrival management system and elementary conflict detection. Railway system? no way, aircraft are not bound by fixed tracks, it's outdated ATC thinking which is constrained by fixed tracks between the ears.

First I'd heard of Mosaic so looked it up. Sounds like some sort of unofficial SESAR Project.

Mosaic is in fact a bottom-up proposal from controllers and their unions/guilds who are prepared to contribute to bringing European ATC to higher standards, unconstrained by other interests than Safety.

[London Mil]

Oh BD, you are being a little selective here. What, if anything, stops a civil controller from providing an off-route(ATS) service? Let me remind you - the only thing is that coordination protocols change. I understand it was the NATS units who couldn't get their beans in a row regarding how/whether they wanted off-route(ATS) status below 195.

PS. Thanks for the CAA definitions, I'm sure I've seen them somewhere before.

PPS. I actually think we both feel the same about this dogs dinner of a regulatory change. Roll on the 6 monthly review.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by London Mil

PPS. I actually think we both feel the same about this dogs dinner of a regulatory change. Roll on the 6 monthly review.

I'm far too polite to write what I think in here

BD

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by SATCO

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but what's a *D* FL? Never heard of it! Is it some new term for something I actually DO know of?

Divisional Flight Level, where the upper air starts, used to be FL245. DAP have some handy answers to this fudge.

BD

[begbie]

8 aircraft Captain Mayday, sounds fairly managable... Would imagine some of them are only getting some sort of limited service too... Due to high workload probably..

[Lomon]

At the end of the day,

DFL 195 was forced upon us by Europe and our government. We managed to put it off by 12 months but it was always going to happen.

Civil controllers might manage to work upwards of 10 tracks, but they are all on route, with separation built in from departure.

Military controllers get freecalls, prenotes from 2 or 3 different airfields, and the traffic follows it's own plan, not arbitrary lines in the sky.

[Captain Mayday]

Lomon wrote

Civil controllers might manage to work upwards of 10 tracks, but they are all on route, with separation built in from departure.

I would suggest that you do a wee bit more research on this .... ATC is bigger than tiresome oneupmanship between mil/civil.

Crossing airways, freecalls in the FIR, procedural clearances/releases, trying to co-ordinate with Boulmer , fast catchups, and more randomness than I ever experienced as an Allocator Yes, we do all that as well

[chevvron]

And not all civil controllers operate in regulated airspace; there are a lot of civil airports in class G with radar facilities operating commercial traffic, and they still handle 10 (or more) tracks at a time.