Takeoff not permitted before EOBT?
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
From: Hants
Sabenaboy - sorry to hijack the thread...
Personally, working at TC, I do not trust TPLD, especially not the line that shows supposed complexity.... how can a flight on a certain route be considered to be more complex if other flights are not taken into consideration?? Scoring a flight for its complexity in isolation does not work.
However, I cannot recall an overload at TC caused by reliance on the TPLD (I may be wrong tho)... it is there as a guide - strip outfall or equivalent (including a good assistant who will warn you that there are a lot of pending strips about to come out), should be one of the main factors in deciding to split/bandbox.
TPLD is purely an aid.... as an ATCO familiar and experienced on a sector, you should have the ability to recognise when a split is needed.
We often split unneccesarily at TC, manpower is a management problem and certainly on my watch we split early to a) protect ourselves and b) help highlight to management how woeful the manpower allocation often is. (In respecty of point b, I don't mean we do it for the hell of it, however if we have any doubts at all about the need for a split, we will do it and will not allow the GS to persuade us otherwise... which to be fair, they do not often do).
If it turns out the split was not needed, we can easily bandbox again.
However, I cannot recall an overload at TC caused by reliance on the TPLD (I may be wrong tho)... it is there as a guide - strip outfall or equivalent (including a good assistant who will warn you that there are a lot of pending strips about to come out), should be one of the main factors in deciding to split/bandbox.
TPLD is purely an aid.... as an ATCO familiar and experienced on a sector, you should have the ability to recognise when a split is needed.
We often split unneccesarily at TC, manpower is a management problem and certainly on my watch we split early to a) protect ourselves and b) help highlight to management how woeful the manpower allocation often is. (In respecty of point b, I don't mean we do it for the hell of it, however if we have any doubts at all about the need for a split, we will do it and will not allow the GS to persuade us otherwise... which to be fair, they do not often do).
If it turns out the split was not needed, we can easily bandbox again.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
I believe the ICAO documentation says that a FPL is only valid for the period ETOT + 30 minutes.
When you file a FPL it is checked against route closures, danger areas, military activity, conditional availabilty and so on for the period of vailidity.
If you depart outside the validity of the FPL you could find yourself arriving at an airway that is closed.
When you file a FPL it is checked against route closures, danger areas, military activity, conditional availabilty and so on for the period of vailidity.
If you depart outside the validity of the FPL you could find yourself arriving at an airway that is closed.
The first ATS unit receiving a flight plan, or change thereto, shall:
a) check it for compliance with the format and data conventions;
b) check it for completeness and, to the extent possible, for accuracy;
c) take action, if necessary, to make it acceptable to the air traffic services;
and
d) indicate acceptance of the flight plan or change thereto, to the originator.
While I appreciate that CFMU carries out extensive checks of validity, I'm rather dubious about the idea of your average ATSU checking "route closures, danger areas, military activity, conditional availability" for an international FPL.
Time merchant
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
The checking referred to in my post is done by the CFMU flight planning system.
I do not believe that too many receiving ATS units carry out the checks you mention. It may be the case in other parts of the world but much of that responsibilty in Europe is assumed by the IFPUs.
I do not believe, either, that too many flight plan filers check for the closures mentioned. I know for a fact that several charter operators do not even read en-route NOTAMs "because they are too busy". They leave it to the flight planning system to do it for them.
It makes the Spanish system seem very sensible.
I do not believe that too many receiving ATS units carry out the checks you mention. It may be the case in other parts of the world but much of that responsibilty in Europe is assumed by the IFPUs.
I do not believe, either, that too many flight plan filers check for the closures mentioned. I know for a fact that several charter operators do not even read en-route NOTAMs "because they are too busy". They leave it to the flight planning system to do it for them.
It makes the Spanish system seem very sensible.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 708
Likes: 103
From: Mauritius,soon or latter
Another problem
Regardless your in depth knowledge about EOBT I will explain how it could work in live traffic in southern Europe( B&H and CRO airspace). There is no chance for someone to depart before EOBT-30min or to be more precise at least 5 min after EOBT-30 min because of system in CRO CONTROL. They don't have flight plan for departing traffic on their list before EOBT-30 min( i.e. EOBT is 1000 and flight plan will be available on their screen at 0930). It means that ZG ACC ATCO could give us cleared level only when FP apears on screen. After that they give us level , then we give clearance to pilot, then readback , then line up....
In some cases there are clerance transfer between APP and TWR so we need more time to give clearance to pilots. In real traffic it means that it will pass at least 5 min after EOBT-30 min before take off.
There is no authomatic data exchange there is no ,in many cases deemed clearances and so on and we are just at the border of EU. Also CRO CONTROL invested huge amount of money into new system, and their ATCOs are excelent but it is obviously that it is not enough.
For all pilots having similar problem my advice is to send new FP. It works better.
It is just a view of mine , and if someone from CRO CONTROL could give more precise information about their system and problem of departure before EOBT-30 min it will be better explained.
In some cases there are clerance transfer between APP and TWR so we need more time to give clearance to pilots. In real traffic it means that it will pass at least 5 min after EOBT-30 min before take off.
There is no authomatic data exchange there is no ,in many cases deemed clearances and so on and we are just at the border of EU. Also CRO CONTROL invested huge amount of money into new system, and their ATCOs are excelent but it is obviously that it is not enough.
For all pilots having similar problem my advice is to send new FP. It works better.
It is just a view of mine , and if someone from CRO CONTROL could give more precise information about their system and problem of departure before EOBT-30 min it will be better explained.
Last edited by SINGAPURCANAC; 17th May 2007 at 23:11.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
It makes the Spanish system seem very sensible.
