Block Standing Agreements and Fuel Wasteage
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Block Standing Agreements and Fuel Wasteage
We all know that air traffic is increasing and co-ordinating arrivals without excessive holding is difficult, however I am growing more and more concerned at the levels we are expected to descend to, so far out from destination.
Let's take LIFFY on UL975 into MAN.
Used to be unrestricted, then it became FL290, then FL280, now we believe it is FL270 ! This week I was asked to descend to FL270, 300nm out from MAN - 140 before econ TOD.
Our plans needed a bias for the FL290, so 300kg was added, if this continues we will be burning an extra 500kgs on every single arrival. On 4 longhaul aeroplanes, that equates to 1000 tonnes of fuel per year.
We all have a responsibility to save fuel and reduce emmissions and I accept that if an early descent saves once round the hold, the result is beneficial but this smacks of blanket decisions being made without fully thinking them through
Let's take LIFFY on UL975 into MAN.
Used to be unrestricted, then it became FL290, then FL280, now we believe it is FL270 ! This week I was asked to descend to FL270, 300nm out from MAN - 140 before econ TOD.
Our plans needed a bias for the FL290, so 300kg was added, if this continues we will be burning an extra 500kgs on every single arrival. On 4 longhaul aeroplanes, that equates to 1000 tonnes of fuel per year.
We all have a responsibility to save fuel and reduce emmissions and I accept that if an early descent saves once round the hold, the result is beneficial but this smacks of blanket decisions being made without fully thinking them through
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We kicked this around here before and Lo! Liffey came up there in post #34 and it seems to be getting worse!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The South
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The standing agreement inbount to MAN from the west on UL975 used to be FL290 level LIFFY. Then Lakes ATCO would descend you to FL240 (either 25 or 45 before WAL, can`t remember.)
Lakes airspace changed in October with the IOM sector at MACC raising it's upper limit to FL285, therefore the traffic is capped out of Lakes airspace & therefore is descended to FL270 level by LIFFY now. As the other thread states, although the standing agreements are restrictive sometimes, they are in place for a good reason to aid the overall flow of traffic in the sky.
Remember you are not the only plane up there.
Lakes airspace changed in October with the IOM sector at MACC raising it's upper limit to FL285, therefore the traffic is capped out of Lakes airspace & therefore is descended to FL270 level by LIFFY now. As the other thread states, although the standing agreements are restrictive sometimes, they are in place for a good reason to aid the overall flow of traffic in the sky.
Remember you are not the only plane up there.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Javelin
Being FL 270 at Liffy gives Manchester just 100 miles to get you down 21000 ft to min stack level. For many airlines that still isn't enough!
(Why Shannon should start your descent so early is something I can't answer.)
I fully accept your green argument that flying is an activity that must be monitored and even curtailed if necessary to eliminate anti environmental effects.
As traffic levels fall and technology improves so will your descent profiles meanwhile we're doing the best we can. Trust us.
Being FL 270 at Liffy gives Manchester just 100 miles to get you down 21000 ft to min stack level. For many airlines that still isn't enough!
(Why Shannon should start your descent so early is something I can't answer.)
I fully accept your green argument that flying is an activity that must be monitored and even curtailed if necessary to eliminate anti environmental effects.
As traffic levels fall and technology improves so will your descent profiles meanwhile we're doing the best we can. Trust us.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On an A330, our optimum level through LIFFY is around FL300, based on a restriction of FL60 @ MIRSI. I don't have any problem with some descent restrictions, provided they are be at XX by YY. Then we can plug it in and the technology does the rest. To be told to descend so far out is the problem.
I also understand that some operators don't do as they are told - bit like speed control I guess.
Whatever happens, it would be nice if the BSA's were published a bit more widely so that we can talk with our flight planners and they can allow for it in the plans
I also understand that some operators don't do as they are told - bit like speed control I guess.
Whatever happens, it would be nice if the BSA's were published a bit more widely so that we can talk with our flight planners and they can allow for it in the plans
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standing agreements are there for a reason, be it re-sectorisation or whatever. At the end of the day it takes into account the bigger picture... Which is to enable us to shift as many planes as possible through UK airspace. You might not see the immediate reason for it, but IT IS there for a reason....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This system is the best we can currently do with what we currently have. We resectorise the airspace so that we can get more through whilst being safe. There is a limit to what we can do whilst keeping you at your 'optimum' level.
The choice is that you put up with what is happening or you have longer on the ground with more delays as we have to regulate sectors to keep them safe.
On the West End at Swanwick, all the Heathrow inbounds through STU have to be at FL330 or below before the FIR boundary. Yes there were complaints to start with but we have to do that to meet the demand for the airspace by Dublin, Bristol, Cardiff, Cork, Knock, etc to get the level changes before the Sector 5 boundary without overloading Sectors 8 and 35
If you would like to complain about resctorisations, you can. NATS have to go though the ACP process. There is ample time to put you thoughts to the CAA. That said, I think that you'll find that most companies would rather be flying at lower levels and getting more utilisation out of their aircraft that just sitting at the holding point waiting for their slot.
Hope this helps!
CF
The choice is that you put up with what is happening or you have longer on the ground with more delays as we have to regulate sectors to keep them safe.
On the West End at Swanwick, all the Heathrow inbounds through STU have to be at FL330 or below before the FIR boundary. Yes there were complaints to start with but we have to do that to meet the demand for the airspace by Dublin, Bristol, Cardiff, Cork, Knock, etc to get the level changes before the Sector 5 boundary without overloading Sectors 8 and 35
If you would like to complain about resctorisations, you can. NATS have to go though the ACP process. There is ample time to put you thoughts to the CAA. That said, I think that you'll find that most companies would rather be flying at lower levels and getting more utilisation out of their aircraft that just sitting at the holding point waiting for their slot.
Hope this helps!
CF
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also goes both ways - I had an RJ85 yesterday who was given lots of short cuts by us and TC NE - only to tell me when on base leg that he needed to orbit as he had too much fuel ("overweight") and he would need a big gap behind because of his potential hot brakes/long backtrack.
Therefore, traffic behind were orbitted and one had to climb back up to 3000ft to stay in CAS.
Unless aircraft route direct and unlimited climbs and descents are the norm fuel will be wasted.
(of course the eco-brigade will tell you it is all a waste of fuel/carbon emissions!)
Therefore, traffic behind were orbitted and one had to climb back up to 3000ft to stay in CAS.
Unless aircraft route direct and unlimited climbs and descents are the norm fuel will be wasted.
(of course the eco-brigade will tell you it is all a waste of fuel/carbon emissions!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see both sides to this as I have a brother who was Area/Tower/Flight Checker before he retired.
In a perfect world we need more visits - us to you and you to us. Then we see the backlog of maggots streaming in, you see the frustrations we have when we try and second guess what is coming next.
So..................... Who starts ?
We have just started doing Fam Flights for ATC again after a long break, I have managed visits to ATC 'Oop North' and 'Darn Sarf' and it has certainly been beneficial.
Problem is, as ever, it usually means you need to organise it yourself, on a day off. When will the grown ups realise that better communication yields huge benefits ?
In a perfect world we need more visits - us to you and you to us. Then we see the backlog of maggots streaming in, you see the frustrations we have when we try and second guess what is coming next.
So..................... Who starts ?
We have just started doing Fam Flights for ATC again after a long break, I have managed visits to ATC 'Oop North' and 'Darn Sarf' and it has certainly been beneficial.
Problem is, as ever, it usually means you need to organise it yourself, on a day off. When will the grown ups realise that better communication yields huge benefits ?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When will the grown ups realise that better communication yields huge benefits ?
It is simply shocking. (Like fam flights we can do in our own time)
Last edited by AlanM; 12th Jun 2007 at 11:49.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two main issues in this thread.
The first is that the agreed levels are too restrictive. Unfortunately, if the ATS agencies are to provide the customer (i.e. aircraft operators and not individual pilots or crews) with what they say they want (no delays first, optimum profiles second), then the airspace has to be structured and regimented so that each sector can operate to capacity all the time. By descending an inbound out of a higher sectors airspace before it reaches it, another 'slot' is freed up for other traffic to use. With a heavy inbound flow, this 'release' can be very beneficial in reducing or removing delay for lots of other airspace users. Remember it's also swings and roundabouts - your unwanted early descent is probably being replicated somewhere along the line by another aircraft ensuring you don't get a delay on a transit.
Whilst I'd love the ATS system to be as green as possible, I still think that the authorities are putting their collective heads in the sand over carbon emissions simply because air travel is seen as an easy target and a bit elitist, therefore politically and practically easy to attack. It contributes (if you believe the sources) from 2-4% towards global warming. The vast majority of emissions come from developing countries and the industry in the developed world. Do you see anyone tackling those with the same vigour and degree as they are with aviation ? Of course not, that's in the too difficult basket. I seem to remember from some management brainwashing course that one of the biggest failures management makes is to spend 90% of its time solving 10% of the issues. Seems governments, etc, haven't learned the lesson and could gain much greater impact on global warming by tackling the massive carbon emission producers rather than an easy target which is going to solve nothing in the big scheme of things.
In Javelin's original case, it would be interesting to know what time of the day this early descent was given. This might provide some clues as to why the descent was made early. From your description, you would be coming eastbound through Shannons airspace. One possible reason for the descent would be to deconflict you from a heavy westbound transatlantic flow coming the other way. Descending you down through the cavalry charge is something the controller would not want to be leaving to the last possible minute since it would involve moving a lot of aircraft around and increases the risk of the agreed level not being made (other pilots not listening out, etc). Not providing an excuse, just trying to think of a scenario which might make sense.
The second issue this thread raises is that of the publication of agreed levels. There really is no excuse for these not to be published somewhere. One thing to be overcome however would be where exactly to put them. A few years ago it would have been relatively simple since most of the restrictions started at the STAR commencement fix. Now we have the agreed levels pushed way beyond these fixes so their inclusion (LIFFY for example) is not appropriate on a STAR which makes no reference to them. Quite often the restriction may even be in a different FIR !! Seems to me there are 2 options. Either the CAA put in a descent planning section in the AIP, to which ATS units would contribute their specific requirements and a table could then be published. How the airlines then promulgate that to crews would be up to them. Or specific requirements could be put in the appropriate ATS route as a comment. The danger with the latter is that it could be seen as 'hidden' and would take a lot of jumping about to find every restriction on your route.
So, given that level restrictions are here to stay for the foreseeable future, what's the best way to get them out in the open to allow crews and ops departments to plan for them ??
PS AlanM - they only let you go on inter unit visits if you can spell
otherwise you embarrass your unit 
The first is that the agreed levels are too restrictive. Unfortunately, if the ATS agencies are to provide the customer (i.e. aircraft operators and not individual pilots or crews) with what they say they want (no delays first, optimum profiles second), then the airspace has to be structured and regimented so that each sector can operate to capacity all the time. By descending an inbound out of a higher sectors airspace before it reaches it, another 'slot' is freed up for other traffic to use. With a heavy inbound flow, this 'release' can be very beneficial in reducing or removing delay for lots of other airspace users. Remember it's also swings and roundabouts - your unwanted early descent is probably being replicated somewhere along the line by another aircraft ensuring you don't get a delay on a transit.
Whilst I'd love the ATS system to be as green as possible, I still think that the authorities are putting their collective heads in the sand over carbon emissions simply because air travel is seen as an easy target and a bit elitist, therefore politically and practically easy to attack. It contributes (if you believe the sources) from 2-4% towards global warming. The vast majority of emissions come from developing countries and the industry in the developed world. Do you see anyone tackling those with the same vigour and degree as they are with aviation ? Of course not, that's in the too difficult basket. I seem to remember from some management brainwashing course that one of the biggest failures management makes is to spend 90% of its time solving 10% of the issues. Seems governments, etc, haven't learned the lesson and could gain much greater impact on global warming by tackling the massive carbon emission producers rather than an easy target which is going to solve nothing in the big scheme of things.
In Javelin's original case, it would be interesting to know what time of the day this early descent was given. This might provide some clues as to why the descent was made early. From your description, you would be coming eastbound through Shannons airspace. One possible reason for the descent would be to deconflict you from a heavy westbound transatlantic flow coming the other way. Descending you down through the cavalry charge is something the controller would not want to be leaving to the last possible minute since it would involve moving a lot of aircraft around and increases the risk of the agreed level not being made (other pilots not listening out, etc). Not providing an excuse, just trying to think of a scenario which might make sense.
The second issue this thread raises is that of the publication of agreed levels. There really is no excuse for these not to be published somewhere. One thing to be overcome however would be where exactly to put them. A few years ago it would have been relatively simple since most of the restrictions started at the STAR commencement fix. Now we have the agreed levels pushed way beyond these fixes so their inclusion (LIFFY for example) is not appropriate on a STAR which makes no reference to them. Quite often the restriction may even be in a different FIR !! Seems to me there are 2 options. Either the CAA put in a descent planning section in the AIP, to which ATS units would contribute their specific requirements and a table could then be published. How the airlines then promulgate that to crews would be up to them. Or specific requirements could be put in the appropriate ATS route as a comment. The danger with the latter is that it could be seen as 'hidden' and would take a lot of jumping about to find every restriction on your route.
So, given that level restrictions are here to stay for the foreseeable future, what's the best way to get them out in the open to allow crews and ops departments to plan for them ??
PS AlanM - they only let you go on inter unit visits if you can spell
otherwise you embarrass your unit
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very insteresting.
P.S. PPRUNE Radar - surely the phrase "...Shannons Airspace" should be "...Shannon's Airspace" as you are forming a possessive of a noun??
P.S. PPRUNE Radar - surely the phrase "...Shannons Airspace" should be "...Shannon's Airspace" as you are forming a possessive of a noun??
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had several discussions about this and also the amount of RTF used up in the UK FIR with routings as discussed http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=278591 and think there is a way some of it can be solved. Why not extend all the airfield STARs to the FIR boundary? Yes it will involve creating many more STARs to cover all the usual entry points, but surely this is better than what we have now. Then the levels can be included, ie into Birmingham from S19 at Swanwick it'll tell you max level at DIKRO FL360, expect FL250 lvl 10nm before AVANT and so on. As we have so many "preferred routings" now too, this can be extended to the overflights, so rather than saing to a Paris oceanic flight route DET BPK RODOL etc, we can say route "Track Uniform 6" which will be a chart showing the exact route from VESAN to 56N10W. Yes it'll be a lot of work to get it going, and lots of paperwork in the cockpit, triple sized AIP etc, but it solves some of the London RTF problems, and aids flight planning.
However I feel there's an "it'll never work" on its way....
However I feel there's an "it'll never work" on its way....
There is off course the other side of the argument. Because everyone tries to fly at optimum levels, that is why congestion occurs. Of course on a long transit, weights and fuel are critical but, on shorter sectors this is not the case necessarily. I have heard anecdotal evidence that one pilot of an Irish airline always files LL-DW at FL220. Minimal impact on fuel and he never gets delayed!
