Frankfurt Main ATC - Frustrating?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankfurt Main ATC - Frustrating?
Does anyone else find flying into FRA rather frustrating because of the lottery of Runway assignments? I think they are excellent controllers and as good as anyone in Europe, but it is so frustrating to have to randomly select (guess) an arrival runway, then set it up and conduct a briefing, only to get usually one and sometimes two changes during late descent, obviously to make better use of the runways (from an ATC point of view).
The same happens on departure. You setup and brief for the best guess, and has happened me twice this month, only get told the runway for departure at pushback (the other one...). So on a bad day you have to re-programme the FMS then re-brief before or during taxy. On more than one occasion I then had the runway change a second time on taxy! Over to Plan C...
I understand that Airbus have a backup FMS plan that can be called up, but for Boeings it is really messy.
I am all for best use of runways, but it really is a complete pain, not to mention a distraction, to have to try to second guess, and then regularly have to change the plan at least once late on approach / taxy, especially after a 10 hour / four sector day. There must be a better way... Or is it just me?
I would love to hear a FRA ATC viewpoint. Thanks.
The same happens on departure. You setup and brief for the best guess, and has happened me twice this month, only get told the runway for departure at pushback (the other one...). So on a bad day you have to re-programme the FMS then re-brief before or during taxy. On more than one occasion I then had the runway change a second time on taxy! Over to Plan C...
I understand that Airbus have a backup FMS plan that can be called up, but for Boeings it is really messy.
I am all for best use of runways, but it really is a complete pain, not to mention a distraction, to have to try to second guess, and then regularly have to change the plan at least once late on approach / taxy, especially after a 10 hour / four sector day. There must be a better way... Or is it just me?
I would love to hear a FRA ATC viewpoint. Thanks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm nothing to do with FRA ATC but this is an example of what is happening at more and more busy airsports. As the pressure to squeeze every possible movement out of the available runways procedures are being introduced without much thought to how feasible they are for pilots or ATC.
We (airports and ATC) are supposed to be running safety management systems to try to make sure that what we do is safe. Whilst I certainly agree with the principles of safety management I can't say that I agree with the way it is implemented sometimes. Where it is done, often it seems to be abused, prerhaps through ignorance but perhaps intentionally.
As an example, I was involved in a 'workshop' to assess runway selection procedures - a management pilot from one airline with a single type fleet was there to give the air crew viewpoint, When asked whether a crew could accept a late runway change during approach he said "Yes" but clearly wanted to add caveats. The person running the workshop cut the pilot short and then continued without any consideration of the effect of the changes that would come out of the workshop would have on pilots. Having seen this happen I added caveats to the ATC viewpoint before saying that runway changes were possible. My comments were met with a "Well, there are procedures to cover all those things" and were then ignored. The outcome from the workshop eventually became a set of new procedures and a document that went to the CAA describing how the procedures were developed and why they would work. The CAA rubber stamped it, no doubt seeing all the names of the people at the workshop they assumed that all of the practical concerns were addressed.
It's a bit of thread creep I know and I don't know if my experience was typical but maybe it helps to explain why such procedures are in use.
We (airports and ATC) are supposed to be running safety management systems to try to make sure that what we do is safe. Whilst I certainly agree with the principles of safety management I can't say that I agree with the way it is implemented sometimes. Where it is done, often it seems to be abused, prerhaps through ignorance but perhaps intentionally.
As an example, I was involved in a 'workshop' to assess runway selection procedures - a management pilot from one airline with a single type fleet was there to give the air crew viewpoint, When asked whether a crew could accept a late runway change during approach he said "Yes" but clearly wanted to add caveats. The person running the workshop cut the pilot short and then continued without any consideration of the effect of the changes that would come out of the workshop would have on pilots. Having seen this happen I added caveats to the ATC viewpoint before saying that runway changes were possible. My comments were met with a "Well, there are procedures to cover all those things" and were then ignored. The outcome from the workshop eventually became a set of new procedures and a document that went to the CAA describing how the procedures were developed and why they would work. The CAA rubber stamped it, no doubt seeing all the names of the people at the workshop they assumed that all of the practical concerns were addressed.
It's a bit of thread creep I know and I don't know if my experience was typical but maybe it helps to explain why such procedures are in use.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jazz - a pilot's viewpoint. Yes it is frustrating, but if you operate to Frankfurt a bit it is something you get used to, and although I have not been for a while it used to be a fairly simple 'alternate' brief and normally you knew on base leg with time to make the changes. The real crippler was when they had the dinky little runway on the left as an option which would have made briefing a nightmare, but I think that died a natural?
Regarding changes on departure, that sounds extremely inefficient. They should be able to sort themselves out better than that. Sounds like they need a plan and a frequency like AMS which nominates the runway pairing for the next period?
There has always been a slightly 'superior' tone from ATC there and it does sound like a disregard for the customers to me. However, rarely have I used other than 18 there for departure and never have I had a change. Sounds like they have it in for you
Regarding changes on departure, that sounds extremely inefficient. They should be able to sort themselves out better than that. Sounds like they need a plan and a frequency like AMS which nominates the runway pairing for the next period?
There has always been a slightly 'superior' tone from ATC there and it does sound like a disregard for the customers to me. However, rarely have I used other than 18 there for departure and never have I had a change. Sounds like they have it in for you
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: North
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree that there is an argument to maximise use of runway resources.
However one of the best examples of this has got to be LHR. Operating into there in the Fokker 50 (no prizes for guessing which company!) I was always given the runway well in advance and it never changed in my experience.
Now back on Fokker100 and FRA is a regular route for me and it does also frustrate me about the runway lottery. Not the best way to operate into one of the major world airports and just because it has always been that way does not mean that it should stay that way and the crews should have to deal with it.
HP
However one of the best examples of this has got to be LHR. Operating into there in the Fokker 50 (no prizes for guessing which company!) I was always given the runway well in advance and it never changed in my experience.
Now back on Fokker100 and FRA is a regular route for me and it does also frustrate me about the runway lottery. Not the best way to operate into one of the major world airports and just because it has always been that way does not mean that it should stay that way and the crews should have to deal with it.
HP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the information. I am quite happy to plan for and accept runway changes at short notice. I suppose my point about FRA is that it is standard operating procedure there, or an occupational hazzard as far as a pilot is concerned. Most other airports would seem to initiate a runway change for an aircraft as an exception - quite often to facilitate the landing aircraft for shorter taxy, or on occasion to get the controller out of a fix (tighter than expected separation).
I have no problem accommodating the change as a contingency move by ATC, I just object to random and complacent use of it. In the meantime I will continue to have plan B at the ready...
Thanks to our ATC colleagues for their constant and consistent support.
I have no problem accommodating the change as a contingency move by ATC, I just object to random and complacent use of it. In the meantime I will continue to have plan B at the ready...
Thanks to our ATC colleagues for their constant and consistent support.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know what is the minimum spacing on final at FRA? Can they provide less than 3nm between a lander on 25R and one on 25L? What about wake turbulence? are the parallels far enough to wave the wake turbulence separation between a heavy landing on 25R and a medium or light on 25L?
Thanks,
Thenoflyzone
Thanks,
Thenoflyzone
Last edited by TheNoFlyZone; 5th May 2011 at 23:14.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum spacing on final for the same runway is 2NM, as far as i know they can only reach the planned capacity if they do alternate runway approaches and use visual separation (do not overtake) on final. Hopefully it will become a bit better with the new runway.
Runway lottery is the same in MUC, however usually you can guess a bit better which one it will, but sometimes you still get the other one. Late runway assignment is a pita, especially in a boeing with no secondary flight plan (hopefully the next FMC update for the 737 will have it) and a required complete new nav setup and briefing. Re-assignemt on the ground however is not nice, but not a big issue either. Simply hold short at the required runway, take your time, do a new setup, new briefing and a new performance calc etc. Best to warn ATC that you need a few minutes though.
Runway lottery is the same in MUC, however usually you can guess a bit better which one it will, but sometimes you still get the other one. Late runway assignment is a pita, especially in a boeing with no secondary flight plan (hopefully the next FMC update for the 737 will have it) and a required complete new nav setup and briefing. Re-assignemt on the ground however is not nice, but not a big issue either. Simply hold short at the required runway, take your time, do a new setup, new briefing and a new performance calc etc. Best to warn ATC that you need a few minutes though.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: RheinMainArea
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jazz,
I work as an ATCO at Frankfurt Approach control and as Denti already mentioned, we generally work inbounds alternating. This provides for a balanced use of the runways for both departures and arrivals. If you want to know early which one you will get as an inbound, try requesting 25L/07R. You will get it 95% of the time as tower works departures usually from 25R/07L. So with you requesting the southern runway, the worst thing that can happen for us is that we have two aircraft in trail for the same runway. But that's good for the tower because they have more space for their departures.
This said, my experience with pilots asking for the landing runway very early is as follows:
If I give the option of either knowing the runway 20mins before LLZ-intercept and knowing its 25L/07R or delaying the decision, thus getting a 50/50 chance for 25R/07L, most pilots take the option of a late runway assignment.
Cheers, Jürgen
I work as an ATCO at Frankfurt Approach control and as Denti already mentioned, we generally work inbounds alternating. This provides for a balanced use of the runways for both departures and arrivals. If you want to know early which one you will get as an inbound, try requesting 25L/07R. You will get it 95% of the time as tower works departures usually from 25R/07L. So with you requesting the southern runway, the worst thing that can happen for us is that we have two aircraft in trail for the same runway. But that's good for the tower because they have more space for their departures.
This said, my experience with pilots asking for the landing runway very early is as follows:
If I give the option of either knowing the runway 20mins before LLZ-intercept and knowing its 25L/07R or delaying the decision, thus getting a 50/50 chance for 25R/07L, most pilots take the option of a late runway assignment.
Cheers, Jürgen
Join Date: May 2008
Location: RheinMainArea
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi poldek77,
there will certainly be huge changes when the new runway is in use and the traffic volume increases.
If everything comes into effect as planned, the landing runway will be decided -at least most of the time- with the clearance for the FMS transition to final.
This is a good thing if you consider preplanning in the cockpit, but it will reduce our flexibility and our possibilities to comply with customer requests concerning the desired runway. So as always there are both positive and negative effects.
However: These procedures are designed for a higher traffic amount than we expect in the first few months after opening the new runway. So it is possible that we might work more like today until the traffic volume increases.
Cheers, Jürgen
there will certainly be huge changes when the new runway is in use and the traffic volume increases.
If everything comes into effect as planned, the landing runway will be decided -at least most of the time- with the clearance for the FMS transition to final.
This is a good thing if you consider preplanning in the cockpit, but it will reduce our flexibility and our possibilities to comply with customer requests concerning the desired runway. So as always there are both positive and negative effects.
However: These procedures are designed for a higher traffic amount than we expect in the first few months after opening the new runway. So it is possible that we might work more like today until the traffic volume increases.
Cheers, Jürgen
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Jurgen,
thanks a lot for your answer.
Maybe slightly off-topic - what is the reason that the new runway is for landings only?
Gr
poldek77
Fraport Special
thanks a lot for your answer.
Maybe slightly off-topic - what is the reason that the new runway is for landings only?
Gr
poldek77
Fraport Special
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poldek, legal reasons prevent the new runway from being used for departures. The new runway was and still is a highly controversial issue and I think the restriction "landings only" was made as a concession to the environmentalists. Specific types of aircraft are exluded from using it and as far as I know it is only to be used with an ILS approach....that´s why they install two for each direction!
