Edinburgh arrivals
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What s your rule of thumb?
As no-one else has yet replied...
In the UK, standard ATC rule of thumb is 3nm per 1000ft fo descent . Today I witnessed one of your Embraers arriving at the Ice Station, 40nm from Touchdown descending through FL270 and a ground speed touching 500kts....and it was going to be No.7 in the sequence. I am sorry, but even with over a quarter century of operational controlling experience I cannot make that work, so there is only one place for it to go - the holding pattern.
DD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks dad! 
It is the standard figure then. At that speed and range we would need approx 2500'/min (3x's range descent at 5x's groundspeed). This would IMHO require thrust but a 4500'/min descent at 300kts indicated clean idle thrust until fl120 then 240 kts 1500'/min requires 24+32=56NM so I would have started down earlier. (I think I have my maths correct. It is so much easier in the aircraft.)Sorry just realised I did it from fl 240 and I can't be arsed to redo it! But you get the idea.
There are huge increases in efficiency by delaying the descent but I wouldn't think a pilot would continue with
themselves up but mucking up the descents time and time again 
. It's a constant learning process in aviation.
Thanks for all who contributed but I think it is time to kill this one for good.
PM me if you want tho.
D and F
All comments contained within are my own! At no point do I profess these to be company policy and all SOP's must be adhered to all times.
End of the legal bit
It is the standard figure then. At that speed and range we would need approx 2500'/min (3x's range descent at 5x's groundspeed). This would IMHO require thrust but a 4500'/min descent at 300kts indicated clean idle thrust until fl120 then 240 kts 1500'/min requires 24+32=56NM so I would have started down earlier. (I think I have my maths correct. It is so much easier in the aircraft.)Sorry just realised I did it from fl 240 and I can't be arsed to redo it! But you get the idea.
There are huge increases in efficiency by delaying the descent but I wouldn't think a pilot would continue with
themselves up but mucking up the descents time and time again . It's a constant learning process in aviation.Thanks for all who contributed but I think it is time to kill this one for good.
PM me if you want tho.
D and F
All comments contained within are my own! At no point do I profess these to be company policy and all SOP's must be adhered to all times.
End of the legal bit
Last edited by Deep and fast; 3rd Jul 2008 at 19:10.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deep and fast,
Yes I use the 3nm per 1000ft as well.We really only have a problem with EMB145/135,and it is noticeable that they leave their descent very late.The other problem is that from certain headings,giving extended routing make it difficult to get them on the localiser.They are still at 240kts,so the radius of turn is large.It is better to give an orbit,or take them out of the sequence,both of which add a lot more miles and cost fuel.I also do not like trying to give a gap to Tower,having it eaten away with a/c boring down the ILS at 240 kts.
The other day I vectored 8 EMB145 during the course of one afternoon/evening.5 of them were too high.
I agree that it is time to put this to bed.However I won't be giving dog legs through final anymore.They will be re-positioned properly off the hold,or put to the back of the sequence.
Yes I use the 3nm per 1000ft as well.We really only have a problem with EMB145/135,and it is noticeable that they leave their descent very late.The other problem is that from certain headings,giving extended routing make it difficult to get them on the localiser.They are still at 240kts,so the radius of turn is large.It is better to give an orbit,or take them out of the sequence,both of which add a lot more miles and cost fuel.I also do not like trying to give a gap to Tower,having it eaten away with a/c boring down the ILS at 240 kts.
The other day I vectored 8 EMB145 during the course of one afternoon/evening.5 of them were too high.
I agree that it is time to put this to bed.However I won't be giving dog legs through final anymore.They will be re-positioned properly off the hold,or put to the back of the sequence.
anything changed?
Just wondering if there has been any change to the profile into EDI yet, airlines forecast to go down like nine pins....
Guess this will hit NATS income too....pay cuts for controllers?
bb
Guess this will hit NATS income too....pay cuts for controllers?
bb
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profiles are in place (not just at Edinburgh) to allow the maximum ATC capacity in the system by reducing workload and complexity. It's what the airlines have always asked for ... maximum capacity so there is minimum delay.
If there is a sea change and airlines now want maximum efficiency instead, they're going to have to accept a very much reduced capacity and the subsequent effects on their scheduling.
In a system where the operators plan on having more than one aircraft on the runway at any one time, there's no other way around it. You can't have total efficiency with the numbers of aircraft we see all trying to fill the same piece of the sky at the same time.
If there is a sea change and airlines now want maximum efficiency instead, they're going to have to accept a very much reduced capacity and the subsequent effects on their scheduling.
In a system where the operators plan on having more than one aircraft on the runway at any one time, there's no other way around it. You can't have total efficiency with the numbers of aircraft we see all trying to fill the same piece of the sky at the same time.
savings
"There are huge increases in efficiency by delaying the descent".
Just how much of a saving are we talking about here?
Just how much of a saving are we talking about here?
If there is a sea change and airlines now want maximum efficiency instead, they're going to have to accept a very much reduced capacity and the subsequent effects on their scheduling.
bb
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rebel HQ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not a matter of one or the other, just a little flexibility and awareness that not all crews actually want or need to be as low as they currently are being routed. The 3 "gates" MARGO, TARTN and LANAK are too low and especially so for days with a northerly wind. Most of us know there are reasons for the "gates" but some of the reasons for those levels are not necessisarily relevant to current ATC or aircraft requirements. If they could be tweaked, even at off peak, there could be some worth while savings.
bb
bb
The MARGO level restriction exists so that the aircraft is descended out of the Dean Cross North sector (when open), and has a secondary effect of getting it out the way of any overflights routeing NEW-TLA, the latter being an H24 problem. When Dean Cross sector is combined and traffic demand is lower, the restriction is often lifted (usually from early-mid evening until the following morning or at quiet times during the weekend).
The LANAK restriction ensures that inbound aircraft are descended below traffic climbing out of Edinburgh on the SID towards CUMBO, which has to make FL100+ by CUMBO. The alternative to the restriction would be to keep Edinburgh outbounds at 6000' until about 40+ miles after departure, amend the Glasgow SIDs to 5000' to avoid the new confliction with the Edinburgh traffic stuck down in Glasgow airspace, and keep inbounds at the FL equivalent of 7000' until well clear of the Edinburgh SID track .. probably giving you 20 track miles to lose that height to touchdown. Do you reckon there would be a bit of bitching from pilots and airlines alike about that scenario ??
The TARTN restriction is the only one with a little scope, but again you are going to have to be descended at or below 6000' to remain clear of Galloway sector airspace which is about 10 miles North of TARTN. Edinburgh controllers posting on here may have a view on that.
I can't agree with you that the restrictions are not necessary to current ATC requirements. They very much are in place to precisely meet ATC needs and increase capacity. There is nothing to stop them being reviewed for a change if that's what the industry wants, but there would be an impact and the potential for capacity to be affected, in spite of what you say. It would all depend on what the change was.
You'll probably have noticed that the inbound STAR restriction to Edinburgh and Glasgow of FL180 30 miles before the inbound fix is only applied occasionally. It's there to facilitate a sector split and is only used when that is in force. So we can, and do, provide flexibility when we can and don't stick to the rigid published level.
If you depart any Scottish airfield on a SID, you'll also find that you'll get short cuts whenever we can as well, either with a direct route or a short cut vector.
Add in the extensive direct routeings given to high level traffic at all times of the day, and you'll find that there is a high level of awareness amongst the guys and girls here about providing efficient flight profiles when they are able to.
Last edited by TALLOWAY; 22nd Sep 2008 at 08:09.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought......................
Have any of the pilots who want these better descent profiles into the ScTMA airfields visited ScOACC to see why certain restrictions are in place?
Have any of the pilots who want these better descent profiles into the ScTMA airfields visited ScOACC to see why certain restrictions are in place?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talloway
Great sensible post.
Starting very soon all aircraft will be treated like most aircraft in other TMA's around the country and everyone will be routeing to the hold. Being facetious if a pilot wishes to stay high then he can enter the hold to descend at his leisure and will then know the exact distance from touchdown as he exits to keep up his CDA.
The level restriction at TARTAN is only negotiable with the controller on approach at the time. It only takes one 'tool in the box' coming over high in a stream who cannot get his height off to cause us major problems due lack of airspace to the east on rwy24 and PF's airspace to the west on 06. If you can guarantee that everyone can descend like a stone then we can do away with the restriction. We have not just made this up for fun, but were experiencing problems with aircraft passing TARTAN well above min stack and above 250kts running out of controlled airspace so we needed the restriction.
Also believe it or not we do know something about wind and weather at the airfields and its effects on aircraft. What would be good is more interaction between us and the crews. However, time off is important and most of us cannot be released for FAM flights during our working hours and the way NSL is going I certainly am not giving it any effort or time on my days off. We used to have an annual pilot/controller forum I think at the Hilton which was useful, maybe this needs setting up again. Maybe not the attitude but it was a good p**s up as well!
Great sensible post.
Starting very soon all aircraft will be treated like most aircraft in other TMA's around the country and everyone will be routeing to the hold. Being facetious if a pilot wishes to stay high then he can enter the hold to descend at his leisure and will then know the exact distance from touchdown as he exits to keep up his CDA.
The level restriction at TARTAN is only negotiable with the controller on approach at the time. It only takes one 'tool in the box' coming over high in a stream who cannot get his height off to cause us major problems due lack of airspace to the east on rwy24 and PF's airspace to the west on 06. If you can guarantee that everyone can descend like a stone then we can do away with the restriction. We have not just made this up for fun, but were experiencing problems with aircraft passing TARTAN well above min stack and above 250kts running out of controlled airspace so we needed the restriction.
Also believe it or not we do know something about wind and weather at the airfields and its effects on aircraft. What would be good is more interaction between us and the crews. However, time off is important and most of us cannot be released for FAM flights during our working hours and the way NSL is going I certainly am not giving it any effort or time on my days off. We used to have an annual pilot/controller forum I think at the Hilton which was useful, maybe this needs setting up again. Maybe not the attitude but it was a good p**s up as well!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rebel HQ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's the day that we start 'STACKFLOW' at Edinburgh and Glasgow from 0700-2200.
No more streaming by the Area Centre and everything to the holds to step down in turn. As per customer requests
How's it gone so far ??
No more streaming by the Area Centre and everything to the holds to step down in turn. As per customer requests
How's it gone so far ??
Just great, especially if you are inbound Glasgow from TRN and they are on 05. Heading off to LANAK (which isn't the clearance limit for that arrival) to then come all the way back sounds great.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STACKFLOW is a trial procedure (agreed between Scottish, Edinburgh and Glasgow) which specifies a revised method of integrating LANAK arrivals and TWEED arrivals into the approach sequence. The primary objective of the trial is to allow ATC to manage the increasing number of arrivals into Glasgow and Edinburgh at peak times, but it should also afford better situational awareness on the flightdeck, because any necessary delaying action will be absorbed in a standard holding pattern (in a low drag configuation), rather than with excessive radar vectors and very early speed reductions (with consequent high drag). It also allows GLA and EDI Radar much more flexibility in determining an appropriate final approach sequence.
During peak hours Scottish TMA controllers will still continue to stream arrivals (subject to their own workload), but they will be transferred to Approach on their own navigation to LANAK/TARTN/TWEED. The revised procedures should be largely invisible to crews, but they can expect descent instructions to achieve their allocated stack levels 5 or 10 nautical miles before the holding fix, so that they can be transferred vertically separated from other arrivals.
It is not expected that there will be any significant increase in actual holding, but the revised method of operation will allow for a much smoother transition to holding when traffic bunching, LVPS, airfield maintenance etc makes this necessary.
Outside the peak hours a freeflow system will be used, which should allow more direct routings and less penalising descent restrictions (e.g. for EDI arrivals there is no requirement to be FL70 level at TARTN during freeflow).
Even in STACKFLOW controllers may offer more direct routeings, if this fits with the prevailing traffic flow. For instance, a GLA arrival to Runway 05 from TRN may be routed directly towards the centrefix, even if STACKFLOW is in use (Incidentally, the TRN STAR for GLA does include LANAK, the plate states "at the discretion of Glasgow ATC aircraft may be instructed to hold at LANAK").
Flexibility is the key to the future operation of the Scottish TMA. A well structured and standard system is required to cover the peak flows of traffic, with a less rigid system to cover off-peak hours. This flexibility should balance the requirement for a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic against the need for operators to fly in the most economical way possible.
During peak hours Scottish TMA controllers will still continue to stream arrivals (subject to their own workload), but they will be transferred to Approach on their own navigation to LANAK/TARTN/TWEED. The revised procedures should be largely invisible to crews, but they can expect descent instructions to achieve their allocated stack levels 5 or 10 nautical miles before the holding fix, so that they can be transferred vertically separated from other arrivals.
It is not expected that there will be any significant increase in actual holding, but the revised method of operation will allow for a much smoother transition to holding when traffic bunching, LVPS, airfield maintenance etc makes this necessary.
Outside the peak hours a freeflow system will be used, which should allow more direct routings and less penalising descent restrictions (e.g. for EDI arrivals there is no requirement to be FL70 level at TARTN during freeflow).
Even in STACKFLOW controllers may offer more direct routeings, if this fits with the prevailing traffic flow. For instance, a GLA arrival to Runway 05 from TRN may be routed directly towards the centrefix, even if STACKFLOW is in use (Incidentally, the TRN STAR for GLA does include LANAK, the plate states "at the discretion of Glasgow ATC aircraft may be instructed to hold at LANAK").
Flexibility is the key to the future operation of the Scottish TMA. A well structured and standard system is required to cover the peak flows of traffic, with a less rigid system to cover off-peak hours. This flexibility should balance the requirement for a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic against the need for operators to fly in the most economical way possible.
Last edited by Talla Radar; 2nd Dec 2008 at 12:20.
