Edinburgh arrivals

[Deep and fast]

Any chance you guys at Scottish and EDI, that you can make the level restriction at TARTN 10000 or FL 100 when using 24? This would allow a better idle thrust descent saving fuel, the planet or my job (take your pick). Thx

D and F

[Hootin an a roarin]

D and F

FL100 for 24 is not usually a problem.

At the airport we want the inbounds at a reasonably low level otherwise we soon run out of airspace for your descent. Without trying to open a can of worms, a certain watch at Scottish was, not to put a finer point on it, awful at streaming inbounds and often left us with multiple aircraft passing the hold well above FL100, and just chucking them to us expecting us to deal with it (we called it the 5 finger f**k). Obviously if we take the aircraft out to the east we run the risk of taking them outside controlled airspace and more often than not the military are playing around there. That is why we wanted min stack by Tartan. I also must add that the co-operation between us and Scoacc has since greatly improved but am also lead to believe it is slipping again between certain watches.

The main problem is differentiating between runways 06 and 24 as we have even more problems on 06 with no where to go to if an aircraft comes over high and heading towards final approach. We soon run into PF's airspace.

A novel idea would be to follow most other TMA's and have the aircraft running towards the holding fix level separated. Nice and safe, it's the flight planned route and all pilots know where they stand, but that makes too much sense. If it works in London it's got to work here in a much less busy environment. I think the sticking part of this however lies over at Prestwick!

Cheers

[The Fat Controller]

That would be fine if the EGPH radar guys could send them down the ILS 2.5 miles apart when able and the deps came off a different runway as at EGLL.

However, viewing the situation from the sidelines these days (TAY) it amazes me how inconsistent the final approach gaps are between watches at PH and also how bad some approach controllers are at managing the lower levels of the hold.

Also, with the introduction of the "gates" PH now get the aircraft in predictable places dependant on the runway in use so they have few reasons to complain.

There are improvements needed all round, some at ScACC and some at PH, but unless the hold is moved further from the airfield, 10,000 feet at TARTN is a bit of a dream.

[Hootin an a roarin]

Here comes the rant!

Managing the bottom few holding levels? We hardly ever receive control of the bottom 3 levels as per our agreement. Also when holding, you can see traffic arriving from the south left high and entering the hold at fl150/160 and above. You then keep this traffic until it is nearing min stack no matter how much the approach controller rings to let you know levels are clear or 'ill take him now'. We always open another position when holding but more often than not one of the controllers is sitting with his/her thumb up their behinds because they have no traffic as it is high in the hold at Tartan not under their control.

Observing another radar feed does not give you the full picture of the gaps or traffic unless you can select the EDI radar. We can only control the aircraft that we are given and usually only tighten them up on final approach. This falls below your radar coverage around 6 - 7 miles which looks like we have larger gaps than reality. It is like me commenting on the permanent lack of traffic in the TAY sector from my view of the EDI radar.

The airspace needs reviewing now. It was underway I believe by one of your senior managers (he goes everywhere with a clipboard) until it was mothballed and put into the too hard pile. We want it changing and have formed committees with Scoacc personnel in the past but it is usually the Scoacc side that seems reluctant to change. The gates were only just agreed to as we were being screwed by aircraft permanently being sent to a 10 mile final (no co-ordination).

I agree there is still room for improvement on both sides but we are being held up most probably by the NPC. People are concentrating on that whereas the TMA has needed changing for years but it is a can of worms. It shouldn't be because there are models around the country already in existence that we can all learn from. Maybe the Manc guys will shed some light or new ideas on the situation as all there inbound traffic route towards holding fixes unless otherwise co-ordinated. Alternatively lets have a Scottish TC. I'm certainly up for Band 4 pay!

[cossack]

Hootin

Don't hold your breath waiting for things to change. I worked EDI from 89-97 and your experiences were happening way back then too. The "circular flow" in the TMA was supposed to be the solution to all these presentation problems, taking many of the jets out of the TLA (or whatever its called today) sector, but that wasn't the case.

I still remember one session, Glasgow was on 05 and EDI was on 07 (a while back I know) and I watched two Glasgow arrivals from the NEW direction trog past TLA out of 100 for 70 on their merry way to FENIK 50+ miles from touchdown. Above them, over TLA, were my next 4 arrivals in a box formation on headings for an 8 mile final, the lowest at 110 still doing 280kts with 28 to touchdown on that heading! Sweet! They all took a look at the UW and came right hand downwind for another try.

You're right about Manchester too. Worked there 97-03. Everything to the hold unless coordinated. Once its in the hold its transferred not held onto for no good reason. "We need to keep traffic because we're climbing through the hold" was TLA's reply to our request to talk the guy in the hold at 120 with nothing in the 3000 feet below him. Isolated events? Maybe, but they shouldn't happen at all.

We were also waiting for the removal of class E airspace from the Scottish TMA too.

[Talla Radar]

Gentlemen, fear not, meetings have already taken place with a view to changing the STMA arrival agreements. Although ScACC are certainly busy with PC work, the current operation has not been forgotten.

You will all hear of the changes in the not too distant future, once full agreement on the fine detail has been reached.

[bad bear]

politics or fuel saving

looks to me like Deep and fast is making a good and sensible suggestion If there is any north in the wind even 10,000' is too low at TARTN.

If the two NATS companies don't leave their politics behind and start working together to help the airlines save fuel the oil prices might solve the problem for them.

Come on guys work together, give us pilots a chance of keeping our jobs, if the FL70 is not really needed at a particular time of day then cancel it.

While I am commenting,
if you need us to go down immediately please say "descend"
if you are being friendly and offering descent say "descend when ready" and that will help us save fuel.

For years many of have been cursing being forced down far too low far too early. Traffic permitting thrust idle from top of descent to the marker would be great.

Glad to hear meetings have already taken place hope to experience the improvements soon.
bb

[Deep and fast]

Hi all, I didn't want to start a bun fight! The point I was trying to get across was with the track miles from TARTN onto 24 you always have to use thrust (if not if icing conditions) on our aircraft type to create a constant descent. Hootin I don't think you understood me because you mentioned needing extra airspace for the descent. The problem is too many track miles from Tart. We can't idle glide all the way to landing config.

There is a bit of history going on here and I wouldn't want to stir things up. You are all a helpful bunch and we will see what any airspace review will bring up.
Oh and any chance of a direct ...
I'll get me coat

D and F

[throw a dyce]

D&F,
What type of aircraft do you fly?

[Hootin an a roarin]

D and F

No problems

Unfortunately we do and have had problems in the past of aircraft not being able to lose the required altitude in the distance provided. Once we have aircraft in the NE corner of the TMA on rwy24 we are fighting a losing battle and have experienced a few nasty incidents in the past because of it. As previously stated 06 is the main problem because my area brethren prefer to send aircraft direct to a 10 mile final because of the TLA outbounds and once that is set up we literally have nowhere to vector the inbounds.

At the end of the day, and some would argue otherwise, I am the approach expert, not an area controller. The inbounds should be sent to a fix (the hold) and I can use my judgement when to vector downwind/baseleg/direct to final approach to maintain my sequence. Also the majority of times because of the airport infrastructure I need gaps of 6 miles on final but this can decrease to vortex requirements or if we have radar issues(we have had this problem recently) I could need gaps of 10 miles to comply with regulations. I therefore am the better judge of when and where to vector aircraft.

We have an airline base captain attending our next Tech Committeee meeting who wants to put the point across that his company wishes to route to the hold rather than be vectored all over the sky. The point to add here is just because aircraft are heading towards the hold it does not necessarily mean that they will be holding. It works at Manc and London. I fear some at Prestwick can't seem to get a grip of this. Unfortunately for the captain we have tried this in the past and he is going to be preaching to the wrong unit!

Cheers

[Stupendous Man]

H & R :
When was the last time you (or the rest of your watch) came to Scottish for a visit? I've seen PH controlling the bottom levels of the stack and left traffic at 80 and 100 with the only traffic being vectored by App one on a 10 mile final 06. That doesn't inspire those of us on the other end of the phone line that the stack is being managed that well.
However I do appreciate that there are people at both units who could do better.
Do PH really want every a/c to the stack? I know on our watch we bust a gut to get them all in a line, 8 miles apart, and speeded - no one has complained so far.
If PH want them to the stack then we can do that too - but PH have got to clear the levels.


Before you ask I have done tower and approach before doing area.



Bad Bear:

While I am commenting,
if you need us to go down immediately please say "descend"
if you are being friendly and offering descent say "descend when ready" and that will help us save fuel.

Not saying that you do this but if I had a pound for every time I told an aircraft to descend and had "is that when ready" fired back at me. We as ATCOs know what descend means - not all your flying bretheren seem to.


As for levels at Tartn - we can only hold up to FL140 - so if we started at FL100 we wouldn't get much use out of it and you'd all be holding much further down the line.

[Stupendous Man]

The airspace needs reviewing now. It was underway I believe by one of your senior managers (he goes everywhere with a clipboard) until it was mothballed and put into the too hard pile.

The TMA airspace review / redraw - which every ATCO that works in it (Area and airports) wants to see happen - was put on hold by the bean counters down south.

Basically any money spent on it wouldn't see a return in reduced delays - so its been put on hold.

May I suggest the pilots and airlines start lobbying on fuel / environmental grounds.

The whole things needs an etch-a-sketch shake and started again.

[Deep and fast]

Throw a Dyce

emb145

I guess there is little chance of a resolve here, but thanks for giving me a better insight into the workings of these units.

Thanks for the service and the cheery voices early in the morning.
D and F

[Hootin an a roarin]

Stupendous Man

All our watches attended one of your truce days within the last 6 or so months.

Also all our opposites at Scoacc have visited us but during their rostered hours. We have not got the manpower to release people which is poor on NSL managements part!

You may work opposite me as I see the area guys working their butts off sequencing traffic. It is appreciated. It doesn't happen however across the board which is the problem. We have a good relationship as I previously stated and both sides need to improve. We are not as busy as doon sooth and traffic in dribs and drabs can come direct to finals and at a highish level. However during the 'rush hours' it does not work as well so standardisation is needed. Can we leave it up to the individual controllers with 2 different plans in mind to decide how to sequence, or standardise things? I do the vectoring and want my aircraft routeing to a point that gives me room to manoeuvre and descend without being backed into a corner by the area guy deciding where the aircraft is routeing. My old argument used to be "you may as well vector him onto the ILS and i'll go sit in the tower"


However after previously working at TC and i've seen Manc too, there is a definite reluctance to hand over more than one aircraft at a time when holding.

We are never going to agree on this scenario as both sides can quote occasions when things haven't gone to plan. Surely flying the flight planned route is safe and orderly, and with co-ordination in quieter periods to route direct, efficient too.

TALLA RADAR

Just out of interest was there any input from the airports in the meetings on STMA. I would not be surprised if again due to lack of manpower we may be being sold down the river again.

[throw a dyce]

D&F,
Thanks for that.I did think it was the Skinny Jet.Just as a side line I work at a unit which hasn't the same restrictions as EDI and the TMA,and we have quite a problem with EMB145/135.
When they are left to their own CDA profile,a large percentage end up too high.This involves extra routings,mucks up the sequence,and can make you last.Therefore you end up worse off on fuel,as you aren't number 1 anymore and flogging around at 160kts at low level.
I have seen other aircraft types do CDA's very well.If the TARTN FL100 restriction was lifted,then what are the chances of being too high at EDI as well?

[rolaaand]

Deep and fast-From a Scottish TMA point of view,the controllers would prefer the tweed hold to be much further south and east to facilitate jumping the inbounds with the Talla departures,which of course would mean that you are lower earlier. As an aside,one of my colleagues got a mouthful of abuse the other night from a pilot (A319) for telling him to be FL80 10 miles before LANAK,this was due to a PH departure weather avoiding and to ensure separation,the pilot was angry about burning more fuel than he would have done. When possible,during quiet times,eg saturday evening and during the night shift, we are able to approve direct routeings and cancel restrictions. At any other time though the restrictions are needed due to interaction with other routes and volume of traffic. I do appreciate that the price of fuel is hitting airlines very hard though, and that pilots may be under pressure from management to use as little as possible.

Hootin an a roarin-My watch at Scottish has an excellent working relationship with our opposite watch at PH. Most of the controllers DO filter traffic towards TARTN with vertical separation,just as they do at MACC and LACC. There are however controllers (some ex approach,some not) who still seem to think that going to the hold is some sort of failure on their part,and will vector stuff all roung the TMA to avoid the hold. To be honest,it's embarrassing to watch sometimes.
There are inconsistencies at PH as well though. Most of the time the hold is cleared quickly and levels are vacated early,but not all controllers seem to be able to manage this,and gaps on final approach can be erratic to say the least. The Scottish TC idea is one that I think would work well,perhaps with the Talla North sector sat between PF and PH radar. I also agree with you that the airspace needs urgent changes,so do the SIDs and STARs.

[Deep and fast]

Well that is interesting. The emb has only a basic FMS vnav function that is not very good, so I don't use it. The brain version works for me. It will descend well if you have the speed under control, but an icing encounter can cause a problem cos it increases engine N1 for the icing systems and the rate of descent can be much lower. All I was trying to acheive with this Q was, when on vectors with no holding a bit of slack with the Tart restriction to allow an idle glide onto 24. 06 you can make at idle from Tartn if you manage the energy right, but it has to be said I don't always.
The airbus guys just tell it where to to be at what level and it will sort it for them! Lucky sods.

Must dash, a cool beer is waiting.

D and F

[Talla Radar]

Hootin, I am ex-Edi and fully appreciate your problems. Clearly we do need to make changes to the way aircraft are handed to you at peak times. Possible changes have been discussed recently at Edi, and your tech committee will be fully consulted on the proposals, which should hopefully meet everbody's needs (I think you will be in favour of them).

Can I ask that we please take this discussion "off-line" now and continue it through proper channels?

Cheers.

[Deep and fast]

Rolaaand

There is no excuse for abuse fuel pricing or not! We don't need the airwaves turning blue(or was it orange?).

Oe thing for sure is that high fuel costs are the future, and we all need to operate as efficiently as we can, Pilots, Controllers and the regulators to mitigate damage to the industry.

D and F

Just thought, my screen name is a controllers nightmareLOL

[throw a dyce]

Deep and Fast,
Thanks for that.The worst example I saw with an EMB145 was a foreign operator,that was at FL240 with approx 30 miles to run. I watch the profile of EMB145s and at the beginning of descent they are usually 2000-5000ft above my rule of thumb which is what we use as controllers to ask if you're ok for height.
I agree with you about operating in a fuel efficient manner,and as controller we will try to do that,taking into consideration the differences in aircraft performance,and even different ways of operating the same aircraft in the same company.
However we have another EMB145 operator who first thing in the morning,will book a remote hold and sit there burning juice for half an hour,just to show an on time departure. Yet the same operator is trying to do CDAs and giving themselves extra miles because they are too high.