Question for Manchester ATC
Supercharged PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for Manchester ATC
I have vague memories of a conversation with a MAN based colleague, but being somewhat refreshed at the time, the details are a bit cloudy . . . 
When departing aircraft check-in with the tower controller, do you like us to report the SID designator as well as the taxi clearance limit, and if so, why?
Many thanks.
When departing aircraft check-in with the tower controller, do you like us to report the SID designator as well as the taxi clearance limit, and if so, why?
Many thanks.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The need to confirm the instrument departure (SID) you will fly only arises with the HONILY and LISTO SIDs from 23L/23R.
Both the LISTO1R/1Y have restricted availability Quote (UK AIP): Available only to non-jet and the following jet aircraft: all aircraft up to 35,000Kg MTOW plus BAe146 (AvroRJ series); Embraer E135, E145: Bombardier CRJ1, CRJ2, CRJ7, CRJ9, BD-700 Global Express; Gulfstream 5. Everything else has to fly the HONILY1R/1Y
What has happpened in a very few occasions in the past, and probably once month even now, is that an aircraft not in the approved list has got airborne (usually having been given and read back a Honily with Delivery) and flown the LISTO. The issue is primarily one of noise, although it can throw up problems of speed difference especially when the jet you were expecting to do the round Knutsford tour on the HONILY turns left and starts eating up the slower turboprop or, even more entertaining, Navajo or Seneca on a LISTO
To try an prevent the inadvertant flying of the wrong SID, ATC is required to confirm with the pilot the clearance he has been given and the SID he will fly (Confidence Check) before the aircraft lines up on either 23L or 23R.
There is no need to confirm this on any SID other than the HONILY and LISTO from 23L/R. If you don't offer it when checking in with Tower on 118.625 (23R) or 119.4 (23L), we should ask.
Hope this helps to clarify another rather unique Manchester practice.
Both the LISTO1R/1Y have restricted availability Quote (UK AIP): Available only to non-jet and the following jet aircraft: all aircraft up to 35,000Kg MTOW plus BAe146 (AvroRJ series); Embraer E135, E145: Bombardier CRJ1, CRJ2, CRJ7, CRJ9, BD-700 Global Express; Gulfstream 5. Everything else has to fly the HONILY1R/1Y
What has happpened in a very few occasions in the past, and probably once month even now, is that an aircraft not in the approved list has got airborne (usually having been given and read back a Honily with Delivery) and flown the LISTO. The issue is primarily one of noise, although it can throw up problems of speed difference especially when the jet you were expecting to do the round Knutsford tour on the HONILY turns left and starts eating up the slower turboprop or, even more entertaining, Navajo or Seneca on a LISTO
To try an prevent the inadvertant flying of the wrong SID, ATC is required to confirm with the pilot the clearance he has been given and the SID he will fly (Confidence Check) before the aircraft lines up on either 23L or 23R.
There is no need to confirm this on any SID other than the HONILY and LISTO from 23L/R. If you don't offer it when checking in with Tower on 118.625 (23R) or 119.4 (23L), we should ask.
Hope this helps to clarify another rather unique Manchester practice.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the LISTO1R/1Y have restricted availability Quote (UK AIP): Available only to non-jet and the following jet aircraft: all aircraft up to 35,000Kg MTOW plus BAe146 (AvroRJ series); Embraer E135, E145: Bombardier CRJ1, CRJ2, CRJ7, CRJ9, BD-700 Global Express; Gulfstream 5
watp,iktch
Supercharged PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for clearing that one up - we're generally on a DESIG SID, so that's one less thing for me to remember to say. 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the thread creeep but while on the subject of questions for Manchester ATC, I have the following: On our charts on Mirsi arrivals, we have Mirsi as our clearance limit, with the associated hold and a note saying 230kts or below. Can I just ask, do ATC expect us, when cleared, to continue beyond Mirsi below 230kts or is this just a max holding speed?
The reason I ask it that I have had varying opinions on this, so it would be good to hear what ATC themselves want. I believe coming via Rosun from the North, the same speed restriction exists, but no such restriction applies coming via Dayne.
Cheers
PW
The reason I ask it that I have had varying opinions on this, so it would be good to hear what ATC themselves want. I believe coming via Rosun from the North, the same speed restriction exists, but no such restriction applies coming via Dayne.
Cheers
PW
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penworth,
I believe the 230kt restriction is because the ROSUN and MIRSI holds are fairly adjacent to each other and it is to stop aircraft arriving at either holding fix 'overshooting' and infringing the other holding pattern. DAYNE is further away and therefore does not have the 230kt restriction.
The POL-BURNI-ROSUN route from the east is also for the same reason.
I believe that you should only proceed beyond any of these positions when instructed to do so by Manchester Radar or Manchester Control, unless carrying out RTF Failure Procedures.
I think the UKAIP still states that aircraft arriving at a holding fix should report their position to ATC.
I believe the 230kt restriction is because the ROSUN and MIRSI holds are fairly adjacent to each other and it is to stop aircraft arriving at either holding fix 'overshooting' and infringing the other holding pattern. DAYNE is further away and therefore does not have the 230kt restriction.
The POL-BURNI-ROSUN route from the east is also for the same reason.
I believe that you should only proceed beyond any of these positions when instructed to do so by Manchester Radar or Manchester Control, unless carrying out RTF Failure Procedures.
I think the UKAIP still states that aircraft arriving at a holding fix should report their position to ATC.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i thought pol burni rosun was so that you could do a direct entry to the hold wherever you came from?
And your clearance limit is never beyond the holding fix at destination!
Again, thread creep, sorry...
And your clearance limit is never beyond the holding fix at destination!
Again, thread creep, sorry...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, landedoutagain zooker is correct. If you went POL - ROSUN you would get uncomfortably close to someone holding at MIRSI as you entered the hold, even without overshooting it , hence the route to BURNI and the right turn there is to keep you inside Controlled Airspace and away from Warton/University Air Squadron who play out to the West.
Whilst the clearance limit is the holding fix you'd be amazed how many pilots don't hold especially when they come over to Approach near the fix! The usual answer is "Nobody on the last frequency told me to hold" - they usually seem to head straight for the MCT which can be interesting.
Whilst the clearance limit is the holding fix you'd be amazed how many pilots don't hold especially when they come over to Approach near the fix! The usual answer is "Nobody on the last frequency told me to hold" - they usually seem to head straight for the MCT which can be interesting.
