Heathrow Holding.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually think the original poster is correct in that the reduced speeds at an earlier stage is now helping to reduce inner stack delays. Heathrow has only seen a small drop in movements so I'm not sure it is down to this.
Fuel may be cheaper than it was but now the beancounters know there is a saving to be made it doesn't matter if it's $1 or $100/tonne-they want it saved.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is, and always will be, bunching.
Slowing down aircraft miles out does not make any difference unless the traffic is streamed - otherwise it will still arrive in a bunch resulting in holding, just 5 or 10 minutes later!!
I'm a TC controller but I do acknowledge the difficult task AC have, and also know for a fact that unless all sectors that are feeding to one hold, for instance OCK, talk to each other and use lots of different speeds/vectors to stream all of the aircraft, then bunching will still remain.
What slowing down aircraft a distance out does achieve is reduce the amount of time spent in the hold, if there is already 10-15 minutes holding taking place.
AC do not ordinarily look to see what is happening at the stacks, therefore sometimes (often), aircraft are slowed down resulting in one or two holds, when in fact if kept high speed they would come straight off.
If there is already holding happening, then slowing down the next bunch of aircraft will reduce their time in the hold, it will not bring forward their EAT. The delays will be the same, it's just the fact that more of it will be taken up on route to the hold.
Until aircraft arriving 2-3 hundred miles away from 5 or 6 different directions for one hold are streamed, there will always be holding.
Some people seem to think that AMAN will reduce delays - it won't. All AMAN can possibly do is allow aircraft to slow down early to take more of the delay en-route.
However AMAN does not look far enough ahead to be really effective for either AC or TC, and AC often cannot slow aircraft down too far out as it has to make Standing Agreements - which are there to provide separation against other traffic.
The only way that delays will ever be eradicated is if airlines coordinated with each other and did not all try to fly the same routes at the same times. However as this is customer driven, it will never happen!!
The main benefit of AMAN, when it works properly, is helping to prevent holding out situations, or TC having too many aircraft in its airspace and the biggy, as mentioned by 250Kts above, is fuel savings achieved by slowing down early when it's possible
Slowing down aircraft miles out does not make any difference unless the traffic is streamed - otherwise it will still arrive in a bunch resulting in holding, just 5 or 10 minutes later!!
I'm a TC controller but I do acknowledge the difficult task AC have, and also know for a fact that unless all sectors that are feeding to one hold, for instance OCK, talk to each other and use lots of different speeds/vectors to stream all of the aircraft, then bunching will still remain.
What slowing down aircraft a distance out does achieve is reduce the amount of time spent in the hold, if there is already 10-15 minutes holding taking place.
AC do not ordinarily look to see what is happening at the stacks, therefore sometimes (often), aircraft are slowed down resulting in one or two holds, when in fact if kept high speed they would come straight off.
If there is already holding happening, then slowing down the next bunch of aircraft will reduce their time in the hold, it will not bring forward their EAT. The delays will be the same, it's just the fact that more of it will be taken up on route to the hold.
Until aircraft arriving 2-3 hundred miles away from 5 or 6 different directions for one hold are streamed, there will always be holding.
Some people seem to think that AMAN will reduce delays - it won't. All AMAN can possibly do is allow aircraft to slow down early to take more of the delay en-route.
However AMAN does not look far enough ahead to be really effective for either AC or TC, and AC often cannot slow aircraft down too far out as it has to make Standing Agreements - which are there to provide separation against other traffic.
The only way that delays will ever be eradicated is if airlines coordinated with each other and did not all try to fly the same routes at the same times. However as this is customer driven, it will never happen!!
The main benefit of AMAN, when it works properly, is helping to prevent holding out situations, or TC having too many aircraft in its airspace and the biggy, as mentioned by 250Kts above, is fuel savings achieved by slowing down early when it's possible
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an AC CLN point of view,
AMAN doesn't look far enough out for us to take into account anything to do with the order as it appears on the screen. By the time the delays are shown then the traffic is already 10-15 miles inside the sector and the order from our point of view has been decided. If it could look out another 50 miles then we could ask MAAS to slow down/ speed up traffic so that the stream into LAM is better. (i'm aware that it would make no difference for OCK and the multiple sectors feeding it)
What it does enable us to do is see the average delay and slow down traffic accordingly, but we always done this so it doesn't help.
Rehash of the same equipment IMHO. Good idea, bad application.
AMAN doesn't look far enough out for us to take into account anything to do with the order as it appears on the screen. By the time the delays are shown then the traffic is already 10-15 miles inside the sector and the order from our point of view has been decided. If it could look out another 50 miles then we could ask MAAS to slow down/ speed up traffic so that the stream into LAM is better. (i'm aware that it would make no difference for OCK and the multiple sectors feeding it)
What it does enable us to do is see the average delay and slow down traffic accordingly, but we always done this so it doesn't help.
Rehash of the same equipment IMHO. Good idea, bad application.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the January figures, Heathrow traffic dropped 2%, not 10%!!!
With all th eother tyraffic dropping, it does feel more, and I believe that February figures will show a higher drop.
With all th eother tyraffic dropping, it does feel more, and I believe that February figures will show a higher drop.
I think what we are seeing is that Heathrow is overscheduled by about, hmmm, 2%....
P7
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the 270kts speed trial end a while ago? The only recent change is AC are now informed of average delays when they increase above certain averages and then also are told when to pass the EATs shown on AMAN. Slowing traffic down is still down to the sector controller concerned and not compulsory, only if the circumstances make it possible, or in other words, we get the traffic from the French in good time.......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5milesbaby,
AC have always had the average display information, it's just that it wasn't the info of choice (because you had more impottant info to read) on you screens.
All AMAN does is exactly as you say and that others above your post have said. It just gives a delay figure for each aircraft instead of average delays - the fact is, as you quite rightly say - with such relatively small sectors and what with getting traffic late, the info is often only just that 'information' as it is too late to effectively act on it.
Even if AMAN looked further out, there's no way the Garlic Munchers would assist you in streaming!!!
AC have always had the average display information, it's just that it wasn't the info of choice (because you had more impottant info to read) on you screens.
All AMAN does is exactly as you say and that others above your post have said. It just gives a delay figure for each aircraft instead of average delays - the fact is, as you quite rightly say - with such relatively small sectors and what with getting traffic late, the info is often only just that 'information' as it is too late to effectively act on it.
Even if AMAN looked further out, there's no way the Garlic Munchers would assist you in streaming!!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: nr SAM
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC have always had the average display information, it's just that it wasn't the info of choice (because you had more impottant info to read) on you screens.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was led to believe that via SIS, it showed exactly the same as we had in TC, except that ours was always showing, you guys needed to select the page - and there was (probably/possibly) a more pertinent page to your specific sector Ops that you preferred on SIS.
The old delay less less than 10/15-20 mins relied on someone (GS Airports) changing it - they often needed chasing from the ATCOS doing the sector when what was happening in reality was not mirrored on the info.
The fact of the matter is, because of the relatively small size of the sectors in AC, unless an aircraft has an EAT, any speed reductions you can give, whilst still complying with streaming, separation and Standing Agreements is only going to amount (in 99% of the cases) to shaving off a couple of minutes in the hold with the delay taken en route.
AMAN (if accurate) would be great for sectors that started streaming from several hundred miles out, and say (in the case of OCK with multiple en-ropute sectors feeding one stack for example), getting those streams down to one feed sector about 80-100 miles out so that that sector can try and merge them all.
Unfortunately our airspace (AC and TC) is not large enough, AMAN does not look out far enough, and is not (yet) accurate enough. We've bought a very expensive system that is not suitable for our airspace and operation. The several million we paid for it have just meant that we can slow aircraft down a little bit, saving them a tiny bit of fuel. All good in the long run for airlines, every little helps, but when those same airlines constantly whinge about our charges, yet expect a premium service, I feel that the money would have been better spent elsewhere...
The old delay less less than 10/15-20 mins relied on someone (GS Airports) changing it - they often needed chasing from the ATCOS doing the sector when what was happening in reality was not mirrored on the info.
The fact of the matter is, because of the relatively small size of the sectors in AC, unless an aircraft has an EAT, any speed reductions you can give, whilst still complying with streaming, separation and Standing Agreements is only going to amount (in 99% of the cases) to shaving off a couple of minutes in the hold with the delay taken en route.
AMAN (if accurate) would be great for sectors that started streaming from several hundred miles out, and say (in the case of OCK with multiple en-ropute sectors feeding one stack for example), getting those streams down to one feed sector about 80-100 miles out so that that sector can try and merge them all.
Unfortunately our airspace (AC and TC) is not large enough, AMAN does not look out far enough, and is not (yet) accurate enough. We've bought a very expensive system that is not suitable for our airspace and operation. The several million we paid for it have just meant that we can slow aircraft down a little bit, saving them a tiny bit of fuel. All good in the long run for airlines, every little helps, but when those same airlines constantly whinge about our charges, yet expect a premium service, I feel that the money would have been better spent elsewhere...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
was led to believe that via SIS, it showed exactly the same as we had in TC, except that ours was always showing, you guys needed to select the page
If the LAS was/is on the ball you get better info but some aren't and you get no help until TC are saying "hold out". Obviously if we have just given TC loads of inbounds then its fairly easy to predict the delay on your own but its not one of the things thats is easily monitored if you are streaming loads.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1985
but thats the whole point - the new info cannot add that much to what you guys used to do. at the end of the day, TC knows the real situation (because we see what is happenning at the holds) and we make do with the speeds we can - too late within a 40 mile wide sector) AMAN is a waste of 20 milion quid - it does not enahnce the operation!!!
I look forward to EFD in TC!!! At least It had a (miniscule) chance in AC but in TC???
but thats the whole point - the new info cannot add that much to what you guys used to do. at the end of the day, TC knows the real situation (because we see what is happenning at the holds) and we make do with the speeds we can - too late within a 40 mile wide sector) AMAN is a waste of 20 milion quid - it does not enahnce the operation!!!
I look forward to EFD in TC!!! At least It had a (miniscule) chance in AC but in TC???
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMAN is a waste of 20 milion quid - it does not enahnce the operation!!!
You weren't born perfect were you?
From what I see of it as I record actual delay on the strips against what AMAN says, whilst it still does some strange sequence numbering at times, the delay info it produces is now pretty solid.
Still, don't let the fact that it is improving get in the way of the main attribute required to be a NATS atco (applicants take note), whinging about anything and everything whether well founded or not.
Do I want the EAT PC (RIP Spats) back? No thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with anotherthing. Application of knowledge is everything. How about, as a general rule of thumb, and subject to making level restrictions, other traffic etc, we had a notification of 'less than 10 min', '10 to 15 min', '15 to 20min' or EATs. Then AC could apply speeds accordingly, such as 'whatever you want', '250', '220/min clean'. Does knowing that a particular a/c will (or more probably wont at the moment) have a delay of 14 minutes actually help more than '10 to 15 min'.
Sometimes it appears that more information is seen as always being a good thing, or perhaps a new shiny system must be better than the current one. It isn't always the way.
EFD anyone?
Sometimes it appears that more information is seen as always being a good thing, or perhaps a new shiny system must be better than the current one. It isn't always the way.
EFD anyone?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: swanwick carp lake
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Historically it is a fault with humans as a species that we see doing nothing as the wrong way to go about anything. Sometimes doing nothing does not mean you are being inefficient or lazy or wrong.
With this new system, a few people appear to be making up their own delay times rather than using the continually changing, often wrong aman times.
The best thing about the new screens is that they warm you up even quicker when you come in on a frosty morning and you are a bit chilly. love the heat output.
With this new system, a few people appear to be making up their own delay times rather than using the continually changing, often wrong aman times.
The best thing about the new screens is that they warm you up even quicker when you come in on a frosty morning and you are a bit chilly. love the heat output.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Land of the sand people.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extra heat from extra screens... clearly adding to the Vision 2011 target of :
Acting Responsibly - setting stretching environmental targets for the
business and our people.
They will be leaving the fridge doors open next!!!
Acting Responsibly - setting stretching environmental targets for the
business and our people.
They will be leaving the fridge doors open next!!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMAN - Step on the path to a better place
I agree with the comments about AMAN's usefulness being constrained by the limited run distances in the UK FIR, the main benefit being fuel savings to airlines, and the need for a longer "horizon".
We could also add our airspace's assymetry, the way that Mode C codes are allocated in adjacent FIRS, that SIDS and STARs are not always flown as described in the AIP, that Flight Plan updates are not always inputted into NAS, our extensive use of radar headings, the unpredicabilty of wx, that not all Watches do things the same way.....
Most of these issues are recognised and acknowledged by the AMAN team but not all can be resolved quickly, and some may take years (co-operation with our garlic eating friends for instance)
Implementing use of any computer based tool in a dynamic environment is not easy - at it's heart it's just a dumb number-cruncher following "rules". Getting all the rules right for one of (if not the) most complex airspaces in the world was always going to be well complex! The same would have been the case for any other AMAN product, and is likely to be the case in the future for any advanced piece of ATM technology.
But whilst I regret my colleagues' frustration with the initial implementation of AMAN I can't agree that it was a waste of money because:-
a) I am one of the "guilty" involved in AMAN (did you guess?),
b) Trust me, it did not cost anything like as much as has been suggested,
c) I believe the tool is already 10 x better than EAT and is still improving,
d) the customers have demanded it for years, and
e) because I believe that even if full exploitation of the tool is initially limited by operational, technical and airpace constraints, it is still of value, will add even more value over time, and is a neccessary first step on a path to longer horizons for delay absorbtion and streaming, to delay absorbtion of the ground in adjacent FIRs, to multi-lateral co-operation on streaming and all the rest of the pie in the sky stuff that we all dream of.
AMAN is simply an advisory tool, it cannot and will never think like an ATCO but my sincere hope is that over time this system will prove a helpful tool to ATC and be recognised as making a valuable contribution to the service.
We could also add our airspace's assymetry, the way that Mode C codes are allocated in adjacent FIRS, that SIDS and STARs are not always flown as described in the AIP, that Flight Plan updates are not always inputted into NAS, our extensive use of radar headings, the unpredicabilty of wx, that not all Watches do things the same way.....
Most of these issues are recognised and acknowledged by the AMAN team but not all can be resolved quickly, and some may take years (co-operation with our garlic eating friends for instance)
Implementing use of any computer based tool in a dynamic environment is not easy - at it's heart it's just a dumb number-cruncher following "rules". Getting all the rules right for one of (if not the) most complex airspaces in the world was always going to be well complex! The same would have been the case for any other AMAN product, and is likely to be the case in the future for any advanced piece of ATM technology.
But whilst I regret my colleagues' frustration with the initial implementation of AMAN I can't agree that it was a waste of money because:-
a) I am one of the "guilty" involved in AMAN (did you guess?),
b) Trust me, it did not cost anything like as much as has been suggested,
c) I believe the tool is already 10 x better than EAT and is still improving,
d) the customers have demanded it for years, and
e) because I believe that even if full exploitation of the tool is initially limited by operational, technical and airpace constraints, it is still of value, will add even more value over time, and is a neccessary first step on a path to longer horizons for delay absorbtion and streaming, to delay absorbtion of the ground in adjacent FIRs, to multi-lateral co-operation on streaming and all the rest of the pie in the sky stuff that we all dream of.
AMAN is simply an advisory tool, it cannot and will never think like an ATCO but my sincere hope is that over time this system will prove a helpful tool to ATC and be recognised as making a valuable contribution to the service.
Last edited by xzulu; 27th Feb 2009 at 22:15. Reason: typo
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 67
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xzulu is broadly correct. Although AMAN was not, as it turned out, introduced successfully, much of what has happened since has been atypical of previous projects.
The contractor demonstrated to me an EXCELLENT understanding of ATC and a wholly "can-do" approach to developing the software to correct the earlier deficiencies. I have never seen upgrades arrive so quickly for anything and they have been effective insofar as each has pushed AMAN in the right direction.
I remain personally sceptical about the application of AMAN within a wider toolset to a long term planning horizon. I do not foresee the time when we can give a chap in OPKC or VTBS a departure time to ensure no holding at EGLL.
However, I do foresee, in the near future, a credible tool which will be better than EAT PC and which will gradually (re)gain acceptance.
The contractor demonstrated to me an EXCELLENT understanding of ATC and a wholly "can-do" approach to developing the software to correct the earlier deficiencies. I have never seen upgrades arrive so quickly for anything and they have been effective insofar as each has pushed AMAN in the right direction.
I remain personally sceptical about the application of AMAN within a wider toolset to a long term planning horizon. I do not foresee the time when we can give a chap in OPKC or VTBS a departure time to ensure no holding at EGLL.
However, I do foresee, in the near future, a credible tool which will be better than EAT PC and which will gradually (re)gain acceptance.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That all sounds lovely, but my question would be why bring it in live when it was patently rubbish. Why was it not run in parallel until ALL the 'glitches' had been dealt with, then go live.
Perhaps we should let trainees loose on their own after 50 hours on the basis that eventually they'll crack it?
Perhaps we should let trainees loose on their own after 50 hours on the basis that eventually they'll crack it?