LIFFY - Again
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although not very often, it has been used at GIBSO too. GIBSO though is a totally different place so cannot be compared with the LIFFY question.
You want to look at the Norwich restrictions if coming in through RATUK, or even worse, try flying to half of the French airfields from the London TMA - over 60 of them have level caps imposed and if we followed their rules, then no aircraft would enter the UK FIR above FL270 if their destination is within England or Wales, including from the South and South-West to places such at Newcastle.
In an ideal world every aircraft would fly the perfect great circle route and optimum cruise and climb/descent profiles, unfortunately for you (and very fortunate for my employment status) too many want to at the same time in a very small bit of air so something has to give and routes get capped. Its all just safety and expedition, without it, the restrictions would be immense.
You want to look at the Norwich restrictions if coming in through RATUK, or even worse, try flying to half of the French airfields from the London TMA - over 60 of them have level caps imposed and if we followed their rules, then no aircraft would enter the UK FIR above FL270 if their destination is within England or Wales, including from the South and South-West to places such at Newcastle.
In an ideal world every aircraft would fly the perfect great circle route and optimum cruise and climb/descent profiles, unfortunately for you (and very fortunate for my employment status) too many want to at the same time in a very small bit of air so something has to give and routes get capped. Its all just safety and expedition, without it, the restrictions would be immense.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cos rarely when you give a PD for a desent is the aircraft at the level when you want him to be..Putting a restriction on the aircraft to be level ensures that you will have the required seperation on transfer to MACC..
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed levels / letters of agreement / standing agreements are internal ATC agreements for the use of ATC. Just because a pilot happens to know that Shannon and MACC have an agreement that certain aircraft will be descended by Shannon to FL270 by Liffy does not mean that ATC are not at liberty to do something different. It is nice to know the agreements for planning purposes but not essential.
The extra fuel burn between getting cleared to a level at Liffy and being cleared to the level 10 or 20nm before would only be a fraction of the contingency fuel that is required to be carried for these very reasons.
However, I think that it does highlight a few problems. If the agreement is to be level at liffy then ATC have to expect that the pilot will comply. To put in an arbitary 10nm extra becuse they don't trust the pilot would cause mayhem if applied elsewhere.
Traffic both eastbound and westbound at Liffy are known to the Shannon controller. They know if there will be a westbound conflicting traffic long before the eastbound is required to descend. There is nothing preventing radar headings to be used to resolve the conflict.
I would be very surprised that it is impossible under the agreement to have an aircraft transferred to MACC on a heading against other traffic. The normal situation would be that MACC would not be able to take the asircraft off the heading until they have control of that traffic.
Of course, in relation to the last point, some posters here have highlighted a misunderstanding regarding the difference between transfer of communication and trasnfer of control.
Regards,
DFC
The extra fuel burn between getting cleared to a level at Liffy and being cleared to the level 10 or 20nm before would only be a fraction of the contingency fuel that is required to be carried for these very reasons.
However, I think that it does highlight a few problems. If the agreement is to be level at liffy then ATC have to expect that the pilot will comply. To put in an arbitary 10nm extra becuse they don't trust the pilot would cause mayhem if applied elsewhere.
Traffic both eastbound and westbound at Liffy are known to the Shannon controller. They know if there will be a westbound conflicting traffic long before the eastbound is required to descend. There is nothing preventing radar headings to be used to resolve the conflict.
I would be very surprised that it is impossible under the agreement to have an aircraft transferred to MACC on a heading against other traffic. The normal situation would be that MACC would not be able to take the asircraft off the heading until they have control of that traffic.
Of course, in relation to the last point, some posters here have highlighted a misunderstanding regarding the difference between transfer of communication and trasnfer of control.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an idea....
How about just once, when the controller gives you a restriction or requirement, you just do it without all the angst that is appearing on these pages? I mean 10 miles isn't going to send you to the wall!!
We could yet again go into the fact that there are a/c climbing out of Manchester/Liverpool etc on non laterally separated routes, the cross with these are generally on or about the boundary, a/c are not released until they pass the boundary (eastbound), a/c westbound who are slow climbers or good climbers so coord is needed with several adjacent units to get further climb...all the while the guys are climbing out of EGAA etc and descending into EGAA yada yada yada.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, just imagine how dangerous a lot of knowledge is!
As I said, when the instruction is given, just read it back and do it, it isn't really all that hard.
We could yet again go into the fact that there are a/c climbing out of Manchester/Liverpool etc on non laterally separated routes, the cross with these are generally on or about the boundary, a/c are not released until they pass the boundary (eastbound), a/c westbound who are slow climbers or good climbers so coord is needed with several adjacent units to get further climb...all the while the guys are climbing out of EGAA etc and descending into EGAA yada yada yada.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, just imagine how dangerous a lot of knowledge is!
As I said, when the instruction is given, just read it back and do it, it isn't really all that hard.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with so many of the ongoing restrictions that are placed on us - complying isn't a problem and yes, I can easily comply with at or 10 before and yes, our planning chaps have included it in the PLOGS. The fact is though that every aeroplane that goes through that sector is burning tens or hundreds of kilos of fuel unnecessarily - every descent, every hour, every day.
The main reason for starting the thread - and thanks to all who have replied - was to restate that we need some consistency and we need better communication from both sides to establish whether a restriction is efficient or whether by changing it slightly, arrival delays and holding would still be reduced (the original reason for the BSA).
If it was felt that altering the BSA's would re introduce terminal holding, then of course they make commercial sense.
Next round gents (or ladies)
Oh, thread drift - thanks to GLA and PIK today and yesterday for the 7 diversions and emergency landings I did - fantastic job fellas
T'was a busy sim and such a shame we can't get more ATC folk in observing/helping.
The main reason for starting the thread - and thanks to all who have replied - was to restate that we need some consistency and we need better communication from both sides to establish whether a restriction is efficient or whether by changing it slightly, arrival delays and holding would still be reduced (the original reason for the BSA).
If it was felt that altering the BSA's would re introduce terminal holding, then of course they make commercial sense.
Next round gents (or ladies)
Oh, thread drift - thanks to GLA and PIK today and yesterday for the 7 diversions and emergency landings I did - fantastic job fellas
T'was a busy sim and such a shame we can't get more ATC folk in observing/helping.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jav - I think you know I agree totally with you, but our 'beating of the gums' is not going to change things. Until ATC can get the co-ordination of sectors better organised with whizz-bang kit so they do NOT need 'blocked' levels, I think the only pressure you will be able to bring to bear is to fire up someone in your company who counts beans and point out the cost to his/her budget.
To be fair, it is not just UK - inbound GVA from the UK, over the Alps to MXP and NCE and others - early ToD's for ATC sectorisation.
Good to see you had an easy Sim......did you get dizzy?
To be fair, it is not just UK - inbound GVA from the UK, over the Alps to MXP and NCE and others - early ToD's for ATC sectorisation.
Good to see you had an easy Sim......did you get dizzy?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin - you think that you are the only jockey who flies through irish airspace or even Londons for that matter that signs off with 'good luck' that just about sums up your awareness of the ATC system!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We could yet again go into the fact that there are a/c climbing out of Manchester/Liverpool etc on non laterally separated routes, the cross with these are generally on or about the boundary, a/c are not released until they pass the boundary (eastbound),
When are you guy's going to get that radar thing working and stop having to provide procedural solutions?
Does the letter of agreement between Shannon and Manchester not include provision for aircraft to be on a heading etc etc?
Just to clarify - I don't think that there is a valid complaint but the answers given are not helping.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Sorry about the replies...
The non laterally separated tracks are on the Manchester side of the fence, not the Irish side.
As for the reach by 10 miles prior to LIFFY, actually, the a/c are supposed to be level 3 minutes or 20 miles before LIFFY to comply with to the letter of the letter of agreement.
Soooo, the guys who give you reach by 10 prior are actually doing you a favour.
Yes we can hand off a/c to Manchester on headings...but there is the thorny issue of the Sector 5 boundary not that far away from LIFFY to the south, and if you parallel to the North, oops, there's BAGSO and the stuff coming the other way.
It just so happens that it is a complex piece of airspace...They happen all over the place, and sometimes things just don't flow as nicely as everyone would like. Most a/c i have asked who want a "green" descent would prefer to be at F300 at LIFFY...so if you can get London/Manchester to change their vertical sector boundaries a lot of these issues go away.
Jolly
"IAC995 I require a readback of that last instruction"..."Roger"
The non laterally separated tracks are on the Manchester side of the fence, not the Irish side.
As for the reach by 10 miles prior to LIFFY, actually, the a/c are supposed to be level 3 minutes or 20 miles before LIFFY to comply with to the letter of the letter of agreement.
Soooo, the guys who give you reach by 10 prior are actually doing you a favour.
Yes we can hand off a/c to Manchester on headings...but there is the thorny issue of the Sector 5 boundary not that far away from LIFFY to the south, and if you parallel to the North, oops, there's BAGSO and the stuff coming the other way.
It just so happens that it is a complex piece of airspace...They happen all over the place, and sometimes things just don't flow as nicely as everyone would like. Most a/c i have asked who want a "green" descent would prefer to be at F300 at LIFFY...so if you can get London/Manchester to change their vertical sector boundaries a lot of these issues go away.
Jolly
"IAC995 I require a readback of that last instruction"..."Roger"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Somewhere HOT!!
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When are you guy's going to get that radar thing working and stop having to provide procedural solutions?
Does the letter of agreement between Shannon and Manchester not include provision for aircraft to be on a heading etc etc?
Just to clarify - I don't think that there is a valid complaint but the answers given are not helping
Does the letter of agreement between Shannon and Manchester not include provision for aircraft to be on a heading etc etc?
Just to clarify - I don't think that there is a valid complaint but the answers given are not helping
Just goes to show how intricate your understanding of Radar is...
I'll give you the most valid answer yet...its to miss the traffic coming head on at you!!! Now go suck your thumb.....
Jeeeez....sometimes.....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the reach by 10 miles prior to LIFFY, actually, the a/c are supposed to be level 3 minutes or 20 miles before LIFFY to comply with to the letter of the letter of agreement.
Soooo, the guys who give you reach by 10 prior are actually doing you a favour.
Soooo, the guys who give you reach by 10 prior are actually doing you a favour.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin, by the sounds of your replies, it only seems more and more evident that you have no idea what goes on from the ATC side of things.
ATC is not a game of "consistency". If it were, then we could simply program all the rules into a computer, and let it do the job for us. And that's exactly why computers aren't, and never will do the job, because situations change on a second by second basis, and only a controller has the ability to take all the factors into account and decide "you know what, it would be better for me if this guy was level 10 miles before liffy."
The bottom line is as has been mentioned many times in the previous posts; they're doing it for a reason, not just to p*ss you off or to make you burn more fuel. So go and visit a centre, and you'll walk away feeling a prat for ever having bought it up.
ATC is not a game of "consistency". If it were, then we could simply program all the rules into a computer, and let it do the job for us. And that's exactly why computers aren't, and never will do the job, because situations change on a second by second basis, and only a controller has the ability to take all the factors into account and decide "you know what, it would be better for me if this guy was level 10 miles before liffy."
The bottom line is as has been mentioned many times in the previous posts; they're doing it for a reason, not just to p*ss you off or to make you burn more fuel. So go and visit a centre, and you'll walk away feeling a prat for ever having bought it up.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arty-Z,
To be fair, it was just a question, albeit with interpretable tone... Some controllers do unfortunately apply a common process to a given situation, some will always do AA X ZZ etc; but if it works etc. what's the 'real' issue.
As DD has pointed out as this is a 'boundary' LOA not an internal one, technically the restriction is either 3 mins prior of 20NM prior to the boundary not by the point. The LOA states below FL280 or lower, nothing stopping us using FL250 etc at time too, which I have seen used; 270 is common as it's the Eastbound level.
LIFFY is an ugly little convergence point, traffic out of Dublin East bound looking for higher, Traffic West bound not wanting to go as far North as BAGSO if they can avoid it, Eastbound traffic Looking to stay high even though they want to land in various parts of Mid to Northern England, Overflying traffic EX Ocean, Shannon, Cork, Kerry, Knock etc all using the same airway; which crosses with anything from Belfast, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, etc southbound combining with the stuff through BAGSO Westbound and often turning to the south.
The LOAs are set up to significantly reduce the 'complexities' in everyone getting what they want; keep a standard safe concept in mind at all times; keep it simple stupid; the downside is that almost no-one gets what they want; but that applies to many facets of life.
There are 6 ATC units involved with this sector boundary (DUB, SNN, LON 4 5 7, MACC), which potentially could mean 5 phone calls to step outside the LOA, or none if you comply with it; hence we tend to comply with it pretty religiously.
To be fair, it was just a question, albeit with interpretable tone... Some controllers do unfortunately apply a common process to a given situation, some will always do AA X ZZ etc; but if it works etc. what's the 'real' issue.
As DD has pointed out as this is a 'boundary' LOA not an internal one, technically the restriction is either 3 mins prior of 20NM prior to the boundary not by the point. The LOA states below FL280 or lower, nothing stopping us using FL250 etc at time too, which I have seen used; 270 is common as it's the Eastbound level.
LIFFY is an ugly little convergence point, traffic out of Dublin East bound looking for higher, Traffic West bound not wanting to go as far North as BAGSO if they can avoid it, Eastbound traffic Looking to stay high even though they want to land in various parts of Mid to Northern England, Overflying traffic EX Ocean, Shannon, Cork, Kerry, Knock etc all using the same airway; which crosses with anything from Belfast, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, etc southbound combining with the stuff through BAGSO Westbound and often turning to the south.
The LOAs are set up to significantly reduce the 'complexities' in everyone getting what they want; keep a standard safe concept in mind at all times; keep it simple stupid; the downside is that almost no-one gets what they want; but that applies to many facets of life.
There are 6 ATC units involved with this sector boundary (DUB, SNN, LON 4 5 7, MACC), which potentially could mean 5 phone calls to step outside the LOA, or none if you comply with it; hence we tend to comply with it pretty religiously.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arty, I do, have, will continue to visit centres, towers and have had a very educational and pleasant tour of Swanwick. I have sat on airspace use groups and been on the radar sim at MAN - all very interesting and educational.
I think the discussion is done.
The ATC folk have explained quite well the reasons for the restriction and I doubt very much if any lobbying to our management is going to change anything.
I will politely shut up.
However, if you are working the sector and I ask to be level at LIFFY, cut me some slack now and again - I will do it - promise
BOAC - yes, somewhat dazed and confused as Pete would say at the end of it
I think the discussion is done.
The ATC folk have explained quite well the reasons for the restriction and I doubt very much if any lobbying to our management is going to change anything.
I will politely shut up.
However, if you are working the sector and I ask to be level at LIFFY, cut me some slack now and again - I will do it - promise
BOAC - yes, somewhat dazed and confused as Pete would say at the end of it
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
I know what you are saying, but it'll never happen, and if/when traffic movements begin to rise again, they will only get worse and more will be introduced. Without these restrictions more co-ordinations are needed manually, making the job very time consuming, separations difficult to achieve with lesser knowledge of what other tracks are doing, so heavy flow restrictions causing delays and then subsequent cancellations on the later rotations. Burning an extra tonne of fuel has to be far better than cancelling an entire return flight.
Until ATC can get the co-ordination of sectors better organised with whizz-bang kit so they do NOT need 'blocked' levels
