NATS FMP Phone Slots
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Isle Du Cyber
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS FMP Phone Slots
This is happening more and more.
FMP LONDON will ring up and say airborne not before so and so time, this time is passed to the flight deck of said slot aircraft after a while the crew ask to send a ready which you are unable to as it is not a computer slot.
I understand why this is done but it is a pain in the back side why do they not do it the propper way via the computer.
After all when is a slot not a slot when the FMP put a phone slot on.
This is just another way to make the management look good by not recording via the computer the slot delays and who gets the bonuses??
Yes not the ones on the shop floor doing the work but the ones in there pin striped suits in an office who need to get out into the real world of moving traffic.
FMP LONDON will ring up and say airborne not before so and so time, this time is passed to the flight deck of said slot aircraft after a while the crew ask to send a ready which you are unable to as it is not a computer slot.
I understand why this is done but it is a pain in the back side why do they not do it the propper way via the computer.
After all when is a slot not a slot when the FMP put a phone slot on.
This is just another way to make the management look good by not recording via the computer the slot delays and who gets the bonuses??
Yes not the ones on the shop floor doing the work but the ones in there pin striped suits in an office who need to get out into the real world of moving traffic.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seaworld
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it really that much of a hassle? Happens at the airport I work at too, so we pass the information to the pilot as we would a CTOT. If they're ready before then we call FMP to let them know and see if they can do anything. They're normally very helpful. I would guess that if FMP can restrict two or three flights, it's more effective then regulating a whole sector.
Naughty but Nice
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic is... has it right there. If there is just one spike of traffic into a sector or airfield, and giving a couple of "Take off Not Before" times will just spread that loading, then it saves putting on a flow restriction and possibly giving everyone a slot. IT can just ensure that the traffic is a little more spaced. Only the same as putting on an MDI or miles in trail procedure, but for a sector further down the line. It's rarely just one aircraft, usually a couple from different places due to arrive somewhere at the same time.
If the aircraft is then ready sooner and nagging then give FMP a call, the picture may have changed and it might not be an issue any longer.
Cheers,
N
xx
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
If the aircraft is then ready sooner and nagging then give FMP a call, the picture may have changed and it might not be an issue any longer.
Cheers,
N
xx
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Somewhere in Britain
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only assume we are dealing with positioner flights within the London TMA here?? We deal with many Biz Jets, say going from Luton to Heathrow during the afternoon rush. Given that the delay into Heathrow at this time may be 10>15mins, it is not un-reasonable to delay this aircraft "on the ground", and then having taken the delay on the ground, get airbourne from Luton (in this case) and go "straight in" to Heathrow. Thus the Supervisor may give an "airborne not before time" to achieve this objective.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seaworld
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not always TMA positioning flights. Different set of rules for them. As said, happens to 'normal' scheduled flights too in order to prevent a regulation being placed on the whole sector.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic is,
Just a pilots perspective on this:-
When unregulated, airborne not before restrictions can be hugely frustrating, and can it can be felt that the CFMU system is not working as it should.
The truth is the system is NOT perfect - if it was overloads, bunching etc etc would not occur. What I do not want however is to get airborne and create one if it CAN be stopped by such a short term FMP restriction.
On restrictions such as this there is obviously a short term sector issue to be resolved. In the many hours I've spent over the years in Ops rooms taking an interest, there's not one LAS/GM who is there to create an issue, only to solve them. I firmly believe however it is the LAS/GM's DUTY to manage the SC's workload whenever possible.
So, how do they solve a short term issue? To my experience, and I'm not a controller (so happy to be corrected by your fellow colleagues!), reducing flow rate is not necessarily what will solve the short term problem. If a sector is running at say 42/60 and a short term issue is apparent, reducing via the CFMU to say 35/60 will probably not solve the problem, and takes some time to be apparent. The only short term measure is to do what you are experiencing, or apply an MDI. The CFMU is a primary form of system protection, but with it not being perfect, there is a need for secondary measures as well.
It is frustrating that these restrictions are not transparent, and yes your right, it also means that they do not then show against NATS statisitics. We're all under pressure, on both sides of the industry regarding on time performance/delays - that won't go away, what I am convinced of though is that operational staff are NOT puppets to pin stripe suit requirements. It's our licences - not theirs.
I understand that such restrictions place extra difficulties on aerodrome controllers, and that perhaps you feel your on the receiving end of the problem. I work from BB, with 33 deps that have only one runway line up point and single taxi-way serving it. The poor GMC given relatively short notice in a stream of outbounds can suddenly find the whole dep sequence stopped if subject aircraft is already in the taxiway stream. Very difficult situation for all!
Not sure how we improve the current situation, but open to suggestions?
Anyhow, enough rabbling - I'm sure the centre guys can give far better responses....
Keep it safe!
Rgds
30W
Just a pilots perspective on this:-
When unregulated, airborne not before restrictions can be hugely frustrating, and can it can be felt that the CFMU system is not working as it should.
The truth is the system is NOT perfect - if it was overloads, bunching etc etc would not occur. What I do not want however is to get airborne and create one if it CAN be stopped by such a short term FMP restriction.
On restrictions such as this there is obviously a short term sector issue to be resolved. In the many hours I've spent over the years in Ops rooms taking an interest, there's not one LAS/GM who is there to create an issue, only to solve them. I firmly believe however it is the LAS/GM's DUTY to manage the SC's workload whenever possible.
So, how do they solve a short term issue? To my experience, and I'm not a controller (so happy to be corrected by your fellow colleagues!), reducing flow rate is not necessarily what will solve the short term problem. If a sector is running at say 42/60 and a short term issue is apparent, reducing via the CFMU to say 35/60 will probably not solve the problem, and takes some time to be apparent. The only short term measure is to do what you are experiencing, or apply an MDI. The CFMU is a primary form of system protection, but with it not being perfect, there is a need for secondary measures as well.
It is frustrating that these restrictions are not transparent, and yes your right, it also means that they do not then show against NATS statisitics. We're all under pressure, on both sides of the industry regarding on time performance/delays - that won't go away, what I am convinced of though is that operational staff are NOT puppets to pin stripe suit requirements. It's our licences - not theirs.
I understand that such restrictions place extra difficulties on aerodrome controllers, and that perhaps you feel your on the receiving end of the problem. I work from BB, with 33 deps that have only one runway line up point and single taxi-way serving it. The poor GMC given relatively short notice in a stream of outbounds can suddenly find the whole dep sequence stopped if subject aircraft is already in the taxiway stream. Very difficult situation for all!
Not sure how we improve the current situation, but open to suggestions?
Anyhow, enough rabbling - I'm sure the centre guys can give far better responses....
Keep it safe!
Rgds
30W
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's how I use take-off not before restrictions:
The traffic prediction shows that a sector or group of them is running close to capacity. based upon flight plan data, there is a peak of traffic in one 15-minute period which would push the sector over capacity. However, the overall volume for a longer period is manageable. If I can identify a small number of flights which are flight planned to be in the 15-minute peak and which can be moved back by (often) as little as 5 minutes on their (unregulated) take-off time by placing a 'take-off not before' restriction on them to smooth out the peak, then this seems the best option for all rather than a blanket slot restriction. Don't forget that this is all based upon flight plan times and we don't know when exactly you will get airborne. By ensuring that the take off is not before a certain time we can ensure that you will arrive in the sector after the peak. From an ATC point of view, surely this gives the Tower controller the flexibility to plan and manage their traffic without it being restricted to CTOTs.
As you asy, there is no point in sending a Ready message, as the flight is not subject to a CTOT.
Of course, that means some forethought on the part of tower controllers in starting and taxying aircraft, and another thread on this forum suggests that this is not Jersey's strong point!..
The traffic prediction shows that a sector or group of them is running close to capacity. based upon flight plan data, there is a peak of traffic in one 15-minute period which would push the sector over capacity. However, the overall volume for a longer period is manageable. If I can identify a small number of flights which are flight planned to be in the 15-minute peak and which can be moved back by (often) as little as 5 minutes on their (unregulated) take-off time by placing a 'take-off not before' restriction on them to smooth out the peak, then this seems the best option for all rather than a blanket slot restriction. Don't forget that this is all based upon flight plan times and we don't know when exactly you will get airborne. By ensuring that the take off is not before a certain time we can ensure that you will arrive in the sector after the peak. From an ATC point of view, surely this gives the Tower controller the flexibility to plan and manage their traffic without it being restricted to CTOTs.
As you asy, there is no point in sending a Ready message, as the flight is not subject to a CTOT.
Of course, that means some forethought on the part of tower controllers in starting and taxying aircraft, and another thread on this forum suggests that this is not Jersey's strong point!..
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on the physical dimensions of an airport, the 'take off not before' is a better option that CTOTs and far better than a call from a sector to tell us that the one which has just pushed off stand is not to be allowed to get airborne until the sector says so.
