Direct routings ......

[Quokka]

There is Australian Law... and then there is Airservices Australia.

It may have changed though, hopefully it has been.

You are correct.

However, in Oz it depends on the particular manager at the time as to whether the controllers actions are acceptable or not and regardless of compliance with promulgated procedures.

If, for example, a controller fails to apply direct tracking at the FLOW/Approach controller's instruction, the subsequent formal Performance Management will start with the words...

"[insert controller's name] does not comply with established procedures".

However, after opening the relevent document to the relevent page in front of said manager and pointing to the relevent section that states what mikk_13 is referring to, the manager in question can be expected to change the wording of the formal Performance Management to...

"[insert controller's name] does not comply with expected practices".

Regardless of what is contained within the Centre LI's your actions as a controller can be deemed to be unacceptable and the manager can exercise complete discretion in determining the reason why and, in the case of one particular manager, reserve the rights to amend the wording of the Performance Management document after the controller has signed it and then represent the document to a third party as being true and correct as signed by the controller.

[makespeed250kt]

Mikk 13

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this? I'll have another look at the Centre local instructions though when I get back to work (I wonder which bookcase it's in today?).

Our Group LI's clearly specify that direct tracking may be used, subject to certain criteria, which is what I had based my previous posts comments on.

If I've missed something, I'm happy to be corrected. I have no intention of operating outside the rules!

Cheers

[ozineurope]

250kt - you are correct. Direct tracking is available and utilised in Australia on a daily basis. Only when the airspace/traffic mix becomes too complex does anyone fly the SID to its full extent. Most SIDs are cancelled leaving 5000agl (a silly noise thingy) for jets or 3000agl for turbos. Where the SID goes thorugh someone elses airspace or ahs VNAV for separation then SID cancellation may be more difficult - but this is not because we cant do it - we can with Coord.

STARs are usually flown in thier entirety due to the linkin with the expected approach procedure, although even then track shortening within the procedure is given - somewhere that the FMS can rejoin without too much fuss.

Not sure where Mikk is from but I know and have written LIs that allow track shortening in given airspaces in given time frames. Cuts out the tiresome coord!!

[TrenShadow]

ML Center Shared Doc: MCO 3.1.2.0.0.1 effective date 5 April 2007.

Lists a few limited case where direct tracking is allowed (including where specified in LIs and sequencing), but does NOT provide for fuel/time savings to airlines as one of those reasons.

[Number2]

Direct routings don't save time or fuel.

That must be true because management says so.

[berti]

As off the 17th of December next, the irish UIR will be point to point dct routing. I.E. opperators can file from any entry fix to any exit fix, direct.
This will save opperators fuel, due to less being uploaded before departure because their track will have been shortened. ATCOs who give direct routings doesnt save much on fuel, moreso on time.
Personally i give as much directs as possible. The shortest distance between two points also means the less time on frequency.

[5milesbaby]

Personally i give as much directs as possible. The shortest distance between two points also means the less time on frequency

Exactly Berti, when I can I do so there is not much point pestering me as if I haven't already then I'm too busy so don't bug me!
The current airspace set up on S20 at LACC gives a potential 5 turns in 80 miles on one outbound route which having flown it as a passenger, isn't comfortable. Giving a direct to miss out 3 of those turns is done whenever possible.

[Coast]

i agree too. it's rare i don't give somewhere direct,
usually without being asked. it's also easier to see a possible
confliction if the planes aren't turning before their paths cross.

of course i have high level a/s so i don't worry about sids and
stars and little planes that barely move.

[Number2]

Should be careful what you do (Coast) if you are still in Canada. You might find
yourself with 5 days without pay too.

[Spamcan defender]

I am also one of those who give as many directs as poss in my own sector. I dont mind being asked if there is a direct route available as I'm not as grumpy and cynical as some I work with but generally, if I've not already done so then its not available.
Similarly, I will always attempt to (when possible) call ahead and offer the adjoining sector further climb through my airspace if I can see that some poor sod is going to be stuck under for a good bit. Its no skin of my nose, doesnt impact me in the slightest and generally helps the A/C and the controller of the next sector.

Spamcan

[Blockla]

Just to play devils advocate, it is possible that direct routing is not fuel or time efficient... Great circle routes and/or 'preferred routings' (that take in wind effect)...

Also having seen route structures in Europe and compared them to Australia, well there's little wonder direct routings are used often in Europe compared to my previous home... A direct routing in Oz may save as little as 5 nm over a very long sector, here a direct routing could save 30nm or more over a short sector.

[mikehammer]

As a mere FO (or as one manager recently told me: "...only a f*****g FO..." - nice guy!) I ask you exactly what the captain tells me to ask. I apologise because often it saves very little time. However I'm not about to instigate an argument on the flight deck, so please say negative, unavailable more often. That way they'll soon give up pushing. Oh, and I'll get a couple of extra minutes in my log book each flight too

[Quokka]

...it is possible that direct routing is not fuel or time efficient... Great circle routes and/or 'preferred routings' (that take in wind effect)

Very true.

A straight line on the controllers screen is not necessarily the shortest distance between two points... in time or space (Do you know, or can name the geographical projection that your screen or map is based on? When was the last time you checked the wind?).

As for preferred routings... the Flex Track supervisors in Melbourne would become very unhappy if controllers gave short cuts to aircraft flying the daily published optimum route for wind and fuel consumption. Something a number of controllers had some difficulty in understanding.

To throw another scenario into the discussion... what's the point in track shortening an aircraft that has reduced speed due to "no parking bay available for us"?

Or, as happens in this part of the world... track shorten every aircraft to the three sequencing gates and reduce the space between them down to the absolute minimum as per the Letter of Agreement, only to sit back and feel good about yourself whilst you watch the receiving controller give them 90 degree turns or holding patterns because he has to blend the three trails into one with a tenth of the space to do it within?

Sometimes direct tracking doesn't help.

[DFC]

A straight line on the controllers screen is not necessarily the shortest distance between two points... in time or space (Do you know, or can name the geographical projection that your screen or map is based on?

It is very seldom these days that we navigate via a rhumb line track.

Radio Aids

RNAV

GPS and Radar all provide Great circle tracks.

If you (or the flight director/autopilot) keep the deviation bar centred then the aircraft is following a great circle track.

Remember that a radar display is not a projection of the area around the radar - it is an exact representation of what is out there all measured in terms of direction and distance from the radar head. Therefore if smalltown is bearing 030 at 40nm from the radar and big town is 180 at 120nm from the radar head then a straight line between them will be a great circle.

However, having said that, where positions of aircraft are plotted via FMS/GPS information received through for example ADS then it is possible that over a long range display (oceanic) that the projection could be such that a GC is not a straight line.

Would the pilot who prefers weather pattern navigation please let us know what radar altimeters they are using at FL350 to provide them with the D values?

These days in flight such thoughts are merely guestimates or generalisations. If a direct routing is changing your track by 30 degrees or less then the change in component is not going to be significant (unless you are routing round a jetstream). If it is more then 30 degrees then the change in distance is going to offset any loss of tailwind.

If it is more than 90 degrees you are lost!

[Coast]

Should be careful what you do (Coast) if you are still in Canada. You might find
yourself with 5 days without pay too.

didn't mean to sound flippant. any route i give is approved, unless it's a medevac, emergency, or military flying troops home (wrt safety, military a/s, etc.)
and i don't short cut stars or approaches with anyone unless requested by the person working that a/s.
also when giving a direct routing it's not an instruction or clearance but a request if the pilot wants it.
as in "direct YQX is available if you'd like it"
sometimes they don't depending on their slot time, jetstream, etc.

hope i keep my pay

[TC_Ukraine]

In Ukraine the first question asked by investigator in case of STCA, TCAS RA (caused by level bust), depressurisation, engine failure, etc is "Why an aircraft wasn't on its route?" The same thing happens when we have go-around after vectoring to final.
So the only time ukrainian controller gives shortcut is when he need to (for lateral separation) or when it`s requested by crew.
So hint to pilots: Don`t hesitate asking shortcuts while flying in Ukrainian airspace. Otherwise continue according to flight plan.

[ron83]

I would have simple answer . Why they shouldn't be if our job also includes to provide service efficiently? In my airspace,most of acfts always on directs

[45 before POL]

Personally i am all for direct routings. A lot of work and and research is going into this and new routes have been implemented(called fuel saver routes)with more routes to come. It all comes down to as long as we can maintain the 3 principles of "safe, orderly and expeditious" then its a service to the airlines we should provide when we can.Its a make and break world now with the airlines and have seen many go in the last few years. chipping away at the fuel cost , even for a few miles all adds up over the year. Figures have shown directs have saved some companies millions. Direct routings work well in the uk for a lot of overflights during the night and early morning....also at the weekend at certain times.Directs though when airspace is very busy or outside influences like military flying make this much more difficult can compromise this, staying on route is the best option allowing us to be more expeditious. if you all wanted direct then more of you will sit on the ground for 2 hours plus. We do try to endevour to give the most direct, but only on the 3 principles stated above. well thats my 5p worth. Note all sectors are different and some easier to get directs, other more complex with military interactions or no fly zones etc.

[5milesbaby]

45 before POL, I sat on the RAD review board this year held at Swanwick and witnessed at least 5 different airline representatives saying that although the night time saver routes were "quite good" it isn't what they really want and actually don't improve their planning. They wanted to use them only when they thought they had maximum benefit, and outside these circumstances, only use part or none of them and "free flight" through the sectors (saying they are unlikely to go direct!). I totally understand their argument too and am stunned if NATS got these routes implemented without any consultation! But it wouldn't surprise me

[45 before POL]

Not aware about the consultation just the implementation, but its not just UK airspace. These routes start from west of Ireland to the boundary with Maas. are just about to be extended futher and being implemented through Maas airspace this month. I agree that airlines have stated they need to be able to plan the routes. This way fuel upload can be accounted for, and this is the response to that. If directs are not what they want, then why do we get so many requests? Yes some do stay on planned routes if given direct, due timings, training etc..but the choice is better than none. flexibility, and providing the best service you can, to what essentially is the customers needs.