Radar Headings vs. Flight Planned Route
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CCF/tunnels in the sky got binned - absolutely no flexibility during weather avoiding & couldn't handle multiple inbounds to one airfield with varying speed differentials. However the current methods do have similarities & when we need, we have the ability TO USE RADAR HEADINGS to solve these kind of situations to ensure each aircraft is given the best possible service. By best possible service, I mean that with RADAR HEADINGS more aircraft can be given continuous climb & descents & also more "when ready"'s. As I have previously said, STAR's don't cater for multiple arrivals bunched together & airspace packs several STAR's together so we are very limited on solutions to guarantee safe passage.
Bomber H - to get a visit I'd start with whoever you fly for, see if they can arrange a visit on your behalf. Another way is to look out on PPRuNe late summer/early autumn & get involved with our winter TRUCE program where we always ask for cockpit crews to come advise us on our yearly emergency training. Finally, if you happen to know an ATCO, nag them to take you around - the experience will probably be far better than any of the other options as you get to see the real deal for a good length of time & soak it all in
Where are you based?
Bomber H - to get a visit I'd start with whoever you fly for, see if they can arrange a visit on your behalf. Another way is to look out on PPRuNe late summer/early autumn & get involved with our winter TRUCE program where we always ask for cockpit crews to come advise us on our yearly emergency training. Finally, if you happen to know an ATCO, nag them to take you around - the experience will probably be far better than any of the other options as you get to see the real deal for a good length of time & soak it all in
Where are you based?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: southampton
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunatley in the UK many routes are not separated from other, even by 3 miles so leaving adjacent aircraft on own nav is simply a no no as far as the powers that be are concerned.
PRNAV routes, we will be allowed to use as and trust as they have approved that track keeping etc is all up tothe required standards and aircraft can adhere to them. However....many of these routes even with much work on the design cannot ensure lateral sep. Its just too complicated to design allowing for the combinations of where aircraft want or need to route.
So i guess its "yep" more will be left on the route to follow without instruction but some will need to be vectored or suffer step climbs. By standardising the system (ie: you will stay at lower levels longer, less early climbs and no shortcuts) more traffic can be squeezed in, but when there is weather or emergencies to intervene is incredibly complex and difficult.
Progress or not? I think the jury is still out on that at the mo.
PRNAV routes, we will be allowed to use as and trust as they have approved that track keeping etc is all up tothe required standards and aircraft can adhere to them. However....many of these routes even with much work on the design cannot ensure lateral sep. Its just too complicated to design allowing for the combinations of where aircraft want or need to route.
So i guess its "yep" more will be left on the route to follow without instruction but some will need to be vectored or suffer step climbs. By standardising the system (ie: you will stay at lower levels longer, less early climbs and no shortcuts) more traffic can be squeezed in, but when there is weather or emergencies to intervene is incredibly complex and difficult.
Progress or not? I think the jury is still out on that at the mo.
