Radar Headings vs. Flight Planned Route
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Now then, this QNH business, inclusive with the departure ATIS:if we are underlining QNH readback as a safety issue then why do we not include it with the confirmation of the arrival ATIS?>>
Perhaps because within a few minutes you will be given the QNH on descent to an altitude.
There are laid down items which must be read-back. That's it.
As for the LAM arrivals, you do not comprehend - nor should you need to - the complexity of traffic in the London TMA. I'm sure that my ex-colleagues would love to simply issue a STAR to inbounds and then ignore them..... but what if you get a dozen arrivals all at once, or the varying descent rates, or variations in speed before SLPs, or climbing and descending traffic from/to other airfields, slow or fast overflights??
Hope your trip to Swanwick proves enjoyable. It might just blow your mind!!
Perhaps because within a few minutes you will be given the QNH on descent to an altitude.
There are laid down items which must be read-back. That's it.
As for the LAM arrivals, you do not comprehend - nor should you need to - the complexity of traffic in the London TMA. I'm sure that my ex-colleagues would love to simply issue a STAR to inbounds and then ignore them..... but what if you get a dozen arrivals all at once, or the varying descent rates, or variations in speed before SLPs, or climbing and descending traffic from/to other airfields, slow or fast overflights??
Hope your trip to Swanwick proves enjoyable. It might just blow your mind!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is interesting and quite sad.
Both this and the 'Tiring RTF' thread are partly due to the ATCO/pilot communities drifting apart, due to the geographical location of today's ATC units, and the pressures of business/modern life.
Many years ago at my local airport, pilot/controller forums were regularly arranged where ATCOs would meet commercial/private pilots for an evening and discuss, over beers, chilli and/or hotpot the mutual problems and misunderstandings of the day.
Attendances of 50-100 people were not uncommon at such events, which were usually sponsored by based airlines, the local flying clubs or GATCO.
Also pilot visits to ATC and ATC flight-deck trips appear to be less common, due in part to 9/11, but also due to corporate red tape. Accountants cannot quantify, and therefore do not understand the benefits of 'famil'.
- A shame.
Both this and the 'Tiring RTF' thread are partly due to the ATCO/pilot communities drifting apart, due to the geographical location of today's ATC units, and the pressures of business/modern life.
Many years ago at my local airport, pilot/controller forums were regularly arranged where ATCOs would meet commercial/private pilots for an evening and discuss, over beers, chilli and/or hotpot the mutual problems and misunderstandings of the day.
Attendances of 50-100 people were not uncommon at such events, which were usually sponsored by based airlines, the local flying clubs or GATCO.
Also pilot visits to ATC and ATC flight-deck trips appear to be less common, due in part to 9/11, but also due to corporate red tape. Accountants cannot quantify, and therefore do not understand the benefits of 'famil'.
- A shame.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be only a small portion of the flying community attending but NATS have been organising days where controllers and pilots alike attend for a day's "discussion". I found mine very useful - attended by AC, TC and LHR APP controllers with Virgin & BA captains & FO's as well as a couple of corporate jet guys (I forget their ranks). NATS have been running this for over 6 months now, I actually wish it could have been run over 3 days but at least one day was a start.
As for staying on the STAR's - impossible. Far too many tracks all on the same route for this to happen, vectors have to be used to provide 5nm laterally so descents can be given to both. If our colleagues over the waters could actually help by initiating streaming.......... But that would be ground breaking work that we've only been trying for 25 years to happen.........
As for staying on the STAR's - impossible. Far too many tracks all on the same route for this to happen, vectors have to be used to provide 5nm laterally so descents can be given to both. If our colleagues over the waters could actually help by initiating streaming.......... But that would be ground breaking work that we've only been trying for 25 years to happen.........
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilot response!!
i have to disagree with most of the ATC responses (duck!!)
The vectored deviations from arrivals from TOD into most UK airports are so predictable I almost get suckered into repeating "not what I hear, but what I expected to hear". It is the same deviation from the arrival day after day after day. The question is obvious, why not change the arrival to suit reality?
The 3nm separation has been done to death. It appears (argueably) not to be fully correct, however, it is highly rare to come within 3nm of another aircraft in London or anywhere for that matter. Therefore it is a moot point.
If controllers were given good quality achievable STARs to work with and streaming was half decent then we wouldn't be having this problem. There is an inherent weakness in the system which nobody is addressing.
My experience with this kind of problem......force people to deal with it and let it expose the problems....and eventually the intelligent with step forward with resolutions. For example, run a trial, in slightly less busy airpspace, where ATC's are forced to give STARs where possible and patiently watch. For god's sake.....aren't STARs there to REDUCE workload. We really have gone the full circle on this. It's time for a fundemental revisit.
Thanks to the original poster for asking what seems to be an innocent question, but actually questions the fundemental functionality of SIDs and STARs
The vectored deviations from arrivals from TOD into most UK airports are so predictable I almost get suckered into repeating "not what I hear, but what I expected to hear". It is the same deviation from the arrival day after day after day. The question is obvious, why not change the arrival to suit reality?
The 3nm separation has been done to death. It appears (argueably) not to be fully correct, however, it is highly rare to come within 3nm of another aircraft in London or anywhere for that matter. Therefore it is a moot point.
If controllers were given good quality achievable STARs to work with and streaming was half decent then we wouldn't be having this problem. There is an inherent weakness in the system which nobody is addressing.
My experience with this kind of problem......force people to deal with it and let it expose the problems....and eventually the intelligent with step forward with resolutions. For example, run a trial, in slightly less busy airpspace, where ATC's are forced to give STARs where possible and patiently watch. For god's sake.....aren't STARs there to REDUCE workload. We really have gone the full circle on this. It's time for a fundemental revisit.
Thanks to the original poster for asking what seems to be an innocent question, but actually questions the fundemental functionality of SIDs and STARs
Spink Pots
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The London TMA is an old design which hasn't changed much since everythign revolved around Heathrow. The airspace hasn't changed to accommodate the relatively massive increase in traffic from Stansted, Luton, Gatwick, Birmingham, Northolt, London City, Southend, Oxford, Cranfield etc.....
I also disagree with the 3nm argument to a certain degree. Yes, when dispensing with vertical separation when two aircraft are 3nm apart, it is more often than not necessary to have them on headings in the UK. That's how we are trained. If someone makes a habit of not using headings on aircraft which are 3nm apart, they could very well lose their validation. This is a given but as has been said, headings are often used when there are no aircraft apparently in the vicinity. (Remember though, TCAS is rubbish in the horizontal plane and is not a substitute for radar). The reason for this is positioning.
From a personal perspective, most aircraft I work are placed on headings for positioning to the next sector to prevent conflictions further up the line, and not for separation. For example, all the northbound traffic from the TMA is is usually ordered geographically for it's desitnation within 30nm of departure.
Take for example a Heathrow WOBUN departure going to Aberdeen and a Stansted BUZAD departure going to Belfast. A good controller will endeavour to position the Heathrow departure to the east of the Stansted departure before around FL140. That requires "harsh" headings which take the aircraft quite a bit from the SID route but it solves many conflictions further up the line and makes things easier for the subsequent sectors. It also makes giving continuous climb easier.
This is the result of ancient airspace design. A new design is on the drawing board but it is currently posing a lot of problems and it may well be some time before it is implemented. In the meantime we have to suck it up and do our best with what we have.
We don't take you off the SID to make life harder for the flight crew, we do it to provide the best service we can to all aircraft in our airspace.
I also disagree with the 3nm argument to a certain degree. Yes, when dispensing with vertical separation when two aircraft are 3nm apart, it is more often than not necessary to have them on headings in the UK. That's how we are trained. If someone makes a habit of not using headings on aircraft which are 3nm apart, they could very well lose their validation. This is a given but as has been said, headings are often used when there are no aircraft apparently in the vicinity. (Remember though, TCAS is rubbish in the horizontal plane and is not a substitute for radar). The reason for this is positioning.
From a personal perspective, most aircraft I work are placed on headings for positioning to the next sector to prevent conflictions further up the line, and not for separation. For example, all the northbound traffic from the TMA is is usually ordered geographically for it's desitnation within 30nm of departure.
Take for example a Heathrow WOBUN departure going to Aberdeen and a Stansted BUZAD departure going to Belfast. A good controller will endeavour to position the Heathrow departure to the east of the Stansted departure before around FL140. That requires "harsh" headings which take the aircraft quite a bit from the SID route but it solves many conflictions further up the line and makes things easier for the subsequent sectors. It also makes giving continuous climb easier.
This is the result of ancient airspace design. A new design is on the drawing board but it is currently posing a lot of problems and it may well be some time before it is implemented. In the meantime we have to suck it up and do our best with what we have.
We don't take you off the SID to make life harder for the flight crew, we do it to provide the best service we can to all aircraft in our airspace.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scuzi....we speak the same language.....
but I ask you think bigger......the reason that a clever person came up with SID's n STARs 50 years ago, is to reduce the same ATC patter over and over again. In London today we have, guess what, the same ATC patter over and over again, but it's headings.
You give a good example of aircraft seperation up the line. But, I say design SID's to take care of it.....make them SID A or SID B. Think outside the box, make SID's dynamic. Change from type A to type B depending on separation. Just a wild example, but something needs to be addressed. I don't know how to fix it, but guess what, it's somebody's job. He/she is paid a sh1t load of money to manage, and it's ignored. For me thats a sackable offence. If i was in charge there would have been change a long time ago.
Personally, i think heads should roll over the 'outdated airspace' issue in London. What do ATCO's think?
but I ask you think bigger......the reason that a clever person came up with SID's n STARs 50 years ago, is to reduce the same ATC patter over and over again. In London today we have, guess what, the same ATC patter over and over again, but it's headings.
You give a good example of aircraft seperation up the line. But, I say design SID's to take care of it.....make them SID A or SID B. Think outside the box, make SID's dynamic. Change from type A to type B depending on separation. Just a wild example, but something needs to be addressed. I don't know how to fix it, but guess what, it's somebody's job. He/she is paid a sh1t load of money to manage, and it's ignored. For me thats a sackable offence. If i was in charge there would have been change a long time ago.
Personally, i think heads should roll over the 'outdated airspace' issue in London. What do ATCO's think?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<it is highly rare to come within 3nm of another aircraft in London or anywhere for that matter.>>
Well, Bomber Harris, you have obviously never seen an ATC radar in all your life! Presumably one of thosse flying types who believes that he is the only one in the air? I'm not being rude - it is just abundantly obvious. I showed a friend of mine round London Approach, long before it got really busy. He was a fairly senior BA captain. He went away visibly shaken at how close we were directing aircraft.
In the LTMA, and especially in the approach sectors, aircraft get to within 3nm all day, every day, 365 days a year. Why not spend a few hours at Swanwick and see the real world?
Of course the LTMA is not perfect, but how many TMAs are? I've worked overseas where there was no approach radar and everything was procedural. It was a screaming nightmare. Given the very small amount of room there is to play with, LTMA does a pretty fine job.
Well, Bomber Harris, you have obviously never seen an ATC radar in all your life! Presumably one of thosse flying types who believes that he is the only one in the air? I'm not being rude - it is just abundantly obvious. I showed a friend of mine round London Approach, long before it got really busy. He was a fairly senior BA captain. He went away visibly shaken at how close we were directing aircraft.
In the LTMA, and especially in the approach sectors, aircraft get to within 3nm all day, every day, 365 days a year. Why not spend a few hours at Swanwick and see the real world?
Of course the LTMA is not perfect, but how many TMAs are? I've worked overseas where there was no approach radar and everything was procedural. It was a screaming nightmare. Given the very small amount of room there is to play with, LTMA does a pretty fine job.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one benefit of putting you on headings rather than keeping you on the SID is that you get climbed quicker. All the SID routes are level separated against each other 
but it would mean you being held down at 3,4,5,6 thousand feet for much much longer.
Is it really much more work load for you to a fly a heading instead of following the route?
but it would mean you being held down at 3,4,5,6 thousand feet for much much longer. Is it really much more work load for you to a fly a heading instead of following the route?
Spink Pots
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bomber Harris,
A new airspace design along with a new set of PRNAV SIDs and STARs, extra holding patterns and routes has been on the drawing board for years and still is. It's not something that can be implemented overnight and if the owners of stud farms and stables get their way, it will continue to be on the drawing board for the forseeable future!
A new airspace design along with a new set of PRNAV SIDs and STARs, extra holding patterns and routes has been on the drawing board for years and still is. It's not something that can be implemented overnight and if the owners of stud farms and stables get their way, it will continue to be on the drawing board for the forseeable future!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: hong kong
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmmm, again!
Personally, I don't have any problems with headings, certainly after the initial segment of the SID has been flown in NAV. Frequently it means early hi speeds and higher levels, early on in the piece, which means generally, on my routes, being handed over to Maaaaarstricht(sp) at initial cruise level and then getting a humungous direct CDA.
For the Bus, popping out of NAV and into OPEN DESC etc is no big deal in the descent, more of an irritation really, since it appears we just mirror the SID, give or take a mile...LHR DIRECTOR..I have assimilated your comments and will comply btw, but after a 14 hr sector, in ice and a TCAS RA, its slightly more comforting to remain in NAV!!!
ATC visits: hows about a dedicated day per month for an open visit to Swanwick???
For the Bus, popping out of NAV and into OPEN DESC etc is no big deal in the descent, more of an irritation really, since it appears we just mirror the SID, give or take a mile...LHR DIRECTOR..I have assimilated your comments and will comply btw, but after a 14 hr sector, in ice and a TCAS RA, its slightly more comforting to remain in NAV!!!
ATC visits: hows about a dedicated day per month for an open visit to Swanwick???
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 62
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5milesbaby
If our colleagues over the waters could actually help by initiating streaming.......... But that would be ground breaking work that we've only been trying for 25 years to happen......
At least from the West...if its any easier, you can give me all the airspace to NUMPO and we can stream the STU and EVRIN guys for you
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been touched on above, all of us who work in UK ATC know the deficiencies of the airspace we work in, and there are lots of plans for RNP route etc etc, however, to change a published route by a fraction of a mile legally requires so much consultation and environmental enquiry that the timescales seem to be measured in decades. Much of the London TMA ATC 'system' is designed around the major airports' SIDs, and these are in turn predicated on Minimum Noise Routes close in to those airports.
I'd love to be able to sit in Air Deps and allocate dynamic low- and high-performance RNAV SIDs out on tracks diverging by 40 degrees to give a minimum 50 per hour departure rate, just as the guys doing Clacton would love to be able to give you a 4D RNAV route from the FIR boundary to the hold fix, then Director to give you an RNP0.1 track CDA to an 8nm final but that isn't going to happen with the current requirements for airspace change and the modern environmental sensitivities.
5milesbaby, are there any tower controllers involved in these days?
I'd love to be able to sit in Air Deps and allocate dynamic low- and high-performance RNAV SIDs out on tracks diverging by 40 degrees to give a minimum 50 per hour departure rate, just as the guys doing Clacton would love to be able to give you a 4D RNAV route from the FIR boundary to the hold fix, then Director to give you an RNP0.1 track CDA to an 8nm final but that isn't going to happen with the current requirements for airspace change and the modern environmental sensitivities.
5milesbaby, are there any tower controllers involved in these days?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: .
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be only a small portion of the flying community attending but NATS have been organising days where controllers and pilots alike attend for a day's "discussion". I found mine very useful - attended by AC, TC and LHR APP controllers with Virgin & BA captains & FO's as well as a couple of corporate jet guys (I forget their ranks). NATS have been running this for over 6 months now, I actually wish it could have been run over 3 days but at least one day was a start.
5milesbaby, are there any tower controllers involved in these days?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo, not that I know of. As great as NATS has been in organising these days, they have probably then frustrated those that do not work in Swanwick. That said, the day is on a quick agenda & having a 3rd discipline in the room could have possibly disrupted the flow. I would highly recommend nagging your next in line & trying to get something sorted out down at LHR with base crews involved & try get some approach bods down too.
DD, Arkady - yup, talking about traffic from due south being delivered from three different agencies to two inbound London sectors. 2, 3 or even 4 allowed to merge at the point of transfer without a hint of speed control applied or even the decency to actually transfer the aircraft early so we could initiate streaming ourselves. Year in year out we call them, get something initiated only to find out the speed was given on transfer half the time. Useless. It's almost like they are shocked when we ask sometimes like its something new or out of the ordinary. Ops are continuously trying & we may actually get somewhere later in the year but still not near ideal.
Bomber Harris, if I get your suggestion correctly then you are sort of saying we need to expand the STARs and say introduce lanes like a motorway, and then we tell you to either fly the inside, middle or outside lane on first contact? First problem, space. There is no where enough airspace to cope with that. The second problem is what do you put in your FMS on departure? Is the FMS dynamic enough to be easily programmed at TOD for either of the 3 routes on offer? Another reason for aircraft to be put onto headings is taking an example of flying into LHR & LGW from the south via the OCK4B & WLO4C. Due to all the other tracks of traffic & the danger areas surrounding them, these routes are the same up until KATHY where they diverge by about 10 to 15 degs. Both have a standing agreed level of FL130, one at GWC and one at HAZEL - only 10nm apart. If controllers have two a/c together, one into each airfield (quite common), they will be wanting to transfer a/c to the next frequency as soon as possible after KATHY so the ONLY way to do this is put them on headings, the LHR pointed at HAZEL & the LGW positioned about 7nm south of it, usually on the same heading. The LHR will follow its route within 3nm by doing this but the heading is crucial against the LGW. We cannot have different routes for LHR & LGW, and we also cannot have 2 routes for LHR for when a bunch arrive together. Getting streaming initiated far earlier (ie halfway over France) would be beneficial for London ACC & for you to avoid excessive headings, however, with the varying types of aircraft now around coupled with the huge variance on the way individual PILOTS let alone Operators fly similar types, this still wouldn't solve enough. Finally, PLEASE get down to a centre and see how its done these days & hopefully we'll blow your mind just like we do most other pilots who come to visit and leave saying "I had no idea..."
DD, Arkady - yup, talking about traffic from due south being delivered from three different agencies to two inbound London sectors. 2, 3 or even 4 allowed to merge at the point of transfer without a hint of speed control applied or even the decency to actually transfer the aircraft early so we could initiate streaming ourselves. Year in year out we call them, get something initiated only to find out the speed was given on transfer half the time. Useless. It's almost like they are shocked when we ask sometimes like its something new or out of the ordinary. Ops are continuously trying & we may actually get somewhere later in the year but still not near ideal.
Bomber Harris, if I get your suggestion correctly then you are sort of saying we need to expand the STARs and say introduce lanes like a motorway, and then we tell you to either fly the inside, middle or outside lane on first contact? First problem, space. There is no where enough airspace to cope with that. The second problem is what do you put in your FMS on departure? Is the FMS dynamic enough to be easily programmed at TOD for either of the 3 routes on offer? Another reason for aircraft to be put onto headings is taking an example of flying into LHR & LGW from the south via the OCK4B & WLO4C. Due to all the other tracks of traffic & the danger areas surrounding them, these routes are the same up until KATHY where they diverge by about 10 to 15 degs. Both have a standing agreed level of FL130, one at GWC and one at HAZEL - only 10nm apart. If controllers have two a/c together, one into each airfield (quite common), they will be wanting to transfer a/c to the next frequency as soon as possible after KATHY so the ONLY way to do this is put them on headings, the LHR pointed at HAZEL & the LGW positioned about 7nm south of it, usually on the same heading. The LHR will follow its route within 3nm by doing this but the heading is crucial against the LGW. We cannot have different routes for LHR & LGW, and we also cannot have 2 routes for LHR for when a bunch arrive together. Getting streaming initiated far earlier (ie halfway over France) would be beneficial for London ACC & for you to avoid excessive headings, however, with the varying types of aircraft now around coupled with the huge variance on the way individual PILOTS let alone Operators fly similar types, this still wouldn't solve enough. Finally, PLEASE get down to a centre and see how its done these days & hopefully we'll blow your mind just like we do most other pilots who come to visit and leave saying "I had no idea..."
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heathrow director...you made some factual mistakes. You said you were not being rude. Well....you were. Stating that I think I am the only one up there is obviously incorrect...and rude. But you are right that I have not been to a 'busy' radar (being correct doesn't give you the right to be rude though)
5miles thanks for the answer. what i was really getting at is the fact that i am able to predict headings and clearances which differ from the stars. if i am told the same thing day after day, why dont they make stars fit what the controllers are doing? surely that would eliminate a lot of air time. how do i go about going to see a centre?
scuzi, i have seen some of the new PRNAV stars. do you think that we will actually be allowed to fly them or will we still be on headings?
5miles thanks for the answer. what i was really getting at is the fact that i am able to predict headings and clearances which differ from the stars. if i am told the same thing day after day, why dont they make stars fit what the controllers are doing? surely that would eliminate a lot of air time. how do i go about going to see a centre?
scuzi, i have seen some of the new PRNAV stars. do you think that we will actually be allowed to fly them or will we still be on headings?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<You said you were not being rude. Well....you were. Stating that I think I am the only one up there is obviously incorrect...and rude.>>
Not intentional, old boy; never been intentionally rude to anyone in my life, but I could learn!!
Keep taking the tablets... they worked for me.
Not intentional, old boy; never been intentionally rude to anyone in my life, but I could learn!!
Keep taking the tablets... they worked for me.
