European Adherance Day?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BrATCO, doing some of the UK southern sectors I see alot of the games you boys and girls play, I know that a couple of aircraft we gave you were climbed above filed levels. A EGKK to LSZH was climbed to FL330 and an inbound to LFML I think was given a conditional clearance to FL270 level 20nm before ETRAT, transferred at FL310 not yet in descent, and the descent clearance was cancelled and the aircraft actually climbed FL330. There were a couple of others but I cannot remember the situations. We did laugh however when Paris demanded that an aircraft Brest had climbed was descended into their airspace to comply.
Your comment about the restriction limiting the London outbounds to FL330, I assume this is via LELNA/LORKU. We very rarely climb most of the London TMA departures above this anyway. The EGGW traffic sometimes is, but would never be when this restriction is in place, and the EGSS was exempt from the restriction. I know this because I was in for several days when that restriction was in and if there was a problem with us not complying, where is the paperwork about it???
Your comment about the restriction limiting the London outbounds to FL330, I assume this is via LELNA/LORKU. We very rarely climb most of the London TMA departures above this anyway. The EGGW traffic sometimes is, but would never be when this restriction is in place, and the EGSS was exempt from the restriction. I know this because I was in for several days when that restriction was in and if there was a problem with us not complying, where is the paperwork about it???
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 55
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Spandex Masher,
I'll take your question as "genuine"
.
Some facts have to be taken in acount.
The "briefing" we got about adherence days were nothing else than a sheet of paper telling us about the dates (29th and 30th). Our management didn't have time to explain us more than that as they were too busy checking us in...
We had no formal advice about the change in dates.
When we began the adherence days, we assumed directs could be used as we haden't find any reference in the CFMU informations.
We also discovered the papers we had to fill while (or just before) taking over the sectors.
I had read somewhere that we shouldn't ask for your requested level. And don't insist if you had to change this level. I imagine some may have made some minor "presentation" mistakes.
Those adherence days were ment for statistics. Controllers still had real traffic to deal with.
Generally speaking, "Say your requested level" doesn't exactly mean that we're able to give you the said level. That's only a way to anticipate and build a "strategy".
Back in time, when I was a trainee, one of my instructors told me : "Don't lose time in asking, just read the level written on the strip. It works 9 times out of 10." He was right.
Now, he would be wrong. A third (if not more) of the climbing ACFT can't make the level their Ops requested. Discovering this too late can result in a mess.
That's why we ask now on first contact, if the pilot doesn't mention first.
Please, don't ask us to change our phraseology SOPs just for 2 days.
Yes, we do, but sometimes, the RFL is weird. (Even level going south...). Oceanic traffic entering the transition area, the level we read is the oceanic clearance level. Usually, pilots want to change it.
Back to "flexibility", if the RFL is 370 or above, it doesn't change anything if the actual level is 390, 410, 430, 450, or above. The sectors will be the same.
The problem is not the same if RFL is 350 or 360.
Different again if it is between 290 and 340.
Depends on ACCs on the route between 250 and 280.
The same, but different below 240.
Some company(ies) are used to file 270 to avoid regulation, then ask 390... The flight is counted in one lower sectors, but will enter 3 sectors during climb and will enter unexpected sectors afterwards if we let go.
In order to keep the thing flexible, we can think about doing it. But that's a huge amount of over work for the co-ordinator ("planner"?) to check whether there are regulations on the route, ask if there will not be an overload, ask other sectors if they accept,...
Sometimes, a better level can be given.
At least, adherence days have the advantage that we talk about pros and cons of flow management.
I'll take your question as "genuine"
.
BrATCO, can you tell us why both the Brest sectors we spoke to the other day asked us, and many other flights, several times what our requested flight level was?
The "briefing" we got about adherence days were nothing else than a sheet of paper telling us about the dates (29th and 30th). Our management didn't have time to explain us more than that as they were too busy checking us in...
We had no formal advice about the change in dates.
When we began the adherence days, we assumed directs could be used as we haden't find any reference in the CFMU informations.
We also discovered the papers we had to fill while (or just before) taking over the sectors.
I had read somewhere that we shouldn't ask for your requested level. And don't insist if you had to change this level. I imagine some may have made some minor "presentation" mistakes.
Those adherence days were ment for statistics. Controllers still had real traffic to deal with.
Generally speaking, "Say your requested level" doesn't exactly mean that we're able to give you the said level. That's only a way to anticipate and build a "strategy".
Back in time, when I was a trainee, one of my instructors told me : "Don't lose time in asking, just read the level written on the strip. It works 9 times out of 10." He was right.
Now, he would be wrong. A third (if not more) of the climbing ACFT can't make the level their Ops requested. Discovering this too late can result in a mess.
That's why we ask now on first contact, if the pilot doesn't mention first.
Please, don't ask us to change our phraseology SOPs just for 2 days.
I know you know what my filed level is
Back to "flexibility", if the RFL is 370 or above, it doesn't change anything if the actual level is 390, 410, 430, 450, or above. The sectors will be the same.
The problem is not the same if RFL is 350 or 360.
Different again if it is between 290 and 340.
Depends on ACCs on the route between 250 and 280.
The same, but different below 240.
Some company(ies) are used to file 270 to avoid regulation, then ask 390... The flight is counted in one lower sectors, but will enter 3 sectors during climb and will enter unexpected sectors afterwards if we let go.
In order to keep the thing flexible, we can think about doing it. But that's a huge amount of over work for the co-ordinator ("planner"?) to check whether there are regulations on the route, ask if there will not be an overload, ask other sectors if they accept,...
Sometimes, a better level can be given.
At least, adherence days have the advantage that we talk about pros and cons of flow management.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 55
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5milesbaby,
Glad you have fun in watching us work ! Those new "East" sectors in Brest are kind of a big joke. I've been told that there's nothing in common with what was recommended by controllers during the think-tank...
My above post might have explained why some dest LSZH were climbed FL330.
The "box" around VEULE (FL265-285) makes that the flight is already counted in the lower "la Manche +" sector at FL270. If this sector is collapsed with the one after INPAX, then it's also counted in the same regulation.
Keeping the flight below FL335 makes that the flight will enter the same sector in Paris East (same "SLot Allocation Procedure", if there is one).
Changing the level from 270 to 330 just removes a flight in Paris West, doesn't change anything else. Doesn't even remove it, if the flight comes from below.
The only thing is that we have to make a co-ordination with 3 sectors. And we can't begin the co-ordination before we know the real requested level (first contact).
Wanting to help CFMU as much as possible, but we don't control statistics. We deal with real ACFT, burning real fuel.
The "FL270 max" restriction is a strategical protection in the LOA. As control is still a human activity, flexibility/improvements remain available in a tactical (co-ordination) context.
Sometimes, for destinations like LFBL (via SITET), on pilot's request, we can try and climb them up to FL330 (same sectors), but they have to be below FL190 before AMB, around 100NM later, from memory. This to avoid Paris then Bordeaux to deal with this flight to be opposite direction with the dest-Paris sequencings from the south.
If they want to climb then descend, if the traffic permits it, why not try it?
Now, this depends on the co-ordination, if Paris wants it lower, they have a good reason.
I could also complain/lough about some situations you send us sometimes. I won't.
Your control situation is not ours. You've got your reasons, we've got ours. I'm unable to work your sectors, your unable to work mine. That's why we need secured phone lines.
I don't know (care ?) about where the paperwork is.
When my supervisor came and told me there could be an overload, I answered him we seemed to be already in it. No time to say more then. I think my supervisor called yours. Maybe he made the paperwork.
I just waited for the traffic to ease a bit, handed it over to one of my colleagues and left to have my breakfast.
Glad you have fun in watching us work ! Those new "East" sectors in Brest are kind of a big joke. I've been told that there's nothing in common with what was recommended by controllers during the think-tank...
My above post might have explained why some dest LSZH were climbed FL330.
The "box" around VEULE (FL265-285) makes that the flight is already counted in the lower "la Manche +" sector at FL270. If this sector is collapsed with the one after INPAX, then it's also counted in the same regulation.
Keeping the flight below FL335 makes that the flight will enter the same sector in Paris East (same "SLot Allocation Procedure", if there is one).
Changing the level from 270 to 330 just removes a flight in Paris West, doesn't change anything else. Doesn't even remove it, if the flight comes from below.
The only thing is that we have to make a co-ordination with 3 sectors. And we can't begin the co-ordination before we know the real requested level (first contact).
Wanting to help CFMU as much as possible, but we don't control statistics. We deal with real ACFT, burning real fuel.
The "FL270 max" restriction is a strategical protection in the LOA. As control is still a human activity, flexibility/improvements remain available in a tactical (co-ordination) context.
Sometimes, for destinations like LFBL (via SITET), on pilot's request, we can try and climb them up to FL330 (same sectors), but they have to be below FL190 before AMB, around 100NM later, from memory. This to avoid Paris then Bordeaux to deal with this flight to be opposite direction with the dest-Paris sequencings from the south.
If they want to climb then descend, if the traffic permits it, why not try it?
Now, this depends on the co-ordination, if Paris wants it lower, they have a good reason.
I could also complain/lough about some situations you send us sometimes. I won't.
Your control situation is not ours. You've got your reasons, we've got ours. I'm unable to work your sectors, your unable to work mine. That's why we need secured phone lines.
I know this because I was in for several days when that restriction was in and if there was a problem with us not complying, where is the paperwork about it???
When my supervisor came and told me there could be an overload, I answered him we seemed to be already in it. No time to say more then. I think my supervisor called yours. Maybe he made the paperwork.
I just waited for the traffic to ease a bit, handed it over to one of my colleagues and left to have my breakfast.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@samotnik - what we need is totaly new way of thinking in ECAC region at least. cross-border sectorisation, technology which enables tactical planning of exit/enty FL coupled with flow managment and so on. SESAR is a way to it, but to my mind it is still way to modest, it should be much more proactive.
CFMU has information about every IFR flight (position/level), there are many things you can do with such info. or precise speed control via Datalink for sequencing, off-track routes etc. CFMU now operates with two main inputs, on which all the calculations are based - RFL and EOBT. Upon those two informations sector load is calculated. But as you know sector load is not same as traffic volume. I can easily handle 200% of our sector limit, but with condition that the workload is not high (i.e. no many vertical movements and crossing traffic). There is a lot of room for improvement in this matter, but burocratic thinking is only going to put lid on the stove, but in long term it will not solve the problem. It only helps us coping with traffic volumes.
@BrAtco - your way of thinking is in the right direction. If only one sector on the route is at its limits, RFL will not be accepted by CFMU and then SLOT is imposed. Airliners of course don't want to wait for too long on the airports and they re-fill the FPL with much lower RFL and level change on rote. But they don't know where the congestion is, CFMU knows. CFMU could be the source and initiater of level-changes on route to avoid congestion. And ATCO on the sector + flow manager should be involved in the tactical/strategical decision making about accepting/refusing the demand for overflight. Some sophisticated software could be at their disposal in order to help in deciding process. This of course means that ATCO's job will be more of managment than traffic separation as it is now.
CFMU has information about every IFR flight (position/level), there are many things you can do with such info. or precise speed control via Datalink for sequencing, off-track routes etc. CFMU now operates with two main inputs, on which all the calculations are based - RFL and EOBT. Upon those two informations sector load is calculated. But as you know sector load is not same as traffic volume. I can easily handle 200% of our sector limit, but with condition that the workload is not high (i.e. no many vertical movements and crossing traffic). There is a lot of room for improvement in this matter, but burocratic thinking is only going to put lid on the stove, but in long term it will not solve the problem. It only helps us coping with traffic volumes.
@BrAtco - your way of thinking is in the right direction. If only one sector on the route is at its limits, RFL will not be accepted by CFMU and then SLOT is imposed. Airliners of course don't want to wait for too long on the airports and they re-fill the FPL with much lower RFL and level change on rote. But they don't know where the congestion is, CFMU knows. CFMU could be the source and initiater of level-changes on route to avoid congestion. And ATCO on the sector + flow manager should be involved in the tactical/strategical decision making about accepting/refusing the demand for overflight. Some sophisticated software could be at their disposal in order to help in deciding process. This of course means that ATCO's job will be more of managment than traffic separation as it is now.
Time merchant
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@kontroler
"But they don't know where the congestion is",
They DO know where the congestion is, the reg i/d is contained in the slot message and the location is plotted on the map in the NOP, that's how they file levels to avoid these areas as you indicated!
"CFMU could be the source and initiater of level-changes on route to avoid congestion"
The CAMES project was designed to look at the feasibility of exactly such a procedure. It has since become referred to as STAM (short term ATFCM measures). I believe, ironically, one of the stumbling blocks is the legality of ATC changing the FPL to reflect the type of measures you describe!
"precise speed control via Datalink for sequencing"
They do this in the USA and I have proposed it for Europe. Politically it would be a complete nightmare to introduce but I firmly agree with you that it is an excellent way to regulate traffic. The US controllers speak very highly of it. It is done by some ACCs already, Munich for one in collaboration with Vienna. To be most effective it needs to be applied over long distances, in Europe that means over many states, so perfect for CFMU. It would take years to be accepted though and even longer to raise the money I suspect.
Politics is never far away from European ATFCM.
"But they don't know where the congestion is",
They DO know where the congestion is, the reg i/d is contained in the slot message and the location is plotted on the map in the NOP, that's how they file levels to avoid these areas as you indicated!
"CFMU could be the source and initiater of level-changes on route to avoid congestion"
The CAMES project was designed to look at the feasibility of exactly such a procedure. It has since become referred to as STAM (short term ATFCM measures). I believe, ironically, one of the stumbling blocks is the legality of ATC changing the FPL to reflect the type of measures you describe!
"precise speed control via Datalink for sequencing"
They do this in the USA and I have proposed it for Europe. Politically it would be a complete nightmare to introduce but I firmly agree with you that it is an excellent way to regulate traffic. The US controllers speak very highly of it. It is done by some ACCs already, Munich for one in collaboration with Vienna. To be most effective it needs to be applied over long distances, in Europe that means over many states, so perfect for CFMU. It would take years to be accepted though and even longer to raise the money I suspect.
Politics is never far away from European ATFCM.
Last edited by flowman; 3rd Oct 2010 at 14:43.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Lord Spandex Masher
The quick answer would have been that it was FLIGHT LEVEL adherence day so direct routes weren't even considered and there are many more working groups and meetings planned for that day!!
I must admit it did feel uncomfortable when someone asked for a higher level for optimal performance and I had to refuse it - but I think it is a sign of things to come
The quick answer would have been that it was FLIGHT LEVEL adherence day so direct routes weren't even considered and there are many more working groups and meetings planned for that day!!
I must admit it did feel uncomfortable when someone asked for a higher level for optimal performance and I had to refuse it - but I think it is a sign of things to come
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@flowman, thanks for extra info, and again you are right about politics and Eurocontrol. that's why an independent agency should have been established, away from any political influence. but we are light years from there... it is shame, that our "industry" lags so much behind the technological and operational advances in our age....in certain aspects we are still working as if there was only procedural service...
