OSL first to implement Point Merge System
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this "Point Merge System" absolutely guarantees the same villages and houses will always get hit by the traffic?
As houses are everywhere today it's gotta be someone.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this "Point Merge System" absolutely guarantees the same villages and houses will always get hit by the traffic?
We have seen some crews that dive down to the min alt restrictions on the procedure waaay out, and then birch and whine about having to fly level for so long. But, more and more crews get it right.
The biggest difference is perhaps the departures. For jet aircraft I think I'm right in saying that 99%, of all jet departures got unrestricted climb to cruise on the evening shift yesterday, and that is quite an improvement. (No SID/STAR crossings with level offs, as well as segregated arr/dep routings on the enroute sectors)
The few level offs that happened was due to controllers forgetting to give climb/change freq. in a timely fashion.
(Sorry Air France!)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to bring this back up.
These 'point merge' procedures absolutely miss the point. They aren't green, as most times I have visited Oslo recently I've burnt around 150kg more fuel than the old procedures, they don't conform to CDA principles as we have to meet altitude constraints that are plain mad (fly level segments at FL100), noise is increased at departure airports (greater flight plan fuel due 60nm odd longer arrival and a heavier aircraft means non optimum levels met)
I don't doubt that controller workload is less. If the arriving aircraft are nowhere near the airport then departing traffic is going to get continuous climb, but it doesn't make for a 'green' environment.
And CDFA principles aren't met, controllers pass no information on track miles to go on an RNAV arrival where FMC track miles mean nothing as you have no clue what is actually going to happen.
Sorry, if this is progress, I don't need it. Can we go back to the old Oslo, where you would be about 8nm abeam the field, turned in for a 10mile final from a CDFA. Now that is green and it is safer as it was predictable.
Rant over!
These 'point merge' procedures absolutely miss the point. They aren't green, as most times I have visited Oslo recently I've burnt around 150kg more fuel than the old procedures, they don't conform to CDA principles as we have to meet altitude constraints that are plain mad (fly level segments at FL100), noise is increased at departure airports (greater flight plan fuel due 60nm odd longer arrival and a heavier aircraft means non optimum levels met)
I don't doubt that controller workload is less. If the arriving aircraft are nowhere near the airport then departing traffic is going to get continuous climb, but it doesn't make for a 'green' environment.
And CDFA principles aren't met, controllers pass no information on track miles to go on an RNAV arrival where FMC track miles mean nothing as you have no clue what is actually going to happen.
Sorry, if this is progress, I don't need it. Can we go back to the old Oslo, where you would be about 8nm abeam the field, turned in for a 10mile final from a CDFA. Now that is green and it is safer as it was predictable.
Rant over!
The Dublin version looks pretty bad in terms of fuel burn too, surely someone did a simulation on fuel burn before going out to consultation? My "fag packet" estimate is about 100 kgs extra on each flight.
bb
bb
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cough...interesting point about the RNAV approach track distance. I thought that the FMC would be calculating the track distance if the RNAV procedure is programmed in, perhaps working out distance to the IAF plus the procedure length...is that not the case? Does the aircraft give you a track distance once you've been cleared direct to the IAF and thereafter for the RNAV approach?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we have any Oslo controllers that would be willing to comment on this? Would be intresting to hear if there are many positives sides to the new procedures behind the scopes or if it doesn't make any difference to you?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi NS...
The FMC track miles to go change with each alteration of flight plan, with the final vectors taking circa 7 miles off the FMC value, they can't be relied on. The argument then comes back that they should leave us on the RNAV arrival, but even those 7 miles save fuel so I wouldn't like to loose the opportunity of being more efficient. We spend so much time saving 5kg here, 15 kg there doing things like reduced flap approaches, uplifting a few kg less clean water to make the aircraft lighter that these procedures as far as I can see are a thoughtless waste.
I believe this 'point merge' could work efficiently, but it just isn't designed well at Oslo taking into account their traffic flow levels. To be 30nm abeam the field firing downwind in the wrong direction and no1 to land is mad
BTW, I have no beef with the controllers in OSL (they are good and very helpful), they are just implementing what they are given. I do have MAJOR problem with the folk who designed the system...
The FMC track miles to go change with each alteration of flight plan, with the final vectors taking circa 7 miles off the FMC value, they can't be relied on. The argument then comes back that they should leave us on the RNAV arrival, but even those 7 miles save fuel so I wouldn't like to loose the opportunity of being more efficient. We spend so much time saving 5kg here, 15 kg there doing things like reduced flap approaches, uplifting a few kg less clean water to make the aircraft lighter that these procedures as far as I can see are a thoughtless waste.
I believe this 'point merge' could work efficiently, but it just isn't designed well at Oslo taking into account their traffic flow levels. To be 30nm abeam the field firing downwind in the wrong direction and no1 to land is mad
BTW, I have no beef with the controllers in OSL (they are good and very helpful), they are just implementing what they are given. I do have MAJOR problem with the folk who designed the system...
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is supposedly an initiative of Eurocontrol.
Dublin is most likely next to get Point Merge. There appears to be doubts evident about efficiency in a post Point Merge world; we are promised increased safety, increased efficiency and an overall better system by being an enabler to CDAs (from FL90?).
Does anyone have any 'real' data about this?
With the new procedures comes new airspace, all of which are 'in train' and probably hard to stop now for Dublin, yet is it all for naught?
Dublin is most likely next to get Point Merge. There appears to be doubts evident about efficiency in a post Point Merge world; we are promised increased safety, increased efficiency and an overall better system by being an enabler to CDAs (from FL90?).
Does anyone have any 'real' data about this?
With the new procedures comes new airspace, all of which are 'in train' and probably hard to stop now for Dublin, yet is it all for naught?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vienna
Age: 60
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would be great to get some 'real information'. Not only the advertising leaflets and brochures.
As far as I hear NONE of the environmental goals for Oslo have been met so far and the joining distance needs to be moved closer to the field as well.
Is there anyone here who could confirm that?
Is the Dublin schedule taken to be serious or just Eurocontrol dissemination?
How are the (real) plans for DFS and Rome?
Thank you whoever to answer my questions!!
And by the way - Vienna is NOT doing simulations for implementation as mentioned by PointMergeArrival in a previous post.
As far as I hear NONE of the environmental goals for Oslo have been met so far and the joining distance needs to be moved closer to the field as well.
Is there anyone here who could confirm that?
Is the Dublin schedule taken to be serious or just Eurocontrol dissemination?
How are the (real) plans for DFS and Rome?
Thank you whoever to answer my questions!!
And by the way - Vienna is NOT doing simulations for implementation as mentioned by PointMergeArrival in a previous post.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: the dark side of the sun
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are the (real) plans for DFS and Rome?
In 2013 we will be ready for point merge in Roma, claims Enav (italian provider).
Lot of changes in Roma TMA are needed before.
Milano has big problems due to high radar minimas close to the Alps.
I don't think 2013 is a realistic estimate of start.
I share Cough's reservations about point merge.
The plan I've seen for my airfield has all arrivals passing abeam the field at 10 or 11000'. This represents an extra 10-15 miles for every arriving aircraft.
I've questioned the logic of this and been told the benefit of an extra 3000' of climb for the departure far outweighs the fuel burn of the extra track miles inbound and that is what the airlines want.
Have the airlines been told every arrival will have to fly an extra 10/15 miles?
The plan I've seen for my airfield has all arrivals passing abeam the field at 10 or 11000'. This represents an extra 10-15 miles for every arriving aircraft.
I've questioned the logic of this and been told the benefit of an extra 3000' of climb for the departure far outweighs the fuel burn of the extra track miles inbound and that is what the airlines want.
Have the airlines been told every arrival will have to fly an extra 10/15 miles?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del Prado, a little bit of mis information can spread lots of wrong rumours!!
PM is not definitely being introduced in the London TMA, its an idea thats all. A concept, along with other ideas that will be tested to hopefully improve capacity.
If you want any more info PM me.
PM is not definitely being introduced in the London TMA, its an idea thats all. A concept, along with other ideas that will be tested to hopefully improve capacity.
If you want any more info PM me.
Thread Starter
Point Merge info
So far Point Merge ha been implemented in Oslo, Dublin, Seoul, Lagos, Kuala Lumpur, Paris ACC, Canarias, Hannover and maybe some places I haven't picked up on. Ongoing simulations for Bangkok, Istanbul and more.
Send PM if you want more information.
Send PM if you want more information.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oslo is cracking for none PRnav equipped
The few times I have been in we are cutting 10 mins off flight times in our crappy TP.
A wee bit of fuel saved but not that much to be honest for us but..
Those jet boys must be pissing it out the back wanking round those radials.
I have been abeam a jet coming in and been landed and shut down offloaded and reloaded and asking for taxi before the 200 seater has been on the ground.
If your kidding yourself that is more fuel efficient etc your on drugs.
Its pissing fuel into the atmosphere.
I am all for it but I get vectors to a 8 mile final
The few times I have been in we are cutting 10 mins off flight times in our crappy TP.
A wee bit of fuel saved but not that much to be honest for us but..
Those jet boys must be pissing it out the back wanking round those radials.
I have been abeam a jet coming in and been landed and shut down offloaded and reloaded and asking for taxi before the 200 seater has been on the ground.
If your kidding yourself that is more fuel efficient etc your on drugs.
Its pissing fuel into the atmosphere.
I am all for it but I get vectors to a 8 mile final
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember one of my managers being al for 'point-merge', about 5 years ago.
The last time I saw him, i enquired how it was getting on?
It's sh*te Zooks, came the reply.
The last time I saw him, i enquired how it was getting on?
It's sh*te Zooks, came the reply.
Thread Starter
Mad_joke: sorry to say, but that is simply not true. Don't ever mistake the full STAR for what you will actually fly. Point Merge is linear holding, WHEN REQUIRED.
Just 'cause you fly an antique doesn't mean you arrive ahead of those who have invested in a modern fleet. If you want effiency you should see our curved approaches, rolling wings level at 2nm final. Only available for approved operators (that can fly to RNP AR standards).
So if you ever find yourself in a machine with GNSS and RF capability, then you might land ahead of other traffic without that capability. At OSL we adhere to best equipped, best served. Not the other way around.
Merry Christmas
Just 'cause you fly an antique doesn't mean you arrive ahead of those who have invested in a modern fleet. If you want effiency you should see our curved approaches, rolling wings level at 2nm final. Only available for approved operators (that can fly to RNP AR standards).
So if you ever find yourself in a machine with GNSS and RF capability, then you might land ahead of other traffic without that capability. At OSL we adhere to best equipped, best served. Not the other way around.
Merry Christmas