Airfield departure times

[splitduty]

Guys,
Thanks for all the replies. I understand all the possible reasons why our Spanish friends might behave the way they do - but that is not good enough.
I need to know with what authority they act the way they do. Can a Spanish controller please advise where it is written that no aircraft can depart before its FPL time? Where are your operating procedures coming from? Are you complying with them and if not, why not?

[aldegar]

I'm a radar ATCO. The rules have changed many times lately and I'm tired of rereading all the changes so I tend to overlook the aerodrome parts and focus on what I really need to know (APP and en route), so I won't answer your question.

However, so that you get an idea of AENA's attitude, when I came to work last monday there was a new sheet of paper in the APP position titled "Report of non-compliance with the SID procedures of Spain's AIP for LExx". It must be filled EVERY time an aircraft doesn't fly the full SID and at the end of the day it must be attached to the superviser's daily report folder.
We must write the time, call sign, reason (only four possible reasons to select: traffic separation, meteorology, navaids calibration and air works, no option for the "we're running a bit late, any direct available?") and comments.

So I wouldn't be surprised if my twr colleagues are also being forced to fill a similar paper everytime an aircraft doesnt comply with the exact departure time or CTOT.

So yes, we are working to rule... forced by the company to do so and being called to the office if we don't.

[fireflybob]

aldegar, that's interesting and thanks for the information.

As professional aviators and controllers our lives seem to be plagued by more and more bureaucratic nonsense, more often than not spewed out by someone in the EU.

Roll on the Revolution - Orwell must be looking down on us and laughing or maybe even weeping.

[splitduty]

Aldegar,
I thank you as well for your reply.
What is now required is a similar response from one of your ADC controllers confirming that they act in accordance with the rules when they delay departures in similar circumstances to the situation I was in.
Anybody?

[CancelIFR]

You "gents" do know that the UK AIP does not apply in Spain? check the spanish one, its all in there. One has never been able to depart before their EOBT in Spain as long as ive flown there.

[splitduty]

CancelIFR,
I have spent ages trawling through the Spanish AIP! I can`t find it. I need the reference. My very first post said `I need to be educated`. I still do.
But nobody seems able to give me the refernce!.

[aldegar]

splitduty,

I worked in a twr from 2000 to 2008. Back then we had an internal document from our regional flow office (which management posted all around the twr) stating two things: The first one, that if there is no departure sequence all acft must depart at the exact CTOT time (can't make use of the -5/+10). The second one, that no acft can depart before the EOBT time, the explanation given for that was that the taxi time couldn't have a negative value. I don't remember if there was anything about it in the spanish AIP.

But I still haven't answered your question, because as I said before I'm not updated, I'm just telling how things were before but changes have been going on.

[radarman]

splitduty,

I'm still trying to wade through some Spanish legal documents posted on another thread. It's heavy going, but as far as I can make out Spanish controllers are now hung out to dry by AENA for any action or decision they make that results in an irregularity of any sort. This is regardless of whether the incident happens in their airspace or further along the line. So let's imagine the controller who made you wait had been a good egg and cleared you for take off when you arrived at the holding point. You are now 7 minutes early. So some time later you arrive at a very busy sector boundary 7 minutes before they are expecting you and this contributes to an overload. When complaints are made AENA trace your flight and find you departed early. Who gets shafted for causing the overload? Under the new rules it's the poor Spanish controller who generously allowed you to depart before schedule. As BrATCO said, CFMU calculations are based on FPL departure times. Depart early or late and these calculations (and all other flights) get screwed. So the only way for Spanish controllers to safeguard their jobs is to take every conceivable action to ensure their @rses are covered, even if this means inconveniencing flights under their control. There is probably no particular Spanish regulation saying you can't depart before your FPL dep time, just the controller worried there could be a come-back if he let you go early. Making you wait till 1200 made sure he cleared his backside and kept his job.

[splitduty]

Aldegar,
Interesting. Do you think that Spanish tower controllers are still complying with outdated rules. If they are then they are not complying - and I thought complicity is what they demand.

Radarman,
I have been expecting this excuse from somebody at some time.
If I had been subject to a CTOT, I could accept your argument. However, I was on an UNREGULATED flight. If, indeed, there was a problem with overloads further down the line I would expect to be issued with a CTOT. Is that not the whole point of flow control? So I cannot accept your reasoning.
Other countries do not appear to have a problem with unregulated aircraft departing before FPL time.
So, I am left thinking:_
1) Are the Spanish complying with some rule that nobody else needs to comply?
or
2) Are standards so low they do not understand what they are doing?
or
3) Are they simply being bloody minded and deliberately trying to disrupt flights, costing operators time and money?

Which ever way you look at it, seems like non compliance to me!

[10W]

CFMU Handbook

5.1.4. EOBT Requirements
It is a requirement for both ATC and ATFCM, that the EOBT of a flight shall be an accurate EOBT. This applies to all flights, whether subject to a flow management regulation or not.

Any change to the EOBT of more than 15 minutes for any IFR flight within the FPM distribution area shall be communicated to the IFPS.

Therefore I read that as no requirement to file a DLA or CHG message with IFPS (and thus CFMU) if you are +/-15 minutes from EOBT. Outwith the 15 minutes, or if you have a slot, then you do have to make the changes known as per the CFMU Handbook. However, it does not directly mention whether the CTOT has a similar tolerance.

4.4.3. Slot Revisions

Revisions to CTOTs should, where possible, be coordinated between the AO and the CFMU using the ATFM message exchange procedures. However, it may be the case that last minute revisions to CTOTs and slot extensions when the pilot is in direct communication with ATC, are more easily or efficiently coordinated with the FMP/CFMU by ATC.

Now, this is something which can be used and is a CFMU 'rule', so it will keep the Spanish happy. The aircraft is allowed to taxy 15 up to minutes early (with no slot) as per 5.1.4 above. ATC should therefore be able to work out how early the aircraft might be able to depart and can 'easily or efficiently' co-ordinate this with FMP/CFMU. Simple. You make a call and then the Flow people give you the 'permission' you need to let the flight go early. Everyone is in the loop, especially in the wider ATCFM sphere, and the pilot is happy. It's called providing a service. AENA, the Government, and anyone else with an axe to grind can't do anything against the ATC controller. He has complied with the European wide procedures. If Spain (AENA or the Government) don't want to abide by the European procedures laid down, then don't bother to be part of the CFMU system. Sort it out yourselves. That would of course be a very backward step, but if you're in the game, you should play by the rules which are available to you in order to provide the best and most efficient service to your CUSTOMERS.

[Akhorahil]

Flight plan adherence:

Why a campaign and even a trial ?

When investigating those occurrences described earlier, it is found in most cases that the additional flights entered the concerned sector as a result of: ul.firstlevelbulletlist, ul.secondlevelbulletlist {list-style-image:url(/gallery/design/content/square02.gif);} .firstlevelbulletlist {padding-left: 30px} .secondlevelbulletlist {padding-left: 20px}

• not flying at the initial requested flight level (RFL); or,
• departing at times different from the original estimated off block time (EOBT) or calculated take off time (CTOT); or,
• arriving in the sector earlier or later than originally planned; or,
• deviating from their original planned route; often direct routeing (DCT).

You can see the rest of the info in Eurocontrol website:
EUROCONTROL - Flight Plan & ATFCM Adherence

So the departing time should be as acurate as possible. And the exact time is the most accurate possible!

[splitduty]

10W,
My understanding of the situation exactly. Just need clarity on what time I can get airborne.

Akhorahill,
You still do not understand the situation. Let me put it in a practical situation for you.
1) A CTOT flight must be airborne within -5 to +10 of the slot . No problem.
I understand and am happy to comply with that
2) An UNREGULATED flight can TAXI + or - 15 mins from FPL time. As I am sure you are aware taxi times at most airfields vary. EG.Malaga. Taxying for RW13 takes far longer than taxying for RW31 from the GAT. So I comply with the rules and am off blocks 15 mins early. Taxi time is short and I arrive at the holding point 5 mins later ready to depart. There are no other aircraft around, I have NO CTOT, I am an UNREGULAED flight - so why does the Spanish ATCO appear to take great delight in making me wait another10 minutes for departure. It would not happen anywhere else in our European CFMU region, so why in Spain? That is the simple question I asked many posts ago and nobody can give me a simple and definitive answer. OVER!

[BrATCO]

Splitduty,

so why in Spain?

There could be no purely-technical reason for your departure "on time" from Spain, but you might find a part of the answer here :
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/459...ml#post6667292

Not sure they take any delight...

[radarman]

10W,

If Spain (AENA or the Government) don't want to abide by the European procedures laid down, then don't bother to be part of the CFMU system.

Can't fault your impeccable NW European logic, but it doesn't apply much when you get south of Paris. Unfortunately Spain, along with some other Mediterranean characters, sees compliance with international regulations as optional. Very nice to have the rules to hide behind when they suit you, but otherwise ignore. There are pages of commercial and business EU regulations which we Brits slavishly follow, only to see our fellow Europeans shrug and carry on doing things their own way. Same applies to aviation unfortunately. Seems to be directly proportional to the amount of garlic and olive oil in the local cuisine.

[10W]

So the departing time should be as acurate as possible. And the exact time is the most accurate possible!

Yes, it should be as accurate as possible. So Spanish controllers should be picking up the phone and organising improvements with FMP/CFMU when they can. The flight can then depart early and CFMU has an accurate 'revised' CTOT. If your workload permits, why wouldn't you ? Or maybe your management can't read and understand the simple procedures in the CFMU Handbook ?

And I don't buy an excuse that a 'Royal Decree' won't let me comply with CFMU rules. If the 'Royal Decree' tells you to disregard what is published for the CFMU Region, then Eurocontrol and the European Parliament needs to start taking serious action against the Spanish Government or AENA. Perhaps withholding Route Charges for a period might be appropriate until the apparent Spanish non-compliance is dealt with ? Or Spanish Controllers can be proud of their profession and hold up the CFMU Handbook in front of their management and ask why they are not allowed to comply with the rules which are published ?

Let's also be clear about capacity in the system. There is approximately 30% more capacity available than the declared Traffic Volume. That is there to allow for emergencies and other contingencies, as well as to cater for the fact that traffic delivery is not an exact science. Even when a volume is regulated, the aircraft entering it can (simply by the rules of the system) be anywhere within a 15 minute 'slot' around the calculated time of sector entry and this is deemed acceptable by the system. Unregulated traffic should therefore be expected under the same criteria. Until we get precise 4D flight management, in the ground and the air, that's the way it has to be.

[bookworm]

Therefore I read that as no requirement to file a DLA or CHG message with IFPS (and thus CFMU) if you are +/-15 minutes from EOBT. Outwith the 15 minutes, or if you have a slot, then you do have to make the changes known as per the CFMU Handbook. However, it does not directly mention whether the CTOT has a similar tolerance.

Can we just be clear on this? If the reason for your being 15 mins or more later than EOBT is a CFMU imposed slot, you don't need to send a DLA message. If that slot is subsequently cancelled, leaving you unable to get off blocks within 15 mins of the original EOBT, then you do need to send a DLA.

[Daermon ATC]

Hadn't seen this thread before

First of all, spanish regulation regarding departure times is exactly the same as in civilized Europe (that is ETOT +/- 15) ... since aproximately two months.

Don't nail me on the exact date but around the last week of June there was a norm stating that in Spain no aircraft could be airborne before its EOBT.

As an example, if you are in an airport with 5 min taxitime and you filed ETOT at 1200 then in Spain you could not have been airborne before 1155. In the rest of Europe and nowadays also in Spain the earliest airborne would be 1145.

From a strictly normative point of view the ATCO did therefore not act correctly.

The above is probably the sentence you wanted to read and I must stand to it but would like to offer 2 caveats:
1) As Heathrow Director already said, there could be other reasons for the delay.
I do not know the specifics about the airport where you had this issue, perhaps it is customary in order to avoid conflict with whatever other issue... nevertheless I take from your posts that you already questioned the ATCO to verify that.

2) ATC situation in Spain is not what it should be, not by a long way. Do you know how I was informed of that regulation change? By an RYR pilot who also was not precisely happy to have his departure delayed.
We had recieved about 2 months earlier an internal memo from AENA in which the change of procedure was mentioned, but it did not include any fixed date and in any case we took it as yet another internal change. Since there was a written norm stating otherwise we asked for clarification stating that obviously between a company norm and spanish law we would follow the latter.
Never heard again of that untill that conversation with the pilot and afterwards it took me about an hour to get confirmation of that change.

Does this excuse the delay you suffered? Not really but it does offer explanation on how this deficiences in service may arise... other than the controller simply trying to overcompensate an acute inferiority complex.

Let me apologize on his/her behalf and in any case I would ask you for some patience. If this should happen again I kindly ask you to ask precisely why you are being delayed and to inform the atco if the explanation offered does not apply to you ... prefereably not on the main frequency. It will probably not help you but might be of value to the next flights when the atco has time to reflect on what you said.

[Sonnendec]

Yes, it should be as accurate as possible. So Spanish controllers should be picking up the phone and organising improvements with FMP/CFMU when they can. The flight can then depart early and CFMU has an accurate 'revised' CTOT. If your workload permits, why wouldn't you ?

And we try to do so, but AENA has taken away even that. All the flow management decisions are now taken in an office in Madrid, and not in the Ops Room. Surprised?

And I don't buy an excuse that a 'Royal Decree' won't let me comply with CFMU rules. If the 'Royal Decree' tells you to disregard what is published for the CFMU Region, then Eurocontrol and the European Parliament needs to start taking serious action against the Spanish Government or AENA.

Thatīs in its way already. About two months ago two spanish controllers were in the EU PETI Comission to speak for us about the situation in Spain. They took note and submitted the issue to the EU Parliament for an investigation. But the EU is slow, and we (and you) have to deal with this everyday.

Perhaps withholding Route Charges for a period might be appropriate until the apparent Spanish non-compliance is dealt with ?

I definetely would vote for you.

Or Spanish Controllers can be proud of their profession and hold up the CFMU Handbook in front of their management and ask why they are not allowed to comply with the rules which are published ?

We do that almost everyday with no effect. Any other suggestion?

Let's also be clear about capacity in the system. There is approximately 30% more capacity available than the declared Traffic Volume. That is there to allow for emergencies and other contingencies, as well as to cater for the fact that traffic delivery is not an exact science.

You should see how AENA determines the sector capacities here. Letīs say they are... "imaginative".

Even when a volume is regulated, the aircraft entering it can (simply by the rules of the system) be anywhere within a 15 minute 'slot' around the calculated time of sector entry and this is deemed acceptable by the system. Unregulated traffic should therefore be expected under the same criteria. Until we get precise 4D flight management, in the ground and the air, that's the way it has to be.

You are completely right, and no controller should be pursued or menaced because of that. Agree?

Best regards.

[10W]

Thanks for the further information Daermon ATC and Sonnendec. You are truly in a poor situation, thanks to your management and government. It is indeed a shame that the European beaurocracy which could help you and the customers is such a slow and impotent beast

Bookworm, you are right, but the scenario being discussed was for a non regulated flight.

[bookworm]

Bookworm, you are right, but the scenario being discussed was for a non regulated flight.

It was your ", or if you have a slot," that confused me. Sorry if I misunderstood.