EGLL ATC instruction question?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: 41N 100E
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGLL ATC instruction question?
What exactly are phraseologies " transition to 270 kts or speed 270 kts on transition" mean? and when do we have to comply?
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...which is a 'conversion' from Mach to IAS or v.v.
From CAP413:
The following phraseology shall be used by controllers when providing speed control to aircraft at or above FL280 that have been cleared to levels below FL280.
eg. "BIGJET 347, Mach ·78, on speed conversion, 250 knots" (where the controller requires the aircraft to fly at a specific Mach number until the changeover to IAS and then fly a specified IAS)
In reverse:
"BIGJET 347, on speed conversion, Mach ·7"
...does not appear to be UK standard phraseology, neither is it likely to be an EGLL ATC instruction.
From CAP413:
The following phraseology shall be used by controllers when providing speed control to aircraft at or above FL280 that have been cleared to levels below FL280.
eg. "BIGJET 347, Mach ·78, on speed conversion, 250 knots" (where the controller requires the aircraft to fly at a specific Mach number until the changeover to IAS and then fly a specified IAS)
In reverse:
"BIGJET 347, on speed conversion, Mach ·7"
" transition to 270 kts or speed 270 kts on transition"
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the yellow submarine
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Indicated speed xxx knots on transition "is something you'll hear a lot if you fly in the Gulf region, I think that habbit is brought here either by Ozzies/Kiwis or S.Africans? I've never heard such phrase in Europe before?
UAE123, descend to FL200, cross PASOV at FL 270 or below, indicated speed on transition 300 kts or greater...
cheerz
UAE123, descend to FL200, cross PASOV at FL 270 or below, indicated speed on transition 300 kts or greater...
cheerz
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: 41N 100E
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for every replies.
Actually, I heard these unfamiliar phraseology for more than 2 times.
Usually, I fly to LHR once or twice a month.
I thought the same way as some replies here about speed transition.
Upon descending, there is no speed control required.
but after passing change-over altitude of that aircraft.
Mach target will be automatically changed to speed.
This speed is required to continue descending by ATC instruction
"transition to 270 kts or speed 270 kts on transition"
Actually, I heard these unfamiliar phraseology for more than 2 times.
Usually, I fly to LHR once or twice a month.
I thought the same way as some replies here about speed transition.
Upon descending, there is no speed control required.
but after passing change-over altitude of that aircraft.
Mach target will be automatically changed to speed.
This speed is required to continue descending by ATC instruction
"transition to 270 kts or speed 270 kts on transition"
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you are a B747 and want to be No.1 in the sequence expect to descend at M.84 into 340 knots. If you're in an Airbus just wave as the 74 goes past you. 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you mean "transitional approaches"? Such as inbound to eddf where they are standard and the speeds are published for the transition and mandatory unless the controller instructs otherwise. I have flown int there quite a lot and the chart, from what I remember, states 250kt at the start of the transition reducing to 220kt later on. I've never known it to be used from Mach to IAS in an instruction.
?? Post #4 is precisely what TDM is referring to.
My point was that the bot won't be hanging around to read TDM's response, and if it did it wouldn't understand it.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP's non-international
Another UK's speciality..."Let's be different in order to prove our excellence".
People invented standard (read ICAO doc's) long time ago...Why don't you accept that? Or try to improve it on a global scale?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zoneman,
It has nothing to do with
it has all to do with the need for speed control when trying to stream a lot of inbounds into a busy TMA. Using this phraseology allows the en-route controllers to quickly, without the need for multiple transmissions, set up spacing into the TMA. If there was only one or two aircraft on frequency then they would have the luxury of having plenty of time to do it the 'ICAO standard' way.
If they didn't use this instruction then us controllers in the LTMA would be presented with a complete mess of aircraft.
As for needing to prove our/their excellence... we/they don't need to... pilot feedback is very positive - that's all the proof needed. Much as it is the way with all the other excellent service providers that are working worldwide.
It has nothing to do with
"Let's be different in order to prove our excellence"
If they didn't use this instruction then us controllers in the LTMA would be presented with a complete mess of aircraft.
As for needing to prove our/their excellence... we/they don't need to... pilot feedback is very positive - that's all the proof needed. Much as it is the way with all the other excellent service providers that are working worldwide.
Last edited by anotherthing; 16th Sep 2013 at 11:35.
.....admirable restraint.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another UK's speciality..."Let's be different in order to prove our excellence".
People invented standard (read ICAO doc's) long time ago...Why don't you accept that? Or try to improve it on a global scale?
People invented standard (read ICAO doc's) long time ago...Why don't you accept that? Or try to improve it on a global scale?
In the former case the ambiguity may not be immediately obvious to a non-native English speaker but the difference has, in the past, been based on real data that shows a problem or that the change has benefits.
The latter case is no different to any other State that wishes to define a national standard to better support its own peculiarities. Notifying a difference to ICAO SARPs may be necessary in such cases and it's true that the UK was not very good at that at one time.
As for trying to improve things on a global scale, the UK has done this with respect to phraseology in the past - for example, the introduction of "flight level one hundred" (and again, this example was clearly based on evidence that it was better).
But getting global standards changed is no small task and can (and usually does) take years. Should the benefits be lost (especially if they are safety benefits) to those seeking to make the change throughout those years?
The fact that 'people invented standard long time ago' (sic) doesn't mean that the standard was right/perfect, or that it is still appropriate after the passage of time, or that the standard is immutable. Indeed changing things on a global scale happens - just slowly, and often for good reasons - and the amendment of ICAO SARPs is just one example.
I'll hold my hand up to being a Brit but I don't suggest that everything that comes out of the UK is perfect but neither can it all be dismissed.
And just for the pedants out there, I do know there's a difference between being British and coming from the UK.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just wanted to point out that publishing those differencies (which I'm sure you/they find purposeful with a reason) should be a must. It would surely lead to complete understanding... as noi747 did not.
Another question regarding 1st thread ....Don't you think that "Below FLxxx speed 290kts" or similar could be used?
PS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find "FL one hundred" introduced in any ICAO doc.
Another question regarding 1st thread ....Don't you think that "Below FLxxx speed 290kts" or similar could be used?
PS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find "FL one hundred" introduced in any ICAO doc.
Last edited by zoneman; 16th Sep 2013 at 19:16.