Point Merge - Dublin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Slovakia
Age: 65
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BeerHunter
Liked your first post #7
You eloquently said what I was thinking
From what I see, if the system breaks down (i.e. during the summer rush) it will be a total nightmare for the ATCOs .
The spaghetti will really hit the fan as there is little chance of going back to the "tried and tested".
Liked your first post #7
You eloquently said what I was thinking
From what I see, if the system breaks down (i.e. during the summer rush) it will be a total nightmare for the ATCOs .
The spaghetti will really hit the fan as there is little chance of going back to the "tried and tested".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sidetracking from this discussion has lead me to the 'Future Airspace Strategy' website and that of a company called 'Moorhouse Consulting', who are working in partnership with NATS.
Check them out.
Check them out.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having played around in the sim with a point merge system, and sat through seemingly endless review groups, all I can say is, Emperor's New Clothes. So expect to see it live shortly!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Over a bit... aah, just there.
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zooker: cheers for the encouragement, have been enjoying your input to the ark-ument too.
hd: as you may have guessed, nothing concrete put into the procedures about when to suspend operation due weather. pretty much a judgement call from the approach controller but needs to be rubber stamped by a backseat driver. some will gleefully go old-school and return to vectors at the first sniff of a cb on or inside the arcs, others have been observed to let aircraft self manoeuvre for a spell *at the same level* before giving up.
hd: as you may have guessed, nothing concrete put into the procedures about when to suspend operation due weather. pretty much a judgement call from the approach controller but needs to be rubber stamped by a backseat driver. some will gleefully go old-school and return to vectors at the first sniff of a cb on or inside the arcs, others have been observed to let aircraft self manoeuvre for a spell *at the same level* before giving up.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pilots perspective
From the pointy end I can tell you I have yet to meet an aviator that can see any valid reason for the point merge - or at least the version that we have in Dublin. And thankfully it is only on R28 although I understand its rollout to the other runways was delayed due to insufficient time to train the controllers.
Specifically:-
- we now have flight plans for the 1X (shorter arrivals) during non peak periods. However, ATC cannot ever clear you on a 1X so will always give the longer 1L. So as a pilot we naturally take the additional fuel in case we had to fly the full arrival
- there is now no such thing as a CDA into Dublin. Whereas previously we could be cleared from around Anglesey or Fishguard direct to the centre fix for R28 we now have to fly level and slow at either FL70 or FL80. The engines are no longer at idle and with the power up then we are literally p*ssing away good fuel. Only then for the 3rd controller to give us direct to the CF or a 7 mile final.
- even when you are arriving at 5am in the morning and no.1 with no other traffic within 50nm you are still expected to fly at least part of the arrival until one of the controllers finally gives up the party political line and gives in to our repeated requests for either a tight vector or direct to a CF depending on which runway is in use.
- and lets not even start to get into the comms failure procedures which are a minefield depending on where you are in the arrival sequence.
We don't need point merge in Dublin or anywhere in Ireland for that matter. What we need is ATC bosses who insist on standard speeds - 250kt below FL100, 220 on base, 180 on LOC and 160 to 4 then it would be fine and dandy. Instead they seem to allow slower traffic to dictate the entire sequence or a jet that unilaterally decides that he wants to slow up. Instead this traffic should be told to fly an agreed speed or else given a dogleg vector and following traffic to overtake. Also separation needs to be reduced - the current 7nm is ridiculous. Just look at how LGW is able to utilise its single runway much better. And Dublin actually has two runways with R34 in the early mornings and still they are not a patch on the Brits.
Specifically:-
- we now have flight plans for the 1X (shorter arrivals) during non peak periods. However, ATC cannot ever clear you on a 1X so will always give the longer 1L. So as a pilot we naturally take the additional fuel in case we had to fly the full arrival
- there is now no such thing as a CDA into Dublin. Whereas previously we could be cleared from around Anglesey or Fishguard direct to the centre fix for R28 we now have to fly level and slow at either FL70 or FL80. The engines are no longer at idle and with the power up then we are literally p*ssing away good fuel. Only then for the 3rd controller to give us direct to the CF or a 7 mile final.
- even when you are arriving at 5am in the morning and no.1 with no other traffic within 50nm you are still expected to fly at least part of the arrival until one of the controllers finally gives up the party political line and gives in to our repeated requests for either a tight vector or direct to a CF depending on which runway is in use.
- and lets not even start to get into the comms failure procedures which are a minefield depending on where you are in the arrival sequence.
We don't need point merge in Dublin or anywhere in Ireland for that matter. What we need is ATC bosses who insist on standard speeds - 250kt below FL100, 220 on base, 180 on LOC and 160 to 4 then it would be fine and dandy. Instead they seem to allow slower traffic to dictate the entire sequence or a jet that unilaterally decides that he wants to slow up. Instead this traffic should be told to fly an agreed speed or else given a dogleg vector and following traffic to overtake. Also separation needs to be reduced - the current 7nm is ridiculous. Just look at how LGW is able to utilise its single runway much better. And Dublin actually has two runways with R34 in the early mornings and still they are not a patch on the Brits.
Last edited by MCDU2; 29th May 2013 at 11:37.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Over a bit... aah, just there.
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good to hear the setup is equally unsatisfactory from the other side of the mic. please keep pointing this out to your bosses and we might get rid of something they allegedly asked for in the first place.
regarding separation, paperwork only becomes an issue if it goes below 3nm between aircraft at the same level. the only time 7nm is required is arrival spacing to 16 or 34 when tower has a departure to go in between. on 10-28 it's 6nm, or 3nm if no departures. we are expected to aim for 6nm on 10-28 unless a proactive tower controller informs, or observant approach controller queries, that there are no departures.
you'll be glad to hear that there is a project ongoing to reduce both arrival spacing and departure intervals, with lgw's methods being examined... but you'll be distraught to hear that management have just announced their intention to move control of dublin's upper airspace to shannon centre. it'll put the inefficiency on all runways through the roof, and will probably cost a lot of money without benefiting the airlines, which is sure to draw the attention of some of the shoutier airline bosses.
regarding separation, paperwork only becomes an issue if it goes below 3nm between aircraft at the same level. the only time 7nm is required is arrival spacing to 16 or 34 when tower has a departure to go in between. on 10-28 it's 6nm, or 3nm if no departures. we are expected to aim for 6nm on 10-28 unless a proactive tower controller informs, or observant approach controller queries, that there are no departures.
you'll be glad to hear that there is a project ongoing to reduce both arrival spacing and departure intervals, with lgw's methods being examined... but you'll be distraught to hear that management have just announced their intention to move control of dublin's upper airspace to shannon centre. it'll put the inefficiency on all runways through the roof, and will probably cost a lot of money without benefiting the airlines, which is sure to draw the attention of some of the shoutier airline bosses.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there some EU funding involved in DUB I wonder.
Point Merge will work fine with 4D RNAV, where a Required Time of Arrival at (say) the C/Fix is allocated by ATC. You can then work out the rest for yourselves.
Point Merge will work fine with 4D RNAV, where a Required Time of Arrival at (say) the C/Fix is allocated by ATC. You can then work out the rest for yourselves.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: TWR
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question
Hi everyone, is there any new info about Point Merge in real life?
I only get the official SESAR publications where this procedure is declared to solve any problem on earth and that it can/could increase capacity even in Heathrow (official statement), safe fuel and make everybody happy.
I am still skeptical but would appreciate hands on experience (Dublin, Oslo, ..).
Thank you!
I only get the official SESAR publications where this procedure is declared to solve any problem on earth and that it can/could increase capacity even in Heathrow (official statement), safe fuel and make everybody happy.
I am still skeptical but would appreciate hands on experience (Dublin, Oslo, ..).
Thank you!
Last edited by wobo63; 13th Aug 2014 at 06:02. Reason: Typo
wobo63
I'm with you, wobo.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I can't see this system as being better than a seasoned ATCO. Apart from it being another nail in the coffin of job enjoyment/satisfaction. !
I'm with you, wobo.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I can't see this system as being better than a seasoned ATCO. Apart from it being another nail in the coffin of job enjoyment/satisfaction. !
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The South
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is the system holding up during the summer rush?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I assume vector aircraft instead?
I'm sure it's fine now when everyone is used to vectoring, but what about in 15-20 years when some newbies will never have vectored a busy sequence of inbounds, not to mention a sequence avoiding weather.
That is still one of my biggest concern with all of these new RNAV procedures, vectoring is flexible (for things such as WX), RNAV routes are not.
I'm sure it's fine now when everyone is used to vectoring, but what about in 15-20 years when some newbies will never have vectored a busy sequence of inbounds, not to mention a sequence avoiding weather.
That is still one of my biggest concern with all of these new RNAV procedures, vectoring is flexible (for things such as WX), RNAV routes are not.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am one of the people who played a part in consigning 'Tunnels in the Sky' to the waste paper basket. I remember at the time (in the '90s) a senior manager saying that we had to systemise (simplify ATC) as we had problems recruiting people who could validate at busy units and that training them was too slow and costly.
Point Merge and other technical solutions looking for problems are simply means of systemising ATC. Purely by co-incidence I am sure, it will de-skill the ATCOs job so it will be possible to pay less. As far as management are concerned, if these technical solutions are not much use during weather disruption etc, they will be prepared to take the hit in service delivery as they will have calculated these events only happen a few days a year - they hope!
Point Merge and other technical solutions looking for problems are simply means of systemising ATC. Purely by co-incidence I am sure, it will de-skill the ATCOs job so it will be possible to pay less. As far as management are concerned, if these technical solutions are not much use during weather disruption etc, they will be prepared to take the hit in service delivery as they will have calculated these events only happen a few days a year - they hope!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the points raised concerning point merge are valid. However the "systemisation" of the London TMA, (the LAMP project), is trying to address all the issues concerned.
Therefore the designs still give an opportunity for a mix of radar vectoring and the use of the sequencing legs and waypoints.There are going to be reasons, both weather and just the presentation of the traffic, when approach will need to issue headings to ensure the traffic doesn't enter a hold.
Lessons have been learnt from other ANSPs that have implemented Point Merge
PM please for more information, plus for anyone at Swankck please come into the LAMP office for a chat and to give some much needed input, this is your opportunity to have a chance to re-design the next 40 plus years.
Therefore the designs still give an opportunity for a mix of radar vectoring and the use of the sequencing legs and waypoints.There are going to be reasons, both weather and just the presentation of the traffic, when approach will need to issue headings to ensure the traffic doesn't enter a hold.
Lessons have been learnt from other ANSPs that have implemented Point Merge
PM please for more information, plus for anyone at Swankck please come into the LAMP office for a chat and to give some much needed input, this is your opportunity to have a chance to re-design the next 40 plus years.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EastofKoksy,
Interesting comments about systemisation/simplification of ATC to accommodate people who could not validate.
Wasn't that around the time that SHL selection tests were introduced, and the requirement to have passed at least 2 'A' Levels dispensed with?
Interesting comments about systemisation/simplification of ATC to accommodate people who could not validate.
Wasn't that around the time that SHL selection tests were introduced, and the requirement to have passed at least 2 'A' Levels dispensed with?