'Point-Merge'.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soaring high, how much are you willing to pay for your VFR "integrated" service?? Money talks, show any ANSP some green stuff and they may well
accommodate, up until,that time, stay away!!!
accommodate, up until,that time, stay away!!!
Your existing terminal navigation charges and en-route charges are already high enough.
You want to make us pay AGAIN for using free airspace the you're taking AWAY from us?
Start by removing Nimmer from his job and you might find some extra £100k to fund the service, oh sorry, the CEO's bonus.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 25th Nov 2013 at 11:32.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're an arse mate,and one who persists in banging the same old drum.Because someone is employed by NATS (National Air Traffic Services Ltd in your book) doesn't mean they are either responsible for or supportive of what they are tasked and paid to do by the company.Go away and lobby the right people.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The South
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your existing terminal navigation charges and en-route charges are already high enough.
soaringhigh650 - You're not really helping the point merge debate. Your comments aren't especially constructive or helpful. You're talking to people who provide the service, not make the rules. We work within the limits we're legally allowed to, you need to find the right people to lobby for more airspace.
You mustn't blame SH650 for being 'mentally challenged' when it comes to understanding the UK airspace management system. His mind is blurred from operating in class E airspace where it would be the freedom of class G in the UK.
By the way, just how much class G is available up to FL195 in the USA?
By the way, just how much class G is available up to FL195 in the USA?
By the way, just how much class G is available up to FL195 in the USA?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of the day, you get what you pay for. Continuous climbs/descents, direct routings, low delay figures, high safety standards. We are also not the most expensive European provider, nor do we get the state funding much of Europe do. You're not really helping the point merge debate. Your comments aren't especially constructive or helpful
Because someone is employed by NATS (National Air Traffic Services Ltd in your book) doesn't mean they are either responsible for or supportive of what they are tasked and paid to do by the company
The bottom line is that it concerns me deeply about the ATTITUDE of some employees within the organization they work for. If I run into trouble I would never want to be talking to Nimmer and some others here. He has essentially told me to f-off already and would probably never ever want to exercise his "duty of care"....
If you want lots of money and hate GA air traffic, go somewhere else to control the airlines - like the Atlantic Ocean. Leave London alone or pro-actively work to integrate all its air traffic.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH650
London has a high concentration of busy airports with very complex traffic. GA would add to that complexity.
Or do you propose that Heathrow, Gatwick et al reduce their slots by a given amount, say 50% or 75%, to allow GA to fly around?
YOU sound like the type of pilot who thinks they should be allowed to fly anywhere they wish... to paraphrase you GA was around long before airlines. Does that mean that time should stand still so that you can do what you want, whenever you want?
I would like to ride a horse around the M25 but it isn't going to happen
You add nothing to the debate and nothing to the relationship between GA and Commercial Aviation.
Go away and actually read up on the roles and responsibilities of the CAA and ANSPs before you start pointing your finger in the wrong direction.
As for the integrity of Nimmer - he happens to be an extremely proficient controller who does his utmost to accommodate all flights in the airspace he is controlling.
Hi remit, first and foremost is safety. You are calling that into question. He operates the airspace as governed by the regulating authority.
May I suggest if you want lots of airspace and hate commercial traffic, go somewhere else to fly - like the Atlantic Ocean. Preferably in a light single.
London has a high concentration of busy airports with very complex traffic. GA would add to that complexity.
Or do you propose that Heathrow, Gatwick et al reduce their slots by a given amount, say 50% or 75%, to allow GA to fly around?
YOU sound like the type of pilot who thinks they should be allowed to fly anywhere they wish... to paraphrase you GA was around long before airlines. Does that mean that time should stand still so that you can do what you want, whenever you want?
I would like to ride a horse around the M25 but it isn't going to happen
You add nothing to the debate and nothing to the relationship between GA and Commercial Aviation.
Go away and actually read up on the roles and responsibilities of the CAA and ANSPs before you start pointing your finger in the wrong direction.
As for the integrity of Nimmer - he happens to be an extremely proficient controller who does his utmost to accommodate all flights in the airspace he is controlling.
Hi remit, first and foremost is safety. You are calling that into question. He operates the airspace as governed by the regulating authority.
If you want lots of money and hate GA air traffic, go somewhere else to control the airlines - like the Atlantic Ocean. Leave London alone or pro-actively work to integrate all its air traffic.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no dislike towards commercial aviation.
The starting point for GA is Class G or E airspace.
The starting point for airlines may be Class A airspace or a known traffic environment.
There are several other classifications of airspace in-between that are available that works for everyone : win-win.
That might been some holding or re-routing or altitude changes. No problem. We don't want to collide. But a lockout of airspace based on FLIGHT RULES is clearly a problem.
For the record I transition LAX Class B frequently with no interruption to other traffic - airline or otherwise.
So go look at air traffic integration, stop tarnishing GA with a "dangerous" brush or go elsewhere with your NAT$$$$ colleagues that you supervise.
The starting point for GA is Class G or E airspace.
The starting point for airlines may be Class A airspace or a known traffic environment.
There are several other classifications of airspace in-between that are available that works for everyone : win-win.
That might been some holding or re-routing or altitude changes. No problem. We don't want to collide. But a lockout of airspace based on FLIGHT RULES is clearly a problem.
For the record I transition LAX Class B frequently with no interruption to other traffic - airline or otherwise.
So go look at air traffic integration, stop tarnishing GA with a "dangerous" brush or go elsewhere with your NAT$$$$ colleagues that you supervise.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 26th Nov 2013 at 12:51.
Yeah, these are the very words coming out of the organization that telling GA air traffic to f**k off and fly elsewhere (instead of integrating them) actually improves safety.
Then they get upset when GA accidentally enters their "sacred" airspace who are not on frequency. They blame GA for disrupting all their air traffic.
Flip the problem on its head and the message still hasn't got through to deaf ears: there is no frequency to call and no transit possible!!!
Then they get upset when GA accidentally enters their "sacred" airspace who are not on frequency. They blame GA for disrupting all their air traffic.
Flip the problem on its head and the message still hasn't got through to deaf ears: there is no frequency to call and no transit possible!!!
Back on topic, I was interested in this exchange on page one with an Aer Lingus skipper saying Point Merge costing them €1 million extra in fuel.
Nimmer said that's because of their fuel policy not Point Merge and then another Shamrock pilot said they have to fuel like that so it is down to Point Merge. Forgive me for summarising but it'd be interested to get this back on track.
So is Point Merge really costing them an extra €1 million a year or are Aer Lingus happy to waste all that fuel rather than amend their fuel policy?
To me, LAMP and other recent trials are characterised by the projects team telling the coal face workers "this is what the airlines want" but when we speak to the pilots it doesn't seem to ring true.
I do wonder whether the project team are so eager to please the customer that they don't explain the downside and the fact there will always be a trade off therefore the customer is in the end left disappointed rather than 'educated' at the beginning of the process. Are expectations being managed?
Which leads me to repeat the question from MCDU2....
"..what's the end game? If it ain't broke why try and fix something when a radar vector will suffice."
I would agree - I work for another DUB user, and our flight planning system fuels us for the full arc on the arrival. I have been in and out fairly regularly over the last few months and generally gone at least half way round the arc, with the odd bit of holding thrown in too.
Suggesting we fuel for only a part of it and use our contingency if need be is a bad, bad idea. Imagine we have burned our contingency avoiding CBs en route for example. I just can't see how level flight at 230kts round the arc is in any way more efficient than doing a CDA under vectors, even with frequent use of VS.
Suggesting we fuel for only a part of it and use our contingency if need be is a bad, bad idea. Imagine we have burned our contingency avoiding CBs en route for example. I just can't see how level flight at 230kts round the arc is in any way more efficient than doing a CDA under vectors, even with frequent use of VS.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its more than likely not more fuel efficient.
But instead of having 2 sectors of approach controllers and one Director or what ever you want to call the position that hooks them off the down wind and merges them onto finals you can get rid of 2 controllers and just have one doing the whole lot.
Of course once it gets implemented and the head count drops and the airlines start bitching about the increased fuel costs. The airports say sorry no can do we only have enough controllers to do it this way and it will take 2 years to increase our head count etc etc.
But instead of having 2 sectors of approach controllers and one Director or what ever you want to call the position that hooks them off the down wind and merges them onto finals you can get rid of 2 controllers and just have one doing the whole lot.
Of course once it gets implemented and the head count drops and the airlines start bitching about the increased fuel costs. The airports say sorry no can do we only have enough controllers to do it this way and it will take 2 years to increase our head count etc etc.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally wrong about the staffing, again PM me if you want some proper information.
As for the fuel issue, totally agree work needs to be done. We are listening to the workers at the "coal face', I am still one. A new system needs to work, as I will be one working it.
Vectors will stil be used, a lot of mis-information being thrown around here, again PM me or for those at Swanwick visit the LAMP office.
As for the fuel issue, totally agree work needs to be done. We are listening to the workers at the "coal face', I am still one. A new system needs to work, as I will be one working it.
Vectors will stil be used, a lot of mis-information being thrown around here, again PM me or for those at Swanwick visit the LAMP office.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's that successful at Dublin, it should really work well at Gatwick then. Considerably less and more complex airspace to make it work in would I imagine result in some fairly restrictive level capping on traffic inbound, especially from the South
Nimmer, if there is so much wrong/mis-information would it not be more helpful to continue the debate here rather than a PM?
It's a shame if you don't have enough time or don't feel comfortable discussing it on this forum but I'd be very interested in a more open debate about the issues.
TBH, any time I've raised my concerns informally I don't feel they have been completely addressed and it would be nice to have a discussion including experts (you) and those experienced in the Dublin operation.
It's a shame if you don't have enough time or don't feel comfortable discussing it on this forum but I'd be very interested in a more open debate about the issues.
TBH, any time I've raised my concerns informally I don't feel they have been completely addressed and it would be nice to have a discussion including experts (you) and those experienced in the Dublin operation.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Many Tentacles - last time I saw it, both profiles from the south are the same via GWC (new track may go slightly further south) and BEXIL (other than trying to get traffic transferred from Reims at lower levels to allow better descents) but not entirely sure beyond that, but think the arcs are flown at FL90/100.
DelPrado, LAMP has many functions and Point Merge is a "and you will do it by also implementing this". There was no option whether is was better or not, if it saved controllers/fuel etc or fitted into the airspace available. The fuel benefit of LAMP is to eventually get the departures airbourne with a much better climb profile (I saw ridiculous figures for savings for a heavy from Heathrow to Singapore on a DET/DVR sid getting airbourne climbing to 10,000ft and further expected by BIG instead of fuelling to remain at 6,000ft to DET.)
Soringhigh650, I try so hard to ignore your rubbish, but you got me biting.
In the London TMA that is a MASSIVE problem, there is no rerouting space available or extra holding time available (no delay means up to 20 minutes which the airport/airlines already plans for) UNLESS the amount of traffic currently moved through the airspace is vastly reduced. The LAMP project redesigning elements of the London TMA is a lengthy project that NEEDS MORE Class A to work (it may become Class C, but VFR will be on prior approval for special flights only). Just accept that in the London TMA it is the way it has to be and that will not change for a long long time, if at all.
DelPrado, LAMP has many functions and Point Merge is a "and you will do it by also implementing this". There was no option whether is was better or not, if it saved controllers/fuel etc or fitted into the airspace available. The fuel benefit of LAMP is to eventually get the departures airbourne with a much better climb profile (I saw ridiculous figures for savings for a heavy from Heathrow to Singapore on a DET/DVR sid getting airbourne climbing to 10,000ft and further expected by BIG instead of fuelling to remain at 6,000ft to DET.)
Soringhigh650, I try so hard to ignore your rubbish, but you got me biting.
That might been some holding or re-routing or altitude changes. No problem.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is no rerouting space available
Just accept that in the London TMA it is the way it has to be and that will not change for a long long time, if at all.
Justifying Class A on the basis of airlines and airports PAYING for the establishment of such airspace so that they cannot be "interfered" by other valid airspace users is also an unacceptable starter.
Class C sounds like a good compromise.
I must remind you that your organization is "charged with permitting access to airspace on the part of all users, whilst making the most efficient overall use of airspace"
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH, as I've said many times, there is nothing stopping you putting in your own Airspace Change Proposal to the UK CAA and complying with all the consultation requirements therein to change the airspace around London to B or C.