Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

Slot issued after startup?

ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

Slot issued after startup?

Old 26th Jul 2014, 14:49
  #1 (permalink)  
LMX
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 34
Posts: 57
Slot issued after startup?

Major European airport. Short domestic flight. We ask for startup at EOBT +13. ATC approves start but asks us to update the flight plan. We ask the company to update our flight plan, and during pushback ATC tells us we now have a CTOT about 1.5 hours later. While trying to coordinate a new parking stand where we can wait, the slot is improved and we take off after about 25 minutes waiting on the apron.

Can a slot be allocated after ATC has approved startup?

Did we get the slot because the company delayed our flight plan?

Is there a valid reason why ATC would ask us to update flight plan after approving startup?
LMX is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 16:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Yes they can, and commonly are (which is as annoying to ATC as it is to you).

Yes, but the only reason (that I can think off) for ATC to ask for the delay is because you started outside of the parameters. It's done differently in different places though, where I work we wouldn't approve startup outside the flight plan time. In Sweden I believe start-up is normally approved along with the clearance?

Where I work, not really, as we wouldn't approve it if the flight plan is outside the time. But it probably varies in different countries, maybe somebody who works in Sweden (or wherever this was) can clarify further.
Crazy Voyager is online now  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 16:18
  #3 (permalink)  
LMX
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 34
Posts: 57
EOBT +13 is within the EOBT +/- 15 window so it was not outside the parameters. If we ask for start at +16 they won't approve it and will ask us to update the flight plan.

Any flow person who can explain the details?
LMX is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 16:30
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Strange, pass in that case!
Crazy Voyager is online now  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 19:51
  #5 (permalink)  

Time merchant
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 352
Flight plan is checked for route validity -15 +15. So +13 atc can approve start up. If you had been previously arriving in regulated airspace just before the regulation started (i.e. 1 minute), you would not have been allocated a slot. Delaying the flight would have forced a re-calculation of the profile pushing you into the regulated period (and at the back of the queue) so you receive a bad slot.
Someone calls NMOC and we improve the slot as much as possible, you depart.
Flowman
flowman is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 20:35
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ireland
Posts: 216
At+-13 you are very close to the +-15 window.
We use ETOT +- 15 for calculating allowing for published taxi time.
If we think you will not make that we tell you to talk to your handling agent.
confused atco is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 22:48
  #7 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,840
LMX:

was it EOBT+13 or TOBT+13? In a properly run A-CDM environment, that makes a lot of difference. If, indeed, you became subject to flow management control, even worse (in order to try clarifying).

2 others:

some time ago, with a CTOT of about STD+32, we were ready for start up at STD-30. Called the OPS to asking to re-file so that the newSTD was origSTD-25. The idea was, we are ready to take 25 minutes delay as assigned, but filing an earlier STD would enable us to depart effectively on time.

The answer was a cold "NO" (from Company folk that is), with explanation that CTOT are being assigned on a first-come, first-served basis and so we would join the queue at the end, even when asking for an early STD.

Does that make any sense?

FD.
FlightDetent is online now  
Old 27th Jul 2014, 00:06
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
So what would have happened had LMX been a bit sneaky and not had his light plan updated?

No new slot and on time departure without all the faffing?
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2014, 00:23
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ireland
Posts: 216
Would have to look for link.
There is now a financial penalty for ANSP's who regularly let A/C depart outside slot tolerance.
confused atco is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2014, 01:17
  #10 (permalink)  
LMX
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 34
Posts: 57
Flowman, thanks, you confirmed my understanding of the system. It would appear then that if we had not updated the flight plan, we would not have incurred a slot and could have departed on time?

ATC by the way did not indicate that any coordination with the NMOC or FMP was taking place, just with the airport to arrange a new parking stand...

FlightDetent: No A-CDM here (yet).
LMX is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2014, 13:45
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the rabbit hole
Age: 47
Posts: 67
EOBT Estimate Off Block Time. You are allowed to taxi out, not start up,
-15 +15 mins from EOBT so one would have to take into consideration the taxi time declared to CFMU for the specific airport plus time required for the crew to get from start up to taxi. Bottom line I wouldn't allow start up until flight plan was delayed or look the other way (winter time) and not ask for a delay message.

Last edited by kpnagidi; 27th Jul 2014 at 13:47. Reason: spelling
kpnagidi is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2014, 14:44
  #12 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Originally Posted by LMX
EOBT +13 is not necessarily within the EOBT +/- 15 window
- 'OB' stands for 'OFF BLOCKS, not 'Start Up', and as kpn syas, ATC are fully empowered to allow start up but if they judge you will not be 'off blocks' by EOBT+/ (stand traffic/lying about a tug/doors still open/you are a slow starter/etc??) they are entitled to ask you to re-file as you may not make CTOT+/.
BOAC is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 12:55
  #13 (permalink)  
LMX
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 34
Posts: 57
Good point. In this case, startup on Delivery freq and pushback with Ground a couple of minutes later.
LMX is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2014, 20:33
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Scotch Corner
Age: 32
Posts: 68
Thumbs up

FD - the company are likely not allowed to file you before Std as you would then be operation off from your runway slot (nothing to do with atc but airport) and could be subject to loosing that slot
For the following season or a fine loosing historical rights and the ability to
Operate that flight at that particular time. If an aircraft is ready early first port of call will be to advise crew to ask tower to depart early (most will allow in my experience or if you have Ctot put a ready message in with tower and ask your company to speak to the CFMU PORTAL explaining your situation. Filing early is unfair to all airlines as it takes a slot from an aircraft departing on time and on more than one occasion CFMU queried and early flight plan hope this helps from the other side of the fence
AviationNE is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2014, 22:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 631
I had a slot issued on taxy out at Vienna at the end of last year and as someone else on here has pointed out here, it must be as much of a inconvenience for ATC as it is for us! A call or two obviously took place as the slot was canceled and we went on our way with no delay.

I suspect most ATC units would do their best to get you going if you were allocated a slot and you were taxying already.
Emma Royds is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2014, 22:20
  #16 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,840
AvNE: thank you for your input. This was a sleepy AD east of Adriatic, I presume still, that individual engagement (or lack of thereof) played a certain part in the decision. The cause of regulation, IIRC, was a squall line moving across the intended routing combined with limited ATC manpower up-track.

Cheers,
FD.
FlightDetent is online now  
Old 17th Sep 2014, 07:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 445
Financial penalty for ANSPs

There is now a financial penalty for ANSP's who regularly let A/C depart outside slot tolerance.
Could anyone send me a link to relevant documentation for this?
(I've tried google! )
good egg is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2014, 19:29
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ireland
Posts: 216
EU Regulation 255/2010 states that Member States must make provision for penalties and that such provisions be notified to the European Commission which is the main purpose of this S.I.
Irish Version has 150000 fine
confused atco is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2014, 21:49
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 445
Confused ATCO

Many thanks
good egg is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.