Gatwick spacing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calling Minimum fuel actually ,actually makes no difference to ATC whatsoever.
You may be asked how long you can hold for, given an update of the estimated delay and whether you wish to declare an emergency.
Other than that you will continue in the hold with no priority until a fuel emergency is declared.
Harsh but true.
You may be asked how long you can hold for, given an update of the estimated delay and whether you wish to declare an emergency.
Other than that you will continue in the hold with no priority until a fuel emergency is declared.
Harsh but true.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed I expect nothing other than a testing Summer 16' ar KK, for all parties!
A few observations from a nowadays KK pilot - not necessarily correct ones, but intended to widen debate:-
1. Should airport scheduling allow for ATCO's U/T? In my opinion not - how can you schedule when a U/T is plugged in or isn't? I also expect a few opportunities to be missed- the very slick KK operation comes from experience and competence, but you have to be allowed to gain it in a safe supervised manner, which is what happens. Missed opportunities, points of view, alternative methods are hopefully for debrief?
2. Can flow rates be set because a newly validated ATCO is in position - surely not - many slots effect departures many hours down route and the rate can't be accurate as to who 'may' be in position or not that many hours away from the point in question.
3. KK was testing for all last Summer, this year, as expected, it will be even more so.... A few ideas follow:-
4. Greater co-ordination on gapping: there at times seems a bit of an issue on delays, airport taking knock on departure delays and NATS on holding delays. Changes in gapping to help clear departure backlog clearly have an impact on airborne delays. This combined with other factors DID result in at least a few/several enroute S17 overloads last summer. Should these controllers be subjected to this stress without exploring more intelligent ways to mitigate it?
5. Late TWR changes to gapping to allow more departures seems to impact the above ( not deliberately so I know), pushing a problem 'upstream' without conscious knowledge of the effect.
6. AMAN struggles to cope with the above, and EATS at KK sometimes appear to struggle at times to be realistic to the AMAN initial prediction. More manual oversight/control of AMAN for KK??
7. Several times last Summer was slowed to minimum speed at FIR entry by en-route due 15-20 minute delay expected at KK. On transfer to TC told no delay (yes, appreciate officially that means not greater than 20'). On query told no idea where 'next door' got that from and indeed on arrival not more than once round the hold, on several occasions 'straight off' without even a 'spin'.....
Now en-route have done what is right and good management under the information available to them (AMAN?), but that information has proved to be totally inaccurate....
Extend XMAN to include KK? But for this AMAN timings need to be accurate and reliable!
As an extra, is there now a need this Summer to formally put a formal rate on KK arr for the protection of the system and ATCO's?
8. Speed control - poor conformance by some pilots/operators led to go-arounds. This area has to improve! I observe decisions being made sometimes by crew to 'protect' themselves from go-around by 'reducing' early so to ensure the runway is clear when they get there. The impact on the stream selfishly doesn't concern them at the time
I would suggest that mode 'S' is monitored in a more controlled fashion, and the offender is sent around regardless rather than an impact on either the next departure or arrival? Harsh perhaps, but perhaps the only way such offenders will learn?
9. Greater understanding/forewarning for pilots of A380 operation (yes I've been here before - sorry!). Late reversion to RNAV ops still occur at KK when it seems far better warning could have been given. Can't a better 'heads up' of sequencing be given to TC TIMBA/WILLO so aircraft can be forewarned in advance of only finding out with KK INT?
10. Use of 'Super' by EK and ATC alike would help crew situational awareness and warning of impending RNAV likelihood.
11. Interestingly followed an EK into CC this week one evening - vectored and cleared for the ILS behind. Now I'm not CC based and presumed (silly I know!) that it was a 'triple' as 'super' not used by either party and not told to expect of, or fly the VOR/DME app. Only heads up was when been transferred to TWR to "expect LOC deviations as I was 7miles behind an A380...."
12. Re above - different standards? This wouldn't have been allowed at KK, I would have been informed and flown an RNAV. Why are there different procedures for CC/KK? Surely the risk associated to aircraft following A380 with respect to ILS signals is the same at both? These UK standards/differences re A380 ops are still not published in the AIP or MATS Pt1 so we can all be aware/understand them.
Please take the above as its's meant - a widening of discussion, learning for myself etc. KK, TC et al all do a great job!
There is no doubt however KK last year was an eye opener for many, this year will only be worse given more movements taken on. We all need to evolve, and to perhaps take a slightly different systematic approach going forward (pilots and controllers alike).....
30W
A few observations from a nowadays KK pilot - not necessarily correct ones, but intended to widen debate:-
1. Should airport scheduling allow for ATCO's U/T? In my opinion not - how can you schedule when a U/T is plugged in or isn't? I also expect a few opportunities to be missed- the very slick KK operation comes from experience and competence, but you have to be allowed to gain it in a safe supervised manner, which is what happens. Missed opportunities, points of view, alternative methods are hopefully for debrief?
2. Can flow rates be set because a newly validated ATCO is in position - surely not - many slots effect departures many hours down route and the rate can't be accurate as to who 'may' be in position or not that many hours away from the point in question.
3. KK was testing for all last Summer, this year, as expected, it will be even more so.... A few ideas follow:-
4. Greater co-ordination on gapping: there at times seems a bit of an issue on delays, airport taking knock on departure delays and NATS on holding delays. Changes in gapping to help clear departure backlog clearly have an impact on airborne delays. This combined with other factors DID result in at least a few/several enroute S17 overloads last summer. Should these controllers be subjected to this stress without exploring more intelligent ways to mitigate it?
5. Late TWR changes to gapping to allow more departures seems to impact the above ( not deliberately so I know), pushing a problem 'upstream' without conscious knowledge of the effect.
6. AMAN struggles to cope with the above, and EATS at KK sometimes appear to struggle at times to be realistic to the AMAN initial prediction. More manual oversight/control of AMAN for KK??
7. Several times last Summer was slowed to minimum speed at FIR entry by en-route due 15-20 minute delay expected at KK. On transfer to TC told no delay (yes, appreciate officially that means not greater than 20'). On query told no idea where 'next door' got that from and indeed on arrival not more than once round the hold, on several occasions 'straight off' without even a 'spin'.....
Now en-route have done what is right and good management under the information available to them (AMAN?), but that information has proved to be totally inaccurate....
Extend XMAN to include KK? But for this AMAN timings need to be accurate and reliable!
As an extra, is there now a need this Summer to formally put a formal rate on KK arr for the protection of the system and ATCO's?
8. Speed control - poor conformance by some pilots/operators led to go-arounds. This area has to improve! I observe decisions being made sometimes by crew to 'protect' themselves from go-around by 'reducing' early so to ensure the runway is clear when they get there. The impact on the stream selfishly doesn't concern them at the time
I would suggest that mode 'S' is monitored in a more controlled fashion, and the offender is sent around regardless rather than an impact on either the next departure or arrival? Harsh perhaps, but perhaps the only way such offenders will learn?9. Greater understanding/forewarning for pilots of A380 operation (yes I've been here before - sorry!). Late reversion to RNAV ops still occur at KK when it seems far better warning could have been given. Can't a better 'heads up' of sequencing be given to TC TIMBA/WILLO so aircraft can be forewarned in advance of only finding out with KK INT?
10. Use of 'Super' by EK and ATC alike would help crew situational awareness and warning of impending RNAV likelihood.
11. Interestingly followed an EK into CC this week one evening - vectored and cleared for the ILS behind. Now I'm not CC based and presumed (silly I know!) that it was a 'triple' as 'super' not used by either party and not told to expect of, or fly the VOR/DME app. Only heads up was when been transferred to TWR to "expect LOC deviations as I was 7miles behind an A380...."
12. Re above - different standards? This wouldn't have been allowed at KK, I would have been informed and flown an RNAV. Why are there different procedures for CC/KK? Surely the risk associated to aircraft following A380 with respect to ILS signals is the same at both? These UK standards/differences re A380 ops are still not published in the AIP or MATS Pt1 so we can all be aware/understand them.
Please take the above as its's meant - a widening of discussion, learning for myself etc. KK, TC et al all do a great job!
There is no doubt however KK last year was an eye opener for many, this year will only be worse given more movements taken on. We all need to evolve, and to perhaps take a slightly different systematic approach going forward (pilots and controllers alike).....
30W
I recently had a visit to Nats and sat on the Gatwick Director position.. The atco I talked to was quite surprised that converting us at a late stage to an Rnav caused us a lot of button pushing and rebriefing.
This was reinforced when another atco plugged herself in and asked an aircraft if they would do an SRA for her currency. You could hear the big think bubble coming from the aircraft!
30W I totally agree with your point 7. I sometimes wonder if the two entities are actually talking to each other.
This was reinforced when another atco plugged herself in and asked an aircraft if they would do an SRA for her currency. You could hear the big think bubble coming from the aircraft!
30W I totally agree with your point 7. I sometimes wonder if the two entities are actually talking to each other.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tubby linton
asked an aircraft if they would do an SRA for her currency. You could hear the big think bubble coming from the aircraft!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tubby,
Being told to slow down then finding out there is no delay or that you can maintain high speed then be told to hold is obviously an internal comms problem in ATC for which there is no excuse. Unfortunately this is not something new!
As for controller appreciation of pilot workload caused by last minute changes. It is still possible but more difficult than it used to be for NATS controllers to do familiarisation flights. These have always been voluntary. NATS managers did not help the situation by regarding them as 'jollies' and insisting controllers do them in their own time.
Being told to slow down then finding out there is no delay or that you can maintain high speed then be told to hold is obviously an internal comms problem in ATC for which there is no excuse. Unfortunately this is not something new!
As for controller appreciation of pilot workload caused by last minute changes. It is still possible but more difficult than it used to be for NATS controllers to do familiarisation flights. These have always been voluntary. NATS managers did not help the situation by regarding them as 'jollies' and insisting controllers do them in their own time.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tubby,
Following an earlier thread glad you took time to visit!
My point in '7' really is not so much about internal voice co-ordination, but more the electronic data supplied. AC are doing their jobs entirely intelligently slowing inbound traffic when the AMAN EAT data is showing delays ahead. The query really is the accuracy of this data as several times it has totally contradicted the actual situation/status.
What is your experience of point '8'? I feel some some pilots ar NOT following the speed control accurately or in completeness. We have a responsibility to ATC and the system on the whole here and some colleagues are letting us all down. Even is a go-around is avoided it can mean a lost departure if a 'gap' reduces due to poor crew speed compliance. This is something we owe controllers at KK as they are trying to sustain a huge runway rate which ultimately both airport and operators want.
That one makes me laugh! Really though, there are many pilots who have never experienced an SRA for real..... I mean unlike many years ago, they really are an extremely rare event and in most cases never required as there is a contingency approach available should the ILS not be available, and a better option than a modern day SRA (they're not like the old half milers of years back).
Totally agree with EOK's point on Famil's - often equally difficult to organise at our end, red tape and authorisation levels have made sorting very difficult! Doesn't stop me completely doing so, it feels like a 'fight' every time however :-(
My initial post isn't meant to be a criticism, but purely an open debate of how we can improve things for all in steadily increasing traffic volume.
Following an earlier thread glad you took time to visit!
My point in '7' really is not so much about internal voice co-ordination, but more the electronic data supplied. AC are doing their jobs entirely intelligently slowing inbound traffic when the AMAN EAT data is showing delays ahead. The query really is the accuracy of this data as several times it has totally contradicted the actual situation/status.
What is your experience of point '8'? I feel some some pilots ar NOT following the speed control accurately or in completeness. We have a responsibility to ATC and the system on the whole here and some colleagues are letting us all down. Even is a go-around is avoided it can mean a lost departure if a 'gap' reduces due to poor crew speed compliance. This is something we owe controllers at KK as they are trying to sustain a huge runway rate which ultimately both airport and operators want.
I have had aircrew state that they are not equipped for an SRA...
Totally agree with EOK's point on Famil's - often equally difficult to organise at our end, red tape and authorisation levels have made sorting very difficult! Doesn't stop me completely doing so, it feels like a 'fight' every time however :-(
My initial post isn't meant to be a criticism, but purely an open debate of how we can improve things for all in steadily increasing traffic volume.
30W I have not actually come across poor speed control by other operators but on my visit the atco had aircraft speed displayed to him to regulate his flow . If aircraft are not complying then it should be highlighted to them, and regular offenders should be contacted.
Sharklet equipped airbuses decellerate at a slower rate than a classic ,and their numbers are increasing rapidly.Trying to slowdown , descend and achieve a cda can be a challenge in one.
Sharklet equipped airbuses decellerate at a slower rate than a classic ,and their numbers are increasing rapidly.Trying to slowdown , descend and achieve a cda can be a challenge in one.
As an LGW based pilot, can I ask what is the advantage of 160 to 4 over 170 to 5?
I think you'd get much better speed conformance using 170. Folk would actually do 170 to 5, instead of 160 to 4 actually being 160 to 5 most of the time.
It's just the time it actually takes to configure after 4 miles doesn't leave a lot of room.
I'm on the A320 but I'm sure the story is similar for the 737.
I think you'd get much better speed conformance using 170. Folk would actually do 170 to 5, instead of 160 to 4 actually being 160 to 5 most of the time.
It's just the time it actually takes to configure after 4 miles doesn't leave a lot of room.
I'm on the A320 but I'm sure the story is similar for the 737.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main issue for the B738 is that at normal weights 160kt does not allow a low drag approach as require a gear down/F15 configuration to comply. This isn't economic (requires thrust against that drag level), increases noise under the flight path, increases CO2 emission etc etc.
170 for us works well to keep idle/minimum thrust till 5nm.
All types are different, and that's the poor lottery both the system and ATC try to accommodate. For what it's worth, KK are EXCELLENT in accommodating either speed as long as suitable notice is given to KK INT.
TL, yes aware that 'S' is available. It's also true that very occasionally a dep is missed due to poor speed control compliance reducing the arr gap. The traffic is with TWR at this point rather than DIR, so have executive control. With 55/hr we can't afford any missed rwy time, and that rather than miss say a dep movement because of the above, the offender on speed control is sent around by AIR. I know it doesn't stop a movement loss at that point, but it does get the message across and enforce compliance which in turn will help the rate in the medium term....
170 for us works well to keep idle/minimum thrust till 5nm.
All types are different, and that's the poor lottery both the system and ATC try to accommodate. For what it's worth, KK are EXCELLENT in accommodating either speed as long as suitable notice is given to KK INT.
TL, yes aware that 'S' is available. It's also true that very occasionally a dep is missed due to poor speed control compliance reducing the arr gap. The traffic is with TWR at this point rather than DIR, so have executive control. With 55/hr we can't afford any missed rwy time, and that rather than miss say a dep movement because of the above, the offender on speed control is sent around by AIR. I know it doesn't stop a movement loss at that point, but it does get the message across and enforce compliance which in turn will help the rate in the medium term....
Really interesting points raised in the last couple of posts.
A380 and RNAV. If you get offered an RNAV too late then turn it down and you'll get an extra 2/3 minutes 'delay' for an ILS (usually extended vectoring rather than round the hold). The spacing behind an A380 is 15/20 miles. This may be reduced through RNAV approaches but if you don't feel you have enough time to set up for it then take the delay.
It can be very difficult to know the order more than 40 miles from touchdown in light traffic conditions purely because of the order they are transfered from SW or SE sectors and also how good a job they've done of getting down.
During periods of holding the landing order is fixed much further out and is much easier to stick to so there should be plenty of time to set up for an RNAV then.
AMAN. Historically spacing requirements have been coordinated by the tower as an 'immediate' request. With the advent of AMAN for Gatwick there does seem more of a need for tower to communicate the predicted time of any changes to the spacing regime for the next 60/90 minutes.
As use of AMAN at Gatwick matures I see no reason why that couldn't be incorporated into the operation.
Speed Control speed conformance by A319/320's is pretty awful at Gatwick. 160 to 4 often becomes 160 to 7. (and don't start me on traffic that slows below 180kts as soon as they're established!)
As has been pointed out this risks go arounds and missed departure gaps leading to extra delays but also if the ATCOs have no confidence that the aircraft will maintain speed then 3 mile gaps become 4 and 6s become 6.5s. We do understand the difficulty of being stable in a A319/A320 while doing 160 to 4 but some airlines do it better than others and I'm sure if GIP/GAL got together with a couple of the worst offenders then delays would reduce markedly at peak times. (On the other hand, if inbound and outbound demand is low why can't 160 to 6 be accommodated?)
A380 and RNAV. If you get offered an RNAV too late then turn it down and you'll get an extra 2/3 minutes 'delay' for an ILS (usually extended vectoring rather than round the hold). The spacing behind an A380 is 15/20 miles. This may be reduced through RNAV approaches but if you don't feel you have enough time to set up for it then take the delay.
It can be very difficult to know the order more than 40 miles from touchdown in light traffic conditions purely because of the order they are transfered from SW or SE sectors and also how good a job they've done of getting down.
During periods of holding the landing order is fixed much further out and is much easier to stick to so there should be plenty of time to set up for an RNAV then.
AMAN. Historically spacing requirements have been coordinated by the tower as an 'immediate' request. With the advent of AMAN for Gatwick there does seem more of a need for tower to communicate the predicted time of any changes to the spacing regime for the next 60/90 minutes.
As use of AMAN at Gatwick matures I see no reason why that couldn't be incorporated into the operation.
Speed Control speed conformance by A319/320's is pretty awful at Gatwick. 160 to 4 often becomes 160 to 7. (and don't start me on traffic that slows below 180kts as soon as they're established!)
As has been pointed out this risks go arounds and missed departure gaps leading to extra delays but also if the ATCOs have no confidence that the aircraft will maintain speed then 3 mile gaps become 4 and 6s become 6.5s. We do understand the difficulty of being stable in a A319/A320 while doing 160 to 4 but some airlines do it better than others and I'm sure if GIP/GAL got together with a couple of the worst offenders then delays would reduce markedly at peak times. (On the other hand, if inbound and outbound demand is low why can't 160 to 6 be accommodated?)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest do our ATCO friends know what it means to us as pilots?
You need to declare a PAN before you get any preferential handling from ATC though, but I guess you already know that
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So manytentacles answers the question on minimum fuel...
Yes, in theory, ATCOs DO know what minimum fuel is, but obviously in practice, some do not. I THINK the majority probably do, or at least will soon find someone on hand who does. Doubtless we'll find out how many pilots know it too this summer...
Yes, in theory, ATCOs DO know what minimum fuel is, but obviously in practice, some do not. I THINK the majority probably do, or at least will soon find someone on hand who does. Doubtless we'll find out how many pilots know it too this summer...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DP!
Thanks for responding...
A380/RNAV
Understood, but why can I go to CC and end up 7nm (vortex minima) for me behind a 380, on an ILS app, with only mention being that I can expect some LOC fluctuations as I'm released to TWR when KK rules seem entirely different? Is it to do with taxiway proximity or different approved safety standards between Pt 2's?
Earliest possible warning of the RNAV most appreciated as and when it can be provided
In the Summer, when holding is now the 'norm' whilst we are in the hold is ideal..... Even more so situational awareness wise from the WILLO side when EK hasn't been on the same freq prior to KK. The departing 380 is even more difficult for us because early awareness just isn't possible as it's not on freq with us at all.
AMAN
AMAN is very accurate for LL. We DO in my opinion need to 'mature' it's use for KK because as I've alluded to, AC are using its data to make sensible executive decisions to aid us the pilots and the TMA. Sometimes, and I'm not suggesting this is the majority of times, because that wouldn't be fair, but occasionally the AMAN data is rather inaccurate. This leads to lack of confidence in it on our side and a wonder if the 'system' is in fact joined up, which is an unfair impression...
Speed Control
Im glad it's not only myself who believes there IS an issue here...was starting to feel rather lonely!
Question is - how do we resolve it? What internally do watch colleagues believe is the approach/answer? One things for sure, if we collectively are going to move 55/hr, or close to, then we must address this issue. I appreciate I may have suggested a rather 'sledgehammer' approach, but the fact that the culprit gets 'away with it' only breeds further, and more widespread non-compliance....
Cheers
30W
Thanks for responding...
A380/RNAV
Understood, but why can I go to CC and end up 7nm (vortex minima) for me behind a 380, on an ILS app, with only mention being that I can expect some LOC fluctuations as I'm released to TWR when KK rules seem entirely different? Is it to do with taxiway proximity or different approved safety standards between Pt 2's?
Earliest possible warning of the RNAV most appreciated as and when it can be provided
In the Summer, when holding is now the 'norm' whilst we are in the hold is ideal..... Even more so situational awareness wise from the WILLO side when EK hasn't been on the same freq prior to KK. The departing 380 is even more difficult for us because early awareness just isn't possible as it's not on freq with us at all.AMAN
AMAN is very accurate for LL. We DO in my opinion need to 'mature' it's use for KK because as I've alluded to, AC are using its data to make sensible executive decisions to aid us the pilots and the TMA. Sometimes, and I'm not suggesting this is the majority of times, because that wouldn't be fair, but occasionally the AMAN data is rather inaccurate. This leads to lack of confidence in it on our side and a wonder if the 'system' is in fact joined up, which is an unfair impression...
Speed Control
Im glad it's not only myself who believes there IS an issue here...was starting to feel rather lonely!
Question is - how do we resolve it? What internally do watch colleagues believe is the approach/answer? One things for sure, if we collectively are going to move 55/hr, or close to, then we must address this issue. I appreciate I may have suggested a rather 'sledgehammer' approach, but the fact that the culprit gets 'away with it' only breeds further, and more widespread non-compliance....
Cheers
30W
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware, it means you have enough fuel to make an approach and then divert to your alternate to land.
Simply put we are now committing to the destination as we calculate we can land there with 30' of fuel remaining (final reserve fuel). Again, following the declaration of 'minimum fuel' we are effectively 'advising' you we have NO fuel alternate now available to us, we are committed to land at destination.
In circumstances where an aircraft has declared minimum fuel or is experiencing an emergency or has declared minimum fuel, or in any other situation wherein the safety of the aircraft is not assured, the type of emergency and/or the circumstances experienced by the aircraft shall be reported by the transferring unit to the accepting unit and any other ATS unit that may be concerned with the flight and to the associated rescue coordination centres, if necessary. (PANS-ATM, DOC 4444)
So, does DIR inform the TWR of a 'minimum fuel' declaration so that hopefully avoiding a go-around is definitely assured?
As a pilot I fully understand and accept that no priority is given until 'minimum fuel' is raised to a higher status. It is however now an ICAO requirement that we declare it. It does infer to me however that ATC MUST advise us of ANY change to already communicated delay/track mileage. This then allows raising of the 'minimum fuel' status to a Pan or Mayday if we consider it necessary.
Cans and worms are springing to mind.....
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30W
The reason for the issues around the A380 is the distance the ILS is from the Tarmac at KK. At CC and other places it's further away so the aircraft doesn't enter the critical area. The deflection it causes as it turns off is very apparent with one behind, even at 12 miles sometimes. That's why there is such a large buffer spacing wise
I can't speak for arrivals but from a departures perspective the gap is planned once the 380 has pushed and in line with its estimated take off time given by CDM. This then allows radar to arrange as best as possible the sequence / RNAV etc...to coincide with the time coordinated by TWR
It's not a perfect system..
I can't speak for arrivals but from a departures perspective the gap is planned once the 380 has pushed and in line with its estimated take off time given by CDM. This then allows radar to arrange as best as possible the sequence / RNAV etc...to coincide with the time coordinated by TWR
It's not a perfect system..
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite, so here's a hypothetical...
unexpected delays for some reason, let's say a burst tyre. Middle of the day, nice weather, nobody expecting much holding. First pilot chimes up minimum fuel, 'roger, delay 10 minutes' says ATCO, no priority given or expected by director or by tower in doing best to ensure no go-around. Another pilots adds minimum fuel, still no priority to either. Perhaps another... At what stage, if at all, do we have to decide that these are all committed, and that should anything untoward occur, perhaps with a departure, there may now be 3 or maybe more immediate MAYDAYs with perhaps little prospect of reaching an alternate. Are departures stopped, queues jumped, or still carry on and hope nobody ahead stays on the runway for any reason...
If, as a pilot, you hear a couple of minimum fuels declared and you are getting that way too, do you decide diversion now would be a better option? Imponderables????
unexpected delays for some reason, let's say a burst tyre. Middle of the day, nice weather, nobody expecting much holding. First pilot chimes up minimum fuel, 'roger, delay 10 minutes' says ATCO, no priority given or expected by director or by tower in doing best to ensure no go-around. Another pilots adds minimum fuel, still no priority to either. Perhaps another... At what stage, if at all, do we have to decide that these are all committed, and that should anything untoward occur, perhaps with a departure, there may now be 3 or maybe more immediate MAYDAYs with perhaps little prospect of reaching an alternate. Are departures stopped, queues jumped, or still carry on and hope nobody ahead stays on the runway for any reason...
If, as a pilot, you hear a couple of minimum fuels declared and you are getting that way too, do you decide diversion now would be a better option? Imponderables????
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the South
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone explain to me how Gatwock achieves such a high runway rate per hour on one runway? Is it a one in one out system with standardized arrival gap spacing? I'm doing some research and any assistance and or advice on similar single runway airports would be warmly welcomed.
Regards
Regards
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to do my best to answer as much as possible from an AC perspective:
I agree with you, once an ATCO is valid they should be able to handle the busiest of situations and then respond appropriately to an emergency too. Someone cannot validate and then have a "bedding in" period, what happens if they are superb to 90% and cannot do 100%? However person-management should be carefully monitored by the supervisor to ensure they have the correct personnel in situ for certain periods - we've done it for LAMP too. Two fresh faces during their first busy spell should be avoided where possible, and closely monitored where not.
2. Answered above.
The only bit of this I can answer and yes it did, and the airspace has now changed so this summer will be "new" for both AC and TC. There have already been a couple of situations where this issue is being addressed so hopefully by the "peak months" we'll be better placed to deal with them better.
5. Not my remit.
Manning, I'll let you decide where that answer lies.
This is part of the problem, again with better foresight of what is coming out so knowing what the arrival spacing is to be will be of help, but as this is forever changing and not that easy to forward plan, the solution is already flawed. XMAN for Gatwick is a long way off at the moment, AMAN can change in a moment where AC either have less than 5 and it's 15+ or visa versa. Coupled with S17 and S22 not getting KK arrivals spaced and often above profile, their job to get you down and slow you down is compromised. Who is going to supply the money to get the system improved?
Not just on final approach, however AC this year are getting quite an informative brief regarding speed control, it includes the accuracy of conformance for several aircraft types and will possibly lead to a few "ticking off"s this summer due to non-conformance. I'm not sure if TC get the same brief however the information is now within NATS so I imagine it'll roll out to them at some point if not this year.
9. Not my remit.
AC will never use "Super", possibly a little early to start the awareness.
I hope that gives you a little more of an AC perspective. You seem to be very well informed so probably know much of what I've written already. It is going to be a testing summer so please bear with us, and do your best for us and we'll try our best for you. I am guessing you do, it is very frustrating when you get the ones that certainly don't.
1. Should airport scheduling allow for ATCO's U/T?
2. Answered above.
4. Greater co-ordination on gapping: This combined with other factors DID result in at least a few/several enroute S17 overloads last summer.
5. Not my remit.
6. AMAN struggles to cope with the above, and EATS at KK sometimes appear to struggle at times to be realistic to the AMAN initial prediction. More manual oversight/control of AMAN for KK??
7. Several times last Summer was slowed to minimum speed at FIR entry by en-route due 15-20 minute delay expected at KK. On transfer to TC told no delay (yes, appreciate officially that means not greater than 20'). On query told no idea where 'next door' got that from and indeed on arrival not more than once round the hold, on several occasions 'straight off' without even a 'spin'.....
Now en-route have done what is right and good management under the information available to them (AMAN?), but that information has proved to be totally inaccurate....
Extend XMAN to include KK? But for this AMAN timings need to be accurate and reliable!
As an extra, is there now a need this Summer to formally put a formal rate on KK arr for the protection of the system and ATCO's?
Now en-route have done what is right and good management under the information available to them (AMAN?), but that information has proved to be totally inaccurate....
Extend XMAN to include KK? But for this AMAN timings need to be accurate and reliable!
As an extra, is there now a need this Summer to formally put a formal rate on KK arr for the protection of the system and ATCO's?
8. Speed control - poor conformance by some pilots/operators led to go-arounds. This area has to improve! I observe decisions being made sometimes by crew to 'protect' themselves from go-around by 'reducing' early so to ensure the runway is clear when they get there. The impact on the stream selfishly doesn't concern them at the time I would suggest that mode 'S' is monitored in a more controlled fashion, and the offender is sent around regardless rather than an impact on either the next departure or arrival? Harsh perhaps, but perhaps the only way such offenders will learn?
9. Not my remit.
10. Use of 'Super' by EK and ATC alike would help crew situational awareness and warning of impending RNAV likelihood.
I hope that gives you a little more of an AC perspective. You seem to be very well informed so probably know much of what I've written already. It is going to be a testing summer so please bear with us, and do your best for us and we'll try our best for you. I am guessing you do, it is very frustrating when you get the ones that certainly don't.
Last edited by zonoma; 1st Mar 2016 at 23:05.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSLN,
Wondered how long it would take us to get to the doomsday scenario, but your right, it's a perfectly valid question....
As soon as 'minimum fuel is declared' in my opinion, that is the ICAO definition and the reason we are advising you.....
If mutilple aircraft declare minimum fuel, it seems from my side at least, a perfectly reasonable step for the GS to take. More a question for yourselves though,at what point would ATC decide to put a stop on departures?
In your final question, yes personally making a diversion WOULD be now high on my list. In deciding to commit, I should take into account the reasonability of landing at KK. Your scenario gives me high question as to that probability and I should be taking a command decision accordingly.
LL is often used as the fuel alternate, in times of good weather, when LL NOTAMS do not preclude decalring LL as an alternate etc. I would be expecting to declare a Pan on the way I suspect as an undelayed approach at LHR would not occur otherwise.... If not LL then GW normally - same scenario re Pan I suspect as we all know 'Essex' is far from a quiet place these days.
I don't know of colleagues who will be carrying minimum flight plan fuel to KK in summer seasons, that said, the extra added will of course vary..... We rely on experience, statistical data etc in making that decision, but doesn't mean we can't get caught out and end up in that 'minimum fuel' scenario if the tactical position is way off the stats or recent experiences....
We've not ended up in the 'multiple' scenario you suggest, let's hope from both sides of the mic that we never do. It's right that we all think about how we would handle it if we did though!
30W
Wondered how long it would take us to get to the doomsday scenario, but your right, it's a perfectly valid question....
At what stage, if at all, do we have to decide that these are all committed
Are departures stopped
In your final question, yes personally making a diversion WOULD be now high on my list. In deciding to commit, I should take into account the reasonability of landing at KK. Your scenario gives me high question as to that probability and I should be taking a command decision accordingly.
LL is often used as the fuel alternate, in times of good weather, when LL NOTAMS do not preclude decalring LL as an alternate etc. I would be expecting to declare a Pan on the way I suspect as an undelayed approach at LHR would not occur otherwise.... If not LL then GW normally - same scenario re Pan I suspect as we all know 'Essex' is far from a quiet place these days.
I don't know of colleagues who will be carrying minimum flight plan fuel to KK in summer seasons, that said, the extra added will of course vary..... We rely on experience, statistical data etc in making that decision, but doesn't mean we can't get caught out and end up in that 'minimum fuel' scenario if the tactical position is way off the stats or recent experiences....
We've not ended up in the 'multiple' scenario you suggest, let's hope from both sides of the mic that we never do. It's right that we all think about how we would handle it if we did though!
30W