Vectoring at Gatwick
All the plans re point merge etc will come to nothing unless the affected residents concerns are dealt with. LHR management do not seem to understand this , a couple of years ago they trial new departure routings causing an outcry in the affluent (and therefore influential outer suburbs around Ascot Camberley Bracknell areas. They never consulted people in these areas where there are lots and lots of inbound and outbound overflights but did consult people in places like Ashford and Staines which although theyare very much closer to LHR they are so close that nothing overflies them .
This project seemed similar to point merge with less vectoring and more planned 'fixed' approaches . removing the scattering effect of vectoring some people got almost every South/south west bound departure over them where previously it was just some. The latter was acceptable the former was not.
If point merge has similar effects you can forget introducing it because this part of the world to the west of LHR and West london to the east will just not allow it and both areas are inhabited by armies of lawyers , consultants and many airline personnel who can make more noise in Government circles than LHR can. And I woudl stress that many of them like em are not NIMBYS , they knew very well where LHR was went they moved to the area and it is a convenient and valuable asset. They dont mind a bit of noise but no one wants to be right under a fixed routing . So without an honest consultation with the neighbours you can forget any changes to LHR routings however clever.
An example of LHR and NATS management idiocy was arguing with member of the public at a large open meeting in Bagshot. They patronised and argued with the gentleman concerned until he revealed his occupation-BA A320 captain for 15 years -during which time he had flown god only new how many Midhurst and SAMPTON departures from LHR. Instant destruction of all credibiltiy of the proponents of change.
This project seemed similar to point merge with less vectoring and more planned 'fixed' approaches . removing the scattering effect of vectoring some people got almost every South/south west bound departure over them where previously it was just some. The latter was acceptable the former was not.
If point merge has similar effects you can forget introducing it because this part of the world to the west of LHR and West london to the east will just not allow it and both areas are inhabited by armies of lawyers , consultants and many airline personnel who can make more noise in Government circles than LHR can. And I woudl stress that many of them like em are not NIMBYS , they knew very well where LHR was went they moved to the area and it is a convenient and valuable asset. They dont mind a bit of noise but no one wants to be right under a fixed routing . So without an honest consultation with the neighbours you can forget any changes to LHR routings however clever.
An example of LHR and NATS management idiocy was arguing with member of the public at a large open meeting in Bagshot. They patronised and argued with the gentleman concerned until he revealed his occupation-BA A320 captain for 15 years -during which time he had flown god only new how many Midhurst and SAMPTON departures from LHR. Instant destruction of all credibiltiy of the proponents of change.
All the plans re point merge etc will come to nothing unless the affected residents concerns are dealt with. LHR management do not seem to understand this , a couple of years ago they trial new departure routings causing an outcry in the affluent (and therefore influential outer suburbs around Ascot Camberley Bracknell areas. They never consulted people in these areas where there are lots and lots of inbound and outbound overflights but did consult people in places like Ashford and Staines which although theyare very much closer to LHR they are so close that nothing overflies them .
This project seemed similar to point merge with less vectoring and more planned 'fixed' approaches . removing the scattering effect of vectoring some people got almost every South/south west bound departure over them where previously it was just some. The latter was acceptable the former was not.
If point merge has similar effects you can forget introducing it because this part of the world to the west of LHR and West london to the east will just not allow it and both areas are inhabited by armies of lawyers , consultants and many airline personnel who can make more noise in Government circles than LHR can. And I woudl stress that many of them like em are not NIMBYS , they knew very well where LHR was went they moved to the area and it is a convenient and valuable asset. They dont mind a bit of noise but no one wants to be right under a fixed routing . So without an honest consultation with the neighbours you can forget any changes to LHR routings however clever.
An example of LHR and NATS management idiocy was arguing with member of the public at a large open meeting in Bagshot. They patronised and argued with the gentleman concerned until he revealed his occupation-BA A320 captain for 15 years -during which time he had flown god only new how many Midhurst and SAMPTON departures from LHR. Instant destruction of all credibiltiy of the proponents of change.
This project seemed similar to point merge with less vectoring and more planned 'fixed' approaches . removing the scattering effect of vectoring some people got almost every South/south west bound departure over them where previously it was just some. The latter was acceptable the former was not.
If point merge has similar effects you can forget introducing it because this part of the world to the west of LHR and West london to the east will just not allow it and both areas are inhabited by armies of lawyers , consultants and many airline personnel who can make more noise in Government circles than LHR can. And I woudl stress that many of them like em are not NIMBYS , they knew very well where LHR was went they moved to the area and it is a convenient and valuable asset. They dont mind a bit of noise but no one wants to be right under a fixed routing . So without an honest consultation with the neighbours you can forget any changes to LHR routings however clever.
An example of LHR and NATS management idiocy was arguing with member of the public at a large open meeting in Bagshot. They patronised and argued with the gentleman concerned until he revealed his occupation-BA A320 captain for 15 years -during which time he had flown god only new how many Midhurst and SAMPTON departures from LHR. Instant destruction of all credibiltiy of the proponents of change.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although it depends where you put the point merge. If the 'point' of the point merge is at the latest point of the ILS where aircraft are normally vectored to then you get a spread of approach paths up until that 'point'. Beyond that point aircraft with fly the ILS like they always have.
However, if you place that 'point' miles and miles out then you will get an over-concentration of arrival flightpaths from there to touchdown.
It's hardly rocket science.
RNAV departures are slightly trickier....depends on the mix of routings and the amount of 'flyover' waypoints versus 'flyby' waypoints. By designing in more 'flyby' waypoints you get a bigger spread of departure routes....which is better for folk on the ground (less concentration of flightpaths because each aircraft takes a slightly different path, dependant on speed/weight/type etc.) even for the same RNAV SID.
However, not ideal for ATC in terms of 2 consecutive departures on same SID as each aircraft will fly slight variations on the same SID and therefore departure separation becomes an issue.
It's a good option if you can guarantee an alternation between say northerly and southerly departures all day long.
For the arrivals, if you had to have a point merge miles and miles from the airport (airspace limitations), you'd ideally have at least 2 routes to touchdown from the merge point....offering alternation (or 'relief routes') to residents on the ground.
Not always that simple though to design such structures. But certainly fairer to the communities underneath.
However, if you place that 'point' miles and miles out then you will get an over-concentration of arrival flightpaths from there to touchdown.
It's hardly rocket science.
RNAV departures are slightly trickier....depends on the mix of routings and the amount of 'flyover' waypoints versus 'flyby' waypoints. By designing in more 'flyby' waypoints you get a bigger spread of departure routes....which is better for folk on the ground (less concentration of flightpaths because each aircraft takes a slightly different path, dependant on speed/weight/type etc.) even for the same RNAV SID.
However, not ideal for ATC in terms of 2 consecutive departures on same SID as each aircraft will fly slight variations on the same SID and therefore departure separation becomes an issue.
It's a good option if you can guarantee an alternation between say northerly and southerly departures all day long.
For the arrivals, if you had to have a point merge miles and miles from the airport (airspace limitations), you'd ideally have at least 2 routes to touchdown from the merge point....offering alternation (or 'relief routes') to residents on the ground.
Not always that simple though to design such structures. But certainly fairer to the communities underneath.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really obwan. Airports are demanding customers. If the ANSP you work for can't provide the necessary tools to assist ATCOs to meet these demands then the airport will look elsewhere....
But, the whole point of the saying is, that it cannot be achieved ! However, in the ATC environment, that is what you are seeking to achieve.......it can't be done.
Although it depends where you put the point merge. If the 'point' of the point merge is at the latest point of the ILS where aircraft are normally vectored to then you get a spread of approach paths up until that 'point'. Beyond that point aircraft with fly the ILS like they always have.
However, if you place that 'point' miles and miles out then you will get an over-concentration of arrival flightpaths from there to touchdown.
It's hardly rocket science.
RNAV departures are slightly trickier....depends on the mix of routings and the amount of 'flyover' waypoints versus 'flyby' waypoints. By designing in more 'flyby' waypoints you get a bigger spread of departure routes....which is better for folk on the ground (less concentration of flightpaths because each aircraft takes a slightly different path, dependant on speed/weight/type etc.) even for the same RNAV SID.
However, not ideal for ATC in terms of 2 consecutive departures on same SID as each aircraft will fly slight variations on the same SID and therefore departure separation becomes an issue.
It's a good option if you can guarantee an alternation between say northerly and southerly departures all day long.
For the arrivals, if you had to have a point merge miles and miles from the airport (airspace limitations), you'd ideally have at least 2 routes to touchdown from the merge point....offering alternation (or 'relief routes') to residents on the ground.
Not always that simple though to design such structures. But certainly fairer to the communities underneath.
Many thanks for the explanation of point merge. i can see that if the merge point was set 8-10 miles east of LHR for westerlies then the final approach will be very similar to today and no one on that segment will notice. But what about the arc that aircraft must fly down do all arrivals have to fly this in one direction or do you have a path for north arrivals or one for south. Either way it would seem that people further out under the arcs would get a greater concentration of overflights than exists today with the four stacks with different routings to a turn for final and that turn being started anywhere from 6-8 to 12 miles or more out.
Whatever the whole point of my comment was that if the airlines,airport and ATC providers do not work with the affected communities then they will be in for years of grief with objections court cases etc etc.
As regards departures the trial LHR did a couple of years ago meant that pretty much everything headed south or SW with LHR on westerlies was confined to one path toa point just beyond Ascot and then dividing into two one over Bagshot area heading for Midhurst and one passing just north of Camberley heading for SAMPTON and people in the area immediately after the split point got very very angry because traditonally differing performance and differing vectoring split these streams up once again,. With MID departures for example, some would make the turn south over Chobham Common but others would come out as far as Camberley before heading south and people have got used to that ,
However, if you place that 'point' miles and miles out then you will get an over-concentration of arrival flightpaths from there to touchdown.
It's hardly rocket science.
RNAV departures are slightly trickier....depends on the mix of routings and the amount of 'flyover' waypoints versus 'flyby' waypoints. By designing in more 'flyby' waypoints you get a bigger spread of departure routes....which is better for folk on the ground (less concentration of flightpaths because each aircraft takes a slightly different path, dependant on speed/weight/type etc.) even for the same RNAV SID.
However, not ideal for ATC in terms of 2 consecutive departures on same SID as each aircraft will fly slight variations on the same SID and therefore departure separation becomes an issue.
It's a good option if you can guarantee an alternation between say northerly and southerly departures all day long.
For the arrivals, if you had to have a point merge miles and miles from the airport (airspace limitations), you'd ideally have at least 2 routes to touchdown from the merge point....offering alternation (or 'relief routes') to residents on the ground.
Not always that simple though to design such structures. But certainly fairer to the communities underneath.
Many thanks for the explanation of point merge. i can see that if the merge point was set 8-10 miles east of LHR for westerlies then the final approach will be very similar to today and no one on that segment will notice. But what about the arc that aircraft must fly down do all arrivals have to fly this in one direction or do you have a path for north arrivals or one for south. Either way it would seem that people further out under the arcs would get a greater concentration of overflights than exists today with the four stacks with different routings to a turn for final and that turn being started anywhere from 6-8 to 12 miles or more out.
Whatever the whole point of my comment was that if the airlines,airport and ATC providers do not work with the affected communities then they will be in for years of grief with objections court cases etc etc.
As regards departures the trial LHR did a couple of years ago meant that pretty much everything headed south or SW with LHR on westerlies was confined to one path toa point just beyond Ascot and then dividing into two one over Bagshot area heading for Midhurst and one passing just north of Camberley heading for SAMPTON and people in the area immediately after the split point got very very angry because traditonally differing performance and differing vectoring split these streams up once again,. With MID departures for example, some would make the turn south over Chobham Common but others would come out as far as Camberley before heading south and people have got used to that ,
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who'd have considered that possible a decade ago?
Zooker will no doubt bring me up on this, but by "challenging" previous assumptions, in this case wake turbulence, and proving that it can still be done safely, then efficiencies can be made.
Look at RECAT-EU...new studies, new technology, new efficiencies.
How many quarts did we fit in a pint pot 20/30 years ago? How many do we fit in that pint pot now? (If you need me to spell it out for you it is more!)
Whatever you think about 'the job' (in whatever business) - what it's about/what it should be about/etc, etc - these things change as technology evolves and parameters change.
Romanticising about the past is lovely but it's not reality...
I take your point, but surely there comes a point when you cannot squeeze any more in. Many would argue that point has already been reached. I agree that we squeezed more in years ago by exercising our ingenuity & pulling our fingers out - but we reached our limits, nevertheless. New technology & procedures can, undoubtedly, squeeze more in - but it will certainly reach its own limit. I would argue that this limit is finite & is fast approaching.
RNAV departures are slightly trickier....depends on the mix of routings and the amount of 'flyover' waypoints versus 'flyby' waypoints. By designing in more 'flyby' waypoints you get a bigger spread of departure routes....which is better for folk on the ground (less concentration of flightpaths because each aircraft takes a slightly different path, dependant on speed/weight/type etc.) even for the same RNAV SID
Out of interest, what are the enhancements relative to the current TBS regime?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take your point, but surely there comes a point when you cannot squeeze any more in. Many would argue that point has already been reached. I agree that we squeezed more in years ago by exercising our ingenuity & pulling our fingers out - but we reached our limits, nevertheless. New technology & procedures can, undoubtedly, squeeze more in - but it will certainly reach its own limit. I would argue that this limit is finite & is fast approaching.
With each gain (e.g. TBS which, IMHO, was quite impressive) there are further opportunities to push those gains further (hence eTBS - although, personally I think there are bigger gains to be had with TBS than just LHR...).
Each breakthrough will be refined over time to become better than the first iteration.
The limits you talk about are surely only today's limits...based on what we know today?
Below is an excerpt from wiki (apologies) which demonstrates the point of progress and "limits" (setting limits, reducing limits and then increasing them again):
"The 1861 Act introduced a 10 mph (16 km/h) limit (powered passenger vehicles were then termed “light locomotives”). The 1865 'Red Flag Act' reduced the speed limit to 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns and required a man with a red flag or lantern to walk 60 yards (50 m) ahead of each vehicle, and warn horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self-propelled machine. The 1878 Act removed the need for the flag and reduced the distance of the escort to 20 yards (20 m)."
And here we are in an age where we are seriously looking at driverless cars...planes too...some even question whether there is a future for human ATC.
IMHO that's a while off yet, but technology creep will get there, as will public acceptance...in time.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enhanced time based separation scheduled for arrival early 2018 - NATS
eTBS stage 1 will bring the recategorisation (RECAT EU) of wake which will bring some reductions in separations.
It will permit wake separation to touchdown by taking into account aircraft speed profiles inside 4DME and runway occupancy times to predict compression encountered inside 4DME.
In essence, it will provide the radar controller with an indicator which shows threshold separation (wake or runway occupancy) + predicted compression. It will provide the tower controller with the threshold wake separation. Both controllers have the ability to see the other's indicator in cases of co-ordination.
eTBS stage 1 will bring the recategorisation (RECAT EU) of wake which will bring some reductions in separations.
It will permit wake separation to touchdown by taking into account aircraft speed profiles inside 4DME and runway occupancy times to predict compression encountered inside 4DME.
In essence, it will provide the radar controller with an indicator which shows threshold separation (wake or runway occupancy) + predicted compression. It will provide the tower controller with the threshold wake separation. Both controllers have the ability to see the other's indicator in cases of co-ordination.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the plans re point merge etc will come to nothing unless the affected residents concerns are dealt with. LHR management do not seem to understand this , a couple of years ago they trial new departure routings causing an outcry in the affluent (and therefore influential outer suburbs around Ascot Camberley Bracknell areas. They never consulted people in these areas where there are lots and lots of inbound and outbound overflights but did consult people in places like Ashford and Staines which although theyare very much closer to LHR they are so close that nothing overflies them .
This project seemed similar to point merge with less vectoring and more planned 'fixed' approaches . removing the scattering effect of vectoring some people got almost every South/south west bound departure over them where previously it was just some. The latter was acceptable the former was not.
If point merge has similar effects you can forget introducing it because this part of the world to the west of LHR and West london to the east will just not allow it and both areas are inhabited by armies of lawyers , consultants and many airline personnel who can make more noise in Government circles than LHR can. And I woudl stress that many of them like em are not NIMBYS , they knew very well where LHR was went they moved to the area and it is a convenient and valuable asset. They dont mind a bit of noise but no one wants to be right under a fixed routing . So without an honest consultation with the neighbours you can forget any changes to LHR routings however clever.
An example of LHR and NATS management idiocy was arguing with member of the public at a large open meeting in Bagshot. They patronised and argued with the gentleman concerned until he revealed his occupation-BA A320 captain for 15 years -during which time he had flown god only new how many Midhurst and SAMPTON departures from LHR. Instant destruction of all credibiltiy of the proponents of change.
This project seemed similar to point merge with less vectoring and more planned 'fixed' approaches . removing the scattering effect of vectoring some people got almost every South/south west bound departure over them where previously it was just some. The latter was acceptable the former was not.
If point merge has similar effects you can forget introducing it because this part of the world to the west of LHR and West london to the east will just not allow it and both areas are inhabited by armies of lawyers , consultants and many airline personnel who can make more noise in Government circles than LHR can. And I woudl stress that many of them like em are not NIMBYS , they knew very well where LHR was went they moved to the area and it is a convenient and valuable asset. They dont mind a bit of noise but no one wants to be right under a fixed routing . So without an honest consultation with the neighbours you can forget any changes to LHR routings however clever.
An example of LHR and NATS management idiocy was arguing with member of the public at a large open meeting in Bagshot. They patronised and argued with the gentleman concerned until he revealed his occupation-BA A320 captain for 15 years -during which time he had flown god only new how many Midhurst and SAMPTON departures from LHR. Instant destruction of all credibiltiy of the proponents of change.
Pax?? The A320 captain would not of been smiling had someone who knew what they were talking about been at the presentation.
Gonzo
to be fair to the teams from LHR and NATs they ahd to deal witha lot of riduclous questions
Example-since the changes I am kept awake all night by aircraft noise -and of course LHR is closed at night essentially and one question often merged into another.
However the issue was that they claimed that people in the Bagshot area should not be too concerned as almost all aircraft would be at 6000 ft or higher. That of course isn't true -quite lot can make it up that high but even from my own observations many don't for all kinds of reasons. It wasnt so much they they were wrong- in fact rephrasing it a bit to say we aim to get planes up that high but probably exasperated by some of the sillier preceding questions, they got dogmatic on the wrong point and lost a lot of credibility over it.
Moving on to Mr Nimmer s comments I think I made it quite clear that most people in the area i live and that was affected by these trials are not in the least anti LHR -a great many of them work there and a lot of people see it as great convenience. In my own case I grew up next to LHR when it still had 5 runways so for me its always 'been there'. It is purely the point that people in todays world expect a degree of proper consultation about changes and not to be consulted as an afterthought which is what happened here. There was no consultation until after people complained in droves about changes in noise patterns. I cannot speak for those east of LHR but I suspect your argument holds much greater force but out to the south west i have never ever heard anyone complain about aircraft noise per se about LHR , EGLF is a different story, although I am sure there are complaints and enquires about odd incidents which usually have perfectly reasonable explanations which people accept.
to be fair to the teams from LHR and NATs they ahd to deal witha lot of riduclous questions
Example-since the changes I am kept awake all night by aircraft noise -and of course LHR is closed at night essentially and one question often merged into another.
However the issue was that they claimed that people in the Bagshot area should not be too concerned as almost all aircraft would be at 6000 ft or higher. That of course isn't true -quite lot can make it up that high but even from my own observations many don't for all kinds of reasons. It wasnt so much they they were wrong- in fact rephrasing it a bit to say we aim to get planes up that high but probably exasperated by some of the sillier preceding questions, they got dogmatic on the wrong point and lost a lot of credibility over it.
Moving on to Mr Nimmer s comments I think I made it quite clear that most people in the area i live and that was affected by these trials are not in the least anti LHR -a great many of them work there and a lot of people see it as great convenience. In my own case I grew up next to LHR when it still had 5 runways so for me its always 'been there'. It is purely the point that people in todays world expect a degree of proper consultation about changes and not to be consulted as an afterthought which is what happened here. There was no consultation until after people complained in droves about changes in noise patterns. I cannot speak for those east of LHR but I suspect your argument holds much greater force but out to the south west i have never ever heard anyone complain about aircraft noise per se about LHR , EGLF is a different story, although I am sure there are complaints and enquires about odd incidents which usually have perfectly reasonable explanations which people accept.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Location
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of these new technologies and developments are very exciting but as a controller at a busy unit, not Heathrow or Gatwick, my unit has not seen any advancements at all. So I've not been overly worried about technology creep degrading the job at my unit so far. Or am I wrong, are they planning to roll these things out company wide?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax, the problem is that the LHR RNAV trial was just that, a trial. I'm not debating the whys and wherefores, but should a trial have a full consultation? Interesting question. The trial was needed to gather data to determine how close together departure routes could be whilst still considered to be separated from each other. This could lead to respite departure routes in the future, but without trials to gather data they most surely will not happen.
A related issue was that Heathrow found, during the earlier 'Operational Freedom' trials, that people started complaining about them months before they had even started, due to the publicity put out by Heathrow.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't, in many ways.
A related issue was that Heathrow found, during the earlier 'Operational Freedom' trials, that people started complaining about them months before they had even started, due to the publicity put out by Heathrow.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't, in many ways.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting read about what happened at Edinburgh when they had a trial of a new SID.
Edinburgh Airport flight path trial hailed despite complaints - Edinburgh Evening News
Edinburgh Airport flight path trial hailed despite complaints - Edinburgh Evening News
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not debating the whys and wherefores, but should a trial have a full consultation? Interesting question.
http://teddingtontown.co.uk/wp-conte...d-20140921.pdf