ZAGZO to LTN25
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Cambs., UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZAGZO to LTN25
I need assistance ladies and gentlemen. What is happening to the descent profiles in the AD6 plan from ZAGZO and COCCU?
I flew for 36 years. I now live under the new intermediate approach path in SW Cambridgeshire. I actually found the sight of the early morning Wizzes and easys very pleasant as I walked my dog.
I studied the NATS minimum level/altitude plans with interest and the 'steps' appeared at least feasable.
While I lsiten to 129.550, however, I am struck by the number of ATC instructions to 'expedite' descent (usually from FL80 to 6000) and the 'be level in....'.
Immediately my pleasant walk is pierced with the high-pitched whistle reducing to low frequency roar of aircraft having to use their spoilers to comply.
Once or twice, in unusual circumstances, is forgivable.....the high percentage rate that is happening here is not.
Fuel is being wasted, excess airframe noise is being generated, passengers are upset by the vibration.
Why?
Is it the early morning departures from STN22 clashing? I can't believe it's ATC incompetence....I worked with you folks for so long.
I have registered a complaint to NATS but was told that 'my comment would take its place in the post implementation review'.
Anyone brave enough to tell me what they think is going on?
Martyn (VC10, BAC1-11, L1011, 747-100/200/400, 737-400/700)
I flew for 36 years. I now live under the new intermediate approach path in SW Cambridgeshire. I actually found the sight of the early morning Wizzes and easys very pleasant as I walked my dog.
I studied the NATS minimum level/altitude plans with interest and the 'steps' appeared at least feasable.
While I lsiten to 129.550, however, I am struck by the number of ATC instructions to 'expedite' descent (usually from FL80 to 6000) and the 'be level in....'.
Immediately my pleasant walk is pierced with the high-pitched whistle reducing to low frequency roar of aircraft having to use their spoilers to comply.
Once or twice, in unusual circumstances, is forgivable.....the high percentage rate that is happening here is not.
Fuel is being wasted, excess airframe noise is being generated, passengers are upset by the vibration.
Why?
Is it the early morning departures from STN22 clashing? I can't believe it's ATC incompetence....I worked with you folks for so long.
I have registered a complaint to NATS but was told that 'my comment would take its place in the post implementation review'.
Anyone brave enough to tell me what they think is going on?
Martyn (VC10, BAC1-11, L1011, 747-100/200/400, 737-400/700)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi There, you nailed it, confliction with Stansted departures. Leaving the hold at FL80, the aircraft have to head south west then be at or below 5000ft before they can be turn downwind for runway 25. The bases of CAS don’t allow for an early descent option, and Stansted airport didn’t want to change any of their departure routes, this there is a confliction.
The Stansted Luton traffic interaction has always been challenging, the new Luton hold has just moved the confliction points and changed the way the issues need to be resolved.
The Stansted Luton traffic interaction has always been challenging, the new Luton hold has just moved the confliction points and changed the way the issues need to be resolved.
