No more emotive than
:p :E

BOAC and Chesty

With that info, the argument makes much more sense, and will probably institute a bit more understanding to those concerned. Perhaps a point to raise in CHIRP to try and raise awareness outwith the realms of PPRuNe?

:ok:

If NATS were to study the paper mentioned by MONT BLANC properly again, it will find the issue of level busts from 'expect' clearances was fully covered and investigated. A great deal of effort was done with SD into level bust occurances - the result concluding that 'expect' clearances were NOT directly contributable to level busts.

What was VERY apparant during the period of that papers production was that LATCC Ops (as was in those days....) did not want the extra workload of publishing, in any form other than MATS pt2, such restrictions.

The report was finally accepted however, and NATS agreed to publish, but with a delay of over approx 1 yr due to workload issues. ScOACC were VERY helpfull throughout the consultation, and fully supported it's findings. Their restrictions were published without delay - and incorporated into STARS where applicable.

I still believe the restrictions should be published - there ARE big aircrew issues here, mainly in the planning and management areas of the descent and approach. UK airspace is unique in the hugely early descnts for some airfields.
LTMA and MTMA airfields aren't too badly off descent wise, and so one isn't badly caught out.

Descents to 'regional' airfields such as NM as BOAC mentions CAN create unnecessary issues for the flight deck. Midlands Group airfields are also another classic. Descent is SO far ahead of what is ideal/economic, one CAN be badly caught out.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not bemoaning the system for this. The UK has a tremendous ATC system, held together mainly by it's frontline, operational staff (controllers). The SA's are there for good reason, and provide a system capacity benefit that ALL operators benefit from.

BOAC does have a perfectly valid point however, and I know exactly where he is coming from.......

I suggest NATS pull out that working paper from what is several years back now and give it a bloody good read!

30W (pilot)

Sorry folks, dinner is nearly ready and I haven't had time to trawl through all the posts - however...............................

Our flight plans are produced by Jeppeson vis Bytron. They calculate a fuel burn based on a variety of things, wind, route, etc but the descent is usually planned on an economical thrust to idle at TOD basis.

Now if you ATC guys ask us to do something often a lot different to what we would really like to do, my fuel burn goes up be a couple or 3 hundred kilos on the 320 but by up to a tonne on the 330.

I don't fly around on fumes, never have, never will but it just seems ludicrous that you have a secret and we aren't told.

Give our flight planners the info, they will factor it into our plans, we won't creep down at 500 feet per minute because I really don't want to descend yet.

Yes, get out on fam flights, see how we operate and perhaps then you will realise why we gripe at such matters.

Yes dear,I'll have the Merlot please...

Oh dear - seems I previously forgot to move the 'Jetblast Booster Switch' to the 'Off' position. Alcohol induced lapse I'm afraid - apologies to any/all who took offence. (This contribution I hasten to add is 'pre-pub'!)

Despite the strong arguments I have read on the part of those in the cockpit, I have this over riding concern regarding the habit 'some', I say again to stress not all but 'some', crews have of questioning ATC instructions on the RT for reasons other than straightforward confirmation.

If, for whatever reason, many having been listed previously, a standing agreement was not adhered to on a given day, I fear RT exchanges along the lines of: "confirm that was descend to FLXX to be level abeam ABC for the XYZ123?" followed by "Affirm XYZ123, be FLXX abeam ABC", "But isn't it usually FLYY? Any reason..." and so on becoming increasingly common.

I do see some benefit for Flight Ops/Dispatch being given a greater insight into the application of agreed levels for the sake of fuel planning. However, my gut instinct I'm afraid remains to keep you 'drivers' out of the loop for fear of, and again I stress a minority, your erstwhile colleagues taking it upon themselves to question ATC whilst on the RT. I'm all for communication between the professions, but there is definitely a time and a place best suited for such and debating chambers are best left off the airwaves, and kept in the pubs (Or Jetblast:rolleyes:)!

Cheers:)...

Two groups of pros at the glass face.

One says those who need to know, know.

The others are telling you that, unless they have local knowledge, they know nothing about these standing arrangements.

In particular there has been a history of using low level trigger waypoints that are inhibited and thus invisible on FMC's until aircraft are within, for example, 40 miles of them. Favourites in the past have been ones like GOLES coming in from the North sea or the ones that used to be offered for expeditious right hand downwinds to Stansted's 05. It took years to get some of this trigger waypoints into our main databases.

The proof to controllers is that the fuel plans do not reflect the early drops and the extra fuel. If 20 mins 'no delay' is promulgated for the London area what logic prevents notices for other fields indicating that aircraft must be expected regularly to leave cruise altitude 50, 60 or more miles early?

Without fam flights controllers aren't seeing the difference it makes to arrival fuel for crews without local knowledge.

Regards
Rob

I think a reasonable viewer would conclude that the lack of any kind of official ATC/Aircrew liaison such the old Familiarisation Flight scheme is directly responsible for this us-and-them situation.
This is in blatent contravention of a safety recommendation from the AAIB, and supposedly accepted by the Regulator [CAA] and NATS.
Never assume that SAFETY figures as highly in new-NATS as it did in old-NATS.........although the figures show the opposite......a significant reduction in incident reporting of both serious and non-serious events over recent months!
Could this be a result of the unbelievably complex computerised report form which takes 30+ minutes to fill in, overseen directly by a management "assister" in the middle of the OPS room, and replaces a paper sheet which could be filled in whilst having a post-incident cup of coffee in the canteen??

055166k,

I really hope it hasn't become an us and them situation - despite the difficulties in getting people airborne on our side of the industry nowdays, I still visit, reasonably regularly your establishment.

I have never felt any such situation during visits, indeed quite the opposite.

I do offer fam flights - hard as they are to organise, they can be done, currently however I spend so much time training that non training flights are rare upon which famils can take place. Hopefully this will ease over the next couple of months - then any ATCO welcome.....

30W

30W
The point of the post was aimed at NATS, and the complete reversal of any kind of coherent professional-standard policy towards controller/aircrew liaison and aircraft performance appreciation in the interest of enhancing service provision. There is money in abundance for any kind of management training, and plenty of time off.......even when there was a Fam Flight scheme the controller had to do it on a day off and cover most of the cost.
By the way......the nightmare to come is the much-heralded i-Facts system...absolutely £millions being spent for no benefit at all.....what do I know?......well I correctly forecast 5 major operational-use problems with the current Swanwick system about 6 years before it went live.....and every one happened!
I tried to look up the AAIB report reference yesterday.......however it was a Bank Holiday and the Swanwick Library was shut......another example of contempt for the worker......we work 24/7.....168 hours a week.....our library is available 35 hours a week at times when we are so busy that no-one can use it anyway......except non-operational staff......you see we may pinch a copy of something if it is left unlocked!!!!!!

You're right! We should all head off back up to LATCC and the old Ops room. We never had it so good.

BD

055166K
Think you may have moved slightly off track about incident reporting but it seems that at LTCC the number of reports that have been filed since the computerised system was introduced has risen by at least 40%. Begs the question why is Swanwick having so many problems?

055166k

I've used the computerised (STAR) system twice now - IMHO it's a breeze. We can fill it in at any terminal (whilst having a coffee if not in the OPs room), then send it off to management - just the same way as you would send off the written report to your manager in days of old - it has not changed our way of doing things with regards to 'supervision'.

As for the liaison visits... at TC we actively encourage airlines to send pilots down and quite often have training captains and below in our TRUCEs.

In fact there is hardly a cycle goes by when there is not aircrew of some description are wandering round the OPs room on a visit.

As for getting on the jumpseat - a lot of that has to do with 9/11 and the requirements by DfT regarding unauthorised people in the cockpit - slowly being relaxed now.

Maybe your problems stem from a management problem at LACC?? - not that I am saying we have good managers, but we do get a lot of aircrew visitors.

I agree that we should keep pilots informed of possible descent rates. If R/T time permits i tend to use "Descend FL280, expect FL200 10nm before MONTY". Helps keep everyone in the know, and even helps me, as if i forget to descend an a/c, i often have pilots remind me that they request descent if they are to make that restriction.

I really don't understand this us and them attitude. I never seem to see it at work, from either pilots or air traffic, just on this web site!

I would like to revisit this thread. The other day inbound to EGNM from LIFFY I was given descent almost 120 miles before the 'economic' point, and then further step-downs (again not geographically specified until almost - and in one case - too late:)). This resulted in my burning about 400kg of my 380kg 'contingency fuel', so it is a serious issue in terms of fuel planning for pilots and airlines.

I have received two very helpful replies to this issue from PPRuning ATC'ers (blushes spared:)) and it appears that the info is buried in AIRACs. I have had a sneak look at one and it does indeed have some of these 'hidden' descent gates aka 'Standing Agreements'.

I asked our company to move top of descent back to before LIFFY as a 'ballpark' attempt to get closer to the fuel needed to make these 'gates'. I am seeking ideas for a way to get this info into the airlines flight planning systems. All inputs gratefully received. Is there a matrix somewhere that we can access?

Leaving aside this major safety issue, once again - as we have requested here - can ATC PLEASE give us the requirements in the clearance, just as 'YFA' says? Maastricht manage it regularly - "be level 40 before xxx" or "1500 or more" not "increase your rate - you now need to lose xxxx feet in 4 miles" (I just didn't tell you). You know the 'gates' - we don't - it is that simple. Unless we can get them onto the PLOG, we never will - unless of course we fly the same route day in day out. It really does not increase the overall R/T loading. If you prefer we can ask for clarification with each level change?

And - please stop the be level x before somewhere. Either create a more appropriate waypoint or syncronise it to an existing waypoint :ok:

No chance Javelin, if that were the case then we'll need an RP every 5 miles along every airway/UAR, as there are times we adapt or introduce a level restriction due to other situations than just everyday normal flows of traffic. Anyone into LGW from AKIKI may have been subject to a FL180 lvl/below by KATHY. Its not a standing agreement, just ensuring that when the turn at KATHY is taken toward GWC that the a/c is below those into Stansted via AVANT. Not every ATCO uses it, and those that do choose their times to use it.

On the other hand, the last one I know that was introduced was ARTEP to replace the Paris inbounds being cleared to be level 20 nms before Dieppe (DPE), unfortunately our wonderful comms coupled with our Toys'R'Us headsets and the English communications barrier meant that we were repeating nearly every transmission to clarify the point for about a week, as ARTEP sounded far too similar to Dieppe across the airwaves. After a week, every controller reverted to using 20 nms before Dieppe :ugh:

To be constructive, it would help if there was a bit more cooperation, after all we want to help keep things moving 'cos we don't like delays. Then we are asked to keep fuel burn down so we try balance common sense with prudence. Then ATC ask us to do something which creates MCDU workload in the descent - I know I can 'wing it' but it is simply not the way we are taught to operate in a modern glass cockpit.

I would dearly like to take more ATC folks on Fam flights, we can offer it at MAN, I know the constraints - has to be a day off etc - another problem to be overcome.

A final comment, for the moment. Came back into MAN yesterday, medium weight - about 160 tonnes, high speed as approved, stopped at various levels then cleared down to FL70 by DANE, normal inbound speed. When I said not possible, I was politely challenged, we nearly did it with full speed brake all the way and about 270kts.

Let's all work together then we can really enjoy :ok:

Those MAN people, seem to enjoy keeping you hot and high coming off DANE. Just out of interest Javelin....was it onto 24R?
Everytime I can remember recently been vectored off Dane for 24R, its needed damn near full brake 250-270kts (I could slow down earlier...but then you get it in the ear as well!), if you need the anti-ice.........its down with rubber speed brakes, even then its a bloody struggle to get stabilised by 1000 AGL in IMC:ok:

I called a duty controller about 2 months ago regarding this (number on our crewroom wall) and was basically told to like it or lump it:sad:

Rather unsportsman behaviour if you ask me

This sort of thing is always an interesting thread... But as both a pilot and a controller, it is always interesting to note that most commercial pilots have no concept of air traffic control. The feel that everything is the same, that we have static routes, static restrictions for everything just doesn't meet with reality. We COULD have a very static system that you can plan for every event. But that would cut down on the flexibility of the system and cut back on the rates of aircraft we could get through the system. Something that the airlines would really not like...

I see the problem as multifold. One is that the skies just keep getting busier and busier with aircraft that are less and less compatible together. In the old days everyone pretty much operated the same and there was a lot of stratification of traffic between the military, airlines and GA... No longer is this true and going to become even worse with the advent of the VLJ.

We also have the problem with airlines trying to squeeze every ounce of fuel out of a flight. They bet on the cum as it were that most of the time things are going to work our well and they can plan for very little contingency fuel if the destination airport is VFR. There are crews that are trying to be good little employees and who take for gospel what the dispatcher has load planned for them fuel wise. Sometimes this isn't quite good enough due to winds not being what is forecast, or crews going direct somewhere that takes them out of the favorable winds. (Not our problem one way or another.). Then there are the issues of unrealistic planning, and that is of going to a major metro airport and expecting that you are going to be able to get a throttle off decent from your requested TOD point. To try to make everything fit correctly, you just can't expect this all the time. There are just too many aircraft all vying for the same bit of airspace going to and fro that make it a crap shoot at best on where you are going to get to start down.

We could publish all of our Letters of Agreement (standing agreements) for the pilot community, but for one, it would probably just cause a lot of confusion as well as weigh down the flight bag pretty bad. Aviation is VERY fluid and we are going to change routes and altitudes of aircraft based on traffic, weather and sector loading. There are no standing agreements for that per se, but there are common sense ATC principals in use... Oh and there are also different levels of controllers just as there are pilots. You have to take that into account too.

As to commercial pilots getting a better handle on what is going on downstairs. I wish that we had more than a bare 1% of the commercial crowd come to classes to actually learn what we do. Unfortunately the more educated pilots seem to come from the GA crowd who have a larger interest in what goes on all inclusive of aviation. The people that do come to the classes do get a very good overview of what it takes to move aircraft around the system and why we do what we do. They also come out of it with a very very good understanding of the dynamics of it... Probably has something to do with straping a headset on and working traffic in the simulator <EG>... But also a lot of info from the classroom portion too.

Do controllers need to know more of what goes on in the cockpit? We certainly do, but for most of us, it isn't even an option anymore unless we were to go out and pay for lessons. There are some seminars that we can try to go to, but those too are expensive to attend. The airlines for the most part to not help us to understand... In the US there is probably only one source of getting pilots and controllers together to try to understand differences and that is Communicating for Safety, and then some of the Raincheck classes that are provided at some ATC facilities. It's NOT enough, and there needs to be some real understanding about the complexities of the system by both the dispatchers and airline managment who sometimes have no clue as to what they are doing to the flight crews by shorting them fuel...

Oh well enough for now, time to head out of the house...

regards

Scott

Scott - as usual a thorough analysis, but I'm not clear whether this a response to post #1 or later ones?

To answer on my points - IF we were given the restrictions with the descent clearance our lives would be easier.

My 'contingency' figures were what I used against what the PLOG calculates as the airline 'minimum', and quoted only to show the significance of the early descents.

There is still a need for airlines (I refer to UK - I have no experience of the US) to have some way of predicting non-economic and fuel wasting UK descent profiles, and as I have said to those who kindly responded with information by PM, I now consider this to be of enough relevance to 'safety' as to warrant an approach to CHIRP in the hope they can communicate with SRG (ATC) to try and get some BASIC idea of descent gates into our planning system (Jeppesen in my case). EXACT altitudes are not needed, and can, indeed, change on a day-to-day basis if need-be, but we need some idea of where top of descent is going to be.

Edit to add I have raised a query through Chirp

I hope you get somewhere with them. If there is anything i can help with, feel free to pm me.

Best of Luck!

And Javelin, i do agree with you about the use of "be level 10 before MONTY", but unfortunately we have no say in it. Airspace and sectors change all the time as we try to make things better and cut delays for you guys. As a result restrictions have to move, which unfortunately means we have to, in effect, make up points. There'd be far too many reporting points around if we didn't use existing ones. Sorry! I know it's a pain in the back-side for you guys