Haughtney - yep 24R

Scott - revelation ! we got a standard descent into LAS 2 days ago.

Sadly they spoiled it by insisting on 190kts to 4d - with windshear reported and a large storm to our left.

We just about did it, but it wasn't pretty :sad:

Ta for the input Mr ATCO !

Likewise Mr Friendly! I will update as/when appropriate. The query is in the system.

Regarding creating new waypoints - I do not feel the need for this (although it would be nice:)) and, from the interface with controllers, ask only for enough 'notice' of your requirements to enable me to make the descent planned and comfortable.

I think you'll find some of the answers within the UK's SRD (Standard Routing Document). This is available freely via the AIS website.

It's not a pilot friendly document, nor some would argue does it need to be. It does however allow Nav/Ops departments to see level restrictions upon certain inbound/outbound routes from the UK. My company uses this, builds the early descents into the PLOGS and so we have adequate fuel. Encourage yours to do the same........

I pushed heavily for the publication of all this years ago. The problem with places like Leeds, Midlands Group airfields etc, is that many of the descent profiles are before the start of the STAR. There is no easy place to put the expected descent restrictions on such arrivals.

I do believe there is an argument for extending STARS for some airfields beyond their current starting point, and hence including descent data. RT loading could also be reduced.

eg: BB arrival through S19:- typical 1st call response " ABC123 goodafternoon, maintain FL350, routing AVANT, MIDHURST,OCKHAM, HEMEL, GROVE 1C Birmingham."

Extend the STAR back to HEMEL. Include the EXPEXTED descent data and RT now "ABC123 goodafternoon, maintain FL350, routing AVANT GROVE 1C Birmingham."

Valuable RT time saved on both ATC transmission and aircraft readback!

30W

BOAC,
My appologies, I thought the RAD used to have some level guidance in it, having just looked I see that it doesn't:( Either it's changed, or more likely I'm having another one of those days!! Definately some guidance (not all) was published somewhere - can anyone help with where it was??
The STAR issue became political because nobody wanted 'ownership' of such a large route section. To any ATC Ops folk, it means more ammendment etc..... Also there was the issue of the route segment being so long it being difficult to fit on one page:(
There's an email address for NATS Ops in the RAD [email protected], I suggest those who feel strongly that the level restrictions should be published email and tell them so. Certainly NATS agreed to publish them some years ago, but I've run out of the chasing enthusiasm I had in those days:(
30W

No sweat! Good to see you got your airline planners on to it.
I'll pin my faith on CHIRP - they never normally fail!

They have been a fantastic outlet, for all areas of the industry over the last few years. Don't pin all your faith on it though - this is (or at least was) a hugely political issue behind the scenes. :ugh:
Good luck!
30W

Now now girls its very simple. Everytime i come across an agreement ie otbed 280, or latan 330(li/lg), or ncl 260 i confirm that it a full time agreement with the sector at an appropiate quiet time. Then I send an email to head of flight planning ,or asr, and they incorporate it into the burn/plog or however they want. We get more fuel, atcos get their stress down and it isnt rocket science. Situational awareness is a behavioural marker item for crm assessment. So if you are aware pass it on, possibly in your own time, if you can drag yourselves away from your incredibly full lives arguing on pprune.

Hi BOAC;

We in ATC still work most everything in the short term. If we were to try to just fit everything in with the long term outlook, we would hamper the system with undo restrictions. In the US we fill the bag to full just a bit more than they normally do in Europe, and this is why you see a lot of vectoring about and speed control in trying to make everything fit, as well as many intermediate altitudes. We are just trying to be as flexible as possible without having to put in static restrictions that place a bigger burdeon on the airspace. About the best you are going to get out of most of our controllers if they have the time is to get expect lower in 30 miles. But, I doubt that is going to happen. We for the most part, expect flight crews to understand that whent hey get within about 200 miles of a major airport that they can expect vectoring, speed control and altitude changes to start getting in line for the sequence for that stream (know that there are normally at least four streams going to one airport with the way that we do it in the US.

The only thing that I can say of help to the pilot community is to not let the airlines short you on fuel. There are going to be days where you land with a lot more fuel than you needed, but unless you are willing to go to an alternate and take the time and wasted money of a divert, plan to carry some extra fuel. That is indeed the price of doing business...

Oh, there is also that ability for ALL flight crews to come and attend Communicating for Safety in Dallas <G>... I believe that it is 12 and 13 October this year...

regards

Scott

30W, as a S19 controller I would love to give you AVANT GROVE 1C, but this would mean the STAR starting at AVANT if I were to be doing my job properly, and if that was to be the case, then we'd also need a new STAR starting at 40 dme before BIG, and whatever the Lambourne restriction is too. Apply this to every other airfield and I think you'll need more fingers and toes to count the new ones on. I do agree that restrictions like the FL250 10nm before AVANT should be published and known, but as for now I'll still use the "expect" I always do.

Ideally I'd like to give you no routing at all, but we all know how useless your Ops Dept are at filing flightplans :ugh:

Scott - it IS simply a question of making sure that we DO take the right fuel! It does not make commercial sense to always carry X00 extra kg in case we are descended 100 miles early or to always carry x00kg in case we are held for 40 minutes or vectored for 60 miles when we probably will not, so IF we could establish the expected parameters and get those fed in to our planning systems it would be far better. As pilots we fly into different airspace every day of our working lives. You as a controller have a pretty good chance of knowing the waypoints/altitude blocks (even airway names:) ) and routing in your area. We generally do not, unless we are employed on regular 'bus runs' in which case it is easy.

The second issue is how these things are handled on the day. As I began, it is much easier to be given the altitude/position target at the outset than to be 'chased' for not achieving something you did not know about.

5miles - if I coud always get "expect xxx" my 'short term' problems would be over!

5miles,

I don't think having more STARS is a huge problem personally. It's mainly areas like Midlands Group airfields and NM's etc that have such far out descent sectorisation restrictions. The LL's and KK's and alike all have stars that include all restrictions, because they are not forced down so early relative to where they would like economically to start descent.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that overall system capacity is better for the restrictions you have, and I support that.

When I come through 19 and the SC is working his balls off, I believe the last thing he really needs is a string of routing instructions to relay, and hear read back - it makes keeping on top of a difficult and tight tactical situation so much more difficult. Recognising that, extended STARS to those particular airfields must be a solution. I pushed heavily for it back in LATCC days, but LATCC Ops in those days didn't want the extra workload involved with extra amendments etc.

As for flight plans, routings should be right - I know all my companies are, as they get very direct feedback if they deviate from the RAD rest assured - I phone straight away and get them to sort it! IFPS should reject any plan that doesn't conform to the RAD and require operators to re-file accordingly.

Hope to catch you for a coffee sometime when I'm next visiting!

30W