No implication at all as it's an approved technique in the UK MATS Part 1.

Thanks, PPR - how about it then? We don't get it at the moment. If not specified I guess we assume 500fpm minimum outside TMA?

In a simple answer yes. I expect you to do at least 500fpm when you are descending, if you aren't or can't let me know and i'll do my best to accomodate you.

I tend not to use rates of descent, not because i'm not aware or not been taught to use them, just that i feel slightly uncomfortable when using them. I would prefer to use vectors and parallel aircraft off to descend them rather than have two on top of each other descending. To me, and its a personal thing, it just doesn't look right on the radar - what happens if the bottom one suddenly stops for technical reason? In this case i'd rather be safe than expeditious. MAAS have their ways of doing things and we have ours, i think they have a piece of kit that allows them to predict much more accurately where an aircraft is going to be than we can (though the much heralded iFACTs should change this!). Their control techniques are accordingly different (notice different not better).

As for descend now v descend. Technically descend means descend now but i tend to use "descend now" and "when ready...." as lots of crews do question a "descend ..." instruction. I understand about TODs and fuel efficency and try to accomodate them when the traffic situation lets me. I am human however so sometimes descend slips out when i mean when ready.

It works both ways aswell, some crews descend straight away on a when ready (most but not all Lufthansa spring to mind) and some crews seem to spend so long before descending that you think they must be doing negative g and the pax are floating! ;)

This has been one of my pet posts before and still causes problems due to the changing standing agreements and lack of clear publishing of same in the STAR pages of our Jepps. Perhaps this is something that NATS can work with together with Jepps/Aerad ?

LIFFY used to be 310, then it was 290, then 270 - now it is 270 10 before LIFFY !

Fine, no problem, but let our planners know please because I am still being planned at 290 - 360 through LIFFY.

Now, if the restriction is 270 - 10 before LIFFY, please do not ask me to start descent 290 miles out from MAN - it is just too early and does not reflect what we are expected to achieve by the agreement point You bet I will complain about a descent that far out because it is not needed and wastes fuel.

I do understand the need for the standing agreements and also agree that they are beneficial in reducing holding at destination. The crux of the argument is innapropriate initial descents - come watch us on Fam trips, they are available :ok:

BOAC & WW

There are no "tools" as such at MUAC to calculate RoD/RoC. There are other tools such as 1,2,4,8 mins prediction lines - that usually helps - flick on the line - need 4 mins for sep. - need 6000' - mental calculation = 1500' Roc/Rod per min.

Also - the 2nd or 3rd line of the label shows a very accurate actual Rate - that's how the controllers know when the a/c are not complying...:=

JV

Well, we are beginning to go around in circles here with the other thread hovering in the background. I'm sure the message is clear to ATC - please tell us reliably if it is 'to be level by' or 'when ready' ........and I really do think you should risk your careers and say 'Now' when you need it:)

And - I think the message is clear to flying folk - tell ATC if u don't intend leaving now - as "Request Descend" would imply...

Sorry, JV - I did say earlier that I had 'strayed' from the starting post,

Yes, I agree, and do.

Roger - Over and out!

JV