270KT outer speed limit for london TMA
 

Just wanted to get peoples (both atcos and pilots) reactions to the new 270kt outer speed limit restriction.

We`ve been told that unless traffic reasons dictate we should make all a/c inbound to the ltma fly at 270kts. Apparently this will reduce holding times at the stacks.

To people on my sector it seems a bit pointless and just adds rt when rt loading on some sectors (clacton especially) is at a premium.

Do pilots want to fly this speed- it seems we`re starting to interfere in how pilots fly their a/c by imposing more and more restrictions further and further from the airfields.

Just looking for peoples thoughts

My reading is that Ac will be issued a "fixed" IAS to fly... maybe our company's interpretation of the "rule"?

Problem today was, even before LTMA, we were asked to slow "Min Clean". Fine - we did, and planned descent on that basis (~200KIAS). Then in descent asked to go to 250K, then 280K level :{ And then a different LHR STAR (BIG v LAM), and finally held for 10+ mins.

The acceleration to a low altitude 280K, level segment cost us a lot of fuel, especially when combined with an early descent, and a need to hold anyway.

So if you want some feedback, then being given a (fixed?) IAS to fly, prior ToD, great... it can save fuel / holding etc. But, to later increase that gets costly, and if you can, a "rule of thumb" of never requiring a subsequent increase in that IAS will be helpful in fuel terms. An "offer" of an increase might be fine, and may be accepted on occasion ;)

NoD

nigel, were you on 701 or 905u ?

i was planning at the time and you were asked to go minimum clean as you were bringing up the rear of a huge bunch of heathrow inbounds at the time, nothing to with the 270kts restriction i may add!

min clean is used to create gaps when bunches arrive, so once achieved it should usually be lifted as invariably you'll be caught by the next bunch behind if we don't!!

we were planning on you being given the standard 3a arrival when our colleagues down the line selected you for a big 1e, there were two guys at 240 that would have been a better choice but there we go!
for what its worth i think the 270 restriction is a pile of cack, far too restrictive and only there cos ba don't want to be overtaken by every other bugger in the stacks!! i think the carbon emissions angle is there as a smokescreen.........anyone agree??

Mr Red... Thanks for the reply - we were the 701 ;)

The "problem" is we want to plan for min fuel use, so when we are told to "slow Min Clean" we can only assume that is all the way to the hold... and probably holding as well. The ToD point is a long way different (earlier) for 200KIAS and 280KIAS etc. and then once committed to the descent the rate/angle of descent is very speed dependant, hence I presume the whinge from the 905U about Tanet - the restriction of which curiously is no longer on our charts :ooh:

Sod the carbon blah... the result of yesterday was that if ATC had asked us for a go around at a late stage we had already discussed/decided that the first reply to ATC thereafter would have had to include an 'M' prefix :{

Thanks again anyway - at some point this LHR planning will become possible, with everyone sharing the same picture, and perhaps an accurate "touchdown" time uplinked / updated etc. At the moment, as you illustrate, we can all end up with different mental models of who wants/expects what...

NoD

You don't have to agree to their choice, if it works better for you then tell them one of the two at 240 is going to do it. They only want one taken away from LAM is doesn't matter which one. In my experience the BIG stack swaps are always the crap choice of aircraft because the traffic manager making the choice doesn't make it on the basis of where the traffic actually is.

As for the 270kts speed limit.... worst idea ever, it really limits flexibility when you need it. CLN is hard enough without slowing the first ones up so that the rear ones catch up thus increasing the bunching. :ugh: I also don't get the idea that it will reduce holding times, it will just delay it by a few minutes, everyone still wants to land at the same time, so wether they all get there at 300 or 270 makes no difference IMO. To reduce holding times in the TMA they need to reduce the amount of traffic in total, but that won't happen will it? :rolleyes:

this.


fair enough if there are delays but what if there's no holding? better to get the first few of a bunch in quickly to reduce the holding for following traffic.

Del Prado

Good point and i totally agree but we have been told to reduce the speed to 270 kts on all LTMA traffic because it will save the environment.....:ugh:

but won't getting them in quickly and on the ground asap save more fuel???? and thus carbon emissions....

its an idiotic rule thought up by some numpty in an office somewhere whos trying to justify their existence by jumping on the "green" bandwagon and hasn't thought or been told how it will affect day to day ops. There are other measures that would save fuel and carbon emissions, like direct routes, that would be better off being investigated rather than some arbitary speed restriction.

It is an advisory instruction only.

If as an ATCO you want to issue speeds greater than 270kts, you can do so. As pointed out, you need more flexibility to stream aircraft.

Having everything at 270Kts could actually cause holding in situations where normally the use of high speed on the first couple means everything comes straight off.

here's a question from an uneducated american.

Why does EGLL have so many a/c holdings at the various HPs every morning and every afternoon?

Why can't the various center controllers sequence the traffic destined to EGLL with a good in-trail of 20NM then have the mid center sectors leading to the London LTMA reduce that to 10NM...? I know we do it here in the states alot and it seems like that's always never a problem. A lil delay vector here and there and everybody is sequenced with the correct in trail.

I'm just looking for an explanation, as I realize you guys have probably thought of that way before i was born and figured out it didn't work for one reason or another. I'm cruious why and what makes the TMA there such a complex airspace.

Some current people will surely respond but allow me to relate a little tale from long, long ago. I showed a few controllers from Chicago round Heathrow Approach and we were looking at the radar. One of the guys, pointing to the range rings said something like: "Now let's see - that must be 50, 100, 150.. miles?" I said "No, 10, 20, 30 miles". All of a sudden they realised what a very tiny little place the UK is compared to "back home".

how will the sectors know there will be no holding? CLN, for example are working traffic 20 minutes from LAM, how do they know what traffic is pending for OCK, BIG, BNN?

The 'habit' very quickly will become 270kts for everything. There's no way Heathrow will phone TC NE to tell TC EAST to tell CLN to keep the first few high speed (that's assuming LL identify a gap in the traffic 20 minutes away!)
At best you'll get 270kts from CLN, 270kts from EAST then 320kts from NE/LAM which is a waste of fuel along the lines of BOAC's post.

In ATC a little knowledge can be worse than no knowledge sometimes. Unfortunately NATS, being the monopoly Area service provider, seems to write peculiar rules and instructions daily. The bulging offices are awash with wunderkind ideology. The increasing [en route] use of "minimum clean" takes no account of the savage fuel penalty. The latest "270knots" instruction is no more than a band-aid solution to chronic "full stack" scheduling. The only capacity/movement gains in the last 5 years have been a result of chipping away at the already reduced separation criteria.
[Tongue-in-cheek of course.....I would add that this is why UK uses different air to the rest of the world.....this enables a completely unique set of wake vortex separations to be used.]

.

Won't become my habit. Its a sh1t idea. If a pilot wants to fly at 270 kts i'll try to accomodate him but he'll probably be asked to fly quicker if hes at the front. I won't impose an arbitary speed on aircraft just because someone has decided that its a good idea, i don't know what the ideal economy speed for a A319 or B747 is but i bet they're different and not 270kts. Let pilots fly the aircraft and i'll concentrate on keeping them apart.

The TMA is so complex because of the number of airports within 60 miles of each other. There are 10 LTMA airports plus another 10 ish whose aircraft fly through the TMA's airspace.

The problem with trying to get LL inbounds in trail is all to do with the size of the UK. For example coming from the east (northern europe, eastern europe, far east, middle east and scandinavia) you have about 60 miles in which to stream the traffic and you very regularly get 6-8 at a time and another 4 very close behind, you can't get 10 miles in trail let alone 20. To do that MAAS would have to start streaming for us over northern europe and to be frank they are far to busy with their own problems to do that.

Also as the LTMA get attacked from at least 4 directions you couldn't ever get all the LL inbounds in a sequence without them circling the UK twice :ok:

The problem with EGLL is simply the shear weight of traffic, there are too many aircraft trying to land at the same time. The only solution as i see it is to reduce the amount of traffic by half but that is never going to happen.

Here are a few thoughts from a controller in the LTMA.
The 270 kts is a very poorly thought out idea, causes many problems and solves none. I agree with the comment that it is from an office worker 'trying to make a name for themselves' It should be scrapped immediately and let the pilots and controllers get on with their jobs.
If the landing rate is 38 and 42 are flowed in to LL, then there will always be holding. If you want to reduce holding, reduce the numbers of aircraft flowed into LL to match the achieved landing rate.
The choice of which aircraft to stack swop is complex. The person taking the decision will normally be one of the Group Supervisors (GS) in TC. The CLN sector should be prepared for the aircraft to be at FL150 level by SABER. Height is normally more important than speed.
The GS will be looking at the overall picture of inbounds to LL eg, is the cruising level OK to hold at BRASO? or how does this aircraft fit in with the inbounds to BIG from the SE? or which is the easiest for TC. Often the aircraft chosen will be the one(s) to the south of a bunch.
The problem on Saturday was more to do with flow. It was very quiet all afternoon and then a large bunch of planes arrived together. If flow was more precise, then perhaps these planes would be more spread out. Would it be better to issue an arrival time at BRASO/LAM rather than a slot departure time that can be 20 minutes wide?

Del Prado

Heathrow App quite often phone the TMA sectors and ask us to keep certain a/c high speed.

Until this 270kt 'advice' came out, there was no need for TC to then call AC and ask for certain aircraft at certain sppeds (or just simply ask for a/c a&b to be high speed) - they all usually came in like that anyways.

With the 270Kt 'advice' now here, maybe the TC N and TC S controllers will need to phone more often and ask the AC sectors to keep certain aircraft high speed... It's something that TC Capital quite often does to enable the streaming of 3 sets of traffic through VATON.

It's not been done before because it's not been an issue - if controllers now blindly follow the 270Kts advice then no doubt these telephone calls will increase.

As for CLN working in isolation etc - they have a radar, they can wind out and have a look at the holds, if there are only a couple of aircraft in each, then best practice would be to keep their front couple high speed - or certainly not bust a gut to get everything back to 270Kts.

The rule was thought up under the auspices of Vision 2011, allegedly by an office worker who has never been a valid ATCO nor worked in the Ops room... it's been jumped on as a good idea by people who want to be seen to be doing things 'green'.

It's not workable all the time and should not be blindly followed... remember the paragraph in MATS part 1 about (paraphrased) 'nothing in this manual shall prevent an ATCO from being allowed to do what they want if the situation merits it'?

If there is holding taking place then yes, 270Kts or less is good - at the moment when we have 15 mins delay we get a/c at 300Kts plus* - it's about educating all the controllers that a bit of thought about speed control might actually help - very much in the same way that they 250Kts outbound trial below FL100 in the LTMA, although mostly ignored, has made TC controllers think about which a/c they remove the speed restriction from on first contact instead of doing it with every aircraft which is what used to happen!

270Kts for everything is unworkable if it was a rule - it's not a rule, it's advice, any ATCO that would blindly follow it needs to think about the 'C' in ATCO i.e. they should take control.

* I know that sometimes this is the only way that A/C can be presented in a manner that gives TC a fighting chance - that's the whole point about this advice being flawed if followed blindly - controllers are paid to control, we are not sheep.


Over+Out

I don't think anyone that works in aviation will argue that Heathrow is bursting at the seams - it causes problems for the tower workers, the TMA and en-route workers. The only solution is to make Heathrow run at a lower %age of capacity in order to give it some breathing space and some flex.

The reason it is always flowed over the landing rate is again, for flexibility. The landing rate fluctuates - flowing for about a 10 min delay allows EGLL Dir to squeeze and extra aircraft or two in if the situation allows, thus helping maintain the overall %age of capacity use per day.

If Heathrow were to be capped at say 10% less capacity useage per day than at the moment, then no doubt it could be flowed for either the landing rate or even one or 2 below the landing rate... that's a slots and airline problem though, ATC just provide the best solution.

The overall result is a crap situation, for an overworked airfield, in an overworked piece of airspace - until the airlines start dropping slots, it will continue. Maybe the 'credit crunch' (used to be called a recession in my day) will help if the cost of fuel rises in the manner some people think it will.

its a load of s**t.

the first thing being done at the start of a shift is to call the LAS and agree to cancel the 270k procedure.
as noted in our comments book:
1) another crap procedure forced on us with no consultation and by those who have never held a licence... it looks good on paper so it 'must' be a good idea.
2)to fly 270k for 30 miles over 3000 mile flight, what a massive difference that will make.
3)nats and airlines seen to be doing something about carbon emissions so they look all concerned if any outsiders poke their noses in.... when in fact it causes more hassle and increases work load.

i suppose next we will be told we are not to take aircraft off sids on deaparture fro things like P-RNAV and then get moaned at for not moving anywhere near as much traffic and crap presentation to adjacent sectors because we cant make standing agreement levels.

I am a Clacton controller and have not and will not issue 270kts as a result of this "suggestion", but rather as part of my plan (yes I have them sometimes!) to stream as effectively I can for TC East.

I wrote quite a bit in the comments book yesterday all of which were negative. Having studied and worked in environmental management before ATC I am all for "saving the world" and think it is a good idea...in principal. Sadly in my opinion it is unworkable in the current configuration of airspace, amount of traffic etc.

I am always suspicious when an instruction (or trial procedure) appears and no valid ATCOs seem to have been consulted..especially just at the start of the peak summer season - great timing!!! We have just started to reduce the congestion on S13 frequency 128.160 (westbound towards LAM) with the excellent idea of getting pilots to report their expected STAR on first contact, and we now have to use up that saved time to issue 270kts? I don't think so!!

Maybe I am too cynical but I would be interested to know why we are being asked to slow down aircraft in the interest of reducing emissions, when we could just impose a more restrictive flow control and reduce the amount of arrivals in the first place? The other day I was controlling when EGLL lost one of their runways. Delays shot up to almost an hour and flow control was apparently immediately applied. Yet 20-30 minutes later two aircraft departed for EGLL, one from EBBR and one from EHAM, only to hold for 30 mins at BRASO and LAM - where is the sense of that?

Thinking about it though, would NATS get penalised for the extra minutes delay? oops, better not do that then :ugh:

If ATCOs on the coal face can have access to ACCURATE and up to date EATs we can intelligently (don't laugh) issue speed control based on the situation. The guys I work with will use the radar to look at the situation at LAM, but for all we know it might just be that 3 appeared there at once, and there is no holding at the other stacks.

Sorry for waffling, but I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this. :)

If only I'd thought o this idea...then I could have won myself an iPod. Bet some other idiot at CTC has got now instead....as usual.

Over+Out,

Thanks for the information about stack swaps, I have to admit though we are increasingly getting late requests for coordination (although I understand the stack swaps talked about on Saturday were done before the boundary).

If S13 and S14 are split then I will not as S13 planner agree to a lower level for BIG1E if either S14 is busy and/or has EGKK arrivals as we need to coordinate the descent with them.

I think more planners are starting to do this therefore we need to be told preferably by KEGIT or BULAM - any later and we are becoming more inclined to hand the aircraft over as per the standing agreement RFD and RFT for TC east to sort out. If it's quiet then we will do our best, but stack swaps and quiet don't really happen together very much! This probably doesn't help you very much to achieve FL130 by TANET but I have to protect my Tacticals as well.

This was discussed with the guys on Saturday I think by one of our LASs

If only I'd thought of this idea...then I could have won myself an iPod. Bet some other idiot at CTC has got it now instead....as usual.

1985, I salute you from MAAS (via COA & DENUT) and lift my hat gracefully for your understanding of our situation. As you rightfully say we do have our own problems (the Belgian UIR with up to 2300 flights per 24h is as full as an egg) but whenever we can we will try (on demand or on own initiative) to provide longitudinal (preferred) or lateral separation. Despite ourselves being busy I never cease to be amazed at the amount of traffic we are throwing at you guys down the line and how you are handling it.

well its about time someone did :p

In all seriousness though, hopefully someone will realise when they get the CLN comments book back (there are no positive ones) that it just isn't feasible for the short sectors to do it. The west end might manage it occasionally, but if one side does it and the others don't whats the point?

I also don't think the stack swap issue is that complex, surely its about relieving pressure on LAM, so any aircraft will do? I realise there is a plan but it needs to be flexible, if there are two running together and the BIG is to the north why not take the arrival to the south instead? It makes life easier for me and the TC bods. The whole point of plans in ATC is that they change from minute to minute so why continue with one that was made 20 mins ago by a GS who can't even see the radar? CLN needs to be told really early so they can set it up or not at all, and it needs to be sensible choice, the northerly of four because its a speedbird and therefore should speak better english (debatable) is not sensible.

1985, another consideration when choosing the stack swap is whether it's a good TEAM arrival. If it's going to land on the southerly runway, it's better routed to a southerly stack. Then FIN's job is easier so the landing rate remains robust and the delays go down.

1985. I think you need to come into the TC room. The GS is looking at a long range radar, filtered for LL. They also may be using Mode 'S' info. They always try and make the best judgement for the system. If they do something you do not like, come and have a discussion. You may not be looking at 'the big picture', they are.

I have, i've seen the long range radar but that still doesn't make the choices that are made the correct ones at the time, they may have been the correct aircraft to choose 200 miles away but that doesn't make them correct when we get told to stack swap. It needs to be sorted over europe so that we can do it early or done in TC's airspace.

As for the big picture, recently we were holding at LOGAN, and TC rang up and said the next one that was going into the hold was a stack swap and was needed at 220 so TC could get it under BRASO. This was at FL300 10 miles from LOGAN with two in LOGAN, how possibly are we going to do that? Stupid call from someone very clearly not looking at the "bigger" picture. :ugh:

Just out of interest, what did LTC say when you pointed out the difficulties?

zkdli

The TC east controller was fine after i said no, the point i was making is that the GS or traffic manager shouldn't be making these decisions so late or without looking at the radar, which is the impression that it gives off.

I've since spoken to TC and hopefully some of us are on the same songsheet now at least on our watch

1985
Thanks for your reply I was hoping that you would say something along those lines:) it is doing just as you have done that will get the system working better.

The 270 kts idea is only a suggestion. It came from some of the major airlines working with NATS to try to reduce fuel burn in the hold and the ridiculous practice of doing 300kts + to get the lowest level in the hold and then fly around in circles for 20 mins. Of course the CTC people were involved in evaluating the ideas, but I don't think anyone won an IPOD for it.

It's all part of being aware of the big picture:

If there is no holding, then don't apply it.
If the aircraft's ECON speed is 290kts and you don't need to increase that for separation then don't.
Why do so many people impose a speed differential of 10 kts (300/290/280) on aircraft which are ALREADY 5 miles or more in trail? If they didn't do that they wouldn't feel the need to make the first one do 300 or more just to stop the back one from falling out of the sky.
How many Ts or Ps regularly assess the delays at LAM by looking at the radar at the stack compared with the 'Less than 20 mins' response derived from the SIS page? Very few planners I've observed keep their tacticals appraised of the delays (10 mins or whatever) on a regular basis unless they are into or just coming out of EATs.
Why would anyone with half an idea of ATC feed traffic at 300 kts into a hold 'for separation reasons'? Sort them out earlier and use headings and early descents to get them at a reasonable speed. Accelerating towards a red traffic light seems a daft idea!

I don't and won't
I don't but how do i know what an aircrafts econ speed is if they don't tell me? It varies from type to type, series to series within a type and from airline to airline. And to be frank i don't have enough RT time to ask.
Its would be because of the relationship between IAS and ground speed at different levels, i thinks its something like 7 kts IAS per 1000 feet equates to the same ground speed. If i'm streaming two or three with about 3000 feet between each then i'll use a less IAS to keep them separated. AFAIK TC do not appreciated 7 miles in trail with a 30 kt catch up.
All of us i hope. SIS is sh*t and everyone knows that, the problem with looking at LAM and trying to judge the delay, is that you can look at it not see many there and then be told its BRASO holding. Happens more than you think.

spot on 1985

typical atco's
 

maybe another £50 in your pockets, (per hour probably!!) or a few less hours work and you'd agree to the 270kts :ok:

Big Paddy

I assume that's a wind up if not, you really haven't got a clue have you?

The reason we think it's a crap idea is it removes flexibility.

Speed control is a major tool used for inbound aircraft. Only a non ATCO would fail to understand that.

Maybe you are a failed ATCO? What was the probelm - inability to be flexible or lack of ability to be able to think for yourself and come up with solutions in an ever changing and fluid environment??:ugh:

Can you suggest how to merge 3 or 4 streams of aircraft into one orderly line without the use of speed in UK airspace?
These are aircraft that when the streaming commences are in excess of 100 miles from the hold... how the hell is 270Kts or any speed set down by some numpty in an office going to work and how can it be more green if aircraft have to fly for longer?

The speed is just a suggestion, but here's a better suggestion - ignore it.

Blindly following it will reduce controller's capacity and thus drive up delays.
It will also cause unnecessary holding because A/C that could have been high speed to get a no delay approach will often end up arriving at the same time as aircraft approaching the hold facility from other sectors.

270Kts is a stab in the dark speed thought up by someone who has not got a clue about the fact that different types of aircraft have different econ characteristics.

Some interesting stuff here. How a blanket 270kts can be imposed is beyond me.

As has been mentioned, if everything comes over over to the TMA sector at 270kts (or 300 or 250) no matter what the grouping, then that is not speed control - it's a mess which may require dog-legs, speeding up and slowing down of certain aircraft. R/T loading is increased and fuel is actually wasted not saved.

If the En-route sector has to get everything at 270kts and in trail then that could be a lot of work (especially if their hands are tied with the speed). If there is no holding it's wasted R/T time (and in the LTMA especially it could actually lead to wasted runway utilisiation). If there is holding it may not help TMA out enough.

The only thing I can think of for introducing it is tenuous:
If an aircraft meets the Standing Agreed level between En-route and Terminal, as well as being at 270kts; the TMA Tac can ask for the aircraft to increase speed and get a slightly better rate of descent or reduce speed on an aircraft, and with less speed to lose, their rate of descent won't be as bad for as long as it would be reducing from 310kts+.

I'm at MACC and would hate to see this 270kts come in for us. The presentation between TMA and En-route is getting better all the time and we are speaking to each other more about sequencing.

I think the key to all this is awareness of what the receiving guy is trying to do as well as understanding the possible difficulties the offering guy may face in trying to help.

Being aware of other sectors around you whilst you are busy yourself is an art - possibly even a luxury you can't afford when things are really hot.

As a Tactical at MACC, when you're busy, it means you need a good Planner at your side.

And/or good coordination between TTM/GS/LAS/Bank Sups? (4 centres 4 names!) can help. This has to be done with reference to the radar/TSD, workloads and the other stacks being fed at the relevent airfield.

Until we get arrival manager tools which tell us on the radar what speed to assign from medium to long range, we'll all have to earn our corn Controlling and that includes choosing the speed which suits us, adjacent sectors and as many aircraft as possible. That speed is not a blanket 270kts. Good luck and pardon my input on matters LTMA!

eyeinthesky
 

I was happy with some of your input until you shot yourself down in flames with a couple of howlers.
300/290/280 for three in trail.....anyone using the same speed for all three is probably an office-hero doing his/her 6 hours a month "I'm-lowering-myself-to-work-with-you-peasants-to-show-you-how-its-done" moron. An experienced operational controller will be mindful of wake vortex and the 2% per thousand feet IAS/TAS differential, and the fact that 5 miles can become 4 miles very easily.
As for appreciation of delays......if you can arrange for the supervisor to actually tell the poor bloody infantry scope-jockey what the delays are...then we can slow everything down.
P.S. Of the 20 or so pilots that I asked the other day.......not one single pilot requested an econ descent of 270......they were all in the 300-280 range with one exeption who asked for 250 because he was early and the stand wasn't available yet.
P.P.S. I don't like the trend for supervisors and even more remote non-operational personnel trying to influence tried and tested controlling technique at too late a stage in the proceedings when flow control and pro-active traffic planning have utterly failed. If you want to control my sector then get a validation, put a headset on, plug in and get on with it.
P.P.P.S. Anyone read the LACC Swanwick MATS 2 ? We are supposed to get the traffic into the TMA.....not keep it out! Please advise if there has been a major policy change.

eye in the sky, you must be some sort of ctc office monkey, probably one who dreamed up this jackass procedure... yet again this morning aircraft high due doing 270kts... a quick phonecall and procedure cancelled for the day... again.

tell you what, come into one of our ops rooms when its going hell for leather and come see what happens when planes dont make level restrictions for standing agreements:
1) conflict with traffic from other directions that it should be under and is now aiming at and going straight through it. if i have to fill out a star, my first line will be ' due to the 270 knot speed trial.....'
2) aircraft high may not be able to get the height off when there is no delay and end up in the hold to loose it..... cos thats going to help us all.
3)getting 5 abreast instead of streamed as youve taken AC's flexibility away... guess what matey. if they are not streamed into the stacks.... they enter the hold when they normally wouldnt have to.
4) if there is no delay, why not let the pilot fly at his desired speed (usually faster) for another 60 miles plus, if he wants to slow down to save an iceberg near santas house they will tell us.

you can drag me into as many meetings as you like and tell me to do it, i still wont.

funny thing is, we get all emails and lovely signs and bits of paper telling us what a great idea this is and how its going to work.... why dont you get out from under your desks and come plug in with us and have a proper discussion about it.... you would get a lot less resistance and probably learn more than reading about procedures in your bedtime story book.

with one hand the company wants more planes rammed through our sectors, then with the other starts to take away our tools to get this done.
oh and while im here.... the best idea that probably took 15 of you tie wearing tools to decide was to bring this in during summer traffic... well done... complete lack of understanding.

feedback welcome.

W

Thanks for the feedback, at least from those of you who didn't feel the need to be abusive about it...:=

Just because someone offers an opinion with which you disagree doesn't give you permission to resort to personal abuse: "you tie wearing tools", "you must be some sort of ctc office monkey" etc. At least try and have a reasoned debate. Otherwise YOU are the monkey. If you must resort to abuse, at least try and write in properly punctuated sentences.;)

Back to the point:

It's a trial: Try it properly, give people the chace to get used to it and its timely imposition and then give proper feedback and suggestions for improvements. If you keep cancelling it then it will never be properly evaluated, adapted, changed or abandoned.

Speed control is about matching groundspeeds not airspeeds. If a 10kt IAS differential is actually achieving an increasing distance between aircraft which already have enough separation then it is an incorrect application of speed control.

Couldn't agree more about the need for communication across the board. But we all have to do our bit, and some of the attitudes displayed on this thread don't encourage me to think that it's happening every day!

By the way, the experts tell us that variable speed limits on the M25 reduce bunching. They only come in when traffic is heavy enough to merit it. 270kts could be seen to be like them.

I just want to know one thing eyeinthesky....did you win the iPod this month?
Oh no, hold on....the ipod went to the person who suggested that, as a safety measure, we should routinely cross out vacated levels on our flight progress strips. Wish I'd thought of that........:ugh::ugh::ugh:

For a BA A319/320/321 "Econ Descent" is invariably in the ~270KIAS area. However, this is "best range speed" (adjusted for Cost Index i.e. an element of slightly increased Fuel Comsumption against Time in the air) and is instantly invalidated if there is to be any holding.

If the aircraft is to hold (and I appreciate it is hard for you to determine), then "Econ speed" is Holding speed throughout the descent. This is "Endurance speed" and we are told the landing order is determined "40 minutes out". The sooner we can be told "there is ~x minutes @ LAM, reduce to Holding Speed if you wish, or when FL150 @ SABER met.." the better :ok:

As alluded to above, this is why (some) get a little grumpy when told to accelerate to 280K / 290K / 300K and then to hold. It is very costly in terms of fuel, both £, but as crucially, in "holding time" then remaining available (very roughly, every 2 minutes @ 280K equates to 3 minutes holding i.e. loses a minute of total holding capability/endurance).

I fully appreciate you will get 20 different stories from 20 different pilots... and this is why a consistent line is needed from the airlines ;)

NoD

QUOTE

I just want to know one thing eyeinthesky....did you win the iPod this month?
Oh no, hold on....the ipod went to the person who suggested that, as a safety measure, we should routinely cross out vacated levels on our flight progress strips. Wish I'd thought of that........

UNQUOTE

And of course you, being perfect Mr777, do that every time anyway because the strip marking requirements in the MATS say you should? Yeah, right!:suspect: