Fireflybob : and then :
Sorry , not trying to excuse the Spanish or French Controllers actions here, but why are you systematically requesting differently as you file ? Surely you can make sure both are correct, a simple quick CHG message would take care of this and avoid frustrations later on.

ATC Watcher - I take your point but the company files the requested level and we are often not in a position to determine the ideal Flight Level until we are in possession of the loadsheet (a few mins prior to departure). Planned weight can vary due to differing passengers loads to what is expected, decisions which are made on the amount of fuel to "tanker" (this is affected by landing conditions on shorter runways and such issues as "non environmental icing"), whether any CAT is forecast etc.

If we file for the higher level and then advise ATC that we are unable because we are too heavy and/or turbulence forecast then this isn't too popular, I guess! So the safest thing (especially given all the latest nonsense in Spain) is to file the lower level but ask for higher on those occasions where we can fly higher.

Perhaps you can tell me - if I ask ATC to send a change a few minutes before pushback is this likely to affect the CTOT? (I suspect it would so and therefore incur a possible delay).

As a pilot I will tell you that there are just two many variables for me (or any other crew) to predict the precise FL they would ideally like to fly at.

With the company I fly with having several hundred movements a day across Europe how would the system cope with many CHG requests on the flight plan. Operationally we have to strike a balance between mitigating delays as opposed to achieving an ideal level - one of the reasons why we carry contingency fuel.

Surely any good ATC system should have a degree of flexibilty?

Fireflybob, point taken.
Now , I do not fly large jets at high altitudes, but in my unpressurized single engine aircraft , to fly 1000 or even 2000 ft below my (hand) calculated optimum does not make much difference economically, if any .(unless the wind is different at those altitudes of course )
I suppose you are flying a 320 or a 737 NG, so using same or similar engines.

For the sake of the argument :
The average commercial flight duration in Europe in 2009 was slighlty over one hour flight time. The cruising part of that flight is roughly 1/3 , so say 20to 30 min .
Can you look in your charts and tell me what difference there is between cruising at 350 and 370 for 20 min , and give me the % of the economy obtained , compared to the total costs of the flight. ? My point is : aren't we chasing optimum FLs just because a computer says it is more economical , but by what fraction ? Is this really worth all that R/T and frustration ?

The older generation of pilots and controlelrs were taught always to ask and deliver requesting high altitudes because with the engines then , a Trident , a Caravelle or a Bac1-11 , stuck at a lower altitude would be exteremely penalizing .But is that really so with a CFM56 ?
Also would a flight arriving on time flown 2000ft below optimum be more economic for your airline, that one getting, say 5 min delay but flying at optimum, altitude ?

ATC Watcher, on the EMB 195 the penalty for flying 2000' lower is somewhere between 200 and 300kgs, obviously dependant on route length.

The latest price per tonne of fuel I have is about £450. So on a 2 sector trip you're looking at about £300 saving for an extra 2000' higher (ish!) and that's one aeroplane on one route. For the whole fleet that would be in the order of several thousand pounds lost or gained in a single day.

Every little helps:ok:

:ok::D:D:D

Two days ago, from Ibiza to London, FPL filed all the way on FL380. After 40 min (!!!) and lots of step climbs we reached 380. On the hand over to the next Madrid sector we were demanded to descent to FL360. Tried to argue with no success. 10 min later hand over to Bordeaux and we were cleared back to FL380 "as on FPL". Result: 120kg of fuel in the rubbish bin.
And I didn't see any aircraft near us on FL380 that could justify a level change. It's a bunch of amateurs taking care of serious business.
My only hope nowadays is my roster sending me to scandinavia and central and eastern europe...

I don't think that this sort of difference in FPL v RFL is the sort of thing the eurocontrol document is aimed at. Its more when the orginal filed level is say FL290 and the requested level is FL370. Thats the sort of difference that we should be trying to get rid of. If your ops dept files at one level because of a flow restriction they should tell you what and where the restrcition is.

For example we had one filed at FL330 wanting FL390 the other day. Now this change in level took it into MAAS Delta High as opposed to the Delta Low so we had a look and after asking flow we found the restriction was over Germany. Delta High happily took it because they were going to descend the aircraft prior to the german border. Being flexible within the system is possible if the right information is known.

Cut the Crap!
 

If you need higher for weather, request it! If it is not given because the spanish are being unhelpful , TELL the passengers the reason they are all being thrown around is due to spanish ATC conflict, or Marseille ATC or Paris ATC or national strike day etc .
Look after the Aircraft, the Passengers and your crew! Be Honest with the passengers who knows you may be carrying a journalist or a politician.

Hi!

as this looks more to me as an ATC Issue than Rumours & News, maybe you could give a look at the appropiate forum:

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/416...ion-spain.html


I think you will find useful information there.


Saludos!

I know that the Spanish controllers have some dispute with AENA which is why no shortcuts are given at present, for the last week or two, the French, particularly Brest, seem to be doing the same. Are you also in dispute? or is there some other reason.
Often now you fly the whole SID and airways route from Southern Spain to UK, the first direct routing is given from LATCC.
Airline management should be putting pressure on Control management to solve their differences with their employees as this policy is wasting time, money, fuel, and causing more CO2/ pollution.
We pay considerable navigation charges for an efficient service and are being made to suffer because ATC management cannot keep their staff happy.

Buen servicio
 

We actually received several surprise Directs from ATC today inbound MAD, plus good speed control on Final from the APP/FINAL controllers.....so, there is hope :) . Please keep it up MAD ATC, we love you really ;).

Problem is that AENA management couldn't care less that we are flying routes 'by the book'. Our colleagues in ATC need to realise this and to understand that their target for this action is very much misplaced. No one even knows what's going on with this 'unhelpfulness' except us so how can it ever benefit the cause. As for what it's got to do with the French controllers I don't know. All in all a very sad state of affairs for two sets of professionals in this industry.

night stop .. perhaps you are spanish...what a surprise!

Chesty morgan :
I am not familiar with the EMB195 but I doubt very much your figures, if 20 min at 2000ft below optimum = 200 Kg that would be 10Kg/min ???? Common !!
Look afain your charts, I think you got a zero wrong somewhere.

ATC Watcher, the point is that if we save (say) 50-100 kgs for every flight that's a hell of a lot of fuel when multiplied over hundreds of movements a day over the course of a year! I look at things from a fairly simple point of view (!) but I dont think it's so much the % but how much fuel that can be saved over a year - that's a lot of dosh! Part of my remit as a professional pilot is to operate as economically as possible. Why is it a lot of RT to say "Request FL XXX" (mind you the way some pilots ask for a level change - well thats another matter!)?

In LEPA yesterday, an aircraft called 4 minutes before his slot (so 14 minutes before his last airborne time).

He was parked very close to N1/24R. Somewhere between stands 12 and 16. There were no aircraft at the hold, and none taxiing (apart from us). The place was deserted.

The controller denied him start, and told him that he had to re-file (for another massive delay). The aircraft in question just couldn't believe it - and assured the controller he could be at the holding point in 8 minutes or so and that he would be reporting him.

LEPA is a disgrace, and the controllers should be ashamed of their behaviour.

:yuk:

Bucket? Ahhh, I thought they always took the microphone into the toilet... :ok:

And turn their mobile phones off while on duty too, so we don't get so much interference. :D

Errr - like who knows what their exact weight will be some two hours before departure? Sometimes opps does not know 5 mins before departure!

.

:ok::ok::ok:

Got the T-shirt with that one. Grand tour of Palma, because of the inbound Iberia just taking off in Barcelona....

100%please,
LEPA have always been bad for this sort of thing. Almost as good as the taxi instructions you used to be given decelerating through 100kts.