Actual Calculated Landing Time
 

I m confused with the definition of the Actual Calculated Landing Time: any one have a clear definition? and why this time will not be updated in response to the aircraft's progress.
Thanks

Not a standard CDM term http://www.euro-cdm.org/library/abbr...s_acronyms.pdf

"ACLT (Actual Calculated Landing Time) (Air Traffic Control)

The frozen calculated landing time of a flight. ACLT is an actual time determined at freeze calculated landing time (FCLT) or meter list display interval (MLDI) for the adapted vertex for each arrival aircraft, based on runway configuration, airport acceptance rate, airport arrival delay period, and other metered arrival aircraft. ACLT is either the vertex time of arrival (VTA) of the aircraft, the tentative calculated landing time, or the actual calculated landing time (TCLT/ACLT) of the previous aircraft plus the arrival aircraft interval (AAI), whichever is later. ACLT will not be updated in response to the aircraft's progress."

DatWiki.net - Aviation Dictionary Presented by Aviation Supplies and Academics, Inc.

I'm not surprised it isn't in common use. :O

BD,
I've just looked at your link, the 'Euro CDM Acronyms' thing and nearly spilt a glass of wine laughing.
When I did ATC, flights were either 'Freeflow', or they had a 'slot', +/- 5 mins.
NOW.... we have.....
ACGT,
ACZT,
ADIT,
AEGT,
AEZT,
AIBT,
ALDT,
AOBT,
ARDT,
ASAT,
ASBT,
ATOT,
ATTT,
AXIT,
AXOT,
CTOT,
ECZT,
EDIT,
EEZT,
EIBT,
ELDT,
EOBT,
ERZT,
ETOT,
ETTT,
EXIT,
EXOT,
MTTT,
SIBT,
SOBT,
STTT,
TSAT,
TLDT,
TTOT............:D

Not even a graduate with a First-Class Masters Degree in Advanced Chronology bestowed by The University Of Greenwich would be able to comprehend this nonsense.
Empire building.....?...........Not 'Arff.

CDM....?

Bring me a bar of chocolate. :E

Things have gotten a bit busier since Bleriot flew the channel :E

I don't see how an "Actual" landing time could be "Calculated". One or the other, but not both?

Zooker.. It's called jobs for the boys!

Dave.. I think that lot is what Roger Bacon would have termed "Yuckspeak"!

BD,
Quite.

The major worry with all these time parameters being introduced is that it's yet another layer of 'distraction'. Remember 'Ops Room Distraction' from your NATS days?

All of these 'time-gates' and 'targets' to be achieved have the potential to distract both air-crew and ground staff from something that might be really important to get right.

Does anyone else remember the BA trial in (I think ) the mid nineties . The idea was that various aircraft set off from various airfields (globally) on EXACT times
( calculated by BA ops) and they arrived at destination in such a manner that no holding was required.

I recall having a long brief from one of the guys working on it when he visited Belfast.

The BA shuttle(their chosen aircraft in this case) would tell tower its actual time of departure and we would accomodate it.

I never heard any results but I suppose it was quietly dropped.

Is that what is meant by the OP's question?

In the early 1980s, before we had strip printers in the VCR, our inbound strips were hand-written by our ATSAs. The buff inbound strips would either display the ETA from the stored-flight-plan card, or the time from the FPL telex message.
One morning, I was handed an inbound strip on a British Airwayes 707 inbound from KJFK. The ETA was shown as 1223, taken from the FPL telex signal. I recorded the landing-time, when the main gear touched down as 1223.
As they cleared the runway, I mentioned this to the crew......
"Aces", was the reply I received. Now that WAS a 'Calculated Landing Time'.

That was exactly the bit I was confused about ? If it's illogical, Why we have in use this kind of sentences at all :ugh:?

Shortly before I retired from TC I proposed that instead of using AMAN for the calculation of EAT's and sequence numbers, which it wasn't very good at, why didn't we use it for Estimated Landing Times and sequence numbers, which were generally quite accurate.
The usual reply was along the lines of "the ICAO standard is EAT's so that is what we'LL issue".
I know that if I was approaching LAM, tight on fuel, I'd be more interested in what time I'd be planting the wheels on the ground than an EAT that has often proved, in the real world, to be completely inaccurate due to the differing track distances from the 4 LL stacks and the vectoring methods used.