METRON ML
You know 'JR' the way most of this stuff reads you would think we where back in the 20th century flying DC3's! Amazing how outdated this stuff is compared to modern tech in other fields!
I mean Airbus has a dreadful ability to make good an exit time out of a holding pattern where as I believe Boeing have that sorted much better.
Trouble is we all now rely rather heavily on this FMS magic box but it guarantees zip & am sure that old adage still applies sometimes.................what's it doing now!
I guess the art of getting the masses from one point on the globe to another will be an age old problem that we shall never get right! From the days of sailing ships to where we are now we really haven't achieved a thing other than shorten the trip time, the dangers are still there, the hassles are still there, the rest is just a guess!
Wmk2
I mean Airbus has a dreadful ability to make good an exit time out of a holding pattern where as I believe Boeing have that sorted much better.
Trouble is we all now rely rather heavily on this FMS magic box but it guarantees zip & am sure that old adage still applies sometimes.................what's it doing now!
I guess the art of getting the masses from one point on the globe to another will be an age old problem that we shall never get right! From the days of sailing ships to where we are now we really haven't achieved a thing other than shorten the trip time, the dangers are still there, the hassles are still there, the rest is just a guess!
Wmk2
Which is what? Courtesy? Generosity of spirit?
The slavish reliance on FMS predictions for fix crossing times in or out of a holding pattern are akin to teenage cashiers unable to comprehend mental change-making. I swear the recruiter told them that there would be no maths on the flight deck!
The slavish reliance on FMS predictions for fix crossing times in or out of a holding pattern are akin to teenage cashiers unable to comprehend mental change-making. I swear the recruiter told them that there would be no maths on the flight deck!
Hey 'JR' we gotta stop swapping jobs for the day, it seems we know nufin'
See told ya that us combined wouldn't amount to much
Although I do like all those switches & microphones you let me play with as now I can tell QF to wait their turn like everyone else
Wmk2
See told ya that us combined wouldn't amount to much
Although I do like all those switches & microphones you let me play with as now I can tell QF to wait their turn like everyone else
Wmk2
Why rely on the FMS Wal, just wait until ATC say "turn inbound now" which is uncanny because it always coincides with the aircraft turning inbound in response to the FMS. Just remind us all Jack when you were last in a cockpit of an Airbus as part of the operating crew?
'Looky' I wouldn't trust anything blindly some Commodore 64K computer tells me:-) I still use 3x times my height in miles + some margin for winds etc as to how far I have to run to the Rwy, old school means trust only one thing.....your own brain!
I'll also have you know that 'JR' is with me every time I step into a cockpit, 'JR' represents those ATC'rs who hopefully help keep me out of the CP's office as I hate tea & bickies
I wonder if it would be possible to funnel all A/C towards a particular Rwy say 20 miles or even out to 50 miles on the Rwy extended center-line that way all A/C would be subject to the same environmental conditions IE winds making it a bit more manageable for ATC to keep the req'd separation. Having a better picture of G/S which could be all over the place due multiple A/C coming in to a close final App (as we typically have now 10NM) from all directions despite the new speeds at certain points on a STAR.
Obviously won't work at all dromes due lots of reasons mainly dumb ass'd pollies electorates for noise abatement.
Another hair brain scheme would be divide the App's to any main drome into Nth & Sth hemispheres. Say for Syd only A/C from the Southern hemisphere can plan to land during the first half of any hour & then A/C from the Nth hemi can plan to land during the bottom half of the hour. That way we now have only half the flying machines arriving at any one time compared to what we have now, an ineffective COBT that does little. Crazy I guess but the way it is now there's plenty of "go away 'till we can accept you" going on anyway daily despite all the band-aid fixes!:-)
Just thinking out loud here:-)
Wmk2
I'll also have you know that 'JR' is with me every time I step into a cockpit, 'JR' represents those ATC'rs who hopefully help keep me out of the CP's office as I hate tea & bickies
I wonder if it would be possible to funnel all A/C towards a particular Rwy say 20 miles or even out to 50 miles on the Rwy extended center-line that way all A/C would be subject to the same environmental conditions IE winds making it a bit more manageable for ATC to keep the req'd separation. Having a better picture of G/S which could be all over the place due multiple A/C coming in to a close final App (as we typically have now 10NM) from all directions despite the new speeds at certain points on a STAR.
Obviously won't work at all dromes due lots of reasons mainly dumb ass'd pollies electorates for noise abatement.
Another hair brain scheme would be divide the App's to any main drome into Nth & Sth hemispheres. Say for Syd only A/C from the Southern hemisphere can plan to land during the first half of any hour & then A/C from the Nth hemi can plan to land during the bottom half of the hour. That way we now have only half the flying machines arriving at any one time compared to what we have now, an ineffective COBT that does little. Crazy I guess but the way it is now there's plenty of "go away 'till we can accept you" going on anyway daily despite all the band-aid fixes!:-)
Just thinking out loud here:-)
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 4th Mar 2014 at 09:44.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which is uncanny because it always coincides with the aircraft turning inbound in response to the FMS
What's that? You can't see the radar screen? You can't see the 6 other aircraft in the holding pattern you're in and the 2 in the turbo prop pattern? You can't see the maestro ladder with the sequence on it? You can't see the aircraft being fed into the terminal from the 2 other arrivals sectors that I can see? You can't hear the co-ord the flow is doing with their approach controllers and the surrounding sectors?
You must have esp??
Wellllllll, lookleft, I've been watching them & issuing requirements to them for the last 20 years, (and occasionally got burnt by them) I reckon I know a little about them. When was the last time you sat in the chair and made the decisions that keep those aircraft apart? How many times have you read a requirement back in an airbus then advised ATC 5 miles prior to it that you can't do it? Doesn't happen in a Boeing mate, if they read the requirement back the job is done. But you obviously know it all brother and have never been late out of the pattern
blissfully ignorant of course because the controller is just getting on with it, (gees, why is he speeding me up and cancelling speed?) you're the expert and I bow to your FMS prowess...............hail lookleft 
Last edited by Jack Ranga; 4th Mar 2014 at 21:13.
The problem with giving you fix times hours out is the rest of the world isn't set in concrete. It works okay to a reasonable extent when everyone else is coming from many hours away (as in the late lamented ALOFT program into SY at end of curfew) but as has been highlighted when many aircraft are departing from closer in aerodromes (say 60, minutes away). they can't guarantee they'll depart at an exact time to fit in with your fix time.
Once that happens we just have to handle it dynamically. Throw in changes of runway or sudden availability/loss of LAHSO and your hours out fix time isn't worth a cracker.
I'm not saying it can't be better, but to expect clockwork precision isn't realistic when many of the components are less than perfect. It's a dynamic environment and has to be handled accordingly.
The nature of the beast means pilots (quite naturally) only see the small picture immediately around their aircraft while controllers have a wider view. The two have to merge somehow and sometimes the fit is less than perfect or needs rapid alteration to fit a new overall picture.
Once that happens we just have to handle it dynamically. Throw in changes of runway or sudden availability/loss of LAHSO and your hours out fix time isn't worth a cracker.
I'm not saying it can't be better, but to expect clockwork precision isn't realistic when many of the components are less than perfect. It's a dynamic environment and has to be handled accordingly.
The nature of the beast means pilots (quite naturally) only see the small picture immediately around their aircraft while controllers have a wider view. The two have to merge somehow and sometimes the fit is less than perfect or needs rapid alteration to fit a new overall picture.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'll also have you know that 'JR' is with me every time I step into a cockpit."
Really! Next we'll have someone posting "god is my co-pilot."
Really! Next we'll have someone posting "god is my co-pilot."
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: WA
Age: 71
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it be fair to say that YPPH trafffic delays have improved since the local implementation of the Metron system? That is my perception as interested SLF, at any rate.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC say "turn inbound now" which is uncanny because it always coincides with the aircraft turning inbound in response to the FMS.
Would it be fair to say that YPPH trafffic delays have improved since the local implementation of the Metron system?
Re the aircraft type debate, I must not have been paying attention. Different types have different performance, but to say one type is more likely to 'burn you' seems strange. (One airline being optimistic about their estimates for sequencing advantage is a different story).
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have multiple crossing scenarios in our airspace both procedural & radar. We separate procedurally for 2 inner sectors & Brisbane oceanic. It is my experience over 20 years of controlling that if you issue a Boeing aircraft a requirement and it is acknowledged that it WILL meet the requirement. I have had a few occurrences where an airbus (the A320's are worst) has read back the requirement, then 5 or 6 miles from the requirement advises that it can no longer meet that requirement.
Why is that an Airbus issue and not a crew issue?
No Jack I can't see all that is going behind the scenes in ATC but neither can you see all that is happening in a cockpit. And despite what Wally thinks you are not in the cockpit with me. Despite the standard ATC party line "We tell pilots what to do". ATC is there to assist the crew, not to operate the aircraft. The only time I have come close to hitting another aircraft or losing my license is not because I flew Airbus but because I let ATC put me in a situation I shouldn't have accepted.
If the demands on you as ATC Jack are that overwhelming, then after 20 years it might be time to hang up the headset.
No Jack I can't see all that is going behind the scenes in ATC but neither can you see all that is happening in a cockpit. And despite what Wally thinks you are not in the cockpit with me. Despite the standard ATC party line "We tell pilots what to do". ATC is there to assist the crew, not to operate the aircraft. The only time I have come close to hitting another aircraft or losing my license is not because I flew Airbus but because I let ATC put me in a situation I shouldn't have accepted.
If the demands on you as ATC Jack are that overwhelming, then after 20 years it might be time to hang up the headset.
Originally Posted by Lookleft
neither can you see all that is happening in a cockpit.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is that an Airbus issue and not a crew issue?
No Jack I can't see all that is going behind the scenes in ATC but neither can you see all that is happening in a cockpit.
And despite what Wally thinks you are not in the cockpit with me.
Despite the standard ATC party line "We tell pilots what to do". ATC is there to assist the crew, not to operate the aircraft.
The only time I have come close to hitting another aircraft or losing my license is not because I flew Airbus but because I let ATC put me in a situation I shouldn't have accepted.
If the demands on you as ATC Jack are that overwhelming, then after 20 years it might be time to hang up the headset.
I enjoy the comraderie of most pilots that I work with.Based on the above, you make far too many assumptions
might pay to read what is actually written not make judgements on who you think I am as a controller or person
Lookleft
You are right. Its not an aircraft type issue.
But it is noticeable that different FMS interpret the coding (which sometimes differs subtly from the various suppliers) , resulting in a different trajectory. The resultant is generally the same but how it is achieved is not always uniform. As you infer, perhaps finger trouble on the part of the crew can cause a DCT TO instruction become a TRACK TO which suddenly looks horrible in some traffic circumstances.
Most controllers find they can't just pass fix crossing time restictions and expect the aircraft to remain separated, particularly if minimum spacing is being used. Depite all the global excitement about PBN, the consistency in behaviour is just not there yet.
Jack, calm down. Don't make the job sound harder than it is. You know this sort of variance occurs. Just deal with it.
Its 16 years since I worked there but sounds like nothing has changed.
But it is noticeable that different FMS interpret the coding (which sometimes differs subtly from the various suppliers) , resulting in a different trajectory. The resultant is generally the same but how it is achieved is not always uniform. As you infer, perhaps finger trouble on the part of the crew can cause a DCT TO instruction become a TRACK TO which suddenly looks horrible in some traffic circumstances.
Most controllers find they can't just pass fix crossing time restictions and expect the aircraft to remain separated, particularly if minimum spacing is being used. Depite all the global excitement about PBN, the consistency in behaviour is just not there yet.
Jack, calm down. Don't make the job sound harder than it is. You know this sort of variance occurs. Just deal with it.
Its 16 years since I worked there but sounds like nothing has changed.