fartsock, you weren't QFA94's Captain by any chance? :ouch:

No (too junior to get LA's) - and I never winge over the radio, its pointless.

I dont condone those that do either, they make the rest of us look bad

Could one of the controllers from Sydney explain why the idiotic PRM system is used?

It is not unusual to be slowed to min speed in the climb upon entering Class E and maintain this all the way to Sydney then 20 miles further out before finally landing.

I was told when this system started it was to fit more traffic into Sydney per hour, but it seems so inefficient and must cost airlines hundreds of thousands throughout the year. Not to mention the dominoe effect for the remainder of the day after arriving at the gate up to 30 minutes late.

Can't just simple ILS approaches with radar vectors be used?

Not having a go at ATCers, just after the reasons why were are burdened with such a frustrating and inefficient system.

A little birdy once told me that whenever the Approach/Departure procedures at Sydney are modified, the first thing they do is overlay the TAC with an electoral boundary map, and then go from there. Please direct all complaints about SY (delays, track miles, holding, vectors, SIDs, STARs etc etc et fkn c) to your local member :mad:

Jenna,

Why would an ATC be able to even vaguely answer your question?

Like you, they only look at the black and white no bull**** approach to the fastest simplest operational solution.

Everything else is political bull**** - elected and company varieties.

The poor bastards flying the planes and controlling the planes just have to work around the ever increasing piles of it.

Bitching amongst ourselves just makes it worse.

Same one that was whinging that a 'domestic flight' had his optimum level over WA enroute to Melbourne?

"The amount of fuel saved on these descents is 3/5 of 5/8 of f**k all."

Shame really, coz it regularly costs you a slot in the sequence. It's always safer to make QF #2 now.

"Same one that was whinging that a 'domestic flight' had his optimum level over WA enroute to Melbourne"

And being WA it was probably a King Air with no Y or W??? Would appear they expect to be d*cked around near airports but have the desert to themselves:}

King Oath,

I'm sure that someone from QF and ASA were in 'deep' discussion about the new speeds, no doubt augmented by company expense accounts and allsorts of posturing about how good each other was and how important the relationship was!

Unfortunately, nobody told us! The first we knew was after a couple of days of trying to work out why everyone was catching you fellows by 40, 50, 60 knots on the descent. A sneaky little memo appeared in our new info book.

As Karrank states above, it's easier in alot of cases to make the bloke that gets in the way no2, it really should be impressed on you fellows and your company that you are losing slots due to this policy which in the long run will cost you more money, ironic really.

Fartsock,
You've had 25 years at this game and still too junior to get LA, man that's a long que!

en-rooter.

It doesnt surprise me that noone told you. We were all given a nice shiny memo from 'dolly' which said that the whole thing had been coordinated ect ect.

Having said that, is it going to help if we tell you what speed we would like to do on descent. ?

If so we can put the word amound as best is possible.

Actually, now I think about it, I dont even want to go to LA, but it gives me something else to winge about

FS

99 times out of 100, if you ask for it the controller will try and make it happen. Information is power, speak up or forever hold your peace.

why PRM?
 

PRM increases the landing rate during peak periods affected by low cloud, to a number more-or-less equivalent to IVAs.

It reduces overall holding (but you get an extra 20 track miles for free).

It avoids the situation where a PA31 backs up the whole sequence to minimum approach speed from 15NM by allowing overtaking during IMC.

It gives a couple of controllers a couple of hundred bucks each for coming in on their day off for the privilidge of staffing PRM.

From what I'm told, it's a inefficient traffic management tool however the "saving to industry" is enough to warrent continued use.

Fartsock and other QF's,

What will work when you come onto 132.2 (can't speak for the the other freq's, perhaps an ATC from the others sectors could contribute??) is:

"Centre, QF... speed on descent 265kts, estimate Narel..... unless it affects our slot in the sequence or slows the aircraft behind we can descend at 300, 320kts etc, new estimate for Narel......."

Believe it or not even 1 minute later at the fix can shove you back 5 to 10 (or even more) minutes in the sequence.

:ok:

Maestro, the tool the airlines asked for. A slight digression if I may...

There has been recent complaints about aircraft in the hold being allowed to track and speed as desired in the pattern to meet a feeder fix time. No Stack Departure time. We realize that this is harder to do with the little boxes, but feeder fixes require you to be at the fix at the time specified. A stack departure time allows you to be a minute early or 30 seconds late out of the hold. If two aircraft in a row are at these extremes then we either get two at the fix at the same time or at the other extreme, a slot disappers and everyone gets pushed back again.

The airlines asked for this system. We all have to work with it.

Cheers,

R-s.

En-R


Will give it a crack. The only problem is that revised estimate / different crossing time thing at Narel might be hard to organise on the fly given the limitations of some a/c's FMC's.

All this begs the question of course - why didnt the line pilots get togther with the line ATCO's and short this ***** out in the first place?

Our pilot managers really are abymismal, more focused on bonuses than the operation.

Instead the respective Managers get together (probably interstate or over a free 5 Star Lunch) and compare bonuses and Frequent Flyer Points - and who has got the flashest leased German Car.

They probably even believe their own rhetoric.

It is quite some revelation that essence of Maestro is based on flight plan data rather than the use of real-time radar speed and positional data.

That would appear to be the magic ingredient that makes it so wonderful in producing such quizzical and shocked looks across the flight deck when receiving conflicting speed control instructions from sequential control agencies!

I hope we have a copyright on that software so no one else in the world is allowed to use it!

eeets Frrench sheet :mad:

Not only is it French, but it costs a lot of money to buy the licence to use it!

It's not the only ATC Flow management tool used around the world, but it is considered one of the better ones!

It still requires a lot of human intervention, eg. into BN the heavy has to do the instrument star with the 737 doing the visual star, MAESTRO will put both acft at the same feeder fix at the same time. Instrument star has more track miles, hence for a nice 150 second sequence, feeder fix time computed to be the same. Outcome, ATC will either re-route the 737, or the FLOW will manipulate MAESTRO to get an achievable result.

Of course with major weather diversions, MAESTRO can't cope, and the FLOW works his ring off!

Uncommon Sense,

I assume that Duff Man is ATC and he had not problem answering my question in an informative and succinct manner.

No one is bitching amongst anyone. I even stressed at the end of the thread that I was not having a go at ATCers.


Duff Man,

From sitting in the pointy end, it is difficult to see how there are any savings to the industry. There are no worse delays in Sydney (IMHO) than this system.

Thanks for your explanation, it is much appreciated.

Jenna,

Quite right.

I over reacted after a ****ty day.

Sorry.