NZAA Sequencing
 

The last three or four times I have been into NZAA the sequencing has involved a lot of ¨speed up....slow down....turn left ....¨etc etc . It seems that the latest STAR's are quite prescriptive with heights and speeds yet they are not used to any great effect.
I have two questions for anyone involved in the Air Traffic System there;
1/ Do you think the designers were being a bit optimistic when they required a 10 knot speed reduction from 250 to 240 about 30 miles from touch down?
2/ Why don't you just give everyone a required time at Aradi or Basiv or Jabba or similar and let them sort out the profile and speed to achieve that?
Cheers

Being Australian based you should be well used to it. Auckland is a dream in comparison. I can't remember when I last had any speed control. Usually vectors to extend prior to joining final approach if spacing is needed.

250kts to 240kts? I can't remember where that occurs but hardly a huge adjustment.

I agree with your second point. More use of time over waypoint should be used. Probably one closer in though.

They are working hard to expedite the pesky local Kiwi airlines coming in from the south; these local heroes sometimes declare visual from way out ( they being very familiar with NZAA ) hoping to beat your weary long hauls to be first onto the runway. Occasionally NZAA arbitrarily give priority to the QF or Air NZ guys coming from LAX eventhough others are nearer and well ahead.

You are initially told to speed up and then a local hero checks in onto the approach frequency, and before you can say " jack rabbit " you are given a wide turn way off with instructions to slow down. Then when the local hero stuff up his hasty visual turn to base and go around, you are immediately told to make a direct turn to Emrag or Oreso and told to speed it up...or even worse, you are vectored all over the place so that he can come in for a second approach ( that is if he is really visual; the first stuff up was probably because he lied about being fully visual, then he will have to be radar vectored to the localizer ). Well, like anywhere else, local ATC give preferrence to certain people......

There is apparently an advancement of the CAM system being introduced in August named AMAN. This WILL require you to be at waypoints at designated times. Issued by ATC enroute.

framer,

It's good to know that they don't just get the locals to slow up, go fast turn right turn left etc. ;)

Sampan Angkasa,

You seem very bitter. I fly into NZAA and have never experienced the sort of antics you refer to. Also perhaps you need to also check the requirements for a visual approach by day, there is no need to have the airport in sight, just a requirement that you can be sure of maintaining visual reference with the ground at all times.

And the atis generally advises if to expect a visual app so act know what the domestics are going to do. They will generally track you via Tomas or Kauri for the visual. A visual star such as ybbn would be much better

They do have visual STARS but not normally used and a bit of a Cluster Fcuk in my opinion.

That's coming as mentioned by Woolley

Auckland has no sequencing tool. There is CAM which tries to spread the Traffic out. It is commonplace to have 6-10 arrivals within 60nm as well as providing approach control for NZWP and NZAR.
Visual approaches can really relieve the pressure when there are a lot of arrivals. In saying that as soon as it starts getting busy most Aircraft will go around the back. Where possible Aircraft are kept on the STAR with speed control but because the STARS mostly have 2 90deg turns on to final it is not easy. Vectors and speed contol give certainty and accuracey for Gaps on final (minimum Radar Sep 3nm at touch down so bigger Gap required as aircraft establish on Final), at times bigger Gaps required due conditions.
Yes sometimes you will be sped up to get into a Gap and then slowed down to fit into the sequence. Yes you might have been able to get past the one in front but not the 3 in front of them.
The NZAR MBZ and Training Areas sure don't help either.
RWY05 is pretty hard to use with most departing Traffic having to be threaded across arriving Traffic.

The whole ATC system in NZ is a bit of a farce. I took off from NZCH recently number two to an Air NZ 737, both of us going to NZAA. No idea what they cruise at but I suspect it must be .74 ish as on first contact with 'control' he was asked to fly maximum speed of .76 an we were asked to slow to .74 or less. So here we were with 350nm to run and a jet designed to fly at .78 was flying at .74 and the jet designed to fly at .74 was pushing it up to .76. This was a bad enough piece of controlling but it was to get even worse when we both were switched over to the last control freq. before NZAA and the 737 was slowed to 250 kts due to a Dash 8 that was only 10nm ahead who had been sequenced as number 1 to land. We then we asked to slow to 'minimum clean'. So with 100nm to run we had a Dash 8 flying balls to the wall, a 737 flying 250kts and us descending at 220kts. The crazy thing was that the Dash 8 was the next aircraft to land at NZAA, we were all stacked up behind him. When I finally queried just why we hadn't been permitted to cruise straight past the 737 out of NZCH and then the Dash 8 into NZAA I was told that the sequence of us and the 737 had been determined by NZCH departures and the Dash 8 had been sequenced in front of both of us as he had reached some imaginary 'circle' that surrounds NZAA first. Apparently once someone has decided the sequence it is set in stone even if it is total bullsh*t. This is where I am constantly disappointed by NZ ATC, as in all the other parts of the world I have flown it is generally recognised that it is better for everyone to allow aircraft to be sequenced with regard to the perfomance of that type.

I have actually come to the conclusion that a lot of the reason for some of these problems is down to the fact that there are too 'many' visual approaches at our major airports. It seems to increase RT traffic 10 fold and lead to a much more 'fluid' situation which is much harder for a controller to sequence properly. I think our controllers are 'out of practice' at proper vectoring and IFR operations. Every time the weather requires instrument approaches into NZAA the whole thing falls to pieces, it is all 'speed up' then 'slow down', panic ensues if you turn finals any closer than 6nm behind the traffic in front. They want to see Heathrow where it is unusual for there to be more than 2.5nm spacing between arrivals or 5nm if someone is planned to depart in between. The problem is that NZ skies are now becoming quite busy in comparison to how they have been, maybe it is time to leave the GA attitude and stupid visual approaches at NZAA in the past and start acting like a grown up airport.

On my usual monthly visit, it never seems OVERLY busy, although more than 6 aircraft within 50 miles might tax the system me thinks:E
Having said that, the standard of controlling is usually pretty good, even if the approach guys either don't want, or dont have the equipment to provide reduced separation closer in.
As for getting cut up by the little guys, we are required to be fully configured by 1500 AAL, and stabilised by 1000' so by 6 miles we are coming back from 180 towards 160 and eventually 150ish, I used to do 180 kts in a B200 till two miles without any problems...can't be much harder in a 1900 or Dush 8? Surely a shorter final and wings level at 5-300 AAL would stop the visuals that use either the motorway or the eastern end of Puhinui road as a base turn reference?

quote:As for getting cut up by the little guys, we are required to be fully configured by 1500 AAL, and stabilised by 1000' so by 6 miles we are coming back from 180 towards 160 and eventually 150ish, I used to do 180 kts in a B200 till two miles without any problems...can't be much harder in a 1900 or Dush 8?

the answer to your question probably lies in your first statement. no chance a dash can do 180 to 2nm without foqa tearing you a new ring! ;)

and a 1900D can do 240 to five but you won't see that happen anymore either.

Good grief people !!

Time a few of you took a chill pill and a spirituous libation of your choice.

Be a real shame if you actually had to " fly " the aeroplane once in a while.

Do I detect a measure of jealousy from those who are either discouraged from hand-flying, or who arrive too tired to push a few more buttons ? At a time when most companies are hell-bent on removing what little fun is left in it, I would have thought you might look forward to the odd visual approach. Or is it all just too stressful ?

On many other threads on this 'site pilots bemoan the fact that flying skills are being lost to automation. As poor as you think the quality of AKL ATC might be, (which is arguable ), at least they give you the odd chance to play like a pilot again, like some of you used to enjoy.

Regards Tpad

Now pass that rum Matey!!

Every time I see another thread about sequencing bitching from the sky gods, I doe a little more inside. It is all pretty simple yet so complex and is a game of seconds.


Assuming a non arrivals manager type program (eg Meastro), the arrivals guy from the North gets a rate he has to give the approach guy, the guy from the South a rate (directions may vary) and then the appproach guy catches them. The arrivals guys make those rates happen however they can. Speed ups for number one then varying degrees of slow down for everyone else. The approach guy then has to put these two (or three or more) streams on the runway. This means that perhaps the number one from the North may not be number one for the runway and hence, has to slow down after going fast..... and vice versa from the South who was number two there but is now number two to the runway beating number one from the other end....

Now, for an arrivals manager type program (eg Meastro) throw in crews who are too retarded to do what is asked of them and magnify the above.....

... but you already knew this,...... right?

No need to get snarky chaps. The questions were simple
.I wasn't bitching, I was genuinely interested in the answers and had an open mind to learning something from you guys.


1/ Do you think the designers were being a bit optimistic when they required a 10 knot speed reduction from 250 to 240 about 30 miles from touch down?
By that I mean did they really think that the system was going to work so well that a ten knot reduction would actually be influential in creating the required separation and that controllers wouldn't be giving much greater reductions or increases well before this point?
and
2/ Why don't you just give everyone a required time at Aradi or Basiv or Jabba or similar and let them sort out the profile and speed to achieve that?
This question has been answered and I am glad that it will be introduced soon.
Well I now know something about the type of person on the other end of the radio. I'l just asume an anomaly though and give the rest of the NZ controllers the benefit of the doubt.

The STAR arrivals are being progressively changed to allow for accommodation of the Airways PBN change over. The public RNP AR approaches should be up and running at AKL this year as well so that eventually the instrument approach will mirror the visual approach.

Some tests were done on RTA arrivals at least 6 years ago and due to the shorter sectors on WLG AKL for the jets there was just not the flight time available to make any real difference without huge drop down in altitudes to reduce speeds, and RTA holding on the ground at WLG was not an option.

AH - We are told that Enroute ATC is required to deliver jets to AKL arrivals (126.0) at a minimum 10 mile separation. The difference in speed between an A320 (.78 you say) at 2000 feet above a cruise B737CL (.75) is not great enough time available to catch up and get passed with 10 mile separation at approximately 120 AA. What I see a lot of is the approach controller uses this gap between jets to put a Beech in and so really screw up the second jet!

However I do agree with you the "first ready and able to use the runway" is not a good departure planning method. How many times does CHC TWR (also know as Mount Cook TWR) fire off an ATR in front of a jet only to have the Jet RADAR vectored all over the sky to get through the ATR altitude.

It would be a simple matter to taxi the slower B733 to A7 or A2 and fire off the A320 from A6 or A3 and save lots of stress all around!

The real issue is that AKL has too many different performance types all trying to use the same airspace and ATC always protect the missed approach of Jet behind TP hence the big spacing.

I am not an NZ controller and interestingly, where I do work, the retarded pilot is not the anomaly, it is pretty much the rule (save one or two companies). Unfortunately, in a past life I could always assume everyone was going to do the right thing but now, I expect them to do the wrong thing and go from there. An individual I work when asked what he does for a crust tells people he works with Special Needs Adults. Pretty close to the mark.


(*personal unrelated to NZAA rant follows but is on the broader topic of sequencing*)As for speed control, given with the fad in recent years of econ descents, what is a slow down to one is a speed up to another. As a result, everyone gets a speed and number one is made number one. As an example, a 738 stooging in at 240 knots given 300kts is a 60 knot speed up, that same 300 knots given to a F900 coming in at 360kts is the same but as a slow down.

When leaving the descent points to the pilots you either have to force them down at the same time/rate or add some serious track miles to keep your current spacing. Every 2000ft equates to about 10 knots of indicated. To just match the ground speeds of say an A320 at F240 staying high and an International A332 down low at F160 like they do early, you have to find 40 knots somewhere. This leads to catch ups and overtakes when you do as suggested with methods such as 'give me a time to cross a point and I will work it out' Someone is going to get slowed down and someone is going to get sped up. When you then bend someone out to keep separation, it is like you killed their dog usually followed by a question along the lines of 'if we speed up some more, will that help?'... sure, if you can give me 700 knots in the next 30 seconds it may....Either build more runways or expect that you WILLL get some Air Traffic COntrol inflicted on you in the form of sequencing. You are NOT the only aircraft in the sky (well maybe in Aukland you are:} )

Dont forget NZAA is a single runway operation so at times you will be held up behind a Dash 8 to introduce a gap in the arrival sequence to facilitate departures.

'descend now'

'you want me to descend now or when ready'




Get my gun......

sigh.... if we really cared about the minute or 2 lost due to vectoring, i think nek time we would just plow thru that cell rather than deviate 20nm around it enroute. it's only coz we are in approach mode and close to landing that we get upset about it.
heathrow has standard 20 min holds, wow, akl has std 3 min lost due vectoring...
yawn......
i think the turbo prop drivers save the jet guys vectoring by going fast til 2nms final just as much as they may coc it up for them too.

c.l.

A couple of things evident from the thread;
1. Pilots often don't understand sequencing, yet always think they do. The most vocal are inevitably the ones who wouldn't lower themselves to sit in a centre and watch it being done/have it explained. Classic example is bitching about being sequenced behind a turboprop- as explained, the tp will go faster longer, and will actually go at least as fast (on average thru an approach) as an RPT-type jet, especially closer in to the field. There is also no wake turb issue with the tp in front, allowing better runway utilisation.
2. Sequencing is about ground speed. The controller converts that into an IAS/Mach, taking into account winds and levels, and issues instructions accordingly. Hearing speeds on the freq will not tell you the other guys groundspeed, unless he is on the same route at the same level.
3. Comparisons to LHR. Do I really need to explain it? Ban GA from your airport, enact highly prescriptive procedures such as exact speeds for every phase of the approach, hire 4 times as many controllers, only commence an approach from a hold, only depart for the airport with a controlled slot time etc. etc. and you may get a result that looks like LHR.

Anyway, carry on with the sledging.

Ferris:ok::ok::ok:

Lt Z:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok: Departures!!! OMG!!! You want to depart as well?!?!?! That's a novel idea.... try squeezing a few departures into those 3nm gaps... in a single runway operation that doesn't happen chaps!!

Whilst APP is "doing that controller sh!t" and squeezing all those arrivals into NZAA, spare a thought for the twr controller trying to play the other half of the game, 'cos sure as eggs are scrambled not too long after you're in that arrival queue, you'll appear in the departures queue and probably moan about delays on departure!! Not to mention the GND dude playing parking attendant and running out of places to put all those arrivals 'cos their gates are occupied!

Big picture guys!!

Although we bag ATC from time to time on the whole they do a pretty good job.

However they could keep us pilots a bit more in the loop at times. Like the original poster mentioned re the speed up slow down requests.

So often you get told to go fast only to the told by the next sector go slow, no wonder the reaction of (thought not spoken) "WTF we've just been told to go fast now you want us to slow down what are you guys smoking down there". A bit of a heads up like "we need you fast for the next XX minutes/miles to fit in a gap" might help at times a bit like Steady Eddie used to do.

And then we see threads about ATC loving the sound of their own voice. 'For sequencing' should cover it. As an ATC, I want you out of my sector in the shortest posible time. As has ben covered above, one ATC will need to stick you in a gap or create a gap, the next guy the same. These gaps are usually different.

Add to the LHR comments above, runway design. Appropriate high speed taxiways and airlines/aircraft that met minimum Runway Occupancy criteria.
Seriously, you guy DO realise there are other planes up there right?

With over 1000 a day where I'm at, most have dispensed with that needless add-on. I mean, what else is it for on a busy TMA/APP frequency- controller amusement?

I think you just had a few LL guys rolling on the floor. You have been there, haven't you? :ooh:

Could not agree more Slackie, but it begs the question, if you have departures ready to go, wtf is the approach controller sequencing arrivals at 3 miles?
Have sat at A1 for probably 6 arrivals, I know..its only 6, but when its a mixture of Dush ates..a 737, 320, BN2, then a 1900, I'm wondering where that 800kg of gas went:}
I guess it begs the question, is there a plan per se? Then again, operators dont help themselves at times, one of thos Dushes decided to try and make A4 and all he did was mess things up for us as we coulda got away before the next lightie arrived.
Mayby he did it on purpose:suspect:

Lap Sap, yes and yes. The strictest letter of ICAO however does require a reason to be given for vectors. I use 'sequencing, turn/speed .........'. We do same numbers and then some at our place and i note noone argues. I can only imagine the hilarity if some one tried on the **** about getting dicked around on freq that is a normal occurance at 'certain' places

As for runway/taxi way design lets us acknowledge that high speed exits useable by the aircraft requiring the greatest distance behind are key. EGLL has that sorted. Also the location of inner holding stacks. Will be interesting to watch with the altimeter changes and stack redesign as to how it runs especially in high winds.

That was my point, it is a tiny adjustment. I wanted to know if controllers thought the designers had been a bit optimistic considering the miriad of other variables that have been listed in this thread.
Hidden amongst the defnsive responses and silly comments I have found answers to both of my questions. Ta.
@PLazbot
Do you actually believe that you are controlling a whole lot of people that are ¨retarded¨? Or do you think the system might create conflicting demands on them? The people you are talking about would probably think you were incompetant at managing the energy of a jet if you were suddenly put in actual control of one , but I doubt they would assume you were retarded mentally, just that you hadn't enough experience in that role. Anyway, I learnt something from you when you described creating gaps and fitting aircraft in, cheers for that.

Framer, I work in the same region as Plaz (it's nowhere near oz), and believe me, if you were to sit with one of us for a shift, you would be scratching your head.
As for the rest of the thread; I feel that some responses were directed toward the Artificial Horizon-types. As you see, we sometimes deal with a level of condescension in our profession, which can grate when you see the standard of individuals employed as pilots in some parts of the world.
Thanks for your questions, and glad that they were answered (eventually).

..........you do all get driven around in small white buses.........

Sitting at 35000' I don't want to have a late level off and vector. All I want to know is what time you want me at the threshold so I can plan a more efficient descent.

One of the things that completely annoys me about AKL is the lack of early flow control. I've planned my descent at 280. If you want a slower speed on descent for sequencing that's fine, just tell us before top of descent for efficiency.

If you want me to track via kauri in anticipation of the visual, tell me before TOD. If you going to track me on the ILS tell me as early as possible or the full star, tell me.

The differences about AKL and LHR is that at least I know I'm going to hold before the approach. I have a reasonable expectation about whats going on. In Akl however, I may track via a visual approach, I may have to track via the STAR. I might be told to speed up enroute, then be told to reduce to min clean by approach so they can squeeze me in on the visual.

It feels sometimes that Approach control does not speak to enroute control enough. Cancellations of approach speed requirements is a classic example of this. One guy cancels them, to only have standard speeds stated when on approach control because your No 8.... Why in hell would I want to speed up, only to be slowed down again. It's a double fuel penalty.

Bulla, why does your aircraft vary its descent speed about the 280k & not fly exactly that speed all the time? Because it's flying to meet a target in variable conditions. Same with us adjusting your speed - we're aiming to put you in the right place at the right time relative to other aircraft & sometimes it needs adjusting. You've got your nice FMS to help - we're hand flying with basic instruments.

I must agree with Bula
On late arrivals into akl I always ask if the is any speed control on descent. Usually the instant response is standard speeds( almost as if they couldnt be bothered to pick up the phone to ask what speed they want) only to be asked on the next frequency for max speed as long as possible.
While I'm at it does anyone know how, to be told to leave cruise altitude 40-50nm early help with the sequence into Akl.

Cheers

Profile matching. Like I posted back a page.

who_cares, a sequence is a dynamic thing. A gap opens up ahead of you because someone does better than expected or takes track shortening when it wasn't sure they could earlier. By moving you up a bit to fill that gap everyone behind you benefits too. The aim is to maximise the entire sequence & is not just considering one aircraft - individual aircraft get tweaked to achieve this.

Sure, a 3 minute gap could be left in the sequence instead of speeding you up but how is that efficient for the system as a whole?

My issue is not with the controllers, it is solely with the sequencing/Flow control.

If I speed up to 300 knots for the sequence, let's say 40nm, then slowed to 220 for say the next 40nm,why can't I just be told prior to ToD to maintain 255 knots, or adjust my speed to cross the feeder fix before we even leave our cruise alt.

I expect vectoring to slot in,, extensions and the like. You know, whatever it takes as the situation is revolving.

We talk about efficiency. But if everyone is beeing dicked around, we loose efficiency for everyone, not just the arrival rate.

"We are good at what we do"... No offense, but it does Puts a huge smile on my face sometimes :)

Of course. As you are the onlyaircraft in the sky.......

You are not serious are you? Did you read the preceeding posts in this thread?

Far from..... Other busy airports do it, why is Auckland an exception?


I'm sorry. I've operated around the world to many different airports. Why does Auckland always feel like the most manual place I fly to with the most frequent changes to profile?

Quite frankly Airways is ok at at what they do but there are many who do it better. Hopefully "Mana" forces a few people to spend more money where money needs to be spent to give ATC better tools to work with before someone else does it for them.

A new tool for the controllers toolbox in use at Auckland for the last few days. RNP AR now up and running at NZAA since Thursday. When sequence and capability line up, it's in for the short approach! From the south only at this point. Bring it on!:D

Here I was thinking that Airway's ways of doing things was worlds best practice, where ever did I get that idea from. :hmm: