Dubai ATC
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
FT,
That is possible on some jets - I used to fly a glass Boeing which gave you the option of holding at present position. No knowlegde regarding the Airbus. On ours (a Classic, no Nav screen but with a reasonable FMC) you can hold at any point simply by telling it to. If there isn't a defined waypoint, you can create one up, enter and execute it and then create a hold. Not instant, but pretty quick all the same.
As I mentioned, we don't have a Nav display and when we tune the ILS (our NAV controllers can either have the ILS or VOR but not both) we lose a lot of our position information now the NDB has been de-commisioned. Therefore we tend to slow up earlier to prevent being caught out. The times we arrive (freight), we don't tend to get the guided tours so we are happy the way things are.
We are getting a NAV screen soon, courtesy of the european RNP requirements so things should be better.
That is possible on some jets - I used to fly a glass Boeing which gave you the option of holding at present position. No knowlegde regarding the Airbus. On ours (a Classic, no Nav screen but with a reasonable FMC) you can hold at any point simply by telling it to. If there isn't a defined waypoint, you can create one up, enter and execute it and then create a hold. Not instant, but pretty quick all the same.
As I mentioned, we don't have a Nav display and when we tune the ILS (our NAV controllers can either have the ILS or VOR but not both) we lose a lot of our position information now the NDB has been de-commisioned. Therefore we tend to slow up earlier to prevent being caught out. The times we arrive (freight), we don't tend to get the guided tours so we are happy the way things are.
We are getting a NAV screen soon, courtesy of the european RNP requirements so things should be better.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere beyond the sea
It's plain from the lively comments passed that there a lot of Ppruners out there who deeply care about improving "the system" but it seems we have strayed a considerable distance from the original thread.
No, you're not alone many of us have heard their tirades. Their attitude is a stain upon the unit and the profession.
These guys must by now be aware of this thread. (Who isn't in the UAE ATC scene) A little inward reflection or even HRT would go a long way as a prophylactic against requiring the services of a good proctologist after being shown the way out!!
Am I alone when I say there are one or two ATCOs (Aussie/English?) in DXB who seem to suffer from constant PMS?
These guys must by now be aware of this thread. (Who isn't in the UAE ATC scene) A little inward reflection or even HRT would go a long way as a prophylactic against requiring the services of a good proctologist after being shown the way out!!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: Geneva
After reading 6 pages of postings here are my 2 cents.
1. First some very good posts and excellent discussion!
2. I work in Bahrain ACC and there has recently been a memo posted for job openings in Dubai...looking for radar/tower validation/ 5 years exp. I was told they are looking for 10 controllers. It has come to my attention that someone from the UK was recently hired with just over 12 months validated tower time and no approach validation.....scraping the bottom are we??? When I asked the "person in charge of hiring" why people with more experience are being turned away I was basically told to mind my business.. The problems do not only lie with the so called great Dane... it's also a local management problem.
3. Speaking of procedures and RVSM. UAE has a procedure that if they have not received an aircrafts flight plan via the AFTN (the system that transmits flight plans to the appropriate facilities) the aircraft is not allowed to enter RVSM airspace ... Even if we as BAH ATC confirm the aircrafts RVSM status they still do not accept these flights. Well what we predicted happened a few nights ago. THe UAE has a total AFTN crash... Just about every single flight had to be descended to FL270 or below before entering UAE aispace.. We are talking flight from EGLL to WSSS. Try telling a pilot at FL 390 he must descend to FL 270 half way through his flight. This time I do believe the GD is responsible for this procedure..
Moral of this story is that you can't always blame ATC because in most cases they are dealing with incompetent managers/regulators.
Last thing! Can you guys/gals flying through BAH Fir wear your headsets in the cockpit..
) "Say again Bahrain?!!?"
1. First some very good posts and excellent discussion!
2. I work in Bahrain ACC and there has recently been a memo posted for job openings in Dubai...looking for radar/tower validation/ 5 years exp. I was told they are looking for 10 controllers. It has come to my attention that someone from the UK was recently hired with just over 12 months validated tower time and no approach validation.....scraping the bottom are we??? When I asked the "person in charge of hiring" why people with more experience are being turned away I was basically told to mind my business.. The problems do not only lie with the so called great Dane... it's also a local management problem.
3. Speaking of procedures and RVSM. UAE has a procedure that if they have not received an aircrafts flight plan via the AFTN (the system that transmits flight plans to the appropriate facilities) the aircraft is not allowed to enter RVSM airspace ... Even if we as BAH ATC confirm the aircrafts RVSM status they still do not accept these flights. Well what we predicted happened a few nights ago. THe UAE has a total AFTN crash... Just about every single flight had to be descended to FL270 or below before entering UAE aispace.. We are talking flight from EGLL to WSSS. Try telling a pilot at FL 390 he must descend to FL 270 half way through his flight. This time I do believe the GD is responsible for this procedure..
Moral of this story is that you can't always blame ATC because in most cases they are dealing with incompetent managers/regulators.
Last thing! Can you guys/gals flying through BAH Fir wear your headsets in the cockpit..
) "Say again Bahrain?!!?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
EuroATC
AFTNs don't crash per se. They have primary, secondary and tertiary routings. For a flight plan from say Bahrain to Karachi all stations on the route would get their copies by the primary link. Should this link fail they would get a copy by the secondary link etc.
If as you say that in this case UAE was not receiving flight plans then the cause would have to lie with Bahrain as they would have knowledge that the primary link was malfunctioning and therefore should initiate the switch to the secondary link.
Most stations have will automatic switching but perhaps in Bahrain they have a manual process.
AFTNs don't crash per se. They have primary, secondary and tertiary routings. For a flight plan from say Bahrain to Karachi all stations on the route would get their copies by the primary link. Should this link fail they would get a copy by the secondary link etc.
If as you say that in this case UAE was not receiving flight plans then the cause would have to lie with Bahrain as they would have knowledge that the primary link was malfunctioning and therefore should initiate the switch to the secondary link.
Most stations have will automatic switching but perhaps in Bahrain they have a manual process.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
From: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Don't know the technical details but UAE was receiving practically no Flight plans from Bahrain and also practically no flight pans from Muscat, so I'm sure it was a UAE problem.
By the way it's not just a fuel burn issue, when pushing everyone down, it's a safety issue. Suddenly you have every man and his dog at the same level, not exactly what RVSM was supposed to provide.
By the way it's not just a fuel burn issue, when pushing everyone down, it's a safety issue. Suddenly you have every man and his dog at the same level, not exactly what RVSM was supposed to provide.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere beyond the sea
No it wasn't.
Computer fault in Bahrain but this is immaterial and should not have stopped flight plans getting through as fall-back procedures are in place to divert AFTN traffic.
Trouble is that the fall-back unit refused diverted AFTN traffic.
What to do?
Computer fault in Bahrain but this is immaterial and should not have stopped flight plans getting through as fall-back procedures are in place to divert AFTN traffic.
Trouble is that the fall-back unit refused diverted AFTN traffic.
What to do?
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
From: UAE
AFTN outages
Gents, you are missing the point!
WHO CARES why the AFTN failed or where!!!
The point is the ridiculous requirements of UAE forcing Muscat and Bahrain to descend aircraft that are RVSM approved FOR NO LOGICAL REASON!
Sorry about the shouting, but we have more than enough to do on our side of the fence without descending or in several cases in the past two days, climbing a/c from F270 up to their requested levels as soon as they clear UAE airspace.
If the pilot says he is RVSM approved...that should be the end of it. Up he goes!
Can some of the companies kindly complain??
Most service providers do tend to listen when the paying customer has a whinge.
WHO CARES why the AFTN failed or where!!!
The point is the ridiculous requirements of UAE forcing Muscat and Bahrain to descend aircraft that are RVSM approved FOR NO LOGICAL REASON!
Sorry about the shouting, but we have more than enough to do on our side of the fence without descending or in several cases in the past two days, climbing a/c from F270 up to their requested levels as soon as they clear UAE airspace.
If the pilot says he is RVSM approved...that should be the end of it. Up he goes!
Can some of the companies kindly complain??
Most service providers do tend to listen when the paying customer has a whinge.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: Geneva
thanks diving duck!! exactly.. who cares what failed.. and it's funny.. UAE seem to be the only ones who don't get the flights plans.. at least 1/2 dozen a day.. oh sorry.. it's our fault in Bahrain.. it's always our fault !! LOL
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
Hi Ferris
Quote
It's not very good. How do you intend to hold a/c closer to the field at up to 13 000' ? You won't get them down and they'll get vectors all over the place to lose height. The mechanics of holding mean that the longer the hold runs, the higher and higher the aircraft are (if the in-trail-spacing leaving the hold is less than the distance around a pattern). You would also have to deal with the low-level overflyers (C130s etc) and insertions (Kish Isl). Departures would also be held down for a long time. I still don't see the problem with holding as we are now, and APP owning the bottom 2 levels. Holding is a vertical thing, so I have no idea why you want a/c run INTO the hold with 10nm spacing. Bringing them OUT of the hold is where the spacing is achieved. Also, how is the problem of the vectors after holding addressed? Read the pilot comments. It is almost a safety issue that at the moment we bring them out 10nm or whatever spaced, then APP still has to synchronise east, west and AUH arrivals. Flowing for threshold arrival times solves all that. It isn't rocket science, and could easily be achieved either manually or via automation (MAESTRO etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okaaay, so the whole of Europe are doing it wrong eh? My experience prior to here is only the UK but I think we do ATC pretty well there.
Holding - A/c enter the hold at FL150 or whatever is appropriate depending on the volume of traffic. A/c are then laddered down in the hold to the bottom then they leave at 8,000 feet so you can hold much closer to the airfield. The holding stack is therefore placed 25 to 30 track miles from touchdown. DESDI and BUBIN are too far away from one of the landing direction (DESDI is good for 12 and BUBIN for 30 but not vice versa) so a 3rd stack is needed. Actually overhead the DUB would work nicely (when we get access to another non-airfield radar) and also allow a totally non-radar procedural system to be designed in case someone with a shovel cuts the essential cable. A/c would route DESDI - DUB for 30 and BUBIN - DUB for 12. Having the hold overhead then means it conflicts with the SIDs for the minimum time and a/c approach the field 'down the pipe'.
Sequencing is an approach task. Owning the bottom 2 levels of a hold is insufficient and inefficient. Just ask any approach ATCO what he thinks when he sees Area trying to manage a stack on 100nm range settings. It's painful to watch. Control of the stacks should be delegated to the airfield - it is virtually everywhere else.
The system requires that
a) Area control gets the a/c descending to around FL150 before the handoff (just above is ok but 10,000 extra feet of fresh air is unacceptable). If they are at least 6 miles apart in-trail and speeded then they can be transferred in the descent to separated levels otherwise they have to be actually level.
b) A/c come out the hold at the bottom having been laddered down to enable more a/c to go in at the top. In my experience it is very difficult to fill a stack so that area run out of levels unless there is a runway blockage.
If everyone is doing it properly (with the Dubai Coordinator becoming a tactical planner and / or stack controller) then Area will probably be dropping to FL150 all night without the need to hold higher.
From the hold a/c are radar vectored (in the UK) but with the proposed introduction of RNP 1 to the UAE in 2005, properly designed post-holding STARs may be usable. It doesn't really matter how they get from the hold to the ILS as long as they do it expeditiously. The pilots will be happy with that because they don't get taken on any more midnight cross countries. Proper application of speed control in the Approach environment is essential in high capacity operations. Also the matter of runway occupancy by a/c needs to be addressed.
Low level joiners are a pain but easily accommodated. I believe Gatwick in the UK still has these and they're fitted in without any gnashing of teeth.
It is a mature system that has been refined over many years and needs only ATCOs who a reasonable amount of ability and flexibility. What is also essential to integrating multiple stacks is training and practice which is where our simulators comes in.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This simplifies the task for everyone and gives the customer the best service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forcing them down early to hold at low altitude? Not exactly 'the best service'. Issuing gate or threshold arrival times so that sequencing can commence whilst still prior to TOD is a much better option for the customer. Especially with modern avionics. The AN12s etc just have to be 'pushed'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The better service comes from them getting on the ground safely and expeditiously with the minimum of delay from holding or sequencing. I have no experience of threshold arrival times so cannot comment on it. I am however willing to learn so tell me where this system is in use at another busy TMA operation with multiple airfields and I'll go look it up.
EuroATC
We take people with the correct level of maturity and experience. The controller you mention was valid at a very busy UK airport and has therefore proved their ability. That controller can teach the rest of us here in Dubai many things about how to operate a busy tower properly using modern techniques. I for one have no problems with employing people like this.
Unfortunately, many ATC providers worldwide are listening to their accountants not their controllers and are developing single validation units. If we want to continue to recruit high calibre people we have to move with the times.
Clipped wings
Yes we are getting off the original subject but the discussions that have developed are very valuable. Why go back - we all agree that those contollers behaviour is unacceptable. I believe one of them can change but the other just doesn't give a toss which makes it a management issue.
Please don't let this AFTN thing degenerate into a 'yes it is / no it isn't' type slagging match as this thread has been one of the few I've seen that has generated almost universal agreement amongst ATCOs and pilots.
regards
Granny
Quote
It's not very good. How do you intend to hold a/c closer to the field at up to 13 000' ? You won't get them down and they'll get vectors all over the place to lose height. The mechanics of holding mean that the longer the hold runs, the higher and higher the aircraft are (if the in-trail-spacing leaving the hold is less than the distance around a pattern). You would also have to deal with the low-level overflyers (C130s etc) and insertions (Kish Isl). Departures would also be held down for a long time. I still don't see the problem with holding as we are now, and APP owning the bottom 2 levels. Holding is a vertical thing, so I have no idea why you want a/c run INTO the hold with 10nm spacing. Bringing them OUT of the hold is where the spacing is achieved. Also, how is the problem of the vectors after holding addressed? Read the pilot comments. It is almost a safety issue that at the moment we bring them out 10nm or whatever spaced, then APP still has to synchronise east, west and AUH arrivals. Flowing for threshold arrival times solves all that. It isn't rocket science, and could easily be achieved either manually or via automation (MAESTRO etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okaaay, so the whole of Europe are doing it wrong eh? My experience prior to here is only the UK but I think we do ATC pretty well there.
Holding - A/c enter the hold at FL150 or whatever is appropriate depending on the volume of traffic. A/c are then laddered down in the hold to the bottom then they leave at 8,000 feet so you can hold much closer to the airfield. The holding stack is therefore placed 25 to 30 track miles from touchdown. DESDI and BUBIN are too far away from one of the landing direction (DESDI is good for 12 and BUBIN for 30 but not vice versa) so a 3rd stack is needed. Actually overhead the DUB would work nicely (when we get access to another non-airfield radar) and also allow a totally non-radar procedural system to be designed in case someone with a shovel cuts the essential cable. A/c would route DESDI - DUB for 30 and BUBIN - DUB for 12. Having the hold overhead then means it conflicts with the SIDs for the minimum time and a/c approach the field 'down the pipe'.
Sequencing is an approach task. Owning the bottom 2 levels of a hold is insufficient and inefficient. Just ask any approach ATCO what he thinks when he sees Area trying to manage a stack on 100nm range settings. It's painful to watch. Control of the stacks should be delegated to the airfield - it is virtually everywhere else.
The system requires that
a) Area control gets the a/c descending to around FL150 before the handoff (just above is ok but 10,000 extra feet of fresh air is unacceptable). If they are at least 6 miles apart in-trail and speeded then they can be transferred in the descent to separated levels otherwise they have to be actually level.
b) A/c come out the hold at the bottom having been laddered down to enable more a/c to go in at the top. In my experience it is very difficult to fill a stack so that area run out of levels unless there is a runway blockage.
If everyone is doing it properly (with the Dubai Coordinator becoming a tactical planner and / or stack controller) then Area will probably be dropping to FL150 all night without the need to hold higher.
From the hold a/c are radar vectored (in the UK) but with the proposed introduction of RNP 1 to the UAE in 2005, properly designed post-holding STARs may be usable. It doesn't really matter how they get from the hold to the ILS as long as they do it expeditiously. The pilots will be happy with that because they don't get taken on any more midnight cross countries. Proper application of speed control in the Approach environment is essential in high capacity operations. Also the matter of runway occupancy by a/c needs to be addressed.
Low level joiners are a pain but easily accommodated. I believe Gatwick in the UK still has these and they're fitted in without any gnashing of teeth.
It is a mature system that has been refined over many years and needs only ATCOs who a reasonable amount of ability and flexibility. What is also essential to integrating multiple stacks is training and practice which is where our simulators comes in.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This simplifies the task for everyone and gives the customer the best service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forcing them down early to hold at low altitude? Not exactly 'the best service'. Issuing gate or threshold arrival times so that sequencing can commence whilst still prior to TOD is a much better option for the customer. Especially with modern avionics. The AN12s etc just have to be 'pushed'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The better service comes from them getting on the ground safely and expeditiously with the minimum of delay from holding or sequencing. I have no experience of threshold arrival times so cannot comment on it. I am however willing to learn so tell me where this system is in use at another busy TMA operation with multiple airfields and I'll go look it up.
EuroATC
We take people with the correct level of maturity and experience. The controller you mention was valid at a very busy UK airport and has therefore proved their ability. That controller can teach the rest of us here in Dubai many things about how to operate a busy tower properly using modern techniques. I for one have no problems with employing people like this.
Unfortunately, many ATC providers worldwide are listening to their accountants not their controllers and are developing single validation units. If we want to continue to recruit high calibre people we have to move with the times.
Clipped wings
Yes we are getting off the original subject but the discussions that have developed are very valuable. Why go back - we all agree that those contollers behaviour is unacceptable. I believe one of them can change but the other just doesn't give a toss which makes it a management issue.
Please don't let this AFTN thing degenerate into a 'yes it is / no it isn't' type slagging match as this thread has been one of the few I've seen that has generated almost universal agreement amongst ATCOs and pilots.
regards
Granny
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Holland
[off topic]
Flying into DXB this week UAE control and DXB appr requested us to give best fwd speed @ FL250. The 1900 doesnt go much faster then 190kts at those altitudes, however below +/- 17,000 FT we can fly 240 kts.
Yesterday I informed TWR we could do 240 till 5 nm out and asked the local twr guy to pass it to app as far as I got it he didn't pass it on.
So my question is does it help you guys out if we keep the speed up longer? And can you see on the radar screen we are speeding up to 240 kts.
Flying into DXB this week UAE control and DXB appr requested us to give best fwd speed @ FL250. The 1900 doesnt go much faster then 190kts at those altitudes, however below +/- 17,000 FT we can fly 240 kts.
Yesterday I informed TWR we could do 240 till 5 nm out and asked the local twr guy to pass it to app as far as I got it he didn't pass it on.
So my question is does it help you guys out if we keep the speed up longer? And can you see on the radar screen we are speeding up to 240 kts.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
The (relatively speaking) high speed of the B1900 are well known to Dubai approach and we use it to advantage (I hope).
I'm not having a go at the area guys but we've cringed watching them trying an overtake with a megajet and it just not happening. Then the poor old FC gets vectors half way to Iran and back.
Time to bring back cockpit visits (not much use on a freighter I agree) and familiarisation flights. Time also for more pilots to come visit ATC at either UAE centre or Dubai so we can get a better relationship going.
In answer to your questions:
- depends on whether you're no 1 or no 10 in the sequence. Generally faster is better unless told otherwise.
- we have a groundspeed readout on the aircraft's SSR label but if we're busy might not notice the speed winding up (or down). Failure to fly assigned speeds is a big problem at Dubai with many carriers (though generally not the B1900's) and this type of slackness has caused losses of separation in the past. So a general request - please fly the speed you are asked unless you need to slow down then ask or at least tell us you're slowing.
cheers
Granny
I'm not having a go at the area guys but we've cringed watching them trying an overtake with a megajet and it just not happening. Then the poor old FC gets vectors half way to Iran and back.
Time to bring back cockpit visits (not much use on a freighter I agree) and familiarisation flights. Time also for more pilots to come visit ATC at either UAE centre or Dubai so we can get a better relationship going.
In answer to your questions:
- depends on whether you're no 1 or no 10 in the sequence. Generally faster is better unless told otherwise.
- we have a groundspeed readout on the aircraft's SSR label but if we're busy might not notice the speed winding up (or down). Failure to fly assigned speeds is a big problem at Dubai with many carriers (though generally not the B1900's) and this type of slackness has caused losses of separation in the past. So a general request - please fly the speed you are asked unless you need to slow down then ask or at least tell us you're slowing.
cheers
Granny
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: Geneva
Granny,
A couple points, first the controller from the UK that was recently hired has barely 12 months validated tower time. Serco has a requirement of having a TOWER and APP validation with minimum 5 years experience.. this person only has 1 of the 3 requirements. It's pretty sad if you need someone with barely a year's experience to teach you all in OMDB. I know of a couple good controllers already working there that have suggested how to move more traffic.. i'm told the resistance comes from the management and the regulator. Just over a year ago, I along with another controller were turned down in Dubai because we did not have busy tower experience. We both had APP ratings with more than 5 years.. I am not at all upset for being turned away but my point is firstly don't have a double standard and secondly don't turn into an ATC school.... I thought we were here to provide ATC service.. not to teach approach control.
Second point, holding.. What you say is all a mute point really because it's all based on opinion. As the sytem in the UK works well the system in north america works just as well and we run just as much if not more traffic than most European airports. In Toronto if we needed to hold we would open the stack 40 miles out and it was the area controller who was responsible for it. Everything worked out great and we still managed to run 3-5 miles down each parallel runway. There are a 100 ways to skin a cat mate... of course everyone thinks their way is best....
A couple points, first the controller from the UK that was recently hired has barely 12 months validated tower time. Serco has a requirement of having a TOWER and APP validation with minimum 5 years experience.. this person only has 1 of the 3 requirements. It's pretty sad if you need someone with barely a year's experience to teach you all in OMDB. I know of a couple good controllers already working there that have suggested how to move more traffic.. i'm told the resistance comes from the management and the regulator. Just over a year ago, I along with another controller were turned down in Dubai because we did not have busy tower experience. We both had APP ratings with more than 5 years.. I am not at all upset for being turned away but my point is firstly don't have a double standard and secondly don't turn into an ATC school.... I thought we were here to provide ATC service.. not to teach approach control.
Second point, holding.. What you say is all a mute point really because it's all based on opinion. As the sytem in the UK works well the system in north america works just as well and we run just as much if not more traffic than most European airports. In Toronto if we needed to hold we would open the stack 40 miles out and it was the area controller who was responsible for it. Everything worked out great and we still managed to run 3-5 miles down each parallel runway. There are a 100 ways to skin a cat mate... of course everyone thinks their way is best....
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
From: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Granny;
No, not the whole of Europe. MAESTRO is a European invention. You appear to only be aware of what happens in the UK. Which brings me to
Did you not understand what I said earlier? LHR has 4 stacks, feeding in up to 3 at a time from each stack, where the a/c have been holding long enough to be at the bottom. That won't happen at DXB. You need to come to the ACC and watch the holding. We essentially have only 1 stack, and the a/c aren't in it long enough (usually) to be at the bottom when they exit (especially the longer it runs- Area has so little airspace that there is no transition into the hold. It's 'on frequency, straight into the hold' at which point the a/c reduces both speed and ROD. We have a lot of problems pushing them down to free up the levels the ORSAR flyers arrive into our aispace at.)
That isn't true. Holding isn't a TMA function. Controlling the flow out of the hold is.
Agree totally.
East and West manage the stacks on much smaller range. What exactly is painful about the way they are managed? What is painful is watching them come out of the stack then do another 50 track miles of vectors. I think what you mean is "it's painful watching the way the flow out of the stacks is managed". That is out of Area's hands.
In your experience has LHR ever run 30nm in-trail spacing? Or the LHR TMA get itself into such a bind that they put out a call "hold everyone until further notice". Happens once a fortnight here. I have seen the holds fill on at least 6 occasions here in the last 12 months. You can't tell me there is a lot of planning going on.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent that happening now, yet the "cross country" is a regular occurrence. Flowing to the threshold is a better way.
Finally
You are. You obviously don't have much understanding of what Area does, so give it a rest. BTW, there are plenty of guys at Area who have loads of approach experience around the world (Toronto, HK etc) who shake their heads in disbelief at what goes on in the TMA- EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. So why go there? We can sling arrows all day, but it won't fix anything.
Did anything come of the invite to the EK pilot meeting this month? That, I believe, might be the best way forward.
Okaaay, so the whole of Europe are doing it wrong eh
to the bottom then they leave at 8,000 feet
Control of the stacks should be delegated to the airfield - it is virtually everywhere else
Sequencing is an approach task
Area trying to manage a stack on 100nm range settings. It's painful to watch
In my experience it is very difficult to fill a stack so that area run out of levels unless there is a runway blockage.
It doesn't really matter how they get from the hold to the ILS as long as they do it expeditiously
Finally
I'm not having a go at the area guys
Did anything come of the invite to the EK pilot meeting this month? That, I believe, might be the best way forward.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
From: UAE
Managing holding stacks
Granny and others.
In my limited experience with holding (only 4-5 years in Brisbane Arrivals) Area has the 50 mile stacks (4 of them and regularly full) and holds from F130 upwards. APP have their inner (25 mile) stacks but they are rarely used as the Flow is done properly there.
generally the Flow will give set course times over the 50 mile points, the Area guys hit the times (either by vectors or holds), descend the aircraft to 7000ft, put on the speed restrictions etc etc. The Approach guy "tweaks" if necessary and keeps the inbounds away from the outbounds.
Not having worked in Europe, I can't say how they do things there, but the Aussie method seems to work well without a lot of fuss.
Now the Dubai method on the other hand....
In my limited experience with holding (only 4-5 years in Brisbane Arrivals) Area has the 50 mile stacks (4 of them and regularly full) and holds from F130 upwards. APP have their inner (25 mile) stacks but they are rarely used as the Flow is done properly there.
generally the Flow will give set course times over the 50 mile points, the Area guys hit the times (either by vectors or holds), descend the aircraft to 7000ft, put on the speed restrictions etc etc. The Approach guy "tweaks" if necessary and keeps the inbounds away from the outbounds.
Not having worked in Europe, I can't say how they do things there, but the Aussie method seems to work well without a lot of fuss.
Now the Dubai method on the other hand....
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 163
Likes: 2
From: PENang, Malaysia
Divingduck,
the last time I was in BNE in my megajet, there was a mega WX problem. The controller told me to cross XYZ at 250 kts at such and such a time.
Trouble was that the requirement required us to lose 4 minutes in 30 miles - impossible even for a reasonably good jock like me. We said that we would immediatley reduce to 250 kts, but were unable to meet the requirement. The response was "OK" and his attention turned to the others who were wandering all over the sky.
In the end the box of PFM was left to do its magic thing and we followed our 3D path all the way to the glideslope.
It is great to see all this interaction, but the aim of the game remains the same - safety and efficiency. We all want safety, that is clear, but none of us are using ALL the tools available to us to achieve efficiency.
Sadly, we probably aren't allowed to by those in higher authority.
the last time I was in BNE in my megajet, there was a mega WX problem. The controller told me to cross XYZ at 250 kts at such and such a time.
Trouble was that the requirement required us to lose 4 minutes in 30 miles - impossible even for a reasonably good jock like me. We said that we would immediatley reduce to 250 kts, but were unable to meet the requirement. The response was "OK" and his attention turned to the others who were wandering all over the sky.
In the end the box of PFM was left to do its magic thing and we followed our 3D path all the way to the glideslope.
It is great to see all this interaction, but the aim of the game remains the same - safety and efficiency. We all want safety, that is clear, but none of us are using ALL the tools available to us to achieve efficiency.
Sadly, we probably aren't allowed to by those in higher authority.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
Hi Ferris
Yes I'm UK only - said that in my earlier post.
We watch way out past ORSAR on the COD position and appreciate that you have little time to get the a/c down. What are your standing agreements & liasion with Bahrain & Muscat like? Can they not start the process off for you? The UAE FIR is pretty small and obviously the problem goes further. A post by one of the Muscat guys earlier that answered a lot of our "why are they doing that..?" questions.
Just as there is not enough coordination internally within the UAE FIR units there also seems to be too little externally at the higher echelons and as usual we the ATCOs and the a/c crews are the ones who have to pick up the pieces.
What is clear about our holding debate (and we could go on firing ideas and counter proposals backwards and forwards for ever) is that there are many ways to do it, almost all of which are better than the way it is done now. I don't think there is any point continuing the holding debate on Pprune. We need to take it to a joint DXB / UAE ACC working group or whatever and thrash out a new system that we can all buy into. Are you involved in the promised-but-not-yet-forthcoming Airspace Review? It needs operational people from both DXB and ACC that are enthusiastic and committed to be involved right from the beginning or we'll just get another version of what we've got now & that would be a disaster.
What is also clear is that the standard of controlling at both units varies enormously. That is a problem that needs to be tackled asap and the sims need to be made use of more. One of our problems at DXB is becoming one of increasing staff disatisfaction across a wide range of issues such as pay & allowances, exchange rates, medical cover etc etc etc that is leading directly to greater apathy and less commitment to customer service.
Our senior company management needs to find ways to motivate the staff (not just with money - but that would be nice too) and some of the operational problems might also be reduced too. Customer dissatisfaction will eventually lead to an impact on the bottom line and contract retention issues. They might sit up and pay attention then. You only need to look at the different styles between BA & Virgin in the UK. BA puts the customer above all else - and has had 2 hugely damaging strikes in the past 2-3 years. Branson at Virgin puts his staff first realising that a happy workforce provides good service because they want to. Which model does Serco follow I wonder?
By the way, I'm REALLY not having a go at you area guys and yes I do understand what area does. Further details would compromise anonimity. Obviously you've got your gripes about the way we do things and vice versa - I found those 'beverage cruises' to be a useful way of getting to meet some of your guys and have a decent chat about the important things in life (women, beer and sport obviously). I've been for a visit to the ACC some time ago but should come down again. Liasion visits & fam flights should be compulsory. We've had a couple of your ab initio Nationals up for a cycle's famil which is an excellent idea but we need to see more of the older hands too.
Do you think having the ACC and DXB approach in the same room would solve a lot of these problems? What invite to an EK pilots meeting? First I've heard of it.
EuroATC
Like I said earlier, we need to be flexible and move with the times. I think Serco needs to recruit the most suitable controllers for the job regardless of most other considerations.
Yes there are plenty of people here with lots of good ideas - we have a Tech Comm that represents the staff and puts their ideas forward to management. It has had some success but, for a variety of reasons, not all of them can / have been implemented yet. That is an issue for DXB to tackle. In my opinion the local management is very pro change and wants to make the improvements that the staff put forward but have their hands tied at various levels for various reasons. I'm sure you know what I mean.
The UK controller in question does have busy tower experience that we at DXB can use to our advantage. The management here has changed - why not re-apply to the MATC again? Oh, by the way we are here to train. Serco's contract is to train Nationals to be ATCOs and eventually replace all the ex-pats. We provide the ATC service in the meantime.
yours concilliatoraly (if there is such a word - if not I've just invented it)
Granny
Yes I'm UK only - said that in my earlier post.
We watch way out past ORSAR on the COD position and appreciate that you have little time to get the a/c down. What are your standing agreements & liasion with Bahrain & Muscat like? Can they not start the process off for you? The UAE FIR is pretty small and obviously the problem goes further. A post by one of the Muscat guys earlier that answered a lot of our "why are they doing that..?" questions.
Just as there is not enough coordination internally within the UAE FIR units there also seems to be too little externally at the higher echelons and as usual we the ATCOs and the a/c crews are the ones who have to pick up the pieces.
What is clear about our holding debate (and we could go on firing ideas and counter proposals backwards and forwards for ever) is that there are many ways to do it, almost all of which are better than the way it is done now. I don't think there is any point continuing the holding debate on Pprune. We need to take it to a joint DXB / UAE ACC working group or whatever and thrash out a new system that we can all buy into. Are you involved in the promised-but-not-yet-forthcoming Airspace Review? It needs operational people from both DXB and ACC that are enthusiastic and committed to be involved right from the beginning or we'll just get another version of what we've got now & that would be a disaster.
What is also clear is that the standard of controlling at both units varies enormously. That is a problem that needs to be tackled asap and the sims need to be made use of more. One of our problems at DXB is becoming one of increasing staff disatisfaction across a wide range of issues such as pay & allowances, exchange rates, medical cover etc etc etc that is leading directly to greater apathy and less commitment to customer service.
Our senior company management needs to find ways to motivate the staff (not just with money - but that would be nice too) and some of the operational problems might also be reduced too. Customer dissatisfaction will eventually lead to an impact on the bottom line and contract retention issues. They might sit up and pay attention then. You only need to look at the different styles between BA & Virgin in the UK. BA puts the customer above all else - and has had 2 hugely damaging strikes in the past 2-3 years. Branson at Virgin puts his staff first realising that a happy workforce provides good service because they want to. Which model does Serco follow I wonder?
By the way, I'm REALLY not having a go at you area guys and yes I do understand what area does. Further details would compromise anonimity. Obviously you've got your gripes about the way we do things and vice versa - I found those 'beverage cruises' to be a useful way of getting to meet some of your guys and have a decent chat about the important things in life (women, beer and sport obviously). I've been for a visit to the ACC some time ago but should come down again. Liasion visits & fam flights should be compulsory. We've had a couple of your ab initio Nationals up for a cycle's famil which is an excellent idea but we need to see more of the older hands too.
Do you think having the ACC and DXB approach in the same room would solve a lot of these problems? What invite to an EK pilots meeting? First I've heard of it.
EuroATC
Like I said earlier, we need to be flexible and move with the times. I think Serco needs to recruit the most suitable controllers for the job regardless of most other considerations.
Yes there are plenty of people here with lots of good ideas - we have a Tech Comm that represents the staff and puts their ideas forward to management. It has had some success but, for a variety of reasons, not all of them can / have been implemented yet. That is an issue for DXB to tackle. In my opinion the local management is very pro change and wants to make the improvements that the staff put forward but have their hands tied at various levels for various reasons. I'm sure you know what I mean.
The UK controller in question does have busy tower experience that we at DXB can use to our advantage. The management here has changed - why not re-apply to the MATC again? Oh, by the way we are here to train. Serco's contract is to train Nationals to be ATCOs and eventually replace all the ex-pats. We provide the ATC service in the meantime.
yours concilliatoraly (if there is such a word - if not I've just invented it)
Granny
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 3
I hate to sound like one of the Three Yorkshiremen of Month Python fame, but ‘in the old days we…’ The fact is, in the old days, DXB ATC was damned good – and I still recognise many of the voices from those ‘good old days’, so it’s obviously not a question of the skill of the individual ATCO, but the rules they are now forced to work under. It all seemed to grind to a much slower pace about two to three years ago, when they had to go to five miles spacing on departures. I’m assuming there were many other new rules that were introduced at the same time.
Now I know the traffic is heavier than it was in the good old days, so my fond memories of ‘looxury…’ back then have to be tempered by that factor, but the fact is, the ATCOs are obviously working to a far stricter set of guidelines that will not allow on the spot ‘tactical’ decisions that would lessen the many logjams we seem to suffer these days.
Hear, hear. As a ‘customer’ of DXB ATC, on arrivals, my main complain is the post hold vectoring. It’s not unusual to approach Dubai with not a lot of fat in the noise-producing department – (maybe twenty minutes on average, but that can vary quite considerably either way depending upon where you’re coming from and what’s occurred in getting to Dubai with getting planned levels etc). Thanks to the usually benign weather in the area, most times that can be stretched somewhat thanks to the second runway/Sharjah option. If I’m put in the hold, I can work out, with a pretty good degree of accuracy, (even without the PFM box Mr Sperry provides me), my last divert time, be it for RAK, AUH or SHJ/the second runway. This last divert time from the hold includes a calculation for how much fuel I’m going to burn between leaving the hold and crossing the threshold.
In London, (which has to be the yardstick in my opinion for how arrivals at multiple, very busy airports should be conducted), you can be pretty sure, (to within 100-200 kgs in my experience), how much you’re going to burn between release from the hold and touchdown. The controllers there have even tweaked their system (thanks in part to an excellent thread that ran here on Pprune a year or two ago) to make allowance for the higher min clean speed of the 777-300. (If you’re in a heavy -300, anything below 230k really gobbles the fuel, so the ATCOs in Heathrow go out of their way to allow a -300 to stay at 230k until the final turn in to finals, with about 15 – 20 nm to run.) It would be really nice to see the same thing done in Dubai, the home port of all those -300s. Whilst on that point, 160k demands the gear be down in a heavy -300, and that really drags the fuel flows up. It’s not unusual to be asked for that quite early in the approach.
In Dubai, anyone who held right ‘down to the line’, (as we frequently do in Heathrow), could end up embarrassed because of the cross country vectoring between the hold and the threshold. (The speed control as mentioned above only adds to the difficulty.) Simply put, because of this vectoring, we can’t predict with any degree of accuracy how much fuel we’re going to burn between the hold and the threshold, so most of us add a ****** factor, which in the worst case, could lead to unnecessary diversions.
Most of these problems could be fixed if we talked to each other. I can only agree wholeheartedly with the comment made an earlier poster:
It would be stretching credibility to the extreme if there was to be any security implication in allowing an ATCO onto the flight deck.
Now I know the traffic is heavier than it was in the good old days, so my fond memories of ‘looxury…’ back then have to be tempered by that factor, but the fact is, the ATCOs are obviously working to a far stricter set of guidelines that will not allow on the spot ‘tactical’ decisions that would lessen the many logjams we seem to suffer these days.
What is painful is watching them come out of the stack then do another 50 track miles of vectors.
In London, (which has to be the yardstick in my opinion for how arrivals at multiple, very busy airports should be conducted), you can be pretty sure, (to within 100-200 kgs in my experience), how much you’re going to burn between release from the hold and touchdown. The controllers there have even tweaked their system (thanks in part to an excellent thread that ran here on Pprune a year or two ago) to make allowance for the higher min clean speed of the 777-300. (If you’re in a heavy -300, anything below 230k really gobbles the fuel, so the ATCOs in Heathrow go out of their way to allow a -300 to stay at 230k until the final turn in to finals, with about 15 – 20 nm to run.) It would be really nice to see the same thing done in Dubai, the home port of all those -300s. Whilst on that point, 160k demands the gear be down in a heavy -300, and that really drags the fuel flows up. It’s not unusual to be asked for that quite early in the approach.
In Dubai, anyone who held right ‘down to the line’, (as we frequently do in Heathrow), could end up embarrassed because of the cross country vectoring between the hold and the threshold. (The speed control as mentioned above only adds to the difficulty.) Simply put, because of this vectoring, we can’t predict with any degree of accuracy how much fuel we’re going to burn between the hold and the threshold, so most of us add a ****** factor, which in the worst case, could lead to unnecessary diversions.
Most of these problems could be fixed if we talked to each other. I can only agree wholeheartedly with the comment made an earlier poster:
Time to bring back cockpit visits and familiarisation flights. Time also for more pilots to come visit ATC at either UAE centre or Dubai so we can get a better relationship going.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
From: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Coastrider, even though Granny seems to be under the impression that us Area guys know nothing about aircraft performance, we do realise that B1900's can do 240 IAS when on the descent (actually thought it was 245 kts but whatever). If by the time the 'Megajet', gets out of the 150kt jetstream that he is in, and is able to slow down to anything near 250 kts IAS, and I still have him close to 10 NM behind you guys I will happily keep you number 1. The problem we have that Approach controllers sometimes seem to forget is our aircraft aren't all similair heights, in similair winds, doing similair speeds, so it sometimes is a little hard to predict when and where the speed will come off. So Granny you guys might cringe, but instead maybe come and offer us direct UKRUM and high speed with our number 1 and that would be more helpful 
By the way we do notice when you guys have increased to 245 kts, but its a double edged sword cos I've had you guys start an early descent so as to speed up earlier and stay number 1 but by descending early you get out of the tailwind and any increase in groundspeed gained from the increase in IAS, is lost due to the lesser wind.
Sometimes unfortunately with the big boys mixing it with the FC's and DHX's, it will always turn ugly no matter what we do, and someone will feel hard done by, but I assure you the majority of us do know what you can do, and try and accomodate as best we can.
By the way we do notice when you guys have increased to 245 kts, but its a double edged sword cos I've had you guys start an early descent so as to speed up earlier and stay number 1 but by descending early you get out of the tailwind and any increase in groundspeed gained from the increase in IAS, is lost due to the lesser wind.
Sometimes unfortunately with the big boys mixing it with the FC's and DHX's, it will always turn ugly no matter what we do, and someone will feel hard done by, but I assure you the majority of us do know what you can do, and try and accomodate as best we can.
Joined: Jul 1998
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
From: "Over THERE!"
Recapping a couple to work on....
DXB, change these things, please:
Now (on the ATIS):
"Dubai INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES"
SHOULD be:
"Dubai" <<<< now THAT's how it should be changed to. WE KNOW where DXB is. It won't reduce the "status" of the Emirate by not reminding everyone everytime where it is, for heaven's sakes. And imagine the time it saves us from listening, over and over again, to the un-needed. Stop it...please. You likely didn't start that trend, but stopping it will save everyone time and let us look outside BEFORE we hear "Traffic, traffic!" on the TCAS. OK that is a stretch, but it still will save time.
Next "now" (but not always, thankfully...) point:
Now: (Mains on rwy, nose almost....now the reversers are deployed, with max sound in the front office) "AB123, next right, hold short on Twy, Contact ground..." (HUH? What was THAT??) Too loud to hear, and tonnage does not stop on a full-stop - as in one of these.... >.<
SHOULD be:
"AB123, good afternoon, you are number 2, plan exiting taxiway Alpha, continue approach" so we can easily plan OR AT LEAST WAIT until the reversers are STOWED before issuing taxiing instructions!!
Last (for now): Have someone fix the STAR charts, please. They are ambiguous and can easily lead to violations (has happened recently...) or worse. Where is the hold, for example, if you aren't given clearance to pass beyond the STAR clearance limit (or go lost com)? Make a hold up and WHAM, metal meets metal. OK, another stretch....but remember we are stuck waiting to listen past the "...International Airport, United Arab Emirates" part of the ATIS. (insert smiley-thing here) Anyway, whoever de/redesigns the approaches, have a look at this issue.
Small gripes, maybe. Overall though, DXB = good ATC IMHO.
Cheers,
C.O.
Now (on the ATIS):
"Dubai INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES"
SHOULD be:
"Dubai" <<<< now THAT's how it should be changed to. WE KNOW where DXB is. It won't reduce the "status" of the Emirate by not reminding everyone everytime where it is, for heaven's sakes. And imagine the time it saves us from listening, over and over again, to the un-needed. Stop it...please. You likely didn't start that trend, but stopping it will save everyone time and let us look outside BEFORE we hear "Traffic, traffic!" on the TCAS. OK that is a stretch, but it still will save time.
Next "now" (but not always, thankfully...) point:
Now: (Mains on rwy, nose almost....now the reversers are deployed, with max sound in the front office) "AB123, next right, hold short on Twy, Contact ground..." (HUH? What was THAT??) Too loud to hear, and tonnage does not stop on a full-stop - as in one of these.... >.<
SHOULD be:
"AB123, good afternoon, you are number 2, plan exiting taxiway Alpha, continue approach" so we can easily plan OR AT LEAST WAIT until the reversers are STOWED before issuing taxiing instructions!!
Last (for now): Have someone fix the STAR charts, please. They are ambiguous and can easily lead to violations (has happened recently...) or worse. Where is the hold, for example, if you aren't given clearance to pass beyond the STAR clearance limit (or go lost com)? Make a hold up and WHAM, metal meets metal. OK, another stretch....but remember we are stuck waiting to listen past the "...International Airport, United Arab Emirates" part of the ATIS. (insert smiley-thing here) Anyway, whoever de/redesigns the approaches, have a look at this issue.
Small gripes, maybe. Overall though, DXB = good ATC IMHO.
Cheers,
C.O.