Dubai Ground Freq
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personaly, I would love to feed traffic out of the lower end of the hold and a hold closer in would make sense and be easier to manage. As to it being over SHJ, it may present a problem with the SID's to RIKET, MAXMO or PAPAR depending on the runway. If something like that is done, it would call for a major revisal of the SID's and STAR's. The problem is that GCAA do not allow approach to hold traffic. We can only hold one at the missed approach holds in the event of a go-around or other problem.
The current procedure is for ACC to feed them out for us with a set spacing. They do a good job, but it can't be easy trying to vector a couple of labels to exact spacing at the bottom of a mass of spinning labels and still work on a screen with a scale set to work the rest of their airspace too!
The current procedure is for ACC to feed them out for us with a set spacing. They do a good job, but it can't be easy trying to vector a couple of labels to exact spacing at the bottom of a mass of spinning labels and still work on a screen with a scale set to work the rest of their airspace too!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't have thought it would present too many problems for RANBI departures etc. If you're using 30, the departing traffic would be pretty well clear of a SHJ hold by the time it reached 6000'. (Perhaps they'd have to maintain 6000' until 15 miles?)
If 12 was in use, departing traffic would have to limit their climb to 6000' until clear of the holding area or alternatively, they could simply re-route the RANBI departure slightly north of its current track. A right hand hold would have the arriving traffic holding in the airspace between DXB and SHJ, so it shouldn't mean much of a re-routing for departing traffic.
As for the jumble of paints in a hold, the Heathrow controllers seem to have that problem pegged.
I'd be willing to write to the company again suggesting they approach AUH asking for a different, more fuel eficient, system, but I'd like to hear some ideas from the ATCOs who man the 'coal face' first, as it woud be a waste of time suggesting something you people can see won't work.
If 12 was in use, departing traffic would have to limit their climb to 6000' until clear of the holding area or alternatively, they could simply re-route the RANBI departure slightly north of its current track. A right hand hold would have the arriving traffic holding in the airspace between DXB and SHJ, so it shouldn't mean much of a re-routing for departing traffic.
As for the jumble of paints in a hold, the Heathrow controllers seem to have that problem pegged.
I'd be willing to write to the company again suggesting they approach AUH asking for a different, more fuel eficient, system, but I'd like to hear some ideas from the ATCOs who man the 'coal face' first, as it woud be a waste of time suggesting something you people can see won't work.
I seem to remenber a thread on this topic when the second ground freq was advertised as being in operation. I suggested that one freq should be used for clearances and one for ground. Someone from DXB ATC mentioned this was about to happen - 2 years ago!
Seems things happen slowly there. I haven't been to DXB for nearly a year now, sounds like it's still as much as a cock up as it ever was.
Seems things happen slowly there. I haven't been to DXB for nearly a year now, sounds like it's still as much as a cock up as it ever was.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
410, sorry I was thinking you were talking about a hold to the north.
I am not sure if the aircraft holding would be able to limit their flightpath between DUB and SHJ, they are pretty close. It will take a few people around a table with PANSOPS etc to work on this one. You also have to take into account military airspace and Rulers palaces that are not allowed to be overflown!
With regards Heathrow having the jumbled target problem sorted; if I remember correctly from a couple of visits to LATCC, the APP controllers vector them out the hold and the ACC guys used to drop the next couple down and hand them off. That right Nimmer?? Here we have the additional problem of our system not differentiating between the aircraft under my control and those of another sector. I see every single thing flying from commercial traffic even overflying, military, vfr trainers, choppers and the occasional boat out of Jebel Ali or Port Rashid too. Plenty of targets, all the same colour....
The second frequency for Dubai ground is operating now giving clearances, staff permitting.
I am not sure if the aircraft holding would be able to limit their flightpath between DUB and SHJ, they are pretty close. It will take a few people around a table with PANSOPS etc to work on this one. You also have to take into account military airspace and Rulers palaces that are not allowed to be overflown!
With regards Heathrow having the jumbled target problem sorted; if I remember correctly from a couple of visits to LATCC, the APP controllers vector them out the hold and the ACC guys used to drop the next couple down and hand them off. That right Nimmer?? Here we have the additional problem of our system not differentiating between the aircraft under my control and those of another sector. I see every single thing flying from commercial traffic even overflying, military, vfr trainers, choppers and the occasional boat out of Jebel Ali or Port Rashid too. Plenty of targets, all the same colour....
The second frequency for Dubai ground is operating now giving clearances, staff permitting.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holds in CTA would be an excellent idea, but obviously all the SIDS and STARS will need to be changed.(that needs to be done holds or not). One to the north and one south would be an excellent start, however that would mean Minhad closing and Dubai getting that portion of CTA. Not ever going to happen, right??
Stacks work at EGLL and EGKK, because the controller basically runs a procedural approach. He descends aircraft to the next level when it has been reported vacated, the strip bay is displayed by a camera link to the TMA controllers so they can see what level is available for the next inbounds etc. Means your strip marking has to be spot on. Plus the approach controller and "stack" controller share the same frequency, so they know what is happening, takes good team work.
The thing I am noticing from this thread that there are loads of good ideas to improve the ATC system. Basically we all know that the current one is not acceptable and if things keep growing at this amazing rate and things don't change then we are going to have a lot of planes sitting on the tarmac going nowhere, and loads of aircraft diverting due to fuel shortages!!!!
Stacks work at EGLL and EGKK, because the controller basically runs a procedural approach. He descends aircraft to the next level when it has been reported vacated, the strip bay is displayed by a camera link to the TMA controllers so they can see what level is available for the next inbounds etc. Means your strip marking has to be spot on. Plus the approach controller and "stack" controller share the same frequency, so they know what is happening, takes good team work.
The thing I am noticing from this thread that there are loads of good ideas to improve the ATC system. Basically we all know that the current one is not acceptable and if things keep growing at this amazing rate and things don't change then we are going to have a lot of planes sitting on the tarmac going nowhere, and loads of aircraft diverting due to fuel shortages!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lambourne serves as the hold for traffic coming in to Heathrow from the East for all runways (both 27s and 09s). I understand that everything’s a compromise, but I’d have thought that (given the restrictions we’re all familiar with around Dubai), a single hold over Sharjah could serve traffic from all directions when either 12 or 30 were in use.
If it was a right hand pattern inbound 120 based on the Sharjah VOR, it wouldn’t overfly any palaces, (and if it did, make it a left hand pattern; the only real problem with that would be the even bigger disruption to departing traffic).
Sharjah is 10NM North East of Dubai. I’d have thought that would be sufficient room for a holding pattern that kept holding traffic North of Dubai. I understand that the pattern’s buffer areas would extend over and some miles South of Dubai, (which would go close to infringing on the palaces), but would that be an insurmountable problem with a 7000’ min holding level? The holding pattern buffer area might infringe the palace zone, but the holding aircraft should remain well clear – I’d guess a mile of so to the North of Dubai, even in a Rate 1 turn at 13,000’ (but perhaps not if there was a really strong North Easterly wind blowing).
I’d have thought that if 12 was the active, traffic would be instructed to exit the hold on a heading of around 320 to put them onto a comfortable base, and if 30 was in use, on a heading of 120. Thus, the same hold could be used for both runways employing a minimum distance to touchdown of around 20 NM (a quite comfortable distance for a low drag descent from 7000’).
I accept that the ideal would be two holds, one to the North West and one to the South East, but I discounted this because of the proximity of Tehran airspace and thought that the compromise Sharjah hold idea would involve minimum amendments to the current airspace setup we ‘enjoy’ already.
It wouldn’t involve rocket science to come up with alternative, wider tracking northerly turning SIDs that were to be used only if there was traffic occupying the Sharjah hold. At any other times, (90% of any given day), we could stick with the current SIDs.
If it was a right hand pattern inbound 120 based on the Sharjah VOR, it wouldn’t overfly any palaces, (and if it did, make it a left hand pattern; the only real problem with that would be the even bigger disruption to departing traffic).
Sharjah is 10NM North East of Dubai. I’d have thought that would be sufficient room for a holding pattern that kept holding traffic North of Dubai. I understand that the pattern’s buffer areas would extend over and some miles South of Dubai, (which would go close to infringing on the palaces), but would that be an insurmountable problem with a 7000’ min holding level? The holding pattern buffer area might infringe the palace zone, but the holding aircraft should remain well clear – I’d guess a mile of so to the North of Dubai, even in a Rate 1 turn at 13,000’ (but perhaps not if there was a really strong North Easterly wind blowing).
I’d have thought that if 12 was the active, traffic would be instructed to exit the hold on a heading of around 320 to put them onto a comfortable base, and if 30 was in use, on a heading of 120. Thus, the same hold could be used for both runways employing a minimum distance to touchdown of around 20 NM (a quite comfortable distance for a low drag descent from 7000’).
I accept that the ideal would be two holds, one to the North West and one to the South East, but I discounted this because of the proximity of Tehran airspace and thought that the compromise Sharjah hold idea would involve minimum amendments to the current airspace setup we ‘enjoy’ already.
It wouldn’t involve rocket science to come up with alternative, wider tracking northerly turning SIDs that were to be used only if there was traffic occupying the Sharjah hold. At any other times, (90% of any given day), we could stick with the current SIDs.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the mentioned ideas have been suggested many times, when I arrived here I help set up a technical committee. We came up with loads of forward thinking ideas based on our various experiences, then we hit a brick wall called the GCAA!!!! Not interested in changing the system they set up it would appear. Very disheartening. The committee is now disbanded, they only thing we achieved was stopping the pointless instruction of "maintain 3000ft" in clearances. THAT IS BACK NOW, GCAA insisted as I mentioned before.
Unfortunately what you are seeing and hearing in ATC is apathy, which is only going to get worse since the announcement of a whopping 8% pay rise!!!!! No increase in accommodation allowences, and no instructor payment until "the second half of 2006"!!!!
Lots of unhappy people planning their escape. Anyway, feel better now I have had my whinge, get back to the thread!!!
Unfortunately what you are seeing and hearing in ATC is apathy, which is only going to get worse since the announcement of a whopping 8% pay rise!!!!! No increase in accommodation allowences, and no instructor payment until "the second half of 2006"!!!!
Lots of unhappy people planning their escape. Anyway, feel better now I have had my whinge, get back to the thread!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and loads of aircraft diverting due to fuel shortages!!!!
And I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the pilots in that company aren't aware that Sharjah, their 'second runway' option, won't accept an aircraft diverting from Dubai unless it has declared an emergency. (This is pure rumour. I haven't seen this in writing, just heard it on the grapevine.)
If DGCA is the problem, isn't it up to the major user of Dubai to demand some of these changes so they won't waste all the fuel coming into DXB that they save elsewhere? Last time I came into Dubai, we were down to FL250 30 (thirty) miles before ORSAR and then dragged all the way around to land on 30 (still required to be below 13000' at whatever it's called). And we were required to be back to 160k as we turned base - a very long base. 1.9 tonnes burnt from top of descent to touchdown.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Over the hill and far away
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andu
Diverting might not always be an option with the new 'commit' policy a major user of DXB now has in place. Many won't have anywhere else to go.
And I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the pilots in that company aren't aware that Sharjah, their 'second runway' option, won't accept an aircraft diverting from Dubai unless it has declared an emergency. (This is pure rumour. I haven't seen this in writing, just heard it on the grapevine.)
And I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the pilots in that company aren't aware that Sharjah, their 'second runway' option, won't accept an aircraft diverting from Dubai unless it has declared an emergency. (This is pure rumour. I haven't seen this in writing, just heard it on the grapevine.)
) means you'll be in the hold forever and a day.
