Dubai Ground Freq
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Whinery
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dubai Ground Freq
At busy times, why do we need to call on Dubai ground (118.35) for push/start only to be told to contact 118.85??
Scenario:
A pilot uses his initiative, after listening to everyone else being told to contact 118.85 for start/push.
He just changes over and calls for push but is told to go back to 118.35 and ask again.
So he switches back to 118.35 and asks (again).
THAT GUY tells him to go back (again) to 118.85 and ask (again).
Obviously the ATCO on 118.35 needs to note something to say this guy is progressing or something.
But why? This happens again and again and AGAIN and AGAIN AND AGAIN. It's a complete waste of everyone's time..... unless there's something I don't know (and I'm sure there's plenty) why can't someone make a simple change to the "policy"??
And why not place the requirement to call on the other freq on the friggin ATIS??? Why do we go through this crap all the time when it's busy?
OR....... why not have a dedicated ACD freq when it is congested like any other airport??
On the topic, (Rant Two) why do all these pilots make this infuriating call to ground to establish contact before requesting their ATC clearance?
EG:
"Dubai ground, Knobend 181"
"Knobend 181, Dubai ground, go ahead"
Hmmmm oh, it works!! Okay then: "Knobend 181, blah blah blah.....etc"
The first two calls are unnecessary. Why not just call them (you know they're home because you can hear them talking to everyone else) and give the details all in ONE R/T call and give the next guy a friggin break???? Is Middle East aviation a sheltered workshop or something? It seems so simple to me...???
Wouldn't this save time at 0200 or 0800 when every man and his dog is on the radio?
Ahhhhhhhhhhh............ I feel so much better now.
Scenario:
A pilot uses his initiative, after listening to everyone else being told to contact 118.85 for start/push.
He just changes over and calls for push but is told to go back to 118.35 and ask again.
So he switches back to 118.35 and asks (again).
THAT GUY tells him to go back (again) to 118.85 and ask (again).
Obviously the ATCO on 118.35 needs to note something to say this guy is progressing or something.
But why? This happens again and again and AGAIN and AGAIN AND AGAIN. It's a complete waste of everyone's time..... unless there's something I don't know (and I'm sure there's plenty) why can't someone make a simple change to the "policy"??
And why not place the requirement to call on the other freq on the friggin ATIS??? Why do we go through this crap all the time when it's busy?
OR....... why not have a dedicated ACD freq when it is congested like any other airport??
On the topic, (Rant Two) why do all these pilots make this infuriating call to ground to establish contact before requesting their ATC clearance?
EG:
"Dubai ground, Knobend 181"
"Knobend 181, Dubai ground, go ahead"
Hmmmm oh, it works!! Okay then: "Knobend 181, blah blah blah.....etc"
The first two calls are unnecessary. Why not just call them (you know they're home because you can hear them talking to everyone else) and give the details all in ONE R/T call and give the next guy a friggin break???? Is Middle East aviation a sheltered workshop or something? It seems so simple to me...???
Wouldn't this save time at 0200 or 0800 when every man and his dog is on the radio?
Ahhhhhhhhhhh............ I feel so much better now.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
Couldn't agree with you more DW, some of the R/T at Dubai is P1ss poor.
Guess that comes with the standard of pilots we're recruiting right now.
The CAA used to publish a very good book about R/T calls and procedures, perhaps EK could buy a few hundred and leave them laying aroung the CBC.
Doubt if it would help though, and judging by the EK poll there arn't going to be that many pilots left to read it!
Last one out switch the A/C off!!!!!
Guess that comes with the standard of pilots we're recruiting right now.
The CAA used to publish a very good book about R/T calls and procedures, perhaps EK could buy a few hundred and leave them laying aroung the CBC.
Doubt if it would help though, and judging by the EK poll there arn't going to be that many pilots left to read it!
Last one out switch the A/C off!!!!!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
"Dubai ground, Knobend 181"
"Knobend 181, Dubai ground, go ahead"
Hmmmm oh, it works!! Okay then: "Knobend 181, blah blah blah.....etc"
The first two calls are unnecessary. Why not just call them (you know they're home because you can hear them talking to everyone else) and give the details all in ONE R/T call and give the next guy a friggin break???? Is Middle East aviation a sheltered workshop or something? It seems so simple to me...???
"Knobend 181, Dubai ground, go ahead"
Hmmmm oh, it works!! Okay then: "Knobend 181, blah blah blah.....etc"
The first two calls are unnecessary. Why not just call them (you know they're home because you can hear them talking to everyone else) and give the details all in ONE R/T call and give the next guy a friggin break???? Is Middle East aviation a sheltered workshop or something? It seems so simple to me...???
I don't work Dubai, but close by - but the same applies pretty much everywhere. The thing is, when you just jump on the frequency with all your details, what you may not know - in our simple world - is we may well be co-ordinating something with one of the various other sectors. Meaning which we miss your goodies and have to ask you to repeat yourself...
It's called establishing communications. Imagine if we just gave you your ATC clearance without asking if you're ready for it (even though we know you're on the air as you just spoke to us)...
And no we can't simply change policy. Can you just change your airline's policy ad hoc? Don't think so.
Adieu
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
118.35 is the clearance delivery frequence opened at the busy periods, although we are trying to open it 24 hours. Don'y have the staff for it but will endeavor to muddle our way through as we always seem to do!!!
The complaint about jumping from 118.35 to 118.85 then being told to go back to 118.35, the reason for this will be that there may be start up delays and you will be in a queue and trying to be fair to all companies we don't want people jumping this queue!!! However I will admit there are some pedantic controllers out there who will transfer pilots back and forward to prove a point, can't say much about that.
As for R/T discipline at Dubai it is poor on all frequencies , but ground is really bad. In the recent feedback to the customer survey, a suggestion was to listen to the R/T at Heathrow and Gatwick to learn how to manage a busy frequency and give short precise instructions. I agree, ex EGKK myself, however from what I remember an instruction from ATC always got an instant reply or readback there. Here there is is always a short delay, I think it is foreign pilots, translating what has been said. Thus this short delay can and is enough time for someone else to jump in.
Not much can be done about that, just a bit of patience really. That is the key I am afraid, Dubai ATC is in the same position as Emirates, from what I read, we are playing catch up. The airport has got busier, our procedures, equipment and staffing levels are not up to the task but as I said earlier in this reply we are muddling our way through, and slowly trying to make changes but it is a slow process. Plus any changes/improvements we make tend to be reversed, back to saying "maintain 3000feet" in our clearances again, noticed!!! Not necessary when it is on the SID plate I know, but in the last two years there have been 17 level busts, and not saying the above has been given as the reason by the GCAA!!! Don't ask me I only work here!!!
Same as "expect ILS approach runway..." on first call with approach, haven't you just listened to an ATIS???? Plus don't get me started on mode C checks when you have just been handed over from a previous radar sector!!!!
Yes improvements do need to be made to improve our service, we are trying honest, but don't expect miracles after all we do live in the UAE!!!!
The complaint about jumping from 118.35 to 118.85 then being told to go back to 118.35, the reason for this will be that there may be start up delays and you will be in a queue and trying to be fair to all companies we don't want people jumping this queue!!! However I will admit there are some pedantic controllers out there who will transfer pilots back and forward to prove a point, can't say much about that.
As for R/T discipline at Dubai it is poor on all frequencies , but ground is really bad. In the recent feedback to the customer survey, a suggestion was to listen to the R/T at Heathrow and Gatwick to learn how to manage a busy frequency and give short precise instructions. I agree, ex EGKK myself, however from what I remember an instruction from ATC always got an instant reply or readback there. Here there is is always a short delay, I think it is foreign pilots, translating what has been said. Thus this short delay can and is enough time for someone else to jump in.
Not much can be done about that, just a bit of patience really. That is the key I am afraid, Dubai ATC is in the same position as Emirates, from what I read, we are playing catch up. The airport has got busier, our procedures, equipment and staffing levels are not up to the task but as I said earlier in this reply we are muddling our way through, and slowly trying to make changes but it is a slow process. Plus any changes/improvements we make tend to be reversed, back to saying "maintain 3000feet" in our clearances again, noticed!!! Not necessary when it is on the SID plate I know, but in the last two years there have been 17 level busts, and not saying the above has been given as the reason by the GCAA!!! Don't ask me I only work here!!!
Same as "expect ILS approach runway..." on first call with approach, haven't you just listened to an ATIS???? Plus don't get me started on mode C checks when you have just been handed over from a previous radar sector!!!!
Yes improvements do need to be made to improve our service, we are trying honest, but don't expect miracles after all we do live in the UAE!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
Puff
I'll tell you why we do it. Because it works.
From many years of listening to ground here and trying to do what you said, it is quicker to establish comms first, as the Sherif said.
Mostly if you blurt out the whole lot first the response will be, after long silence or being stepped on. "Station Calling". So you have to say it all again which actually takes up more time.
As the sherrif said. How often would you get a clearance if it just came to you out of the blue while you were sitting reading the newspaper waiting for the pax to board.
As I said, it might not be ICAO but it works here, as it does at many of our other destinations.
I'll tell you why we do it. Because it works.
From many years of listening to ground here and trying to do what you said, it is quicker to establish comms first, as the Sherif said.
Mostly if you blurt out the whole lot first the response will be, after long silence or being stepped on. "Station Calling". So you have to say it all again which actually takes up more time.
As the sherrif said. How often would you get a clearance if it just came to you out of the blue while you were sitting reading the newspaper waiting for the pax to board.
As I said, it might not be ICAO but it works here, as it does at many of our other destinations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Whinery
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
the same applies pretty much everywhere. The thing is, when you just jump on the frequency with all your details...we may well be co-ordinating something with one of the various other sectors...we miss your goodies and have to ask you to repeat yourself
Fair enough with regards to us reading the paper and unexpected calls but in the case of clearance delivery, the ATCO is expecting to hear from all these flight-planned flights, is he not? I don't see the problem.
I don't understand why all the details would be missed anyway, since we have flight-planned them. Bay number could be unknown but aircraft type, level and destination should be a no-brainer, shouldn't they?
I see how it can be a mess at some third world airports where who knows what's happening behind the scenes but the guys at Dubai always come across as very competent and able to handle the mission.
At Australian airports you just call up and state the details and request the clearance and the guy replies within a few seconds with the reply. You read them back - THREE calls only.
I'm not having a shot at ATC here, I genuinely believe things could and should be made much more efficient.
As for fairness..... what happened to home team advantage???
We hear about this at places like Bangkok or in India... are we better than that in Dubai, is that it???
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
Firstly, thank you Nimmer for your thoughts on the suject nice hear someone in ATC putting their point forward. I personally think you do a grand job with what you have,getting aircraft up and down in a very slick mannor.
Try getting out of Malaga if Iberia is within 50 miles of the runway and you'll sit there till he lands.
Vorsicht.
You obviously havent figured out i too fly out of Dubai and hear poor R/T from pilots frequently, yes, giving a clearance without warning would be silly but ATC aren't sitting around doing nothing like us, they actually do expect us to call!!!
The point DW and I were making was when times are busy don't clogg up the few frequencies we have with unecessary calls, professional and to the point is all we have to be.
Happy flying.
Try getting out of Malaga if Iberia is within 50 miles of the runway and you'll sit there till he lands.
Vorsicht.
You obviously havent figured out i too fly out of Dubai and hear poor R/T from pilots frequently, yes, giving a clearance without warning would be silly but ATC aren't sitting around doing nothing like us, they actually do expect us to call!!!
The point DW and I were making was when times are busy don't clogg up the few frequencies we have with unecessary calls, professional and to the point is all we have to be.
Happy flying.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Over the hill and far away
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
Originally Posted by Desert Whine
At busy times, why do we need to call on Dubai ground (118.35) for push/start only to be told to contact 118.85??
Scenario:
A pilot uses his initiative, after listening to everyone else being told to contact 118.85 for start/push.
He just changes over and calls for push but is told to go back to 118.35 and ask again.
Scenario:
A pilot uses his initiative, after listening to everyone else being told to contact 118.85 for start/push.
He just changes over and calls for push but is told to go back to 118.35 and ask again.
When on The Arrivals freq do you automatically change freq when established on the ILS because you've heard prior traffic transferred to the Twr?
The Clearance delivery Controller will pass the details (Flight progress strip) to the Ground Movements controller when you've reported ready for start, assuming there is not a backlog at the holding points. Otherwise it will be passed over to him when your turn for start up.
Also as mentioned above the return to including 3000 ft in ATC clces will clog the freq even more.........unfortunately 17 level busts by pilots on SIDs has forced GCAA's hand.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Whinery
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
When on The Arrivals freq do you automatically change freq when established on the ILS because you've heard prior traffic transferred to the Twr?
Since I have yet to see a real live copy of the local CAOs, I's sometimes hard to know what is actually mandated here, R/T-wise.
Of course, none of this negates the fact the local process is painful and a waste of time and air-waves.
Still, thanks for helping to explain the method to the madness. I guess the short answer is, there's a manning problem so no dedicated ACD and GND freqs for the time being hey?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
I think the main reason most guys (me included), establish 2-way with 118.35 first, is that its PRIMARILY a ground frequency which also happens to provide a clearance service.
I'm sure you'll agree there's nothing worse than exiting the RWY at K5, switching to GND and just before you hit the mic, some bimbling fool starts giving his life story, estimates, lvl's, POB, shoe size etc while your world comes to a grinding halt, and the controller can see you and is itching to talk to you!!
Surely better to let the controller decide who to serve first for safety reasons, ie he tells the guy on stand to SBY while giving the more important taxi instructions to the A/C thats just left the RWY??
Yes, they are expecting your call AT SOME POINT, but I doubt they have an atomic clock sounding a hooter 3.5 seconds before you do!!
However, I do agree with some of the sentiment about wasting time on air-in the air, there's nothing I hate hearing more than:
"err London Golf-Winkey Wankey",
"G-WW London go ahead",
"London G-WW request climb Level 400"....
What the hell is the point of that?? Why not just request it on the initial call?
The point is, DXB really does need a dedicated delivery frequency at busy times, end of story!
And before someone says it, I was based in LGW with a large UK airline prior to coming here, and NO I didn't establish 2-way with Delivery there first!
I'm sure you'll agree there's nothing worse than exiting the RWY at K5, switching to GND and just before you hit the mic, some bimbling fool starts giving his life story, estimates, lvl's, POB, shoe size etc while your world comes to a grinding halt, and the controller can see you and is itching to talk to you!!
Surely better to let the controller decide who to serve first for safety reasons, ie he tells the guy on stand to SBY while giving the more important taxi instructions to the A/C thats just left the RWY??
Yes, they are expecting your call AT SOME POINT, but I doubt they have an atomic clock sounding a hooter 3.5 seconds before you do!!
However, I do agree with some of the sentiment about wasting time on air-in the air, there's nothing I hate hearing more than:
"err London Golf-Winkey Wankey",
"G-WW London go ahead",
"London G-WW request climb Level 400"....
What the hell is the point of that?? Why not just request it on the initial call?
The point is, DXB really does need a dedicated delivery frequency at busy times, end of story!
And before someone says it, I was based in LGW with a large UK airline prior to coming here, and NO I didn't establish 2-way with Delivery there first!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
Firstly, apologies for the thread creep. Totally off subject, but since I might have a DXB ATCO or two reading this thread (and hopefully their bosses), when oh when are the P.T.B. going to come to the rather novel conclusion that the UAE is one country and institute ONE air traffic service handling the heavy volumes of traffic into Dubai and the three or four other major(-ish) airports close by?
The controllers working Dubai Approach must pull their hair out nightly not being able to take over arriving traffic until UAE down the road in the capital have their slice of the action. Wouldn't it be easier for all concerned if one agency handled the arriving traffic from the time it crossed into the UAE FIR? Is this politics or is there a good reason for the current setup? Our employers go to great lengths to try to save fuel and then we see much of these savings thrown away daily arriving at our home base following altitude restraints that are there only as far as I can see because of UAE / Dubai transfer requirements. (The same applies to the <F270 requirement leaving Muscat airspace, but let's leave that alone for now.)
Getting back to the subject of the thread, I too would really love to see DXB introduce data link for airways clearances. Getting a word in edgeways, both when trying to get push back clearance and (as has been mentioned already), when clearing the runway after landing, can involve quite a delay in Dubai’s ever widening 'rush hours'.
The controllers working Dubai Approach must pull their hair out nightly not being able to take over arriving traffic until UAE down the road in the capital have their slice of the action. Wouldn't it be easier for all concerned if one agency handled the arriving traffic from the time it crossed into the UAE FIR? Is this politics or is there a good reason for the current setup? Our employers go to great lengths to try to save fuel and then we see much of these savings thrown away daily arriving at our home base following altitude restraints that are there only as far as I can see because of UAE / Dubai transfer requirements. (The same applies to the <F270 requirement leaving Muscat airspace, but let's leave that alone for now.)
Getting back to the subject of the thread, I too would really love to see DXB introduce data link for airways clearances. Getting a word in edgeways, both when trying to get push back clearance and (as has been mentioned already), when clearing the runway after landing, can involve quite a delay in Dubai’s ever widening 'rush hours'.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
ATC in the UAE needs a total overhaul. The procedures are just awful, and believe me both the centre and Dubai do the best we can to give the best possible service. If we stuck rigidly to the rules as they are written the delays would be horrendous, and the fuel costs even higher.
Why are they no holds in the DXB TMA, surely holding in a stack is easy for both pilots and ATCO's then 30-40 mile vectors, and imagine the fuel savings.
Yes many ideas like these have been suggested, in fact every controller who works out here can and has designed a better system than the one we have, but nobody seems to be listening.
As for the UAE being one country, why does every Emirate have/want its own International airport?
Good idea about a data link for airway clearances, a bit modern for here though, lets improve the ATC system and staffing levels first!!!!
Why are they no holds in the DXB TMA, surely holding in a stack is easy for both pilots and ATCO's then 30-40 mile vectors, and imagine the fuel savings.
Yes many ideas like these have been suggested, in fact every controller who works out here can and has designed a better system than the one we have, but nobody seems to be listening.
As for the UAE being one country, why does every Emirate have/want its own International airport?
Good idea about a data link for airway clearances, a bit modern for here though, lets improve the ATC system and staffing levels first!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
If I was able to have a wish list for DXB ATC, it would include:
1. Data Link clearance delivery. With the possible exception of the A310, all aircraft in the EK fleet are equipped for it and the crews trained to use it. I would assume that many other mainline users of DXB also carry the right kit.
2. Until we get that, (not holding my breath), separate ACD and Ground Movement frequencies, at least during the 2 to 4 am and 8 to 9 am rush hours. The current congestion on 118.35/85 is the ATC radio equivalent of driving on Sheikh Zayed Road. [See other thread running currently on this topic.]
3. (Delving into Fantasyland now.) A single ATC agency for all the GCC countries, (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates). The Arabs have made enormous progress in many areas in the last 40 years if you consider where they started from. I wish they would get together and employ the second word of the GCC title (cooperation) and show Europe that EuroControl can be done by setting up their own ‘Gulf Control’, a single ATC system to cover the whole region.
This would straighten out a lot of kinks in air routes through the region, but more importantly, would get rid of the crazy system we have now, especially into Dubai, where the main user of that airport, that has its crews flying around the world on the smell of an oily rag to save money, burns an enormous amount of unnecessary fuel daily coming into its home port because of what can only be called crazy ATC procedures that make no **** sense (except, I’m assuming, to someone sitting in an office defending his individual empire).
The below FL270 requirement at the Muscat and 20 miles before the Tehran FIR boundaries is no drama if it’s to be a straight in approach. However, if DXB (or AUH, or SHJ, or AIN) is using the reciprocal runway, I’d be guessing this requirement costs each and every widebody in the sequence between 300 and 400 kgs of fuel. I’m assuming it would be something a less for the 320s and 737s, but still considerable.
Multiply that by the number of movements into those ports every day and we’re talking annual tanker loads.
And that’s before the real craziness starts, this patently silly need AUH has to own a slice of airspace between the descent point and the handover to DXB APP. This results in even greater fuel wastage with the cross country vectoring the poor sods on DXB APP are forced to employ because they don’t own a slice of airspace where they could put aircraft into a convenient hold. In a 777, it’s not unusual to burn upwards of 2 tonnes between DESDI and touchdown because of the vectoring and speed control as the DXB APP guys try to cope with hand that’s been dealt them in the too short approach area they own. (For those not aware of average 777 burns, that’s almost twice as much as you might expect to burn in that distance on average.) I think every pilot flying into Dubai could cite instances where he’s been held back at 270 knots by UAE and then asked for max speed by DXB APP – or vice versa.
One final brickbat for the DXB APP guys, who I appreciate do a very fine job under the restrictions placed on them, 160 knots for a 773 at or near to max landing weight, (as EK 773s more often than not are coming into DXB), means they have to extend gear and final flap. Once that’s been done, particularly if then asked to fly level, the fuel flows skyrocket.
It’s not just a question of economy, although that is (or should be) important, as we’re all here to make money, (including our employers, which makes me wonder why they put up with the current system). It can be a question of safety, as company minimum fuel policies can sometimes see aircraft coming into DXB with not a lot of ‘fat’ up their sleeves, and in my humble opinion, it’s only a matter of time before you’re going to be reading a thread here on Pprune with a title something along the lines of “(insert your airline of choice) aircraft declares Mayday due low fuel into Dubai.”
1. Data Link clearance delivery. With the possible exception of the A310, all aircraft in the EK fleet are equipped for it and the crews trained to use it. I would assume that many other mainline users of DXB also carry the right kit.
2. Until we get that, (not holding my breath), separate ACD and Ground Movement frequencies, at least during the 2 to 4 am and 8 to 9 am rush hours. The current congestion on 118.35/85 is the ATC radio equivalent of driving on Sheikh Zayed Road. [See other thread running currently on this topic.]
3. (Delving into Fantasyland now.) A single ATC agency for all the GCC countries, (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates). The Arabs have made enormous progress in many areas in the last 40 years if you consider where they started from. I wish they would get together and employ the second word of the GCC title (cooperation) and show Europe that EuroControl can be done by setting up their own ‘Gulf Control’, a single ATC system to cover the whole region.
This would straighten out a lot of kinks in air routes through the region, but more importantly, would get rid of the crazy system we have now, especially into Dubai, where the main user of that airport, that has its crews flying around the world on the smell of an oily rag to save money, burns an enormous amount of unnecessary fuel daily coming into its home port because of what can only be called crazy ATC procedures that make no **** sense (except, I’m assuming, to someone sitting in an office defending his individual empire).
The below FL270 requirement at the Muscat and 20 miles before the Tehran FIR boundaries is no drama if it’s to be a straight in approach. However, if DXB (or AUH, or SHJ, or AIN) is using the reciprocal runway, I’d be guessing this requirement costs each and every widebody in the sequence between 300 and 400 kgs of fuel. I’m assuming it would be something a less for the 320s and 737s, but still considerable.
Multiply that by the number of movements into those ports every day and we’re talking annual tanker loads.
And that’s before the real craziness starts, this patently silly need AUH has to own a slice of airspace between the descent point and the handover to DXB APP. This results in even greater fuel wastage with the cross country vectoring the poor sods on DXB APP are forced to employ because they don’t own a slice of airspace where they could put aircraft into a convenient hold. In a 777, it’s not unusual to burn upwards of 2 tonnes between DESDI and touchdown because of the vectoring and speed control as the DXB APP guys try to cope with hand that’s been dealt them in the too short approach area they own. (For those not aware of average 777 burns, that’s almost twice as much as you might expect to burn in that distance on average.) I think every pilot flying into Dubai could cite instances where he’s been held back at 270 knots by UAE and then asked for max speed by DXB APP – or vice versa.
One final brickbat for the DXB APP guys, who I appreciate do a very fine job under the restrictions placed on them, 160 knots for a 773 at or near to max landing weight, (as EK 773s more often than not are coming into DXB), means they have to extend gear and final flap. Once that’s been done, particularly if then asked to fly level, the fuel flows skyrocket.
It’s not just a question of economy, although that is (or should be) important, as we’re all here to make money, (including our employers, which makes me wonder why they put up with the current system). It can be a question of safety, as company minimum fuel policies can sometimes see aircraft coming into DXB with not a lot of ‘fat’ up their sleeves, and in my humble opinion, it’s only a matter of time before you’re going to be reading a thread here on Pprune with a title something along the lines of “(insert your airline of choice) aircraft declares Mayday due low fuel into Dubai.”
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Dubai Ground Freq
All good suggestions Wiley, just shows that ATC and pilots are thinking the same way. Always makes me cringe when I think of the extra fuel we must cost the airlines. Would be lovely to say on first call, take up the hold expect 1 pattern, etc. Be nice for you guys to be able to plan for delays!!! Keep making suggestions and complaints to your management, they will filter along to the GCAA, and the man in charge there, may be forced to make the neccessary improvements. Basically Emirates will have to force changes through, or things will get worse and worse as the airport gets busier, and the WIP increases.
160 kts to 4 DME, ask and we can accommodate any requests, just need to know. However we need you pegged at some speed to give the Tower controller a chance, especially as we are going single runway ops for an extended period. Just so you know the standard gap to get a departure away will be 8 miles, 6 or 7 works but all concerned need to be a bit slicker, as per EGKK.
Just out of interest are you able to do 160 to 4 DME at EGKK and EGLL, if so is just because of the fuel issue here?
As for the seperate GMC and GMP frequencies in the busy periods, that should be happening now(staff permitting). It was seperate for most of last night, although about 80% of pilots went to thw wrong frequency after crossing the runways, not expecting 118.85 to be open. Then another 50% requested clearances on 118.85!! Confusing I know, but as I said staffing levels permitting will be seperate frequencies 24 hours.
Final suggestion, would be good to have some FAM flights/tower visits wouldn't it so this sort of stuff can be seen and discussed.
160 kts to 4 DME, ask and we can accommodate any requests, just need to know. However we need you pegged at some speed to give the Tower controller a chance, especially as we are going single runway ops for an extended period. Just so you know the standard gap to get a departure away will be 8 miles, 6 or 7 works but all concerned need to be a bit slicker, as per EGKK.
Just out of interest are you able to do 160 to 4 DME at EGKK and EGLL, if so is just because of the fuel issue here?
As for the seperate GMC and GMP frequencies in the busy periods, that should be happening now(staff permitting). It was seperate for most of last night, although about 80% of pilots went to thw wrong frequency after crossing the runways, not expecting 118.85 to be open. Then another 50% requested clearances on 118.85!! Confusing I know, but as I said staffing levels permitting will be seperate frequencies 24 hours.
Final suggestion, would be good to have some FAM flights/tower visits wouldn't it so this sort of stuff can be seen and discussed.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
180k to 10DME and 160k to 4 DME is pretty standard at Heathrow, but where Heathrow ATC really shine is in usually (if not always) allowing the 773s to remain at min clean speed (230k [-v- their standard 220k]) (if the pilot asks for it) until the final turn in onto finals, (where they ask for 180k). This makes for a very comfortable and more or less constant descent and, for a 773, can save about 200kgs of fuel burn between Lambourne (the holding fix) to touchdown.
It also reduces the noise levels (a sensitive issue in London) if the pilot uses VS mode to his advantage.
The 160k requirement means a slightly earlier than ideal selection of gear down, but if you plan the descent properly in the last turn onto finals, there’s no level off with gear down and flap 30 . (The lazy ‘S’ turn from Lambourne onto finals for 27 allows ATC to vary the size of the ‘S’ to suit, but they usually give around a 12 mile final, which has the aircraft intercepting the glideslope at around 4000’.)
The killer in Dubai is being asked for 160k while still on downwind and then having the downwind extended so that you end up dragging the aircraft in with gear down, final flap and at high power on a very long finals. If Dubai ATC could come up with a similar deal to what the Heathrow ATCOs do – 180k minimum until pretty well on finals and on glideslope, I think you’d find the majority of 777 drivers would thank you for it.
I can’t speak for the 330 pilots – I understand the 330 can be a bit of a handful to slow down if they are asked to maintain a high speed until late in the approach. Hopefully a 330 pilot will post his observations here to see if what suits the Boeing would also suit the 330.
I believe the current (what I see as very good) situation we have in Heathrow came about in no small part thanks to a discussion between pilots and ATCOs right here on Pprune a few years ago. So perhaps this thread might do something similar for Dubai, which is what I believe Danny was hoping to achieve (rather than a bitchfest) when he set up the site.
I don’t know if I can speak for any others, but personally, I’d much rather see Dubai ATC set up a holding stack relatively close in that would allow a descending ‘S’ turn onto finals similar to what Heathrow uses.
I appreciate that Sharjah being so close complicates the issue, but would it be possible to stick the hold pretty well over the top of Sharjah down to a min of 7000’? That wouldn’t interfere with Sharjah traffic, and the only adjustments that would have to be made would be to some Dubai SIDS that track out over Sharjah. (And of course, to the upper level of Dubai Approach airspace if you wanted more than six aircraft in the stack, but even six in the stack would be a start.)
I believe something like that would be far more fuel efficient than the long cross countries we currently do when the inbound traffic is heavy.
Frequency confusion? Stick it on the ATIS or come up with a standard procedure for different times of day and put it in the Jepp.
Re the familiarisation flights: I know this very point was brought up by some line pilots who spoke last month with the Boeing Chief Pilot and he said he was quite receptive to the idea and said he would look into it. I’d suggest that if your boss gave HAlH a call, it might help get that idea underway. I think most pilots using Dubai would agree that this would be an excellent idea.
It also reduces the noise levels (a sensitive issue in London) if the pilot uses VS mode to his advantage.
The 160k requirement means a slightly earlier than ideal selection of gear down, but if you plan the descent properly in the last turn onto finals, there’s no level off with gear down and flap 30 . (The lazy ‘S’ turn from Lambourne onto finals for 27 allows ATC to vary the size of the ‘S’ to suit, but they usually give around a 12 mile final, which has the aircraft intercepting the glideslope at around 4000’.)
The killer in Dubai is being asked for 160k while still on downwind and then having the downwind extended so that you end up dragging the aircraft in with gear down, final flap and at high power on a very long finals. If Dubai ATC could come up with a similar deal to what the Heathrow ATCOs do – 180k minimum until pretty well on finals and on glideslope, I think you’d find the majority of 777 drivers would thank you for it.
I can’t speak for the 330 pilots – I understand the 330 can be a bit of a handful to slow down if they are asked to maintain a high speed until late in the approach. Hopefully a 330 pilot will post his observations here to see if what suits the Boeing would also suit the 330.
I believe the current (what I see as very good) situation we have in Heathrow came about in no small part thanks to a discussion between pilots and ATCOs right here on Pprune a few years ago. So perhaps this thread might do something similar for Dubai, which is what I believe Danny was hoping to achieve (rather than a bitchfest) when he set up the site.
I don’t know if I can speak for any others, but personally, I’d much rather see Dubai ATC set up a holding stack relatively close in that would allow a descending ‘S’ turn onto finals similar to what Heathrow uses.
I appreciate that Sharjah being so close complicates the issue, but would it be possible to stick the hold pretty well over the top of Sharjah down to a min of 7000’? That wouldn’t interfere with Sharjah traffic, and the only adjustments that would have to be made would be to some Dubai SIDS that track out over Sharjah. (And of course, to the upper level of Dubai Approach airspace if you wanted more than six aircraft in the stack, but even six in the stack would be a start.)
I believe something like that would be far more fuel efficient than the long cross countries we currently do when the inbound traffic is heavy.
Frequency confusion? Stick it on the ATIS or come up with a standard procedure for different times of day and put it in the Jepp.
Re the familiarisation flights: I know this very point was brought up by some line pilots who spoke last month with the Boeing Chief Pilot and he said he was quite receptive to the idea and said he would look into it. I’d suggest that if your boss gave HAlH a call, it might help get that idea underway. I think most pilots using Dubai would agree that this would be an excellent idea.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: S of N Pole
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Datalink Departure Clearance
Hello Nimmer, it's good to hear from someone from DXB ATC on this site. Most of us will understand some of the difficult conditions ATC workers have to deal with here.
I'd like to add my two-cents worth that DXB needs to get the process started to get Datalink Departure Clearance (DCL) by ACARS, now, rather than when your staffing levels are better. It'll make staffing levels better and it can be eased in gradually into DXB operations.
More sophisticated than Pre-Departure Clearance (otherwise known as PDC), DCL will solve a lot of your problems (plus reduce pilot workload & chance of misunderstandings). It would essentially cut the use of voice for departure and enroute clearances in half at DXB, as virtually all EK flights would be using it.
The cost is minimal & will pay for itself in short order. A number of Euro stations are using DCL or PDC to some degree & Australia & US have had ACARS text clearances in some form for many years. If a visit to Munich ATC might be possible, they've been using it for about a year & may have some valid input.
While we are on the subject of ACARS communications at DXB, please could you do something about the format of Digital ATIS (D-ATIS) at DXB. The format is non-ICAO standard and confusing to pilots. Arrival & departure runway details are not separated correctly within the message.
Most of the stations that transmit D-ATIS have clearly separated details for Arrival & Departure runways (but still contained in the same message). We've been told that we'll have to wait for DXB to get different equipment to enable DEP and ARR ATIS to be separated. This may be true, but is there anything that can be done to separate ARR & DEP info in the current DXB D-ATIS message in some way? For example, instead of the currently jumbled;
....'ARR 30R EXP ILS APPR DEP 30L'....
in the message, could it be separated in some way, such as...
....'ARR 30R EXP ILS APPR / / / / DEP 30L'.... or even better start the DEP information on a new line in the D-ATIS message?
It may seem like a small change, but it would help us out a lot. This especially, with all the runway work going on these days.
I'd like to add my two-cents worth that DXB needs to get the process started to get Datalink Departure Clearance (DCL) by ACARS, now, rather than when your staffing levels are better. It'll make staffing levels better and it can be eased in gradually into DXB operations.
More sophisticated than Pre-Departure Clearance (otherwise known as PDC), DCL will solve a lot of your problems (plus reduce pilot workload & chance of misunderstandings). It would essentially cut the use of voice for departure and enroute clearances in half at DXB, as virtually all EK flights would be using it.
The cost is minimal & will pay for itself in short order. A number of Euro stations are using DCL or PDC to some degree & Australia & US have had ACARS text clearances in some form for many years. If a visit to Munich ATC might be possible, they've been using it for about a year & may have some valid input.
While we are on the subject of ACARS communications at DXB, please could you do something about the format of Digital ATIS (D-ATIS) at DXB. The format is non-ICAO standard and confusing to pilots. Arrival & departure runway details are not separated correctly within the message.
Most of the stations that transmit D-ATIS have clearly separated details for Arrival & Departure runways (but still contained in the same message). We've been told that we'll have to wait for DXB to get different equipment to enable DEP and ARR ATIS to be separated. This may be true, but is there anything that can be done to separate ARR & DEP info in the current DXB D-ATIS message in some way? For example, instead of the currently jumbled;
....'ARR 30R EXP ILS APPR DEP 30L'....
in the message, could it be separated in some way, such as...
....'ARR 30R EXP ILS APPR / / / / DEP 30L'.... or even better start the DEP information on a new line in the D-ATIS message?
It may seem like a small change, but it would help us out a lot. This especially, with all the runway work going on these days.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all good information. basically the ATC procedures at Dubai cause problems. We know that, but are getting nowhere trying to make or have any input to make things better.
Basically the impetious is going to have to come from Emirates, start making more comments on flight reports, regarding excessive vectoring, poor descents, speed reduction/increases etc!!! We are all on the same side I for one hate the procedures here, knowing that basically we cannot provide the ATC service that the controllers at Dubai are capable of.
Sorry to say phase 16 work on the runway will make things worse!!!!
160 knots downwind, controller has cocked it up!!!!!
Basically the impetious is going to have to come from Emirates, start making more comments on flight reports, regarding excessive vectoring, poor descents, speed reduction/increases etc!!! We are all on the same side I for one hate the procedures here, knowing that basically we cannot provide the ATC service that the controllers at Dubai are capable of.
Sorry to say phase 16 work on the runway will make things worse!!!!
160 knots downwind, controller has cocked it up!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Whinery
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never ever been requested to slow to 160KIAS on downwind. In Dubai or anywhere else.
I don’t know of any “fuel issue” applicable ONLY here at Dubai.
Good to see issues being sorted out but my real whinge was about the ground freq situation.
My solution:
118.35 ACD
118.85 Ground
118.75 TWR
It'd be nicer if those freqs were in ascending order - more intuitive.
If manning levels don’t allow the three freqs or traffic levels don’t demand it, place a remark on the ATIS that ACD is available on the GND freq. This is a more straightforward process and is in use at many other airports.
Why would this be so difficult or unreasonable?
Dubai’s current process is a gaggle-fcuk when times are busy.
is just because of the fuel issue here?
Good to see issues being sorted out but my real whinge was about the ground freq situation.
My solution:
118.35 ACD
118.85 Ground
118.75 TWR
It'd be nicer if those freqs were in ascending order - more intuitive.
If manning levels don’t allow the three freqs or traffic levels don’t demand it, place a remark on the ATIS that ACD is available on the GND freq. This is a more straightforward process and is in use at many other airports.
Why would this be so difficult or unreasonable?
Dubai’s current process is a gaggle-fcuk when times are busy.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So 'nimmer', what would be your wish list? I've written written in to the company about the waste of fuel the F270 requirement results in and their reply was it would be opening too large a can of worms with Tehran (and I suspect Abu Dhabi). Tehran lets them use some of its airspace under the current arrangement. If they insisted on retaing all their airspace, it would result in even more chaos.
Does 'Wiley's' suggestion of a close in hold over Sharjah have any merit? Looking at the area chart, it would seem that a 120 inbound right hand pattern over Sharjah would allow easy streaming for both Dubai runways, much the same as Lambourne does for Heathrow, and a min holding alt of 6 or 7000 would mean it would have minimal effect on Sharjah itself.
Does 'Wiley's' suggestion of a close in hold over Sharjah have any merit? Looking at the area chart, it would seem that a 120 inbound right hand pattern over Sharjah would allow easy streaming for both Dubai runways, much the same as Lambourne does for Heathrow, and a min holding alt of 6 or 7000 would mean it would have minimal effect on Sharjah itself.