New DXB tower/radar procedures - flightcrew please read
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The world's biggest beach
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again,
iflytb20, I can promise you that if any of our approach controllers put your 737 4-5 miles behind a A380 they will be suspended and the regulator (GCAA) will demand a full investigation. Minima is 7 miles and you should be vectored onto the ILS with 8 miles seperation to allow for catch up, if this catch up infringes the 7 miles minima then tower must send you around. Read the previous postings about speed control and wake seperation, the regulator and our safety department are very hot on this.
vbrules, I appreciate that your intention was not to offend but I think some of my radar bretheren may 'bite' on your remarks so allow me to attempt to answer first as an ex LHR tower controller. Your comments do not compare apples for apples, yes the London TMA is handled fantastically well but it is also designed and refined incredibly well for this purpose. The DXB TMA is askin to a chocolate tea pot when it comes to handling large peaks of traffic that we get here, ie not very efficient. That combined with a wide variety of pilot backgrounds, no inbound holds controlled by Dubai approach, huge amount of airspace owned by the military, lot's or restricted airspace and other stuff I can't talk about on here, oh and SHJ constantly getting into the mix, I think on the whole the majority of the radar guys do a fantastic job with the tools and airspace they have. Simply it's not fair to compare the two TMA's. Come for a visit and sit in on arrivals or departures and you'll soon see how tough they have it.
As for the world's second best, with a PPRUNE name like VB rules I'd have thought you'd be used to this standard
iflytb20, I can promise you that if any of our approach controllers put your 737 4-5 miles behind a A380 they will be suspended and the regulator (GCAA) will demand a full investigation. Minima is 7 miles and you should be vectored onto the ILS with 8 miles seperation to allow for catch up, if this catch up infringes the 7 miles minima then tower must send you around. Read the previous postings about speed control and wake seperation, the regulator and our safety department are very hot on this.
vbrules, I appreciate that your intention was not to offend but I think some of my radar bretheren may 'bite' on your remarks so allow me to attempt to answer first as an ex LHR tower controller. Your comments do not compare apples for apples, yes the London TMA is handled fantastically well but it is also designed and refined incredibly well for this purpose. The DXB TMA is askin to a chocolate tea pot when it comes to handling large peaks of traffic that we get here, ie not very efficient. That combined with a wide variety of pilot backgrounds, no inbound holds controlled by Dubai approach, huge amount of airspace owned by the military, lot's or restricted airspace and other stuff I can't talk about on here, oh and SHJ constantly getting into the mix, I think on the whole the majority of the radar guys do a fantastic job with the tools and airspace they have. Simply it's not fair to compare the two TMA's. Come for a visit and sit in on arrivals or departures and you'll soon see how tough they have it.
As for the world's second best, with a PPRUNE name like VB rules I'd have thought you'd be used to this standard
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Globe Trotter
Age: 60
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised that the 160 to 4 speed on final has not been tackled before. It is extremely difficult to to stabilized according to EK standards whilst complying with this requirement. Especially on 12L with a tailwind! The result is most start to reduce speed before or face going unstable with the obvious consequences.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AHA - the vagaries of itsaslut have finally deigned me to be worthy of responding!
As one of the aforementioned radar bods, I would first like to state that yes - we are aware that airbuses like (NEED) to slow down, boeings DON'T like to slow down and everyone wants to fly the most efficient / easiest profile for THEM. However, IF you want us to tighten up the sequence, then we all have to be reading from the same crib sheet.
So, to answer a few questions -
I believe the "norm" for speed instructions is 1kt per second. I await your corrections...
VBRULES FYI, on my watch alone, we have ex LHR tower AND radar controllers - so I'll venture to say that the bods in the seats are not neccessarily the problem!
As for a few knots here or there, I am prepared to admit that I myself was recently suspended for a wake vortex loss of separation on final. It transpires that aircraft 1 (emirates A340), having been instructed to fly "160 kts to 4 DME") reduced to 135 (or thereabouts) kts at 5.5 DME (of course, without a word) - meanwhile, the following aircraft (emirates B777), having been instructed to fly "160 kts to 4 DME"), was found (by his own admission) to still be flying 180 kts 5.5 miles after the instruction - 7 miles final. As a result of this, my 4.8 mile gap reduced to below the REQUIRED 4 miles and I spent two days sitting at home while my wife wondered if I still had a job to go back to.
I say this NOT to have a go at those who "interpret" speed control instructions as they see fit - but to demonstrate that IF you want us to provide the best service that we can, with the optimal runway utilisation available, we all have to play by the same rules. I KNOW that the airbus wants to slow down. I KNOW that the B777 doesn't. 160 to 4 is (to the best of my knowledge) the best compromise between the two. It may mean that you have to drop the gear earlier than required etc. etc. - so be it. I'm sorry , but if you wouldn't do it at LHR (where they have much more leeway than here), then give us a fighting chance and don't do it here!
iflytb20
Anyone who vectors your 737 a scant 5 miles behind an A380 doesn't deserve to have a license. As previously stated, the minimum is 7 miles AT TOUCHDOWN, so if you don't get them - a) go around and b) report it.
Hopefully, we can all make it work a bit better!!
Guy.
As one of the aforementioned radar bods, I would first like to state that yes - we are aware that airbuses like (NEED) to slow down, boeings DON'T like to slow down and everyone wants to fly the most efficient / easiest profile for THEM. However, IF you want us to tighten up the sequence, then we all have to be reading from the same crib sheet.
So, to answer a few questions -
I believe the "norm" for speed instructions is 1kt per second. I await your corrections...
VBRULES FYI, on my watch alone, we have ex LHR tower AND radar controllers - so I'll venture to say that the bods in the seats are not neccessarily the problem!
As for a few knots here or there, I am prepared to admit that I myself was recently suspended for a wake vortex loss of separation on final. It transpires that aircraft 1 (emirates A340), having been instructed to fly "160 kts to 4 DME") reduced to 135 (or thereabouts) kts at 5.5 DME (of course, without a word) - meanwhile, the following aircraft (emirates B777), having been instructed to fly "160 kts to 4 DME"), was found (by his own admission) to still be flying 180 kts 5.5 miles after the instruction - 7 miles final. As a result of this, my 4.8 mile gap reduced to below the REQUIRED 4 miles and I spent two days sitting at home while my wife wondered if I still had a job to go back to.
I say this NOT to have a go at those who "interpret" speed control instructions as they see fit - but to demonstrate that IF you want us to provide the best service that we can, with the optimal runway utilisation available, we all have to play by the same rules. I KNOW that the airbus wants to slow down. I KNOW that the B777 doesn't. 160 to 4 is (to the best of my knowledge) the best compromise between the two. It may mean that you have to drop the gear earlier than required etc. etc. - so be it. I'm sorry , but if you wouldn't do it at LHR (where they have much more leeway than here), then give us a fighting chance and don't do it here!
iflytb20
Anyone who vectors your 737 a scant 5 miles behind an A380 doesn't deserve to have a license. As previously stated, the minimum is 7 miles AT TOUCHDOWN, so if you don't get them - a) go around and b) report it.
Hopefully, we can all make it work a bit better!!
Guy.
Guy,
if I might make a small comment re the speed.
We are all multi-cultural here - and the Englishes we speak don't all mean the same thing to everybody. I have often listened to "160 to 4" and wondered if that is what you really mean.
In Emirates, no matter what type we fly, we will be perilously close to breaching the stabilisation criteria, and that will probably trigger our equivalent of your two days at home. Equally in my B777 (of which EK manages to operate all 7 variants) I can arrive with a Vref of 137 one day and the next day it will be 149. It doesn't sound much but the 50 tons difference gives a major problem in managing inertia, configuration and ultimately fuel (although dispatch is suddenly giving everyone extra fuel now).
For myself, I interpret "160 to 4" given at 10 miles as meaning ok, I am doing 190 with F5, I can go ahead and start configuring. I personally aim to be F30 at 1500 feet and within 20 kts of Vref, and I am one of the adventurous ones.
ATCers, I think you have made a giant leap, and I hope we can assist and not wreck this. But it is only a start, and we all have to communicate better and co-operate.
if I might make a small comment re the speed.
We are all multi-cultural here - and the Englishes we speak don't all mean the same thing to everybody. I have often listened to "160 to 4" and wondered if that is what you really mean.
In Emirates, no matter what type we fly, we will be perilously close to breaching the stabilisation criteria, and that will probably trigger our equivalent of your two days at home. Equally in my B777 (of which EK manages to operate all 7 variants) I can arrive with a Vref of 137 one day and the next day it will be 149. It doesn't sound much but the 50 tons difference gives a major problem in managing inertia, configuration and ultimately fuel (although dispatch is suddenly giving everyone extra fuel now).
For myself, I interpret "160 to 4" given at 10 miles as meaning ok, I am doing 190 with F5, I can go ahead and start configuring. I personally aim to be F30 at 1500 feet and within 20 kts of Vref, and I am one of the adventurous ones.
ATCers, I think you have made a giant leap, and I hope we can assist and not wreck this. But it is only a start, and we all have to communicate better and co-operate.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three wire
Thanks for your reply. As I said, although we are not experts, we do have some idea of performance differences and the problems they create. We are also aware of emirates' stabilisation criteria and the lack of leeway they give you.
Speaking as a radar bod, if there's one thing that comes out of this for us, it's that you guys LET US KNOW (BEFORE 6nm final!) if you can't fly the "normal" speeds - then we can vector accordingly, whilst still keeping the optimum landing rate and avoiding go-arounds.
One other knock-on effect of this change is that air arabia etc. can pretty much forget about opposite end departures / arrivals at SJ. With the tower guys now able to turn an aircraft, for example, going around from a 12L approach LEFT 30 degrees (pretty much straight at SJ) but having NO knowledge of SJ actual / pending traffic, I, for one, am not prepared to put my head on that particular chopping block. Now consider the possibilities of a simultaneous go around at SJ from an approach to 30 - not much "protection" of the overshoot, is there?
Air Arabia take note.
my 2 fils for today...
Thanks for your reply. As I said, although we are not experts, we do have some idea of performance differences and the problems they create. We are also aware of emirates' stabilisation criteria and the lack of leeway they give you.
Speaking as a radar bod, if there's one thing that comes out of this for us, it's that you guys LET US KNOW (BEFORE 6nm final!) if you can't fly the "normal" speeds - then we can vector accordingly, whilst still keeping the optimum landing rate and avoiding go-arounds.
One other knock-on effect of this change is that air arabia etc. can pretty much forget about opposite end departures / arrivals at SJ. With the tower guys now able to turn an aircraft, for example, going around from a 12L approach LEFT 30 degrees (pretty much straight at SJ) but having NO knowledge of SJ actual / pending traffic, I, for one, am not prepared to put my head on that particular chopping block. Now consider the possibilities of a simultaneous go around at SJ from an approach to 30 - not much "protection" of the overshoot, is there?
Air Arabia take note.
my 2 fils for today...
If you can't take 160kts to 4nm tell the controller that, and do it early. This is not rocket science. The EK stability criteria is +20kts at 1000' IMC. A lot of the time 160kts is even within this margin.
To say you can fly the speed required and not do so is just irresponsible. To tell the controller at 10 to 8nm you can't do this does not give him much chance to space the guy behind you. You know what the limit is, if on the day you can't do it, tell the controller what you can do early, 160kts to 5 or 6nm perhaps.
To say you can fly the speed required and not do so is just irresponsible. To tell the controller at 10 to 8nm you can't do this does not give him much chance to space the guy behind you. You know what the limit is, if on the day you can't do it, tell the controller what you can do early, 160kts to 5 or 6nm perhaps.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear ATC fellows
This is a laudable effort, wherever it came from, thanks for that.
Allow me to raise a weak spot, in my opinion:
They way I understand these lines, is that we might face a late go around, with a low level turn (600') only advised after crossing the landing threshold.
- This will create problems -
As you certainly know, the major part of incoming flights are crewed by pilots who are fatigued to various degrees (especially the home carrier). A sudden go around at low level represents a high level of stress which more often than not creates an initial few moments of confusion that needs some regaining of all our exhausted spirits. After a few seconds the switchings, sop's and their extensive babblings are done with and the go around proceeds mostly smoohtly.
It should be considered, that such proposed low level alterations happen exactly during this initial critical phase. This will lead to regaining composure later and interfering with the supposedly easy and well trained initial procedures.
In my oppinion there are two critical flight phases where pilots should be left alone, letting them fly wings level and get full control of their aircraft to at least up to 1000 feet. Only then the need of a turn should arise. This is in case of engine trouble after lift off and after a sudden low level go around.
Any need to intervene in flight path during these segments is potentially dangerous.
my 2cts
This is a laudable effort, wherever it came from, thanks for that.
Allow me to raise a weak spot, in my opinion:
Missed approach departure turning area
To facilitate independent departure operations and ensure seperation from any missed approaches from the parallel, the tower now have a section of airspace they can turn both the missed approach and the departures at low level to create the minimum ICAO/GCAA acceptable 30degree track seperation. In 12 ops , a missed approach off 12L can now be turned at 600’ onto a ‘track’ of between 090 and 120 and a departure off 12R can be turned at 800’ onto a ‘track’ of 120 and 150. In 30 ops, a missed approach off 30L can be turned at 800’ onto a ‘track’ of between 270 and 300 and a departure off 30R can be turned at 600’ onto a ‘track’ of 330 and 300. The key things being that it’s a track being flown not a heading here and that the level of turn is low but approved by the regulator for terrain clearance, hence the critical need for a track to be flown, also tower will not issue these turns prior to the missed approach crossing the landing runway threshold.
To facilitate independent departure operations and ensure seperation from any missed approaches from the parallel, the tower now have a section of airspace they can turn both the missed approach and the departures at low level to create the minimum ICAO/GCAA acceptable 30degree track seperation. In 12 ops , a missed approach off 12L can now be turned at 600’ onto a ‘track’ of between 090 and 120 and a departure off 12R can be turned at 800’ onto a ‘track’ of 120 and 150. In 30 ops, a missed approach off 30L can be turned at 800’ onto a ‘track’ of between 270 and 300 and a departure off 30R can be turned at 600’ onto a ‘track’ of 330 and 300. The key things being that it’s a track being flown not a heading here and that the level of turn is low but approved by the regulator for terrain clearance, hence the critical need for a track to be flown, also tower will not issue these turns prior to the missed approach crossing the landing runway threshold.
They way I understand these lines, is that we might face a late go around, with a low level turn (600') only advised after crossing the landing threshold.
- This will create problems -
As you certainly know, the major part of incoming flights are crewed by pilots who are fatigued to various degrees (especially the home carrier). A sudden go around at low level represents a high level of stress which more often than not creates an initial few moments of confusion that needs some regaining of all our exhausted spirits. After a few seconds the switchings, sop's and their extensive babblings are done with and the go around proceeds mostly smoohtly.
It should be considered, that such proposed low level alterations happen exactly during this initial critical phase. This will lead to regaining composure later and interfering with the supposedly easy and well trained initial procedures.
In my oppinion there are two critical flight phases where pilots should be left alone, letting them fly wings level and get full control of their aircraft to at least up to 1000 feet. Only then the need of a turn should arise. This is in case of engine trouble after lift off and after a sudden low level go around.
Any need to intervene in flight path during these segments is potentially dangerous.
my 2cts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The world's biggest beach
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys and gals thanks for the great feedback and debate.
Pool, it's a fair point and one we've discussed in training the procedure. If you get a turn at min alt from tower it will be because the ATCO feels it critical. Part of our checklist in the tower is for the two runway controllers to talk to each other and establish the best separation plan for the traffic scenario before giving any turns. When we've done this in our sim the missed approach is invariably at or above 1000'.
Your workload issues at the early stage of a go around are known to ATC.
Pool, it's a fair point and one we've discussed in training the procedure. If you get a turn at min alt from tower it will be because the ATCO feels it critical. Part of our checklist in the tower is for the two runway controllers to talk to each other and establish the best separation plan for the traffic scenario before giving any turns. When we've done this in our sim the missed approach is invariably at or above 1000'.
Your workload issues at the early stage of a go around are known to ATC.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's worse, flying one of these new go arounds in Dubai (with auto pilot) or arriving in SFO after a 16hr journey and getting a "Traffic Alert" from an ILS PRM and hand flying the maneuver?
Flying is potentially dangerous. Mitigate the risk by slowing up, configuring early, and listening out for potential go around situations.
I agree with the Don, 160 is almost always achievable to 4nm. OK, I have to hang everything out to do it, but so what?
Flying is potentially dangerous. Mitigate the risk by slowing up, configuring early, and listening out for potential go around situations.
I agree with the Don, 160 is almost always achievable to 4nm. OK, I have to hang everything out to do it, but so what?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going flying shortly after the start of these new procedures, so this got my attention. Just checked GABI and the notam briefs contain 2 references to it.
1 Company notam 155/11 refers to the attachment in Gabi.
2 notam A209/11 refers to Dubai weekly notams and ATC Safety concerns briefing package.
Niether of these are included in the packages.
Just rang Dispatch to see if they had any idea where I might get them. They knew/know NOTHING
If I get to work and these are not available, will be home early!!
If they are, suspect the flight will leave late while I read and attain "Full Knowledge".
Another example of our 1st world flight support.
1 Company notam 155/11 refers to the attachment in Gabi.
2 notam A209/11 refers to Dubai weekly notams and ATC Safety concerns briefing package.
Niether of these are included in the packages.
Just rang Dispatch to see if they had any idea where I might get them. They knew/know NOTHING
If I get to work and these are not available, will be home early!!
If they are, suspect the flight will leave late while I read and attain "Full Knowledge".
Another example of our 1st world flight support.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Dubayy
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's all pitch in and help the guys in ATC.
180kts to 10nm and 160kts to 4 nm is achievable. If you can do it in EDDM, EDDF, EGLL, EGKK, LFPG etc. I am sure we can all do it here at our home base. You just have to forget/give up the idea of "Decelerated/Delayed Flap Approach". Too bad you may have to dangle everything out but that's the cost of doing business in a very tight environment/busy airspace.
Another reason guys end up unstable is the failure to trade altitude for speed and vv. - simple distance x 3. How often have you seen guys with 10 plus track miles to go and at 2000 feet get clearances to 1500 - seem to like to continue the descent at 180 knots instead of chopping speed first maintaining level flight.
Already below profile, need to slow down pronto, chop speed first then descent.
180kts to 10nm and 160kts to 4 nm is achievable. If you can do it in EDDM, EDDF, EGLL, EGKK, LFPG etc. I am sure we can all do it here at our home base. You just have to forget/give up the idea of "Decelerated/Delayed Flap Approach". Too bad you may have to dangle everything out but that's the cost of doing business in a very tight environment/busy airspace.
Another reason guys end up unstable is the failure to trade altitude for speed and vv. - simple distance x 3. How often have you seen guys with 10 plus track miles to go and at 2000 feet get clearances to 1500 - seem to like to continue the descent at 180 knots instead of chopping speed first maintaining level flight.
Already below profile, need to slow down pronto, chop speed first then descent.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seem to recall when they were re-hashing the DXB airport a while back, it was noted that the runway spacing was not too well planned, seems the new procedures will loosen the logjam a bit..but...
"EK is one of the largest airlines in the world" ?? Widebody operator perhaps...
"EK is one of the largest airlines in the world" ?? Widebody operator perhaps...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: At home
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notam/aip
Good job Yellow Snow.
Good to see the ATCers are pro-active.
Is this going to be NOTAMed or an AIP issued.
I've already e-mail as many guys I know to this link
But a NOTAM would make it official.
Just a query here...no criticisms intended.
Good to see the ATCers are pro-active.
Is this going to be NOTAMed or an AIP issued.
I've already e-mail as many guys I know to this link
But a NOTAM would make it official.
Just a query here...no criticisms intended.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: sand box
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a 330/340 perspective! 160kts to 4nm in a light 330 ( as is often the case on the short ME sectors with low pax loads ) is just asking for trouble and I will always decline this instruction. The 343/345 it is generally not a problem as they are no where near as "slippery" as the A330.
The 500 feet should not be a target for being stable on every approach into Dubai which i seem to think some of the previous posts are hinting at!!!
Good thread nice to see something sensible being discussed on pprune
The 500 feet should not be a target for being stable on every approach into Dubai which i seem to think some of the previous posts are hinting at!!!
Good thread nice to see something sensible being discussed on pprune
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emratty, MW, and all..
I think the point about speed is that if you're asked, do it. If you can't, be it because you're too heavy or too light, TELL THEM! And, TELL THEM EARLY!
The response to a quick "I need 170" (eg heavy 777-300) or "I need 140" (light 330) is usually "approved!", followed by a tighter or wider radar vector. Not a problem if they know early enough.
If the pattern is full and I can hear everyone else is getting 160 from 15 miles, I speak up, tell them I'll need 170, take the 20 sec radar vector penalty and not have to have gear and landing flaps out from 15 miles. (or more)
I think the point about speed is that if you're asked, do it. If you can't, be it because you're too heavy or too light, TELL THEM! And, TELL THEM EARLY!
The response to a quick "I need 170" (eg heavy 777-300) or "I need 140" (light 330) is usually "approved!", followed by a tighter or wider radar vector. Not a problem if they know early enough.
If the pattern is full and I can hear everyone else is getting 160 from 15 miles, I speak up, tell them I'll need 170, take the 20 sec radar vector penalty and not have to have gear and landing flaps out from 15 miles. (or more)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by emratty
From a 330/340 perspective! 160kts to 4nm in a light 330 ( as is often the case on the short ME sectors with low pax loads )
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Above You
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that our 'base carrier' has NOT informed/briefed it's crews on what has been 'discussed' in the thread.
I would not be surprised IF other operators have neither informed their crews about this.
Just a 'short note' regarding what has been ADDED to the ATIS for OMDB/DXB;
""Crews must advise Delivery on 120.35 if they are UNABLE TO DEPART FROM M7, K3 K4 K5 INTERSECTIONS!""
In short we would also appreciate if crews would advise Delivery on 120.35, IF THEY REQUIRE FULL LENGTH, which is one of these 4 holding points M4 M5 K1 & K2!
So far, it was a non event, so let's try to improve on this also!
Regards
I would not be surprised IF other operators have neither informed their crews about this.
Just a 'short note' regarding what has been ADDED to the ATIS for OMDB/DXB;
""Crews must advise Delivery on 120.35 if they are UNABLE TO DEPART FROM M7, K3 K4 K5 INTERSECTIONS!""
In short we would also appreciate if crews would advise Delivery on 120.35, IF THEY REQUIRE FULL LENGTH, which is one of these 4 holding points M4 M5 K1 & K2!
So far, it was a non event, so let's try to improve on this also!
Regards
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any chance ATC in DXB can catch up with the real world and drop the necessity to;
1. State Star, type, ATIS, QNH (isnt it implied you have it by default of the ATIS!?), SPD assignment.
2. Contact tower on taxi-out instead of monitor.
3. State SID flying when leaving DXB
4. Call LOC established
5. Check in with tower instead of monitor on final
All completely unnecessary 95% of time.
The amount of unnecessary R/T clutter by stating the obvious is puzzling. And to articulate the point, the busiest terminal radar environments in the world will ignore or berate you for telling your life story on check-in.
For example:
Checking in with NY centre. (sometimes call sign only)
"Emirates 123 descending 12000 with yankee"
"Emirates 123 Roger"
Checking in with DXB:
"Emirates 123, descending 12000 on the the Desdi four victor, Boeing seven seven Lima, QNH one zero one three with information Yankee"
"Emirates 123 QNH one zero one three, yankee is current, descend 12000'"
"Descend 12000 on QNH one zero one three"
....at this point I want to tear my hair out. What is the problem here?
F.
1. State Star, type, ATIS, QNH (isnt it implied you have it by default of the ATIS!?), SPD assignment.
2. Contact tower on taxi-out instead of monitor.
3. State SID flying when leaving DXB
4. Call LOC established
5. Check in with tower instead of monitor on final
All completely unnecessary 95% of time.
The amount of unnecessary R/T clutter by stating the obvious is puzzling. And to articulate the point, the busiest terminal radar environments in the world will ignore or berate you for telling your life story on check-in.
For example:
Checking in with NY centre. (sometimes call sign only)
"Emirates 123 descending 12000 with yankee"
"Emirates 123 Roger"
Checking in with DXB:
"Emirates 123, descending 12000 on the the Desdi four victor, Boeing seven seven Lima, QNH one zero one three with information Yankee"
"Emirates 123 QNH one zero one three, yankee is current, descend 12000'"
"Descend 12000 on QNH one zero one three"
....at this point I want to tear my hair out. What is the problem here?
F.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure have...read your Co-notams recently...specifically says to keep stating type and Star along with everything else and notes that the AOI omission of requiring crews to give aircraft type was an error...
...next
f
...next
f