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
Hi Fliion I'm intrigued by your comments/questions.
Your points below and my response:-
1. Required by the regulator we can't change it.
2. Ah? We use monitor now as it cuts down on RT, surely you'd prefer this so why would you want us to go back to monitor?
3. ICAO standard
4. ICAO standard
5. Not a good idea if you guys don't fly the speeds as instructed.
As an ex LHR controller all the above stuff you've complained about is standard operating practise there, would you say that LHR is not in the real world also?
I had to laugh that you used USA ATC as the shining light in your example......
Believe me the will to change things for the better here exists, but as you should know well, change happens slowly here.
As stated before, you'd be welcome to pop over for a visit to tell us how better we could join the real ATC world!
Any chance ATC in DXB can catch up with the real world and drop the necessity to;
1. Required by the regulator we can't change it.
2. Ah? We use monitor now as it cuts down on RT, surely you'd prefer this so why would you want us to go back to monitor?
3. ICAO standard
4. ICAO standard
5. Not a good idea if you guys don't fly the speeds as instructed.
As an ex LHR controller all the above stuff you've complained about is standard operating practise there, would you say that LHR is not in the real world also?
I had to laugh that you used USA ATC as the shining light in your example......
Believe me the will to change things for the better here exists, but as you should know well, change happens slowly here.
As stated before, you'd be welcome to pop over for a visit to tell us how better we could join the real ATC world!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit confused as to exactly what you guys want after this mornings departure & was left wondering if all the ATC people are on the same page.
Worked the data for a K5 departure, then got sent around the northern end of the terminal via 'J', for a K1 departure. I thought that we only had to advise if we required K1 or K2 & would other wise be sent for K3, K4, or K5. Perhaps something to do with the MCT slot, but all departures were going from K1 or K2 when we left.
Then, when given take-off clearance, we were given the departures frequency as well, but not directed when to call. So stayed on tower until my F/O spat the dummy at 6 miles out, asked the tower if he wanted us to call departures & we were changed straight over.
Happy to help you guys & girls out, but do need to know excatly what it is you want, rather than briefing & then following the new procedures for no apparent reason. Confusion & incorrect briefings don't help to make a safe operation.
Worked the data for a K5 departure, then got sent around the northern end of the terminal via 'J', for a K1 departure. I thought that we only had to advise if we required K1 or K2 & would other wise be sent for K3, K4, or K5. Perhaps something to do with the MCT slot, but all departures were going from K1 or K2 when we left.
Then, when given take-off clearance, we were given the departures frequency as well, but not directed when to call. So stayed on tower until my F/O spat the dummy at 6 miles out, asked the tower if he wanted us to call departures & we were changed straight over.
Happy to help you guys & girls out, but do need to know excatly what it is you want, rather than briefing & then following the new procedures for no apparent reason. Confusion & incorrect briefings don't help to make a safe operation.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't the case when we left (8am LT). Specifically told that we should plan K3/4/5 or expect delay and everyone was going off from K3 or K4 or M7. Only wish that had been added to the NOTAMs so the ATC guys/gals didn't have to tell everyone individually. If someone insists on full length then a lot of people will get stuck behind them anyway coming from the Western end. We are getting there slowly however so it is a step in the right direction
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oasis
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Yellow Snow
We have tried the FAA Version of ATC here.. didn't we???? not so shiny at all!
Perhaps our dear friend 'fliion' needs to 'UNDERSTAND' that FAA & ICAO are NOT THE SAME, apart from that we have to deal with GCAA et al.........
@Oakape
Ideally & Preferably we would prefer if you are able to depart from M7, K3,K4 or K5 to remain in 'STAGGERED' Mode & not revert to 'DEPENDENT' Mode.
It could be that due to your DST when exiting through MCT FIR, the most expeditious h/p for you to depart on DST given was via K1.
Although we understand that you require more thrust & therefore reducing 'engine-life' when departing from intersections which result in a shorter TORA, you have to understand that IF there are NO Arrivals on parallel rwy, then we can depart you from FULL LENGTH, WITHOUT the consequence of reverting to 'DEPENDENT' Mode.
Having said this, especially when 'MEDIUMS' or even 'HEAVIES' are behind a 'SUPER', (preceding aircraft with more WAKE) & even though you shall be departing from intersections M7, K3, K4 or K5, it would be adding that extra minute or two for the succeeding departure, therefore, you may be requested to depart from FULL LENGTH to avoid the Intersection Departure Wake Turbulence delay!
Appreciate your cooperation, bottom line is, we are 'pushing' to avoid any unnecessary delays, AND to REVERT to 'DEPENDENT' Mode (with 2nm cut-off on landings on parallel rwy)... So if you can help us, rest assured we will try our best to minimize delays & depart you once you are at the h/p.
I had to laugh that you used USA ATC as the shining light in your example......
Perhaps our dear friend 'fliion' needs to 'UNDERSTAND' that FAA & ICAO are NOT THE SAME, apart from that we have to deal with GCAA et al.........
@Oakape
Worked the data for a K5 departure, then got sent around the northern end of the terminal via 'J', for a K1 departure. I thought that we only had to advise if we required K1 or K2 & would other wise be sent for K3, K4, or K5. Perhaps something to do with the MCT slot, but all departures were going from K1 or K2 when we left.
It could be that due to your DST when exiting through MCT FIR, the most expeditious h/p for you to depart on DST given was via K1.
Although we understand that you require more thrust & therefore reducing 'engine-life' when departing from intersections which result in a shorter TORA, you have to understand that IF there are NO Arrivals on parallel rwy, then we can depart you from FULL LENGTH, WITHOUT the consequence of reverting to 'DEPENDENT' Mode.
Having said this, especially when 'MEDIUMS' or even 'HEAVIES' are behind a 'SUPER', (preceding aircraft with more WAKE) & even though you shall be departing from intersections M7, K3, K4 or K5, it would be adding that extra minute or two for the succeeding departure, therefore, you may be requested to depart from FULL LENGTH to avoid the Intersection Departure Wake Turbulence delay!
Happy to help you guys & girls out, but do need to know excatly what it is you want, rather than briefing & then following the new procedures for no apparent reason. Confusion & incorrect briefings don't help to make a safe operation.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on board
Posts: 3
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"
I'm sorry fliion, help me to understand.
you are saying that what's in AOI pages:
"On inital contact with ARR report:
ACFT callsign
Passing LVL
STAR designator if applicable Advice if full RWY length is required.
departure:
Contact Delivery 10min before start-up, report:
ACFT callsign/type
Parking stand
Requested FL, DEST, RTE
ACFT routing via A418/P574 or A419 (north) report crossing LVL for PAPAR/DARAX
Start-up during push-back. ACFT wishing to start ENG either before or after push-back should notify ATC (in case of cargo APN operations 10min PN).
Contact Dubai DEP when passing 500ft and report:
ACFT callsign
Passing LVL
SID designator if applicable"
is actually wrong/incomplete? Where is it mention about ATIS/QHN etc?
Than you refer to a Co-notam which is not a Co-notam but is a change to AIP where it says to pass a/c type on arrival only.
I'm just trying to understand if I'm on the wrong page.
Thanks
I'm sorry fliion, help me to understand.
you are saying that what's in AOI pages:
"On inital contact with ARR report:
ACFT callsign
Passing LVL
STAR designator if applicable Advice if full RWY length is required.
departure:
Contact Delivery 10min before start-up, report:
ACFT callsign/type
Parking stand
Requested FL, DEST, RTE
ACFT routing via A418/P574 or A419 (north) report crossing LVL for PAPAR/DARAX
Start-up during push-back. ACFT wishing to start ENG either before or after push-back should notify ATC (in case of cargo APN operations 10min PN).
Contact Dubai DEP when passing 500ft and report:
ACFT callsign
Passing LVL
SID designator if applicable"
is actually wrong/incomplete? Where is it mention about ATIS/QHN etc?
Than you refer to a Co-notam which is not a Co-notam but is a change to AIP where it says to pass a/c type on arrival only.
I'm just trying to understand if I'm on the wrong page.
Thanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The world's biggest beach
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Oakape, thanks for the feedback.
There will be some 'bedding in' issues with the new procedures as it's still very early days, Tin-Bullet is correct in his reply that there may be times when we'll give you K1 (or other full length) as there are few if any inbounds, so you may as well have full length and enjoy the benefits of a derated departure.
As for remaining on tower frequency, you did the right thing if in doubt, I think maybe the fact that the tower gave you the deps frequency on take off the intention was for you to contact them at your convenience, but maybe this wasn't implied well enough. (this in itself explains that there were no arrivals to threaten a go around and may explain why you got K1!)
There will be some 'bedding in' issues with the new procedures as it's still very early days, Tin-Bullet is correct in his reply that there may be times when we'll give you K1 (or other full length) as there are few if any inbounds, so you may as well have full length and enjoy the benefits of a derated departure.
As for remaining on tower frequency, you did the right thing if in doubt, I think maybe the fact that the tower gave you the deps frequency on take off the intention was for you to contact them at your convenience, but maybe this wasn't implied well enough. (this in itself explains that there were no arrivals to threaten a go around and may explain why you got K1!)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a valiant attempt by someone at trying to be "seen" to be doing something.....very little gain for a lot of pain, for everyone. Doubt it will last long in its current form. Summer will be such fun.
.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Yellow Snow et al..
Thanks for the heads up here.
The lack of information from Dubai's major carrier to its pilots is quite astounding. 
As we listened out on Delivery the other morning during the rush, aircraft were repeatedly told that if they didn't accept K3/4/5 there would be significant delays until all aircraft that could accept the intersection had departed. This statement from the controller had the desired effect, as all aircraft we heard suddenly no longer 'required' K2 and departed from K3 or greater.
This is all well and good on a 25 degree morning.
2 questions for you..
1) As the hotter temperatures approach, the above situation won't be acceptable as the ULR (Americas, Australia etc) flights will begin to genuinely require K2 and K1. Do you have provisions (exceptions?) to be put in place so as these flights don't receive these delays?
2) Would you prefer us to plan our performance on K3, K4/M7, or K5? We really don't care which one, as most departures should be able K5 even during the summer. And if we plan on K5, then get a 'longer' intersection, it suits us just fine. A NOTAM, similar to the old "request all a/c to plan performance from K2/M5" one would definitely help.
Cheers,
Visual Procedures
Thanks for the heads up here.
The lack of information from Dubai's major carrier to its pilots is quite astounding. As we listened out on Delivery the other morning during the rush, aircraft were repeatedly told that if they didn't accept K3/4/5 there would be significant delays until all aircraft that could accept the intersection had departed. This statement from the controller had the desired effect, as all aircraft we heard suddenly no longer 'required' K2 and departed from K3 or greater.
This is all well and good on a 25 degree morning.
2 questions for you..
1) As the hotter temperatures approach, the above situation won't be acceptable as the ULR (Americas, Australia etc) flights will begin to genuinely require K2 and K1. Do you have provisions (exceptions?) to be put in place so as these flights don't receive these delays?
2) Would you prefer us to plan our performance on K3, K4/M7, or K5? We really don't care which one, as most departures should be able K5 even during the summer. And if we plan on K5, then get a 'longer' intersection, it suits us just fine. A NOTAM, similar to the old "request all a/c to plan performance from K2/M5" one would definitely help.
Cheers,
Visual Procedures
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes I heard the "significant delays if you don't take K3", to be honest, while I understand what is trying to be achieved, the tone was somewhat bullying, would not be a good look on a accident or incident investigation.
If there is a delay for not accepting an intersection take off, you need to remove the autocratic bullying tangent and make it more objective.
If there is a delay for not accepting an intersection take off, you need to remove the autocratic bullying tangent and make it more objective.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: umm...
Age: 69
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, level can be used even if you are below the transition altitude. ICAO DOC 4444 definition of level:
Level. A generic term relating to the vertical position of an
aircraft in flight and meaning variously, height, altitude or
flight level.
aircraft in flight and meaning variously, height, altitude or
flight level.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The world's biggest beach
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bird on, believe me this is no single attempt by 'some one' person this is huge effort by the unit to improve the way things work here and make the operation more efficient for you, not us. We still go home at the same time every day and pick up the same salary.
Visual procedures
1) the honest answer is no. It needs your company to come to us with a proposal, as at the end of the day with 60% of the runway slots you guys are the ones who benefit most from these new procedures. It is concerning the amount of feedback on here about lack of comms from your company on these new procedures. All I can say is that we appreciate that summer temps will bring challenges but it's a work in progress so we shall play it by ear unless EK come to us with some suggestions.....
2) Yep K5 ticks all the boxes and then we'll offer you a 'better' intersection if we can. There's still a lot of bedding down to be done, I'd ideally like it if on receipt of pushback GMC could give you an expected holding point to tee you up in advance, but this isn't always gonna be practical. As for Notam's they seem difficult for us to get approval from the regulator for at the mo, so I'll forward your suggestion that we incorporate this into the ATIS.
Ruserious, agreed hopefully a one off ATCO.
ironbutt57 'passing level' is standard ICAO phraseology regardless of what the transition level is. Your reply is an altitude if below TL and a level if above. US background by any chance?
Visual procedures
1) the honest answer is no. It needs your company to come to us with a proposal, as at the end of the day with 60% of the runway slots you guys are the ones who benefit most from these new procedures. It is concerning the amount of feedback on here about lack of comms from your company on these new procedures. All I can say is that we appreciate that summer temps will bring challenges but it's a work in progress so we shall play it by ear unless EK come to us with some suggestions.....
2) Yep K5 ticks all the boxes and then we'll offer you a 'better' intersection if we can. There's still a lot of bedding down to be done, I'd ideally like it if on receipt of pushback GMC could give you an expected holding point to tee you up in advance, but this isn't always gonna be practical. As for Notam's they seem difficult for us to get approval from the regulator for at the mo, so I'll forward your suggestion that we incorporate this into the ATIS.
Ruserious, agreed hopefully a one off ATCO.
ironbutt57 'passing level' is standard ICAO phraseology regardless of what the transition level is. Your reply is an altitude if below TL and a level if above. US background by any chance?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
The above defensive posts about change are typical as to why it wont happen...
Yawn, ‘Americans have it wrong and we have it right’
Convinced LHR/DXB is superior than ATL/JFK/ORD/DFW/IAH or other ....Clearly I wont change your view (as can be seen)...but they are a lot busier...
With ATL, Start with three t/off and three landing runways (6) going at once . Thats threble LHR and DXB. Yet you think (LHR) is where its at...maybe you should visit them, or more importantly spend time flying in and out of them...because it works very well, in no small part to lack of clutter.
Reminds me of the old debate about buying the AWACS as against the MRA4...one is logical the other is principle…and we know how that worked out …’nuff said. Or the Boeing v. Airbus debate, ahh that’s right, that debate is over – there is no debate..
In the meantime, I will continue to tell the controllers what STAR, TYPE,ATIS, QNH (its in ATIS), LOC established, SID we're on, check in with tower on taxi, etc until the US changes their system to this one...but wait a minute the US controller has that info in front of him...oh never mind, ...
And dont forget to throw in the third QNH after the controller has said it the second time repeating what you just told him the first time you checked in with him....(Does it get said a fourth time to confirm the third time was correct?)...
I haven’t even started on PDC, "Sllaaam Malaykum" & "Inshallah"
Crikey, if the US pilot checked in with his God (goose and gander you know) and your system...could you imagine ATC!
DXB example:
"May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you, Delta 7 Heavy on the Bubin three tango, one three thousand, descending one-one eleven thousand, Boeing Seven Seven Lima, with information Sierra, two niner niner two inches of mercury” …....”Delta 7 heavy, Happy Yom Kippur to you Sir..Inches of Mercury is two niner niner two."…”Delta 7 Heavy two niner niner two Inches of mercury”
US example:
"Delta 7 heavy, Sierra, thirteen,descending eleven thousand"...
..."Delta 7 Heavy"
And a Harri Krishna to all that!
; >
Fliion
ps The Tone is tongue in cheek...so dont get your knickers twisted...
See you out there...and DXB ATC thanks for all you do…sincerely
The above defensive posts about change are typical as to why it wont happen...
Yawn, ‘Americans have it wrong and we have it right’
Convinced LHR/DXB is superior than ATL/JFK/ORD/DFW/IAH or other ....Clearly I wont change your view (as can be seen)...but they are a lot busier...
With ATL, Start with three t/off and three landing runways (6) going at once . Thats threble LHR and DXB. Yet you think (LHR) is where its at...maybe you should visit them, or more importantly spend time flying in and out of them...because it works very well, in no small part to lack of clutter.
Reminds me of the old debate about buying the AWACS as against the MRA4...one is logical the other is principle…and we know how that worked out …’nuff said. Or the Boeing v. Airbus debate, ahh that’s right, that debate is over – there is no debate..
In the meantime, I will continue to tell the controllers what STAR, TYPE,ATIS, QNH (its in ATIS), LOC established, SID we're on, check in with tower on taxi, etc until the US changes their system to this one...but wait a minute the US controller has that info in front of him...oh never mind, ...
And dont forget to throw in the third QNH after the controller has said it the second time repeating what you just told him the first time you checked in with him....(Does it get said a fourth time to confirm the third time was correct?)...
I haven’t even started on PDC, "Sllaaam Malaykum" & "Inshallah"
Crikey, if the US pilot checked in with his God (goose and gander you know) and your system...could you imagine ATC!
DXB example:
"May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you, Delta 7 Heavy on the Bubin three tango, one three thousand, descending one-one eleven thousand, Boeing Seven Seven Lima, with information Sierra, two niner niner two inches of mercury” …....”Delta 7 heavy, Happy Yom Kippur to you Sir..Inches of Mercury is two niner niner two."…”Delta 7 Heavy two niner niner two Inches of mercury”
US example:
"Delta 7 heavy, Sierra, thirteen,descending eleven thousand"...
..."Delta 7 Heavy"
And a Harri Krishna to all that!
; >
Fliion
ps The Tone is tongue in cheek...so dont get your knickers twisted...
See you out there...and DXB ATC thanks for all you do…sincerely
Last edited by fliion; 15th Mar 2011 at 20:00.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Yellow Snow. Thanks for the reply.
The trouble is that once the information has been worked for K3/4/5, it is somewhat difficult to rework it for K1/K2 once you are already taxing. It can be done, but safety is reduced & it should be avoided if at all possible. In fact, I wouldn't even contemplate it for something as minor as this. Other captains may but it could lead some to stop the aircraft until the process has been completed.
We could work the figures for both intersections prior to pushback, but that will still require entires into the FMC during taxi, once we are made aware of the availability of the longer runway length. I think a lot of crews would not change things, so the extra runway length would not lead to bigger de-rates in most cases & therefore the savings would not eventuate. The only real advantage would be more runway for a reject.
Yes, I don't think it was implied well enough. In fact though, I really don't think ATC instructions should ever be 'implied', but should always be clear & concise. Maybe I am being a little pedantic, but ".... departures frequency 126.2, runway 12R, clear for take-off" does not give any direction as to when to change & therefore indicates that the call is at the standard time. And that standard time has been modified by Notam to 'when instructed by the tower controller'.
If the controller doesn't require us to remain on tower frequency airbourne, I would expect an instruction along the lines of ".... contact departures 126.2 airbourne, runway 12R, cleared for take-off".
We were pushed back to face west from B23, so I think we were programed to go from K1/K2 right from the start. It would have been nice to have been advised of that when we were waiting for our slot, as we could have reworked the numbers for K2 & saved quite a bit over the K5 figures.
I just don't think that everyone had it all together at that stage - as you said, early days.
There will be some 'bedding in' issues with the new procedures as it's still very early days, Tin-Bullet is correct in his reply that there may be times when we'll give you K1 (or other full length) as there are few if any inbounds, so you may as well have full length and enjoy the benefits of a derated departure.
We could work the figures for both intersections prior to pushback, but that will still require entires into the FMC during taxi, once we are made aware of the availability of the longer runway length. I think a lot of crews would not change things, so the extra runway length would not lead to bigger de-rates in most cases & therefore the savings would not eventuate. The only real advantage would be more runway for a reject.
As for remaining on tower frequency, you did the right thing if in doubt, I think maybe the fact that the tower gave you the deps frequency on take off the intention was for you to contact them at your convenience, but maybe this wasn't implied well enough.
If the controller doesn't require us to remain on tower frequency airbourne, I would expect an instruction along the lines of ".... contact departures 126.2 airbourne, runway 12R, cleared for take-off".
(this in itself explains that there were no arrivals to threaten a go around and may explain why you got K1!)
I just don't think that everyone had it all together at that stage - as you said, early days.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not just keep it simple, work and use the figures for K4 if able (which will be most of the time).
The savings come with improved runway utilization which ultimately benefits the airlines.
The savings come with improved runway utilization which ultimately benefits the airlines.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Somewhere HOT!!
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for Yellow Snow
First ofall, well done on trying to improve things. Its getting quite busy and everybody needs to move with the increased traffic. Just wondering how you think these new procs will affect the traffic inbound from DESDI and BUBIN? We at the ACC had again the other night, a situation where both holds filled up quickly because of unrealistic gate spacing requirements from DXB. 20nm both sides. For some time, the director had only 1 aircraft max on his frequency (I know that by the way because I was monitoring it) and 3 aircraft on the DXB arrs freq. Its just simply frustrating when you have to give an aircraft an hour of a delay due to these requirements. I find it fascinating that one crew can be so much more efficient than the next. I dont wish to start a spat but I do hope these procedures are designed to increase the landing rate. Many thanks and good luck.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Above You
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering how you think these new procs will affect the traffic inbound from DESDI and BUBIN?
We at the ACC had again the other night, a situation where both holds filled up quickly because of unrealistic gate spacing requirements from DXB. 20nm both sides.
I find it fascinating that one crew can be so much more efficient than the next.