DXB in Fog
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just wish DXB & UAE would talk more, declaring an 'indefinite' delay is particularly unhelpful, then shifting the EATs up an down the timeline like certain underware is equally problematic when managing a diversion strategy.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dubai and Sunderland
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plazbot well said because of commercial constraints we cannot set a landing rate because we think its going to get bad, especially as in the case of this morning the met man kept saying its not going to happen! So when as this morning we have multiple go arounds and a large number of aircraft already left the holds in the TMA, we cannot straight away and declare a time we will be accepting more aircraft as you don't know how long LVO's will take to implement and how long to clear back log! We also have variables like EK saying certain aircraft has to have priority over other EK's and aircraft getting a slot but then diverting as IRVR went down too much!! It also doesn't help calling arrivals frequency from the stack bugging us for a time!!
The early morning arrival wave is timed just when fog arrives sorry......
The early morning arrival wave is timed just when fog arrives sorry......
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any reason for the ATIS not being updated and UAE telling people they didn't know when arrivals would start again for 30 minutes? We all know how much fuel we are happy with diverting but I found the lack of info especially not being able to get a RVR pretty mad. Out of interest why is there a runway block put in ? surely it's better to keep arrivals going and hold aircraft on stand even if arrivals have to waiting for a gate.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plazbot and 10DME, please don't get me wrong, the problem we have is information, or absence thereof. As indicated before we are out there gobbling 10 tonnes an hour in the BUBIN or DESDI hold trying to predict the future of our airframe and an ATIS which says it's not LVOs. We then get told 'indefinite delay', now how do we manage our diversion strategy? This is not a pop at your brilliant work in ATC, we know you keep this system going despite best efforts from other parties to complicate issues. I cannot think of any major international destination where two holds (three if we can find the new one near Al Ain) serving three destinations. LHR has four for its self for goodness sake. We are all dreading the single runway gig since we know the current structural limitations. We just need appropriate information to help us predict to some degree how this will pan out even in the next few minutes. I absolutely agree that our company should be at the forefront of telling us whats going on with a general ACARS message as to the strategy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting..the exact words used at approx. 620am local DXB, were:
"All aircraft holding at Bubin, standby for new EAT's because the arrivals managers computer at DXB is unable to keep up with the volume of arrivals and has failed"
The next communication was a readout of new EAT's in excess of 1 hour later that the previous EAT's. This was communicated from UAE..not DXB arrivals.
"All aircraft holding at Bubin, standby for new EAT's because the arrivals managers computer at DXB is unable to keep up with the volume of arrivals and has failed"
The next communication was a readout of new EAT's in excess of 1 hour later that the previous EAT's. This was communicated from UAE..not DXB arrivals.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any reason why neither the ATIS nor ATC at DXB ever declared LVP in force even after vis was at 100m (feb 22 incident). Some operators require this blurb in order for their crews to operate in LV conditions.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We also have variables like EK saying certain aircraft has to have priority over other EK's
Can you confirm this is happening and accepted from ATC?????
It would be very discomforting and not acceptable.
I truly believe that coming into the TMA should give you the sequence that determines your EAT. As you and Plazbot describe, there are very many factors that can influence the EAT, but it should be shifting everybody and not individual airframes to the company's liking.
Where would we go with that if it was really true?
Like Fatboys first, because they have a drinking problem? Then 345s, then John Deers, finally the Lighttwin?
Or maybe the flights with VVIP first, then VIP, then SAMIP (self appointed more important persons)?
HTF are we supposed to manage our strategies?
Tell me that it is not true, please!
Last edited by glofish; 7th Mar 2014 at 06:47.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that people on the ground (UAE/Dubai) are doing an excellent job but would really appreciate if under such circumstances, the smaller planes 737/320 are given some sort of priority. After all the holding fuel they carry is pretty limited and we all know how expensive/ inconvenient a diversion is.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hhhmmm the AMAN system is based in AD at the Sheik Zayed Centre, it's their equipment. DXB only has a feed from it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dubai and Sunderland
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glofish - no like plazbot said ACC didn't change the order the other night but I have seen it done on the request of EK and only if it doesn't effect any one but EK.
J grouping really does help and I was the planner who asked and got the six J together but ACC did all the work grouping them. In the not too distant future vortex grouping with be added to the AMAN.
Reading here its amazing the pilots who don't know that ACC control the holds, DESDI, BUBIN and RASKO not DXB! ACC in shed near OMAA, DXB APP in shed under DWC VCR!!
J grouping really does help and I was the planner who asked and got the six J together but ACC did all the work grouping them. In the not too distant future vortex grouping with be added to the AMAN.
Reading here its amazing the pilots who don't know that ACC control the holds, DESDI, BUBIN and RASKO not DXB! ACC in shed near OMAA, DXB APP in shed under DWC VCR!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near water
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glofish, I can categorically state that UAE ACC/Sheikh Zayed Center do not give priority to any aircraft based on that aircraft company's request. As with most things UAE there is a small amount of politics involved. UAE ACC is run by the GCAA which is a Federal Authority of the UAE in which all seven emirates have representation. The GCAA is therefore kinda autonomous and answers to no one but the regulator. They fall pretty much outside the sphere of influence of Emirates, Flydubai, Air Arabia, The National Carrier et al when it comes to day to day operations. It has almost become a source of pride to tell certain representatives of certain airlines to stuff off when they come with those requests.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 DME, Plazbot and BlueSkye
Thanks guys, the quote might have been misleading. Changing sequence for some company reasons would be unacceptable.
Changing sequence for efficiency might make sense, as long as it involves your stated one position and 2 mins, but 7 mins would start pinching a bit, if you were issued an earlier EAT and a little short of fuel.
It points however to a problem which is very virulent in the DXB airspace: Wake turbulence category separation. With the arrival of the Fatboy a new problem arose. Especially annoying is the looooong wait of a Flydubai lightweight behind a 380. I know from a ATC friend that you guys categorically deny that the hourly rate went down with the arrival of the Fatboy, but it seems to us out there at the threshold that it effectively did.
AS FD now splits its operation for the runway closure, i don't know what hampers the complete shift to DWC. It would only be beneficial for everyone.
Thanks guys, the quote might have been misleading. Changing sequence for some company reasons would be unacceptable.
Changing sequence for efficiency might make sense, as long as it involves your stated one position and 2 mins, but 7 mins would start pinching a bit, if you were issued an earlier EAT and a little short of fuel.
It points however to a problem which is very virulent in the DXB airspace: Wake turbulence category separation. With the arrival of the Fatboy a new problem arose. Especially annoying is the looooong wait of a Flydubai lightweight behind a 380. I know from a ATC friend that you guys categorically deny that the hourly rate went down with the arrival of the Fatboy, but it seems to us out there at the threshold that it effectively did.
AS FD now splits its operation for the runway closure, i don't know what hampers the complete shift to DWC. It would only be beneficial for everyone.