Hey Fly Through, point taken about giving you the aircraft too early and yes I have seen guys in the centre do this, not just to you guys but also to the other units around us.

I do have an issue with making concrete rules on when to hand off aircraft ie. 60 NM from 10NM final. I hand off aircraft based on when and where I think you will need to talk to the aircraft. If I have a sequence of aircraft and I have them all set up with speeds, I won't give you the first aircraft and not the second 2 aircraft as too many times I've had Dubai put the brakes on the first guy and have the two left on my freq. run up the back of the guy on yours. So bottom line I will hand off the aircraft when I think you should have them, that includes keeping them longer if I need that. If I get that wrong sometimes then ok, I apologise.

If you do get aircraft given to you really early, then do what I did to Nimmer (that is if Nimmer is who shoo the gap says he is) one day when I got a really unclean handoff, and that is give the aircraft back.

ASNA

Agree completely, wasn't meant to be set in concrete and of course every situation is different and we all do what is required at the time. Was just looking for a little consideration:ok:

ShooTheGap

How personal do you want to get on an open forum like this? Do you want us all evaluating your CV over the internet? Whilst it's always entertaining to watch a cat fight, this thread was actually doing some good. Speaking of which, think most of us agree with your last statement but if something goes wrong we'll be for the high jump. Maybe if we stuck rigidly to the rules imposed on us and to hell with the service, then maybe complaints would rise and we might see some change around here. Well we can always live in hope :}

Fly Through,
Don't want to get personal but no one will attack my integrity without repercussions. My CV is open for scrutiny for anyone who wishes. It meets the requirements and so too is my wife's. If they don't want competent controllers here and they want me to leave they only have to give me 3 months notice. Its only a Job.! I tried to stick to the rules, but unable to restrict because I know that one day it will be me on that plane and I sure don't want to sit in that hold because the arrival controller has reached 5 planes and that's the rule.!

AirNoServicesAustralia,
Where I come from, if you as an area controller who receives my departures must do anything other than identify and climb the aircraft then I did not do my job. On the arrival flow You may count on my help anytime I can provide it. Thats my job!

To all the pilots,
Anytime you hear unprofessional comments on the frequency, please report them. Our management knows about it and chooses to ignore it. I care about the issue because I am a Dubai ATCO and that is my unit's image which is tainted.
And just for some fun, The go around alarm button is 3 times the size of the crash alarm and when it sounds off it wakes up all the roosters... So please try to minimize your go arounds until I can convince someone to send it to a museum somewhere...or sell it on Ebay!

respectfully submitted,

I didn't know you had a G/A button, need to get by for a tower visit.

Regarding G/As (other then due to no visual), these invariably do not conform to what is practiced in the SIM. i.e. if following a high energy approach the flaps may have to be retracted earlier then standard to prevent exceedence.
If from an intermidate altitude then little time to MAA. Although briefed it's rarely performed and one is in a landing mindset and quickly needs to reboot the brain. Have you ever noticed the gear dangling for an extended period and wondered why? Oops 5H1T, gear up... :\

I know ATC have thier requirements and sometimes request reason for GA at an untimely position, just as the flightdeck is a flurry of hands and spinning eyeballs.:ooh:

May I respectfully request, in the interest of safety, that the request for info is delayed until the fligthpath is stable and that the MAA is not ammended. Reducing the MAA and giving an early turn only increases the workload. Let the crew fly the profile to MAA and get settled down. There is enough evidence to support this and it has been raised with the SATCO in the past.

And why do GAs? Because unstable approaches (for whatever reason) are the biggest contributor to Approach and Landing Accidents and management would rather have the occaisonal GA then an aircraft overrun.:ok:

Dubai ATIS
 

Hi guys. I just discovered this thread and spent the last hour reading thru it. Nice to see the forum used for such constructive purposes, tho i don't suppose it will result in any real changes or improvements to the system :{

"New digital ATIS is being installed as we speak ...."

Hey FlyThrough, whats happening to the old one? Any chance of sticking it on a lorry and sending it up the hill to Al Ain. The guys there would all give their left testicles for an ATIS.

STG

Aren't we a big tough boy then ooooh:hmm:

Sheikh_Yaboody

Of course you can't have it, it's Dubai's and you know this is one country only in writing!!!! Anyway if we sent it to you, OMAA would only steal it off you like the last one 'cos they really need it :hmm:

FT

Fly through,

"Aren't we a big tough boy then ooooh "

What is the purpose of this comment? STG merely states what the reality of the situation is.

Finally the truth comes out about why a person with no experience is hired. Like STG says.. must be nice to be from the UK.

I wonder if the DCA knows exactly how much real experience this person has? Having 3 years experience and having started training 3 years ago are 2 different things ladds.

And to comment on an earlier post about a single runway operations.. well single runway just takes the complexity out of it. You can only get so many airborn. The real challenge working a busy single runway op is sitting in the approach and area positions. It's those controllers who have to flow the traffic. A control tower is always protected...

ShooTheGap

My friend, you walk a very dangerous walk. It matters not if you think the rule(s) are stupid or not, you do NOT get to choose which ones to apply. Trust me, you would be well advised to consider your young family and apply the rules as they are written.

This is NOT a personal attack, it is just a friendly word of advise.


Invcictus

I still say TOSS the part after "Dubai" from the ATIS: "...INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES...". We all know where Dubai is. It would save so much time to chop the obvious out...PLEASE.

Q: When are the STARS being re-designed?

Keep the thread alive. Some good can come out of all of this.

C.O.

Al Ain ATIS
 

FT

Wot if we offered a brand new, you beaut radar system in exchange:D . I am sure we wont get to use it for a year or 2 ...... and an ATIS would be much more useful.

Speaking of ATIS, I always thought that the TI stood for "....TERMINAL INFORMATION..." ... is this not the case in Dubai. I'm sure I heard someone mention talk of RVSM info on it :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Two totally unrelated questions to the DXB controllers from of your frequent controllees:

Firstly, EK, (and, I imagine, every other user of DXB), has an engine out procedure for R/W 12 that reads: “continue straight ahead, take up the hold at OSTIN, climb to 3000’ ” (or words to that effect). Some of us controllees have on occasion questioned the commonsense of this procedure, for a number of reasons, and have been told that it is the ICAO procedure for DXB and ATC won’t change it.

From the point of view of us controllees, winding a heavy 777-300 up to 3000’ on one engine on a 42 degree day (which, thanks to the inversion that’s frequently there in summer, could be even more than 42 degrees as you ‘climb’) in a tight holding pattern seems to be a really good way to end up observing an oil temp overheat on the remaining engine.

I know this is probably of little interest to you controllers – at least not until you receive a rather high-pitched scream advising you of the fact – but I would have thought that from a controller’s point of view, the absolute worst place for an aircraft that’s just suffered an engine failure would be in a holding pattern 15 miles on the extended centreline of the busy departures runway. Surely you’d prefer him out of the way, maybe out to sea (where he can jettison the fuel he will almost surely have to jettison) and be nicely set up to commence an approach – maybe even in a hurry if his malfunction develops into something time-critical?

When I’ve asked that the procedure be changed, I’m told that ‘on the day’, you obviously wouldn’t carry out the full procedure, that ATC would almost certainly vector the aircraft off somewhere long before you got to 3000’, maybe even before you entered the hold. Which leads me to my question: if that’s the case, why not have a procedure in place that details what a would actually happen in such a circumstance? It would reduce the workload for the controllees suffering the engine failure enormously if they could plan, pre-takeoff, exactly where they will go in the event of an engine failure. What would be of particular advantage would be a designated fuel jettison holding point somewhere off the coast, preferably not too far from land. Ideally, any engine failure procedure (for all runways), would end with “track to XXX (the designated jettison hold) and take up the hold”.

It seems to me something like this would make life immeasurably easier for both us controllees and you controllers, reducing the verbiage after an engine failure to almost nothing. (As has been mentioned by others on this thread, calls from ATC requesting information or intentions after a go around or failure can be more than a little distracting for the crew.)

******

My second question is in regard to the Cat II conditions DXB suffered on the morning of the 19th. From just before 6:00am local, the viz was rapidly reducing (at one stage, the ATIS changed four times before the previous info got through one reading, which I know, considering how *** long the DXB ATIS takes for one read through, might not sound too unusual).

12L, as the only current Cat II runway, was obviously made the active, but the low cloud was so localised that the south eastern side of the airfield and the approaches for R/W 30R were in the clear – you could have done a visual onto 30R and been at taxi speed before going under the low cloud (where, believe it or not, the viz was still relatively good), while aircraft were missing out on 12L.

I know this wasn’t immediately obvious to someone in the Tower, which was swathed in the low cloud, but when it was pointed out to the Approach Controller, he said, (and sounding very frustrated, I thought), that they were bound by the rules to use 12L in the current conditions.

My question is this: are the rules so set in concrete that the controller on the spot isn’t allowed to use his best judgement to make the best use of the facilities available to him and the conditions prevailing at both ends of the field? Aircraft were diverting (or at least one did that I heard) while the other, non-Cat II runway was wide open, at least for a short time, certainly time enough to get the gaggle of aircraft in that were in the approach sequence at the time. (30 was also into wind.)

It’s not as though this was a one-off situation. It’s quite often when fog/low cloud affects Dubai that you find one end of the field at zero viz while the other runway is in the clear. Years ago, I missed out on a Cat II to R/W 12 and then did an immediate turn back and landed on 30 off a visual approach. It would seem, from what the controller said on Thursday morning, that thanks to the rules now in place, that option would no longer be available and I would have to divert – unnecessarily – because in Cat II conditions, the rules say that 12L is the only runway that may be used.

The engine out procedure is something that the company requires to have in print to prove that an airplane may safely continue a take-off with one engine out.

There is precisely no reason on earth why you need to follow it if you don't wish to. In an emergency you have perfect freedom to do whatever you want (FOM 20.2).

Personally I can think of no instance under which I would follow the EOP off of 12. In the normal prevailing conditions in Dubai I would turn right to a 290 track as soon as I was above 1500 feet. If perchance it was IMC I would wait until I was out of 2400 feet before turning.

But to enter a hold on one engine and stagger up to 3000 just because the BLT tag line told you too, well - that's the kind of programmatical thinking that should disqualify people from command.

First off EuroATC & ShooTheGap

Not gonna waste my time discussing this further, we obviously will never agree so I'm happy to agree not too and to make better use of this forum.

Sheikh Y

Sorry mate, we've just got a brand new primary and a 'mode S capable' secondary system. You need the radar anyway, if only to scare yourself crapless at how close the morons actually get and how much they don't follow your instructions anyway :ok:

As for our ATIS, new one is installed but we're not allowed to use it yet???????? As for the crap on it, agree entirely, way too long but then it's not the most user friendly pieces of equipment.

410

Hmmm procedures, nothing to do with us, we get all our procedures forced on us by the GCAA ivory tower by people who don't have a clue what we do here. Afraid it ain't gonna change anytime soon either. As for an emergency, you tell us what you want to do and we'll move heaven & earth so you can, so suggest you brief what you want to do from the beginning. As for pestering you at the wrong moment, yeh that'll be the lack of experience at anywhere but here showing. I will always do my utmost to let you alone until you've got the aircraft all settled down.

In Cat II consitions the procedures are set in stone. Once IRVR's below 1500m are being reported we have no option but to go into LVPs and using 12L. Again absolutely no flexibilty is permitted by controllers. Extremely f:mad: ing frustrating from our point of view, especially with the 15nm and 30nm gaps required on finals (see Nimmers post above).

Now a question for you, what's with the 2mins required by your SOPs behind previously departing aircraft? There's no way you can get away with that kind of thing in Europe, surely? If you must then advise us early ie. when your following the problem aircraft down Kilo and not when you're actually given the take off clearance.

Captain Over

The whole airspace is being looked at as we speak, an Australian company has been brought in to re-evaluate our airspace in a joint Emirates/DCA scheme. When will we hear anything? Inshallah :E

Rgds FT

Ps. To all our 'controllee's', if there is something that needs changing or infringes on safety here at Dubai please, please, please report it to your bosses. From the 'hour' long ATIS to excessive delays file reports to the company, whatever we say falls on deaf ears so maybe an irate customer would help :ok:

Hmmmm, I won’t comment on your second paragraph on an open forum DtP, but I’d love to debate the point with you over a coldie sometime (and so, I suspect, would Hassan or Grainger, FOM 20.2 notwithstanding).
Your reply illustrates my point all too clearly, (and I have made this very point in submissions to the powers that be), that I doubt if there are ten captains out of the 400+ captains in the airline who would follow the full EOP for 12 – certainly not any who’ve given the matter any thought, anyway – and I very much doubt ATC would let you if you wanted to.
So we’re left with the strange – some would say silly – situation where there are possibly 400 different ‘private EOPs’ for 12 tucked away in 400 different minds, and God only knows what some of those may be. Which is why I’d so dearly like to see something official down on paper that reflects what we would – or should – do if one of us were ever to find himself carrying out the EOP for 12 for real one day. The moment you move out of the groove ATC expect you to be following, the frequency is going to be going into overload – just when you’d prefer to be dealing with an absolute minimum of radio calls.
Like you, DtP, (and, I suspect like many pilots who use DXB), I’ve got my own private procedure for 12, which is very similar to yours – “as soon as the aircraft is fully cleaned up, request a turn left onto a track of 300 and continue climbing to 3000’ ”.
This leaves me with the Sharjah right in front of me for a straight in onto 30 if the problem turns into a really serious time-critical one, and heading out to sea (where I’m going to be sent eventually anyway to jettison fuel). It also puts me in a nice position to set myself up for an approach back onto 12 with minimum delay after I’ve dealt with the non-normal, as well as being out of everyone’s way (with the possible exception of SHJ traffic as I groan on past SHJ, but I’m sure the powers that be would prefer that to overflying the palace and the high rises on Sheikh Z Road on one engine).
Your comment regarding ‘…programmatical thinking that should disqualify people from command’ is unworthy, although we all know that there are people out there who will follow the book blindly because it is ‘the book’, even when it’s blatantly obvious that a slightly different course of action would be more appropriate, even safer. This is why I’d so dearly love to see ‘the book’ reflect what we should do and why I’d like to see an officially designated jettison area promulgated rather than have to sort that point with ATC out on the day. (Imagine, a jettison area WPT with a designated holding pattern in the FMC database – even a full FMC EOP – and all you have to do is punch it in, hit LNAV, and you can get on with the non-normal. No talking to ATC required beyond “engine failure, following the EOP.”)
The powers that be in EK agree that an aircraft would be highly unlikely to follow the 12 EOP completely, but say that DXB ATC won’t agree to change the procedure because it’s the ICAO officially recognised procedure for the runway. I raised the point here asking if a DXB ATCO could explain why they won’t. I suspect it may have a lot to do with not infringing the Sharjah circuit, as any immediate left turn would do, but surely an EOP that demands DXB ATC simply inform SHJ by landline to hold their traffic for no more than five to ten minutes is streets ahead of one that demands multiple radio calls with the aircraft having the problem?
There’s going to be enough talking as it is if someone ever does lose and engine on takeoff off 12. Why not do a little bit of planning ahead of time so that both the pilots and the controllers know as much as possible what the other party will be doing on points that can be agreed upon ahead of time rather than doing it all ‘on the fly’ on the day?

Fly Through - thanks for the feedback. Good luck.

Dtp,

How far away are the mountains of hatta and Oman? How high are they? Mmmmmm, engine failure, hot, how many miles will it take you to climb to 2400'.....Just food for thought. :hmm:

Bit sad that when this thread had degenerated into a character assassination exercise, it was humming along with multi posts every day, but the moment it gets back on subject with someone asking a couple of very pertinent questions about DXB ATC procedures, it dies.

I wouldn't mind knowing too why the senior ATC people in DXB insist on the ridiculous engine out procedure they have for runway 12.

Anyone care to explain?

Engine out procedure?
 

As far as I'm aware, ATC (Senior or otherwise) do not specify any engine out procedures (ridiculous or otherwise).;)

Have asked around but nobody on my watch seems to know anything about single engine procedures. If you do have a set procedure like a nominated fuel dumping area and a turn on passing 1500', won't it be effected by which engine you lose?

FT

As far as I am aware no ATC unit anywhere has responsibility for the design, implementation and maintenance of EOPs from a runway.
It remains the responsibility of the pilot in command.
Companies, and in particular, their performance departments, provide EOPS to their crews for runways. Most often they are derived from Jeppesen designs, based on obstacle surveys. Companies are however free to design their own, eg, the several iterations of EOPS at 07L in Chek Lap Kok, that EK went through.
Companies may or may not provide these EOPS to local ATC units. As far as I am aware, there is no obligation, and anyway think of the problem for the ATC unit when a pilot declares he is flying the EOP. Which company? What type? And then sort through the filing system! :cool: