ATC Hassle

[PPRuNe Radar]

and what's more once they've given you a start clearance they'll normally launch you off regardless of whether you are more than 5 minutes early or greater than 10 minutes late.

I would hope that they are not 'launched off regardless' but that any departure outside slot tolerance is either co-ordinated with CFMU or a local Flow Management Position, or is part of an agreed discretion scenario. The UK CAA have stated that a slot is part of a clearance and therefore has to be complied with.

The result of not complying is to cause a potential overload somewhere down the line. This results in a reduction of safety and the possibility of a more serious incident occurring because ATC are unable to cope with the traffic levels presented to them. The subsequent investigation will always then lead back to the ATC unit who didn't comply.

[Sky Wave]

pprune radar

You are correct of course. I was perhaps a bit flippant with my “launching them off” statement.

This is going somewhat off topic, especially as it's in the private flying forum and it's not often that GA get caught up in slots although it has happened to me once!

I can't say what goes on in the various towers regarding agreements with CFMU or flow control.

It seems to me that the ground controller has to make a decision on when to give start up clearance and once the aircraft is in the queue at the hold it's surely sensible to let the aircraft depart if it's only a couple of minutes adrift of it's CTOT margin. I realise that the commander shares this responsibility, however the commander does not know what sort of delays to expect at the hold or how many other aircraft are in queue.

There are two scenarios that give rise to the need for a small amount of flexibility. The first is that the push back and start went extremely quickly and the aircraft arrives at the hold 5 minutes before its CTOT margin (i.e. CTOT minus 10). All aircraft behind it in the hold get held up by delaying that 1 aircraft, and it's possible that another aircraft may miss its slot as a result.

The other scenario is that an aircraft arrives at the hold just before CTOT plus 10 minutes, but a landing aircraft reports debris on the runway meaning that a runway inspection is required, or perhaps there is just a lot of congestion at the hold. Is it really sensible to make the aircraft that's missed its slot taxy back to stand and refuel rather than let it go at CTOT plus 12?
Whilst I realise that you have to draw the line somewhere, it seems sensible to me that once the aircraft is in the system with engines running that it should be allowed to continue if it's only a couple of minutes off of its CTOT margin. If necessary slap it with a speed control, but don’t let it miss the slot and wait for a new one with engines running.

As I said before, ATC are usually extremely good at getting it just right and making sure that everyone arrives at the hold, in the correct order and within the correct time frames provided of course that the aircraft was ready to start on time.

[ATCO17]

Here at a secret military airfield in West London, the majority are IFR departures and as such are subject to slot times/CTOTs etc. Most of the delayed departures are down to the fact that the surrounding airspace is just so busy! If an aircraft is sat waiting for his release, we will endeavour to explain the cause of the delay. I am pleased to say that most pilots are quite understanding and accept that we are doing our best for them. After all, we find it just as frustrating - especially when it's the last movement of the day....
That said, I have little sympathy for the guys that really cut it fine and then grumble at us when they have missed their slot and are subject to huge delays because their pax have wombled in at the last possible minute.
We DO have a pecking order, ie Mil/Civil/VIP/ODV etc etc, this being a military airfield, but that is the nature of operations here.

[Chilli Monster]

The first is that the push back and start went extremely quickly and the aircraft arrives at the hold 5 minutes before its CTOT margin (i.e. CTOT minus 10). All aircraft behind it in the hold get held up by delaying that 1 aircraft, and it's possible that another aircraft may miss its slot as a result.

Any ATCO who manages to do that wants their a$$ kicked. You either hold the push and push in slot order, or you remote hold and get the earlier traffic past them that way. So - a competent ATCO won't let that happen and because of that the aircraft WILL NOT go outside slot.

The other scenario is that an aircraft arrives at the hold just before CTOT plus 10 minutes, but a landing aircraft reports debris on the runway meaning that a runway inspection is required, or perhaps there is just a lot of congestion at the hold. Is it really sensible to make the aircraft that's missed its slot taxy back to stand and refuel rather than let it go at CTOT plus 12?

In such a scenario you would get a slot extension from the Flow Desk - you would not "shoot them off" without reference to them.

As for congestion at the hold - see answer 1.

It's important to reiterate here for those that can't grasp the concept (and has been mentioned here before). The CTOT is actually an absolute as far as you the pilot is concerned - you should be working to be at the threshold at that time. The -5/+10 minutes belongs to ME - not the aircraft

[k12479]

ATCO17, what is an "ODV" ?
Thanks.

[Fuji Abound]

Considering they have around 150 aircraft I guess if there's was one or two bad eggs it doesn't make every pilot in the company that way.

Agreed.

By the way, was this pilot English?

Yes.

It's not unusual for pilots to tell the tower that they can accept an immediate departure as this let's the tower know that you won't hang about completing checks

Agreed. However the Easy was at the hold, and I seem to recall the exact exchange went something like this:

He reported ready, told to hold, with no more than 10 seconds, he said ready immediate, hold, I can accept an immediate now .. .. ..

It was the now that finally did it, and AT asked the heli to break off his crossing. He got his immediate. In consequence two other aircraft on non instrument approaches were also delayed.

The fact is the controller had clearly factored in the time required for the heli to cross, the Easy was the only aircraft at the hold, and so presumably the controller knew he was going to get her away without a slot extension or had already negotiated an extension.

I am happy to accept the Easy was just having a bad day, however this is not my first experience of commercials feeling they can "bully" AT.

[ATCO17]

K12479

"Other Distinguished Visitor"

[Chilli Monster]

however this is not my first experience of commercials feeling they can "bully" AT.

Like I said in a previous post - it's at that point you remind them who's trainset it is (and hold the b*****d for another 30 seconds to make the point).

[Fuji Abound]

Like I said in a previous post - it's at that point you remind them who's trainset it is (and hold the b*****d for another 30 seconds to make the point).

I like it!

[Sky Wave]

Any ATCO who manages to do that wants their a$$ kicked. You either hold the push and push in slot order, or you remote hold and get the earlier traffic past them that way. So - a competent ATCO won't let that happen and because of that the aircraft WILL NOT go outside slot

Lucky that ATCO's are perfect beings that don't make mistakes then.

In such a scenario you would get a slot extension from the Flow Desk - you would not "shoot them off" without reference to them.

I must have dreamt speaking to a tower watch supervisor that told me that they allow aircraft to depart slightly after their CTOT margin if they'd been delayed at the hold.
(Notice how I choose my words carefully, since despite the fact that I've heard tower controllers use the term "launching aircraft" it seems that people will jump down my throat if I use said term.)

The CTOT is actually an absolute as far as you the pilot is concerned - you should be working to be at the threshold at that time. The -5/+10 minutes belongs to ME - not the aircraft

Unfortunately, pilots are not perfect beings and working to a zero minute tolerance at the threshold is beyond most of us.

From your tone it seems that you want to cause a divide between pilots and ATCO’s, which is a shame. I’ve taken time to visit tower and approach controllers and I’ve also visited LTCC in order to better appreciate the job that you guys do. As I’ve said before I think you do a great job. I see us all as one team and it saddens me that you come out with comments like

The -5/+10 minutes belongs to ME - not the aircraft

Anyway, let’s go back a few posts, and ignore my mistaken belief that ATCO’s will allow aircraft to depart outside of the CTOT -5/+10 minute margin. Given that I am incorrect on that front, do we agree on all other points of discussion here?

Back to the original topic, if the ATCO's own the -5/+10 minutes it’s no wonder that the EZY crew were desperate to

be at the threshold at that time

[Sky Wave]

Fuji

It seems that this guy was out of order. But don't tar us all with the same brush.

SW

[Chilli Monster]

From your tone it seems that you want to cause a divide between pilots and ATCO’s, which is a shame.

If you looked at my profile you would realise that is not the case.

However, even if you have taken the time to visit ATC, some of your profession don't, and it is becoming more and more apparent that some members of the flying profession, (and I stress here it is only some, not the majority) be it due to company pressures or other reasons, think they are the only aircraft that matters when it comes to operating. It does come across as that way sometimes - and it's not endearing behaviour.

By the way - the -5/+10 comment saddens you? I wouldn't read http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=275386 if I were you then

[Fuji Abound]

But don't tar us all with the same brush.

and

(and I stress here it is only some, not the majority) be it due to company pressures or other reasons, think they are the only aircraft that matters when it comes to operating. It does come across as that way sometimes - and it's not endearing behaviour.

Exactly and very well said.

I never intended to tar everyone with the same brush but to illustrate a problem that from my perception is becoming more common.

Why this might be so I dont know.

There is also another aspect to this which may be relevant.

There is another thread about the trajic accident involving a student pilot.

AT do an excellent job organising the safe flow of traffic.

Whilst any pilot should be able to accept a change in his instruction, any change creates an increase in the pilot's workload. The same is true for the controller when he gives in to bullying of this sort (for whatever reason).
It would be most unfortunate were an accident to result from another pilot's impatience, particularly when of the persons involved it was potentially the one least able to cope that was suffering a change of clearance.

[PA38-Pilot]

Well I was once asked by a Lear to abandon an approach so he could take off, when I was flying a PA28 on night circuits, giving his ground fuel burn as excuse. I had the right-of-way; it was an uncontrolled airport.

On the other hand, I once was a few miles in front on a Learjet, both to land. The Learjet offered to do a 360 turn, to let me land (PA38), and he landed after... I did made a fast approach though, and cleared the runway as soon as possible.

[Sky Wave]

By the way - the -5/+10 comment saddens you? I wouldn't read http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=275386 if I were you then

lol, read it and now heart broken

Looking at that thread it was good to see that it's not only me that believes you can get away with a 2 minute over run.

You mention getting a 5 minute extension from flow control, however nine times out of ten if we know things are tight we'll ask for that extension whilst at the gate. If we are then subsequently delayed at the hold by 2 or 3 minutes I assume you are not able to get another 5 minute extension. What happens in this case? Do you send the aircraft to remote holding to wait for a new slot rather than let it depart 3 minutes late? Rules is rules, but that seems a little bit jobsworth.

[fireflybob]

From your tone it seems that you want to cause a divide between pilots and ATCO’s, which is a shame.

As a pilot who knows who Chilli Monster is I can categorically state that this is NOT the case! You could not find a more helpful and conscientous controller!

Chilli Monster has clearly informed us of the system with respect to CTOT. Most pilots are aware of this but, as ever, (and as Chilli Monster states) there is a minority of pilots who dont know the system (or dont care) and seem to think the whole system revolves around them and nobody else.

I have always believed as a pilot that there is more mileage in being polite and understanding when being "delayed" rather than winging on (usually in situations when doing so wastes valuable time on the RT!).

Ok sometimes we all have an "off" day but in any relationship it takes two to tango.

[IO540]

I don't think slot times have much of a meaning in the GA context. I've had slots myself - usually a ~ 10 minute delay - and it's a bit of a joke when you then spend the next 5 hours flying through airspace which is so obviously devoid of traffic at anywhere near that level.

Plus the fact that my GS is going to vary far more than the slot duration so if the slot was dictated by something a long way down the line, or even the destination, it would be meaningless.

ISTM that a lot of slots just pop out of the computer but have no connection to any real situation down the line. In N Europe, just about everything is under close radar control.

Back to the subject, airfields are desperate to make ends meet, and they will give all priority they can to any traffic that looks even remotely commercial. This isn't right but in the absence of a US-style taxpayer subsidy (or a French-style local chamber of commerce funding) this is only going to get worse.

This pressure also means that we are sure to get more idiotic managements like they have at Norwich, with loads of security staff standing around desperately trying to look important (and jacking up the landing fees), toothpaste confiscation on the way out to your spamcan, etc.

I see only one way out of this and that is a concerted effort on the planning system, to create completely new but small GA airfields. They will not have PPL training going on but will cater for everybody else.


Interestingly, the former Iron Curtain is opening up to GA, with avgas, cheap landings, and basically doing all they can to stimulate GA business at every level, from spamcans to bizjets. Clearly they are doing a taxpayer subsidy, but these people aren't stupid and they have obviously judged this is the future. Not exactly hard - one only has to look at what contribution GA is making to the US economy

[Mike Cross]

They will not have PPL training going on but will cater for everybody else.

Why not? Old Sarum and Compton Abbas are good examples of a single grass runway unsuitable for CAT but licensed and doing PPL training. The situation WRT training and licensed a/d is under review. It's a bit of a blunt instrument. It would be a better idea, now that training has to be done at a FTO or Registered Facility for the FTO/RF to demonstrate suitability having regard to the aircraft types to be used. An a/d that's perfectly adequate for training in something slow might be totally unsuitable for something a bit quicker. A bumpy grass surface is fine for some types but not for others. A change to the regime could take this into account.

[Standard Noise]

This all seems a bit 'mountains and molehills' to me.
Manys a time I've lined up the commercial and said to the transit "319/737 shortly departing R/WXX route east/west of the XX threshold" or "pass behind the departing 319/737 R/WXX"
Ergo the commercial gets what they want and the transit has to turn a few degrees left or right but there is no major inconvenience to anyone.

I know GA pilots don't like it very much but there is one inescapable fact that these days which runs most ATC units (certainly mine and Chilli Monster's are good examples). We are first and foremost employed by (or contracted by) the Airport Authority to shift traffic into and out of their airfield. Everything else is becoming more and more secondary but that is not to say that we will go out of our way to be obstructive to GA traffic. After all, we don't 'own' the airspace around us, we merely manage little parts of it on behalf of the government (and their various bodies).

Take the controlled airspace we were granted a year ago at Brizzel. We have to keep records of all transits through our zone and we mark them down as 1) the pilot was allowed to continue as he requested, 2) the pilot's requested route was modified and what he was given and 3) the pilots CAS transit was refused. For the last two, we also have to give a reason why the pilot did not get what he asked for. It's a pain in the a**e, but we do it because we have to prove that we have not closed off the airspace we were granted control of to other traffic.

[IO540]

Why not? Old Sarum and Compton Abbas are good examples of a single grass runway unsuitable for CAT but licensed and doing PPL training

Because, Mike, one would "never" get planning permission.

It is possible, with considerable expense, noise surveys and other expert evidence, to get full planning approval for a low use private strip, with people discreetly flying straight-in approaches and departures.

But the moment you propose to have training, with the heavy circuit banging which that involves, you can forget it.

OS and CA are very old established airfields.

It is a bit of a problem, because hard runway airfields do need training traffic to make money. The only exception would be one owned by a group of above average funded pilots.