EGKK ATIS - calling for clearance message
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: By here now in a minute
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGKK ATIS - calling for clearance message
As a result of a recent software "improvement" in our Host system, there is a message on the EGKK ATIS reminding pilots to call for ATC clearance 15mins before their EOBT and not before. This is as per the UK AIP entry for EGKK.
How do you guys process extra information that is on the ATIS? The reason I ask is because of the amount of crews who are still calling before this time. (A similar one is acknowledging the latest ATIS that advises that GMP is closed but still calling on 121.95!)
By calling early, our workload is being increased as we have to interogate the system to see if your details simply haven't been printed or if you're just calling early.
In the not too distant future, the time at which a squawk is allocated to a flight is going to be reduced to cope with the extra demand on the system and to try and prevent code saturation. Therefore we will not have your details as early as we have in the past. (With the software update it's currently 23mins before EOBT.)
I'm sure that each airline has different SOPs when it comes to obtaining a clearance and that also it might vary with individual preference but please, take note of what extra airfield information is on the ATIS - it's always there for a good reason.
How do you guys process extra information that is on the ATIS? The reason I ask is because of the amount of crews who are still calling before this time. (A similar one is acknowledging the latest ATIS that advises that GMP is closed but still calling on 121.95!)
By calling early, our workload is being increased as we have to interogate the system to see if your details simply haven't been printed or if you're just calling early.
In the not too distant future, the time at which a squawk is allocated to a flight is going to be reduced to cope with the extra demand on the system and to try and prevent code saturation. Therefore we will not have your details as early as we have in the past. (With the software update it's currently 23mins before EOBT.)
I'm sure that each airline has different SOPs when it comes to obtaining a clearance and that also it might vary with individual preference but please, take note of what extra airfield information is on the ATIS - it's always there for a good reason.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it is just a human thing, INJS, either hearing but not absorbing, 'habits' - assuming 'old' procedures are still the norm, etc. Believe me, we do TRY to get it right. It has recently arrived on the Stansted ATIS as well.
Out of interest, is EOBT adjusted for slot delay in your system or does it remain based on original planned departure? The reason I ask is that in order to call 'fully ready' for a delayed slot we need to talk to you somehow to find out the latest slot and a clearance. Most airline SOPs do not allow 'fully ready' without an ATC clearance, thereby enabling instrument/navaid setup and crew briefing. I now that abroad it moves with slot at some airfields. One cannot rely on dispatch keeping you up-to-date on slot movements.
Out of interest, is EOBT adjusted for slot delay in your system or does it remain based on original planned departure? The reason I ask is that in order to call 'fully ready' for a delayed slot we need to talk to you somehow to find out the latest slot and a clearance. Most airline SOPs do not allow 'fully ready' without an ATC clearance, thereby enabling instrument/navaid setup and crew briefing. I now that abroad it moves with slot at some airfields. One cannot rely on dispatch keeping you up-to-date on slot movements.
Only half a speed-brake
Besides, my book (Jepp) still says to call for clearance no later than 15 min before EOBT. The ATIS say to call "only 15 mins before departure" if my memory serves me correctly. Now, English is my third language, I know what EOBT is, i know what departure is (sometimes possible early, sometimes SAM delay). The clarity of the recording message (information wise) is perhaps less than optimal. Yes, I was puzzled the other night what to do even as I tried to comply as hard as I could. Why not put a NOTAM on like they have in Zurich regarding complicated CTOT and de-icing issues?
Cheers,
FD.
Cheers,
FD.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: South East UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@BOAC
The strip outfall from our printer should still have the latest EOBT to which you are working. This may be the original scheduled time, or if your company are on the ball and aware well in advance that the flight will be late (hence DLA messag ehas been sent), the time that they have filed as your likely EOBT.
It's all got considerably more complicated, with changes to EOBT updates and now changes to the way the information is updated within NATS' computer. Why were those changes made to NATS' system? Who knows - probably someone had a bright idea and now we're having to deal with the knock-on effects
The strip outfall from our printer should still have the latest EOBT to which you are working. This may be the original scheduled time, or if your company are on the ball and aware well in advance that the flight will be late (hence DLA messag ehas been sent), the time that they have filed as your likely EOBT.
It's all got considerably more complicated, with changes to EOBT updates and now changes to the way the information is updated within NATS' computer. Why were those changes made to NATS' system? Who knows - probably someone had a bright idea and now we're having to deal with the knock-on effects
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LLC - don´t forget, though, that we will still be trying to get away earlier in a delay situation by being 'ready' for an improvement from CFMU/airfield. As you say
Why were those changes made to NATS' system?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I change subject?? Yesterday pm came in to LGW as vis was dropping. LVPs in force as we came downwind with a touch down RVR of 300m , and we were slowed right back and advised to expect a " late landing clearance" due to a departure. We got said clearance at 380` Rad Alt . To my mind this is not sufficient Loc protection, and we did get a deviation due to the departure-fortunately we had the runway insight so landed. Im intrigued-what do you guys work to in LVPs at LGW???
Im not knocking-Ive been based here for 15yrs and never see a better operation anywhere in the world !!
Im not knocking-Ive been based here for 15yrs and never see a better operation anywhere in the world !!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for the change in clearance times is that the National Airspace System (a machine devised by charles babbage), is creaking at the seams and with many flights and not so many squawks floating around somebody thought it would be a bright idea if the system allocated the code 25 mins before EOBT rather than the 40mins that it used to be. The logic being that at any one time there will be a third less squawks hanging around. Nobody told us it would happen, one of those Brussels things, and we just have to deal with it.
As for the LVP question, as the RVR was 300m I presume it was full LVP's and not just weather safeguarding. The rules are that inbounds should have a landing clearance at 2 miles, exceptionally at 1mile and NOTHING should infringe the LSA ahead of the arrival after it is inside 1 mile, this includes the departing aircraft which must be overhead the Loc aerial. If you were at 380' ft rad alt then I presume you were at or just outside 1 mile and so whilst a little close to the mark, perfectly legal. High intensity single runway ops necessitate working to these tolerances on occasions and it is down to the skill/nerve of the air controller to judge the gaps.
Probably worth a tower visit if you haven't been to see how it's done.
V
As for the LVP question, as the RVR was 300m I presume it was full LVP's and not just weather safeguarding. The rules are that inbounds should have a landing clearance at 2 miles, exceptionally at 1mile and NOTHING should infringe the LSA ahead of the arrival after it is inside 1 mile, this includes the departing aircraft which must be overhead the Loc aerial. If you were at 380' ft rad alt then I presume you were at or just outside 1 mile and so whilst a little close to the mark, perfectly legal. High intensity single runway ops necessitate working to these tolerances on occasions and it is down to the skill/nerve of the air controller to judge the gaps.
Probably worth a tower visit if you haven't been to see how it's done.
V
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vlad and T-bag,
If my memory serves me correctly, if a departure is ahead of landing traffic in LVPs then the dep has to be over the loc aerial before the inbound reaches 2 miles from touchdown. So, if you got a landing clearance at 1 mile because of a departure ahead then you've recieved an illegal clearance.
However vlad, your right in that the latest landing clearance available in lvps is 1 mile but this could only be due to a vacating aircraft or perhaps a vehicle on the runway etc and should not be due to a dep beacuse, as T-bag pointed out, you get ILs deviations.
T-bag, is vlads estimate right about 380ft being just outside 1 mile ? Sounds about right to me.
Ps - Only wanted to enhance your answer vlad not go against it.
Cheers
TT.
If my memory serves me correctly, if a departure is ahead of landing traffic in LVPs then the dep has to be over the loc aerial before the inbound reaches 2 miles from touchdown. So, if you got a landing clearance at 1 mile because of a departure ahead then you've recieved an illegal clearance.
However vlad, your right in that the latest landing clearance available in lvps is 1 mile but this could only be due to a vacating aircraft or perhaps a vehicle on the runway etc and should not be due to a dep beacuse, as T-bag pointed out, you get ILs deviations.
T-bag, is vlads estimate right about 380ft being just outside 1 mile ? Sounds about right to me.
Ps - Only wanted to enhance your answer vlad not go against it.
Cheers
TT.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
t-bag & Vlad,
'spose I should know the answer to this one...
If you're 08R arrive and a RADALT of 380', with Russ Hill under you, what's your ACTUAL height above the threshold and therefore on a 3 deg slope, your distance? Just might be a lot nearer to the 2 miles?
Just a thought.
Cheers,
The Odd One
ps Sod's Law says t-bag was 26L, which shoots my thought down in flames!
pps
How true, wonderful unit to work with, speaking as one who grubs about on the ground
'spose I should know the answer to this one...
If you're 08R arrive and a RADALT of 380', with Russ Hill under you, what's your ACTUAL height above the threshold and therefore on a 3 deg slope, your distance? Just might be a lot nearer to the 2 miles?
Just a thought.
Cheers,
The Odd One
ps Sod's Law says t-bag was 26L, which shoots my thought down in flames!
pps
Im not knocking-Ive been based here for 15yrs and never see a better operation anywhere in the world !!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't see the difference between a departure and a vacating, they're both going to interfere with the signal. Book says "no aircraft is permitted to infringe the LSA ahead of the arriving aircraft from the time the ac is 1nm from touchdown until it has completed it's landing run." and then goes on to say that previous departing must have passed overhead loc before inbound at 2nm. Hats off, I was wrong. oops
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the prob was because we were under vectors before lvps were called-so I guess in standard separation-we did one orbit downwind but I suppose it is very difficult to sort out the first few arrivals when the vis suddenly drops.
