descent clearance
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: suburbia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thks for that. i always ask before descending but if as a matter of rules, then it's leave now. not a problem.
on another matter, does CPDLC actually reduce your workload over your airspace? how so? wouldn't a voice instruction be faster?
on another matter, does CPDLC actually reduce your workload over your airspace? how so? wouldn't a voice instruction be faster?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
433
Iīll dial in 260 on the alt. sel. and 2000 or better on vs.
If given a rate of climb on the other hand I might go for the average, as I have always assumed (wrongly?) thatīs what you want. Itīs obviously harder to maintain a constant 2000fpm climb than a descent, especially heavy and at altitude. But if needed and if weīre talking 3-4000 feet I can always reduce climb speed and do a little zoom climb.
European controllers seem to do their own thing a lot, itīs often hard to know what is expected in different regions.
If given a rate of climb on the other hand I might go for the average, as I have always assumed (wrongly?) thatīs what you want. Itīs obviously harder to maintain a constant 2000fpm climb than a descent, especially heavy and at altitude. But if needed and if weīre talking 3-4000 feet I can always reduce climb speed and do a little zoom climb.
European controllers seem to do their own thing a lot, itīs often hard to know what is expected in different regions.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
decimal86
CPDLC does increase our workload (once you have clicked through the various menus) and voice is much quicker!
Which is why we can only give routings,new squawks,check mike and frequency change instructions via data link at the moment.
Anything else is classed as safety critical and must be given by voice.
CPDLC does increase our workload (once you have clicked through the various menus) and voice is much quicker!
Which is why we can only give routings,new squawks,check mike and frequency change instructions via data link at the moment.
Anything else is classed as safety critical and must be given by voice.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
433
As another who uses specific rates I fully agree with your comments.
Although I have been know to use "expedite" in the past, I personally feel far more secure if I allocate a specific rate to acheive the required separation. The gulf between company SOP's seems to be so great these days that it is the only way to ensure that I don't get stung by someone doing a few hundred feet per minute (did someone say Nigel?) . If I have multiple climbing/descending/crossing tracks, it is the only way to avoid multiple level-offs, which I consider to be part of the service.
EuroATC
Likewise, fully in agreement. Time to change that monicker though!! Hope it's not too hot out there (although I think we beat you a few times this summer!)
Regards,
Guy.
As another who uses specific rates I fully agree with your comments.
Although I have been know to use "expedite" in the past, I personally feel far more secure if I allocate a specific rate to acheive the required separation. The gulf between company SOP's seems to be so great these days that it is the only way to ensure that I don't get stung by someone doing a few hundred feet per minute (did someone say Nigel?) . If I have multiple climbing/descending/crossing tracks, it is the only way to avoid multiple level-offs, which I consider to be part of the service.
EuroATC
Likewise, fully in agreement. Time to change that monicker though!! Hope it's not too hot out there (although I think we beat you a few times this summer!)
Regards,
Guy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
decimal86
CPDLC.........don't get me started!!!! No it does not decrease my workload, indeed we are told that if traffic levels are high we should not use CPDLC for exactly this reason.
However it should be pointed out that the datalink possibilities we have now are at a very early stage of development, and this is really a very long term project. I am by nature a fairly cynical minded person, I am very wary of anything new in my job. But even I can see the potential for the future and the impact on our working lives. Whether the benefits to be had are worth the time, effort and money being poured into the project is not a decision for mere mortals such as myself!!
The other thin I dislike about datalink is that the silent control which is foreseen takes away the possibility of any situational awareness for the pilots, much discussed on the BBC's 'Crowded Skies' program, and subsequently in threads about the program in these forums.
bigmouth
This was the response I was looking for. I am very grateful to you for posting. Now I know that my clearance is ambiguous.
If I give a climb clearance with a rate of climb I would expect that rate of climb to be met throughout the whole climb, and I will explain why.
Situation: you have come to my freq F245 to F250 requesting climb F350. I give you "Climb F350 1500fpm or greater " The reason for this clearance is, 99% of the time, traffic. The rate will mean in
1 min you pass F260
2 mins F275
3 mins F290
4 mins F305
5 mins F320
6 mins F335
7 mins F350
These are the levels I expect you to achieve to keep clear of opposite tfc @ F270 crossing in 3 mins and tfc no.2 @ F320 crossing in 6 mins. If you carry out the climb in accordance with my clearance separation is assured.
But if you take it as an average, then your climb profile may be as follows
1 min pass F278
2 mins F296
3 mins F303
4 mins F308
5 mins F312
6 mins F330
7 mins F350
This would mean that at exactly 6 vmins you would achieve seperation with tfc at F320. But 10 seconds earlier at 5 min 50 sec you had a loss of separation with this traffic.
The second profile would be in line with a clearance such as "climb F350 be level in 7 minutes".
I am fully aware that there is a possibility that your a/c capabilites might prevent you from achieving a continuous roc, but if this is the case I would expect you to tell me.
Incidentally the example I give above is very similar to the incident I had a few weeks ago which prompted me to start this thread. 1000' seperation was achieved with 4.9NM opposite direction converging at 900kts plus. Very scary.
As a post script I would add that this is not intended as a wrist slap for bigmouth, I truly appreciate your comments, and shall take them on board. This was my point, that what I thought of as a simple clearance, unambiguous because that was what I had been taught, is actually open to misinterpretation.
Thanks to all for your views, keep em coming!!
CPDLC.........don't get me started!!!! No it does not decrease my workload, indeed we are told that if traffic levels are high we should not use CPDLC for exactly this reason.
However it should be pointed out that the datalink possibilities we have now are at a very early stage of development, and this is really a very long term project. I am by nature a fairly cynical minded person, I am very wary of anything new in my job. But even I can see the potential for the future and the impact on our working lives. Whether the benefits to be had are worth the time, effort and money being poured into the project is not a decision for mere mortals such as myself!!
The other thin I dislike about datalink is that the silent control which is foreseen takes away the possibility of any situational awareness for the pilots, much discussed on the BBC's 'Crowded Skies' program, and subsequently in threads about the program in these forums.
bigmouth
This was the response I was looking for. I am very grateful to you for posting. Now I know that my clearance is ambiguous.
If I give a climb clearance with a rate of climb I would expect that rate of climb to be met throughout the whole climb, and I will explain why.
Situation: you have come to my freq F245 to F250 requesting climb F350. I give you "Climb F350 1500fpm or greater " The reason for this clearance is, 99% of the time, traffic. The rate will mean in
1 min you pass F260
2 mins F275
3 mins F290
4 mins F305
5 mins F320
6 mins F335
7 mins F350
These are the levels I expect you to achieve to keep clear of opposite tfc @ F270 crossing in 3 mins and tfc no.2 @ F320 crossing in 6 mins. If you carry out the climb in accordance with my clearance separation is assured.
But if you take it as an average, then your climb profile may be as follows
1 min pass F278
2 mins F296
3 mins F303
4 mins F308
5 mins F312
6 mins F330
7 mins F350
This would mean that at exactly 6 vmins you would achieve seperation with tfc at F320. But 10 seconds earlier at 5 min 50 sec you had a loss of separation with this traffic.
The second profile would be in line with a clearance such as "climb F350 be level in 7 minutes".
I am fully aware that there is a possibility that your a/c capabilites might prevent you from achieving a continuous roc, but if this is the case I would expect you to tell me.
Incidentally the example I give above is very similar to the incident I had a few weeks ago which prompted me to start this thread. 1000' seperation was achieved with 4.9NM opposite direction converging at 900kts plus. Very scary.
As a post script I would add that this is not intended as a wrist slap for bigmouth, I truly appreciate your comments, and shall take them on board. This was my point, that what I thought of as a simple clearance, unambiguous because that was what I had been taught, is actually open to misinterpretation.
Thanks to all for your views, keep em coming!!
