Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Pre-noting Class D transit requests

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Pre-noting Class D transit requests

Reply

Old 2nd Jan 2018, 22:53
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 439
Whilst I think it’s a good idea to reduce RTF loading I also think that it’s a touch early in its inception?
- How many of the TC radar sectors have transferred to electronic strips?
- Do any of these sectors have the ability to forward these e-strips to airports? (Airports with EFPS - Electronic Flight Progress Strips)

Until the radar sectors can electronically send a zone transit request to the relevant Tower position it seems like an opportunity missed.
In the same way that when a Tower requires a ‘radar release’ that the Tower controller can’t just send the request electronically (and the radar controller respond electronically) rather than making a phone call.

I’m sure that, in time, we will get there but it seems like this (what-seems-like) ‘simple’ ATC system architecture is missing?

The biggest benefits will only be realised when the radar sectors and the airports can effect coordination - or, at the very least, send relevant information - electronically.

That will be when GAT realise the full benefit of participation in systems like this.

Still, I might be wrong, interested to hear the views of users of the new system....“don’t knock it until you’ve tried it”?
It may be that adopting these new protocols provides benefits, even now, in the infancy stages?

I know that people complain about LARS...but without buy-in from GAT into systems like this then the ability to use LARS (due, principally, to RTF congestion) is limited.

First steps are always tricky but, generally, one step leads to another...
good egg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2018, 05:49
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where the rain falls mainly on the plain.
Posts: 1,134
Before I was a professional pilot I was in the computing industry. As a project manager or designer if I ever proposed a system that took even a fraction of a second more operational time for the user my boss would tear me a new one and the user community representative would chop my g***ds off and insert them in newly created hole.

Operationally, I can be retasked when airborne.... and my 3G/4G access doesn’t hold when flying, aside from the fact that whilst using this system I am then diverted from the primary task of operating the aircraft.

Another ill conceived increase in workload.
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2018, 08:25
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 496
This really does seem like an ill conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist - or hasn't existed. The majority of pilots getting clearances through the London airport CTRs are professional rotary who get a good slick service and clearances from ATC - I hope others would generally agree. On the odd occasion it is clearly really busy we try to avoid if we can. And no doubt the odd SE fixed wing PPLs seeking transits do that even more.

Any review of the RT from a CTR over an hour or so will surely reveal that unless ATC is getting info in real time from aircraft, the integration of transit traffic cannot possibly be optimised or efficient. Even 2 mins in a 109 from a zone boundary is 5 miles! So why bother with the admin of what is almost bound to be a very inaccurate flight plan? The overall workload for all involved - pilots, ops depts and ATC will be vastly more for no gain. We live in an age where increasingly people think just because an electronic system can be set up, it should be used. Wrong.

But also let's have more consideration for the value of the time of the many pilots who would have to end up filing these pre-notification flight plans, as Duchess said. It takes 10 seconds to request a clearance over the RT. And I bet it will be 5 mins - 30 times as long - to file on line. And by the time ATC make the inevitable comments about the pre notified routing request I expect overall RT time will actually be longer.

And I can guarantee too that if mandatory this would decrease safety by adding to pilot stress when he has to refile when pax are early/late/change route etc before he can lift. Or as someone else said, he will be pressured to fiddle and file en route. Either adds to the risk of mistakes being made.

The traffic seeking this transits has not increased much I'm sure. As Thud says, if it's come from the E strip change, and that is now complex with 3 sub menus to dip into, focus should return to the programming of that to make it as quick as jotting down by hand.

Anyway hopefully this 6 month trial will prove that it doesn't work and is unnecessary.
rotorspeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2018, 14:26
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by rotorspeed View Post
This really does seem like an ill conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist - or hasn't existed.
Nice rant but see Senile’s post #3 above for the actual reason behind the trial: Pre-noting Class D transit requests
Bravo73 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2018, 19:01
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 496
Bravo - sorry but despite reading SND #3 again I do not think it's clear what the actual reason for this is. Are you implying that it's merely a transitional requirement that will be dropped when ATC training is complete? If so, the actual NATS AIC makes no reference to this. I'd be interested to hear an expanded view from you on the matter.

Last edited by rotorspeed; 3rd Jan 2018 at 22:08.
rotorspeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jan 2018, 14:02
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,660
SND's first line: "From a source in NATS, it is to help them during the transition to electronic strips."

Any further questions are probably best directed towards SND. From his post, he appears to be more 'in the know' than us.
Bravo73 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jan 2018, 09:25
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Bravo73 View Post
SND's first line: "From a source in NATS, it is to help them during the transition to electronic strips."

Any further questions are probably best directed towards SND. From his post, he appears to be more 'in the know' than us.
Not much! mostly my knowledge comes from some mates there who are in the process of the change.

Shy; from my reading of the AIC a CTR transit of the outer area would need/be helped by a pre-note, and any transit of Thames/City the same. What I can't find out at the moment is a whether a Brent-Battersea overhead, leave via the LFA would need one, or the reverse for those coming from the south.

My OM bans the use of personal electronic devices in flight at the moment. A sudden change of plan in flight could make for some interesting routes and fuel planning, and my customers tend to do things in their time, the timings on my plans tend to be dreams rather than actuality.

It's progress chaps............but not as we know it.

SND
Sir Niall Dementia is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jan 2018, 11:29
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the air with luck
Posts: 979
"We live in an age where increasingly people think just because an electronic system can be set up, it should be used. Wrong"
rotorspeed How true
500e is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jan 2018, 06:50
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 439
I’m just guessing, as I’m not familiar with the system, that all it does is make “pink strips” available to the controllers along the intended routing at +\- “x” minutes from the notified times, with aircraft callsign and aircraft type already on the strip? So when an aircraft calls out of the blue the controller can scan the pink strips and select the appropriate one?
(Similar to traditional IFR strips - which appear x minutes before they are due, except that a squawk won’t yet have been allocated?)
good egg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jan 2018, 09:16
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near the bottom
Age: 58
Posts: 1,329
Good spot ST. This is going to be a real pain in the ar$e. Free calling is perfectly adequate - a 20 second exchange with the controller and it's done. I can't imagine for a second that someone will be reviewing the list of VFR requests to "better plan their transits" around scheduled flights - it's impossible until the various parties turn up!
toptobottom is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service