London ATC ?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 3'rd rock from the sun
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giles Wembley-Hogg
Copenhagen uses 2,5 miles spacing and its stated on the ATIS and the general airport information to use "callsign only when checking in on director", although a lot of people still insist on giving precent altitude, altitude descending to, atis info, their speed and so on, aaaaaaaarrrrgh.... I'm going through the loc at this time. 
I'll give you that CPH don't have as much traffic all day, but at peak hours, they are have at least as many landing movements if not more than LHR, since they don't have as many heavy's to mix in with the mediums.
I'll give you that CPH don't have as much traffic all day, but at peak hours, they are have at least as many landing movements if not more than LHR, since they don't have as many heavy's to mix in with the mediums.
The issue of "stepped on" transmissions is curable by requiring all aircraft in the congested airspaces of, for example, London to be equipped with Contran - I believe Britannia have this fitted to their aircraft. Yes, it costs money but so does every other bit of hardware which enhances safety.
Many incidents and accidents may have been prevented by the fitting of Contran.
Many incidents and accidents may have been prevented by the fitting of Contran.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what we need is budget air traffic control, get o'leary in to run everything. he could charge atc for every call they make, that would ease up the frequencies!?
ps isnt contran 80s furniture
ps isnt contran 80s furniture
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
I think that the GMP Controller could be on "automatic".......However,
As a "Ground" assistant, it's amazing how many Arrival ATIS are called. To be fair, a lot ["most"] Aircrew obtain the [D]ATIS when "settling in", and perhaps 10-20 mins later call for clearance, and guess what, yup new DATIS is in operation.
Don't forget, correct info twice, is better than wrong info once....
watp,iktch
I think that the GMP Controller could be on "automatic".......However,
As a "Ground" assistant, it's amazing how many Arrival ATIS are called. To be fair, a lot ["most"] Aircrew obtain the [D]ATIS when "settling in", and perhaps 10-20 mins later call for clearance, and guess what, yup new DATIS is in operation.
Don't forget, correct info twice, is better than wrong info once....
watp,iktch
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 3'rd rock from the sun
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London TWR
Thanks for excellent service on the 16'th, we were asked if ready from intersection, we were, then imidiately cleared for takeoff. Sorry for the five aircraft waiting at the runway end though... Gues it was our lucky day..... 
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny
I agree, it would be so much easier if standing agreement restrictions could be backed up with a suitable fix. There are some cases whereby this has happened (the L70 / L975 section between WAL/PENIL and LIFFY/BAGSO being a prime example with the borderlines of the delegated bits of airspace all given nice easy to remember names like GINIS and BABRA).
Sadly though I'm pretty sure there's some kind of ICAO / Eurocontrol ruling against the creating of fixes for this sole purpose.
Most standing agreement levels are obviously coincident with sector boundaries and to keep you in or out of the various surrounding sectors and we've been strenuously re-told recently to ensure we state the restriction every time we pass a related instruction. So, instead of just "climb FL190" you'll now get "climb FL190 to be level 10 miles before HONILEY" southbound out of 'CC. This keeps you nicely out of TC COWLY's airspace
At least, that's the theory
I suppose if one were to put a fix at every point whereby this sort of thing was the case, the country would be covered in the blighter's and we poor ATC'ers wouldn't know our ARSATs from our ELBOWs
But surely too that's the whole point of having fixes in the first place?
As for why these restrictions aren't openly published, I have no idea. It would seem to make sense.
Do airline ops departments / crews have access to MACC / LACC / ScOACC MATS Part 2s I wonder?
As for the Manch QNH / ATIS checks on delivery I expect one of my VCR colleagues would be more suited to answer the question in the correct way, but I suspect it's a case of better to check than not, especially when it can be a long period of time between initial contact with GMP and the push-back/start/clearance phase. There could also be something in the local instructions regarding this but I've not noticed it.
Sadly though I'm pretty sure there's some kind of ICAO / Eurocontrol ruling against the creating of fixes for this sole purpose.
Most standing agreement levels are obviously coincident with sector boundaries and to keep you in or out of the various surrounding sectors and we've been strenuously re-told recently to ensure we state the restriction every time we pass a related instruction. So, instead of just "climb FL190" you'll now get "climb FL190 to be level 10 miles before HONILEY" southbound out of 'CC. This keeps you nicely out of TC COWLY's airspace
At least, that's the theory
I suppose if one were to put a fix at every point whereby this sort of thing was the case, the country would be covered in the blighter's and we poor ATC'ers wouldn't know our ARSATs from our ELBOWs
But surely too that's the whole point of having fixes in the first place?
As for why these restrictions aren't openly published, I have no idea. It would seem to make sense.
Do airline ops departments / crews have access to MACC / LACC / ScOACC MATS Part 2s I wonder?
As for the Manch QNH / ATIS checks on delivery I expect one of my VCR colleagues would be more suited to answer the question in the correct way, but I suspect it's a case of better to check than not, especially when it can be a long period of time between initial contact with GMP and the push-back/start/clearance phase. There could also be something in the local instructions regarding this but I've not noticed it.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North of the UK's no.1 aircraft carrier parking spot
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny et al
I think you'll find most if not all ATC standing agreements are published as 'level notes' in the NATS Standard Route Document, availble on the AIS CD-ROM or via the Eurocontrol AGORA website (you have to register for this). A friend of mine in Brussels says that CFMU are looking are following the UK's lead and publishing all such level info to help ops planners calculate standard fuel-burn profiles, etc..
Norma
I think you'll find most if not all ATC standing agreements are published as 'level notes' in the NATS Standard Route Document, availble on the AIS CD-ROM or via the Eurocontrol AGORA website (you have to register for this). A friend of mine in Brussels says that CFMU are looking are following the UK's lead and publishing all such level info to help ops planners calculate standard fuel-burn profiles, etc..
Norma
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"........I think you'll find most if not all ATC standing agreements are published as 'level notes' in the NATS Standard Route Document, availble on the AIS CD-ROM........" as well as in pdf format from the AIS website.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holiday flights in peril from traffic jam in our skies
...is the title of a story in the Sunday Express* based on and quoting this thread.
Their web site appears to run a day in arrears though, still has yesterday's Daily Express on it.
* NB Only bought the rag 'cos of the front-page headline
The Red Arrows Face Axe
...is the title of a story in the Sunday Express* based on and quoting this thread.
Their web site appears to run a day in arrears though, still has yesterday's Daily Express on it.
* NB Only bought the rag 'cos of the front-page headline
The Red Arrows Face Axe
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
couldn't agree more Danny, often wondered when climbing out of Manchester why i am now required to be level 5 miles before the point they put in for that purpose (50 before BIG) and why no mention has ever been made to me of this point ?
perhaps ATC dont have it on their screens yet ? same goes for inbound 25 instead of 20nm before TNT ??
Always wondered why ATC put us on a heading to avoid traffic when if they said go direct to * you could draw a straight line from the a/c to the point and they would see our exact track ?
perhaps ATC dont have it on their screens yet ? same goes for inbound 25 instead of 20nm before TNT ??
Always wondered why ATC put us on a heading to avoid traffic when if they said go direct to * you could draw a straight line from the a/c to the point and they would see our exact track ?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toon/Danny
Someone who does the Daventry sector and LUS/LMS will give you the correct details, but I believe that it is something like this:
The reporting points were established to get rid of all these DME restrictions to which you refer. Then the Clacton Sector was resectorised, and with it there were minor changes to London Upper and Middle sector airspaces. Then it was discovered that the new reporting points did not keep aircraft in the right bit of sky by the right time, so the new '5 before' restrictions have to be brought in. Nothing like some forward planning, eh?
With regard to:
"Always wondered why ATC put us on a heading to avoid traffic when if they said go direct to * you could draw a straight line from the a/c to the point and they would see our exact track ?"
Well yes! We all know an FMS will fly a track far more accurately than we can achieve using a radar heading. But our regulators insist we must used headings between traffic and not a specified track such as '3 mile offset' or whatever. So we must select a heading and monitor the track it achieves as the wind changes until we have another form of separation.
I have always thought it reasonable to specify: 'Continue on your present track' (to prevent weaving around clouds etc), or 'Fly 3 miles left of track' on two FMS-equipped aircraft would be far more effective but we are not yet allowed to do it.
Someone who does the Daventry sector and LUS/LMS will give you the correct details, but I believe that it is something like this:
The reporting points were established to get rid of all these DME restrictions to which you refer. Then the Clacton Sector was resectorised, and with it there were minor changes to London Upper and Middle sector airspaces. Then it was discovered that the new reporting points did not keep aircraft in the right bit of sky by the right time, so the new '5 before' restrictions have to be brought in. Nothing like some forward planning, eh?
With regard to:
"Always wondered why ATC put us on a heading to avoid traffic when if they said go direct to * you could draw a straight line from the a/c to the point and they would see our exact track ?"
Well yes! We all know an FMS will fly a track far more accurately than we can achieve using a radar heading. But our regulators insist we must used headings between traffic and not a specified track such as '3 mile offset' or whatever. So we must select a heading and monitor the track it achieves as the wind changes until we have another form of separation.
I have always thought it reasonable to specify: 'Continue on your present track' (to prevent weaving around clouds etc), or 'Fly 3 miles left of track' on two FMS-equipped aircraft would be far more effective but we are not yet allowed to do it.
