Manchester Noise Abatement Awards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Noise Abatement Awards
My apologies for reposting this in a new section - with change of title!
Good to see that Manchester has been rewarding the airlines who have flown, so accurately, the published departure routes, as laid down by the airport in its enviromental policy.
Without knocking, I am very interested - as a local resident - to see that Ryanair appear in the list of awared winning airlines. Congratulations to the flight crew for adhering strictly to the routings, but a shame on the airline for still operating noisy equipment.
It's amazing how easy it is to recognise the RYR559 as it starts it take-off roll on an otherwise quiet evening!
How do you, as pilots feel about the 'Skyliners' Award? Is it a good scheme, should it be copied by other airports, or is it irrelevant?
A copy of the airport presss release is given below:
"SKY’S THE LIMIT FOR RECORD NUMBER OF AIRLINES
Pilots and senior airline representatives are celebrating today (28th June) as they are commended by Manchester Airport’s Managing Director John Spooner for their skilful flying and excellent track-keeping performance during 2003 at this year’s ‘Skyliners’ Awards’.
Manchester Airport introduced the ‘Skyliners’ Awards’ six years ago to recognise and reward airlines who consistantly stay on the preferred noise routes during take-off as this reduces noise for residents living close to the airport.
The target requires aircraft to keep at least 95% of all their departures within tightly defined ‘tracks’ on departure. Last year there were a record thirty airlines receiving an award including China Airlines who had no track deviations at all. In 2001 only five airlines achieved the 95% target and in 2002 there were just fifteen airlines.
Guests will attend a reception before boarding a 45-minute demonstration flight over the Yorkshire Dales, the Lake District, the Isle of Man and return to Manchester over Liverpool. The flight has been kindly provided by award winning ? CSA Czech Airlines. Following the flight, guests will attend a formal awards ceremony and presentation by John Spooner.
During the planning process for the second runway, the airport committed itself to working with airlines to significantly improve track-keeping as part of its wide ranging environmental guarantees.
The airport monitors the performance of airlines using very specialised, high-tech equipment known as MANTIS ? the Manchester Airport Noise and Track Information System which monitors the noise and track of all aircraft operating within a 30 kilometre radius of the runway.
John Spooner, Managing Director of Manchester Airport said, “It is the aim of Manchester Airport and its airline operators to be a good neighbour. All the airlines who are working with us to meet the target are making a very positive contribution towards this aim and I am delighted to see so many of our airline partners operating to such high standards.
I would like to congratulate the airlines and in particular the pilots who are using their expertise to meet this very demanding challenge and I look forward to seeing them and hopefully many more airlines again next year. I would also like to thank CSA Czech Airlines for providing today’s flight and for being award winners every year for the last 6 years.”
CSA’s Director for the UK, Bohuslav Santrucek added, “Today’s award by Manchester Airport gives us a great deal of pleasure because it reflects the skills of our pilots and the training they receive. It also shows that CSA works very hard to be a ‘Good neighbour’ to the many thousands of people who work and live around the airport. “
As there are so many achievers this year, the thirty airlines have been divided into four categories ? Charter, Long Haul, Scheduled European North and Scheduled European South. New for this year we also have four special awards to commend exceptional performance or improvement.
The winning airlines are as follows:-
Charter
Air Transat, Excel Airways, First Choice, Thomas Cook and Monarch Airlines.
Long Haul
Air Jamaica, China Airlines, Dragonair, Emirates, Malaysia Airlines, US Airways, Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic Airways
Scheduled European North
CSA Czech Airlines, Aer Lingus, bmi british midland, British Airways CitiExpress, City Airline, Finnair, LOT Polish Airlines, Lufthansa CityLine, Ryanair and Skyways Express
Scheduled European South
Croatia Airlines, Iberia, Kibris Türk Hava Yollari, Luxair, PGA Portugália Airlines, Swiss International Air Lines and THY Turkish Airlines.
The special awards are:-
Best Overall Airline 2003 & Freight Airline with the Most Accurate Performance 2003: China Airlines
Airline with the Most Improved Performance 2003: PGA Portugália Airlines & Airline with the Most Consistent Performance 2003 - CSA Czech Airlines
Manchester Airport, with its partner National Air Traffic Services, provides constant support to airlines to help them to reach the stringent target. Statistical information is provided to show their performance and that of others operating similar aircraft; links are made between the senior training pilots of airlines and best practice is shared amongst all airlines
Good to see that Manchester has been rewarding the airlines who have flown, so accurately, the published departure routes, as laid down by the airport in its enviromental policy.
Without knocking, I am very interested - as a local resident - to see that Ryanair appear in the list of awared winning airlines. Congratulations to the flight crew for adhering strictly to the routings, but a shame on the airline for still operating noisy equipment.
It's amazing how easy it is to recognise the RYR559 as it starts it take-off roll on an otherwise quiet evening!How do you, as pilots feel about the 'Skyliners' Award? Is it a good scheme, should it be copied by other airports, or is it irrelevant?
A copy of the airport presss release is given below:
"SKY’S THE LIMIT FOR RECORD NUMBER OF AIRLINES
Pilots and senior airline representatives are celebrating today (28th June) as they are commended by Manchester Airport’s Managing Director John Spooner for their skilful flying and excellent track-keeping performance during 2003 at this year’s ‘Skyliners’ Awards’.
Manchester Airport introduced the ‘Skyliners’ Awards’ six years ago to recognise and reward airlines who consistantly stay on the preferred noise routes during take-off as this reduces noise for residents living close to the airport.
The target requires aircraft to keep at least 95% of all their departures within tightly defined ‘tracks’ on departure. Last year there were a record thirty airlines receiving an award including China Airlines who had no track deviations at all. In 2001 only five airlines achieved the 95% target and in 2002 there were just fifteen airlines.
Guests will attend a reception before boarding a 45-minute demonstration flight over the Yorkshire Dales, the Lake District, the Isle of Man and return to Manchester over Liverpool. The flight has been kindly provided by award winning ? CSA Czech Airlines. Following the flight, guests will attend a formal awards ceremony and presentation by John Spooner.
During the planning process for the second runway, the airport committed itself to working with airlines to significantly improve track-keeping as part of its wide ranging environmental guarantees.
The airport monitors the performance of airlines using very specialised, high-tech equipment known as MANTIS ? the Manchester Airport Noise and Track Information System which monitors the noise and track of all aircraft operating within a 30 kilometre radius of the runway.
John Spooner, Managing Director of Manchester Airport said, “It is the aim of Manchester Airport and its airline operators to be a good neighbour. All the airlines who are working with us to meet the target are making a very positive contribution towards this aim and I am delighted to see so many of our airline partners operating to such high standards.
I would like to congratulate the airlines and in particular the pilots who are using their expertise to meet this very demanding challenge and I look forward to seeing them and hopefully many more airlines again next year. I would also like to thank CSA Czech Airlines for providing today’s flight and for being award winners every year for the last 6 years.”
CSA’s Director for the UK, Bohuslav Santrucek added, “Today’s award by Manchester Airport gives us a great deal of pleasure because it reflects the skills of our pilots and the training they receive. It also shows that CSA works very hard to be a ‘Good neighbour’ to the many thousands of people who work and live around the airport. “
As there are so many achievers this year, the thirty airlines have been divided into four categories ? Charter, Long Haul, Scheduled European North and Scheduled European South. New for this year we also have four special awards to commend exceptional performance or improvement.
The winning airlines are as follows:-
Charter
Air Transat, Excel Airways, First Choice, Thomas Cook and Monarch Airlines.
Long Haul
Air Jamaica, China Airlines, Dragonair, Emirates, Malaysia Airlines, US Airways, Singapore Airlines and Virgin Atlantic Airways
Scheduled European North
CSA Czech Airlines, Aer Lingus, bmi british midland, British Airways CitiExpress, City Airline, Finnair, LOT Polish Airlines, Lufthansa CityLine, Ryanair and Skyways Express
Scheduled European South
Croatia Airlines, Iberia, Kibris Türk Hava Yollari, Luxair, PGA Portugália Airlines, Swiss International Air Lines and THY Turkish Airlines.
The special awards are:-
Best Overall Airline 2003 & Freight Airline with the Most Accurate Performance 2003: China Airlines
Airline with the Most Improved Performance 2003: PGA Portugália Airlines & Airline with the Most Consistent Performance 2003 - CSA Czech Airlines
Manchester Airport, with its partner National Air Traffic Services, provides constant support to airlines to help them to reach the stringent target. Statistical information is provided to show their performance and that of others operating similar aircraft; links are made between the senior training pilots of airlines and best practice is shared amongst all airlines
Last edited by Scottie Dog; 1st Jul 2004 at 13:49.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think this is a splendid idea that other airports would do well to follow. It can only benefit all sides. Surely a win win situation.
One question though. Which operators were at the other end of the list. Who got the wooden spoon?
Sir George Cayley
One question though. Which operators were at the other end of the list. Who got the wooden spoon?
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ascot,Berks,Great Britain
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One problem with staying on the tracks is that manchester SIDS are drawn at a restricted speed. This speed is NOT promulgated in the Aerad booklet we use so most crews tend to accelerate if they are using modern aircraft fitted with VNAV straight to 250kts and then bust the sid. Ironically the older aircraft, not being fitted with a vnav system automatically defaulting to 250kts, probably stay within the tracks more often.
Additionally lighter aircraft have a lower minimum clean speed so again probably achieve the track at min clean speed. The heavy departures often have a min speed after clean up of 240+kts and with the SID restricted I believe to 180kts (if memory serves) fail to make the tracks.
It was suggested to note on the plate the speed for the sid but this option has not been taken up....
As for the sceme, great. Anything to raise awareness.
Additionally lighter aircraft have a lower minimum clean speed so again probably achieve the track at min clean speed. The heavy departures often have a min speed after clean up of 240+kts and with the SID restricted I believe to 180kts (if memory serves) fail to make the tracks.
It was suggested to note on the plate the speed for the sid but this option has not been taken up....
As for the sceme, great. Anything to raise awareness.
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinion.
It is a long while since I've been there, but that Manchester MANTIS noise set up in the opinion of this individual is a disgrace. The tracks to the south are related to a VOR sixty miles away. It is obviously not recieved on the ground, the aircraft climb into it. The tolerance on VOR tracking is 5.2 degrees, which translates to five miles at that distance. Plus or minus. The noise tracks are predicted on track tolerances generated using pure statisics. A few hundred metres. The pilots are REQUIRED to track on the VOR once the flag is gone and they have an ident. This naturally gives the MANTIS people unlimited oportunity to fine airlines and ruin careers without anybody having done anything wrong.
The CAA airways surveyors and the CAA flight inspectorate let them get away with it, presumably because they are not at risk and therefore don't care.
Pick 'em all up in a giant cargo net and drop them in the ocean, it will be alright with me.
It is a long while since I've been there, but that Manchester MANTIS noise set up in the opinion of this individual is a disgrace. The tracks to the south are related to a VOR sixty miles away. It is obviously not recieved on the ground, the aircraft climb into it. The tolerance on VOR tracking is 5.2 degrees, which translates to five miles at that distance. Plus or minus. The noise tracks are predicted on track tolerances generated using pure statisics. A few hundred metres. The pilots are REQUIRED to track on the VOR once the flag is gone and they have an ident. This naturally gives the MANTIS people unlimited oportunity to fine airlines and ruin careers without anybody having done anything wrong.
The CAA airways surveyors and the CAA flight inspectorate let them get away with it, presumably because they are not at risk and therefore don't care.
Pick 'em all up in a giant cargo net and drop them in the ocean, it will be alright with me.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if you look at the press release at least two of the asian cargo operators have won awards with China Airlines being very well
Pehaps Cathay would do better if they used the B744F rather than B742F as I think they go direct to DXB whereas Dragonair
go via AMS?
Golf India Bravo
Pehaps Cathay would do better if they used the B744F rather than B742F as I think they go direct to DXB whereas Dragonair
go via AMS?
Golf India Bravo
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly747, the FMS will invariably turn a fraction too late, this in turn leads to overflights of the noise monitoring points. It's not just a question of following ithe FMS. To get a consistent accurate departure from Manchester (or other airports for that matter) involves a combination of following the FMS and flying raw data.
Slightly more to it than your rather over simplified idea. (Which is possibly why more operators aren't being rewarded).
Slightly more to it than your rather over simplified idea. (Which is possibly why more operators aren't being rewarded).
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errm, as a [not so] humble ATSA, (at Manch) the SIDs, say "something like"....Straight Ahead../.R/w Heading til xxDME "MCT" aka Manchester VOR [Very High Frequency Omni Directional Radio Range] situated......[about] 400 yards (375M) from the threshold of R/w24L.
[Sorry about the "full" description, but I was marked down on an exam for saying "VHF...etc).
Out of interest. IF the MCT or POL VORs are oos, then the DATIS states that said VORs are oos, " and if unable to fly the SID, to inform Delivery on First contact"
watp,iktch
[Sorry about the "full" description, but I was marked down on an exam for saying "VHF...etc).
Out of interest. IF the MCT or POL VORs are oos, then the DATIS states that said VORs are oos, " and if unable to fly the SID, to inform Delivery on First contact"
watp,iktch
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scottie_dog,
With all due respect to Ryanair they are operating Stage 3 aircraft, or at least I hope they are!
If we were to start operating our B727 or Airbus A300 in to MAN, we would also start to annoy you.
Personally i find the noise of my gardener mowing my lawn more annoying than a B737.
Mutt.
With all due respect to Ryanair they are operating Stage 3 aircraft, or at least I hope they are!
If we were to start operating our B727 or Airbus A300 in to MAN, we would also start to annoy you.
Personally i find the noise of my gardener mowing my lawn more annoying than a B737.
Mutt.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutt
I don't deny that the Ryanair 737s are operating with noise limits. The comment I made was that it is amazing how easy it is to distinguish the aircraft when it starts it's take-off role. The engine tone (?) is very distinct and can be heard above any other aircraft - with the possible exception of a TU154!
Scottie Dog
I don't deny that the Ryanair 737s are operating with noise limits. The comment I made was that it is amazing how easy it is to distinguish the aircraft when it starts it's take-off role. The engine tone (?) is very distinct and can be heard above any other aircraft - with the possible exception of a TU154!
Scottie Dog
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel,
You are nearly right. The SIDS were drawn with no reference to the speed of any aircraft and do not comply with ICAO criteria. It is impossible to stay within the Sid when departing on 06 and turning towards WAL on a heavily laden aircraft such as a longhaul 767 ( which is why they are reluctant to fine anyone).
If someone cares to do the maths the radius of turn on the inside of some of the turns is drawn at about 75 kts.
Chiglet, the Honily VOR is about 60nms south of Manchester.
You are nearly right. The SIDS were drawn with no reference to the speed of any aircraft and do not comply with ICAO criteria. It is impossible to stay within the Sid when departing on 06 and turning towards WAL on a heavily laden aircraft such as a longhaul 767 ( which is why they are reluctant to fine anyone).
If someone cares to do the maths the radius of turn on the inside of some of the turns is drawn at about 75 kts.
Chiglet, the Honily VOR is about 60nms south of Manchester.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sky9
I don't understand your point against that raised by Chiglet.
Only the Honiley and Listo departures relate to the HONILEY VOR. The Honiley 1R/1Y SIDs both start at 5dme from the MCT before turning to Tabley and intercepting the HON 336 radial (at 62 miles). Surley this gives time for modern technology to have received the VOR and be cabable of accurate navigation?
The Listo departure gives the turn at 3.2 (LISTO1Y) and 2dme (LISTO1R) which gives less time to arrange the intercept.
Whilst I am not aircrew (and therefore leave myself open for attack), I am sure that all of the SID's are checked in some way or another through ICAO or other approved bodies - if this is not the case then I am sure that you will take up the matter with the powers that be.
Scottie Dog
I don't understand your point against that raised by Chiglet.
Only the Honiley and Listo departures relate to the HONILEY VOR. The Honiley 1R/1Y SIDs both start at 5dme from the MCT before turning to Tabley and intercepting the HON 336 radial (at 62 miles). Surley this gives time for modern technology to have received the VOR and be cabable of accurate navigation?
The Listo departure gives the turn at 3.2 (LISTO1Y) and 2dme (LISTO1R) which gives less time to arrange the intercept.
Whilst I am not aircrew (and therefore leave myself open for attack), I am sure that all of the SID's are checked in some way or another through ICAO or other approved bodies - if this is not the case then I am sure that you will take up the matter with the powers that be.
Scottie Dog
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Turn left heading back onto thread course"
Remember back at the begining I asked if the more important list of those failing to get the award was available?
Any progress? The discussion about SIDS whilst relevant seems to have taken over a bit.
Feeding into the discussion carriers not performing takin into account the above may be revealling
Sir George Cayley
Any progress? The discussion about SIDS whilst relevant seems to have taken over a bit.
Feeding into the discussion carriers not performing takin into account the above may be revealling
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Noise abate awards
Sir George Cayley,
Why on Earth are you so desperate to know who is the "baddie" at Manchester? Do you want to gloat or what?
As you have asked, the worse five Airlines in reverse order are as follows:
SN Brussels Airlines, Olympic, Icelandair, LTE, British Airways.
Note: Not a single Asian carrier amongst them!
Incidentally, these aren't "noise abatement awards". They are actually "Track keeping awards". It is possible to be off track without receiving a noise violation if you are flying a relatively quiet Chapter 3 aircraft. It is also possible to get a noise violation, even if you fly bang on the recommended track for departure. P.I.A regularly get fined for exceeding the noise limit out of Manchester, even though their Pilots are doing a great job of flying along the prescribed departure tracks. Under current legislation, Airport authorities CAN fine airlines for noise violations, but they CAN'T fine them for tracking violations.
Manchester's Honiley departures are very hit & miss for aircraft not equipped with all the glass cockpit gizzmos. Assuming Honiley VOR is radiating within the allowable limits of accuracy, then an aircraft picking up the appropriate radial from 60 nms away can be anywhere within a 5 nm "cone" to the left or right of track. To a person living in the Knutsford area, that means the difference between flying over their house, or not flying over it. That isn't the Pilot's fault. They are doing the best they can with the data that is available to them. Also the point about the departures being drawn up at speeds and bank angles which are totally peculiar to Manchester, is a very valid one. Most of the Pilots I talk to are totally suprised to discover that all the initial turns are drawn up assuming a speed of 185 knots and a bank angle of 15 degrees. All subsequent turns are drawn assuming a speed of 250 knots and a bank angle of 25 degrees. You won't find that written on ANY Pilot chart (Jeppesen or Aerad) so it comes as "news" to most Pilots.
Why on Earth are you so desperate to know who is the "baddie" at Manchester? Do you want to gloat or what?
As you have asked, the worse five Airlines in reverse order are as follows:
SN Brussels Airlines, Olympic, Icelandair, LTE, British Airways.
Note: Not a single Asian carrier amongst them!
Incidentally, these aren't "noise abatement awards". They are actually "Track keeping awards". It is possible to be off track without receiving a noise violation if you are flying a relatively quiet Chapter 3 aircraft. It is also possible to get a noise violation, even if you fly bang on the recommended track for departure. P.I.A regularly get fined for exceeding the noise limit out of Manchester, even though their Pilots are doing a great job of flying along the prescribed departure tracks. Under current legislation, Airport authorities CAN fine airlines for noise violations, but they CAN'T fine them for tracking violations.
Manchester's Honiley departures are very hit & miss for aircraft not equipped with all the glass cockpit gizzmos. Assuming Honiley VOR is radiating within the allowable limits of accuracy, then an aircraft picking up the appropriate radial from 60 nms away can be anywhere within a 5 nm "cone" to the left or right of track. To a person living in the Knutsford area, that means the difference between flying over their house, or not flying over it. That isn't the Pilot's fault. They are doing the best they can with the data that is available to them. Also the point about the departures being drawn up at speeds and bank angles which are totally peculiar to Manchester, is a very valid one. Most of the Pilots I talk to are totally suprised to discover that all the initial turns are drawn up assuming a speed of 185 knots and a bank angle of 15 degrees. All subsequent turns are drawn assuming a speed of 250 knots and a bank angle of 25 degrees. You won't find that written on ANY Pilot chart (Jeppesen or Aerad) so it comes as "news" to most Pilots.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will probably find a very close correlation between those airlines that are operating GPS equipped aircraft and those that aren't. The comment above regarding the difference between the B742 and the B744 being one case in point.
I know for a fact that my airline which operates both the B733 and the B737 have analysed their departure tracks and the correlation between those that were accurate and those that were not quite as accurate came down to whether the aircraft was the newer GPS equipped version or the older steam driven one!
Us pilots are a a poor second to those GPS navigated departures. Part of the problem was believed to be that pilots who tried to fly the departure in LNAV with only the steam driven version were likely to set the alarms off back in the monitoring office whereas the LNAV departure in the GPS a/c were spot on. When the pilots of the steam driven aircraft were told that they must fly the departure using HDG SEL and basic airmanship, all was hunky dory again!
The most immediate point of argument seems to be whether the initial turn onto 275deg (or 285deg depending on RWY in use) should be initiated at the specified DME (3.0 or 3.2 depending on RWY) or initiated 0.2 or 0.3 DME before so as to be established in the turn by the specified DME.
Observation of the GPS driven departure I notice that the a/c doesn't even start the turn until the specified DME. Someone tried to convince me that it was all to do with inertia and Newtonian physics why we went for the initiation of the turn before the published DME. Far too complicated for the likes of me!
I know for a fact that my airline which operates both the B733 and the B737 have analysed their departure tracks and the correlation between those that were accurate and those that were not quite as accurate came down to whether the aircraft was the newer GPS equipped version or the older steam driven one!
Us pilots are a a poor second to those GPS navigated departures. Part of the problem was believed to be that pilots who tried to fly the departure in LNAV with only the steam driven version were likely to set the alarms off back in the monitoring office whereas the LNAV departure in the GPS a/c were spot on. When the pilots of the steam driven aircraft were told that they must fly the departure using HDG SEL and basic airmanship, all was hunky dory again!
The most immediate point of argument seems to be whether the initial turn onto 275deg (or 285deg depending on RWY in use) should be initiated at the specified DME (3.0 or 3.2 depending on RWY) or initiated 0.2 or 0.3 DME before so as to be established in the turn by the specified DME.
Observation of the GPS driven departure I notice that the a/c doesn't even start the turn until the specified DME. Someone tried to convince me that it was all to do with inertia and Newtonian physics why we went for the initiation of the turn before the published DME. Far too complicated for the likes of me!
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a difference in the turn point depending on how the FMS is loaded. If the departures is entered as a SID then the LNAV will not commence the turn until the DME is reached. However, if the departure is loaded as waypoints on the LEGS page then the LNAV will turn early so as to maintain the track centrelines.
Airclues
Airclues
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, but which method most accurately represents the tracks depicted on the plate? The plate also shows the turn commencing at the noted DME and not by reference to a waypoint.