Airprox over Central Scotland
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could not see the answer in the report, but puzzled. Normally as you approach oceanic entry points you try to get up/down to cleared oceanic level. I gather both a/c had similar times at the same OEP. Why the climb request?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the same - but the Montrose sector is quite a way from the oceanic boundary. There is a full transition sector between there and the SHANWICK boundary. The aircraft could have been converging to RUGID then diverging one due West to ERAKA and the other North West to BALIX - I am sure Fat Controller could tell us.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entry points were ATSIX and ERAKA.
The cross would have been at NEVIS if both aircraft were following their flight plan routes.
In this case the ATSIX traffic was going direct.
Montrose North map is here.
http://www.londoncontrol.com/scottis...ion_Manual.pdf
We endeavour to give aircraft their oceanic crossing levels as soon as they ask for it, subject to traffic.
I am not going to make any further comment regarding the incident.
Edit. The link to the maps was just found by "Googling", some of them are considerably out of date, however Montrose North has not changed.
The cross would have been at NEVIS if both aircraft were following their flight plan routes.
In this case the ATSIX traffic was going direct.
Montrose North map is here.
http://www.londoncontrol.com/scottis...ion_Manual.pdf
We endeavour to give aircraft their oceanic crossing levels as soon as they ask for it, subject to traffic.
I am not going to make any further comment regarding the incident.
Edit. The link to the maps was just found by "Googling", some of them are considerably out of date, however Montrose North has not changed.
Last edited by The Fat Controller; 23rd Oct 2013 at 16:40.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
Thanks Ian W ... That sort of thinking is what we old f*rts used to do, at least in the short/medium timeframe. Step-climbs cost fuel, I know, but at least they keep the aluminium separated.
T F C ... Thanks for the info. I think I understand your apparent need to step back from this discussion.
T F C ... Thanks for the info. I think I understand your apparent need to step back from this discussion.
The link to the maps was just found by "Googling", some of them are considerably out of date, however Montrose North has not changed.
NATS | AIS - Home
Scroll down to ENR 6.3.0: Upper ATS Routes (North)
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T F C
thanks for the brief additional information and the link. That answers some questions not covered in the APB report.
May be a wise decision to keep the pressure in the boiler at lowest possible level in such an incident.
DRUK
Thanks for the link to the AIP maps. Great help for someone not familiar with the airspace and routing situation.
thanks for the brief additional information and the link. That answers some questions not covered in the APB report.
May be a wise decision to keep the pressure in the boiler at lowest possible level in such an incident.
DRUK
Thanks for the link to the AIP maps. Great help for someone not familiar with the airspace and routing situation.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ARM methodology(?) now in use by UK CAA gives the F15E/J41 airprox an ERC of 502 and the 747/747 an ERC of only 102. I assume there is supposed to be some steady linear progression of measured risk between these two scores and not some logarithmic scale as with decibel measurement
