R/T status in KL FIR
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kay Ell
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: R/T status in KL FIR
Hey this is totally amazing. I applaud all you ATCers for taking the trouble to come and have a dialogue with the pilots in an informal manner. This way we can each air our views and we know someone's listening!
I cannot believe why SIN isn't on your FAM flight list. It's one of the best in the region along with TPE and HKG. Please lobby forcefully on this.
Of course we pilots have bitched constantly about the endless holdings during both peak and even sometimes non peak hours. We do sympathise with the obviously harrassed controllers, though.
Here's some off the top of my head:-
1. Why not enforce speed controls like SIN and HKG do during peak hours? 250kts below 10,000ft, then you can choose who you want to speed up. Otherwise most of us will be happily charging down at 300kts until suddenly we're asked to slow down 220 out of the blue, or worse, hold.
2. Try and give track miles to go and sequence when radar vectoring. SIN always radar vectors really far off the track but they do strive to tell you your sequence and track miles to touchdown. This way we can adjust our rate of descent and our LNAV tracking accordingly. Also we won't have to worry if the ATC knows we're going to cross the centerline.
3. Some favourite waypoints you'd like us to hold at do not have published holding patterns in Jeppesen (Nipar or Pibos is an example, I think). Sometimes we don't know if it's a right and or left hand holding, or what's the inbound track.
Also I have a few questions:- Are the ATCers dual-runway approach approved? Is it still a requirement for the 5nm separation if both aircraft are on approach to different runways? How about dual runways takeoffs like in SIN?
Thanks and keep up the good work!
I cannot believe why SIN isn't on your FAM flight list. It's one of the best in the region along with TPE and HKG. Please lobby forcefully on this.
Of course we pilots have bitched constantly about the endless holdings during both peak and even sometimes non peak hours. We do sympathise with the obviously harrassed controllers, though.
Here's some off the top of my head:-
1. Why not enforce speed controls like SIN and HKG do during peak hours? 250kts below 10,000ft, then you can choose who you want to speed up. Otherwise most of us will be happily charging down at 300kts until suddenly we're asked to slow down 220 out of the blue, or worse, hold.
2. Try and give track miles to go and sequence when radar vectoring. SIN always radar vectors really far off the track but they do strive to tell you your sequence and track miles to touchdown. This way we can adjust our rate of descent and our LNAV tracking accordingly. Also we won't have to worry if the ATC knows we're going to cross the centerline.
3. Some favourite waypoints you'd like us to hold at do not have published holding patterns in Jeppesen (Nipar or Pibos is an example, I think). Sometimes we don't know if it's a right and or left hand holding, or what's the inbound track.
Also I have a few questions:- Are the ATCers dual-runway approach approved? Is it still a requirement for the 5nm separation if both aircraft are on approach to different runways? How about dual runways takeoffs like in SIN?
Thanks and keep up the good work!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: malaysia
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spacing and holding patterns
to flightleader and wilflyer..keep it coming..were picking up your valuable points...we'll try to answer every question posted. my colleague llchew will be updating you guys in this forum.Effective 19th Jan at 2200utc we will introducing the unilateral routing for the eastern sector(132.6). For R32 gate out will be via PK and gate-in will be via PADLI(15nm South of PK) For R14 it will be vice-versa.Pls pass on to those who may be not aware of this arrangement.There will be also a a new holding point over Tioman. It is called VINIL.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Alderaan
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Day Old Chap,
Actually, its great to see u atc'ers come on line and get inputs.
Its a shame u guys cant get hkg and sin, maybe we can try to get that from our side to help u guys out.
Over the years ive operated into very congested terminals and like lhr the best. What u have going here over PK is a good start, next maybe u could have the freq's for both the airways there segregated, that way it cuts down on the chatter, london has that and u hardly hear dep's on the same freq, or arrivals on the other.
In lhr there were dep's and arr's every minute, im very comfortable with 5 nm seperations on app except when folloeing a 757, which we hardly get. Its quite common to get landing clearence at 500' in heathrow with the guy just clearing in front. Speed restrictions during peak hours is good, and have this implemented all the way on the star. Its also very common to get good speed management from the pilots themselves, something i strive from my young apprentice's. 160 till 4 miles is good.
The othere thing is to get flow control to separate a/c based on distance rather than time, and we can actually start slowing down very far out. I understand what u see on the radar is ground speed, therefore in cruise get the guys to reduce speed based on their G/S. Its common in europe for the controller to say "reduce ground speed by 20kts". But this should apply in high level cruise. The other bigger factor that i notice screws things up is wx in the terminal area. Maybe planes could all be vectored via overhead to the west if arr from east , coz the wx generally builds up over the main range. Have 1 app point where the guys should be vectored to, where they would be req to arrive at a certain speed based on dist as seperation.
If u guys are uncomfortable with dual runway approaches then try them during non peak hour's, as u build up confidence try them during peak hours. And planes should be put on the runway where they would be closes to in terms of parking position's, or have the w/b planes on 1 and narrow on the other, that way u reduce app seperation.
As ive said before, get your guys in touch with the association and maybe we could have a teh tarik session somewhere, maybe more. Thanks for the invite to ATC kl, would love to vist, have done bki and kch, and have got to know some off the guys there, and we exchange loads of info.
SQ and their atc guys do loads of this and maybe thats why they have improved a great deal. And this is the first steps that we have taken on that road.
Rome wasnt built in a day.
The Rage
Ciao.
Actually, its great to see u atc'ers come on line and get inputs.
Its a shame u guys cant get hkg and sin, maybe we can try to get that from our side to help u guys out.
Over the years ive operated into very congested terminals and like lhr the best. What u have going here over PK is a good start, next maybe u could have the freq's for both the airways there segregated, that way it cuts down on the chatter, london has that and u hardly hear dep's on the same freq, or arrivals on the other.
In lhr there were dep's and arr's every minute, im very comfortable with 5 nm seperations on app except when folloeing a 757, which we hardly get. Its quite common to get landing clearence at 500' in heathrow with the guy just clearing in front. Speed restrictions during peak hours is good, and have this implemented all the way on the star. Its also very common to get good speed management from the pilots themselves, something i strive from my young apprentice's. 160 till 4 miles is good.
The othere thing is to get flow control to separate a/c based on distance rather than time, and we can actually start slowing down very far out. I understand what u see on the radar is ground speed, therefore in cruise get the guys to reduce speed based on their G/S. Its common in europe for the controller to say "reduce ground speed by 20kts". But this should apply in high level cruise. The other bigger factor that i notice screws things up is wx in the terminal area. Maybe planes could all be vectored via overhead to the west if arr from east , coz the wx generally builds up over the main range. Have 1 app point where the guys should be vectored to, where they would be req to arrive at a certain speed based on dist as seperation.
If u guys are uncomfortable with dual runway approaches then try them during non peak hour's, as u build up confidence try them during peak hours. And planes should be put on the runway where they would be closes to in terms of parking position's, or have the w/b planes on 1 and narrow on the other, that way u reduce app seperation.
As ive said before, get your guys in touch with the association and maybe we could have a teh tarik session somewhere, maybe more. Thanks for the invite to ATC kl, would love to vist, have done bki and kch, and have got to know some off the guys there, and we exchange loads of info.
SQ and their atc guys do loads of this and maybe thats why they have improved a great deal. And this is the first steps that we have taken on that road.
Rome wasnt built in a day.
The Rage
Ciao.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: malaysia
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
132.6 sectorisation
Hi Rage...tks 4 the inputs. We'll b great if pilots start lobbying 4 controllers about airports. That will be a win-win 4 Pilots n Atc. I have personally used the "reduce g/s by xxx" it worked until Flow Controller wanted something else. In Area Control all we need is 10nm separation (on Radar). In Approach it is 5nm.
Actually flow does a good job...until the Ipoh/Johore/Kuantan/ guys get a/borne suddenly. U have a string of them coming in from the East...all well arranged by Flow n out of the blues the 737's get a/borne from this nearby airfields n that's where all the speed and vectoring begins.B4 we hand over to Approach, there must b a min of 10NM. Yes we cud keep them on ground but it's not good for ATC as we wud be blamed 4 every delay. Someone said it is better to delay on ground than in the air...what's ur opinion? How about the 737's opinion? Priority is given to the PK inbound inorder to reduce the workload of the 132.6 ATCer. A lot of coordination takes place between Area Controller n Flow/Approach especially in bad wx. We'll start looking into ur inputs n c how we can smoothen up things. After the unilateral routes for PK, we are going to split the 132.6 into two sectors, hopefully by the end of 2006. That will greatly reduce Controller workload as now one Controller has to monitor tfc over PK/VKB/IGARI(inbound and outbound from Penang) via VKB and also tfc climbing out of SIN to BKK n vice-versa.ATS is working on it and we are glad to c some progress now.So when can we have the teh-tarik session?Cheers
Actually flow does a good job...until the Ipoh/Johore/Kuantan/ guys get a/borne suddenly. U have a string of them coming in from the East...all well arranged by Flow n out of the blues the 737's get a/borne from this nearby airfields n that's where all the speed and vectoring begins.B4 we hand over to Approach, there must b a min of 10NM. Yes we cud keep them on ground but it's not good for ATC as we wud be blamed 4 every delay. Someone said it is better to delay on ground than in the air...what's ur opinion? How about the 737's opinion? Priority is given to the PK inbound inorder to reduce the workload of the 132.6 ATCer. A lot of coordination takes place between Area Controller n Flow/Approach especially in bad wx. We'll start looking into ur inputs n c how we can smoothen up things. After the unilateral routes for PK, we are going to split the 132.6 into two sectors, hopefully by the end of 2006. That will greatly reduce Controller workload as now one Controller has to monitor tfc over PK/VKB/IGARI(inbound and outbound from Penang) via VKB and also tfc climbing out of SIN to BKK n vice-versa.ATS is working on it and we are glad to c some progress now.So when can we have the teh-tarik session?Cheers
Yeah, Unilateral near PK is great.
Recently I had a few morning departure in KLIA arround 9 to 10am peak period. I was once number 8th. Tower was rather confuse to sequence a/c at the holding point.Couple of widebodies on taxiway H,AAsia hogging A8 (a few of them) and tower couldn't decide which a/c go A11,A10 and A9. I bet some of the widebody had waypoint crossing to comply with.
Anyway, the issue I would like to highlight is that using 2 runways with 32R for depature and 32L for arrival in this condition is the same as using 1 runway. The no.2 a/c couldn't takeoff until no.1 is 9nm out(or 3 minutes),the time of waiting is good for an a/c to land on 32R,turn off while no.2 line up and takeoff in turn.In this is done on both runways,capacity would be double.Perhaps for a start,make some of the widebody from satelite building proceed to 32L for departure while those a/c closer to 32R use 32R for departure.A lot of the international airport assign a/c to use the runway closest to its bay,SIN,TPE.....However,I'm not very sure App and Area control could handle this,just that I've seen it been done elseway and hope KLIA can come up to speed.From pilots point of view,we are quite happy as long as the landing clearence come before 500'.
A little off topic, I hope DCA could issue a NOTAM/AIC to remind pilots to minimised thrust usage at TGG,LGK,AOR etc as there are always people on the apron eg:cargo handler,traffic staff even pax just disembark from another a/c.Some places have folks standing by the fence waving and the a/c turn 180 add power and blast these folks in the face as it taxy away.I've witness an old man carrying an infant ran for cover and duct behind a pile of dirt as a 737 increase thrust for a cross bleed start in TGG. I hope this issue could be arrested before someone get hurt.
Recently I had a few morning departure in KLIA arround 9 to 10am peak period. I was once number 8th. Tower was rather confuse to sequence a/c at the holding point.Couple of widebodies on taxiway H,AAsia hogging A8 (a few of them) and tower couldn't decide which a/c go A11,A10 and A9. I bet some of the widebody had waypoint crossing to comply with.
Anyway, the issue I would like to highlight is that using 2 runways with 32R for depature and 32L for arrival in this condition is the same as using 1 runway. The no.2 a/c couldn't takeoff until no.1 is 9nm out(or 3 minutes),the time of waiting is good for an a/c to land on 32R,turn off while no.2 line up and takeoff in turn.In this is done on both runways,capacity would be double.Perhaps for a start,make some of the widebody from satelite building proceed to 32L for departure while those a/c closer to 32R use 32R for departure.A lot of the international airport assign a/c to use the runway closest to its bay,SIN,TPE.....However,I'm not very sure App and Area control could handle this,just that I've seen it been done elseway and hope KLIA can come up to speed.From pilots point of view,we are quite happy as long as the landing clearence come before 500'.
A little off topic, I hope DCA could issue a NOTAM/AIC to remind pilots to minimised thrust usage at TGG,LGK,AOR etc as there are always people on the apron eg:cargo handler,traffic staff even pax just disembark from another a/c.Some places have folks standing by the fence waving and the a/c turn 180 add power and blast these folks in the face as it taxy away.I've witness an old man carrying an infant ran for cover and duct behind a pile of dirt as a 737 increase thrust for a cross bleed start in TGG. I hope this issue could be arrested before someone get hurt.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: thunderStormPeninsula
Age: 52
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llchew....welcome aboard....
velloo, padli thing should work out great. i'm sure you have already noticed the high number of requests for a direct routing towards istan for the flights from kch.
recently, i insisted on delaying the start even after the tower cleared us. let's put it this way, one way or another, if the airport is congested, the reports would indicate delay due atc to a certain degree, although it may not be very accurate. that i'd have to say is due in part to the way our reporting is done,
anyways, twenty minutes at the holding point against twenty minutes at the gate without the engines started, burning precious liquid gold and spewing out hot invisible poison, would not do any of our children and future generation any good, i believe. really hope you agree.......
i believe the way to do it is to make sure that the RATE of which the aircrafts arrive at the holding point remains more or less constant once it gets busy. mind you, klia is not the only busy airfield. we face very similiar situations in other congested airports too....therefore i say, save the gold.....
velloo, padli thing should work out great. i'm sure you have already noticed the high number of requests for a direct routing towards istan for the flights from kch.
recently, i insisted on delaying the start even after the tower cleared us. let's put it this way, one way or another, if the airport is congested, the reports would indicate delay due atc to a certain degree, although it may not be very accurate. that i'd have to say is due in part to the way our reporting is done,
anyways, twenty minutes at the holding point against twenty minutes at the gate without the engines started, burning precious liquid gold and spewing out hot invisible poison, would not do any of our children and future generation any good, i believe. really hope you agree.......
i believe the way to do it is to make sure that the RATE of which the aircrafts arrive at the holding point remains more or less constant once it gets busy. mind you, klia is not the only busy airfield. we face very similiar situations in other congested airports too....therefore i say, save the gold.....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: thunderStormPeninsula
Age: 52
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ah ...how about kayu nasi kandar, ss2......
me hates traffic. figure i'd quickly suggest a location to suit me.....
may i also be bold enough to say, that the controllers speak too fast when it gets busy. so much repeats could have been avoided. i think its not a problem when it's not busy, but when it is, we need to slow down the r/t compared to a normal non busy state. more traffic, more stress, more chances of missing calls, and more speed definitely will not help.
that i'd like to add, is the major difference between heathrow and los angeles. both extremely busy airports, however,pilots for a foreign carrier into these two airports, will likely find lhr to be very pleasant. too many words in a sentence for the same clearance, in an accent that pilots may not be accustomed to.
i remember a friend of mine who was training a new co-pilot, this co-pilot is a local boy, trained for his initial license locally, but found much difficulty with the r/t in kl. however, he did not face the same problem in sin. i think it's the speed of delivery and of course the level of standard phrasiology. please tell the guys not to speak as they normally would, but slower, cos we can't see their lips moving and their facial expressions...
by the way, velloo, it's the same problem with the less than comprehendable announcements on the 737.....
me hates traffic. figure i'd quickly suggest a location to suit me.....
may i also be bold enough to say, that the controllers speak too fast when it gets busy. so much repeats could have been avoided. i think its not a problem when it's not busy, but when it is, we need to slow down the r/t compared to a normal non busy state. more traffic, more stress, more chances of missing calls, and more speed definitely will not help.
that i'd like to add, is the major difference between heathrow and los angeles. both extremely busy airports, however,pilots for a foreign carrier into these two airports, will likely find lhr to be very pleasant. too many words in a sentence for the same clearance, in an accent that pilots may not be accustomed to.
i remember a friend of mine who was training a new co-pilot, this co-pilot is a local boy, trained for his initial license locally, but found much difficulty with the r/t in kl. however, he did not face the same problem in sin. i think it's the speed of delivery and of course the level of standard phrasiology. please tell the guys not to speak as they normally would, but slower, cos we can't see their lips moving and their facial expressions...
by the way, velloo, it's the same problem with the less than comprehendable announcements on the 737.....
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
operations into and out of KLIA
DCA had a meeting with the airline operators operating at KLIA in 2005 (or was it 2004?). During that meeting I gave a presentation on operations into and out of KLIA - what pilot's can expect from ATC and what ATC expects from pilots. The major operators, MH, SQ, TSE, AK sent in their pilots. Unfortunately, most of the foreign carriers only sent their station reps, all non-pilots. Anyway, these were the salient points.
Arrivals
All arrivals into KLIA are "flowed". Sitting between the App-North and App-South controllers is the FLOW controller. He sets his radar monitor to 200 NM. The moment an arrival comes within radar coverage, a landing time is calculated based on a the normal speed profile for the aircraft type. Assuming we have 6 arrivals for Rwy 32 and their landing times are as follows:
Aircraft A 0010 from DAKUS
Aircraft B 0010 from ISTAN
Aircraft C 0012 from ISTAN
Aircraft D 0013 from VMK
Aircraft E 0014 from ISTAN
Aircraft F 0018 from VMK
The FLOW controller will probably plan to achieve the following landing times. He does this by sending instructions to the en-route controller who in turn will issue the instructions to the aircraft before top of descent.
Time How?
Aircraft A 0008 Maintain high speed, expect track shortening
by radar vectors for 10 NM finals
Aircraft B 0010 Normal speed profile
Aircraft C 0012 Normal speed profile
Aircraft D 0015 Aircraft to descend at 270 knots
Aircraft E 0017 Aircraft to descend at 260 knots
Aircraft F 0019 Aircraft to descend at 280 knots
So, if you are aircraft E, you'd get this on 132.6. You can actually plan to leave your level earlier. Most times, this works out fine.
Our problems
Remember this planning is often done when you are way, way out. It is subject to:
a) weather;
b) departures from nearby airports like Ipoh, Kuantan and Subang and
very rarely, missed approaches from KLIA. Of
course, ATC can always hold these aircraft but more often than not, we
try to absorb them;
c) aircraft leaving the holding pattern too late. The above example does not
have a holding instruction but if there is and the pilot leaves the stack 2
minutes late, that will eat into the FLOW controller's planned landing time;
d) finally, controller screw-up. Yes, that happens. With the radar screen set
at 200 NM and radar labels all over, sometimes the FLOW controller
misses out on an arrival in between the others that he has planned.
Whenver the above happens, new sequences are worked out and instructions issued. By this time, the aircraft should be with the Approach controllers. You'd get instructions to slow down when the original, or speed up or blah blah blah.
Having been involved with the FLOW program from the very beginning, I can say that it works out most of the time. It would be the exception rather than the rule that you'd find yourself getting seemingly contradictory instructions from the en-route and the Approach controllers. If you find that you keep experiencing this, then you probably need to bathe with 7 types of flowers to "buang sueh".
The FLOW program is based on the one used in Melbourne.
Speed control
Unless you are issued with a "high speed" instruction, 250 KIAS below 10000 ft. should be observed. When using speed control, the controllers have been advised to keep aircraft at minimum clean speed of 210 - 220 for as long as possible. Again, there will be times that this is not possible. At finals, we may impose speed of 190 knots until 7 miles.
I agree that if speed reference points are included in the STARs it would simplify things. Currently, we have a couple of operators who will reduce to around 120 -130 GS about 10 NM out!
Track miles
I agree that this is not done as often as I like. The guys I spoke to say that even though track miles is not given, they are monitoring and if they feel that you are on the high side, they will ask - are you ready for base? or something to that effect.
Intercepting GP from below while under radar vectors
It was agreed with the local operators, MH and AK that to reduce track miles, aircraft may be radar vectored to intercept the LLZ and, at times, the aircraft may not intercept the GP from below.
Own navigation for 10 nm finals
Again it was agreed with the local operators that the aircraft cleared to intercept 10 nm finals under own navigation shall intercept at 12 nm and be fully established at 10 NM. This is usually restricted to aircraft coming in from GUPTA or VMK from the south or ISTAN from the east when Rwy 32 is in use. When 14 is in use, then flights from INTOT to PIBOS may be offered. I, personally, prefer to radar vector.
Dependent arrivals to both runways
Currently, independent approaches are not allowed. Dependent arrivals are allowed but the diagonal spacing is still 5 NM. Assuming that 32 is in use, the arrival runway shall be 32L and the departure 32R. ATC does not offer 32R unless requested. There were complaints raised by some pilots departing 32R when they had to wait for the arrival.
Departures
First of all, you might be interested to know that "Lumpur Delivery" is situated at Subang Air Traffic Control Centre and not at KLIA. ATC clearances are normally available almost immediately. For flights within radar coverage, you'd get your requested level. For, flights into the South China Sea, Bay of Bengal or south to Australia, we have a no-PDC arrangement where intitial levels between FL250 to FL320 may be offered depending on the agreement.
We had discussions debating using slot times over a waypoint or using timed spacing at departure based on Mach Number Technique. We decided on timed spacing at departure as it optimises the slots. The drawback is that the pilot will be in the dark on the position of the other aircraft. It is up to Lumpur Ground to time your push back taking into consideration taxy times to the holding point and the number waiting at the holding point.
Wake turbulence separation
I have had many requests to reduce the departure separation. The trouble is the procedures allow it but the AIP is very clear - the pilot in command shall expressly initiate the waiver. That takes care of the departure but if both aircraft are headed in the same direction, Approach needs to hand over the two aircraft with 10 NM in trail separation (no closing speed) or vertically separated. This in turn increases the work load when step climbing is involved. I would like to see closer spaced departures but you'd have to do your part.
Departures from both runways
We actually tried this out in 2005, twice in fact. We used SIDs and not the parking bay as the criteria to decide on the runway. This was to avoid criss-crossing after departure. After the trials, a post-mortem was conducted and MAS said that the gains were negligible especially when Rwy 32 was in use. During the morning rush, most departures were eastbound plus the taxy time to 32L was excessively long. During the trials, we had an A330 to Penang going for 32L. When the aircraft reached the holding point, there 3 arrivals all spaced at minimum spacing necessitating a further 8-minute wait at the holding point!
With the LCC terminal situated so near to 32R, there may be even greater reluctance to taxy to 32L.
Anyway, DCA is very aware of the departure jam at certain times of the day and we are always willing to try various options.
I believe the design of the runways with their huge stagger is an impediment.
I hope this gives you a better picture of KLIA operations. I know it is not exhaustive. I'll be more than happy to explain more over nasi kandar at Kayu.
Cheers.
Arrivals
All arrivals into KLIA are "flowed". Sitting between the App-North and App-South controllers is the FLOW controller. He sets his radar monitor to 200 NM. The moment an arrival comes within radar coverage, a landing time is calculated based on a the normal speed profile for the aircraft type. Assuming we have 6 arrivals for Rwy 32 and their landing times are as follows:
Aircraft A 0010 from DAKUS
Aircraft B 0010 from ISTAN
Aircraft C 0012 from ISTAN
Aircraft D 0013 from VMK
Aircraft E 0014 from ISTAN
Aircraft F 0018 from VMK
The FLOW controller will probably plan to achieve the following landing times. He does this by sending instructions to the en-route controller who in turn will issue the instructions to the aircraft before top of descent.
Time How?
Aircraft A 0008 Maintain high speed, expect track shortening
by radar vectors for 10 NM finals
Aircraft B 0010 Normal speed profile
Aircraft C 0012 Normal speed profile
Aircraft D 0015 Aircraft to descend at 270 knots
Aircraft E 0017 Aircraft to descend at 260 knots
Aircraft F 0019 Aircraft to descend at 280 knots
So, if you are aircraft E, you'd get this on 132.6. You can actually plan to leave your level earlier. Most times, this works out fine.
Our problems
Remember this planning is often done when you are way, way out. It is subject to:
a) weather;
b) departures from nearby airports like Ipoh, Kuantan and Subang and
very rarely, missed approaches from KLIA. Of
course, ATC can always hold these aircraft but more often than not, we
try to absorb them;
c) aircraft leaving the holding pattern too late. The above example does not
have a holding instruction but if there is and the pilot leaves the stack 2
minutes late, that will eat into the FLOW controller's planned landing time;
d) finally, controller screw-up. Yes, that happens. With the radar screen set
at 200 NM and radar labels all over, sometimes the FLOW controller
misses out on an arrival in between the others that he has planned.
Whenver the above happens, new sequences are worked out and instructions issued. By this time, the aircraft should be with the Approach controllers. You'd get instructions to slow down when the original, or speed up or blah blah blah.
Having been involved with the FLOW program from the very beginning, I can say that it works out most of the time. It would be the exception rather than the rule that you'd find yourself getting seemingly contradictory instructions from the en-route and the Approach controllers. If you find that you keep experiencing this, then you probably need to bathe with 7 types of flowers to "buang sueh".
The FLOW program is based on the one used in Melbourne.
Speed control
Unless you are issued with a "high speed" instruction, 250 KIAS below 10000 ft. should be observed. When using speed control, the controllers have been advised to keep aircraft at minimum clean speed of 210 - 220 for as long as possible. Again, there will be times that this is not possible. At finals, we may impose speed of 190 knots until 7 miles.
I agree that if speed reference points are included in the STARs it would simplify things. Currently, we have a couple of operators who will reduce to around 120 -130 GS about 10 NM out!
Track miles
I agree that this is not done as often as I like. The guys I spoke to say that even though track miles is not given, they are monitoring and if they feel that you are on the high side, they will ask - are you ready for base? or something to that effect.
Intercepting GP from below while under radar vectors
It was agreed with the local operators, MH and AK that to reduce track miles, aircraft may be radar vectored to intercept the LLZ and, at times, the aircraft may not intercept the GP from below.
Own navigation for 10 nm finals
Again it was agreed with the local operators that the aircraft cleared to intercept 10 nm finals under own navigation shall intercept at 12 nm and be fully established at 10 NM. This is usually restricted to aircraft coming in from GUPTA or VMK from the south or ISTAN from the east when Rwy 32 is in use. When 14 is in use, then flights from INTOT to PIBOS may be offered. I, personally, prefer to radar vector.
Dependent arrivals to both runways
Currently, independent approaches are not allowed. Dependent arrivals are allowed but the diagonal spacing is still 5 NM. Assuming that 32 is in use, the arrival runway shall be 32L and the departure 32R. ATC does not offer 32R unless requested. There were complaints raised by some pilots departing 32R when they had to wait for the arrival.
Departures
First of all, you might be interested to know that "Lumpur Delivery" is situated at Subang Air Traffic Control Centre and not at KLIA. ATC clearances are normally available almost immediately. For flights within radar coverage, you'd get your requested level. For, flights into the South China Sea, Bay of Bengal or south to Australia, we have a no-PDC arrangement where intitial levels between FL250 to FL320 may be offered depending on the agreement.
We had discussions debating using slot times over a waypoint or using timed spacing at departure based on Mach Number Technique. We decided on timed spacing at departure as it optimises the slots. The drawback is that the pilot will be in the dark on the position of the other aircraft. It is up to Lumpur Ground to time your push back taking into consideration taxy times to the holding point and the number waiting at the holding point.
Wake turbulence separation
I have had many requests to reduce the departure separation. The trouble is the procedures allow it but the AIP is very clear - the pilot in command shall expressly initiate the waiver. That takes care of the departure but if both aircraft are headed in the same direction, Approach needs to hand over the two aircraft with 10 NM in trail separation (no closing speed) or vertically separated. This in turn increases the work load when step climbing is involved. I would like to see closer spaced departures but you'd have to do your part.
Departures from both runways
We actually tried this out in 2005, twice in fact. We used SIDs and not the parking bay as the criteria to decide on the runway. This was to avoid criss-crossing after departure. After the trials, a post-mortem was conducted and MAS said that the gains were negligible especially when Rwy 32 was in use. During the morning rush, most departures were eastbound plus the taxy time to 32L was excessively long. During the trials, we had an A330 to Penang going for 32L. When the aircraft reached the holding point, there 3 arrivals all spaced at minimum spacing necessitating a further 8-minute wait at the holding point!
With the LCC terminal situated so near to 32R, there may be even greater reluctance to taxy to 32L.
Anyway, DCA is very aware of the departure jam at certain times of the day and we are always willing to try various options.
I believe the design of the runways with their huge stagger is an impediment.
I hope this gives you a better picture of KLIA operations. I know it is not exhaustive. I'll be more than happy to explain more over nasi kandar at Kayu.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: malaysia
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
taxy thrust
I too have noticed the thrust power of acft at local aerodromes. Tks 4 the concern with rgds to the apron staff and the enthusiasts along the fence. Will all pilots agree to this is debatable but will look into it. I remember many years ago two young boys who were watching a F27 from behind the fence were invited by the Capt to visit the cockpit.After staring into the cockpit they remarked "kapal ini ada banyak jam lah". Though it sounds funny, I wished that day that this two boys would someday be involved in the field of aviation. As for me, I was once caned in the public because of an airplane that flew over our school during assembly time.While singing the national anthem, I was looking at the plane instead of the flag being raised.Such was my desire for aeroplanes but that's history.Till today I make it a point to educate the public n friends about the joys of flying n ATC by organising small tower n atc visits for whoever is interested especially children who are between 10-16yrs.I've been with the ATS for 31years and have another 7 to go and I hope to get more Malaysians understand the aviation environment better.Just briefed a couple of freshies from MAS last week about what's happening at the ATCC.I strongly believe in a good rapport between pilots and ATCers.Tony Fernandez personally walked into the ATCC sometime ago and personally shook hands with every ATCer on duty and something he said really touched the hearts of those who were on duty that morning. Quote "I really appreciate the service you guys are providing for us" Unquote.I am not putting him on a pedestal.Far from it. That personal h/shake meant a lot to the ATCers.Period.As for me, he's another ATC customer BUT here is man who has come out of his tight schedule to convey his appreciation thus strenthening the rapport between Controllers n his company.The key word here is rapport.I hate all this official meetings where minutes are kept and hours wasted. nasi kandar kayu at SS2 is fine.We want to help you guys save on the liquid gold man. On the longer run everyone will benefit especially the ENVIRONMENT and our children.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: malaysia
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCC Terminal
Have you guys ever wondered the kind of congestion you are going to get into with the new LCC Terminal at 32R? Is there any task force in MAS doing any studies? Any meetings with DCA or is it going to be the usual "we'll cross the bridge when we get to it" attitude. MAS should be pro-active in this matter and start the ball rolling now.Cheers.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: thunderStormPeninsula
Age: 52
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear velloo and chew,
personally am all for a teh tarik session, however i believe it'll be pretty difficult to get big numbers, due to the schedule of our guys in mh at the moment. will definitely give you a call soon, and i hope to be able to get at least 2 or three guys along. i'm sure it used to be a lot easier those days when slightly more intoxicating fluids was involved. it's just that it's a more sober nowadays. let us know if you have a preffered time and/or day of the week.
by the way, you'll have to put up with our youth too!!!!!
personally am all for a teh tarik session, however i believe it'll be pretty difficult to get big numbers, due to the schedule of our guys in mh at the moment. will definitely give you a call soon, and i hope to be able to get at least 2 or three guys along. i'm sure it used to be a lot easier those days when slightly more intoxicating fluids was involved. it's just that it's a more sober nowadays. let us know if you have a preffered time and/or day of the week.
by the way, you'll have to put up with our youth too!!!!!
Last edited by jetrat; 20th Jan 2006 at 06:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: malaysia
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atc/mas
Tks Jetrat we'll keep in-touch.The number seems right.Don't worry about the youth, we are quite used to them by now as it is the same on our side...apparantly they all seem to know everything within the Milky Way.Our roster is kinda fixed so much so that we can accomodate somehow..it's your tight schedules that might stand in the way n with the CNY holidays around the corner we'll c how we can adapt. I'll call u brother!Teh-tarik is absolutely fine.
Here is a question for all,
When ATC say "You are cleared Ismas 1B arrival,clear VOR DME approach Runway 22" Does this clearence allow a/c to leave the last assigned altitude even if the a/c has been maintaining higher than the initial approach altitude?
In other words,is it correct for ATC to clear the a/c for approach without bringing it down to initial approach altitude??
I've notice KLIA or anyway else always bring the a/c down to initial approach altitude before clearing it for approach except BTW 125.8.There have been a few times they did that and I've personally rang them to have a chat.The supervisor insisted that was taught in ATC school.Like KLIA the approach controller would say " Clear descend 3000' not below star steps and clear for approach runway 32l",right?
When ATC say "You are cleared Ismas 1B arrival,clear VOR DME approach Runway 22" Does this clearence allow a/c to leave the last assigned altitude even if the a/c has been maintaining higher than the initial approach altitude?
In other words,is it correct for ATC to clear the a/c for approach without bringing it down to initial approach altitude??
I've notice KLIA or anyway else always bring the a/c down to initial approach altitude before clearing it for approach except BTW 125.8.There have been a few times they did that and I've personally rang them to have a chat.The supervisor insisted that was taught in ATC school.Like KLIA the approach controller would say " Clear descend 3000' not below star steps and clear for approach runway 32l",right?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightleader,
I agree with you. You should be cleared down to IAA of that particular approach prior to the approach clearance. I will relay your experience to our Inspectorate Division. They are the guys who conduct proficiency checks on the military controllers at BTW.
I agree with you. You should be cleared down to IAA of that particular approach prior to the approach clearance. I will relay your experience to our Inspectorate Division. They are the guys who conduct proficiency checks on the military controllers at BTW.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: thunderStormPeninsula
Age: 52
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just wanted you guys to know that the mh 73 fleet was ill prepared for the implementation day before. literature for the aip was not available at the office. notams did not have cordinates for the points and neither did the rnav data base. sigh!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kay Ell
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew on the 20th (1 day after implementation) and the AIP supplements were there.
The Nav database is, of course, usually not updated that quickly...to be fair all us pilots were informed rather late, about a week before implementation date or so. The a/c Honeywell FMCs are only updated like every two weeks.
What's unforgivable are the computerized flight plans not being updated. Just flew back from Kuching and the flightplan is still boldly M761.PK.ISTAN. That one I cannot say anything.
The Nav database is, of course, usually not updated that quickly...to be fair all us pilots were informed rather late, about a week before implementation date or so. The a/c Honeywell FMCs are only updated like every two weeks.
What's unforgivable are the computerized flight plans not being updated. Just flew back from Kuching and the flightplan is still boldly M761.PK.ISTAN. That one I cannot say anything.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: malaysia
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uni-Directional RNAV Routes
It's not only he 737's that wasn't sure of the implementation of this new routes.Even the wide bodies were tracking for PK ISTAN.It's OK with ATC for a start. (Coordinates for PADLI 030918N 1033133E) .Give a few more days and the dust will settle down. Just finished one complete cycle on this sector (132.6). Things were pretty smooth EXCEPT for pushing down southbound tfc from BKK to SIN a bit early. The requirement is to ensure all southbound acft into SIN X PK F330 which I personally find that it is NOT necessary at all. The other is tfc inbound to KLIA via M763 TXL Y331 PIBOS. Are the wide Body guys comfortable with this arrangement? What about fuel burn? We may track acft to ISTAN somewhere between TXL n PIBOS tfc permitting. A bit uncomfortable to those flying into and out of Subang though(depending on the RWY in use at KLIA).We will be reviewing some of this arrangements on the 25th. at 9am. Give us your feedback. Also interested to hear from those using M751 SIN-BKK n vice versa.We are still experiencing readability problems on a intermittent basis around 20NM East of PK.Any comments?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Alderaan
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How's it going Chaps?
Just a couple of days back heard 132.6 chew up an express bloke for not listening out. And the bloke had the cheek to tell the controller to check his radio, when it was preety obv he was the one with the prob.
Just a point on a few very basic radio procedures where i beleive we have developed a few very bad malaysian habits.
1. Not listening out before changing to a new freq to c if anyone is actually transmiting. I dont see why a person has to change over and straight away start blabering away. LISTEN OUT FIRST.
2. Every clearence is always repeated with a "confirm". That has become like "lah". If u listen out, then they wont need to "CONFIRM". It has become a habit!
Sometimes there's way too much chatter which during peak periods cause unnessesary congestion.
When's the teh tarik thingy, count me in. Prefer the more intoxicating stuff, but i guess for a start this would do.
Tony, is one dude who knows good PR! Dam good at it as well. If mh had 1% of what he does im sure we wouldnt be in this mess.
Tony, if u ever read this forum's , well hat's off to u old boy, ill give u that!
The Rage
Ciao
Just a couple of days back heard 132.6 chew up an express bloke for not listening out. And the bloke had the cheek to tell the controller to check his radio, when it was preety obv he was the one with the prob.
Just a point on a few very basic radio procedures where i beleive we have developed a few very bad malaysian habits.
1. Not listening out before changing to a new freq to c if anyone is actually transmiting. I dont see why a person has to change over and straight away start blabering away. LISTEN OUT FIRST.
2. Every clearence is always repeated with a "confirm". That has become like "lah". If u listen out, then they wont need to "CONFIRM". It has become a habit!
Sometimes there's way too much chatter which during peak periods cause unnessesary congestion.
When's the teh tarik thingy, count me in. Prefer the more intoxicating stuff, but i guess for a start this would do.
Tony, is one dude who knows good PR! Dam good at it as well. If mh had 1% of what he does im sure we wouldnt be in this mess.
Tony, if u ever read this forum's , well hat's off to u old boy, ill give u that!
The Rage
Ciao
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: malaysia
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kul Atc
Hi Rage..tks old chap..nice to hear from you...when u say Express did u mean Fedex or Asian Express.I have observed that Asian Express quite often identify themselves as Express n so do Fedex. I always identify AK as Asian Express inorder not to confuse with Fedex who have been identifying themselves as Express since when Pontius was Pilate. Yeah..about the freq change n tx without listening out seems to be a pain in the neck many a times. We tend to keep our BP normal by just saying "u have been cut out say again pls"(sorry the please is there only on rare occassions). That teh-tarik thingy is just around the corner..waiting for Jetrat to be back from Timbaktu.Teh-tarik will be fine for a start.Tea will not confuse us much. Rage give me your opinion on this: u would have observed that the STAR is given to all acft that is inbound to KLIA. If there are 7 guys coming in from the East, the same STAR is given one by one to all 7.This lengthens the RT and shortens our lifespan.U guys are very familiar with the STAR.What exactly is enough for u guys? Wud something like this b gud?
"MH123 Nipar3A 32l via Istan b gud enough" or do u prefer the STAR to be on the CATIS. I am looking for ways to cut down on RT for tfc inbound via Padli/PK.tks 4 replies.
"MH123 Nipar3A 32l via Istan b gud enough" or do u prefer the STAR to be on the CATIS. I am looking for ways to cut down on RT for tfc inbound via Padli/PK.tks 4 replies.