India Four Two - at busy times descent may be delayed, used to happen years ago too, usually due to outbound climbing traffic on northerly routes.


Silberfuchs - Are you with, (or were you with), CX by any chance. ;) Did you contact ATC when you were on the ground and ask what was the cause etc. ? The reason I ask is that CX and QF were the constant complainers about SIA getting perceived preference at Changi but when incidents were investigated it turned out not to be so.

Most of us pilots from the west come to east with some jaundiced eyes every time so local carriers get to be vectored ahead without knowing the full picture. With the increase in low cost carriers, non RVSM/RNP compliant aircrafts in the mix as well as other restrictions from adjoining FIRs/TMAs and sensitive military training areas, SIN ATC faces a lot challenges in juggling the arrivals, departures, crossing traffic, etc.

A lot of complaints come from pilots with " big boy, big bully mentality ". There will certainly be occasions when a local carrier gets some kind of priority due to seemingly unfair reasons.howeverit could be the local pilot could have put in an earlier request on other enroute or initial approach frequencies, well ahead of others without the others being any wiser. So it is almost always presumptions and perceptions of favouritism.

Coming in from the north or north east into WSSS, there are many crossing traffic out of Malaysia and Thailand as well as military training areas restricting descent. The tropical thunderstorms do not help either.

Since the Singaporeans have made great strides in the economy, financial management, human resources and the very success of SQ, there are always people of " lesser mentality " ever willing to take them a peg or two, so the constant green eyed generated gripes and complaints. True, I have met equally arrogant big headed Singaporeans because of their success, but I understand the plight of SIN ATC as I familiarise myself with the airways, TMA and adjoining ATC centres of the region whenever I fly there!

Likewise because of the unique air traffic, air route structure, noise mitigation procedures and the crazy military traffic at Yokota, we also have to deal with crazy vectorings, runway changes and holdings when flying into Haneda. If you want to gripe about favouritism, you will have to complain about Japanese ATC who invariably always get a non Japanese plane to climb or descend momentarily to facilitate a Japanese crossing traffic. Western pilots have learnt not to gripe about this because the Japanese at this stage, pose no " rising threat of superiority " to our hallowed ways!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I tend to agree that there is no favoritism of local carriers in Singapore. Once or twice this was raised at SAOC meetings and Sing ATC always vehemently denied it. What I did see more than once was a local carrier ignore an instruction (e.g. to hold short of taxiway or slow down on descent) and was not challenged by Sing ATC and held to account there and then.

I operate out of SIN, and there is no definitely no favouritism towards SIN carriers.

"I've been on the ILS in SIN and had to break off and do an orbit, so a SIA 777 could be #1. "

So telling you to do an orbit below 3000 feet in the control zone instead of landing would help the SIA777 get in faster? Get real.

Thanks for the good laugh. Every time I taxi out to 02 I have to wait for aircraft from the Singapore family that push after us to be let in front. Numerous times have to wait extended times for SQ cabin crew to finish their fluff so the aircraft that pushed after us, that was put in front of us by ATC, calls ready.

Then there are all the delays with engines running we get waiting for SQ aircraft under tow.

Dont get me started on SQ climb and descent profiles. The term expedite does not mean less than 500 fpm. ATC should not need to instruct SQ aircraft three times in a climb to expedite. All it does in increases everyones workload.

Silber

"as there are many pieces of the ATC puzzle we pilots are not aware of ....and appearances can be deceiving."

Totally agree with you on that. I read your first post as you had a SIA777 behind you on the ILS and they made you perform a missed approach in order to let him land before you. Something that wouldn't make sense.

And the road rage....:eek:

swh - As I suggested before, go into the tower and stay long enough to see it all working, right now you are still talking utter drivel.

I will say, coming in from HKG on the 18th of Dec, SIN ATC was complete Mayhem. We carried a standard 2T extra fuel and wx was drizzle with vis around 8K and bas broken at 3k..no big challenges there then. We were told to hold at Vepli..the female controller was clearly very busy and getting overloaded. She picked us off on a SE heading with speed back at 210 then 180..we then had to do two orbits in two present positions. 3 a/c declared fuel emergency. One was a Scoot. Air Asia asked how long the delay might be..no answer..same controller was now getting flustered and replying with non standard RT.." wait a minute..I will see what can be done..I can't tell you.."
Service RW was 02L, and at no time was 02C offered for landing though we asked more than twice. When a delay time frame was offered, it was around 30 minutes, onto of our already 45 minutes of being vectored everywhere outside the prescribed holding areas..why not take up the hold at Nylon and get picked off the stack there… why not delay the outbounds off 02C and allow the mess to land?..
At no time was the controller relieved..where was the satco?..in a nutshell a bloody mess..and most unlike the SIN ATC of 10 years ago..no lateral thinking and no pragmatic flexibility..I'll be carrying at least 4 t extra next time..

Was it really different 10 years ago? I was up there then and it was a shambles on a busy day. Nothing has changed by the sounds of it...

If you are so confident there is no problems at all and I am just "talking utter drivel", how about I get a dollar value on every delay I get. I will be more than happy to accept $100,000 Singaporean dollars from you personally for every time I am delayed on EP in 2016.

If you are saying there are no problems, and I am "talking utter drivel", that should be a safe bet for you ?

Have you been to the tower in DXB, LHR, or LGW to see how it should be done ?

I was flying the arrival at that time too. A rather large thunderstorm (of course not forecast, thanks to the ever accurate SIN TAFs) had passed through, backing up the arrivals. And while the controller was a just a tad overworked (sarcasm intended) and did get a bit flustered, I think she did a pretty descent job under the situation (had this been KL, there would have been a ton of diversions). I wholeheartedly agree that they should have held departures off of 02C until they got rid of the logjam of arriving traffic (I believe that this created the whole messy situation on 02L). Whomever is in charge at Changi should really review that decision.

And just a point of semantics, I heard three "minimum fuel" calls during this time period, no emergencies. My carrier defines min fuel call as a situation where if you will land with less than you FMC reserve fuel (alt fuel + final reserve fuel). If there had been an true fuel emergency declared, it would have truly created a "Charlie Foxtrot" situation.

swh - I'll take that as a 'No' then, you have not been into ATC at SIN?


LGW and LHR yes, incomparable, given the airspace restraints at SIN. DXB not since 1969!


As for ATC falling apart I can only suggest you try Narita when it starts to snow! No joking.

The airspace is small and there are lots of constraints, including altitudes. There are areas of which below a certain height belongs to Malaysia, Indonesia etc. If the weather is bad with big cells all around with everyone asking for deviation, I think they are already handling it pretty well, honestly.

Frustrating it may be for the guys at the holding point of 02C/20C, but if you're up there trying to land with whatever fuel you have I think you'd appreciate this gesture very much.

I do think that it's a bit inefficient though the separation between arrivals, they should have it done like HK!

How's this?
 

Ok, so last night, after pushback request 02L to avoid long, long taxi. Told "unable due string of arrivals". Less than 30 secs later, SQ (right next to us) requests 02L. Approved! So we ask if 02L is now available and are told "negative due to your departure routing". Another SQ then calls up and requests 02L - "Standby" was the response. I posted earlier that there was no favouritism of local carriers but what are your thoughts? Is this blatant favouritism or the Controller doing the best he can?

where were u heading to?

Australia. I think the SQ A380 was off to LHR

You are the definition of intransigence! What part of " negative due to your departure routing " that you do not understand?!!!! Sigh......:ugh:

Hi Aviators,

I believe the Sq that was approved left was on Aroso SID, as such high chance of approval of 02L. Furthermore, he would have AWUT restrictions to meet.

Since you are flying to Australia, I believe your SID might be Anito. It would be more efficient for the departure controller to give you a further right heading turn if you dep via 02C. :) hope this explain everything.

Thanks 121.65.I don't think that I'm exaggerating that there is a perception out there that Sing ATC favours SQ. I stated before that I don't share this belief but part of the reason is the way in which ATC decisions are relayed. Had the controller initially said "negative due departure routing", it may have been better received. The initial reason given was "a string of arrivals" which means that they can't fit a departure in. To then approve SQ seconds later (no change in string) creates that perception. A really good controller might have added a comment at this point.

Before you attack me, let's remember that ATC is a service.