'Meet the ATCOPILOT'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesham
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Meet the ATCOPILOT'
If anyone wants to read my article 'Meet The Atcopilot', which deals with the problems of level busts & RT congestion, it's available at www.steemrok.com/atcopilot. Comments welcomed.
ATCO here.
World TA: Good idea, I guess. (I'm fairly parochial down here). Had no idea the UK system was so complex.
Datalink/Displays/HDG/Altitude: Already under development, I believe. Could be appropriate for some area/oceanic applications, but in the tower the mix of having to type, accurately, ie zero mistakes, combined with the necessity of also using r/t and scanning outside would make it too cumbersome and ,I believe, detract from safety.Touchscreens? We DREAM of touchscreens.
Metrification: Forget it.Unless you want to change the vertical seperation standard to 1000M. Which would ameliorate significantly the effect of level busts, but triple (and then some) airline delays. By metricating the units used, you force those that have to use them into non-decimal think.It's natural to add/subtract a thousand feet, but to have to do that in groups of three hundred? Nope. Speeds in M/s? forces those that use them into thinking in very, very large numbers. (How many metres to the next waypoint/destination; how many seconds fuel remaining etc) It could be argued that this would only be a problem during the transition; I think not. For flights lasting several hours, it makes sense to use units of time and distance that are manageable/meaningful to the brain without having to go into logarithms. And the present ones work well.
World TA: Good idea, I guess. (I'm fairly parochial down here). Had no idea the UK system was so complex.
Datalink/Displays/HDG/Altitude: Already under development, I believe. Could be appropriate for some area/oceanic applications, but in the tower the mix of having to type, accurately, ie zero mistakes, combined with the necessity of also using r/t and scanning outside would make it too cumbersome and ,I believe, detract from safety.Touchscreens? We DREAM of touchscreens.
Metrification: Forget it.Unless you want to change the vertical seperation standard to 1000M. Which would ameliorate significantly the effect of level busts, but triple (and then some) airline delays. By metricating the units used, you force those that have to use them into non-decimal think.It's natural to add/subtract a thousand feet, but to have to do that in groups of three hundred? Nope. Speeds in M/s? forces those that use them into thinking in very, very large numbers. (How many metres to the next waypoint/destination; how many seconds fuel remaining etc) It could be argued that this would only be a problem during the transition; I think not. For flights lasting several hours, it makes sense to use units of time and distance that are manageable/meaningful to the brain without having to go into logarithms. And the present ones work well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesham
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi markjoy
Some valid points - I've heard from other sources that the technical stuff is already under development. I should keep more up to date with my own research!
I don't agree with your criticisms of metrication. Speed in metres per second equates in numerical terms to about half the value in knots. And it would be a pretty dim pilot who could not add or subtract 300 metres or multiples thereof. Pilots make many arithmetical calculations during their flight duties. As an example of everyday mental arithmetic, we Boeing drivers have to add 20, 40, 60 or 80 knots to Vref to calculate maneouvring speed during flap extension & retraction.
As I said in the article, the London TMA is frequently operating at capacity these days. I believe that the airprox hazard (or worse) is steadily increasing in UK airspace. Anything that can alleviate the situation is to be welcomed.
Some valid points - I've heard from other sources that the technical stuff is already under development. I should keep more up to date with my own research!
I don't agree with your criticisms of metrication. Speed in metres per second equates in numerical terms to about half the value in knots. And it would be a pretty dim pilot who could not add or subtract 300 metres or multiples thereof. Pilots make many arithmetical calculations during their flight duties. As an example of everyday mental arithmetic, we Boeing drivers have to add 20, 40, 60 or 80 knots to Vref to calculate maneouvring speed during flap extension & retraction.
As I said in the article, the London TMA is frequently operating at capacity these days. I believe that the airprox hazard (or worse) is steadily increasing in UK airspace. Anything that can alleviate the situation is to be welcomed.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree with your criticisms of metrication. Speed in metres per second equates in numerical terms to about half the value in knots. And it would be a pretty dim pilot who could not add or subtract 300 metres or multiples thereof
I can add thousands very well. I can't add multiples of 330m quickly or effectively when I'm half asleep. And lets not even start on the subject of Chinese flight levels at 5:30am.
May I ask, as a Boeing driver do you prefer to work in kilograms or in pounds, which was the unit of weight in which the Boeing was designed?
I don't agree with your criticisms of metrication. Speed in metres per second equates in numerical terms to about half the value in knots. And it would be a pretty dim pilot who could not add or subtract 300 metres or multiples thereof.
What's the appeal to going metric in this area, anyway? Apart from saving the news media and other interested parties from having to make the conversion themselves?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesham
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a fan of the metric system (kilos &c) - the result of studying a science subject (chemistry) to degree level. Aviation is a technical industry and should use 'scientific' parameter measurement. Markjoy - you ATCOs often instruct us to 'turn left 15 degrees' or similar. We manage to work it out without too much trouble. Feet & pounds are just very old-fashioned and illogical (like uniform hats). It's not anti-Americanism - the US invented aviation & has led the world in aviation technology. They just need to start thinking like Europeans!
But I accept I'm probably in a minority (of one?) here.
But I accept I'm probably in a minority (of one?) here.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julien Evans
I am an ATCO, I work in the TMA.... so on metrification, what vertical separation do you suggest?
As you state, the London TMA is working at or above capacity for a portion of every day.... 500 metres vertical separation would give us less levels to play with than 1000'.
330 metres separation is too difficult to muck about with in an environment where we are already working very hard.
500' or 200M separation is not enought when we are talking about an environment where us ATCOs HAVE to use performance climbs etc to get the job done on a regular basis - it would trigger too many alarms - even if TCAS was reprogrammed worldwide.
I am an ATCO, I work in the TMA.... so on metrification, what vertical separation do you suggest?
As you state, the London TMA is working at or above capacity for a portion of every day.... 500 metres vertical separation would give us less levels to play with than 1000'.
330 metres separation is too difficult to muck about with in an environment where we are already working very hard.
500' or 200M separation is not enought when we are talking about an environment where us ATCOs HAVE to use performance climbs etc to get the job done on a regular basis - it would trigger too many alarms - even if TCAS was reprogrammed worldwide.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesham
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing - 1000 feet equates to 300 metres (not 330). Available levels would be 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500, 1800, 2100, 2400 &c. I accept that ATCOs are far more involved in level changes than pilots, particularly in TMAs. Would these metric levels be too difficult to deal with?
An alternative would be to use current 'Flight Level' terminology from sea level upwards - you could then keep the current 1000 ft/ 300 m separations & the RT instructions would be identical to current practice, eg:
"Rebel 471 Mike, descend Level 20, cleared ILS approach." Level 20 would equate to 2000 ft or 1800 metres. The pressure altimeters would be set to QNH of course (or else altimetry derived from GPS).
With this procedure minimum flight altitudes and terrain elevation would be stated on charts as Flight Levels.
An alternative would be to use current 'Flight Level' terminology from sea level upwards - you could then keep the current 1000 ft/ 300 m separations & the RT instructions would be identical to current practice, eg:
"Rebel 471 Mike, descend Level 20, cleared ILS approach." Level 20 would equate to 2000 ft or 1800 metres. The pressure altimeters would be set to QNH of course (or else altimetry derived from GPS).
With this procedure minimum flight altitudes and terrain elevation would be stated on charts as Flight Levels.
Last edited by Julien Evans; 7th Sep 2006 at 11:53. Reason: adding info
Markjoy - you ATCOs often instruct us to 'turn left 15 degrees' or similar. We manage to work it out without too much trouble
With altitude assignment there is nothing that arbitrary about it: you have the required vertical interval, or there is a loss of seperation. We can't just say " I know we need 300M here, but I think 250 will work." ie, the intervals have to be memorised and applied almost by rote. Nothing much to memorise when the intervals are 1 (x1000) units apart.
"Rebel 471 Mike, descend Level 20, cleared ILS approach." Level 20 would equate to 2000 ft or 1800 metres. The pressure altimeters would be set to QNH of course (or else altimetry derived from GPS).
Point to the "no metric" side.
Not because I'm particularly anti-metric. But because the transition would be a nightmare involving hundreds of incidents around the world, if the industry was lucky.
And although the above might be perceived as a cheap shot at a typo, the proponent of change should be more careful when arguing the point. So, no offence, but if you can do that when you're arguing the case, I bet I can do it at least once a shift during a random cranial pause. (brain fart).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesham
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
markjoy - mea culpa! 2000 ft equals 600 metres. But where did the level bust come from? All a/c would have QNH set below the 'universal' TA (equivalent to 18,000 ft or its metric equivalent). What I'm suggesting is using 'Flight Level' terminology for all levels, above & below TA. Or else metric levels (in multiples of 300m).
The problem (& it's a big problem in UK airspace) is that the rules were set in 1949 or thereabouts, when American dominance resulted in the ICAO 'blue table' for parameter choice & European nations chose low TAs. If aviation had adopted a sensible, much higher, universal TA, we would not now be dealing with altimeter mis-set level busts (which account for about 10% of the total) and busts caused by crews distracted by altimeter resetting during critical flight phases. American domination also led to the preference of VORs for airway navigation rather than the British-designed Decca system, which would have introduced RNAV 40 years ago had it been adopted. Many in the industry considered VOR inferior to Decca. In 1949, airliner rates of climb rarely exceeded 1000 fpm (300 mpm). Todays jets can climb at 3 times this rate - another exacerbating factor.
It looks as if I'm a lone voice here. I've been an airline pilot for over 30 years, and I've witnessed RT & TMA congestion getting steadily worse. I hope I'm wrong, but I can envisage a disaster arising where our current over-complex altimeter procedures, too-low variable TA or RT overload (or a combination thereof) will perhaps be factors.
The problem (& it's a big problem in UK airspace) is that the rules were set in 1949 or thereabouts, when American dominance resulted in the ICAO 'blue table' for parameter choice & European nations chose low TAs. If aviation had adopted a sensible, much higher, universal TA, we would not now be dealing with altimeter mis-set level busts (which account for about 10% of the total) and busts caused by crews distracted by altimeter resetting during critical flight phases. American domination also led to the preference of VORs for airway navigation rather than the British-designed Decca system, which would have introduced RNAV 40 years ago had it been adopted. Many in the industry considered VOR inferior to Decca. In 1949, airliner rates of climb rarely exceeded 1000 fpm (300 mpm). Todays jets can climb at 3 times this rate - another exacerbating factor.
It looks as if I'm a lone voice here. I've been an airline pilot for over 30 years, and I've witnessed RT & TMA congestion getting steadily worse. I hope I'm wrong, but I can envisage a disaster arising where our current over-complex altimeter procedures, too-low variable TA or RT overload (or a combination thereof) will perhaps be factors.
Last edited by Julien Evans; 8th Sep 2006 at 20:39.
The (implied) level bust is probably a typo- 2000ft does not equal 1800M.
Look, I sure don't disagree with the idea of a universal TA, or anything else that is likely to improve safety. But I seriously wonder about the cost of introducing metrication in relation to altitudes. Aside from the fact that the use of feet is a deviation from international non-aviation convention, what is wrong with continuing to use them?
Not a great analogy, but if the world decided to standardise driving rules so all country's road rules were "keep left" (or right), how many fatalities would there be before everybody was retrained and adopted the new rule as a habit?
It seems that a fair bit of your inclination toward metrication might have stemmed from frustration with UK altimeter setting proceedures. Down here in godzone ours aren't nearly so complex, so I don't know what that might be like. But I do think fix one thing at a time. I've seen multiple changes brought in at times - sometimes from necessity (eg equipment/systems change), sometimes because of a "grand scheme" - and the results for the first 2 or 3 months after such a change has been a significantly increased incident rate. So I'm not dead against all your sugggestions, there's just no way I want to have to go through the three times table every time I assign a level.
Look, I sure don't disagree with the idea of a universal TA, or anything else that is likely to improve safety. But I seriously wonder about the cost of introducing metrication in relation to altitudes. Aside from the fact that the use of feet is a deviation from international non-aviation convention, what is wrong with continuing to use them?
Not a great analogy, but if the world decided to standardise driving rules so all country's road rules were "keep left" (or right), how many fatalities would there be before everybody was retrained and adopted the new rule as a habit?
It seems that a fair bit of your inclination toward metrication might have stemmed from frustration with UK altimeter setting proceedures. Down here in godzone ours aren't nearly so complex, so I don't know what that might be like. But I do think fix one thing at a time. I've seen multiple changes brought in at times - sometimes from necessity (eg equipment/systems change), sometimes because of a "grand scheme" - and the results for the first 2 or 3 months after such a change has been a significantly increased incident rate. So I'm not dead against all your sugggestions, there's just no way I want to have to go through the three times table every time I assign a level.
