Revised Bristol/Cardiff airspace/SIDs/STARs
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard Noise and ATCOJ. Appreciate you have noticed the A321 problem, I have spoken to members of your management and ATCO's re this dive and hopefully they have taken it on board but please keep pressing it. The right base idea is good as long as you tell us that is the plan and we can fly accordingly and more calmly!
Rod Eddington is absolutely right that vectors over the airfield without BRI in the 'box' (to long and boring to explain why) will cause aircraft to think it has landed and will ditch the entire flightplan causing us dozy ones to spend a frantic few minutes typing to sort things out....yes I know you smoothies will have it all sorted out in the secondary... so please tell us you will be taking us over the airfield.
Rod Eddington is absolutely right that vectors over the airfield without BRI in the 'box' (to long and boring to explain why) will cause aircraft to think it has landed and will ditch the entire flightplan causing us dozy ones to spend a frantic few minutes typing to sort things out....yes I know you smoothies will have it all sorted out in the secondary... so please tell us you will be taking us over the airfield.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SW UK
Age: 68
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod/Simride etc: Interesting comments on the possibility of the Airbus FMS dumping the flight plan if we route you towards/via the BRI. That was a new one for me, and slightly worrying too.
Is it Airbus-family FMS specific or equally applicable to Boeings and Embraers etc? If we had a radar failure and instructed you to route to the BRI for a procedural let-down, does it raise the spectre of you frantically reprogramming of the FMS and the approach plate (which approach plate? Paper copy or in the FMS?) at very short notice indeed?
As for straight-in approaches, I always watch the C unwind on the radar (caution, time-lag on it for us) and try to work out if your displayed alt., apparent ROD and track miles to go makes you look reasonably placed for the ILS LLZ intercept, offering the option for some more track miles unless you get in first with the request. That said, would you actually prefer a "proper" base leg radar circuit, even if it meant you were losing a minute or two and maybe were cursing me for NOT offering a straight-in? A case of rock-and-a hard place for us, maybe, but I'm there to try to make it all safe and easy for you guys (and everyone else...), so far as I can. I can't second-guess what you've briefed, what the wind is doing aloft and how you're going to manage the aeroplane's energy and descent profile.
Thanks Rich for the AHGPGA comments. Nice evening I spent with you guys recently.
Brain Fade - comments not taken too seriously but I'm really not your "babber" (whatever that is) nor ever will be.
Incidentally, for those that are interested, why did we fix on 4500 feet as the base for the CTA over Colerne? It was the lowest level we could all agree with the UAS at Colerne for their ops and QGHs; the lowest level we could all agree with the BGA and BHPGA for soaring on the Cotswold Escarpment and cross-country flying through-the Bath Gap. Everything in life is a compromise and I think this one was a real triumph, given the huge (and I mean huge) number of interested parties with whom we consulted over Class G airspace in the Bath Gap, possibly the most difficult of all the many parts of the airspace change process.
Is it Airbus-family FMS specific or equally applicable to Boeings and Embraers etc? If we had a radar failure and instructed you to route to the BRI for a procedural let-down, does it raise the spectre of you frantically reprogramming of the FMS and the approach plate (which approach plate? Paper copy or in the FMS?) at very short notice indeed?
As for straight-in approaches, I always watch the C unwind on the radar (caution, time-lag on it for us) and try to work out if your displayed alt., apparent ROD and track miles to go makes you look reasonably placed for the ILS LLZ intercept, offering the option for some more track miles unless you get in first with the request. That said, would you actually prefer a "proper" base leg radar circuit, even if it meant you were losing a minute or two and maybe were cursing me for NOT offering a straight-in? A case of rock-and-a hard place for us, maybe, but I'm there to try to make it all safe and easy for you guys (and everyone else...), so far as I can. I can't second-guess what you've briefed, what the wind is doing aloft and how you're going to manage the aeroplane's energy and descent profile.
Thanks Rich for the AHGPGA comments. Nice evening I spent with you guys recently.
Brain Fade - comments not taken too seriously but I'm really not your "babber" (whatever that is) nor ever will be.
Incidentally, for those that are interested, why did we fix on 4500 feet as the base for the CTA over Colerne? It was the lowest level we could all agree with the UAS at Colerne for their ops and QGHs; the lowest level we could all agree with the BGA and BHPGA for soaring on the Cotswold Escarpment and cross-country flying through-the Bath Gap. Everything in life is a compromise and I think this one was a real triumph, given the huge (and I mean huge) number of interested parties with whom we consulted over Class G airspace in the Bath Gap, possibly the most difficult of all the many parts of the airspace change process.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod/Simride etc: Interesting comments on the possibility of the Airbus FMS dumping the flight plan if we route you towards/via the BRI. That was a new one for me, and slightly worrying too.
Is it Airbus-family FMS specific or equally applicable to Boeings and Embraers etc? If we had a radar failure and instructed you to route to the BRI for a procedural let-down, does it raise the spectre of you frantically reprogramming of the FMS and the approach plate (which approach plate? Paper copy or in the FMS?) at very short notice indeed?
Is it Airbus-family FMS specific or equally applicable to Boeings and Embraers etc? If we had a radar failure and instructed you to route to the BRI for a procedural let-down, does it raise the spectre of you frantically reprogramming of the FMS and the approach plate (which approach plate? Paper copy or in the FMS?) at very short notice indeed?
In the event of a procedural approach we'll have the BRI in there (or if given it at very short notice will probably use direct to BRI then raw data outbound etc) so there wouldn't be a problem.
Done quite a few Cardiff flights but have not completed a single full SID, yet.
The 2300 by 4 miles is sometimes a little tight and I've also been requested to keep 180kts 'til 4 miles. Not in a 757, matey!!!
Any feedback from St Athan? I know they had concerns over the VGS and unofficial ATC there.
The 2300 by 4 miles is sometimes a little tight and I've also been requested to keep 180kts 'til 4 miles. Not in a 757, matey!!!
Any feedback from St Athan? I know they had concerns over the VGS and unofficial ATC there.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious... what reason would sensibly account for BRI not being in the FMC? Surely, BRI is part of the BRI1C STAR, and as such, should be expected to be called for, in normal circumstances?
Obviously, I fully appreciate that 'normal' actually often consists of radar vectoring by ATC once you're past POMAX, and that overflight of BRI is in fact very rarely used, but my point is, because it's part of the STAR, the presumption ought to be that it will be used... not the other way round.
Not trying to tell busy (and highly respected) busdrivers how to do their jobs, nor imply knowledge that I simply don't have on a working level... but I am rather curious, all the same.
Are there any other places in the UK where the last half of a STAR is 'optional' in terms of setting up the FMC?
It would seem (to my simplistic mind) that if BRI was routinely entered into the FMC, instead of 'as needed', then the system becomes 'fail-safe' again... viz:
Case 1: BRI in the box, radar heading off POMAX to straight in (or downwind and vectors to CF27) = no reprogramming necessary, the work is done on HDG SEL or manual after POMAX, until LLZ is captured (wherever that may be) = no problem, nor even a need to reprogram the box.
Case 2: BRI in the box, radar down, procedural approach = box takes you all the way to BRI, you fly the IAP on HDG SEL or manual to CF27 = no problem, no reprogramming either. Heck, you might even be lucky enough to also have the entire IAP procedure available as a "BRI Transition" (as my armchair B737 does), so the thing will fly the whole 107deg 8DME and proc turn onto LLZ without you even having to lift a finger until its time to flick over to VOR/LOC and APP when cleared to intercept/descend on the ILS?
Case 3: BRI in the box, radar having a bad day, late call, whatever, ATC gives you straight in under own nav from POMAX to CF27 without having initially vectored you from POMAX = a quick downselect of CF27 into the scratchpad, followed by LSK1L next to the top line and you're going direct CF27. Two button pushes. Providing you make the descent to CF27 okay, no problems with the box thinking you've passed the field.
Opposite Case X: BRI not in the box, and the situation is different. Pass the field at low-level (because you've been routed in procedurally instead of straight in)and the box says 'end of route' and leaves you high and dry. At the very least, you'll either have to fly manual or HDG SEL headings to get to BRI, if it's not in the box and ATC calls for it, or bung it in as a manually-typed 'Bee Arr Eye' LSK1L sequence into the box, to put it above the CF27 that you previously had. Four buttons, and a consequent route disco, and other things to possibly contend (such as recalced VNAV descent issues) at the busiest stage of your entire route.
I'm just a humble armchair driver, when it comes to flying buses, but I have got a lot of hours in, all the same, and albeit it simulated. There must be a reason, other than the simple human approach of 'save ourselves a minute but cost ourselves ten later when the plan doesn't pan out', as to why you'd deliberately not program the full, official STAR, only to have things potentially go pearshaped (FMC-end-of-route-wise), when things turn out to be different that one time?
Isn't it precisely because of situations like this, where we cut a corner to save a moment, but risk far worse when the other thing happens, that the fail-safe principle was invented?
Obviously, I fully appreciate that 'normal' actually often consists of radar vectoring by ATC once you're past POMAX, and that overflight of BRI is in fact very rarely used, but my point is, because it's part of the STAR, the presumption ought to be that it will be used... not the other way round.
Not trying to tell busy (and highly respected) busdrivers how to do their jobs, nor imply knowledge that I simply don't have on a working level... but I am rather curious, all the same.
Are there any other places in the UK where the last half of a STAR is 'optional' in terms of setting up the FMC?
It would seem (to my simplistic mind) that if BRI was routinely entered into the FMC, instead of 'as needed', then the system becomes 'fail-safe' again... viz:
Case 1: BRI in the box, radar heading off POMAX to straight in (or downwind and vectors to CF27) = no reprogramming necessary, the work is done on HDG SEL or manual after POMAX, until LLZ is captured (wherever that may be) = no problem, nor even a need to reprogram the box.
Case 2: BRI in the box, radar down, procedural approach = box takes you all the way to BRI, you fly the IAP on HDG SEL or manual to CF27 = no problem, no reprogramming either. Heck, you might even be lucky enough to also have the entire IAP procedure available as a "BRI Transition" (as my armchair B737 does), so the thing will fly the whole 107deg 8DME and proc turn onto LLZ without you even having to lift a finger until its time to flick over to VOR/LOC and APP when cleared to intercept/descend on the ILS?
Case 3: BRI in the box, radar having a bad day, late call, whatever, ATC gives you straight in under own nav from POMAX to CF27 without having initially vectored you from POMAX = a quick downselect of CF27 into the scratchpad, followed by LSK1L next to the top line and you're going direct CF27. Two button pushes. Providing you make the descent to CF27 okay, no problems with the box thinking you've passed the field.
Opposite Case X: BRI not in the box, and the situation is different. Pass the field at low-level (because you've been routed in procedurally instead of straight in)and the box says 'end of route' and leaves you high and dry. At the very least, you'll either have to fly manual or HDG SEL headings to get to BRI, if it's not in the box and ATC calls for it, or bung it in as a manually-typed 'Bee Arr Eye' LSK1L sequence into the box, to put it above the CF27 that you previously had. Four buttons, and a consequent route disco, and other things to possibly contend (such as recalced VNAV descent issues) at the busiest stage of your entire route.
I'm just a humble armchair driver, when it comes to flying buses, but I have got a lot of hours in, all the same, and albeit it simulated. There must be a reason, other than the simple human approach of 'save ourselves a minute but cost ourselves ten later when the plan doesn't pan out', as to why you'd deliberately not program the full, official STAR, only to have things potentially go pearshaped (FMC-end-of-route-wise), when things turn out to be different that one time?
Isn't it precisely because of situations like this, where we cut a corner to save a moment, but risk far worse when the other thing happens, that the fail-safe principle was invented?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said it's very easy to add the BRI if needed (just press DIR then type BRI, or insert BRI as TO waypoint).
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So just to clarify then, if we take you to the BRI then downwind, the flight plan drops out.
However, 99 times out of 100, I only need to take you 'towards' the BRI ie you get a turn crosswind 5-6DME from the beacon (it's only a small extension of track to allow you to lose a bit of height and going all the way to the BRI would be an unnecessarily long delay to both you and those in the sequence behind you). So to my question, would turning you into a circuit at that range from the BRI still cause the flightplan to drop out, or would that be OK?
And a request.....with there being many factors to whether you can safely make a straight in approach, I am always grateful if you let me know the wind speed/direction as you descend (if you can let us know that it would make a 'straight in' approach tricky then even better to help us plan). We only get forecast winds for one and three thousand feet which can be vastly different to what you are experiencing at 70 or 80, so if it's say 120/30 up there and we are trying to get you down for 27, give us a heads up. Last cycle I had an E145 passing 2200' on final 09 who told me the wind was 200/40. Our forecast 3000' wind was 160/20-25 and the surface was 150/13, so you can see the difference between what we think it should be and what it is.
Oh dear, brain starting to hurt, must lie down
However, 99 times out of 100, I only need to take you 'towards' the BRI ie you get a turn crosswind 5-6DME from the beacon (it's only a small extension of track to allow you to lose a bit of height and going all the way to the BRI would be an unnecessarily long delay to both you and those in the sequence behind you). So to my question, would turning you into a circuit at that range from the BRI still cause the flightplan to drop out, or would that be OK?
And a request.....with there being many factors to whether you can safely make a straight in approach, I am always grateful if you let me know the wind speed/direction as you descend (if you can let us know that it would make a 'straight in' approach tricky then even better to help us plan). We only get forecast winds for one and three thousand feet which can be vastly different to what you are experiencing at 70 or 80, so if it's say 120/30 up there and we are trying to get you down for 27, give us a heads up. Last cycle I had an E145 passing 2200' on final 09 who told me the wind was 200/40. Our forecast 3000' wind was 160/20-25 and the surface was 150/13, so you can see the difference between what we think it should be and what it is.
Oh dear, brain starting to hurt, must lie down
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So just to clarify then, if we take you to the BRI then downwind, the flight plan drops out.
However, 99 times out of 100, I only need to take you 'towards' the BRI ie you get a turn crosswind 5-6DME from the beacon (it's only a small extension of track to allow you to lose a bit of height and going all the way to the BRI would be an unnecessarily long delay to both you and those in the sequence behind you). So to my question, would turning you into a circuit at that range from the BRI still cause the flightplan to drop out, or would that be OK?
However, 99 times out of 100, I only need to take you 'towards' the BRI ie you get a turn crosswind 5-6DME from the beacon (it's only a small extension of track to allow you to lose a bit of height and going all the way to the BRI would be an unnecessarily long delay to both you and those in the sequence behind you). So to my question, would turning you into a circuit at that range from the BRI still cause the flightplan to drop out, or would that be OK?
Still appreciated if you pass on the plans to us, which you usually do, as it helps with the descent planning and also allow us modify the flight plan as appropriate.
As for the wind, certainly will!
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
), Rod, and thanks for the answer, and for taking my question seriously. I had wondered whether it was due to computed descent profile reasons, so it's nice to have that confirmed. I can understand why you'd want to do it this way round... pax don't like that recomputed 'semi-dive', if done the other way around, I can well understand! 
Of course, I can't help wondering now why on earth the FMC cannot use its loaf a bit more, and determine the 'end of route' status more effectively. After all, it knows the field elevation, so one would've thought it could determine that if you're greater than 622 feet on the altimeter, your journey is not strictly complete yet! It is unlikely that your QNH will be more than a couple of hundred feet out at the absolute worst (and probably, a lot more accurate than that) - so 'pressure-setting reasons' don't really provide a tenable reason for not doing this, I feel.
Similarly, one would've thought that 'weight-on-wheels' would be another useful check-and-balance for determining true arrival - assuming the FMC can do that (which I believe it can, in order to provide you with groundspeed readings on the gear ECAM when taxying).
I guess that's one for whoever it is that writes the software for the FMC, really, though! Maybe there's another technical reason why this is difficult to fix, but on the face of it, calling 'end of route' simply on the basis of a lat-lon position and no remaining FMC waypoints before the field position, would seem, er, a tad slack, no?
Thanks again, Rod, much appreciated.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I'm a Boeing pilot, not an Airbus one, so don't experiance the same problems that the Airbus seems to be giving you with the FMC.
Are you really saying that EVERY time you go overhead an airport that is part of the route, then it assumes you have landed?
What happens at an airfield with no radar abroad, where you go overhead the beacon for a procedural approach? Simply can't believe there is no way around your problem......
Perhaps instead of going direct to the BRI, you create a waypoint BRI270/1? Perhaps your route wouldn't dissapear, and would I'm sure be perfectly acceptable initial tracking accuracy for what ATC are trying to achieve by pointing you towards the 'overhead'.
30W
Are you really saying that EVERY time you go overhead an airport that is part of the route, then it assumes you have landed?
What happens at an airfield with no radar abroad, where you go overhead the beacon for a procedural approach? Simply can't believe there is no way around your problem......
Perhaps instead of going direct to the BRI, you create a waypoint BRI270/1? Perhaps your route wouldn't dissapear, and would I'm sure be perfectly acceptable initial tracking accuracy for what ATC are trying to achieve by pointing you towards the 'overhead'.
30W
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30W. It is not a problem, it is only very specific conditions which cause this quirk, I remember the 757 has a few!!!!! (ie something black that obstructs the panel..no no please not a French / US debate ) Procedural work is not an issue, and airfield dumping virtual never occurs and will not happen if you know the FMGC at all unless if like me your are looking out the window!
