Revised Bristol/Cardiff airspace/SIDs/STARs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SW UK
Age: 68
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revised Bristol/Cardiff airspace/SIDs/STARs
Tried this Q on the Questions Forum a few days back but no responses so far...maybe no one's seen it there yet who's in a position to comment? Any comments/moans/praise from pilots (incl. GA and mil) on ops to/from Bristol/Cardiff since Aug 31, with the introduction of the new CTAs, SIDs and STARs? Does it make life any easier for you? As an ATCO, it certainly does for me. RT seems to be much reduced both in Tower and Radar, and I'm no longer having to worry about RIS/RAS, co-ordination and avoiding action outside controlled airspace. Official feedback via Chief Pilots, please, but it'd be nice to hear what you think, having spent well over three years (along with colleagues) trying to make this happen.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIDs STARS
Personally I like the new system. Thanks for the hard work you and your collegues have put in. BRS a wee bit frustrating @ mo due WIP on Taxiway G but that's an aside.
It seems as though Cardiff could be a little more inclined to give the Star for BRS instead of saying leave RILES on a heading of... when there's no other traffic on freq. Also the descent can be a little bit of a dive to keep in CAS esp on 09 with Northerlies. Deps seem to be more flowing as a result of the sids
All in all quite good.. Anyone else?
It seems as though Cardiff could be a little more inclined to give the Star for BRS instead of saying leave RILES on a heading of... when there's no other traffic on freq. Also the descent can be a little bit of a dive to keep in CAS esp on 09 with Northerlies. Deps seem to be more flowing as a result of the sids
All in all quite good.. Anyone else?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that some of our FCA 321's are struggling to make the altitude constraints when heavy. I.e. on a 27 departure they are sometimes 4-500 ft short of the 3000ft requirement whilst making the right turn.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
I personally think that the SIDS at BRS are very good -although since we fly turboprops a couple of them are tricky to cross check raw data, but thats not too much of a problem. The best thing about it (Im based at BRS) is that it reduces the 'continue straight ahead until advised' call that just about every aircraft used to get from the tower. Given that at BRS the tower frequency issues clearances, taxi instructions, servisair moaning
, and everything else a tower does, it really does help when you want to get a call in. By the way when is BRS going to get a ground frequency - its so busy there in the mornings these days.
As for the STARS - only been issed with one about twice. As someone else said - its usually a radar heading from RILES, or direct the BRI. Never here anything about DOBEM or whatever the others are called up over Wales!
Also - has anyone actually SEEN any workers on the taxiway GOLF since it has been closed???
Not me!
Cheers BRS ATC. Its a pleasure talking to you. Its just SERVISAIR that
me off when flying into there.
Cheers,
I personally think that the SIDS at BRS are very good -although since we fly turboprops a couple of them are tricky to cross check raw data, but thats not too much of a problem. The best thing about it (Im based at BRS) is that it reduces the 'continue straight ahead until advised' call that just about every aircraft used to get from the tower. Given that at BRS the tower frequency issues clearances, taxi instructions, servisair moaning
, and everything else a tower does, it really does help when you want to get a call in. By the way when is BRS going to get a ground frequency - its so busy there in the mornings these days. As for the STARS - only been issed with one about twice. As someone else said - its usually a radar heading from RILES, or direct the BRI. Never here anything about DOBEM or whatever the others are called up over Wales!
Also - has anyone actually SEEN any workers on the taxiway GOLF since it has been closed???
Not me!Cheers BRS ATC. Its a pleasure talking to you. Its just SERVISAIR that
me off when flying into there. Cheers,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SW UK
Age: 68
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the posts - much appreciated! More feedback welcome though, no matter if critical. For info, we know the level-stop info shown on the Jepp. BCN/WOTAN/BADIM SID charts has caused problems for a few crews and that is being addressed on Oct. 6, I'm told. Glad you think the RT loading has reduced too albeit it's not perfect: fair call. Yes, the back-track approach spacing is a pain for us to apply and frustrating for you guys. Thanks for your patience. Come and have a coffee with us if you can, especially if you have time to kill on standby or whatever. New pilots based at BRS particularly welcome and we hear a lot of new voices these days. Just call the Tower number.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ATCO,
Nice to see this forum goes that little bit further and actually helps in the flow of the Industry.
Will be Interested to hear what the changes will be to the Alt Restrictions on the 6th. How will we be able to find out the outcome?
Yes the Radio Chat has reduced as a result of the new changes although flying the SID would help further, especially for Cardiff I guess.
The WIP is a wee bit of a frustration but we all know how much your workload must have increased as a result. You'll be receiving the portion of patience I've recently lost for the shower of S also know as Serv air Bristol
Keep up the Good work!!
And a coffee would be great. would love to see what goes on up in the tower..
Nice to see this forum goes that little bit further and actually helps in the flow of the Industry.
Will be Interested to hear what the changes will be to the Alt Restrictions on the 6th. How will we be able to find out the outcome?
Yes the Radio Chat has reduced as a result of the new changes although flying the SID would help further, especially for Cardiff I guess.
The WIP is a wee bit of a frustration but we all know how much your workload must have increased as a result. You'll be receiving the portion of patience I've recently lost for the shower of S
also know as Serv air Bristol Keep up the Good work!!
And a coffee would be great. would love to see what goes on up in the tower..
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything that cuts down the inane chatter at BRS has got to be good.
Mind you, I think the mark of a well drawn SID or STAR is evidenced by how often it's flown.
I've never yet flown ONE of the new procs at BRS to its end. The BADIM sid never seems to get close to BADIM. Never found my own way to INGUR yet either.
View from the tower is great tho'.
Cheers ATCOJ
PS. I take it the 9 mile finals are due to the WIP on G, even if you're no 1?
Mind you, I think the mark of a well drawn SID or STAR is evidenced by how often it's flown.
I've never yet flown ONE of the new procs at BRS to its end. The BADIM sid never seems to get close to BADIM. Never found my own way to INGUR yet either.
View from the tower is great tho'.
Cheers ATCOJ
PS. I take it the 9 mile finals are due to the WIP on G, even if you're no 1?
Last edited by brain fade; 3rd Oct 2006 at 15:09.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the office
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
please bear in mind that often we need to set traffic up for London en-route which often means a heading on the south side of the airway.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SID's seem to work, when we have to use them, but haven't used a STAR yet.
Out of interest (I havent looked on a chart yet), leaving on a BADIM 1X dept cleared to FL 100, for example, what is the earliest level to be handed over to London? The reason I ask... we're cleared to FL100, approaching it we say "reaching FL100" at which point BRS ATC say "contact london on 1xx.xx". If we give a "passing FL70/80" for example will you hand us over to London sooner to help prevent leveling off whilst we try and get a word in?
Out of interest (I havent looked on a chart yet), leaving on a BADIM 1X dept cleared to FL 100, for example, what is the earliest level to be handed over to London? The reason I ask... we're cleared to FL100, approaching it we say "reaching FL100" at which point BRS ATC say "contact london on 1xx.xx". If we give a "passing FL70/80" for example will you hand us over to London sooner to help prevent leveling off whilst we try and get a word in?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SW UK
Age: 68
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To address a few of the issues raised by recent respondents to my post(s):
I'm told that Jeppesen are issuing new SID charts on Oct 6 which highlight the "do not climb above alt. 6000 feet until instructed by ATC" warning box on the plate and makes clearer the pictorial climb requirements on the BADIM/WOTAN and BCN SID charts, following several potential level-busts where crews were climbing FL80 on the SID.
BF:sorry you think some of the chat is "inane". Haven't we had this conversation before about weather warnings? Maybe we shouldn't get involved with tasks such as re-negotiating slots, putting in delay messages etc in your interests? On that score, the BADIM SID looks quite convoluted to fly, especially as you're at max range to receive the HON VOR below 5000 feet, I'm told. Do you really want to go all the way to BADIM on the published SID or wouldn't you prefer the saving in track milegage/workoad/time with a simple radar heading as you start the right turn, especially if it means a direct south-side routeing towards CPT therafter? Just let me know if you'd like to continue all the way to BADIM next time...
Why the level-stop at FL100 before handing off to LACC? It's most often to ensure we hand you over "clean" against inbounds descending in to Bristol/Cardiff from POMAX/ABDAL (from the east) and from DOBEM (from the north), an essential part of the silent handover procedure. We sometimes try to get a higher level so you can continue the climb but this means another phone call and the whole idea is cut down on those so far as possible.
Yes, the back-track spacing is a pain, big-time, but the spacing we are applying is more generic than not and no one can legislate for the point at which landing aircraft will be able to turn and start the trek back down the runway. We also have a no-no on using taxiway D for B757 and A321s now.
9 mile final if you're number 1, BF? Sound pretty-much standard to me for an ILS intercept, especially as we're watching the C wind down (the airspace bases of 3500ft, then 2000 feet on the 27 approach limit us to clearing you to an altitude 500 feet above the base) and don't want you above the GS before you intercept the LLZ if we can help it. Problem with that?
I'm told that Jeppesen are issuing new SID charts on Oct 6 which highlight the "do not climb above alt. 6000 feet until instructed by ATC" warning box on the plate and makes clearer the pictorial climb requirements on the BADIM/WOTAN and BCN SID charts, following several potential level-busts where crews were climbing FL80 on the SID.
BF:sorry you think some of the chat is "inane". Haven't we had this conversation before about weather warnings? Maybe we shouldn't get involved with tasks such as re-negotiating slots, putting in delay messages etc in your interests? On that score, the BADIM SID looks quite convoluted to fly, especially as you're at max range to receive the HON VOR below 5000 feet, I'm told. Do you really want to go all the way to BADIM on the published SID or wouldn't you prefer the saving in track milegage/workoad/time with a simple radar heading as you start the right turn, especially if it means a direct south-side routeing towards CPT therafter? Just let me know if you'd like to continue all the way to BADIM next time...
Why the level-stop at FL100 before handing off to LACC? It's most often to ensure we hand you over "clean" against inbounds descending in to Bristol/Cardiff from POMAX/ABDAL (from the east) and from DOBEM (from the north), an essential part of the silent handover procedure. We sometimes try to get a higher level so you can continue the climb but this means another phone call and the whole idea is cut down on those so far as possible.
Yes, the back-track spacing is a pain, big-time, but the spacing we are applying is more generic than not and no one can legislate for the point at which landing aircraft will be able to turn and start the trek back down the runway. We also have a no-no on using taxiway D for B757 and A321s now.
9 mile final if you're number 1, BF? Sound pretty-much standard to me for an ILS intercept, especially as we're watching the C wind down (the airspace bases of 3500ft, then 2000 feet on the 27 approach limit us to clearing you to an altitude 500 feet above the base) and don't want you above the GS before you intercept the LLZ if we can help it. Problem with that?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question is, why were these issues not picked up during the three-to-five years that these procedures were being developed? It would seem a tad obvious, especially if (as I had been led to believe) these procedures were tested prior to committing to them?
I appreciate that there is little use for the BCN VOR in any SIDs or STARs from either EGGD or EGFF, given its angles to both, but is there perhaps any merit in proposing a new VOR - perhaps on the field at EGGD itself, or maybe north of the city (say at Filton) which could be used instead?
I might well be talking pipe-dream, because I have no idea how much the installation and maintenance of a VOR costs, and I'm ready to accept that it's infeasible on those grounds.
But I still can't quite grasp why, if dependence on HON is vital to the following of these SIDs/STARs, it wasn't spotted as a borderline flakey, right from the off? Surely the whole point of having SIDs and STARs at all is to enable ATCOs NOT to have to come up with alternative vectors, precisely because this requires more 'hands-on' management of aircraft, and instead, to release ATCOs for other tasks - including, I appreciate, the surveillance of aircraft conducting those procedures to ensure they're being followed - but surely, this is a lot easier if the procedure is one that (a) CAN be followed by all a/c and (b) is the same every time, and recognised as such?
I am very grateful for ATCOJ30's input here, and none of my comments above are meant in an antagonistic or confrontational way. I really just want to get a handle on why, if they're not 'useable' on a constant basis, we even have these new SIDs or STARs at all. It seems that we've just moved the management overhead problem from one set of hands-on, ad-hoc vectoring requirements to another, that's all. I freely admit I may have missed a great deal more than is immediately obvious, though, so please don't interpret this as an attack, ATCOJ30.
Thanks again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SW UK
Age: 68
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rev Thrust: good Q on the SIDs. When originally drawn up, all the Bristol and Cardiff SIDs HAD to be based on established, conventional nav-aids, within their protected ranges, plus an element of DR was allowed, strictly in accordance with ICAO SID design criteria. We struggled to some degree because of the required use of the BRI and CDF NDBs for the initial SID tracks (in the absence of anything else) and thus had to make use of proposed DR tracks, after the noise cut-offs within the NPRs (levels/ILS DME ranges), in order to pick up QDRs from the NDBs. The agreed brief for us was basically : "get aircraft into the airways at these points", remember. "How you do it is up to you..."
Originally both Cardiff and Bristol had some PRNAV SIDs which were seen as having significant environmental benefits BUT these were not approved by the CAA, ultimately. Hence, within a couple of months or so before the implementation date, CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy suggested the use of HON VOR, extended it's protected range and we conducted a number of flight trials to ensure that these were viable, as indeed they were, albeit generally above 4000 feet.
The irony of course is that most of the commercial aircraft types using both airports are RNAV/FMS equipped and thus can track to the required airways interface points without using conventional nav-aids at the airports. So, no new VOR was seriously considered for all sorts of reasons but, in truth, there really wasn't a case for one, given the fact that:
a) HON/BCN/BHD/CPT/BRI/CDF were available, with some use of respective DMEs and b) so many aircraft are RNAV equipped.
Putting a BADIM dep on a radar heading is not a big deal for us anyway, especially if we have to vector a/c off the SID after the NPR to ensure separation from other traffic and (hopefully) a continuous climb. Hope that helps. If you guys have an issue with NOT flying the full SID, please give us that feedback officially through Chief Pilots/FSOs and we'll talk. I know it has been discussed before on PPRUNE, especialy in the London area. Thanks again for taking the time and trouble to post.
Originally both Cardiff and Bristol had some PRNAV SIDs which were seen as having significant environmental benefits BUT these were not approved by the CAA, ultimately. Hence, within a couple of months or so before the implementation date, CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy suggested the use of HON VOR, extended it's protected range and we conducted a number of flight trials to ensure that these were viable, as indeed they were, albeit generally above 4000 feet.
The irony of course is that most of the commercial aircraft types using both airports are RNAV/FMS equipped and thus can track to the required airways interface points without using conventional nav-aids at the airports. So, no new VOR was seriously considered for all sorts of reasons but, in truth, there really wasn't a case for one, given the fact that:
a) HON/BCN/BHD/CPT/BRI/CDF were available, with some use of respective DMEs and b) so many aircraft are RNAV equipped.
Putting a BADIM dep on a radar heading is not a big deal for us anyway, especially if we have to vector a/c off the SID after the NPR to ensure separation from other traffic and (hopefully) a continuous climb. Hope that helps. If you guys have an issue with NOT flying the full SID, please give us that feedback officially through Chief Pilots/FSOs and we'll talk. I know it has been discussed before on PPRUNE, especialy in the London area. Thanks again for taking the time and trouble to post.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCOJ
As you say. Done the 'Inane chatter' line before. I agree with you there is less, so happy days!
Re BADIM etc. Not complaining! Wouldn't want to go there anyway! Just wondering why the SID takes you there. (I'll look at the chart which probably makes it clear.
Re 9 miles. Yes I think that's a bit much. Especially if you're coming say downwind RH , past the airport and out to 10 before right base, but hey, what do I know!
For the record, I think the new stuff is not bad. Hope it helps you to max your traffic.
Have fun.
BF
As you say. Done the 'Inane chatter' line before. I agree with you there is less, so happy days!
Re BADIM etc. Not complaining! Wouldn't want to go there anyway! Just wondering why the SID takes you there. (I'll look at the chart which probably makes it clear.
Re 9 miles. Yes I think that's a bit much. Especially if you're coming say downwind RH , past the airport and out to 10 before right base, but hey, what do I know!
For the record, I think the new stuff is not bad. Hope it helps you to max your traffic.
Have fun.
BF
Being based in Bristol too I have definately seen the advantages of the new Sids/Stars. As many people say, shame about taxiway golf and the Western apron parking, but there we go... Just out of interest, multiple times I have been asked when getting airborne to confirm my "passing level". Since we are climbing to an altitude I do believe that the word "level" could lead people to believe they are actually cleared to a flight level instead of an altitude. With significant deviations from the standard pressure setting this could easily lead to a level bust where seperation from inbound traffic could be reduced quite easily. So just wondering if it shouldn`t be "confirm passing altitude" so people don`t get trapped into thinking they have to be on standard.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confirm your passing...
PGA, I agree with your last. You do have to think twice on wheather you've been cleared higher or not. It just adds a wee bit of uncertainty to your climb. I think below the TL ATC should use "Confirm your passing Altitude" as some already do.
Actually thinking about it more, there doesn't seem to be any consistency as to when the two are used? Can ATCOJ30 shed any light?
Perhaps there's a good reason behind it and I as a jockey have forgotten some important stuff I really shouldn't have..
Cheers Crew..
Actually thinking about it more, there doesn't seem to be any consistency as to when the two are used? Can ATCOJ30 shed any light?
Perhaps there's a good reason behind it and I as a jockey have forgotten some important stuff I really shouldn't have..
Cheers Crew..
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check your CAP413s, guys... I think you'll find the answer in there, Chapter 3, para 1.2 (Level Instructions), particularly para 1.2.3 (I'm looking at printout of Edition 14, which is Sep 04, so I'm hoping it's not changed... I do have a current edition, but only in electronic form, and I don't have that to hand right now)
Anyway - the implication of that section is that ATC will ALWAYS request your LEVEL when getting you to 'level report' - it's down to us, the pilot, to readback what we're at correctly - remembering 'ALTITUDE' or 'FLIGHT LEVEL' as appropriate to the situation and, if necessary, our earlier clearance.
Thanks to ATCOJ30 for his frank explanation of what happened with the SIDs & STARS involving HON... I just knew it would turn out not to be a Bristol ballsup, but instead, the heavy dead hand of the higher-ups at the CAA! Ain't it always the way!
I have no personal desire to visit BADIM that often either, but really was more concerned about the self-defeating workload level issues, if vectors are used. But as you've explained, it's not THAT big a deal, presumably cos there is so much time/loadsaving elsewhere in the system now.
Would be interested to know how things are progressing re 'the Bath Gap' and whether that particular nightmare has turned out better for you now, as planned?
Anyway - the implication of that section is that ATC will ALWAYS request your LEVEL when getting you to 'level report' - it's down to us, the pilot, to readback what we're at correctly - remembering 'ALTITUDE' or 'FLIGHT LEVEL' as appropriate to the situation and, if necessary, our earlier clearance.
Thanks to ATCOJ30 for his frank explanation of what happened with the SIDs & STARS involving HON... I just knew it would turn out not to be a Bristol ballsup, but instead, the heavy dead hand of the higher-ups at the CAA! Ain't it always the way!
I have no personal desire to visit BADIM that often either, but really was more concerned about the self-defeating workload level issues, if vectors are used. But as you've explained, it's not THAT big a deal, presumably cos there is so much time/loadsaving elsewhere in the system now.
Would be interested to know how things are progressing re 'the Bath Gap' and whether that particular nightmare has turned out better for you now, as planned?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whereas, if we as pilots just accept (and remember) that the question is always arbitrarily-worded "level", and that WE must do the thinking, we are (hopefully) less likely to be led into thinking the answer is also a level, when it should be an altitude.
I agree, it's not ideal... but then what would be a suitable replacement for the word 'level' in the report request? Height's out, altitude's out (for the same reasons), 'vertical position' is a mouthful (and potentially confusing if readability is bad and 'vertical' isn't heard). 'Upwardness' and 'Thingy' probably wouldn't cut it
(I'm being silly now, I know).I guess it's the old "choose something that's 'fail-safe' rather than 'fail-dangerous'" scenario, isn't it? In which case, 'level' is probably best.
Of course I could be COMPLETELY wrong here about all of this, so let's see what our resident ATCO says!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Rev!
If there's one thing I know in aviation.. It's that I know nuffink!
Thought there'd be a wierd worded explanation as to why I was wrong... There usually is...
Level it is then
Good thread for Bristol and Cardiff well done and thanks once more ATCOJ30 for giving us this discussion arena, hope you get what you need out of it. On the whole good effort BRS keep it up!!
(Serv air not included!!!)
Thought there'd be a wierd worded explanation as to why I was wrong... There usually is...
Level it is then
Good thread for Bristol and Cardiff well done and thanks once more ATCOJ30 for giving us this discussion arena, hope you get what you need out of it. On the whole good effort BRS keep it up!!
(Serv
air not included!!!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SW UK
Age: 68
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys. Interesting comments re. "report your level". MATS Part 1 (one of two items of essential bedtime reading) defines level as:
"A generic term relating to the vertical position of an aircraft in flight and meaning variously height, altitude or flight level". So now you know.
We need the check to verify that the reported level is +/- 200 feet from that shown on the Mode C on the radar display before the aircraft is transferred to Cardiff. Replies from flight crew of "approaching XXXX feet" aren't acceptable, I'm afraid, for that very reason.
Rev. Thrust: please don't be too harsh on CAA: they have a job to do and, in this case, using the HON VOR is surely better than a combination of DR tracking and back bearings off an NDB, from your viewpoint? I thought it was
quite inspired, actually...and helpful! The main thing is that we got the SIDs in place after so long and they're compliant with all required criteria, of that I have no doubt. Dealing with the Bristol/Cardiff airspace changes and SIDs/STARs was a huge undertaking for CAA, especially if you knew the amount of environmental stuff that went on for all concerned.
Bath Gap situation now? Great! No longer am I having to constantly scan the screen to see what's likely to conflict with you guys in the open FIR and (frequently) have the difficult choice of where to turn you for avoiding action to ensure the biggest "gap" (or just any gap) from other traffic. It's totally changed the way we operate and has increased my thinking-, speaking- and scanning capacity enormously. That said, we have made significant airspace sharing concessions to the gliding- and paragliding folk (amongst others) and have agreements in place which let them have access to the Bath Gap CTA up to 4500 feet and over the Mendips up to 5000 feet on good-gliding-weather days, non-radio. We've simulated it plenty but have yet to work it for real on a regular basis. There'll inevitably be more RT chat and some creative radar vectoring required by us, accordingly.
BF- hope we're getting the ILS intercept ranges about right when the back-track isn't required. It's odd looking at a totally different video map on the radar now from the one I've used for 21 years and all of us have been tending to take aircraft wider than we were doing previously, I think. We practiced use of the new airspace on simulators for hours and hours but it's a lot easier doing it for real, albeit there's still plenty for me to learn through sheer experience. My thanks to you for your patience and feedback.
"A generic term relating to the vertical position of an aircraft in flight and meaning variously height, altitude or flight level". So now you know.
We need the check to verify that the reported level is +/- 200 feet from that shown on the Mode C on the radar display before the aircraft is transferred to Cardiff. Replies from flight crew of "approaching XXXX feet" aren't acceptable, I'm afraid, for that very reason.
Rev. Thrust: please don't be too harsh on CAA: they have a job to do and, in this case, using the HON VOR is surely better than a combination of DR tracking and back bearings off an NDB, from your viewpoint? I thought it was
quite inspired, actually...and helpful! The main thing is that we got the SIDs in place after so long and they're compliant with all required criteria, of that I have no doubt. Dealing with the Bristol/Cardiff airspace changes and SIDs/STARs was a huge undertaking for CAA, especially if you knew the amount of environmental stuff that went on for all concerned.
Bath Gap situation now? Great! No longer am I having to constantly scan the screen to see what's likely to conflict with you guys in the open FIR and (frequently) have the difficult choice of where to turn you for avoiding action to ensure the biggest "gap" (or just any gap) from other traffic. It's totally changed the way we operate and has increased my thinking-, speaking- and scanning capacity enormously. That said, we have made significant airspace sharing concessions to the gliding- and paragliding folk (amongst others) and have agreements in place which let them have access to the Bath Gap CTA up to 4500 feet and over the Mendips up to 5000 feet on good-gliding-weather days, non-radio. We've simulated it plenty but have yet to work it for real on a regular basis. There'll inevitably be more RT chat and some creative radar vectoring required by us, accordingly.
BF- hope we're getting the ILS intercept ranges about right when the back-track isn't required. It's odd looking at a totally different video map on the radar now from the one I've used for 21 years and all of us have been tending to take aircraft wider than we were doing previously, I think. We practiced use of the new airspace on simulators for hours and hours but it's a lot easier doing it for real, albeit there's still plenty for me to learn through sheer experience. My thanks to you for your patience and feedback.