Back to Board Index
Back to Board Index
Forum help
| FAO Mick McG: Phraseology Q | |
Christian Smith   24th Feb 2012 11:36:26 | Hi Mick,
Hope you're well. Could you advise some suitable phraseology for permitting aircraft to commence a direct VOR arrival from TLA for a ILS/NDB(L)/DME App with reference to: http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-BE6C9B96C35F6D80642550DF922EA69A/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts /AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGPH_8-6_en_2012-02-09.pdf This is what I'd be inclined to teach to our new radar controllers..... "G-BCRS, Cleared to EDI Edinburgh NDB via TALA Direct Arrival, Descend when ready altitude 3000ft, QNH1013, Expect NDB/DME Approach Runway 24" [readback] "G-BCRS, Report entering the hold" -Or do we provide descent instructions to the a/c relative to the chart? Regards, Christian |
| Christian Smith 24th Feb 2012 11:37:13 | LINK TO CHART
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-BE6C9B96C35F6D80642550DF922EA69A/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGPH_8-7_en_2012-02-09.pdf |
Joe Clifford  24th Feb 2012 16:46:23 | Ill Give It A Go, See If Im Getting The Right End Of The Stick
G-BCRS - "Edinburgh Approach, G-BCRS, inbound Edinburgh, information Delta" Edinburgh Approach - "G-BCRS, Edinburgh Approach, pass your message" G-BCRS - "G-BCRS 20 miles south of Talla, FL80, IFR, request NDB/DME approach" Edinburgh Approach - "G-BCRS, Cleared to TLA at FL80, expect NDB/DME approach Runway 24" G-BCRS - "Cleared to TLA FL80 to hold. G-BCRS" Edinburgh Approach - "G-BCRS, descend to altitude 3000 feet, Edinburgh QNH 1015, report entering the hold" G-BCRS - "Descend to altitude 3000 feet Edinburgh QNH 1015, wilco, G-BCRS" *Some Time Later* G-BCRS - "G-BCRS, overhead TLA, maintaining 3000 feet entering the hold" Edinburgh Approach - "G-BCRS" *Then For The Approach* Edinburgh Approach - "G-RS, cleared NDB/DME approach runway 24, report beacon outbound" G-BCRS - "Cleared for NDB/DME approach runway 34, Wilco, G-RS" G-BCRS - "G-RS, beacon outbound" Edinburgh Approach - "G-RS, report base turn complete, QNH 1015" G-BCRS - "Wilco, QNH 1015, G-RS" G-BCRS - "G-RS, base turn complete" Edinburgh Approach - "G-RS, report at 4 DME" G-BCRS - "Wilco, G-CD" *A Little While Later* G-BCRS - "G-RS, 4 DME" Edinburgh Approach - "G-RS, Roger, contact Tower 118.70" G-BCRS - "Tower 118.7, G-RS" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Took the principle from CAP413 and just changed some stuff about Hope Thats Helpful Joe |
| Mick McG 25th Feb 2012 00:12:27 | H'o chaps,
Firstly, you know when you ask me a question it's not going to be a short answer and secondly, without having any knowledge of Edinburgh's MATS2 (their ATC bible), I can only offer something of an educated guess. Ok, here goes.... Christian, you are on the right lines but the procedure itself is designed to allow pilots to make a continuous descent from a particular navigational or holding facility onto the final approach track or ILS without having to hold or go via the initial approach fix (IAF) - hence the DIRECT part of the direct arrival procedure. The procedure is normally tee'd up in one of two ways, either: 1. By standing agreement, where the details of when and under what circumstances the procedure can be flown, will be set out in writing, in this case, between Prestwick Centre and Edinburgh ATC; or 2. By tactical coordination between the STMA controller and Edinburgh Approach following a request by the pilot to the STMA controller. As part of the normal inbound liaison call between Edinburgh Radar and the TMA controller at Prestwick, the radar/approach controller will pass the lowest level at the holding facility available for use by Area Control. In this case the holding facility will be TWEED and we’ll assume the lowest available level is FL60. A "release point" for the aircraft is agreed between the two controllers (or adhered to if part of a written standing agreement). The release point can be a position, a level or a time and is [for simplicity] best explained as the point at which the control of the aircraft is transferred from the Area Controller to the Approach/Radar Controller. In this case, we’ll assume the pilot has been cleared on the TWEED2C arrival and the release point is TALLA (but it could just as easily be ESKDO on the TWEED1A or TARTN on the TWEED1D) Now, assuming that all standing agreement and/or coordination/liaison conditions have been met, the Edinburgh Approach Controller will know the pilot has requested the Direct Arrival. On initial contact the pilot will call with something like: “Edinburgh Radar; Open 123; [Descending/Level] Flight Level….., overhead TALLA” Assuming there is no conflicting traffic the controller might respond with: “Open 123, Edinburgh Radar; Identified. Cleared Direct Arrival for ILS approach Runway 24. Descend to altitude 3000ft QNH………(hPa*). Report Localiser established”; or for NDB/DME: “Open 123, Edinburgh Radar; Identified. Cleared Direct Arrival for NDB/DME approach Runway 24. Descend to altitude 3000ft QNH………(hPa*). Report established on the final approach track” (* as required) Obviously, you’re not going to clear an aircraft for the direct arrival if you’ve got 3 aircraft ahead of him, or below him, in the stack already waiting to get in. However, if you have a stream of aircraft all inbound from airways (from the south in this case) and they are adequately spaced (they should be if TMA are doing a decent job for you), you could clear each one in turn as they call you, providing some form of procedural separation is built in for use in the event of radar loss (by far the easiest is 1000ft vertical separation). You get the pilot to report when vacating a particular level and when he does you clear the next one down to that level and so on. Piece of cake :) I can think of a couple of “yeah, but…” and “what if…” type questions here but both my index fingers are bleeding from the frenzied attack on the keyboard and I need a brew. So, in conclusion the phraseology is a doddle and it appears I could have answered your question in 4 lines if I wasn't such a waffly old git. Happy to expand on any of the points above if you come up with any "yeahbuts" too. Now where's the plaster tin? Best ones, M |
| Mick McG 25th Feb 2012 00:32:07 | Quick reread of info above and a better way to ensure the pilot doesn't plummet to 3000ft at TLA would be to say:
"Open 123, Edinburgh Radar; Identified. Cleared Direct Arrival for ILS approach Runway 24. Descend with the procedure to altitude 3000ft QNH………(hPa*). Report Localiser established” The next aircraft in the sequence could be cleared thus: "Open 456, Edinburgh Radar; Identified. Cleared Direct Arrival for ILS approach Runway 24. Descend with the procedure to altitude 4000ft QNH………(hPa*). and so on. That's one of the "yeahbuts" out of the way at least. :) |
| Christian Smith 25th Feb 2012 18:42:42 |
Thank you Mick! Wise words as always. So with this as the case the aircraft is cleared for the ILS or NDB/DME Approach at a relatively significant time before they will be turning on to the final approach track (Relative to the standard NDB/DME procedure). Would I also be correct in assuming that any aircraft could attempt this approach or, in a similar way to restrictions on a couple of SIDs at Edinburgh, be relevant to only those aircraft who can maintain a relatively high air speed? In reality of course, aircraft would be more likely to expect this type of procedure, and in tranferring this and making it relevant to flight sim procedures it could be added as a request via the flight plan / on initial call. Final point, and I may be very much off the right wavelength here, but, With the standard NDB/DME Approach the typical RT transmitted is along the lines of: G-BCRS, Cleared NDB/DME Approach, Runway 24, Report Beacon Outbound G-BCRS, Report Base turn complete G-BCRS, Report 4 DME G-BCRS, Contact Edinburgh Tower 118.70 So at "Report 4 DME" - Is this a standard transmission for aircraft on a NDB/DME approach or is this simply the radar approach controller who is keeping the aircraft on frequency for seperation requirements... in other words, I will have no doubt looked at RT in an example where this "Report" has been used and read it as a standard message to the aircraft turning onto final approach. Do I also assume that should, for any reason, the controller require to vector the aircraft in order to maintain a safe flow, he can very simply give them this vector similar to how aircraft can be pulled off a STAR or would some kind of confusing cancellation of the direct arrival clearance be required? I really can't think of any yeahbuts- the approach, (as with most procedural control) makes good sense with the context you have applied! Speak soon, Christian |
| Mick McG 25th Feb 2012 23:19:50 | H’o mate,
I’ve done a bit of digging around and discovered that the TMA controller does indeed have to coordinate traffic individually with Edinburgh. Single arrivals are cleared by the TMA Controller to follow the direct approach with release and contact (to Edinburgh Radar) at TALLA. So far so good! However, there is a slight difference from my explanation above (and I should have realised it really) – Direct arrivals MUST pass over the TLA VOR and establish on the appropriate radial to comply with the approved procedure – so, no short-cut routings from TWEED etc to pick up the radial, the aircraft must route over TLA. And finally, in the real world it’s the TMA controller who “clears” the pilot for the procedure using the following phraseology: “[Callsign], cleared for the Direct Procedure ILS Runway 24 from TLA, maintain FL70 [never lower than the minimum stack level] on reaching. Expect further descent on contact with Edinburgh Radar 121.0” The rest will be pretty much as described in the post above. There may be some minor change of phrasing on initial contact from the controller at Edinburgh but the gist will be the same ie, identify the aircraft, confirm the procedure to be flown together with the runway in use and get the aircraft on his way down to a safe level. To answer your questions in order; Firstly, the phrase, “cleared for ILS approach” is a bit of a misnomer when controlling using radar. It’s a procedural phrase that gets misused a fair bit even by real world radar controllers but essentially there is absolutely NO requirement to say “Cleared for ILS approach” if your radar is working. As a radar controller, you simply vector the aircraft onto the localiser or, as in the direct arrival case, get him to do it himself, and then tell him to “descend with the glidepath”. If there is nothing to affect his descent on the glidepath and you know this in advance then you can tell him, “When established on localiser, descend on glidepath”. Never “cleared for the ILS approach”! I now dismount from my high horse. Any aircraft suitably equipped and flown by a pilot suitably qualified can fly the procedure. There are no minimum speed restrictions as far as I know, but you wouldn’t allow a C172 to do it if you had a B737 any closer than 50nm behind I reckon. Ideally, for it to work as though running on rails, you want similar speed/size aircraft at around 10nm spacing. Your point about this being the norm for real world ops is definitely the case. I’ve been sat on the radar at Leuchars watching this exact procedure at Edinburgh. Pilots want the quickest, most fuel efficient route into their destination and, when traffic levels permit it, this is a very effective way of achieving exactly that. In FSX/FSO, I agree that the best way to request this procedure would be via the flightplan or on initial contact. Ok, “standard” NDB phraseology. Just to add a bit more confusion for other members reading this, the NDB approach is a pilot interpreted procedure. That is, it does not require any directional input (vectors) from the controller – the pilot will position himself onto the final approach. However, unlike the ILS, this procedure DOES require the controller to “clear” the pilot for the approach and the sequence of transmissions goes something like this (we’ll assume Open 123 has requested the hold for training in his FPL): Pilot: “Edinburgh Radar, Open 123; Overhead TALLA, FL70; request (routeing to the EDI for two holds followed by) NDB/DME approach” ATC: “Open 123, Edinburgh Radar; Identified, FL70; Route direct to EDI at FL70, expect NDB/DME approach Runway 24” Pilot: “Route direct to the EDI, FL70; Open 123” ATC: “Open 123, descend to altitude 3000ft, Edinburgh QNH ……; Report entering/established* in the hold” (* = either/or) Pilot: “Descend to altitude 3000ft Edinburgh QNH……..; Wilco, Open 123” Pilot: “Open 123; level 3000ft; entering/established* in the hold” ATC: “Open 123, report turning inbound final hold” or; “Open 123, report approaching the beacon ready for the procedure” Pilot: “Wilco Open 123” When he’s ready, Pilot: “Open 123, turning inbound final hold” or; “Open 123, approaching the beacon ready for the procedure” Then either; ATC: “Open 123, once more round the hold; [Reason] (eg "You are number two to direct arrival traffic south east, 10nm, descending to altitude 4000ft")” Pilot: “Once more round the hold, Open 123” or; ATC: “Open 123, cleared NDB/DME approach to Runway 24; QNH………; Report beacon outbound” Pilot: “Cleared NDB/DME approach Runway 24; QNH……….; Wilco; Open 123” Pilot: “Open 123; Beacon outbound” ATC: “Open 123; report base turn complete” or; “Open 123, report established on Final Approach Track” Pilot: “Open 123; base turn complete” “/established on final approach track” ATC: “Open 123; Contact Edinburgh Tower 118.7” Notice: No “Report 4DME”. I’ve no idea why this is part of the example in the CAP413. 4 miles is not a great place to transfer aircraft to TWR at the best of times as there is too much for the pilot to do. Much better to get the aircraft stable on the approach, then transfer him early – 8 miles is generally the range – this is what is taught at the colleges and is standard practice at most airports. Regarding vectoring an aircraft off the procedure? Not good practice! You should vector other aircraft around the NDB traffic if necessary, but not the other way round. The best delay technique is to keep him in the hold as described above. There are a couple of tricks you can use to help: eg “Clear NDB approach RW24; MAINTAIN altitude 3000ft until advised, QNH..…; report beacon outbound”. Alternatively, “Report BEFORE turning base” then if necessary, “extend outbound leg until advised”. The height restriction is preferable to the downwind extension but both can have implications on the success of the approach if not monitored properly. Sorry to be so long winded again mate, it’s the simple questions that have complex answers and even now I could bore you with umpteen different variations on the theme. But I hope this helps and it will at least give us something more or less standard to go on. Hope to catch up with you soon M :) |
Graeme Brown  25th Feb 2012 23:59:22 | I have often thought it would be good to have a real atis recording for a controlled airport as an alternative to our controllers recording their own. Given the interest in Edinburgh airspace above and as I work not far from Edinburgh airport, and own a scanner, I could record an early evening automated ATIS which could then be used in the session.
Can someone clarify if there are any legal issues of using recordings of UK ATC in this way? Graeme |
| Mick McG 26th Feb 2012 00:58:44 | Mmmmmm. Hi Graeme. I don't know the answer to this one mate. There are lots of recordings on You Tube etc so you would think it would be ok, but at the back of my mind there is something about the rebroadcasting of a "live" ATC recording being a bit dodgy. Nothing to stop you recording it and then recording a transcript of that in your best Stephen Hawkin voice though. I'd tune in to listen to that!
As an aside, the references to Edinburgh above could just as easily be adapted for any other airport with similar procedures. Best ones M |
| Joe Clifford 26th Feb 2012 12:18:52 | Hello.
Looking back at my answer I now realise its on a completely different toppi lol Thankyou for your reply Mick, Its been made clear now. :-) In regards to the ATIS recording, technically, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, it's illegal to use a scanner unless you own a Radio Communications Licence, which are only issued along with a pilots certificate and Air Traffic Controler aswell I believe. Therefore even recording an ATIS would be dodgy. What I have been doing is looking at the METAR and using AT&T Voice Websiye. Google it, it's a text to speech website where you type in the words you want and ten you can download it as a sound file then I use that to record the ATIS through Flight Strips. Think has made me think though. I'm planning on setting a camera up in my the training aircraft when I'm flying on my Solos and recording them, I also hoped I could record the ATC chatter with 'Stapleford Radio'. I'm wondering if this is ok, purely because it's not live but hours old by the time it's shared. Hmmm Anyway, hope that made the ATIS bit clear. And thankyou Mick one again Joe |
| Mick McG 26th Feb 2012 12:59:24 | Hi Joe, yeah but look at your post then my 23:19 one. Hardly any difference really - just a bit of tweaking lol.
Regarding the setting up of a camera and tying in a recording of the radio - how cool is that?! That would be a brilliant training tool and YouTube has loads on a similar theme. You wouldn't be flying solo, you'd have the whole FSO community as a pax (aileron trim might be a problem :-)). Look forward to seeing a post on this one mate. M |
| Joe Clifford 26th Feb 2012 13:46:02 | That Was exactly my though process mick. I can come down and look at it back to see what i may have cocked up :P
This is what im aiming for: This Guy Uses A Digital Recorder And Puts The Mic In His Ear Cup, then lays the audio on top. Joe |
| Christian Smith 26th Feb 2012 15:08:51 | Thanks for that one Mick! :) I shall pass on the knowledge with regards to this procedure.
In regards to ATIS. As virtual controllers we do have some software available to us that allow the creation of a highly realistic ATIS recording. I've phoned Edinburgh's ATIS in the past and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the airports current transmission and a virtual one. The problem lies in transferring this recording and then updating it flightstrips and fsopen... I'll do some digging, try and work out a method, and hopefully start to upload more realistic ATIS broadcasts for Edinburgh. With regards to legality, I am almost certain there would be a clear breach of recording this data and uploading it directly onto an internet server. How anyone would ever realise this has happened I do not know, but probably best to find another solution. Accessing ATIS and aerodrome data is not illegal, but using a scanner to do this I believe technically is... Christian |
You need to Log on to post a reply. |
Forum help