CEEME2

Bernoulli Fan

Bernoulli Fan

Controller
Just as an FYI for all you Southwest pilots and other /L types going to BUR: Although we are now assigning the CEEME arrival, you don't have to meet the altitude restrictions when we give you PD to FL 240. See AIM 5-4-1. I've seen a couple guys today diving for the deck when they see those altitudes, but those are not mandatory unless you are given "descend via."

The current plan is to gradually roll out "descend via" in January and February. SoCal is issuing a modified "descend via" currently. Everyone hates the idea.
 
Welcome to the decend via club. Unless you get your intrail spacing 300 miles from the airport, phx, it can be a bytch. Enjoy the learning curve.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
And dont plan on running a string into approach at min sep...you will get burned.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
Off topic, but one thing that confuses me is when they assign an arrival, and then tell you to go direct to a random fix on the arrival, without telling you which transition that the fix is on. You have to then pull up the chart and find the fix and the appropriate transition for the FMS, unless you ask them. But I know they are busy and I don't want to bother. It would be easier if they would give the transition and then the fix on the transition route.
 
troopernflight said:
Off topic, but one thing that confuses me is when they assign an arrival, and then tell you to go direct to a random fix on the arrival, without telling you which transition that the fix is on. You have to then pull up the chart and find the fix and the appropriate transition for the FMS, unless you ask them. But I know they are busy and I don't want to bother. It would be easier if they would give the transition and then the fix on the transition route.
Click to expand...

That's actually good to know. Since I did all the arrivals I was ever assigned in Skyhawks with the NOAA chart out in my lap, somehow I envisioned you all doing the same, or at least with an electronic display. :D
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
Just as an FYI for all you Southwest pilots and other /L types going to BUR: Although we are now assigning the CEEME arrival, you don't have to meet the altitude restrictions when we give you PD to FL 240. See AIM 5-4-1. I've seen a couple guys today diving for the deck when they see those altitudes, but those are not mandatory unless you are given "descend via."

The current plan is to gradually roll out "descend via" in January and February. SoCal is issuing a modified "descend via" currently. Everyone hates the idea.
Click to expand...

I'm not a southwest guy, but when flying an arrival but not descending via, I like to treat it as one as much as I can while still complying with the altitude restriction. 1) it gives ATC the option of assigning us one later without having to respond with " unable." I've had it where I was given a normal descent, took my time getting down, then was assigned a descend via. Though not our fault, it did give both us and the controller unnecessary complications.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
I'm not a southwest guy, but when flying an arrival but not descending via, I like to treat it as one as much as I can while still complying with the altitude restriction. 1) it gives ATC the option of assigning us one later without having to respond with " unable." I've had it where I was given a normal descent, took my time getting down, then was assigned a descend via. Though not our fault, it did give both us and the controller unnecessary complications.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good idea, but the restrictions on the CEEME are lower than most would normally fly given PD, so I figured I would get on here and tell those concerned not to worry about suddenly getting a "descend via" for a couple months.
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
That sounds like a good idea, but the restrictions on the CEEME are lower than most would normally fly given PD, so I figured I would get on here and tell those concerned not to worry about suddenly getting a "descend via" for a couple months.
Click to expand...
Just curious if you know when they're going to start the descend via's in to LGB? Or are they? I guess the only true RNAV arrival is the KEFFR1 which I've never seen used in the last four years. So I was thinking you may have some intel or secret plans that may be in the works for LGB? Thanks.
 
They are working on an RNAV arrival from the north for LGB/SNA. I believe it will be called the IRONMAN. Presumably they'll start using descend via on the KEFFR around the same time that one goes into effect, but arrivals from the east is a different area, so I'm not positive.

The project is working on the CEEME, the SYMON for LAX, and the IRONMAN at the same time, and I'm not sure when they'll be rolled out, but this year seems likely. I'm not on the secret plans committee, but I do know a guy. :cool:
 
Just saw a simulation today of the three arrivals (some of which I had incorrect) co-opting actual traffic. The IRONMAN will actually be for LAX; I guess the SYMON may not be used at all. There are going to be different arrivals for LGB and SNA, the OHSEE and the PACIFIC (not sure about spelling). It will likely be two years before these are fully implemented.

The closest vertically I saw two planes on different arrivals was about 3,000 feet, so I think they're pretty well procedurally separated to descend via on top of each other. The challenge will be for ATC when there's crossovers going the other direction or unusual traffic for other airports nearby in the way and vectoring is needed.
 
troopernflight said:
Off topic, but one thing that confuses me is when they assign an arrival, and then tell you to go direct to a random fix on the arrival, without telling you which transition that the fix is on. You have to then pull up the chart and find the fix and the appropriate transition for the FMS, unless you ask them. But I know they are busy and I don't want to bother. It would be easier if they would give the transition and then the fix on the transition route.
Click to expand...
This happens a lot. When they do this, I tell ATC that I've not planned for that transition, please spell the point and provide a vector while I program. I have NEVER had them give me a hard time for this and it gives me time to "look and load".
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
Just saw a simulation today of the three arrivals (some of which I had incorrect) co-opting actual traffic. The IRONMAN will actually be for LAX; I guess the SYMON may not be used at all. There are going to be different arrivals for LGB and SNA, the OHSEE and the PACIFIC (not sure about spelling). It will likely be two years before these are fully implemented.

The closest vertically I saw two planes on different arrivals was about 3,000 feet, so I think they're pretty well procedurally separated to descend via on top of each other. The challenge will be for ATC when there's crossovers going the other direction or unusual traffic for other airports nearby in the way and vectoring is needed.
Click to expand...

Not a center guy, but just be wary of those who tell you they can't make the restriction too late for you to take action. If the sim didn't show lateral sep and worst case sim scenario was 3,000 vertical, that's not entirely encouraging in real life. We've had RNAV STARS running for two years now and I still watch vertical like a hawk. I had a major airline pilot just today 3 miles off his Lat Nav.Not to mention the pilots who will accept them blindly and have zero clue as to how to fly them.

These things are great, but in practice you have to treat it like a DC-9 on a J route or departure VOR radial. Protect protect protect.
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
Just saw a simulation today of the three arrivals (some of which I had incorrect) co-opting actual traffic. The IRONMAN will actually be for LAX; I guess the SYMON may not be used at all. There are going to be different arrivals for LGB and SNA, the OHSEE and the PACIFIC (not sure about spelling). It will likely be two years before these are fully implemented.

The closest vertically I saw two planes on different arrivals was about 3,000 feet, so I think they're pretty well procedurally separated to descend via on top of each other. The challenge will be for ATC when there's crossovers going the other direction or unusual traffic for other airports nearby in the way and vectoring is needed.
Click to expand...

Hey Bernoulli,

The "descend via" verbiage has existed for years but I've never actually been assigned one (not that it's difficult or anything... just never seemed like controllers wanted to assign it). Is there a push to do more "descend via's" generally/nationally these days for some reason? Squeeze in more traffic or something? Or is it just something local to your center/approach area?
 
It seems to me like unless you filed for one in the past you didn't get one. Now you will be assigned one with the appropriate suffix unless you say no or you file otherwise.

There isn't a push to assign more, they're just more accepted and common. They certainly don't squeeze in more traffic. The only value they have is to reduce the need for Feeder sectors at TRACONS while increasing everyone else's workload depending on cockpit and airspace layout/capability.
 
fish314 said:
Hey Bernoulli,

The "descend via" verbiage has existed for years but I've never actually been assigned one (not that it's difficult or anything... just never seemed like controllers wanted to assign it). Is there a push to do more "descend via's" generally/nationally these days for some reason? Squeeze in more traffic or something? Or is it just something local to your center/approach area?
Click to expand...

Like genot said, they certainly don't allow for more traffic. Less, if anything. What I've been told is the airlines are pushing for it as a fuel-saving measure. If the whole descent can be made at flight idle, management can give themselves another bonus.
 
fish314 said:
Is there a push to do more "descend via's" generally/nationally these days for some reason? Squeeze in more traffic or something? Or is it just something local to your center/approach area?
Click to expand...

Bernoulli Fan said:
Like genot said, they certainly don't allow for more traffic. Less, if anything. What I've been told is the airlines are pushing for it as a fuel-saving measure. If the whole descent can be made at flight idle, management can give themselves another bonus.
Click to expand...

We don't have them out here (although we just got a memo about it so maybe they are starting up) but I flew a bunch of them before leaving the east coast last year. They work ok IF they are programed correctly and IF your aircraft has good VNAV and auto throttles. In the CRJ without either of those things they are an incident waiting to happen. The benefit I did see for them was reduced radio clutter. In the past when descending into someplace like DCA you'd get about 5 different altitude assignments on the way down. With a descend via clearance, there was only one. Multiply that times X airplanes per hour and it results in a lot less talking. The fuel burn issue is also true IF the procedure was designed for you. A RJ doesn't do a throttle idle decent that same way an Airbus or 757 does. A way of fixing that problem is giving windows on the arrival so most fixes "CROSS XXXXX BETWEEN FLXXX and FLXXX".

Also, a controller telling you what transition a fix is on if getting cleared somewhere farther down the line on a different transition is VERY helpful. Most FMS boxes load an arrival by "Arrival Name" and then "Transition". If you are cleared direct a fix three in from the initial transition fix the only way to do that is to load the transition (which is unknown if the controller doesn't tell you or until you find the fix they want you to go to on the chart and then backtrack up the arrival until you get to the transition).

Finally... You think descend via is bad... wait until we start the climb via clearances.
 
Update on the CEEME: SoCal hated it so much they killed "descend via." Center will not be issuing it for the foreseeable future. Expect PIRUE at 110.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top