Ok Jet pilots, I have an ATC-Pilot Question

Vector4Food

Vector4Food

This job would be easier without all the airplanes
There has been some local debate here, amongst controllers, friendly of course, as to what from the airlines and pilots point of view is the most efficient method from your side for in-trail spacing (Not approach, enroute airspace)

Scenario would be something like, 200NM to establish in-trail spacing, regardless of altitude, a common every-day occurance at many enroute centres around the world, including mine. As a controller, usually the "easiest" method is establishing a Mach restriction (speed up/slow down) to get the spacing you need, the faster method time wise, is an off-course vector (50-90 deg) until the spacing is established.

From a pilots point of view of economy/personal preference, what would be preferred? A mach change of .02-.03 +/- for 30-45 minutes or the vector as above for 2-3 minutes.

Now bottom line is, as ATC we're going to do what works best given the current situation but there are times when either would work just as well, and the discussion as to what actually IS more efficient.

Any comments appreciated.
 
no preference here. whatever works, other than asking us to speed up, as we're usually going around .77 and the thing won't go much quicker.
 
I much prefer a speed change than an off course vector and I think that in general, that is the most efficient way to get the spacing.

As a side note, when I want to fly at .78 and the guy ahead is going .74, I really appreciate the controllers making the effort to speed up the .74 guy a little instead of making me make all the speed corrections. I am always happy as well to speed up a bit to help out the guy behind me.
 
Biscuit!

I prefer a speed change.

Any time the aircraft is out of LNAV for an extended period of time, some of the destination and alternate fuel information starts getting a little unreliable.

Some of our aircraft are equipped with the ability to accept RTA's so preferably a mach number change, or if equipped, you can give us an RTA over a fix.

If you want, I can probably come up with a list of Delta airplanes that can accept RTAs for you to use in your airspace!

BTW, you sure take a lot of vacations!
 
Speed change. One vector isn't too bad, but it gets annoying when we zigzag back and forth across our intended route. Also, if you're going to slow us down and then give us normal speed for 20-30 miles before a fix with a crossing/speed restriction I'd just prefer to keep going slow.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Biscuit!

I prefer a speed change.

Any time the aircraft is out of LNAV for an extended period of time, some of the destination and alternate fuel information starts getting a little unreliable.

Some of our aircraft are equipped with the ability to accept RTA's so preferably a mach number change, or if equipped, you can give us an RTA over a fix.

If you want, I can probably come up with a list of Delta airplanes that can accept RTAs for you to use in your airspace!

BTW, you sure take a lot of vacations!
Click to expand...
HA! First off, thanks all for the replies, a pretty definite answer.

Doug, what can I say ATC is a pretty good gig, we only work 17 days a month not including any vacation or sick time, and most of us use 20+ days of leave during June/July/August, so I am away quite a bit I suppose, but with the way work has been going lately (Massive lines of Tunderstorms during the eastbound flows, and foolishly long in-trail JFK spacing, reroutes for just about every other east coast major) I feel like I could use some more!

I would appreciate any sort of info you can throw along, anything that is of helpful use to our OPS team I know they would appreciate it. We're always trying to make the operation smoother, after all if we can get the task accomplished easier, and if it happens to keep the pilots happy at the same time then everyones happy.

With this economic "downturn" it seems to have slacked the building issues at JFK, but I imagine next year and on it will rear its ugly head more and more.

I never knew that off-course vectors messes with the LNAV profile information, that is good information to know for us, bottom line is however, sometimes you just have to vector... but just so everyone knows, in an enroute envrionment, we try to avoid vectoring for spacing if possible, it just complicates what is at that time of day a usually complex enough envrionment... especially when you're trying to vector several planes going 500+ knots.


ALL of that being said, Doug when you fly through the boys just clear the airspace now:D
 
I have noticed a couple of "Direct 50N 50W"'s after asking if you're around! :)

The JFK pilot base's pilot/ATC rep lurks around the boards, maybe I'll have him chime in too. Lemme check the computer and see if he's at work.
 
While most pilots like the "heading in the right direction" feeling, a vector is generally the more efficient (not to mention quicker) solution. The problem getting a speed change from Moncton is that if you get the handoff to BOS center, even with a mention of the speed restriction you get a "roger" and the reduction basically becomes permanent instead of the intended 30 minute spacing reduction. Most westbound US flag carriers would prefer to keep going fast as its the going home leg.... keeps us higher longer as well if can obtain the proper spacing sooner. BOS only descends us early when spacing is still an issue, they are very good about that with the JFK arrivals.
 
I'm still trying to get used to your Canadian version of checking in while Enroute...do you guys always have to get the last word in?:)
 
FLflyer said:
I'm still trying to get used to your Canadian version of checking in while Enroute...do you guys always have to get the last word in?:)
Click to expand...

I used to love messing around with the Toronto guys.

ATC: Flagship 5800, descent and maintain flight level 290.

Me: Descend flight level 290, Flagship 5800.

ATC: Flagship 5800, roger.

Me: Roger.

ATC: Roger.

Me: Roger.

And so on, and so on. :D
 
Personally, I like option C...altitude changes. As long as it gets us around the slower guy in time for the descent (or lets the faster guys past us), 1000 feet either up or down is preferable, 2000 if wrong-direction isn't available. But I'd say giving the pilots the option would be best, assuming your don't have a big long line of planes to handle.
 
I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that the Beech 1900 can really haul butt during an approach. Going into ONT, I'd often be told to slow to slowest airspeed and we'd be hanging out at 130ish knots for around 5 minutes. This is just as we're coming up on Palmdale or somewhere around there usually. Well, we make the turn around Mt. Baldy on the arrival and are given "normal speed". We're generally given descents around this time too so we're going in the 240's at that point. Usually it's around this time that we're told to slow down and turn to get the spacing right again because the 737 just can't do the approach speeds we can do and be configured and stable in time.

Anyway, my answer to the question is that I prefer a speed change but if you're dealing with a 1900 and they're coming up on the approach environment, just realize they will pick up the pace so it may be counterproductive to slow us down and send somebody over the top. Then again, there may be more going on behind us that we don't know about so slowing us may be the best solution. I dunno, just food for thought. Got frustrating doing the same routine almost every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top