38 replies to this topic

[Robert Kent]

Excellent work. Many thanks.

[Wycliffe Barrett VATUK3]

Wycliffe

[Oliver Parker]

Handbags ladies, handbags.

[Gunnar Lindahl VATUK1]

Thanks to everyone who has put work into these - really excellent work and will be printing them out tonight!

[Andrew Thompson]

Excellent work guys!!!!

[Johan Grauers]

Really nice these!

A few questions.
On the TC North paper traffic to heathrow is shown in yellow to relevant approach unit at MSL+1, shouldn't they be in white-ish, as yellow is "accept from" and they are transferred out? It's the arrows pointing at LAM and BNN.

There is an agreement saying "130 KK" from Worthing (it says worthing beneath) in white, it's pointing pretty much towards EGLC, south east of the EGLC identifier. What's this agreement? AFAIK there's no KK traffic from the south coming from Worthing (it's not the agreeement for departures)?

On the TC south sheet there is a reference for LC and MC inbounds descending FL 70 vt TRIPO and TRIPO-10, I thought these were handled by TC Northeast? It's in the TC NE airspace (unless there is a low level delagated area I'm not aware off)?

[Kieran Hardern VATUK10]

Johan Grauers, on 09 February 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

On the TC North paper traffic to heathrow is shown in yellow to relevant approach unit at MSL+1, shouldn't they be in white-ish, as yellow is "accept from" and they are transferred out? It's the arrows pointing at LAM and BNN.

They look to be closer to the lighter yellow to me - i.e. "transfer to". "Accept From" looks a deeper orange. The darker black lines around make it deceptively darker... perhaps the fill colour need to be lighter to avoid confusion.

Johan Grauers, on 09 February 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

There is an agreement saying "130 KK" from Worthing (it says worthing beneath) in white, it's pointing pretty much towards EGLC, south east of the EGLC identifier. What's this agreement? AFAIK there's no KK traffic from the south coming from Worthing (it's not the agreeement for departures)?

Gatwick LAM departures from TC SE level at 130 by the N/S boundary line - climbed by WOR through TC NE airspace without contact with TC NE. As for it pointing towards City - that's indicating the heading West of LAM.

Johan Grauers, on 09 February 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

On the TC south sheet there is a reference for LC and MC inbounds descending FL 70 vt TRIPO and TRIPO-10, I thought these were handled by TC Northeast? It's in the TC NE airspace (unless there is a low level delagated area I'm not aware off)?

I can't remember the reason, but I understand this is correct - something to do with how it's handled real-world and how we split the sectors.

Edited by Kieran Hardern , 09 February 2012 - 04:31 PM.

[Jamie Fox]

Thanks for the feedback Johan. There was a lot of work done to try to ensure consistency between all of the diagrams but inevitably some things will have been missed. It seems that the colours used for the arrow backgrounds on the TC North/South diagrams don't match the rest, I'll get that fixed.

The FL130 agreement for Gatwick LAM departures is shown in white on the TC North diagram because the agreement is from TC SE to Worthing, but may involve the aircraft transiting TC NE airspace briefly. TC NE is responsible for separation between LAM inbounds above FL120 and Gatwick LAM departures at FL130. FL130 is shown at LAM in red, crossed out, as reminder that FL130 is not available for holding at LAM for this reason. TC NE needs to inform Worthing if holding at LAM above FL120.

The agreement is shown in white with 'Worthing' next to it because it's an agreement into Worthing. The same style is used for FL150 KIDLI and FL140 10nm before KENET. Any thoughts on how this could be made clearer?

[Jamie Fox]

The FL70 TRIPO situation is, as you guessed, because of a low level delegated area (TC SE low), at FL70 and below, between TRIPO and SPEAR, and at FL70 above the 6000ft part of the Thames RMA west of SPEAR. It's awkward for whoever has to do it, as it just involves descending from FL70 to 5000ft and won't really conflict with anything else.

[Johan Grauers]

So it says FL130? I have to admit I thought it said FL30 for some reason, perhaps the cross or text can be changed so they're not both red?


It does make sense now when I've got the explanation behind it, I'll try to think a bit more to see if there's any way i think it could be made more clear but it does make sense now so I'm not sure it should be changed.

[Mark Cable]

Great charts, I am finally beginning to make some sense of the new EGTT arrangements I would like to point out though that on the LON_W_N chart it does not say where the descent restriction to FL120 for FF is to apply to (ABDAL). Thxs Mark

Edited by Mark Cable, 15 February 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[Jamie Fox]

Agreements shown as ^ or v are 'climbing' or 'descending' agreements, meaning that they have no requirement to be level by a particular point. This is the case for the agreed level of FL120 from the east for Cardiff (but not Bristol, which is level by 10nm before POMAX).

[Mark Cable]

Thxs jamie,

sorry I was looking at the star charts CDF1C and it said FL120 by ABDAL, my apologies

Mark

[Sean Reedman VATUK4]

These are very nice and something that has been required for a long time - excellent piece of work.

Wycliffe - if you want to use your printer at work s be it - it will make up for the low pay and lack of pay rises for the past 5 years under successive governments. :-)

[Wycliffe Barrett VATUK3]

Sean Reedman VATUK4, on 15 February 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

These are very nice and something that has been required for a long time - excellent piece of work.

Wycliffe - if you want to use your printer at work s be it - it will make up for the low pay and lack of pay rises for the past 5 years under successive governments. :-)

Sean Reedman for Prime Minister

Well said that man.

I hadn't thought of that actually.

I did write quite a lot in response to our erstwhile friend but then self edited as I didnt want banning from the forums. lol

Wycliffe

Edited by Wycliffe Barrett VATUK3, 15 February 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[Jamie Fox]

Mark, which STAR chart are you looking at? The current CDF1C AIP chart just has FL220 CPT and makes no mention of FL120 ABDAL.

[Mark Cable]

Doh,

your right Jamie, I am looking at an old chart, I must have got it from the the same chart suppliers of the "Costa Concordia".

regards, Mark"The Pitiful Chart Reading Salty Seaman"Cable.

[Jamie Fox]

Don't worry, since the Bristol/Cardiffs SIDs and STARs were first introduced, I've lost count of the number of times the details have changed. It might very well be that this used to be FL120 level by ABDAL but now isn't. Also it seems that FL160 TINAN has become FL160 TIVER quite recently, and FL120 POMAX has become FL120 10nm before POMAX. Those of us with longer memories will also recall that before POMAX, the Bristol STAR routed via ABDAL as well. What I don't get is, after all that, how can it still be '1C'?

[Mark Cable]

Aghh the vagaries of the CAA, when will us lowly mortals ever deign to understand the high powered intellectual thinking of those government departments!.

regards, Mark "The CFD1C of Salty Seaman" Cable.