SAG Worldtour 2006 SAG-OMDB

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Hello all,

last night the event took place, with around 40 aircraft participating, flying from SAG and other departure airports to Dubai. ATC services were provided along the whole route, from clearance delivery to parking. I manned the Eurocontrol East and OMDB approach ATC positions for 6 hours. I would like to thanks all participants for their enthusiastic and professional [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance for the success of the event, and ask them to add comments where appropriate. Mine are the same comments as from previous m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive events, briefly:

a. Such high density traffic precludes effective control of the whole screen in wide area control positions, such as Eurocontrol. Only 5 FLs are practical for such route for the most part, aircraft cruise speed varies between models and Cost Indexes, and when a single route is flown, it would be difficult to forsee every conflict. The controller is typically zoomed on the widely separated column entry end exit points, unable to follow every detail along the route. Where I spotted potential future conflicts, I directed lateral separation, which is the effective solution. This was not well received by some who requested to rejoin the track. Not surprising that one TCAS conflict occured, where an aircraft deviated from its filed FL. Unrealistic flow of traffic bears known outcome. Real world ATC manages traffic flow with 20NM enroute separation thus providing a safe margin. They also use more than one controller from Sweden to Turkey.

b. Add to all this around 25 ASRC disconnects, typical and consistently repeated in busy events on Eurocontrol for me, all appear to be related to the client and/or main server, not Internet connection or Controller List, as voice continues to operate and the reconnects are immediate.

c. The m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive unidirectional flow of descending aircraft into the OMDB approach control area, required substantial effort to manage, slowing the ability to direct aircraft at high rate into the final approach. A small number of aircraft missed their approaches, increasing column length. Some aircraft had to hold more than 30 minutes. One pilot rightfully requested a delay estimate. It would have required me to slow down control to respond to such legitimate requests. I also had one aircraft floating above, not responding, then descending on its own into the approach, luckily not hitting anyone. Another aircraft took three repeated instructions to turn back and hold while 10 aircraft were ahead of him on the approach. No TCAS warnings here.

Edited January 22, 2006 at 12:02 PM by Guest

[Martin Georg 811874]

Hi Opher,

 

 

thanks for providing such extensive service during our FlyIn, which was highly appreciated. Generally I found the ATC service enroute, and on final to be professional and enthusiastic. Great staffing for the VATAME region, thumbs up!!!

 

As requested a few comments from my side. I was flying Gulf Air 016 (and I was the one asking for a holding estimate, because my fuel reserves were somewhat limited - but no offense taken or intended! ).

 

 

1) Voice problem

There seems to be a constant problem with your voice connection. Almost every second instruction from you was broken into 2 parts. While generally your voice was NOT broken, there was this 3-5 seconds gap, which caused many pilots to think that your transmission had ended, therefore starting their readback. oOf course this cause many many double transmissions, and added to channel congestion.

 

 

2) Instruction to fly offset track

I heared that you gave this instruction to at least 5 different aircraft. Only one of them did understand the instruction right away, one more understood it after your explanation. Three aircraft did not understand the instruction at all. What caused your problem was, that these aircraft made incomplete or misleading replies, but you did not insist any further. Mostly the offset was misinterpreted as a heading. You should carefully listen to the replies and perhaps think about simple vectoring if you feel that the aircraft did not understand your instruction. Any indication of an incomplete, or non-fluent readback from the pilot should be a warning that the pilot has not understood your instruction correctly.

 

I will pick up this topic and post it for discussion in the VACC-SAG forum, as there seems to be some lack of knowledge among pilots about this. Also note that there was one pilot who tried to follow this instruction using the PMDG B747´s FMC, but the FMC messed ip up badly (perhaps a bug) .

 

3) Enroute conflicts / TCAS alert

This is a very problematic issue for any controller with ASRC, especially when controlling such huge areas like Eurocontrol. The conflict alert system in ASRC is unusable due to a bug, and therefore an FSS controller can´t do much - especially with such traffic loads. And I don´t understand such pilots which will report a conflict not before the other aicraft is under 1nm range . Pilots should report as soon as there is a TCAS warning ...

 

 

4) Separating the inbound stream to Dubai

I noticed that there was practically no separation attempt made by GULF_FSS. Gulf could have issued speed restrictions, separation headings, or even enroute holds to pre-separate the inbound stream. And perhaps it would have been better to make use of both runways at Dubai. As these runways can´t be usd independently anyway, using them both could have speed up the stream somewhat and still have allowed some departures. So, as FSS did not make any attempt to establish separation on the long run, APP got virtually swamped with traffic.

 

PS - Side note: I got [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned runway 12R ILS approach. On my Jeppesen charts from September 2005 (!) there is no ILS approach to 12R at all. However, I learned after the event, that there were charts from 2004 available with an ILS approach into runway 12R. Now what´s about this ILS? Did Jeppesen miss a chart, or what is wrong? This was the main cause why I missed the localizer and had to make that huge right turn for a second attempt. Sorry for the inconvenience I caused!

 

 

5) Phraseology during approach

One thing to notice: First, the majority of the aircraft were not told about the landing runway, they had to ask for it. You should tell them the runway as soon as possible, and the runway needs to be named with any ILS or localizer clearance. In case only runway 12R was to be used for landing anyway, stating this runway in your ATIS and having inbounds to confirm the ATIS ("Confirm information INDIA is on board?") would have been the better solution. Most pilots should be aware that they have to confirm the approach ATIS.

[Andreas Henn 812682]

Dear Opher!

 

Thank you for your impressions and for the excellent ATC service. It was great to have ATC coverage for nearlly the complete route (I departed from Milan and from Croatia until the gate in Dubai air traffic controllers guided my safely).

 

I can very good imagine the workload for the controllers. EURE, LTAA and GULF are very large airspaces and it must be hard to maintain an overview over all movements.

 

Some solutions for our next flight may be to

use more different routes in order to have the aircrafts seperated lateral. There are plenty of parallel airways going from central Europe to Turkey so that might help to have a higher capacity.

increase the time difference between departures in order to have the aircrafts not in one bunch

spent more time in planning the flight concerning the mentioned solutions above. The event manager can introduce something like a slot system in order to have the traffic better arranged and to help the enroute controllers.

 

Your perfomance as Dubai director was excellent especially regarding the fact that all aircraft entered your airspace via DESDI. I was afraid that this waypoint could have a high conflict capability because the GULF_FSS controller cleared all aircrafts to reach 9000ft at DESDI. The transfer of control between him and you was early enough so you had the chance to stop some aircraft descending. With this amount of traffic it is clear to use holdings and my opinion is that this is also interesting for the pilot. It was nice to watch all the aircrafts turning and I could have stayed longer in the hold

 

Recapitulating it was a really great flight to Dubai which gave me new experience about flying in this region with online ATC. I hope you and the other controllers had fun too, though it was streful for you for sure. If you have the time it would be nice to have some feedback from the controllers what they think pilots can do better so that we can increase our level of ability and professionalism.

 

Here you can find some screeenshots of the flight in the SAG Forum. The next leg of the SAG Worldtour is Saturday the 11th Febuary from Dubai to Singapoor.

 

Best Regards!

[Darko Pajic 816024]

Some solutions for our next flight may be to

use more different routes in order to have the aircrafts seperated lateral. There are plenty of parallel airways going from central Europe to Turkey so that might help to have a higher capacity.

 

Absolutely. I was pleased via E-mail to provide ATC service for Beograd ACC.

Unfortunately, there was only one enroute plane via Beograd ACC to Dubai. Later, I’ve disconnected, but I was checking servinfo from time to time, and situation was the same. Very long snake from Hungary to Turkey, via Bulgaria and Romania, all at the same route.

There are many connecting airways via Beograd ACC, or even further, via Skopje and North Greece. Flying different routes in the future will make better separation for sure. You know that two planes have at least about 10-15 min separation in real life, if they fly same destination via same route. I’ve thought about this problem for a long time. It seems there is not chance to make good separation under these circomestances. Only solution can be Andreas opinion, whit I absolutely agree.

 

Best regards!

 

Darko Pajic

SCGvACC Director

[email protected]

Serbia&Montenegro

[Ran Finkels 883330]

Hi Guys,

This is GULF_FSS with ya

As this was my first attempt on GULF_FSS and first for me on a huge sector to control, it was stressful for me, but also fun and really hope you guys had fun also though some TCAS alerts and holdings.

 

Regarding your feedback, all noted and will be adapted for next time.

 

My notes on this great event.

Opher and I decided on 9000ft for DESDI.

DESDI is the entry point for rwys 12 in Dubai and that's why all were getting in there.

the first bunch were separated quite well and it was easy , but the main bunch came in from Turkey very close to each other but separated verily. At this stage there was no problem but in time for descent it will cause issues.

I tried to separate you with some DCT to waypoints along the route, but the issue was, that some of you were flying like you were using magnets or supper glue.

I gave instructions to one A/C in the group, and for some reason I see all off them going the same way.

Same for trying to use speed restrictions, one 744 was on .87 MACH and a 763 was on .80 MACH but for some reason the 744 couldn't keep pace with the 763 so I had to throw the 744 some where to get him separated, luckily for all, he discoed and when connected again , they were finally separated .

At some point I asked Opher if he wants me to hold the traffic, but I got no response, so I decided to stack you up in DESDI.

The first one got 9000 and with 2000ft of separation between.

Suddenly I saw and AC coming out of Dubai, so I understand the Opher is using DESDI also but higher than 9000ft.

After the first TCAS, I cleared all to MAXMO and MIADA.

My initial mistake was that I though Oher will use two runways, thus shorting the holding, now I understand he wasn't.

 

Another issue which I had is working with a heavy sector.

To zoom in and out and moving from one side of the sector to another almost killed my pc.

But never the less, really enjoyed working with you guys, reall pros all the way and hope to see you all next time

Ohh added some pics of my ASRC before all hell started

 

 

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hello Opher and hello to all the other brave controllers in Turkey, GULF and Dubai on the ground!

 

Most things have been said already.

 

 

PHRASEOLOGY

I would like to emphasize the topic of phraseology: for the intercept of the ILS you instructed pilots to "fly heading XYZ for the localizer". This means - AT BEST! - to intercept the localizer of an undefined(!) runway, not more. The more appropriate and unmisunderstandable phraseology would have been:

 

"Worldflight001, turn right heading XYZ, cleared ILS approach runway 12 right".

 

Do you see my point? You did wonder that a number of people asked you regarding the ILS-clearance etc.. and your reply was stuff like "of course you were" (not word by word, but in terms of meaning).

 

PLEASE, try to put on a friendlier voice on the radio. At least me interpreted a number of instructions as quite strict and not to the topic. Yes, talk with a definite voice, but stay on the cool side. If I report a TCAS climb, I don't want to hear "you shouldn't have left your level!". This is rude and not what a pilot should do - a TCAS RA shall be followed.

 

 

SEPARATION

At least two times I, as a pilot, had to request a level-change in order to avoid conflicts. I understand that ATC (e.g. GULF) had a large area to cover and a lot of planes in it. But when I as an ATC see 5 aircraft flying within a few miles, I feel obliged to have a closer look and check for future potential conflicts. The only station that worked with separation was Istanbul Control, giving me a mach-number limitation.

 

 

GENERAL

Most of us are used to ATC that is used to such high traffic loads. We understand and accept that ATC needs constant high levels of traffic in order to have a good standard and no blame on you guys. You did your best and the fact that you stayed online for our group of pilots was really great and it was highly appreciated. You see where your limits are and for next time you should try to organize a few more ATCs and have a concept regarding separation already a few more miles out.

 

So keep on training, training, training. Everything will be good

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Thank you Martin for the response. It would take me hours to properly respond to all items, but in summary:

1. Voice: I am in Slovakia, AVSIM voice server fails lately, LIVEATEC server selected for the combination of controller and pilot locations, pinged well. Changing servers during the event would consume enormous time and create havoc till communication is restored. Text is unuseable for such traffic density, takes too much time to generate messages and readback.

 

2. Offset: The communication quality mentioned above also affected me, for readback clarity. Vectoring here would require almost infinite ATC tasking, as the offset had to remain along the flight, since everyone was on the same route. You heard on radio things I did not. When I let a pilot navigate otherwise, the rationale is clearly layed out here.

 

3. TCAS alert: ANZ51 reaction was professional and well timed, warning came as STV1015 was flying without radar contact till that moment, and not in filed FL. ANZ51 did not understand my response to his TCAS message and complained, did not respond to my follow-on query.

 

4. GULF stream separation: Controlled by Ran Finkels, first time in position. We briefed that: a. Separation efforts should on his part focus on the end of his portion of the route, strong logic behind this. b. He would descend close-by aircraft also to 1)MIADA arrival, and 2) MAXMO arrival, to create up to 3 holdings when dense. In practice, aircraft arrived DESDI 9000. I asked him to keep ariving aircraft above those I was holding 9,000-FL190 and keep arrivals with him, releasing 2 aircraft at a time to me upon request, which worked fine. 80 percent of my time was devoted to avoiding conflicts around DESDI initially, slowing approach rate, but was necessary to clear conflicts. This is also why I had a few aircraft holding in vectors around the OMDB perimeter.

Airspeed restrictions are non-standard ATC separation technique, should be avoided for enroute separation, and could be used in restrictive circomestances, as used yesterday. Airspeed restriction cannot be used by ATC if disapproved by the pilot. Based on FAA, hope JAA approves

 

5. Runways, phraseology: We pre-briefed to use 12L/R for arrivals and 12L for departures. I was to fill datatag with [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned runway, my ASRC did not perform the command. Therefore I advised tower that all traffic would be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to 12R, unless I advise otherwise. Usage of both runways concurrently helps little as their lateral separation does not allow concurrent opeartion. I could go on detailing how to best use them in any scenario, no time now. We have no GULF pof for ATC G/G communication as yet. Therefore all traffic went to runway 12R, except 41F who I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned runway 12L.

Regarding Jeppesen approach plates, I find that many pilots elect to not spend large amounts of money for navigation data update, and opt for occasional free update from the Internet. To the best of my knowledge, OMDB has ILS approaches on all runways.

All my actions were not due to lack of proper ATC phraseology or other proficiency inability, but rather due to time task overload: a. I cut procedures due to insufficient time and give priority to the really imprtant portions, or b. I am overloaded at certain points in time, unable to efficiently control. Both options are substandard to me but provide a way out, game or real. My real world profession of experimental flight test focuses on this issue. again, I think the departures should be spaced to avoid the inevitable mess and mishaps.

p.s. How many times did I call on radio that all arrivals are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned 12R? I had to keep ATIS as was, for an option to use 12L and keep pilots aware of such option.

 

To summarize, aircraft dispatched with proper separation, will receive quality ATC service. Cheers!

 

 

Hi Opher,

 

 

thanks for providing such extensive service during our FlyIn, which was highly appreciated. Generally I found the ATC service enroute, and on final to be professional and enthusiastic. Great staffing for the VATAME region, thumbs up!!!

 

As requested a few comments from my side. I was flying Gulf Air 016 (and I was the one asking for a holding estimate, because my fuel reserves were somewhat limited - but no offense taken or intended! ).

 

 

1) Voice problem

There seems to be a constant problem with your voice connection. Almost every second instruction from you was broken into 2 parts. While generally your voice was NOT broken, there was this 3-5 seconds gap, which caused many pilots to think that your transmission had ended, therefore starting their readback. oOf course this cause many many double transmissions, and added to channel congestion.

 

 

2) Instruction to fly offset track

I heared that you gave this instruction to at least 5 different aircraft. Only one of them did understand the instruction right away, one more understood it after your explanation. Three aircraft did not understand the instruction at all. What caused your problem was, that these aircraft made incomplete or misleading replies, but you did not insist any further. Mostly the offset was misinterpreted as a heading. You should carefully listen to the replies and perhaps think about simple vectoring if you feel that the aircraft did not understand your instruction. Any indication of an incomplete, or non-fluent readback from the pilot should be a warning that the pilot has not understood your instruction correctly.

 

I will pick up this topic and post it for discussion in the VACC-SAG forum, as there seems to be some lack of knowledge among pilots about this. Also note that there was one pilot who tried to follow this instruction using the PMDG B747´s FMC, but the FMC messed ip up badly (perhaps a bug) .

 

3) Enroute conflicts / TCAS alert

This is a very problematic issue for any controller with ASRC, especially when controlling such huge areas like Eurocontrol. The conflict alert system in ASRC is unusable due to a bug, and therefore an FSS controller can´t do much - especially with such traffic loads. And I don´t understand such pilots which will report a conflict not before the other aicraft is under 1nm range . Pilots should report as soon as there is a TCAS warning ...

 

 

4) Separating the inbound stream to Dubai

I noticed that there was practically no separation attempt made by GULF_FSS. Gulf could have issued speed restrictions, separation headings, or even enroute holds to pre-separate the inbound stream. And perhaps it would have been better to make use of both runways at Dubai. As these runways can´t be usd independently anyway, using them both could have speed up the stream somewhat and still have allowed some departures. So, as FSS did not make any attempt to establish separation on the long run, APP got virtually swamped with traffic.

 

PS - Side note: I got [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned runway 12R ILS approach. On my Jeppesen charts from September 2005 (!) there is no ILS approach to 12R at all. However, I learned after the event, that there were charts from 2004 available with an ILS approach into runway 12R. Now what´s about this ILS? Did Jeppesen miss a chart, or what is wrong? This was the main cause why I missed the localizer and had to make that huge right turn for a second attempt. Sorry for the inconvenience I caused!

 

 

5) Phraseology during approach

One thing to notice: First, the majority of the aircraft were not told about the landing runway, they had to ask for it. You should tell them the runway as soon as possible, and the runway needs to be named with any ILS or localizer clearance. In case only runway 12R was to be used for landing anyway, stating this runway in your ATIS and having inbounds to confirm the ATIS ("Confirm information INDIA is on board?") would have been the better solution. Most pilots should be aware that they have to confirm the approach ATIS.

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Thank you Andreas,

as you said, I also wrote a summary of events, and although I concur with some observations, I disagree with your conclusions.

If this is what you are used to at SAG, then you must have better human performance than appears attainable. There are things that are done and things that are not done. At least from my experience as aviation professional.

Aircraft should fly no less than 20NM apart enroute. Is it not a regulation?

 

 

 

Hello Opher and hello to all the other brave controllers in Turkey, GULF and Dubai on the ground!

 

Most things have been said already.

 

 

PHRASEOLOGY

I would like to emphasize the topic of phraseology: for the intercept of the ILS you instructed pilots to "fly heading XYZ for the localizer". This means - AT BEST! - to intercept the localizer of an undefined(!) runway, not more. The more appropriate and unmisunderstandable phraseology would have been:

 

"Worldflight001, turn right heading XYZ, cleared ILS approach runway 12 right".

 

Do you see my point? You did wonder that a number of people asked you regarding the ILS-clearance etc.. and your reply was stuff like "of course you were" (not word by word, but in terms of meaning).

 

PLEASE, try to put on a friendlier voice on the radio. At least me interpreted a number of instructions as quite strict and not to the topic. Yes, talk with a definite voice, but stay on the cool side. If I report a TCAS climb, I don't want to hear "you shouldn't have left your level!". This is rude and not what a pilot should do - a TCAS RA shall be followed.

 

 

SEPARATION

At least two times I, as a pilot, had to request a level-change in order to avoid conflicts. I understand that ATC (e.g. GULF) had a large area to cover and a lot of planes in it. But when I as an ATC see 5 aircraft flying within a few miles, I feel obliged to have a closer look and check for future potential conflicts. The only station that worked with separation was Istanbul Control, giving me a mach-number limitation.

 

 

GENERAL

Most of us are used to ATC that is used to such high traffic loads. We understand and accept that ATC needs constant high levels of traffic in order to have a good standard and no blame on you guys. You did your best and the fact that you stayed online for our group of pilots was really great and it was highly appreciated. You see where your limits are and for next time you should try to organize a few more ATCs and have a concept regarding separation already a few more miles out.

 

So keep on training, training, training. Everything will be good

Edited January 22, 2006 at 12:08 PM by Guest

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Thanks Andreas.

We see things eye to eye.

 

Best regards!

 

Dear Opher!

 

Thank you for your impressions and for the excellent ATC service. It was great to have ATC coverage for nearlly the complete route (I departed from Milan and from Croatia until the gate in Dubai air traffic controllers guided my safely).

 

I can very good imagine the workload for the controllers. EURE, LTAA and GULF are very large airspaces and it must be hard to maintain an overview over all movements.

 

Some solutions for our next flight may be to

use more different routes in order to have the aircrafts seperated lateral. There are plenty of parallel airways going from central Europe to Turkey so that might help to have a higher capacity.

increase the time difference between departures in order to have the aircrafts not in one bunch

spent more time in planning the flight concerning the mentioned solutions above. The event manager can introduce something like a slot system in order to have the traffic better arranged and to help the enroute controllers.

 

Your perfomance as Dubai director was excellent especially regarding the fact that all aircraft entered your airspace via DESDI. I was afraid that this waypoint could have a high conflict capability because the GULF_FSS controller cleared all aircrafts to reach 9000ft at DESDI. The transfer of control between him and you was early enough so you had the chance to stop some aircraft descending. With this amount of traffic it is clear to use holdings and my opinion is that this is also interesting for the pilot. It was nice to watch all the aircrafts turning and I could have stayed longer in the hold

 

Recapitulating it was a really great flight to Dubai which gave me new experience about flying in this region with online ATC. I hope you and the other controllers had fun too, though it was streful for you for sure. If you have the time it would be nice to have some feedback from the controllers what they think pilots can do better so that we can increase our level of ability and professionalism.

 

Here you can find some screeenshots of the flight in the SAG Forum. The next leg of the SAG Worldtour is Saturday the 11th Febuary from Dubai to Singapoor.

 

Best Regards!

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Thanks Darko for the fine cooperation last night, and good luck to you.

 

Some solutions for our next flight may be to

use more different routes in order to have the aircrafts seperated lateral. There are plenty of parallel airways going from central Europe to Turkey so that might help to have a higher capacity.

 

Absolutely. I was pleased via E-mail to provide ATC service for Beograd ACC.

Unfortunately, there was only one enroute plane via Beograd ACC to Dubai. Later, I’ve disconnected, but I was checking servinfo from time to time, and situation was the same. Very long snake from Hungary to Turkey, via Bulgaria and Romania, all at the same route.

There are many connecting airways via Beograd ACC, or even further, via Skopje and North Greece. Flying different routes in the future will make better separation for sure. You know that two planes have at least about 10-15 min separation in real life, if they fly same destination via same route. I’ve thought about this problem for a long time. It seems there is not chance to make good separation under these circomestances. Only solution can be Andreas opinion, whit I absolutely agree.

 

Best regards!

 

Darko Pajic

SCGvACC Director

[email protected]

Serbia&Montenegro

[Martin Georg 811874]

Hi Opher!

 

 

Regarding voice I only wanted to share my experience. I know about the problems we face with voice server selections, and changing voice server during the Flyin is indeed not an option. Fortunately very very soon the voice server situation will significantly change to the better.

 

3. TCAS alert: ANZ51 reaction was professional and well timed, warning came as STV1015 was flying without radar contact till that moment, and not in filed FL. ANZ51 did not understand my response to his TCAS message and complained, did not respond to my follow-on query.

 

Yes, that´s exactly how I understood the communication also. Your complaint about the wrong flightlevel was directed to STV1215, not to ANZ051. Unfortunately ANZ051 understood that wrong and interpreted the complaint as targeted to him . Regarding the wrong FL for the STV051 if I remember correctly the STV got the clearance for FL370 from the previous controller. perhaps he did not update the CRZ FL in the f/p, therefore misleading you.

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Thanks Ran for your great contribution. You did very well under heavy and dense traffic.

The use of 2 concurrent runways at Dubai does little to increase approach rate, since the runways are close and cannot be used in parallel without proper separation. Landing aircraft usually vacate via high speed turnoffs. Separation due to wake turbulence is an additional considaration.

Last night the approach rate was limited by controller time task overload, of aircraft above 9000ft, as I wrote in this thread.

Dual concurrent runway use like at Dubai helps when aircraft are also departing, because they occupy the runway a minute or so, and pose no wake interference to arrivals. Another consideration for such runway design is, that it allows for more convenient runway maintenance and overhaul.

During event preparation I wanted to split the approach to high and approach director, but found no controller for it. That would have greatly increased approach rate, I developed a few flow schemes for such scenario. There could be a slight advantage of use of dual arrival runways, by utilizing 2 approach paths, requiring 2 laterally separated approach controllers, one for each runway.

 

 

 

 

Hi Guys,

This is GULF_FSS with ya

As this was my first attempt on GULF_FSS and first for me on a huge sector to control, it was stressful for me, but also fun and really hope you guys had fun also though some TCAS alerts and holdings.

 

Regarding your feedback, all noted and will be adapted for next time.

 

My notes on this great event.

Opher and I decided on 9000ft for DESDI.

DESDI is the entry point for rwys 12 in Dubai and that's why all were getting in there.

the first bunch were separated quite well and it was easy , but the main bunch came in from Turkey very close to each other but separated verily. At this stage there was no problem but in time for descent it will cause issues.

I tried to separate you with some DCT to waypoints along the route, but the issue was, that some of you were flying like you were using magnets or supper glue.

I gave instructions to one A/C in the group, and for some reason I see all off them going the same way.

Same for trying to use speed restrictions, one 744 was on .87 MACH and a 763 was on .80 MACH but for some reason the 744 couldn't keep pace with the 763 so I had to throw the 744 some where to get him separated, luckily for all, he discoed and when connected again , they were finally separated .

At some point I asked Opher if he wants me to hold the traffic, but I got no response, so I decided to stack you up in DESDI.

The first one got 9000 and with 2000ft of separation between.

Suddenly I saw and AC coming out of Dubai, so I understand the Opher is using DESDI also but higher than 9000ft.

After the first TCAS, I cleared all to MAXMO and MIADA.

My initial mistake was that I though Oher will use two runways, thus shorting the holding, now I understand he wasn't.

 

Another issue which I had is working with a heavy sector.

To zoom in and out and moving from one side of the sector to another almost killed my pc.

But never the less, really enjoyed working with you guys, reall pros all the way and hope to see you all next time

Ohh added some pics of my ASRC before all hell started

 

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

I wonder if anyone from real world aviation has exeprienced anywhere, ever, 20 aircraft controlled concurrently by a single approach control position. EDDF, LSZH, KLAX, KORD, KJFK. Mr. Fuchs? anyone?

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Opher,

 

of course an APP-controller wouldn't have 20 planes on his frequency. This will happen to area control only (also real life).

 

20 NMs separation is not the legal minimum - the minimum is 10 NM but for an event like this it is not a bad idea to go up to 20 NM. But then you need to take care that these 20 NM stay more or less stable. Us pilots helped you as well by requesting level-changes to avoid conflicts and GULF was very quick in responding and approving these level-changes.

 

Guys, don't understand my posts as critic. Understand them as feedback: next time get more ATC-personnell with more coordination and the problems should minimize. You did what you could do, we all had fun. We are just trying to make things even better, isn't that our common goal?

[Martin Georg 811874]

Hi Opher,

 

 

I´m not a real-world controller, but I have quite some experience with dual non-independent runway approach operations (at EDDF on VATSIM). Using both runway CAN help a little bit, however, it wouldn´t have solved the problems yesterday. 2-runway operations would make a 4-5nm separation possible, and would still allow tower to get departures out in between them.

 

One of the inherent problems were the lack of sufficient approach airspace to take up a good load of aircraft. The route between DESDI and BOVET on the DESDI4V arrival is only 31nm long, not very much to get the traffic down from 9000ft to 3000ft also, and to slow it down and separate it at the same time. Mu suggestion for runway 12 operations would be to lower the limit for DESDI to 6000ft, and to slow down the traffic to 220kts overhead DESDI. And yes, splitting the approach sector into 2 position will also help a lot.

 

With a much larger airspace, one controller could perhaps handle 12-15 aircraft at one time in his approach sector. More than this figure is too much for one single controller on VATSIM, IMHO.

 

Ah, one more suggestion: What about having Gulf issuing a holding at DESDI per default? That´s what I got several times at Lambourne when flying into heathrow. London Control gave me a hold over LAM, and then the handoff to director. Director then could either let me descend in the hold, or tell me "hold is cancelled, leave LAM heading ..." ... Main purpose would be to relief APP from controlling the holding stack ...

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Hello Martin,

thanks for your constructive comments.

I agree with your [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment of dual runway issue and its operation and separation, similar to EDDF. London, operating both runways independently, uses 4 directors with 4 conditional holds I believe, traffic based. The hold at DESDI is the same good idea, incorporated later. For 40 air NM, 6000ft is low I believe.

I don't share the opinion that an approach controller can manage 15 aircraft. May work in perfectly sterile environment, but cannot handle any deviations. The smallest unforeseen development could collapse it.

 

We have a growing but limited number of GULF controllers. Due to a Friday symposium, some were unable to attend. Still we manned all positions from Turkey down to the gates. The announcement we got stating at least 10 pilots participating, set certain expectations. The VATAME participation was based on Jan Naslund's forward to me within Eurocontrol, otherwise I doubt any positions would have opened. Lastly, out of the close to 40 Eurocontrollers, I was the only one able to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist, proudly.

 

 

Hi Opher,

 

 

I´m not a real-world controller, but I have quite some experience with dual non-independent runway approach operations (at EDDF on VATSIM). Using both runway CAN help a little bit, however, it wouldn´t have solved the problems yesterday. 2-runway operations would make a 4-5nm separation possible, and would still allow tower to get departures out in between them.

 

One of the inherent problems were the lack of sufficient approach airspace to take up a good load of aircraft. The route between DESDI and BOVET on the DESDI4V arrival is only 31nm long, not very much to get the traffic down from 9000ft to 3000ft also, and to slow it down and separate it at the same time. Mu suggestion for runway 12 operations would be to lower the limit for DESDI to 6000ft, and to slow down the traffic to 220kts overhead DESDI. And yes, splitting the approach sector into 2 position will also help a lot.

 

With a much larger airspace, one controller could perhaps handle 12-15 aircraft at one time in his approach sector. More than this figure is too much for one single controller on VATSIM, IMHO.

 

Ah, one more suggestion: What about having Gulf issuing a holding at DESDI per default? That´s what I got several times at Lambourne when flying into heathrow. London Control gave me a hold over LAM, and then the handoff to director. Director then could either let me descend in the hold, or tell me "hold is cancelled, leave LAM heading ..." ... Main purpose would be to relief APP from controlling the holding stack ...

[Daniel Roesen]

Opher, Ran, and all other controllers who worked for us:

 

Thank you. Rest [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured that our discussion of observed problem situations is not meant in any bad way. As VATSIM is a learning environment, we all try to understand what happened, why it happened, and what we all can learn from it. For me and all others I've spoken to, it was a very pleasing flight (except technical problems of some folks incl. me) and a great experience. Heck, I've flown my first offset track and enjoyed it! Even if my PMDG 747 FMC freaked out at times while doing so. I was happy that I've got [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned an offset - made the experience more interesting and real.

 

Ran: your observations regarding reported IAS and actual GS have a simple reason: differing wether, in this case winds aloft. People flying with Squawkbox 3 fetching VATSIM weather don't have any winds aloft (perhaps 3kts or so)... I as an ActiveSky user had up to 130kts tailwind... my highest observed ground speed (while flying Mach .9 to overtake some fellow) was a nice 648kts.

 

Again - as US folks like to say: "Thanks for the blast!". We've all learned from it! Thanks for the full ATC coverage, much appreciated. And you guys had a whole bunch of pilots in your air space who are controllers themselves and know how it feels when you get swamped, and that things like phraseology, oversight etc. gets suboptimal quickly - so we understand. It's an interesting experience for a controller too (at least for me). And we know about the m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive difficulty to oversee such a large airspace like EURE or GULF_FSS properly, and at the same time do (comparatively) microseperation at the 10NM level. Zoom+Viewpoint macros would certainly come handy there. I know it would be horror for me to have to control such a large area with ASRC.

 

We'd be more than happy to have you guys again when we depart OMDB to WSSS (Singapore) on 2006-02-11. We'll let you know about the time of day as soon as we've worked that out.

 

Best regards,

Daniel (DLH5401)

[Ilan Jonas 860311]

I wonder if anyone from real world aviation has exeprienced anywhere, ever, 20 aircraft controlled concurrently by a single approach control position. EDDF, LSZH, KLAX, KORD, KJFK. Mr. Fuchs? anyone?

 

urghh does LLHB count?

I saw up to 200 planes in an approach area, and a small one. I controlled many dozens at a time myself. The main difference is that the area (and the rules) were planned to handle this load of organized traffic, and here lies the main problem.

 

This has nothing to do with what people are used to - this is all a matter of what's happening at the very same moment. I can't forget being vectored into a mountain (with crush detect on ) in Austria during one of the bigger SAG events. I also remember one of the most horrific services I saw with a bunch of other pilots at EDDF - it can happen everywhere!

 

Now if you want my idea of what went wrong - It's ease: the differnce between Vatsim and R/W is the absent of dispatch rules in vatsim (we can't plan ahead - can't have the same wx for all, can't hold people for 7 minutes each in big events etc.), and mainly, the fact that enroute centers do not separate. In real life, Tel-Aviv radar won't accept a non separated airplane - so it's up to Nicosia to keep them so, as it's up to Athens to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] it in order to him previously. Very simple!

In Vatsim we tend to leave the mess for the last center - that's an error.

 

And a sidenote - knowing Andreas a little, no worries about debriefing: I know it's not personal and you only want the best for all of us!

 

Cheers and thanks for flying with us once again!

Ilan

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Thanks Martin, beautifully said. The FL update should have been the controller responsibility using F5 while issuing the clearance.

 

Hi Opher!

 

 

Regarding voice I only wanted to share my experience. I know about the problems we face with voice server selections, and changing voice server during the Flyin is indeed not an option. Fortunately very very soon the voice server situation will significantly change to the better.

 

3. TCAS alert: ANZ51 reaction was professional and well timed, warning came as STV1015 was flying without radar contact till that moment, and not in filed FL. ANZ51 did not understand my response to his TCAS message and complained, did not respond to my follow-on query.

 

Yes, that´s exactly how I understood the communication also. Your complaint about the wrong flightlevel was directed to STV1215, not to ANZ051. Unfortunately ANZ051 understood that wrong and interpreted the complaint as targeted to him . Regarding the wrong FL for the STV051 if I remember correctly the STV got the clearance for FL370 from the previous controller. perhaps he did not update the CRZ FL in the f/p, therefore misleading you.

[Joerg Dolgner]

Hi!

 

I just want to say thank you for your appreciated ATC!

 

Due to some problems with my flight simulator I departed from Cologne with 45 minutes delay, and after another 2 FS crashes over the Turkey I was more than one and a half hour after my estimated time. So I expected to continue my flight alone and on my own and to find Dubai empty.

 

But all of you waited for me to complete my flight, and I was in ATC coverage almost the whole flight! Thank you for this!

 

Cheers,

Joerg (DLH6514)

[Alexandre Geahel 932157]

Hello all, I did OMDB GND then several hours near the end APP. I was very pleased when I saw GND available; asked for it and got it The traffic was wonderful and from what I saw APP, man you did a wonderul job getting a beautiful line on APP to runway 12 R. Beautiful event, thank you guys for flying OMDB. I hope there will be more traffic there in the near future.

Sincerly,

Alex. G.

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Hello Andreas,

I spent time digging info yesterday, trying to locate the 20NM separation info I had mentioned, so far found only the 10NM enroute separation as you said, in both North America and Europe. The Canadians mention the use of Mach control, as you had pointed out to me 6 months ago while I was controlling your flight on Eurocontrol East, but many references strongly advise to avoid touching that parameter in cruise, as it makes the difference between profit and loss to many operators.

 

Hi Opher,

20 NMs separation is not the legal minimum - the minimum is 10 NM but for an event like this it is not a bad idea to go up to 20 NM. But then you need to take care that these 20 NM stay more or less stable. Us pilots helped you as well by requesting level-changes to avoid conflicts and GULF was very quick in responding and approving these level-changes.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hello Opher,

 

the legal minimum of separation is 10 NM enroute, within 50 NM of the radar-antenna you may go down to 5 NM. Considering control without radar you should go for speed/time-separation (e.g. North Atlantic Operations!), which obviously doesn't work that easy here at VATSIM because everyone got a different weather tool and different winds in cruise. Probably it would have been a good idea to use all levels for this event : 330, 340, 350, 360, 370, 380 etc... but then requiring ATC to be more aware of crossing or opposite traffic. This way not speed/time-separation (e.g. 3 minutes) would have been necessary and separation/sequencing could have started in the last 200 NM before the IAF.

 

I think there a few methods available to do that, it is just important that you guys agree on one and use it consequently and everything will be fine.

[Javier Larroulet]

 

I´m not a real-world controller, but I have quite some experience with dual non-independent runway approach operations (at EDDF on VATSIM). Using both runway CAN help a little bit, however, it wouldn´t have solved the problems yesterday. 2-runway operations would make a 4-5nm separation possible, and would still allow tower to get departures out in between them.

 

I actually does help to use parallel non-independent runways. the trick is to squeeze them as much as regulations permit.

Here at SCEL we are operating with parallel runways now (17L/R - 35/R/L) but they are too close together to do simulataneos parallel landings. However, the aviation authority aproved the simultaneous use of the runways provided that both planes remain within 3 miles of each other. So, I can have one plane approaching 17L 5 miles out, while another one is approaching 17R 2.5 miles out (the diagonal makes it a bit tricky, but works). Even though you're not making them approach side by side, you get a moderate increase in capacity (you don't double capacity, but there's maybe a 50% increase).

 

Another good thing of doing that is planes on the same runway approach will always be like 5 or 6 miles apart, which is more than the app minima, so you can keep speed restrictions to an all-time low and those ActiveSky pilots won't ever complain about wake turbulence

 

My $0.02

[Opher Ben Peretz 882232]

Saturday SAG vACC Wordltour 2006 will spread its wings again, departing OMDB Dubai to WSSS Singapore Changi. VATAME will provide ATC services starting 1630Z, with visiting controllers from various VATAME regions, most of whom previously controlled this and similar events at OMDB.