Nikos Stournaras 892258 Posted October 11, 2014 at 11:00 PM Posted October 11, 2014 at 11:00 PM Hello everybody. I have a question regarding the departure procedures from Stansted. Tonight I filed a flight pan from Stansted to Paris de Gaulle. The first waypoint of the flight plan was LAM. The controller of Stansted stated he could not give me clearance as LAM departures are reserved only for Heathrow so I had to file an alternative one from LYD. However, Routefinder confirmed the LAM routing and Stansted charts I had downloaded from Navigraph (latest AIRAC) and there is included a SID from Stansted to LAM. Any opinions on that? Which is wrong? The controller or the charts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Thomson Posted October 11, 2014 at 11:02 PM Posted October 11, 2014 at 11:02 PM Hi Nikos, Routefinder does not take into considerations the restrictions for SIDs and will simply present what it thinks would work best. In this case LAM is only available for departures going to Heathrow so the controller is correct. The chart you found is correct in that there is a LAM SID but again this is for Heathrow only. Thanks, Kris Kris Thomson C1 CTP Planning Team member VATSIM UK Live! Organiser Follow VATSIM UK Live! on Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikos Stournaras 892258 Posted October 11, 2014 at 11:08 PM Author Posted October 11, 2014 at 11:08 PM I see. You know, I don't see an issue since it was about a departure with time to look for an alternate FP. Obviously if a similar situation was faced during an approach the controller would provide vectors. I believe a related NOTAM is somewhere to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Fuchs Posted October 12, 2014 at 08:35 PM Posted October 12, 2014 at 08:35 PM Hi Nikos, I advise against using Routefinder, you have experienced yourself why. Have a look at vroute.net, the basic version is free of charge and you will see what other pilots have flown and what has been validated through Eurocontrol. Cheers, Andreas Member of VATSIM GermanyMy real flying on InstagramMy Twitch streams of VATSIM flights and ATC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted October 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM Posted October 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM I see. You know, I don't see an issue since it was about a departure with time to look for an alternate FP. Obviously if a similar situation was faced during an approach the controller would provide vectors. I believe a related NOTAM is somewhere to be found. Or a reroute, it's not uncommon to get pilots filing incorrect inbound routes as well as SIDs. As you say though, SIDs are easier to amend. A good example is high level traffic from Brussels filing to Gatwick via LYD, this puts them straight against the outbound flow. They should file further north via TEBRA or ERING, and joing TIMBA3E. Instead they see the TIMBA2F and join that, without reading the charts in detail. If you study them you will notice a restriction of FL140 or below at LYD, this is a subtle hint that it's only for low level traffic. Similarily, if you read the notes of the EGSS LAM SID chart you will see that it says "for landing at EGLL only". So therefore, if you have me on LON control and have filed a strange routing, do not be surprised if I give you a new one. Sometimes giving the new route is a lot easier than vectoring as there is less monitoring needed, so I try to use that option when available to me. Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts