Improved speed management features

[Jonas Kuster 4]

I request to add "special" speeds in the speed popup similar to the functionality of having cleared for approach in the altitude popup. Those special speeds should be:

- hs: high speed

- mc: minimum clean speed

- ma: minimum approach speed

 

Additionally, it should also be possible to set a supplement to a speed restriction (or less/greater) using -/+ following the numeric value.

Another small change I suggest is to use "K" as a leader letter for speed restrictions given in knots. I guess the currently used "S" is an abbreviation for speed. But to be more precise and unambigous, a "K" for knots should be used as the "M" is used for mach numbers.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Guest

[Arvid Hansson 0]

Another small change I suggest is to use "K" as a leader letter for speed restrictions given in knots. I guess the currently used "S" is an abbreviation for speed. But to be more precise and unambigous, a "K" for knots should be used as the "M" is used for mach numbers.

 

K is used in ICAO flight plans as a prefix for speeds in kph - "4043N11637E/K0860S1190" - and would thus be a bad idea to use for knots.

[Adam Trzcinski 6]

I request to add "special" speeds in the speed popup similar to the functionality of having cleared for approach in the altitude popup. Those special speeds should be:

- hs: high speed

- mc: minimum clean speed

- ma: minimum approach speed

 

Some vACC consider it bad form to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign minimum speeds, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning an absolute speed is preferable.

I disagree with adding these as options, as it also puts controllers into the situation that they need to know an aircraft's minimum speeds, which could lead to error when two controllers have different values memorized.

[Jonas Kuster 4]

Some vACC consider it bad form to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign minimum speeds, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning an absolute speed is preferable.

I disagree with adding these as options, as it also puts controllers into the situation that they need to know an aircraft's minimum speeds, which could lead to error when two controllers have different values memorized.

Sure, it needs some knowledge about performance. But if you issue minimum clean, even without handing this aircraft off to another controller, it is better to also put that in the speed restriction and not a value you [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume will be minimum clean. And if you handoff the aircraft I as the receiving controller prefer as well to know that minimum clean speed has been [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned.

So, I agree that there are some uncertainities what the numerical value will be when [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning minimum clean speed. But if you use minimum clean, it's better the reflect this also in the speed restriction value and not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign a numerical value you think is appropriate.

[Jonas Kuster 4]

K is used in ICAO flight plans as a prefix for speeds in kph - "4043N11637E/K0860S1190" - and would thus be a bad idea to use for knots.

Seems then be dependent on the systems used. I've already seen live systems using K for knots speeds restrictions, but they won't [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign speed in kph in this area. So it's probably a bit local thinking. N would then be more appropriate.

Or even better, all those leading letters could move to the settings to let the users decide what you would like to use.

[Adam Trzcinski 6]

Sure, it needs some knowledge about performance. But if you issue minimum clean, even without handing this aircraft off to another controller, it is better to also put that in the speed restriction and not a value you [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume will be minimum clean. And if you handoff the aircraft I as the receiving controller prefer as well to know that minimum clean speed has been [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned.

So, I agree that there are some uncertainities what the numerical value will be when [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning minimum clean speed. But if you use minimum clean, it's better the reflect this also in the speed restriction value and not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign a numerical value you think is appropriate.

 

Hence remove the ambiguity and uncertainty and do not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign minimum speeds, but stay with [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning absolute speeds.

After reading above reply, I even more so think this does not seem like a good idea to add.

[Jonas Kuster 4]

Hence remove the ambiguity and uncertainty and do not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign minimum speeds, but stay with [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning absolute speeds.

After reading above reply, I even more so think this does not seem like a good idea to add.

Probably I'm thinking to economic and realistic. In real environments, especially minimum clean speed is used to find the best solution between two aims. The controller wants the aircraft to slow down and the pilot (or the airline) wants to save money/fuel. As minimum clean speed is the speed with the lowest fuel consumption, this perfectly fits to both parties.

Of course the virtual fuel costs are not really a factor , but we try to simulate the reality as good as possible, aren't we?

I understand you do not use those speeds. But there are different controlling techniques around. And I would be very happy if EuroScope can support as many as possible, especially if the solution is as easy as in this case. Nobody will force you to use this speed [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment ...

My initial discussion was also not asking whether the one or the other technique should be used or is more appropriate, but to offer this additional possibility for those who like to use it.

[Adam Trzcinski 6]

My initial discussion was also not asking whether the one or the other technique should be used or is more appropriate, but to offer this additional possibility for those who like to use it.

 

On the other hand, only because you are using a technique, doesn't mean that support should be added to EuroScope for it.

If everyone and their mother requested what was helpful for them, the client would become overloaded.

[Phillip Speer 0]

In the UK we reguarly use soft speeds when needed for tactical vs separation reasons (eg: you need an aircraft to slow down to turn to establish but don't need to maintain a speed as there is no following traffic), as it reduces controller workload (no speed retriction to cancel) and allow more flexabilty to pilots.

We use an annotation of 1kt less for "or less" or 1kt more for "or more" eg: S179 is used for 180 knots or less.

 

Phillip

[Jonas Kuster 4]

I would also ask to allow the speeds to be coordinated between controllers. This would help to organize especially inbound traffic flows between different vACCs only coordinating by text (and not by voice as most vACCs do internally). The receiving controller could ask for speed reduction in an easy way which definitely help also to prevent holdings.

[Andrew Ogden 26]

I disagree with adding these as options, as it also puts controllers into the situation that they need to know an aircraft's minimum speeds, which could lead to error when two controllers have different values memorized.

How about you just ask the pilot what their minimum clean and minimum approach speeds are? It works in New Zealand!

[Andreas Fuchs 207]

Just ask everyone to slow down to minimum clean speed. A well establish and regularly used procedure also in Europe.