Tokyo Tracon Ceiling

[Scott DeWoody]

Was flying into RJAA the other day, I was at 33000 ft, approximately 100 miles out and got pinged by the Approach controller to contact him. I noticed his ATIS, and it had : landing and departing rwys 34L and R, when the winds dictated landing south. So as to not cause trouble, I just logged off and landed on 16L.

 

Also not that familiar with the runway [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments there, and I prefer to land "into" the wind rather than with a tail wind.

 

So... is there a TRACON Ceiling? In most places I've seen, it's anywhere between 10K and 16K.

 

Thanks in advance for anyone that can provide this information.

[Markus Vitzethum]

Hi Scott,

 

I agree (from a pilot's point of view) that I would expect an approach control to look up to, say, 13000'-18000'. So, when near top of descent and being busy with descent I'm not in a rush to contact approach.

 

But I wondered why you disconnected then. Basically, as you surely now, as a pilot you can request anything to ensure the safety (even the efficiency) of its flight. So why not just request ILS16L? Especially when traffic is light, this is not causing trouble, I'm sure.

 

Regards,

Markus

 

p.s.

And quite some time ago, with a controller I knew very well, I requested for the fun of it.

Me: "request direct King Abdulaziz"

Ctr: "say again"

Me "request direct King Abdulaziz"

Ctr: "say again

Ctr "ah - you want to go direct to Jeddah"

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Scott,

 

sometimes the ceiling of APP-control can reach up to FL250. If a controller pings you earlier than that, then you should be grateful that he obviously is trying to extend his services and offer you more. We are here for active air traffic control, not to fly on unicom.

 

I found it strange that you logged off just based on the information of the controller's ATIS. Maybe he simply forgot to update the operating runways? The great thing of us human beings is the fact that we have mouths and we can use it to clarify or, if preferred, request a different runway. Please also note that several airports have a so called "preferential runway system" that dictates operations up to (usually) 5kts of tailwind. Airliners do not have any sort of problem to officially and safely land under these circomestances. Especially at the end of a flight you would have burnt most of your fuel and you will be light, so no problem with landing performance whatsoever.

 

So, next time, PLEASE PLEASE do not just logoff. Talk to the controller in question and clarify the information that you find dubious. And if you prefer another runway, just ask for it. If it is not possible, don't be too afraid to land with a little bit of tailwind as long as you have a long runway (>8,000ft) and the tailwind-component is 10kts or less. Even a B747 has no trouble under these circomestances.

[Sean Harrison]

I believe this is the reason why artcc's/divisions/regions should make their local policies clearly defined and readily available. To encourage people to fly in more places, it should be easier to find the differences.

 

After having an issue in Singapore artcc, I think not having docomeents to reference will only put people off. Would be interesting what the SUPs will utilise for reference, if contacted in similar situations.

 

My thoughts are that whenever a person controlling sends a "contact me" then you should so, but then call a SUP for clarification on the differences.

 

I think I would have contacted the controller, requested 16, and then maybe logged off if denied.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Ok, why would you not land with 5 knots of tailwind if this was the preferred runway?

[Sean Harrison]

1. Runway is wet,

2. Runway is too short,

3. For any reason all the calculations indicate to the pilot that the POH does not support it.

 

I actually landed in an A380 on 34L Sunday night. Pooring rain, acft was 'light' (on its OW scale), prevailing wind was on the nose, and we needed every inch of that runway to safely land.

 

If it had been a tail wind, I reckon we would have been off the end.

 

IF a person flying an acft requests something, then a person providing control services should accomodate the request unless some extra-ordinary circomestance prevails.

 

When I control, I provide a service. That means to me I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist people flying, other people controlling.

[Andreas Fuchs]

1. Runway is wet,

2. Runway is too short,

3. For any reason all the calculations indicate to the pilot that the POH does not support it.

In Tokyo this is definitely not the case, both Haneda and Narita have long runways to support a SLIGHT tailwind.

I actually landed in an A380 on 34L Sunday night. Pooring rain, acft was 'light' (on its OW scale), prevailing wind was on the nose, and we needed every inch of that runway to safely land.

 

If it had been a tail wind, I reckon we would have been off the end.

If you needed "every inch of that runway" then your aircraft model is faulty. A light A380 will stop within 5,000ft easily, if you use medium autobrake. I would have to look up a performance manual of that bird to give you the exact value. Legally you need to be able to stop within 67% of the available runway length, that's why we need to apply a factor of 1.67 to the actual landing distance. So, landing distance * 1.67 = minimum runway length for your planning.

 

But I can subscribe to the rest of your message whereas ATC provides a service and should try to accommodate requests by pilots. On the other hand some ATC-units are trying to emulate the real world and if that means that a preferential runway system is used, then us pilots should TRY to also be part of that game.

[Sean Harrison]

If you needed "every inch of that runway" then your aircraft model is faulty.

 

It was a real world flight http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DLH796/history/20170717/2010Z/EDDF/VHHH

 

Not sure, as I wasn't the pilot, but it could have been any number of things that added to the need for reverse thrust until J3, and extra braking. We exited at J2, just.

 

At J5, he increased braking and things started falling out of lockers. Few screams from p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]engers, but we got off the runway. I haven't checked the performance figures either, but it showed to me how runway length etc can be very important. "runway behind you is useless!"

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Sean,

 

that could be explained with a function on the A380 that is called "brake to vacate (BTV)". Basically, before landing the crew selects an exit that they intend to use and the plane will decelerate accordingly, all by itself. Now, if the crew thinks that it is a bit too slippery or if they get told to use another exit and expedite vacating, then they can simply override BTV (or the normal Auto Brake System) by braking manually. This can result in quite some deceleration, as those wheel brakes are very powerful. That's why you must keep you seatbelt fastened until the plane has reached its parking position and the seatbelt signs get turned off: in case that the crew needs to brake sharply for a ground vehicle or similar, you'll be thrown into the seat in front of you. Hardly any p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]enger has experienced a maximum brake maneuver and it is really impressive! Those brakes look so small, but they are evil.

 

Btw: the flight you linked landed in Hongkong, not Tokyo!?

 

Back to our specific case: it would have been interesting to know whether the choice of runway was intentional or not. I myself have forgotten to update the runway configuration more than once and I was happy for a pilot to question the information on my ATIS. So, ladies and gents, don't be afraid to confirm the information given!

[Scott DeWoody]

These replies are all informative, but didn't answer my question.

 

What is the tracon ceiling, and lateral boundries?

[Sean Harrison]

Scott,

 

I feel your frustration, VATASIA does not appear to publish many of their policies and procedures like other Regions. Even some of their division have web pages that have been dead for months.

 

I would suggest that if the online community can't provide the information then revert to real world docomeents. I recently had an issue further south, but still in VATASIA, and they couldn't provide any docomeented evidence on why a controller was making ascertains.

 

Applicable region website is http://www.vatjpn.org/en/index.php

 

Real world Japan AIS is available here https://aisjapan.mlit.go.jp/LoginAction.do

 

I have a login and will find the info for you, however that won't mean that VATJPN will accept it.

[Andreas Fuchs]

These replies are all informative, but didn't answer my question.

 

What is the tracon ceiling, and lateral boundries?

It does not really matter. If an ATCO pings you to contact him, just do it. You should be grateful to have someone offering ATC services.

[Sean Harrison]

These replies are all informative, but didn't answer my question.

 

What is the tracon ceiling, and lateral boundries?

It does not really matter. If an ATCO pings you to contact him, just do it. You should be grateful to have someone offering ATC services.

 

No. If someone asks you to jump off a cliff, do you do it. Or do it, and then ask questions.

 

I agree that if a person controlling send you a "contact me" then you should contact them, But if they can't substantiate why they are doing so, then it's SUP time. People are people, and whether they are controlling or flying they make mistakes, or in minor cases blatantly do the wrong thing. Just because someone online or even on these forums says something doesn't make it right.

[Sean Harrison]

Scott,

 

Real world it appears to be FL270 and below. Lateral boundary isn't easy, but it mentions 40Nm radius, but also 60Nm but nor sure for what.

 

If I find more detail, I'll post.

[Magnus Meese]

I'm always amazed at people's abilities to be difficult for the sake of difficulty.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Sean,

I agree that if a person controlling send you a "contact me" then you should contact them, But if they can't substantiate why they are doing so, then it's SUP time. People are people, and whether they are controlling or flying they make mistakes, or in minor cases blatantly do the wrong thing. Just because someone online or even on these forums says something doesn't make it right.

I have to say that this discussion is getting more and more frustrating for me. As a pilot you normally do NOT know the exact lateral or vertical boundaries of a sector. You normally do NOT know if a letter of agreement between ATC-units exists, you might be flying in delegated airspace. You normally do NOT know whether a controller is offering extended services.

 

So, what's the matter? If an ATC is offering you competent ATC-services, just take it. We are here to fly online, to interact with other members, not to question their abilities, competencies and attitude.

[Removed]

Maybe it is time for some to take a deep breath, relax, have a coffee and then start over again.

 

No one is more correct than the other just because they say or pretend so.

[Sachin Gnath]

As a pilot you normally do NOT know the exact lateral or vertical boundaries of a sector. You normally do NOT know if a letter of agreement between ATC-units exists, you might be flying in delegated airspace. You normally do NOT know whether a controller is offering extended services.

 

So, what's the matter? If an ATC is offering you competent ATC-services, just take it. We are here to fly online, to interact with other members, not to question their abilities, competencies and attitude.

 

+1 Andreas!

[Anastasios Petros Stefopou]

I believe this is the reason why artcc's/divisions/regions should make their local policies clearly defined and readily available. To encourage people to fly in more places, it should be easier to find the differences.

 

After having an issue in Singapore artcc, I think not having docomeents to reference will only put people off. Would be interesting what the SUPs will utilise for reference, if contacted in similar situations.

 

My thoughts are that whenever a person controlling sends a "contact me" then you should so, but then call a SUP for clarification on the differences.

 

I think I would have contacted the controller, requested 16, and then maybe logged off if denied.

 

 

Sean,

These guys discuss something very specific and you found ground to start refering to policy from vacc level then division then vatasia and i dont know what other body within vatsim. Since you refer to policy quite often you should have been aware that each airspace and Division or vacc (when there is one) is responsible to publish their own manuals or policy or whatever they think necessary for their FIR and members.

VATASIA as a region has nothing to do with that. Search other regions and if you find any info regarding airspaces in the REGIONAL SITE let me know. Please dont mix the meaning of wording in English of region and division. In VATSIM and in Asia we have specific names for specific areas. VATASIA refers to everything within Asia as a whole. A Division is a subarea of VATASIA and a vacc is a subarea of a Division. Usually one or more FIRs. you mention SUPs as well. i see no point of doing that. Their job is different.

Sean, what happened in the short past in Singapore it is not worth to be mentioned in JAPAN forum and what happened is disclosed. Hence i dont find it fair to partially take advantage of facts and refer to Scott "frustration". I am sure Scott is not frustrated at all. He just asked for info.

While you expressed interest for BIOT airspace to create something there, i have not seen any plan of proposal, how this is going to maintain our balance within VATSIM ASIA REGION and the local communities, how this is going to benefit us (after all , all these years there was not such airspace, though operations continue) etc etc. I only see from your side refering to policy, expressing strongly your opinion and trying to find ground to expose our Region and the divisions there in.

Finally i find your mention to incidents which have to do for another Division, in a public forum, where the subject is DIFFERENT and someone asks for a simple airspace info, not acceptable.

If you wish to contribute and nkt to cause havoc you are welcome to express your interest with no rush moves. This region is delicate and has a balance which I and my team do not tend or tolerate to let anyone destroy. Otherwise i would kindly ask you to stop sit back and fly and enjoy the hobby which all makes us happy. And something for the end. Real world is real world. Vatsim is vatsim. If anyone wish to bring his flying or atc as close to reality then do. But you ALWAYS need to play with the rules of the network.

Thanks for your attention.

[jesil rahman 1161373]

Agree with Anastasios and Andreas,

 

As a pilot i don't think its necessary to know the vertical limits of the ATC facility. (unless flying VFR in terminal areas) If a controller is helping the Pilot, as long as it doesn't effect the safety of the flight, Pilots can take it. If any doubt, ask.

 

Also i believe TRACON is only used in USA. Rest of the world don't have a concept like that. If he means APP/DEP facility, many of airports has the Ceiling up to FL245. ( Correct me if i am wrong).

 

Regards

 

Jesil

Vatsim West Asia

[Sean Harrison]

I think this has become subjective rather than objective. I personally believe that if someone asks a question then it should be answered.

 

Scott asked a question twice, and I didn't see an answer. I am also interested in the answer.

 

I apologise to anyone who has taken offence or affront to anything I have posted, I have not intended to do so. I am an old persistent so-en-so, and for the life of me can't see why if a question is asked someone can't simply answer it.

 

I'd like to think that VATSIM is a community. Not pilots vs controllers, not pilots vs staff, and so on. A very small percentage appear to me to believe we should just do as we are told. I disagree. We should do what is appropriate in the circomestances. If any region/division/artcc or staff/members believe people should just fly, do everything a controller says, and never ask a question, then my belief in what VATSIM is will change.

 

Again, I sincerely apologise if anything I post causes anyone to take offence or affront. As I said, I am extremely objective and feel as individuals we should be able to ask a question of a progressive organisation and be educated. I do persist when I see anyone ignored, and not respected.

 

If someone posts a question here, or emails a staff member, I believe respect dictates a response. Just my personal belief.

[Shunsuke Yamabe 1162075]

Hi all,

 

We don't use the term "TRACON" in Japan, so I read it as "ACA(Approach Control Area)"; probably the nearest concept to "TRACON".

 

The boundaries of the airspaces in Japan is defined in the charts found on the real world eAIP (requires a free sign up).

https://aisjapan.mlit.go.jp/html/AIP/html/20170720/eAIP/20170720/image/RJTT_AD2_17_Tokyo_Approach_Control_Area.pdf

 

RJTT_ACA is especially complicated and I don't know from what direction Scoott approached the RJAA, but typical ACAs have the radius of approx 50NM and the ceiling of 10,000ft～FL200.

In order to provide pilots with ultra realistic ATC service, controllers in VATJPN follow AIP as long as possible.

 

However, it dose NOT mean that the chart is ablolute.

 

In the real world (and VATSIM) ATC, the H/O points are quite flexibully adjusted by coordinations between controllers.

In sometimes CTR hands off the ARVL TFC to APP at 150NM south of airport, while CTR may issue STAR clearance into ACA on behalf of APP in the other time.

(of course, even the real life pilots can't know what coordinations are done by the controllers, so they just contact APP when CTR says to do so.)

 

In addition to the fact as above, given that the first contact with TFC which requires the radar pickup takes longer than H/O from CTR, I don't think it is unnatural that RJTT_APP expanded his area to 100NM / FL330.

 

 

PS.

We don't plan to publish the same information as eAIP on our web site, because we have 100+ aerodromes in our division and they are frequently ammended.

We all have the access to the real data for free on the eAIP.

 

Rather than consuming time for copying the eAIP, we would like to train more trainee, or plan attractive events.

 

Regards,

Shunsuke Yamabe / VATJPN Training Director

[Scott DeWoody]

Sean, thanks

 

Shunsuke, thanks

 

Magnus, if you were referring to me being difficult, I don't see it, I just asked a simple question.