Direct routings ......

[Aunt Rimmer]

I was intrigued to read recently in 'Focus' an article by the BALPA Flight Safety Committee on "Fuel Conservation Strategies". Now there was some very good reading in the article but my attention was drawn when the author declared that crews should ALWAYS ask for a direct route, and that generally this should be to the final approach fix. This point was made a couple of times.

I have always endeavoured to send aircraft direct to the exit fixes on my sector, whenever my time and workload permit, but I now find that my workload is being unnecessarily increased by what seems like constant nagging for direct routings. Particularly during normal daylight hours and particularly across entire swathes of airspace.

Some operators (particularly north and southbounds via TLA/DCS to+from Aberdeen) are worse than others and relentlessly ask this as standard on first call. Several things spring to mind.

1-asking for direct routes which cut across 2 or 3 sectors increases my workload and the workload of the other sectors.

2-I am surprised by how often requests can take the shortcut outside controlled airspace and through either active danger areas (D613 complex) or over the top of pretty busy military airfields (eg Leuchars). I have no crystal ball and do not know what military traffic will be operating outside controlled airspace in 20 minutes time, yet I am expected to offer a Deconfliction Service?

3-to have 2 or 3 aircraft on direct routings starts introducing conflictions outside the normal confliction points, making them more random and harder to spot in advance - another workload issue. Especially with north and southbounds of the same operator trying to cut the corner.

4-direct routings can screw up the arrival sequence at the airfield, as well as messing up slot times, especially when arriving from outside controlled airspace if holding is required.

In these belt-tightening times I understand the rationale, but PLEASE wait for us to offer. If we can, we generally will, but please remember you are not the only aeroplane in the sky.

I think on this occasion the Flight Safety Committee article has got it wrong.

[Gonzo]

Aunt Rimmer, yes, I agree, and it's contrary to the recommendations regarding efficient network management and Eurocontrol's DMEAN initiative.....

http://www.eurocontrol.int/dmean/gallery/content/public/Library/Adherence_brochure_Apr09.pdf.

We in ATC are supposed to be providing efficiency gains for the 'network'...i.e. more predictable routes flight times, better CTOT and EOBT adherence, and yet those customers to whom we are now supposed to be 'tuned in' are clamouring for more 'directs'......:ugh:

[Ben Doonigan]

Gianni
I didn't understand what is the point here.I also think that you use your brain way too much(much more that a ATCO should).
If you start thinking what will a direct route make in other sector or at the arrival
You can't influence the flight of an aircraft
is not ATC this is just cover up for someone who is not capable to figure out where a conflict will occur and


:hmm:

Is that supposed to be a considered opinion from an aviation professional .... or just an illiterate abusive rant ? :rolleyes:

I agree with Aunt Rimmer and Gonzo. If I start sending everything direct to 10 mile final at Paris, London and Amsterdam in the middle of the day, how long before I get a tap on the shoulder ..... ?

[rolaaand]

Aunt Rimmer-Agree with your post. Lets not beat about the bush though. BMI Regional Embraers in and out of EGPD have become a right pain in the arse. It seems to be a standard call when they check in with Scottish regardless of how busy the frequency sounds. The pilots have no idea of the workload involved in organising the direct route to PD, and by the sounds of it some,not all, of the pilots seem to have a very basic grasp of ATSOCAS. PD radar have been refusing a lot of the direct routeings lately during busy periods, which is fine because PD is a much busier airport than a lot of the pilots seem to appreciate as well. Could do with getting some of the BMI Embraer boys and girls plugged in on sector to see what the direct ADN/ATF route involves, and how much unknown traffic floats around between SAB and ADN.

Gianni17- I read everything you wrote and to be honest you need to stop sniffing glue before you post:E

[Number2]

I have to laugh (or maybe cry). At my place of work, directs are strictly forbidden because, according to management, it's costing the airlines more money. One controller, that I know of, had a 5 day suspension (unpaid obviously) for OFFERING direct routes.

[Gianni17]

Easy on me people,I'm just posting my opinion here.If it makes you feel better I have removed the post and will put everything on paper again.After all where is the fun if all of us agree here.:O

I'm not really sure how can you influence arrival time of a flight to a certain aerodrome if you are the only one around that is adhearing to the rules.So,you are not sending aircraft direct to a point next thing you see you transfer it to a adjacent sector and bam he is flying direct.Honestly,at the place I work I haven't had a single controller say no when you ask for a direct due to various reasons.We even have some direct routings which don't require any coordination(sometimes it happens for the next unit to phone and ask you why is this flight not going direct.

One other thing is the way our job is moving we are now more like policemen in the sky than controllers.Adhere to the route,filled RFL in the FPL,no level change allowed unless you coordinate this for the remaining of the route or it is due to turbulence etc.There is no fun in this anymore.And as I said where is the point if you adhere to something when nobody around you does the same.

When I said "sending aircraft direct" I meant that a coordination should exist.But if you can do it why shoudn't you?!After all this is why we are here,or maybe not?!

Personally whenever someone is bugging for a direct usually he will not get one and that is the end of the story.But if a direct route can save you from a vectoring or similar why would you leave an aircraft on the standard route and vector it creating more workload for you when a simple call can save you all the trouble.

I'm working in a very busy environment where we have a lot of crossings and lot of vertical movement at the same time but if as someone mentioned above you "stick to the basics" sometimes you will end up in a much bigger mess than when some of the aircraft are flying dct to a point(exit point of your sector that is)

From what most of you wrote before I understand that you are working in a more or less same environment and that this is a lower airspace and I agree that sending someone dct to a arrival fix will create more workload to the other.(I have to say I work in Upper airspace and I haven't done this a lot)

And can you really get suspended for sending aircraft dct to a point?I can't believe that this can happen,can someone back me up on this!

I hope that you now agree a bit more with me.:O

Gianni

[Number2]

The suspension definitely happened. Thanks for questioning my integrity like that......

[Gianni17]

I really didn't mean to question your integrity,I just wanted to hear if something similar happenned somewhere else as well.Sorry if it sounded like that.One thing that I don't want to do here is to argue with someone over posts.

Take care,

Gianni

[5milesbaby]

If sending an aircraft direct somewhere seriously contravened rules and regulations (ie Put's aircraft through an active danger area/wasn't co-ordinated with the next sector/causes airprox) then I can understand a suspension. If it was all co-ordinated and still ensured the safety of the flight then any suspension is totally out of order and I would instantly get my union involved (and hopefully land a huge sack of the brown stuff on some managers desks).

[Number2]

All the routes were 'offered' in accordance with local refresher training and co-ordinated appropriately. I believe some were used for traffic avoidance to ensure unrestricted climb. Union hierarchy too interested in playing golf and wouldn't pursue a grievance with management.

[divingduck]

Don't go to Australia if you are thinking of giving direct tracking...as far as i know it only gets done for separation and weather avoidance...do it other than that and you get a "please explain", do it again and your CV had better be brushed up.

It may have changed though, hopefully it has been.

[ZOOKER]

Is it true that NATS are taking this one on 'big time' in order to save the world?
Allegedly they have appointed their own 'environmental man', and even have a picture of a foot.

[tarnish26]

I once had a "route direct Berry Head after noise" on departure from Glasgow!!....now that is a nice direct to get...mind you it was a weekend evening and pretty dam quiet. I always work on the basis if ATC can see a short cut for you and it causes them no grief they will offer it....if not I just keep quiet....keep up the good work guys :ok:

[makespeed250kt]

Direct tracking is available in OZ:ok:

[Ben Doonigan]

Allegedly they have appointed their own 'environmental man' ....

You could always Ask Ian .... (http://www.nats.co.uk/text/246/nats_and_the_environment.html)

and even have a picture of a foot. :D
A big green one .... just don't make me angry ... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kycfNNdM5s&feature=player_embedded#)

:E

[Lon More]

Maybe a small incentive might help? As per the Swissair "Chocolate Route" ( KOK dct EPL)

[ZOOKER]

Ben,
"thanks for the information". :ok:
So, let's put this in a global context.......
Aviation contributes about 3% of anthropogenic CO2.
NATS aims to reduce this by an average of 10% per flight by 2020.
That's 3/1000th's.
All this in 'NATS airspace', which is less than 1/100th of the Earth's surface area, (510,000,000 sq/nm).
Hell, the displaced polar-bears of Churchill will be dancing about tonight.
Quick, get on the blower.....
Ring Ian. :E

[exeng]

Personally whenever someone is bugging for a direct usually he will not get one

What constitutes 'bugging'? If I ask for a 'direct' 50% of the time I get a 'direct' - I suspect that had I not asked I may not have been offered a 'direct'.

As a pilot my company expects me to operate the aircraft in the most fuel efficient and expeditious manner consistent with safety. To that end I will at times ask for a 'direct' if I believe a 'direct' routing is within acceptable criteria for the area controller I am working with.

Please note the phrase 'working with'. ATC provide separation for me and I try to help them whenever asked (i.e max ROC etc) As I understand the system ATC provide a service which airlines (and therefore joe public) pay for. It surely is the responsibility of all controllers to provide an efficient a service as possible to the airlines who pay for that service (and the majority in most of Europe, the USA and certainly the UK do just that).

Why do you refuse a pilot a direct routing just because he has asked (bugged you) for one?


Regards
Exeng


Regards
Exeng

[Pera]

asking for direct routes which cut across 2 or 3 sectors increases my workload and the workload of the other sectors.

Saying, 'not available' is a very small increase in workload. :)

[mikk_13]

Direct tracking is available in OZ

No it isn't. Read the centre LI's

[Quokka]

It may have changed though, hopefully it has been.

You are correct.

However, in Oz it depends on the particular manager at the time as to whether the controllers actions are acceptable or not and regardless of compliance with promulgated procedures.

If, for example, a controller fails to apply direct tracking at the FLOW/Approach controller's instruction, the subsequent formal Performance Management will start with the words...

"[insert controller's name] does not comply with established procedures".

However, after opening the relevent document to the relevent page in front of said manager and pointing to the relevent section that states what mikk_13 is referring to, the manager in question can be expected to change the wording of the formal Performance Management to...

"[insert controller's name] does not comply with expected practices".

Regardless of what is contained within the Centre LI's your actions as a controller can be deemed to be unacceptable and the manager can exercise complete discretion in determining the reason why and, in the case of one particular manager, reserve the rights to amend the wording of the Performance Management document after the controller has signed it and then represent the document to a third party as being true and correct as signed by the controller.

[makespeed250kt]

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this? I'll have another look at the Centre local instructions though when I get back to work (I wonder which bookcase it's in today?).

Our Group LI's clearly specify that direct tracking may be used, subject to certain criteria, which is what I had based my previous posts comments on.

If I've missed something, I'm happy to be corrected. I have no intention of operating outside the rules!

Cheers

[ozineurope]

250kt - you are correct. Direct tracking is available and utilised in Australia on a daily basis. Only when the airspace/traffic mix becomes too complex does anyone fly the SID to its full extent. Most SIDs are cancelled leaving 5000agl (a silly noise thingy) for jets or 3000agl for turbos. Where the SID goes thorugh someone elses airspace or ahs VNAV for separation then SID cancellation may be more difficult - but this is not because we cant do it - we can with Coord.

STARs are usually flown in thier entirety due to the linkin with the expected approach procedure, although even then track shortening within the procedure is given - somewhere that the FMS can rejoin without too much fuss.

Not sure where Mikk is from but I know and have written LIs that allow track shortening in given airspaces in given time frames. Cuts out the tiresome coord!!

[TrenShadow]

ML Center Shared Doc: MCO 3.1.2.0.0.1 effective date 5 April 2007.

Lists a few limited case where direct tracking is allowed (including where specified in LIs and sequencing), but does NOT provide for fuel/time savings to airlines as one of those reasons.

[Number2]

Direct routings don't save time or fuel.

That must be true because management says so.

[berti]

As off the 17th of December next, the irish UIR will be point to point dct routing. I.E. opperators can file from any entry fix to any exit fix, direct.
This will save opperators fuel, due to less being uploaded before departure because their track will have been shortened. ATCOs who give direct routings doesnt save much on fuel, moreso on time.
Personally i give as much directs as possible. The shortest distance between two points also means the less time on frequency.:)

[5milesbaby]

Personally i give as much directs as possible. The shortest distance between two points also means the less time on frequency
Exactly Berti, when I can I do so there is not much point pestering me as if I haven't already then I'm too busy so don't bug me!
The current airspace set up on S20 at LACC gives a potential 5 turns in 80 miles on one outbound route which having flown it as a passenger, isn't comfortable. Giving a direct to miss out 3 of those turns is done whenever possible.

[Coast]

i agree too. it's rare i don't give somewhere direct,
usually without being asked. it's also easier to see a possible
confliction if the planes aren't turning before their paths cross.

of course i have high level a/s so i don't worry about sids and
stars and little planes that barely move.

[Number2]

Should be careful what you do (Coast) if you are still in Canada. You might find
yourself with 5 days without pay too.

[Spamcan defender]

I am also one of those who give as many directs as poss in my own sector. I dont mind being asked if there is a direct route available as I'm not as grumpy and cynical as some I work with :p but generally, if I've not already done so then its not available.
Similarly, I will always attempt to (when possible) call ahead and offer the adjoining sector further climb through my airspace if I can see that some poor sod is going to be stuck under for a good bit. Its no skin of my nose, doesnt impact me in the slightest and generally helps the A/C and the controller of the next sector.

Spamcan

[Blockla]

Just to play devils advocate, it is possible that direct routing is not fuel or time efficient... Great circle routes and/or 'preferred routings' (that take in wind effect)...

Also having seen route structures in Europe and compared them to Australia, well there's little wonder direct routings are used often in Europe compared to my previous home... A direct routing in Oz may save as little as 5 nm over a very long sector, here a direct routing could save 30nm or more over a short sector.

[mikehammer]

As a mere FO (or as one manager recently told me: "...only a f*****g FO..." - nice guy!) I ask you exactly what the captain tells me to ask. I apologise because often it saves very little time. However I'm not about to instigate an argument on the flight deck, so please say negative, unavailable more often. That way they'll soon give up pushing. Oh, and I'll get a couple of extra minutes in my log book each flight too :E

[Quokka]

...it is possible that direct routing is not fuel or time efficient... Great circle routes and/or 'preferred routings' (that take in wind effect)

Very true.

A straight line on the controllers screen is not necessarily the shortest distance between two points... in time or space (Do you know, or can name the geographical projection that your screen or map is based on? When was the last time you checked the wind?).

As for preferred routings... the Flex Track supervisors in Melbourne would become very unhappy if controllers gave short cuts to aircraft flying the daily published optimum route for wind and fuel consumption. Something a number of controllers had some difficulty in understanding.

To throw another scenario into the discussion... what's the point in track shortening an aircraft that has reduced speed due to "no parking bay available for us"?

Or, as happens in this part of the world... track shorten every aircraft to the three sequencing gates and reduce the space between them down to the absolute minimum as per the Letter of Agreement, only to sit back and feel good about yourself whilst you watch the receiving controller give them 90 degree turns or holding patterns because he has to blend the three trails into one with a tenth of the space to do it within?

Sometimes direct tracking doesn't help.

[DFC]

A straight line on the controllers screen is not necessarily the shortest distance between two points... in time or space (Do you know, or can name the geographical projection that your screen or map is based on?


It is very seldom these days that we navigate via a rhumb line track.

Radio Aids

RNAV

GPS and Radar all provide Great circle tracks.

If you (or the flight director/autopilot) keep the deviation bar centred then the aircraft is following a great circle track.

Remember that a radar display is not a projection of the area around the radar - it is an exact representation of what is out there all measured in terms of direction and distance from the radar head. Therefore if smalltown is bearing 030 at 40nm from the radar and big town is 180 at 120nm from the radar head then a straight line between them will be a great circle.

However, having said that, where positions of aircraft are plotted via FMS/GPS information received through for example ADS then it is possible that over a long range display (oceanic) that the projection could be such that a GC is not a straight line.

Would the pilot who prefers weather pattern navigation please let us know what radar altimeters they are using at FL350 to provide them with the D values? :)

These days in flight such thoughts are merely guestimates or generalisations. If a direct routing is changing your track by 30 degrees or less then the change in component is not going to be significant (unless you are routing round a jetstream). If it is more then 30 degrees then the change in distance is going to offset any loss of tailwind.

If it is more than 90 degrees you are lost! :D

[Coast]

Should be careful what you do (Coast) if you are still in Canada. You might find
yourself with 5 days without pay too.

didn't mean to sound flippant. any route i give is approved, unless it's a medevac, emergency, or military flying troops home (wrt safety, military a/s, etc.)
and i don't short cut stars or approaches with anyone unless requested by the person working that a/s.
also when giving a direct routing it's not an instruction or clearance but a request if the pilot wants it.
as in "direct YQX is available if you'd like it"
sometimes they don't depending on their slot time, jetstream, etc.

hope i keep my pay :E

[TC_Ukraine]

In Ukraine the first question asked by investigator in case of STCA, TCAS RA (caused by level bust), depressurisation, engine failure, etc is "Why an aircraft wasn't on its route?" The same thing happens when we have go-around after vectoring to final.
So the only time ukrainian controller gives shortcut is when he need to (for lateral separation) or when it`s requested by crew.
So hint to pilots: Don`t hesitate asking shortcuts while flying in Ukrainian airspace. Otherwise continue according to flight plan.

[ron83]

I would have simple answer . Why they shouldn't be if our job also includes to provide service efficiently? In my airspace,most of acfts always on directs:}

[45 before POL]

Personally i am all for direct routings. A lot of work and and research is going into this and new routes have been implemented(called fuel saver routes)with more routes to come. It all comes down to as long as we can maintain the 3 principles of "safe, orderly and expeditious" then its a service to the airlines we should provide when we can.Its a make and break world now with the airlines and have seen many go in the last few years. chipping away at the fuel cost , even for a few miles all adds up over the year. Figures have shown directs have saved some companies millions. Direct routings work well in the uk for a lot of overflights during the night and early morning....also at the weekend at certain times.Directs though when airspace is very busy or outside influences like military flying make this much more difficult can compromise this, staying on route is the best option allowing us to be more expeditious. if you all wanted direct then more of you will sit on the ground for 2 hours plus. We do try to endevour to give the most direct, but only on the 3 principles stated above. well thats my 5p worth. Note all sectors are different and some easier to get directs, other more complex with military interactions or no fly zones etc.

[5milesbaby]

45 before POL, I sat on the RAD review board this year held at Swanwick and witnessed at least 5 different airline representatives saying that although the night time saver routes were "quite good" it isn't what they really want and actually don't improve their planning. They wanted to use them only when they thought they had maximum benefit, and outside these circumstances, only use part or none of them and "free flight" through the sectors (saying they are unlikely to go direct!). I totally understand their argument too and am stunned if NATS got these routes implemented without any consultation! But it wouldn't surprise me :ouch:

[45 before POL]

Not aware about the consultation just the implementation, but its not just UK airspace. These routes start from west of Ireland to the boundary with Maas. are just about to be extended futher and being implemented through Maas airspace this month. I agree that airlines have stated they need to be able to plan the routes. This way fuel upload can be accounted for, and this is the response to that. If directs are not what they want, then why do we get so many requests? Yes some do stay on planned routes if given direct, due timings, training etc..but the choice is better than none. flexibility, and providing the best service you can, to what essentially is the customers needs.

[Mike_Retired_ATC]

Direct is great and works well for the pilot, but then what happens down the road where another controller has to re-route the aircraft around a Restricted Area, Prohibitied Area, etc., that you don't know about.

Granted some portions of SID's or STAR's can be shortened, but leave that decision to the controller that works that airsapce unless you coordinate.

[5milesbaby]

Mike_Retired_ATC, at Swanwick ACC and I imagine at Prestwick ACC too, no directs will be given that further down the line need rerouting due to a danger area.

45 Before POL, what the airline reps said is that the new routes aren't flexible enough, and as they also don't have any intermediary points along them, are useless for fuel calculations. They have asked for a point every 60nm along each one so level changes can be planned, so subsequently better fuel efficiency. They also say that going direct from oceanic exit point to middle Germany isn't necessarily the best routes due to winds. They want to be able to select their own routes to make best use of beneficial winds and attempt to avoid the worst ones. They had evidence from a few days where routing DUB CPT and I think to REDFA was more efficient than going direct from DUB to REDFA due to the wind being behind almost all the way as the direction altered in the CPT area and it would have given a near on 100% tailwind component for the entire route and quite strongly too. They stated 3 minutes could have been saved per aircraft, and one of the representatives has 12 aircraft on that route most days.

Its quite like many companies these days, the everyday coalface workers do what they do, and the beancounters say we could have saved £xx's if we did it another way. I was just a little surprised as to the other way in this case, as extra track miles can mean less £££'s out of the pot.

[Lon More]

They had evidence from a few days where routing DUB CPT and I think to REDFA was more efficient than going direct from DUB to REDFA due to the wind being behind almost all the way


Wonder what happened the rest of the time??

I always used the wording. "If convenient, direct to ....", and only once had it refused - by a pilot who was paid by flying time.