Controlling the Arrivals

Mark Hubbert · « **Reply #30 on:** February 27, 2012, 08:33:50 PM »

I can see both opinions. My first reaction would be it is a training issue but not knowing all the particulars not sure if it is or is not. My other comment would be I would imagine that it could also depend on the airport. I personally do not think it is a good idea to pull somebody off of an arrival and give them direct to a fix especially without giving a reason or asking the pilot if they would like to do this.

Michael Martin · « **Reply #31 on:** February 27, 2012, 09:53:41 PM »

Please let me propose a situation, and this happens all the time at ZAU.

Lets have an arrival to KORD, filed with the WYNDE4 STAR

Lets next notice the location of the airport on the approach chart.

Now, 9 out of 10 hours, KORD is running west ops and landing on 27L or 28

Does it make sense for me to let an arrival fly the entire arrival all the way RALFE before giving it vectors to final? That just doesn't make sense to me. That's 35 miles past the field, then back at least 40 miles at 4000ft to pick up the approach. Completely pointless, and not to mention, if ZAU practiced this the facility would be inundated by negative reviews complaining about "being left on the STAR too long".

From what I have seen on this network, if a pilot requests to fly to complete arrival, and the controller is able to accommodate this request without causing a lack of separation or other undo hardship, the controller is most likely to approve the request.

It isn't a training issue, it's a technique used to expedite traffic flow. A controllers number one job may be separation, but his second is to ensure the orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic in his sector.

Rahul Parkar · « **Reply #32 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:02:08 AM »

Is that apart from the fact that the chart states, "ORD Landing West : Expect Radar vectors to final approach course after PAITN"

Cheers!
Rahul

Tim Roden · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2012, 06:44:24 PM »

Where I have the problem is RNAV arrivals. I have more and more controllers who want to give me a vector instead of having me fly the arrival as published that would would take me straight into the approach. The 7110.65 says that you are not to take someone off of an RNAV until the last minute. There is a list of reasons why you don't do it including traffic, noise etc. Controllers need to read the arrivals before they are certified on approach. They need to allow pilots to fly as published unless there is an problem such as traffic.

Example. Flying into Fort Lauderdale. Jingle1 RNAV arrival. Approach consistently gives me a 090 heading off of JINGLE for 9L. You don't have to give any vectors cause the arrival brings you direct to HOLID from JEREM which is the inital fix on the 9L ILS. All you have to do is tell the pilot which runway and what the altitude to fly. If the pilot doesn't fly it then he can be given vectors.

Any Arrival, you should not take them off until at least the crossing point. I have not seen that problem anywhere in VATSIM.

Steven Caffey · « **Reply #34 on:** February 28, 2012, 11:54:36 PM »

Quote from: Tim Roden

Where I have the problem is RNAV arrivals. I have more and more controllers who want to give me a vector instead of having me fly the arrival as published that would would take me straight into the approach. The 7110.65 says that you are not to take someone off of an RNAV until the last minute. There is a list of reasons why you don't do it including traffic, noise etc. Controllers need to read the arrivals before they are certified on approach. They need to allow pilots to fly as published unless there is an problem such as traffic.

Example. Flying into Fort Lauderdale. Jingle1 RNAV arrival. Approach consistently gives me a 090 heading off of JINGLE for 9L. You don't have to give any vectors cause the arrival brings you direct to HOLID from JEREM which is the inital fix on the 9L ILS. All you have to do is tell the pilot which runway and what the altitude to fly. If the pilot doesn't fly it then he can be given vectors.

Any Arrival, you should not take them off until at least the crossing point. I have not seen that problem anywhere in VATSIM.

Not necessarily. For example, the KEPEC2 and SUNST2 arrivals both end at PRINO, the IAF for the 25L ILS at KLAS. However, PRINO is a 21nm final. It's standard to take aircraft off the arrival near BLD and PTAC to SHAND or LARRE. Another reason for this is airspace (when split) the aircraft would enter Final APP's airspace, then leave it, only to turn around and come back into it.

Let's look at the JINGL1, since you mention it specifically. The text of the arrival says:

"From over RXXAN via 128* track to FORTL, thence as depicted to BEPAC, then voa 093* heading. Expect radar vectors" (emphasis mine)

The path to HOLID is a dotted line, and if you read the text, is confirmed to be for Lost Comms

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Controllers need to read the arrivals before they are certified on approach.[/quote]

Have a look at the chart again..

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The 7110.65 says that you are not to take someone off of an RNAV until the last minute.[/quote]

Reference please? I can't find that anywhere.

Steven Caffey · « **Reply #35 on:** February 29, 2012, 12:00:14 AM »

While we're on the topic of RNAV arrivals, I should point out that RNAV does not necessarily equal Profile. If the chart says "Expect X @ Y" then you can't "descend via" the arrival. (I've seen this way too many times to count)

There are RNAV arrivals that are profile (see: KEPEC2 and SUNST2 previously mentioned)

There are RNAV arrivals that are NOT profile (SEE BOJID1 @ PHL) The only hard restrictions on that arrival are the 190 kts speed restriction, all others are "Expect"

There are non-RNAV arrivals that ARE and are not profile. RIIVR2 @ LAX is profile, SADDE6 is not.

Daniel Hawton · « **Reply #36 on:** February 29, 2012, 05:27:58 AM »

And there is still zero reason why you couldn't take someone off an arrival for expeditious flow of air traffic as is one of the primary duties of ATC.

FAAO 7110.65 2-1-1 ATC Service (emphasis mine)

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent
a collision between aircraft operating in the system
and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic[/quote]

Also, the phraseology "Cleared direct", section 4-2-5 of the 7110.65 is listed as follows:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]3. Issue a clearance “direct” to a point on the
previously issued route.
PHRASEOLOGY
CLEARED DIRECT (fix).
NOTE: Clearances authorizing “direct” to a point on a previously
issued route do not require the phrase “rest of route
unchanged.” However, it must be understood where the
previously cleared route is resumed. When necessary, “rest
of route unchanged” may be used to clarify routing.[/quote]

I see nothing about RNAV STARs and being unable to remove an aircraft from them.

It is common for many enroute facilities to give short cuts onto STARs if it gives a short cut and there is little to no traffic.

"Cleared direct SUMFX, resume the arrival" or something similar. Terminal environments have no reason to keep someone on an arrival when they can get to the runway quicker by being vectored off. Radar vector has no restrictions on whether the aircraft is on a STAR or not. The only restrictions are that you give a reason for the initial vector. FAAO 5-6.

If you were referring to this on FAAO 7110.65 5-6-1:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]... Allow aircraft operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.[/quote]

You need to look at the first part of that paragraph. It's also saying their own navigation, that is inclusive of "Cleared direct". It's referring to not give RNAV aircraft radar vectors where possible, but not excluding using radar vectors for operational advantages and not necessarily leaving them on their filed route. On the STAR you listed, radar vectors are actually required to get to the IAF as charted.

So, in the end, if I file SMFIXR SMFIXZ SMFIXA SMFIXB SMFIXC I would be under my own navigation if given "Cleared direct SMFIXC". You would also be following one of your primary duties. There is nothing wrong with it. What's wrong is teaching that it is wrong.

Nate Coffield · « **Reply #37 on:** February 29, 2012, 09:08:10 AM »

I think the real issue here is that VATSIM pilots would like to fly the whole arrival for the "Simulation" aspect of flying and to show that they can fly and follow a chart. Where as a pilots in the real world love short cuts....they will take anything to save time and money...something that VATSIM pilots do not have to worry about. There really is not a right or wrong way of doing it unless a controller is causing a disruption in the flow of traffic by pulling aircraft off of and arrival.

Daniel Hawton · « **Reply #38 on:** February 29, 2012, 12:01:46 PM »

Quote from: Nate Coffield

I think the real issue here is that VATSIM pilots would like to fly the whole arrival for the "Simulation" aspect of flying and to show that they can fly and follow a chart. Where as a pilots in the real world love short cuts....they will take anything to save time and money...something that VATSIM pilots do not have to worry about. There really is not a right or wrong way of doing it unless a controller is causing a disruption in the flow of traffic by pulling aircraft off of and arrival.

You're assuming pilots want to fly/follow the chart. Lots of pilots want to fly realisticly as well. So shortcuts would be providing that. In the end, short cuts are often times offered but are turned down (both online and real world) simply by responding "Prefer to stay on filed routing". Teaching it's wrong or trying to justify it's wrong by blindly saying "well that's what xxx publication says" is an injustice to your trainee. Lots of controllers both virtual and rw have different interpretations of what the publication says. Ask any other real world controller, and they'll tell you... I can't even begin to describe how many "discussions" I get in with people here at my ATC facility over interpretations of publications. Show 'em what the book says and if they don't understand try to explain it. But let them make their own interpretation.

David Macfarlane · « **Reply #39 on:** February 29, 2012, 05:51:13 PM »

This has certainly been an interesting topic! As a somewhat new controller (and very seldom sim pilot) it appears one of the best ways to take someone off a STAR is to ask them if they want a shortcut. Provided of course, the traffic situation will allow it too. At times I have a pilot tell me he can see the runway as he's on downwind (on a STAR) and implies he's like a visual approach. Hmmm? Fun every time you look around, eh?

Harold Rutila · « **Reply #40 on:** February 29, 2012, 11:03:21 PM »

Use the STAR as your tool. If you have traffic, use it. If there's one guy flying it, take him off and get him on the ground. I couldn't care less if a pilot complained, quite honestly.

Tim Roden · « **Reply #41 on:** March 14, 2012, 11:11:11 AM »

5-6-1 a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement, operational advantage, confidence maneuver or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.

That said I watched an LA controller last night take a pilot of a STAR in a very dangerous area. When you take the responsibility of vectoring a pilot, then you take the responsibility to making sure he gets to his destination. By allowing the pilot to fly the star he gets there via the route which he spent so much time meticulously planning into his FMC. Giving direct FIX is not a problem when it comes to flying over an airspace. I'll take the shortcut. But when my RNAV arrival leads me directly to the IAF, and you give me a vector you then have to give me a vector to join the approach and many controllers are missing that. In the Case of LA. There are mountains that you have to navigate through and around to reach airports you start vectoring and the next thing you know, you vector someone into a mountain. Of course as a pilot, I have to right to say "unable" to any direction given by ATC. The final decision for safety is in the hands of the pilot.

Daniel Hawton · « **Reply #42 on:** March 14, 2012, 04:15:31 PM »

Quote from: Tim Roden

5-6-1 a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement, operational advantage, confidence maneuver or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.

If an operational advantage exists, I am going to take them off the STAR. Period. A STAR is a tool afforded to ATC to assist with arriving traffic. I don't consider a STAR or SID as part of the route as a SID and STAR are authorized by ATC (and outside the US, assigned by ATC) as a tool to get the pilot safely to and from their requested route and not actually part of the route.

IE,

Looking at this route from ATL to DFW:

JCKTS6 JAMMR MEI JAN CQY6

The route is JAMMR direct MEI direct JAN (JAMMR..MEI..JAN). JCKTS6 and CQY6 are nothing more than on and off ramps going from their departure to their route and from their route to their destination airport. That is my interpretation and that theory is what was taught to me in my ATC school and training.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]you give me a vector you then have to give me a vector to join the approach and many controllers are missing that.[/quote]

Not necessarily. What if they took you off the arrival for separation that you just couldn't see? Maybe taking you around a departure, taking you around a slower moving aircraft on the same arrival, etc? Nothing stops them from vectoring you off and then re-routing you direct to the IAF. It's pretty easy and done all the time. Would you rather be vectored off or placed in a holding pattern? Or be the departing aircraft left low?

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]There are mountains that you have to navigate through and around to reach airports you start vectoring and the next thing you know, you vector someone into a mountain.[/quote]

Sorry, but no. That is the completely wrong way to think. While yes, if you take someone off their route you become responsible for separation.. not all vectors lead to a collision. How often do you hear on the news that ATC turned a plane into a mountain? Damn near never. I've heard more planes hitting mountains due to pilot error (not paying attention, etc) than ATC error. And why pick mountains? Over in ZFW, you have radio towers, skyscrapers, etc. Do you not vector people to final in fear of them hitting a skyscraper? That's how your statement came across.

Bryan Wollenberg · « **Reply #43 on:** March 14, 2012, 05:07:38 PM »

Quote from: Tim Roden

In the Case of LA. There are mountains that you have to navigate through and around to reach airports you start vectoring and the next thing you know, you vector someone into a mountain.

That's why things like MVAs exist...so controllers don't vector you into mountains. You should fly in the LA area real world sometime, and see how often you are left on the STAR.

Harold Rutila · « **Reply #44 on:** March 14, 2012, 09:24:35 PM »

Quote from: Tim Roden

There are mountains that you have to navigate through and around to reach airports you start vectoring and the next thing you know, you vector someone into a mountain. Of course as a pilot, I have to right to say "unable" to any direction given by ATC. The final decision for safety is in the hands of the pilot.

You may have a right to say unable, but just because you're near mountains doesn't mean your safety is being compromised. We have pilots calling Denver Center occasionally saying, "Denver Center, just wanted to confirm with you that we're close to some mountains," which is really no different than calling New York Departure and confirming that they're flying over some skyscrapers. Vectoring 101 teaches us to vector at or above the MVA, and if people can't do that by the time they're an S3, then it would be interesting to know why not.