Jump to content
Steve Riley

atc-discussion EGBB new SID airac 1906

Recommended Posts

Steve Riley

Just reading the new sid charts , am I right in saying hand offs are going to LONDON or SCOTTISH  and not radar as no mention of Radar on the charts.

2. After departure, aircraft shall remain on the Tower frequency until instructed. 3. En-route cruising levels will be issued after take-off by 'London Control'. 4. Report callsign, SID designator, current altitude and cleared level on first contact with 'London Control'.

I have not got the old charts to confirm this as I take them straight from NATS web site. 

Also frequencies have changed are we changing them within ES ?

  123.980, 131.005  BIRMINGHAM APPROACH/RADAR

  118.305  BIRMINGHAM TOWER

121.805  BIRMINGHAM GROUND 

 


 

 

Edited by Steve Riley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Duncan

Radar 123.95, TWR 118.3, GND 121.8 Director 131.0 due to 8.33khz freq limitations. 

Also, would the phraseology for the UMLUX SID be the same as SIDs at EGPF which take traffic outside CAS?

"BAW123, cleared to leave the Birmingham Zone at UMLUX, UMLUX1M departure, Squawk 1234." ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Riley
3 minutes ago, Stuart Duncan said:

Radar 123.95, TWR 118.3, GND 121.8 Director 131.0 due to 8.33khz freq limitations. 

doh forgot about that … 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Duncan

This is what's happening right now RW.

EGBB RW15 in use:

LUVUM departures: Tower hands off to Radar.

Southbound SIDs, Tower hands straight to London.

 

Will update for RW33 soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Riley
20 minutes ago, Stuart Duncan said:

This is what's happening right now RW.

EGBB RW15 in use:

LUVUM departures: Tower hands off to Radar.

Southbound SIDs, Tower hands straight to London.

 

Will update for RW33 soon.

 

That will coincide with the new charts , interesting to hear the procedure for RW33 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Earl

I would imagine there's some standing coordination between TWR and Radar regarding the handoffs. Tower at BB sends the traffic to London both verified and validated, whereas that doesn't usually happen on VATSIM. Regarding MOSUN/UMLUX, as far as I can tell, I believe clearance delivery would just give them 'Cleared UMLUX1M departure' as I don't think UMLUX is actually outside of CAS until around MOSUN. Perhaps Radar would give the 'leaving CAS' stuff? They're definitely trying to phase out the 'Mosun procedure' clearance though, and have heard them say 'Can you accept the new UMLUX1M...'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Duncan
40 minutes ago, Tom Earl said:

Tower at BB sends the traffic to London both verified and validated, whereas that doesn't usually happen on VATSIM

Yeah, heard the TWR controller verifying altitudes before handoff to LON.  I'd be an advocate of handing southbound stuff straight to London as, at present on VATSIM, BB_APP acknowledges the pilot coming on frequency and then hands them off to London a few seconds later.  All a bit pointless really.

40 minutes ago, Tom Earl said:

Regarding MOSUN/UMLUX, as far as I can tell, I believe clearance delivery would just give them 'Cleared UMLUX1M departure' as I don't think UMLUX is actually outside of CAS until around MOSUN

UMLUX lies outside CAS by about 0.6nm below FL65, and then about another 7or 8nm until you're totally in Class G.  Depends on how high you get on the 16nm SID Track.  Makes sense BB_APP handling UMLUX as LON won't want stuff outside CAS.   BB_TWR may also require a release from BB_APP as BB_APP would have to integrate the UMLUX traffic amongst arrivals.

Edited by Stuart Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Pike

I'm pretty sure BBAPP taking all departures on VATSIM is only done because that's how it used to be real world (about 10 years ago or so!). Could be done like they do now on VATSIM except validating/verifying departures is in the S3 syllabus not S2. 

For UMLUX1M, A departure's clearance limit would be UMLUX at 6000ft. To proceed beyond that within CAS would require contact and further clearance from BBAPP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Duncan
2 hours ago, Michael Pike said:

I'm pretty sure BBAPP taking all departures on VATSIM is only done because that's how it used to be real world (about 10 years ago or so!). Could be done like they do now on VATSIM except validating/verifying departures is in the S3 syllabus not S2. 

For UMLUX1M, A departure's clearance limit would be UMLUX at 6000ft. To proceed beyond that within CAS would require contact and further clearance from BBAPP.

Yes, that's they way it's always been, certainly during my 13 years of EGBBism. Be interesting to find out when they started passing southbound traffic to Lon instead of APP. At least with Northbounds and departures OCAS, you can climb them before handoff/coordination and handoff.

Perhaps the TD could look at an introduction to validation/verification of departures in the S2 course.

Guess we'll have to wait til 33 in use to find out how they're doing it/RT. Will post when I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Earl
3 hours ago, Michael Pike said:

I'm pretty sure BBAPP taking all departures on VATSIM is only done because that's how it used to be real world (about 10 years ago or so!). Could be done like they do now on VATSIM except validating/verifying departures is in the S3 syllabus not S2. 

Definitely, similarly to how you very rarely hear 'squawk ident' coming out of BB, as TWR are trusted to Identify, verify and validate before handing off.

4 minutes ago, Stuart Duncan said:

Perhaps the TD could look at an introduction to validation/verification of departures in the S2 course.

 

That would be interesting. I guess it's more of a MATS Pt.2 thing for the UK airports where TWR controllers do that. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the training, but then only really used when TWR/APP and LON are all on and a bit of a standing agreement is made?

I've certainly heard 33 south departures go to Radar first before London when it's busy. Even if it's just for the sake of them sending them straight to London. But yeah, by and large, they go straight to London. I'm just thinking, by solving one 'realism/VATSIMism' issue by sending southbound deps straight to London, we create another 'realism/VATSIMism' issue by making London have to 'squawk ident' and validate them. 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Riley

Interestingly enough yesterday on BB TWR I was asked by several pilots if they were going straight to LON and not radar on Southern departures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Duncan
On 29/05/2019 at 11:38, Stuart Duncan said:

This is what's happening right now RW.

EGBB RW15 in use:

LUVUM departures: Tower hands off to Radar.

Southbound SIDs, Tower hands straight to London.

RW33 currently in use RW at EGBB.

Exactly the same as above - Northbounds to BBAPP, Southbounds to London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • Sebastian Wheeler
      By Sebastian Wheeler
      Just a slight query related to the above:
      I was fortunate enough to partake in a weeks worth of work experience with NATS recently, and while at whitely on the ADC sims, I heard the following phraseology being used "G-ABCD, Cleared to enter controlled airspace via Route A, at or below altitude 2000 feet, QNH 1014."
      Upon asking one of the pseudo-pilots about the change, I was told it is "new phraseology" can anyone else confirm whether this is the case? Apparently, it was put in place after some confusion from pilots after receiving a "not above" clearance.
    • Thomas Wowk
      By Thomas Wowk
      As above, how do you guys assess the runway surface condition on VATSIM? Do you make a visual assessment from the visual control room in correlation to the current/prevailing weather conditions or do you assess this purely off the METAR/TAF?
       
      The only reason i ask it that the surface condition of a runway really affects our landing performance (each operators SOP's may be different for the same aircraft type) Specifically if the runway is declared as DRY full length our crosswind limitations may be increased, whereas if the runway is declared WET full length, crosswind limitations are decreased. If i also needed to return after departure due to an emergency and perform an overweight landing, a DRY/WET surface also makes quite a difference for our overall LDA requirements. 
       
      Cheers
    • Thomas Wowk
      By Thomas Wowk
      Hi all,
       
      For the ones who enjoy carrying out IFR circuits in large aircraft, Doncaster Sheffield (EGCN) accepts visual circuits for aircraft above 5,700kg - B737/B757/B767/B747 etc. 
       
      The circuit profile & procedure can be found in the textual data in the AIP for EGCN. Primarily speaking only one aircraft can be in the circuit at a time. Be nice to get TWR on at EGCN from time to time to accept more training traffic within the network.
       
      The circuit profile briefly summarised as below:
       
      Visual circuits by aircraft above 5700 kg must comply with the following noise abatement procedures.
       
      i. Runway 02 After departure turn right crosswind at no greater than 2.5 DME, fly downwind at 2000 FT QNH, report final south of Bawtry (3 DME) and not below 1500 FT QNH.
      ii. Runway 20 After departure climb on track 190°, at 1.5 DME turn left crosswind, fly downwind at 2000 FT QNH and report final not below 1500 FT QNH
       
      Cheers.
       
       
    • Chris Pawley
      By Chris Pawley
      The Letter of Agreement between London and Amsterdam (Dutch vACC) is revised to take into account changes in AD3 at the end of 2018. It's available here.
       
      Chris.
    • Harry Sugden
      By Harry Sugden
      Hi all,
      I've been working to trawl through the agreements in the sector file to introduce more of the arrows to indicate that an agreement is climbing/descending (rather than level by the point shown), so you should start to see more of these with an update to 2019/05 when it's out.
      If you have no idea what I'm talking about, the first few were introduced in December, and are as shown in this procedure change post. (And also here:)

      [If you're not seeing them, you might need to expand the width of your Sector exit point name column to 6 rather than 5.]
      As they are rolled out, I'd quite like to know whether people find the fix name useful at all. They're perhaps advantageous in that they give you a rough idea of where the transfer takes place, but I'm of the personal opinion that they might look better as simply an arrow in order to differentiate completely from those agreements that are actually level by.
      What do you think?
×
×
  • Create New...