Back to Board Index
Back to Board Index
Forum help
| Request for Manchester TMA | |
Christian Smith   2nd Oct 2010 20:38:58 | Hello, Quick one for the managers really, wondering if Manchester TMA is a position that we can add.
Pros: can provide radar services for Liverpool, Manchester Intl, Manchest Barton and Manchester Woodford and will be minimal effort on the FSX Radar screen! Covering 2 Primary Airports will keep the ATC busier than using one, but still allows Both manchester and liverpool rdr/twr/gnd controllers to be on, pilots issued istructions for departure closer to the real world as well as more realistic approach routing. Provides serious ATC the chance to extend knowledge- new challenges. Cons: Pilots not use to TMA Services, airspace is relatively complex and some pilots may be intimidated by the instructions from a TMA controller. Airpaces extends easterly which could pick up 'away' traffic. Not suitable for ATC who do not wish to do some light reading... (who want to provide a descent service anyway) So thats that, will leave it to the management meeting :) Here is the simplest chart showing the control zone boundaries: http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-10AEE08AB994D0964E43B40C1E74A368/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/ENR/AIRAC/EG_ENR_6_2_1_4_en_2008-11-20.pdf Christian |
Josh Kility  5th Oct 2010 20:44:59 | +1 been told about how it works and it's quite good. |
| Josh Kility 5th Oct 2010 20:45:17 | P.S Ignore my ranks , i used to me 5 on both till i was inactive |
| Christian Smith 5th Oct 2010 20:49:47 | To confirm for those unfamiliar with a TMA,
Manchester TMA would provide ATC services from Ground to Radar for 4 Airports from one controller. This is visable on the chart on the first post. As this is more intense then controlling 1 airport, the intention would be to make this a Senior ATC Position only, and training sessions would be provided by an ATC Mentor. Those interested in controlling should comment below. |
| Mick McG 5th Oct 2010 23:55:55 | Christian,
H'o mate. Have I got this right? You want 1 controller to work GRD, TWR, APP and the initial en route sector for both EGCC and EGGP at the same time? (CB and CD don't really generate any IFR traffic). Just curious for your reasoning. Best rgds M |
| Christian Smith 6th Oct 2010 00:07:45 | Yeah doubt CB or CD will generate much. Yeah thats basically it, at the moment between the two, Manchester is the most popular and this would be undobtedly continued, therefore ATC would be based here, but also providing services for Liverpool.
This is of course in the absense of other ATCs and whilst traffic is lower. I doubt they'll be any point whereby the controlling will literally not be able to cope. I think it makes most sense for the sector to extend upwards to around FL120-140, rather than the actual vertical limits and EGTS providing services any higher... Doing it this way is essentially running two Radars and monitoring the few bits of traffic entering into the TMA enroute below 120. The rationale is essentially to increase the controllers work load, and within the TMA, introduce aircraft spacing, designated approach routes, and holding, without the aircraft even realising- for an ATC geek it lets you expand the knowledge built in Radar, but stops things getting complicated for pilots. Gives you a little too play with too. Follow the logic? ;) Christian |
| Christian Smith 6th Oct 2010 00:18:50 | ...of course this is implimented in London Control, but for general (non event) nights, you just dont get the traffic, so I figured a TMA would still keep the controller busy and get to provide some of those enroute technicalities....
unless two radar controllers come on of course :p |
| Christian Smith 6th Oct 2010 00:24:25 | Sorry.. I've got started now...
I think one of the biggest advantages will be approaches.. pilots under the TMA wont have the usual VOR now to the VOR. Descend. Your on the ILS. and instead get to do a few fixes on a slower descent to come for the ILS.. bit closer to the real world... there was something I was going to ask you actually Mick about sector control... about entering and exitting.. this is only on my very little centre knowledge from vatsim.. but say this as a report.. would it be accurate? : “BAW123, with you, Type B737-800, Level at FL100, 20 Miles North of Wallasey for Trent”. “BAW123, Radar Identified, Report passing Trent FL100, Regional QNH 1018”. “Report passing Trent at FL100 on the Regional QNH of 1018, BAW123” "Passing Trent, BAW123" "BAW123 Many thanks, now leaving my airspace contact London Control on ***.**" |
Daryl Thorne  6th Oct 2010 14:10:07 | Hi guys, would it be possible if I could have a lesson in the near future as I want to improve my ATC skills. Also Mick is it you that lives in Fleetwood ??
Also- here I go again, would it be ok if I could do tower at an airport as I have the stripe or would I still be restricted to ground. |
| Christian Smith 6th Oct 2010 14:23:11 | 3 Strip ATC is free to control a Ground, Tower or Radar position as they like. :)
If you feel you need some help with your ATC skills then just ask a senior (rank 4) ATC or ask a mentor (rank 5) to come and sit in a session with you. Christian |
| Mick McG 6th Oct 2010 23:40:00 | H'o guys,
Ok, where do I start? Easy one first, Daryl - yes, I am indeed "Fleetwood Mick" :-) Christian, I get you now. Your suggestion is more akin to a miltary style CAC (Centralised Approach Control) where one radar unit provides the approach service to a number of neighbouring (normally TWR only) units rather than a TMA as you describe it, although it does work in a similar way and in FSO could work exactly as you suggest. In reality, the Manchester TMA is not controlled by just one sector but 4 ("North Low", "North Upper", "STAFA" and "TRENT") all now based at ScACC in Prestwick. They're not just looking after EGCC and EGGP, they also handle south/northbound traffic descending/climbing into/out of EGNX and EGBB and EGNT/EGNV among many others. It's a complex and busy chunk of airspace and not one we could truly replicate on FSO. Regarding the phraseology example you gave; are you testing me? ;-) lol Firstly, if BAW123 is operating 20nm North of WAL at FL100, he's in my climbout lane and is likely to be having a close encounter with a Typhoon, Hawk or PC9 is he hangs about there. Unless it's very quiet (ie around 3am), he's not going to be routeing direct to TNT from there as he'd be right in the way of all the westbound departures from CC. Next, "Radar identified" - if you've heared that phrase on a live frequency the controller is either very old or very gash or both. Correct phraseology is "[C/S], identified" (forget the "radar"). "Report passing Trent, FL100"; well maybe - although it's a bit gash again - how far past Trent should he report? "Report at Trent" is more precise. Also, if the ac is flying at FL100 (ie 1013mb SAS), the Regional QNH is of absolutely no value and more importantly, if set, the example you give (1018mb) would cause him fly 150ft lower than where you think he is and you would not have the required vertical separation against traffic beneath him at FL90!! Nasty! Anything else? Oh yes, "BAW123 Many thanks, now leaving etc.....", much too verbose. R/t phraseology should always be clear, concise and unambiguous and the use of excessive gratuities should be avoided. You've probably got one already but it's worth having a look at CAP413 or better still, the Supplement to CAP413 which is a condensed version of the standard phraseology reference guide. So there you have it mate. I apologise if I've ripped your example to bits, but you did ask if it would be accurate and I have to give you my professional opinion. Now if you'd asked was it what I'd do or say - then that would be an entirely different answer and you'd be much closer to it with your example. Best regards mate, M |
| Mick McG 6th Oct 2010 23:49:43 | Now let's see if I can do this right....
Supplement to CAP413 should be here; http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413Supplement.pdf |
| Christian Smith 7th Oct 2010 16:19:45 | It was purely an example ;) Not thinking about the QNH vlue etc, I just read what ATCA says to me :)
Obviously aircraft would notnbe routing direct across in the realworld, though it is likely to occur on fsopen - the example I gave by the way was for use on fsopen, oppose to use in real world. Could you give 'overhead' as a instruction for a VOR, I'd have no problems giving this to a VFR for a VRP or VOR because they can physically 'see' the landmark or station, therefore is it still acceptable to give to an aircraft at 100? You'll see this other online community chooses to split the airspace into a simple East and West control : http://www.smashing.net/vatsim/lacc/MAN_Agreed_Levels_080705.pdf I think it is viable for FSO to include the TMA as one large control area, and perhaps marginally adjust the control limits for the purposes of new controllers and ease of understanding, therefore essentially creating a new chart, I'd like your views on this :) if your able play dot to dot for me :) Connecting: POL, SFH, TNT, RISLA, BABRA/RUGER, CROFT, POL. As drawn up using: http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-5C9028A9D1B7A34072FEE64002957BD2/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/ENR/AIRAC/EG_ENR_6_2_1_4_en_2008-11-20.pdf The actual control zone shape remains the same. Intention to create T420 TNT-POL as the primary cross for NORTH-SOUTH, and WAL-SFH for WEST-EAST As you say the suggested is more in line with a CAC, though should create some interesting controlling. Again for control/pilot ease I think its easier to have these boundaries and force handovers at this point, I understand the pick up zone looks like a wedding cake in the real world, however, we could make the boundary a fixed point. I understand CROFT is a departure route for Newcastle? I THINK. Could be approach actually! Anyway, so this would be the upper boundary for contact-handover. Follow my thinking? Have to have a chat on T/s sometime soon! |
| Christian Smith 7th Oct 2010 16:23:29 | DOT TO DOT, LARGER ZONE FOR LIVERPOOL APP/DEP PURPOSES
POL, SFH, TNT, KARNO, LYNAS, BABRA, CROFT, POL. As I say for this cut off a FL120? Inner at 090? etc. but still provide the approach instructins aircraft are used to on FSO. Will have a chat soon Take care mate Christian |
| Christian Smith 7th Oct 2010 16:46:47 | Possible control boundary.. be advised, I did this in all of 10 minutes! I'm sure you get the general jist though.
http://www.corrsupport.co.uk/tma.htm |
| Mick McG 8th Oct 2010 18:58:30 | Hi again mate,
I hope you don't think I'm being negative but there are a couple of issues regarding such a radical airspace change: 1. The default settings on FSX largely reflect the current published airspace and there would be no easy way to change this. 2. For those of us that do fly using published charts for navigation and planning, a change such as this may cause confusion, particularly if a pilot was manoeuvring legitimately outside controlled airspace (and not talking to ATC, again quite legitimately). 3. Would it not be more challenging for controllers to vector ac within the confines of the published TMA boundaries - both lateral and vertical? I offer this as a suggestion, not as a criticism but I for one would be more in favour of keeping the boundaries as they are in real life. |
| Christian Smith 8th Oct 2010 19:58:16 | Valid points :~)
Why arent you at the fly together Mick!! Christian |
| Mick McG 8th Oct 2010 22:13:25 | Got back late and had to walk the dog, have tea, converse with the Mrs etc etc. Got in later as you guys were departing from "Benny" and joined in for the Stornoway leg - thought Kieran did an ace job! Hope we get to have that chat soon mate. I'm hoping to be around over this weekend sometime during the evening on Sat/Sun so, if you're on, track me down. Talk soon mate, M |
You need to Log on to post a reply. |
Forum help