Are standing agreements necessary when it’s quiet?

FewCloudy

I ask because I have been controlling COWLY recently and notice that BB departures to the south have a standing agreement of FL190 into CPT to the south but very often they are level well before (30 miles +) the southern boundary of the sector.

I understand you can handover when the aircraft is “clean” but handing over early for further climb would see the aircraft in S25 so would you coordinate with S25 instead or are standing agreements concrete and you need to leave them as they are? Thanks.

Graham

One of the principles of expeditious controlling is to be 'as least restrictive as possible'. To that end, if you see an avenue where STANAGs could be bypassed you can coordinate using the drop down menus. I often do it with EGGP departures when there are no arrivals due by coordinating a climb to EGPX and then selecting DROP. That way, aircraft get airborne, climb through EGGP airspace and go straight to EGPX without calling EGGP RAD. It happens in real-world and is 'as least restrictive as possible'.

CloggyUk

Standing Agreements have, as far as I am aware, 2 main purposes.
1) It creates a predictable traffic flow. So it can highlight the need or no need for flow restrictions.
2) It reduces the need for coordinating, and can therefore assist in staff deployment.

As Graham says, any flight can be individually coordinated. The Sim will always accept your offer. In real life it might not work. If you offer BB Deps to S25, they still can’t climb them above the Cowly sector ceiling without coordinating with S27. This traffic normally does not enter S27, so they have no flight data. Therefore if S25 wants to use S27 airspace they have to point traffic out to S27, agree a plan and go from there. If it is quiet, S27 might approve infringing their airspace. If busy, they might not.
Same goes for other sectors. Hope this makes sense.

Keep the questions coming!

Cheers, C

FewCloudy

That makes sense thanks both! In the absence of a batphone to other sectors I’ll try to keep it standard where possible then. Have noticed it the other way round as well when controlling CPT traffic from the north sometimes calls very early and I have to zoom right out to find them.

peter7373

in light of that, would it be possible to script a randomized "refusal" of coordination suggestions? or a requested or desired coordination?

Graham

peter7373

Explain a little more what you mean by this? In real-world you'd try not to refuse traffic where possible, preferring to coordinate instead. We regularly did it in the military where coordination would allow a controller to retain or release traffic by mutual agreement, where it might otherwise have been refused due to traffic demand or controller workload.

peter7373

Graham Thanks first of all for the reply, and sorry for my late answer. It might so happen that next sectors can't have you at FLxxx so you might need to descend or go higher. i.e. you might hear,, "request from next sector, your FL is blocked, take another one".

Or for instance a randomized optimal FL, let's say above FL 345 there is smoother air, and all aircraft want to get up or down, or a randomized CB's in the sector. I am getting out of control here,..... the first question remains 😉

kind regards, Peter

Mounty

Sorry to bring back an old thread - but having a go at EGNT - according to the STAR aircraft should be at FL90 by ETSES, but EAST doesn't normally transfer to me until its approaching here at FL160 and then its a bit of a battle to get them down to 2000 ft and lined up for approach without doing something quite indirect.

In the real world would I just be asking EAST to descend them to FL90?

CloggyUk

Hello Mounty

I don't know what happens in real life, as this is a bit too far north for me 😉. The Standing Agreement for traffic via POL and RIMTO into EGNT via PC Sector EAST is to be descending to FL160 to EGNT approach. Technically there is no FIX specified where this has to be level. In the STAR it has traffic to expect to be FL160 by IRKOR, and that is what is coded as exit level in the data for London Control.
If you want you can request the traffic to be lower. What you have to keep in mind is what the base of CAS is in that area. Coming from the South, the line through UVAVU and IRKOR is a drop from 125 to 105, abeam Teesside (the line through ARSAT and BINTI) the is a drop from 105 to 75. So really you can't go lower than 130 at IRKOR. Then you have to descent it in steps towards EGNT. (airspace maps can be downloaded on the Documents area on the main LC page)
Hope this is any use!

cheers, C

Mounty

Thanks Cloggy, much appreciated , that all makes sense. I can try and ask them to transfer to me when passing IRKOR at FL160 and get them to descend from there, or adjust the SA from EAST then! Just need to keep an eye out for them approaching that point 🙂

Cheers

CloggyUk

@Graham I just had a quick look. Looks like EGNT sector could do with a tweak of the call radii. Add one a bit further south as IRKOR is outside current ones.

Cheers, C

Graham

CloggyUk

I'll send it over to Dave and he'll look at it. Thanks CloggyUk

Dave

It looks a long time since EGNT got some love.
So in the next set of files (2408) EGNT will have been revamped.

Correct sector boundaries
Correct cleared FL on the SIDs.
Base of CAS indicated.
Arrivals from the north and west added.
Sector call radius expanded to the south.
Additional RNAV WYPTs added and displayed on map.

Hopefully this will make the sector closer to real world and more enjoyable!

Best Regards,
Dave.

Mounty

Dave / Cloggy,

Thanks very much for this. Look forward to trying it in 2408.

Cheers

FewCloudy

Thanks all, me too. Quite enjoy EGNT so the update is very welcome.

Graham

You can apply any level you like, provided it is compliant and safety remains paramount. It's called deviation. (Think of NSDs or NSFs as examples; they don't necessarily comply with the norm.) The essence of coordination is to find and agree the best level available, whether by standing agreement (and therefore the work has been done for you as it's a standard), or coordination. Taking your example of an unavailable level from the next sector, you can coordinate a revised level and enter that in the TACTICAL list. Then, provided you adhere to that level prior to handover to the next sector, there will be no penalty. Only when you do NOT achieve the required level - whether by standing agreement or coordination - will it reflect that you have not done what you should have.

peter7373

Graham understood. However i am looking for some sort of "game-ification" where you would sometimes be faced with a curveball when another level can't be accepted by the next sector, so you need to work out how to get traffic on their required levels.

Graham

What sector(s) are you working? There are plenty that will give you that challenge where the majority of traffic requires a specific exit level. Then it's up to you to effect that coordination with the adjacent sector. With the right traffic load, you'll find you soon run out of options!

peter7373

i am bandboxing S2 with all available sectors, s12 with all bandboxable, and s3 with all bandboxable.

CloggyUk

When you run S3/4/7 make sure you set Oceanic track to ‘North’ and starttime of 10:00. It will make your head spin soon enough!

Same settings for S27/28/34.

S12/13/14 I would suggest either South or Central tracks. Just see what you find most interesting, run the same exercise number and rate for both sessions.

S1/2/24 give all routes a try, start at 10:00. Run the same exercise and rate here as well.

This way you can work out what suits you.

I myself will try to find more efficient levels for traffic, even if there are Standing Agreements in place. And subject to traffic loading. Just to mix it up a bit.

Cheers, C