In the FAA sense, any time you schedule (which is going to be based on a rate) that's metering. A rate has been set for the ILS and flights are scheduled to that rate: metering. I can't find any direct ICAO language on a quick search, though EUROCONTROL uses it in the same manner, even going so far as to say "CFMU slots" (which is, again, a metering term): http://www.eurocontr..._2008_2_DM.html

 

I am still more confused - you seem to be talking tactical scheduling on a given day. I am talking about scheduling flights in the regular schedule sense. That means, this is a 3PM flight, that is a 9AM flight. You have to schedule in cooperation with the airport, and the airport won't let airlines schedule 78 arrivals in an hour if the runway system cannot handle that.

 

 

 

So en route is the constrained area, but the constraint is being set off of the ILS rate? That doesn't make any sense. In the ILS case (which is the topic of discussion), the constraint is still the airport (because the ILS is related to said airport), even if the effects of that constraint cause congestion in the en route environment.

I think I get what you’re trying to say – that en route airspace may also be constrained, and CFMU can help to avoid that – but it’s not exactly as important to the ILS-based metering discussion.

 

Well, you brought CFMU slots into the discussion - I am just trying to explain that CFMU slots are usually limited by airspace congestion - not airport congestion.

 

 

 

The en route picture, of course, is set off of the schedule. The schedule is set off of a rate of acceptance. This is all based on an ILS rate.

 

Not quite. You may fly from an airport where you are a sole departure for the hour to an airport where you are the sole arrival for the hour, but still get slotted because, say, half the France is closed. (if you are flying from the Netherlands to Spain or so)

 

 

 

Again, metering is time-regulated traffic flow. Another word for ‘time-regulated’ is ‘scheduled.’ What it seems that you may be misunderstanding is that in the FAA world, nothing is scheduled until we need it to be. No schedule exists until we put a program into effect.

 

Of course there is a schedule. The afforementioned 3PM flight still leaves at 3PM.

 

 

 

In other words, we have no schedule to follow at all until we determine that there may be a need for one. That's the fundamental difference.

 

There is the still the schedule of regularly scheduled flights... I understand that other than that, the flight might just leave whenever, but basically same is true over here unless you get a CTOT for some reason (enroute weather, snow, ATC strike, whatever)

 

 

 

Basing everything off of how many aircraft you can throw down the ILS is setting a rate. We’ll call that 20 (our average acceptance rate in “regular IMC”). As such, you can take one aircraft every three minutes.

 

So much is basically true.

 

 

Slots are then set at three minute intervals, and flights are matched to those intervals. If three flights had an ETA of 1200, one of those would get 1200, and the next would get 1203 and 1206, respectively. Since they were all planning on getting there at 1200, one flight got three minutes of delay, and one got six minutes of delay. Over these flights, the average delay is 3 minutes. It’s small, but it’s still an assigned delay to fit into a slot (a fundamental part of metering).

 

That is not quite true. The airlines are supposed to plan to get their at their assigned time in the first place - they don't need to be issued delays if they come at the planned time. Of course one might be a tad bit later, other a bit sooner, they get sequenced as it fits the best. But you don't get a bunch of planes all arriving at 1200 and claiming the time for themselves.

 

 

 

The advantage is, if the weather drops, this plan is unaffected.
The disadvantage is that, in periods of good weather, you’re sacrificing higher potential arrival rates.

 

Yeah - the plan is unaffected. That is the point I argued in the first place.

About the potential higher rates - maybe so, but seeing that the two busiest airports that are most known to be affected by capacity shortage also happen to be located in the place known globally for its unwelcome weather, I am not sure that the point is valid. That it would not just create more problems that it purpoted to solve.

 

 

 

The advantage is that the plan operates at a higher efficiency than scheduling off of a lower rate (because there is no schedule – sequencing is all tactical).

 

Just so is the sequencing tactical in Europe. A plane arriving at 1202 with scheduled arrival of 1206 wont have to hold because the 1203 airplane will arrive a minute later. They will be sequenced using vectors and speedcontrol such as it is practical and efficient.

 

 

 

programs would be put into effect in anticipation of forecast weather

The whole point is, we don't need to put programs into effect. No need to come to the airport and hear "Sorry mate, you won't be getting into London for a while, it got cloudy there"

CFMU – Severe Clear Day:

Basing everything off of how many aircraft you can throw down the ILS is setting a rate. We’ll call that 20 (our average acceptance rate in “regular IMC”).

 

I'm not sure where you get that figure from?  At my airport on a gin clear day using the ILS we land around about 40-46 depending on the vortex (wake turbulence) mix.  In fact in LVPs with 6 mile spacing we land 24 - 20 is a rediculously low number.

 

So in your example the planes would land 12, 1201.5, 1203 - exactly the same as the US system.

 

Also CFMU isn't down to the minute anyway - the slot itself has a tollerance of -5/+10.  In the situation above the flights would only get a slot if for the period the flights were due to arrive more were planned than the airfield had applied flow for.  I.e. say Heathrow had flowed at 40, during the period your 3 flights were due to arrive another 30 were planned meaning that in total 33 were planned during that hour - no slot would be applied at all.  All 3 could arrive at Heathrow at 1200 and identically to the US system the flights would get vectored/speed controllered to achieve 12, 01.5 and 03.

Kyle,

 

Just started watching your videos.  SYSK series.  Very cool for the n00b.  One thought coming from a producer.  If possible, every once and awhile I'd throw in an on camera of you giving the narration.  It would make it feel more like what you are trying to do...a seminar, or a lesson in the briefing room.  Ya know?  Just a thought.  Nice job.  

 

My question now is a very simple one to answer, but I pose it not just for me but for other people who may get confused about minimums.  When I look at charts sometimes I go for the minimum DH that are in the parenthesis, and sometimes I go for the number to the left (see photo).  I can't explain it.  Sometimes it's just a random brain fart and I forget which to use.  On top of that I forget which mins I am using, either RA or BARO.  Is there an anagram out there (because in my PPL training there are tonnes) for this?  Anagram is the wrong word for it.  I'm having another brain fart.  Along the lines of the H.A.S.E.L. check.  

 

 

Thanks for your time.  

 

 

Just started watching your videos.  SYSK series.  Very cool for the n00b.  One thought coming from a producer.  If possible, every once and awhile I'd throw in an on camera of you giving the narration.  It would make it feel more like what you are trying to do...a seminar, or a lesson in the briefing room.  Ya know?  Just a thought.  Nice job.  

 

Thanks Craig.  I actually used my webcam once so far, but the video wasn't too great, quality-wise, and the audio lagged horribly (even though I was using direct audio input). It's definitely on the list of things to add to make it more personal.

 

Thanks for the feedback, and thanks for watching!

It's all relative.  Flying around DFW where airports are situated in the middle of the city and suburbs and you'll get the same results, as rich people think their complaints hold even more weight because they live in a big house.

Interesting thought.   I'm pretty certain money plays a part in some noise abatement policies, and it's a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this world of ours.  Look at John Wayne Airport, anyone familiar with their very unusual noise abatement rule that forces departing traffic to make dramatic thrust cutbacks over the pricey real estate outside the airport is a prime example of the impact of money and power in influencing public policy. 

 

Here in Philadelphia, I remember a few years back KPHL had implemented a new RNAV SID for traffic departing over my house to destinations north and west.   I live a few miles south of a very affluent region in the Philadelphia suburbs (the "Main Line"), and I'm convinced that this SID was specifically designed to have traffic avoid overflying that area.   It's just a hunch, but instead of flying a direct 360 degree vector direct to the PTW (Pottstown) VOR north of my house, traffic would intercept the PTW VOR more from the west thereby avoiding the rich folks homes, even though by the time they pass over they are past 10,000 ft and are really not that noisy.   Anyhow, the RNAV SIDS were scrapped for some reason or another, but I do remember spending a lot of time analyzing why the departure flight path for north bound traffic was adjusted as it was. 

 

 

Anyhow, the RNAV SIDS were scrapped for some reason or another, but I do remember spending a lot of time analyzing why the departure flight path for north bound traffic was adjusted as it was.

 

To be honest, sometimes it's as simple as the TRACON's controllers not liking them.  PCT had the PRYME and STOIC departures, and NOTAMed them out until they disappeared.  The controllers just didn't like relinquishing control.  Heck, even different areas are different on acceptance: Shenandoah (IAD) finally has a few, but only for the west gates; MTV (DCA) still doesn't really use any (the LAZIR exists, but I haven't seen it used widely); CHP has the TERPZ SID (and the SWANN, PALEO SIDs, which aren't RNAV, but are hybrid SIDs, unlike the mostly pure vector SIDs at DCA and IAD).

 

...and then there's ATL, who loves the heck out of them.  Then again, they also have a nice cornerpost arrangement for departures and arrivals without airports being crammed in close proximity.

 

As for the Philly thing: it could've been a lack of controller acceptance, but noise complaints are also likely.  People are pretty petty and stupid about that kind of thing.