YYZ STARs

[crooked timber]

just wondering if ATC is enjoying these new arrivals as much as we are in the cockpit?

i thought the last iteration of the STARs before these newest ones worked beautifully- each hinged with a speed and alt at the bedpost, then "3000 or above" at the DTW with no speed restriction. easy to manage energy efficiently and save fuel by looking at the TCAS and having an idea of what ATC needs to do with you. by contrast, the new ones have so much slam and jam built in that they remind me of being in a car with someone who doesn't know how to drive stick. i wonder what the old arrivals couldn't accomplish that the new ones are supposed to solve?

some of my gripes with the new ones are:
- no 10,000' crossing alt so dumb guys like me have to build in a slow down somewhere
- a 30kt slow down in 5nm (hanging off the straps right as the cabin crew are cleaning up)
- then a turn into downwind "at or above 6000" but more likely hung up at 8000' as departures funnel out underneath at 7000'
- then a descent from 8000'/6000' down to 4500'/3000' AND a slow down another 20kts in 10 nm? (ambitious in the best of conditions but factor in engine anti-ice and/or a 20-40kt tailwind in the downwind leg and it ain't happening. not to mention the cabin crew is still doing their thing)
- all just to be at the DTW at 3000' and 200kts waaay under profile for no good reason with at least 5-7 more track miles to go to final
- no way to close up the approach anymore

it just seems like an unnecessarily high workload to try and make all this happen for no appreciable advantage. i've noticed a lot of reduced SA on the flight deck as a result and getting a runway change in the middle of the arrival is like a defcon 1 loft scenario.

[HeadingAltitudeSpeed]

looking at the TCAS and having an idea of what ATC needs to do with you

Please don't. In my experience most often you are wrong or cause more work for us.

As for the YYZ STAR design, from my understanding they were designed based on the demands of the users. But my guess is it a case of asking for something but not really understanding what you want. The same process is going on here in YYC right now. Be careful what you ask for, you may get what you ask for, but not what you really want.

[ahramin]

looking at the TCAS and having an idea of what ATC needs to do with you

Please don't. In my experience most often you are wrong or cause more work for us.

I don't think you understand what crookedtimber is saying. When we hit the DTW, unless we're told how many miles to the base leg (which never happens) we have to guess. The only piece of information we have to help us guess is what the guys in front of us are doing. If we're wrong, it doesn't matter, it's bound to be better than just assuming we're going to turn base at the DTW.

As for the YYZ STAR design, from my understanding they were designed based on the demands of the users. But my guess is it a case of asking for something but not really understanding what you want. The same process is going on here in YYC right now. Be careful what you ask for, you may get what you ask for, but not what you really want.

I find this highly unlikely. What the users want are continuous descents from TOD to 1000'. Level off and keep the speed up, followed by go down and slow down is not in any way helpful to the users. The only other thing we'd ask for is to specify no more than 2 landing runways on the ATIS and confine runway changes to 1 change only between those specified runways only. Not going to happen at YYZ though so I'd give crookedtimber this advice: Don't try to operate at too high a level of automation. Don't go to Defcon 1. Get the raw data up and fly the plane.

In Europe, noise issues are huge and consequently the descents are very efficient. STARs are designed to be followed, and in the cases where the distance to touchdown is not obvious from the plate this number is provided by the controller. Leads to minimal fuel burns, time wasted, and somehow they do it at airports with far more traffic and fewer runways than YYZ without ever having 4 runway changes after top of descent.

[crooked timber]

looking at the TCAS and having an idea of what ATC needs to do with you

Please don't. In my experience most often you are wrong or cause more work for us.

I don't think you understand what crookedtimber is saying. When we hit the DTW, unless we're told how many miles to the base leg (which never happens) we have to guess. The only piece of information we have to help us guess is what the guys in front of us are doing. If we're wrong, it doesn't matter, it's bound to be better than just assuming we're going to turn base at the DTW.

+1

some exposition: on any given day the airplane behaves differently on final owing to a multitude of variables (landing wt, winds, anti ice, imc/vmc, how we are vectored for intercept, etc). some days we will need to be stabilized by a certain point, some days another, some days it will be able to descend and decel on gp in certain configurations, some days it won't. in the cockpit we are essentially trying to account for these variables by staying one just-in-time configuration ahead of the game so that we can meet all our parameters while also being ready to accommodate a new speed when atc needs it in a reasonable period of time and in a fashion that is comfortable in the back. we are making decisions about this in the downwind leg and based on when we expect a turn in. i have no problems being aggressive in the arrival corridor and flying/configuring "defensively" as is the norm at certain other airports (sea, lax, phl, yvr, etc); however if we know for a fact that there are still a number of track miles to go to final then we will let the airplane do what it likes to and give you an idle descent to the alt you need while leaving the speed up and then bleeding the kinetic energy afterwards (in the level off and/or in the base/final turns) rather than scrubbing that energy mechanically (read: inefficiently) slowing down while going down, only to have to drill around making noise and burning gas at 200kts/3000' for another 10 miles.

the old arrivals (DTW @ or above 3000', no speed restriction) seemed to allow both airplanes and ATC to meet much more happily in the middle whereas the new ones are a pain for pilots like me who aren't too smart to begin with and are also still trying to finish their coffee, make up a good ending to the war story i'm still telling and find my tie again so i hope all this trouble is all in the name of making things easier for ATC (though i can draw my own conclusions after being in the air on days when the freq is cluttered with radio calls of crews announcing unable to make the restrictions and the subsequent calls from the added ATC handling). nonetheless, every time i cross the FAF after doing these new arrivals i always have the same feeling i do after having a conversation with my wife ("man, that was a lot harder than it had to be and hardly worth the trouble!").

[buzzjob]

I am wondering why this post has died. I would have thought that YYZ Centre guys/girls might have some input. Or maybe they are as frustrated as us, with these inefficient, poorly designed STARs.

There are one or two arrival controllers who give "track miles to touchdown" or "12 mile final"...The best bit of planning info that can be passed along. London (UK) controllers were/are fantastic at it!

"Unable STAR descent profile" by more of us (pilots) might push for a change....IMHO

[linecrew]

Just curious if anyone that has had any issues with the STARs/SIDs have passed them on to NAV CANADA's customer service? There's a good chance that if you haven't, then the people that should know about it, don't. Food for thought.

[IFRATC]

Well a topic that pilots and controllers can finally agree on!!!!
From our perspective the STARS are a complete pain in the arse. The old one worked quite fine in my opinion. It was much easier to sequence arrivals into the terminal. It was easier to hold and meter in to the bedpost as well. Having TWO bedposts in one sector feeding arrival can be quite the mind F#$K. At times we could be sequencing up to four seperate streams of traffic into arrival. Our workload has increased significantly to say the least. It is busy enough for us when we are metering over a fix with holds. Now add another fix 16 miles away with airplanes spinning at both and trying to fire airplanes into arrival based on there depart times.... you clench your rectum alot... Oh did I mention anything about weather when airplanes are descendind 16 miles apart on parallel stars.... oh and departures climbing opposite direction to the STAR 6 miles laterally...Weather deviation you say, oh crap...
The old structure had alot more "dead" airspace we could use to manoevre arrivals vs departures. The new just doesnt have alot of wiggle room.
Departure tracks eastbound are only 8 miles laterally split. Great if there is no weather...
The only benefit that came from this entire airspace redesign is the fact that we can use 3 mile spacing outside the terminal out to 80 miles. this ironically has nothing to do with the new SID and STAR structure.

IFRATC

[crooked timber]

flew the new notam'd parameters last night. they seem like an improvement at first glance but, in actuality, they just achieve the same result with a slightly different (still inefficient) profile in the descent.

this is owing to the fact that the 200kt/3000' constraint (which was not changed) will always be the limiting factor so the descent planning is built back from this constraint. where previously you would have the boards out to start slowing sooner to meet the restrictions, now you carry a bit more speed throughout... but still need to make the 200kt/3000' constraint which necessitates being lower earlier than before (in order to be in a position to bleed the energy in time). keeping the 200kt/3000' restriction will always be like approaching a stop sign in your car- the charted constraints required you to apply 30% braking over a 100' distance before the intersection while the new notam'd constraints require 60% braking over the last 50'. nothing really changed since you still have to be stopped by the time you get to the stop sign.

not sure why the "at or above 6000" at verko was deleted unless the departure architecture was changed somehow as well

and so it goes...