View Full Version : Landing on the Reciprocal Runway (CWL)
6th Aug 2005, 11:06
Once again last night I was slowed down early on approach to CWL, because an ATR was landing on the other runway.
ATIS gave 30 for landing BRS radar vectored us for 30. ATR lands on 12. This cost us 5 minutes, when there would have been no delay if they had come round to the landing runway.
When we asked ATC for the criteria to land on the reciprocal, they said "just ask". No reference to delaying others flying the published approach. Also, you then have to wait for the ILS to be switched round and are identing, etc at a later and busier time!
6th Aug 2005, 12:19
If the ATR is arriving from the west (i.e. STU), if wind conditions permit and if allowed to by air traffic then it makes sense to ask for 12. Its a case of "you dont ask, you dont get"
6th Aug 2005, 13:32
So its okay to waste other peoples time (and fuel, etc)?
Agreed if your not going to hold traffic up but at CWL it often does hold traffic up. Just as long as the ATR gets in the 737/757/320/f70 can wait.
Good commercial sense from an airport that isn't growing as fast as BRS!
6th Aug 2005, 14:47
I asked the Bristol Controller to ensure you were not flying high speed when they asked for a level for you. The Bristol ATCO applied a speed they thought was appropriate for the situation bearing in mind they would not have known the speed of the ATR inbound
The opposite end was asked for by the ATR and there were no reasons not to accept this approach, at that stage they were a good 30 miles ahead of you, (they were at AMMAN when they asked at this stage you were still east of Lyneham) and with the expected speed reduction to 250kts below FL100 it still was never going to be an issue.
The ATR 42 was asked to give me their best speed for the approach and they kept 240kts for as long as they could.
Although you feel the speed you were given was slow you would however have always been behind the ATR in this scenario had they landed on either end,and I would have either extended your routing with vectors or slowed you down as necessary
As I told you last night you may yourself always ask for the opposite end and if we can accommodate you we will.
By the way it was an Air Wales flight doing a BMI Baby service.
edited as i was concerned that my original posting seemed unfair on the BRS ATCO who was doing everything they could to help
6th Aug 2005, 16:06
flower - didn't you give our guy/gal a speed to slow the easterly arrival to? The watch opposite me usually give me a specific speed or "xxxkts or less, cos he's number x". The only way then that the arrival is "slowed...back a lot more than was anticipated" would be if our guy/gal wasn't given a specific speed
and didn't want to stitch you up, or if the pilot slowed more than was needed, which isn't unusual.
6th Aug 2005, 16:08
Can't speak for CWL but if it's relatively quiet and no other traffic is going to be delayed (to the extent that they'll notice), I'll fit the odd arrival or departure on the 'wrong' end when asked.
Yes it's a case of if you don't ask, you don't get and most pilots seem to recognise when it's not a good idea to ask but I guess maybe 50% of requests are successful.
6th Aug 2005, 16:49
The Bristol controller was indeed trying to be helpful to myself .
I didn't specify a speed to them just said not high speed below FL100 if they ask, as so many crews do ask if they can ignore the 250kts below FL100 outside CAS. I was anticipating 250kts but in ATC one should never presume :O
I have emailed the pilot concerned and hopefully they can fully understand the actions, sometimes they get in number 1 and someone else gets delayed.
I must say the crews we work with on an day in day out basis at CWL BRS and EXT are great and usually understand if they should get a couple of minutes delay. I had to really delay an ATR later on that night he was just the unlucky one, I don't like doing it but someone has to be last.
6th Aug 2005, 16:53
Alterego I used to fly the ATR for the same company and I would always try to get from A to B in the most cost effective way and if coming from STU and RWY30 was in use providing the wind was in limits I would ask for RWY12. What was not on my mind is what can I do to to help rival airlines be more cost effective since they are not paying my salary and why should the captain decide to use RWY30 when he/she has been offered RWY12 and increase his cost and flight time just to save your airline time and money.
I'm now flying the 737 and if I was to take a ATR and a 737 and put them in the same spot on approach say 25 miles out I guarantee the ATR would beat the 737 or any jet for that matter to the runway first everytime, why because jets don't slow down very well and loose height at the same time, where in a ATR on a clear day I could fly it at 200+kts till 5 or 4 miles and slow down and loose height very quickly and that is the great thing about a turboprop it will run rings around a jet on approach to a airport.
Anyway the good guys and gals in the tower would not have cleared the ATR unless they knew for sure they would have got there before you.
And that's the bottom line cos Stone Cold said so.
6th Aug 2005, 17:00
I also gave the ATR the straight in to RWY 12 because I know they can hold 240kts to 4 DME and as Stone Cold says from experience we know the ATR will get in first against a Jet.
Later on that night it would have helped me greatly if an Aircraft had taken an opposite end approach but they elected not to.
Win some lose some.
Stone Cold still haven't had the pleasure on the RT yet, you must be getting loads of rest days ;)
6th Aug 2005, 17:07
Yep I worked my 3 days this week got 4 days off now. Back in work on Tuesday. Spoke to the man from Staines the other day and Timmyboy who has asked me when I'm planning on doing a Porthkerry arrival onto 30 in the 737. You must have requested to work only in the tower and not radar!;)
6th Aug 2005, 17:11
Ain't nuttin' but a Stone Cold thang! What up G?
6th Aug 2005, 17:24
Nuttin sitting at home watching the game having a Bud!
6th Aug 2005, 17:32
You do get more days off then me then Stone Cold.
Have I been avoiding you on purpose ? Moi ;)
On leave after tonight so will have to wait until the end of August for the pleasure , watch the language else no direct routings:cool:
6th Aug 2005, 17:48
After many years of playing both ends against each other, often achieving minimal or no delays, management have decided that between certain hours, we will declare the runway in use and that's it, that will be the runway to be used.
We are getting busier and busier with commercial traffic, and we also have a lot of training by both the military and high performance corporate jet operators, as well as the nbog standard stuff.
It's a shame that it's come to that, because although we often pushed our luck, it was never dangerous, and we always know when to cut our losses.
With a greater emphisis on runway incursions and safety in general, I think this will become the norm' and we will lose the flexibility that enabled us to achieve what was best for the aircraft and us.
Safety has to come first, but I can't help thinking such thinking from the regulators is a wee bit autocratic.
6th Aug 2005, 18:06
I agree with niknak... there is a nominated "duty runway" and whilst I will try to accomodate a pilot who requests against the stream, I will not afford that guy any extra priority... seems to me some people want their cake and eat it... expedition and jump the queue.
There are also safety issues related to increased workload, distraction etc that an against the stream approach generates?
File it under "Some of the people some of the time"... it's a fact of life!
8th Aug 2005, 07:10
So it's okay to increase a crews workload and delay a flight just to save another A/c 1- 2 minutes? It's okay on a normal day but doesn't help when the guys are at the end of a long, often interrupted day. It does increase the chance of a mistake such ass identing the wrong ILS.
In a jet there is so little difference in taking the closer runway at CWL. What you save in flight time you lose in extra taxying.
Quite often at CWL we are slowed to stay behind a turboprop when if ATC told us to keep the speed up we could be well past miles before the localiser.
8th Aug 2005, 08:25
If youre that affected by this event why dont you complain officially; It seems this has obviously scarred you in some way.
8th Aug 2005, 09:55
We have to determine an order of approach, that sometimes means the ATRs will be first and sometimes the Jet will be first.
As we get busier and busier you can expect far more speed control whilst vectoring than you currently get.
It can be hard from the cockpit to see the bigger picture, there can be all sorts of reasons for the final sequence we set up.
Perhaps a visit up to ATC and spend a few hours there and not just a few minutes and you may get a better understanding of why sometimes you are number 2.
As it was as I have already explained the BMI Baby was ALWAYS No 2 to the ATR in the situation that they moaned about.
8th Aug 2005, 10:42
Flower, if youre working tonight, any chance for runway 12?:E
8th Aug 2005, 11:26
Quite often at CWL we are slowed to stay behind a turboprop when if ATC told us to keep the speed up we could be well past miles before the localiser.
It's a well known myth put about by jet jockeys all over the place, not just at CWL. And doesn't stack up in the real world. Props can fly at around 200-240 Kts till very close to the airfield and still have a stable approach. The ability to change the pitch of the props gives you a couple of massive airbrakes. Your slippery jet will need to be back in the 170 Kt regime and stabilised by around 4 miles.
So lets say you start off about 40 miles out (normal handoff to approach units) and 5 miles behind the 'slow prop'. You're doing 300 Kts because ATC are kind (and it simplifies the maths) and you really think that you can take this guy ahead, or in other words you are doing 5 miles a minute. So it's going to take you simplistically 7 minutes to reach 5DME. The prop meanwhile is doing 240Kts, or 4 miles a minute. In the same 7 minutes you require to reach 5DME, he has reached 7DME. The two immediate problems are that 3NM separation is required and we only have 2, but more importantly, you are still at 300Kts and already getting ready for that go around since you can't lose that speed and be stabilised, then land, in 5NM - at least not without a deal of passenger discomfort. It's going to take a while to reach flap and gear limit speeds if nothing else, unless you pop out those spoilers.
That's a simplistic view, the reality is that somewhere in the equation, the jet is going to have to factor in the 10NM or so it will take to slow from descent speed to a fast approach speed, let alone before it even reaches VRef+ for it's final approach.
Basically, unless you are already abeam the prop or ahead at 40NM, or close to it within about 80NM, (and can maintain 200+ Kts till well established on final) then it's a one horse race which the prop will win everytime.
That's the facts, which ATC staff up and down the land have seen played out many times. Big and fast is not always better ;)
8th Aug 2005, 19:49
Many times I have flown the ATR into Dublin and be asked what my best speed was, I told them 240kts and they would reply to maintain to remain in sequence with the jet traffic which was followed by within a minute or two of being instructed to reduce speed to 160kts because we were catching and passing the jets and we still had good 25+ miles to run.
Speedbrakes on the 737 are not that effective once your speed is below 250kts hence why you need to slow down further out than a prop.
8th Aug 2005, 21:53
didnt we used to use the emergency service door on the ATR as a make shift speedbrake?
9th Aug 2005, 09:11
This is getting slightly away from my original comments.
My point was that why should an aircraft on the published (ATIS) approach be slowed down and delayed to allow another (in this case turboprop) land on the reciprocal.
I totally agree that if there is no traffic to be affected, then why not take the reciprocal. The point is it seeems more and more often we ARE delayed because of this.
I think that achieving the least delay in total is the goal, and in this case this seems to fit the bill.
This reminds me of Bergen/ENBR some years ago, where SAS pilots tought that controllers must have bought shares in Wideroe airline, because they (WIF)allways got no delay. (It must have been the case, because it seemed so from the cockpit, right????) ;)
According to the ATC related "on time" stats, it was the other way around...........
I think PPrune Radar made things quite clear in his post!
9th Aug 2005, 09:48
Alterego check your PMs
9th Aug 2005, 22:40
I think that the controller did answer your question. He stated that the other aircraft was going to the other runway to be quicker, and if he had put the other aircraft to the "active" runway, you were still going to be number two and slowed and delayed... Either way, you were going to be number two.
Turn It Off
9th Aug 2005, 22:53
PPRUNE radar got that absolutely spot on.
I've made the mistake before of trying to squeeze a jet ahead of a turboprop because the catchup at FL160 was huge.
However, at FL100, both aircraft are doing the same speed ( most of the approaches to Cardiff have you outside CAS by FL100 therefore restricted to 250kts), all of a sudden its neck and neck. Just to make it worse, inside 12 miles the T/prop is whipping the jet.
This event is normally followed by a comment such as " we could have kept 240kts until 4DME" when I transfer the prop to the tower.
In this case, its the other way around.
The instance in post one complicates things more because the Turboprop was using the reciprocal runway, however, as the average speeds when released by london until touchdown are pretty much the same, there was always going to be a looser, this time, it was the jet.
Just out of interest, where was the ATR inbound from? Is it possible that the passengers where actually BMI Baby customers on a route that AirWales operate for them? Imagaine that, a BMI Baby crew complaining that their own customers were given an expeditious approach!!! :eek: :eek:
When there are two aircraft inbound, someone will always be delayed, sometimes you may never know, the difference may only be that you are established on the localiser at 9 miles rather than 7, it may be a speed restriction, occasionally you get lucky and get no delay.
The controller made a call based on her experiance and both aircraft landed SAFELY and I am sure with minimum track mileage and airborne time cumulatively.
10th Aug 2005, 07:30
Yep TIO it was the Cork flight via AMMAN, so A BMI Flight.
Alterego and I have exchanged PMs and hopefully peace has broken out :O
10th Aug 2005, 09:47
I hope that peace was never in doubt. At the end of the day CWL is a great place to fly from.
If this is my worst complaint then things aren't too bad at all!