At last a sensible attempt to implement some reasonable plan to get traffic moving more smoothly in and out of OMDB.

It will be interesting to see how the new system plays out, at first sight it looks like a plan that could work. At long last, poor ATC will have a chance to relax a little more if the routes are allowed to be followed. The problem with controllers is they like to control, time will tell how well this will work out. Good luck to all and make sure the TCAS is set correctly for its implementation period, there should be some fun and games.

Forgive the stupid question, or not, but how exactly is this going to help arrival and departures. The way I read it we will still be all be going through Ranbi into Bahrain, and the change to the STARS wont increase the amount of aircraft landing? The landing flow rate will be the same. Unless we get parallel approaches, or reduced seperation on final, which with more 380's wont be easy to achieve.

What am I missing ? Am I having a thick moment? or will extra track miles on the arrival help?

I think if you flew the entire STAR as a CDA you'd probably save a lot of fuel as opposed to holding for 30 mins or whatever...? Only problem with that is if we do get shortcuts we will be ridiculously high!

Maybe it will also reduce the instances where we need to slow down to 250kts passing in the region of Doha etc?

Hell it's got to work, the Germans use it a lot and their known for efficiency.:ok::}

Won't make one iota of difference until Emirates stop scheduling their aircraft to all arrive at the same time, or a centralised Flow management system is introduced. We know what :mad:chance there is of that happening.

Already have parallel ops in Dubai.

glf



ps Sharjah being the nothern runway......

Well it certainly worked in the sim!

Arrivals was much more relaxed, departures with two departure sectors and three gates replacing RANBI got to be an improvement! Plus 8nm spacing outbound instead of 10nm. So by next week we will have fours gates, with MI, replacing the one bottle neck of RANBI!!

Then all the inbound SHJ traffic will be routed mostly away from DXB traffic another improvement.

All hinges on people doing what they are supposed to be doing!! but ACC will be grounding any one who doesn't so education will be quick we hope!!

It will be an interesting month or so From Aug 23 that's for sure.

Unfortunately Bahrain was supposed to be allowing more than one gate, from the UAE into their airspace, from August 23 but as these thing go around here, it didn't happen. Early to mid 2013 for that one, inshallah.

The STARS will be a mixed blessing too. They will save a lot of RT hopefully and all going to plan, the final downwind leg should usually be trimmed to have acft turning base at 10-15NM final. Unfortunately I can't see CDA's yet because there will still be the requirement to be 13 000ft or below still on the Star. We will still often need you as low as possible to get departures away and intergrate the two stars into the downwind vertically seperated. If you want to level off or descend at less than the nominal rate, you must request it first. The big problem is still going to be flow control and unfortunately there are just too many aircraft arriving at certain times of the day and with no real penalties for aircraft arriving late or early of their supposed "slots", there will still be plenty of holding. The ACC is due to start training for their Arrivals Manager system soon, to be in use early next year (again inshallah). This should make quite a difference to providing early, accurate EAT's and limiting extra track miles in the TMA. Something I think is long overdue.

As ATC's we have been instructed to let everyone fly the published SID's and STAR's as much as possible come cutover. There will likely be a lot more hold downs on departure I imagine, so please don't expect the verticle limits to be cancelled either. Although we have all had training in our SIM, it will be a very steep learning curve for the first few weeks in the real world. While a lot of operators should be able to follow the new procedures from day one, unfortunately we also expect there will be a fair bit of confusion and probable level busts too. As jack schidt said, keep a good eye on TCAS and the other one out the window!



NB these are my personal comments, not an official word from ATC!

From a Tower point of view it's difficult to see that this will have much of an impact on the arrival or departure rate.
There are a few hidden gems,like now requiring two minutes dep separation behind a340's due to their performance relative to other heavies. Also if everything is going to fly the SID there will be a bit more space required behind the Ranbi turboprops that used to benefit from a right turn to clear the climb out. Free flow of Ranbi deps from Sharjah can only mean delaying a Ranbi dep from Dubai.
Maybe it will be better than us Tower guys imagine but none of us have had sim time or training of any kind on this so the first few days should be a pretty steep learning curve.

TCAS said - 2 movements /hour. Not that great I should think.

In reality the new SIDs/STARs just formalise a few techniques we use as ATC when things get a little complex. Certainly a positive step from the ATC side of the fence. Will be much better when Bahrain get on board with the extra FIR departure points.

Your management needs to get on board with who is restricting these 'departure points'. It's not Bahrain. However, that's not what they are lying to you..... sorry, 'telling' you........

Even though there are three outbound routes via "RANBI" there are still restrictions that will apply. All traffic to Northern Europe (NE) will be on the northern route. Traffic to Southern Europe and North Africa (SE) on the middle route and traffic landing Bahrain on the southern route. This is done in anticipation of the routes extending into Bahrain in the near future.

If TWR can sequence them at the holding point to be NE-SE-NE-SE-Bah-etc then you can expect a very healthy flow.

A few things to keep in mind though:
1. Due to the convergence at BALUS, the 3 routes and o/flyers, flightlevels may be restricted at first. Summer is coming to an end so this will improve.
2. Offset for wake may not be possible due the proximity of the routes.

As with most radically new procedures there will be c0ckups at fist, but all in all this can only make things better.

What has happened to the Eastern departure points? We seem to have lost TARDI so that most traffic going in that direction now has only RIKET as a departure gate. There are going to be some flow control issues there.

Kimoki

The SE DEP is still there, off DXB RWY12 Anvix1G, RWY30 Anvix1F. Any points outside of that are still filed as per FPL. So in the past where you specifically filed either TARDI or GIDIS DEP's, you now file ANVIX, which is the DEP termination point, then TARDI or GIDIS onwards.

My mistake, thanks.

Well, that died quicker than expected.

One thing to note - having read the NOTAMs that have been published for this change, I note that there is absolutely no mention of the fact that extra flow control will almost certainly be imposed for at least the first week, yes - week - all 5 watches need to be exposed to the new procedures, not withstanding the inevitable level busts/errors/misunderstandings/inability to comply. I would therefore suggest that you all think very carefully about what "contingency" fuel might be required during this period.

Another thing - one of the main things that has been hammered into us humble ATCOs is that our hands are now very firmly manacled behind our backs and shortcuts, both on arrival and departure are much less likely to happen. :hmm:

In a similar vein - subsequent climb for departures is likely to be much more restricted than previously, due to the large number of crossings between STARS and SIDS which we now can't take you off of to facilitate climb/descent! This is what is called progress! :D

I dont think it died a death, I think this thread is more like the foetus that is about to be born (23rd) and turn into an angry monster possibly ;-D or a big cuddly bear to be embraced!

RNAV SIDs and STARs work a treat if properly thought out. Many aircrew in Dubai fly these during our normal weekly work when flying to "sensible" places. Take for example Frankfurt, it is organised chaos on the RNAV STARS but it really works a treat! (by sensible I mean RNAV organised airspace).

I think the success of this new "improved" venture will become embraced and a success or failure depending on how well it is handled by all in the first week or 2. Like meeting a person for the first time, it is said it takes 30 seconds to dislike someone and hours to regain any idea of liking them. If this venture is not embraced by all and executed well, it will only take a SID and STAR for many to say instantly it is a success or failure!

I don't think it's a question of whether we want to embrace the procedures - more a complete change in mindset.

example - although you may not believe it, most of us want to provide the best sevice that we can with the limited resources available (eg airspace, procedures and equipment). However, we have now been firmly instructed that we are expected to leave pretty much every aircraft to fly the complete STAR /SID - so that even if we could (and normally would) offer, for example, direct UKRIM - we are now expected to ensure that you fly the extra 60 miles or so that the full STAR provides. We are told that this is what the airlines want, so that track miles to touchdown are precise but something tells me there's a bit of misunderstanding in there somewhere.....forgive me if I return to my metaphor of doing ATC with both hands manacled behind the back - doesn't seem like providing much of a service to me either! :ugh:

Be assured that we will be striving to find the best way to use these procedures to the benefit of all but our choices may be very limited indeed. :(

There certainly seems to be some disconnect here because the following is from the briefing document provided to EK crews regarding the new procedures. If the procedures are not applied with the flexibility to shortcut aircraft to improve efficiency then the whole point is lost.


On first contact Dubai Approach they will advise “Expect to turn base at”. Once established downwind if ATC decide that they are unable to turn at planned fix then ATC will provide radar vectors.

Pilots can expect to fly the trombone when traffic levels in the CTA are elevated however if there is reduced traffic during quiet periods ATC may offer a track shortening

DESDI direct RULAM direct DB414 for 12L/R or,
BUBIN / GIRMI direct LOVAL for 30L/R
If ATC want to shortcut a flight they will notify the crews with associated track miles. For example:
i.e. “Emirates123, direct LOVOL available, 55 track miles to touchdown if able.”

Does this mean the end of the NOTAM blaming pilots for continuing on a cleared STAR if the controller forgets to issue a vector?

There certainly seems to be some disconnect here because the following is from the briefing document provided to EK crews regarding the new procedures. If the procedures are not applied with the flexibility to shortcut aircraft to improve efficiency then the whole point is lost.


On first contact Dubai Approach they will advise “Expect to turn base at”. Once established downwind if ATC decide that they are unable to turn at planned fix then ATC will provide radar vectors.

Pilots can expect to fly the trombone when traffic levels in the CTA are elevated however if there is reduced traffic during quiet periods ATC may offer a track shortening

Ummm, yes, I don't know if the word disconnect is apt here....I don't know if your briefings and ours came from the same planet...

We've been told that more than 3 aircraft in the CTA, no direct routings. Aircraft WILL be expected to fly the full STAR, if a shortcut is required it will be issued by the Director position, who is required to issue track miles to touchdown as well. Working Arrivals sector, it is rarely possible to guess at where the Director will turn you base, so you as pilot will NOT be told on first contact with Arrivals where you're going to be turning base.:=

The days of shortcuts and direct routings are over......sorry.:sad:

Can't be too confident of smooth implementaion as I'm carrying an hour extra holding fuel overnight back to Dxb. Reason stated on OFP- Addnl for peak arrivals and new Dxb ATC procedures.:ugh:

Thoughts after day 1?

Not my job to design airspace or comment on it. Carry extra in case some one doesnt' speak Engrish.

We were lucky in a sense, came in before the rush out of DARAX, with that in mind, it worked really well, the energy management of the aircraft was addressed well with a min speed of 210 KIAS @<hidden> 6000 so you can stay clean at most weights, we expected the vectors to 10 miles final 12L and the calls were really reduced, we all did what the STAR restrictions required and it seemed to lower the ATC involvement.

T.O.D.

Glad to know it worked for you - from the ATC perspective, as you said, R/T was greatly reduced, which, as planned, gives much more time to concentrate on getting the sequence right.

A very small number of aircraft couldn't fly the procedure and/ or had programming errors in the FMS, the main one being Fly Dubai having DB421 as a fly over, rather than a fly by waypoint, and is already being addressed.

One of the problems for us is that many of the confliction points have either changed or been compounded by new conflicts which leads many to overuse vertical of separation, resulting in quite a few aircraft turning downwind too high. This should improve rapidly with experience - although we DID simulate this, the time allocated was fairly restricted.

Another that surface was the inordinately long time that some aircraft ware taking to turn when given a base heading to shorten the downwind. While we realise that there was a howling easterly up the chuff, 4 miles to START turning, after being given the instruction, is not conducive to building a nice, tight sequence..... not sure what CRM is going on there - I guess it's something more complicated than selecting heading mode and turning the bug but we need to figure this one out sharpish.

Quite a few were also clearly expecting to fly the full "trombone" and descending accordingly - notwithstanding being offered fewer track miles - the best example of which was the Joburg (I think) flight that arrived at MIADA FL220. While we realise that this is the planned route, there are quite a number of options to shorten the track - IF the profile allows it.

On the departure front, the combination of 20KTS on the nose, (relatively) low temps and speed restrictions on the SIDs meant that climb rates were pretty good, helping a lot with crossing points.

Expect it to take a good week or so for everyone to start getting comfortable with their ability to predict the conflicts and plan accordingly and things should be a lot smoother and quieter. However, please note that this on its' own does absolutely nothing for runway capacity - in fact, for DEPS, it's probably slightly LOWER, due to us no longer being able to turn you at 1000ft.

Thanks all for your patience and understanding :D

Guy.

p.s. Air Arabia please note - YES, we DO need you to fly the STAR speeds, NO, you CAN'T go direct NOSMO (the STAR takes you around the Dubai traffic for a reason! :ugh:) and please don't even think of asking for the other end - if it is feasible, we will offer it!

Flew the BUBIN 5A in rush-hour last night & it was a non-event.

The days of shortcuts and direct routings are over......sorry.

Twaddle, we got good shortcuts approaching BUBIN and then a huge shortcut from ALNET to UKRIM, knocked almost 10 minutes off the plan.

The requirement to cross GIRMI at or below 13,000' and then have another 25 miles to DB423 where you need to be at or above 8,000' requires a slow dribble down at a couple of hundred feet per minute but it's not uncomfortable.

The downwind is pretty tight, close in, only 4 miles but it worked well.

Thanks to ATC for trying to make our lives easier. :ok:

we got good shortcuts approaching BUBIN and then a huge shortcut from ALNET to UKRIM

Agreed - however, if, for example, we had been on 30L, you would almost certainly NOT have got direct SEDPO, as may have happened previously. We have been more or less directed that we MUST leave you on the STAR until downwind (unless absolutely nothing is happening) - from there, shortening onto a 10-15 mile final is expected to be more or less the norm, though. Possibilities exist to turn early onto base before the downwind turn, etc., but only if the altitude is low enough, as usual.

Shorcuts will still exist but direct the FAF is a lot more unlikely than before.

The downwind is pretty tight, close in, only 4 miles but it worked well.

That is why we will be insisting on the speed control - it has been designed with thoses speeds as requirements - if they're not adhered to, the turns won't work.

Desdi5A this morning. Didn't work out too well as told to hold at Desdi for 1 hold and then 10 miles of vectoring before hitting the procedure. Anticipated the shortcut correctly but with the holding, vectoring and postoffice queue procedure in the box had annoying reserve fuel warnings.

Sciolistes - annoying reserve fuel warnings' after one hold and a 10nm vector???

As previously stated, runway capacity has not changed - as has EK ops idea of planning more arrivals per hour than existing runway capacity ( notwithstanding the existence of other airlines!:ugh:).

Don't blame the messenger!

Sciolistes - annoying reserve fuel warnings' after one hold and a 10nm vector???
I should have said 10 minutes of vectoring! :O

One hold and '10 minutes' of vectoring is less than 20 minutes of delay. Sounds like a poor command decision to commit as you would have had known fuel issues already if indeed your story is true.

Give the smarty pants attitude a rest mate.

The point is the procedure is meant to reduce holding, but seems to have increased the delay and the track miles. It is also necessary to fly around 7000' low to account for possible short cuts (D4A). Today we held and flew most of the procedure. The design of these procedures is probably to deal with more issues than I am aware of, but so far in these early days hasn't helped me or the operation.

Quote:
we got good shortcuts approaching BUBIN and then a huge shortcut from ALNET to UKRIM

How about DB427 to UKRIM. Gear down! :ok:

The dry remark by ground "expect some delay due to the new departure procedures" says it all!

I don't want to belittle the effort, but our experience was not enlightening. Sure enough we give credit until the new stuff settles in, but frankly:
Same point of origin and same point of rejoining a couple of hundred of miles down to BALUS or similar, and applying common sense should have told us that there is not much improvement possible.

Inbound was the same story. May I quote Sciolistes:

The point is the procedure is meant to reduce holding, but seems to have increased the delay and the track miles. It is also necessary to fly around 7000' low to account for possible short cuts (D4A)

Applying common sense shows us once more: No improvement here either.

Again, I give credit for the effort, but right now can't see the real sense in it.

CEP - The days of shortcuts and direct routings are over......sorry.

Just went Desdi direct to UKRIM. :eek: Mega high, poor Cabin crew were rushed rushed to secure the cabin as about 10 mins taken away. Did not fly any leg of the trombone.

The Sids and Stars don't mean much to me but as we're now discussing the Dubai roads I can tell you that for the last 15 years or so they've been designed by Italians. Look on the boards near where the interchanges are going up. ItalConsult take the blame for pretty much all of them for as long as I've been looking.

Bloody italians........................:}:}

Sid Waddell, Freddie Starr.
Damn Limeys.

Might be good to mention the new arrival process in the briefing, tell the CC to get things locked up asap in case you get the go ahead to go straight in... have not heard any mention of it at all (I suppose after all, they figure are just cabin crew and don't need to know) but it would be useful for them to know you guys are probably going to be a little bit busier than usual and the possibility exists to get the roller skates out if ATC are feeling generous :} I only knew about it because I read it here.

I did notice that the "sitting around" from "pass the checks" to "prepare for landing" was a lot shorter than usual.... However we did not come in during 'rush hour'

Quick note to ATC, a standard 3 degree slope is (as you know) 9oo ft at 3 Nmls 1200 ft at 4 Nmls and 1500 ft at 5 Nmls. The aircraft should ideally be about 180 kts at Glide Slope intercept so that ensures a Constant Descent Apporach at idle power. Here in Dubai, often there are tailwinds up to 4ooo ft on the approach due to the sea breeze and desert temps, meaning at idle power/thrust the aircraft will only just make the G/S descent without having to add to extra drag (spoilers/speedbrake or extra flap or gear).

Having said all that, when changing from the current STARS of 40+ mls to 18 nmls aplease consider the altitude of the aircraft and the speed and don't just vector onto the ILS when 3ooo Ft above profile at 16 nmls, it makes for a 50/50 can/cant make it for us type scenario. I am :p:pnot saying this is the norm, I am saying the new STARS can lead to this and I kindly ask you to realise our concerns with such a vector onto finals from 3ooo ft above profile with tail winds and huge track shortening.

Just to say I know it can happen ;-D

Jack,

Try 1500' at 5nm, 3000' at 10nm, 4500' at 15nm and 6000' at 20nm.

The Don

Oh don't accept the turn...

First attempt at rush hour for me this morning, the whole process from Bubin seemed pretty seamless, the only moan I have was the LDG runway was 12L, all whilst the ATIS was still giving 30L, and the UAE controller gave us the STAR for 30L. Apart from that, there exists the potential to be left high if you don't keep reasonable SA, but for the most part we flew a nice CDA, with sensible speed reductions and only added 4 minutes to our flight time.

Experiences will vary depending on the time of night, just as before. Ten minutes can make all the difference at trhe wrong time of night.

The reason this procedure won't make much of a difference at the critical times is because the traffic numbers haven't changed and the airport hasn't changed.

Previously, aircraft absorbed track miles in a holding pattern. Now the miles will still be flown but in the so-called trombone instead of in a racetrack. Vectors will still be applied.

Previously, once released from the holding pattern, there was a series of known waypoints with track miles relatively easy to determine (since we are kept in the dark) if one applied familiarity and an ounce of common sense, even when being vectored.

Now, the aircraft will be sent down two sides of a "trombone" with a turn onto final possible at any point before the end. Being that much closer to the FAP (when the intercept vector is finally given) means less miles to lose altitude in. The alternative (already favoured by a lot of our guys) is to just drag it in at low altitude with power up.

The only real solution is to spread out the flight schedule - which is contrary to the fundamentals of EK's hub operation and will never happen.

Prediction: getting track-miles-to-run will still be like pulling teeth.

...don't accept the turn

That would require judgment - something which doesn't always seem to be in abundance.

Gimme Wings, fret not! The solution is just to switch on the seat belt signs at 30,000 instead of at 20,000. At EK, experience shows that the more points like this are given to the crew in the briefing, the more confused and worried they get - apart from the ones who just couldn't GAF.

Previously, aircraft absorbed track miles in a holding pattern. Now the miles will still be flown but in the so-called trombone instead of in a racetrack. Vectors will still be applied.

Probably 95% accurate but the trombone allows the order to be ever so slightly fine tuned to allow for some wake turbulence efficiencies as well as allowing having enough aircraft in the right spot to keep pressure on the final spacing. For example, I witnessed a super 'shortcut' to follow another super when there was a 737 in between intitially with the 73 extended downwind. The crux of your point is valid though. The same overall cumulative delay for the entire sequence will be very very close to exactly the same (minus the above as described, so maybe a movement an hour).

Lol, true, the GAF factor seems to be decreasing a lot lately... inducing many :ugh: moments for quite a few of us...

See now that would be an ideal solution except you forget it probably doesn't make much difference since many of our pax seem to see the s/b sign coming on as a flashing "Go Pee Now" sign and it takes longer to get them sitting down again (unless of course you are me and just keep knocking on the door til they come out of the lav shame faced, seems to work a trick to tell them we can't land til they do and they are making everyone else late :E)

I have nothing but respect for our controller colleagues, however, I am bound to wonder at some of the techniques used early this morning.
Reduce to 230 kts in the descent, headings in the region of 60 degrees off track, one way and then t'other.
Then increase to 250 for about 2 minutes, then back to to 230!
How can 230kts at 10,000ft with 125 track miles to run on the STAR be described in anyway as efficient?! Not to mention the light chop frequently encountered at that level.

Is it the mix of heavy and medium, and the high density periods?
Many years at LGW, with its single runway, elicit nothing more than massive respect and admiration!

The heavy/ medium mix isn't really a problem - only 1 more mile.

However, when you add the whales into the picture, including the fact that they are so slow in the last 5 miles that we have to give an EXTRA 2 miles spacing in the sure and certain knowledge that it WILL erode, it quickly has an effect!

The arrival speed that was once 250 knots is now 230. Once 1 aircraft gets to the fix, everyone else gets the speed when there is any form of a sequence. Expect it from LABTA and ENASA from 7pm local onwards till 2am and if you don't get it that is a bonus.

Guy D,

The whale has a Vapp in the 140kt range, which is pretty close to everything else except a 773 or an MD11.
Taking that the last last 5nm takes 2.5ish min you would need to have a 160kt Vapp aircraft following (ie 773 or MD11) to lose the 1nm in 3min or a 190kt Vapp aircraft to lose the 2 nm in 3min, so I can't figure how this final 5nm applies to the whale only, as it would be for all 140kt Vapp aircraft right? Could you explain it to me please?

The Don

OK, 230 instead of 250 at ENASA, and FL 280 I think. Fair enough.
But what about the 125 miles at 10k?

Don,

Not sure whether it is linked to the huge area of drag surfaces available or other factors come into play but the 380 loses speed much more quickly than just about everything else that flies in here (even the 330s), after the speed limitation expires. Our radar only shows groundspeed at the mo and it usually shows them grounding at 135 kts or so - often already at 5 miles out, where almost everything else is still showing 160-170. That's half a mile a minute of difference, which would already give at least 1 mile of reduction on final.
Experience has shown that spacing continues to reduce and, short of asking the following traffic to fly 140kts 8-9 miles out (which I personally hate to do - others don't) or go-around, the only other way of ensuring adequate spacing when the 380 touches down (as we are required to do - there is NO leeway) is to provide it when the second a/c turns inbound. I personally always use 2 miles extra - depending on the winds, this always reduces by more than a mile and often by the full two.

Guy,

What am I missing? If the lead traffic, worst case, instantly slows to 140 @<hidden> 5 miles, as it touches down the following fraffic is still @<hidden> 6 miles doing 160 if the lead is a 380. As you said above, the separation will reduce by approx 1 mile. Surely this is built into your inital spacing.
Alternatively, when you get your IAS readout, let's see who slows early!

Yo,

As I said - not sure where the miles go or whose "fault" it is - just relaying my observations and experience. Given that it happens on virtually each and every occasion, there IS a root cause - the above is my way of dealing with it such that sep is maintained and I don't need you to drag absolutely everything out at 10 miles.

Without wishing to upset anyone, one of the contributing factors is that the number of people reporting 160knts is often unrelated to the number actually flying the speed they report. If you don't fly the assigned speeds accurately how can we be expected to achieve any standardisation in final approach spacing?
Differences in ground speed of sixty knots and more is not that unusual between an a/c at five miles and one at eleven miles and as a Tower controller they are not many options when faced with anything over half mile a minute catch ups.

Guy and Tower thanks for that. The 380 seems to hit Vapp around at around 1000' if flap full is taken at 1500' and speed is reduced from 160kts at 5nm. Pretty much the same as the 330/340. I guess as tower says it all depends on what speed is actually flown and when it is actually reduced.

Was given descend to 10000' at 2000fpm and 230kts at 120 miles the other night. Only cost 1500kgs of extra fuel to what the predicted for the approach. It would be nice if DXB was given a bit more upper airspace if it would help with the extremely early descents.

the Don

Question: when the man on the radio says 180 kts to ten, 160 to 5, what do they really mean? What are they expecting? Is it the same as at LHR where they expect 180 reducing slowly to be 160 at 4?

Question: when the man on the radio says 180 kts to ten, 160 to 5, what do they really mean? What are they expecting? Is it the same as at LHR where they expect 180 reducing slowly to be 160 at 4?

Exactly that. 180kts to 10 miles. No more, no less. Then back to 160 kts ASAP. And hold that to 4 miles. Not 5 or 6 miles, unless instructed.

If you need 165 kts or can only give 160kts to 5 miles, speak up. We'll adjust the spacing behind you.
Being within 5-10 kts of assigned speed on arrival or downwind is acceptable. Not on final where we get put over the GCAA's knee and spanked when wake is infringed because someone doesn't do their assigned speeds. Couple too many of those and we might have to start the job application process somewhere else in the world.

Crux of the matter is - Speak up if you can't comply with speeds, or ask if you can fly a certain preferred speed. Throw us a bone!!

My point is CEP, that large heavy aircraft do not lose 20 kts immediately. What rate are you planning for the speed reduction?

Guy, you're rattling at the pride of the dugong jockeys, be careful!:\

But putting sarcasm aside, why would anyone doubt your observation, with our tunnel and one sided vision anyway?

Fact is the trouble increased exponentially once some dugongs started sharing the airspace. We even experience some taking these things ahead of us, apparently to group arrivals. That might make sense from a global/atc point of view, but not to other aircraft who have been given EATs and 2% STATCON, just to have the times swapped and extended without notice. Don't even dare ask why on the radio .... just commit or divert.

Too many different speed characteristics don't mix well, I get that. I also truly think that time will smooth things out. But there's no doubt that today the 380 slows things down. We all have to adapt, that means comply with the speed constraints, sure, and we do. But that should go both ways! Even the big things could adapt to usual speeds, especially because it seems to slow like a brick, meaning it could keep a civilised speed for a slightly longer period. Just a suggestion ..... :ok:

If a speed reduction is requested, dial it into speed command, and let system adjust, theis should take 3-5 seconds, i suspect.


previous posts suggest 380 should decrease like a brick shute house.

glf

Our radar only shows groundspeed at the mo and it usually shows them grounding at 135 kts or so - often already at 5 miles out, where almost everything else is still showing 160-170. That's half a mile a minute of difference, which would already give at least 1 mile of reduction on final.

That would seem to indicate that the big one is slowing earlier than the rest.
Would anyone flying it care to comment? 160 to 4 can look pretty fast some times.
This thread is a timely reminder to those that sometimes forget that they are not the only ones in the sky!
Ps. It still doesn't explain the 10k 125 nm out!!:cool:

My point is CEP, that large heavy aircraft do not lose 20 kts immediately. What rate are you planning for the speed reduction?

Three Wire - depends on a/c type, but generally I expect 2-3 miles before that 20kts is bled off.

Without wishing to upset anyone, one of the contributing factors is that the number of people reporting 160knts is often unrelated to the number actually flying the speed they report. If you don't fly the assigned speeds accurately how can we be expected to achieve any standardisation in final approach spacing?

TowerRanger - Hopefully we'll get a link to RAK's new mode S radar......then we'll be able to see what's actually happening with those speeds.....

I must be a simpleton, I was under the impression that when given 160/4 that meant we reduce to this as we can, i.e. as succinctly as possible.
What still truly baffles me is the amount of guys who bitch and moan about ATC speed requirements....and do their own thing...rather than a simple "unable...we require 170/5 etc etc"
I see very senior and junior 777 guys in equal measure struggle with this concept..the concept that whilst we all work together, ATC exist to provide aircraft a service within the regulatory and airspace framework.
Guys if you can't make the speed, just fecking tell them! "UNABLE"

Falcon, very true comment!
I think the problem is the statement "unable"!
They cant say "we are unable" when the same aircraft in the same colours is doing it in front and behind them.
It would require a statement " I am" unable or unwilling to achieve the requirement.
I've watched people put the gear down, then wait for the A/T to increase, and then select slower.......a total waste of drag!
The 180 to 160 should be done ASAP. If it doesn't bleed off easily then bite the bullet and lower the gear, you've got drag, use it if you have to!

Energy Management.......if it doesn't come naturally, it has to be taught!
The CDA is another example!

Flying stig- They cant say "we are unable" when the same aircraft in the same colours is doing it in front and behind them.
Not quite true. If I'm coming back to Dubai in a light jet, i.e. about 150T, then I will say early "Can we do 160 to 5", as the Vapp speeds are in the vicinity of 125Kts and from 4 miles it can be a challenge to reduce to the stable app speed of vapp + 10, (particularly with a tail wind). (I usually tell director on downwind to give him a heads up.)

Ex Driver.
Fair comment, and an obvious omission on my part. The small bus is the same although if the speed is still reducing and thrust at idle at 1000, it will be fully stable prior 500, which is fine in VMC!:ok:

Ex 380 and Stig,

As ex-380 said, the important part, as far as we are concerned, is that you say so early enough that we can adjust the spacing accordingly. Before base leg is sufficient, downwind would be better. In any case, PLEASE make it before we have turned the following traffic in behind you - NOT when established at 10DME.

As for the 10k 125 miles out - I take it you are basing that on flying the WHOLE star? The message hasn't got through to many (including our management, going by recent internal emails) that the idea of the "trombones" is to allow a means of absorbing the extra traffic in case of go-arounds / cocked up inbound spacing, etc. It is NOT intended to be continually filled up to the brim with traffic, which would not only leave nothing to absorb the overspill but very few options with regard to vectoring, etc as there is now very little "empty" airspace. The idea is to have a base turn in the 10-15 mile range with enough traffic to keep that continuous. That means the full STAR length is some 40 mile or so MORE than you could normally expect to fly. Whilst I do understand that this still means you descend to 10k earlier than you would like, there are also a host of airspace restrictions and other reasons for doing so.

Flying Stig- Actually the IMC and VMC thing is not relevant anymore. The stabilisation criteria do not have VMC any more. The new policy is stable by 1000 however you can be fast on the speed provided it will be vapp +10 by 500, or you have to be completely stable but can complete the landing checks by 500'. VMC has nothing to do with it.:ok:

Falcon don't go saying stuff like that or you will ruin glofishes thing about 380s being the route cause of all evil. :E

The Don