Speed control during LVPs

[pitotheat]

Recently during the fog in BHX I was asked to maintain a high approach speed during a Cat II approach with RVRs on minima. I refused and reduced to Vref, about 130 KIAS, in accordance with company policy. This same policy is common to most operators and I have never had this request made of me before.

I know that the commander of an aircraft can always refuse such requests on grounds of flight safety but this request was made at the same airport on the same day by 2 different controllers; it shows a certain lack of understanding for what is trying to be achieved.

Is this practise creeping in across other airfields?

[Short Approach?]

In CPH we never use spdctr inside 8 miles during cat. 2/3.

[bagpuss lives]

Hmmmm very odd indeed.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Even odder... In 30 years at Heathrow I employed standard speed control during LVPs to achieve the required spacing and never once do I recall a pilot querying it or, indeed, stating that he would be flying a different speed!

[pitotheat]

HD

Only 23 years in aviation. As I said it runs contrary to most company LVPs, obviously some disconnect between ATC and operators.

[Short Approach?]

Pitotheat...

Say you were on a cat2/3 app and were assigned speed 180. Untill which dist. would it be appropriate to maintain? Give/take.

Out...

[pitotheat]

I have flown for 3 companies operating cat 2/3 aircraft and they all required you to be fully configured, ie landing flap plus gear, at Vref, weight dependant, typically 120-135 kias by the final approach fix.

By asking the crew to maintain higher speed until 4 miles (1200 aal) during LVPs you are significantly increasing the work load. At this range/height the crew have additional checks and calls to carry out not done on cat 1 approaches.

I understand the need to maintain a constant well spaced stream of aircraft, particularly in busy periods, but I think during LVPs this has to take a lower priority to that allowing crews to establish a stabilized approach.

I would welcome any other controllers thoughts, other than HD, on this as it seems to me a new phenomenom.

[055166k]

Dear Pitotheat, I think as I always have that we are here to provide a service to you. You pay for it. Bear in mind that a lot of controllers these days know absolutely nothing about how your aircraft flies, it is just like a video game. As a pilot you should make your requirements known; for example if you want greater wake vortex protection or cannot or do not wish to compromise flight stability by inappropriate speed control. One of NATS cutbacks was to dicontinue flightdeck familiarisation. Regards.

[porra]

Adding to 055166k's comment... I must flown a dozen times since 09/11 and ALWAYS ask to visit the cockpit - ALWAYS refused...even us Controllers who want to stay up to date with cockpit/airline procedures aren't afforded to opportunity,

In the Dark..

[pitotheat]

05...

I could not agree with you more. For my sins I was a military ATCO for 5 years so know a little about the problems of controlling aircraft. As I said I did decline the speed control given to us.

porra

It is a great shame about no flight deck visits, it might one day change.

[Ready]

At my airline we are authorized Cat 111A, and we're asked to be configured, spooled up, all checklists completed and everything else by the FAF. Nothing less than that for all operators, right?

The problem with some guys, because they're shooting CAT 11 or CAT111 approaches they intercept the glide at 3000 feet for instance, drop everything and reduce to approach speed in a flash, so I can imagine the controller's headache trying to bring the next airplane in for the approach when one guy flies minimum speed at 3000 feet while another one does from at 1500.

Above the FAF altitude, we are not really more busy than during CAT 1 weather. Please don't make it sound more difficult than it is. Below 1000 feet, it's different, I could not agree more.
Cheers!!

[vector4fun]

The problem with some guys, because they're shooting CAT 11 or CAT111 approaches they intercept the glide at 3000 feet for instance, drop everything and reduce to approach speed in a flash, so I can imagine the controller's headache trying to bring the next airplane in for the approach when one guy flies minimum speed at 3000 feet while another one does from at 1500


Especially if it's a light B757 that suddenly slows to around 110 kts ground speed two miles outside the FAF and we have Twin Cessnas doing S-turns just to follow, forget the NG 737s......

I sometimes wonder which is worse to sequence behind, the 757 or T-37!:rolleyes:

[Max Angle]

Have to agree with Ready, I find no problem at all with flying a standard speed controlled approach in CAT3 weather. The aeroplane does not fly any different because it's foggy, the delays into LHR are bad enough in LVP's without everyone flying at vref all the way down the ILS.

Any modern jetliner autopilot is quite capable of flying a CAT3 approach while the aircraft slows down and flaps are run out etc. I suspect that the rule some companies have harks back to the days when autopilots were a bit dodgy and not very good at approaches. If the SOP's for a modern aircraft specify a fully stable approach for CAT3's they need to be rewritten to reflect the modern world.

[West Coast]

Held 170 to the OM at SLC on a cat II yesterday, even with the added pucker of the first catII of the season it was no problemo.

[bluskis]

There is an article titled 'The art and science of getting down' in the Nov. issue of Business & Cmmercial Aviation which may give some insight from the pilot viewpoint.

It may be accessable on www.AviationNow.com/BCA.

[flower]

Certainly going back about 8-10 years ago we were advised that aircraft fly a much slower speed during Cat 2/3 approaches.
However subsequently that would appear to have changed and I have not encountered any aircraft advising that they were unable to fly anything but the normal approach speeds during LVPs.
As previously stated let us know what you require to do and we will accomodate you as best we can , but please don't do it when you are established . It takes time to work a sequence and to position aircraft behind you we need extra miles if you are going to reduce your speed substantially.

This again is why we need Fam flights, but both NATS managment who don't believe they are any benefit to ATCOs ., and Airline Companies who will not allow us up the front are doing absolutely nothing to re-establish them .

[Max Angle]

It is my understanding that the CAA is establishing a list of people who have legitimate need to access the flightdeck. ATCO's should certainly be on it. It is not the airlines who are preventing you from taking j/s rides, it's now the law. I can't even ride on the jumpseat unless I am on duty. Hopefully the CAA (or more correctly the DOT) will see the sense of allowing famil. trips to take place, don't hold your breath though.

[flower]

Maxangle,
I know this is now going off thread but it isn't the law that says we cannot go in the Jump Seat , it is the companies interpretation of the CAAs directive on cockpit access.
certain companies consider ATCOs as "any other authorised person " which is included on the list allowing access.
However the majority of companies do not. To gain access to the cockpit know involves a long and tortuous procedure.

If ATCOs wanted to do damage to aircraft there are many ways in which we could do it, we are hardly going to do it with us onboard !!!!

[Max Angle]

Flower, (and yes I know it's off topic)

You are wrong I am afraid. The CAA issued a communication in July that restricts flightdeck access to crew members who are on duty only. This took effect in August for transatlantic flights and recently has been extended to all UK aircraft. CAA operations inspectors have statutory rights to access the flightdeck but apart from that no one else is allowed. Certain exceptions do exist such as manufactures engineers who may be diagnosing a problem with the a/c.

Certain other people will be allowed and as I said a list is being prepared to allow those with a legitmate reason to be there. An ATCO would certainly fall into this catagory I would have thought, someone in your management needs to make some noise to the CAA and insure that you get on the list.

[flower]

Maxangle,
we could start a whole new debate here, I have seen the directive and it allows certain people access to the cockpit for legitimate reasons including aircraft engineers , flight inspectors and any other authorised persons.
Certain companies are using their common sense and are viewing ATCOs on Fam flights as any other authorised persons, and there are still a number of airlines offering Fam flights to local ATC staff, However the majority of Airlines are not doing so.
NATS management for whatever reason have decided that Fam flights are of no operational significance to ATCOs subsequently they have not offered any reistance to the CAA in not specifically naming ATCOs in the directive allowing access to the Cockpit during Flight.
How this is overcome I do not know, lets hope that common sense does eventually prevail

[Warped Factor]

flower,

How this is overcome I do not know, lets hope that common sense does eventually prevail

It would be a start for them to be pointed at Safety Recommendation 4.2 in this formal AAIB report (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/airp/airp.htm).

I'll quote it below just in case you don't want to read the whole report.

WF.

-------

The CAA, in conjunction with the various ATS providers, should ensure that controllers are familiar with those operating characteristics of the aircraft for which they are likely to be responsible and which affect the provision of ATS. Consideration should be given to suitable methods which may include the use of simulators and familiarisation flights as a means of achieving this objective. [Recommendation 98-36]

-------

[Max Angle]

OK Flower, I am going to talk to our security guy here at BMI and see if I can get something sorted out at our company or at least get a definitive answer out of him. Any ATCO is more than welcome on my jumpseat as long as the company agrees.

[porra]

Taking the subject a little further about the whole FAM. thing, when is the last time that pilots paid a visit to an ACC??!

[flower]

Thanks maxangle,

We have approached Baby here at Cardiff but as yet we have had no answer. British Airways are certainly still doing Fam Flights.
Lets keep our fingers crossed for sensible responses.

And yes porra there are not enough visits to ATC units by Flight Crews.

[mainecoon]

thanks again max
at encc we had drink recently with crews from jmc and they are making moves to the caa to allow flight deck fam flights by ourselves does need sorting
regrds mc