LTN High & Fast- Again... LVP's

[EGGW]

Well did the standard trip around the countryside again last night, on arrival to 26 at EGGW. But still we were asked to reduce speed, descend, about 15 track miles from touchdown, from 5,000'. Now i realise whoever was on the screen might have had a brain fart, but when trying to do an LVP, most of us pilot types need to be stable by the FAF, or least 4 miles, as most companies SOP's demand this.
We ended up having to capture the glideslope from above, get the gear down early to get down and comply with the speed request.
Also why aren't we just cleared for the ILS, do away with lots of the RT traffic, and lets us descend on the glideslope.
We were stable by 4.5 miles in the slot, but all in all messy. Any ways to improve this guys and gals at LATCC???
I know we could have orbited, and requested that, but there was a large queue behind us... Not that would have stopped me from doing the right thing if we were going to have an unstable approach.

[Buster the Bear]

Questions:-

Were you on a long straight in, so inbound via ABBOT or did you arrive via BKY and LOREL and was then vectored for a 10 miles final (ATC SOP's for LVP's)?

On handover from ESSEX to Luton were you asked to fly 220kts?

On initial contact with Luton/final contact with ESSEX, were you given an approx range from touchdown?

Did this occur before or after 22:00 local? (If it was before 22:00 Sunday I will send the bear's around and sort em out!).

Answers might just give a reason. There could be a whole host of other factors affecting this 'rushed' approach.

Have you been to visit the folks doing ESSEX and Luton within TC, unlike the other bear's here in the zoo, they seldom bite?

[Spitoon]

On the other hand the fact that there was a large queue behind you might just mean that the controller was trying to shift the aeroplanes in the best way possible overall. That's no excuse for poor controlling or not understanding what goes on on the flight deck but what you were asked to do was possible, maybe hard work but possible. Unlike the pilot the controller usually has to look after more than just one aeroplane. Is there any ways you guys and gals on the flight deck can remember this?

[EGGW]

Well actually had two of your guys on the f/deck this year down to AGP, and back. Trainers @ LATCC i believe.
Also i've been on one of your famil days @ LATCC, great day out meeting you guys and gals. Had a play on the sim, fun but not easy i can see :D

Came in via BKY.

We were at 220 kts on handover. We were told 19 miles to touchdown, which when at 5,000' and trying to go down and slowdown, with a tailwind isn't easy. Happened @ 21.30 local (ish)

I understand we are all human in this game, but it is something i've seen before on 26 approaches, OK on a sunny day, but on and LVP, just not what we need, as it is a more demanding approach.

Personally i'm very fond of left bases for 26, and right bases for 08 http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/clap.gif

[Bombay Bad Boy]

EGGW... although you evidently didnt get the best of approaches, I bet if we follow the system through, you'll find that the blame for that might not just rest on the one poor controller.

If we asked these questions I'm sure some answers would contribute to your difficult time in such an important part of your flight:

1) Were the Stacks busy, or at least motoring a bit ?

2) Was there reduced flow rates imposed on sectors due to Airport conditions?

3) Staff shortages, Sicknesses, bandboxing, early goes (Oooops) ?

4) Did the controller slightly screw up your approach but get it right for the other 20 odd aircraft within that hour ?

Normally the snowball starts from somewhere else, and quite often the only reason is commercial pressures. Whether the pressures are from the Airlines, Airport Operators or NATS management, not everyone remembers that Safe and orderly come before expeditious and they should.

Lastly, If it was just a case of the controller screwing up your approach with no outside factors, I'm sure no one is more sorry than him/her.

Lets hope we look after you next time, thanx for your input and "Here, Here" to "cleared ILS" asap

[eyeinthesky]

Just as you have many things to do up there of which we are not all aware, so do we down here, and that is the nature of our jobs. Unless you communicate to us that what we are asking you to do is a problem, how are we to know?

Given the scenario you mention, perhaps if it was too much you should have asked for more track miles when given 19 at 5000 ft. I'm sure it could have been accommodated. It might have meant you losing your place to someone behind you while you were taken the extra miles but, given what you say about the problems it caused you, I'm sure you wouldn't have minded!;)

Having moaned (legitimately?) about a rushed approach then to ask for base leg approaches is a bit cheeky!!:o

[Slaphead]

EGGW.

I hope that the following may prove useful and clarify some of the points that you and others have raised.

At about the time you arrived there were at least 12 arrivals due into Luton within 20 minutes, not a lot at some airports but a lot for Luton which I believe has a planned movement rate of 30 per hour in Cat 1 and about 15 to 20 in LVPs. The runway in use at Luton had been changed to 26 because the surface wind was straight across, the reported 300 feet wind was similar and the IRVR minima for 26 is lower than for 08. Landing you and the others on 26 would have saved you each about 30 track miles at least.

If you were one of the arrivals through LRL it may have felt like you were going around the countryside but in fact you have followed the standard arrival route and then been tactically vectored by Essex radar to position you about 12 to 15 miles in trail, this gives the Luton Director a fighting chance to get you a 10 mile final and provide the Tower person with the 10 mile gap. In the event that there was departing traffic, at there were at least two during the arrival period you refer to, the gap would have been 15 miles. You were transferred to Luton at 5000 feet because that is the lowest level available north of BKY that keeps you inside CAS and at 220 knots because that is generally the preferred speed. If you come via BKY and aren’t subject to extended vectoring you can’t be descended below 5000 feet until you are about 15 miles from touchdown because of the base of CAS nor can you be descended below the G/P outside 8 miles for the same reason.

The Essex/Stansted position was split three ways because there were arrivals into Stansted at the same time. There were also Northbound and Westbound departures from 05 at Stansted, all of which conflicted with the Lorel, Abbot and Down Wind Right releases to Luton. Luton was split with one person vectoring and one coordinating

The airspace within which Luton and Stansted operate is not huge and we do the best that we can within the constraints placed on us. We were, as always, trying to achieve the best runway movement rate for the airport operator and give the minimum delay to pilots. If you or anyone else had asked to slow down, extend your route or delay your approach it would have been accommodated if nobody says anything then we assume that you are happy.

[vector4fun]

EGGW,

Look at it this way; If you were headed to a busy Hub here in the states, you might have been asked for 220 kts to the localizer, 180 kts to the Marker, 2 1/2 behind a MD80 and side by side with a B767 on the parallel final, and oh, by the way, plan on making the first high speed please.....

:D


Seriously, while I'm not familiar with your locale, I'm sure the other controllers can relate. I get arrivals all the time that are high and fast and I have to TELL them to get the throttles back and the boards out, or "you ain't gonna land at THIS airport." It puts us in a bind because I KNOW that I either have to let this flight run at maximum legal speed as long as possible, or it's not going to descend in time to capture the glideslope.

The only solution I know is requiring Center to have each arrival level and at 250 kts arriving at our airspace boundry. We occasionally have to do that if we're really busy, but we'd rather not put the Center in a bind either unless absolutely necessary. I guess what I'm trying to say is that barring some ATC restriction, a lot of pilots will descend on a very high, fast, and I suppose efficient profile, but that leaves a controller with few options other than some really UN-efficient vectors to fit you in the arrival stream....

(edited for punctuation, don't laugh!)

[MANAGP]

vector4fun

Might I sugest you take a visit to the Flight Safety Foundation website and realise why this is unacceptable!

So much of this needless messing around with flight safety is to satisfy bean counters - earlier this week we were vectored 3.5 miles behind, with another a/c 4 miles behind us. We were the only arrivals in that hour, but hey it sustained the landing rates.

Bluntly

I DON'T DO HIGH AND FAST
I DON'T DO 180 to the LOM
I DON'T DO DANGEROUS

As for LTN and it's locale, it is busy but LVPs are LVPs and require extra crew awareness and STABLE is the word.

[vector4fun]

MANAGP,

Look, I was just trying to present the other side. As to your comments about speeds, I ask for 170 kts to the LOM all the time here in the States, and never get complaints from Air Carriers. In fact, the last time I GOT a complaint, it was for asking for **160 kts** seven miles outside the LOM! The captain complained that was too slow! (B737-900)

It's the pilot's perogative to refuse any speed adjustment not compatable with safety. All we're trying to do is work the maximum number of flights safely in the minimum time. And we will probably average 40-60 arrivals per hour at my humble little airport this Fri eve......

:rolleyes: