Originally Posted by
q400_driver
from what I understand from the video, he was already doing 160 when at around 8-9 miles out controller asked them to speed up.. I think the answer to the question was pretty obvious.. I'm no expert on flying a 747 but I can only imagine speeding it up to 180 and then slowing it back again to 160 within 3 miles when already established on a glide is a bit of an exercise with limited value. The whole debate about which airspace is busier is useless.. the approach controller has one job to do - get planes in line and deliver them to tower. By asking BA to cancel the approach you don't really solve the problem, you literally add more moving pieces to your puzzle.. All she needed to do was to ask following guys to slow down..
He wasn't originally at a speed of 160, which is why the terms "maintaining 180" and "slow to 160" and "reducing to 160" are being used by both. BA was already talking to this Controller before the clip begins just as the aircraft following him to 22L was cleared down to 2000' during the clip, and she was assigning 2000' and speed 180 to other aircraft.
Nor was he established on glide slope at any point, not even close. He was at 2000' when he intercepted the LOC at 13.8 DME and remained there until she broke him off the approach at about 11 DME. She made her request for him to maintain 180 until 5 DME when he was over ROSLY at 12.0 DME, at which point the G/S would be about 1400' above his altitude. G/S intercept for him at 2,000' would be just before ZALPO at about 7.0 DME, 5 miles to run when she made her initial request and just less than 7 miles when he intercepted the LOC.
ATC didn't ask BA to do anything within 3 miles, let alone speed up 20 knots then reduce 20 knots. Over ROSLY the Controller issued the instruction to "maintain 180 or greater until 5 DME...", not "Increase speed to 180.." After his rejection of 180 @ 5, the only thing asked of BA was how long before they needed to slow to 160. That's it. An appropriate answer would have been one of mileage, either DME or miles-to-go. Either one would have sufficed but it was not forthcoming.
BA knew that 5.0 DME is only 3.6 miles from the threshold, about 1200' AGL, and shedding the extra 20 knots down to Vapp by the limits for a stabilized approach his company sets may be a problem, so he wanted 160 at 5. That's all well and good and the Controller didn't argue his point, but he was missing her point that slowing to 160 while still 12.0 DME out over ROSLY was too slow-too early for the program.
She couldn't issue him a clearance for him as he verbalized it.."160 or greater until 5" (simply substituting 160 for 180)...when he did over ROSLY because although it would solve his too fast-too close problem for him 7 miles later at 5 DME, such wording would also clear him to immediately slow to 160 if he wanted to while still 12 miles out and jam up the works. She therefore explained that she needed him to maintain something more than 160 "from now" ( where he was, 12 miles out, 5-6 miles from ZALPO) and asks; "so when are you going to slow to 160", whereupon he states he "Gets that" yet blows-off what she needs/asks completely to instead talk about his 747 and announcing that he has approach criteria. She says okay, then points out he still hasn't answered her question which was, again: "When are you going to slow to 160?".
So far there's only one condescending, argumentative personality who isn't listening during these exchanges, and it isn't the NY Controller. She didn't press him on the "until 5", she accepted he couldn't and only wanted to know for how long he could do 180 but, clearly, someone checked onto the frequency with a pre-packaged attitude, ready to make a statement if hearing something not to his liking. Clearly, because he immediately levered his clipped-tone verbiage into the exchange instead of answering. It's obvious that he had no intention of working with her from the get-go.
At 1:12 in the clip at appx 11.0 DME just inside ROSLY, as a way of answering her query and proving he still didn't "Get it", BA declares "reducing now to 160 knots". The transcript on the clip is wrong; he's not asking her a question about reducing, there's no inflection of a query, he's declaring what he's doing.."reducing now"..(something else that points to his current speed being 180, not 160). She already knows that him slowing to 160 while still 11 miles out is not going to work. She had already informed him that slowing to 160 at that point wouldn't work but when she had done so he made it clear he didn't care by his non-response.
When she breaks him off the approach he's still at 2000', 11 miles out, appx 4 miles from G/S intercept, 5 miles from ZALPO (which he'd cross at 1800'), and 6 miles from where she would have originally wanted him to reduce. There was still plenty of mileage and time to make it work to the benefit of all parties, but Capt "Don't tell me how to fly my 747" insisted on slowing down to a speed (160) he said he could do at 5 miles descending on a G/S while still in level flight 11 miles out.
These type of speed-controlled approaches aren't unique. Hong Kong, for example, routinely requires 180 until 7.0 followed by 160 until 4.0 (1100' AGL already well-established on the G/S so there's plenty of aircraft in the process of shedding of knots from 160 to Vapp while passing downhill through 1000' AGL) , and 125+ to the threshold. They've also disseminated the info that aircraft not able to adhere to these minimum speeds may be broken off the approach due to traffic behind in the name of traffic flow. So you see, your simple answer that all a Controller "needs to do is ask following guys to slow down" doesn't really work past a certain point or level of congestion. At many airports if you want speed control at your own leisure or whim, it'll take at least a Pan Pan to do it.
Again, if instead of a protest and lecture he had just given her a mileage to work with it may have ended differently, but as he was droning straight in on the LOC at 2000' from almost 14 miles out waiting for the G/S he chose differently. In level flight at 2000' speed 180, was it really so difficult to tell her they could maintain 180 until 6.0 or G/S intercept at 7.0 instead of being triggered?
After being broken off, during the ensuing exchange she said she needed to him to maintain 180 for "at least 3 more miles", which means if he had told her he could do 180 until 6, 7, or possibly even 8 when she asked (which would've been 3 more miles), she could have worked it out. At no point, however, did he ever try and work with her on a mileage estimate even when prompted.
Laughably, he presumes to think what she's done to him isn't an "FAA-approved procedure" after his radio mini-investigation revealed he was broken off the approach due to anticipated, diminishing separation with the traffic behind due to his early speed reduction, confusing FAA pilot right-of-way rules regarding slower preceding aircraft with what ATC can do with you in Class B airspace. Did he really think he caught her out with a "Gotcha" or reckoned he could slow anytime because it gave him the right of way and she'd just have to adjust everyone behind? It's clear by the tone of his voice that he thinks he has a better grasp of FAA procedures than she does, or that she's breaking them. Speaking of mindset, what kind of pompous ass does it take to fly to a foreign country and then chew up the frequency telling the controller they don't know their own ATC procedures?
The Controller, on the other hand, remains unruffled throughout despite his condescending tone, blather, and refusal to work with her. Anyone moaning about NY Controllers should find a better example than this one to support it.