160 until 4dme @ EGKK

[THOMPSONFLY]

Last night I arrived back at LGW when the wind was 210 at 28 G41kts. We went around at 140ft above the ground due to WSHR.

If there are any controllers out there who work LGW, could you please tell me why at LGW you insist on having 160 til 4 with extremely bad and testing weather. The aircraft behind us said he would do 150kts and the controller questioned him.
I can fully understand why you do it. Maximising landings etc.
But when the weather is poor, I think it should be up to the pilots discretion.

During LVP's, what is the spacing on the appr? If it is greater than the norm, the spacing should be implemented for all bad weather situations including wind.

I think it would be a great experience for any controller to be in the flight deck with the above conditions trying to maintain 160 til 4!!!!! It's not easy.:ok:

[The Greaser]

Im sure the controllers will agree. If you unable to comply with a request then let them know. I have never had any grumbles when doing this in a reasonable situation. As for this specific situation, I would have thought it was safer to be a bit on the high speed side for safety in such windy circumstances. On the aircraft I fly by adding 20 knots to Vref as would be the case in such a windy situation the final approach speed would be about 150-155 all the way down.

[backofthedrag]

The A320 seeks in 'managed mode' to maintain the groundspeed related to Vref at touchdown ( ground speed mini). At LGW with say a wind of 260/60 at 6 miles, 2000 feet ( not exactly unknown) to maintain a ground speed of say 135 knots, the true airspeed will considerably exceed 160 and this is not acceptable to air traffic in terms of maintaining constant spacing. On the other hand a 747 may not be able to get the flaps out in time with any more than 160 to 4.
NATS would say let the controller know in good time but my experience is that at most times they would have difficulty fitting in aircraft at different speeds. Perhaps we should try it!

[Gonzo]

Maybe this is something crews should take up with their airlines too? We in ATC collectively are under ever-increasing pressure from Airlines to decrease separation under LVPs, let alone in plain old bad weather.

Oh, and inbound spacing is roughly doubled during LVPs.

[javelin]

Surely, the time you have a problem with 160 to 4 is with a tailwind, not a headwind. On the little and big bus, neither have any problem with 160 to 4 unless you have about 10kts up the chuff, then the 330 will really struggle. In any case, with those conditions, I would want some energy in hand rather than slowing down too much. I would rather go round from a high energy problem than struggle with a negative shear close to the ground.

[Jerricho]

Forgive my crap memory, but isn't there something in one of the MATS referring to speed variance for operational readons during LVPs?

[BOAC]

Thompson - this topic has been discussed at length on Pprune. 170 to 5 was judged by LGW pilots to be the ideal.

Like javelin, I cannot see the problem in the wind conditions you quote - assuming you are flying a swept-wing jet, and assuming you would be adding 'quite a lot' to Vref in those conditions (enough for several mums and grannies :D), and with a (small but positive) headwind component, 160 to 4 would only give you, say, 20-30kts to lose in 4 miles?

But when the weather is poor, I think it should be up to the pilots discretion. If you really cannot hack it, ATC ask you to let them know in good time, rather than at 10 miles, and they normally accommodate.

[TopBunk]

backof thedragOn the other hand a 747 may not be able to get the flaps out in time with any more than 160 to 4.

You obviously have not flown the queen of the skies - flying 160 to 4 only required you to lose about 10 knots to landing speed at normal weights. Reducing in calm conditions of Vapp of 120 kts in icing is MUCH more difficult in a light A319, for example.

wrt to smaller Airbuses which I now fly, it is true the Groundspeed mini when in managed speed will add a lot of knots to the Vapp spped when the spot wind is much different. However, I think personally that a lot of people misuse managed speed in conditions of strong, steady winds. Gspd mini is there to protect against microbursts and the like - not in strong, steady direction winds. If the wind direction and speed are steady use selected speed - no problems.

[Warped Factor]

As an occasional Gatwick approach controller, but not at work during this windy spell, I'd only comment that I'd hope we'd accomodate any speed that is different from the norm (160 to 4) when it is requested.

I'd only ask that the the requirement is stated on the downwid leg at the latest, if it's made when you're already on the ILS the chances are that the a/c behind you may already be on a closing heading or established and as such it might be a bit tricky to then increase the spacing if required.

During LVPs the normal spacing at EGKK would be 6nm if no departure in the gap, or 10-12nm if there is a departure. That works for LVPs but it might be a bit OTT in other poor weather scenarios.

WF.

[THOMPSONFLY]

As a mate of yours, come down and you do it.
I think the point I was trying to make has been completely lost. Why tell the pilot to do 160 til 4 in the first place! It's not a question of being able to do it or not - that's a piece of piss especially in a 757! It is the increase in workload given to the pilot by asking him to maintain that 160kts with + and - wshr in turbulence that makes the speedtape etc nearly impossible to read.
If anything, with a good headwind and low GS, you can delay slowing down in order to be fully configed for 1000' if not 500'.When you have been there you will understand!

Is it true that ATC's get bonuses dependant upon how many aircraft take off and land within a certain time period? just a rumour I heard!

[Barry Cuda]

Is it true that ATC's get bonuses dependant upon how many aircraft take off and land within a certain time period? just a rumour I heard!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Ahhhhhhh hahahahahahahaha...:p :p :p :{

Stop it, please, my sides are aching now!!!!



(The answer is no, btw!:sad: )

[Gonzo]

The idea in getting you to fly 160 to 4 is that we get everyone to fly 160 to 4 so that we can keep the spacing constant so we can land more aeroplanes, so airlines don't moan at us.

It matters not to us what speed it is, be it 170 to 5, 155 to 3 or whatever, but the more people who fly the same speed the better.

Saying that, though, as has been mentioned above, if you'd rather fly something other than 160, let Approach know ASAP, and they'll fit you in.

[Bucking Bronco]

Gonzo, exactly.

Javelin, agreed.

Thomsonfly - The problem with increasing the spacing to LVP spacing with strong winds is that the (already reduced) flowrate will be a trickle and people would be holding for ages both in the air and on the ground. If you advocate flying your own speed to decrease your workload what would you have done the other day? Slowed up sooner/later? 160 till 4 is standard at EGLL and never comes as a shock.

The increases in workload IMH experience have come about when people disregard the speeds given to them and...

i) a/c in front slows down too soon ( generally long haul/wide body problem) - I'm sat at 150ft waiting for landing clearance as they bumble off the runway (not nice when you've been on duty for 14hrs and you're landings are always dodgy anyway;) )

ii) a/c behind slows down too late (short haul/narrow body problem) - you're having to stand on the brakes with your nose pressed against the windshield to make the first available exit so the guy behind doesn't have to GA.

The key here is maintaining the spacing that is given to us by ATC and if you want to deviate from that (and be a deviant ;) ) then just tell them in plenty of time. Akin to the idiots that line up, get cleared for take off and then say "We need another minute." - aaarrrrrgggghhhhhh :mad:

[Warped Factor]

Thompsonfly,

I think the point I was trying to make has been completely lost. Why tell the pilot to do 160 til 4 in the first place! It's not a question of being able to do it or not - that's a piece of piss especially in a 757! It is the increase in workload given to the pilot by asking him to maintain that 160kts with + and - wshr in turbulence that makes the speedtape etc nearly impossible to read.

As has been mentioned above we use 160 to 4 to maximise the landing rate because our customers, the airlines, want as many a/c going down the approach as possible all the time.

It makes no odds to me what speed you fly, you can do whatever you want and I'll adjust the spacing accordingly, but your companies would very soon suffer the penalties with the reduced landing rates.

Hopefully what we do is a compromise between maximising the landing rates and sensible operation of the a/c. But if at any time you're not happy with what we're requesting say something....we're not psychic.

For my sins I get to do Heathrow approach as well as Gatwick. If conditions allow in strong winds we'll be trying to do 2.5nm spacing on final approach. We can only do that by applying consistent speed control, but again, if anyone is not happy they only need to say something on the r/t (the earlier the better).

Ultimately the problem I suppose is that we're consistently trying to get quarts into pint pots.

You have an open invitation to come in and sit beside me on Gatwick or Heathrow approach to see the operation from our side and why we generally have to do things the way we do.

Oh, yes...what's a bonus?

WF.

[Bob is your uncle!]

Oh, yes...what's a bonus?

That's when you get 49 out of 50 to say perfect spacing in a busy hour :ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

"Thompsonfly" plainly is not a pilot!

[THOMPSONFLY]

Thank you for your replies especially HD! To be honest I only started this thread to get some answers and not abuse.

I was flying into LGW the other night in bad conditions(yes HD I am a pilot and not someone who wanted to be one- I give as good as I get!!!). Five aircraft including ourselves had to do a mandatory go around due to receiving windshear warnings generated by the aircraft. On both approaches the controller at the time was asking for 160 til 4. Three out of five aircraft on the approach told the controller that we were unable to comply. You could hear the frustration in his voice, he asked us what max speed we could do etc. Our reply was 150kts. He then came back and asked us if we could do a litttle bit more and advised us to inform him earlier in future. I should have packed my crystal ball.It's hard to predict what the approach is going to be like until you are on it and after all you do not want to decrease the ever important flow rate.

Being an ex- controller HD, you of all people would know that aircraft are very hard to slow down, the pilots should stabilise the aircraft in the landing config by 1000' agl and that flaps have limit speeds which activate a flap load relief system if exceeded.

If you put the above into context, if you fly 160 til 4 especially in turbulence with +/-20kt shear you will probably bust the flap limit speed (we did) and if you want to slow from 160kts at 4d to your final appr speed, you will have just over half a mile, 300ft or 25secs to do so. Which I consider not safe.

Also,I think that controller workload would have been greatly reduced, if the five aircraft that went around at minimal spacing were not at minimal spacing? As all the aircraft were probably at different weights therefore different clean speeds! We got so many different headings and speeds it was unreal but he did get us down!Thank you.

Coming back to bonuses etc, I was only asking~! Several people at LGW have told me that controllers get bonuses if they meet certain targets. I only ask this as there are incresing amounts of land after's!!!!!

Thank you for your time in replying, it has been helpful.


:uhoh:

[Gonzo]

Thompsonfly,

Just FYI, we get paid a basic, then monthly shift working payment, then instructors get a quartly training payment. That's it. No bonuses, performance related pay or anything. The only thing approaching a bonus we've got in the last few years was a one off £100 (or maybe £150) if one was working on the Millennium New Year's Eve/Day.

Although our new Chief Exec has mentioned he's looking into performace related pay for ATCOs. Bad news we think.

Also,I think that controller workload would have been greatly reduced, if the five aircraft that went around at minimal spacing were not at minimal spacing

True, but then if we don't use minimum spcaing where we can we'd still be landing aircraft constantly at 0200 without the numbers of staff to cope. And it would mean lots of delays everywhere. Now, if airlines want to slash all their scehdules in half so that we can pootle along all day with big spacing, I don't mind, but I don't think it's going to happen.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

I think the key point here is to tell the Intermediate Director if you need a non-standard speed on the approach. This is the first director frequency to which you are transferred. Telling the final director is just too late.

Incedentally, we fly the 757 into Heathrow using 160 to 4dme. The fleet practice is to actually dial the speed back at 4.5dme and start to reconfigure. Because of the effect of inertia, nothing actually changes until you get to 4dme, so we still comply with the "160 to 4", but at least when we get to 4dme the needles are moving in the correct direction!

G W-H

[Dan Dare]

Many controllers add a smidge for a 757 ahead because you slow down so much short final, then the poor bugger behind still gets less than vortex minima and a very late landing clearance. I have often wondered whether the 757 gets its reputation for vortex incidents due to the reduced separation we end up with rather than it being particularly worse than other top-end medium vortex aircraft.

[Gonzo]

Any other drivers out there regualrly reduce speed at 4.5 or 5 miles?

I'm not interested in whether you should or shouldn't do it, but if everyone does it then maybe we ought to thin kabout changing our procedures...

As Dan Dare says, we always sweat when a 757 is followed by a Heavy, as we know it's going to be tight. I'm wondering if it's tight because you slow down at 4.5 or because you're slower, or a combination of the two?

G W-H, would you slow at 4.5 in the 767?

[The Greaser]

Always start the reduction at about 4.5 as do probably 80% of people I fly with.

[LYKA]

speed reduction at 4.5 - Ditto the orange mob at EGSS.

[Brenoch]

Thompsonfly,

I'm just guessing but I would say you flew a 757 the other day and that you were going for a flap30 landing.

Being an ex- controller HD, you of all people would know that aircraft are very hard to slow down, the pilots should stabilise the aircraft in the landing config by 1000' agl and that flaps have limit speeds which activate a flap load relief system if exceeded.

You make it sound like the end of the world if the flap load relief system activates but it's there for that exact purpose.

I've always found it very useful to do flap25 landings in conditions such as the one you describe. The Vref is normally only about 2 knots higher but the limitspeed on flap25 is 190KIAS rather then 162KIAS for flap30. That way you could easily fly in landing configuration from way out if you find the workload too high to change the config at four miles. On top of that the 757 handles alot better in windy/gusty conditions in flap25 config.

Regs

[shlittlenellie]

How about F20 gear up and 160Kts dialled up. At 5nm drop the gear, wind the speed back and F30 at 4nm? The speed runs back and you're in the slot by 1000' - just.

F25 landing on a 757 - I'm interested to hear that it handles better in gusty conditions. F30 always seemed fine to me and is our SOP anyway. At typical landing weights and vref+20, the speed is comfortably below 162Kts. However there will be slightly less ground effect with F25 and less of a tendency to stay in the air after the flare. F25 is useful sometimes as an interim flap setting when the speed isn't coming off (flaps as brakes - surely not).

It's better to avoid having the flap load relief activate. In the 757 F30-F25 destabilises a little but in a 763 F30-F20 will greatly change pitch and thrust and this will all happen around 1000' and then the speed reduces and another destabilisation as landing flap comes out again - not good and particularly not in gusty conditions when the requirements of a stable approach are still there.

[vector4fun]

I dunno, but the 757s I work seem to have no problem at all going from 210 kts gs to 120 kts in about 3 miles on final. That's just going on the radar data. In fact, if I don't control the speeds, the Cessna Caravans hauling freight will outrun the 757 on final.:uhoh:

160 kts on 4 mile final seems pretty tame. Some of the 738s and 739s can't go that slow!

[Warped Factor]

No abuse from here, the offer to come in to TC is genuine....

WF.

[Gonzo]

Likewise, next time you're on a CAT turnaround, come up to the tower!

[Carnage Matey!]

We certainly don't have a problem with 160 to 4 on the wonderbus and our final approach speed can be as low as 120 kts. The only difference is we might start slowing at 4.5d like the others to ensure we're doing 160 kts with the engines at idle as we pass 4d. It's not a problem in turbulence or windshear either, but that could be because Vfe for our landing flap setting is 177 kts! On a slightly similar note over the last few days at LHR I've had two seperate controllers tell me we was getting increased spacing as we were following a 757. Thats a new one on me!

BTW who do I call to visit the tower?

[Scott Voigt]

Thompsonfly;

What you may have heard from someone is that US controllers do get paid by the airplane <G>... We are rated facility wide by both the complexity of the operation as well as the throughput of aircraft... So yes, the faster we get them on and off, and the more we do it with, the more we get paid... I think that you will find in most of Europe it isn't that way.

regards

Scott

[Gonzo]

Carnage Matey, check your PMs.

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Just to reiterate, although we start moving speed bugs (and possibly flaps) at 4.5dme, we do still keep 160kt until 4dme. I wouldn't want someone joining the thread later on to think that we were not abiding by our clearances.

With respect to the 767, there is no hard and fast answer here (no pun intended). Because we operate the 767 over a wide range of weights and because it has different flap limit speeds to the 757, sometimes we need to start dialing things back at 4.5dme and sometimes we can wait until 4dme.

For the technically minded, we take gear down and Flap 20 at 2000' aal (6dme), The flap limit speeds for F20 are 195kt on the 757 and 210kt on the 767. 160kt to 4dme should not be a problem even with the recent high winds. Accuracy will obviously not be to our usual high standard!

A problem might occur when slowing down if the aircraft is very light. A 757 with a 66000kg landing weight will have a Vref of 111kt. With a landing planned at Vref+10 (allowing for a 20kt ish headwind) and a company requirement to try to be stable at 1000' and definitely be stable by 500' (I have paraphrased here), 40kts of slowing down has to occur from 4dme to 3dme. Not impossible, but with gusty winds not helping, potentially challenging.

I suspect vector4fun works in the USA where continuous decent approaches do not seem to be de rigueur. Slowing down when level is obviously considerably more simple than when descending on a 3 degree slope.

At the risk of becoming boring, but since we are talking about windshear and stuff that that. Any TWR controllers at airfields with a low go-around altitude (eg 2000') who might want to know how to help a pilot carrying out a windshear go-around might like to consider calling approach for higher (only if time and workload permit obviously). During a windshear go-around, the aircraft goes up like a lift and 2000' arrives VERY quickly!

Sorry to witter on. Just my views. Yours

G W-H