Final approach speeds

[120.4]

Without wishing to start a bun fight...

Twice in the last two days I have been forced to reposition traffic already established on the final approach, because the traffic ahead has slowed below its assigned speed.

In both cases the lead aircraft was heavy and if a heavy slows down before instructed it will nearly always lead to a loss of votex separation behind it, which we are legally required to resolve. I recently saw a video of an incident where the poor guy lost separation between two aircraft on base leg because he was trying to sort out a loss of vortex spacing on final, caused by traffic slowing down. The Final Director's r/t is often saturated and we don't have time to be doing this!

I like to think that we are sympathetic to your energy management needs and thankfully, it is quite common now for traffic to advise us early of a specific speed requirement. As a general rule we know that B757s are slow inside 4 and that B773s & MD11s are quick; we know that the A319 is slippery and difficult to slow down but if you cannot deliver the assigned speed you have got to tell us.

Heathrow is operating at the limit and this is all the more reason why you must obey the speeds; capacity depends on it.

Finally, for those who are not yet aware, we now get a mode S readout of your Indicated and Ground speeds. If you cheat, we know it is you and not the other guy. I am sorry to be moaning here but I have had enough of it. Tonight I went into paper work over it and from now on, he who slows down goes-around.:{

Please!

.4

[Waldo Pepper]

160 to 4 is always manageable at LHR, when you generally get a long final...180 to 4 can be a problem, but have only been asked for that in Germany.

Just as an aside, my company is pushing for CONF 3 landings on the 320 and 321 as a fuel saving measure...can make for some fast ol' approach speeds with heavy aircraft...I generally advise ATC if it's getting close to 150kts. Limits the potential for embarrassment..;)

[matzpenetration]

As a bus operator at LHR you have my sympathy if a/c cannot maintain assigned speed. If certain airlines are frequent culprits just send a letter to the fleet manager highlighting your concerns and the problems this can cause. Most fleets have regular newsletters and bulletins etc... So hopefully the pilots will get a gentle reminder in one of their communications.

Incidentally, as an aside we often struggle to reduce from 180 - 160 in the 319 and are reluctant to increase drag by using gear or spoilers b/c of noise. If this has happened do you have any issues with us dialling in 150kt when the gear comes down (usually at the 6nm mark) as the a/c is still reluctant to slow but it keeps the thrust at idle for longer and lowers the noise footprint? I only suggest this if we can see that we have started to catch the guy in front by struggling to slow down in the early stages of the approach.

[NigelOnDraft]

.4 - Problem is our SOPs are already designed around "breaking" your 160 to 14 (1410'?). Gear now goes down latest at 1680', and that will govern when you slow from 160K. Add any "comfort factor" in (as some do) and we are defeating your aim.

Why? The airlines are getting more and more sophisticated software in the QARs, tighter SOPs, and we got more b*llockings in fleet magazines and by phone by not adhering e.g. to stable by 1080' - this needs you to slow to Final Speed, and have the power up - which as you say, can be v difficult in a 319 (since there is so much speed to lose).

A letter to the BA office might help, since there are all sorts of rumours about what is acceptable to comply with "160 to 4" e.g. "there's a 10K tolerance" etc. I am not that happy disregarding an instruction on every occasion, so some clarity / agreement would be welcome!

[jondc9]

I know the aviation world is international and as such things are different, when they should be the same.

In the US, Vref+ additive inside the outer marker/FAF is quite normal, especially when IMC.


while I have seen greater speeds, isn't that about standard for you guys. interesting to see that you use a mileage instead of faf.


and the all mighty dollar/pound again with different configurations to save fuel...the marker of landing safety is slow landing speed...oh well.

[Mushroom_2]

I hope Air France read this and take note.
Also, why do one airline (BA) have a problem with 160 to 4 and another (bmi) don't?

[BOAC]

NOD - Gear now goes down latest at 1680', and that will govern when you slow from 160K. - not sure why that affects? Is this some AB thing or a new SOP? At LGW with the 737 I used to take F15 at around 5 miles (obviously with the gear down) and hold the 160 till around 4.2 when drag was available (with slightly early landing flap) to achieve the 'company' SOP. The best I had was a while ago at BRU when they NOTAM'd '160kts to the OM - if you cannot do it you will not land at BRU' - I think that was about 3 miles - and the good old wunderkind BA flt managers did nothing until I said I would be regularly be diverting to the alternate OR breaching SOPs. Then they woke up. :)

As said above, 160 to 4 is not really a problem.

[30W]

NOD,

Endorsing BOAC's comments - just because you put the 'Gear Down' doesn't mean you MUST slow below 160kt! Configure as required before 4d except for final landing flap, but MAINTAIN 160kt to 4d. At 4d reduce and complete landing config. With the gear already down, speed will reduce perfectly well to complete a stabilised approach.

120.4

Was it the same Heavy type on both occasions? It may assist by naming the type as contributors may know of something specific to it that may enlighten the reasons for your experience. I don't operate into LL, but agree with an earlier poster. Please send around the offender, not the follower.......


30W

[luc]

Dear Mushroom 2, I don't know about AF but i am reading it and I happen to fly for AF. What is your problem with AF and final approah speed at LHR???Happy flights.

[Roffa]

A letter to the BA office might help, since there are all sorts of rumours about what is acceptable to comply with "160 to 4" e.g. "there's a 10K tolerance" etc. I am not that happy disregarding an instruction on every occasion, so some clarity / agreement would be welcome!

I think the AIP says someing like "must be flown as accurately as possible", there's certainly no 10 knot tolerance as far as we're concerned.

Just as an aside they've changed the rules for 2.5nm spacing and we're now going to be able to do it much more often than we have in the past. There's no tolerance though and in theory if we get to 2.49nm on the approach we've lost separation and should be suspended and investigated.

So, if you chaps and chappesses keep fiddling with the speeds yourselves and separation gets lost on final, don't be surprised if delays build up quickly because there'll be nobody left available to work...we'll all have been withdrawn/suspended!

[120.4]

A sincere thanks for responding positively.

The two aircraft involved were both B744, one UK based, the other Far Eastern. The UK based one was indicating 145kts at 6nm from touchdown having been given 160kts to 4. The other was indicating 160kts at 9nm having been given 180kts. (As a rule I always slow from 180kts to 160 kts at 8nm [7nm for medium types] unless there is a very strong headwind, as there was last night.)

Later last night, a B757 who had advised me he would be 122kts inside 4nm was still indicating 190kts at 6nm having been given 180kts shortly after leaving BNN; that is some 20nm after being given the speed instruction! Believing he was going to be slow, I had tucked him up slightly tight behind the preceeding and was then embarrassed to find him 2.5nm behind at +30kts! It reduced to 2nm which is the bare minimum before I am unpplugged by the GS.

The issue here is not the particular speed you need to fly, it is that we must know if you are having difficulty complying promptly. The alternative is that we add .5nm to every gap to protect ourselves and then you will spend much more time going around in circles, burning expensive fuel.

MATZP:
I have only recently become aware of how slippery the 319 is; I now look out for them as a matter of course and give 160kts a little earlier. I also tend to give the B757s 160kts to 5nm and make a spacing allowance for the difference. Would that assist the 319s too?

.4

[BOAC]

120.4 - there have been several threads on this topic, including speeds off the hold - 'Search' is a bit slow today so I cannot link to them. However, one of the suggestions was to 'rejig' the ATC parameters and make it '170 to 5' which it was felt would help some of the operators as SOPs tightened up.

[sidtheesexist]

The converse is also a problem surely - i.e. AC slowing down TOO late with the result that preceding landing traffic is then put under pressure to expedite it's runway vacation despite having adhered to the speed constraints! I've experienced this on a number of occasions and it strikes me as tho' certain operators seem to figure more prominently in such events.....

[Callo]

120.4 I think I may have been on finals when this incident happened. The heavy had slowed early and the A/C behind was a 319 which as you said can be difficult to slow down. I overhead you tell them they were doing 180kts to which they replied "we're trying" . As the heavy was mainly at fault why did the tower controller make a smart comment upon landing and roll out to A-10 (A/C behind still 700' agl) "are you having speed control problems" to the 319? Controllers concern is always appreciated but this appeared to be somewhat of a smarmy comment.

Of course runway occupancy should be kept minimal but good SA is also paramount to operations. There isn't always a need to vacate at A9 or earlier so why imply the AC should have vacated earlier. 700' agl leaves plenty of time. By rolling to A10 brake wear is reduced and passenger discomfort is kept to minimum. I hope I have got the wrong end of the stick as Heathrow controllers are always professional and don't resort to being facetious or condescending. If the controller was annoyed then he should have said so. Aside from this keep up the good work.:D

[120.4]

Thanks BOAC

I do remember something about that a number of years ago but it seemed to die a death. As I remember, it was principally aimed at reducing the effect of strong wind conditions on the landing rate. It seems to me the touble might then be that the types that are typically slow once de-restricted may then be slower for longer and as the traffic behind would then be 170kts for longer it may lead to greater catch-up.

I don't feel qualified to give an opinion really but if you feel that it is worth looking at then can it be raised through some mechanism and let's trial it? I know a gentleman (CM) who has done a lot of work with NATS' staff on the mathematics of final approach spacing and speeds.

As Porco has correctly pointed out, with the rule changes for 2.5nm spacing, we cannot leave speed fluctuations unchallenged as they will quickly drop us in the doodoo. And I promise you, the first time somebody does it to me will be the last time; I will flat refuse to do anything less than 3nm.

.4

[Bearcat]

Incidentally, as an aside we often struggle to reduce from 180 - 160 in the 319 and are reluctant to increase drag by using gear or spoilers b/c of noise.


which is more important?....using speed brake to slow for 180 to 160 with insignif noise consequences....or do nothing and grimice and watch the speed painstakingly slow to 160....by that time your at 4 miles......(sometimes even the gear is used if I am high on the CDA) Think about it.

when LHR say slow to 220, 180, 160 what ever.....i proactively do it cause I am keeping my space in the sequence and looking after no.1

[120.4]

Hi Callo

I'm not sure if it was the same incident. The Tower ATCO involved with the UK based B744 is known for his willingness to speak his mind and I do understand his frustration. If we present less than vortex minimums to the Tower ATCO then we are effectly handing him an illegal situation and he is quite within his rights to send the unseparated (cos that's what it is) traffic around.

I'm sure most try to be professional about it but it can be very difficult to hold your tongue. I confess that in the case of the Far Eastern gentleman, I said to him, "Capacity at Heathrow depends on you flying the speeds, Call tower 118.7". I felt a bit bad afterwards, but I hope he understood my point. Anyhow, his ops. section is about to get a letter from NATS about it and I am sure he will understand then!

.4

[IcePack]

Bit of tail waging the dog here.
Not all pilots are of the same caliber.
If a pilot feels safer slowing down as per company SOP's then so be it flight safety is paramount.
Only excuse to not telling ATC is because you can't get a word in edgways.:)

[Gary Lager]

if we can see that we have started to catch the guy in front

Too many people flying around think the TCAS TFC display gives them the necessary information and/or authority to disregard ATC instructions.

Not suggesting you do, matz, but you did sort of bring it to mind. I get very unhappy when chaps I fly with say things like "ooh look we're getting a bit close to the guy in front I'll just slow down a bit", without asking/telling ATC. Admittedly, none have had experience in the LTMA yet but I think this influence of the TFC display has a negative impact on the ATC/pilot 'team' aspect of ops.

I'm sorry it's hassle for you guys in ATC, but please do file that paperwork if you have a problem. In most progressive companies, criticism of this type will be acted on constructively. You may think you're doing us a favour by keeping offically quiet, but that's probably only at the expense of the next group of guys to experience the same problem - maybe with a less successful outcome.

It also avoids the 'no-ones complained so it must be OK' excuse beloved of airline/NATS management.

[Callo]

120.4 as I said I think you guys do a great job in what is easily one of the most challenging airports in the world. I also understand how frustrating it can be when people only half heartedly comply with instructions.

I don't blame the controller at all for venting his anger but I wonder if it was a case of mistaken identity. Who had caused the problem? Also why not just say "do you understand the effect you have by not complying" etc instead of smart, condescending messages. We're a simple bunch who don't like mixed messages. Its just a minor point in what is otherwise a top class operation. (controllers not Heathrow)

[Del Prado]

.4, just be glad you gave up gatwick. I'd say most aircraft are 145/150 IAS at 4dme there.
2 this morning (A330's) slowed to 160kts without being told to. First one I told him of his error then instructed him to maintain the 160 to 4 dme, next time I check his speed he's 140 at 5!

Heathrow had a loss of separation last week with 2 aircraft on base leg caused entirely by the distraction of taking corrective action with an aircraft that slowed early.

You can't even follow a pattern of aircraft types or airlines that are particularly bad, in my experience it comes down to individual crews not following their clearance. Filling in reports isn't the way forward, with our new electronic reporting system it takes me half an hour to file a report, that's my fatigue break. The best way is to reposition the offending aircraft or send it around but it's not always possible when you've traffic close behind.

If 160 to 4 cannot be achieved then we should be talking about bringing in a new standard and accept the inevitably lower movement rates but it's dangerous to be issued and readback a clearance of 160kts to 4 when you have no intention of following it.

[120.4]

DP:

Spot on. We have to resolve this professionally, adjusting the procedures if they are not leaving us sufficient scope.

Callo:

I'm not sure if the Tower have the Mode S readouts that we now get so perhaps they are not always able to tell who the offending party is. Radar derived Ground speed is very inaccurate.

Personally, I hate the idea of emabarrassing anybody on the r/t. I think the paper work route is probably the right way but that seems so official and heavy. As DP points out, these days it takes most of your break.

.4

[BOAC]

Found one of the threads (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15896)

[Gonzo]

We don't have Mode S speed readouts in the tower, only radar derived GS.

Unfortunately, there are one or two ATCOs here who believe that if an aircraft (especially BA short haul for T4) rolls to A10E on 27R then they must be taking the :mad: . The comments regarding "Do you have a tail wind?" or "Do you have a braking problem" are not helpful.

[ray cosmic]

Speedbrakes it is!
That's what they're for! :)

[jumbowanabee]

Generally from 250-220 kts for the hold (eg Ock) that speed usually implies Flaps 1 setting as mnm clean can go up to +235 kts.......

235Kts is a typical clean speed for a B744 at high landing weights. I have frequently requested a higher speed before entering a hold, even up to 240 kts. Providing ATC know it is not a problem. There has never been occasion when such a request was refused. This may not be the case at other airports such as EGKK. The argument regarding an inability to advise ATC is without foundation. There are plenty of occasions before becoming established when you are able to advise of your operational requirements. Tag it onto the end of a readback. There is no excuse for accepting a clearence and then knowingly not comply with it. You wouldn't cross the NAT tracks at .84 when your clearence is .86. Is there no flexibility on SOP's? Our company SOP is to cruise at ECON speed. If ATC request a specific speed then I will do my best to comply. If your Company SOP is to put the gear down and flap XX and fly the required bug speed at a specific point then frankly there is no hope!!!

[loubylou]

Bit of tail waging the dog here.
Not all pilots are of the same caliber.
If a pilot feels safer slowing down as per company SOP's then so be it flight safety is paramount.
Only excuse to not telling ATC is because you can't get a word in edgways.:)

You are quite right Ice Pack - however
It is speed control and not speed advice - no pilot would dream of stopping climb or descent at a different level to the clearance issued without reference to ATC, or deviate from a heading without reference - so why do crews feel that they can fly whatever speed they wish to without advising ATC?
No controller would refuse you the speed you want - but you have to tell us
Otherwise the one aircraft you are flying is nicely adhering to company SOP's for YOUR flight safety - but what about the aircraft behind you that is no longer separated and potentially getting vortex wake off your aircraft - and no longer in the comfort zone of safe flight

We can only achieve minimum spacing if we have all the information available, otherwise - as one post said there will less folk who will be prepared to vector to minimum spacing.
At a place like Heathrow anyone who works there could imagine the knock on affect that will have - and the reason for the increase in spacing? - Flight Safety is paramount :ok:

louby
(off the soap box :p )

[NigelOnDraft]

30W - just because you put the 'Gear Down' doesn't mean you MUST slow below 160kt! Configure as required before 4d except for final landing flap, but MAINTAIN 160kt to 4d. At 4d reduce and complete landing config. With the gear already down, speed will reduce perfectly well to complete a stabilised approach. You have obvously never flown a A319 and have to comply with BA's "stable by 1000'" criteria ;)

I have flown in and out of LHR for nearly 12 years. I can confidently state I have never flown 160 to 4D, nor have ever seen anyone do so. It maybe BA only, but we ALL slow up early - we have to (usually slow from 160K ~4.5d - 5d). 120.4 is raising a valid point that what ATC expect, and our SOPs are not compatible... and Mode S and whatever changes are inbound to LHR will highlight these differences, and something will have to change...

You should not be in a position where every approach requires speedbrake to comply with a profile... apart from it destabilising the approach, the tree huggers would rightly jump up and down :ugh:

[120.4]

It is beginning to sound like the requirements of modern aircraft and the ATC system have got out of sync. ATC precedures that require air crew to fly outside SOPs are not acceptable. If that is the current position, as NOD seems to suggest, then we need to look again at the whole issue of speed on final but the cost could likely be a drop in capacity.

.4

[BOAC]

120.4 is raising a valid point that what ATC expect, and our SOPs are not compatible- 3 solutions, then?

1) ASR (MOR?) saying that you cannot comply with ATC requirements due to company SOPs
2) Notify ATC on every check-in with director of same
3) ATC change to 170 to 5 or something BA can hack.

In 'days of old', 1000' was a 'review point', and 500' was the 'decider'. Has that changed?

[NigelOnDraft]

In 'days of old', 1000' was a 'review point', and 500' was the 'decider'. Has that changed?Still essentially the same, except the 1000' is being leaned on more. At one stage we had to ASR each time we were not stable at 1000' ! Use of speedbrake <1000' gets you a b*llocking, and if anything else happens, and they find you not stable by 1000'... then the words "poor" seem to crop up in the Fleet Mag writeup, and an invitation to contribute to the next edition ;)
Don't get me wrong, I am often not quite sorted by 1000', and take your attitude above. However, as I said above, we should not have an SOP and ATC requirement that are not compatible... and where a Training System specifcally tells you what "160 to 4D" is to be interpreted as ;)

[Carnage Matey!]

I have flown in and out of LHR for nearly 12 years. I can confidently state I have never flown 160 to 4D, nor have ever seen anyone do so.

Are you sure about that NoD? I flew the 319 for 5 years (perhaps including a tour with you) and 160 to 4 is achievable unless you are very light (in which case I always mentioned the Vapp to Director). It requires flap 3 and the gear down with the power up then a judicious timing of the managed speed selection at somewhere between 4.5 - 4d so that the engines go to idle and you cross 4d with the speed at 160kts but the green arrow pointing down. Granted this was tricky when the engines had to be at power at 1000ft but once that requirement was removed and idle power at 1000ft was permissible it became a doddle.

which is more important?....using speed brake to slow for 180 to 160 with insignif noise consequences....or do nothing and grimice and watch the speed painstakingly slow to 160....by that time your at 4 miles......

Have you flown an A319? Using the speedbrake at 180kts produces a lot of noise, an uncomforable nose down pitching moment and does absolutely nothing to your speed. The only thing that slows an A319 effectively below 200kts is the gear.

[Jerricho]

I think the AIP says someing like "must be flown as accurately as possible", there's certainly no 10 knot tolerance as far as we're concerned.

All the books over here state the +/- 10 knot tolerance, so I'm guessing it's probably a splash over from that.

[411A]

IcePack is correct...tail wagging the dog, and whinging from ATC.
The aircraft Commander decides what speed to fly on final (within reason) and he should absolutely NOT be put in a position of ignoring or violating his companies laid down procedures, just because an air traffic controller can't do his job properly.

Now, I have flown into LHR for many years in the past, and indeed have had the pleasure of doing so in a very versatile aeroplane...TriStar.
160 to 4, no problem, nor is 180 to 4.
Tell me the speed, I fly the speed.
However, some other designs clearly are not so versatile, SO it is up to ATC to make accomodations.
IF they cannot, they should find another job.

If, on the other hand, ATC cannot for some reason accomodate, then airline companies should be told they must shift their scheduled service somewhere else.

[zkdli]

Hello Chaps,
Very interesting! Am I understanding this. A lot of pilots are saying that they are knowingly not complying with mandatory ATC instructions and are knowingly endangering aircraft that are following them AND they are not advising ATC that they cannot/will not comply with an ATC instruction, contrary to the ANO/UKAIP.:)
How would you feel in an A319 if the B747 in front of you did that and we did not notice as you hit its vortex wake at 1,000ft?:)

[Jerricho]

Wow 411A, talk about missing the point in a huge way :rolleyes:

A Heathrow bod remind me.........was it BA or BMI when they got those shiny new 737s that were requesting 170kts to 4 DME (something to do with extending the gear on final)? Thing is, they would ask on first contact and you could plan for it (they didn't ask for it all the time)

The issue being discussed is fluctuations in speed without informing ATC. If it can't be done or something different is required, say someting and it can be planned (there's that word again) for. Nobody is looking to push anyoone outside of SOPs or performance envelopes, just trying to play the game together. I think you'll find those controllers "who can't do their jobs properly" may surprise you.......or pull your ass out of the sequence to be repositioned for dropping the controller and the guy following in the s***.

[BOAC]

Jerricho - the 170 to 5 request was due to the change by Boeing to 737 'Classic and Jurassic' min flap speeds which meant that whereas 'before', 160kts could be flown 'gear up', now it needs gear down. The 'NG' can manage without. Its all on the other thread.

NOD - we used to manage in the 'Jurassic' 737 with Vref as low as 118kts!

In the case I mentioned at BRU I ASR'd it and asked for 'advice' on how the company wanted me to fly the approach. Pure coincidence, I know, but shortly after that BRU dropped the requirement.:)

A colleague of yours on another thread mentions the managers trousering large bonuses. Why not get them to earn a bit of them? If they 'chide' you for your 1000' performance ask them how you SHOULD fly it.

In any case, slowing to 150 at 5D makes very little difference to spacing - work it out guys.:ok: The original post here was about apparent blatant disregard for ATC speed control.

[Carnage Matey!]

The 319 is most unlikely to catch the 747 given their different handling characteristics. I've flown both so I know. I've also experienced reduced seperation and the answer is to proceed with caution. Just because you're a bit close doesn't mean you are going to fall out of the sky.

[Gonzo]

Some assumptions on this thread are worrying.

Porco Rosso,

Just as an aside they've changed the rules for 2.5nm spacing and we're now going to be able to do it much more often than we have in the past.

Not sure what you guys have been told, but this is certainly not the case. The rules have been changed so as to, in effect, 'legalise' the situations where FIN has aimed for 3 and got anywhere between 2.5 and 3. The inbound spacing to LL will still be 3 miles, whereas separation can now legally be anything down to 2.5 miles. The rules on when we adopt 2.5 miles spacing have not changed.

120.4, anytime you want to refuse doing 2.5 is fine by me!!! :ok:

411A, you're coming down the ILS at 160 to 4 in your lovely old L1011, as instructed, with a medium 5 miles behind you, and an A320 now about 2.5 miles in front of you which has just reduced back to 120kts at 6 miles rather than 4 without telling us. Please tell us all how we can 'accomodate' that to your satisfaction

[GlueBall]

120.4 "...As a general rule we know that B757s are slow inside 4 and that B773s & MD11s are quick; we know that the A319 is slippery and difficult to slow down..."

...OK, but keep in mind that Vref [approach speed] for any airplane can vary, depending upon landing weight; in the case of a 74, Vref can vary in excess of 35Kts. :ooh:

[Right Way Up]

There seems to be two issues here. One regards the crews who are slowing slightly before 4nm to be stable at 1000' AGL. The other regards the crews who slow down miles before they should without advising ATC. The latter crews seem to be the problem. Personally in the London TMA even if I am given no speed control I will advise ATC of any significant change of speed. For the former issue I've worked out some figures on the back of a fag packet. An aircraft starting to decelerate 0.5nm early the aircraft will arrive at the runway 2 secs later will effectively be 100m further back and 20 ft higher. IMVHO this does not seem to be enough to really effect separation.

[NigelOnDraft]

CM Are you sure about that NoD? I flew the 319 for 5 years (perhaps including a tour with you) and 160 to 4 is achievable unless you are very light (in which case I always mentioned the Vapp to Director). It requires flap 3 and the gear down with the power up then a judicious timing of the managed speed selection at somewhere between 4.5 - 4d so that the engines go to idle and you cross 4d with the speed at 160kts but the green arrow pointing down. Granted this was tricky when the engines had to be at power at 1000ft but once that requirement was removed and idle power at 1000ft was permissible it became a doddle.Don't know what "rules" (FCOs) you have? But I see no removal of the requirement to have Approach power set at 1000' :confused: Also, tail wagging dog again - so to comply with ATC's requirements you purposefully bung all the drag out early (F3, gear) so creating noise and wasting fuel. We now have a gear down ~1600' at 160K procedure for noise / fuel, and one should take flap when one "needs to" (approaching min speed for flap), not using Flaps as Drag ;)
However, some other designs clearly are not so versatile, SO it is up to ATC to make accomodationsIt is not the "design" that is the problem.... it is the paranoid attitude of the Airline Managers about everthing being absolutely sorted prior 1000', and having the tools to pursue you when you are not :rolleyes:

We can all devise clever "tricks", some amounting to poor airmanship / fuel wasting / noisy, and "just crack" the 160 to 4D and 1000' stable. We are not talking about "clever pilots" on a "good day". We are talking SOPs, for all pilots, on all days. 160K to 4D and truly stable by 1000' are, IMHO, incompatible - hence the thread. One will have to give....

[lamina]

Without wanting to tell anyone how to suck eggs, give this a go, even in a very light ac-
On 319 160 Conf2, at 4.4nm push managed, gear down conf 3 conf Full. You will cross 4d within a couple of knots of 160, but crucially thrust idle. Fully stable at 1000agl. Variables in ambient conditions will have to be considered when pushing managed (tailwind, high temp etc). Bottom line is dont let thrust spool up within 5 nm i.e. putting gear down with speed selected 160 which has the effect as far as I'm concerned of destabilising the approach!.
I've found it best to include this in my brief, otherwise p2 gets a spasm in their left hand:)

[rocketfun]

There are plenty of occasions before becoming established when you are able to advise of your operational requirements. Tag it onto the end of a readback.

Flying a 744 with a landing wt of 302.0 tonnes means a Vref of 158kts and a Vvat of 163 min or as much as 170kts. Makes 160 to 4nm and then slow down hard to do so we just tell the ATC bods nice and early and they are as pleased as punch at a bit of prior warning. Also I always nominate the turn off I expect to take so as to make their job a bit easier. It's a two thing you know and NO excuse for not knowing or being able to let them know. It was all talked about in the briefing so let ATC know asap.

[Carnage Matey!]

CM Don't know what "rules" (FCOs) you have? But I see no removal of the requirement to have Approach power set at 1000' :confused: Also, tail wagging dog again - so to comply with ATC's requirements you purposefully bung all the drag out early (F3, gear) so creating noise and wasting fuel. We now have a gear down ~1600' at 160K procedure for noise / fuel, and one should take flap when one "needs to" (approaching min speed for flap), not using Flaps as Drag ;)


Nige - not sure where it'll be quoted now (no longer on the fleet) but the removal of the 1000 approach power set requirement on the 'bus was made by FCN several years ago specifically in response to the inability of the A319 to achieve the 160 to 4 requirement and approach power at 1000. I believe DW may have been the author of said FCN. Maybe its slipped from common knowledge but the rules defintely changed, in no small part due to agitation from those of us who'd been flying the minibus since it arrived in BA. I don't see a problem in using a high drag approach to comply with ATCs requirements at LHR. We fly the aircraft suboptimally all the time, with controlled rate of descents instead of dirty dives near MSA, slowing down and dirtying up early only to find we're being dragged in low and slow (FRA springs to mind) and all manner of other scenarios. We do it because it's in our corporate interests to make LHR work, and if you ask the managers if they'd prefer to save a splash of fuel at the expense of reducing the landing rate at LHR I think I know what the answer will be.

[M.Mouse]

Why can BA not make an exception at LHR where we have a lower height at which we must be fully configured and stabilised. The reason for the slightly conservative BA numbers was/is to keep a firm grip on the avoidance of rushed or high energy approaches.

At LHR due to the clockwork precision and consistency of the controlling this is never an issue. Therefore an exception could be safely accommodated.

I notice that the 411a has to add his standard (and tedious) format comments which seem rich coming from a resident of a country where I have experienced more cockeyed, uncoordinated, impossible to achieve and sometimes downright dangerous ATC controlled approaches than possibly anywhere else in the world.

[NigelOnDraft]

MM... oh come on :eek: BA Mgmt and commonsense in the same sentance... whatever next :ugh:

[120.4]

411a

I am not known for rising to the bait on these forums but, by golly, you are driving me close. You are absolutely right... That is the whole point of the thread: I cannot do my job properly (which is to safely squeeze every ounce out of Heathrow's miserley two runway infrastructure) when air-crew do not fly the instructed speeds or advise me if they are not able to.

Please note: I am not critizising aircrew for not being able to fly the speeds but rather for telling that they will and then not doing it. That action puts me outside the law and is in danger of getting me suspended when I am already operating at minimum spacing. If the SOPs are no longer up to air-crew requirements then we must change the SOPs and accept the loss in capacity.

We operate ATC at Heathrow with a pen and the Mark 1 eyeball. We have no tools to help us. Could YOU judge when to slow down to give exactly a 2.5nm gap, when the lead aircraft in any pair crosses 4DME, with a 30kt crosswind so that one is seeing a tailwind and the other a headwind at the point they turn in, when one aircraft is a slow B757 and the other a fast A319 ... WHEN THE AIR CREW WON'T FLY THE SPEED YOU GIVE THEM ANYWAY??? AND KNOWING THAT IF YOU GET IT 0.1NM TIGHT YOU ARE ANSWEREING TO SRG?:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:



There, I 've don it, I have finally lost my rag over this.

By the way, the UK AIP is clear, there is NO tolerance on final approach speeds - they must be flown as accurately as possible.

Sorry :O :O

.4

[jondc9]

dear 120.4


you have really started something here and I think it is a good thing.

While I have never been to England, certainly KORD must qualify as a busy airport with demanding speed control.

I was flying as copilot to a complete arse of a captain. we were told to do 160 knots to a certain point and we acknowledged same...

the captain slowed to 145 knots and boy was ATC yelling.

threats to take us off the final etc.


I asked the captain why he didn't speed up...he said: I am stable now and don't plan to change my power setting.

There are actually pilots who believe they must not touch the throttles once stable...more power, faster, yes you might have to retrim and put the nose down a bit to keep the glide slope.

Part of this is training. I had a checkout one time in a piper, I was the instructor and had another CFI getting checked out to fly a T tail turbo lance. He asked me what power setting to use on final...I told him it changes with conditions, mainly wind, but why not start with about 17inchess of MAP.

there we were on final, getting lower and lower on the GS and I asked him what he planned to do (again, this chap had a cfi commercial instrument)...HE told me that I WAS WRONG AND THAT 17 inches of MAP would not hold the glide slope ( very high winds down the runway).

I was in shock...here was someone who didn't know enough to add power...this chap is now a captain for a major airline.

DEAR 120.4...sometimes pilots are simply not familiar enough to be too precise with planes...modern airliners of course have a great amount of automation which should allow people to fly within 1 knot of assigned speed...but

is it clarification? is it something you say in your clearance? maybe say...maintain 160 knots to 3 mile final and NOT ONE KNOT LESS till then.

emphasis mine

I will take flack for this, but there are some marginal pilots out there...others are quite good but stubborn about bumping up the throttles...FUEL EFFICENY don't you know.

And some controllers just accept as fact that planes are slippery etc. well, they can all pretty much do 160 knots on final...but some pilots won't want to use more flaps etc.

I wish you luck and perhaps an all users meeting with pilots and controllers might help.

And yes, that 737 flap/rudder stuff did muck things up a bit...so put out more flaps and gear and yes you might have to add power just like my checkout student was so reluctant to do.


good luck

jon

[FullWings]

120.4: I feel your pain!

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that under normal circumstances, i.e. no tailwind, icing, etc. I can't see why any aircraft shouldn't follow the 220/180/160 regime on approach to LHR, if they use all the aerodynamic devices available to them. If they genuinely are not able (Vat>160, for instance) then they should inform ATC at the earliest opportunity.

As BOAC says, 160 to 5 isn't going to make a significant difference but 160 instead of 180 for several miles is.

If I was doing an instrument rating and didn't fly ATC instructed speeds, I would fail - simple as that. What's the problem in real life? (Quickly dons fireproof jacket ;) )

[terrain safe]

Reading this thread is very interesting. Having it based on LL is good but it can (and should) be widened to all airports where AC are given speeds to fly. At a certain airport to the north of London some operators are well known for not flying the correct speed. They are asked for what speed they are flying and the reply is usually "coming back to 160 'til 4" so you ask what is your speed now? and then you are told 180.

WHY???

You know that they have been told a speed to fly but they seem to think it is optional, when it is an instruction like any other. If you can't fly it, tell everyone, and it will be accommodated but blatantly ignoring it causes much more workload to everyone including that AC. Basically I think that MORs are going to be filed before anything changes, but as stated before that is my break used up before I return to the fray.

These speeds are for everyone's benefit so lying and not complying really isn't a good idea. Please try and comply and if not tell us.

Thank you to all the pilots who help us make this crazy system work. :ok:

[late developer]

120.4 and others ... sorry if I am talking out of the back of my hat, but I couldn't help noticing the coincidence of ATC experiencing problems with unexpectedly slow aircraft last night and the (moved) post about mountain waves in the London area also last night (which apparently can have the effect of slowing down aircraft TMG unexpectedly). Could the two be linked?

On the general question of pushing tin to the limits, I have to say I am uncomfortable with any NATS management culture that has allowed commercial pressure to have any place uppermost in a controller's mind whilst operating. And I am not sure I like the idea of some controllers standing up and saying enough is enough and many others not doing the same. Where is the self-regulation above individual level?

Using a mark one eyeball and a pen to run the Heathrow show in 2006 is a scarey enough thought without suggestion that hairy concepts like "ATC is expected to manage separations to optimise airline fuel savings" are in play.

I am also slightly surprised at how many pilots might still be learning how to stay in front of their type, but it's heartening to see some well-positioned gurus able to point the way;)

[fmgc]

I am totally amazed that so many of you (pilots) can not manage 160 to 4 under normal circumstances.

It may not be so eco friendly or quiet, but if that is what ATC ask you to do then it is not rocket science to do it.

Do management really give you a hard time if you have to drop the gear a mile early? I don't think so, and if they do just say that you had to in order to comply with ATC speed requirements.

411A, your comments show that you have no understading of the current industry. The skies are WAY too crowded for the prima donna pilot who will "only fly the speed I want to fly" just through sheer obstinance.

[Bearcat]

yawn o friggin brawna....if you cant comply frig off else where....what a bunch of wooozies even on your 744s. If your vref is is 164...tell em at OCK...BNN ...LAM wherever...they'll accom you....there paid to....they dont guard the gates of heaven....they are normal folk and their remit is to cram....

Talk to them......they'll talk to you....piss them off ..they'll eat you...talk early to sort you.

Just like NY.


Ze Bear

[Anotherflapoperator]

I think the gist of 411A's comments were that he was glad he flew a type that had good healthy performance at slow speed and not one of the modern types being moaned about.

That airport North of London, hmm. I can understand the attitude of some pilots, I know the approach is operated by West Drayton, and that the controllers on duty may work other approach duties too, but giving 160 to 4 then handing over to tower who clears you to land right away tends to make a mockery compared to KK for example, (my other daily grind) where I stick rigidly to the speeds given and you can see the traffic departing and lining up long after I pass 4 miles DME.

Like 411A, my olde worlde 146 is more than able to fly 160 to 4 easily at whatever weight, but since we were assimilated by the Borg the management have also made us do this at Flap18 gear down, when we always came into LL with flap24 and gear up until 4 miles. Unstable? B00ll0cks is it.

Anyway, thanks Willie for kicking us out, we'll soon be able to fly 250 below 10K again! Yippee! Can't wait.

That fancy Mode s, good innit? 120.4, do you get anything useful like that from 146 squawks or just the basic stuff downlinked?

[Dunhovrin]

Slightly Off-topic: With tighter spacing I find intensely annoying when someone checks in on Tower with their life story just as you're passing 280' and the bloke ahead has just cleared and Tower are about to give you landing clearance. How about callsign only with Tower as well?

And get bloody Beeline to learn to talk short and sharp.

Also: When we exit why don't Tower tell us to take A or B taxiway*? At least we can keep rolling that way and clear the runway proper like.

(*- Apologies to theose perverts who turn Left off 27L)

Hmm - letter to Chirp on the way I think.

[ok1]

A little more off-topic:
Just wondering if it'd help in any way to squawk Vref from the FMC on the next generation of transponders. That could give you some idea of the deceleration from 180/160 as well. Or there's already too much stuff on the labels?

[120.4]

Flapo

Nothing like that off the 146 I 'm afraid, I'm pretty sure they are all elementary Mode S only. But then again quite a number of the Buses are as well.


.4

[120.4]

OK1

Yes, it may well do. I don't think we would use it directly but aim to incorporate it into ATC tooling. If we had a useable final director support tool it would ideally advise ATC when to slow each aircraft to their preferred final approach speed so that it would cross 4DME at the optimum spacing for its weight.

In the case of a B773 (fast) following a B757 (slow) we would then know when to slow the former to achieve optimum runway performance with minimal risk of a go-around. I believe that 26 parameters are downlinked at the moment but I don't know if Vref is one of them. (I often ask, especailly from B757s.) Anybody else know?

Only any good of course if all air-crew deliver it.

May I take this moment to say that on the majority of occasions when you select the Mode S IAS you do see a line of 160s going down the approach, certainly within 1 or 2 kts.... but it only takes one to get suspended.

.4

[Gonzo]

Anotherflapoperator:

The benefit to Tower of you doing 160 to 4 even if it's quiet is that it's standard, and Tower knows you'll be coming down at 160 to 4. Thus he doesn't have to co-ordinate either 'standard' speeds or 'own' speeds for every inbound individually. It helps to know in case he gets one departure he might be able to squeeze away. Far easier to judge when he knows what speeds you'll be flying down the approach.

Dunhovrin:
Also: When we exit why don't Tower tell us to take A or B taxiway*? At least we can keep rolling that way and clear the runway proper like.

Because there is no way Arrivals could co-ordinate every single inbound with GMC. When it's going ape, even GMC doesn't know which way you'll be going until he's on the R/T to you. Yes, we try and sort it out if it's a possible go-around, or if there'll be a gridlock if you come off at one particular exit, but Arrivals just doesn't have the picture of what's going on in GMC to decide. And personally, as GMC, I'd look unkindly on someone deciding where my a/c were going for me. If you can't get in on the R/T, move fully off the runway onto A, but then stop and keep your options open. I was stitched up big time the other day by an A319 coming off short from 27R, turning left on A without talking to me, abeam a company push from stand 101. What he hadn't seen was a Cathay 747 being towed towards him. I had to get the 747 to reverse back. Lucky he was being towed! :}

[Airbus Unplugged]

When Mode S was introduced, I wondered how long it would be before we had the first ‘Why did you touch that button? event.

Operating in and out of LHR can be the most frustrating experience, those of us who have to do it often bear the scars. The issue of speed management on final approach is complex though, and we would be wise not to dismiss it lightly.

Finals 27R is not the M25, we don’t drop the clutch, shift up a gear and slow to 40 every time the cash-cow-cameras change their minds. Bear in mind that the aircraft in ‘the tube’ are all different. Some are heavy, some light, some with GS mini function, some like the 757 might be doing 90kts inside 4, some have different high lift configuration, some need extra drag, some might need that last few moments of low drag to avoid a low fuel event.

Your mode S updates once a scan, and you might catch a 747 whilst he’s experiencing a 20kt gust. Because of inertia, the aircraft stays where it was whilst the ASI reads +20kts. That won’t happen on a 320, but his ASI will vary according to GS mini when managed speed is selected for landing.

If that sounds confusing, then good. It shows that this business is a panoply of operational problems and compromises. No-one operates in and out of Heathrow with intent to bust the limits. We try our very best to play the hand we’re dealt.

If the beancounters have just leant on you to pack ‘em in tighter, tell them from me to poke off.

If we wind the spring at LHR any tighter, someone’s going to get hurt.:=

[Roffa]

Some assumptions on this thread are worrying.
Porco Rosso,
Not sure what you guys have been told, but this is certainly not the case. The rules have been changed so as to, in effect, 'legalise' the situations where FIN has aimed for 3 and got anywhere between 2.5 and 3. The inbound spacing to LL will still be 3 miles, whereas separation can now legally be anything down to 2.5 miles. The rules on when we adopt 2.5 miles spacing have not changed.


Gonzo, this has been sold to us as a change in procedure partly to tie up with what actually happens in practice but also to increase the envelope when 2.5nm can be used.

Take a look at the opening paragraph of our SI if you can get hold of it.

As for the tail wagging the dog. I don't try and do 2.5nm, or even 3nm spacing, for fun. I do it because that is what is required to to keep the airlines happy at a capacity constrained airport.

If one part of the airline industry is demanding maximum landing rate every hour of the day and another part of the same industry is saying we can't fly the required profile then the airlines need to sit down and agree exactly what is acceptable to them and what isn't then tell us in a co-ordinated fashion.

[PhoenixRising]

There's no reason why 99% of the aircraft going into Heathrow can't maintain 160 to 4d and still meet the stabilised by 1000' radio criteria. It really irks me when I see people reluctant to use ALL available means, be it flight controls (yes, speed brakes are a flight control) or gear to comply with ATC speed requests, especially in places like Heathrow where it is critical. Flying the aircraft in an efficient and economic manner is not the name of the game on finals to Heathrow. So get over yourself and use the whatever it takes to comply. With the Airbus, configured to CONF 3, Gear Down, 160 Kts selected, manage speed inside 4.5d, take CONF Full and all is well by 1000' radio every time. There is no excuse. The only way you won't be stable by 1000' radio is if you are a regular Chuck Yeager doing a glide approach who can't handle the shame of having the gear out a few miles earlier than he would like or god forbid the speed brakes.

[411A]

Actually, Phoenix, 'tis the Commanders choice, whether he wants to comply...or not.
Of course, if he can not (or will not) and can get a word in edgewise (somethimes difficult) he absolutely should, no doubt about it.
It is the controllers job to provide the separation, plain and simple, anyway he can.
IF speed doesn't do it, then sending an aeroplane around from time to time is certainly within his/her perogative...as it should be.
You must understand that certain airlines have rather rigid standard procedures, and especially if a (for example) new First Officer is being trained, the line training Captain is going to darn well see to it that these SOP's are complied with.
If the price is going around from time to time, or holding a bit longer, so be it.
And speaking of going around, this may well only affect a few, who continually plan to uplift absolute minimum fuel at departure, thereby possibly embarassing themselves once they arrive in the London TMA.
For these, I can only say...its your own damn fault.:ugh:
Tough beans.

120.4, don't lose your rag over this whole affair, just send the malcontents around from time to time, and ignore the complaints.
Hey, the young co-jocks need the flying time anyway.

[FullWings]

'tis the Commanders choice, whether he wants to comply...or not.
In itself that statement is true. Commanders have the choice to ignore (or not) ATC instructions at any time. Whether this is a wise thing to do when those instructions are for the maintenance of separation is quite another matter. If ATC say "Turn right heading 300 degrees, descend 3,000 feet" and the Commander decides that he'd rather go left and climb to 5,000' and that brings him into direct conflict with another aircraft, then he'd better start getting ready for the inquiry. And obtain his own tea and biscuits.

I think PhoenixRising has said it all in a concise manner a few posts ago.

[anotherthing]

Airbus Unplugged

A quick query as you have me confused; I hope I do not confuse you with the first paragraph of my query due to the wording ;)

Our Mode S shows the IAS that you have selected. Obviously as you slow down with inertia, the IAS in our Mode S will tick down til it gets to the required setting (much the same way as when we tell you to fly a heading.... you select the heading but our mode S follows your compass round until it hits the requested heading).

I was of the opinion that a gust of wind as you mentioned would not change the IAS reading, it merely changes your True Air Speed and ground speed, therefore, we can tell if you are at 160 by 4 dme because that is what your IAS readout should say. If you are established at 160kts and you experience a 20kt gust, does this cause the IAS to change??

Surely if that is the case, then when we ask you to do a set speed when you are farther out i.e. 290kts surely your mode S readout would show us what you were doing with regards to the wind i.e. if you had a 50kt tail wind, it would show up on our radar as speed of 340kts.

Just wondering really, because this does not happen with mode S.. we can see what (IAS) speed you are flying at that point in time (or radar update point), as well as the ground speed, which is the resolution of IAS to TAS to GS. Wind variations do not show up on the IAS part of our mode S readout.

[Carnage Matey!]

I was of the opinion that a gust of wind as you mentioned would not change the IAS reading, it merely changes your True Air Speed and ground speed, therefore, we can tell if you are at 160 by 4 dme because that is what your IAS readout should say. If you are established at 160kts and you experience a 20kt gust, does this cause the IAS to change??

In the 744 we are not even presented with TAS information, only IAS. If we are established at 160kts and experience a 20kt +ve gust then yes, the IAS will rocket up to 180kts, then back down to 160kts when the gust passes. I'm not sure I understand what information your mode S readout is presenting you with. Is it the target speed we have selected (but not necessarily yet achieved) or is it the instantaneour IAS the aircraft is currently at?

[sarah737]

A couple of months ago on final app in BRU we catched up a plane who was 20kts slower than instructed. The controller told him: " ... go around, I will vector you again with more space behind you"

[late developer]

Now that IS tail wagging dog!

[Weirdo Earthtorch]

CM: it's instantaneous IAS as reported by mode S from that particular radar sweep, not the target IAS. This is as opposed to selected flight level which is the SFL from your MCP. http://www.levelbust.com/articles/mode_s.htm has some pertinent info.

@.4 if you catch the lack of speed compliance early enough, sometimes a quick 'xxx123 report your speed' is enough. Responses (when supposed to be at 180 and clearly going slower) have varied from 'xxx123 one-eight- er... one seven, oh we're one sixty' to the blatant 'xxx123 we're at one-eighty, and we have a problem with one of our airspeed indicators'. :hmm: <Pause> . 'xxx123....Roger'.

As stated by others, different speed requirements will be accommodated, however we need to know about it first. Otherwise, the tight margins can be eroded very quickly.

Cheers W.E.

[Rananim]

I agree that speed control is vital in busy TMA's.When VMC,you can forego the profile to get the target speed.A lot of todays pilots dont know how to do this because:
a)they're SOP- fixated
b)they cant fly without an AP
c)they cant re-programme the MCP in a timely fashion to ensure speed gets priority over profile(thus keeping AP engaged)

Over-reliance on automation and SOP-fixation in busy TMA's lead to screw-ups.Examples:
a)You hear inexperienced pilots asking busy TMA's for descent because their VNAV profile is making them all panicky.ATC tells you when to descend!
b)Pilots ignoring the last assigned speed because their SOP says that they should be at some other speed
c)Pilots taking off with incorrect lateral nav data(probably after a late rwy/SID change)and blithely selecting LNAV and engaging the AP and watching the a/c turn the wrong goddamn way..they dont know anything else but the magenta track and so thats what they do.
d)Pilots selecting VNAV and then watching the aircraft level off at 3000' when you've been cleared to 5000'.
e)Pilots following a 757 3 behind and not doing their own vortex separation(keep high)..they cant fly without AP so the aircraft maintains glide and flies right into the wake.

If the only way to control speed is extra drag then use it as Phoenix suggested.Good God we can take the gear at 20 miles if we have to but its lousy airmanship.Speedbrake is ineffective at low speeds and is often limited by flap setting anyways.

If IMC,then profile is as critical as speed control and you've gotta do what it takes.

[BOAC]

It seems to me that we are getting sidetracked from the original post - and I am guilty of that too.

It would appear that BA SOPs conflict with 160 to 4. This is an issue for BA to sort out, not ATC. If it requires 170 to 5 or whatever, then BA should push for it - moaning here will not do it. The rest of us can cope. In any case even an instant speed reduction from 160k to 150k at 5d instead of 4D makes, I think, a difference of about 200ft in separation - which is lost in the mists of Vref spread anyway.

The major issue is total non-compliance. Short of actually executing pilots like 411A, the only solution is for ATC to begin formal reporting. The on-board data recorders will show the companies whether it was so.

[late developer]

... In any case even an instant speed reduction from 160k to 150k at 5d instead of 4D makes, I think, a difference of about 200ft in separation ...I beg to differ, BOAC, by my calculations:

"Slow" Aircraft A is 150kts at 5DME and, at that speed in still air (2.5nm per minute) will take 24 secs to reach 4DME.

Aircraft B behind, travelling at 160kts will travel 1.067nm in the same 24 secs.

The reduced separation of 0.067nm is approximately 400 feet not 200 feet?

Your 200 feet would I think be the correct answer assuming a linear speed reduction by Aircraft A from 160 to 150kts between 5DME and 4DME not an instantaneous one at 5DME.

I accept your 'instant speed reduction' is not real, but I suggest a single nautical mile of the final approach i.e. 24 seconds is not a very long time period to be analysing as fully "containing" or bounding the problem scenario. I am NOT a PP so I could be very wrong when I say that I guess the problem begins earlier. If that is the case, multiples of 400 feet every 24 secs soon eats into safe separation even if everyone else in the sky has nailed it as instructed.

I have treble-checked my maths and have hit Submit and now stand meekly to be corrected:8 :\

[BOAC]

Dunces cap on and standing in the corner!

[issi noho]

Surely we're dealing with horizontal separation not vertical, which would only be accurate to the degree stated if both were on an ILS hugging the glide, LHR still has NPA's.

MATS pt 1 allows for a reduction in separation inside 4 miles, until then comply with ATC instructions or advise ATC that you cannot and offer what you can do. IFR inside CAS, nuff said.

IN

[JW411]

411A;

You are letting yourself down again; embarrass has two 'r's and two 's's.

Mind you, I suspect that you have never been embarrassed since you were 18 months old!

[Cough]

Honesty hat on as a 737 BA driver (So Gatwick - But the same issues apply)

Just for understanding purposes, the 1000' 'gate' applies to radio altitude, not aal - Important where it comes to 08R at LGW as Russ Hill moves the goal post.

To see the variation in target speeds on our fleet let me give some examples -A 'heavy' 737-400 has a Vref of 138Kt, so we aim to fly 143Kt. 17Kt loss - No problem. A 'light' 737-500 (look out for the inbound LUX and HME services) have Vrefs down to 108Kt, aiming to fly 113kt - 47 Kt loss which is quite a problem.

On the fleet we have quite a range of experience, the newbies are trained to slow by 5. I do try to encourage people to go further before slowing, but they don't always feel comfortable doing it. Thing is, using common sense you can judge when to slow down to achieve the 1000' radio altitude gate, and most of the time on 26L you can go all the way to 4d. On 08R, you can't do it in a 737-5, 737-3 or even sometimes in a 737-4 due to Russ Hill. But not everyone thinks about the goal - Just the fleet worst case hence they slow down early!

Now this is a BA type problem. There was no problem going back 5 years on the 737, as we had to be stable by 800' Radio but things changed and that backward step prevented us fitting in with ATC. But then we fitted in with BA and that was deemed to be a good thing.

Hope that helps - I do tend to ask for 170/5 coz it does 2 things (we meet the speed that is agreed and we keep the gear up significantly longer) but a few of my colleagues don't seem to see the benefit. Keep the pressure on and I am sure that our management will see fit to come up with a plan that keeps the traffic flowing. You have to sell it though - If they can come up with a plan, just think they might get some extra slots due to greater efficiency. With that carrot, I'm sure they will talk....

[Del Prado]

[off topic] At gatwick, I do sometimes use 170kts tactically to fine tune the spacing. I guess that's more benificial to 'heavy' 734's? [/off topic]

[120.4]

Are there any typical Heathrow types other than the B757 that would have difficulty with 170kts to 5?

I don't see how we can allow the situation to continue where aircrew are being asked to operate outside SOPs and so it seems to me that we need to consider officially raising the possibility of a change in the ATC requirement. I will raise it with TC ops if I get enough of an indication here that 170 to 5 would be more suitable all-round. Of course, just as now, exceptions would still be okay provided we are told before the base turn.

I would still like to understand why the aircrew of a competent, British B744 operator would choose to be at an IAS of 145kts at 6nm from touchdown in normal conditions, having accepted 160kts to 4d. That is not satisfactory.

.4

[Carnage Matey!]

I would still like to understand why the aircrew of a competent, British B744 operator would choose to be at an IAS of 145kts at 6nm from touchdown in normal conditions, having accepted 160kts to 4d. That is not satisfactory.
.4

If its a BA 744 then one would have to question the competence. 145kts in a 744 is roughly final approach speed and at typical landing weights would require gear down and landing flap selected. Short of flying the ILS with an enormous tailwind I can't think of any reason to be fully confgured and slow at 6d. If it was BA then please write to the company and a reminder will be issued to crews.

[Bubair]

120.4, please check your pm's.

[Del Prado]

Are there any typical Heathrow types other than the B757 that would have difficulty with 170kts to 5?

A330's?

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

[BOAC]

In addition to the previous link I posted (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15896) where this had been discussed you may want to look at pages 3 and 4 of this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3437&page=4&highlight=vectoring) where admittedly 'old' SOPs are discussed

I have reopened the 'old' threads in case anyone wishes to post on them, and we can look at 'merging/copying. some of the posts if it is thought worthwhile.

Thank you for the offer, 120.4. Hopefully we can get a 'concensus'?

[30W]

Are there any typical Heathrow types other than the B757 that would have difficulty with 170kts to 5?

I'm not a LL operator, but have flown the 757 for the last 18 years, and currently a Training Capt on type. Be clear, there IS no difficulty flying a 757 at 170 to 5. It is more environmentally friendly than 160 on most occasions as one can fly down the slope at average weights, wind dependent, at 170kt in a F5 config and idle thrust. 160kt normally requires use of F15, and in many cases then some thrust to maintain it, hence more noise.

It is ONLY BA SOP's which seem to create this problem - other operators do not suffer the same fate. I suggest it's more a problem to be sorted with BA, than an industry wide issue.

To others who are quite honestly putting hands up here and saying they don't conform and slow prior to 4d. I don't believe anyone here is questioning your right as a commander of an aeroplane to slow up early. However, to accept a 'contract' with ATC that you have no intention of complying with is WRONG. When you read back the speed control, you have ACCEPTED that contract. You must conform with it - or advise ATC that you will not be doing so. 120.4 and colleagues will comply with your requests speeding wise (given suitable notice!). They won't force something of you that you are unwilling to do, but can't second guess your non-compliance if you accept their speed instruction.

For all LL pilots on this thread who have never been to West Drayton, get your butts there before they depart for warmer climates on the Southampton coastline and spend a shift on LL. You will be warmly received, you will (I feel sure), be impressed at the professioanlism, proficiency, accuracy and efficiency they achieve. When you see continual streams of traffic travelling down the ILS at exactly the required spacing intervals, you will understand the issue that this subject is causing them.

May it all be suitably resolved!

30W

[120.4]

Thank you for the offer, 120.4. Hopefully we can get a 'concensus'?

C'mon then, lets be 'aving you... All drivers in favour of operating their type at 170kts to 5d speak up now. If there is clear consensus that on balance that is a more suitable "standard" then I'll raise it with Ops. (They will want to do some maths to make sure the risk of catch-up inside 4 isn't significantly greater with different types before they promulgate it the standard. Of course that doesn't stop us using it on our own initiative so long as we continue to separate aircraft by the minima.)

It is time to speak up or shut up.:)

.4

[issi noho]

You really don't need to start changing standards, 160 to 4 is common the world over. Speed limits terminating at 4 is in tablets of stone, and so is the recognition that there will be some erosion of separation inside 4 miles (not so for 5). Any time there is a sensible HWC 160 is achievable, the only time it becomes a problem is when there is a TWC or in some cases still air, or the crew haven't used power against drag in the run up to 4 miles when necessary.

It seems to me that crews should be encouraged to tell director what speed they can maintain to 4 and you can adjust the spacing accordingly. If pilots are liars they should be filed on individually. If a companies SOP's make them all liars then the SOP needs changed.

This shouldn't be a problem, pilots are capable of getting it right but some are just choosing not to. The guys in the light 319's etc aren't shy when they offer a good rate on departure but they keep quiet when they know they need to slow early, that's cr#p. 747 slowing early, if you spot it early tell him to speed up if they cant ,round you go they will get the message. I guess then we can have a fuel emergency thread again.

Leave the bulk of us alone, sort out the people taking life too easy.

IN

[120.4]

IN

This issue has been raised three times on these forums now, stongly suggesting it is a problem and it has to be resolved. I came within 0.1nm of being suspended the other evening and twice found myself with significantly less than vortex spacing. Vortex spacing CANNOT be ignored, it is a legal requirement.

Every time we send somebody around we are wasting a slot on the approach and introducing another movement into the radar circuit; that adds significantly to the workload of ATCOs who are already working at the limits (the crosswind last night made it very hard work indeed to get minimum spacing) and doing that reduces the safety margins.

I don't need the hassle of trying to resolve this and I don't much care how it is done. If you don't want to change the standard, fine but it is a 939 (Breach of legislation & possible court action) next time a jumbo slows to 145kts at 6nm; that or +0.5 on every gap. Which do you want?

.4

[issi noho]

If you 939 (i know what it is) it will stop.

[overstress]

30W: you seem to have a problem with BA generally (I read your contributions to the large thread I started). But FYI as we operate with SESMA and are required by our SOPs to be stable by 1000', 160 to 4 causes difficulties on certain types.

We fly the most number of approaches into LHR and as we have such conservative constraints placed on us, I would be surprised if 120.4's management is not in dialogue with BA's.

I am not saying that we should all do it BA's way (I have flown for others myself) but I can see why BA goes for the restrictive 1000'. Landing incidents are usually preceded by a rushed approach. BA pilots do not wish to see their deeds plastered over the in-house magazine.

[BOAC]

Well, 120, it looks as if interest has faded in getting this sorted, so it will have to be the 939. That should improve command prospects in a few airlines:p

[M.Mouse]

120.4 you have done an excellent job here giving us an insight into the very difficult circumstances you are being forced to contend with but, with respect, a bulletin board is not really going to effect change!

If you believe your management are not discussing these issues with the appropriate people at BA I would be happy to find out who they should be talking to and give you some contact details.

I do find it suprising that this is not already happening.

PM me if I can help. Although I am just a humble line pilot we do have access to our management.

[120.4]

M Mouse

Thank you for your support. You are of course quite right about this forum and I came to realise this today. Perhaps I let my irritation at our american friend get the better of me.

So, I have written to TC Ops and asked them to take up the matter with the airline community. This has to be debated at an appropriate level and a satisfactory solution reached.

Incidentally, I was watching speeds closely today. I deliberately gave a 319"not less than 160kts to 5d" and left just a little extra room behind to see what would happen. You won't believe it... the IAS read 155 at 5d and 148 at 4d! You just cannot win. If I had said 160kts to 6d would it have read 155kts at 6d too?

Thank you for your offer of help. Actually, I think it is the "humble line pilot" who can help us here. I will await a reponse from Ops and then PM you and BOAC too. In the meantime, I'll go look for that pile of blank 939s.;)

.4

[issi noho]

.4

Is there a flight safety committee at lhr, this could be brought up at that forum.

It is human nature to push any rule to suit yourself, for every one who slows early there will be one who pushes their stabilised approach criteria. My own company has a 1000 ra stable with a caveat that allows you to continue if you're close to stable but not quite there, provided there is no doubt that you will be stable by 500 ra. The result is the line now treat 500 as the limit. No airline want/can allow the results of rushed approaches but that doesn't mean 160 to 4 is not achievable on most days, it just needs the workman to pull out the correct tool.

Changing to 5, well you've tried it, you would have to cover your a... with a second speed restriction to 4. The long and short of this topic is pilots should tell you if they cannot comply, if they don't they are disobeying an instruction and deserve to have their misdemeanour highlighted, CA939, 1261(or whatever you call it now),MOR or ASR there is plenty of choice.

No one wants to create a them and us scenario, but if you look to other areas where no tolerance is permitted; ie mentioning that fake bomb you packed in your luggage as you go through security, diversions to offload disruptive passengers, air rage in general etc. In these cases it really didn't take too long to change the mindset of the general public so you would imagine convincing fellow professionals should be a walk in the park.

The last option I throw out for consideration is that another operational message is added to the atis to remind pilots of their requirements.
These are already written in the notes for LL in the AIP and aerad guides but unfortunately the note above does say that aircraft commanders are requested to conform to low power, low drag operating techniques to the maximum extent practicable. It neglects to say conforming to the maximum extent consistent with the following speed restrictions ...


Anyway, best of luck. Personally I endeavour to not bother anybody with additional paperwork.

IN

[Gonzo]

Just thought, .4, another option is to see if you can come along to the next Heathrow Service Provision Working Group, where reps from the main LHR airlines meet with some of us from the Tower. Not sure if you have anything similar? I'd suggest you get in touch with our Manager ATC.:ok:

[Wiley]

All drivers in favour of operating their type at 170kts to 5d speak up nowYes please. It gets my vote.

And 230k ex Lambourne and 190k for the final turn inbound would both work better - for my type at least - but I can live with the exixting speeds, (if at the cost of a bit more noise and a bit more fuel burn than would result from the higher speeds).

However, I appreciate these higher speeds won't suit all types.

[omnidirectional737]

My understanding was that the Mode S speed is the target speed set, so you could for example set less than 160 at 4.5d but still be flying 160 at 4 as you wait for drag to take effect.

[ACMS]

120.4
Think yourself lucky CX don't operate 777-200 a/c in LHR.
CX SOP's require us to be gear down flaps AT 30 by 1500' AGL. And then on Vref +5 and spun up by 1000' AGL. There is no way in hell we could give you 170 to 5 or even 160 to 4. Even the 777-300 using CX SOP's would be tough.

Watch out for companies that have tight SOP's like ours, it will give you a headache.
And pray CX don't send the 300ER to LHR in the next few years, although I'd love to fly into LHR again.
cheers

[FullWings]

120.4

How about a bit on the ATIS stating: "All aircraft unable to maintain requested speeds, especially 160 to 4, to contact ATC before starting the approach". Add that to a few choice NOTAMs.

Oh, and can we get rid of the "Wingtip clearance... blah blah blah" while we're about it?

[anotherthing]

ACMS

I think the whole point that 120.4 is trying to make is that if you can't do the speed, TELL ATC!!

If your company A/C have to fly a specific profile then let ATC know; they can then incorporate that. What is galling is when you tell a pilot to do something, something which you are basing legally required separation on, the pilot reads it back (which is in essence an agreement to comply), then does something different.

Radios are there for a reason!! It's not that busy in the cockpit on finals that you cannot state if you can't comply with instructions (if it is then that is a flight safety issue and should be addressed)


Omnidirectional737

The Mode S shows actual IAS, not the figure set (therefore we can see the speed bleed off as you slow down to the given IAS). It is only the Selected Flight Level that pops up straight away (we still use mode C for separation)

[ACMS]

anotherthing
I think the whole point that 120.4 is trying to make is that if you can't do the speed, TELL ATC!!
I totally agree, tell ATC what you can do.
I was just passing on info about my operation with the thought that maybe we are not the only airline with "tight" SOP's

Watch out for companies that have tight SOP's like ours, it will give you a headache.
cheers

[Airbus Unplugged]

I don't think it's fair to say that we've lost interest. Just that this forum is all too vulnerable to hearing the same characters banging on all the time.

Mode S transmits the instananeous IAS, heading, selected altitude and aircraft groundspeed/track information. I hope we will have revealed that every operator/airplane combination has a different set of hoops to jump through. Many of those have flight data recorder audit trails, requiring the commander to excuse himself for this approach or that landing (if we could but remember them amongst all the others).

It's all too apparent that BA are not flavour of the month at the moment at LHR, but just like everyone else they're doing the best they can with the hand they're dealt.

Many factors lie outside the control of the pilot on the day (especially the all too frequent ground difficulties) but the individuals at the controls are not trying to be difficult. They are however all too aware that transgressing the (sometimes ridiculous) rules will result in an interview with the school bully.

If we're up against it, and you're up against it, that says to me it's time to turn round to the beancounters and say BACK OFF!

It's either that or we'll be discussing who was to blame for the big one.

[3Greens]

160kts to 4 miles is almost impossible in the 757 when operating at shuttle weights. Factor in the anti-ice and the inevitable tailwind on base/finals whne landing on 09L then it becomes a real challenge to even get the aircraft stable.
120.4 i understand your frustrations but my priorities lie firmly in keeping the aircraft safe and getting it established and stable on the approach for what i
(and my company SOP (BA))consider to be in an appropraite position to continue to a landing. This inviarably involves reducing below 160kts at 5 miles ish. LHR runway capacity doesn't even figure in my thought process. Although, i might add i will do my best to avoid sending anyone around..which i haven't in 10 years of flying at LHR.

My company SOP states that we should be stable at 1000'ATRE and must be stable by 500'ARTE. The final flap and speed reduction must be taken at 1500'ARTE. This is quite plainly at odds with what you ask.

FWIW 160kts to 4 miles is easier in the 767 as you obviously haven't got as much speed to lose.

[120.4]

3 greens

Quite understand your position. For some time now I have been giving B757s 160 to 5d in recognition that 160kts to 4 is asking them to lie. It is quite noticeable that the B76s find it much easier.

The trouble is that in keeping your aircraft safe you are likely to be introducing a wake vortex issue for the B73s, A320s etc. behind you. That puts them in an unsafe situation and makes me illegal; Can't be right can it? This conflict of interests must be addressed.

.4

[3Greens]

.4, quite right...something needs to be done as it is p155ing both sides off at the moment. Quite how one enacts such change however is perhaps why we continue with this practise :ugh:

[Cough]

3 Greens -

Small point - If you are BA then I'm sure you know its 1000' RA. Check FCO 2838. Totally agree with the point that agreements have to be adheared to.

[BOAC]

Another for 3Greens - The final flap and speed reduction must be taken at 1500'ARTE. - since 4D equates to 1410'ARTE, 'taking land flap and speed reduction' AT 1500'ARTE is no issue, unless you are saying you must be 'on speed' AT 1500'ARTE?

I still think you Nigels should ask one of your 'wunderkind' how you are supposed to do it - and get the answer in writing:)

[overstress]

BOAC - as an ex-Nigel you may expect that they're rather busy replying to a deluge of e-mails from the current Nigels on another topic... ;)

[woodpecker]

Bit of tail waging the dog here.
Not all pilots are of the same caliber.
If a pilot feels safer slowing down as per company SOP's then so be it flight safety is paramount.
Only excuse to not telling ATC is because you can't get a word in edgways.:)

I totally agree.

Quoting from 120.4 earlier...

"The UK based one was indicating 145kts at 6nm from touchdown having been given 160kts to 4."

With my simple calculator, based on a 25kt. headwind, the chap at 145 kts two miles earlier than instructed "lost 6.5 seconds" in the 2 miles. If there had been less headwind then the "lost" time would have been less.

120.4, are you under so much pressure to reduce the spacing that it may affect safety?

Having flown the Trident, 757, 767, and 777 into Heathrow for years I agree with the earlier post regarding the 757. There is nothing worse than sitting on the edge of your seat (in cloud on the approach), anticing on watching the IAS dribble back to V-ref +5. The old brain database remembers such approaches and suggests never again. The next time, perhaps with a junior copilot you suggest slowing up just that little bit ahead of the 4,5 or 6 miles (whatever it maybe) but struggle to get a word in on the radio.

We're only human after all. We've all sat on the edge of our seats, luckily most never actually fall off!

If the pressure, 120.4, is placed on your shoulders to reduce spacing why, with safety paramount, do the powers that be not look at parallel landings, surely that would help your wake problem.

[anotherthing]

Woodpecker -

I am sure 120.4 will come up with a definitive answer (I am just a TMA area controller). It depends what you call affecting safety. As an Area controller, I am allowed to use 3 miles separation in the LTMA instead of the usual 5 miles, because of congestion. The heathrow directors are allowed to take that down to 2.5 miles within certain criteria.

That 2.5 miles is an absolute minimum. If 120.4 breaks that because someone is not flying as they have been instructed, he will be suspended.

This will cause more delays as we are tightly manned as it is. When busy and all positions are open, we cannot afford to lose one ATCO, otherwise we start running out of the legal time we can work between breaks.

The 2.5 miles is because Heathrow is such a busy airport. If airlines want it pushed up to 3 mile spacing so that they can have a plus or minus 25kt leeway on speeds, then this will mean that AC will always hold for more than 10 minutes in all but the queitest or times. I do not think the airline bosses will be happy with that.

Parallel landings are used, first thing in the morning, to ensure that delays are not allowed to build (if we start off with holding at 0630, it can take several hours to catch up - the airport is running at such a high capacity)

Using parallel runways during the day as a standard way of operating, would not work with ground movements and departures thrown into the mix. I am sure 120.4 would be able to elaborate a little more on that one.

What I am getting from this thread, more than anything else, is that 120.4 would like to be told if you cannot comply with the speed instruction, for whatever reason (slippery A/C, company SOPs). If he does not get told, then how can he adjust the guy behind or ahead to maintain the separation?? Heathrow controllers are not Gods (though some like to think it :E ), they cannot know what you are going to do by reading your mind.

If their is a specific company policy regarding certain A/C, then let ATC know at OPs level. Once known it is fairly easily adjusted for, in the same way that heavys/mediums/lights need different spacing.

[120.4]

Woodpecker

Thanks for your interest.

I haven't done the maths myself: remember, he has also been losing time whilst he has been slowing to 145 kts. Additionally, although we "discount" spacing drift inside 4nm, as the following traffic would be maintaining 160kts until it gets to 4d the time interval between them continues to reduce after the heavy gets inside 4nm. Who knows where that becomes unsafe? We don't.

In this particular case I instructed the following traffic to go around when its spacing behind the heavy was 4nm; it should have been (and had been!) 5nm. Fortunately, although the Tower controller initially indicated that the departure runway would not be available for the following traffic, they managed to change their plan to suit me and shortly after the traffic had commenced its climb I was able to offer it a late visual switch to 27L.

Please, lets be clear here: I applied the minimum legal spacing for that aircraft pair because that is the demand of the airline community; that spacing was established some 7 or 8 miles previously and I applied common speeds to maintain it. If we don't apply minimum spacing when ever we can then then Heathrow's already oversubscribed capacity will be diminished.

Heathrow's runways are scheduled at a rediculous 98% of capacity, Frankfurt, I believe, is 90% and Paris 80%. As a point of note: Heathrow approach is deliberately flowed at 2 or 3 aircraft per hour above the anticipated landing rate so as to keep pressure on to achieve minimum spacing. Under those circumstances, traffic that is at 145kts at 6nm instead of 160kts to 4 is placing the ATCO in an illegal position, and the following traffic in a dangerous position that we are not permitted to ignor.

During the week a Heathrow colleague was suspended after traffic that had read back the correct heading took up and incorrect one and infringed separation. The ATCO was not at fault but it was a number of hours before he was re-instated and this can have significant consequences for delays.

I have absolutely no desire to, nor would I ever put aircrew in a compromising position. If our standard speeds are not working for you then we have to change them because not flying them puts us in a compromising position. This cannot be right.

Mixed-mode is being looked at now; infact I was centrally involved in the concept design. There are many issues, and politics to resolve before it can be implimented. Current rules have DfT restrictions.

Hope this helps

.4

[issi noho]

So he started the go around and then reverted to a visual.

OK, I'm sure he did it all perfectly, but we've had the CAA all over us (the TRE's) trying to ensure go arounds particularly those not commenced from minima are flown correctly and all the appropriate checklists completed prior to the next approach.

[jondc9]

oh for the good old days

4 dme from runway is about 1200' (maybe 1264 afe)...and being stable at 1000' afe is about right for most planes


remember the days when you would place your Marker beacon receiver on HIGH sensitivity, and put your gear and flaps down at the first beep...switch it to normal and note your time (in case gs failed)...and that was around 1500-1700 feet afe.


so perhaps 120.4 must come up with something new...slow everyone down farther out and let everyone fly stable instead of trying to cram a few more planes in per hour...the powers that be will have to come up with something other than pushing the tin.

and I know everyone on this forum wants to fly safe and the controllers want it safe too.


add the winter time need for anti ice and all that ...


jon

[120.4]

An update, as promised...

It seems I was not the only one to have raised this issue recently with LTCC Ops. It is hoped to be an agenda item at the next Safety Partnership Meeting involving the major UK operators.

.4

[Airbus Unplugged]

Did our level best today, even caught the late turn on to the localiser with the tail wind on base. I did think it was a bit harsh to blame one of my colleagues for being left and right of the ILS though.

It was 40kts across!

Give us a break.:rolleyes:

[120.4]

Airbus U

It was an interesting day wasn't it?

Twice this evening we had traffic back at 145kts at 6nm, both A340s and one of them caused traffic to switch to 27L. The operations department of one of the carriers gave us a slight clue to some of the speed problems but it could stand clarifying here from a driver or two.

A346s apparently use a "ground speed lock" or something? Please can a Bus-driver elaborate on that: What does this actually do, does it apply to all airbuses in all conditions or just gusty wind, is it okay to override or are you mandated to use it etc.

.4

[Human Factor]

I'm joining the thread late and I haven't read all of it.

However, if this is going back to the "160 to 4/170 to 5" debate, I've flown 737s and 777s as well as A320s and all are capable of anything up to and including 180 to 4 (clearly with the exception of a tailwind on finals) whilst complying with the BA SOP of stable, power up and in landing config by 1000R (I've always taken that to mean 1000' aal).

All require gear down and slightly unusual configurations to achieve it but all are well within flap and gear limitation speeds. We have to be sensitive to noise and CDAs which make us reluctant to do this, particularly at LHR (I have a friend in Richmond who invariably has the gear dropped just over her house for the A320 to achieve 160/4 in a quiet configuration).

[Right Way Up]

"and all are capable of anything up to and including 180 to 4"
Thats some kind of unusual configuration in an airbus to lose 50 kts in 1nm. Please tell us more?:)

[BOAC]

by 1000R (I've always taken that to mean 1000' aal- and, of course, HF, your managers will receive a 'notice' of your 'misdemeanour' at 1000 radio which, may be significantly higher.

EG Inbound FNC and crossing the VOR (which is 6 minutes or more away from touchdown on R05) below around 1300' (absolutely safe) will normally trigger an 'event' due to the small ridge of land on which it sits.

[fmgc]

Are there any types that can NOT fly gear down, land flap, 160kts at 4 miles and still not reduce back to approach speed by 1000 Rad Alt?

I find it hard to believe that with a headwind that this is so difficult to achieve.

[Gary Lager]

BOAC- you should know better than to suggest that Flight Data Monitoring systems are used to attribute 'misdemeanours' to crews who may be operating entirely safely and appropriately in the circumstances, like the FNC approach you mention! All FDM data has to be taken in context, and used properly is an outstanding tool for highlighting areas where operational procedures may be having an impact on safety. If crews 'fear' it then its credibility suffers and its usefulness is diluted.

As an aside, 1000' RA rather than 1000' aal would be daft - that would imply that BA are happy for crews to be stable at 730' above the R09 at JER but not at 1001' aal at LGW? Surely stability criteria must refer to time to landing, not the distance to the terrain directly underneath the aircraft?

For info 120.4, the 'ground-speed lock' on modern airbusses (airbii?) is usually referred to as 'Ground Speed Mini' - mini meaning minimum rather than little.

What this system does is compare an entered value of the surface W/V as given by ATIS/TWR with the current wind and ensure that the correct groundspeed is flown, so that when the wind changes (i.e. drops) with descent, the total energy of the aircraft is not compromised and high sink rates due to shear are avoided.

Therefore GS Mini, in strong headwind conditions, often demands a higher IAS, to ensure enough knots are left if the current strong wind suddenyl drops away.

Use is very strongly recommended in windy conditions due to the protection it provides against shear, but it should never demand a lower speed than the approach speed, only higher, so using it as an excuse for flying slower than 160 to 4 is nonsense.

[W_18]

:} Quite right IceMan,
No one is of the same calibre as me:p

Nor do they have the same self effacing modesty:E

Greetings from Khakstan:ok:

PS I once flew with a Big Airways trainer who pulled me up for decelerrating too quickly. You dont have to be that accurate about what they ask for he said.:D

Of course some of you might agree as it was at a Froggy Field, named after one of their big nosed politicians.;)

[fmgc]

As an aside, 1000' RA rather than 1000' aal would be daft

I was thinking exactly the same.

[NigelOnDraft]

Are there any types that can NOT fly gear down, land flap, 160kts at 4 miles and still not reduce back to approach speed by 1000 Rad Alt?
I find it hard to believe that with a headwind that this is so difficult to achieve.A lightweight A319 would find it marginal under some circs... However, I think you are missing the point. Training everyone, as an SOP, to undertake noisier, more fuel consuming and Flap wearing approaches to fit in with ATC is not, IMHO, the way ahead. To give you an idea, Big Airways has moved 777 and A320 / 321 to use less flap for Landing (25 / 3) because of the "considerable Fuel Savings" (a few Kgs per sector!).
.4 seems to be more concerned now than in the past about the general "approximate" speed adherence going on. Either he is just getting old and crinkly ;) or, more likely, new procedures and tools mean speed adherence needs to be tighter. Surely the way ahead is therefore to find a speed profile that can be adhered to, meets the SOPs (or adjust the SOPs), and most importantly in this day and age, keeps the tree huggers happy :eek:

[Roffa]

Just re-issued, Noise From Arriving Aircraft - An Industry Code of Practice (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_613678.pdf) might be of interest in this debate, especially para 29 :)

[JW411]

"Keep the tree huggers happy".

I thought we were supposed to follow a 3° glide path!

[BOAC]

I fully agree with your comments re 1000'AAL but AFAIK the 'flag' appears at 1000'RA. 1300+AMSL at the FNC VOR is more than 1000'aal and it DOES flag, I can assure you! Whether or not there is something which looks at the aal bit I know not, but raised terrain on the approach path will flag. ?

I am a 'monitoring fan', BTW. :) No shooting of the messenger, please?

[Del Prado]

Training everyone, as an SOP, to undertake noisier, more fuel consuming and Flap wearing approaches to fit in with ATC is not, IMHO, the way ahead

Try not to think of it as fitting in with ATC rather than optimising the runway capacity.
I'd be more than happy to let you fly your own speeds all the way in - just remember capacity will be halved, delays will be measured in hours not minutes and your airline will go bust.:eek:

Can we please get away from this "tail wagging the dog" attitude?
As an ATCO I cannot give a tailor made service to suit the needs of the individual when it compromises the most efficient system that gives benefits to all.

[fmgc]

BOAC,

Hopefully an enlightened management will realise that FNC is a complete
anomaly and let you off setting off warnings like that.

Nigel,

I fully agree with what you are saying however there is the short term issue here that if ATC ask you to do 160 to 4 there are very few circumstances in which you can not do it, and if you can not then you must tell ATC.

Then there is the long term issue about setting the correct procedures with ATC talking to operators to resolve this in the most efficient way possible.

[BOAC]

Whoa there! I am as guilty as others at allowing 'thread drift' here and suggest that for the benefit of ATC we re-focus on the ACTUAL range involved, which at LGW is just over 3 miles. It is all Cough's fault in post 107.:)

Hence it is the 'requirement' to go from 160kts to a 'stable' approach type configuration in less than 1 mile that occasionally causes the problem.

Suggest we leave RA's, LBA, JER etc out of it - I promise (and FNC:) ) The only time RA will be a problem is with raised ground on an approach which MAY require SOME airlines to be 'stable' earlier - not at LGW or LHR - how's that?

[120.4]

Nigel

You may be right! I must be getting old and crinkly,... and cranky too: It appears that in my frustration I irritated the lady in the tower last night when I asked her to send around the aircraft which was 140kts at 6nm. I was most embarrassed at her complaint and gladly ate much humble pie.:O :O

I don't have so much of a problem with aircraft starting to slow from 160kts at 5nm, in fact I have taken to giving B75s and A319s 16kts to 5 so that the air crew feel comfortable. No, my issue is with the guy who is at 145kts at 6nm having accepted 160kts to 4nm. It caused another 'dirty dive' for the other side last night in less than good conditions. Paper work is done.

GL

Thanks for the very useful insight into Airbii "tools". If I understand correctly this means that where the wind gradient is steep there is a greater chance that the A/C will slow earlier as it drops out of the wind? Have I got that right? Last night there was about a 40+kt wind at 3000' but only about 20kts at 2000'. Would that degree of gradient encourage an Airbus to slow to 140kts at 6nm? The airline' Ops guy seemed to be suggesting it would.

If this is necessary then the difficulty for us is going to be how to know when to slow you down to take account of the different requirements. How do you judge 5nm gap efficiently when traffic is going to fly different speeds? I agree with DP, we would have to allow extra space for what we cannot control and that will reduce capacity.

.4

[fmgc]

The airbus ground speed mini does not work that way, all that it means is that if there is a strong headwind that it will slow down LATER not earlier, it will gradulally reduce to Vapp at touchdown.

It is bascially to protect you from windshear by maintaining a higher IAS and so buffer from the stall, incase there is a sudden lull in the wind.

There is nothing to stop apilot from overriding the ground speed mini (managed speed) by manually selecting a speed.

[120.4]

FMGC

Thank you, that's clear now. There's no excuse there then.

.4

[fmgc]

From our FCOM

GROUND SPEED MINI FUNCTION PRINCIPLE
The purpose of the ground speed mini function is to take advantage of the aircraft inertia, when the wind conditions vary during the approach. It does so by providing the crew with an adequate indicated speed target. When the aircraft flies this indicated speed target, the energy of the aircraft is maintained above a minimum level ensuring standard aerodynamic margins versus stall.
If the A/THR is active in SPEED mode, it will automatically follow the IAS target, ensuring an efficient thrust management during the approach.
The minimum energy level is the energy level the aircraft will have at touchdown, if it lands at VAPP speed with the tower reported wind as inserted in the PERF APPR page.
The minimum energy level is represented by the Ground Speed the aircraft will have at touchdown. This Ground Speed is called "GROUND SPD MINI".
During the approach, the FMGS continuously computes the speed target, using the wind experienced by the aircraft, in order to keep the ground speed at or above the "Ground Speed Mini".
The lowest speed target is limited to VAPP and its upper limit is VFE of next configuration in CONF 1, 2, 3 and VFE - 5 in CONF FULL.
The speed target is displayed on the PFD speed scale in magenta, when approach phase and managed speed are active. It is independent of the AP/FD and/or ATHR engagements. Wind is a key factor in the ground speed mini function

[Mushroom_2]

All this talk about Ground Speed Mini is irrelevant, except in extremely strong winds when ATC will not be using 2.5 mile spacing anyway. (Yes I fly the Airbus and do know what GS mini is).

If ATC ask for 160 to 4 then select 160 and fly it, as you are instructed! Not being able to get stable by 1000' is rubbish - it just requires a bit of thought.

[fmgc]

All this talk about Ground Speed Mini is irrelevant

Yes, but the question was asked.

If ATC ask for 160 to 4 then select 160 and fly it, as you are instructed!

Exactly

[FullWings]

Are there any types that can NOT fly gear down, land flap, 160kts at 4 miles and still not reduce back to approach speed by 1000 Rad Alt?
I find it hard to believe that with a headwind that this is so difficult to achieve.
I think this is a big part of the issue. I'm pretty sure all the types in BA can do this and on the odd occasion that it might be difficult (tailwinds, light weight, icing, etc.) a quick word to ATC before starting the approach and all is well.

I'll stick my neck out here and say that I've been operating into LHR for over a decade in large and small aircraft and have never really had a problem with this requirement. Sometimes I've had to use the gear, flap and (horror!) the speedbrakes but it wasn't what I would term "rocket science".

[W_18]

:} Yes Mr Wings, but I suspect that you use your Brain in addition to SOPs.
It would appear to me that Thinking is becoming a crime.
I have been aviating for a long time and am inclined to agree with you.
Incidentally I have done 3 go arounds from CDG in the last17 years and two of those were due to British ( the country, not the callsign) aircraft that were apparently not flying the assigned speed.

Love from Khakstan:ok:

Todays Tip; dont order the Pollonium at your local sushi bar:E

[Airbus Unplugged]

Hopefully GS mini is cleared up now, it shouldn't be an issue inside outside 4 dme since selected speed should be flown.

120.4, I've noticed your frustrations frequently refer to a slow down at 6 miles. I think this is because many operators select the gear down at 6/2000. Pilots flying manual thrust will anticipate the extra drag of the gear and add a handful of power to maintain the speed. Autothrust however will not add power until it seesa reduction in speed, and will after spool up give an unnecesarily large boot of power to return to the target speed. This may take 10 seconds or so, but if your mode S updates during this period, you will see less than 160kts at 6 miles. The distance lost in this scenario could be measured in metres, I would suggest.

Bare in mind that BA Airbus pilots are forbidden to use manual thrust because of the deranged musings of a discredited shed fur brains, and so you will often see this 'gear dip' on a Speedbus approach.

[Moe Syzlak]

How much fuel can one save landing in Conf 3? Given that flap full is selected at about 4-5 miles and the engines are close to idle down the glideslope? (-600 and -300) Fuel useage is minimal so fuel saving must be microscopic.

[StratMatt777]

I stumbled across this website (again) while searching for 777 Vref approach speeds (which do not exist ANYWHERE online)...

While searching for the same thing last night I ran across this very interesting Boeing article about delayed flap retraction and the associated fuel savings. Press page down 4 times to get to the table with the fuel savings figures.

AERO - Conservation Strategies: Descent and Approach (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_10/5/)

[BOAC]

Strat - I cannot speak for other types, but in my experience 737's have not followed the Boeing 'standard' for flap extension for many years unless ATC speed requirements dictate. When we first started flying AWOPS in the 80's we did configure landing flap at glideslope intercept but that soon died out.