Slowing down on final approach.....

[126.825]

Just a quick heads up really.......not a rant yet! im not quite sure why this happens but for some reason speed control is not seen in the same way as a level instruction etc. i say this because for some reason, and it seems to be on the increase, pilots are slowing down of their own accord.What make it worse is its normally the time when there's another aircraft behind!!!
if a pilot were to bust his/her level the consequences could be severe......it is no different when an aircraft slows WITHOUT telling atc on final approach.
if you need or want to reduce.....just ask.
cheers.
sorry sounds like a rant now!

[bomarc]

I don't think it sounded like a rant, and even if it was, who cares?

you don't say where you are. somehow I think it is europe.

in the states, ATC will get all over your case if you aren't at the right speed...except:

once past the outer marker, speed is really your choice, at least in the reasonable range for your type of plane.

now, in KSFO, the winds are so nutty, as you go down, your speed may change significantly (ground speed) and you see compression on final.

you also have to acknowledge that there are a lot of new pilots out there...you know the 300 hour and get hired at some place...but I won't go there.

[126.825]

i can obviously only comment on the type of airspace i control...yes in europe the UK to be exact. when sequencing and spacing aircraft speed control is very important. we generally use three speeds for which they are known the last being 160kts to 4dme. if a pilot chooses without infroming us to reduce to 160 what happens to the aircraft 3nm behind thats still at 180 kts? the answer normally is that aircraft doing 180 kts gets broken off the appraoch, costing more fuel and time to that operator.....is that fair?

[World of Tweed]

126.825: I take your point about maintaining a instructed speed restriction. I can vouch that the "160Kts to 4DME" rule applied at most large airfields in the UK is complied with where possible and infact Speed discipline is encouraged at all times within our company.

However, there are times when the criteria for a Stabilised Approach take precedent over the requirement for traffic sequencing. When at light weights - 160kts at 4miles would see the 757 not even Half-configured for landing at 4 miles. And when your Vref is 108kts you'll struggle to be stabilised (in my company - within 10kts of target speed) by 500ft. Factor in any tailwind and you may as well go-around there and then.

Often you can't get a word in when you want to slow down so it becomes catch 22 and end up getting an ear-full from ATC. (albeit deserved from ATC perspective.)

Bomarc: So what if there are a lot of new pilots out there? Whatever their experience level their primary concern has to be the sucessful and safe execution of the appraoch and landing. If you are inexperienced on type then one should naturally be in the slot and configured earlier to minimise as much risk and achieve that - you would seem to suggest that a low hours guy would be slowing up diliberately to muck up the sequencing.

[hotmetal]

This is a bug-bear of mine too. Into LHR all the regulars know the routine 220/180/160 and stick to it or it messes things up. The problem is that in the rest of Europe there is a tendency to dabble with speed control and then leave you hanging. e.g. reduce to 210kts and then nothing more is said about speed until I say 'do you still require 210?' and then another random speed figure is pulled out of the air. If they didn't still want 210 then I would like them to say so. I don't believe my asking about speed just happened to coincide with their desire to reduce my speed. Also there is no point in reducing me to 180 and then 10 seconds later want me to reduce to 150 and then 10 seconds after that say 'final approach speed'. Obviously I don't immediately achieve the requested speed so in the example just given they should have said 'reduce to final approach' when I was at 210 as I at no time actually achieved any of their random requested speeds other than in passing. [Obviously none of the above is directed at LHR controllers who are exemplry:ok:]. Oh and I have given up telling German controllers that 170 to the marker [1200' to 1300'] is not compatable with our stable approach criteria. I had a few years of mentioning it and now do the same as every one else and just 'do my best'. I get fed up with unecessary speed control. If they want less than 180 or more than 180 say so. Please don't confine me to 180 if not necessary [or 150 or 160 or whatever].
I say again that at LHR speed control by ATC is down to a fine art and there is no comparison to some other smaller airports round the world. What on earth is going on at CDG I can only guess. There seems no coordination between controllers. My speed always seems a surprise to the next controller and not what they want. All the go-arounds in 20 years I have flown at CDG have been due to insufficient separation on final.

[contacttower118.2]

Surely part of the problem is that at some airports speeds are issued and others they are not. This rather casual attitude to speed control has led to a perception among pilots that it obviously doesn't matter that much if ATC don't seem to pay much attention to it.

[Spitoon]

contacttower118.2, speed control is not an essential part of getting an aircraft on the ground (unlike, say, descent), it is simply one of a range of controlling techniques that are available to the controller. Of course, some well organised high traffic density airports will rely on speed control to a great degree in order to squeeze every ounce of capacity out of the airspace and approaches. In other circumstances, however, speed control may be applied if it suits the particular traffic situation.

Speed control should be like any other ATC instruction - comply with it or tell the controller if you can't. It's no more important than any other instruction or type of instruction - it will have been issued to maintain separation or for sequencing.

If it appears that speed instructions are routinely being applied arbitrarily by some units maybe a word through your Ops Management to the unit concerned might either resolve the problem or provide a reason.

[rigpiggy]

I'm not driving a jet, but "I drive it like I stole it" 250 till 3000' props up and stabilized at 180 at the beacon around 1500'. with flaps/gear set the approach top of the white at 800' and ref+10 at minimums. Move your slow ass jet would you;-)

[bomarc]

tweed...the comment was not intended to indicate mucking it up on purpose...lower time pilots , indeed all pilots should stablize the approach.

and to 126.825, an easy answer!


make the restriction, maintain 160 knots till 7 dme. everyone will do the same, stablizing approaches will get accomplished/


and it goes hand in hand with the approximate distance from threshold for the outer marker which I mentioned in my first post.


tell us, why 4 dme? to be stable at 1000' agl would be impossible (our limits while IMC)

[400drvr]

rigpiggy
I used to fly the same profile when I flew the Texas lawn dart but we slow pokes in the jets need to kill a lot of energy on final so keep those flaps hanging and stay high and upwind.
Cheers;)

[maui]

Spitoon.
Do you mean "no less important than any other instruction?"

World of Tweed.
What flap setting are you using to achieve your 160@ 4. Is it the maximum flap available at that speed? If it's not, you're not trying. If your stabilised criteria is 500' you should be able to sh*t it in, (1000' gets a bit difficult)

Speed control is one of my constant bitches. So many times I see guys winding it back with absolutely no thought for what is going on behind them. If ATC gives you a speed. Stick to it or tell him/her. I always tell any offender to my right, that speed (within our operational limits) is ATC's responsibility within the TMA.

126.85 I think you will find a lot of the problem is caused by guys "playing controller" with reference to TCAS. You have my sympathies.

Maui

[Gillegan]

It's a difficult problem when you basically have numerous aircraft types with varying speed capabilities and limitations shoehorned into ever more congested airspace. It seems that they mostly have gotten it right at LHR but it is obvious to me that there needs to be some standardisation regarding when an aircraft can resume their own speed control. Often there is a conflict between a company's stabilised approach criteria and the speeds that ATC would like to see. As we now have all of our approaches fed via the QAR/FOQA through a computer program to analyse our many faults, we tend to err on the side of the company requirements to avoid the inevitable trip in for tea and biscuits and frequency congestion just makes it more difficult to coordinate our requirements.
Personally, I would like to see a standard of speed at our discretion by 1500 ft. AAL. 4 miles can be a little tight in some types at some weights and the extra 200-300 ft. could make all the difference in the world. I would also agree that the Germans are way out to lunch with some of their speed requests and would benefit the most from some type of well thought out (ICAO perhaps) standard speed control. It seems to me that if ATC knows what to expect and actually gets it, it would make their job easier, regardless of the actual speeds used.

[ZeBedie]

It was a simple thing that 126 asked for...why all the debate?

[Ashling]

There are lots of issues wrapped up here, standardisation, ATC competence, Pilot competence, weather, different aircraft types and company SOPs. All of these things vary making life tricky at times.

It would seem much simpler if we had to follow standard speeds everywhere on all occasions. That would at least take a-lot of the shades of grey out of it. However that is not the case. Some ATC units are pretty switched on and manage speed control pretty well on the whole, others do not. If I find myself at an inappropriate speed for my range to touchdown I am going to slow down and will tell ATC I'm doing so, if I can get a word in. Thats my companies stated policy. As an example controllers at BCN will on occasion ask you to maintain clean speed or similar to 8 dme or 180 kts to 4 dme. Sorry no can do. That or they tell the aircraft 5 miles ahead to slow but leave you doing 20 kts + more than him. RT too busy to get a word in what do you do ? I'll slow down to keep the rquired wake vortex sep and try to communicate it when I can. Even 160 to 4 is tricky as my company ask us to be fully stable by 1000 aal so in reality its 160 to just under 5. That is with max flap for the speed to get the leds fully out and gear down. FLIDRAS kicks in if we fail to meet the requirement although the hard alt is still 500 AAL.

As flight crew we are also guilty of not always programming the FMC correctly. I frequently have to prompt my other half to enter the published speed restrictions at IAFs especially in Spain were Jepp helfully hide them away in the small print. Frustrating thing here is that when you ask ATC if there is any speed at such and such a point they seem unaware of why you are asking. Also a-lot of these airfields do have standard speeds on final approach but very few people brief them so presumably they don't then fly them when ATC and other crews have a right to expect that they are.

Short of a legislative answer both ATC and crews need to up their game, not evrywhere is as good as the London airfields. If ATC want speeds to be respected they need to be rational and communicate changes effectively or else crews will lose faith in the controlling and do as they see fit to fly their approach safely. They also need to bear in mind that with a tailwind in the descent slowing from 220 - 180 is not a quick process. Equally as crew we need to make sure we follow the published procedure, warts and all unless permission is gained to deviate and if we cannot, for whatever reason, communicate it at the earliest oppertunity. We also need to comply with the instructions given as much as poss and again if not able to communicate it. If an airfield consistently poses problems then the company need to liase to see if a solution can be found that keeps everyone happy. At least with TCAS we can see whats going on.

Thankfully to date I have not had to go around due to lack of seperation and to the best of my knowledge have not caused anyone else too. Its probably only a matter of time though.

Oh and a request, if you have an aircraft 3 miles behind you don't delay getting off the runway or get caught slow speed between 2 exits. Pet hate of mine.

[411A]

The issue is quite simple.
ATC assigns a speed, aircraft complies.
So far, so good.
At some point however, the airplane does indeed have to slow down to actually land...as quite frankly, that is what we a paid to do.
So, for the ATC folks, they had better start to be more precise, if they want precise speeds.
By this, I mean, if you want say, 200 knots, and yet say nothing more about speed, clearly the pilot has a duty and responsibility to slow below 200 knots on final, otherwise landing is impossible.
So, wake up ATC folks, and pay attention.
If you find that pilots are not maintaining proper spacing, keep 'em in the hold longer, or provide longer radar vectors, OR, be more precise as to when the flight is expected to slow.
Unfortunately, many in the ATC profession have forgotten that for many, to go down and slow down (both in large quantities) is quite difficult, if not impossible.
Pilots will NOT jeopardise their airplane just for the convenience of the air traffic controller.
The sooner ATC folks learn this very important fact, the better.

[westie]

I am a Uk pilot who has flown out of the major southern airports for over 20 years and have to say I am surprised at some of the comments. If a controller asks for 200kts, 180 kts, then 160 kts to 4dme, then I do it. It is something the controller has ask me to do so no question, I do it. If I think there is some reason why I need to maintain a different speed, then I mention it to him/her just so we both know the situation. One obvious example is knowing track miles to run, and my altitude, I can calculate if I am going to be high or not. If a speed change adds to my situation from a negative point of view, then I will politely mention to atc that I either need more track miles, or a faster speed for a little while. This is just one example.

126.82 - I assume 3-4 mile seperation in non low vis conditions is the minimum seperation? so any speed violations by pilots will cause a delaying in the approach. Also in these days of upgraded TCAS, just how helpful is a constant a/c speed readout to you? So do you sometimes feel you want to issue some a/c with a 'ticket' who obviously ignore you?

[Finger Bob]

126.825, You specifically state "Slowing on final approach".

BA 737 Gatwick; 160 to 4d causes two problems.

1. 160kts requires flap 15 which requires gear down ie. high drag, noise and fuel burn.

2. BA SOPs say the aircraft should be stable by 1000ft. Stable means landing config, approach speed and engines spooled up. At 4dme height will be approx 1300ft. Approach speeds could vary between 115 to 160kt depending on weight and wind. One mile to decel 45kts and spool up ...aint gonna happen!


Problem 1 is solved by giving 170 to 5 or 6dme. That allows a descent with flap 10 and the gear up (most of the time anyway). Some crews may request it, but when a switched on controller gives it it is much appreciated.

Problem 2 was solved in the past by a quick heads up to the controller eg. "slow final speed". Is that what you want and when do you want it?

Thanks.

[lgw_warrior]

There are various types of aircraft that operate into certain London airports, from king air’s to 744’s,all have very different handling characteristics, ie slowing down, speeds on final approach. We all know how congested the London airspace is, and sometimes, as mentioned in previous posts, it is difficult to go down and slow down, especially in the larger jets, ie 6000,descend 3000,level in 10 miles, and reduce speed (from 220-250 assigned speed) to 180 kts………it can be done, but its dirty ie flaps and speed brakes, increasing the noise footprint and fuel burn. i think a good sugestion would be to have ATC controllers on regular jumpseat rides into the airspace they control (if the CAA would allow?!), in order to experience and indeed highlight the problems and visa versa, maybe we pilots should get a chance to see them at work…

[slamer.]

I have been of the understanding that ATC speed control is to be maintained until approach clearance given or until the FAF if ATC speed control required on app and IAW local/national rules if stated.

If there is no specified speed control, then speed is to be flown as appropriate for your aircraft type/class and landing configuration.

Looking forward to the correct answer.

[parabellum]

Around the 20th October, 1998 I was doing my first arrival in to EWR, (Newark) and had self briefed just about as far as one can go. We approached from the North and complied with all ATC instructions, however as we were about to turn finals the controller delivered us a severe telling off for reducing speed and told us that we were in trail with many 727s, (we were a B747-400), and the next time we did that we would be fed off the stream and delayed etc. etc. "now change to tower on xyz.00". We had no choice we were far to close to challenge him and we needed a landing clearance, apart from that arguing on frequency is a no no.
I was very pissed off as we had followed to the letter, the mile and the knot all of the requirements of the Jeppesen plate and AT NO TIME had been issued ANY speed control instructions by any of the controllers.
Was this guy showing off to the 727.s, a new controller or just having a go at us as a new operator into EWR? (regularly into JFK with no problems at all). Thought about 'phoning from the gate and asking him to explain himself but what is the point? His timing and what he said left me believing he was showing off and not worth talking to.

If ATC want to impose their own speed control to suit the local conditions at the time then fair enough but you must tell the guys in the aeroplane too, (please!:ok:).

[rigpiggy]

I know just a poke at the guy's whose paycheck I'm jealous of. My best was 250 to 2.5 dme at MHT "controller requested due traffic" Only thing that came close below 10k was the F28.

[Albino]

126.825 - I agree with you're original post in so far as some people do regularly ignore the speeds given by ATC. I think however that we generally fall into 2 categories.

1. Foreign or unfamiliar operators (usually with a poor grasp of English) who simply ignore the speeds given and do their own thing.

2. Regular operators who know the various gates you use, believe you have forgotten or are too busy to issue further speed control and apply it themselves.

With regards to the first category there is no real excuse and the airlines responsible should be brought to task, the second group however is slightly more complex.

Like many of the other posters I have operated out of the south for a while now and the problem we have is that when given an ATC speed instruction we can only comply as far as is practical. Several times I have been asked to maintain 220kts and given no further instruction until fully established at around 7 miles (160 to 4), there is absolutely no way we would be able to conduct a stablised approach\landing from that position.

Like all the others here I have a huge amount of respect for the job you and others do in what is an extremely busy piece of airspace but until positive speed control is given on every approach I think you will find that pilots will assume\second guess when you want them to reduce (especially with a busy frequency).

[Spitoon]

Spitoon.
Do you mean "no less important than any other instruction?"Thanks maui - re-reading it, I think it would be better to have said that speed control instruction are no more and no less important than any others.

On a more general point, I am surprised by the number of pilots that wanmt standard speeds to be made the rule - this would be inefficient when it is not necessary for traffic reasons. Having said that, if crews want to fly at specific 'standard' speeds when there are no ATC speed restrictions, then they can.....and I always thought they did!

Lastly, one thing that does not seem to have come up is that some SLPs are there for reasons other than sequencing or other traffic management purposes. Rather, the speed restrictions are there to assure containment within airspace or separation from other procedures.

[bomarc]

one additional thought...as pilots we have all experienced the need for SPEED restrictions.

at certain airports, for example that 747 chap going into EWR, after the first time you are hosed by atc in this sort of rude manner, next time you make your initial call to the facility, simply:

Approach control, Callsign, level at 4000, NO ASSIGNED SPEED.

of course a wise guy will say, DO YOU WANT A SPEED ASIGNMENT?

[Roffa]

westie,
126.82 - I assume 3-4 mile seperation in non low vis conditions is the minimum seperation? so any speed violations by pilots will cause a delaying in the approach. Also in these days of upgraded TCAS, just how helpful is a constant a/c speed readout to you? So do you sometimes feel you want to issue some a/c with a 'ticket' who obviously ignore you?

All the major London airports will use 2.5nm as a minimum separation on final approach when the wx is suitable and there are no wake vortex considerations.

That's obviously fairly close and it requires quite fine tuning from the ATC perspective and it doesn't take much non-compliance from the cockpit for it to reduce below 2.5nm. If it reduces to less than 2nm as happens occasionaly (not always our own fault!) we get suspended and go through the no tea and biscuits routine :(

[A300Man]

What a thoroughly enjoyable thread, filled with good data and civility from top to bottom. Something of a rarity these days. Keep it going fellas!! Thanks a lot.

[terrain safe]

All the major London airports will use 2.5nm as a minimum separation on final approach when the wx is suitable and there are no wake vortex considerations.

That'll be LL and KK only then will it? SS still use 3 miles as do Luton I believe.

As a tower controller we see the lack of speed control as a real problem. If you are the only Aircraft in the sky, quite often you come over at 7 or 8 miles flying about 200-220 kts ground speed. When radar is challenged they say that there is no need to use speed as this is the only aircraft in the sky. Yes as far as you are concerned it is but what about the departures and my planning etc.

Also pilots not complying. A certain operator is well known for flying at high speed. When you ask the speed they will reply "160 to 4" so I then have to say "what is your speed NOW?" and they still lie (I know because radar have mode s and can tell me). Please make the effort because if you are 3 miles behind a Citation at 115kts and you are at 185kts, there is a good chance that you will go around. So please try and comply and if you are told to reduce to min safe there is a reason why and don't do as a pilot did the other day and still be at 175kts at 2 miles and then get snotty when sent around. I will always try and make it work but we all have to try (that includes you radar!!!:ok:)

[411A]

Surprisingly enough, one of the locations where speed contol is absolutely required is during the Hajj season at JED.
Many times aircraft in close trail to three parallel runways, and it works like clockwork.
Then, one day I receive a request from the JED approach controller...

EAN3037, are you a TriStar?

Affirmative.

Can you maintain 200 knots until five miles final?

210 if you wish.

Even better, thank you, call the tower.

And yes, it is possible with the 'ole Lockheed tri-motor, if you pay attention.

The point to this little story is...if ATC folks want maximum co-operation as regards requested speeds, all they have to do is ask, BUT they do need to state when that speed is no longer needed.

[Gonzo]

Terrain Safe,

We still use 3 mile spacing as default. Our part 2 has been altered so that 2.5 miles separation is now legal, if it decreases for any reason.

[bomarc]

lies:

wouldn't it be nice if all pilots told the truth all the time? speeds, airport in sight, having weight and balance info...

and I'll be the flight attendAnts would like it if we told the truth too! ;0

[Roffa]

terrain safe, I did say the major London airports :}

Gonzo, your Pt 2 must be different to ours? Ours says that whilst 3nm may be considered to be the standard final approach spacing, it is incumbent on the tower WM to maximise runway capacity i.e. offer 2.5nm spacing if at all possible (all criteria met).

That doesn't mean we're aiming for 3nm allowing a reduction to 2.5nm if it decreases for any reason. It means we're aiming for 2.5nm from the start and all the way down the approach, but I'm sure you did know that so I'm unsure why you replied as you did?

[Gonzo]

Ours says that whilst 3nm may be considered to be the standard final approach spacing, it is incumbent on the tower WM to maximise runway capacity i.e. offer 2.5nm spacing if at all possible (all criteria met).

I think our part 2s do marry up. As you say, even if the conditions exist, we do have to approve/offer it. In lieu of that, 3 mile spacing is used.

[Spitoon]

Slight thread creep here - sorry.All the major London airports will use 2.5nm as a minimum separation on final approach when the wx is suitable and there are no wake vortex considerations.
That's obviously fairly close and it requires quite fine tuning from the ATC perspective and it doesn't take much non-compliance from the cockpit for it to reduce below 2.5nm. If it reduces to less than 2nm as happens occasionaly (not always our own fault!) we get suspended and go through the no tea and biscuits routine I've always though that a separation minima was just that, a minima. If you only get the tea and biscuits if the spacing gets to less than 2NM then what about all of the losses of separation where spacing was between 2 and 2.5NM?
If I end up with two aeroplanes with less than the standard space between them (not half a mile - or 20% less) I'm going to be asked to explain...and pretty promptly! I guess separation means different things to different units.

[Roffa]

Spitoon,

2nm is where the separation monitoring function will trigger, if it triggers a fair way out on final approach then something has obviously gone fairly awry and needs to be investigated. If it's less than 2.5nm but more than 2nm then I guess it's up to the individual controller to report themselves because it won't be picked up automatically.

Otherwise, it is accepted that closer to the airfield as traffic starts to reduce to final approach speed the separation behind will reduce below 2.5nm.

That is why there are strict weather criteria for using the procedure such that at the point it normally reduces below 2.5nm the a/c will be visible to and talking to the tower controller and reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome applies.

[jshg]

In my company (UK charter & schedule, Airbus & Boeing) we are required to be 160kt max at 4nm, and are advised that we need to reduce at 8 nm to achieve it. It's increasingly common at LGW in particular to be asked for 180 to 4 - but company SOPs require us to refuse it.

[Airbus Unplugged]

This morning at Hounslow Municipal, it was more like 2.4nm!!

I felt like a cat slipping down formica, with the following cat's nose up my arse.

Two go arounds in half an hour too.

What a day:rolleyes:

[Del Prado]

Speaking as a gatwick radar controller, I've never heard of anyone being asked for 180kts to 4.


I'd say over 30% of aircraft inbound to gatwick reduce speed below 160kts outside 4dme. The worst offenders in my experience are BA 735s, A330s and Easyjet A319s. I wonder if there's been a change in Easyjet SOPs or an increase in training as Easyjet used to be a lot better?

I'd be happy to let every aircraft reduce below 160kts at 7dme but the increased spacing requirement would lead to unacceptable delays. (unacceptable to the airlines!)

[jshg]

The problem with the 330 is that it's a 230t glider - wind the speed back and power goes to idle (it was almost there anyway) and speed bleeds off very, very slowly. Without a headwind nothing discernible happens to IAS - hence the temptation to increase drag and reduce speed earlier.

[flash2002]

whatdo you mean by offending, flying too fast or too slow?

[hapzim]

In the Airbus alot of the speed reduction occurs when in the managed speed mode, rather than using manual interjection as you start droping the gear and flaps. The system brings you right back on speed using mini g/s.

[Del Prado]

too slow. the ones that reduce below 160kts outside 4dme.

[IcePack]

Yeh, the other week in a very light 75 got asked to "Maintain 180Kts for the time being" at LGW. Squealed to slow down at six and a half. Unfortunatly the a/c took so long with the throttles shut it tripped the snitch box at 500' for low pwr. They were coming up honest. Yep I thought it would have been possible from 6 miles too but not on the day. Sorry guys after that you don't get 180 inside 9 now from me as don't want another conversation with me chief.

[duece19]

It seems fairly clear to me, that there are two diffrent issues about the same problem. An aircraft just doesnt loose speed like a car and with todays SOPs becoming more and more strict regarding stable criterias this creates a problem.

Having said that, there is no excuse for disregarding a speedinstruction without letting the controller know why and what will happen.

But since this really is a problem Im quite surprised that the flightops management at various airlines have not communicated this to ATC.

Del Prado - you name a few "offenders". Since this seems to happen near enough most of the times with these types of aircraft/airline combinations then there may actually be an issue?

Letting people slow down earlier may well lead to increased delays, but the other is pressing crew in to inacceptable positions regarding height vs speed and surely this is not the way forward?

I think there has been many examples shown in this thread already about how hard it can be to loose 45ish knots in 1 mile, but I also believe the issue of regarding speedinstructions as serious as they are has been "properly" adressed.

Something needs to be done bout this, so why cant we start communicating through official channels rather than just moaning and groaning here?

hat, coat...

Duece

[flash2002]

I wouldn't know for the airbus. But in the 737 I drop the gear and flaps 15 at approx 5NM and wind the speed back at around 4.6
The gear must be down and locked at 1500ft AAL

You might see this on your screen as reducing early, but the 737 will still be doing 160 at 4NM maybe 5kts slower.
But remember we should be stable at a 1000ft AAL. Thats flap 30 or 40.

[barit1]

I know "communicate" is #3 down the list, but it IS a 2-way street! :ouch:

[78deg]

Good thread

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

Any new ATC clearance supersedes all previous clearances, does it not?

This presumably applies to speeds.

[flash2002]

What if i'm at 10NM at 180kts. And the controller says maintain 160 between 7 and 4 contact the tower on.............

Does this mean he wants mee to keep 180 till 7nm or can I slow down immediately?????

[Skypartners]

I was following a Citation down the ILS into Coventry today - he was well ahead of me with the vectors and as I was positioned on base (he was well down final by then) I was asked to reduce to MAS because he had slowed down. By the way I was in a single engine piston! (Albeit a fast one)

[HundredPercentPlease]

I'd say over 30% of aircraft inbound to gatwick reduce speed below 160kts outside 4dme. The worst offenders in my experience are BA 735s, A330s and Easyjet A319s. I wonder if there's been a change in Easyjet SOPs or an increase in training as Easyjet used to be a lot better?

I'll let NoD offer an answer from here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2962429#post2962429

At easy, the best way to achieve the mandatory stable by 1000' is to fly 160 to 5.0 (nearer 6.0 in still air/slight tail), then cut the thrust by selecting managed speed and putting the gear down.

So do you want all of us to say "it will be 160 to 5/6" on receipt of the instruction? As it stands, the attitude in the flight deck is that we will do our best to accommodate your speed requests, but ultimately we will fly the speeds that we feel are safe and meet our stable approach criteria.

[126.825]

cheers guys and girls for all your replies......just a quick update and some replies......

i dont want to turn this into a them and us debate. i am a controller.my job nice and simple (sometimes) provide a service to aircraft departing and arriving at egXX. (my name will give it away). this to me means firstly safety and then service. i try where possible to update pilots ie maintain 180kts i will slow you shortly etc.

411A...you're paid to land the aircraft safely and im paid to firstly keep the aircraft safe and then to offer a service to the aircraft. i do operate precise speeds and i expect them to be complied with....if they can't then i expect the pilot to inform me. now the airport i provide this service for is busy however, rarely too busy for a pilot to speak. i'm guessing you dont fly...because of your answer to keep aircraft in the hold! it worries me slightly that you think controllers put aircraft in jeopardy for our "convenience".....i think not.

flash2002 - i sometimes say "arrange your speed to be 160 between 7 and 4 dme." to me this means free speed but be 160kts between 7 and 4 dme - it helps the tower controllers if they need to cross the runway with tugs etc if the aircraft is doing standard speeds.

finger bob - 170 to 5 is rarely a problem as long as we know - like most things if we now early enough we just work round it....downwind is a good time when leaving a flight level for an altitude.

thanks again for all your comments :ok:

[NigelOnDraft]

"100% please" has saved me requoting the whole earlier thread :D

I can 100% guarantee that no BA Airbus crew flies "160 to 4", despite being asked to on 99% occasions :ooh: They just vary in how much they "cheat it" ;) i.e. the distance >4 they slow down, and/or the techniques they use to then slow down.

Others have advocated "non-standard" use of Flaps / Noise to achieve / closer adhere to ATC's speed requests. It's a balance, but I think we will be made to adhere to the tree-hugger way more and more - why are ATC so keen on a CDA if they want us to generate 15dB more, and burn 100Kg more to adhere to their speed schedule :rolleyes:

Summary We adhere to the ATC speed request - we have tea and biscuits with our Mgmt. We adhere to our Mgmt/SOP speed schedule, you get tea and biscuits with your Mgmt. Result - Mgmt is the common factor - quelle surprise :oh:

[411A]

:rolleyes:i'm guessing you dont fly...because of your answer to keep aircraft in the hold! it worries me slightly that you think controllers put aircraft in jeopardy for our "convenience".....i think not.

You have now been told by many, 126.825, that pilots have standard procedures to follow, and make no mistake, follow 'em they will, regardless of what you, or indeed any other air traffic controller, wants or desires.
Quite frankly, it really is that simple.
If additional holding or longer vectors with additional spacing on final is needed, you will not get any complaints from me, I carry plenty of extra fuel for the unexpected, perhaps quite unlike some others.
You, and the rest of the ATC folks will just have to learn to work a little harder, and in doing so I expect that you might find pilots just a bit more accomodating.
The type I fly is very flexible in the speed department, but some others clearly are not.
It's them you have to worry about...:rolleyes:

[West Coast]

Further re-enforces my belief that ours and ATC's priorities aren't always the same.

[Fly3]

As a regular operator to the US and EWR in particular I find that the usual request is to maintain 190 to 4nm. However, I am often asked to maintain completely unrealistic speeds, the worst being 210 to DOOIN (1700ft) on the glide slope. On informing the guy that his request was not possible to carry out and 170 was the best I could do I was severely chastised, taken out of the pattern and vectored for 25 minutes, probably as a punishment. It seems that controllers in the States have little consideration for the capabilities of different aircraft types to slow down and go down, or of the requirements to be stabilized on finals, which in my companies case is by 1000ft.

[Aluminium Importer]

“Summary We adhere to the ATC speed request - we have tea and biscuits with our Mgmt. We adhere to our Mgmt/SOP speed schedule, you get tea and biscuits with your Mgmt. Result - Mgmt is the common factor - quelle surprise”

Or the third option, you adhere to your Mgmt/SOP speed schedule and a lighter aircraft behind you (at the minimum vortex spacing) has a nasty because you slowed down early without advising ATC. We all get to meet our respective Mgmts, but only the ATCO gets tea and biscuits, and (quite possibly) continued employment!

Why? Because the pilot failed to comply with an ATC instruction, and he/she didn’t tell ATC that they would be unable to comply with it. Simply speaking this is against the law.

All ATCOs (and certainly those at the London airports) are aware that certain aircraft and certain weather conditions mean that aircraft are unable to comply with ATC speed instructions and we don’t have a problem with this. We also know that you will fly your aeroplanes to comply with your company SOPs and we don’t have a problem with this either.

The vast, vast majority of the time slowing early to meet your SOPs has no effect on operations (apart from maybe the odd go-around) and we all go home to live another day. The vast, vast minority of the time (occasions we’d be unlucky to see in our careers but which are still quite possible) an incident / accident caused by the above circumstances would lead to the pilot being legally responsible.

The ideal answer should be (having advised ATC that you can’t meet a speed restriction), to advise your OPS department every time this happens. If this happens frequently (and I imagine it does!), your OPS should then liaise with our OPS and procedures (either yours or ours) will change for the better.

Just make sure it’s the OPS department of the relevant ATC unit they speak to and not senior management, who quite frankly couldn’t organise a pissup in a brewery, let alone an ATC operation in an ATC centre!

[despegue]

In response to the previous post:

This opinion is in my humble view somewhat incorrect.
I do not have to tell ATC if I have to reduce on final approach to ensure a stabilised landing, should the workload be too high OR if the frequency is blocked. However, I should announce this whenever I do have the chance.
ATC really vectors too short in my opinion in some airports. Remember that your first priority lies with the safe handling of the aircraft. That goes for ATCO's as well as for the Flightcrew. Expeditious and volume handling should always take a second place.
A rushed and fast approach followed by an unstable situation is in my book always worse then an approach broken of due to runway occupancy in CAVOK conditions.

That said, I do have the utmost respect for ATC and know that they DO work hard in a lot of European airports. Especially in Western Europe.

[Ashling]

Seems to me that there needs to be substantialy more communication between the companies and ATC units.

More and more companies SOPs require that crews be stable by 1000' aal perhaps with a lower hard alt at 500'. It is nigh on impossable to achieve this if you are doing 160 kts at 4 nm. It would require a flap selection, a 20-30 kt speed reduction in under a nm and throttles spooled up. So crews acknowledge the instruction 160 to 4 and actually fly 160 to 5 or just under it. They are not disregarding an ATC instruction for the fun or the hell of it or because they do not understand the instruction they are disregarding it because their company requires them to do so. I'm sure most line pilots and controllers recognise this situation.

So the procedures need to keep up otherwise they become worthless and disrespected. 160 to 5 with a slowdown to 160 no later than 8 would be far more realistic in my view. So we have to get management at ATC and airline level to talk to each other and sort it out. That and pester the CAA. Otherwise operators will continue to struggle to make a round peg fit a square hole.

I should add that in my view ATC units at the London clutch airfields do an outstanding job. For me the real speed control problem lies elsewhere, mainly spain. But then commercialy my ops have been limited to Europe.

[AlexL]

It appears that despite the 160 to 4 instruction, most of us actualyl fly 160 to 4.5 to 5 ish. If that is what is actually happening, and its not messing up the flow rates, then why not just change the instruction to "160 to 5"? I bet you would get more compliance as well. Whilst most of us probably slow down between 4 and 5 to meet the stablised approach criterea, I'll bet there are some out there who say "I can't manage 160 to 4, so I'm going to completely ignore it". If you give 160 to 5 then they woud probably give it a better shot.

Also w.r.t the mode S comment earlier - what does your mode S show - my current IAS or my current selection in the MCP speed window? 'coz whats in the MCP speed window is completely irrelevent. In a 757 If I wind back the speed window at 4.5 miles, My IAS will still be 160 at 4 miles - which is what you asked me to do, but if you are monitoring what I'm setting then you will assume I've slowed down early - which I haven't.
If I wind the speed back at 5, then the IAS will start coming back somewhere between 4 and 4.5.

FWIW I always try and tell the Gatwick director if I am very light weight, for one, so he knows that I will be slowing back to <120kts, so anything fast behind me is goign to catch up damn quick in the last 4 miles, and for two, so hopefully he will realise I cannot slow up from 160 to 115 in a mile, and be stable at 1000ft.

[Del Prado]

So do you want all of us to say "it will be 160 to 5/6" on receipt of the instruction?

Yes please, or better still, tell your ops department to ask for 160 to 5 as a standard for your fleet.


ATC really vectors too short in my opinion in some airports

that does seem to happen a lot at gatwick. aircraft fly round the hold, then get vectored for a 7 or 8 mile final. by then it's too late to use a speed differential to catch up.



I wouldn't know for the airbus. But in the 737 I drop the gear and flaps 15 at approx 5NM and wind the speed back at around 4.6
The gear must be down and locked at 1500ft AAL

You might see this on your screen as reducing early, but the 737 will still be doing 160 at 4NM maybe 5kts slower.
But remember we should be stable at a 1000ft AAL. Thats flap 30 or 40.

I don't see a problem with this but too often they're 140kts AT 5 dme. (and I frequently see the IAS at 5 is maintained until inside 1 mile.:ugh:)

BTW Flash2002 if you're given 160 between 7 and 4, when at 10dme you can slow to 160 anywhere between 10 and 7.

[Airbus Unplugged]

Please remember that those blips who don't do as they're told are not errant insects, they're living breathing machines flown by human beings. They're heavy, light, Boeing, Airbus, fully-loaded, lightly-loaded, flap this, config that, parking here, or parking there.

We do everything we can do comply with your requests, but every approach is not the same everyday, we don't simply drop the clutch, stand on the brake pedal and shift down a gear. In one day last week I flew a 321 at Flap 3 with a Vref of 147 knots and a 15kt headwind = 162 target Vapp, followed by a 319 in Flap Full with a Vapp of 117. I've flown lightly loaded 757's with a grounspeed of 90kts on short final. You just can't chastise pilots for doing their best.

And secondly, where do I get the time to discuss with you my approach strategy? I can barely get a word in edgewise to call established, let alone request permission to use the glideslope - that quaint old English custom.

What worries me is that no-one is looking at the flashing yellow 'Heathrow Full' caption. We just keep on packing them in and blaming each other. Everyday we're all just a little luckier than yesterday.

Management? Save your breath, tell them to BACK OFF! and lets take commercial pressure right out of the operation.:ugh:

[wobble2plank]

Have to agree whole heartedly with Airbus Unplugged on this on!

The company SOP for the £8 of fuel saving is flap 3 on a 321, I had to ammend that to flap full in a very heavy 321 the other day as we were following a very light 319 at 2.5 miles and our Vapp was 149 with a 15Kt head which was going to screw us behind a 319 at 117 kts Vapp.

I always try to warn director of an excessivly (sp?) low or high Vapp as I do realise the problems it can cause and the potential for go arounds. However, the idea of packing in the landing train at 2.5 miles per aircraft be they 737/757/319/320/321/MD80 or even the dear old Fokker 50 and demanding we all meet the 140 after 4 is a receipe for problems.

ATC are, I'm sure, well aware of the pitfalls and I firmly believe that early communictions on director helps the cause.

As Airbus Unplugged says we are human, we are aware of the problems and we DO try our best to juggle the various variables to achieve as close to what ATC want as possible.

T'aint always gonna happen.

W2P

[RobertK]

Also w.r.t the mode S comment earlier - what does your mode S show - my current IAS or my current selection in the MCP speed window?
According to our resident Mode-S experts and the ICAO rules, IAS.
MCP speed is not included in Mode S, and is apparently not planned to be.

Regards,

Robert

[Del Prado]

If additional holding or longer vectors with additional spacing on final is needed, you will not get any complaints from me
It's not so much the extra delay for the individual aircraft but if we're adding an extra 400/500 minutes of delays into the airport every day your airline is going to see a significant rise in fuel costs. If it's your home base and it's already at capacity, there could be up to 100 less slots every day. That's a lot of flights to cancel.

[terrain safe]

In answer to the comment that it's too busy to say that you need 160 to 5 miles not 4 is a red herring. If you know that is what you need, when told to maintain a speed you can't you immediately reply (as you have to give a readback) that you need something else. As previously stated if given an instruction and you wilfully disobey it, then you are breaking the law. I know your SOPs come first, and I agree with that, after all you are sat at the sharp end, but you MUST inform if you are unable to comply with any ATC instruction. Otherwise it will lead to chaos with people choosing which instructions to comply with or not. We, as stated previously, need to work together to make it work. We don't as a general rule know every operators SOPS which is why we need to have standardisation. I try and paint a picture on the RT so that if a pilot can help they will have a full understanding of what's going on, please can we make this a 2 way process.

PS thanks to all the pilots who have helped me out over the years, I hope we're even!;)

[cwatters]

It would be interesting to hear from aircraft designers at this point.. Are they aiming for all new aircraft to meet the need for a "standard" approach speed under all loading and weather conditions?

[fireflybob]

Sorry guys but maybe I have missed something here but surely it's quite simple - if ATC ask you to fly at an IAS then you comply if you can - if you can't comply then you advise ATC as soon as possible - why is that such a big deal?

[ibelieveicanfly]

If ATC for example fogets to tell us to reduce speed until a defined point like f.ex. "160kt to 4DME", it is very annoying to ask all the time if we can reduce as the threshold gets closer(remember latest established in spd and glide at 500ft in VMC!).it makes obvious about back speed,isn't it?

[parabellum]

Just a thought. On a B747-400 freighter landing at MLW of 302 tons the Vref is 157knots, so you will definitely get 160 to the marker but are you calculating on any reduction AFTER the marker or are you aware that heavy freighters won't be going much below 160kts until touchdown?

[bomarc]

Let us openly acknowledge that the PILOT must be able to freely choose his landing speed. Let us also acknowledge that ATC is merely trying to make things work and stuff 5 pounds of sugar into a 3 pound sack.

so, dear ATC, I would think that you should hear the word "UNABLE" more and more often and YOU should prepare for that.

during the famed berlin airlift, when the C54 was the primary plane, all the speeds were the same and you could run it like a railroad.

but now, there are a wide variety of planes and speeds.

and if ATC gives a clearance, 160knots to 4 dme, AND DOESN"T ALLOW TIME TO LISTEN for a reply, you must assume you might not get what you asked for.

I say, ATC change YOUR procedures...any speed from the FAF inbound is ok, speed adjustments only allowed prior to the FAF/OM/GS intercept.

[120.4]

Parabellum
It is common practice these days to ask the freighters and some specific types, e.g. B773, what their Vref is. This enables us to make some adjustment for the lack of slowdown inside 4nm.

It has been said before and bears saying again that the crux of the matter here is lack of spare runway capacity at the London airports. This lack is forcing ATC to try and make one size fit all, which of course it doesn't.

Spare capacity is not waste, it is part of essential safety management and enables ATC to allow room for individual characteristics/error. Unfortunately, the government's policy of making "best use of existing runways" works counter to good aviation practice. It is not the job of aircrew or ATC to make up for this lack but we very much feel under pressure to do so.

.4:ugh:

[parabellum]

Thanks 120.4, as has already been mentioned, an empty aircraft will slow down very quickly but a heavy freighter has huge inertia and needs more space.

Sympathies with the problems you have with some of the decision makers, shame they don't all have to serve an apprenticeship in ATC first!

[Human Factor]

126.825 (yes, it does give it away ;)),

I work for a large 737 operator based at EGxx (does that give it away as well :}). Our management have been in discussions with yours about allowing us to fly 170 to 5 whenever possible, rather than 160 to 4, as it saves us having to drop the gear and flap 15 at eight miles.

A bit of background...

At least one 737 has been lost in the past due to a phenomenon known as "rudder hard-over". As a result, a few years ago the 737 speed schedule was changed. Before, we were able to fly 160 to 4 at Flap 5 with the gear up. In order to mitigate the "hard-over" issue, the speed schedule was increased for each flap setting to allow greater aileron authority for a given flap setting. However, the 737 has a gear warning horn which cannot be cancelled at Flap 15 (the setting needed for 160kts on the new schedule). The only solution is to drop the gear at the same time, with the consequent increase in noise and fuel burn. In fact, it almost totally negates the benefits of a CDA. At 170kts, we are able to fly at Flap 10 with the gear up.

The reason I bring this up is that it has been suggested to us that if we request 170 to 5 on first contact with your good self (126.825), it should be approved. Unfortunately I have given up as by the time I am transferred to your mate on 118.95, the request has invariably been forgotten. This happens 95% of the time. Clearly when I'm turning onto the localiser, it's a bit late to ask again - I have and it's been politely suggested to me that I request it on first contact with 126.825. It seems a bit churlish to reply, "I did!".

Anyway, my question....

As my company is responsible for a "significant" number of movements at EGxx (sorry, nearly called it LGx :}), is there a reason why ATC cannot plan for us to do 170 to 5 and only make us do 160 to 4 if there is a tactical reason at the time?

Not having a dig, simply curious.

Regards,

HF

PS: In 737 terms, to make our "stable approach" gate of 1000' AAL, 160 to 4, 170 to 5 and 180 to 6 equate pretty much to the same thing.

[Human Factor]

Just re-read the thread to find that fingerbob has made a similar point, albeit using about a tenth of the number of words. :\

Still, can we change the ATC SOP for the 737 to 170 to 5 please.:D

[Del Prado]

HF, I always try give you 170kts (or at least up to 6dme), the lack of requests for 170 to 5 make me wonder if I'm doing the right thing!
Is it beneficial for all 737s at all weights?


maybe the optimum time to make the request is just before you turn base when there's a greater chance you're on the frequency that is going to provide the final approach spacing. But how do you know when that will be?:ugh:


can't your ops dept speak to our ops dept and make an official request?
would your entire fleet be happy with that?

the only problem we have is, the more we tailor the speeds to suit individual aircraft and airlines, the more complex our job is. That's ok for someone that's been valid for a few years but might be an unnecessary burden on trainees.

[flash2002]

No the 737-700 doesnt need this. We can fly 160 at flaps 5 most of the time. Dontknow for the rest. Most of the time I could give you 180 to 6 as well. Being at Flap 1.
At Low weights the speeds go down very much.

The diffence between the classics and ng's is that classics have a fixed speed schedule. Where the NG's have an FMC generated Flap speed based on weight. Preferably we would like to fly our fmc generated flap speeds but this would not work for you guys.

So on a typical day in the -700 we would fly

flap1 180kts
flap5 160kts
gear down flap 15 about 145kts
gear down flap 30 about 130kts

[120.4]

QED.

One size does not fit all (even within a generic type). The Final Director only has capacity for so much flexibility and now that 2.5nm is "expected", he has less room for error too.

In an ideal world, an advanced ATC support tool would provide accurate guidance for the different pairs in the sequence, taking into account their individual Vref on the day - but that day is still some years away. In the meantime, the priority should surely be to protect the system by creating slack. It is not the job of the individuals to make compromises on good practice in order to make the numbers fit.

.4:ugh:

[FinalVectors]

Hi!
I like to go back to the question asked in the beginning of this thread. "What gives" when given a speed restriction, when should you slow down?

When you are cleared for i.e ILS, any speed restriction are also lifted unless controller have stated a speed to maintain. All you should follow after the clearance is any restrictions decribed on the approach charts. (guess most busy airports have written something like :"maintain minimum 160kt's to OM/4-5NM...if not able to comply...report to ATC") So that means if you are turned on as an example at 25nm final you can theoretically reduce at your own descretion without doing anything wrong.
However....slowing down that early..if you are in a sequence...will probably lead to a controller who will get slightly higher pitch in his voice...and not be your best friend :\

Most pilots are good at reducing speed with their "brain working"...which means..about 210 on base...180 from 10 miles..and towards 160 around 4-5nm final. But sometimes you get a suprize:eek: (remember I once called Speedbird with 757..for "Slowbird...contact TWR"..when he did reduce at 25NM to 160"....fu:mad:ing up everything for me :ugh:)

So to maintain an effective final without loosing space, controllers have to all the time specify the speed to fly at all the way.
"Turn hdg 230, Cleared ILS19R maintain speed 210 until adviced".."maintain speed 180 to 6NM"...and so on.

But to go back to beginning...unless controller tell you to maintain some speed....cleared ILS...means..you can slow down.
Regards
Final Vectors
ENOS APP

[Human Factor]

HF, I always try give you 170kts (or at least up to 6dme), the lack of requests for 170 to 5 make me wonder if I'm doing the right thing!
Is it beneficial for all 737s at all weights?

Pretty much all of the time, it is beneficial. We don't ask because we rarely get (or is that just my experience?). The only exception is for a weight above 53 tonnes where we have to increase all minimum speeds by 10kts. (ie. at 53.1 tonnes and Flap 10, 180kts is as slow as we can go with the gear up!!). Max landing weight for the -300 and -500 is below this therefore it is not an issue. The exception is the -400 which has a MLW of 54.8 tonnes. However, it is unlikely to be this heavy on landing unless tankering fuel, which we don't tend to do into LGW (oops, gave it away!!) so this situation is practically never encountered there.

[Airbus Unplugged]

Hey 120.4 -

It is not the job of aircrew or ATC to make up for this lack but we very much feel under pressure to do so

Solution - find the source of the pressure, kick his butt out of the approach room and report him to CHIRP.

Beancounters cannot be trusted with safety.

[Ashling]

Sorry guy's 170 to 5 won't work for the 737 NG (700 anyway)

We already need to fly 160 to 4ish gear down flap 15 in order to gaurentee stability. This is at the companies direction after numerous unstable approach's with just flap 5 to 4. I doubt they'd be happy to do this at 170. Given that people tend to begin to slow shortly after 5 in any case the suggested change would in effect give us an extra 10 kts to lose in what would be a less draggy config. 160 to 5 would work for us and is the standard speed europe wide.

[JW411]

The first time I really came across serious speed control was when I was based at JFK for 3 years flying DC-10s for an American operator.

Now I freely admit that I am way out of date with current operations in the US of A but, in those days, there were only three speeds:

250 knots below 10,000 ft.
210 knots intermediate approach.
180 knots to the marker.

After the marker, speeds were yours (although small adjustments might be requested by ATC).

Now then, everyone in the whole of America did exactly that and I do not ever recall it being a problem at O'Hare, DFW, Atlanta or anywhere else. It seemed that whatever aircraft you were flying managed somehow to fit into the national plot.

So what has changed?

For one, we still do not have an agreed European-wide speed limit framework and most probably never will.

For two, we have the introduction of the dreaded FDM system whereby any attempt to deviate from SOPs will result in a visit (without tea and biscuits) with the chief pilot regardless of how reasonable your "excuse" might be.

Does anyone else remember the saga of the BA 737s making go arounds on 08at Innsbruck because the EGPWS was giving a "pull up" on short finals because of "map shift"?

These guys were making go arounds on short finals in VMC conditions with a good runway in front of them because not reacting to the EGPWS was going to mean a visit to the head shed.

As long as such deterrents are in force (and I am not saying that FDM is a bad thing) ATC are going to get little cooperation. In fact, someone on the thread has already stated that the BA Airbus fleet is paying little attention to you.

It seems to me that 4D is too late for a speed limit. Perhaps if you could manage with 5 or 6D then more of us would be able to keep you and our FDM officer happy?

[120.4]

Hi Airbus:
The source of the pressure? The EAT machine giving 30 minutes delay; the green haze around each of the holding stacks; introduction of TEAM (telling you there's no end in sight), questions from the aircrew "What's causing the delay"; strong wind slowing the rate etc. When its like this, if you care, you feel you cannot give more than the minimum and that creates the pressure. The fact is, the spacing matters to airport's customers and we know it.

Imagine, if there are 30 aircraft waiting to approach and you miss half a mile on the first gap then every aircraft behind is pushed back by half a mile - (that's 29 aircarft = 14.5 extra miles of total flying); miss half a mile on the second gap then the remainig 28 aircraft have to do that (that's another 14nm of flying to add to the total - 28.5nm so far...). Keep going for all 30 aircraft and the total additional flying done by all 30 aircraft in the queue is in the hundreds of miles - just for missing each gap by half a mile. Heathrow lands about 42 each hour, for about 17 hours each day. Explains why BA alone spend about $2m each month in fuel just going around the holds.

It is very easy to say there is no pressure but in reality it is inevitable. Miss the gap and every body sees it - the performance of the Final Director is visible at a glance. The only way to remove that pressure is to reduce the runway loading so that spacing is not critical.
.4

[wee one]

pages and pages of waffle. The phrase is "not less than 160 to 4" the key is in the first two words. the "standard speeds " that people seem to advocate as missing europe wide are 210 initial (within x miles or iaf etc etc) 185 from 12 miles (intermediate) ,then the above phrase or similar. Look at Alicante and Manchester text and then come back and read this thread and yawn.
NB the speeds above are from a fuzzy ,memory but read the above two paltes and they are at different ends of europe and so close as to be as good a s standard. The wording is locality and langauge specific but the end result is the same.

What ever happened to enjoying flying instead of trying to out Knowledge each other all the effing time.

[javelin]

Resisted temptation but - what the hey !

A320, 321 or 330, light or full will do 160 to 4, provided you are ready for it.

It all comes down to how you set yourself up prior to the 4d point.

Most major airfields ask for it these days and whether we are given no speed or standard speed, you can still achieve the basic requirement for what is, after all a critical part of the sequencing - once you are inside 15 miles, the leeway for speed errors drops quickly - I have seen it on TCAS, in the Radar room and on the ATC simulator when I was priviledged to have a play - funny how I cleared all the locals to the centre fix :ok:

[pasty boy]

Just wondering what tollerances ATC are working too?
I was always told +/- 10kts, as per the old IR test.
I drive a heavy bus, and the frankly rediculous speeds that ATC (in the US) ask you to fly is almost always a huge burden at the end of what can sometimes be a VERY long day! The only way (without a very long RTF interchange which always resuts in the arrogance found across the pond)that I find to manage the situation to a successful outcome is to cheat and use that +/- 10kts to your advantage:ok:
Have to say that trying my best to please US ATC has been extremely trying and very few understand the challenge of long haul/ heavy a/c flying.
As far as 160 to 4 in the UK goes, personnally never found it a problem, even in the dhc 8 (Could even manage 240 to 5 with a decent headwind:})
Thanks to the boys in the tower, sterling effort:ok:
PB

[Roffa]

pasty boy,

Regarding tolerance, as an example, from the UK AIP entry for LHR...

Speed Control: Pilots should typically expect the following speed restrictions to be enforced: 220 kt from the holding facility during the
initial approach phase; 180 kt on base leg/closing heading to final approach; between 180 kt and 160 kt when established on final
approach and thereafter 160 kt to 4 DME. These speeds are applied for ATC separation purposes and are mandatory. In the event of a
new (non-speed related) ATC instruction being issued (eg an instruction to descend on ILS) pilots shall continue to maintain the previously
allocated speed. All speed restrictions are to be flown as accurately as possible. Aircraft unable to conform to these speeds must inform
ATC and state what speeds can be used. In the interests of accurate spacing, pilots are requested to comply with speed adjustments as
promptly as is feasible within their own operational constraints. Pilots should advise ATC if circumstances necessitate a change of speed
for aircraft performance reasons.

[120.4]

Pasty Boy


Heathrow is already at minimum spacing, +/-0kts. I believe the UKAIP used to say no tolerance, that ATC will expect you to fly the seeds as accurately as possible, not sure if it still does.

.4

[gengis]

The level of ATC varies widely across the globe, and just as controllers at busy airports need to put up with pilots from everywhere flying anything, so do we need to make adjustments to cater to the place we happen to be operating in at that point in time. As an example, i went into HKG once (747-400) and was told to maintain 320 kts on the descent until further advised. The controller passed us on to the next guy, who proceeded to turn us onto a base leg heading and issue a descent clearance from 6000' to the glideslope intercept altitude without saying a word about speed. I asked - with a hint of sarcasm, admittedly - if he still wanted 320 kts, to which he sheepishly replied "speed at your discretion". Surprising, coming from HKG, but it's an example of some of the things we need to put up with too.

[NigelOnDraft]

OK... let's change the emphasis from "you must tell ATC" and "what's the point, we never can aim for 160 to 4".
Airbus A319/320/321 into LHR we are invariably told "160 to 4". In practice I fly 160, Flap 2, Gear up to the minimum SOP height of 1600'. I then tell it to fly Final Approach speed (which it will take no notice of because 160K F2 and 3deg slope is essentially idle), and Gear Down - which after a few seconds does start the speed coming back. Remaining Flap not used as speedbrake, but taken as required, and prior to 1000' to keep the spy in the cab happy ;)
At 4D the speed is probably ~150K reducing slowly, maybe a little more. From watching my P2 colleagues, I leave it a little later than most, with either the 1600' being "anticipated" or the Flaps used as speedbrake, hence earlier / more rapid speed reduction and earlier spool up.
So LHR ATCOs, are the BA Airbuses causing you regular problems? Or just the odd one? As I said above, I can almost 100% guarantee no BA Airbus aims to fly 160 to 4... If you really want us to admit that on every approach, we can, but you seem to cope pretty well with us not doing so for the last X years! 757 was the same - slowed from 160K at 5NM.

[L337]

... same on the 747-400. 160 to 4 is a real struggle. So the reality is at about 5 miles you start to slow it all up, and at 4 on average day slowly decreasing through 150.

We are blessed with quick wheels on the Jumbo so that helps, but the real problem is the "spy in the sky". If we are not stable and spooled up by 1000' you can expect phone calls.

In future I will clog the airwaves with my intention to slow at 5 miles. Lets hope I don't block a landing clearance.

[3rd_ear]

Long time lurker here, not connected with aviation in any way except that many of you guys fly over my head every few minutes (if the wind is at all Westerly).

I find this thread, and the previous one started I think by "120.4", intensely interesting because I'm down here looking at you up there (and for the last few months listening to everyone on 119.72, 120.4 etc) and we London folk rather rely on you all not to bang your ally tubes together over our manor. And an excellent job you all on the ground and in the air do, to that end, thank you very much.

You may find it informative to see what BAA think is happening on the London approaches; for LHR see:

http://lhr.webtrak-lochard.com/template/index.html

Is this an accurate picture of how it really is?

[Roffa]

L337,

You need to tell the director, not the tower controller.

If you're going to slow early it will potentially compromise the vortex separation of the traffic behind.

There's little the tower controller can do about that at such a late stage whereas the director can build in some suitable extra space behind you if they know your intentions early enough i.e. on base leg at the latest ideally.

[BOAC]

Done to death a few times!

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15896

and

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69159

Somewhere also we had a world-wide pilot 'vote' on the most popular speeds in the approach sequence (cannot find the thread) and I think we arrived at 220 clean (suits most). 180 intermediate and 170 to 5

[Del Prado]

NoD, I'd say the majority of BA airbus at Heathrow don't give us a problem so what you described seems to work out fine.

It's funny that no BA airbus crews can achieve what Javelin states can be done by any 320/321 or 330, I assume that's down to different company SOPs and stable approach criteria. But that's where it gets even more complicated for the ATCO, who seems to be expected to take into account not only every aircraft type and variant but also the way each company operates it!

[NigelOnDraft]

DP It's funny that no BA airbus crews can achieve what Javelin states can be done by any 320/321 or 330, I assume that's down to different company SOPs and stable approach criteria.Exactly... and the level of retribution afterwards :{

It also depends on one's attitude / approach to airmanship / noise / fuel saving etc. Javelin may be hinting at maintaining 160 to 4 in a "high drag" configuration, or using extra drag (speedbrakes, early flap etc.) to then smartly get back from 160 @ 4 and stable by 1000'. But to me, seems little point in you guys gettings us to do CDAs ~4000' to be a little quieter / save a little fuel, to then waste it all and more, and generate far more noise @ 1500' ;)

[BOAC]

The problem we have, NoD, is that it appears that this sort of 'restriction' is likely to be with us for ever, I feel. We should try to work around it. I posted this elsewhere (for the 737 Classic)
Try:
F10-160 gear up (Now edited to - 160/170 for unmodded a/c)
5D, gear down
4.5D, F15
4.2D flap/speed to taste.

Virtually no extra noise/fuel burn
ATC happy
Safety monitoring programme happy:)

This does not markedly affect a CDA/low drag approach. (Ah! I recall the 'fighter' low-drag approach - run&break, throttles closed from break to 50' for touchdown (on the numbers, of course), at Vref-5:))

It works on the Classic. If I recall BA's SOPs anyway, you need gear down at 2000 radio if not 'visual', so there goes your CDA:)? The other side of the coin is that 'stable at 1000' MUST become a target and not an essential if we are to work in this environment, and company's must accept this. You talk of "the level of retribution afterwards" - what is the 'official' response when you point out the 'impossibility'? I have mentioned before the BRU 'imposition' some years ago of 160 to the OM on one runway, which was totally impossible in BA (who ignored this) until I said I was unable to land there, when it got changed. In any case you get a reasonable stab at it using the above, and as said many times, if your SOPs will NOT permit 160 to 4, say so on director, asking perhaps for 160 to 5, and I know they will cope.

The other way to 'cheat' :eek: is to increase Vref to the limit if necessary to reduce the required speed reduction - who will know - strong winds/gusts - (unless you slide gracefully off the end:))

[maui]

Isn't it all about priorities?

Three factors, noise, economy of operation and economy of spacing. Which is the most important?

If it is noise, then fine keep it clean as long as possible but tell ATC , so they can plan accordingly. If it is economy of operation, a decelerating approach clean as long as possible is the go, impracticle in busy airspace However if spacing (runway capacity) is the criteria tell your beancounters to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and comply with the directions of ATC.
I venture to suggest that, if you are prepared to dirty up, 160 at 4 is no problem for anyone, unless you have a tailwind.
Ashling suggested that an NG would have a problem. If you have your gear down and flap 15 or 25 at 4, are you telling me you cant get the rest of it configured and slowed in the next 400'. If it makes a bit more noise, tuff tits, you can't please everyone.
Someone said their bus wouldn't obey a commanded speed. Dirty it up earlier and it will!
Someone else said a 75 is a slippery beast. What about putting your gear down before you get to 4. If you hit 4 with min flap and no gear, of course you will have problems slowing , configuring and stabilising before 1000'. I do it regularly in a 777IGW. Do you reckon the 75 is any more slippery.

So tell me what is the most important criteria when operating into a busy airport?

Get real guys. Who has the most authority and ultimately who has the most influence on the economy of you operation, the beancounters, the tree huggers or ATC. Dirtying up early is expensive and noisey, but is it any less noisey or expensive than an unnecessary MApp for you or the guy behind who is forced to MA becuase of you lack of flexibility.

Maui

[411A]

It would appear that many of the so-called problems with speed, and the resultant configurations needed to achieve same, are driven by standard specific airline procedures which insist that the aeroplane be on speed/fully configured by no less than 1000 AAL.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, this is complete nonsense...500 AAL would certainly work for the vast majority of aircraft, and has served me well for over thirty years...and yes, those have been in heavy jets.

I wonder...is this 1000 AAL requirement driven mainly by some operators with new(er) low(er) time First Officers/Captains?

OTOH, if you're stuck with it (1000 AAL), you have my sympathy.:{

[electricjetjock]

Well said Maui!:D

[Ashling]

At my outfit its aim to be stable at 1000' MUST be stable by 500' so in effect a company enforced margin for error.

They record 1000' busts as well as 500' busts. The later will be followed by a summons to explain yourself.

[javelin]

I don't dirty up any sooner than normal - standard Airbus stuff.

Config 1 on intercept heading, 2 1/2 dot low on glide, gear at 2000', 3 & full in sequence.

Most 4 mile points are at 1200agl, so if you hit managed speed at about 4.3, the speed doesn't drop until 4 miles but is stable again before 1000'agl which is our OFDM alert height in IMC, 500 agl stable call in VMC.

Then through groundspeed mini, a bit of turbulence, some fat passengers so VAPP is close to VLS and the whole day suddemly gets interesting !

I think things like this should be decided only after consultation with the airspace users, the trainers within those organisations who can say that for aeroplane 'X', the comfortable, repeatable speed with a low houred crew is 'Y'. Then NATS or ICAO or whoever take the information and come up with a standard which we can all achieve time after time.

Don't forget, if you say to an ATC guy, we can consistently do 180 to 4, then after a while, they will adapt their sequences and fit more aeroplanes in. If the concensus is that 180 to 10, 150 to 4 is more achievable then we all win.

Kind of CRM on a global scale :ok:

[Radarix]

Hi everybody,
I´m one of the already mentioned "170 to the marker " controllers from Germany.
So far I´ve read through most of the thread and found it very interesting to read about all the common practices around the world.
But I didn´t really understand all the fuss about it.
If you get a speed, stick to it. If the assigned speed is not conform with your procedures tell us.
If you recieve a descent restriction which is far beyond the aerodynamical capabilities of you plane you also tell atc, don´t you?
So when it comes to speed control the same procedure should be applied.
My point of view regarding speed control is as follows:
E.g., I assign minimum clean to a flight on downwind, turn them onto dogleg and expect the pilots to tell me when they need to reduce according to their speed shedule. Every controller knows that a plane can´t keep 210 or so to short final unless it´s happy hour and they like to go for a second try.
Controllers simply can´t know all the speeds.
I´m working the approach for Cologne/Bonn home of two german LCC. Having two flights of one Company on final, same type. The first one has his bus parked at 12 NM, the otherone passes the FAF at 230kts.
So my message is (though I found the discussion extremey interesting) tell us when you need to reduce.
Cheers
Markus

[126.825]

411... i think your slightly missing the point im afraid. i Know i am there to provide a service to you guys and girls. but the bigger picture is not just you in your plane in the sky. by increasing the vectors at a busy airport such as the one i work would lead to more holding, which means more fuel and greater delays etc. the other point....these speeds were negiotiated with the airlines! we discussed what speeds you were happy to comply with. i didnt think i was asking for too much for a pilot to advise me they were going to reduce! and as for working a little harder....... if you sit in the hold and we pull you off one at a time for say 6nm spacing....it makes our life is easier!


human factor......an apology firstly that you dont get your 170 to 5nm. i always write it on my strip and on passing you over tell the fin guy (118.950). its not rocket science when it comes to it to plan for 170 to 5nm. all we do is add an extra 1/4 to 1/2 mile on for catch up.a suggesstion maybe to ask the fin guy on first contact or suggest is ask your ops guys to contact NATS and put a request in for your operator 737's to have that speed. is there any chance you can send me a personal message on here so we can discuss it further? regards.


i cant stress enough that this isnt about atc versus pilots,just trying to do my job...but in the past 7 days have witnessed pilots reducing their speed without saying a word and the freq wasn't that busy. on one occasion it was very lucky i had mode S!

take it easy..........

[javelin]

Given a clear approach, I would be happy in a 320/321 to do 300kts to 15 miles and slow down on schedule, do the approach and land.

If I am being controlled by very professional people, I am happy to conform to the speeds - I would however, like to know what speeds you want in time for me to adjust profile to suit.

Would it be a problem for the ATC folk to assign speeds further out and refine them as appropriate ?

[120.4]

Javelin

The 180kts to 160kts reduction is used to fine tune the spacing to cater for errors in vectoring etc; this avoids lost space on the approach. Trouble is of course that the position for that reduction to take place varies depending on the vectoring and how long the final is.

One of the advantages of using a long final (say 15nm) is that the spacing should be established by about 10nm from t/down meaning that you should receive the 160kts to 4d instruction quite early. The worst possible scenario is the short final, where the director is fighting not to lose time on the approach and so keeps the speed on as long as he dare - leading to hot approaches.

(Personally, my view is that traffic should be permitted to reduce from 180kts by 7nm at the latest, 8nm if it is a heavy, regardless of whether the spacing is correct.)

.4

[Human Factor]

I just want to emphasise that the problem is not that 160 to 4 is too fast. I guarantee I can achieve a stable approach every time - not surprising when I've had the gear down for the past four miles!!:ugh:

The problem is "160 to 4" from eight or ten miles is totally inappropriate for a 737 "Classic" if we're expected to carry out a CDA and minimise noise and fuel burn. For those who don't know, into the London airports, we're supposed to fly a continuous descent approach from 6000 feet to minimise noise and fuel burn. I'm frequently given "160 to 4" from ten miles, which means dropping the gear at 3000 feet or more, which means winding the engines up for more than half of the CDA!!

126.825,

PM inbound.:ok:

[sorcery]

411A is not, I think, missing the point, merely addressing it from a chief pilot viewpoint, as opposed to that from an ATCO . The days are gone when all our pilots sat in the right seat for 10+ years and achieved command with substantial flight experience. Our chief pilots are now imposing SOPs to guard against runway excursions. A successful landing should be achievable as long as the aircraft is stable at any height above the threshold.

[Fly3]

I think you will find that having to be "stabilized" by 1000ft has more to do with the fact that statistically, aircraft which are not, have a much higher risk of a landing incident/accident and nothing to do with the crews experience.

[flash2002]

Yeah right so in your opinion being stable at 100ft AAL should be possible. But due to all these stupid inexperienced F/O's, who lack the ability or have no idea how to fly, we now have to aim to be stable at a 1000ft AAL and have to be stable at 500ft AAL.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::mad:

I guess you are that captain who ignores the f/o when he calls for a go-around.:D

"But but but, I was stable during the flare........................"

[maui]

Human Factor.

Thankyou for confirming what I said. "It's a matter of priorities"

You confirm you can fly 160 to 4 and be stabilised at the required alt.
You cannot properly conduct a CDA, conform to requested speeds and be stabilised. I agree.

Decide which you will comply with and don't try to be all things to all men, you can't. Try to do it all and you will screw it up.

The bug in the system is the tree huggers.

You can't please everyone. But sure as hell you'll p1ss the huggers off if you have to open up the loud pedal and make a missed approach.

I say again. Tuff tits.

Ignore the huggers, either they will get used to it, or they will force a reduction in capacity at the affected airport. Either way it's a dilemma you cannot resolve. It will be resolved politically.

Maintain 160 AS DIRECTED or get out of my way.

Maui

[Human Factor]

maui,

The bug in the system is the tree huggers.

When you put it that way......:D

I might start requesting 160 to 4 from top of descent.:E

[HundredPercentPlease]

HF:

I just want to emphasise that the problem is not that 160 to 4 is too fast. I guarantee I can achieve a stable approach every time

In your classic, that is the case. In a modern aircraft, flying for a company that requires stabilised at 1000', then 160 to 4 is too fast. Simple as.

Our SOPs (easy) clearly state that if you are instructed to do 160 to 4, then you should reduce speed at 5mn latest. In most cases you need to be reducing at about 5.5 to comply with our SOPs.

Maybe our SOPs ought to include a comment in that section that makes it mandatory to reply "unable, it will be 160 to x". I know it should be mandatory anyway, but nobody does it, on the understanding that we can't quite do it anyway, ATC should know, it makes very little difference, we're not going to be seen as wimps, or I'm not going to impose pressures or conditions on the PF (delete as applicable).

[Albino]

126.825 - Does mode S show you the speed we are commanding the aircraft to fly or does it show you the actual IAS? As previously mentioned someone winding back the speed in the window does not mean that they will not be 160kts at 4d, it does however mean that the thrust levers stay shut and the speed bleeds off naturally without early use of the gear. The autothrottle gets a bit keen to add thrust on my type and the speed control with initial stages of flap can be pretty poor, with a commanded speed of 160 you could be indicating anything up to and extra 10-12kts.

Another point made earlier is that for guys not to 'second guess' what you want then positive speed control needs to be issued on every approach. Before I get jumped on I would say it is on 95% of approaches but factor in bad weather, missed calls, busy frequency (even a slightly overloaded controller!) and occasionally you never get the reduction (typically from 220 to 180) but as you are hitting the glide at 7d you get 160 to 4, an immediate 60kt reduction in 3 miles! Even maui in his big shiny triple will struggle from there - especially as he won't have already reduced and will be strictly complying with you last instruction!

Finally this morning (126.825) we got '220kts if not already' when downwind, again this sort of implies that you expect us to reduce around the usual gates if the frequency is busy.

[120.4]

100%

Useful post. I am disappointed to hear that your SOPs "clearly state" that you should, in effect, break an ATC instruction. (Did I understand you correctly?) If 160 to 4 doesn't work then, for pitty's sake, lets get together and agree what does work and apply it. The current position is akin to anarchy. In theory, 160 to 5 might mean reduced use of 2.5nm spacing (because speed differentials on short final would last for longer giving greater risk of catchup) but if that is the price to be paid so be it.

I don't think starting to slow .5 or 1nm early is really the problem. It is those who are at 145kts at 5nm with traffic behind doing 160 to 4 - especially if vortex is involved - that put the ATCOs in an illegal position very quickly. This issue must be addressed.

.4

[120.4]

Albino

It shows what you are actually flying.

.4

[Albino]

That's 80's technology for you!

[HundredPercentPlease]

.4, your powers of understanding are good. ;)

From where we sit, it seems that those issuing the 160 to 4 do not understand that in a modern (slippery) aircraft with a low V App, being flown to modern SOPs (you must be stable at 1000') you simply cannot comply with this instruction.

Some guys try and help by flying 10 knots fast for a couple of miles, to "equalise" the effect of the early slow down. Just so you know...

[BOAC]

a low V App, - so, since we are talking about 7500ft+ runways, make it higher? No-one says you cannot. Bingo!:ok:

[the heavy heavy]

sorcery/411a,

'chief pilot point of view' :ugh:

dinasours! crm is used to give the junior/inexperienced guys the tools to tell chaps like you to ram it when you start spouting your old/bold crap!

stabilised at 100ft, have you learned nothing from a life time in aviation! lost for words!

b4 you spout how brilliant you are an how speed scares us please remember many of us posting here spent our 'early years' breaking into the circuit at 500kts+! ur almost boastful and self-congratulatory stories of fast and reckless approaches in heavys is an interesting insight as to why the incident rates were so hi.

i'm quite happy to dirty up and fly the speeds that atc want, if that makes me an inexperienced frightend pup then fair enough:ok:

[Del Prado]

100%pls said

In a modern aircraft, flying for a company that requires stabilised at 1000', then 160 to 4 is too fast. Simple as.

Our SOPs (easy) clearly state that if you are instructed to do 160 to 4, then you should reduce speed at 5mn latest. In most cases you need to be reducing at about 5.5 to comply with our SOPs.



Even if you have gear down and full flap you can't do 160 to 4 and be stable at 1000' ? And what aircraft type is that?

[bomarc]

time for ATC to change its procedures to accomadate all the posts saying it is hard to do the 160 to 4 dme.

the designers aren't going to change the planes.



UNABLE , bet you will have to get used to it.

I do think the ATC'ers got very used to the amazing flexibility of the DC9, 727 and the earlier jets...do the words , "CROWBAR" or "SLAM DUNK" approaches mean anything to you?

readjust the ATC world, not the plane world.

[120.4]

100%

I understand the logic of what you are saying. I used to tuck B757s up 2.5nm behind the preceding and then give them 160kts to 5d, knowing that they are very slow inside 4d. This enabled us both to be legal. But the difference is, I was in control of it and knew what was going on. If some of your chaps fly 10kts fast for a couple of miles and the guy ahead of you slows early because he cannot comply with 160kts to 4d, we will lose separation at some stage on the approach. (A speed differential of 20kts is 1/3rd nm per minute, over 3nm is about 1/3rd nm of catchup; if we started at minimum, then we are bust.)

I don't wish to be critical; I do understand the desire to help and also your need to stay within SOPs. However, I feel this whole idea of people doing their own thing just isn't satisfactory. It isn't simply a case of a possible go-around either; wake vortex is not optional we must provide it by law or reposition you, where ever you are on the approach. Your actions putting us outside our SOPs is no less wrong than our instructions putting you outside yours.

.4

[HundredPercentPlease]

Del P:

Even if you have gear down and full flap you can't do 160 to 4 and be stable at 1000' ? And what aircraft type is that?

No, because it's against SOPs, and it won't work. 35 knots loss in less than a mile? And get the thrust up? But the primary reason is that it's against company and Airbus procedures, for a number of reasons. easy 319.


.4

Fully understood. What has come from this is the utter importance of the "unable to comply, 160 to 5.5" call that we should respond to the instruction, each and every time.

[3rd_ear]

On a very calm afternoon recently, first an Aer Lingus pilot and then a BA pilot complained rather bitterly that they were suffering wake turbulence on the Heathrow approach. The separation distances to the preceding aircraft (777 and 747-400, iirc) were reported by ATC as 5nm and 6nm respectively, which makes 2.5 to 3nm look a bit fanciful in those conditions.

Somewhere down the line, someone is going to have to face the fact that capacity has maxed. It's not a question of readjustment of ATC world or plane world, it's a question of readjustment of airport management world, a reduction in the number of slots, the acceptance that not only can you not fit any more in but that there should already be fewer, for the sake of safe operation.

Now that the good burghers of Hammersmith and Fulham are trying to get the noise restricted period extended to 7 a.m., what would happen should they succeed? My money's on the same number of slots and everyone else work round it. You know it will take a real and very public scare before current "capacity" is reduced.

If I were a journo (which thank God I'm not), these threads would have written my next piece for me....

[Human Factor]

HundredPercentPlease,
In your classic, that is the case. In a modern aircraft, flying for a company that requires stabilised at 1000', then 160 to 4 is too fast. Simple as.
How modern would you like? I can achieve the same in the 777 and A320 and stay within SOPs.;)

What this comes back to for me is when I'm in my 737 "Classic" (btw, the true Classic was the -200!!), I don't want to have to drop the gear as early as I'm having to at LGW.

[maui]

RTO and 100%

My company also has the 1000' stabilised rule, and it is enforced as rigorously as any other company.

But 160 to 4 is not an imposible task.. It may require a bit of agression but it is perfectly do-able, unless you have a tailwind.

As previously stated you must dirty up early, get your gear and max flap for the speed configured BEFORE you get to 4. You can still do your constant angle , but it won't be at idle. Between 4 and 4.5 wind your speed back to min manoeuvre and the speed will come back pretty quick. If necessary get agressive, pull the power back and take your next lot of flap as soon as you are able. On some aircraft you are still able to use speed brake at that stage.
Ahh, I hear you say, we are using auto throttle,
yes, and your point is?
Autothrottles have clutches to allow a temporary override, use them, it won't hurt the aeroplane.

Do this and you can comply with ATC's instruction whilst achieving your 1000' stabilised parameter. What you will not achieve , is the tree huggers desire for a clean and silent world, and some desk bound pussy's idea of the ideal approach.

The bottom line is that ATC's alternative is to increase spacing and decrease the number of slots availables. How is that going to affect you company's bottom line and ultimately your job (and mine).
Think about it!

Maui :ugh:

[HundredPercentPlease]

Maui, very good. But not in a small Airbus, I'm afraid. For many reasons (and it's too late for me to go into the details of how the Airbus works).

[Ashling]

Guy's 100% is spot on, in a 737 700 you cannot do 160 to 4 and gaurentee stability at 1000' end of. Once again that is with Gear down Flap 15 which is putting something like +15kts on that flaps mvr speed. If you can do it on your type with your SOPs I'm very happy for you but we can't do it with ours not reliably. Sure on occasion with a heavy weight or high wind you might do it but on our average day it won't happen. Typicaly most guys begin their slowdown at between 4.5 & 5 d for 2 reasons. Large speed decrease needed to VAT today for me Vat wind corrected 128Kts and Flap 30 limit of 165 Kts so if you try dropping it at 160 its bad practise for flap wear and you run the risk of overstressing it if you hit a lift. So if I hold 160 to 4 I have to lose in excess of 22kts ( max plus 10 on Vat allowed ) take land flap and spool the engines up all in 200' or 2/3s of a mile whichever you prefer whilst following the glide, it just ain't going to happen in a 700. Company pay my wages their train set so I follow their rules.

[vespasia]

Just to throw an extra spanner in the works, at Gatwick the speed requirement is that a/c be AT 160kts from 7 to 4 DME. 170 to 5 can be used instead to help out with the noise issue on request. The reason for this is for the TWR controllers planning. With mixed mode operations if you're much faster than that and a heavy departure is on the runway in the gap, then you'll end up with a go-around ( not terribly noise friendly! ). Part of the speed problem seems to me to be that when establishing on a shortish final, the instruction to reduce to 160 is given when you report established, and if the range is 7 or 8 miles you ain't going to make the 160 by 7 requirement, resulting in at best a late landing clearance.

As a tower controller, if I ask you for your speed I'm looking for the actual figure, not the speed you're reducing to. My ATM will show me your groundspeed so I already have a good idea that you're faster than I'd like, BUT I'm not going to b@ll@ck you! I just need to know what other adjustments I might have to make to ensure that the gap's not lost or wasted.

;)

[maui]

Ashling

A quick and easy one for you.

On your type what flap stages are "selectable" (note I did not say do you select) after flaps 15 and what is the maximum extension speed therefore.

And BTW flaps mvr speed is a minimum speed not a maximum.

Maui

[bomarc]

<some desk bound pussy's idea of the ideal approach>


wow, if I had written that I would have been kicked out...but ITS NICE TO SEE A REAL PILOT on the forum for a change!


DEAR ATC: it is time you change with the times...the day of the skilled pilot is leaving us (not quite gone yet) and the day of the button pusher is arriving...and the buttons don't allow you to do what you ask in a way that meets the book.

PLEASE MR ATC, tell me why you can't make it 160 to 6 dme?

[World of Tweed]

Current company SOP is "Should" be stabilised by 1000ft - "Must" be stabilised by 500ft agl.

In the 757 in "normal" weights i.e. 83Ts 160kts to 4D is acheivable with Flap 20, taking the gear at 5D gurantees a decent decelleration (exculding tailwind conditions) when winding the speed back just before 4miles.

If the aircraft is light weight it makes things more interesting as one surprised controller found out whilst ferrying 757 to luton. In that case our Vref was 108kts and we did tell him we needed to slow down - he kindly obliged our request.

I guess communication is the key.

I would like to point out to the ATC guys that this is all fine on a ILS approach but things are quite different on a VOR approach.

On the 757 the work load is tripled thanks to Mr. Boeing deciding to dispence with VOR a/p mode so lateral, vertical and speed is all manually commanded.

Recently at MAN - Vectors with speeds are being instructed by ATC onto 23L VOR approaches -nothing new. And as usual for Manch - a sterling job with a nice big gap behind and infront of us all to allow for the Non-prescision approach.

But for guys at other airfields bear in mind that whilst speed control up to 4D on anything other than a precision approach and you may well get some polite refusals from your aircraft.

[Del Prado]

PLEASE MR ATC, tell me why you can't make it 160 to 6 dme?

More than happy to but can I refer you to Maui's earlier comment?

The bottom line is that ATC's alternative is to increase spacing and decrease the number of slots availables. How is that going to affect your company's bottom line and ultimately your job (and mine).


I'm more than happy for every aircraft to fly with speed at pilot's discretion but I will have to double my spacing. How would that affect your home base and your airline?


Bomarc, the problem we have is that we're basing our spacing on pilots maintaining 160 to 4 (because that's what they read back!) Someone slows early and it's us that's suspended.

[bomarc]

how will it affect my airline? improved safety

in america, wehave a huge problem and face countless delays...the only solution is to reregulate the industry, have government people who know what they are doing schedule all the flights in a realistic manner based on IFR slotting.

more people want to fly? bigger planes.

or round the clock scheduling.

it is a huge problem...but based on this thread, can't you change your procedures to one that everyone could follow? X speed to 1500 feet on the glide slope...that would be about 5 or 6 dme instead of 4 dme.

at least everyone could follow that rule...

[bomarc]

I want to add something...

way back in the 20th century, I flew a plane called the DC9...it was also called "the last pilot's airliner".

anyhoo, we routinely did " 250knots to the marker". following the gs to the marker clean. hit the marker, slats extend, speed brakes extend, gear down, retract speed brakes and feed the flaps in on speed ...spool up by 500 feet of course. slats speed by manufacturer was 280 knots...by company 250 knots...gear even higher

now IMC it was tougher if you had to keep spooled up to keep the wings hot.

now, in the world of modern planes, speeds to compensate for rudder hardovers, or planes made of plastic...and enhancements to fuel efficiency...well, time for ATC to change, not the pilots.

[swordsman]

Thats nothing.
I remember being told that in the good old days when cowboys ruled there was an unofficial record with a trident at heathrow over the OM (5 miles out) at 330 kts and at 3000 ft height.With the number 2 engine in max reverse and 1 and 3 at idle (6000 ft/min rate of decent) gear and full flap led to being stable at 50 feet for a smooth landing on the right bit of runway.

[RobertK]

Does mode S show you the speed we are commanding the aircraft to fly or does it show you the actual IAS? As previously mentioned
As previously mentioned, actual IAS.


have government people who know what they are doing
Where do you find those? :confused:



Regards,
Robert

[lamina]

3rd_ear

Spot on! ultimately no one appears to be regulating the big picture. LHR is owned by BAA, who only want max shoppers through terminals, ACL (owned by airlines) dish out AD slots, only objective is to cram as many A/C trough airport for given hour, then throw in the CAA who appear only when a serious transgression has been committed, then add NATS to the picture.
So their you have it, over capacity has become a problem for pilots and atc'ers to deal with on a daily basis. So who do we turn too, err, oh yes, the airlines (see ACL above):ugh:, the CAA/NATS (has a incident taken place?):eek:, the BAA (what do you want to buy!).:mad:

[Ashling]

Maui

Flap 25 max 170kts, min weight dependant and calculated by the FMC and displayed on the tape but around 140 tops.
Flap 30 max 165 min Vat + corrections Normal land flap
Flap 40 max 156 min Vat + corrections

Not allowed by SOP to drag flap 25 in at 160 Kts as the compamy deem its too much wear. Lots of guys do use it to help the initial decel below 160 if the speed is slow to bleed when they wind it down.

Point is I cannot lose 20 + kts spool up etc deploy land flap all in 200' whilst descending based on selecting a slower speed in the window at precisely 4 Dme. Sure if I select it at 4.5 maybe slightly earlier then I can manage it but then strictly speaking I am not maintaining 160 to 4 even though I will probably still be within 10 kts of the requested speed. Therefore for us 160 to 5 would be attainable and I suspect would help a-lot of others out as well. As you say though its up to others to sort that kind of thing out.

I am well aware of the differences between Max speed and Min speeds and Boeing + Company advice on the matter ta.

[120.4]

Del P is correct. We can change to 160kts to 5/6 but that then means that any subsequent speed differentials between the types has a long time to work and inevitably separation will be lost and go-arounds increased. This means that we would have to increase the spacing. Ideally, if we had an advanced support tool to work out your weights and speeds we could be directed to give a particular gap, for a particular pair, on a particular day - but that is some way off.

(Incidentally- I understand that a proviso from the CAA when approving the height of the new tower at Heathrow was that there must not be any increase in the number of missed approaches.)

.4

[maui]

Ashling et al.

What you have confirmed is that the problems are SOP's (and tree huggers).

You can do 160 to 4 , configure and stabilise before 1000'. BUT your SOP's don't allow you to configure to the extent necessary to do it.
Now I would ask are your SOP's that rigid, or are guys using them to avoid doing something the would prefer not to do

The thrust of a lot of people in this forum is that it CANNOT be done. Poppycock. For one or more reasons, you do not WISH to do it

ATC are just trying to accomodate us all and are working under duress in a lot of areas. Their situation and workload are helped not at all when one of our number decides to do his own thing (for whatever reason). It is both common sense and common courtesy, to all other airspace users, to say so if you are not going to comply with an instruction. It is also encumbent upon ATC to voice loudly, to their appropriate superiors, if significant numbers of pilots are failing to comply. I dare say that if they imposed some penalty on your company, for failure to comply, that suddenly your SOP's would bend to accomodate.

160 to 4 is not a new concept. The first I came up against it was about 13 years ago at LGW, and many times since in LHR. It wasn't impossible then, and it's not impossible now.

Maui

[Ashling]

Not quite what I meant Maui but you are quite correct that SOPs are preventing us from maintaining 160 to 4. No matter what legal config you fly you will not lose 20+kts in a 737 700 in 200' on the slope and achieve stability on anything like a regular basis. If you reckon you can then thats poppycock as you would say.

As far I know the company have already flagged the issue some time ago and told the airfields we fly into of our SOPs and told us that there is therefore no need to repetitvely keep telling ATC what we're upto. So we're not being bloody minded for the sake of it. I actively try to help ATC when I can and tell them when I cannot. I will raise the issue again with the training/standards dept though.

For us the hard height is 500' the company want us to aim to be stable by 1000' If you fly in a manner that you know will prevent you being stable at 1000' then you are not aiming to achieve it and breaking the SOP. Do that on a check it would invite criticism. The company keeps stats on fleet and bases which are published as league tables every now and then. So yes the SOPs are tight. The subject of stable approach's is very hot in our outfit as I am sure it is in many others and people have/are summoned to HQ to explain themselves and are treated to extra sims etc. The rest of us see this happen and think no thank you I'll follow the rules.

Personaly I would be quite happy holding 160 to 4 as I believe I can go on to achieve stability at 500' on most days and pick the days I cannot. Its not my choice though and I have to respect that.

[HundredPercentPlease]

Maui said:
The thrust of a lot of people in this forum is that it CANNOT be done. Poppycock. For one or more reasons, you do not WISH to do it

Maui, in a 319 in can't be done. I don't know how to say what I have previously said in a different way so that you might understand it, but in essence there is too much speed to lose in a tiny distance. The SOPs dicatate that you don't even attempt it, because it won't work, not because we're a bunch of low hour small balled button pushers.

I bow out of this, on the basis that I have passed on all I can to the atcos, and it seems that some people can't understand that on some aircraft types (like the one I used to fly) 160 to 4 was easily possible, and on other types it is impossible when you have a mandatory 1000' stable requirement.

[BOAC]

Well - if some airlnes are MANDATING stable at 1000' rather than 'try to be' it needs to change, and that is it - simple. The move HAS to come from the airlines concerned on an official basis, and not via PPRune.

Ashling Do that on a check it would invite criticism. - that says to me that your line check pilots are NOT doing their job properly. Assuming they are current and compos mentis they MUST see the problem and SHOULD be doing something about it via the company rather than slashing at crews as you are implying.

ARN for one has the same requirement, and it IS achievable in a 737 with a little lateral thinking.

[Ashling]

Forgot to add to my previous post by our SOP gear must be down by 1500 aal at the latest, you can put it down earlier if you want but thats the last point. Surpriseingly in my view they don't differentiate between visual and imc here as 1500 tends to clash with approach fix's but thats another story. So we are not necessarily dragging in with gear and inter flap for large distances. So on a typical day when requested 160 to 4 we might fly flap 5 160 to 5d, low drag low noise, take gear down flap 15 at that point to comply with 1500 aal then wind the speed back at about 4.5d maybe at 5d if its convective or gusty.

[Right Way Up]

For varying reasons the two main fleets at LGW have problems with 160 to 4. The BA fleet like 170 to 5 so they don't have to drop the gear. I have a sneaking suspicion that 170 to 5 on the Easy Bus fleet may be an option. The problem on the A319 of reducing speed at 4d, is that the thrust takes an age to reduce and to lose 30 kts in 1mile whilst engine power is reducing slowly is never going to happen. However start the reduction at 5 miles you have two miles for the engine thrust to reduce and only 40 kts to lose. I reckon 170 to 5 at LGW would work for both fleets.
One thing I have noticed in the last few years, is the practice of not changing from 08R when there is a tailwind on the ground and quite a sizeable 1000 ft tailwind. In this case I have to start slowing at 6-7 miles as I have no hope of being stable. I do make sure I inform the tower.

[flash2002]

I would say it is possible on a 737-700. My company states that we should be stabel at 1000ft and must be stable at 500'

If I drop the gear and put flaps 15 at approx 5d. Wind the speed back close the thrust myself (is faster) and take flaps 30 as soon as I can. I will be doing approx 150kts at 4d. And be stable regarding config at a 1000ft.
Sometimes the thrust still needs to come up. But I regard this as not being a major issue since I still have 500ft to stand up the thrust levers.

On the other hand if my company's sop would say must be stable at a 1000ft. I would start reducing at 6d or 5.5d.

[ElNino]

It seems that the flaps on the Boeings are more restrictive than the Airbus. Config 2 on the Bus allows a very wide speed range, in the order of 60kts (200-approx 140). For comparison, Config 2 is slats at 22 deg and flaps at 15 deg.
160 to 4 works fine by flying 160kts in selected speed with config 2 (or even 3) and gear down, managing the speed between 4.5D and 4.3D (so it's just starting to reduce at 4D) and taking the rest of flap. Almost always works to be stable at 1,000'.
It helps also that while we should be stable at 1,000, 500' is allowed if in VMC.
Right Way Up:
Are you allowed disconnect the A/T and bring it manually to idle, which would reduce the thrust much quicker?

[flash2002]

I don't think the boeing is more restrictive on flap speed limits.

Our maximum placard speeds are much higher than the speeds generated by the fms. But in general we need to fly to the fms generated speeds, probably reduces maintenance costs.

[anotherthing]

BOAC has hit the nail on the head with his post - there a 2 sets of professional people contributing to this thread - ATCOs and Pilots. Both sets make very valid points as to why they do what they do.

If complying with an ATC instruction that is used every day is not possible under SOPs or whatever, then the Airline or Airlines involved must liaise with the ATC service provider and between them they must then come up with an answer. ATCOs are doing their best to achieve what they have to, Pilots likewise, but sometimes the methods are at odd with each other.

Unfortunately a proactive upper management in either airlines or ATC is probably hard to come by

[Ashling]

Flash 2002 if your doing 150 at 4d you have not flown 160 to 4 you have slowed early just as I do as I have described above.

[Max Angle]

It seems the problem here is the airline SOP's, all the aircraft mentioned are quite capable of doing 160 to 4 and making a safe landing but someone has decided that the 1000ft stable point is sacrosanct or thou shall not drop the gear or a certain flap setting when you need it. Fortunately we use a slightly more flexible SOP which states that we should aim to stable by 1000ft, BUT if we think that we will be stable at 500ft we can continue down, if not stable at 500ft then you must go-around. It works very well and gives some flexibility, clearly if you are 170 with flap 2 at 1000ft you are not going to stable at 500ft so you go around. If you are a few knots fast or the power is not quite stable then the chances are you will be stable at 500ft and you continue.

It was basically worded like that to accommodate places like LHR that ask for 160 to 4. Tail wagging the dog?, well I suppose it is but our company and all the others who use LHR have an interest in maximizing runway capacity there. It does rather irritate me that many other places around the UK who clearly don't need it also now ask for it.

[The Sandman]

Try LGG in A300 where they want 170 till 4 (marker) with max flap limiting speed of 150. SOPs require stable by 1000 IMC/500 VMC. Better hope for VMC... Somebody's living in La La Land.

[BOAC]

Sanmdman - this is going round and round! (No pun intended:))

The ball is in YOUR court - 'anotherthing' agrees.

You either MOR it to explain the breach of SOPs and see what comes back

OR

You tell your company that you decline to land at LGG - it worked for me at BRU.

[bomarc]

there is one way to make things work, but it is a dumb way to do it, but just for fun I am putting it out there.

you want 160 till 4 dme, planes can't do that while descending on the glideslope according to more than one person here...fine

so atc should have you level at 1001 feet (afe) much before the dreaded 4 dme. why 1001feet? the GS would be at 1200 to 1300 feet at 4 dme...you could climb to reach the glide slope, losing speed easily in the climb. 1001 feet is just above the 1000 foot stable sop business.

of course there would be more fuel burned, more noise to those on the ground, bunch of unhappy passengers for the roller coaster like ride...but you get your 160 knots.


THIS OF COURSE is not a reasonable solution on a regular basis, but is meant to further highlight the need to change procedures by atc.

[Capt H Peacock]

I think this is a good opportunity to remind everyone out there that modern aeroplanes don't fly themselves. We don't press the take-off button and read the paper for 8 hours.

Operating aeroplanes is a craft, and takes place in a challenging and dynamic environment. All of us have to accept that many compromises will have to be made on a day to day basis - save one and only one - A SAFE OPERATION. I have no issue at all in doing my utmost to complying with ATC instructions within that caveat. In return I would hope that ATC appreciate that I can only do so much, and I have other imperatives that I must meet.

The unswerving, unquestioning following of the rules is becoming a depressing norm in the UK these days, and those who have it in their gift to make those rules have become used to having their bidding done without having to consult or discuss on pain of prosecution.

Such an attitude has no place within aviation, we have always worked together to provide the travelling public with the safest airline industry in the World. I am concerned that a regime that allows no flexibility whatsoever is a system on the verge of collapse.

Whether the airports in the SE UK are in that position today is a topic we might usefully discuss in another thread. What is patently clear is that we need to have a political solution right now.

That prescription will not be met by the supervisor playing golf with the chief pilot of Big Airways. This is now an issue for the DfT and for Parliament. We must lobby for increased hours of operation of Heathrow, and the use of its runways in mixed mode. Such programmes have shown great promise at other European hubs such as MUC and FRA, and we need to learn about the best practice from those airports.

What cannot continue is a situation where commercial aircraft are being operated with no margin for manoeuvre, and controllers playing Russian Roulette with their tickets.

[haughtney1]

A simple "well do our best" generally means for me gear down and flaps to 20 at about 5.5 miles in calm conditions, and will get us crossing at 4 miles WITHIN 5 knots of 160.
Inside that, well yeah we can be stable at 1000' in IMC..thats in a mid weight 757 (80-85tonnes etc)

[anotherthing]

Captain H Peacock

I agree with most of what you say, and of course agree with you that safety is paramount. That lies with the guys at the pointy end who must have the final say regarding safe flight parameters.

However, the problem being discussed are not maters for the Dft however. What needs to be done is a working group established and the airlines putting down in black and white what they can achieve with regards to flight profiles and safety. ATC will accomodate this.

What ATCOs are worried about is non compliance (for perfectly understandable reasons) or a late notification on inability to comply, when they are streaming A/C on the basis of what they are expecting to happen. This can be sorted within the industry....

The fiasco that is the transport policy does need looked at, but that is a matter for higher powers.

ATCOs will give you the service you require, within your constraints, but they need to know early what those constraints are!

[PPRuNe Radar]

NATS has several high level partnership groups with airline ops representation, both for operational and safety issues.

The operators therefore have the ability to make the concerns of their pilots known (as do NATS ATCOs through their management). Raising the issue will help start work on facilitating a global solution through collaboration and understanding of each others problems.

The problem is mainly going to be arriving at an agreed speed and distance which everyone will then have to comply with as the norm (a common SOP to both pilots and ATC alike). Different operators can't even agree the same SOPs for the same aircraft type so it's not going to be a quick and simple problem to fix.

[Human Factor]

...in a 319 in can't be done.

Sorry 100%, flew those as well and it can!;)

[Rananim]

Management in ALL airlines are s***-scared, to a greater or lesser extent, of an incident/accident on their watch, so insist on these rigid constraints. You can argue they are too rigid, but we could argue that all day. As someone said earlier, it's their train-set, they pay my mortgage, so I'll do what they want me to do.


How flying has changed.When I hear that from a pilot,it saddens me.The compliance with ATC is far more important than any SOP.And you can say that when the CP calls you in.And if he's good,he'll listen.How glad I am that I have flown in airlines where they want the Captain to be a Captain and exercise his discretion/judgement.After all,the prevention of an incident/accident wont come from SOP adherence;it will come from good airmanship/judgement.Good pilots know that and so does good management.

[RAT 5]

May I please extend the discussion to include modern autopilots. It seems that many rules were made in yester-year and now they are being questioned.

The same happened with ETOPS. Remember the "it can not be done' brigade.

Before that remember the 2 to 3 crew cockpit argument.

There is the old cherry of you must be fully configured at G/S captue for an autoland. Why? Most airlines allow you to fly an autopilot CAT 1 IMC approach to be fully configured and stable by 1000'. What the H@#l is different for an autoland. Flying a CAT 1 autopilot approach IMC is no problem being 160kTS to 4nm. So what is the difference with an autoland? Just because some CP has followed Genesis and said you must be configured at G/S capture, does not make it gospel. This then leads to the conflict of ATC asking for 160kts to 4nm irrespective of the weather and most crews saying it is not possible whan LVP's are in force. Why? Those of us who do it know full well it is perfectly safe.

OK, there are certain a/c that have different speeds on finals, but mostly they are within the +/- 10kts allowed by ATC procedures. Perhaps the question should be asked to C.P's and not ATC. Flying a visual approach on A/P or manual, I'm sure most pilots delay configuration until OM. What is the big deal if IMC. It is the same A/P. Many years ago I used to fly B757/767 into a major EU airfield. It was not uncommon to accept a base turn to intercept finals at 1200' in 3000m vis. It expedited traffic flow and was perfectly controllable by the autopilot & safe. Because of the CAT2/3 requirement this would not be aceptable, & not offered, but in CAT 1 or visual, no problem.

Perhaps we should be using the a/c systems the way they have been designed and not stuck in old practices.

This is debating question and open to different opinions. Please keep answers professional and technical.

[120.4]

Cpt Peacock
An outstanding post - nail firmly on the head.
Anotherthing

I agree; the issues being discussed are not for the DfT, however, the solution to the problem behind them (lack of spare runway capacity) should have been announced by the DfT over a decade ago. In 1994, in response to a letter regarding the shortage of spare runway capacity and its safety implications, the then Conservative Department for Transport wrote...

"I am unable to accept [the] assertion that Britain is years behind Europe in addressing airport capacity problems; rather we are having to address these problems earlier because of the success of our aviation industry"

In 1998 the then Labour Transport Secretary wrote...

"Ministers are aware that runway capacity in the South East is in short supply and that given the continued growth... runway capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick is expected to be used up over the next few years."

Here we are, nearly a decade after they have acknowledged the problem and instead of concrete action to address it (Pardon the pun) we've had study after study. In avoiding positive action the politicians have played with lives and livelihoods. I feel we in ATC have aided them in being willing to pack traffic in as tight as we can without giving the crews scope for good aviation practice. I think that was an error.

In the absense of the political will to address the cause of this problem, I believe 'The System' should take steps to protect itself.

.4

[411A]

RAT 5 has hit the nail firmly on the head.
This nonsense that you must be fully configured at 1500 AAL, is just that, nonsense.
VFR or IFR, CATI/II and even CATIII are absolutely doable, with the last configuration change (landing flaps) at 1000 AAL, and at least should be fully possible with all types today.
Good gosh, if the Lockheed TriStar could accomplish this over thirty years ago (and, still can) what, I must ask, is the matter with new(er) more modern equipment, and the pilots who fly these today?
It would seem that the big problem is....yes, the so-called restrictive standard operating procedures used by many operators.
Could it be that...pilots are not as competant, therefore, fleet managers are making the choice of adopting their standard procedures to the lowest common denominator, and if so, what the heck is going on in the training department?
Is the training budget too low?
Or, is enough training not being given...properly?
Now, I realise that I fly a very old type, that is very accomodating with higher speeds on final, and some types simply can't, especially at lower landing weights, but surely the final landing flaps can be selected at 1000 AAL and still be safe.
Modern engines spool up quite rapidly, compared to earlier types...so what is the problem with the fleet managers that insist with the 1500 AAL fully configured requirement?

TriStar, still clearly the best, with approach speed flexibility...puts others to shame...even after all these years.:E

[Dream Land]

Could it be that...pilots are not as competant, therefore, fleet managers are making the choice of adopting their standard procedures to the lowest common denominator, and if so, what the heck is going on in the training department? by 411A
How high can you set the bar when pilots arrive on the line with less than 500 hours total time :eek:, for instance on the Airbus. Even at that- the industry is requesting lower actual flight time to be replaced by more simulator experience.

[Jonty]

I have been reading this thread for a while and have found it quite interesting, it follows the discussion being had in CHIRP at the moment.

Flying the B757 I have to say that 160 to 4 is totally possible 80% of the time. In IMC or bad weather conditions, then you would get 160 to 5 or 6 from me. Or if cat 3 then I want to be gear down flap 30 by 1000aal at the latest.

The above may seem conservative, and I dont really want to get into a willy waving competition about doing 160 to 2D then dropping everything and the thrust coming up as we cross the threshold.

There is one basic fact ATC must understand, I am a coward, I have the largest yellow streak down my back you have ever seen. I like to fly well within my comfort zone, and I especially like stabilized approaches. Flying them means I don't get a phone call from the flight safety office asking why I went around, It stops me having to lie to the pax about ATC, it saves fuel, and stops me getting grey hairs.

It comes down to a judgement call by the pilots on the day, and taking into account allot of factors, that call can be made quite late. We may say 160 to 4 fine, but at 6 we may not like the way things are shaping up and start to dirty up early.

We at the front are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, that is our overriding concern. And with that in mind if ATC ask us to do something that we are not comfortable with we will not do it, we will always try to tell you, but sometimes in periods of very high work loads that is not always possible.

[Bokkenrijder]

Could it be that...pilots are not as competant, therefore, fleet managers are making the choice of adopting their standard procedures to the lowest common denominator, and if so, what the heck is going on in the training department?A very good point 411A! I can only speak for the company I fly for, but descent planning is something that is NOT taught in EZY. The only thing people do is stare at the PROG page (Airbus) and pull the speed brake if it indicates that you are high. Same is true for configuring for approaches, people flying straight and level 20nm out (poor/no descent planning) at 3000' with flaps 1. :ugh:

Most pilots are paranoid because of data monitoring and will therefore never even come close to the aircraft's limits. In one way that's good, but the problem is that most pilots have very limited knowledge of what the airplane can and can not do. The result is that most fly very very very conservatively, scared to be not stable at 500,' even flying fully configured (from FAF) non-precision approaches in CAVOK weather, screwing up the whole approach sequence behind them.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm NOT pleading for making unstable approaches, but a bit more common would be nice... Unfortunately most companies don't want pilots anymore. They want obedient slaves, working 900 hours/year that fly a go around if they get a wind gust at 500'.

[Right Way Up]

but descent planning is something that is NOT taught in EZY
people flying straight and level 20nm out (poor/no descent planning) at 3000' with flaps 1.

Bokkie. I'm guessing you are a bit p1ssed at having to work for Easy but that is rubbish. :=:=

[Ashling]

I agree with you Jonty

To some extent we only have ourselves to blame for the current SOPs. When I joined my outfit after 19 years in the mil flying fast and often very low I came accross Captains who bemoaned FLIDRAS as it meant they could have less fun seeing just how late they could leave it to spool up. Apparently they even used to put money on it ! A real hoot with pax onboard I'm sure. I was obviously very impressed with their maturity and professionalism ..... not.

The company have rightly stood on such behaviour very heavily and put SOPs in place monitored by FLIDRAS to prevent it. Frankly I don't blame them. If we had been professional enough to achieve stability by 500' and go-around if we blew it they would not have had to have been so proscriptive. Truth is a statisticaly significant number were not professional enough and needed the spy in the sky to whip them into shape. So I'm afraid in this case accident prevention did indeed come from SOPs.

Back to the point in hand, my mob have relaxed the stable at 500 to stable at 400 for circling approachs so it would make sense to me if we could have a similar relaxation of the aim to be stable at 1000' if VMC and asked to fly 160 to 4. I don't write the rules though.

Respecting your companies SOPs is not sad its professional. You don't have to like or agree with them just respect them. There is plenty of room to exercise airmanship/judgement within them.

[PENKO]

Bokkenrijder, as it says in your orange rule book, do not fly close to the limits due to flap track wear etc. So that's one reason why most guys do not do it.

[Roffa]

Jonty,

We at the front are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, that is our overriding concern. And with that in mind if ATC ask us to do something that we are not comfortable with we will not do it, we will always try to tell you, but sometimes in periods of very high work loads that is not always possible.

Fair point, but bear in mind by slowing significantly early at somewhere like LHR (especially in a 757 with its known vortex characteristics) and not saying you'll be doing so (or saying at all) in enough time to allow ATC to compensate, you are most definitely also compromising the safety of the smaller/lighter aircraft behind you.

Maybe we've just been lucky so far.

[Roffa]

retread,

I appreciate the r/t is busy but when ATC gives an instruction at any point in the sequence whilst on 120.4 (or 119.72 or 134.97), it requires a mandatory readback. If someone else steps on the readback ATC will come back to you for it. At that point, something could be said.

The important thing is to mention it early enough that ATC can act on it, by the time you're on final approach and being told 160 to 4, that's probably too late.

[FlightDetent]

A small point towards the LVP fully stabilised approach criteria: Airbus themselves do not require it anymore. ILS is an ILS so down to 2000 ft AFE only slats, then configure on schedule. Stabilised by 1000 feet passing you must be (Yoda).

Weather individual airlines choose to adopt this manufacurer's recommandation is another story.

On the other hand, NPAs are strictly stabilised irrespective of conditions.

[Captain Mainwaring]

IMHO It would be simplist for the worst affected airfields to publish standard speeds +/- Xkts.
An 'unable standard speeds' call on handover to Radar/Approach where it is difficult to achieve.
I monitor TCAS for a sensible separation and consider a Go Around is a safety risk and best prevented.

[CamelhAir]

Is the training budget too low?
Or, is enough training not being given...properly?

Yes and yes.

How high can you set the bar higher when pilots arrive on the line with less than 500 hours total time

500 hrs? I wish our FO's were even that experienced.

Speaking of my own LCC, the unfortunate fact is that the management attitude to safety is simply a numbers game. None of the people that matter are pilots and they have no understanding of flying. The management pilots are merely vassals and have neither the balls nor the power to change anything.
So whats the outcome? A deeply engrained culture of cover-your-ass. The SOP's have one purpose only: so that when the "big one" happens, the management can point to the correct paperwork and say "it wasn't our fault."
Because of this obsession with avoiding blame, the obvious happens: if you don't follow SOP's to the letter, regardless of the circumstances, it's off with your head.
You see, an SOP can be written down, it's quantifiable, which is what accountants like. Airmanship, on the other hand, is a fluffy concept that requires you have knowledge of aviation in order to understand it. Accountants do not have such knowledge, so airmanship is ditched in favour of SOP's. Without the counter-weight of competent management pilots, the situation has now developed where airmanship is officially discouraged as captains have lost the power of command and are now merely allowed follow the official line as per the SOP's, FCI's and memo's.
So where does it lead us? A big casualty is the training department. Remembering that SOPs are God, the current practice is that the best time to be a Training Captain is as soon as you upgrade to the LHS. Why? As this is when your SOP's are best (apparently). Note how experience or competence is not remotely a requirement.
As experience is not required for command, this has produced a situation where there are now captains with only 1,000hrs jet and multi-crew time. Why? You need 3,000hrs for command, however the spineless authority and the clueless airline don't dictate the make-up of the 3,000, so there are now captains with 2,000hrs single piston time and only 1000 hrs jet time. Frightening.
And remember how they want new captains to train? So yes, the implication is as frightening as it sounds: training captains with 1000hrs jet time teaching FO's with 200hrs. So this is why the aircraft can never, and should never in the case of a crew such as this, be flown anywhere near the limits.
The worst thing is that as the company continues to expand, and is unable to attract experienced pilots, soon the vast majority of the pilots will have come through this appalling training system. Stand by for a very large airline flying around with most crews lacking (or afraid to excercise) airmanship and lacking experience. Beware.

[BOAC]

My gums are beginning to ache! All this gets us NOWHERE! Some can do, some cannot, ATC want, companies 'discourage'.

Now we discuss Airbus SOPs/Easyjet training policies etc:ugh:

How many of the above 'complainers' have at least submitted a report to CHIRP or better still raised the issue with their company on safety grounds? Until you do, this will echo on and on and the topic will doubtless 're-surface' in a few months time in a new thread and we will be no further down the line, except more airlines may have 'stable at 1500' in their books.

PPRune is a great 'talking shop' and a great place to share knowledge and experiences and learn, but with very few exceptions NOTHING is ever actually done by those who need to do as a result of stuff here.

Get reporting!

[CamelhAir]

Easyjet training policies

I speak of the other big LCC. With regard to CHIRPS's, reports etc, it's beating your head off a brick wall, as the IAA don't care, they really are not interested in regulating safety. Remember that the IAA has a commercial mandate and ryr is their biggest customer. Hence. they will not regulate ryr.

better still raised the issue with their company on safety grounds?

You're having a laugh right? Their is no corporate culture promoting safety. Their is no corporate culture to listen to staff. The management really don't care how many aircraft crash as long as the bottom line is protected. I know it's hard to understand as this attitude and culture is unprecedented in European aviation.

Get reporting

IALPA have constantly been raising the issue of non-action on reports with the IAA. The official IAA response is that IALPA "are troublemakers" and I quote from the correspondence. It's no coincidence that this is the exact phraseology MOL uses to describe the pilots...

[flash2002]

Flash 2002 if your doing 150 at 4d you have not flown 160 to 4 you have slowed early just as I do as I have described above.

@ashling, in that case re read the thread this is not a problem for the controllers. And actually its 150 at the lowest. More like 155.

[Ashling]

Flash I do appreciate the +-10 kt thing but look up Roffa's post on page 5 with the AIP on the subject. Speeds to be flown as accurately as poss. I would submit that if you deliberately slow to be at 150 by 4 you are not flying the speed given as accurately as possable.

Any ATCO's care to comment more on the +- 10 kt thing please

[BOAC]

Any ATCO's care to comment more on the +- 10 kt thing please - copious posts from ATC throughout PPRune telling you there is NO tolerance on the speed (unless, of course, that has changed.:))

Let's get away from 'RyanAir don't give a ***', 'Easy do this' and 'xxx does that'.

For those unfortunates slogging away there, you will have to declare 'unable' when it is requested. Perhaps ATC should get it published on the plates so that the advice can be given early eg "expect 160 to 4 on finals"?

Everyone else who CANNOT do it, get it sorted with your company, CAA and CHIRP - whatever it takes.

ATC look again at 170 to 5 - which was 'promised' in a previous thread but died.

[zkdli]

The speed tolerance in the LTMA is still the same - "AS acurately as possible"
The AIP still gives the speeds expected on the final appraoch as 220. 180 reducing to 160kts.
There is a working group looking at speeds on Final. I am sure that the group would welcome some active help from the pilot community in additon to the usual operations staff...:)

[BOAC]

I am sure that the group would welcome some active help from the pilot community in addition to the usual operations staff... - thank you zkdli. I do not have the LGW/LHR Jepp to hand, but does it say "expect 160 to 4" or just "160"?

There you are, folks. There is a working group. Why not let THEM know?

[Ashling]

So how do we get in touch with said working group ?

[RAT 5]

This thread has broadened into a training/airmanship discussion. I heard a comment from an HOT recently. As we know there are many ways of doing the same thing e.g. an approach. All acceptable to the manufacturer, all safe and all within most general SOP's. However, the philosophy was "do not give the guys a choice. This is the way it WILL be and none other." Ouch! This philosophy covered all scenarios. Might be good, except it is impossible to write down everything to cover them all, never mind crews remembering them all; and don't forget the amendments every few months.

Trouble is that one day something will happen which will some require some thought and judgement. Imagine the captain who has flown for no-one else but this airline. What has been rammed into his data base is that there is only 1 correct way to do anything. (had that discussion with many flag carrier friends who had entered the cosy nest with 250hrs and rolled out the other end 30years later).
Now a situation happens where some airmanship judgement has to be made. I've seen it in the sim. The brain goes into 'dull mode'as the conflict between SOP adherence and the realisation that it won't work causes massive indecision. A very dangerous state as the a/c is still travelling fast. Nothing is being done as the mental trauma of disobeying an SOP is playing havoc with an airmanship decision.
This may sound far fetched, but I've seen it in the sim, and no doubt it has happened many times around the world.

Airmanship is an SOP.

[411A]

Thanks, RAT5, much appreciated.

I, too, have become quite concerned with the lack of...for want of a better term, airmanship, with some of the 'do it by the book' guys (and gals) insisting that theirs is the... ONLY way.
Bar none.

Well, I'm here to say...it ain't.
Not by a long shot.

And, I'm not alone.
Plenty of guys my age have been there and done that and......never crashed, or even come close.

Gee, what an absolute surprise...:E

[Rananim]

Rat 5,
Couldnt agree more.
Nothing is being done as the mental trauma of disobeying an SOP is playing havoc with an airmanship decision.

Exactly.An SOP is what it is.Standard operating procedure.Nothing more.Going outside a SOP is not showing disrespect as some charlie said.In fact sticking to a SOP when the situation calls for something else can be lethal.121 pasengers died almost 2 years ago because the cabin crew on a B737 didnt execute the flight deck door emergency access procedure when their plane continued climbing with O2 masks deployed.They were told to sit like lemmings and wait for instructions from the flight deck and thats what they did.
Thank God for airlines like Fedex and Southwest and pilots like Rat5 and 411.There are still some of us about.

[Right Way Up]

Yes of course going outside SOPS to satisfy the whims of the UK airports beancounters....very heroic.:yuk::yuk:
p.s Thank God for airlines like Fedex and Southwest . Of course stable by 1000 ft may have stopped that little visit to a petrol station!!

[Rananim]

Right way up,
I am sorry if my post made you ill.These icons sure are fun arent they?
I didnt know we were talking about beancounters.I thought the discussion was about ATC compliance versus SOP adherence.If you really cant comply,then say so,and I for one wouldnt argue with that.
RE Southwest's visit to the gas station..Yes in 35 years they've screwed the pooch twice.Nobodys perfect I guess.

[Ashling]

Rananim

I was the charlie who said respect your companies SOPs.

Pray tell what is wrong with respecting your companies SOPs ?

Cleary if you have a fire warning going off and then go-around due to your approach being unstable you have missed the point, to name one of many many examples. I would not suggest for one moment that that is disrespecting an SOP and I'm somewhat surprised you chose to put that kind of spin on it.

I would also hazard a guess that there have been a great many more accidents and incidents due to pilots disobeying SOPs/checklists/handling limits than there have been due to them obeying them. Many of todays SOPs exist as a direct consequence of some previous tragedy.

I do agree with RAT 5s point though and it is a very important point and has to be a genuine concern with aviation expanding at its current rate and large numbers of inexperienced pilots filling seats. If companies are enforcing rules so zealously that crews are conditioned to the point that they cannot see beyond them then there is a real problem. Equally we do not need a return to the other extreme were we all do just as we individualy see fit with the arbiter of right and wrong sitting beyond challenge in the left hand seat. There has to be a balance, what that balance is will I guess cause much debate.

[OPEN DES]

Interesting topic.

I fly the a319 for the orange lcc.
SOP is to fly 160 select. flaps2 till 5d and then reduce and configure, even if ATC requests 160 till4d.
but 160 till 4d is well achievable provided you get dirty to landing config.
as suggested before in this thread you can start winding the speed down (manage the speed) just before 4d and the a/c will still be doing 158 or so at 4d.
unfortunately this goes against SOP, but i'd rather apply common sense than screw ATC up.

somebody mentioned flap loads when configuring early. 160 at landing config (flaps 3 at most places ref. SOP) shouldn't be any problem (VFE 185).

understandably in an environment where CDA's and fuel efficiency is getting more and more important, people are hesitant to fly dirty and have thrust spooled up against flaps. but at the end of the day we should fly the speeds ATC requires us to fly at expense of our slickness/fuel efficiency.

[alf5071h]

This thread relates to the (commercial) need for higher approach speeds to some (late) point during an approach and the difficulties that some operators have in meeting this due to simultaneous operational constraints. ATC, as usual, are doing their very best to assist the flight crews, who in turn are doing their best to comply, but the operation gets a bit fraught at the edge – the point of slow down.
Operations towards the edge of any safety boundary are breeding grounds for incidents and accidents, particularly where everyone is falling over each other to solve the problem. In these situations, the safety margins are reduced for the higher workload periods, there is less tolerance of the abnormal weather conditions, and greater opportunity to deviate from the normal standards, e.g. flap selection or use the autos to a greater extent (which may give nasty surprises at the edge of the wt, cg, wind boundary).

A high speed approach and landing remains a major safety issue. The Stabilized Approach (SA) concept is used as an alleviating procedure. This is generally based on the FSF stabilized approach criteria, which at conception did consider flexible implementation. The main assumption was that the deceleration would be complete before 1000 ft when IFR, or 500 ft if VFR. This was biased towards N American operations which depend on ‘VFR’ practices at major airports, whereas Europe is predominantly IFR. Subsequently, there have been subtle erosions with the loss of the OM and the now common use of distance to touchdown to define the limit.
If ATC considerations need to creep up on the stabilized approach criteria then the associated operational procedures might have to be reviewed. However, care is required. The SA criteria have been ‘relaxed’ in FAA AC120-71 (example SOP) so that a range of speeds can be used after ‘stabilization’; this defeats the original safety point. Alternatively, FDM criteria could be more accommodating, or if able, the ATC requirements could be backed off a bit.
However, the safety case must be paramount. The safety statistics still indicate that high speed landings are a significant risk (even on long runways), and that they originate from poorly executed high speed approaches (with a much higher risk in wet / windy conditions).

All parties in this problem should collectively look at the edge of this operation and perhaps instead of asking ‘how can we do this’, consider ‘should we be doing this’. It’s great to see the discussion and co-operation, but don’t let the enthusiasm overtake safety.

[Right Way Up]

Rananim,
Unfortunately in the UK we have the annoying habit of building infrastructure about thirty years after we needed it. There is pressure on both pilots and ATC from the beancounters to maximise the runway usage, and for the most we are operating on the edge. If we weren't this topic would not be being discussed.

[johnydicaprio]

There is no SOP more importand as common sense/airmanship.
The 1000' and 500' gates are proven gates to be stable by in order to maintain safety.
If I fly on final and see I tend to become too close to the preceeding I will slow down a bit, within 10 knots no problem, if I need more I ask ATC.
Before I slow down from 160 kts. I'll check what is behind me and how close, if it apears the A/C behind is a bit close...again Advice ATC.

This is indeed an interesting discussion here but it seems that too many are hiding behind SOP's but as an old instructor once told me:

SOP's are be followed blindly by fools or to guide the proffesional, you chose which is applicable for you.

gruB, Der Johny

[BOAC]

If I fly on final and see I tend to become too close to the preceeding I will slow down a bit, within 10 knots no problem, if I need more I ask ATC.- welcome to PPRune and your first post, JdC.

Please do read the whole of this thread as well and you will see that

1) You may well look 'close' to the one ahead in your mind

2) those 10kts are not really 'yours' to play with - there is NO +/- 10 kts in this.

The thread is really about how we try to fit with ATC's speed requirements and how we CHANGE things properly if necessary. Making unrequested and unexpected speed changes is not the answer.

[FlyingCroc]

You should know Johni that ATC expects you to comply with the speeds, if everyone flies +/- 10 kts the flow would break down. TCAS does not give you an accurate position.

[Right Way Up]

TCAS may not give you an accurate position, but when both aircraft are on the glideslope you can judge the distance with regard to altitude difference. If I think I may be too close I ask what the separation is and aircraft type, and if necessary request a speed reduction.
Communication is the answer here, unfortunately with busy RT/tight approach sequencing it is not always possible. Thats why it would be nice to get an sensible compromise between airlines and ATC managers.

[411A]

So, it seems that we have some pilots who want to 'play' controller, and slow just a bit if they think the preceeding airplane is 'too close'.

Meanwhile, the REAL controller, watching all this on his PPI is further upset that the airplane in trail is fast gaining on the one that is slowing.

Hmmm, no wonder the ATC folks get ticked off.

Me thinks that all these 'controller' pilots had better stick to actually flying the aeroplane they are assigned to, rather that mucking up the whole affair with some of their ill-thought out 'procedures'.

[Right Way Up]

411a,
In an ideal world you are correct, and I cannot recollect ever asking to reduce speed in the UK because I thought we were getting too close. However Barcelona in recent times.....
Anyway surely keeping an eye on separation forms part of your airmanship argument!

[RAT 5]

If anyone gets a chance watch the film 'Pushing Tin', give it a try. If you can fast forward to the ATC bits and cut out the rest of the dross, it's OK. It's a new expression for me, but the yanks use it for ATC productivity, especially on appraoch controller. It demonstrates their use of speed for spacing. It was 12 yesra ago, flying in & out of O'Hare, Logan & JFK, that I first came across this technique. Flying a heavy, ATC had their work cutout spacing the mix of heavies & mediums, plus commuters. Often I was vectored at 90 degress onto finals at 250kts, while someone else on long straight in was at minimum. IT was too far to vector us behind him. It was then 230kts till quite close in, perhaps 10nm and then the first thing out was the gear. It had to be done or they spun you out.

What was different was changing speed on finals, as in slow/fast/slow or t'other way round.

However, it sometimes didn't quite work. On trail, long long finals, No.6. A real mix of a/c ahead. 210kts. The controller was talking incessantly. I could hear the a/c ahead slowing down. (You have to do it some time, eventually.) I couldn't get a word in to request a slow down. I then got a TA on the a/c ahead, and I knew he was slowing down. I was next expecting an RA climb. Ouch. Just as I was going to say 'the hell with it' and drop some flaps, The controller took me out at 90 degrees, 1 minute, 180 degrees, then rejoin finals at 160kts. He'd slid a medium in ahead of us as he couldn't make the correct spacing of it behind our heavy. It would seem our high speed was to create a spacing behind for this original overtaking manoeuvre. It worked, but until the end we sure as hell hadn't got a clue what was going on.

I still wonder if it was more luck than judgement, but the final solution worked. It wouldn't be possible in Europe and it wouldn't have worked had we disregarded ATC instructions.

One thing it demonstrated, considering ealier posts about SOP's, is that ATC don't have the same ones as us. You had to understand the a/c's capabilities and use them. All quite safe, but perhaps not always SOP. It was more 'get the job done'.

ATC friends at a major airfield used to be mighty hacked off at some major carriers. I was flying B737-200. We could rack it around and be very flexible for ATC into e.g. LGW. Certain other continental majors flew the a/c like it was a B747. Others were in bewteen. Same a/c different techniques. Even more confusing for them was the same major who flew B727 like Starfighters.

Who would want the job. Hence perhaps the rule that everyone flies the same speed no matter the type or carrier. Boring but effective.

[Orp Tolip]

Some good comments here about reporting the problem through the company, it's definately the way forward.
That does however rather rely on the company being interested in what you have to say. I can speak from experience that, depending on the nature of the 'problem' not all of them are...:ugh:
Not wanting to talk too much out of turn about following SOP's but some points some people seem to have lost sight of.
a) I may be incorrect (not unusual) but I was led to believe on my command upgrade that, in the UK at least, the contents of the OPs manual is deemed LAW, and non adherence is thefore breaking the law. In all such cases its OK until it goes wrong, at which point the company will wash their hands of you and leave you to dogs
HOWEVER
b) I found this very apt quote, I'm sure there are others, which sums up our game very nicely I think.
Young men know the rules, but old men know the exceptions.
Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894) American author and poet.
I have in the past (and will continue in the future) deviated from SOP's where I felt the safety of the aircraft would be compromised, and annotated the voyage report, or filed an ASR, whichever was appropriate. Never, ever, had to further justify the deviation, although I'm not sure that 'ATC told me to' is an acceptable excuse if it conflicts with SOP.
Final thought, for those that have to be stable by 1000' in IMC but only 500' if visual, can the spy in the cab tell the difference...... didn't think so ;)

[120.4]

"That does however rather rely on the company being interested in what you have to say. I can speak from experience that, depending on the nature of the 'problem' not all of them are..."

And therein lies the problem; nobody is interested because the only immediate solution is to reduce the existing declared capacity whilst capacity increases are put in place. A senior TC manager once said that if NATS did that it would be admitting it has been wrong and there was no way he could.

The airlines have no interest either (as long as nobody gets hurt) - reducing declared capacity would reduce their revenue streams; they want more not less.

Were the declared capacity to be reduced it would further embarrass HMG; it would expose their tardiness in addressing capacity issues and would put UK plc at a further disadvantage. Hitherto it is The System that has made it possible for this to occur and as long as it keeps making it work, nothing will change. :ugh:

"Best use of existing infrastructure..." is not in The System's interest. Time to stop.

.4

[126.825]

unfortunatly although it seems strange but pilots arnt really the best to decide if they are too close to the one ahead.....i say this because unless they can see the whole picture and every aircraft (not just themselves!) how can they.

does the pilot know which exit the aircraft ahead is going to take after landing? do they know if the aircraft ahead is going to be slow to vacate?

the best scenario, still, is for aircraft to stick to the speeds they are given. if they cant be adhered to tell the controller when your downwind.

if these speeds are unacceptable......then you need to tell your companies to negociate different ones.

cheers

[Right Way Up]

126.825,
unfortunatly although it seems strange but pilots arnt really the best to decide if they are too close to the one ahead
With respect I disagree. If I believe wake turbulence spacing is being compromised, my responsibilities as a commander is to do something about it. As I said before I have never had to do this in the UK, however at certain European airfields this can occur quite regularly. And just to clarify I do not just arbitarily reduce speed, I will communicate first!

[Jonty]

I would dissagree with that as well, and to be honest I dont really care if im not in the best possition. If I dont like the way things are shaping up then it is my responsability to do something about it. As pilots we have overall responsability for the saftey of our aircraft and that means if we dont like what we are told to do then we will not do it. 99.9% of the time we will tell you but sometimes that is not allways possable.

ATC is not an infallable system and you have to understand that I will not place my aircraft in what I belive to be a comprimised position out of blind obediance.

The problem here is not pilots slowing down, but a lack of slack in the system. Overcrowded airports and congested airspace, its a system near collapse. And all we can do is argue about whos responsability it is to patch it up.

Lastly, saftey is paramount, 160 to 4d is not.

[loubylou]

Jonty - yes you have the overall responsibility of your one aeroplane .
I , however, have the overall responsibility of all the aeroplanes under my control.
If you can't do the speeds you have been instructed to fly - then say so, as you would if you can't comply with level restrictions. And say so early enough so it can be worked around.
I am not psychic - but I am flexible.
But if you slow down to increase the gap ahead of you for your comfort, without saying, thus reducing the gap behind you to my discomfort, causing loss of separation, - then expect to be the one sent around ;)

The UK AIP states speeds to be expected are 180-160 12 -8 miles, then inside 8 mile 160 kts until 4 dme.

louby

[RAT 5]

For discussion: and this goes beyond slowing down on finals.

In a 2 man cockpit, and especially in the modern world, there is a potential major CRM issue. The comments of SOP v Airmanship conflict, should the need arise, could lead to the following.

Aged old captain; mega '000 on type; generally a sound operator. New cadet F/O; < 1000hrs total; knows the SOP bible backwards, but has yet to read up on the airmanship guide book.
F/O's encouraged to speak up and challenge captain if deviating from SOP's.
Situation arises which requires some rapid, flexible and deviant action. F/O does not understand, only that the SOP boundries have been reached. Major breakdown in CRM. Does he blindly follow or challenge? What if the F/O is PF and the Capt is giving handling orders; what if he then takes over?

What this is addressing is the large experience gap in many cockpits. There is no easy solution given the industry expansion. Hence the desire of DFO's to have rigid SOP's. This closes the experience gap because 10.000hrs & 1000 hrs will do the same thing. Sounds easy. Perhaps given that the old ladder of piston, turbo-prop, small jet, big jet has burnt down, this is the only way. For 99% of the time it works. Lets just hope that when that 1% lateral thinking is required it is there.

For the pilot ATC relationship; what will happen when new TCAS systems are introduced (it has been a discussion topic)which will allow pilots to be airborne ATC and adjust their flight paths accordingly. ATC will become more of a monitoring role. Long time away, but it has been raised.

The days of 1 pilot and a dog are getting closer.

[120.4]

"Lastly, saftey is paramount, 160 to 4d is not."

It is if the following traffic is 2.5nm behind you (otherwise you are solving your problem by causing me and the next aircraft another).

I absolutely support the aircrew position in this, you must have the final say where you feel safety is an issue. If SOPs are not consistent with current spacing, spacing must change.

.4

[8846]

Some excellent posts here - so I thought I would add my h'appeth..

When we are established on final approach track, ATC are in pretty much in charge - this is a basic system management principle. They know the 'big picture' and are uniquely placed to put all the jigsaw together. On final approach to a large international airport is the time when we are most constrained in our actions - it's just common sense.

In the course of a normal flight there are times when ATC are more in charge than the pilot and there are times when the opposite is true. It's all a question of degree.

This is going to sound sacreligeous(sp?) to some - (we might as well give them a remote control attached to the bleedin' aeroplane!..e.t.c...) We of course have to keep the aircraft safe and if we receive instructions likely to jeopardise that we have to say so.

I've flown with some guys who seem to delight in 'second guessing' what's going on - adding 10 knots here and taking it off there - they all believe that they are 'helping' and making the whole thing run more smoothly - delusional thinking in almost every instance.

I sense that some resent the loss of control and therefore accountablity for their actions - understandable I suppose.

I MAY have been spoilt - never really going to anywhere really bad or busy or both - but in AMS we always work to 180 to the glide and 160 to 4nm. If everyone does it, it mostly works out.

Just a thought - and as always on this forum, any comments gratefully appreciated. :ok:

[Dream Land]

The days of 1 pilot and a dog are getting closer Classic, ha ha. :ok:

[411A]

Lastly, saftey is paramount, 160 to 4d is not.
Hmmm, might be so for some types, but for the L1011 at max landing weight...it might not be fast enough...:}:E

Personally speaking, 4DME is where I usually desire to select landing flaps, not way out in the hinderlands and make more noise.

And no, before you ask, I don't have to answer to the fleet manager...I is it.

[sorcery]

For many of us, altering the SOP to accommodate ATC or provide a smoother approach, is not an option. If we continue below 1000' not yet quite stable, we risk losing a stripe. On A330, 160 to 4, is usually do-able. Fully dirty by 5 and command the speed reduction at 4.5 to allow for autothrust lag. Actual speed starts reducing at 4. If no headwind manually increase Vref by 10 knots. My management not looking at this yet. Ask your chief pilots to talk to the bean counters re increased wear n tear vs runway utilization. Understand this may not work for everyone. Good luck with the very scary gross use of speedbrake.
It seems obvious by now that the coordination involved to get 170 to 5, is just not going to happen in my lifetime.

[Dream Land]

to allow for autothrust lag Huh? :confused:

[NigelOnDraft]

Sorcery Fully dirty by 5 and command the speed reduction at 4.5 to allow for autothrust lag. Actual speed starts reducing at 4.Whilst this is possible, it is where we are going to get philosophical problems :{ It seems to go against everything from saving fuel, reducing airfield area noise, to taking Flaps at a higher speed than required, and on some types v close to the limit... i.e. tail wagging dog...

I, OTOH, comply as closely as I can with 160 to4d, whilst balancing clean as SOPs permit, idle as much as possible, and just scraping inside the 1000' gate.

I do not believe the ATCOs here are complaining about the "160 to 4" actually being "160ish to 5ish" and ~150KIAS @ 4D - NB 5KIAS over 1NM alters spacing by ~0.03NM ;) After all, when we slow from 160K the ATCO has no idea whether our FInal Speed, for the last 3NM or so, will be 1220K or 150K :eek:

I believe the issues are the minority who fly 20K+ off speed, and/or at totally different ranges to that specified...

NoD

[maui]

It appears this thread is running out of steam, and rightly so. The problems espoused here cannot be solved here.

Whilst there are a few that profess to lack the ability to fit their aircraft into the pattern, the vast majority of non compliance seems to come from those who feel constrained by inappropriate SOP’s.

The answer surely is to force a change in SOP’s such that those competent to do so, will be able to comply with ATC requirements. Some will say that this is the tail wagging the dog. Maybe so, but the bottom line is that tight speed controls are set to optimise utilisation of saturated runway space. Any deviation there from will decrease capacity which ultimately will affect everyone’s ability to conduct business. The long term answer is provision of more runway space, but that will be resolved elsewhere.

Pilots could lobby for SOP changes with their Flight Ops Departments, but historically such is unproductive.

A more effective approach would be for ATC to become proactive. A suggestion to ATC.

Issue by NOTAM an advice that speed control is in force and will be rigidly applied. The standard, (not binding on ATC),speeds will be xxx to yyy DME then a minimum of zzz to aa DME. Any operator or pilot unable to comply must carry 30 minutes holding fuel in addition to any other requirements, to facilitate sequence.
Issue on ATIS a further advice that speed control is in effect. “If you are unable to comply advise on INITIAL contact.”
ATC then needs to issue an immediate rejection of the approach of anyone who does not comply, unannounced. Send them to a sin bin until you can fit them in.
Any one binned, should have the extra fuel to cope, if they have not, they must declare an emergency and fess up in the resulting paper work.

The net effect would be that :

Those who are compliant improved flow
The CAA should start agitating because of the increase in fuel “emergencies” , and/or
The bean counters would come down on the Flt Ops Dept’s to complain about the excessive fuel loads carried and the extra holding incurred.
The Flt Op’s Dept’s would then need to review their SOP’s to enable enough flexibility to achieve the speed control and still meet their nominated stabilized approach criteria.
The training departments would also need to ensure that their pilots had the skills required to utilize their aircraft as designed.

The reality is that in most cases cited on this discussion thread, the only changes required are first to be able dirty up a little earlier (while holding the nominated speed) and secondly to change the stabilized speed criteria to “ at 1000’ fully configured with Vref (+additives) selected, and speed reducing” , of course with the usual stabilized flight path on slope on centerline etc

Given that the target is to achieve 160 at about 1200’ the Flt Op’s people need have no fear of the cowboy approaches that the stabilized approach criteria were designed to prevent (eg 240kts at 1000’at 6miles).

Beat your gums here as much as you like. It will not solve the problem. Pressure the people who can make a difference.


But above all, for all our sakes, if you can’t or won’t comply, SAY SOMETHING.

Maui

[barit1]

Maui adds much detail to my "communicate" post a few pages back. :D

So that the "system" has a better handle on this, how about a central data collection point for finding the scatter in Vref data? Just what is the statistical variation in desired speeds on close final? I'm sure this scatter varies from airfield to airfield, dependant also on time of day etc.

Until we know how/where these numbers lie, we won't really know what we're dealing with.

[Del Prado]

I've experimented with 160/170 to 5 for 2 or 3 days with varying degrees of success.
Some thoughts....
2 BA 737's I give 170 to ask if they can do 180 for a bit as they're "very heavy today". While I completely understand their rational it just illustrates that the more accommodating we are the further the requests will vary.
An Easyjet A319, instructed to do 160 to 4, is at 144kts IAS at 4 (1250' AGL) and still at 144kts at 1dme in more or less CAVOK. Why?
I'm not picking on Easyjet, others are just as guilty but this is a good example of the way speed control is being ignored or if not ignored then being pushed too far down the list of priorities.

[Astrocaryum vulgare]

Does anybody know if the Mode S IAS readout comes from? If it's that selected in the a/p speed window (or similar), that's not necessarily the speed the aircraft is actually flying, so the Easy A319 in the example above had just selected 144 kts at 4 dme in preparation to be stable at final approach speed passing 1000' AGL. Just a thought.

[Denti]

Mode S IAS is not the selected speed but the actual speed.

[mcdhu]

I haven't read the whole thread, so please forgive me if I repeat something that has been said before.

ATC must realise by now that most airlines are aiming to be stable at 1000' above Tdze in order to eliminate unstable approaches which are proved to be a major contributor to landing accidents. As has been discussed before, different ac require different techniques to cope with this. A major low cost airline has developed it's sop for 160 to 4 as - at 5 miles lower the gear and manage the speed (ie reduce to Vapp) and further configure into the landing config. This results in being stable by 1000'.

Of course, for the Airbus, 'Groundspeed minimum' comes into play thereafter which may account for the 144kts at 1 mile quoted above.

Fam flights for ATCers would help hugely here as would visits to ATC by pilots so that we may better understand each others point of view. The last thing we want as pilots, is the summons to 'Starfleet Command' for tea and no biscuits with the management for busting the 'stable' criteria - and boy are they watching! It is currently downloaded fortnightly from each ac but I understand it is about to go 'live' - whatever that means. Klaxons going off in HQ every time somebody busts the stable criteria?

Cheers,
mcdhu

[Intruder]

An Easyjet A319, instructed to do 160 to 4, is at 144kts IAS at 4 (1250' AGL) and still at 144kts at 1dme in more or less VMC. Why?
I'm not picking on Easyjet, others are just as guilty but this is a good example of the way speed control is being ignored or if not ignored then being pushed too far down the list of priorities.
Only half the "fault" is the Easyjet Captain's -- he didn't tell you he was "unable 160 to 4." The other half of the "fault" is the restriction that directly contradicts many airlines' SOP of a stabilized approach at 1000' for SAFETY concerns.

Maybe if more Captains told ATC "unable 160 to 4; will be at 145 at 5" the ATC planners will rethink their restrictions that put expediency before safety.

FWIW, I can often go 160 to 4 in my 747, especially when heavy and approach speed is 150+. However, when light weight (~130 Kt approach speed) and IMC, it isn't going to happen!

[Right Way Up]

Del Prado,
Just out of interest had you watched what his speed was before 4nm, because there is the chance they suffered some shear just before.

[Del Prado]

Intruder, he was stable by 1250' AGL. Isn't it reasonable to expect the stable approach criteria to be met closer to 1000' ie. an extra half mile before starting the speed reduction?
Don't many airlines allow approach to continue below 1000' if they're going to be stable by 500' and it's VMC?


Right Way Up, good point but I did monitor the speed throughout approach and didn't see anything to suggest windshear nor was windshear reported on the day.
Also the flight in question is typical of one where we start to get concerned with spacing/separation and was only meant as an example.

[Intruder]

My airline defines "stable" as
• Airspeed +5 / -0 kts from target.
• Aircraft is within, and tracking to remain within, the lateral confines of the runway extended.
• No unusual roughness or excessive attitude change after the middle marker. Pitch, power, and heading stabilized (not transient), and aircraft in trim.
• No more than 1/3 dot displacement from the localizer, and 1/2 dot displacement from the glideslope at 100’.

So, by 1,000' (500' VMC) the airspeed, pitch, and power must be stable -- I cannot be "stable" when 20 kt above target speed, or with power at idle and decelerating! Do you realize what it takes for an airliner to lose 20-30 kt while descending on the glideslope? Maybe the "light twins" decelerate in a heartbeat, but the heavies do not!

You did not mention whether the Easyjet was IMC or VMC. Neither did you mention the weather. Even if the airport was VFR, he may have been IMC at 2,000 or 1500', and would be following IMC procedures.

[Del Prado]

Thanks for that, I did mention above that it was more or less CAVOK (cloud ceiling was above 5000' and vis in excess of 10kms) that's partly why I'm querying the speed reduction on here. But you're right they could have been IMC in the scattered cloud reported at 2000'.

Do you realize what it takes for an airliner to lose 20-30 kt while descending on the glideslope?

I wish it took a mile longer, then this crew (and many more at Gatwick) would be complying with their clearance.;)


I'd take issue with your statement Maybe the "light twins" decelerate in a heartbeat, but the heavies do not! In my experience A320s, 737NGs and 757s aren't great at decelerating but DC10, Tristar, 747 classics all lose speed much more quickly.

[Roffa]

Intruder wrote:

Maybe if more Captains told ATC "unable 160 to 4; will be at 145 at 5" the ATC planners will rethink their restrictions that put expediency before safety.

ATC can accomodate whatever speed anyone wants to fly. Just always remember however that the pressure to get the maximum number of aircraft through the system comes from the airlines, your employers, not ATC.

We're reacting to your companies desires to fly ever more schedules and ultimately we'll do whatever you want. It makes no odds to me personally if the knock on effect is it reduces capacity, I'd welcome not having to work quite as hard!

[411A]

In my experience A320s, 737NGs and 757s aren't great at decelerating but DC10, Tristar, 747 classics all lose speed much more quickly.


The TriStar certainly will, if you close the throttles.

Oh dear, I can hear it now....shock, horror, close the throttles at lower altitudes, and die.:}:}:rolleyes:

Well, this sure as heck was (somewhat) true with the engines on the 'ole straightpipe 707, but certainly not now, and especially not with airplanes powered by three shaft Rollers.

[FlyingCroc]

not again, the times of museum aircraft like Tristar and B707 are over. :} You can close throttles whenever you want but you have to be established at 1000ft, that means engines spooled up, regardless of engines make and models.

[West Coast]

Well said croc. Our body of work along with our collective experience and wisdom's will have minimal application in 30 years from now as aircraft and SOP's evolve. Just as those from 30 years past now try to provide with diminishing relevance. Learn what you can from the old timers, keep moving forward. There's a reason flying keeps getting safer. To give them credit, much of what we know is paid for in their blood. Many times we learn what not to do from some of the standards they used "back in the day"

[NigelOnDraft]

Thanks for that, I did mention above that it was more or less CAVOK (cloud ceiling was above 5000' and vis in excess of 10kms) that's partly why I'm querying the speed reduction on here. But you're right they could have been IMC in the scattered cloud reported at 2000'.You guys criticise us when we "play ATCO", can we ask you not to second guess our SOPs ;) IMC / VMC might be a factor for some airlines... but e.g. for BA it is not... i.e. we should always be stable prior 1000R (not 1000'aal for some reason ;) either ).
Intruder, he was stable by 1250' AGL. Isn't it reasonable to expect the stable approach criteria to be met closer to 1000' ie. an extra half mile before starting the speed reduction?Afraid not IMHO, it is very imprecise science, and the actual wind in the 1000'-2000' area, and more changes in that wind, need for Anti-Ice, crew experience / technique, and as you can see from this thread, the complete lack of training / instruction form airline in how to balance the contradictions of ATC and SOPs... but I know which ones gets me the phone call....

For all the ATCO whinging here, understandable, if it is such an issue how may reports have you submitted e.g. to BA "complaining" about our non-adherence? They certainly don't think it is an issue judging by the one way stream of material from them imloring us to slow down and be stable ever earlier... with pictures on unfortunate SWA 737's in gas stations :uhoh:
An Easyjet A319, instructed to do 160 to 4, is at 144kts IAS at 4 (1250' AGL) and still at 144kts at 1dme in more or less CAVOK. Why?I am afraid such details are meaningless unless you also tell us his G/S exactly at the same instants... I am sure you appreciate that whilst you instruct us to fly IAS, and might think we do:
Monsieur Airbus fits a random speed generator called "ground speed mini". Suggest you read up on it and if you understand it, please let me know :D
Mr Newton III dictates the aircraft preserves G/S in varying wind, not IAS...

[BOAC]

I cannot believe this is still rumbling on. Now we are into 'I am 'elpless, it is zee French zat have done zis thing' technicalities.

You guys and girls can either do it or you cannot. If you cannot, say so. If it becomes a problem with traffic volume for ATC, I'm sure someone will notice. How many of the 'whingers' above have taken FORMAL action with their companies? Hands up?

I repeat maui's post #221

Beat your gums here as much as you like. It will not solve the problem. Pressure the people who can make a difference.

But above all, for all our sakes, if you can’t or won’t comply, SAY SOMETHING.

Maui

It is sound advice.