Luton 170kts to 4DME

[tom775257]

Hi,

Quick question, I haven't flown into Luton for a year or so, whilst I know Gatwick does 170 till 5D, today I was asked for 170kts to 4D at Luton (170kts 7 to 4 DME); so I configured fully (full flap/gear down) and then reduced just before 4DME, I made my stable approach criteria (VMC) JUST by 500' AAL. Is this a new procedure at Luton or a one off? I can imagine it will not work with much of a tailwind on final (this was in an A321).

Cheers, Tom.

[learner001]

It's just getting more and more: 'c o c o n u t s . . .'

Kind regards, learner . . .;)

[Defruiter]

A one off by the sounds of it, Luton still does 160kts to 4DME.

[Nubboy]

When you say you were asked, was it a request, as in "can you maintain?", or was it an instruction?

Seeing the previous debates on people not mainting 160 to 4, then then asking for 170 to 4 seems a bit amibitious. Of course other variables such as type of aircraft, headwind component etc may make it more, or less, achievable. In a light A319, then no chance of slowing it and being stable. Fokker F100, on the other hand.......:ok:

[5 Day Rule]

Slip of the tongue I'll bet.....many controllers who work Luton radar are also valid on other approach sectors such as Essex and Gatwick, where 170kt until 5 is used as standard.

[tom775257]

Ahh ok perhaps the slip of the tongue might explain it, either way I thought it was a touch optimistic, but it worked out okay. If I remember correctly it was an instruction, I commented at the time to the captain 'right fully configured to stand a chance.' I was happy to give it a crack because I was quite sure we could do it, but dragging it in 170kts with full flap and gear down probably gets a little noisy. We stood no chance without this, we reached approach speed about 600' AAL, with mandatory go around at 500' if not achieved.

Thanks for the answers, I am glad this isn't a new standard approach profile!

[conflict alert]

In NZ we have can issue speed control instructions to 5nm if on an instrument approach or 4nm if on a visual approach.

[Dan Dare]

Almost certainly slip of the tongue and you made the decision that this was do-able, albeit with a matter of seconds to spare, but every(?) instruction from ATC can be refused if you think that it is not sensible(convenient) or safe to comply. A bit of notice of non-compliance can be useful, but safe operation of the aircraft is paramount.

The limitations of communication via RTF mean that it is sometimes quite challenging to negotiate a prefernece over the radio and its often frustrating from both sides of the radio when a desired outcome is there, which would be possible, but there is no space on the RTF to negotiate.

[Del Prado]

safe operation of the aircraft is paramount.


Dan, I agree with you 100% but this clearance wasn't unsafe. If a stable approach wasn't achieved by 500' the result was a go around, non compliance of speed instruction will also result in a go around (for the guy behind).

[Dan Dare]

I'll try to be more eloquent then...

In this event everyone lived happily ever after.

EVERY inability to comply should be informed to ATC (ideally before hand), who would no-doubt be able to engineer additional spacing (in this kind of scenario) for the guy behind.

Sometimes it would be handy to know what the pilot wants to be able to give them a better service - often this would be easily achieved if only we knew.

I don't think we are disagreeing, just suffering from the limitations of communicating in writing combined with my limited lingual skills