PDA

View Full Version : BAW and NY approach at it


Check Airman
4th Oct 2019, 08:18
https://youtu.be/wHfj3DGrE3Y

Never flown a widebody. Is 180kt to 5nm incompatible with a stabilised approach?

safelife
4th Oct 2019, 08:21
Impossible on A330 and B777

back to Boeing
4th Oct 2019, 09:17
Flap 30 is usual for 22L at JFK. Flap limiting speed for flap 30 is 180. At best theyíll be doing gear down flap 25 but Boeing donít recommend using F25 as an intermediate setting. So gear down Flap 20. From 5 slow down to 170 before selecting flap 30 and still be stable at 1000í is going to be tight. Not helped by the DME at us airfields showing 1.2 ish miles at touchdown.

PukinDog
4th Oct 2019, 09:21
Rumor has it he was last spotted somewhere east of Recife on a 130 heading, still not answering the question.

Toolonginthisjob
4th Oct 2019, 09:24
KJFK Runway 22L is 2560m long. That’s a pretty short runway for a 747-400.

The crew will be planning flap 30, and autobrake 4, with partial/full reverse.

Flap 30 has a placard speed of 180 knots, and likely to offer a final approach speed at typical landing weight of less than 140kts? Shall we say 5 miles is approximately 1,500 ft? Maybe less, as the associated DME overreads by more than a mile!

BA has very strict Stablised Approach Criteria. (I accept others are less strict.) So that’s 500’ (or less!) to move comfortably away from flap limiting speed, before selecting flap 30, whilst achieving a 35 knot reduction in 500’ or less, in an aircraft with significant momentum.

IMVHO, that’s a pretty tight corner to ask this crew to accept, and that’s before we consider the meteorology on the day.

Perhaps we might reasonably ask, why that requirement was imposed on that one aircraft on that day. It certainly isn’t normal. Even in New York. If it were, there’d be an awful lot of aircraft going around!

Purely subjectively, it looks to me like a pretty stupid request/instruction.

FullWings
4th Oct 2019, 09:46
Never flown a widebody. Is 180kt to 5nm incompatible with a stabilised approach?
It would depend on a lot of things: Vref, wind, terrain, icing, density altitude, etc.

I can do 160/4 in the 777-200 and 170/5 in the 777-300 in benign conditions without too much drama at average weights but 180/5 would probably need a fair amount of speedbrake and early gear/flap deployment. Donít know about the 747 but probably more difficult.

Anyway, the whole idea of Stabilised Approaches is that you have freed up capacity to monitor for external/internal issues, such as deviations, windshear, other traffic and so on. Being rushed in on a high-workload, last-minute will-we-wonít-we approach is not a great idea. Smacks of ďare we up here because youíre down there or are you down there because weíre up here...?Ē :rolleyes:

Locked door
4th Oct 2019, 11:24
180 to 6 is just doable in a 747, as is 170 to 5 and 160 to 4. Note this is distance to the threshold and not the actual DME reading which is often not co located and requires a headwind on approach and a three degree slope.

A decent controller can achieve the same landing rate without the stress by slowing the aircraft earlier and achieving accurate final separation earlier. This controller is trying to mitigate her lack of accuracy and forward planning by asking the flight crew to perform an unwise higher than desirable energy final approach. She then punishes a crew that demonstrate airmanship and refuse an undesirable clearance. They also demonstrate airmanship by refusing the clearance instead of agreeing to it and then decelerating when they want to as many crews would have done.

Im sure an ASR was filed and I doubt anything will be done.

LD

itsnotthatbloodyhard
4th Oct 2019, 12:52
22L threshold is at 1.4 DME, so sheís asking for 180+ to 1200í (3.6 nm from the threshold). How she thinks thatís in any way a sensible requirement is beyond me.

ACMS
4th Oct 2019, 13:03
Ridiculous, this kind of rubbish happens all too frequently. JFK approach need to wind it in.

aterpster
4th Oct 2019, 13:06
Flap 30 is usual for 22L at JFK. Flap limiting speed for flap 30 is 180. At best they’ll be doing gear down flap 25 but Boeing don’t recommend using F25 as an intermediate setting. So gear down Flap 20. From 5 slow down to 170 before selecting flap 30 and still be stable at 1000’ is going to be tight. Not helped by the DME at us airfields showing 1.2 ish miles at touchdown.

I guess it's all what you're used to. D12.0 at ROSLY, D6.8 AT ZALPO (the FAF), D.1.4 at the threshold. If the DME were biased to read 0.0 at the threshold, then ROSLY would be D10.6, and ZALPO would be D5.4. Can't see where the DME being biased would matter outside the FAF.

But, someone who wants zero at the threshold could request the RNAV Y Runway 22L.

neilki
4th Oct 2019, 13:11
22L threshold is at 1.4 DME, so sheís asking for 180+ to 1200í (3.6 nm from the threshold). How she thinks thatís in any way a sensible requirement is beyond me.
Up until six months ago fought that JFK fight every day.
ATC there are great, they really are, but like all of us, they learn on the job. If an operator regularly flys at 180 until 3 miles, an expectation has been set and they'll ask for that. Previous crews likely backed themselves into a corner or were unstablised and continued to 'make ATC happy'.
In the US, use the word 'Unable'. there's no need to invoke 'FAA standards' like this crew did. Leave it at that one word and make it ATC's problem.
Then either ask for their phone number; or use your company' channels to explain what your procedures and requirements are. ATC do want to work with everybody.

Tomaski
4th Oct 2019, 13:25
My take - both the controller and the pilot on the radio were being needlessly snippy toward each other.

The low altitude airspace around JFK can be very congested at times (limited options for vectoring) and arrival flows tightly spaced to maintain expected arrival rates. It is a very challenging piece of airspace to work.

The JFK final controller was trying to manage a flow of traffic based on the expectation that everyone could hold 180 KIAS to 5 DME. Maybe not the best plan in the world, but I'm guessing that they use that plan often enough, and crews (mostly) comply, so that was the plan for the moment.

British Air said they were unable to maintain the requested airspeed. Fair enough. At that point, the controller needs to either slow everyone behind BA down, possibly causing a domino effect back to the previous controller, or pull BA out of the sequence and reinsert them with additional spacing. That decision had to be made in fairly short order, however, the radio calls to work this out could have been handled a bit more diplomatically by both sides.

The proper place to have resolved this dilemma was on the previous frequency. The need to maintain a certain speed to a certain DME could have been inserted into the ATIS broadcast or passed on by the first approach controller at which time the proper spacing could have been worked out. By the time it wound up in the final controller's lap, the options to fix it were limited.

A320baby
4th Oct 2019, 14:00
correct me if Iím wrong but I always thought in the states if the controller gives you a speed to maintain on approach your allowed +/- 10 kts? He could had then done 170kts with no issue!

Long Haul
4th Oct 2019, 14:09
British Air said they were unable to maintain the requested airspeed. Fair enough. At that point, the controller needs to either slow everyone behind BA down, possibly causing a domino effect back to the previous controller, or pull BA out of the sequence and reinsert them with additional spacing. That decision had to be made in fairly short order, however, the radio calls to work this out could have been handled a bit more diplomatically by both sides.

No, at that point what the controller needs to do is ask them, if they canít maintain the assigned speed, at what point they will need to slow down from 180 to final approach speed, which is exactly what she did, but all she got in return was bla bla big airplane stabilized approach, bla bla. Even when she said that they werenít answering the question the crew failed to come up with their requirements, so her choice was slow everybody down to160 ten miles out or break BA off the approach. Nothing wrong with saying ĎUNABLEí but keep it to that and come up with your own plan instead of blocking the frequency during rush hour at one of the worldís busiest airports with a major runway shut down for the whole summer.

Brian 48nav
4th Oct 2019, 15:21
Check Airman

Suggest you move this to ATC Issues then you may get a response from the World's best controllers - London!:)

B48N ( long retired LHR controller )

lederhosen
4th Oct 2019, 15:38
I have always found controllers respond well to reasonable communication. The BA pilot was absolutely right to point out that he was unable to maintain the assigned speed. There is of course a margin but if you accept an impossible speed and then fly ten knots slower the controller will continue to assign impractical speeds. Where it went wrong was BA blocking the frequency with a long winded explanation and approach getting frustrated and responding by taking him out of the sequence.

sonicbum
4th Oct 2019, 15:58
Where it went wrong was BA blocking the frequency with a long winded explanation and approach getting frustrated and responding by taking him out of the sequence.


Yep.
Director or Final frequencies are possibly the worst places (not that any other frequency is the right one) to start a conversation about Your aircraft energy capabilities, especially around very busy intercontinental airport. Anybody flying in radar controlled busy airport terminal areas knows that You will be very likely assigned speeds on final approach, so better be proactive and include during the briefing what speeds You are able to make at the estimated arrival GW with current weather forecast, and adjust the figure (i.e. 180 kt to 6 nm) once You are getting to finals and are aware of your tail/head wind component. In that scenario, probably "Unable, we can make 170 kt to 5 nm" (that is basically 180 kt to 6 nm) would have worked wonders. For sure JFK controllers are in some cases not easy to deal with, but You need to come up with a plan anyway.

Check Airman
4th Oct 2019, 16:36
correct me if Iím wrong but I always thought in the states if the controller gives you a speed to maintain on approach your allowed +/- 10 kts? He could had then done 170kts with no issue!

Perhaps at a smaller airport, with less traffic. Please do not do that at JFK, or any other large, busy airport.

Check Airman
4th Oct 2019, 16:38
Thanks for all the replies guys. Seems itís hard in a 747.

I canít move the thread, Brian.

testpanel
4th Oct 2019, 17:17
By ACMS: Ridiculous, this kind of rubbish happens all too frequently. JFK approach need to wind it in.

I fully agree.
My company is paying their company.
So, i think, we as pilots, have more rights to complain about ATC. (I know this will upset some people....)

Now, IF, JFK atc is paying my company for their service, they have a point (but they do not..)

I flew many times to jfk, you just cannot even plan what they want, they do last minute changes even in low vis, changing runways etc.

Tell me/us way in advance what you want and we will adapt (help you girls and guys) but don't leave for the last 3-4 minutes.

I understand you girls and guys have to cope with a lot of traffic and nationalities, so why don't you all start with speaking a bit slower?
I am used to your accent, many or not (esp. grnd freq.......is even more freq congestion!)

We can all work together but it has to come from 2 sides, and IMHO we as pilots are more in our rights than ATC, especially after a 8-10 (or more!) LH flight.

Off for the weekend, back next Thursday in......JFK

T.P.

Meester proach
4th Oct 2019, 17:53
Iíve flown that approach a lot,and itís a bit frustrating to be at the edge of what it can do all the time.

I donít think Nigel helped as he went in aggressive from the off. Iíd just say ď unable, 180 to 8/ 160 to 4 is the best ď.

i went to Florida a while back and they wanted 190/5. Id love to know what aircraft/ airlines can do that and be stable at 1000í or do other airlines use lower stabilisation points ?

FlightDetent
4th Oct 2019, 18:04
The response on the tape is plain wrong, but that is a case closed. Why did the controller ask for something unthinkable needs a bit of investigating.

Falling back on the CRM class: Ask not what you hear nor what they are saying, ask what their thinking is.... an honest question: If the NY ATC demands a speed until "5", do they mean the 5DME reading (offset towards the runway by 1,2NM which would be massively important with my type) or 5 NM distance from the threshold?

I can see either being a possible mindset. Which one is it?

Check Airman If instructed to keep 180 until 3.8 to THR, what would be the best response from your pilot group - I gather you're reasonably local?

PukinDog
4th Oct 2019, 19:09
What's important is that he took the time on the frequency to announce that he was flying a 747, that his company has criteria that must be maintained, and that he didn't believe the controller breaking him off was "an FAA-approved procedure". Riveting and powerful stuff that we couldn't have enjoyed had he just replied "Unable".

tubby linton
4th Oct 2019, 19:17
Perhaps some BA fleet management need to visit New York and have a chat with the controllers regarding their company criteria and landing a large widebody on a short runway. . It does however seem completely unreasonable for the controller to ask for 180 to
5 and those who comply must have very lax stable criteria.

PukinDog
4th Oct 2019, 19:28
Perhaps some BA fleet management need to visit New York and have a chat with the controllers regarding their company criteria and landing a large widebody on a short runway. . It does however seem completely unreasonable for the controller to ask for 180 to
5 and those who comply must have very lax stable criteria.

So to sum up; NY/JFK needs education on widebody operations and everyone else must be doing it wrong. Therefore, some BA fleet manager is just the guy to ride in and set it all straight.

Got it.

IcePack
4th Oct 2019, 19:42
Me retired for a few years now. But when I was flying I found it amusing in that sop stabilisation of 1000í was thrown out the window and the last resort 500í used as the norm. Even 160 to 4 on an A330 didnít always work but was accepted. Why oh why donít the airlines who want stabilised approaches (most) lobby the control centres instead of waiting in the wings with a big stick to beat the crews with.

FlightDetent
4th Oct 2019, 19:44
Got it. Did not.

180 to 3.8 is completely different universe, non-Newtonian most likely. Closet cleaning time.

[agree with you about the lashes for the airborne radio operator]

back to Boeing
4th Oct 2019, 19:46
Just to add in perspective. BA pilots are flying to EASA regs, as well as the other industrial pressures. Whilst raising everyoneís blood pressure and cluttering up the airwaves I can understand why the baís response was tetchy. Not condoning it. But I can understand it. And as stated New York is a breed apart. If youíre not a regular it can catch you out. You have to be forceful in what you can and cannot accept.

tubby linton
4th Oct 2019, 19:50
So to sum up; NY/JFK needs education on widebody operations and everyone else must be doing it wrong. Therefore, some BA fleet manager is just the guy to ride in and set it all straight.

Got it.
You follow your employers rules so who gives a square root about other operators.A professional controller should know what a widebody is capable of and the gates operators have to operate to. The rest of the world certainly seem capable of managing it but a lot of US controllers think talking fast equates to skill and thus they are often very mediocre at controlling.
The suggestion was for a meeting between pilots and controllers. It is a very popular concept this side of the ocean.

back to Boeing
4th Oct 2019, 20:03
You follow your employers rules so who gives a square root about other operators.A professional controller should know what a widebody is capable of and the gates operators have to operate to. The rest of the world certainly seem capable of managing it but a lot of US controllers think talking fast equates to skill and thus they are often very mediocre at controlling.
The suggestion was for a meeting between pilots and controllers. It is a very popular concept this side of the ocean.

Amen to that. TRUCE is an amazing day out. I remember my first one in prestwick with a brand new group of controllers asking if it all went to s**t would we want to be vectored to Carlisle. Not a horrible idea till we told him we didnít have charts or any performance calculations for the runway. Was extremely useful for both sides. Especially when I was flung in to the sim and realised my brain definitely doesnít work in 3D like theirs does!!

West Coast
4th Oct 2019, 20:12
BA needs to shut up. Let the PIC or their management speak with them after the fact on the phone.

Tactically speaking: “unable, can maintain X till Y” is all that needs to be said.

Toolonginthisjob
4th Oct 2019, 20:40
West Coast.

Despite the stupid requirement of ATC. I tend to agree!

I’m curious. Was the speedbird correct about FAA ‘protocol’? Or not?

i genuinely don’t know.

568
4th Oct 2019, 22:14
West Coast.

Despite the stupid requirement of ATC. I tend to agree!

Iím curious. Was the speedbird correct about FAA Ďprotocolí? Or not?

i genuinely donít know.

ATC discretion (I do believe) is to cancel the approach clearance. Interesting reading the AIM and ATC manual.

josephfeatherweight
5th Oct 2019, 00:24
I don’t think Nigel helped as he went in aggressive from the off. I’d just say “ unable, 180 to 8/ 160 to 4 is the best “.
Absolutely concur with this sentiment.

twochai
5th Oct 2019, 02:09
Just to add in perspective. BA pilots are flying to EASA regs, as well as the other industrial pressures.

Ah, now I understand! BREXIT will fix this!!

misd-agin
5th Oct 2019, 02:44
180/8 or 160/4? You donít need 4 miles to slow 20 kts, especially if the gear is hanging.

And auto brake setting 4 because the runway is Ďonlyí 8400í is severe overkill.

PukinDog
5th Oct 2019, 02:45
You follow your employers rules so who gives a square root about other operators.A professional controller should know what a widebody is capable of and the gates operators have to operate to. The rest of the world certainly seem capable of managing it but a lot of US controllers think talking fast equates to skill and thus they are often very mediocre at controlling.
The suggestion was for a meeting between pilots and controllers. It is a very popular concept this side of the ocean.

ATC meeting with Operators to discuss aircraft performance/procedures/etc: Not a new idea, happening for ages in the US at airports large and small. Certainly not a concept limited to the other side of the ocean despite the belief in having pioneered everything that works.

JFK/NY TRACON: Been routinely handling 747s for 50 years this coming January. Departure point of first commercial 747 flight ever (Pan Am).

US Controllers being mediocre due to fast-talking and don't even know it, rest of the world is so much better at efficiently moving airborne metal: An amusing assessment for anyone who's operated in and out most of the rest of the world.

Fast-talking NY controllers: Bring your "A" game. Try to keep up. If asked a question by ATC, try just answering it before transmitting a dissertation that doesn't.

BA pilot in love with the sound of his own "radio voice" chewing-up the freq, gonna 'splain to the American ATC girl about her own FAA-approved procedures: Not entirely unpredictable, yet still comedy gold.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
5th Oct 2019, 03:19
JFK/NY TRACON: Been routinely handling 747s for 50 years this coming January. Departure point of first commercial 747 flight ever (Pan Am).

Probably ought to know better than to demand 180 kts down to 1200í then, donít you think?

Fast-talking NY controllers: Bring your "A" game. Try to keep up.

Whatís the ultimate aim here? Is it for pilots to prove themselves worthy by rising to the special challenge posed by NY controllers? Or for ATC to facilitate the safe and efficient arrival of aircraft? Because if itís the latter, Iím not sure that high-speed, often non-standard transmissions (with a bit of attitude thrown in for good measure) really help.

Agreed that BA shouldíve spared them the lecture, but I can kind of sympathise.

PukinDog
5th Oct 2019, 03:43
Probably ought to know better than to demand 180 kts down to 1200’ then, don’t you think?



What’s the ultimate aim here? Is it for pilots to prove themselves worthy by rising to the special challenge posed by NY controllers? Or for ATC to facilitate the safe and efficient arrival of aircraft? Because if it’s the latter, I’m not sure that high-speed, often non-standard transmissions (with a bit of attitude thrown in for good measure) really help.

Agreed that BA should’ve spared them the lecture, but I can kind of sympathise.


















Every place around the world has it's own "special challenges" that need adapting-to whether it be procedural or communications or lack of infrastructure, whatever. Any pilot not knowing this hasn't traveled much or been paying attention (for instance, when flying in the UK I always pack a big Oxford dictionary in my flight bag in case I need to look up another word like "deconfliction"). Yet there seems to be an expectation from a certain cadre of pilots who can't handle the fact that flying into NY or other points in the U.S. isn't just like "home" and become indignant about having to adapt, and prefer to instead begin banging-on the supposedly "inferior" ATC handling.

If the aim is the efficient and safe movement of aircraft, then answering a simple question by ATC when asked instead of immediately being triggered into Pompous Mode and avoiding it would serve as a start.

Check Airman
5th Oct 2019, 07:07
The response on the tape is plain wrong, but that is a case closed. Why did the controller ask for something unthinkable needs a bit of investigating.

Falling back on the CRM class: Ask not what you hear nor what they are saying, ask what their thinking is.... an honest question: If the NY ATC demands a speed until "5", do they mean the 5DME reading (offset towards the runway by 1,2NM which would be massively important with my type) or 5 NM distance from the threshold?

I can see either being a possible mindset. Which one is it?

Check Airman If instructed to keep 180 until 3.8 to THR, what would be the best response from your pilot group - I gather you're reasonably local?

Iíll start by saying I like avoiding NYC airspace. Some here will be horrified to hear this, but of the 3 (JFK, EWR and LGA), JFK is actually the best of the lot. You guys should thank the gods you donít go to LGA.

My first question would have been ď5 DME or 5 miles?Ē. If she really wanted 5 DME, my next transmission wouldíve been, ďunable, can we do 170 to 5 DME?Ē

If I had an approach speed that was unusually slow, Iíd be sure to let approach know on initial contact, so they can plan.

Iíve never flown in Europe, but here, youíre best advised to use that secondary flight plan or RTE 2 for another runway.

Check Airman
5th Oct 2019, 07:15
Iíve flown that approach a lot,and itís a bit frustrating to be at the edge of what it can do all the time.

I donít think Nigel helped as he went in aggressive from the off. Iíd just say ď unable, 180 to 8/ 160 to 4 is the best ď.

i went to Florida a while back and they wanted 190/5. Id love to know what aircraft/ airlines can do that and be stable at 1000í or do other airlines use lower stabilisation points ?



Which airport in FL wanted 190 to 5? Never heard that. The most Iíve heard is 170 to 5 miles.

In terms of approach gates, the airlines Iíve been at want us to be stable by 1000. If not stable by 1000, we can continue down to 500 as long as the speed is the only thing out of limits. If we donít have it by 500, go missed.

His dudeness
5th Oct 2019, 07:33
If you’re not a regular it can catch you out.

So BA are new to JFK ? Or un - regular ?

Atlantic Explorer
5th Oct 2019, 07:39
Given the large number of heavies handled at JFK and if this request is physically impossible to achieve then, I’m guessing that this specific request is not a common one from ATC, otherwise they would well know that it’s unachievable and probably wouldn’t bother asking in the first place.

I’ve heard war and peace from other BA aircraft when asked to do something they can’t in other parts of the world, when a simple ‘unable’ would have sufficed. They did themselves no favours here with the lecture.

frangatang
5th Oct 2019, 08:20
The controller was one of the usual, rattling away like an auctioneer, probably with baseball cap on backwards to think she is smart. NO need to speak so quickly and if she can read this BA have to be completely stable at 1000 ft agl...if not its a mandatory goaround. That 180 to 5 ( and for me thats 5 miles from the runway ie 6 dme), means you wont get back to a typical 747, flap 30 145 kts by that 1000 ft.

AviatorDave
5th Oct 2019, 08:50
(...)
What’s the ultimate aim here? Is it for pilots to prove themselves worthy by rising to the special challenge posed by NY controllers? Or for ATC to facilitate the safe and efficient arrival of aircraft? Because if it’s the latter, I’m not sure that high-speed, often non-standard transmissions (with a bit of attitude thrown in for good measure) really help.
(...)


This. I don‘t do long haul and just know NY ATC from the live feeds, but what I‘ve been hearing there was partially shocking, especially with respect to treating crews whose first language apparently isn‘t (American) English. Almost as if they were proud of creating a certain apprehension for crews flying into JFK.
I do understand that the NY airports are a high volume traffic and hence high stress environment, but some things are just over the top.

Locked door
5th Oct 2019, 09:02
No higher volume than other busy airfields around the world where the controlling is done in a calm, pleasant and constructive manner.

CABUS
5th Oct 2019, 09:08
This could have been mitigated by three methods.

They could use the USAís 10kt discretion and flown 170kts to zalpo (5.4dme from touchdown) which works out as roughly the same decelerated profile as 160kts to 4dme at LHR.

However it did seem the crew were ready for 180 to zalpo direction from atc. If this were the case it would have been prudent to inform approach in the same way one would inform you were unable land and hold short when changing from Boston at CCC, not on intercept. This would have allowed the approach controller to put some extra space between aircraft.

Finally, if they are that worried, they could go via BA flight ops and inform jfk via back channels that 400ís cannot fly 180 to 5.

This ATC recording is sadly not the way to deal with it, unless the pilots were both very inexperienced at Kennedy or having a very ****e day.

Check Airman
5th Oct 2019, 09:33
I know the FAA AIM says youíre expected to maintain speed to within 10kt, but at airports like JFK, I would certainly not be that liberal with speed control.

Another potential difference between the EU and US- at most large airports, you neednít brief the published missed approach procedure. Youíre never going to fly it.

421dog
5th Oct 2019, 11:49
Agree strongly with ďUnableĒ as a response.
no need to clutter up the frequency with unrequested explanations.

Once upon a time, there were a bunch of ďpointsĒ assigned to ATC candidates who were instrument rated pilots, but no more. The FAA meets its mandated quotas, and some are good, and others not so much.
I actually thought this controller was remarkably clear-spoken for a northeast corridor ATC.

cappt
5th Oct 2019, 12:09
They could have done like everyone else, “roger” and fly your airplane. He did sound cool though.

aterpster
5th Oct 2019, 12:51
No higher volume than other busy airfields around the world where the controlling is done in a calm, pleasant and constructive manner.
For the most part the controllers in the New York area are from New York. No one else wants to live there.

The Blu Riband
5th Oct 2019, 13:22
So BA are new to JFK ? Or un - regular ?

I guess that's a smart-alec comment, but it merits an explanation nevertheless.

Most BA pilots will try to avoid JFK (and other eastern seaboard destinations) as the "credit"/ block hours aren't very efficient compared to most alternative destinations. Then factor in the weather etc and personally I prefer almost anywhere else. eg the Far East, South Africa or South America, or the Caribbean. The JFK hotel is terrible!

Also remember that the throughput of new and upgraded pilots means many are unfamiliar with JFK. I've been flying there since 1993 but havent had the pleasure for 3 years. I understand many US pilots fly a more limited route network - so most are probably very familiar with JFK (and its myriad idiosyncrasies) (look that up!).
IMHO the radio procedures are very pressured and the controllers speak very quickly, often use too many words, and are simply frequently rude. The hazard is well recognised and the fact that US pilots leap to their defence is not a sign of loyalty or strength but a weakness.

The Blu Riband
5th Oct 2019, 13:31
BA needs to shut up. Let the PIC or their management speak with them after the fact on the phone.

Tactically speaking: ďunable, can maintain X till YĒ is all that needs to be said.

Did you actually listen to the tape?
He first replied with ", I cant do that -I can do 160 to 4", he only became verbose when she made him G/A as a punishment. Nor was he rude (unlike you!)

neilki
5th Oct 2019, 13:40
I know the FAA AIM says you’re expected to maintain speed to within 10kt, but at airports like JFK, I would certainly not be that liberal with speed control.

Another potential difference between the EU and US- at most large airports, you needn’t brief the published missed approach procedure. You’re never going to fly it.

I respectfully disagree. My manuals very clearly specify the requirement to brief and prepare the published missed approach. In the US under VMC you'll likely be vectored to rejoin the arrivals flow for a visual approach. In IMC; especially if you're the first to miss, you'll generally get the published while they figure out a new plan. (JFK, LGA, EWR last winter gave me published. EWR did it every time)

Heathrow09L
5th Oct 2019, 13:57
Another example of JFK ATC

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w1r3XZQc4Zo

Magplug
5th Oct 2019, 14:05
As a worldwide operator and regular visitor to JFK controllers are probably the rudest, most belligerent in the world. They shout at aircraft who don't understand their machine-gun like transmissions, even though the pilots clearly don't have English as their first language. They are sarcastic and aggressive on all frequencies particularly on GMC and god help you if you ask them to 'Say Again'.... even as an Englishman! There is a level of arrogance and readiness to bully pilots into accepting questionable clearances that you find nowhere else in the world.

I find IAD and PHL are similar in attitude and there appears to be the belief that theirs is the only and best airport in the world..... and you are simply an amateur. They are all blow-hard bullies.

FlightDetent
5th Oct 2019, 14:14
For the record, saying roger and then flying 170 to 5,5 is so 20th century.

+/- 10 in the AIM or not, at the approach you fly what you are told the best you can.

Anyone spared a thought for the poor bugger who was actually flying the A/C? :ouch:

Standby Scum
5th Oct 2019, 14:17
Court Line (UK BAC-111s of yesteryear - waxed handlebar moustaches and silly string-backed gloves) thought it would be a good idea for air traffic controllers to sit in the jump seat and see just how much money it cost to send a 111 around a 4 minute holding pattern. Everyone soon became on first-name terms as we are all nice chaps until BEA in the hold typically saw Court Line 111s zooming underneath them at a million miles an hour until the outer marker. All that stopped in a hurry.

ASRAAMTOO
5th Oct 2019, 14:19
Thread creep, but on the off chance that some USA controllers are attracted to this thread I’d like to remind them that it is an FAA rule that foreign carriers are not permitted to participate in land and hold short operations. Generally those airlines will also remind you of that by including it as a note in the remarks on their flight plan.

It would therefore be really cool if you a. Stopped offering it as a clearance and b. Refrained from getting stroppy wen it is declined.

Magplug
5th Oct 2019, 14:37
@ASRAMTOO... Not an FAA rule. It is the Foreign Aviation Authorities who do not permit their operators to participate. FAA LAHSO Order (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/LAHSO_Order.pdf)


Any airport that gets funny with silly speeds to 4/5/6 miles simply gets 'Unable'.

If the controller wants to know more I can supply a UK telephone number of somebody who gives-a-****.

Meester proach
5th Oct 2019, 15:01
Itís a bit of a pain isnít it ?
fly for seven hours to this bear pit, than having to go passive aggressive to get in. Bad taste. I avoid it, unlike BOS , which is much better but still very busy.

I got shouted at for leaving the strobes on slightly longer than usual ....Ēmy radio ....Ē

the 190 to 5 was Florida , FLL. They actually have caused me the closest to go around on several occasions, due to being put above the GS in combination with their speed requests

Check Airman
5th Oct 2019, 16:14
I respectfully disagree. My manuals very clearly specify the requirement to brief and prepare the published missed approach. In the US under VMC you'll likely be vectored to rejoin the arrivals flow for a visual approach. In IMC; especially if you're the first to miss, you'll generally get the published while they figure out a new plan. (JFK, LGA, EWR last winter gave me published. EWR did it every time)

Iíve no reason to doubt you, but thatís pretty unusual in the US. A friend of mineís a controller at a large airport, and says he doesnít even know what the published procedure is.

Check Airman
5th Oct 2019, 16:18
Itís a bit of a pain isnít it ?
fly for seven hours to this bear pit, than having to go passive aggressive to get in. Bad taste. I avoid it, unlike BOS , which is much better but still very busy.

I got shouted at for leaving the strobes on slightly longer than usual ....Ēmy radio ....Ē

the 190 to 5 was Florida , FLL. They actually have caused me the closest to go around on several occasions, due to being put above the GS in combination with their speed requests

Sounds like someone in training screwed up. I operate there regularly, and have never heard that. Maybe the controller mistook you for one of the many turboprops that fly there ;)

Check Airman
5th Oct 2019, 16:27
I guess that's a smart-alec comment, but it merits an explanation nevertheless.

Most BA pilots will try to avoid JFK (and other eastern seaboard destinations) as the "credit"/ block hours aren't very efficient compared to most alternative destinations. Then factor in the weather etc and personally I prefer almost anywhere else. eg the Far East, South Africa or South America, or the Caribbean. The JFK hotel is terrible!

Also remember that the throughput of new and upgraded pilots means many are unfamiliar with JFK. I've been flying there since 1993 but havent had the pleasure for 3 years. I understand many US pilots fly a more limited route network - so most are probably very familiar with JFK (and its myriad idiosyncrasies) (look that up!).
IMHO the radio procedures are very pressured and the controllers speak very quickly, often use too many words, and are simply frequently rude. The hazard is well recognised and the fact that US pilots leap to their defence is not a sign of loyalty or strength but a weakness.

Donít get me wrong, Iím not defending JFK. I dislike going there for many of the reasons you mentioned. They can be rude, but New Yorkers arenít known for their congeniality. That said, itís a stressful job, and I understand the facility is chronically understaffed, yet they do move airplanes as efficiently as they can.

Jumpjim
5th Oct 2019, 17:00
Heathrow manage to land an aircraft every 42 seconds and don’t rely on people “bringing their A game” or asking for silly speed requests. It’s unnecessary.

And for the record I’ve been flying to JFK for 25 years. Only airport I’ve ever flown to where I was asked to fly S turns for separation....

West Coast
5th Oct 2019, 17:06
Did you actually listen to the tape?
He first replied with ", I cant do that -I can do 160 to 4", he only became verbose when she made him G/A as a punishment. Nor was he rude (unlike you!)

Listened to it a few times. BAís sanctimonious attitude was evident every listen. You seem to focus on his outburst, sooner than fill the frequency with the ďdo you know who I amĒ attitude, his response should have been a second unable.

Vent your spleen on the phone, in an email, face to face, video chat or any other bloody way thatís not on frequency. Arguing on frequency simply has you rolling around in the mud and puts the other person back on their heels and clearly isnít the forum to allow for meaningful exchange. A proper debrief is an opportunity for all involved to gain something, even you.

Iím not defending the controller, you shouldnít be defending BAís actions.

It wasnít you by chance that day was it?

The Blu Riband
5th Oct 2019, 17:45
It wasnít you by chance that day was it?

and , if you'd read my post you will have noted that I said I haven't been there for 3 years.

BitMoreRightRudder
5th Oct 2019, 17:47
I donít think anyone covered themselves in glory with this episode. NY atc do a pretty good job with incredibly busy airspace.

As a general comment (from a Nigel) ATC in the states generally have procedures that work for local carriers but are mainly aimed at helping ATC first and foremost and have scant regard to the end user ie pilots. Iíve just learned to adapt and cope. I agree the issue could have been dealt with a simple ďunable, 180 to 6 is the best we can doĒ. The extra stuff about what aircraft he was flying wasnít really necessary. Itís a stressful business flying in and out of NY airspace for all concerned and sometimes this sort of stuff happens. As long we all keep it safe, so be it.

Check Airman
5th Oct 2019, 18:56
I donít think anyone covered themselves in glory with this episode. NY atc do a pretty good job with incredibly busy airspace.

As a general comment (from a Nigel) ATC in the states generally have procedures that work for local carriers but are mainly aimed at helping ATC first and foremost and have scant regard to the end user ie pilots. Iíve just learned to adapt and cope. I agree the issue could have been dealt with a simple ďunable, 180 to 6 is the best we can doĒ. The extra stuff about what aircraft he was flying wasnít really necessary. Itís a stressful business flying in and out of NY airspace for all concerned and sometimes this sort of stuff happens. As long we all keep it safe, so be it.

You raise an interesting point about ATC procedures working for local carriers. I regularly communicate with ATC at my home airport. How can they change to better accommodate international carriers?

Check Airman
5th Oct 2019, 18:58
Heathrow manage to land an aircraft every 42 seconds and donít rely on people ďbringing their A gameĒ or asking for silly speed requests. Itís unnecessary.

And for the record Iíve been flying to JFK for 25 years. Only airport Iíve ever flown to where I was asked to fly S turns for separation....

Havenít had to do that in a while, but itís not entirely uncommon here. I think thatís the last resort before sending you around. Theyíre try to help.

L337
5th Oct 2019, 19:16
So BA are new to JFK ? Or un - regular ?

BA has a vast network, and that means that the average pilot may get to JFK just once a year, and often not for years at a time. So yes, BA aircraft go multiple times a day... but an individual pilot far far less so. The East coast of the USA can come as a wake up call to the longhaul pilot used to only going to some of the more gentler destinations. It is no coincidence that command courses and command checks are ideally carried out to the East Coast of the USA.

sonicbum
5th Oct 2019, 19:41
Heathrow manage to land an aircraft every 42 seconds and donít rely on people ďbringing their A gameĒ or asking for silly speed requests. Itís unnecessary.

And for the record Iíve been flying to JFK for 25 years. Only airport Iíve ever flown to where I was asked to fly S turns for separation....

Fully agree. NATS are really good and very helpful, they do an amazing job.

BitMoreRightRudder
5th Oct 2019, 19:55
I regularly communicate with ATC at my home airport. How can they change to better accommodate international carriers?

A good question. Taking the JFK case as an example.

The biggest difference I note (this is going to be specific to JFK with a comparison to LHR) is that an approach to JFK has a large number of unknown variables. From a visiting pilotís point of view we never really know the plan.

I realise comparing LHR arrivals to JFK is perhaps unfair, given the complexity of NY terminal airspace, but going into LHR we have an arrival that will end at a specific hold, from there we will be given track miles to run, and consistent speed instructions (220 leaving the hold -180 on base - 160-4dme). Obviously this can vary given traffic and weather on the day but it gives us something to hang our hats on. JFK tends to be a mix up of vectors with very little info on distance to go and ATC expectations of speed. It leads to visiting pilots erring on the side of caution and expecting a last minute loss of track miles so we often start to slow up in expectation of this, which results in issues similar to the one in the transcript you shared. I think it really comes down to ATC sharing the plan as soon as possible - again I appreciate NY airspace is a special case and life isnít straight forward for ATC. But asking a visiting heavy to fly 180 to inside 6dme isnít going to work for most operators. BA approach SOPs are conservative, Iíll admit that, but thatís what we have to fly to, and we need ATC to work with us on that.

It can also be a problem at airfield like ORD and BOS when multiple runways are in use. The structure of these airfields, runway layout, airspace restrictions etc make ATC a challenge but the result seems to be the system is designed to protect controllers and make their lives easier, with pilots expected to work with the results. Pilots like consistency and donít like surprises. Tell us the arrival runway as soon as possible. If we are going to get extended vectors then tell us. If we are going to need to keep speed up then tell us when we can expect to slow down etc. I appreciate it might seem like extra workload for a busy controller, but we donít visit these airfields everyday and as a result we tend to be overly cautious when we arenít clear what the traffic pattern/speed expectation is likely to be.

I donít have a magic answer, NY airspace is what it is and comes with a unique set of challenges for all involved.

BlueSkies777
5th Oct 2019, 20:00
Old saw; Heathrow controllers are THE best. North American airline guy.

Car RAMROD
5th Oct 2019, 20:04
Even if BAW said ďunableĒ, would ATC let them continue the approach as is; or would they still have broken them off the approach, and we end up with the same question being asked about why and this thread still popping up?

Maybe need a crystal ball for that, and never having flown to JFK, I donít know what theyíd likely do.

421dog
5th Oct 2019, 20:50
Lots of flying in NE corridor, (mostly to TEB) Also lots around ATL, HOU, ORD and SOCAL.

Everybody talks fast. Everyone wants something from you that you arenít conveniently able to provide.

For example, I regularly fly both turbines and geared piston twins. Often, Iíll be held in the flight levels until 25 mi from the threshold by center, and turned over to approach with an an entirely doable approach in a King Air or Citation, but with no hope in heck in a 421. ďUnableĒ works well, and forgoing snide vernacular on frequency, while stating my requirements when asked, usually produces the sterling service that those at busier facilities are winnowed to provide.

Big Pistons Forever
5th Oct 2019, 21:22
I would suggest that given the volume of airplanes, and the complexity of the airspace due to having so many airports so close together, there is no other place in the world with such a demanding ATC environment. A Heathrow predictable conga style arrival is simply impossible so yes crews need to bring their “A” game to NYC. Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

That being said neither side covered themselves in glory that day, but at the end of the day as several posters stated a pilot should either comply with the clearance or simply say “unable” ideally followed by what they can accept.

I always chuckle when the Europeans, and especially Brits condescending explain how wonderful their system is and how bad the cowboy Americans are, unfortunately the inconvenient fact is that for pretty much ever, the US has had the lowest number of aircraft incidents and accidents per 100,000 hrs flown than any other country.........

West Coast
5th Oct 2019, 22:14
Just out of interest, where is Heathrow placed in the top 10 airports by aircraft movement?


In terms of aircraft movements, itís not in the top 10.

22/04
5th Oct 2019, 22:20
As an observer LHR and JFK are chalk and cheese.

LHR highly regulated approach regime, always essentially standard IFR procedures whatever the weather GA traffic mostly kept out or strictly on for example a designated heli route.

JFK- more reliance on visual approaches and handling loads of traffic ( helis etc) that wold simply be face with a keep out not welcome here signing the UK. I have never heard a US controller say something like " remain clear of controlled airspace due controller workload" to GA traffic.

tigerinthenight
5th Oct 2019, 22:28
In terms of aircraft movements, itís not in the top 10.

True. Interestingly, neither is JFK, which has fewer movements.

Big Pistons Forever
5th Oct 2019, 22:33
Heathrow typically runs Eleventh or Twelfth in total movements. Seven of the top ten are in the US. But total movements of all three NYC airports together dwarfs Heathrow

svhar
5th Oct 2019, 22:38
I was once on a 757 JFK, behind a 747, cleared for take off, I told the tower that we needed 2 minutes separation after a heavy. I got a long lecture telling me how to behave in JFK the next time.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
6th Oct 2019, 01:40
crews need to bring their ďAĒ game to NYC. Canít stand the heat, get out of the kitchen



No, Iíll bring the same game I bring to everywhere else, which is the best I can do. Iíll expect ATC to be courteous, calm and professional (as they are pretty well everywhere else), and ATC are entitled to expect the same of me.

IMHO thatís how the system should work, with no place for arrogance, belligerence and lecturing from either pilots or ATC.

PukinDog
6th Oct 2019, 02:24
Precisely, while this encounter wasn't professional everyone who is mastutbating to the LHR controllers need to realise that LHR and the NYC area aren't even in the same ballpark.

Comparing just the 4 busiest (by aircraft movement) airports in each area last year...
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000

London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000

Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.

The NY TRACON is 2nd busiest in the U.S., handling (flights in, out, and transitioning through) 1.92 million flights in it's airspace in 2018. #1 busiest TRACON is SoCal (LAX area) handling 2.13 million flights.

For comparison with the above TRACON numbers, NATS in all it's zones at all altitudes across the UK handled about 2.4 million flights during the year.

Of course, the traffic handled by both the NY and London areas' single busiest airports (JFK and LHR) pales in comparison to Chicago O'Hare (904,000) and Atlanta Hartsfield (895,000). LAX (707,00) and DFW (667,000) are distant #3 and #4.

If Heathrow were a U.S. airport, in terms of aircraft movements (475,000) it would rank #8, squeaking-out San Francisco (470,00) but well-behind Las Vegas (540,000), Charlotte (550,00) and Denver (603,000) in addition to the aforementioned DFW, LAX, ATL, and ORD.

hans brinker
6th Oct 2019, 04:20
Comparing just the 4 busiest (by aircraft movement) airports in each area last year...
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000

London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000

Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.

The NY TRACON is 2nd busiest in the U.S., handling (flights in, out, and transitioning through) 1.92 million flights in it's airspace in 2018. #1 busiest TRACON is SoCal (LAX area) handling 2.13 million flights.

For comparison with the above TRACON numbers, NATS in all it's zones at all altitudes across the UK handled about 2.4 million flights during the year.

Of course, the traffic handled by both the NY and London areas' single busiest airports (JFK and LHR) pales in comparison to Chicago O'Hare (904,000) and Atlanta Hartsfield (895,000). LAX (707,00) and DFW (667,000) are distant #3 and #4.

If Heathrow were a U.S. airport, in terms of aircraft movements (475,000) it would rank #8, squeaking-out San Francisco (470,00) but well-behind Las Vegas (540,000), Charlotte (550,00) and Denver (603,000) in addition to the aforementioned DFW, LAX, ATL, and ORD.

And I still don't understand why, on arrival into LAX I am cleared for the approach passing FL200, with only a few speed adjustments, no vectors or altitudes, and when I fly into EWR, I get worried I haven't gotten a speed/heading/altitude/frequency change in the last 43 seconds (and preferably all 4 at the same time).

Check Airman
6th Oct 2019, 04:32
Thanks for the great questions. My answers are in red. Not definitive, by any means, just a few techniques that may make your next trip easier. When I start visiting Europe, I expect I'll have to come here and ask you guys a few questions.


A good question. Taking the JFK case as an example.

The biggest difference I note (this is going to be specific to JFK with a comparison to LHR) is that an approach to JFK has a large number of unknown variables. From a visiting pilotís point of view we never really know the plan.

I realise comparing LHR arrivals to JFK is perhaps unfair, given the complexity of NY terminal airspace, but going into LHR we have an arrival that will end at a specific hold, from there we will be given track miles to run, and consistent speed instructions (220 leaving the hold -180 on base - 160-4dme).

Generally, only a handful of our STARS will terminate at an IAF. Personally, I prefer this, as a runway change is easier to accomplish. You will be given the runway assignment on initial contact with the approach controller. As I said earlier, going into an airport like JFK, I always make use of the secondary flightplan, so Iím ready for a runway change. Sometimes you get lucky, other times not. Best to be prepared.

No such speed instructions are published for pilots in the US. A particular facility may have a profile they use, but Iím just guessing. We just fly whatever speed's assigned. I believe they make their own corrections for wind if necessary. I think you guys get track miles to run to help with CDA planning, which is a requirement, Iím told. Thereís no such requirement on this side of the pond, so if itís easier to dive and drive, have at it. We do. If you really must know, you can always ask ATC where they plan to turn your base.

In terms of what speed to fly, in general, do 250kts until advised. Especially at those very busy airports. When you think you need to slow, just ask ATC, theyíll let you know if itís appropriate. At my home airport, they don't seem to get too fussed, so they'll just say "speed your discretion".

At some airports (JFK being one), youíll fly level for a bit at 10,000. Do NOT slow to 250. Theyíre keeping you at 10,000 for a reason. Maintain your descent speed until cleared below 10,000.

Obviously this can vary given traffic and weather on the day but it gives us something to hang our hats on. JFK tends to be a mix up of vectors with very little info on distance to go and ATC expectations of speed. It leads to visiting pilots erring on the side of caution and expecting a last minute loss of track miles so we often start to slow up in expectation of this, which results in issues similar to the one in the transcript you shared. I think it really comes down to ATC sharing the plan as soon as possible - again I appreciate NY airspace is a special case and life isnít straight forward for ATC.

Again, itís not the custom to be given track miles by the approach controller. The closest Iíve ever heard is them telling you how far out the base turn will be, but even thatís not usual. Foreign crews seem keen to know what speed and distance to expect. Again, 250 until advised. They'll progressively slow you until you hear something like "170 to the FAF"

I understand erring on the side of caution. A slam dunk is no fun if youíre caught out. As a GENERAL rule, letís say the the fix prior to the FAF is at 3000, and youíre on downwind at 8000. If youíre cleared down to 3/4000, theyíre ready to turn you onto base. Time to get down and slow down.

But asking a visiting heavy to fly 180 to inside 6dme isnít going to work for most operators. BA approach SOPs are conservative, Iíll admit that, but thatís what we have to fly to, and we need ATC to work with us on that.

It can also be a problem at airfield like ORD and BOS when multiple runways are in use. The structure of these airfields, runway layout, airspace restrictions etc make ATC a challenge but the result seems to be the system is designed to protect controllers and make their lives easier, with pilots expected to work with the results. Pilots like consistency and donít like surprises. Tell us the arrival runway as soon as possible. If we are going to get extended vectors then tell us. If we are going to need to keep speed up then tell us when we can expect to slow down etc. I appreciate it might seem like extra workload for a busy controller, but we donít visit these airfields everyday and as a result we tend to be overly cautious when we arenít clear what the traffic pattern/speed expectation is likely to be.

ORD can be a pain as well with the runway roulette. The same rules as in NYC apply. Go as fast as possible for as long as possible. In the winter, when icing is an issue, this can be a problem.Instead of aiming for a continuous descent, i find it easier to just get down ASAP, and decelerate when level. Far less stress involved.

I donít have a magic answer, NY airspace is what it is and comes with a unique set of challenges for all involved.

West Coast
6th Oct 2019, 05:00
And I still don't understand why, on arrival into LAX I am cleared for the approach passing FL200, with only a few speed adjustments, no vectors or altitudes, and when I fly into EWR, I get worried I haven't gotten a speed/heading/altitude/frequency change in the last 43 seconds (and preferably all 4 at the same time).


Re LAX: Coming in from the east on the Angel and Hollywood arrivals yes, from the north and south there is vectoring and speed adjustments though not excessive. Those being to fit in with the arrivals from the east.

Check Airman
6th Oct 2019, 05:34
And I still don't understand why, on arrival into LAX I am cleared for the approach passing FL200, with only a few speed adjustments, no vectors or altitudes, and when I fly into EWR, I get worried I haven't gotten a speed/heading/altitude/frequency change in the last 43 seconds (and preferably all 4 at the same time).

LAX is the notable exception. Excellent signal strength way out too. Arm the approach mode once on the centreline, and watch the magic.

Locked door
6th Oct 2019, 07:18
I would suggest that given the volume of airplanes, and the complexity of the airspace due to having so many airports so close together, there is no other place in the world with such a demanding ATC environment. A Heathrow predictable conga style arrival is simply impossible so yes crews need to bring their ďAĒ game to NYC. Canít stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

That being said neither side covered themselves in glory that day, but at the end of the day as several posters stated a pilot should either comply with the clearance or simply say ďunableĒ ideally followed by what they can accept.

I always chuckle when the Europeans, and especially Brits condescending explain how wonderful their system is and how bad the cowboy Americans are, unfortunately the inconvenient fact is that for pretty much ever, the US has had the lowest number of aircraft incidents and accidents per 100,000 hrs flown than any other country.........

You are having a laugh with that last paragraph I assume?

aterpster
6th Oct 2019, 13:19
IMHO the radio procedures are very pressured and the controllers speak very quickly, often use too many words, and are simply frequently rude. The hazard is well recognised and the fact that US pilots leap to their defence is not a sign of loyalty or strength but a weakness.
Please don't lump all US pilots into one pigeon hole.

aterpster
6th Oct 2019, 13:21
LAX is the notable exception. Excellent signal strength way out too. Arm the approach mode once on the centreline, and watch the magic.

And hope you don't bust the step-down altitudes on a hot day.

Big Pistons Forever
6th Oct 2019, 13:50
You are having a laugh with that last paragraph I assume?

Nope, just stating a fact

misd-agin
6th Oct 2019, 14:18
You raise an interesting point about ATC procedures working for local carriers. I regularly communicate with ATC at my home airport. How can they change to better accommodate international carriers?
ATC needs to slow down, use ICAO standard R/T, and avoid slang. More time is wasted when foreign airlines have to go back and forth with ATC to understand what the 'local' language meant.

Magplug
6th Oct 2019, 14:42
This has nothing to do with 'My airport has more movements than yours'. Most pilots only get to operate within their own continent but as a long-hauler I hear controllers communicating professionally all over the world - with the notable exception of JFK and a couple of other eastern seaboard cities.

There is no excuse for rudeness, impatience or aggression on the radio. Likewise sending a heavy aircraft on final to the back of the queue because he is unable to adhere to speed control designed for little aeroplanes is the same arrogant mindset the CBP officer shows when he sends someone away who simply does not understand him. I have sipped a beverage (or two) down-route with some really nice US pilots who are a credit to our profession. Sadly every village has an idiot who does the rest of you no favours.

BTW.... in my experience... the nicest controllers are in Texas. I don't know why,... they always sound calm, hospitable and without stress. Maybe that's a Texan thing?

YRP
6th Oct 2019, 15:10
Can I be the first to point out that movements isnít the right metric for comparison? ORD with, whatís it now, 4 or 5 parallels vs others with 2 runways.

Movements per sq millimetre of pavement is closer. Then complexity on top.

EastofKoksy
6th Oct 2019, 15:14
Getting away from the 'mine is bigger than yours' argument. Controllers everywhere need to realise that talking quickly and using slang is not cool. Neither is treating pilots as if they fly to a particular airport at least twice a week. If a clearance is unreasonable or unrealistic in the circumstances, pilots need to say so asap but don't be surprised if you are given an extended routing as a result.

Check Airman
6th Oct 2019, 15:27
ATC needs to slow down, use ICAO standard R/T, and avoid slang. More time is wasted when foreign airlines have to go back and forth with ATC to understand what the 'local' language meant.

Believe me, I have the same issues when I go to JFK. Between the accent, the non-std RT and the speed at which they speak, itís difficult. NY is the only place Iíve been told, as an IFR aircraft to ďfollow the riverĒ. Admittedly, thatís fun when you turn off the automation, look outside and fly.

PukinDog
6th Oct 2019, 15:29
.... the same arrogant mindset...

Pretty rich, considering the only display of arrogance (with a dose of condescension) in the clip came from the cockpit, not the controller.

The controller spoke concisely, didn't use slang, and was perfectly understandable. All he had to do was answer the question, but he opted to become patronizing instead. If he shares the same mindset of imagined superiority on display here, it's not surprising.

Magplug
6th Oct 2019, 15:52
If he shares the same mindset of imagined superiority on display here, it's not surprising.

.....Somebody please remind me to stop complimenting Texans controllers :oh:

misd-agin
6th Oct 2019, 16:11
Comparing just the 4 busiest (by aircraft movement) airports in each area last year...
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000

London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000

Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.

The NY TRACON is 2nd busiest in the U.S., handling (flights in, out, and transitioning through) 1.92 million flights in it's airspace in 2018. #1 busiest TRACON is SoCal (LAX area) handling 2.13 million flights.

For comparison with the above TRACON numbers, NATS in all it's zones at all altitudes across the UK handled about 2.4 million flights during the year.

Of course, the traffic handled by both the NY and London areas' single busiest airports (JFK and LHR) pales in comparison to Chicago O'Hare (904,000) and Atlanta Hartsfield (895,000). LAX (707,00) and DFW (667,000) are distant #3 and #4.

If Heathrow were a U.S. airport, in terms of aircraft movements (475,000) it would rank #8, squeaking-out San Francisco (470,00) but well-behind Las Vegas (540,000), Charlotte (550,00) and Denver (603,000) in addition to the aforementioned DFW, LAX, ATL, and ORD.

It's also the proximity of the three airports in NY. To put the airport alignments in perspective image LHR being EWR, LGA being in Regents Park with 3/4 of the traffic that LHR has, and JFK being at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich.

LGW is 25 nm from LHR. In 20 nm NYC has EWR, JFK, LGA and TEB. So in the space that LHR has 475,000 movements NYC has 1, 485,000.

FlightDetent
6th Oct 2019, 16:44
As much as I love the shoulder rub from Essex RAD and Heathrow DCT, movements (arrivals, departures and transits) over airspace volume is a valid metric.

Meester proach
6th Oct 2019, 17:27
Who cares which is busier, thatís not my....problem.

what I do care about is standard RT at a pace I can understand , and a controller that has a basic grasp of aerodynamics, gravity and stabilised criteria

Locked door
6th Oct 2019, 18:11
Nope, just stating a fact

Can you back that up with some statistics please? I love learning new things.

hans brinker
6th Oct 2019, 18:33
Re LAX: Coming in from the east on the Angel and Hollywood arrivals yes, from the north and south there is vectoring and speed adjustments though not excessive. Those being to fit in with the arrivals from the east.

True, I do mostly cross-country, so that is my normal experience.

PukinDog
7th Oct 2019, 02:14
It's also the proximity of the three airports in NY. To put the airport alignments in perspective image LHR being EWR, LGA being in Regents Park with 3/4 of the traffic that LHR has, and JFK being at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich.

LGW is 25 nm from LHR. In 20 nm NYC has EWR, JFK, LGA and TEB. So in the space that LHR has 475,000 movements NYC has 1, 485,000.

That puts it into even greater perspective. LHR - LGW is 25 nm, LHR - STN is 36 nm, and GTW - LTN is 44 nm.

The closest proximity between any of the 4 busiest London airports is between the 2 least busy, STN - LTN, at 22 nm, which are farther away from each other than the greatest distance between any pair of NY's 4. LGA alone handles significantly more traffic (372,000) than STN and LTN do put together (324,000)

To compare, NY's 2 least busy airports of the 4 are LGA and TEB, sited 11 nm apart, and together have 547,000 movements, 72,000 more than LHR itself.

LGA's most distant neighbor is EWR, still just 14 nm away, and together those 2 handle 825,000 movements. LGA's closest neighbor is JFK, only 9 nm away, and together they are moving 828,000.

JFK - LGA is 9 nm, JFK - EWR is 18 nm, JFK - TEB is 20 nm (the greatest distance between any 2). If one sat at a central point amongst them on the East River between Midtown Manhattan and Queens, JFK, EWR, LGA, and TEB are all happening within a distance of 5 LHR runway lengths.

Yet somehow and despite the close proximity (9 - 20 nm) to one another as compared to say, London, the "horribly inept" NY TRACON controllers manage to use the airspace around them to move almost 1.456 million flights a year in and out of these 4 airports (to say nothing of handling the additional 500,000 IFR and VFR flights taking-off/landing/going elsewhere). Perhaps if they re-built the 4 main NY airports spread out to double the distances between them while at the same time knocking-back the traffic to less than 1.085 million a year everyone could lollygag a bit, feelings would never be hurt, and simple questions answered when asked.

PukinDog
7th Oct 2019, 05:40
Who cares which is busier, that’s not my....problem.

what I do care about is standard RT at a pace I can understand , and a controller that has a basic grasp of aerodynamics, gravity and stabilised criteria




There was nothing non-standard about the Controller's phraseology nor were her transmissions garbled. Responding to her instruction with a simple "Unable" followed by an answer to her question would be considered good, standard RT, however. That didn't happen.

What's most amusing about this non-event is the way 1 particular BA pilot's feathers getting ruffled in NY is elevated to Big Deal status and used as catalyst to vent every moan or gripe about US Controllers, the US ATC system in general, and even CBP officers as it pertains to "mindset" while at the same time pumping the tires of everywhere else, pretending that's where perfection exists and all conditions are equal, believing nobody knows any better.

Myself, I've been criss-crossing the globe my entire career, been based outside the U.S. for the last 20 in Europe, Middle East, and Asia operating in and out the long-haul hubs plus many more large and small, and find the idea everything is so wonderful out there in the world but the U.S. falls flat by comparison incredibly funny. London controllers are good, but let's not pretend NY can be worked in exactly the same manner, or that imperfections and things not happening exactly the way we'd like them to don't exist in even the long-haul destinations like Beijing, Dubai, Hong Kong, Paris, etc etc., let alone the rest.

There are few places one doesn't have to adapt to local procedures, imperfect/weird communications, and differences with ICAO. Anyone who's ever been spanked by Oz ATC for not reporting they are "maintaining" a FL when switching to a new freq (the mere absence of a "climbing" or "descending" won't do) or not transmitting a confirmation of a Chinese controller's confirmation of radar contact can tell you that. The amount of "Charlie Charlie" heard on the HF varies depending on the continent, as does using "Romeo" or "Lima" to denote Right or Left course offsets yet nobody is using "Romeo" or "Lima" in place of "Right" and" Left" when it comes to heading vectors, taxi instructions, or runway designators.

All these these funny things and more important, procedural differences exist out there. Far worse controlling certainly does. If I got indigent or upset every time a non-US controller asked to make impossible rate descents-while-slowing or gave crap vectors to intercept something I'd have to carry around a couple steel balls to fidget with like a stressed-out Captain Queeg.

Car RAMROD
7th Oct 2019, 05:57
Responding to her instruction with a simple "Unable" followed by an answer to her question would be considered good, standard RT, however. That didn't happen.

JFK- “speedbird 15k heavy, 180 or greater to 5dme”
BAW- “ I cant do that ma’am, I can do 160 or greater until 5”

”I can’t do that” sounds a lot like “unable” to me when it comes to plain English.
what he said he could do came BEFORE she questioned him.
Yes I do agree that unable would have been a better choice of words, however the USofA isn’t particularly standard with the phraseology and do use a lot of plain English instead, so I’d imagine “I can’t do that” should get the point across the same.

I asked before but nobody answered, if BAW just said “unable” and nothing else, would he still have been vectored off the approach or would he have been allowed to continue? But, without a crystal ball I doubt we will know the real answer there.

PukinDog
7th Oct 2019, 07:29
JFK- “speedbird 15k heavy, 180 or greater to 5dme”
BAW- “ I cant do that ma’am, I can do 160 or greater until 5”

”I can’t do that” sounds a lot like “unable” to me when it comes to plain English.
what he said he could do came BEFORE she questioned him.
Yes I do agree that unable would have been a better choice of words, however the USofA isn’t particularly standard with the phraseology and do use a lot of plain English instead, so I’d imagine “I can’t do that” should get the point across the same.


After his statement that amounted to "unable" and what he able to do at 5.0, her question to him was simply how long he could maintain the speed assignment of 180/when he was going to slow to 160. He never answered that question. He could have answered he was able to do 180 "until 6", or "until 7", or even "for X more miles" (then begin to slow in order to be at the160@5 ), but he didn't.

All she needed was the point where he would begin to slow below 180 to 160 in order to calculate how much effect it would have on those in trail and how much adjusting might need to happen. Perhaps he didn't know where that point in space was and/or was too busy announcing he was flying a 747 and giving a lecture on company stabilized approach criteria to figure it out.

If he had responded with "unable" and nothing more she would have still asked him the same question about when/at what point he would slow from his speed assignment.

Cough
7th Oct 2019, 08:15
Comparing just the 4 busiest (by aircraft movement) airports in each area last year...
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000

London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000

Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.


Or, to put it another way, 4 US airports with 11 runways total move 34% more traffic than 4 UK airports with 6 runways total... (#justsayin... For every statistic there is another one!)

However, the airspace volume issue is very relevant to the discussion!

q400_driver
7th Oct 2019, 08:57
After his statement that amounted to "unable" and what he able to do at 5.0, her question to him was simply how long he could maintain the speed assignment of 180/when he was going to slow to 160. He never answered that question. He could have answered he was able to do 180 "until 6", or "until 7", or even "for X more miles" (then begin to slow in order to be at the160@5 ), but he didn't.

All she needed was the point where he would begin to slow below 180 to 160 in order to calculate how much effect it would have on those in trail and how much adjusting might need to happen. Perhaps he didn't know where that point in space was and/or was too busy announcing he was flying a 747 and giving a lecture on company stabilized approach criteria to figure it out.

If he had responded with "unable" and nothing more she would have still asked him the same question about when/at what point he would slow from his speed assignment.

from what I understand from the video, he was already doing 160 when at around 8-9 miles out controller asked them to speed up.. I think the answer to the question was pretty obvious.. I'm no expert on flying a 747 but I can only imagine speeding it up to 180 and then slowing it back again to 160 within 3 miles when already established on a glide is a bit of an exercise with limited value. The whole debate about which airspace is busier is useless.. the approach controller has one job to do - get planes in line and deliver them to tower. By asking BA to cancel the approach you don't really solve the problem, you literally add more moving pieces to your puzzle.. All she needed to do was to ask following guys to slow down..

Meester proach
7th Oct 2019, 11:32
JFK- ďspeedbird 15k heavy, 180 or greater to 5dmeĒ
BAW- ď I cant do that maíam, I can do 160 or greater until 5Ē

ĒI canít do thatĒ sounds a lot like ďunableĒ to me when it comes to plain English.
what he said he could do came BEFORE she questioned him.
Yes I do agree that unable would have been a better choice of words, however the USofA isnít particularly standard with the phraseology and do use a lot of plain English instead, so Iíd imagine ďI canít do thatĒ should get the point across the same.

I asked before but nobody answered, if BAW just said ďunableĒ and nothing else, would he still have been vectored off the approach or would he have been allowed to continue? But, without a crystal ball I doubt we will know the real answer there.





yes, but then he goes on in a condescending diatribe about his stabilised criteria.Ií d have sent him back to ENE to start again.

There is no element here of a rant against US ATC in general, I think the vast majority do a great job. But factor in the most dangerous part of the flight with numerous fast requests to a tired crew and nerves can fray fast.

Maybe itís just a NYC thing, that the whole place is fairly aggressive, rude and everyone seems to be looking for a fight.

172_driver
7th Oct 2019, 12:41
By asking BA to cancel the approach you don't really solve the problem, you literally add more moving pieces to your puzzle.. All she needed to do was to ask following guys to slow down..

Isn't such a judgment better reserved for a controller working the actual sector?

West Coast
7th Oct 2019, 13:17
yes, but then he goes on in a condescending diatribe about his stabilised criteria.Ií d have sent him back to ENE to start again.

There is no element here of a rant against US ATC in general, I think the vast majority do a great job. But factor in the most dangerous part of the flight with numerous fast requests to a tired crew and nerves can fray fast.

Maybe itís just a NYC thing, that the whole place is fairly aggressive, rude and everyone seems to be looking for a fight.



BA seemed to be the one looking for the fight. If there was a ďdiatribeĒ that day, it belonged to BA.

Shut up and deal with it on the ground.

West Coast
7th Oct 2019, 13:21
Isn't such a judgment better reserved for a controller working the actual sector?

Precisely. Perhaps her spacing for the trailing aircraft was predicated on the expected speed. If she sent them around the patch.

Magplug
7th Oct 2019, 13:31
Shut up and deal with it on the ground.


Amen to that.

I don't know about looking for a fight.... but I'll bet the approach brief included "They are gonna to ask us to do final speeds that we simply can't do... How are we gonna deal with that?"

ATC should know better than to peg a heavy at 180kts so late on and they have been told enough times about the 744 SAC
The crew did not communicate the issue at all well.
Sending them round would have pissed any crew off
We can all learn to communicate better

Aihkio
7th Oct 2019, 13:47
If it was not a good enough answer the first time why was it ok the second? How many GAs does one have to do before it is Mayday time?

neilki
7th Oct 2019, 16:06
Believe me, I have the same issues when I go to JFK. Between the accent, the non-std RT and the speed at which they speak, itís difficult. NY is the only place Iíve been told, as an IFR aircraft to ďfollow the riverĒ. Admittedly, thatís fun when you turn off the automation, look outside and fly.
I think you're confusing LGA & JFK.
LGA 22 arrivals (generally from the south) use the Hudson as downwind. The instruction is typically fly to the Verrazano bridge and follow the Hudson. with the statue of Liberty on the left (aka 'the lady') I christened the procedure "The Britch, the Bitch & the Ditch...'
Just south of the George Washington Bridge 'The GW' you'll get a vector for base.
Kennedy has te Wonderfull VOR/DME 22L (the Canarsie curve..) IIRC AN Emirates 380 grazed the employee parking lot after misunderstanding the procedure last year and LGA the Expressway Visual. Aside from Kai Tak (RIP) and the River Visual into DC; the most fun you can have at work...

Retired DC9 driver
7th Oct 2019, 16:40
Fast-talking NY controllers: Bring your "A" game. Try to keep up. If asked a question by ATC, try just answering it before transmitting a dissertation that doesn't.
BA pilot in love with the sound of his own "radio voice" chewing-up the freq, gonna 'splain to the American ATC girl about her own FAA-approved procedures: Not entirely unpredictable, yet still comedy gold.

So true. I flew many years into LGA and JFK. You better fly an assigned speed; do what you are told, and flying into LGA, know what the "GW" is (George Washington bridge) Or if the controller asks, "You got the tanks?" (Maspeth tanks) or "You got the Lady ? Visual on the Statue of Liberty. In the old days, you could get a visual down the Hudson, or River Visual for 13. Maybe, coming in from the North, a right turn in for 31 at LGA. Not anymore. I always enjoyed the Expressway Visual. Wanted to fly that in the B-767.
I did more than a few controller initiated Go Arounds in LGA too. At 300 AGL, they wouldn't even give the flight number, just an "A..C... GO AROUND" . Good practice for new F.O.s on the Airbus.

Kennedy has te Wonderfull VOR/DME 22L (the Canarsie curve..) I never liked that curved approach, with lead in lights , on top of apartment buildings !

back to Boeing
7th Oct 2019, 17:17
I think you're confusing LGA & JFK.
LGA 22 arrivals (generally from the south) use the Hudson as downwind. The instruction is typically fly to the Verrazano bridge and follow the Hudson. with the statue of Liberty on the left (aka 'the lady') I christened the procedure "The Britch, the Bitch & the Ditch...'
Just south of the George Washington Bridge 'The GW' you'll get a vector for base.
Kennedy has te Wonderfull VOR/DME 22L (the Canarsie curve..) IIRC AN Emirates 380 grazed the employee parking lot after misunderstanding the procedure last year and LGA the Expressway Visual. Aside from Kai Tak (RIP) and the River Visual into DC; the most fun you can have at work...

the carnarsie is on 13L/R

Retired DC9 driver
7th Oct 2019, 18:33
Canarsie approach is now called Parkway Visual

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1152x888/canarsie_parkway_approach_jfk_c3961c5f9fc1c504a617ceb9303a7c cc29f43600.jpg

back to Boeing
7th Oct 2019, 18:40
There is still a carnarsie approach. Just itís called the VOR/DME 13L/R. Still an instrument approach with defined minima. Whether theyíll re-instate it once the resurfacing works are done on 13L/31R I have no idea. Havenít done a VOR/DME on to 22L in a very long time. Always seems to be the ILS at the moment. Though I admit Iím an infrequent visitor.

PukinDog
7th Oct 2019, 18:58
from what I understand from the video, he was already doing 160 when at around 8-9 miles out controller asked them to speed up.. I think the answer to the question was pretty obvious.. I'm no expert on flying a 747 but I can only imagine speeding it up to 180 and then slowing it back again to 160 within 3 miles when already established on a glide is a bit of an exercise with limited value. The whole debate about which airspace is busier is useless.. the approach controller has one job to do - get planes in line and deliver them to tower. By asking BA to cancel the approach you don't really solve the problem, you literally add more moving pieces to your puzzle.. All she needed to do was to ask following guys to slow down..

He wasn't originally at a speed of 160, which is why the terms "maintaining 180" and "slow to 160" and "reducing to 160" are being used by both. BA was already talking to this Controller before the clip begins just as the aircraft following him to 22L was cleared down to 2000' during the clip, and she was assigning 2000' and speed 180 to other aircraft.

Nor was he established on glide slope at any point, not even close. He was at 2000' when he intercepted the LOC at 13.8 DME and remained there until she broke him off the approach at about 11 DME. She made her request for him to maintain 180 until 5 DME when he was over ROSLY at 12.0 DME, at which point the G/S would be about 1400' above his altitude. G/S intercept for him at 2,000' would be just before ZALPO at about 7.0 DME, 5 miles to run when she made her initial request and just less than 7 miles when he intercepted the LOC.

ATC didn't ask BA to do anything within 3 miles, let alone speed up 20 knots then reduce 20 knots. Over ROSLY the Controller issued the instruction to "maintain 180 or greater until 5 DME...", not "Increase speed to 180.." After his rejection of 180 @ 5, the only thing asked of BA was how long before they needed to slow to 160. That's it. An appropriate answer would have been one of mileage, either DME or miles-to-go. Either one would have sufficed but it was not forthcoming.

BA knew that 5.0 DME is only 3.6 miles from the threshold, about 1200' AGL, and shedding the extra 20 knots down to Vapp by the limits for a stabilized approach his company sets may be a problem, so he wanted 160 at 5. That's all well and good and the Controller didn't argue his point, but he was missing her point that slowing to 160 while still 12.0 DME out over ROSLY was too slow-too early for the program.

She couldn't issue him a clearance for him as he verbalized it.."160 or greater until 5" (simply substituting 160 for 180)...when he did over ROSLY because although it would solve his too fast-too close problem for him 7 miles later at 5 DME, such wording would also clear him to immediately slow to 160 if he wanted to while still 12 miles out and jam up the works. She therefore explained that she needed him to maintain something more than 160 "from now" ( where he was, 12 miles out, 5-6 miles from ZALPO) and asks; "so when are you going to slow to 160", whereupon he states he "Gets that" yet blows-off what she needs/asks completely to instead talk about his 747 and announcing that he has approach criteria. She says okay, then points out he still hasn't answered her question which was, again: "When are you going to slow to 160?".

So far there's only one condescending, argumentative personality who isn't listening during these exchanges, and it isn't the NY Controller. She didn't press him on the "until 5", she accepted he couldn't and only wanted to know for how long he could do 180 but, clearly, someone checked onto the frequency with a pre-packaged attitude, ready to make a statement if hearing something not to his liking. Clearly, because he immediately levered his clipped-tone verbiage into the exchange instead of answering. It's obvious that he had no intention of working with her from the get-go.

At 1:12 in the clip at appx 11.0 DME just inside ROSLY, as a way of answering her query and proving he still didn't "Get it", BA declares "reducing now to 160 knots". The transcript on the clip is wrong; he's not asking her a question about reducing, there's no inflection of a query, he's declaring what he's doing.."reducing now"..(something else that points to his current speed being 180, not 160). She already knows that him slowing to 160 while still 11 miles out is not going to work. She had already informed him that slowing to 160 at that point wouldn't work but when she had done so he made it clear he didn't care by his non-response.

When she breaks him off the approach he's still at 2000', 11 miles out, appx 4 miles from G/S intercept, 5 miles from ZALPO (which he'd cross at 1800'), and 6 miles from where she would have originally wanted him to reduce. There was still plenty of mileage and time to make it work to the benefit of all parties, but Capt "Don't tell me how to fly my 747" insisted on slowing down to a speed (160) he said he could do at 5 miles descending on a G/S while still in level flight 11 miles out.

These type of speed-controlled approaches aren't unique. Hong Kong, for example, routinely requires 180 until 7.0 followed by 160 until 4.0 (1100' AGL already well-established on the G/S so there's plenty of aircraft in the process of shedding of knots from 160 to Vapp while passing downhill through 1000' AGL) , and 125+ to the threshold. They've also disseminated the info that aircraft not able to adhere to these minimum speeds may be broken off the approach due to traffic behind in the name of traffic flow. So you see, your simple answer that all a Controller "needs to do is ask following guys to slow down" doesn't really work past a certain point or level of congestion. At many airports if you want speed control at your own leisure or whim, it'll take at least a Pan Pan to do it.

Again, if instead of a protest and lecture he had just given her a mileage to work with it may have ended differently, but as he was droning straight in on the LOC at 2000' from almost 14 miles out waiting for the G/S he chose differently. In level flight at 2000' speed 180, was it really so difficult to tell her they could maintain 180 until 6.0 or G/S intercept at 7.0 instead of being triggered?

After being broken off, during the ensuing exchange she said she needed to him to maintain 180 for "at least 3 more miles", which means if he had told her he could do 180 until 6, 7, or possibly even 8 when she asked (which would've been 3 more miles), she could have worked it out. At no point, however, did he ever try and work with her on a mileage estimate even when prompted.

Laughably, he presumes to think what she's done to him isn't an "FAA-approved procedure" after his radio mini-investigation revealed he was broken off the approach due to anticipated, diminishing separation with the traffic behind due to his early speed reduction, confusing FAA pilot right-of-way rules regarding slower preceding aircraft with what ATC can do with you in Class B airspace. Did he really think he caught her out with a "Gotcha" or reckoned he could slow anytime because it gave him the right of way and she'd just have to adjust everyone behind? It's clear by the tone of his voice that he thinks he has a better grasp of FAA procedures than she does, or that she's breaking them. Speaking of mindset, what kind of pompous ass does it take to fly to a foreign country and then chew up the frequency telling the controller they don't know their own ATC procedures?

The Controller, on the other hand, remains unruffled throughout despite his condescending tone, blather, and refusal to work with her. Anyone moaning about NY Controllers should find a better example than this one to support it.

Check Airman
7th Oct 2019, 22:10
I think you're confusing LGA & JFK.
LGA 22 arrivals (generally from the south) use the Hudson as downwind. The instruction is typically fly to the Verrazano bridge and follow the Hudson. with the statue of Liberty on the left (aka 'the lady') I christened the procedure "The Britch, the Bitch & the Ditch...'
Just south of the George Washington Bridge 'The GW' you'll get a vector for base.
Kennedy has te Wonderfull VOR/DME 22L (the Canarsie curve..) IIRC AN Emirates 380 grazed the employee parking lot after misunderstanding the procedure last year and LGA the Expressway Visual. Aside from Kai Tak (RIP) and the River Visual into DC; the most fun you can have at work...

You're right. I was thinking of LGA. Those approaches are really fun. River visual into DCA, Canarsie into JFK and the Expressway visual into LGA (bonus points if you get the steam from that factory as you're rolling out on final). Quite fun to turn everything off, look outside and fly. I hadn't heard about EK screwing up the CRI app. What happened there?

PukinDog
8th Oct 2019, 01:36
Or, to put it another way, 4 US airports with 11 runways total move 34% more traffic than 4 UK airports with 6 runways total... (#justsayin... For every statistic there is another one!)

However, the airspace volume issue is very relevant to the discussion!

Congestion is a function of both traffic and airspace volume/complexity, making movement numbers just as relevant to any discussion that tries to compare levels of congestion. Not sure why those who first sought to compare NY TRACON chose London TMA and their controllers to do so except to pump the tires of the latter while ignoring the effects of congestion. The 2 locales are not equivalent.

Buter
8th Oct 2019, 04:27
Congestion is a function of both traffic and airspace volume/complexity, making movement numbers just as relevant to any discussion that tries to compare levels of congestion. Not sure why those who first sought to compare NY TRACON chose London TMA and their controllers to do so except to pump the tires of the latter while ignoring the effects of congestion. The 2 locales are not equivalent.
The 2 locales are most certainly not equivalent and how controllers manage to organise their particular areas of chaos is beyond me.

My hat is tipped to ATC in both London and NY.

B

neilki
8th Oct 2019, 14:12
You're right. I was thinking of LGA. Those approaches are really fun. River visual into DCA, Canarsie into JFK and the Expressway visual into LGA (bonus points if you get the steam from that factory as you're rolling out on final). Quite fun to turn everything off, look outside and fly. I hadn't heard about EK screwing up the CRI app. What happened there?
Low Altitude Alerts are common on the Tower Frequency...
Incident: Emirates A388 at New York on Dec 4th 2017, at about 200 feet in the middle of turn to runway 13L (http://avherald.com/h?article=4b21e320&opt=0)

Meester proach
8th Oct 2019, 19:45
Itíll be a lot easier when RNAV approach 13L is approved .

wiedehopf
8th Oct 2019, 19:53
The RNP 13L/R is approved and in use (when the field is using the 13s).
RNAV Visual 13L was only for testing the above procedures or something, has been NOTAMed not available.

Complete JetBlue fleet, most Delta and American Airlines planes are flying it.
Maybe even CPA got approval, not sure.
The plates are not public though.

The lower minimums are of limited use as it's unlikely that all operators going into JFK are going to get approved for it.
But it's nice for noise due to CDA and also in case the weather gets worse you will likely have less go-arounds while they change runways or the approach.

Check Airman
8th Oct 2019, 21:33
The RNP 13L/R is approved and in use (when the field is using the 13s).
RNAV Visual 13L was only for testing the above procedures or something, has been NOTAMed not available.

Complete JetBlue fleet, most Delta and American Airlines planes are flying it.
Maybe even CPA got approval, not sure.
The plates are not public though.

The lower minimums are of limited use as it's unlikely that all operators going into JFK are going to get approved for it.
But it's nice for noise due to CDA and also in case the weather gets worse you will likely have less go-arounds while they change runways or the approach.

Those RNAV overlays are cheating. They take all the sport out of it!

I havenít done the RNP for JFK. That was always raw data. Done the RNP into LGA and DCA though. Iíll admit they work well.

ph-sbe
8th Oct 2019, 22:10
yes, but then he goes on in a condescending diatribe about his stabilised criteria.Ií d have sent him back to ENE to start again.

Your job is not to "punish" a captain for what you perceive as rudeness. First of all, that's hundreds of passengers with potentially hundreds of missed connections. Second, your job is to separate aircraft. Not to fly them, or tell the people who actually learned how to fly how to fly the damned thing. If the captain is informing you about his constraints, you deal with it in a professional manner. Not by playing judge, jury, and executioner.

Despicable behavior.

Lake1952
8th Oct 2019, 22:11
Itíll be a lot easier when RNAV approach 13L is approved .

They haven't removed the three (?) sets of lead-in strobes (LDIN) for the Canarsie approach, have they?

cactusbusdrvr
9th Oct 2019, 06:45
I was JFK based flying 757/767/777 and I think she was out of line. 170 is the max they use to the marker.She screwed up then she compounded it by pulling the out of line. Iíd be so okíing mad over that and Iwou,d be making a phone call to a supervisor when I landed.

Magplug
9th Oct 2019, 09:05
I was JFK based flying 757/767/777 and I think she was out of line. 170 is the max they use to the marker.She screwed up then she compounded it by pulling the out of line. Iíd be so okíing mad over that and Iwou,d be making a phone call to a supervisor when I landed.
Cactus.... I don't think you will convince PukinDog.... 12 posts this thread so far and still hatin' the Brits.

EcamSurprise
9th Oct 2019, 09:18
BA seemed to be the one looking for the fight. If there was a ďdiatribeĒ that day, it belonged to BA.

Shut up and deal with it on the ground.


Iím a Brit and have to agree. I cringed when I heard him on the radio. He was looking for trouble and wanted to prove a point.

We often have to deal with unrealistic (to us,
maybe not to others) requests and sometimes frustrated responses. We are paid to handle them professionally and safely.

Smokey Lomcevak
9th Oct 2019, 11:33
PukinDogís interpretation is the one that most matches mine. This wasnít some slick CDA ŗ la LHR, where one must manage oneís speed whilst going downhill. I donít fly the jumbo, but on my heavy dropping the gear 1nm or 1/2 scale below glide path from 180kts would get you back to 160 to go down at. Who knows - perhaps Nigel had a raging tailwind at 2000ft. But I doubt it.

Hearing one of my colleagues adopt such a tone with atc also makes me cringe. Iím not as au fait with FAA regulations as he obviously is, but given that the aircraft ahead was cleared down to 2000ft - and possibly significantly faster - perhaps the break-off instructions were the only way to avoid a loss of separation. One of the big advantages of atc in the USA is that they have available to them and frequently use the option of visual separation and visual approaches which often take the sting out of these situations. Alas in IMC itís not so easy.

Check Airman
9th Oct 2019, 12:16
PukinDogís interpretation is the one that most matches mine. This wasnít some slick CDA ŗ la LHR, where one must manage oneís speed whilst going downhill. I donít fly the jumbo, but on my heavy dropping the gear 1nm or 1/2 scale below glide path from 180kts would get you back to 160 to go down at. Who knows - perhaps Nigel had a raging tailwind at 2000ft. But I doubt it.

Hearing one of my colleagues adopt such a tone with atc also makes me cringe. Iím not as au fait with FAA regulations as he obviously is, but given that the aircraft ahead was cleared down to 2000ft - and possibly significantly faster - perhaps the break-off instructions were the only way to avoid a loss of separation. One of the big advantages of atc in the USA is that they have available to them and frequently use the option of visual separation and visual approaches which often take the sting out of these situations. Alas in IMC itís not so easy.

Forgive the silly question, but do you not do visuals in the UK?

aterpster
9th Oct 2019, 13:15
They haven't removed the three (?) sets of lead-in strobes (LDIN) for the Canarsie approach, have they?
Not according to the current chart.

Smokey Lomcevak
9th Oct 2019, 13:46
Forgive the silly question, but do you not do visuals in the UK?

From time to time. At the larger airfields noise preferential routings tend to reduce the benefits. In my experience theyíre more for the scenario where thereís no-one around, rather than a tool to expedite the flow of traffic like you see in the USA sometimes.

172_driver
9th Oct 2019, 13:47
Forgive the silly question, but do you not do visuals in the UK?

In Europe paper shufflers think pilots can't fly (and they're right, sometimes...) and ban it collectively ;)

... and then there's noise abatement too.

But of course, there are places where it's allowed. Sometimes with restrictions (min XXXX ft until est final).

Saw a beautiful visual the other day by a WiderŲ Dash 8 up in northern Norway. I thought it was a helicopter, it was heading mid-field from a distance. Levelled the wings at about 2-300 ft after a 90+.deg turn to final. I had only seen fighters do that before.

Meester proach
9th Oct 2019, 14:08
Your job is not to "punish" a captain for what you perceive as rudeness. First of all, that's hundreds of passengers with potentially hundreds of missed connections. Second, your job is to separate aircraft. Not to fly them, or tell the people who actually learned how to fly how to fly the damned thing. If the captain is informing you about his constraints, you deal with it in a professional manner. Not by playing judge, jury, and executioner.

Despicable behavior.

Iím a pilot not a controller, but if I was and someone started getting salty they would be first in the firing line of increased separation .

20driver
9th Oct 2019, 15:29
Just to add to the noise I suspect the NYC area handles a lot more GA in a week than London or any place in Europe does in a year. The GA traffic is usually VFR and I doubt it gets covered in the movement numbers. Despite the workload the controllers are very accommodating to GA.
I used to fly my bug smasher out of Central NJ often headed east and skirting the NYC class B. I'd usually get flight following and would frequently get unrequested directs throughout the Bravo. With very few exceptions the NYC approach controllers were very helpful to us little guys even when very busy.
They do like people to do as they are told, or if not a very quick reply.
I have heard pilots dumped from flight following when it was clear they were not getting the program. "Radar services terminated , have a good day" - meant - you don't want to play by my rules get out of the sandbox.
One day we were given a short cut north of LGA at 6000 or something.
Over the frequency : "Cactus XXX, hold at 5000 , crossing traffic is a Trinidad at 6000"
The kids loved it ! Take that with your two engines and fancy hat! Just stay down there and wait for us!
You knew you were on thin ice when they started prefacing communications with sir.
When I came back from a trip the kids would ask "did they sir you Dad?"
Good days.
I am always amazed they manage the job so well.
20driver

mike current
9th Oct 2019, 15:37
That's incompetent controlling.
The controller needs to develop better techniques to anticipate compression on final approach. Forcing the leading aircraft to maintain unreasonable speeds is not the solution.

Also, changing the approach on the Endeavour aircraft last minute on base leg is pretty poor practice.

At my place of work (UK ATC) that controller would need to answer some serious competency questions.

oggers
9th Oct 2019, 16:53
That's incompetent controlling.
The controller needs to develop better techniques to anticipate compression on final approach. Forcing the leading aircraft to maintain unreasonable speeds is not the solution.

Also, changing the approach on the Endeavour aircraft last minute on base leg is pretty poor practice.

At my place of work (UK ATC) that controller would need to answer some serious competency questions.

Seeing as you are so competent can you tell me if a 747 needs to be at 160 at 11 dme in order to meet BA's strict stabilised approach criteria?

3Greens
9th Oct 2019, 17:15
Those RNAV overlays are cheating. They take all the sport out of it!

I havenít done the RNP for JFK. That was always raw data. Done the RNP into LGA and DCA though. Iíll admit they work well.
there no sport about it mate when youíre doing it at 4am on your body clock, after a long 8 hour Atlantic crossing. Listen, im all for flying visual approaches etc, but time and a place, and IMO a major international airport using a ridiculous VOR with a visual manoeuvring segment onto a short runway in a 260tonne B747-400 isnít it.

Meester proach
9th Oct 2019, 21:40
there no sport about it mate when youíre doing it at 4am on your body clock, after a long 8 hour Atlantic crossing. Listen, im all for flying visual approaches etc, but time and a place, and IMO a major international airport using a ridiculous VOR with a visual manoeuvring segment onto a short runway in a 260tonne B747-400 isnít it.


Truth. Iím with you on that.

Meester proach
9th Oct 2019, 21:42
In Europe paper shufflers think pilots can't fly (and they're right, sometimes...) and ban it collectively ;)

... and then there's noise abatement too.

But of course, there are places where it's allowed. Sometimes with restrictions (min XXXX ft until est final).

Saw a beautiful visual the other day by a WiderŲ Dash 8 up in northern Norway. I thought it was a helicopter, it was heading mid-field from a distance. Levelled the wings at about 2-300 ft after a 90+.deg turn to final. I had only seen fighters do that before.


Their stabilised criteria would be different to ours then. 200 wings level is a no no.

mike current
9th Oct 2019, 21:49
Seeing as you are so competent can you tell me if a 747 needs to be at 160 at 11 dme in order to meet BA's strict stabilised approach criteria?

That's not what happened.

The controller requested 180 or greater to 5.
The pilot said he was unable and suggested 160 or greater to 5.

I think 160 or greater to 5 at 11 DME is maybe slightly on the slow side but perfectly acceptable.

Also, if the controller had been a bit less aggressive, maybe they would have been met with more cooperation.

e.g.
"180 or greater to 5"
"unable"
"Roger what's your best speed sir"
"160 or greater to 5"
"Roger. Best speed please and no less than 160 to 5"

The Norwegian behind wasn't committed on a closing heading yet IIRC so there was plenty of time to manage the spacing.

Also I doubt that 747 was doing 250 reducing to 160 by magic. It was already on a slower speed. Controllers can see that. Trail dots, ground speed, mode S. They can predict the impact on the next one in the sequence. It's what we do every day. Bring earlier speed control on no. 2. Widen out the heading. Etc.

Breaking off the approach out of spite is just an unprofessional power trip that achieves nothing other than demonstrating instability in a job the requires the opposite.

Toolonginthisjob
10th Oct 2019, 08:56
I don't get it. VApp fully configured at MLW is about 165kts
i would give it a little more thought if I were you. Or just end your observation after the first sentence.

From other contributors, on both sides, there have been some very good contributions. Has certainly made me think again about how this situation could have been handled.

Magplug
10th Oct 2019, 10:29
Into JFK on the 744 pretty much all pilots will use max Flap (30) and Autobrake 4 due to the short runways. (Anything below 2500m is short!) That gives a vRef +5 of around 140kts on final.

In Europe the speed control is generally 220 or min clean (~230kts for 744) until base then 180kts to 7 or 8, then 160 to 4 where you slow to final speed. On a still air day at high weight the last one can be problematic. To achieve it you have to fully configure for landing then reduce the selected speed as late as you dare approaching 4 miles in the hope that the speed will be within SAC by the time you hit 1000'RA.

I have noticed at many large American airports the speed control is rather 'loose' in that you reduce to 250 by 10,000' but the next call is on base leg to come back to 190-210. This is guaranteed to have any 747 pilot shuffling on his seat in discomfort and consequently we are asking to slow down before that. I have also noticed an American trend to do all their ATC at 2000', ie you descend everybody into the pattern at 2000' and then start vectoring them around. That's fine for small aircraft who can slow down quickly but intercepting the ILS G/S from only 2000' means you need to be fully configured for landing flying level at 2000' with the power up to overcome the gear/flap drag. That is also a recipe for an unstable approach, let alone the noise footprint it leaves. In USA they are not big on CDAs.

rockarpee
10th Oct 2019, 10:30
That’s right time traveller, the young uns just can’t be be told. We do after all live in the 21st century and how dare we reproach anyone doing a crap job. I’m not BA, but I get the BA pilots frustration with JFK ATC. Been there done that.

Duchess_Driver
10th Oct 2019, 10:31
a bit of pragmatism and cooperation from both ATC and crews helps keeps the show on the road.

There you are time_traveller - fixed that for you.

Faults on both sides here.

Time Traveller
10th Oct 2019, 10:41
I do recall chuntering around at 2000', but I'm pretty sure I wasn't fully configured until after the glide slope. I wasn't BA though, so if you have more restrictive stabilisation criteria, then fair enough.

oggers
10th Oct 2019, 13:08
That's not what happened.

The controller requested 180 or greater to 5.
The pilot said he was unable and suggested 160 or greater to 5.

I think 160 or greater to 5 at 11 DME is maybe slightly on the slow side but perfectly acceptable.

Nonetheless mike you didn't answer the question 'did he need to be that slow that far out?' because you don't know either. And if he didn't, her plan would've worked. All she did was ask "ok but I need more than 160 from now so when are you going to slow to 160?". To my mind a completely reasonable question when he was still at 12 dme.

Toolonginthisjob
10th Oct 2019, 13:34
Time Traveller
If you mean, they weren't at MLW, yes I'm aware of that, but that's a few knots
Shall we call those “few knots” over 35kts slower than the requested 180kts, or ‘just’ 25kts slower than your MLW figure?:rolleyes:

mike current
10th Oct 2019, 16:07
Nonetheless mike you didn't answer the question 'did he need to be that slow that far out?' because you don't know either. And if he didn't, her plan would've worked. All she did was ask "ok but I need more than 160 from now so when are you going to slow to 160?". To my mind a completely reasonable question when he was still at 12 dme.

I don't fly the 747 for a living, so I can't answer that question.
Where I work, 160 or greater from 11DME to 5 would be perfectly acceptable. Whether he needed to be that slow or not at that range, is not for me to judge. He could have been a little faster perhaps, but he was still perfectly within the parameters for me as an ATCO to work with.

And yes, it was a reasonable question, and the pilot's answer wasn't satisfactory, but there is ways to deal with that. "you still haven't answered my question, so whenever you get round to that, that'd be great" isn't the best way to handle that in my opinion.
I would have said "Roger, confirm your best speed to 5 DME" - and adjusted the plan accordingly. End of story and end of drama. We speak to hundreds of pilots a day. If I should take a strop every time an answer is incomplete or unsatisfactory we might as well just shut the airport down.

The way I understand it (and I could be wrong, as I don't work in ATC int he USA) the Norshuttle behind was on heading 280 and maintain 2000 - not a clearance for the approach, which means she was just tightening their pattern. Would have been sufficient to leave them on their previous heading for 10 or 20 seconds more to make up for the lack of anticipated speed from the 747. It really isn't that difficult!!

FullWings
10th Oct 2019, 16:27
Being an occasional visitor to JFK, I can sympathise.

One of the differences between US/UK is that generally in the UK you are given a speed, like 220 downwind, 180 on base and 160 to 4 on final - note these are exact speeds. In the USA it can be a mixture but "XXX or moreĒ or ďnot less than YYYĒ is more common as they havenít the airspace/time/inclination to sort spacing out earlier in the approach, which sometimes causes issues like this as not everyoneís numerical interpretation of ďmoreĒ is the same.

I wouldnít want to do 180 at 5 in a 747 but 170 at 5, 180 at 6, 190 at 7, etc. would probably be doable: how to get this across to ATC when youíve only got 3 seconds of airtime and theyíre looking for an argument? ďBest speed" I suppose but neither side really knows what that is until it happens.

Got to love JFK, thatís why we use it a lot for command checks (which may have been the guy in question, so go easy...)

misd-agin
11th Oct 2019, 00:38
Being an occasional visitor to JFK, I can sympathise.

...

Got to love JFK, thatís why we use it a lot for command checks (which may have been the guy in question, so go easy...)

Entire world operations can be interesting.