speed control on final

[vertigo]

I'm getting a bit concerned with aircraft slowing down on final approach without being instructed. this can be in the form of reducing below 160kts before 4 dme, or reducing to 160 from 180 when established on the ILS.

In the last two days I've had three aircraft reduce to 160 before instructed.

First time the vortex gap was eroded and I had to break off the following aircraft and reposition. Thanks to the profesionalism of the lufthansa pilots behind we didn't lose any aircraft movements/ miles on the approach, but still a lot of work for me and therefore all the other aircraft on frequency.

Second time the aircraft increased speed again. This made the spacing difficult for the tower controller to judge so they didn't line up a departure. That means every departure at the holding point was delayed for an additional 2 minutes as the airport lost a movement.

Third time I had to take the following aircraft through the localiser then back for a shorter final than expected. again a huge impact on workload and RTF congestion.

Apart from the vortex erosion these incidents were not really a safety problem, but they could have been.

I've had a dozen of these incidents in the last year and almost half infringed vortex or standard separation. The most serious of which I was suspended from radar until a brief investigation was complete. All because a pilot didn't follow a clear and unambiguous instruction which had been read back.

I try emphasising "maintain 180kts" when clearing someone to descend on the ILS, although I feel the last assigned speed should be flown until instructed. (The extra two seconds to say "maintain 180kts" can mount up for 40 aircraft an hour.)

There doesn't seem to be any pattern in the airlines or fleets that are guilty (or nationality, these last three were british airlines and crew)

So what can I do ? increase the spacing (and therefore delays)?
MOR each aircraft that slows down ?
Shout at the pilot at such a critical phase of flight ? (I don't fancy being on a plane being landed by someone who has just had a bollocking)

This always appears to me a terrible breakdown in CRM, after all you wouldn't dream of changing a heading or level without instruction (or at the very least asking first) so why ignore a speed instruction ?

Sorry about the moan, the professionalism of aircrew flying into London airfields is generally fantastic, I'd just really like to know why tis happens and how to stop it happening again.



Phew, glad I've got that off my chest !

[lost soul]

I'm probably one of the culprits--we generally want the gear down and flaps 15 (737-300)by about 2000amsl and at that point reduce speed to 160 which is still 10 knots above the standard speed for that flap setting. It has become so common to be required at 160 to 4D that it is anticipated. We can't go all the way at 180 or the runways will need to be extended!

[411A]

Some airlines' standard operating procedures may be the problem here.
A few airlines are VERY dogmatic about stabilized approaches, expecting these to be established by the OM/FAF.
Many times this is not possible, LHR, AMS, FRA are perfect examples.
A little flexibility would/should be appreciated by "managements"

Oftentimes, this ain't going to happen, sad to say.

Newer modern jets do NOT have the spool-up time required of the older machines...and can recall some of these older machines, you could almost go out to lunch waiting for the required thrust.

Times have changed...but some do not.:(

[vertigo]

We should aim to have you at least reducing to 160kts at seven dme at the latest. The problems I've had are when pilots reduce to 160 at 9/10 miles or below 160 before 4. Although you should make a request to slow before doing so, even inside 7d.

[ADC]

Vertigo,

This can mostly be resolved by training and communication.

Many airlines (mine included) have an absolute requirement for an aircraft to be stabilised in the landing configuration by no less than 1000ft above the runway. That can be challenging with 160 to 4. Secondly, the "gate" is raised in IMC conditions.

I have taken to training all my guys that their role is to give you the speed you ask for, and manage the altitude themselves. Furthermore, I'm planning some visits for Training Captains to mwwt the guys in Gatwick/Heathrow Director to help them fully understand how you guys build a traffic pattern.

It's also worth encouraging pilots to notify ATC when they can't comply with speed requirements, or when (for example) they anticipate a slower than normal final approach speed (e.g. positioning aircraft)

[Ghostflyer]

Vertigo,

The other snag with some of the big busses is that the blighters refuse to slow down at all if there is a tailwind. That leads some crews to target V ref before 4 nms.

I accept that slowing at 9/10 miles to 160kts is too soon but an A-330 won't slow down on the glide if it has a 15kt tail wind. A lot of operators deal with that sitch on a regular basis especially when approaching airfields effected by a sea-breeze which after a few go-arounds tends to make them gun shy.

The crews may well be slowing to prevent themselves going round and obviously they should inform you first. Out of interest, how much of a buffer do you allow for stablisation problems?

Ghost

[thermostat]

Here in Toronto the controllers always request "170 to the marker" and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
For a decelerated approach on the A-320, Airbus says enter 180 ("S" speed ) into the MCDU at the marker (FAF), so they seem to think the aircraft can cross the marker at 180 and be configured for landing by 1000 agl. It's knowing the capabilities of your aircraft and what you can do with it.
As has been stated above some airlines still want the aircraft dirty by the FAF. Great way to waste fuel.
Thermostat.

[ETOPS]

Was asked by EWR to maintain 190kts to the marker a couple of weeks ago - used my favourite ATC phrase "unable" and got the reply "OK speed as you like". It's just not possible to fly fast approaches to 4 miles and be configured and stable by 1000' in big jets such as the B777 and A330. Also bear in mind we have to answer to our monitoring department as each and every sector is downloaded and scanned by computer for exceedences such as these. The results are published monthly and we seem to get about 2 or 3 rushed approaches some of which result in go-arounds due to not meeting the rigid company criteria - hence crews eagerness to slow down early and avoid a mandatory G/A.

[lost soul]

and while we are on this subject-- I understand there is a 10knot tolerance on all speed requests?? I have brought this up before but will do again-- does it cause a problem if we 737 drivers use 170 instead of 160 to 4D?? This enables us to keep the gear UP and thus reduce noise and fuel consumption! We will still need to start slowing at about 6.5 miles or 2000 amsl to meet (our) requirement for stabilized flight by 1000amsl.

[fireflybob]

lost soul, why not take Flap 10 and fly at 160 kt?

OK it's not technically "standard" but perfectly safe and sensible in the circumstances.

[Plastic Cockpit]

Ah yes this little chestnut.

I remember being shoehorned into a smelly one on runway 20 at Brussels. Our speed control had us catching a heavy ahead (between 4.5-5 miles on TCAS also backed up by his ATC DME request). The wind strength precluded any other runway for takeoff or landing. With the traffic density at the time we had difficulty getting a word in edgeways so took the safer option of slowing down. We were less likely to cause grief to the following than the possible Wake encounter we could have sustained. And if you do the maths, from the 10 miles we were, our 15 knot reduction would have reduced the seperation (had it started at the min 4 miles) to 3 miles at least at the threshold. Still 1000' and still safer than the other option.
Yes, got a little bollocking for it and yes we should have tried a little harder to let ATC know.

[Stan Woolley]

ffb

The Flap 10 speed has been increased to 170kts because of the rudder problem.

On the -700 the speed tape flap speeds are much lower and 160 is normally easily held with Flap 5.

[vertigo]

Thanks for all your replies,

The main reason being offered is stable approaches. If I wanted an aircraft to fly faster than 160 inside seven miles it would be a request, not an instruction. I wouldn't rely on it in my planning and I wouldn't position another aircraft 'tight' behind unless I had the pilot's agreement.

Is 160kts by 7d and until 4d acceptable ? If not I think we should have notice on first contact with final director.

We do appreciate the need for stabilised approaches and I'll always allow a bit more spacing if an aircraft is particulary high or fast. But surely if you are ignoring an instruction you should ask first ?

If it is all down to sesma/other company procedures is it best to handle this with an MOR, so the relevant airline department can get involved ? We might then be able to work towards a solution together.

The last couple of days the headwind component at 3000' has been very small (and generally CAVOK) but would that require an unrequested reduction to 160kts at 9/10 miles by 737,744 and 757 aircraft ? Is a speed reduction that far out done in order to stabilise the approach ?


LOST SOUL,

I'd be very wary about adding a ten knot tolerance on final approach speeds. 210/220 even 230 kts shouldn't make much difference but if you are four miles behind a 757 going ten knots faster from 12 miles out you will catch up and seriously erode vortex spacing.

On the other hand, if you request 170 to four on first contact with final director we can sometimes accomodate. I'd better be careful here as many of my colleagues will not thank me if every 737 starts asking on first call, but I'd rather know that's your preference and try to help out. I should also point out I can't do it if delays are excessive or wind or viz is particulary bad.

Thanks for the replies, keep them coming

[Guy D'ageradar]

Bottom line - as with all other instructions, if you can't comply, let us know and at least we can plan accordingly. If you need an extra 10 kts or to slow down a few miles early then it doesn't take a great deal of effort to gain/lose a bit with the following. If, however, you just do it and don't say, then it's back to vertigo's original post and someone will have to go around/otherwise take the delay - more work for at least two of us. ;)

[Warped Factor]

lost soul,

and while we are on this subject-- I understand there is a 10knot tolerance on all speed requests?? I have brought this up before but will do again-- does it cause a problem if we 737 drivers use 170 instead of 160 to 4D?? This enables us to keep the gear UP and thus reduce noise and fuel consumption! We will still need to start slowing at about 6.5 miles or 2000 amsl to meet (our) requirement for stabilized flight by 1000amsl.

There's no 10 knot leeway, at least not in the UK as far as I'm aware.

The reference to speed control at heathrow for example can be found in the UK AIP at EGLL AD 2.22 para 6)b) (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/ad/302LL01.PDF).

It essentially says fly allocated speeds as accurately as possible and please tell ATC (asap) if you want to do something different.

At EGLL we use 2.5nm separation on final regularly and also the bare minimum vortex separation. Not flying the allocated speeds accurately will result in either a loss of radar separation or a loss of vortex separation. One is inconvenient for me, the other could be even more so for you.

But the point is, we can accomodate requests to fly at different speeds (although standardised speed control is required to maximise capacity) to what we'd normally request, we just like to be kept in the loop.

WF.

[Knobbies]

This 160 to 4 seems to have crept in only over the last few years, who came up with the figure of 160?

Granted ATC are under pressure to maximise the number of movements, however most sensible airlines do have a policy of being stabilized by 1000agl, this is obviously pushing it with most modern aircraft.

So, as spacing/timing is indeed important so is the safe operation of the aircraft, why not compromise and reduce this figure to say 150 to 4?

Sorry, but ATC is here for pilots not the other way around as I see it.

It's easy to sit in the ivory tower and "demand" 160 to 4? However it can be difficult to comply and no one wants unstabalized or rushed approaches or indeed un-necessarry go-arounds, and subsequent explanations to the chief pilot!

So how about ATC and airlines getting together and coming up with a safer working speed to 4 DME?

ATC you do a very good job in increasingly difficult times, so are professional pilots.

Lets work safely together!

[120.4]

Lots of issues here.

We are back to the argument about runway capacity at LHR. Please bear in mind that we are down to minimums on the approach; if you bust your speeds we immediatly lose separation. I have been here several times and it is becoming "policy" that the one who slows down goes around, not the traffic behind.

These days the performance on final varies considerably. Compare for instance a B757 to a B773. There could be as much as 45kts difference in the Vref. At Heathrow it is becoming more common to ask for 170kts down to 4D and provided we are asked early it is not a problem. That doesn't effect capacity: bigger gap yes but higher speed, same result.

Yes, 15kts over 10 miles would be about .75nm catchup IF the lead aircraft didn't slow inside 4D but with some type combinations 4miles separtion at 10D could be less than 2 at touchdown. A Conc. is only 30kts faster down the approach than standard but we allow twice the space, typically 6 miles, and even that can get tight.

Would 160kts to 5D be a better "standard"?

Point 4
:)

[NigelOnDraft]

120.4

BA is obviously a culprit here.

757 - latest we can start slowing from 160 is 1500aal. So 160 to 4 never is adhered to I'm afraid. From our Flying Manual for "ATC Speed Controlled Approach":

It quotes "Typical LHR ATC app 180 to 6d, 160 to 4d" i.e. what we will be asked to do. It then says to achieve this:

@2000'aal - Gear Down, slow 160K. It says 2000'aal is 6d, but my maths says a bit over 6.5d. [No problem to slow to 160K earlier which is often requested]

It then says:
@1500'aal slow to Final App speed. It alleges this is at 4.5d, but again, my maths reckons nearer 5d.

It then points out that @4d (1300') we will be 150K or less.

We have to aim for (and if we fail to achieve - "consider a GA") App speed (may be as low as 120K), full flap, App power up at 1000'aal. In an E4 757, with Engine Anti Ice (read cloudy / rainy with TAT +10C or less) anything other than a screaming headwind, and a slow Final Speed (more speed to lose) this is all not possible, and the reduction from 160 must be earlier.

Suggest LHR and the BA ATC services man discuss what gives - the 160 to 4 rqmt, or our strict 1000' criteria. Don't blame me for that - it is a little OTT IMHO.

160 to 5 would be better - its what we actually do.

Why do we not tell ATC everytime? We've been doing it like this for a number of years... so can't see anything's changed.

Thanks for pointing it out - will make more of an effort to point out what we can and cannot achieve on the day.

NoD

[CaptAirProx]

Tell me airtrafficers, why is it some airfields like LHR seem to be able to use speed control as a method of tactical planning, where as other airfields when queried, say they are not authorised to use speed but must use headings to achieve spacing whilst feeding the ILS? Is this some legal thing or a special rating for ATCO's.

Hacks me off that some airfields make you go around the houses wasting fuel even when you offered to slow down and go more direct and they say bog off! What do we do?

[Lazlo]

My company recently posted a notice that said we are to fly the speed we are told to fly. So if we are told 160 to 4d then that is what we are to do (ie not 170 or 150). I imagine there were problems with ATC which resulted in this notice.

The thing that I find confusing is when we are told to maintain a speed like 180 knots (this happened today in fact). Then we are cleared to join the localiser, etc. No further mention of speed, how long we are to maintain 180 etc. This kind of thing happens all the time and quite frankly, if we are given a speed to maintain and then cleared for the ILS and there is no instruction to maintain until a certain point (ie outer marker or 4d), then we usually reduce speed according to SOPs. Saying "maintain 180 knots" 15 miles out is fine but when we are at 6 miles and still flying 180 generally we start getting antsy and will start slowing down unless ATC tell us first.

This does create confusion usually, and a little conversation occurs between the captain and FO about just what ATC want us to do. Usually, at times when ATC require speed control like this it is too difficult to get a word in so this is why pilots take matters into their own hands. If ATC want us to maintain until further notice, then it would really help if they told us for how long. And then try not forget about us. In the UK this is usually not so much of a problem but in Europe (read Spain) it happens all the time and if you follow ATC instructions to the letter then you will be crossing the threshold at 180 knots. We have to reduce at some safe point, and this is probably why people appear to violate the instruction, when in fact they may think they have been forgotten about (again).

lazlo

[buttonmonkey]

Largely I agree with Lazlo,

Maybe what it needs is all this to be published on the plates as is done at some of the spanish airfields (with a bit more thought behind it however!) Something like maintain 180kts until 7 or 8miles then 160kts until 4, unless advised by ATC.

However, to quote my fleet manager in a recent aircrew notice "It's a touch of the tail wagging the dog!" In reference to the increasing number of constraints during descent, approach, landing and runway occupancy. A stablised approach is emphasised as the number one consideration, but to advise ATC if unable to comply with constraints.

I must own-up to being at fault here on occasion. 9 times out of 10 you call established and you get "descend with the glide and 160 until 4." (at Gatwick) So much so that i am guilty of doing it without being asked. As they say assumption is the Mother of all F**k-ups. Thanks for bringing it to everyones attention.

My eyes have been opened....

[BOING]

It looks as though the US has a slightly better way of communicating speed control than the UK. In the US you are told to "maintain a speed until advised" this speed is maintained even over frequency changes. On frequency changes the pilot adds "x knots assigned" to his check in. When you are "cleared for the approach" speed is at pilot's discretion unless a speed assignment is restated. This usually works quite well, no misunderstandings.

Having said that we are also being squeezed into the speed control box over here. Companies are requiring earlier stabilisation on the approach. Performance monitoring computers are becoming more common so it is more difficult to "cheat" even just a little. ATC is more frequently assigning speeds and these speeds seem to be required further down the approach. A while back our company reduced the flap speeds on all aircraft by ten knots from the manufacturers speeds to reduce flap fatigue so now it takes longer to slow down. All in all, it is becoming more difficult to meet ATC speed requirements and company (FAA approved) speed requirements at the same time.

Since the real problem is RELATIVE VELOCITY why do we not just use lower speed on all phases of the approch? What is so magic about 180 knots, just change to 160 knots at the same point. It will take longer and use more fuel but at least both pilots and controllers will be happy because the pilots will feel comfortable that they have their approch speed under control and the controllers get no more nasty surprises.

Sorry controllers, I am sitting in the seat watching the runway get bigger sometimes "you gotta do what you gotta do" to get the aeroplane on the ground - with you licence intact!

[IcePack]

B757's Flap 30 (Full Flap) speed is in round figures 162 Kts.
Makes it D---m difficult in turbulance to take the full flap in time to be on speed (Vref +) and spooled up by 500 ft.
Unfortunatly the new QAR systems tell the management each time you are not, with often a visit to your boss.
So it is easier to slow down slightly earlier and hence avoid the interview.
Human nature I'm afraid.
+ whoever decided on 180/160 seems to have not understood a/c performance. (Note we SHOULD be configed spooled up and on speed by 1000')

[NorthernSky]

I strongly suspect that this is (in part at least) outfall from the 'requirement' to fly CDAs. All these speeds are much easier to achieve if you don't try to achieve a CDA. Too much criticism of pilots will lead to their reverting to the old dive-and-drive style of approach, and whilst your speed control will work perfectly, the noise lobby will get uptight about it.

The last four approaches I have flown into LTMA airports all required use of speedbrake below 4000ft, and whilst flap was extended. The old adage goes: 'the speedbrake is there for my mistakes, not yours!'.

Controllers need to give us more room to manoeuvre, configure, and slow down.

[Lynx]

The Speed control 160 to 4 DME is managable in suitable conditions in a B757/767. However if you are asked to fly a Non Precision approach forget it. Our SOPS call for V REF speed at the FAF. So on a VOR App we will be flying at Flap 30 Speed 135/ 140 Kts at the FAF - 8 to 10 miles out to ensure a stable Non Precision approach. I will just do this ,and tell ATC about it when I have done it. Speed control is up to me - I am in command of the aircraft - I will decide what my crew can and cannot achieve. We also have QARS fitted and rushed / fast approaches are a real issue in my company. Slow down early is advice we are issuing to our crews to avoid GPWS and Go Arounds - both of which we have had in the last year due rushed approaches.

[120.4]

I have started to handle B757s slightly differently. Knowing that they will be slowing early and then like a snail across the threshold I usually tuck them up a little on the one ahead and then stick an extra half mile behind. Same landing rate, everybody should be happy. The trouble is that we can't alter our technique to cover all types, there would be too much to remember. Oddly enough we were developing a machine that combined with Mode S would have done that for us... FAST.

We could all use lower speeds. Of course dragging in from12 miles at 150kts would cause increase in noise and fuel burn and some just won't do it, e.g. B773. We could open out the spacing and give each type more leeway but that would significantly impact capacity. (I have recently been involved in the debate over the B757 and what spacing should be given behind it. I have been told NATS argues that increasing the spacing will significantly reduce capacity and is against it. IT ALSO SAYS THAT SAFETY COMES FIRST!?)

I feel that a stable approach has to come first and capacity second. It is not our fault that we lack capacity and it certainly isn't our job to make up for it.

Point 4
:)

[lost soul]

I remember the 160/4 miles being standard at the OLD Singapore airport back in the early 1980's but we were flying 737-200's then before the rudder scares and the Flap 10 (Gear UP ) speed was 160. Unfortunately since the rudder scares our effective min GR UP speed is 170 and I would be failed on a line check for flying anything slower! I take the point regarding the 10 knot tolerance but when one is told " Change Director call-sign only!" it does not seem to be the time to add any speed requests in the initial call! The result of this will be more gear down flying on approach with a ten knot overspeed for Flap 15 (737-300) to achieve the 160 knots to 4D.

[Mister Geezer]

Lazlo

Going back to your previous post...

The legal minimum distance to which any speed control must be maintained to is 4D. So if ATC don't say otherwise, you must assume the restriction is to be maintained to 4D.

MG

[jammers]

geez us lads, what's all the fuss about....if u can't fly 160 to 4D in ANY boeing then it might be time to hang up your spurs......just ask anybody who flys for the any chance airline ( care to guess who?)

[BOING]

Trouble is Jammer that as I mentioned on an earlier post our company has knocked 10 knots off the Boeing speeds to reduce flap stresses. On the 757 we cannot take 30 flap until 152 knots. Sure you can fly an approach at 160 knots till 4D then slow to 152 and take full flap but the "snitch box" will have your "company defined" non stabilised approach recorded. It can all be flown but I would prefer to keep my licence.

Thank Heavens they never had "snitch boxes" on the 727. The reviewers would have had heart attacks!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Can some pilot please explain the answers to these conundrums, which have fascinated me over the years, more so after reading this interesting thread:

On the rare occasions when I am able to say "no ATC speed control" to someone on final approach it's more than evens that he will fly much faster than one of our "standard" speeds.

Why do so many 737s ask for 170kts to 4DME if some remarks on here are to be believed? I ALWAYS give them 170 now and adjust the spacing accordingly so am I doing something wrong? Not if one charmless pilot is to be believed - he was given 160kts recently and went bananas, even to the extent of moaning to the Tower man too.

Who was the BA pilot I met once who said he couldn't understand why we didn't always use 180 kts to 4DME to increase the landing rate? (In fact I believe that was being seriously considered as a standard procedure not too long ago).

I'm sure I've misunderstood the remark about 727s and the snitch box... I presume they actually wanted to fly much faster than our standard speeds? One crew flying a straight-in off LAM one morning doing 300kts+ asked what speed I wanted "No speed control" said I - so he said he'd keep "240 to the marker". In very, very recent times I've observed MD80s flying 280kts at 10DME and well over 200kts at 4DME.

As I think I've said elsewhere - ATCOs would love to sit back and do 5-6 mile spacing into Heathrow but it's YOUR employers who want us to thrash you guys in 2.5nm apart.

Lastly, I sympathise with you if the approach requires a lot of concentration but think about the final director - he doesn't just have to do it once; in one session he might land 50-60 of you guys and every single flight requires 110% concentration.

[lost soul]

Heathrow Director- I can understand your confusion because of the tone of some of the comments here (e.g. Jammers) This indicates the different levels of compliance with Boeing SOP's by different airlines! FACT- the minimum speed GEAR UP speed that can be flown using STD procedures on a "Classic" 737 (3-4-500) is 170 knots at Flap 10. I am fully aware that flying at 160 will not necessarily cause a crash BUT that is the speed that Boeing say to fly and in my airline that is what we do! The fact that some airlines are much less rigorous in their procedures is their concern but I'm not an aerodynamacist so I stick to the makers manual!
I hope that clears the air!

[L337]

On the rare occasions when I am able to say "no ATC speed control" to someone on final approach it's more than evens that he will fly much faster than one of our "standard" speeds

Lots of reasons.. If there is no ATC, no height or speed restrictions. The descent profile would be, Close the thrust levers at top of descent. Manage your speed, height, flight path, flaps and gear such that you spool up at 1000' aal in the landing configuration. ie. Thrust at idle from TOD to spool up. Very nice feeling if it all works out. Not too often with me! So 300kts at 20 miles 5000', bleed the speed off, run the flap, pop the gear, more flap and up comes the power. The speed is never static. On average it is faster and more efficient than with ATC speed controls. Some aeroplanes speed brakes are much more efficient than others. A "T" tail aeroplane has better speed brakes because the turbulance form the speed brakes does not impact the tailplane. So faster till later. The groundhugger let you deploy the reversers in flight. That slowed things up. So left to our own devices, the descent profile is very different to that witch ATC impose on us.

Why do so many 737s ask for 170kts to 4DME

The 737 has a fixed flap speed schedule. Flap 5 is flown at 170Kts. 160 needs Flap 10. Flap 10 is non standard. It should be after flap 5, Gear Down, Flap 15. And that is flown at 150 kts. Also a 737 will sit on a 3 degree slope at Flap 5, and 170kts and not accelerate, or decelerate... normally. Depends on the weight and the wind component. So for a 737 pilot 170kts is a good place to be.

Who was the BA pilot I met once who said he couldn't understand why we didn't always use 180 kts to 4DME

Indeed who is he! He sure never flew an A320/ 319s or a 747.

Lastly, I sympathise with you if the approach requires a lot of concentration but think about the final director - he doesn't just have to do it once; in one session he might land 50-60 of you guys and every single flight requires 110% concentration.

Eeeer this is a wind up? Yes? Or do you wish to open another thread entitled, "Pilots have it easy, ATC guys work for a living" We can deal with your point in that thread.

L337

[120.4]

Er, not entirely a wind up L337.

Yes, perhaps for a different thread but... Very few jockeys visit the Centres and I think some might be suprised.

The final director at Heathrow has an r/t loading measured at over 90%. That isn't planning or co-ordinating, it is just talking to the traffic, the rest comes on top. The clever bit about the job is not what you say but when you say it and that requires control of the r/t. It is amazing how quickly the FD starts swearing under his breath when he cannot get in or has to repeat. Now, we could relax, if you like, but you will be landing after midnight.

The need to keep traffic tight is what is making final speeds an issue and that leads us back to runway redundancy.

Point 4
:)

[Young Paul]

Couple of points here.

Firstly, although we requested 170 to 4 on the B737, in actual fact what we really need is about 170 to 7 - 'cos procedures were to have gear down and locked by 2000 AGL.

Secondly, the replier who remarked about 160 being flap 10 is out of date - as has been pointed out already, with the rudder problems, it is now 160/flap 15. 170 kts allows flap 10 (non-standard) and gear up.

Thirdly, for DIRECTOR and 120.4, please could you pass the word that, no matter how frustrated you are, there is no point in saying "one at a time please" when two people transmit - if we both start at the same time, then we have no way of telling that anybody else is transmitting.

[lost soul]

L337-- I'm afraid that you are out of date as I pointed out earlier! CURRENT Classic 737 speeds are F1 190k, F5 180, F10 170, F15 150. (F10 is not a standard config for landing but may be used as a minimum gear up config.)

[L337]

Sorry.

:confused:

I should have remembered the earlier post about the change in 737 speeds. So 160 to 4 is even more of a pain than it use to be.

L337

[Young Paul]

Yes, but 170 to 7 and 150 to 4 would be ideal!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brownstar]

Vertigo

Just thought i'd add my 10 pence worth

160 till 4 can sometimes be difficult to achieve on the 737-800 due to it being very 'slippy' . I don't know which airport you operate at but we are 'generally' required to be 180 at 7, from there to to ruduce 160 till 4, this generally can only happen by ' gear down, flap 15', which is noisy for the locals. Perhaps a call to the aircraft of ' no less than 160 to 4 miles' would show that there is no room for them to slow further, were as ' 160 to 4 miles ' can ( but i know it shouldn't ) be misunderstood to be a max speed, therfore allowing a reduction .

It seems an easy problem to sove but it's obviously a widely misunderstood. Perhaps a word with the chart markers to add a note highlighting this problem, and a rewording of the speed control policy to leave no open interpretation of this speed rule.

[BOING]

Heathrow director. When I mentioned the 727 it is not so much a matter of what the pilot wanted to do but what the aeroplane was capable of doing. With the 727 you could be at 250 kts on the glide slope eight and a half miles from the field and still be easily stabilised for landing at 1000 agl. At a push you could do better than that . Tons of drag when you needed to slow down. Comparatively speaking the 757 is a glider. You get very little drag till you get to 20 flap and the gear down. The 757 will barely descend on a three degree glideslope at 15 flap and no gear.

What this means is that you need much more space to configure a 757 than you did a 727 and similar ideas apply to the other aircraft types you mention. Each aircraft has an optimum way it can be flown if no ATC restrictions apply and that is what you are seeing.

Of course, there may be a little pilot "joie de vivre" involved in some of those approaches also!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Thirdly, for DIRECTOR and 120.4, please could you pass the word that, no matter how frustrated you are, there is no point in saying "one at a time please" when two people transmit - if we both start at the same time, then we have no way of telling that anybody else is transmitting.>>

Apologies on behalf of my colleagues. I'm afraid we're not taught too much about communications other than to use standard phraseology hence you'll also get controllers saying something like "someone has an open mic; please everyone check your transmitters" when the chances of the bloke with the open mic hearing that is pretty well nil.... isn't it?

L337 said: "Eeeer this is a wind up? Yes? Or do you wish to open another thread entitled, "Pilots have it easy, ATC guys work for a living" We can deal with your point in that thread"

Nah, me old mate.. no need for another thread. After 36 years in this game I KNOW who's busiest! Tee Hee!

[packsonflite]

I have to say that the control of traffic into LHR is about as good as it gets. I can certainly live with 160 to 4 and still get stable by the required point.

It's when we go into ORD where the fun really starts; 3 runway changes when within 15 n.m of the airfield and being instructed to keep "180 to the marker" is the norm - I just dream about being able to get back into LHR where even when things are starting to hit the fan, the controllers always manage to remain cool, calm and collected - at least that's the impression they manage to convey!

My remarks are not in anyway meant to imply disrespect to the ORD controllers, given the traffic levels into that place, it amazes me that they manage to remain sane! The stress that those guys experience in a single shift must be unbelievable.

:) :) :)

[professor yaffle]

the old speed chestnut
one thing i have learnt is that i am almost certainly in the wrong when i ask for certain speeds from you guys!!!
whoever it was - yes you are quite right we in atc are only down here 'cos you lot are up there - but we are there for everybody's "needs" and not just the odd few
me - i use 180 to a closing heading then 160 to 4 - this means i can meet the criteria set to try to keep most happy!
and i believe these speeds are in the air pilot along the lines of 180 between 12-8d and 160 8-4d
if i can i leave speed to your discretion - sometimes can't though
but i have used the "report when ready to reduce speed" so i can sort the traffic out behind and only rarely do i get this so now i impose speed contol

as previously stated - if you can't or don't want to fly at the speeds requested - tell us and we'll accomodate you - after all that's why we're here
:D
and come round for visits - not just a quick looksee but a listen in if you can spare the time most of us are quite happy for that and explain why we do things the way we do!
have been on fam flights and asked if there are any issues the crew want to talk about and usually get the " no no questions - everythings fine !" - stop being polite!!!:D

prof

[L337]

I know its off topic, so I am looking out for the thread police, but, where does "Heathrow Director" live. I know I should know, but where... Below the tower I have always assumed, in a dark box, or some such place...

/me coughs and gets coat.

L337

[120.4]

L337

In a big bright room in the old West Drayton centre. In the same room are: Gatwick approach, Stansted Approach, Luton Approach and shortly to be London city/ Biggin approach. In addition to these are the London TMA controllers. Square, high definition colour displays.

Point 4
:)

[NigelOnDraft]

120.4

Re your comment about spacing and 757s... Not surprised you worked that out a long time ago!

Re. what we can actually achieve / want seemingly inconsistent. Its very type dependant, even between different engine marks on the same airframe (E4 engines on a 757 used to run down occasionally with Engine Anti Ice on - Mr Rolls' answer was to turn the "idle screw" up. Engines no longer flame out, but aeroplane refuses to slow down). Also OAT & wind dependent, and weight of course (light = takes longer to slow down AND you have to slow down more).

I'm RHS, and the LHS attitude can make a difference too(!). Our rules actually say "SHOULD be all in Final App config / Pwr etc." at 1000', but "MUST be by 500'". So if I miss the 1000' by a bit, so what - its what I aim for. Unfortunately, and as is their right, some LHS are unhappy at not being 100% setup at 1000'.

Aircraft you see going much faster - QAR missing / broken / Mgmt don't care? I'm sure you can tell us better tales than we know about some approaches into LHR... A certain Spanish airline springs to mind...?!

NoD

[Lazlo]

Mister Geezer,

Interesting what you say about having to maintain the last speed given until 4d if we are not told otherwise. Where is this written? I have never heard of it before (I'm not saying it isn't true but just that it's news to me). I can say this though - if I am given a speed of say 180, I will not be maintaining that to 4d ever, because the captain beside me will have either a) told me to slow down, or b) taken control.

Lazlo

[BOAC]

You all may like to revisit ATC thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15896 ) where this was discussed at length and it also came up in another thread on RP on approach sequencing into LGW which I cannot locate at the moment.

[dick badcock]

Flanker

The problem with flying with F5 @ 160 KTS on an NG is that you then have roughly 1 NM to extend gear, call for F15 and then F30/40 plus read the landing check (we do it after GD F15) in order to be stabilized by 1000' (our SOP too) A bit tight in my opinon.

Vertigo

Is the problem that pilots are slowing down below 160 way before 4 NM (ie 7-8 miles). Is it a problem for you if we start extending gear and configuring further around 5 miles or just below that (4.5-4.7) That one mile helps quite a bit in order for us to be stab by 1000'.

[OSCAR YANKEE]

Well apart from all the fine examples, I do believe that if you are "Cleared approach" by ATC, that clearenace cancels all speed restrictions etc. That's it.
If ATC wants to have a say, they are required to say that in the clearence given ie. "Airline xx 123, Cleared ILS 12, maintain 160 to 4" or whatever.
A simple "Cleared app." instruction cancels all said before.

;)

[120.4]

OY
In the London area we tend not to say "cleared pproach" because it has implications as far a descent is concerned. We would more usually say descend on the glide path and I always then add maintain 180kts or 160kts to 4D as I require. I would suggest that most other ATCOs would be the same.

Dick

Yes, I think the problem tends to be people slowing up before 4D, presumably in order to stablise. If you slow earlier the gaps will shrink outside 4 D which is the point at which we are no longer responsible for vortex. We would therefore have to increase the spacing.

Also, as has been said the problem these days is the different requirements of the various types. If ATC have to allow for each of the types then the final director's brain will soon overload. B757, B737 and B773 already desire significantly different appraoch speeds to work at their optmum. We have had some KLM B739s say they can do 160to 4D but want to increase inside! It is something that perhaps would be best left to a computer talking to the FMS systems and then giving us the "slow down" at the appropriate moment to get the optimum gap/ speed profile.

Point 4


:)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

My mum once said to me: "Son, you'll learn something new every day". She sure was right.... Yesterday afternoon in quite strong wind conditions we had a go-around at Heathrow ("short-haul" flight). The pilot asked for an expeditious approach duel to fuel shortage and although he never mentioned "emergency" we got him back in fairly quickly. He later telephoned and told us an astounding thing - apparently when we issue speed instructions, A320 and A321 crews fly them as GROUND-SPEED.

All I want to say is this: "Mum, can you hear me? You were dead right!"

It'll soon be time for me to be let out of this rubber room for an afternoon duty.............

[Mushroom_2]

Not in our airline. Could only be a Nigel telling you that load of rubbish.

[A4]

Groundspeed Minimum (GS Mini)

The reference to flying approaches at a groundspeed is a function on the bus called "Groundspeed Minimum". It is designed to take advantage of the aircraft inertia in windshear or turbulent conditions.

During the approach the FMGS continuously computes the target approach speed value to keep the GROUNDSPEED at a minimum value based on the actual encountered winds and the tower given runway wind. The theory is as follows.

If you should encounter say a positive shear of 25 knots on the approach in a "conventional" aircraft the IAS would increase above target IAS and thrust would be reduced to maintain target speed. On the bus the target IAS is INCREASED as the shear hits and power is INCREASED to match the new target. If the shear then reduces (or worse reverses) the "conventional" is in a low thrust and IAS reducing scenario :eek: . The bus is in the same reducing IAS scenario but the power is already UP.

When it is very windy this can result in the approach target speed getting quite close to full flap limiting speed - but it has to be very windy!

Of course if controller says 160 to 4d then the GS Mini can be over-ridden by just going to a selected speed of 160knots - it's not rocket science! The chances are that when you return to "managed" speed at 4d the GS Mini target speed is going to be fairly close to 160 anyway if it's that gusty.

The bus is difficult to slow down. If it's heavy then F2 + geardown will hold 160 ok, but I've started to take F3 at about - 5 miles recently and F Full at 4 by the latest to give it chance to be on target, thrust up by 1000agl. Company minimum is 500agl VMC but that's a limit NOT a target! :rolleyes:

A4 :)

[777AV8R]

The 777 won't "go down and slow down'. As previously mentioned here...stablized approaches are now the name of the game.
I simply won't risk having an airplane out of profile by being at 160 Kts to 4 miles. Compound this with a few airports allowing tailwind landings due to noise abatement procedures and the problems are compounded. A mile and a half from the fix...the speed is being dialed back for landing flap.

[flower]

CaptAirprox.

going back to a point you made a few days ago. This relates to an adage used among some of the old school of ATCO's that never use speed control when vectors will do.

It of course simply doesn't work in a busy traffic environment, but at quieter airfields many controllers don't have to sequence and have never learnt anything else.

Fam Flights and Crew visits of course would help many of these problems to be sorted.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

777AV8R said: "I simply won't risk having an airplane out of profile by being at 160 Kts to 4 miles. "

I fully appreciate and accept what you say, as long as you tell ATC in good time. I'm not going to risk my licence on someone who won't follow standard procedures which have been agreed with the airlines and I've broken off plenty of guys who wouldn't slow down and will continue to do so. If the speeds are wrong the matter should surely be brought to the attention of Fleet Managers., etc?

Incidentally, for those who think Airbuses are difficult to slow down... this afternoon a straight in A320 on 27R off LAM was given no speed control. At 10DME he was doing 280kts GS and at 4nm he was doing 200kts GS.. and he landed safely!

[A4]

HEATHROW DIRECTOR said:

"Incidentally, for those who think Airbuses are difficult to slow down... this afternoon a straight in A320 on 27R off LAM was given no speed control. At 10DME he was doing 280kts GS and at 4nm he was doing 200kts GS.. and he landed safely!"

Was it safe? If your groundspeed at 4D is 200 knots then the chances are your IAS is in excess of 200 knots. That means Flap 1 only (200 limit for F2). So at the very least you got 3 more flap extensions and possibly (usually :D ) the gear as well. At 200 knots your doing approx 3 and a bit miles per minute (ok your going to be decelerating - just). If you wish to be stable by 500agl MINIMUM (1.5 miles from threshold) by my calculations you've got 2.5 miles or about 45 seconds to reduce from 200 knots to about 140ish, get fully configured, get the thrust up and complete the landing checks........

A bit of an academic analysis I know, but IMHO that is not the way to operate a modern medium jet (or small or heavy for that matter).

It's obvious that some people have not learned the dangers of unstable approaches. The Gulf Air A320 accident in Bahrain started as a result of simply being too damned fast! Two go arounds, the second of which killed all on board :(

I'd be interested to know what the companys flight safety department would have to say. I can only assume they don't have QAR's or SESMA (?). At least it will be mandatory for all in a couple of years, then some may adjust their behaviour accordingly if they don't want tea and biccies with the CP.:D

Ask yourself, would you want your family on board an aircraft being operated in such a manner. :confused:

A4

[Knobbies]

A4 - Good stuff and well said!

Regards from another A320/1 operator.

[West Coast]

Must agree with A4. I used to think FOQA was a bad thing, but I am warming up to it now.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Ask yourself, would you want your family on board an aircraft being operated in such a manner><>

Probably not! I wasn't advocating the practice, merely stating the sort of situation which occurs when we say "No speed control". I watched several aircraft closely on radar yesterday during quiet traffic conditions; eg there was a 757 doing over 190kts at 5DME too but we're always told that the 757 really needs to slow down early.... After the very interesting discussions on here I'm simply saying that, given the opportunity, many crews will fly speeds considerably in excess of those which ATC would normally impose in the approach sector. It's becoming obvious that some pilots will not adhere to the speeds we impose (even though they've read it back?) whilst other pilots of the same type - possibly with the same airline - will fly much faster. So where's the "standardisation"?

I'm still thinking hard about the comment from the 777 chap. We routinely use 170kts to 4DME for 777-300s because that's the speed we've been told that they want - and we know from experience that they do'nt slow down!! I've never known any 777 pilot query "160kts to 4DME", nor do I recall one ever asking for a slower speed so do I assume that all of these guys are lying when they read-back? Some of you ought to watch 777s and other heavy jets doing their "own thing" early in the morning.

[A4]

It is interesting the way some people seem to interpret "no speed control" (sounds like some the approaches described in this thread! ;) )

It would appear that some take it as free reign to come screaming down the ILS at 200+ knots to 4D and the throw out the anchor to get it all back together in time for landing. If I'm given "free speed" I will use that to adjust my descent accordingly and usually start to reduce to 250 knots at about 6000' but I still aim to be 210 knots Flap1 at about 10D and take F2 just before the glide - if you don't the only way to get the bus to slow is the gear. After that it's just a normal approach. Boring? sensible? predictable? No, Yes, Yes.

A4 :)

[mcdhu]

I'm with you, A4. Why give yourself - and the PNF - the hassle of wondering if you have overcooked it or not?

Furthermore, in a jet aeroplane the last 30 track miles will take you 9 mins, give or take a minute, whatever your antics with the speed, so why bother?

Cheers,
mcdhu

[Victor Mike]

Quick input re the 757 on finals. Required Vapp varies dramatically with weight, hence a very heavy 757 (oops took too much fuel again) has no problems with 160 to 4. A very light one with not much headwind Vapp could be 120 kts and no chance of slowing down in 4 miles.
regards
Victor Mike

[Julioviana]

Hello, this is an answer to Lazlo´s letter about speed. Here in Spain we understand (let me know if you consider the matter in a differente way), that when we clear a traffic for an approach the limitations in speed instructed before are no longer valid. Unless otherwise stated.
For example if I ask an aircraft to maintain 180 knots and later on I clear him for approach, he no longer has to maintain 180 unless I ask him to keep that speed until 8 dme.

Thank you

[Cough]

Following from VM's reply - From a 737/4 perspective. (The weight thing is very important)

Three situations -

Firstly when very light (doesn't happen often out of LHR) then we may have to cheat (just a little, say 4.5d) to make the 1000' gate (bear in mind for BA this is a Radio Altitude...come back to this one.) Now this is a double whammy situation coz you decelerate early, and then fly finals slow too..Some of us try to warn director if we are in this category..

Secondly, when at moderate weights then 170/4 is great, and appreciated, as we don't have to dump the gear. May cruise past the 4d point decelerating through about 165, but nothing too early.

Thirdly, when we are very heavy, then we move another 10 knots faster on the flap/speed schedule. That means gear comes down when passing 180kt. This leads to the whole approach typically being flown gear down once a deceleration is asked for.

Overall my vote would be for 170/5d. Don't know how the buses would cope with that, but the 737 would be ok.

Coming back to the 1000' point. We have to 'adjust' to be stable by 1000' radio altitude, not a height of 1000'. At LHR this isn't an issue, but try LGW 08, or GLA (both ends), ABZ 16 then you have to correct a little.

Anyhow, enough rambling...Fri night, time for something a little different...