Flying slowly? PLEASE tell us!!!

[atco-matic]

Please please guys, if you have an operational requirement to fly below a certain speed then tell ATC when you call on frequency!!!

Reason I ask is that we ATCO's are not mind readers, and the flight plan usually doesn't tell us!! More and more now, we are having to sequence aircraft at intermediate levels for the next controller, especially if inbound to Luton or Stansted. Having done the job for quite a while now, I know approximately how fast a 737 usually flies, and it's not very helpful when you have formulated a plan in your head to find out that the aircraft you vectored to be number one is then unable to maintain 300kts or more with 3 others up his chuff!!!!

I know there was a thing about 737NGs flying at 270kts when de-iced or something, and -credit to those crews- you did mostly tell us, but I'm talking more about crews flying slowly so they don't get to the gate before the ground staff. Please tell me if you want to fly at 250kts in descent in a 747, don't just do it and hope I won't notice!!!

[alterego]

Does this mean we are expected to fly fast appraoches each time?

Surely 250 below FL100 and then 210 within 15Nm, reducing to stabilise the approach should be planned. SAFETY first (not high speed to keep low cost carriers going).

I know we must all work together but this tends to legalise the hooligan element!

[FL245]

we ATCO's are not mind readers

atco-matic,

Neither are we, when you are told to keep high speed, and as soon as you change freq the next controller says 'speed 160 to the marker'

I sometimes think that you controllers dont speak to each other !

[atco-matic]

Ok all, maybe I should have said that I'm not an approach controller (although I did say intermediate levels), i'm more bothered about you lot who fly at 250kts during the descent from crusing level to FL150-ish without telling me.

I accept that safety has to come first, and in that context its not very safe to not tell me your 747 is flying at 250kts when I'm expecting it to be doing 310kts, so that the RJ100 behind you thats flying at the normal 290kts gets a nice view of your rear end.

[pilotwolf]

Slightly off topic but as someone mentioned low cost carriers....

Is there a taxi speed limit - other than the POH or company SOPs?

I have noticed that certain (!) airlines taxi at considerably higher speeds than the larger carriers such as BA and VA... does this cause GMC any problems with estimating crossing priorities and give way to... ?

Yes, before anyone says it, I know it is difficult to judge speeds but it is easy to see that certain airlines taxi considerably faster than others! :p

[737man]

In my airline we usually leave the 250/10000 in the FMC at busy times but at off peak periods we will ask you if you wish us to follow standard speeds and then adjust the profile accordingly. As far as I know none of our pilots fly high speed below 10,000 OR low speed above without telling you.

[atco-matic]

Thank you 737man, but as I previously said, I am talking about crews flying 250kts on airways when I would expect them to be flying faster- nothing to do with speed limits, approach charts or anything below 10,000ft.
It's just that I got hammered recently and in the midst of 10 aircraft that all arrived on frquency in a nice big bunch was a 747 dawdling along at 250kts -unbeknown to me- and it took a 45 degree turn to prevent separation being lost with the following BAe 146 which was obscured on the radar by other traffic above.

I'm not one for imposing unecessary speed restrictions as I know that the next controller may have a different plan, so I left the 747 to do it's own thing thinking it would be flying at 300kts plus, as 747s usually do. Had I known that said 747 was actually flying slower than usual, I wouldn't have come close to filling in paperwork.

:eek:

I know you guys have lots to do during descent, but please try and inform us if you're doing anything nonstandard.


BRING BACK FAM FLIGHTS!!!!

[Goforfun]

"so that the RJ100 behind you thats flying at the normal 290kts" I didn't know a RJ100 could!

I realise your talking about upper sector work- but arriving into STN the other night we where told to keep 300kts or greater all the way down- change over to essex radar- back to 220kts and take a tour of essex. Surely it would be better to slow us up earlier and waste less fuel?

[eastern wiseguy]

Strange I should find this thread......I was going to post something similar myself.Tonight I had 2 aircraft from the same company fly two aircraft in totally different ways.Number one slowed right down "there is a 40 knot headwind here!" Number 2,6 miles behind and catching quickly seemed to be unaffected by the headwind!.Puzzled radar controller:confused:.
Do you guys have different rules regarding intermediate approach speeds?
Do you have an SOP regarding WHEN you slow down(except for below FL 100)? .
I ask because as my oppo Atco matic has said we no longer have the benefit of Fam Flights and I have never had the benefit of observing what Go's on! Easy to see what I mean huh?.As an ATCO of quite a few years I am finding it more and more difficult (in the approach environment ) to work out what is a reasonable distance to put between aircraft(I dislike having to use speed control as I prefer the aircraft to fly it's own MOST economical profile) if one flys 75/80 knots faster than the same type ahead. As it turned out the second aircraft had to be given a few extra track miles...no big deal but every little helps.

[wingattack]

Our Company SOP is to fly at the FMS generated speed unless there is a good reason not to. However on a short route (eg MAN-LHR) filed at say FL190, The FMS Cruise speed will be high, about 325 KIAS. At Top of Drop the new descent speed can drop to around 275 KIAS resulting in Cream Tea in the seat pocket and controller head-scratching.

So, the MAN flight going through 'BNN25, 150 or below' will be at 275 KIAS whereas the EDI flight, same type etc., will be doing about 310 KIAS. There used to be a memo out a few years ago on the 737 fleet about manually changing the FMS generated DES speed to be the same as the CRZ speed when flying a low-level route, but I don't think this has filtered through to the A320 yet.

Pilotwolf: 30 KTS straight, 20 in the bends. V. accurate speedo on board derived from FMS!

[Raw Data]

Don't you have those predictive vector thingies that show you clearly who is doing what? I saw these on a video of a Scottish radar screen presentation after I complained about being punted out of the way to allow a 737 70 miles behind to get to the runway first (but that is another story!)

Many pilots do not necessarily fly at a "standard" speed on descent, nor are they required to; believe it or not most airlines still allow captains some discretion when it comes to slowing down a bit. Possible reasons could include:

Technical problems
Pressurisation difficulties
Turbulence
Cabin crew struggling to get cleared up
Holding ahead (or rumours thereof)
The perils of arriving early (ie no gate, or ramp staff)

As none of the above are emergencies (or even urgent), the current trend to eliminate unnecessary RT may well be why you don't hear more (frustrating as that is for you, I guess).

I kind of thought that they taught controllers to exercise judgement, and I would have thought that part of that included not assuming anything such as descent speeds, but WTFDIK...

If not, maybe we shouild just use TCAS and save a fortune on your salaries... ;) :D :D

[eastern wiseguy]

RD ....INDEED wthfd you know....I have prediction vectors and I use them ...they tell me a lot BUT the final arbiter in all of this is ME ..MY airspace and I will run as I see fit(although making a 737 70 miles astern of you number 1 does seem a bit rich!and to be honest I am sitting here thinking about relative speeds and catchup and wondering where on earth that happened.....the distances involved must have been either a/ huge or b/ you were in an extremely SLOW aircraft .The 146 isn't that bad is it?:) ).My judgement ,when I have aircraft approaching the same place at the same time is what determines the order.Surely it is not unreasonable to expect two aircraft flown to the same airport(obviously this is the approach phase when everyone is down at similar levels) by the same company to have a SIMILAR profile?thus assisting in my decision processes. I take on board the possible reasons for it but a little prior warning would help and it is not THAT much extra r/t. However thank you RD,patronising as ever,you imply that my job is so simple ...should we have standard speeds below FL100 and subject to that,long lazy vectors around the sky to acheive the required spacing? :( or can we show a little APPRECIATION of the problems we both face and run the system to all the customers advantage?

BRING BACK FAM FLIGHTS!!

[gjp]

Interesting topic - maybe I am slightly off the subject but have a question for ATC's...

When told to maintain a speed of say 300 ias by a contoller then handed over to the next centre - do you continue with the 300 ias (ie does the next ATC know if the previous controller has imposed a speed restriction?)

In practice I have maintained the speed and requested a slow down but have wondered whether it is necessary..

Tks

[Dibble&Grub]

Well if I had my way (or airline) - but either is relatively unlikely :

I would have a annual requirement for all pilots to spend at least a day/night shift in the tower / approach (radar) rooms and for all ATC Officers to take at least a double sector on the JS.

Not a big deal in cost terms, but it would pay real dividends in so many ways.

DG

[737man]

D and Gr
I agree with you-- it should be mandatory. In NZ (I'm now in the UK) we did just that and I think the benefits outweighed any effort spent. I think another factor that I have noted here is that of newbies to jet aircraft-- often very concerned about getting high and fast . I often observe these people slowing VERY early in the decent without good reason. All that is needed is a bit of training and as you say- a bit of thought about what is going on at your end of the operation! This sort of forum can help a lot although spoilt by the patronising attitude of some pilots !

[kriskross]

D and Gr and 737man, I quite agree with you that it does people good to see what happens on the other side of the radar screen, and even my 'low cost' company has done this with pilot visits to our local friendly ATC unit. Unfortunately, we are now unable to reciprocate in the current security scene as no-one, and I mean no-one is allowed on the jump seat apart from operating crew. Not positioning crew, company people on standby, or even the Captains family.

In my Company, we like to fly FMC econ speeds. Unfortunately in the NG this can give a speed of 263kts, so we have a standard descent speed for busy airfields of 280 kts.

Our Company procedures forbid us to exceed 250kts below F100, unless specifically requested by ATC. I think, possibly, this 300kts business is more a case of people wanting to get home a couple of minutes earlier - but then I could be wrong!!! There are an awful lot of different types and I doubt an ATR could match a 747 even in the descent at econ speeds.

[scottydog]

Atco-matic, thanks for your perspective on this. As it is a couple of years since I flew a 747, then please treat with caution. However as I'm sure you are aware , A large airline operating 747's from LHR is very sensitive about having it's A/C arrive as close to schedule as possible to make ground handling as efficent as poss.The company exerts considerable pressure on those who disobey. Therefore having operated the said 747 all the way from the other side of world, trying to get efficent FL, headwinds, etc, to fly 300 kts in descent as opposed to 250 makes a marginal diff on arrival time. As the cost index in FMC calculates a descent speed of 250-260 knots, then that is normal to us!! We fly it without problems during early morning arrivals, of course the sector is quiter then! Part of the problem lies in the fact that many longhaul crews only do the arrival into LHR twice a month. However on many an occasion, we have elected to descend at 290-300 kts as " it causes problems for ATC" We are keen to assist as much as we can, so just ask us what speed we will be flying and if poss WE WILL COMPLY.

AS a background to this , due to rising fuel costs we are using lower cost indexes(?) or indices(?) which has greatest impact on decent speeds, ie 250 knots!

Hope that helps, as we try to be on the same side!!

As regards fam flights, I'm all in favour and recently(last summer) took a trainee atco from scottish to warsaw on my shiny airbus. We both learnt a lot, not least how close a 747 looks whilst crossing in RVSM at 1000'!!!

Flying shuttle trips this week and will try my best to get the correct speed for each sector!! However I suspect That I shall fail miserably:D

[javelin]

Had to take a Gert Big Bus down to LGW a couple of months ago. Problem was it was about 4 tonnes overweight due to it coming out of maintenance after a fuel leak. The grown ups wanted to defuel it until we explained it would take longer, cost more etc etc. Considered dumping it but thought someone might notice and dob me in and we couldn't be arsssed to organise a dump area route. So we went up to 190 and dirtied and blew the fuel out the tailpipe. Now to the point - I had told ATC what we were doing and why we were at 180kts. One sector failed to tell the next sector south of HON............ The Shamrock RJ came past us quite quickly, I was mildly impressed :D

[Raw Data]

eastern wiseguy

Pity you take that view, that wasn't what I meant at all. I have some good friends who are ATCOs and I appreciate the job they do (and a difficult one it is).

However... I frequently see the same lack of communication from the ATC side. I have lost count of the number of times I have been given a radar vector and told to report it to the next sector, only to be immediately cleared to an eight mile centre fix, or sent off on a completely different heading. Or told by one sector to slow down, and told by the next "no speed". Or told to expedite a climb or descent, but never told when there is no further need for it... etc etc.

I realise there are operational considerations and can guess at what they might be, but all the same, a word of explanation would help us to appreciate the bigger picture- and, to be fair, some ATCOs are fabulously good at doing this.

Another small annoyance you might want to think about, is the way some ATCOs get so very impatient if I don't answer their call the very next second. Believe it or not, we can get busy and if I don't respond immediately, it is probably because something more pressing is occupying my attention- so don't get snotty with me!

And finally... the "final arbiter in all this" is NOT you. the final responsibility for the safety of the flight rests with the aircraft commander, and I will (and have) refuse a clearance if it appears to me to be unsound. You may think pilots patronising, but never forget that we place our lives, and those of our passengers, in you hands... if you screw up, we die, but you get to go home and see it on the news. I expect a little licence to question your methodology for that.

Can we all be friends now?

[eastern wiseguy]

Raw Data wrote

And finally... the "final arbiter in all this" is NOT you. the final responsibility for the safety of the flight rests with the aircraft commander,

of course it is .....my point related to how I managed my airspace..I thought that was clear.I agree there must be times when you are told to do one thing and the next voice tells you something completely different.That frustrates me too(and I suppose I am equally guilty),although telling a guy your heading is hardly a big deal if he susequently changes it to something which fits HIS plans. In my capacity as an approach controller I find my area colleagues attempting to "assist" me by making inbound aircraft fly at inappropriate(for me ) speeds when the first thing I do is lift the speed restriction.That may confuse you guys up there but it is simply a matter of me being able to use a spacing of three miles whilst the area guy is obliged to maintain,for example ten miles. All I ask for here is a little bit of communication...if you want to fly faster ..fine...you may have to take a few more track miles ....if you can fly slower I may well be able to tighten the sequence and if it is all done properly then everyone has the satisfaction of using the system to its' maximum potential.Every little helps no?
All chums again :D

[eyeinthesky]

It's very difficult o give trite answers to large subjects, but the common theme is COMMUNICATION. You tell us what you want, and we'll do the same, and we'll meet somewhere in the middle.

To answer a few specific points raised so far:

1) If you are told to maintain a specific speed, e.g. 300 kts, then you maintain that and report it to the next controller. If you are told "Not more than 300 kts etc" then you are expected to comply with any published speed restriction points or levels (e.g. 250kts at CLN on th ABBOT arrival or 250kts below FL100) unless the next controller cancels those. Seems pretty simple.

2) As has been vociferously but impolitely put by Eastern Wiseguy, we have to sort out the traffic as best we can in our own airspace, comply with standing agreements and coordination, and try and anticipate what the next guy will want. Sometimes, because of the narrowness of airspace and lack of levels, we have to use speed control to get you all through the gap, only for that speed control to be unnecessary thereafter. An example of this is again the ABBOT arrival for SS/GW. We have one place, LOGAN, and one level, FL180, through which we can point you at the next sector. If 3 of you arrive together, we have to use vectors and speed control to achieve 5 miles (minimum) in trail at the same level. That might mean the front one is asked to do 300 or more, the second 290 and the third 290 or less. Having achieved that trail, it may well be that the approach controller decides to reduce you to 220kts for a straight in or to reduce holding times. If we had not got you in trail he would not be able to do that, and you would have to go into the sector high and hold at Abbot to lose height. One we have got you all sorted at the same level and in trail, it is a RELATIVELY simple job to vary that speed, and you should not find it strange.

3) The same is true of being put over on a heading, only to be sent direct by the next guy. This may be because we have needed you on a heading and have taken you away from your standard route. It is sometimes difficult to second guess where the next guy will send you (it might be just the next fix on route or it might be 5 further on), so it is easiest to transfer you on the heading and let him decide.

The nub of the problem is that we have a choice between doing everything standard (no shortcuts, no high speed descents, no change of level from that filed in your plan (EasyJet please note!!) etc), or we can try and work to help you. The first will mean that there is no need for us to communicate variations to the next controller, but you might find it a little restrictive. It is in most ATCOs nature, however, to be flexible, and we will vary what we do to suit the conditions and try to fit in with you. We do not have time to ring up and coordinate every single variation, so it is approved practice for us to get you to tell the next guy what we told you. Seems reasonable.
By the way, I have lost count of the number of times I have had traffic about to exit the sector which requests a change of level. To achieve this will mean a phone call to the next sector to get their agreement to the new level. This delays your change of level. Far easier to transmit the following:
"Make that request with XXX on YYY.YYY, and inform them that you are released for climb/descent by this sector".
9 time out of 10 this is read back by the aircraft, only for the phone to ring 2 mins later from the next sector asking if the traffic is released for climb/descent. Who's not communicating now?

Back to the original question:

Yes please do tell us if the great Boeing design means that you can't exceed 270kts because of a lack of drain holes or whatever, or if company arrival restrictions mean you are descending your 747 from the Far East at 250kts instead of 300 kts. Likewise, if you have an 0601 restriction at LL, tell us BEFORE we send you direct to LAM and you then have to hold for 20 mins. Stay on the route and lose time that way.

Finally: BRING BACK FAM FLIGHTS!!

[Raw Data]

eyeinthesky

Yep, all fair enough, as you say- communication. If you tell us why you do stuff (as some do), we can understand the restriction better.

BTW I think that sometimes, the new sector doesn't believe me when I tell him/her that the previous sector has released me for climb/descent, judging by the length of time it takes to get the clearance (roughly the same time as a quick phone call to the previous sector...)

So now we can talk about trust as well as communication... ;)

[eyeinthesky]

I am one of the few who passes on such info over the R/T, and I get stick for it. For example, I will pass traffic info if I think you might want something to look at or if I have had to put on what you might think is an onerous restriction due to traffic. If, after such a restriction, you see another aircraft which I have pointed out whizzing across your nose 1000ft above or below, I hope that will help in your appreciation of the bigger picture. But as I say, I am in the minority. Most take the view: "IFR separation, no need to pass traffic" and of course ultimately they are right. But it does little to expand our mutual understanding.

Another thing while we are talking about trust and communication:

Be a pilot, not a computer operator.

Two examples:

1) Traffic at FL380 for LL. "London, XXX request descent" So you amend your plan to fit that request in. Then they sit there for another 15nm before descending, screwing up the amended plan. I know that what is happening is that the autopilot prompts you to reset level in MCP or something 15 miles before TOD, and then it follows the VNAV profile. But a little piloting appreciation will show that if you ask for descent we expect you to descend now.

2) Heard on N866 the other day:
"Jersey, XXX request descent" (probably prompted by the same event as above).
"XXX, company traffic opposite direction 1000ft below, descent in 10 miles"
"Roger, we have him on TCAS".

Not transmitted, but I and others immediately think: "Well why the **** did you ask, then?".:rolleyes:

[Right Way Up]

The main reason for slow speed descents is the lowering of the cost index in the FMC. As someone else pointed out the 737NG gives roughly 260 kts in the descent( Although we up it to 280). Previously when I flew the 747-400 it used to give us 250 kts, which we upped to 300kts.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

All this cost index stuff makes me laugh.

Do the bean counters realise that if a certain aircraft type is always slower than its counterparts on its arrival, and the controllers are forever pulling everybody else back to stay behind this type, it won't be long before that aircraft type is "saving" money flying round in circles watching all the real aeroplanes fly past while he waits for a slot.

If you can't play with the big boys, controllers quickly get impatient and throw you out of the sandpit, and you'll sit on the sidelines with all the sad Dash-8's and BA146's.

[vegas_jonny]

Correct me if I'm wrong (sure someone will) but flight plan speeds relate to cruise speeds and are transmitted as TAS. There is no such thing as a flight plan speed for the descent. So what's a slow speed? When do you want us to tell you? Having flown three different boeing twins so far in my career, each one has a diffrent econ descent speed. Until there is a dictat that 300kts (for example) is a mandatory speed, then its up to the commanders choice on the day. Subject of course to ATC decreeing otherwise.

[radar707]

From an approach controller perspective:

1. I'll apply a speed restriction IF and only IF I need you to fly at that speed for separation purposes.

2. I may lift a speed restriction imposed by a previous sector because I don't need you to fly at 220kts, you can fly at whatever speed you like (is most economical)

3. I need to SEPARATE you from other traffic, so when you do SLOW down, TELL me (my predict vectors only work when I have them switched on)

4. If I tell you to descend, then DESCEND, don't hang about, if I want you to take your time I'll say WHEN READY

5. If I ask you to keep high speed, let me know if you can't (My thanks to all ATP pilots out there who fly into EGPF who do 230kts to 4dme when asked)

6. Come and see how it works at our side, we can all learn from each others experiences)

7. Do any of you know the legal speed limit for class E airspace?

8. Bring back FAM FLIGHTS

Finally I AM the final arbiter about what happens in the airspace I CONTROL, the captain is the final arbiter regarding the SAFETY of his aircraft. I would certainly hope that if a pilot thought that an instruction I had given was unsafe then (s)he would question it.

We all have ine aim, that is to get the a/c and pax to destination as safely as possible.

We operate on thre principles:

Safe, Orderly and Expeditious

In that ORDER.

[HugMonster]

Sorry, radar707, but you're not the final arbiter about what happens in your airspace.

If you issue an instruction that an aircraft cannot comply with or which the aircraft commander considers unsafe, you can order him until you're blue in the face and it won't make any difference.

You are also not in control if we suffer a comms failure or almost any emergency.

I know that it's not written in MATS, but a pilot's priorities are:- Aviate Navigate Communicateso talking to you is rather low on the list of priorities. Furthermore, the manner in which we carry out a flight is Safely Legally ExpeditiouslyPerhaps it's time that your priorities and ours reflected the same requirements?

To put the point brutally, if I have a problem I'll be telling you what I want from you and what I intend to do. I will not be making a request. You don't get a choice.

Sorry - but that's how it is. You are there to provide us with a service. Aircraft can still (and frequently do) fly without the aid of controllers.

COntrollers would not have much to do without aircraft.

The rest of your points well made. Like you, I regret the current lack of ability to familiarise ourselves with operations on the other's side of the airwaves.

[eyeinthesky]

vegas jonny:

As Area controllers, we get used to the general principle that, all things being equal, jets tend to descend at a mach no until the IAS becomes the governing principle, and then they will descend at around 300kts until other speed restrictions take effect. There are variations within that (RYR 737-800s which have not been de-iced seem to hurtle around at 320 kts+!) but that is what we assume. If you vary that by a lot, while you do not have to tell us, the assumptions we make concerning your position relative to other traffic might prove awry and the point of the first post was to highlight this to you.

From your side, I squirm with embarrassment when I hear some of my colleagues asking traffic at FL300+ its IAS and then restricting it to that relatively low figure (260kts-) all the way down, along with everybody else behind. It shows a singular lack of appreciation of aircraft performance.

Regrettably, however, that is the way things are going these days. To keep costs down we are only training to the minimum standard, and peripheral knowledge is seen as unnecessary. How many times do you see questions posted on PPrune asking: "What is the answer to this question from the ATPL question bank?"? Rather than "Who can help me understand this subject?".:rolleyes:

[radar707]

Hugmonster, I appreciate the point you are making and agree that a pilot commanding an aircraft in an emergency will do what he wants to do, and I shall do everything in my power to assist him.

However, if pilots routinely ignored ignored instructions from controllers in controlled airspace because they thought it wasn't safe, then anarchy would reign supreme. Pilots don't always have the whole picture with regards to what is going on around them. TCAS separation is not a legal separation standard,

I know what is going on in the airspace I CONTROL.

[Captain Stable]

I don't think anyone has suggested that it is acceptable for pilots to ignore instructions they consider unsafe.

The only acceptable response is "Unable to comply due..."

For the rest of it, my understanding has always been that ATC are there to facilitate the safe conclusion of the flight. They provide a service, but when the chips are down, whether flying in the London TMA or anywhere else, the FINAL arbiter of what goes on is the aircraft captain.

[Captain Cautious]

An enlightening thread.
As has already been mentioned the root of this problem is communication, and at least we are doing that here!
The original post seemed to point a finger at a/c arriving into LTN and STN, and in particular the B737. Well that's my patch so I'm listening up! I here the gripes from ATC here, I'll take note and pass some of these comments on to my colleagues.
I think the point has already been made that there is no such thing as a standard speed in the descent above FL100. There is great variation between company SOPs, a/c types and cost indices flown. So the assumption that everyone is flying at 300kts is ill-founded. If you have a 747 at 250kts and a 737 at 320kts catching him, can you not tell from the vector on your screen? If you need them to alter speed either up or down, just ask. After all, you are in control of your bit of the sky! If he is unable to do so he should tell you.
Alternatively, we could report our speed to each new sector, but I think you'd agree that would be rather over-the-top!

Regarding the intermediate approach phase, there is an increasing amount of standardisation here. 210kts initial vectors, 180kt final vectors and 160kts to 4nm on the glide, or something similar. However, I believe a 747 is almost falling from the sky at 160kts, whilst my little 737 requires some swift deceleration to be stable by 1000' agl,(Company SOP), and can prove impossible. But again communication is the key.

ATC fam. flights would be great, but as KRISKROSS says, in our company nobody enters the flightdeck anymore except for the operating crew. I read another thread on Prunne recently that spoke of a DfT / CAA ruling banning non-crew from the flightdeck. Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of this ruling?