Calling all B777-300 pilots flying into Heathrow

[Jerricho]

Hey guys,

Not 100% sure if this is the best place for this, but I guess more of y'all probably check this Forum than the ATC. And if it gets moved, I tried.

A question about the B777-300's (mainly the Emerates guys, but if more and more start turning up, this may be on other ATCO's minds, so please ANY input will be appreciated) coming into Heathrow. After discussions between myself and co-workers, as well as Instructions from NATS "Powers that be", I feel there is a little confusion as to what you drivers would like from us with regards to speed control.

We have been briefed to expect 777's maintain a higher speed inside 4 miles from touchdown and make allowances for this (especially if following a 757!). However, the confusion lies in what sort of speeds you guys are comfortable with at a late downwind/base leg position. I have had more than one occasion where slowing one from 230kts to 180 (A/c passing about 5000ft, just before a base leg turn to allow for wind), and been informed with a "We are a 777-300" and left to wonder exactly why my instruction has got this reply (and without the time to ask!!!).

Also, as I mentioned, we understand the speed thing on final approach inside 4 miles, but at what distance out would a request of 160kts till 4 DME cause problems (eg 5/6 a/c on final approach all back at 160kts and the 777 at the back!).

Any suggestions would be more than appreciated, and will be passed on to others at EGLL Approach.

Thanks in advance,
J

[Warped Factor]

Wasn't there an instruction out that said ATC should apply....

230kts downwind

190kts base leg

170kts on final

....as the "standard" speeds for the 777-300?

If you were using 180 and 160 that might explain the "we're a 777-300" comment.

WF.

[Jerricho]

Well, that's what I thought as well, but I got caught out today (not heaping sh*t here...just trying to get an understanding!) by one who was assigned 190kts base, turned onto final about 12 miles out and had slowed himself to 160kts without being asked. Almost got a little tight for the A319 following behind at what I thought was a slower speed. (We won't go into the old "Slowing up without an instruction argument"..once again, not here to heap it!)

I remember the SI going out for the "standard" speeds, yet have seen pilots happily accept 180/160 kts as before. I always try and allow as fast as possible, but sometimes for what ever reason (too many a/c off the stacks when landing on 09...very easliy done) different speeds may need to be applied.

Just looking for drivers points of view as to why sometimes yes and othertimes no.......

[Point Seven]

J

Sounds like another typical day for you, my old mucker.;) ;)

P7

[Reverend Doctor Doug]

Jerricho,

My guess goes something like this.

EK 777's routinely fly to Heathrow at Max zero fuel weight, which in turn means they will be landing close to max landing weight. This gives a Vref of around 145-148 knots. Clean speed is then around 225-228, so when you ask for 220 kts, some guys take the flap and slow, others stay clean and settle for the extra 5-8 kts and some guys point out that they are a 777-300 and ask if 228 is OK.

Next step is when you ask for 180. At flap 5, which is the preferred congiguration at this point, the min speed for the -300 would then be somewhere between 185 and 188 kts, so all the above happens again. (The aircraft has the capability of using flap 15 which would be a nice compromise between drag and speed, but the company does not allow us to use this flap setting on approach).

On final, when you guys ask for 160 kts until 4 miles, the preferred configuration would be flap 20, giving a min speed of 165-168kts, so it would not be possible to slow to 160 without taking full flap. If full flap (flap 30 ) is taken, then the speed would reduce to Vapp which will be 150-153 kts.

Your confusion is understandable and will be further compounded by the odd occasion that the aircraft are well below max landing weght, which would allow them to comply with the standard speeds, no questions asked.

I would like to throw the question back to you. Does it cause you guys a problem if you ask for 220 and we give you 228 and when you ask for 160 on final, will 170 compromise the distance from the preceeding aircraft?

The way i see it, the problems we face in the aircraft (having to use more flap than is optimal, which in turn uses more fuel) could be relieved by giving -300 operators the instructions to slow down, at a position slightly earlier than the preceeding aircraft . That will mean the -300 slows down earlier which will increase the distance between preceeding aircraft, but can maintain a slightly higher speed which will close the gap again.

Personally i tend to fly at the optimum flap settings and accept the slightly higher speeds because it seems to me that due to the patterns that we fly into Heathrow, you guys (atc) always have the flexibility to extend downwind slightly if spacing is becoming a problem. Once on final however that option is not available and the speeds need to be followed by everyone, not just the -300's.

Could another solution could be for the -300 operators to pass their approach or Vref speed when they check in with approach or director, that way you will know exactly what speeds you can expect.

Cheers
The Rev

[410]

I would have to concur with 99% of what the Reverend Doug says except that, knowing how tight the spacing between incoming flights can get at LHR, I fly the speeds I'm asked to fly, to the knot – (or at least Mr Boeing does at my command).

When I'm asked for 220K, I ask "would 230 be OK?" and invariably ATC says it is. (It's part of my descent briefing to the FO to ask for this when we are told to reduce to 220.) This allows me to stay clean until the final curl of the "S" from Lambourne onto finals, probably saving 200 to 300kg into the bargain, (which, believe it or not, can sometimes matter). Like just about every other type, once the flaps go out, the fuel flows really go up on the 777. (We’ve tried to have the fact that LHR ATC are happy to oblige in allowing aircraft to maintain min clean speed until the turn onto finals into the company Route Manual notes for Heathrow about five years ago, but the suggestion is still “with the editors”. This is why some will accept the 220K while others will ask for the higher speed.)

As Rev Doug says, the 180K during the final "S" onto finals is about 10K slower than ideal for a 77-3 at MLW, (which, at least pre-SARS, EK 777’s almost invariably are going into LHR), but it’s not really a problem, as we can see that on finals, the controller has lost much of the flexibility the "S" turn gives him in organising spacing, so personally, I find no problem taking the extra stage of flap that little bit earlier.

The 160K request comes far earlier than is ideal, but, ever mindful of the Big Picture (as we all are), it’s no real problem to comply. At MLW, a 77-3 can only achieve 160k by taking final flap, which means dropping the gear, which most of us would like to delay taking until around 1700’agl, or about 5 miles, (although the more conservative would take it earlier, at around 9 or 10 miles). This would make the punters on the ground a lot happier, (as the noise levels stay a lot lower for longer), and the accountants equally happy, as the fuel flows stay a lot lower for longer.

So, if you wanted to make everyone happier, you could consider stretching the spacing between a 77-3 and the preceding aircraft to allow the 77-3 to maintain 170K to 5 miles rather than 160K, (although, this being Aviation, you’d undoubtedly get someone complaining about no being able to slow down to approach speed from 5 miles (!), so let’s err on the conservative to cover the bad weather situation and say “170K to 6 miles”).

Jerricho, if you’re finding that different EK 77 drivers aren’t consistent in reacting to your requests and this is making life more difficult for you than it already is, I’d suggest you spell out here exactly what you want to see and we’ll see that those in a position to pass the word on to all of us officially get to see this thread (if they haven’t seen it already).

This is what Pprune should be all about.

[Jerricho]

Thanks for taking the time on this one folks. Does clear quite a few things up.

About the speed on final, of late we have been getting requests from BA 737's for "170 kts till 4 miles" which 9 times out of 10 we can accommodate (if it is requested with the Intermediate Director, not the Final Dir. Nothing worse than turning something onto final and being told "We are goning to be quick inside 4 DME"!) Some drivers do give us a heads up of "Were going to be fast inside 4 miles" which can really help (going back to the 777 behind a 757 or B146). And 230kts from the stacks is no problem at all, or even 190kts base leg. I'll definately be keeping in mind the 170kts on final approach, but it nice to know what can be asked of you guys in certain situations (Point Seven - BITE ME! *wink*) without making things uncomfortable.

And Rev Doug, about the speed thing, if for whatever reason you have been assigned 220kts/180kts, and you would like a little faster, feel free to ask (As I said, if possible with the Int Dir, loads going on on Fin). But on final approach, if assigned 160kts for what ever reason, an unexpected 170kts can make a difference. I know it's only 10kts difference, but especially with certain wind gradients, it can make a difference in really tight spacing situations. But it's nice to now know what's happening your side of things.

The next point of discussion could be "What happens when A380's start blatting about"?

Thanks again folks.

[Evil J]

Well said Flat Spin-I was starting to think PPRUNE had lost its way but some good threads recently have restored my faith!! Not thread hi-jacking honest!!

[eltel]

Praise be for sensible, resonable, logical posts without signs of mega-egos (even from 411) all of which enhance flight safety.:D

For 411 read 410:O

Apologies 410!!!!!!!

Apologies 410!!!!!!!

[411A]

The ATC controllers job at LHR (or anywhere else) is to fit in as many aircraft as possible, and not compromise safety (read aircraft separation).
A very basic fact.
The aeroplane pilots job is to follow the ATC controllers instructions, so said aircraft separation is not compromised.
Another basic fact.

To expect the controller to 'know' just which aircraft is light/heavy (and therefore the 'ideal' speed for same) is complete nonsense.

A suggestion for a few, who seem to think that 'they' are the only aircraft in the sky, and all ATC procedures should be structured for 'them'.... do as the ATC tells you to, and stop complaining.

IE; leave the guy alone to do the job for which he is properly trained and certificated.

[Danny]

411A, you are given a lot of slack here on PPRuNe but your last post was nothing but a petty attempt to stir up more resentment. Your point was lost because if you had read the post properly, the originator was an air traffic controller trying to clarify something which is not consistent for various reasons.

Unfortunately, this time you have shown that your comprehension about the operation of some more modern jet types is not within your realm of 'expertese' and I amongst many others would be grateful if you stopped trying to plug your own brand of CRM at every opportunity. There are times when it is better to be thought a fool rather than opening your mouth (or typing something) and removing all doubt! :ouch:

Which bit of "Calling all B777-300 pilots" didn't you understand?

[luke77]

:O

A constructive point I would like to make!

I believe that aircraft are allowed 10 kts either side of the instructed ATC speed? If one`s situational awareness from TCAS ETC is clear , then a few knots from the exact instructed speed for SOPs should be fine without asking on the busy frequency.

Though, if in doubt...ask if your preferred speed is OK.

[411A]

Sorry Danny, don't agree.

The ATC controllers job is hard enough without pilots complaining that speeds they are asked to fly for safety and maximazation of runway capacity are unreasonable.

Imagine flying into JFK for example, do you honestly think that any US air traffic controller would put up with pilots, when asked to fly a specific speed, would reply..."we're a 777-300" and nothing else?

If Heathrow controllers can put up with this nonsense, my hat is off to them. They do a good job certainly...why make it any more difficult?

If certain ME airlines desire to tanker fuel to the UK (have done so personally) and as a result have heavy landing weights (and higher maneuvering speeds) then they should plan to blend in with the other traffic, not cause problems for/with ATC controllers.

[Over+Out]

I am an operational TC Controller and I agree with the good OLD Heathrow Director!!. If we say a speed we mean that speed, not plus or minus 10 knots. If this speed is not OK for the aircraft, please say so, so that we can change our plan. When we have Mode 'S' on the ground, we will be able to see the IAS from the FMS.

[Warped Factor]

luke77,

I believe that aircraft are allowed 10 kts either side of the instructed ATC speed? If one`s situational awareness from TCAS ETC is clear , then a few knots from the exact instructed speed for SOPs should be fine without asking on the busy frequency.

The +/-10kts allowance is incorrect.

Assigned speeds should be flown "as accurately as possible" says the UK AIP. Two aircraft on final, one deciding to fly 10kts slow and the one behind 10kts fast could be embarrasing for all concerned :uhoh:

The AIP info on speed control into Heathrow is here (http://195.217.206.162/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/ad/302LL01.PDF).

WF.

[Anthony Carn]

I'm not a 777 pilot, but I've operated in/out of Heathrow for a couple of decades. I hope that my comments are allowed ! :rolleyes:

From day one I was told that accurate speed control (on pretty basic kit then) was absolutely essential. Achieving this with the current equipment is simple. If flap is required, then lower some flap ! There's no excuse for this "plus or minus 10 kts" rumour either.

The LHR controllers are truly amazing, even allowing for the fact that they're "specialists". Lets not push it too far, despite their willingness.

If weight considerations mean that a required speed, most probably the "160 kt to 4d", is not possible, then that obviously cannot be avoided, but the obvious course of action there is to tell a controller well beforehand. If you're prevented from complying because of "Company regulations" then the Company, not LHR ATC, needs to change it's ways !

Two questions for 777 pilots -

[1] -- How much extra fuel is burnt, at (to be pessimistic) max landing weight, if flap is lowered to comply with the standard speeds (as achieved by everyone else) ?

[2] -- What is this burn as a percentage of typical total burn ?

[Few Cloudy]

Reading the posts above, if seems that Mr Boeing has constructed a flap setting which would allow the 777 to fit in with ATC requests - 15deg. - rather as the 737 has flap settings which are not often used.

They are useful in certain circumstances, however and if properly briefed, make sense. Maybe the company concerned should receive a copy of this thread - to highlight the problems.

[MTOW]

Here I am, doing something I promised myself I’d never do – answering one of 411’s posts. 411, this might be one case where it might have paid for you to have heeded Danny’s comment re your lack of exposure to modern aircraft. You say:If certain ME airlines desire to tanker fuel to the UK (have done so personally) and as a result have heavy landing weights (and higher maneuvering speeds) then they should plan to blend in with the other traffic, not cause problems for/with ATC controllers. To set you straight, the “certain ME airline” (and many other 777 operators) that you allude to don’t tanker fuel into LHR causing them to arrive there at MLW. It’s simply yet another glowing testament to the Boeing designers that the aircraft in question can arrive in LHR at MLW after a seven hour flight having departed with MZFW.

Believe me, we aren’t tankering any fuel to arrive at LHR within a tonne (and sometimes less) of MLW – quite the opposite – which is why I agree entirely with –410’s comment that saving 200 or 300 kg in the approach can matter. If holding has been required, (it’s more the exception when it’s not), it’s not uncommon to be within a few hundred kgs of min diversion fuel when commencing the approach – and still be just a tonne or two under MLW.

Anthony Carn, I appreciate your point that 200 kgs after a 60+ tonne uplift doesn’t seem very much, but this (see above) is why people are keen to save even an ‘insignificant’ few hundred kgs in the approach by delaying flaps for as long as they can. If the ‘S’ turn is a big one, as it frequently can be for approaches to 09, a 777-300 can burn as much as 1500kg between Lambourne and touchdown if you ‘dirty up’ early.

Heathrow standard procedures require each aircraft to state aircraft type to Director on first contact, so the incredibly efficient ATCOs are in the loop from the start as to what type they’re dealing with for each aircraft they handle, and for long haul aircraft at least, the 777 is getting very close to becoming the standard, with the -300 fast outnumbering its ‘light twin’ smaller brother, so it might be in everyone’s interest for the System to follow Jerrico’s excellent lead in attempting to come up with an optimum procedure that suits as many people as possible – (including ATC).

Could I add my endorsement that for this 777 pilot, 170K to 4 miles would be ideal in most cases, for all the same reasons 410 stated on page 1. But as I can see that this would add to the already very heavy workload of the ATCOs, 160K works. I can’t see why “certain 777 pilots” are saying they will be “a bit fast” within 4 miles, (unless it is to warn the ATCO that even at final approach speed right to touchdown, the 777-300 will still be doing around 154K).

This kind of thread id Pprune at its best. Let’s have more of it.

[Dr Dave]

> for long haul aircraft at least, the 777 is getting very close to
> becoming the standard, with the -300 fast outnumbering
> its ‘light twin’ smaller brother

Not sure that this is true though. Based on Boeing's own figures:

777-200 Orders: 86 Deliveries: 81
777-200ER Orders: 406 Deliveries: 304
777-200LR Orders: 5 Deliveries: 0
777-300 Orders: 65 Deliveries: 46
777-300ER Orders: 56 Deliveries: 0

Total Orders: 618
Total Deliveries: 431

%age 777-300 orders of total 777 orders: 19.5%
%age 777-300 deliveries of total 777 deliveries: 11.9%

Strikes me that the 777-300 still has a long way to go.

[Big Kahuna Burger]

Surely it’s not JUST about fuel burn on draggy arrivals...?

I think that we should bear in mind that the main aim of the Constant Descent Approaches into LHR, (which EVERYONE does - right) is to try and cause less noise in the London area.....?!(anybody got a link to CDA stats?)

PPRuNe can be a very useful medium by which to iron out little glitches such as type specific speed & configs, therefore lessening the occurrences of flap 20 gear down draggy/noisy approaches.

[Warped Factor]

BKB,

(anybody got a link to CDA stats?)

There are some very basic statistics on CDAs in this (http://www.aet.org.uk/dbank/airportreps/baa/heathrow/2003/lhr_noisestrategy.pdf) BAA doc.

For the night time period at Heathrow very detailed CDA stats are produced as ATC have certain compliance targets to meet and we (ATC) see these on a monthly basis.

Couldn't tell you if CDA performance/compliance is monitored during the day, but CDAs themselves are more difficult to achieve consistently during the day time period when the traffic levels are much higher. There can often be separation issues which preclude a good CDA being flown.

As for the detailed night time stats we see, I don't know if they are made available anywhere to a wider audience. But overall I think it is fair to say compliance is pretty good. There are also measures afoot that should make compliance even better in the not too distant future.

As for the speed issue, I think consistency of operation would best help me. So if all the 777-300 operators are happy with 230/190/170 all of the time that's fine, we can accomodate that with little or no problem or loss of capacity. It's when the operation is inconsistent, as has been highlighted, that there are more likely to be problems or queries from an ATC point of view.

WF.

[Tipple7]

As a 777-200 operator I can't see why the 300 would be better served by 170 kts to 4d - isn't the landing flap limit speed still 170 kts like previous variants - in which case isn't it a problem to slow down inside 4 miles?

As for the 200, Just to let you know that 170 to 4dme would be quite a problem for some of us who are required to have landing flap set by 900ft or the SESMA goes off = because the speed bleeds off sooooooo slowly from 160/170 (the '200 30 flap limit speed) to the final approach speed (about 135) , and this means that we end up being below 1000RA with the landing flap still running out and the power off - not good...office job <G>.

(between u, me and the gatepost we already have to cheat a little - depending on hwc we normally start the reduction to final at 5 miles - and it will take some 15 seconds before anything significant happens on the speed (= about a mile) so you wouldn't even notice it on the radar - I hope!)

[wilco77]

No dont worry jericho u just try and do what u have been doing before, just that these EK pilots thing they rule the airspace.
As the company gets bigger they think they are the only ones in the air, and only they can do what they feel like ignoring safetr and rules.

I have had many bad expeiences with EK. It use to be a well recognized company but now there are too many canadians and americans. They need to stay in their country and Lick George Bush's A_ _...
""""Oh I FORGOT THE AUSSIES TOO"""

[Jerricho]

Damn Aussies......

Seem to get everywhere these days. :D

[MTOW]

Triple7, Flap 30 speed on the -300 is 180k, (it needs to be, with approach speeds at MLW in excess of 150k), and few would disagree with your comments about how slippery your namesake can be and how slow it can be to decelerate, hence my comments that most of us feel we can continue to live with the 160k on finals restriction currently in place at LHR.

However, Jerrico’s question was addressed to 777-300 pilots operating into LHR, and (as were the other earlier posters), I was simply replying to it from that perspective. The ATCOs there do an incredible job in accommodating different types and all their many requirements, and if they’re willing to tweak the system that little bit more to accommodate the 777-300, all power to them. 170k to 4 or 5 miles would certainly make for far quieter approaches for the average -300.

Dr Dave, thanks for the stats on 777 sales. I probably should have said “the -300 will soon become the standard”, as I believe the bottom line it affords the beancounters will see it replace the Classic and the 747-400 to some degree on many routes over the next few years, particularly after the ER comes out, (and you seem to see an awful lot of ‘the few’ 300s in LHR as it is). In places like Heathrow, I can see the -200 one day becoming almost something of a curiosity – a modern day ‘Fat Albert’ among the far more plentiful -300s.

It’s also worth noting that, for EK, the Heathrow sectors are quite often operated by pilots under training, (some of them 200+ hour cadets). (Apart from the need to expose trainees with no previous European experience to Heathrow, for some obscure reason I’ve never been quite able to fathom, a 7.45am departure with a midnight return to base is apparently very popular with the training captains.) This may have some bearing on the less than uniform approach to the arrival by different pilots.

… as for the poster who followed you, I can only assume he thinks this is ‘Jetblast’. He seems to be a well-balanced individual, with a chip on each of his semiliterate shoulders. (“Too many Americans?” – one at last count, but it may be more by now.) There’s always going to be the odd prima donna making unreasonable demands of ATC, and I’m sure EK is no exception in having some in its pilot ranks, but I think 99% of any problems you may encounter could be traced to a trainee not coping as well with the busy environment as perhaps a more experienced pilot would.

[R. Cramden]

As someone previously stated, the only unusual thing about the -300 is the higher speed between 4 miles and the threshold. Before that I will fly any reasonable speed you like.

To deal with the higher speed on final and to keep go-arounds to a minimum I recommend more spacing between the -300 and the previous aircraft on final. 6 miles behind the previous aircraft at loc intercept would be appropriate. We will then close on the previous aircraft all the way in.

Rwy capacity can be mantained by spacing the next aircraft 4 miles behind the - 300 at intercept and we will open on them after 4 miles.

Personally, from 10 miles back I adjust speed to keep at least 4-5 miles behind til 4 dme or I know I risk a go around.

[Jerricho]

With all due respect RC, this will not work at our dinky little airport just off the M25 in London. With minimum spacing used on final approach to help you guys and the travelling public out of the holds (no-body likes going roundand round in the sky! "Look kids, Big Ben....Parliament!"), the objective here is to try and find the best way to achieve what we are trying to do, without asking unrealistic things from the Driver.


There are so many variables that can determine what gap between the -300 and the preceeding. And unfortunately, wake-turbulence separation minima shouldn't be used in the "pull-ahead" senario you suggest (5 miles for 737 behind MEANS 5 miles) We can descend the following on top of the wake to allow the gap to open out, but this can lead to a/c being above the glid-path inside 10 miles, and increases r/t loading (which has been discusses on the ATC Forum many, many times). This technique is used with Concorde, but as has been previously mentioned, if more and more 777's start turning up.........

The input from one and all has been great! Thanks again.

J

[flybystring]

Airline % CDA

Aer Lingus 90
Air India 32
Air Canada 78
American 68
British Mid 91
BA 86
Cathay 58
Emirates 39
Gulf Air 80
Japan 42
Malaysian 76
Qantas 69
Saudia 78
SIA 75
Virgin 85

An extract of some CDA percentages for LHR, our Company makes them available so we know how we are doing at keeping the noise down for those folks who live in London. Seems some operators have further to go than others !

[Dan Winterland]

Some telling stats there!

411A - your hat should go off to the ATC guys and gals at LHR. They are are the best big airport ATC outfit in my experience (not great - but I've been around a llittle bit!) The Americans who come over the pond must be very impressed with the cool calm collected way the traffic is handled. Comparing LHR with say JFK or NWK, well - there is no comparison.

[vertigo]

of course, the more we tailor approaches and speeds to each aircraft type, the more complex the (ATC) job becomes.

Since validation rates on Heathrow approach aren't great (less than 50%?) maybe we should be encouraging ALL A/C to be flown to the same standards rather than encouraging a 'bespoke' service.

[Warped Factor]

Vertigo,

Since validation rates on Heathrow approach aren't great (less than 50%?) maybe we should be encouraging ALL A/C to be flown to the same standards rather than encouraging a 'bespoke' service.

I would argue that validation success rates are our problem to sort, not the airlines.

We're a service industry and they're the customers. If it's realistic to achieve, we should do our utmost to accomodate.

Otherwise, why aren't we getting Concorde to fly 220/180/160? It can, but only at a serious penalty.

WF.

[Seloco]

Might I just say, as a mere pax, that this has been quite the most impressive thread that I have read on Pprune for many a long while. The posts to it have been, with just one somewhat unfortunate exception, clear, professional, informative and have undoubtedly contributed to the collective knowledge of a complex process, viz: getting a rather large aeroplane onto the ground in a manner that maximises both safety and commercial requirements.

I can't resist noting too, as an afficionado of UA's channel 9, that the ability of London's ATC men and women calmly to manage a fast-moving 3D jigsaw puzzle in the sky leaves me in complete awe!

[sandkfir]

773 appears to be a little bit of a handful for ATC in UK, I admire the job they do however, and this type of thread, if not hijacked, will go a long way to clarifying issues. MAN probably don't see too many 777-300 but despite complying with ATIS instruction to report aircraft type on first contact( Thursday 24th) an Air Canada departure was cleared line up and take off with EK 773 at 4nm. Result Go around 2.8T additional burn.

[Andu]

flybystring’s stats on CDAs on page 2 seem to back up 410’s and the other 77-3 pilots comments on this thread that the ATC 220/180/160 speed requirements at LHR do force 77-3 pilots to spool up early on approach, causing more noise, where lighter aircraft with slower manoeuvering speeds can get away with a successful CDA using this schedule.





And wilco77, what brought on your outburst on page 2? Until your post, this was a refreshingly different experience for me, (usually more a surfer than a contributor) – a Pprune thread that actually was positive in all respects and that looked like achieving something.

Could we hear more of your <<“many bad many bad expeiences with EK”>> (from Alaska)? Perhaps with a dedicated thread on the M.E. page? I’m quite serious when I say that I’m sure there are many pilots in EK who’d like to address any issues you and others may have with a view to achieving a positive outcome for all, for instance: <<“…just that these EK pilots thing they rule the airspace. As the company gets bigger they think they are the only ones in the air, and only they can do what they feel like ignoring safetr and rules.”>>