View Full Version : No Speed
Currently living under a noise abate' SID that has an initial clearance limit of 3000', I am frustrated by controllers instructing pilots having acquired alt 3000' that there is no speed control.
1) Surely this could have been given prior to departure?
2) Alternatively by climbing the aircraft prior to issuing the no speed instruction.
Pilots are not free of blame, please do not accelerate in a level segment!!!
It completely negates the value of a noise abatement departure.:ok:
chiglet
6th Aug 2003, 16:57
AFAIK, all SIDs are 5000'. Where in relation to the runway do you live? It could be that the a/c has "cleaned up" and therefore accellerating normally
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
All SID's are 5000'???
e.g. Sampton departure off 08R LGW
The SID has an intermediate 3000' level off. The engine noise is noted when having retracted the flap and maintaining 250 knots, the controller cancels the restriction and the pilots accelerate at 3000' in a level flight profile.
STN Compton 3R SID has a clearance limit of 3000'.
Not sure, but I think Chiglet was referring to all Manchester's SIDS , because that's where you say you're from.
AirNoServicesAustralia
6th Aug 2003, 18:56
Buy a pair of earplugs or move house
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
6th Aug 2003, 18:59
<<The SID has an intermediate 3000' level off. The engine noise is noted when having retracted the flap and maintaining 250 knots, the controller cancels the restriction and the pilots accelerate at 3000' in a level flight profile.>>
When the controller says "No ATC speed restriction" he is not relieving you of your responsibilities for noise abatement; he has made a tactical decision based on other traffic and such decisions can rarely be made prior to departure in a busy TMA. For example, your rate of turn after take-off might be wider than expected and lead you towards other traffic. In such circumstances it would be foolish to take off the speed restriction and have you make a wider turn.
However... I've stopped plenty of a/c off at altitudes before the final SID altitude and if I had a quid for every such pilot who has said "can we cancel the speed restriction" before I've got in and done it I wouldn't be selling shoelaces to complement my pension!
Must up date my profile!
ANSA- As it happens I am, but your attitude stinks :mad:
Heathrow- Thanks for the reply. An aircraft flying level accelerating from 250 and below to 290kts makes a hell of allot of noise. When I am flying, I accelerate in a climb....so much quieter:D And I ensure that I am established on the correct radial, not just "L NAV"!
Pretty good hey:8
av8boy
6th Aug 2003, 22:44
Just speculating on a technical point (rather than the noise issue itself)... Although the SIDs are all 5000, there ARE NPRs off the 24s that terminate at 3000 (right?). This is not to say that the noise abatement procedures calling for 500 fpm or greater are not relevant. Hell, it's not really to say anything except that the SIDs show 5000 but some NPRs within those SIDs terminate at 3000, and this might lead the casual reader observing from the ground to believe that all bets are off once the aircraft is out of 3, even though this is not really the case...
So help me, do NOT flame me when I'm being charitable! :D
Dave
eyeinthesky
7th Aug 2003, 01:04
Dogma:
I think you are directing your complaint at the wrong people.
As HD as clearly explained: "No ATC speed restriction" means just that. We have no reason (such as traffic in front) for you to stick to 250 kts or whatever. If you need to do so to achieve turn radii or minimum SID altitudes (or even en route restrictions) or to minimise your noise footprint, then that's your business. You don't HAVE to accelerate!
Therefore, you should target your pilot colleagues to educate them rather than moan at us!
eyeinthesky, fair enough, any pilots care to comment?
But.... is it not feasible to have the "no speed restriction" information just prior to take off? Thus, avoiding the large change of thrust lever position having acquired 3000' and 250kts.
bagpuss lives
7th Aug 2003, 01:42
It always absolutely amazes me that people who knowingly buy houses close to airports - perhaps not quite the case here admittedly - then go on to complain about the noise.
There is always a very simple solution for those people - don't bloody move there in the first place (and I'm not addressing that to the creator of this thread btw).
Point Seven
7th Aug 2003, 02:41
Dogma
Sorry matey but there is no way that "No ATC speed restriction" can be given prior to departure, same as we can't give you further climb or direct routeing. We may be thinking "he can go a bit quicker" as you depart but you're still with the tower controller (located miles away) and until you're on radar frequency we can't take off the speed restriction.
If it was taken out of the SID, a wide turn, slow ground speed anything of that ilk would jeopardise the following or previous departure. I know it can be a pain but this order is given with due regard to the prevailing traffic conditions. Let's not forget that there are certain a/c types that when told "no speed" actually slow down. When you're working to strict tolerances on deps (LL and KK especially) this can't happen otherwise you won't get the prescribed five miles on departure separations.
Our priority is not your noise footprint, just making sure that you don't bang into another plane.;)
P7
bagpuss lives
7th Aug 2003, 03:25
...which would make considerably more noise and a bit of a mess too :D
chiglet
7th Aug 2003, 05:44
Dogma,et al
Sorry but I [wrongly, it seems] assumed that it would be taken as granted that the 5000' SID limit was at Manchester:rolleyes: .
Speaking to various ATCOs this pm, I got a lot of shrugged shoulders, and very little sympathy:ok:
I must admit, that most complaints come from people emplyed in the industry. Why? I dunno :confused:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Tony Bowers
7th Aug 2003, 15:08
nite flite
If everyone in London and the SE who owned houses which are overflown at 3000' or less were to decide to move, the economic consequences would be disastrous. You are talking about huge swathes of housing....what 1, 2, 3 million people?
Surely, in the case of pollution, whether noise or anything else, it must be the polluters who make things better, not the polluted who are expected to vanish?
It would be sad indeed if a message walked off this forum into the wider world that pilots and ATCOs don't care about noise and expect people to move away.
Tony
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
7th Aug 2003, 15:23
Dogma wrote: <<But.... is it not feasible to have the "no speed restriction" information just prior to take off? >>
No disrespect intended, but I feel this highlights the ignorance some pilots have of ATC operations - and I've no doubt that they can justifiably say the same about our knowledge of their job too. Many pilots do not appreciate just how fast an air traffic situation changes and that minute or so it takes you to get airborne could be crucial. What if you're 2 minutes behind an A340 and you were both given "no speed restriction" before take-off? The A340 climbs about as fast as my old Reliant Robin while you hurtle up to 300+ (presumably). It would make life rather exciting, believe me, and the amount of paperwork when you hit him.... you just wouldn't believe!
As I said before, plenty of pilots are more than happy to accelerate at low level, which again highlights the varied operating practices between different crews on same type, even with the same airline.
H'rowDirector,
Please don't be too despondent, I fully appreciate the intricacies of the challenging job you Radar Controllers do!
Much respect!
I am however trying to foster some debate on the issue of noise abatement. I have come to the conclusion that whilst maintaining 3000' and 250kts I shall not accelerate until I am given a clearance to climb, thus avoiding the aggressive application of power by the autothrottle.
The 777 seems to be one of the worst offenders.
Jerricho
7th Aug 2003, 23:35
It would be sad indeed if a message walked off this forum into the wider world that pilots and ATCOs don't care about noise and expect people to move away
Whoa there a second Tony, "words into" and "other people mouths" comes to mind.
Unfortunately, you have to understand how many times many people here have heard the backwards-and-forwards of the old noise argument and who was there first, the airport or the current residents. Perhaps that's why there have been a few curt answers (As HD so decreed, if threads on noise were equated with pound coins, there wouldn't be as many pensions problems!!!!)
bagpuss lives
8th Aug 2003, 03:29
Indeed - I think my post was very very specific.
Nowhere in it did I say I, or any of my colleagues, were careless about noise and it's environmental impacts.
I was referring directly to people who live in very close proximity to an airport - I'm talking on the final approach and initial climb out tracks only - who move in long long after the airfield has been built - and then complain very very regularly about noise expecting some form of compensation or retribution.
Personally I'm all too aware of the lengths and measures that Manchester for example go to to allieviate (as much as is practical) the amount of noise and pollution affecting local residents. Just ask anyone in Knutsford how quiet it is when we're on 24L departures and a 747 zips off on a HONILEY SID - created for the sole purpose of noise abatement.
In short - as long as we have airports and air traffic in general there will be noise pollution. All we can do is try to *safely* lessen it's impact on those that live round and about.
Moving into a property with approach lighting in your back garden and then complaining about the noise isn't really "on" though is it? :)
That was my one and only point.