160 until 4dme @ EGKK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LONDON
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
160 until 4dme @ EGKK
Last night I arrived back at LGW when the wind was 210 at 28 G41kts. We went around at 140ft above the ground due to WSHR.
If there are any controllers out there who work LGW, could you please tell me why at LGW you insist on having 160 til 4 with extremely bad and testing weather. The aircraft behind us said he would do 150kts and the controller questioned him.
I can fully understand why you do it. Maximising landings etc.
But when the weather is poor, I think it should be up to the pilots discretion.
During LVP's, what is the spacing on the appr? If it is greater than the norm, the spacing should be implemented for all bad weather situations including wind.
I think it would be a great experience for any controller to be in the flight deck with the above conditions trying to maintain 160 til 4!!!!! It's not easy.
If there are any controllers out there who work LGW, could you please tell me why at LGW you insist on having 160 til 4 with extremely bad and testing weather. The aircraft behind us said he would do 150kts and the controller questioned him.
I can fully understand why you do it. Maximising landings etc.
But when the weather is poor, I think it should be up to the pilots discretion.
During LVP's, what is the spacing on the appr? If it is greater than the norm, the spacing should be implemented for all bad weather situations including wind.
I think it would be a great experience for any controller to be in the flight deck with the above conditions trying to maintain 160 til 4!!!!! It's not easy.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sure the controllers will agree. If you unable to comply with a request then let them know. I have never had any grumbles when doing this in a reasonable situation. As for this specific situation, I would have thought it was safer to be a bit on the high speed side for safety in such windy circumstances. On the aircraft I fly by adding 20 knots to Vref as would be the case in such a windy situation the final approach speed would be about 150-155 all the way down.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SE Asia - oops redundant
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A320 seeks in 'managed mode' to maintain the groundspeed related to Vref at touchdown ( ground speed mini). At LGW with say a wind of 260/60 at 6 miles, 2000 feet ( not exactly unknown) to maintain a ground speed of say 135 knots, the true airspeed will considerably exceed 160 and this is not acceptable to air traffic in terms of maintaining constant spacing. On the other hand a 747 may not be able to get the flaps out in time with any more than 160 to 4.
NATS would say let the controller know in good time but my experience is that at most times they would have difficulty fitting in aircraft at different speeds. Perhaps we should try it!
NATS would say let the controller know in good time but my experience is that at most times they would have difficulty fitting in aircraft at different speeds. Perhaps we should try it!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this is something crews should take up with their airlines too? We in ATC collectively are under ever-increasing pressure from Airlines to decrease separation under LVPs, let alone in plain old bad weather.
Oh, and inbound spacing is roughly doubled during LVPs.
Oh, and inbound spacing is roughly doubled during LVPs.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, the time you have a problem with 160 to 4 is with a tailwind, not a headwind. On the little and big bus, neither have any problem with 160 to 4 unless you have about 10kts up the chuff, then the 330 will really struggle. In any case, with those conditions, I would want some energy in hand rather than slowing down too much. I would rather go round from a high energy problem than struggle with a negative shear close to the ground.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thompson - this topic has been discussed at length on Pprune. 170 to 5 was judged by LGW pilots to be the ideal.
Like javelin, I cannot see the problem in the wind conditions you quote - assuming you are flying a swept-wing jet, and assuming you would be adding 'quite a lot' to Vref in those conditions (enough for several mums and grannies
), and with a (small but positive) headwind component, 160 to 4 would only give you, say, 20-30kts to lose in 4 miles?
If you really cannot hack it, ATC ask you to let them know in good time, rather than at 10 miles, and they normally accommodate.
Like javelin, I cannot see the problem in the wind conditions you quote - assuming you are flying a swept-wing jet, and assuming you would be adding 'quite a lot' to Vref in those conditions (enough for several mums and grannies
), and with a (small but positive) headwind component, 160 to 4 would only give you, say, 20-30kts to lose in 4 miles?
But when the weather is poor, I think it should be up to the pilots discretion.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
backof thedrag
You obviously have not flown the queen of the skies - flying 160 to 4 only required you to lose about 10 knots to landing speed at normal weights. Reducing in calm conditions of Vapp of 120 kts in icing is MUCH more difficult in a light A319, for example.
wrt to smaller Airbuses which I now fly, it is true the Groundspeed mini when in managed speed will add a lot of knots to the Vapp spped when the spot wind is much different. However, I think personally that a lot of people misuse managed speed in conditions of strong, steady winds. Gspd mini is there to protect against microbursts and the like - not in strong, steady direction winds. If the wind direction and speed are steady use selected speed - no problems.
On the other hand a 747 may not be able to get the flaps out in time with any more than 160 to 4.
wrt to smaller Airbuses which I now fly, it is true the Groundspeed mini when in managed speed will add a lot of knots to the Vapp spped when the spot wind is much different. However, I think personally that a lot of people misuse managed speed in conditions of strong, steady winds. Gspd mini is there to protect against microbursts and the like - not in strong, steady direction winds. If the wind direction and speed are steady use selected speed - no problems.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As an occasional Gatwick approach controller, but not at work during this windy spell, I'd only comment that I'd hope we'd accomodate any speed that is different from the norm (160 to 4) when it is requested.
I'd only ask that the the requirement is stated on the downwid leg at the latest, if it's made when you're already on the ILS the chances are that the a/c behind you may already be on a closing heading or established and as such it might be a bit tricky to then increase the spacing if required.
During LVPs the normal spacing at EGKK would be 6nm if no departure in the gap, or 10-12nm if there is a departure. That works for LVPs but it might be a bit OTT in other poor weather scenarios.
WF.
I'd only ask that the the requirement is stated on the downwid leg at the latest, if it's made when you're already on the ILS the chances are that the a/c behind you may already be on a closing heading or established and as such it might be a bit tricky to then increase the spacing if required.
During LVPs the normal spacing at EGKK would be 6nm if no departure in the gap, or 10-12nm if there is a departure. That works for LVPs but it might be a bit OTT in other poor weather scenarios.
WF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LONDON
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE GREASER OR SHOULD I SAY AP!!!
As a mate of yours, come down and you do it.
I think the point I was trying to make has been completely lost. Why tell the pilot to do 160 til 4 in the first place! It's not a question of being able to do it or not - that's a piece of piss especially in a 757! It is the increase in workload given to the pilot by asking him to maintain that 160kts with + and - wshr in turbulence that makes the speedtape etc nearly impossible to read.
If anything, with a good headwind and low GS, you can delay slowing down in order to be fully configed for 1000' if not 500'.When you have been there you will understand!
Is it true that ATC's get bonuses dependant upon how many aircraft take off and land within a certain time period? just a rumour I heard!
I think the point I was trying to make has been completely lost. Why tell the pilot to do 160 til 4 in the first place! It's not a question of being able to do it or not - that's a piece of piss especially in a 757! It is the increase in workload given to the pilot by asking him to maintain that 160kts with + and - wshr in turbulence that makes the speedtape etc nearly impossible to read.
If anything, with a good headwind and low GS, you can delay slowing down in order to be fully configed for 1000' if not 500'.When you have been there you will understand!
Is it true that ATC's get bonuses dependant upon how many aircraft take off and land within a certain time period? just a rumour I heard!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it true that ATC's get bonuses dependant upon how many aircraft take off and land within a certain time period? just a rumour I heard!
Stop it, please, my sides are aching now!!!!
(The answer is no, btw!
)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea in getting you to fly 160 to 4 is that we get everyone to fly 160 to 4 so that we can keep the spacing constant so we can land more aeroplanes, so airlines don't moan at us.
It matters not to us what speed it is, be it 170 to 5, 155 to 3 or whatever, but the more people who fly the same speed the better.
Saying that, though, as has been mentioned above, if you'd rather fly something other than 160, let Approach know ASAP, and they'll fit you in.
It matters not to us what speed it is, be it 170 to 5, 155 to 3 or whatever, but the more people who fly the same speed the better.
Saying that, though, as has been mentioned above, if you'd rather fly something other than 160, let Approach know ASAP, and they'll fit you in.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo, exactly.
Javelin, agreed.
Thomsonfly - The problem with increasing the spacing to LVP spacing with strong winds is that the (already reduced) flowrate will be a trickle and people would be holding for ages both in the air and on the ground. If you advocate flying your own speed to decrease your workload what would you have done the other day? Slowed up sooner/later? 160 till 4 is standard at EGLL and never comes as a shock.
The increases in workload IMH experience have come about when people disregard the speeds given to them and...
i) a/c in front slows down too soon ( generally long haul/wide body problem) - I'm sat at 150ft waiting for landing clearance as they bumble off the runway (not nice when you've been on duty for 14hrs and you're landings are always dodgy anyway
)
ii) a/c behind slows down too late (short haul/narrow body problem) - you're having to stand on the brakes with your nose pressed against the windshield to make the first available exit so the guy behind doesn't have to GA.
The key here is maintaining the spacing that is given to us by ATC and if you want to deviate from that (and be a deviant ) then just tell them in plenty of time. Akin to the idiots that line up, get cleared for take off and then say "We need another minute." - aaarrrrrgggghhhhhh 
Javelin, agreed.
Thomsonfly - The problem with increasing the spacing to LVP spacing with strong winds is that the (already reduced) flowrate will be a trickle and people would be holding for ages both in the air and on the ground. If you advocate flying your own speed to decrease your workload what would you have done the other day? Slowed up sooner/later? 160 till 4 is standard at EGLL and never comes as a shock.
The increases in workload IMH experience have come about when people disregard the speeds given to them and...
i) a/c in front slows down too soon ( generally long haul/wide body problem) - I'm sat at 150ft waiting for landing clearance as they bumble off the runway (not nice when you've been on duty for 14hrs and you're landings are always dodgy anyway
)ii) a/c behind slows down too late (short haul/narrow body problem) - you're having to stand on the brakes with your nose pressed against the windshield to make the first available exit so the guy behind doesn't have to GA.
The key here is maintaining the spacing that is given to us by ATC and if you want to deviate from that (and be a deviant
) then just tell them in plenty of time. Akin to the idiots that line up, get cleared for take off and then say "We need another minute." - aaarrrrrgggghhhhhh
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thompsonfly,
As has been mentioned above we use 160 to 4 to maximise the landing rate because our customers, the airlines, want as many a/c going down the approach as possible all the time.
It makes no odds to me what speed you fly, you can do whatever you want and I'll adjust the spacing accordingly, but your companies would very soon suffer the penalties with the reduced landing rates.
Hopefully what we do is a compromise between maximising the landing rates and sensible operation of the a/c. But if at any time you're not happy with what we're requesting say something....we're not psychic.
For my sins I get to do Heathrow approach as well as Gatwick. If conditions allow in strong winds we'll be trying to do 2.5nm spacing on final approach. We can only do that by applying consistent speed control, but again, if anyone is not happy they only need to say something on the r/t (the earlier the better).
Ultimately the problem I suppose is that we're consistently trying to get quarts into pint pots.
You have an open invitation to come in and sit beside me on Gatwick or Heathrow approach to see the operation from our side and why we generally have to do things the way we do.
Oh, yes...what's a bonus?
WF.
I think the point I was trying to make has been completely lost. Why tell the pilot to do 160 til 4 in the first place! It's not a question of being able to do it or not - that's a piece of piss especially in a 757! It is the increase in workload given to the pilot by asking him to maintain that 160kts with + and - wshr in turbulence that makes the speedtape etc nearly impossible to read.
It makes no odds to me what speed you fly, you can do whatever you want and I'll adjust the spacing accordingly, but your companies would very soon suffer the penalties with the reduced landing rates.
Hopefully what we do is a compromise between maximising the landing rates and sensible operation of the a/c. But if at any time you're not happy with what we're requesting say something....we're not psychic.
For my sins I get to do Heathrow approach as well as Gatwick. If conditions allow in strong winds we'll be trying to do 2.5nm spacing on final approach. We can only do that by applying consistent speed control, but again, if anyone is not happy they only need to say something on the r/t (the earlier the better).
Ultimately the problem I suppose is that we're consistently trying to get quarts into pint pots.
You have an open invitation to come in and sit beside me on Gatwick or Heathrow approach to see the operation from our side and why we generally have to do things the way we do.
Oh, yes...what's a bonus?
WF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: LONDON
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your replies especially HD! To be honest I only started this thread to get some answers and not abuse.
I was flying into LGW the other night in bad conditions(yes HD I am a pilot and not someone who wanted to be one- I give as good as I get!!!). Five aircraft including ourselves had to do a mandatory go around due to receiving windshear warnings generated by the aircraft. On both approaches the controller at the time was asking for 160 til 4. Three out of five aircraft on the approach told the controller that we were unable to comply. You could hear the frustration in his voice, he asked us what max speed we could do etc. Our reply was 150kts. He then came back and asked us if we could do a litttle bit more and advised us to inform him earlier in future. I should have packed my crystal ball.It's hard to predict what the approach is going to be like until you are on it and after all you do not want to decrease the ever important flow rate.
Being an ex- controller HD, you of all people would know that aircraft are very hard to slow down, the pilots should stabilise the aircraft in the landing config by 1000' agl and that flaps have limit speeds which activate a flap load relief system if exceeded.
If you put the above into context, if you fly 160 til 4 especially in turbulence with +/-20kt shear you will probably bust the flap limit speed (we did) and if you want to slow from 160kts at 4d to your final appr speed, you will have just over half a mile, 300ft or 25secs to do so. Which I consider not safe.
Also,I think that controller workload would have been greatly reduced, if the five aircraft that went around at minimal spacing were not at minimal spacing? As all the aircraft were probably at different weights therefore different clean speeds! We got so many different headings and speeds it was unreal but he did get us down!Thank you.
Coming back to bonuses etc, I was only asking~! Several people at LGW have told me that controllers get bonuses if they meet certain targets. I only ask this as there are incresing amounts of land after's!!!!!
Thank you for your time in replying, it has been helpful.
I was flying into LGW the other night in bad conditions(yes HD I am a pilot and not someone who wanted to be one- I give as good as I get!!!). Five aircraft including ourselves had to do a mandatory go around due to receiving windshear warnings generated by the aircraft. On both approaches the controller at the time was asking for 160 til 4. Three out of five aircraft on the approach told the controller that we were unable to comply. You could hear the frustration in his voice, he asked us what max speed we could do etc. Our reply was 150kts. He then came back and asked us if we could do a litttle bit more and advised us to inform him earlier in future. I should have packed my crystal ball.It's hard to predict what the approach is going to be like until you are on it and after all you do not want to decrease the ever important flow rate.
Being an ex- controller HD, you of all people would know that aircraft are very hard to slow down, the pilots should stabilise the aircraft in the landing config by 1000' agl and that flaps have limit speeds which activate a flap load relief system if exceeded.
If you put the above into context, if you fly 160 til 4 especially in turbulence with +/-20kt shear you will probably bust the flap limit speed (we did) and if you want to slow from 160kts at 4d to your final appr speed, you will have just over half a mile, 300ft or 25secs to do so. Which I consider not safe.
Also,I think that controller workload would have been greatly reduced, if the five aircraft that went around at minimal spacing were not at minimal spacing? As all the aircraft were probably at different weights therefore different clean speeds! We got so many different headings and speeds it was unreal but he did get us down!Thank you.
Coming back to bonuses etc, I was only asking~! Several people at LGW have told me that controllers get bonuses if they meet certain targets. I only ask this as there are incresing amounts of land after's!!!!!
Thank you for your time in replying, it has been helpful.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thompsonfly,
Just FYI, we get paid a basic, then monthly shift working payment, then instructors get a quartly training payment. That's it. No bonuses, performance related pay or anything. The only thing approaching a bonus we've got in the last few years was a one off £100 (or maybe £150) if one was working on the Millennium New Year's Eve/Day.
Although our new Chief Exec has mentioned he's looking into performace related pay for ATCOs. Bad news we think.
True, but then if we don't use minimum spcaing where we can we'd still be landing aircraft constantly at 0200 without the numbers of staff to cope. And it would mean lots of delays everywhere. Now, if airlines want to slash all their scehdules in half so that we can pootle along all day with big spacing, I don't mind, but I don't think it's going to happen.
Just FYI, we get paid a basic, then monthly shift working payment, then instructors get a quartly training payment. That's it. No bonuses, performance related pay or anything. The only thing approaching a bonus we've got in the last few years was a one off £100 (or maybe £150) if one was working on the Millennium New Year's Eve/Day.
Although our new Chief Exec has mentioned he's looking into performace related pay for ATCOs. Bad news we think.
Also,I think that controller workload would have been greatly reduced, if the five aircraft that went around at minimal spacing were not at minimal spacing
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the key point here is to tell the Intermediate Director if you need a non-standard speed on the approach. This is the first director frequency to which you are transferred. Telling the final director is just too late.
Incedentally, we fly the 757 into Heathrow using 160 to 4dme. The fleet practice is to actually dial the speed back at 4.5dme and start to reconfigure. Because of the effect of inertia, nothing actually changes until you get to 4dme, so we still comply with the "160 to 4", but at least when we get to 4dme the needles are moving in the correct direction!
G W-H
Incedentally, we fly the 757 into Heathrow using 160 to 4dme. The fleet practice is to actually dial the speed back at 4.5dme and start to reconfigure. Because of the effect of inertia, nothing actually changes until you get to 4dme, so we still comply with the "160 to 4", but at least when we get to 4dme the needles are moving in the correct direction!
G W-H
Many controllers add a smidge for a 757 ahead because you slow down so much short final, then the poor bugger behind still gets less than vortex minima and a very late landing clearance. I have often wondered whether the 757 gets its reputation for vortex incidents due to the reduced separation we end up with rather than it being particularly worse than other top-end medium vortex aircraft.