Landing on the Reciprocal Runway (CWL)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Pub
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many times I have flown the ATR into Dublin and be asked what my best speed was, I told them 240kts and they would reply to maintain to remain in sequence with the jet traffic which was followed by within a minute or two of being instructed to reduce speed to 160kts because we were catching and passing the jets and we still had good 25+ miles to run.
Speedbrakes on the 737 are not that effective once your speed is below 250kts hence why you need to slow down further out than a prop.
Speedbrakes on the 737 are not that effective once your speed is below 250kts hence why you need to slow down further out than a prop.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting slightly away from my original comments.
My point was that why should an aircraft on the published (ATIS) approach be slowed down and delayed to allow another (in this case turboprop) land on the reciprocal.
I totally agree that if there is no traffic to be affected, then why not take the reciprocal. The point is it seeems more and more often we ARE delayed because of this.
My point was that why should an aircraft on the published (ATIS) approach be slowed down and delayed to allow another (in this case turboprop) land on the reciprocal.
I totally agree that if there is no traffic to be affected, then why not take the reciprocal. The point is it seeems more and more often we ARE delayed because of this.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that achieving the least delay in total is the goal, and in this case this seems to fit the bill.
This reminds me of Bergen/ENBR some years ago, where SAS pilots tought that controllers must have bought shares in Wideroe airline, because they (WIF)allways got no delay. (It must have been the case, because it seemed so from the cockpit, right????)
According to the ATC related "on time" stats, it was the other way around...........
I think PPrune Radar made things quite clear in his post!
This reminds me of Bergen/ENBR some years ago, where SAS pilots tought that controllers must have bought shares in Wideroe airline, because they (WIF)allways got no delay. (It must have been the case, because it seemed so from the cockpit, right????)
According to the ATC related "on time" stats, it was the other way around...........
I think PPrune Radar made things quite clear in his post!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alterego;
I think that the controller did answer your question. He stated that the other aircraft was going to the other runway to be quicker, and if he had put the other aircraft to the "active" runway, you were still going to be number two and slowed and delayed... Either way, you were going to be number two.
regards
Scott
I think that the controller did answer your question. He stated that the other aircraft was going to the other runway to be quicker, and if he had put the other aircraft to the "active" runway, you were still going to be number two and slowed and delayed... Either way, you were going to be number two.
regards
Scott
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRUNE radar got that absolutely spot on.
I've made the mistake before of trying to squeeze a jet ahead of a turboprop because the catchup at FL160 was huge.
However, at FL100, both aircraft are doing the same speed ( most of the approaches to Cardiff have you outside CAS by FL100 therefore restricted to 250kts), all of a sudden its neck and neck. Just to make it worse, inside 12 miles the T/prop is whipping the jet.
This event is normally followed by a comment such as " we could have kept 240kts until 4DME" when I transfer the prop to the tower.
In this case, its the other way around.
The instance in post one complicates things more because the Turboprop was using the reciprocal runway, however, as the average speeds when released by london until touchdown are pretty much the same, there was always going to be a looser, this time, it was the jet.
Just out of interest, where was the ATR inbound from? Is it possible that the passengers where actually BMI Baby customers on a route that AirWales operate for them? Imagaine that, a BMI Baby crew complaining that their own customers were given an expeditious approach!!!
When there are two aircraft inbound, someone will always be delayed, sometimes you may never know, the difference may only be that you are established on the localiser at 9 miles rather than 7, it may be a speed restriction, occasionally you get lucky and get no delay.
The controller made a call based on her experiance and both aircraft landed SAFELY and I am sure with minimum track mileage and airborne time cumulatively.
I've made the mistake before of trying to squeeze a jet ahead of a turboprop because the catchup at FL160 was huge.
However, at FL100, both aircraft are doing the same speed ( most of the approaches to Cardiff have you outside CAS by FL100 therefore restricted to 250kts), all of a sudden its neck and neck. Just to make it worse, inside 12 miles the T/prop is whipping the jet.
This event is normally followed by a comment such as " we could have kept 240kts until 4DME" when I transfer the prop to the tower.
In this case, its the other way around.
The instance in post one complicates things more because the Turboprop was using the reciprocal runway, however, as the average speeds when released by london until touchdown are pretty much the same, there was always going to be a looser, this time, it was the jet.
Just out of interest, where was the ATR inbound from? Is it possible that the passengers where actually BMI Baby customers on a route that AirWales operate for them? Imagaine that, a BMI Baby crew complaining that their own customers were given an expeditious approach!!!
When there are two aircraft inbound, someone will always be delayed, sometimes you may never know, the difference may only be that you are established on the localiser at 9 miles rather than 7, it may be a speed restriction, occasionally you get lucky and get no delay.
The controller made a call based on her experiance and both aircraft landed SAFELY and I am sure with minimum track mileage and airborne time cumulatively.
