LHR Speed Trial
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive my fuddled brain, but isn't it normal practice for one of the departures of Gatwick to keep the speed restriction to reduce the radius of turn due to the proximity of airspace boundaries? Could also be said for Heathrow CPT departures on Easterlies.............smaller radius of turn for the departure, more room for downwind traffic on the outside (of course, if it's an A340, forget it)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big turns, keep the speed restriction on.
I cannot see any advantage in a restriction on ALL aircraft. give the controller the tool to be able to use the speed of the aircraft to his/her advantage.
This trial does nothing to improve bunching and may well give the TC controllers more workload.
I cannot see any advantage in a restriction on ALL aircraft. give the controller the tool to be able to use the speed of the aircraft to his/her advantage.
This trial does nothing to improve bunching and may well give the TC controllers more workload.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a TC ATCO I am a bit miffed that the trial says we should not take the speed off. Speed should be a tool we can use to help with departure separation from several adjacent airfields.
Having some shiny a
ed git who is sitting in an office somewhere, not having controlled for x amount of years telling me how I should do my job is a bit galling.
Selective use of speed, headings etc etc is how an ATCO operates and should not be meddled with. I know from trying that ifI leave the speed restriction on every departure as the trial dictates it causes worse bunching than taking speeds off selected aircraft.
It does not take a brain surgeon to work that one out.
The office workers should wander off and design some more swirly stripes... "The Logo signifies separation and flow" and the changing colours represent "diversity" my a e!!
Having some shiny a
ed git who is sitting in an office somewhere, not having controlled for x amount of years telling me how I should do my job is a bit galling.Selective use of speed, headings etc etc is how an ATCO operates and should not be meddled with. I know from trying that ifI leave the speed restriction on every departure as the trial dictates it causes worse bunching than taking speeds off selected aircraft.
It does not take a brain surgeon to work that one out.
The office workers should wander off and design some more swirly stripes... "The Logo signifies separation and flow" and the changing colours represent "diversity" my a
e!!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing.......
But then what would be the point of the trial? 
Guys, it's a trial, so adhere to the terms, and make sure you submit your experiences, so that when the trial ends, there is evidence you can point to while saying 'it'll never work!'
I am a bit miffed that the trial says we should not take the speed off
Guys, it's a trial, so adhere to the terms, and make sure you submit your experiences, so that when the trial ends, there is evidence you can point to while saying 'it'll never work!'
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having some shiny a ed git who is sitting in an office somewhere, not having controlled for x amount of years telling me how I should do my job is a bit galling.
As Gonzo says, quite rightly, it is a trial. Setting out to prove it doesn't work only proves you never tried. To get evidence, you need to adhere to the terms.
One thing that has happened in the past, and was a cause for concern was removing the speed restriction as a matter of habit, rather than having a good separation / presentation resaon for actually doing so.
Best rgds
BEX
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bexil
I am adhering to it (when it is safe), hence the reason why I know it does not work.
I agree that some ATCOs remove speed as a matter of course - it should be selective.
LookatTheSky
Unless EGLL, EGKK, EGWU, EGSS, EGLC and the other airfields that pump out DVR departures introduce a system whereby they integrate all there departures, I do not see how the PR-NAV oputbound routes will work, we will still have bunching.
Any such co-ordinated departures will surely severely hamper the busy airfields operations and reduce the number of departures??
I am adhering to it (when it is safe), hence the reason why I know it does not work.
I agree that some ATCOs remove speed as a matter of course - it should be selective.
LookatTheSky
Unless EGLL, EGKK, EGWU, EGSS, EGLC and the other airfields that pump out DVR departures introduce a system whereby they integrate all there departures, I do not see how the PR-NAV oputbound routes will work, we will still have bunching.
Any such co-ordinated departures will surely severely hamper the busy airfields operations and reduce the number of departures??
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by anotherthing
I am adhering to it (when it is safe), hence the reason why I know it does not work.
I agree that some ATCOs remove speed as a matter of course - it should be selective.
I agree that some ATCOs remove speed as a matter of course - it should be selective.
I'm getting a bit narked with two things - first, TC ATCOs who claim to have always used speed control on departure as a 'separation tool' - rubbish, everybody used to cancel the speed on first contact as a matter of routine. Secondly, there are those who seem to think that cancelling the speed restriction somehow maintains or creates separation between aircraft. How exactly?
There is a good argument that if aircraft are flying at a uniform speed, the potential exists for a more orderly output. It relies on the ATCO playing the game of course (and it seems to me that there are few TC ATCOs who have bought into this one). If this weren't the case, then shouldn't we tell approach controllers to sequence their aircraft onto the ILS whilst permitting the pilots to fly whatever speed they fancy?
Imagine a hypothetical situation where all aircraft below FL100 had to fly at 250Kts, and that this were the way it had always been (I believe that this is the case throughout the USA by the way, and they seem to have few problems with it). If a dictat had then been issued telling TC controllers to remove the speed restriction for all aircraft on departure, there would have been uproar at the potential safety implications........
Guest
Posts: n/a
well im one of the ones keeping to this trial... about 93% of the time. the only time ive cancelled it is when 3 mins on deps such as successive midhursts or dovers (easterlies) are just a little closer than im totally comfortable with. most likeley because the second aircraft is flying faster than he should and not requested/reported it.
to be honest id rather go back to having the choice of cancelling the speed as my tool. but although this trial has introduced new conflicts, it does help in other areas where catch ups were a bit of a problem. i gave 3 aircraft on sams to hurn all on the same heading in trail climbinmg to FL150 about 7 miles apart a piece.... but are pilots now becoming all to aware of this trial and flying faster anyway???
if this trial makes us aware of possible plus points of keeping the speed on then its working, but we should still have the choice as ATCOs.
oh, and is anyone brave enough to photocopy the speed trial comment book in the ops room and put a couple of the less offensive but rather entertaining entries.... the letter to michael o'leary has raised a few smiles.
to be honest id rather go back to having the choice of cancelling the speed as my tool. but although this trial has introduced new conflicts, it does help in other areas where catch ups were a bit of a problem. i gave 3 aircraft on sams to hurn all on the same heading in trail climbinmg to FL150 about 7 miles apart a piece.... but are pilots now becoming all to aware of this trial and flying faster anyway???
if this trial makes us aware of possible plus points of keeping the speed on then its working, but we should still have the choice as ATCOs.
oh, and is anyone brave enough to photocopy the speed trial comment book in the ops room and put a couple of the less offensive but rather entertaining entries.... the letter to michael o'leary has raised a few smiles.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say I tried to keep to the trial to start with, but when busy, old habits die hard and I often found myself getting to the " no speed re.." before developing a bit of a stutter and having to decide wether I could be bothered to stop myself.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it hasn't improved things any, but then has it made it any worse? Well, yes and no.
When we cancelled the speed routinely, we knew what problems may arise, because that was what we were used to, i.e. B757 ( and lately Dash8-400) immediately started catching the one infront, Swiss never accelerated anyway, Tarom would be doing Mach 3 in about 3 seconds etc etc.
Now however I have almost been caught out three times because of sudden drastic reductions in rates of climb as a/c start to accelerate passing 100. Planes doing 2.5/3000 fpm suddenly drop to about 500fpm as they go through 100. Also heavies, particularly gulf operators in 777s it seems, when they have been level at 6000 for some time and are given climb seem to take for ever to get going, often remaining level for nearly a minute (it seems, probably a bit less I'll grant you) and requiring me to go back and confirm clearance.
Is this a better or worse situation than catch ups?
Well probably about the same, BUT with catch ups etc, we knew they would happen and were to some extent expecting it so had a plan B and even C because that was what we had been trained with and were used to. I dare say in a few months time we'll all be used to the new problems that arise, but those months could well be uncomfortable.
It's another rule someone thinks will help somehow, and may well do in the future, but for now, I've given up. Maybe that makes me a bit hopeless, but I've got to the stage where too many people are trying to tell me how to do the job I was trained to do and they weren't, so it's my license and I'll do with it as I please. And as for informing all the operators so no pilots will be questioning any speed, well now that is a joke.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it hasn't improved things any, but then has it made it any worse? Well, yes and no.
When we cancelled the speed routinely, we knew what problems may arise, because that was what we were used to, i.e. B757 ( and lately Dash8-400) immediately started catching the one infront, Swiss never accelerated anyway, Tarom would be doing Mach 3 in about 3 seconds etc etc.
Now however I have almost been caught out three times because of sudden drastic reductions in rates of climb as a/c start to accelerate passing 100. Planes doing 2.5/3000 fpm suddenly drop to about 500fpm as they go through 100. Also heavies, particularly gulf operators in 777s it seems, when they have been level at 6000 for some time and are given climb seem to take for ever to get going, often remaining level for nearly a minute (it seems, probably a bit less I'll grant you) and requiring me to go back and confirm clearance.
Is this a better or worse situation than catch ups?
Well probably about the same, BUT with catch ups etc, we knew they would happen and were to some extent expecting it so had a plan B and even C because that was what we had been trained with and were used to. I dare say in a few months time we'll all be used to the new problems that arise, but those months could well be uncomfortable.
It's another rule someone thinks will help somehow, and may well do in the future, but for now, I've given up. Maybe that makes me a bit hopeless, but I've got to the stage where too many people are trying to tell me how to do the job I was trained to do and they weren't, so it's my license and I'll do with it as I please. And as for informing all the operators so no pilots will be questioning any speed, well now that is a joke.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Long Now
Good post, my sentiments exactly.
The one good thing to come out of the trial is that it will hopefully stop ATCOs automatically taking the speed off every departure and make them do so more selectively.
However, we should still retain the right to use speed as a tool for controlling.
As you mentioned regardig climb rates etc, it can cause a few sticky moments when you go for a climb through based on perceived climb rates, just to see the rate suddenly fall off. Not ideal when this is part and parcel of working in a busy TMA environment!
Good post, my sentiments exactly.
The one good thing to come out of the trial is that it will hopefully stop ATCOs automatically taking the speed off every departure and make them do so more selectively.
However, we should still retain the right to use speed as a tool for controlling.
As you mentioned regardig climb rates etc, it can cause a few sticky moments when you go for a climb through based on perceived climb rates, just to see the rate suddenly fall off. Not ideal when this is part and parcel of working in a busy TMA environment!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to everyone for their input.
From the other side i.e. 320 pilot flying to and from LHR for many years, yes after tooting along @ 250kts for longer than previously I now hope for quick climb so I can break FL100 and speed up, and yes that kills the climb rate.
Previously whith the speed lifted there was the option to force the bus up( it likes to respond slowly) by trading the increased speed for climb rate, now that option is gone, so there is the possibility of slow climbs from the buses.
From the other side i.e. 320 pilot flying to and from LHR for many years, yes after tooting along @ 250kts for longer than previously I now hope for quick climb so I can break FL100 and speed up, and yes that kills the climb rate.
Previously whith the speed lifted there was the option to force the bus up( it likes to respond slowly) by trading the increased speed for climb rate, now that option is gone, so there is the possibility of slow climbs from the buses.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doo
I do not know what sectors you fly, but as a pilot operating from LHR, you will no doubt realise that to get climbs in, we need to take you off the SID when we can (leave epsom on a heading etc etc), otherwise you end up flying under the stacks at 6000', with Gatwick SIDS stuck below you, and London City et al stuck below them - it can become a bit of a nightmare.
If we are too busy, or need a bit of a break from monitoring A/C that are not on the SIDs (it does get tiring because that in itself causes some new problems(); the speed limit imposed means that you will, unfortunately, take longer to clear the holding areas therefore it will take longer (in time, not track miles) before we can climb you.
The trial has its good points - i mentioned what I think is the main one in my post above, about selective use of "no speed restrictions", but it does throw up a lot of new problems, especially when you are dealing with multiple airports with interactive SIDS!!
I do not know what sectors you fly, but as a pilot operating from LHR, you will no doubt realise that to get climbs in, we need to take you off the SID when we can (leave epsom on a heading etc etc), otherwise you end up flying under the stacks at 6000', with Gatwick SIDS stuck below you, and London City et al stuck below them - it can become a bit of a nightmare.
If we are too busy, or need a bit of a break from monitoring A/C that are not on the SIDs (it does get tiring because that in itself causes some new problems(); the speed limit imposed means that you will, unfortunately, take longer to clear the holding areas therefore it will take longer (in time, not track miles) before we can climb you.
The trial has its good points - i mentioned what I think is the main one in my post above, about selective use of "no speed restrictions", but it does throw up a lot of new problems, especially when you are dealing with multiple airports with interactive SIDS!!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by anotherthing
Not Long Now
Good post, my sentiments exactly.
The one good thing to come out of the trial is that it will hopefully stop ATCOs automatically taking the speed off every departure and make them do so more selectively.
Good post, my sentiments exactly.
The one good thing to come out of the trial is that it will hopefully stop ATCOs automatically taking the speed off every departure and make them do so more selectively.
Guest
Posts: n/a
so apart from the 'unofficial comments' book in the ops room, has anyone been asked how its going so far by management? or are their eyes closed to how these things affect us.
heres a thought.... lets stick our noses into their work and things that we dont really know much about, change it all round to what we think will work and make them do it?
heres a thought.... lets stick our noses into their work and things that we dont really know much about, change it all round to what we think will work and make them do it?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lookatthesky
No it was not the point of the (ongoing) trial, but if the trial makes us more selective in our use of "no speed" it's no bad thing.
It has made me more selective and although I am no longer following the trial to the letter (not out of sheer bloody mindedness, but because if i left the speed on everything it would cause bunching and also make my job more difficult); it has made me think more about my use of the phrase.
No it was not the point of the (ongoing) trial, but if the trial makes us more selective in our use of "no speed" it's no bad thing.
It has made me more selective and although I am no longer following the trial to the letter (not out of sheer bloody mindedness, but because if i left the speed on everything it would cause bunching and also make my job more difficult); it has made me think more about my use of the phrase.
