Luton Approach
Plumbum Pendular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luton Approach
LTN approach.
I am the only one these days who seems to be put onto the LLZ above the GS at Luton?
The problem seems to start when on a right base for 26.
Essex have handed us over to Luton with the speed at 220kts at 5000'. Then Luton tell us that we have 15 miles to run, to turn right xxx degs to establish, speed 180kts and descend 3000'. Particularly in a heavy A321 this just isn't going to happen without some serious intervention with the speedbrake or gear and then having to dive onto the GS. Especially bearing in mind that once we have been given the clearance it is more likely to be 14 to 13.5 miles to run.
Now I don't mind this happening occasionally but it now seems to be the norm. This is not the way we should be flying aeroplanes.
I have now taken to asking for more track miles rather than using the speedbrake/gear to get the height off. This request is often met with bewilderment by the Luton approach controller.
Also, a number of times recently I have had the situation when we are on right base a PPL has called up requesting a FIS. The controller then says "Standby" to the PPL, vectors and clears us onto the LLZ. Then he tells the PPL to pass his message which normally takes an age as we intercept the LLZ and watch the GS disappear through the floor because we can not get our "established" call in and cleared down with the glide.
Several times now I have phoned the SATCO for Luton approach, who always seems willing to hear my comments but these problems persist.
Now I know nothing in depth about ATC procedures etc, and I am sure that there is a good reason for these things to happen, this is not a personal attack on the abilities of the controllers themselves, I guess that it might be a problem with the procedures.
Anybody in the know care to comment?
I am the only one these days who seems to be put onto the LLZ above the GS at Luton?
The problem seems to start when on a right base for 26.
Essex have handed us over to Luton with the speed at 220kts at 5000'. Then Luton tell us that we have 15 miles to run, to turn right xxx degs to establish, speed 180kts and descend 3000'. Particularly in a heavy A321 this just isn't going to happen without some serious intervention with the speedbrake or gear and then having to dive onto the GS. Especially bearing in mind that once we have been given the clearance it is more likely to be 14 to 13.5 miles to run.
Now I don't mind this happening occasionally but it now seems to be the norm. This is not the way we should be flying aeroplanes.
I have now taken to asking for more track miles rather than using the speedbrake/gear to get the height off. This request is often met with bewilderment by the Luton approach controller.
Also, a number of times recently I have had the situation when we are on right base a PPL has called up requesting a FIS. The controller then says "Standby" to the PPL, vectors and clears us onto the LLZ. Then he tells the PPL to pass his message which normally takes an age as we intercept the LLZ and watch the GS disappear through the floor because we can not get our "established" call in and cleared down with the glide.
Several times now I have phoned the SATCO for Luton approach, who always seems willing to hear my comments but these problems persist.
Now I know nothing in depth about ATC procedures etc, and I am sure that there is a good reason for these things to happen, this is not a personal attack on the abilities of the controllers themselves, I guess that it might be a problem with the procedures.
Anybody in the know care to comment?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi fmgc. Standby for some feedback from current controllers. meanwhile... there isn't strictly a "SATCO Luton Approach". The approach function is carried out from the Terminal Control room at West Drayton, which very soon moves down to Swanwick.
With pressure on ATC to achieve max landing rates, CDAs, etc., and, in the case of Luton, to mix traffic with Stansted and handle the clockwork mice buzzing about, it's often very difficult to provide pilots with an ideal approach. Radar controllers know from experience what aircraft can achieve and don't think it's only you who gets popped on the LLZ above the GP. I was a Heathrow controller for 30+ years and I must have done it to thousands of flights. The flip side is.. if I had a quid for every pilot who has said "you can turn us in now" when they were 1000ft above the GP I'd be very rich! If you are in sequence of traffic and suddenly ask for more track distance it can severely mess things up.
Your penultimate sentence says a lot. Do PLEASE try and get a visit to West Drayton before they all move south. Sit with the radar controllers handling Luton and Stansted - see their problems and you might understand more.
With pressure on ATC to achieve max landing rates, CDAs, etc., and, in the case of Luton, to mix traffic with Stansted and handle the clockwork mice buzzing about, it's often very difficult to provide pilots with an ideal approach. Radar controllers know from experience what aircraft can achieve and don't think it's only you who gets popped on the LLZ above the GP. I was a Heathrow controller for 30+ years and I must have done it to thousands of flights. The flip side is.. if I had a quid for every pilot who has said "you can turn us in now" when they were 1000ft above the GP I'd be very rich! If you are in sequence of traffic and suddenly ask for more track distance it can severely mess things up.
Your penultimate sentence says a lot. Do PLEASE try and get a visit to West Drayton before they all move south. Sit with the radar controllers handling Luton and Stansted - see their problems and you might understand more.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three issues:
1. Raise your concerns via ATC management both at West Drayton (from where Luton Approach is operated - and at Swanwick from mid-November when London Terminal Control moves there) and with NATS at Luton Airport. Do this either through your company channels and/or direct with the ATC managers concerned.
2. The 'problem' of VFR flights operating outside Luton's airspace "freecalling" Luton Approach and then giving their life history on a busy IFR radio frequency should cease next year when Phase 2 of Farnborough's extended LARS comes into operation to the north of London. But it will need many of the light aircraft pilots and some of the Luton Approach controllers to change their lifelong habits and mindset (you don't often get this happening at Gatwick)!!
3. You're by no means the only pilot to complain of what is in effect, being put into a 'rushed approach' situation. The local controlled airspace geometry doesn't help the situation, neither do the ATC procedures that have you controlled by Essex Radar and shortly afterwards, Luton Approach. Take a tip - if London says "no ATC speed restriction" stick to 250 knots by the speed limit points because this makes it easier for Essex Radar and Luton Approach to give you a satisfactory vector onto the ILS especially when landing on runway 26.
1. Raise your concerns via ATC management both at West Drayton (from where Luton Approach is operated - and at Swanwick from mid-November when London Terminal Control moves there) and with NATS at Luton Airport. Do this either through your company channels and/or direct with the ATC managers concerned.
2. The 'problem' of VFR flights operating outside Luton's airspace "freecalling" Luton Approach and then giving their life history on a busy IFR radio frequency should cease next year when Phase 2 of Farnborough's extended LARS comes into operation to the north of London. But it will need many of the light aircraft pilots and some of the Luton Approach controllers to change their lifelong habits and mindset (you don't often get this happening at Gatwick)!!
3. You're by no means the only pilot to complain of what is in effect, being put into a 'rushed approach' situation. The local controlled airspace geometry doesn't help the situation, neither do the ATC procedures that have you controlled by Essex Radar and shortly afterwards, Luton Approach. Take a tip - if London says "no ATC speed restriction" stick to 250 knots by the speed limit points because this makes it easier for Essex Radar and Luton Approach to give you a satisfactory vector onto the ILS especially when landing on runway 26.
Plumbum Pendular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD & Ebeneezer
Thanks for your comments. All we need is the descent a mile or 2 earlier and there would be no problem.
RE: Point 3 above, I don't see that as being a cause of the problem because we will have flying level at 5000' doing 220kts for quite sometime before the situation I describe occurs.
Thanks for your comments. All we need is the descent a mile or 2 earlier and there would be no problem.
RE: Point 3 above, I don't see that as being a cause of the problem because we will have flying level at 5000' doing 220kts for quite sometime before the situation I describe occurs.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get an Airspace map and have a look at the bases of controlled airspace. We can't descend below 5000ft until you are about 14/15 miles from touchdown and then we can only drop you to 3000ft.
Check out
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...s/32GW0401.PDF
If you look at the chart you are transferred to the Luton Controller in the top right hand corner of airspace. It's then usually an immediate left turn on to a base leg (for 26) followed after a few miles a descent and speed reduction. If you need a descent earlies it will probably involve giving you about an extra 8/10 miles to get you in to the airspace were we can descend you, unless of course you don't mind leaving CAS. But be aware there are usually many aircraft under the CTA at 2400ft outside CAS
Check out
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...s/32GW0401.PDF
If you look at the chart you are transferred to the Luton Controller in the top right hand corner of airspace. It's then usually an immediate left turn on to a base leg (for 26) followed after a few miles a descent and speed reduction. If you need a descent earlies it will probably involve giving you about an extra 8/10 miles to get you in to the airspace were we can descend you, unless of course you don't mind leaving CAS. But be aware there are usually many aircraft under the CTA at 2400ft outside CAS
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...have a look at the bases of controlled airspace
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like previous posts, it's an airspace issue, but it is the 'norm' for approach into either end at LTN.
If the odd FIS request gets in the way, I'd personally step on them to get an established call in - you'll find ATC won't bollock you for this, most of them see it happening anyway and will ignore the GA stuff to ensure you're cleared for the glide.
If not you can always slow right down and ask for a lower altitude to intercept (not ideal, but certainly an option).
If the odd FIS request gets in the way, I'd personally step on them to get an established call in - you'll find ATC won't bollock you for this, most of them see it happening anyway and will ignore the GA stuff to ensure you're cleared for the glide.
If not you can always slow right down and ask for a lower altitude to intercept (not ideal, but certainly an option).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the gs disappearing downwards while waiting for a break in the rt to call loc established... See numerous threads on this subject.
Personally,bearing in mind they told you on first contact that it was "vectors to the ils" and not "vectors to a fly past at 5000 feet"- I will always just take the glide in this scenario. I find the alternative is just a b##gers f#ck to get back to where you were meant to be in the first place. Not strictly legal in the uk I grant you but part of the pragmatic approach to real world flying.
Personally,bearing in mind they told you on first contact that it was "vectors to the ils" and not "vectors to a fly past at 5000 feet"- I will always just take the glide in this scenario. I find the alternative is just a b##gers f#ck to get back to where you were meant to be in the first place. Not strictly legal in the uk I grant you but part of the pragmatic approach to real world flying.
Last edited by HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD; 22nd Oct 2007 at 17:36. Reason: wine induced spelling/grammer
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to wait till the new, new phraseology comes out in November! The GW atcos could already say "when established on the localiser, descend on the ILS" whilst you're on a closing heading (and there's a suitable break in their constant r/t chatter) if they had a quick look at the MATS Pt 1 and that would hopefully negate the being left high and dry issue now...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If not you can always slow right down...
Two reasons:
1. There may be someone following you a matter of a few miles behind which - once you're inside 4nm and so 'free-speeding' - could seriously catch you up. This could cause vortex issues for them, and if it's a low cloud IMC day, also a loss of separation, either of which may result in them having to go-around.
2. There could be someone at the holding point waiting to depart between yourself and the following landing aircraft, and so the 'gap' created by ATC could be eroded to the extent that the departure can't get away.
Of course, in both these cases it's not you that gets bug****d up - but next time it might be...!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm very reluctant to say this but 5150 sounds a rather irresponsible cha with whom I hope never to fly.
First he advocates transmitting over another aircraft - appalling radio communication technique which may achieve nothing except an annoying squeal on the frequency.
Then the bit about just slowing down - CAP493 is right. I guess 5150 has never watched the results of such action. I did once. An ATR42 which had been instructed to fly a particular speed reduced dramatically. The following 737 caught up so fast we couldn't believe it. Only a quick thinking Tower controller and the Grace of God saved the day.
5150 - you deperately need to be chained to a radar sector for a few hours to see what goes on.
First he advocates transmitting over another aircraft - appalling radio communication technique which may achieve nothing except an annoying squeal on the frequency.
Then the bit about just slowing down - CAP493 is right. I guess 5150 has never watched the results of such action. I did once. An ATR42 which had been instructed to fly a particular speed reduced dramatically. The following 737 caught up so fast we couldn't believe it. Only a quick thinking Tower controller and the Grace of God saved the day.
5150 - you deperately need to be chained to a radar sector for a few hours to see what goes on.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merely a suggestion I was making - and of course, wouldn't think about reducing speed WITHOUT notifying ATC. I am familiar of the consequences of this, and have been a victim of a catch-up situation.
I admit the use of the phrase 'step-on' was incorrect - I've squeezed an 'established' call in between replies, but only if it's getting tight as the glide drifts ever closer, ATC have replied to me with the clearance for the ILS and not a 'listen out before transmitting' reply. Yes it is annoying and rude, but if you miss the glide in a jet, while a GA aircraft is reading back a transit clearance, you're going around!
I don't wish to fall out with you HD as I've been an admirer of your comments over the years. I'm not a cowboy by any means, but just applying a little common sense to a situation that, let's face it, is pretty rare.
I admit the use of the phrase 'step-on' was incorrect - I've squeezed an 'established' call in between replies, but only if it's getting tight as the glide drifts ever closer, ATC have replied to me with the clearance for the ILS and not a 'listen out before transmitting' reply. Yes it is annoying and rude, but if you miss the glide in a jet, while a GA aircraft is reading back a transit clearance, you're going around!
I don't wish to fall out with you HD as I've been an admirer of your comments over the years. I'm not a cowboy by any means, but just applying a little common sense to a situation that, let's face it, is pretty rare.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, someone tell me I'm a cowboy!
My only observation is that it's a very sad reflection on the airspace designers (I wonder who in the CAA will own up...) that the only way to fly a stable and accurate approach onto 26 at Luton is to adopt the process and procedures that you've obviously so well researched and presumably, successfully trialled.
I'm sure that it would just not be acceptable for BAW at LHR, for example...
Roll on 2009 when - Greenpeace, Plane Crazy, the NT, the CPRE, the RSPB, the Dedham Vale Society, FOE, GreenNet & T. Cobley permitting - the airspace will be changed and so hopefully, will be designed with the airspace user & ATC in mind.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP493, your last paragraph is the funniest thing I have read for ages.
fmgc, your issues will be resolved in 2009, well that is what the PR states! RIAPs galore!
fmgc, your issues will be resolved in 2009, well that is what the PR states! RIAPs galore!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Likewise, bring on the Farnborough LARS!!
I fly GA; I believe that better education of some GA pilots would help. Some don't listen out before transmitting their request and obviously don't have a plan B. I do try to listen out to 129.55 for a while and assess what's going on before asking for a service; I often take a longer route round the airspace if it seems that the controller is maxing out (like this afternoon, for example). Sometimes it seems pointless even trying to join the "Standby, I'll get back to you" crowd. That benefits two ways; I don't add to the general melee and ATC don't delay me! If it quietens down a little while plan B is under way I'll give a relevant call announcing my presence for the benefit of other pilots in the area.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From earlyish (probably April) next year the Farnborough LARS service will extend to north of GW and SS.
What remains to be resolved - and it's relatively endemic for the Luton CTR/CTA (and to a lesser but equally significant degree, to Stansted's CTR/CTA) is just who a Denham, Elstree, Stapleford, Panshangar, Cranfield, Cambridge, Duxford or North Weald GA flight for example, should contact after take-off if the intended route will be through either's controlled airspace.
Particularly in a twin, the time taken to clean up, clear the circuit, change frequency, get identified by Farnborough, state the pilot's intentions, request and agree a service and then request a 'zone transit' will be insufficient to avoid becoming an 'infringer'.
Thus it might prove better for such controlled airspace transit flights to continue to 'freecall' Luton Radar (or for Stansted, Essex Radar) direct.
In the days when Luton was a LARS unit, on a busy day the LARS controller's task was akin to playing squash simultanously against two or more other opponants: the coordination needed between the Luton Director and the Luton LARS controller just had to be seen to be believed - and these guys were sitting next to each other in the same control room communicating face-to-face, not via what will be a telephone (albeit a 'hot line') link.
Having said all that, the extension of Farnborough LARS to 'Home Counties North' will provide a dedicated ATC service that's be needed for a very long time: thanks goodness someone somewhere identified (no pun intended...) the need and took the necessary remedial action.
NATS = 9-9-9-9-9 CAA = 0-0-0-0-0
New (no?) balls please...
