ATC antagonism on descent into LHR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC antagonism on descent into LHR
On descent into LHR today - very short flight time due strong NATL tailwinds so flight planned (and filed) at "cost index zero" - which in Boeing FMC speak means at the low speed end of the 'plane's spectrum. This meant a final cruise and descent at about 0.8/250kts (B777).
Descending through the intermediate levels, London asks us for our speed - so I tell him "250kts IAS", his reply is a perfectly reasonable "Maintain 250kts or more".
The following company traffic (A B747-400) was then asked to maintain "250kts due to your colleague" - this flight replied "slowing from 300kts to 250kts" and ATC kindly rubbed it in by repeating this was due to his colleague and adding "sorry".
Please allow me the following comments:
1) It is not your place to apologise on my behalf to another a/c just because I am complying with airline SOPs. I didn't design the aircraft or its planning system - I just do what it says in the flying manual. The irony is that the other flight was bound by the same book as was I. (As an asside, on previous type I would have been flying at M0.95/380kts - it's not me: it's just what it says in the manual).
2) If you want me to fly faster (or slower) than SOP then ask. I will comply; but before a variance is asked for understand that I will fly in accordance with my company's policy and the aircraft's SOPs. Instead of implying that I am screwing up the system - how about asking me to fly at 300 rather than the other traffic to fly at 250? Perhaps for you having a dig was more important...
3) If you want traffic to fly slower than his SOP then tell him (or me) to - do not apologise (especially on someone else's (my) behalf): your job is to maintain separation and that is a noble quest - his reduction from 300 to 250 at F250-ish probably cost him about 20" in time and saved fuel (from a subsequent discussion on LHR GND I know he landed on time).
My posting is the result of the resentment you caused me by impying, to a company colleague, that I was the cause of this problem. Either solve the problem (see (2) above) or stick to standard RT in future. I hope this gets to the controller on duty this morning...
Thanks in advance.
Descending through the intermediate levels, London asks us for our speed - so I tell him "250kts IAS", his reply is a perfectly reasonable "Maintain 250kts or more".
The following company traffic (A B747-400) was then asked to maintain "250kts due to your colleague" - this flight replied "slowing from 300kts to 250kts" and ATC kindly rubbed it in by repeating this was due to his colleague and adding "sorry".
Please allow me the following comments:
1) It is not your place to apologise on my behalf to another a/c just because I am complying with airline SOPs. I didn't design the aircraft or its planning system - I just do what it says in the flying manual. The irony is that the other flight was bound by the same book as was I. (As an asside, on previous type I would have been flying at M0.95/380kts - it's not me: it's just what it says in the manual).
2) If you want me to fly faster (or slower) than SOP then ask. I will comply; but before a variance is asked for understand that I will fly in accordance with my company's policy and the aircraft's SOPs. Instead of implying that I am screwing up the system - how about asking me to fly at 300 rather than the other traffic to fly at 250? Perhaps for you having a dig was more important...
3) If you want traffic to fly slower than his SOP then tell him (or me) to - do not apologise (especially on someone else's (my) behalf): your job is to maintain separation and that is a noble quest - his reduction from 300 to 250 at F250-ish probably cost him about 20" in time and saved fuel (from a subsequent discussion on LHR GND I know he landed on time).
My posting is the result of the resentment you caused me by impying, to a company colleague, that I was the cause of this problem. Either solve the problem (see (2) above) or stick to standard RT in future. I hope this gets to the controller on duty this morning...
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Drayton
Age: 57
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand your resentment but next time why not just pick up the phone after landing and talk to the controller concerned. That way your message will get through and may prevent this happening again.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why didn't you just offer to increase speed to help your company colleague? The controller has done his best to give you the big hint in saying 250 or faster
It's not all about what the company SOPs say, it's about spatial awareness of the environment you are flying in and the problems you may be creating.
It's a bit like following a Sunday driver who is oblivious to all the problems building up behind them. You will probably learn these things when you go on a command course.
On the beach
It's not all about what the company SOPs say, it's about spatial awareness of the environment you are flying in and the problems you may be creating.
It's a bit like following a Sunday driver who is oblivious to all the problems building up behind them. You will probably learn these things when you go on a command course.
On the beach
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it were me... after ascertaining the following aircrafts speed, I would ask you if you were happy to increase to 270kts, yourself having heard the colleague behind you flying faster and some 'middle ground' for you both to me would be common sense... so its really helping them and helping me and, slowing the one behind you to the same speed in a stream is just good presentation to Approach.
There is always a lot going on in the TMA and if I can get you streamed in a line and there is no delay.. your chances of a straight in a more than likely. If I were to let the one behind you catch you up an stay pretty much parallel, one of you will be holding when reaching the fix... I dont need AMAN to help me with that one.
Maybe a trip to a centre could help all involved. Dare I say FAM flights???
You also wouldnt find me apologising on anyones behalf.... If i want you to fly a speed, regardless of your SOP I will ask for it. It could be the difference of getting a straight in or flying the full route and the possibility of holding.
There is always a lot going on in the TMA and if I can get you streamed in a line and there is no delay.. your chances of a straight in a more than likely. If I were to let the one behind you catch you up an stay pretty much parallel, one of you will be holding when reaching the fix... I dont need AMAN to help me with that one.
Maybe a trip to a centre could help all involved. Dare I say FAM flights???
You also wouldnt find me apologising on anyones behalf.... If i want you to fly a speed, regardless of your SOP I will ask for it. It could be the difference of getting a straight in or flying the full route and the possibility of holding.
Guest
Posts: n/a
On The Beach said: "Its not all about company SOPs".
Well, actually it is. If, as an ATCO, I step outside MATS Pt1 or Pt2, and start doing my own thing, I'll rightly be challenged as to what the 'f..k' I think I'm doing. The pilot was only doing what his company states for that aircraft type and his actions should not be 'questioned' in such a way, even if it does create more workload for the controller involved. The crews performance is regularly monitored through a variety of means and I'm sure they would get their backsides kicked if they regularly disregard/step ouside of SOPs. Yes, there might be a bit of 'flexibility' - you can always ask and find out.
WJMcP
P.S. Agree about phoning-up to chat about it after landing, as that is probably a better way of going about things.
Well, actually it is. If, as an ATCO, I step outside MATS Pt1 or Pt2, and start doing my own thing, I'll rightly be challenged as to what the 'f..k' I think I'm doing. The pilot was only doing what his company states for that aircraft type and his actions should not be 'questioned' in such a way, even if it does create more workload for the controller involved. The crews performance is regularly monitored through a variety of means and I'm sure they would get their backsides kicked if they regularly disregard/step ouside of SOPs. Yes, there might be a bit of 'flexibility' - you can always ask and find out.
WJMcP
P.S. Agree about phoning-up to chat about it after landing, as that is probably a better way of going about things.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies guys. Some very sensible stuff from the ATC chaps: I have never believed RT the place for resolving issues like this, so the suggestion of a phone call is a good one.
Regarding the suggestion of offering to speed up - I could also have offered to slow to min clean, change altitude, change heading etc etc - I don't know the traffic separation solution because I am not the one with the ATC radar screen (we two aircraft were not the only ones in the sky, as you might possibly imagine, Beach - your "Sunday Driver" is not in a positively controlled environment - if you work for my company I might help you with this when I run your command course). That is why I would prefer for the controller to do the controlling and not complicate things by implying to another aircraft that I was causing a problem when flying to company SOPs.
I am not proud that I found it irritating - and this is possibly not the place for a grown-up discussion about the issue (just look around here!!). Nor do I want to make a general critisism of the controller (I apologise for the thread title - I couldn't think of anything less provocative: my limitation!) - just to a) suggest his response wasn't ideal b) point out that particularly with airline economics as they are and with weather as it was on the NATL that night you will be dealing with Boeings doing different speeds c) suggest that if you want different speeds you simply ask rather than snipe?
Jock - nail on the head: you have put in a nutshell what I have been wittering on about probably too long already...
Cheers chaps - and this whinge aside (sorry!) many thanks for the superb and professional job you chaps at LATCC do...
Regarding the suggestion of offering to speed up - I could also have offered to slow to min clean, change altitude, change heading etc etc - I don't know the traffic separation solution because I am not the one with the ATC radar screen (we two aircraft were not the only ones in the sky, as you might possibly imagine, Beach - your "Sunday Driver" is not in a positively controlled environment - if you work for my company I might help you with this when I run your command course). That is why I would prefer for the controller to do the controlling and not complicate things by implying to another aircraft that I was causing a problem when flying to company SOPs.
I am not proud that I found it irritating - and this is possibly not the place for a grown-up discussion about the issue (just look around here!!). Nor do I want to make a general critisism of the controller (I apologise for the thread title - I couldn't think of anything less provocative: my limitation!) - just to a) suggest his response wasn't ideal b) point out that particularly with airline economics as they are and with weather as it was on the NATL that night you will be dealing with Boeings doing different speeds c) suggest that if you want different speeds you simply ask rather than snipe?
Jock - nail on the head: you have put in a nutshell what I have been wittering on about probably too long already...
Cheers chaps - and this whinge aside (sorry!) many thanks for the superb and professional job you chaps at LATCC do...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've got to be kidding.
This thread is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a pilot without the big picture- NW1 is all indignant because he has to justify flying his particular flight at a particular (slow) speed in this particular situation. Well, maybe you flying at that speed caused several/many other a/c, your company or not, to fly at a less efficient speed/config than for their particular op on that day?
Yes, you must fly according to your SOP, but why not "grow a pair" and be perfectly happy with that decision, rather than whine on an internet chat forum that ATC pointed out to EVERYONE on the freq that you were dragging your arse across the sky and causing them to slow down?
If you are not embarrassed by obeying SOPs, why are you behaving so preciously? Furthermore, consider the big picture and that you operating your flight in a particular manner may actually COST your company money. I ALWAYS point out if I am slowing an a/c due slower company traffic. Just seems like common sense to me. Maybe someone at the company may even look at the big picture one day and work with ATC to develop SOPs that take THE BIG PICTURE into account.
Man, the world is getting soft.
This thread is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a pilot without the big picture- NW1 is all indignant because he has to justify flying his particular flight at a particular (slow) speed in this particular situation. Well, maybe you flying at that speed caused several/many other a/c, your company or not, to fly at a less efficient speed/config than for their particular op on that day?
Yes, you must fly according to your SOP, but why not "grow a pair" and be perfectly happy with that decision, rather than whine on an internet chat forum that ATC pointed out to EVERYONE on the freq that you were dragging your arse across the sky and causing them to slow down?
If you are not embarrassed by obeying SOPs, why are you behaving so preciously? Furthermore, consider the big picture and that you operating your flight in a particular manner may actually COST your company money. I ALWAYS point out if I am slowing an a/c due slower company traffic. Just seems like common sense to me. Maybe someone at the company may even look at the big picture one day and work with ATC to develop SOPs that take THE BIG PICTURE into account.
Man, the world is getting soft.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point two of NW1s post hits the nail on the head... the ATCO was in the wrong.
A certain orange airline has a company policy of flying at slowish speeds, but the pilots will fly 300Kts plus, all you need to do is ask.
Maybe the thought process of speeding the front aircraft up was beyond the ATCO in question?
A certain orange airline has a company policy of flying at slowish speeds, but the pilots will fly 300Kts plus, all you need to do is ask.
Maybe the thought process of speeding the front aircraft up was beyond the ATCO in question?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we were asked 'what would be your best speed in the descent?' we would get the idea that the controller would like us to help him/her out by keeping a high speed. Maybe that would have been a better way of starting the dialogue? Our answer would always be around Mmo-.2 or Vmo -10kt, unless in turbulence etc. Don't we all have to fit in with the traffic, no matter what we fly? 
My other question is; why not descend a bit later and steeper with less power and at VMO-10 or so. That would save time on the a/c and fuel, and keep everyone happy including the poor pax who can't wait to just get there. Admittedly this should be aimed at the chap who wrote the SOP's, or programmed the FMC. I'm not sure how much leeway the crew would have to deviate from the SOP's.
My other question is; why not descend a bit later and steeper with less power and at VMO-10 or so. That would save time on the a/c and fuel, and keep everyone happy including the poor pax who can't wait to just get there. Admittedly this should be aimed at the chap who wrote the SOP's, or programmed the FMC. I'm not sure how much leeway the crew would have to deviate from the SOP's.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maastricht, NL
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see, there were some replies already from the controllers in the area in question.
Let me answer one part of your question however: why to slow down the second one instead of speeding you up?
I don't know how it works in London, but in Maastricht airspace we use a first come-first serve "policy". So the first one on the frq/in the sequence has priority over the succeding aircraft - as it's written down in some ICAO documents already.
It's great that you are so flexible - but there're certain airlines, where pilots don't like to speed up just because there's some traffic coming behind them - only if the succeeding traffic is company. I think that might have been on the mind of the controller.
cheers
Let me answer one part of your question however: why to slow down the second one instead of speeding you up?
I don't know how it works in London, but in Maastricht airspace we use a first come-first serve "policy". So the first one on the frq/in the sequence has priority over the succeding aircraft - as it's written down in some ICAO documents already.
It's great that you are so flexible - but there're certain airlines, where pilots don't like to speed up just because there's some traffic coming behind them - only if the succeeding traffic is company. I think that might have been on the mind of the controller.
cheers
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry JD, I am not challenging you, but surely with a good tailwind in the cruise, if it is still there at TOD, it is beneficial to make a late descent. In a late descent there is also less power req'd. I have saved fuel by descending late and at VMO several times. (Average 3000fpm). The higher groundspeed and TAS are kept for longer. You can generally get a more continuous descent as well.
I admit that I don't know much about cost indexes, but I guess in this case the bias is towards saving fuel.
I admit that I don't know much about cost indexes, but I guess in this case the bias is towards saving fuel.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry JD, I am not challenging you, but surely with a good tailwind in the cruise, if it is still there at TOD, it is beneficial to make a late descent. In a late descent there is also less power req'd. I have saved fuel by descending late and at VMO several times. (Average 3000fpm). The higher groundspeed and TAS are kept for longer. You can generally get a more continuous descent as well.
I admit that I don't know much about cost indexes, but I guess in this case the bias is towards saving fuel.
I admit that I don't know much about cost indexes, but I guess in this case the bias is towards saving fuel.
The function of CI in this case is to produce a minimum fuel compromise descent speed which takes into account the reduced drag at the slower speed but allows for the extra time spent in the air with the engines at idle power.
I accept that if we are not considering just fuel economy, then clearly the profile may be different.
JD
PS More reading here on Cost Indices (oriented to Airbus), if you are interested ... see pp 51-56 for Descent ...
PPS ... and here is a briefer article related to Boeing ...
Last edited by Jumbo Driver; 5th Mar 2009 at 21:09. Reason: PS & PPS
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another view
I think there are a couple of points here.
(i) depending on your proximity to the inner stack, it may not be appropriate to speed the first a/c up although I am sure 270kts would be safe ground to hand off to TC. However at 250 kts I am assuming you will make any heaight restriction. Slowing the second from 300 to 250 may have made making the height restriction difficult - hence the apology??
(ii) Did you for one second think that the controller was apologising for the very fact of reducing the speed of the second a/c beacause of the company ahead. It was not a dig but the reason for the speed reduction as without it, that crew might have wondered why.
Without listening to the R/T and picking up on any tone and intent I think you may have taken it all out of context.
abc123 whats your speed?
250kts abc123
abc123 roger 250kts or more
250kts or more abc123
xyz987 due to company ahead reduce to 250kts
I see nothing wrong with this and just gives a reason for the speed reduction, the addition of 'company' can be used simply to let you know it is not the competition slowing you down in case it mattered, not a points scoring excersise.
Fam flights, centre visits all excellent ideas!!
Have all the concorde speedbird 1 jocks not pushed their golden wheelbarrows off into the sunset by now, if not it might be time to do so if you got this upset about a seemingly trivial matter!
(i) depending on your proximity to the inner stack, it may not be appropriate to speed the first a/c up although I am sure 270kts would be safe ground to hand off to TC. However at 250 kts I am assuming you will make any heaight restriction. Slowing the second from 300 to 250 may have made making the height restriction difficult - hence the apology??
(ii) Did you for one second think that the controller was apologising for the very fact of reducing the speed of the second a/c beacause of the company ahead. It was not a dig but the reason for the speed reduction as without it, that crew might have wondered why.
Without listening to the R/T and picking up on any tone and intent I think you may have taken it all out of context.
abc123 whats your speed?
250kts abc123
abc123 roger 250kts or more
250kts or more abc123
xyz987 due to company ahead reduce to 250kts
I see nothing wrong with this and just gives a reason for the speed reduction, the addition of 'company' can be used simply to let you know it is not the competition slowing you down in case it mattered, not a points scoring excersise.
Fam flights, centre visits all excellent ideas!!
Have all the concorde speedbird 1 jocks not pushed their golden wheelbarrows off into the sunset by now, if not it might be time to do so if you got this upset about a seemingly trivial matter!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NW1, maybe the company 744 was trying to make up time to meet schedule - or even making an unofficial attempt to achieve a "record" time if NAT winds were exceptionally favourable. These things happen; I remember trying that on a couple of occasions - BOS-LHR in under 5hrs subsonic, for example, I think it was ... and we nearly made it ...
You don't know the company traffic's reasons for the relatively high speed behind you - it might just have been that London AC/TC knew and were trying to help him but were unable due to preceding traffic (you) ...
It's also very difficult to understand the tone of the original ATC transmission (especially when it is just second-hand via your report), so I certainly go along with the idea of a phone call after landing to AC/TC to clarify. It may be a bit late now, of course, but someone might still remember ...
Incidentally, it doesn't sound to me as if you would be coming in via S22 (inbounds from S of SAM) as Yahoo!® implied earlier - but perhaps he could still try and follow it up for you ... ?
JD
You don't know the company traffic's reasons for the relatively high speed behind you - it might just have been that London AC/TC knew and were trying to help him but were unable due to preceding traffic (you) ...
It's also very difficult to understand the tone of the original ATC transmission (especially when it is just second-hand via your report), so I certainly go along with the idea of a phone call after landing to AC/TC to clarify. It may be a bit late now, of course, but someone might still remember ...
Incidentally, it doesn't sound to me as if you would be coming in via S22 (inbounds from S of SAM) as Yahoo!® implied earlier - but perhaps he could still try and follow it up for you ... ?
JD
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You never did have much of a grasp of the "big picture", did you Verci (BTW, it's quite comical coming from someone as rude as you were on the R/T way back when you tried to do ATC- you were famous for it!! {especially when the poor old thing got a little busy}).
If a 777 saves 100kg by flying at 250kts, but causes the following company 747 to burn an extra 200kg (plus however many others?), is the company benefitting? Still amazed Capt Whitegloves, who is peeved that ATC didnt honour the master-servant relationship, hasn't deleted the thread.
If a 777 saves 100kg by flying at 250kts, but causes the following company 747 to burn an extra 200kg (plus however many others?), is the company benefitting? Still amazed Capt Whitegloves, who is peeved that ATC didnt honour the master-servant relationship, hasn't deleted the thread.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ferris, you can be an idiot to some of the people all of the time etc.
One is constrained by company SOPs, by gates at the arrival airport ( 75 mins at SFO on the ground waiting for a gate) and by ATC.
One has to ask, of those, who can be more flexible?
The controllers have their SOPs and restrictions: is there any good reason that we can't work together to achieve all of the requirements?
Give and take, take and give.
One is constrained by company SOPs, by gates at the arrival airport ( 75 mins at SFO on the ground waiting for a gate) and by ATC.
One has to ask, of those, who can be more flexible?
The controllers have their SOPs and restrictions: is there any good reason that we can't work together to achieve all of the requirements?
Give and take, take and give.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, another genius. 
Dont know where I said everyone can't work together, or anything about the rest of your post, but thanks for contributing, Slim.
The thread is about the preciousness of a pilot who is basically peeved that the tone in an ATC's voice challenged his manhood or something.
If anything, I was pointing out that true efficiency is gained by taking more into account than one plane's optimum (250kts) cruise speed, therefore the whole justification for Capt Whitelgove's original post is a false premise- it just confirms the ego-centric view such chaps have.
Dont know where I said everyone can't work together, or anything about the rest of your post, but thanks for contributing, Slim.
The thread is about the preciousness of a pilot who is basically peeved that the tone in an ATC's voice challenged his manhood or something.
If anything, I was pointing out that true efficiency is gained by taking more into account than one plane's optimum (250kts) cruise speed, therefore the whole justification for Capt Whitelgove's original post is a false premise- it just confirms the ego-centric view such chaps have.