No descent below 4000 outside 13nm LHR
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: in the radar
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept that there is LCY to consider. However if vectors are tight as yesterday's was, then 'call localiser established' is going to end in tears ...As we fight to get that call in ....whilst the glide comes and goes...
Tend to use the phrase establish localiser RWY without mention to descend on glidepath if I reckon the heading i am issuing will be inside 13nm or if there's a more important transmission to make and need a quick readback.
But you also mention that there was an accent change in the middle of the transmissions...
Last edited by RiskyFowler; 28th Aug 2013 at 12:56.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RF
Tend to use the phrase establish localiser RWY without mention to descend on glidepath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are times when one cannot descend due to traffic. The london area is prone to all manner of survey, police, ambulance and other (sometimes Cat A) flights underneath. Result is you may well be told to establish on the localiser but not to descend until further cleared.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD and RF - exactly. You have both now neatly completed the circle Sean Dell posted in post #1 with no workable solution - problems getting descent clearance. I know we have had numerous threads on this, but the sooner ATC in the UK get themselves organised (airspace or procedural changes if need be) so we have have the 'standard' "left heading XXX, cleared for the ILS" the better.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BOAC, best then you either start the campaign to shut LCY and all other traffic that flies under the approaches.
Or, raise the altitudes the approaches start at. We can use the ILS/MLS glide path out to 15nm/5,000ft, so why not increase the altitude that the approaches start at from 2,500ft to 3,000ft or 4,000ft?
Or, raise the altitudes the approaches start at. We can use the ILS/MLS glide path out to 15nm/5,000ft, so why not increase the altitude that the approaches start at from 2,500ft to 3,000ft or 4,000ft?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Campaign?? Not me. If things are so difficult why not make it a 'standard' (and promulgated) that 'due to zzzz. descent on the Loc will not be given below xxx outside YYnm'? That way Sean and his mates can pre-brief and set up the handling appropriately? At the moment it is 'normal' pretty much world-wide to go down on crossing the glideslope - hence post #1.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's definitely an advantage to know that we might today (for whatever reason) be joining the glide slope from above - or at least it's going to be a close run thing. Then we can mini-brief the technique and talk about other factors which make this difficult such as being on a light weight 319 with no headwind (or a TWC).
Thanks for carrying on the debate guys. As ever there's no finger pointing, just a thirst for understanding....
Cheers
SD
Thanks for carrying on the debate guys. As ever there's no finger pointing, just a thirst for understanding....
Cheers
SD
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sean, the AIP entry for LHR mentions...
"Descent profile: On receipt of descent clearance the pilot should descend at the rate he judges will be best suited to the achievement of continuous descent, the objective being to join the glide path at the appropriate height for the distance without recourse to level flight."
The aim at LHR is not to have aircraft fly level for a mile or two under the GP before descending, but to arrive on the LOC at or slightly above the GP and continue descending without leveling.
Low power/low drag CDAs are the order of the day.
Better use should be made of the already available phraseology of "when LOC established, descend on the glidepath", it can be used on the closing heading, or the perhaps not quite MATS Pt 1 "descend to x thousand feet then further on the glidepath".
Making use of the LCY departure display that LHR FIN has available to them, I also see no reason why descent below 4,000ft cannot be given a little outside 13nm either in order to keep a CDA going as appropriate.
"Descent profile: On receipt of descent clearance the pilot should descend at the rate he judges will be best suited to the achievement of continuous descent, the objective being to join the glide path at the appropriate height for the distance without recourse to level flight."
The aim at LHR is not to have aircraft fly level for a mile or two under the GP before descending, but to arrive on the LOC at or slightly above the GP and continue descending without leveling.
Low power/low drag CDAs are the order of the day.
Better use should be made of the already available phraseology of "when LOC established, descend on the glidepath", it can be used on the closing heading, or the perhaps not quite MATS Pt 1 "descend to x thousand feet then further on the glidepath".
Making use of the LCY departure display that LHR FIN has available to them, I also see no reason why descent below 4,000ft cannot be given a little outside 13nm either in order to keep a CDA going as appropriate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WF - I absolutely agree - CDA every time! That's the target.
The phrase 'when established on the localiser, descend with the glide' would help enormously. Then there's no worry trying to get a word in edgeways whilst the glide disappears below - with all the associated problems I mention above.
Cheers
SD
The phrase 'when established on the localiser, descend with the glide' would help enormously. Then there's no worry trying to get a word in edgeways whilst the glide disappears below - with all the associated problems I mention above.
Cheers
SD
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phrase 'when established on the localiser, descend with the glide' would help enormously.
PM
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really thought that "when established on the localiser, descend with the glide" had been thrashed out so many times here and it was 'agreed' it would be 'the best wordage' - why is it not being used since it appears to be 'approved'?
Piltdown - I think the worry is that someone might immediately start descent to platform altitude when so cleared and in a lot of places there could be conflictions there.
Piltdown - I think the worry is that someone might immediately start descent to platform altitude when so cleared and in a lot of places there could be conflictions there.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piltdown Man,
That would, on occasion, appear to be precisely the case... 
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/442...ntrollers.html
Unless of course, the customer can't be trusted not to be very naughty and to start, god forbid, decending with the glide before being LLZ established.
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/442...ntrollers.html
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK now is the following used or would it work?
"Turn right heading 240 to intercept, leave 4000 on the glideslope, Cleared ILS 27R"
That covers localiser interception and when you want them to descend. Not sure what is appropriate as I have been gone for a while.
We use this in YYZ and it seems to work OK. I get asked by my colleagues why European carriers report localiser established..and the answer is because they are used to being told to.
"Turn right heading 240 to intercept, leave 4000 on the glideslope, Cleared ILS 27R"
That covers localiser interception and when you want them to descend. Not sure what is appropriate as I have been gone for a while.
We use this in YYZ and it seems to work OK. I get asked by my colleagues why European carriers report localiser established..and the answer is because they are used to being told to.
Googled this :
"Pilot-interpreted Approaches (eg ILS) Phraseology
The phrase ‘cleared ILS approach runway xx’ has, in the past, introduced some ambiguity whereby pilots have taken this to mean they are cleared to the altitude/height depicted on the approach chart immediately prior to the final approach fix. This should not be assumed; normally clearances to descend at this point will be given distinctly."
I guess it's like being at 4000' and then (erroneously) being cleared RNAV. A local crew would always challenge that but what would (insert foreign carrier with bad reputation here) do?
It's happened too often in the past and because there is so much traffic below the risk v benefit doesn't justify "cleared ILS" from 4/5000.
But I'm not sure that's exactly the problem or solution from the initial post. I think there is a problem when aircraft establish very close to (and inside)the 13/11/9 mile restrictions. There is a very small window of opportunity in which to descend to 3000' before the aircraft ends up high on the glide. R/T congestion makes it difficult to prioritise that call.
"When LOC established, descend..." doesn't necessarily help if the glide is hit before the LOC.
Descending before 13 dme because there is nothing on radar is non conformance and potentially conditions the pilots into expecting early descent and further contesting R/T when they request 3000' (see original post)
IMHO the best solution to this is to run a longer final (outside 14 dme) then the "when established,descend....." phraseology works or there is sufficient time to get in a LOC established call and a "descend ILS".
"Pilot-interpreted Approaches (eg ILS) Phraseology
The phrase ‘cleared ILS approach runway xx’ has, in the past, introduced some ambiguity whereby pilots have taken this to mean they are cleared to the altitude/height depicted on the approach chart immediately prior to the final approach fix. This should not be assumed; normally clearances to descend at this point will be given distinctly."
I guess it's like being at 4000' and then (erroneously) being cleared RNAV. A local crew would always challenge that but what would (insert foreign carrier with bad reputation here) do?
It's happened too often in the past and because there is so much traffic below the risk v benefit doesn't justify "cleared ILS" from 4/5000.
But I'm not sure that's exactly the problem or solution from the initial post. I think there is a problem when aircraft establish very close to (and inside)the 13/11/9 mile restrictions. There is a very small window of opportunity in which to descend to 3000' before the aircraft ends up high on the glide. R/T congestion makes it difficult to prioritise that call.
"When LOC established, descend..." doesn't necessarily help if the glide is hit before the LOC.
Descending before 13 dme because there is nothing on radar is non conformance and potentially conditions the pilots into expecting early descent and further contesting R/T when they request 3000' (see original post)
IMHO the best solution to this is to run a longer final (outside 14 dme) then the "when established,descend....." phraseology works or there is sufficient time to get in a LOC established call and a "descend ILS".
Last edited by Del Prado; 4th Sep 2013 at 08:13.
