Speed Control Non-Compliance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earthville
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed Control Non-Compliance
I know this has come up on previous threads but it's caused me issues on several occasions this week and it's really starting to bug me.
Why do pilots have such issues complying with a speed restriction? The below is an example of an exchange I've had multiple times this week:
'ABC123 Descend (from cruising level) when ready FL180 level by xxx, speed 280 knots or less'
Pilot reads backs correctly and does not start descending for another 10-15 miles.
On passing around FL230 I check the Mode S which shows me an IAS of 305 knots so I quiz the pilot politely.
'ABC123 Just confirm you're doing 280 knots?'
'Affirm, 280 knots ABC123'
'ABC123 You're Mode S is currently showing 305 knots....reduce to 280 please'
'Errr, oh yeah, err sorry just coming back now'
At which point the longitudinal separation with the aircraft ahead has been massively reduced.
I know aircraft need to fly a minimum speed in order to keep up a sufficient descent rate so they can make restrictions especially if the descent clearance or speed restriction has been given late, but in all these situations the descent and speed was given on first call and the pilot did not descend straight away. Plus on questioning there is always a sheepish excuse for non-compliance (I'm guessing the fact we have Mode S is often forgotten).
A speed restriction is a form of separation! It is not given out willy nilly for a laugh! Pilots wouldn't dare not comply with a heading or climb/descent instruction, so why is speed not treated the same? I mean if you're out by +/- 5 knots then fair enough I can deal with that, but 25-30? No excuse. If you genuinely cannot make the level with that speed, then tell me! And although I might think you're talking crap I'll come up with an alternative plan without a single complaint. Don't just speed up by 25-30 knots and hope I won't notice. At the end of the day it's your safety that's being compromised, not mine.
It's becoming more and more common and if I'm honest I only ever have this problem with UK airlines. Really starting to bug me!
Ok rant over, thanks for listening.
Why do pilots have such issues complying with a speed restriction? The below is an example of an exchange I've had multiple times this week:
'ABC123 Descend (from cruising level) when ready FL180 level by xxx, speed 280 knots or less'
Pilot reads backs correctly and does not start descending for another 10-15 miles.
On passing around FL230 I check the Mode S which shows me an IAS of 305 knots so I quiz the pilot politely.
'ABC123 Just confirm you're doing 280 knots?'
'Affirm, 280 knots ABC123'
'ABC123 You're Mode S is currently showing 305 knots....reduce to 280 please'
'Errr, oh yeah, err sorry just coming back now'
At which point the longitudinal separation with the aircraft ahead has been massively reduced.
I know aircraft need to fly a minimum speed in order to keep up a sufficient descent rate so they can make restrictions especially if the descent clearance or speed restriction has been given late, but in all these situations the descent and speed was given on first call and the pilot did not descend straight away. Plus on questioning there is always a sheepish excuse for non-compliance (I'm guessing the fact we have Mode S is often forgotten).
A speed restriction is a form of separation! It is not given out willy nilly for a laugh! Pilots wouldn't dare not comply with a heading or climb/descent instruction, so why is speed not treated the same? I mean if you're out by +/- 5 knots then fair enough I can deal with that, but 25-30? No excuse. If you genuinely cannot make the level with that speed, then tell me! And although I might think you're talking crap I'll come up with an alternative plan without a single complaint. Don't just speed up by 25-30 knots and hope I won't notice. At the end of the day it's your safety that's being compromised, not mine.
It's becoming more and more common and if I'm honest I only ever have this problem with UK airlines. Really starting to bug me!
Ok rant over, thanks for listening.
It annoys me too and I fly the things, I hope you feel better for the rant. I don't understand why its so hard for some to fly the speed they were given, +10/20kts or more is unacceptable.
Out of interest, when you ask us to decelerate what rate of speed reduction would you expect? Someone told me 1kt per second but clarification would be nice
S88
Out of interest, when you ask us to decelerate what rate of speed reduction would you expect? Someone told me 1kt per second but clarification would be nice
S88
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I'd have thought an MOR or relevant ATC equivalent would be appropriate for the worst cases. Word soon gets around.....
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York Tracon
Age: 57
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had a lot of problems with UK airlines and non compliance of speed restrictions as well, but since I'm in a terminal environment is usually the opposite problem, with them slowing down way too early.
Its gotten to the point that I don't even bother with them anymore. As soon as they slow without telling me (after I have instructed them to maintain x speed), I just vector them out of the sequence, and make them number last. If they slow on final below 170 more than 8 miles out, I'll have the tower send them around instead of the aircraft behind them.
Its gotten to the point that I don't even bother with them anymore. As soon as they slow without telling me (after I have instructed them to maintain x speed), I just vector them out of the sequence, and make them number last. If they slow on final below 170 more than 8 miles out, I'll have the tower send them around instead of the aircraft behind them.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just shows a below-average piloting skill for that crew, Juggler. A competent pilot would know that a 280kt descent as opposed to a 305kt descent requires more ground distance, so would start descent earlier. For those magenta-line kids, there would have been plenty of time to re-programme the descent at 280kts so the magenta fairy would have started down earlier.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: .
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a nightmare for us in the approach environment and most days, I may as well be talking to a brick wall. We've been filing MOR's about it for years, the feedback goes to the airlines....and nothing changes. Like N90 says, the only way things may improve is if everyone takes a stand and starts breaking aircraft off or sending them around. I can think of a certain London airport where a few airlines may suddenly get the message as half of their fleet get sent around!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The South
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've found most offences take place towards the end of a night shift, and as the size of aircraft increases, so does the likelihood of non-conformance. Airlines must know we've got Mode S. When I'm really busy at 5:30am, I'd rather not have to get into conversations as to why someone isn't doing the speed I told them to. 2 Union Jack coloured 747s were in trail into LTMA by about 9nm. The back one decided to fly faster than I told them to, got to 6nm behind and the reported encountering wake from his colleague ahead of him 
Recently, a European operator of solely B738s with continuous 'when ready' descent was rapidly eroding any spacing I had created between him and his colleague ahead by flying at 50kts quicker than instructed for the entire descent.
I've had a conversation with a red and white 747 on the RT before about speeds, the conversation going along the lines of:
-Reduce to M.80
-Is that the fastest we can go?
-Affirm
-But we can fly much faster...
-Yes, but you'd need to do M2.0+ to overtake the 767 ahead of you and create the required spacing I need before handing you over to the next sector.
@ N90-EWR
I'd like to add to that crews who dive down at the start of their descent rather than following a normal profile, then being significantly lower than the a/c 10nm behind and subsequently slow down much more quickly screwing up the spacing.
Recently, a European operator of solely B738s with continuous 'when ready' descent was rapidly eroding any spacing I had created between him and his colleague ahead by flying at 50kts quicker than instructed for the entire descent.
I've had a conversation with a red and white 747 on the RT before about speeds, the conversation going along the lines of:
-Reduce to M.80
-Is that the fastest we can go?
-Affirm
-But we can fly much faster...
-Yes, but you'd need to do M2.0+ to overtake the 767 ahead of you and create the required spacing I need before handing you over to the next sector.
@ N90-EWR
I'd like to add to that crews who dive down at the start of their descent rather than following a normal profile, then being significantly lower than the a/c 10nm behind and subsequently slow down much more quickly screwing up the spacing.
In case you hadn't realised there are two sides to this and we on the flight deck don't screw you around for the hell of it.
As a 25 year plus heavy driver with a UK perspective dare I add..
1. For our friends in the States.....our Flight Safety guys and our management are all over our backsides if we aren't stable (i.e configured and spooled up) at 1000 feet aal - does a "tea and biscuits interview, without the tea and biscuits" translate???. If you "offer" us "cleared for the ILS, maintain 160/170/180 to 5" we're going to do our best, honestly, because we aim to please,but in a slippery heavy it might be a "unable" and I will tell you if that is the case. I certainly don't appreciate the "if you don't it, we'll send you around" threat so beloved by some at New York Tracon....This isn't an abstract work like "Moving Tin", I (and my colleagues) are the one's in and handling the energy of a couple of hundred of tonnes of airframe and a couple of hundred SOBs and we certainly don't want to go off the end at high speed. Even if you don't care about me and my own surely you don't want to create problems for your colleagues in the tower when they have to roll the trucks and fill in the paperwork.???......Capice?...
"the only way things may improve is if everyone takes a stand and starts breaking aircraft off or sending them around. I can think of a certain London airport where a few airlines may suddenly get the message as half of their fleet get sent around!". Brilliant. Just let us know when you're planning to do that otherwise you'll be the one getting the message after a few "Minimum Fuel" or "Pan" calls on the go around. I can only say again - we don't do this to screw you around....believe it or not 160 to 4 is a struggle on some types, make it 160 to 5 and we'll all be happy, honest. Garf forbid but is it just possible London ATC's requirements/SOPS are out of kilter with what is achievable safely in the real world? See my comments about "Moving Tin" - maybe it's not just a New York Tracon thing......
2. "I'd like to add to that crews who dive down at the start of their descent rather than following a normal profile, then being significantly lower than the a/c 10nm behind and subsequently slow down much more quickly screwing up the spacing."
Not sure what a UK "normal profile" is (?VNAV). It's worth considering that what you are seeing might be a consequence of our friends from the States following their own fairly clear rules on this, which is in the absence of a "PD"
from you they are going to descend (initially at least) at max rate....
At the end of the day lets be friends and communicate. We're all constrained by our own rule set(s), so it's good to talk,isn't it .......
As a 25 year plus heavy driver with a UK perspective dare I add..
1. For our friends in the States.....our Flight Safety guys and our management are all over our backsides if we aren't stable (i.e configured and spooled up) at 1000 feet aal - does a "tea and biscuits interview, without the tea and biscuits" translate???. If you "offer" us "cleared for the ILS, maintain 160/170/180 to 5" we're going to do our best, honestly, because we aim to please,but in a slippery heavy it might be a "unable" and I will tell you if that is the case. I certainly don't appreciate the "if you don't it, we'll send you around" threat so beloved by some at New York Tracon....This isn't an abstract work like "Moving Tin", I (and my colleagues) are the one's in and handling the energy of a couple of hundred of tonnes of airframe and a couple of hundred SOBs and we certainly don't want to go off the end at high speed. Even if you don't care about me and my own surely you don't want to create problems for your colleagues in the tower when they have to roll the trucks and fill in the paperwork.???......Capice?...
"the only way things may improve is if everyone takes a stand and starts breaking aircraft off or sending them around. I can think of a certain London airport where a few airlines may suddenly get the message as half of their fleet get sent around!". Brilliant. Just let us know when you're planning to do that otherwise you'll be the one getting the message after a few "Minimum Fuel" or "Pan" calls on the go around. I can only say again - we don't do this to screw you around....believe it or not 160 to 4 is a struggle on some types, make it 160 to 5 and we'll all be happy, honest. Garf forbid but is it just possible London ATC's requirements/SOPS are out of kilter with what is achievable safely in the real world? See my comments about "Moving Tin" - maybe it's not just a New York Tracon thing......
2. "I'd like to add to that crews who dive down at the start of their descent rather than following a normal profile, then being significantly lower than the a/c 10nm behind and subsequently slow down much more quickly screwing up the spacing."
Not sure what a UK "normal profile" is (?VNAV). It's worth considering that what you are seeing might be a consequence of our friends from the States following their own fairly clear rules on this, which is in the absence of a "PD"
from you they are going to descend (initially at least) at max rate....At the end of the day lets be friends and communicate. We're all constrained by our own rule set(s), so it's good to talk,isn't it .......
Last edited by wiggy; 9th May 2014 at 16:15.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the only way things may improve is if everyone takes a stand and starts breaking aircraft off or sending them around. I can think of a certain London airport where a few airlines may suddenly get the message as half of their fleet get sent around!
-HD-
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: .
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy,
As long as people tell us that they can't do the speed we ask, then that's absolutely fine. We are talking here more about the people who read back the speed but completely ignore it and don't say that they can't do it.
As long as people tell us that they can't do the speed we ask, then that's absolutely fine. We are talking here more about the people who read back the speed but completely ignore it and don't say that they can't do it.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York Tracon
Age: 57
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy, if it was up to me, you could be doing 120 from 1000 miles out for all I care, but since your airline (and all the others for that matter) seem to like scheduling busy hub airports to maximum capacity, and beyond, we are left with the task of sorting out the ensuing mess.
BTW, I don't "make threats" of sending you around. I simply go by what the radar tells me, and if the radar tells me that separation will be lost due to non compliance with a speed assignment, then I WILL SEND AROUND that aircraft.
BTW, I don't "make threats" of sending you around. I simply go by what the radar tells me, and if the radar tells me that separation will be lost due to non compliance with a speed assignment, then I WILL SEND AROUND that aircraft.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N90 I think what he is saying is that after he has informed the controller "no can do" due to performance the controller then trys bullying to get the pilots to make a unsafe none stabilised approach with the threat of a miss approach as the beating stick.
I have only heard it once with one of the big boys and I still had tears in my eyes after landing when the reply was "going-around, Mayday mayday mayday, below minimum fuel reserves. "
And that must have really screwed with the separation getting him back in quick as they had already authorised the second runway for the diversion.
This was in Europe not the US.
And BTW in my TP we have the opposite problem, after the controller has struggled like hell to get a jet round our old heap of ****e we then do 250knts to 5 miles and then that buggers up the departures if they don't spot it. Then we can come back to taxi speed inside the out bound q. Or come off and block the jet being able to get by. Sometimes its 15 mins hard work by 4 different controllers just to get a jet past a TP with the same ETA but the jet must always go first of course
I have only heard it once with one of the big boys and I still had tears in my eyes after landing when the reply was "going-around, Mayday mayday mayday, below minimum fuel reserves. "
And that must have really screwed with the separation getting him back in quick as they had already authorised the second runway for the diversion.
This was in Europe not the US.
And BTW in my TP we have the opposite problem, after the controller has struggled like hell to get a jet round our old heap of ****e we then do 250knts to 5 miles and then that buggers up the departures if they don't spot it. Then we can come back to taxi speed inside the out bound q. Or come off and block the jet being able to get by. Sometimes its 15 mins hard work by 4 different controllers just to get a jet past a TP with the same ETA but the jet must always go first of course
Last edited by mad_jock; 10th May 2014 at 05:30.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refusing to comply with the clearance=paperwork. There are a growing number of pilots that see speed instructions as optional. Last year I had Irish low cost traffic depart on a SID with a 250kt speed limit. Accelerated straight up to 300kt. I queried it and he told me on the frequency that he "couldn't be bothered with it". Righto, paperwork filed, radar and r/t replays sent to the airline.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earthville
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I was saying my issue is with pilots who are given a when ready descent clearance from the cruise with a speed restriction and don't descend for a good 10-15 miles. Then just speed up to make the level without saying anything. If you can't make the level without speeding up then I need to know. You guys are the ones with your hands on the controls and if you think the restrictions given are unrealistic then I take your word for it and will come up with an alternative plan as appropriate. But just speeding up is not acceptable.
As wiggy says I guess the biggest issue here is communication or lack of. Let me know what you can and can't do and there's no issue. But just ignoring me is of no benefit to me or you.
As wiggy says I guess the biggest issue here is communication or lack of. Let me know what you can and can't do and there's no issue. But just ignoring me is of no benefit to me or you.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York Tracon
Age: 57
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they tell me that they can't comply, then that's fine. I can plan and work around that if I know in advance.
On my previous posts I was referring to those that receive a speed assignment, read back and acknowledge such speed restriction, don't say anything about non being able to comply, and then just do whatever they want to do. Those are the ones I have no problem sending around.
On my previous posts I was referring to those that receive a speed assignment, read back and acknowledge such speed restriction, don't say anything about non being able to comply, and then just do whatever they want to do. Those are the ones I have no problem sending around.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'ABC123 Descend (from cruising level) when ready FL180 level by xxx, speed 280 knots or less'
Mutt
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earthville
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutt, possibly but tbh the instruction is usually 'ABC123 When ready descend FL180 Level By xxx speed on conversion (or in the descent) 280 knots or less'
Apologies that should have been in the original post.
I know using 'on conversion' gets on to the whole conversation of at what level does the conversion from Mach to IAS happen but when the aircraft has descended past the low FL200's I would really have expected the conversion to have happened.
Apologies that should have been in the original post.
I know using 'on conversion' gets on to the whole conversation of at what level does the conversion from Mach to IAS happen but when the aircraft has descended past the low FL200's I would really have expected the conversion to have happened.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Land of Ice and Fire
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sometimes wonder what the FMS look like in bigger aircraft. We normally do 180 to 5, 160 to 4, then final flaps and reduction to Vr. In descent, we are faster than almost all the airliner traffic, including the smartass SAS that thought that descending behind us into Malaga, was somehow going to get them in first, as they were lower (still behind) and we were 340 knots, so still well ahead, as they slowed to 250 as usual.
Why are they playing these games with ATC.....?
As far as waiting a few miles before descending, if we have the VNAV set up, we have the angle we want, then speed requested, the altitude restriction no problem.....really.......don't your boxes allow the same possibilities as our Challenger gives us?
As far as TPs, I used to get "slow to minimum clean" because some Airbus was coming up behind, just before descent, then after he had passed, I first had to extend to not run up his ass, then after turning off at an intersection, wait for him to taxi past!
So THREE times on one approach I had to slow down for the "faster" jet..... ATC at LCLK was hopeless, had no idea about TP capability.
All comes down to COM, doesn't it?
,!
Why are they playing these games with ATC.....?
As far as waiting a few miles before descending, if we have the VNAV set up, we have the angle we want, then speed requested, the altitude restriction no problem.....really.......don't your boxes allow the same possibilities as our Challenger gives us?
As far as TPs, I used to get "slow to minimum clean" because some Airbus was coming up behind, just before descent, then after he had passed, I first had to extend to not run up his ass, then after turning off at an intersection, wait for him to taxi past!
So THREE times on one approach I had to slow down for the "faster" jet..... ATC at LCLK was hopeless, had no idea about TP capability.
All comes down to COM, doesn't it?
,!