Heathrow Glideslope Increases
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: london
Heathrow Glideslope Increases
I hear there are renewed calls for the Heathrow glideslope to be significantly increased to counteract noise pollution from the ideas for new flighpaths in the latest consultation (Airspace and Future Operations Consultation).
Good idea?
Good idea?
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,723
Likes: 2,093
From: Reading, UK
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
There is a long term 3.2 RNAV trial going on, and there have been trials of steeper segmented glide slopes (4.0 degrees then changing to 3.0 degrees at 4DME, that type of thing) as well.
There are a few problems.
Once you get above 3.2 then CAT III approaches are not going to be flown (that’s the certification limit for most airliners (well, 3.25)).
Once you get above 3.5 degrees then energy and speed management become very critical, so the chances of aircraft being able to maintain an ATC-specified speed down final approach with minimum separation both ahead and behind become slim to non-existent. On some of the vertical segmented trials, 777s had to be flying at 160kts at 25nm from touchdown joining the 4.0 degree slope to ensure they were still flying 160kts at 4DME and able to slow to finally approach speed. Modern airliners are so efficient in terms of drag that they are difficult enough to slow down without hanging everything down which actually makes them a lot more noisy than a cleaner aircraft on a 3 degree slope.
There are a few problems.
Once you get above 3.2 then CAT III approaches are not going to be flown (that’s the certification limit for most airliners (well, 3.25)).
Once you get above 3.5 degrees then energy and speed management become very critical, so the chances of aircraft being able to maintain an ATC-specified speed down final approach with minimum separation both ahead and behind become slim to non-existent. On some of the vertical segmented trials, 777s had to be flying at 160kts at 25nm from touchdown joining the 4.0 degree slope to ensure they were still flying 160kts at 4DME and able to slow to finally approach speed. Modern airliners are so efficient in terms of drag that they are difficult enough to slow down without hanging everything down which actually makes them a lot more noisy than a cleaner aircraft on a 3 degree slope.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: UK
When originally installed, the glideslope at LCA and Plymouth were commisioned at 7.5 degrees, the DHC Dash 6 was the only type certified to operate this angle of approach. But with production of this aircraft ceased trials were done to certify other a/c types to operate at 5.5 degrees. I'm not sure when the changeover took place but LCA operated at 7.5 deg for quite a few years from its opening date in the late 80's.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,723
Likes: 2,093
From: Reading, UK
When originally installed, the glideslope at LCA and Plymouth were commisioned at 7.5 degrees, the DHC Dash 6 was the only type certified to operate this angle of approach. But with production of this aircraft ceased trials were done to certify other a/c types to operate at 5.5 degrees. I'm not sure when the changeover took place but LCA operated at 7.5 deg for quite a few years from its opening date in the late 80's.
LCY wouldn't have been viable if only the 19-seat Twotter had been able to operate there.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: UK
My bad, I meant the four engined DHC dash whichever, sorry. The Bae 146 carried out extensive flight trials to prove it could fly a higher angle than 3 deg but 7.5 wasn't achievable so 5.5 was settled for and since then other types have been certified at this lower angle
Joined: Nov 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 620
Likes: 136
From: UK
When originally installed, the glideslope at LCA and Plymouth were commisioned at 7.5 degrees, the DHC Dash 6 was the only type certified to operate this angle of approach. But with production of this aircraft ceased trials were done to certify other a/c types to operate at 5.5 degrees. I'm not sure when the changeover took place but LCA operated at 7.5 deg for quite a few years from its opening date in the late 80's.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,776
Likes: 351
From: UK
Because of the difficulties discussed above, steep approaches greater than 4 deg (last time I looked at regs) require that the aircraft be specifically certificated for these operations. Basically to show manoeuvre margin and flare / GA handling. The ability to manoeuvre is directly related to drag - slow down, minimum thrust - air bleed / elect gen.
Actual operations encounter further difficulties, as above, particularly with AWO category, and ATC management.
Steep / two-segment approaches have noise advantages - the main issue at LCY.
Modern aircraft are generally quieter and distant nose is minimised with managed drag etc.
High density airport operations have considered wake turbulence - landing rate advantages when intermixing std / heavy aircraft; those capable of steep approach can land long with separate guidance, but see limits above. Possible ATC implications.
Many new types can achieve category 2, steep approach accuracies. Manual landing in these conditions is ‘disliked’ by the authorities - although the crew have a better view than a standard approach. Autoland is a certification cost issue; Avro RJ had ‘the feel’ of an aircraft which could achieve a steep auto-land - manual landing certificated at 6 deg.
RAE showed steep auto-land capability with HS748 and BAC 1-11 in the 1970s.
Actual operations encounter further difficulties, as above, particularly with AWO category, and ATC management.
Steep / two-segment approaches have noise advantages - the main issue at LCY.
Modern aircraft are generally quieter and distant nose is minimised with managed drag etc.
High density airport operations have considered wake turbulence - landing rate advantages when intermixing std / heavy aircraft; those capable of steep approach can land long with separate guidance, but see limits above. Possible ATC implications.
Many new types can achieve category 2, steep approach accuracies. Manual landing in these conditions is ‘disliked’ by the authorities - although the crew have a better view than a standard approach. Autoland is a certification cost issue; Avro RJ had ‘the feel’ of an aircraft which could achieve a steep auto-land - manual landing certificated at 6 deg.
RAE showed steep auto-land capability with HS748 and BAC 1-11 in the 1970s.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: UK
Apologies pilotmike, I'm a retired NATS Engineer and our references to airports were not the same codes as used by the ATCO's. I do now remember when London City was in the planning stage it could not have the designator LCA as it was already allocated, the NDB had its ident as LCY not LCA as requested.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,723
Likes: 2,093
From: Reading, UK
I'm a retired NATS Engineer and our references to airports were not the same codes as used by the ATCO's. I do now remember when London City was in the planning stage it could not have the designator LCA as it was already allocated, the NDB had its ident as LCY not LCA as requested.
But probably best not used in the PPRuNe ATC Forum.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 172
Likes: 3
From: EU
Maybe LHR can have similar system, with descent angles 3 and 3.5 respectively?
Last edited by poldek77; 23rd February 2019 at 18:51.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
There used to be a list in the AIP showing an extra 'allowance' to be added to DH for GPs above 3 deg in order to compensate for greater drift down when carrying out a missed approach.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,723
Likes: 2,093
From: Reading, UK
3.2° Slightly Steeper Approach Trial Report
