Why are we above the glide again!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we above the glide again!
It appears to becoming an ever increasing problem in the UK, that approach controllers are vectoring aircraft to intercept the localiser, and then report established, before being cleared for the approach. This invariably leads to the aircraft being above the glide. It has happened two nights running at two different airports, MAN and BHX. Both we vectored very tight and both ended up above the glideslope, leading to high rates of descent to re-capture, a practise that is acknowledged by the Flight Safety Foundation as potentially dangerous.
If your unit does not allow you to clear an aircraft for an approach on an intercept heading (like most ICAO countries) then please allow sufficient time/distance. Airbuses in particular affected by this as they operate in a 1G world, with gentle descents.
I appreciate that many of you see a tight turn onto the localiser as a time/money saving favour for us, but the reality is that sensible airlines are moving rapidly away from rushed approaches, and wish to be full stable by 1000 feet AAL.
Whinge over!
If your unit does not allow you to clear an aircraft for an approach on an intercept heading (like most ICAO countries) then please allow sufficient time/distance. Airbuses in particular affected by this as they operate in a 1G world, with gentle descents.
I appreciate that many of you see a tight turn onto the localiser as a time/money saving favour for us, but the reality is that sensible airlines are moving rapidly away from rushed approaches, and wish to be full stable by 1000 feet AAL.
Whinge over!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANAGP I'm sure you must know why we can't clear you for an ILS using those words - the subject has been aired on Pprune more times than I've turned aeroplanes onto the ILS!!
Seriously, I appreciate what you're saying but (in the Heathrow environment) the "system" often does not permit such luxuries as gentle descents and intercepting the loc below the GP, etc. We cannot descend below 4000 ft in the intermediate approach because London City is underneath; we very frequently have other (higher priority than you) traffic preventing early descent clearance and, of course, airlines demand the highest possible landing rates. All of these things do NOT make for the luxury of a continuous descent to intercept the glide from underneath. Some crews descend slower than others so if we let them run further downwind we end up with an 8 mile gap on final approach instead of 3 and that snowballs back down the line. I cringe sometimes when I have to turn someone on at 5000 ft at ten miles but always ask if there is sufficient distance and offer to go through the ILS. Very rarely has the reply been "no".
Believe me, it's not ATCOs to blame - we simply do what's demanded of us and a lot of that is demanded by YOUR employer.
I'm not saying this is a satisfactory answer - far from it, unfortunately - it is a statement of the worsening situation resulting from increasing pressures in modern day commercial aviation. Whether the Flight Safety Foundation has any say in this I rather doubt.
Seriously, I appreciate what you're saying but (in the Heathrow environment) the "system" often does not permit such luxuries as gentle descents and intercepting the loc below the GP, etc. We cannot descend below 4000 ft in the intermediate approach because London City is underneath; we very frequently have other (higher priority than you) traffic preventing early descent clearance and, of course, airlines demand the highest possible landing rates. All of these things do NOT make for the luxury of a continuous descent to intercept the glide from underneath. Some crews descend slower than others so if we let them run further downwind we end up with an 8 mile gap on final approach instead of 3 and that snowballs back down the line. I cringe sometimes when I have to turn someone on at 5000 ft at ten miles but always ask if there is sufficient distance and offer to go through the ILS. Very rarely has the reply been "no".
Believe me, it's not ATCOs to blame - we simply do what's demanded of us and a lot of that is demanded by YOUR employer.
I'm not saying this is a satisfactory answer - far from it, unfortunately - it is a statement of the worsening situation resulting from increasing pressures in modern day commercial aviation. Whether the Flight Safety Foundation has any say in this I rather doubt.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director, thank you for your comments.
I am interested to know what traffic has a greater priority than landing traffic, and I'm not suprised that cringes are made with vectoring of 5000 at 10 miles. I fully appreciated that LHR has it's own problem with LCY, and equally understand that it is the system at fault not the ATCOs who, in the main do an excellent job.
My gripe is with MAN, and BHX, where I can see no reason. Some controllers at MAN require the localiser call to be made, whilst others clear further descent when established. The latter being much appreciated!
Perhaps someone from MAN can explain?
I am interested to know what traffic has a greater priority than landing traffic, and I'm not suprised that cringes are made with vectoring of 5000 at 10 miles. I fully appreciated that LHR has it's own problem with LCY, and equally understand that it is the system at fault not the ATCOs who, in the main do an excellent job.
My gripe is with MAN, and BHX, where I can see no reason. Some controllers at MAN require the localiser call to be made, whilst others clear further descent when established. The latter being much appreciated!
Perhaps someone from MAN can explain?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm certainly one of the "when localiser established, descend on the ILS" brigade! There are more and more of us but change takes time with some unfortunately.
We had a complaint from a BA 734 pilot the other day (I was on GMC!) about being turned in high for 06R. It is a known problem that exists because we have to wait until you have cleared the LISTO SID track before descent from stack level, coupled with a limited amount of airspace (14 miles from 06R) to the western boundary of our vectoring area.
This gives you about 20 miles, so if you are still fast when you start to descend there is invariably insufficient distance for you to get the height off and slow down. I try and slow you down first and then give descent or leave DAYNE heading 315 for a minute then give a downwind of about 210 to increase distance available.
The problem also occures on 24R if we give you a base leg heading from TNT. This shortens your track mileage and even though we've asked and you've said "OK" you still end up high because you've been unable to slow down and come down.
Don't forget the 210 kt speed limit north of TNT for the GPWS warnings. Its still there even though modern kit has much reduced the number of nuisance alerts.
I hope that helps.
We had a complaint from a BA 734 pilot the other day (I was on GMC!) about being turned in high for 06R. It is a known problem that exists because we have to wait until you have cleared the LISTO SID track before descent from stack level, coupled with a limited amount of airspace (14 miles from 06R) to the western boundary of our vectoring area.
This gives you about 20 miles, so if you are still fast when you start to descend there is invariably insufficient distance for you to get the height off and slow down. I try and slow you down first and then give descent or leave DAYNE heading 315 for a minute then give a downwind of about 210 to increase distance available.
The problem also occures on 24R if we give you a base leg heading from TNT. This shortens your track mileage and even though we've asked and you've said "OK" you still end up high because you've been unable to slow down and come down.
Don't forget the 210 kt speed limit north of TNT for the GPWS warnings. Its still there even though modern kit has much reduced the number of nuisance alerts.
I hope that helps.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cossack, many thanks for your reply.
Generally the problem on 24R at MAN isn't the high and fast related, it's the getting in the call to get further descent with the glide. It only takes one other person to speak and the whole things turns to a ball of chaulk!
Thank YOU for understanding the problem and solving it with "when established further descent with the glide". Hopefully you can spread the word!
All regulars at MAN are aware of 210 NE of Dayne, some others may chose to ignore it!
Usually for me it's the frustration of arriving at the right height and speed, only to end up pushing buttons feverishly to make the aircraft descend quick enough to catch up with the glide!!!!!!!
Once again, thanks for the feedback, anyone from BHX care to comment on their problems.
Generally the problem on 24R at MAN isn't the high and fast related, it's the getting in the call to get further descent with the glide. It only takes one other person to speak and the whole things turns to a ball of chaulk!
Thank YOU for understanding the problem and solving it with "when established further descent with the glide". Hopefully you can spread the word!
All regulars at MAN are aware of 210 NE of Dayne, some others may chose to ignore it!
Usually for me it's the frustration of arriving at the right height and speed, only to end up pushing buttons feverishly to make the aircraft descend quick enough to catch up with the glide!!!!!!!
Once again, thanks for the feedback, anyone from BHX care to comment on their problems.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Germany, the phrase is "cleared ILS", and this includes the clearance to descend. Saves a lot of time, especially during busy times. If I don´t want you to descend yet I will tell you...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANAGP
I can't take credit for the phraseology only for using it!
It is in our manual as one of the approved phrases for this instruction.
If you want to take a look at our end, just get in touch. Our doors aren't locked... just yet!
caba
"cleared ILS approach" is not one of the approved phrases we can use in the UK.
I can't take credit for the phraseology only for using it!
It is in our manual as one of the approved phrases for this instruction.If you want to take a look at our end, just get in touch. Our doors aren't locked... just yet!
caba
"cleared ILS approach" is not one of the approved phrases we can use in the UK.
As previously mentioned, this subject just will not 'go away'.
Perhaps it is time for the UK ATC regulators to reconsider, because:-
a) "Cleared ILS approach" is accepted, and used, in many other countries.
b) Many pilots seem in favour, for a number of practical reasons.
Provided that it was clearly understood that pilots must not leave the last ATC assigned level, prior to localiser and glide path intercept, is there a problem?
Perhaps it is time for the UK ATC regulators to reconsider, because:-
a) "Cleared ILS approach" is accepted, and used, in many other countries.
b) Many pilots seem in favour, for a number of practical reasons.
Provided that it was clearly understood that pilots must not leave the last ATC assigned level, prior to localiser and glide path intercept, is there a problem?
Last edited by spekesoftly; 8th Aug 2002 at 20:04.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NW UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"UK ATC regulators"..."reconsider"... surely not!
That would be seen as a climb down from their ivory towers like that "holding position" fiasco. Common sense would not, I fear, prevail.
That would be seen as a climb down from their ivory towers like that "holding position" fiasco. Common sense would not, I fear, prevail.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no, not this subject again....!
Brilliant disguise and spekesoftly - well said.
Heathrow Director - all that you say is true and has, as you remark, been said many times before. It is fully understood and taken on board by most of us this side of the mike. As spekesoftly says, the problem lies in that one little clearance that you're not allowed to give "fly heading XXX to intercept the ILS then descend with the glide path". It's quite simple, it's not very easy to misunderstand and it works perfectly everywhere else in the world. But until your handlebar-moustached mandarins climb out of their ivory tower, it seems that you and I are condemned to make double the number of transmissions that are really needed and to find ouselves time and again in a "rushed approach" situation that is totally unecessary.
And yes, I know that this is slightly off-topic and possibly doesn't address the problem at MAN and BHX, but it's certainly the root of the problem at LHR.
Heathrow Director - all that you say is true and has, as you remark, been said many times before. It is fully understood and taken on board by most of us this side of the mike. As spekesoftly says, the problem lies in that one little clearance that you're not allowed to give "fly heading XXX to intercept the ILS then descend with the glide path". It's quite simple, it's not very easy to misunderstand and it works perfectly everywhere else in the world. But until your handlebar-moustached mandarins climb out of their ivory tower, it seems that you and I are condemned to make double the number of transmissions that are really needed and to find ouselves time and again in a "rushed approach" situation that is totally unecessary.
And yes, I know that this is slightly off-topic and possibly doesn't address the problem at MAN and BHX, but it's certainly the root of the problem at LHR.
Last edited by tired; 8th Aug 2002 at 21:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for their continued input. YES it is time that the UK ATC regulators did something about this problem, as it will NOT go away. Why does the UK insist on making things much more difficult than need be. Difficult for pilots, and ATCOs alike!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tired....
...to re-iterate what has already been pointed out here, this gets an airing regularly.
The problem that HD and colleagues have with LHR is the interaction with the helicopters (and other fixed wing flights) in the LCTR.
HD/120.4 et al can tell lots of stories of aircraft decending below the GP causing major incidents. This is particularly true when LHR are on 27L/R and LCY is on 10. Things are so finely balanced in that configuration.
Whilst we would love to say cleared ILS and 'forget' you we can't. Even if MATS pt 1 was ammended, I doubt that the local procedures (MATS part 2) would change.
There is too much going on below you!
...to re-iterate what has already been pointed out here, this gets an airing regularly.
The problem that HD and colleagues have with LHR is the interaction with the helicopters (and other fixed wing flights) in the LCTR.
HD/120.4 et al can tell lots of stories of aircraft decending below the GP causing major incidents. This is particularly true when LHR are on 27L/R and LCY is on 10. Things are so finely balanced in that configuration.
Whilst we would love to say cleared ILS and 'forget' you we can't. Even if MATS pt 1 was ammended, I doubt that the local procedures (MATS part 2) would change.
There is too much going on below you!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: U.K.
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is difficult to comment about your approach to BHX as it very much depends on which runway you approached and at what time of night.
The proximity of Coventry can often have a significant impact on operations approaching RWY33 at BHX. IFR Traffic departing RWY23 from Cov will usually be resricted to 2500' allowing you to descend to 3500' only even if localiser established. The climbout of RWY 23 passes through the 33 approach about 10nm out therefore if traffic departing Cov calls late as they invariably do we cannot give descent until we have 3 nm sep which means you are high on the glide! It is quite often difficult to judge if this situation is going to occur as once we have given a release to the departure of RWY23 the time until it is airborne can vary greatly sometimes 2 or 3 minutes!
Alternatively if you are routing in from the north we may vector you for a shorter final to remain North of the climbout of 23, this would result in about a 6 or 7 mile final although you should have been given descent in time to achieve this!
I also like to use the phrase 'when established descend on the ILS' although I admit I tend only to use it when RT is busy.
Hope this helps!!!
The proximity of Coventry can often have a significant impact on operations approaching RWY33 at BHX. IFR Traffic departing RWY23 from Cov will usually be resricted to 2500' allowing you to descend to 3500' only even if localiser established. The climbout of RWY 23 passes through the 33 approach about 10nm out therefore if traffic departing Cov calls late as they invariably do we cannot give descent until we have 3 nm sep which means you are high on the glide! It is quite often difficult to judge if this situation is going to occur as once we have given a release to the departure of RWY23 the time until it is airborne can vary greatly sometimes 2 or 3 minutes!
Alternatively if you are routing in from the north we may vector you for a shorter final to remain North of the climbout of 23, this would result in about a 6 or 7 mile final although you should have been given descent in time to achieve this!
I also like to use the phrase 'when established descend on the ILS' although I admit I tend only to use it when RT is busy.
Hope this helps!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
tired,
Despite what Bright-Ling says there's nothing to stop Heathrow controllers saying, at an appropriate time, "when established on the localiser, descend on the ILS".
When landing on the 27's we can go from 4,000ft to 3,000ft at 13 miles out. If you're on a closing heading at that point and have only been told to establish on the loc, it can then be a good time to say "ABC123 descend to altitude 3,000ft, when established on the localiser descend on the ILS".
Nice and safe and works a treat. If we're concerned about any particular traffic under the approach, we always have the option of not saying it.
For your info the other descent restrictions on the 27's if you're not established on the loc are from 3,000ft to 2,5000ft at 11 miles out and from 2,500ft to 2,000ft at 9 miles out, all due to the volume of traffic (mainly heli's) below the approaches. We can't go lower than these profiles without having to make phone calls.
WF.
Despite what Bright-Ling says there's nothing to stop Heathrow controllers saying, at an appropriate time, "when established on the localiser, descend on the ILS".
When landing on the 27's we can go from 4,000ft to 3,000ft at 13 miles out. If you're on a closing heading at that point and have only been told to establish on the loc, it can then be a good time to say "ABC123 descend to altitude 3,000ft, when established on the localiser descend on the ILS".
Nice and safe and works a treat. If we're concerned about any particular traffic under the approach, we always have the option of not saying it.
For your info the other descent restrictions on the 27's if you're not established on the loc are from 3,000ft to 2,5000ft at 11 miles out and from 2,500ft to 2,000ft at 9 miles out, all due to the volume of traffic (mainly heli's) below the approaches. We can't go lower than these profiles without having to make phone calls.
WF.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NATS U.K.
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANAGP
With reference to problems at BHX, Muppet has described one scenario with regard to Coventry traffic departing 23 (although the argument is equally valid for 05 arrivals). I could give you lots of other excuses, including the perennial one of extremely cramped airspace, courtesy of the GA fraternity - don't get me started on that one!
However, if you are hitting the localiser above the glide on a regular basis, somebody's doing it incorrectly. All ATCOs are taught to have aircraft established on the loc and in a short period of level flight before encountering the glide wherever possible. If it's a case of not having been cleared for further descent and thereby missing the glide, then that's a phraseology matter which brings us to the MATS 1 limitations as mentioned earlier. We have attempted to address the issue by the use of a dedicated director frequency at most times of the day, but I appreciate this may not always be the answer.
If you wish to discuss the BHX situation in more detail - or if you have any other BHX-related queries, please drop into www.egbb.co.uk where we will be happy to help if we can.
MF
With reference to problems at BHX, Muppet has described one scenario with regard to Coventry traffic departing 23 (although the argument is equally valid for 05 arrivals). I could give you lots of other excuses, including the perennial one of extremely cramped airspace, courtesy of the GA fraternity - don't get me started on that one!
However, if you are hitting the localiser above the glide on a regular basis, somebody's doing it incorrectly. All ATCOs are taught to have aircraft established on the loc and in a short period of level flight before encountering the glide wherever possible. If it's a case of not having been cleared for further descent and thereby missing the glide, then that's a phraseology matter which brings us to the MATS 1 limitations as mentioned earlier. We have attempted to address the issue by the use of a dedicated director frequency at most times of the day, but I appreciate this may not always be the answer.
If you wish to discuss the BHX situation in more detail - or if you have any other BHX-related queries, please drop into www.egbb.co.uk where we will be happy to help if we can.
MF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manu Forte & Muppet
Thanks for your input. My problems at BHX were both late at night 11z and 01z, were Director was not needed. On both occasions we were vectored onto the RW33 localiser at 2500' but with no further descent. End result On localiser, Above glide! Not a problem at 10 miles+, but a significant one close in. All Intrument approaches MUST be stable by 1000' AAL (On localiser, On glide, On Speed (-0kts to +5 kts) & engines at approach thrust.
What is needed is as I have pointed out before:
1) Turn left/right hdg XXX, cleared ILS approach RW xx
2) Turn left/right hdg XXX, when established on localiser RW xx, cleared ILS approach RWxx.
The above happens everywhere else in the world, why not here in the UK?
If MATS part 1 is unhelpful, then lets work together to get it changed.
Thanks for your input. My problems at BHX were both late at night 11z and 01z, were Director was not needed. On both occasions we were vectored onto the RW33 localiser at 2500' but with no further descent. End result On localiser, Above glide! Not a problem at 10 miles+, but a significant one close in. All Intrument approaches MUST be stable by 1000' AAL (On localiser, On glide, On Speed (-0kts to +5 kts) & engines at approach thrust.
What is needed is as I have pointed out before:
1) Turn left/right hdg XXX, cleared ILS approach RW xx
2) Turn left/right hdg XXX, when established on localiser RW xx, cleared ILS approach RWxx.
The above happens everywhere else in the world, why not here in the UK?
If MATS part 1 is unhelpful, then lets work together to get it changed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bright-Ling,
At the two airfields I provide approach services to in TC I hear quite a few folks using the new phraseology, though not all it must be said.
Manu Forte,
Not necessarily. Down here, especially at night, we have the requirement for CDA's being thrown at us all the time. Detailed statistics are produced every month and minor slaps on wrists received if you're not meeting the Key Performance Indicators. Almost of necessity CDA's involve hitting the glideslope from at or above.
MANAGP,
The necessary phraseology is already in MATS Pt 1, it just needs everyone to start using it.
WF.
I agree......but how many people actually say it!
Manu Forte,
However, if you are hitting the localiser above the glide on a regular basis, somebody's doing it incorrectly.
MANAGP,
If MATS part 1 is unhelpful, then lets work together to get it changed.
WF.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warped factor, thanks for that, I had no idea that the phraseology already exists in the UK. IMHO that is exactly how things should be done and it would solve a lot of problems with less-than-satisfactory approaches at LHR. I understand the problems caused by aircraft descending below the glide, but the phraseology you quote is very difficult to misunderstand.
Bright-ling - I don't think I've ever heard it used at LHR, though to be fair I'm long haul so only operate 4 -5 times/month. As mentioned above, I had no idea that you are able to issue that clearance in the UK, all the posts I've ever seen on Prune have suggested that you can't, or at least that's how I've interpreted them. IMHO it solves one of the biggest bugbears at LHR.
If it is indeed a relatively new thing in your MATS, then I've no doubt it will take a long time to become standard practice, but it's extremely encouraging to know that that phraseology is now acceptable - eventually it will become more commonplace and make life easier for all. Thanks for the gen.
Oh, and my apologies to your mandarins for assuming that they're an out-of-touch bunch of reactionaries!
Bright-ling - I don't think I've ever heard it used at LHR, though to be fair I'm long haul so only operate 4 -5 times/month. As mentioned above, I had no idea that you are able to issue that clearance in the UK, all the posts I've ever seen on Prune have suggested that you can't, or at least that's how I've interpreted them. IMHO it solves one of the biggest bugbears at LHR.
If it is indeed a relatively new thing in your MATS, then I've no doubt it will take a long time to become standard practice, but it's extremely encouraging to know that that phraseology is now acceptable - eventually it will become more commonplace and make life easier for all. Thanks for the gen.
Oh, and my apologies to your mandarins for assuming that they're an out-of-touch bunch of reactionaries!