SPEED v. VECTORS

[FILTONFELLA]

This is a question to my pilot friends out there. Do you prefer speed control (from possibly 20nm out) or vectors for us ATCOs to be able to feed you into a sequence? Note this is in relation to a small airfield without a TMA.

[Chilli Monster]

As both Pilot and ATCO the answer's obvious - Vectoring. It's not always possible but if you can leave the pilot to fly his own speed profile and you just put him in the right place then you've done your job. If you start applying speed control without knowing the characteristics of the aircraft involved you could be asking for trouble. Be aware of the speed yes, but don't alter it unless you have to. Check your PM's for a further point.

Feel free to discuss in work if you wish

[FILTONFELLA]

Thanks Chilli but as you know, places like Filton are 'boxed-in' by other airfields and I feel that speed control is probably more relevant at Filton for these reasons, however, I just wanted to know what the (commercial) pilots felt about it. Any imposed limit would be no more than, say, 250kts at 25nms and then 210/180kts downwind/base.

[Chilli Monster]

Like I said before - vector and don't worry about speed control. You won't need it unless:

a) you get an evening rush in which case you pick the speed depending on the situation; or;

b) In case you screw up

It very rarely gets used. If you're who I think you are wait until you start your OJT before you start worrying about it.

[almost professional]

sorry but that sounds like the gospel according to CATC circa 1982, speed control is no substitute for good vectoring-they would'nt even teach it as a technique!

[Chilli Monster]

AP

You work class 'D', I work Class 'G' - different environment, different traffic, different techniques (and seeing as I work at the place in question who do you think is more experienced in the situation )

[almost professional]

CM
OK I do not know the specifics of your case but as far as I am concerned each technique has its place irrespective of airspace or circumstance which is why I could not believe what I was taught all those years ago, surely in limited or non existent airspace speed control is a very useful tool

[Spitoon]

Hey Chilli and FF, can't your talk about it at work!!!!

More seriously though Chilli, leaving the speed control to the pilot is a good idea but with larger aircraft the pilot needs to know what the controllers plans are (like track miles).

[Chilli Monster]

AP

I'm not saying it doesn't get used. Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying to the thread originator is that it's not something he needs to worry about. There will be times when it's necessary but not using the ideas that FILTONFELLA is stating as his ideas. His speed control will come more in the Final approach stage and it will, in most cases, be to keep the speed UP, not reduce it.

Spitoon

I know - they do, and I've explained this to FF (who is still on his Radar course I believe and doesn't start with us for a few weeks )

CM

PS - Almost P - check your PM's

[Canoehead]

In a terminal environment, speed control is as important as breathing. Precise vectoring is even more important. They go hand in hand. Sort of like beer and sex.

[flower]

When I vector Aircraft into my illustrious airport not 30 odd miles from Filton I have to take mine from Class A through class G back into Class D airspace , which makes for interesting times occasionally.

Have to say If I don't need to use speed control I don't , but I have been told many many times by commercial pilots that they would far rather be sped than be given the scenic route just because of some outdated ideas on speed control.
Speed control is a very useful tool , I believe sadly neglected as a means to establish a good sequence by us smaller airfields.

Perversely , the use of radar vectors to lengthen the route of outbound aircraft is preferential to crews rather than be sat on the ground at the holding point.

[spekesoftly]

I suspect that the desire to get airborne, even on an extended outbound route, is a combination of factors. Good PR for the pax, who, unaware of the re-route, perceive an on-time departure. Possible crew expectation of making up some time down route. Good for company image - punctuality league tables etc. I'm sure there's more.

[Short Approach?]

Sure. Like fuel waste.

[spekesoftly]

The fuel issue is a gamble/balance. Get airborne sooner, on a longer route, or take a delay on the ground followed by a more direct route?

[tired]

As a pilot - I believe the original question was addressed to us too? - on arrival give me speed control every time, vectors are a pain. On departure, exactly the opposite.

[FILTONFELLA]

At last, a reply from a pilot. Thanks 'tired'. I have to say that my personal inkling, as an ATCO only, is surely speed control for arrivals and an extended routing for departures, if that is what is required, to get aircraft in or away on time. It seems to make the most sense to me, after all, if a pilot can't accept your speed limitations then he will surely tell you. Hopefully most of you pilots feel this way but however you feel, please let us know.

P.S. By the way Chilli, I can assure you that i can/will be able to achieve a sequence using either method but want to know which is the preferred method for pilots (in general!).

[Moondance]

I agree with Tired - there seems little point being vectored in the wrong direction at high speed on arrival, sensible speed control applied in plenty of time is preferable. Mind you, if you are a British jet behind a Spanish turboprop at PMI you get both - recently we had 230 kts 60 miles from touchdown and THEN extended vectoring to ensure the local gets in as number one!
On departure, I often think it would be useful to know what the constraint is before we can turn on track - ie if it is an altitude we can keep the speed back and get to that altitude quicker or if it is a position, we can accelerate to get to that point quicker.