I have done two go-arounds at DXB following the local carrier and got too close doing the published speeds, both times it was two runway ops. Both times had the same yank controller who has no idea about the tailwind on base.

DXB is not the model to pin up, no big airport is.

The people that delay the A380 15 minutes were probably at home asleep for half of the trip. They have no idea the aircraft has been flying for 12 hours, controllers are under so much pressure, they are working as hard as possible to move all the customers they have to the best of their ability, no one gets a pass if your domestic or international.

The long range slot co-ordination they have in Oz does not work. I have been asked to drop around 30 minutes en-route once hitting the FIR. The problem is the Oz FIR is so big, 90% of the traffic at the destination has not even departed. The problem is domestic carriers have saturated the slots in the capital cities and everyone has to pay.

The A330 will do 160/4 at all weights, but it depends on the company you work for if this is permissible. The manufacturer says 1000' in IMC, and 500' in VMC. If your company requires you to be Vapp at 1500 ft, you are not going to make that 160/4, 160/5 you will. What people don't realize a lighter aircraft does decelerate quicker, however the approach speed maybe 10+ kts less. 160/4 when you have a Vapp of 140 is different to 160/4 with a Vapp of 126.

Dumb ATC speed requirements were partially the cause for the 777 crash at SFO, the report never mentions that ATC asked them to maintain 180/5 with no traffic. You can see who got hung out to dry. Sure the crew stuffed up, but they did not deal the deck.

There is a time and place for everything, and ATC SHOULD have contingencies planned for additional monitoring is they want to have higher rates. However what we are seeing worldwide, is more movements per controller, accident happening, and pilots left hung out to dry. ATC management need to have great ideas like this time based separation, but also the associated contingencies. It will not be the people that use it every day, its the people that use it once a decade.

There may be further speed restrictions on the STAR, so this could apply then.

Where the STAR plate says Max 250KT below 10000, cancel STAR speed restriction should also cancel the general requirement in AIP for 250 below 10 - probably needs clarification.
I say Cancel speed restriction below 10000 and this to me cancels both restrictions.
If the aircraft is already below F120, I don't bother cancelling the speed restriction, except at pilot request or if aircraft is given track shortening.

Interesting tidbit in the BBC article on the procedure

When ATC cancels all STAR speed restrictions this includes cancellation
of any general requirement to maintain 250KT or less below
A100.

If no other instruction attached, then continue at your normal or desired speed. If I want an aircraft to increase above 250 or hold it on beyond the STAAS reduction points, then I'll be specific.

On departure though, if I cancel speed restrictions (without being requested), it's always because I want you to start accelerating (but still meet any height requirements).

'Cancel speed restictions' (on the STAR/below A100) means 'go fast if you want to/speed is at pilot discretion'. It doesn't mean 'Max speed above and below'. If you are getting 'cancel speed' inbound you are probably number one, or there is no specific requirement to slow you down. If you are given 'max' or a specific speed, there is probably someone up your date.

Navaid Inspections
 

VC9 - The problem with Navaid flight inspections was brought up when I used to work for Airservices. The operator is well aware of the issues they cause but they also have their own issues. The flying is quite intense - multiple accurate ILS approaches are required, not all of them being via the centreline. This can cause fatigue amongst the crew members particularly when their approaches are delayed by ATC due to scheduled movements requiring holding and extended flight times. Their capital city priority is Airwork and even though they are required to discuss the flight test with ATC this does not change their traffic priority. I believe their mitigation is crew member watching crew member - if a call is made by one crew member on another or themselves for sounding/looking etc fatigued then the company requires the captain to abandon the sortie and land.

It was suggested that the testing could be done at night (daylight is not a requirement but at the time I was there VMC was) but this would require negotiations between the airports and DoT as it would not comply with current noise abatement procedures at the major airports. (Curfewed or not - they all have noise abatement procedures.) I do not know what became of this proposal but it sounded eminently suitable to me considering that the test aircraft is a BE-350 Super King Air.

A specific issue in Sydney concerns a test of the "edge" of the ILS envelope that requires the aircraft to virtually fly down final of the adjacent parallel runway, so closing both approaches. I believe that the test personnel did not consider that particular test to be necessary, however it would be CASA's call.

If problems are still occurring perhaps more negotiation is required.

and the pilots of the 3 x 350's do a great job to minimise disruptions here in Aus and elsewhere in S/E Asia ( no I'm not one of them )

Some of their work in Singapore is at night

Been controlling Auscal (navaid testing) for 20 years - Have never had a problem with any of them. They have always been accommodating in helping keep other traffic moving and to all their pilots I say thanks and very well done. :ok::ok::ok: