Time Based Separation for Aircraft on Final
 

Some may find it interesting. Will it ever happen here?
VIDEO: Time Based Separation explained | Pilot Career News

If and I use the word "IF" carefully AsA were every able to get it right in some of the ports around this place and introduce 160 to 4 like in a lot of other places then then many of the issues we seem to have here would be negated.

However to make it work you would really need the abolition of movement caps, noise sharing, more runways, more parking bays etc etc. However since the airports are now privately run shopping centres with great car parks the political will to fix it does not exist.

Finger pointing and lack of accountability will continue and no one will fix the problem.

Time bases approach gates, bring it on, but the rest of the system will let you down.

Again:ugh:

Time Based Separation for Aircraft on Final
 

The speed restrictions are 185 or less at 10nm reducing to between 150-160 down final to 5nm

Remember LHR has dedicated landing runway which is a lot easier to instigate this procedure.

TWOTBAGS
Check out this safety bulletin issued by ASA as these speeds apply for ATC separation and sequencing purposes.
http://http://www.airservicesaustral...eeds-final.pdf

Standard Terminal Area Arrival Speeds (STAAS) were introduced to improve safety and efficiency by bringing more predictability to arrival sequences at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth airports. Although the implementation of STAAS has been successful, reports indicate that not all flights are complying, resulting in additional air traffic control (ATC) workload, aircraft go-arounds, and losses of separation or separation assurance.

and

Pilots not complying with STAAS has resulted in unnecessary traffic sequencing actions, aircraft go-arounds and reduced safety margins.

Obviously, unnecessary traffic sequencing actions, aircraft being sent around or going around and a reduction in safety margins are to be avoided.

Consistent expectation and consistent application will improve safety and ultimately efficiency.

Straight out of the book, eh Sunny?

The current "rules" are too broad; eg 230 at 20 then min 185 until 10 means somebody could come back to 185 at 15nm. There should be an explicit note saying "keep the speed up at the previous limit until you need to slow down". The speeds should be simplified as well: get rid of "160 at 10" and "150 at 5".

If there are persistent recalcitrants, have the chief pilots been contacted?

Capn Bloggs
And why not Capn Bloggs?

The facts, and nothing but the facts.

Capn Bloggs
There is, direct from the missive.

maintain required speed up until the aircraft must slow down to reach the next speed by the specified point

Have the CPs been contacted? Not sure, the Safety Bulletin is probably the line in the sand. Issuing the Safety Bulletin just prior to increase in traffic (post holidays) is probably a good thing. BTW, ATCs have been told not to vary the speeds unless its required for separation.

The problem here sunny is the mix of aircraft types and the "safety" controls each different company has placed on their operations, such as crews meeting certain gates and approach criteria.

An example of this is when Jetstar first got 320s the old boys would fly it like they stole it, as time progressed approach criteria tightened and speeds were mandated. It slowed things down.

Mix a B777 at close to MLW or even better a MD-11 with a Dash-300 or ATR and then you get people saying well I cant go that slow and others that fast.

The answer is outside our backyard. 160 to 4 works, for jets and props. The problem is that companies internal policy for stabilized approach criteria to be established at ref+ and in final flap config can be hard to achieve if people need to reduce from 160 at 4 with only 300 feet to continue descent and be established & stabilized at 3 and 1000ft.

It is doable, and enforced in a lot of places, but like I said too many companies have dumbed down their procedures to lowest common denominator and the rest of it is either finger pointing or apathy.

While I spent thirty years flying as though I was ablaze, I now fly something that does not like to decelerate much, yet must be at ~140 kts by 1000' RA. (Note that this occurs at about 4 NM from MEL 16 threshold, for example)

So, much as I'd like to help the cause, in IMC I can't really fly 160 closer than about six miles, give or take, assuming no tailwind and no track shortening.

A light weight 330 has difficulty getting back to approach speed if you are holding 160 to 4.

U will be outside the Vapp + 10 if you manage the speed at 4, and start sweating if it will get within our companies stabilisation criteria for 500' Agl

Perhaps you meant "Australian" companies...

Rex, a light aeroplane slows down faster than a heavy one...

Interesting stuff but isn't it a solution to a problem we don't have in Australia. They are using reduced wake turbulence separation to maximise rwy usage. During strong headwinds the wake turbulence distances specified are greater then the required time between landings. Are there any rwys here that can take for example two heavy aircraft less than 4 nm in trail on final even with a screaming headwind? Or does NATS allow 'landing after' on an occupied rwy?

Agreed Bloggs, it is another Australianism...... because we know better.:yuk:

Cut and paste from the the worlds favorite sandpit destination.

2.1. SPEED RESTRICTIONS
Pilots should expect the following speed control restrictions to be enforced by ATC:
a) 210 - 250 KT: from CTA entry to downwind;
b) 180 - 230 KT: from downwind to base leg;
c) 160 - 210 KT: on base leg and closing heading to final approach;
d) 180 KT: 10 NM from touchdown;
e) 160 KT: 4 NM from touchdown.
Pilots must advice ATC if a speed adjustment is considered excessive or contrary to ACFT operating specifications.

Please note the use of the word enforced.

Now I cant tell you how many times I have sat at Desdi or Bubin and watched everything from A380s to F50s and a plethora of business jets all able to able to follow the above, including light weight 330s :rolleyes:

It is not the aircraft that cant do it, it is the company policy and until AsA and others have the nuts to use the words that they dont shy away from in the UAE "enforce".

Believe me I dont like even the thought of the word enforcement when it comes to aviation, the airport operators are great at issuing edicts that cover their arse yet poor at delivering service.

If things were tightened up by the use of the above some of the issue we have in Australia would be alleviated. However the changes to the SOPS in just about every Australian operators manuals I reckon would take 2 safety cases, 3 committees, 4 peer reviews and at least 5 overseas visits to observe worlds best practice before a simple act like the above could be "approved for operational use".......

While the rest of us just fly it manually and still make the company gates so Mr FDAP does not chuck a hissy fit.:E

Why don't we just start with a feeder fix time given prior to take off. Why does an A380 that has been airborne in excess of 12 hours get a 15 minute delay into Melbourne. Or yesterday out of Sydney sitting at the holding point for over 20 minutes waiting to depart due to flight testing of navaids. This country really does need to look at itself. Start with a Royal Commision into AirServices and Casa. Christine Milne, where are you and you Greens, get real, all that Carbon needlessly pumped into the atmosphere due Sydney Airport political crap.

Bloggs - a light 330 will have a Vapp of about 125 ish Kt a heavy around 145 ish- trust me I've flown em for years - to get from 160 to 125 from 4nm in a 330 is tight

What puzzles me sometimes is when ATC say "Cancel STAR speed restrictions", often once I'm already below 10000'.

1. The 250kt below 10000' used to be a STAR speed restriction into most major airports, it is now a blanket speed restriction, ie not specifically associated with the STAR as it once was. So does "Cancel STAR speed restrictions" include cancelling 250kt below 10000', or does it just mean cancel the other speed restrictions such as 230/20, 185-160/10 and 160/5.

2. It will actually cost me (or my Company) fuel and therefore money to cancel these restrictions, so do you: want me to; need me to; or is it just that you don't need to restrict me any longer. I don't know what you actually want or need me to do so I often end up asking something like "do you want or need me to increase speed?" because I'd actually rather just stay with the original plan at this late stage.

Are any ATC'ers able to clarify?

No. All Australian departures already have slot times for departures that arrive in the hotspots. Maybe you'd like to sit on the bridge for an extra 15 minutes at Dubai to make your COBT for Melbourne?

Secondly, for close in flights (less than 2 hours) if I get delayed for reasons out of my control eg other traffic at a CTAF, I've got to go like blazes to make it. Without tight centralised and coordinated departure control, FF times assigned airborne are best (and were even better before Maestro).

Fair enough Rex. Seems a lot of others around the world don't see it as a problem. Perhaps you should get your load factors up or carry more fuel? :}.

Bloggsy- How would you know about that?

I'd be happy to be corrected by other 330 operators :) and get their views on it.

But, and seriously not meaning any disrespect - a 717 driver is not in the best position to talk about how to drive a 330. (oh and a by a light 330 I'm talking about 140 tonnes) What does a 717 land at? Our load factors are doing just fine thank you.

Read Twotbags post. :cool:

I read his post bloggs,

I've heard lots of guys and girls tell Director that they can only do 160 to 5.