I can’t help but ask F100 drivers and tonight I’ll include the Network A320 drivers, what the story is with their lack of ability to reach Beverly or Julim, on time.

Forever in a day we fly into perth, reach the fix (up to 30 seconds early, but not late) do our 250 knots then get told to vector off to rejoin final, yep, behind an F100. Tonight we had speed cancelled and a time to make Beverly, made it fine, then got told to slow down, vector off but this time, it was behind a Network A320.... who earlier was given direct to Rolob as ATC could see they had no idea of space or time.

I know it’s not just me who suffers this daily, is it lack of technology on the F100 that makes it difficult? Can you guys uplink the latest winds prior to decent? Curious to know what it is, it’s becoming frustrating.

Why be so anal?

Yep.... clearly one of the somewhat special captains our second best airline has

Odd the Network A320 was tracking via ROLOB as they don’t generally arrive from the east on the BEVLY arrival. Are you sure about your recollection of space and time?

90s for the Oz aircraft I think? But when the regular industry users of these geriatric aircraft ask for newer more reliable ones, we are told condescendingly by the airlines operating them “they were very advanced when they were made and stand up well against today’s modern jets”

Regardless of type, any professional pilot who can’t make good a time over a fix should be sent back to school.

Because they subtract 2 minutes from their estimate to ensure a limited slowdown.

Ive been overtaking one like he’s standing still and his estimate was way ahead of ours. We advised atc and got sequenced ahead.

Damn annoying to be stuck behind those Fokkers.

Then there’s the Fokker100 reported undershoot sheer on final....

Australia is the only country in the world that imposes this “cross WAYPT at XX”, with the “up to 30 secs early, but not late” thrown in for good measure. I fly what would be considered a modern aircraft and the FMS has no function to readily assist with achieving these requirements - in fact, it actually throws you under the bus because the FMS displayed estimated time over a waypoint is usually about 3-4 mins later than the time you actually end up flying over it - the discrepancy appears to magically fix itself when you’ve got about 3-4 mins to run and no chance to fix it. This is not a case of unaccounted descent winds. Of course, we are aware of this and I usually just get the old whizwheel out to sort it out and achieve the requirement.
Everywhere else the the world, even where it is actually busy (eg New York), ATC just tell you what speed to fly and it all works out. What is especially frustrating is flying across the Bight at max chickens for 3.5 hours to then be required to “reduce speed to cross BVRLY at XX” - we’ve got ADSB/CPDLC - you can see where we are and what we’re doing...
By the way, I blame the system, NOT the controllers.
So, long story short, even relatively modern aircraft don’t necessarily have a function that assists with this issue.
(Other than distance to run and ground speed!)

Surely tech can’t be it. We have no issues meeting time requirements in a Saab 340 with UNS1W FMS, which usually agrees perfectly with the iPad estimate too.

A number of other places use ETT (estimated take-off time) as the COBT equivalent, with each port factoring in taxi time based on dept runway and time of day (obviously a simplified description). Usually its ETT plus/minus 5 minutes. COBT AND GDP does none of this.
COBT and GDP is a dinosaur of a measure because its strictly airline schedule dependent, only refreshed twice a day, often very poor at re-active measures when something goes wrong (ie wx, single rwy ops). Its basically got a disconnect between whats happening on paper versus reality.

From a ‘bus perspective, all we can do is adjust cruise and descent speeds to make the crossing time, and its usually quite a ‘bastardised’ process, just as it is with departing a hold at a specified time. Don’t even get me started with CTA steps.

As a side note, OZ runways is ridiculously accurate for referencing crossing times..beats Jepp any day of the week.

Don’t know what you’re flying, but the Honeywell FMS that’s standard in most Australian buses will give you an estimate based on the current conditions to the second in which you will pass overhead the feeder fix. It’ll need a bit of managing as the conditions change, especially on the way down, but if you can’t cross the waypoint within 5 seconds of what you require, you shouldn’t be sitting in the seat.

The RTA is okay for giving you an indication of what’s required without letting it do the job. However it’ll bring you right back to green dot if you let it take over which sometimes isn’t appropriate. Especially in a smaller airbus with higher wing loading. Not so critical in the bigger ones. I use the RTA with a selected speed to initially see what it will require in the cruise. Then I’ll select that plus 10 knots and work the rest out with descent speeds.

It it really is a piece of cake. If you can’t make the time at this point, you advise ATC and they give you vectors. Or you drop to a lower level and slow up. Green dot is a knot higher for every 1000 feet over 20. So you can get some good speed reductions down low. Especially east bound out of the jet.

Anyway, stick with it son.

What’s wrong with flying at green dot in any Airbus (turbulence excepted)? It’s not going to drop out of the sky. In fact even at VLS it’s not going to drop out of the sky.

Just let the automatics do their job, and then when it can’t, intervene

You can put an RTA in seconds as well.

personally this is my process.

insert time marker

1. CI=0 (MRc)
2. Lower descent speed towards green dot.
Note: only go the Green Dot + 20 to allow for a slower descent speed to be selected on descent if winds are not as forecast unless you have an up to date wind link on ACARS.

if no luck

3. Set RTA to the assigned time minus 15 sec
( -30 sec/+0 requirement average)

if it targets green dot pull green dot +10 when above 25000’ (G loading on Alpha prot settles around this altitude and below)

4. Look at the extra track miles required to make the time (distance between RTA and time market) and how long I have to do it.

5. Descend to a new cruise altitude, allowing average 5 Kt TAS plus 1 knot green dot reduction reduction per 1000, approx.


Eg.
Nil wind, Required crossing time of 2130

difference between waypoint and RTA is 8 nm after points 1-3.

present time is 2100. 30min to lose 8 nm, or 16nm over 60 min, therefore 16 kts.

16/6 kts per 1000’ is about a 3000’ reduction in altitude.

hemispherical = descend 4000’

insert new cruise alt if required on the PROG page

Check/reinsert descent speed. RTA should do the rest.

Maybe you should try & cross the fix at the time required rather than arriving 30sec early. Its a tolerance not a new target. Ya clown !

When you go to the RTA prompt at a waypoint it will give you the current estimate to the second.

The flight plan page only gives you to the minute based on your above observations. So does a time marker.

I personally use a time marker and cross check the estimate at the RTA page. Then you can see the trend and stoke the boilers or save the planet.

RTA’s can be met to the second in a Boeing. As maggot states, I believe it can be done in an airbus too. Simple remedy, if you consistently miss the times “turn left heading 090, we will fit you in when we can.” A few instances of this and the problem should be solved. I too drag my arse in behind fokkers as well. Very painful, it’s not that hard.

Having flown both types I am pretty confident in easily achieving a fix time +/- 5 seconds or so. I don’t have to, of course, but I choose to out of respect for my fellow airmen and the long suffering controllers.

That ATC has subscribed to the odd notion of central control is not the controllers’ fault, nor ours. It would be so much easier if a metering fix crossing time was part of our initial clearance. Why, pray tell, does ATC waste resources trying to predict crossing times when they could simply assign them hours prior, and let punitive holding be the wages of sin (or poor nav skills)?

I thought you said it wasn’t going to drop out of the sky!

Time marker on BOTH Airbus and Boeing, open speed window and drive to the marker. Sorry I don’t understand the issue here......I plead ignorance regards other types

I know that it’s ancient technology and all, but when I flew in Europe 30 or so years ago we would get crossing times 6 to 24 hours earlier. In 12 months of 737 ops (including 4 or 5 times a week into Heathrow)I don’t reckon I held a total of six hours. In 1989 European movements were the same as Australia’s in 2097.Give or take.

That holding was either due to crazy winds, Speedbird Concorde descending on vapours or other random unpredictable furballs being coughed up by the system.

Capn Bloggs - I thought we were mates!?
I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick there, I didn’t say anything about other aircraft “clearing out of my way”, did I?
I just think the system could be better than watching a whole bunch of aircraft fly at high (planned) fuel flows/speeds across the country, and then be slowed to min speed approaching a waypoint, instead of sequencing the whole process earlier in the piece. I’m not all that swept up on the ATC system, so maybe it’s a pipe dream.
As for blaming a system for my inadequacies, I don’t really think I did that either - can you re-read my post and perhaps clarify where I got you all hot and bothered?

A what???....