DXB Movements and News

[A300Man]

I know well and fine that go-arounds are a very normal occurrence. I have, however, just witnessed three at DXB within the space of the last one hour. I just wondered if there was a link between all three, perhaps bad wx or something?

No drama - just curiosity.

Some other changes at DXB lately:

- AI have removed their daily 77W service to BOM and replaced with 321/310 equipment.
- The 77W will return in June, but mixing duties with A321.
- CX's daily 744 via BOM has also been replaced with a 333.

[Tower Ranger]

The two that I was there for were crew initiated due unstable approaches.

[A300Man]

Thanks for the feedback, Ranger.

[linedriva]

Without naming names (unless you want to), were all them by the same carrier?

[olster]

If they went around due unstable approach,the crews were demonstrating very correct and appropriate discipline

b/rgds

[Tower Ranger]

Olster, i completely agree with you. I was just answering the question and certainly I would prefer anyone in any doubt on the approach to go around, its a fairly standard thing for us to deal with.

[A300Man]

Yes, two of the three I saw were from the same carrier, although different aircraft types. I am unsure what type/carrier the third one was. However, as Tower Ranger correctly points out, it's a routine thing.

And to contradict one of my earlier comments, AI actually sent a 772 to DXB today, as opposed to the 321.................blushes.....

[break dancer]

going around is the prefered option, but when the company call you in to say that the said procedure was your fault and unnecesary-it should have been mitigated by you way early on, that is crap. You are in the ****te whatever you do.

[Canoehead]

There are an extremely high number of go-arounds in DXB compared to most airports I have worked. (Canada, for the curious.) Somewhere in the vicinity of 50 / month. I believe this may be to the following factors, and in no particular order:

1) Very stringent and inflexible separation standards between arrivals and departures. Not much room for controllers to apply judgment to 'make it work'.
2) Very stringent and inflexible standards as to how pilots fly the aircraft. Not much room for deviation from SOP's to 'make something work.'

All this is probably very good from a safety point of view, but it does come with associated costs. My two dirhams worth.

[jimmyg]

Canoehead;

From a regular, just tell me what you need to help make things work. I know that compresability factors come into play hence; UAE give me 300kts. plus then Dubai appr. 260..etc. Many of us run at fixed cost indexies at the low end which means slow decent speed. I am always more than happy to comply to what ever will make things run smoother. I am never constrained by a SOP that will help with proper safety, seperation and time. By the by, TCAS can give me better up to date seperation than radar, if I know who I am following and my sequence in the mix. Hence; I will try to help with speed control a little on my own if I can see the big picture.

Cheers.

[Canoehead]

Hi Jimmyg, descent speeds, holds ands spacing is ,well, a complex issue involving several ATC agencies.

But if we stick to the discussion at hand (overshoots) I can give you an example. Say you're no 1 and I've got someone fast behind you (eg a freighter) whom I've squeezed in front of no 3, and I'd like you to do 180 kts to 3 miles to make this thing work, well, odds are you may not (be allowed to) do it. So somebody will go around. If left to your own devices, you probably could hand fly your 777 to 3 at 180.

At our end, there are controllers from at least 15 different countries, and although we all work pretty well the same, we all have differing styles. Some are more 'pilot oriented' than others. I'm sure you'll figure out on the frequency those who are more 'concerned' about your issues: feedback on where you're being vectored to, distances to go, required speeds, traffic to follow, etc.

The key really is more interacton between the two groups.

[backofthedrag]

Landing off an unstable approach is probably nowadays becoming a major threat to safety. My airline requires the aircraft to be stable at 1000' agl . 180 kts at three miles is inside this mark and with a touchdown speed of 135 kts , the aircraft will not be stable , unless there is a fifty knot headwind and even then , final flap may not be selectable.
The mantra now is carry minimum fuel or be prepared to justify any extra and land with less than full flap , idle reverse. No-one wants to go around with exactly the minimum fuel.
Landing aircraft should be spaced five miles apart , 160 to 4 or 170 to 5 .

[Scooby Don't]

You'll find that at LHR, AMS, etc, spacing of 2.5nm (assuming no wake turbulence requirement) is the norm. Of course, they don't have a runway separation requirement except that a landing must be assured with a clear runway prior to aircraft touching down.
At DXB, the requirement is for 5nm spacing measured when the first aircraft is 4nm from touchdown, i.e. 4nm and 9nm final for numbers 1 and 2, with speeds matched. That generally means 4nm at touchdown due to compression, and wake turbulence requirements override this minimum and are measured at touchdown.

Anyway, stuff that helps....

When given a turn to final and approach clearance, please start the turn without delay.

Please fly the assigned speeds without delay [NB - as per ICAO, assigned speeds are +/- 10 kts so if you're given 180 and want to fly 185, please don't feel the need to tell us!].

If you're assigned "min clean", it is useful to know what that is (we generally assume 220-230 kts for A330, A340, 777, etc, 230-240 kts for 747, 210 - 220 kts for 737 "classic" and 190 - 200 kts for A320 and 737NG) as long as the frequency isn't congested.

Most of us (some with more success that others) really do try to do what is best for you! It is an air traffic control service after all, but one of the facts of life in busy airspace is that someone will lose out from time to time, and sometimes that means one flight getting a raw deal so that seven or eight flights don't. Sometimes the pain will be shared equally, but will be as slight as we can make it!

[jimmyg]

Gentlemen,

All good stuff. I am certainly not one to get too wrapped around the axle with fully stablilized @1000' in visual conditions. Many SOP's are good guidelines but safe operations do not always mean strict adhearence to SOP's.( we have some pretty antiquated sop'; for another thread)
Depending on weight and wind I generally need to start to slow to Vapp at 4mi. to be stabilized by 500' ( my personel min )

Maybe someday we can get better cooperation between FIR's I have done trans cons where I am given a specific mach over Arizona for sequencing into New York airspace. The EU is also getting on board with a centralized control center. Maybe in ten or twenty years we can do the same; sorry could not help the sarcasm.

Clear communication is the key, I have recommended to my company that we change many of the similiar flt numbers...ie. Jazeera 426, 486, Air Arabia 426 and Thai 456 all coming in at the same busy time in the evening. ( fell on deaf ears )

Keep up the good work

[pool]

There are an extremely high number of go-arounds in DXB compared to most airports I have worked. (Canada, for the curious.) Somewhere in the vicinity of 50 / month. I believe this may be to the following factors, and in no particular order:

1) Very stringent and inflexible separation standards between arrivals and departures. Not much room for controllers to apply judgment to 'make it work'.
2) Very stringent and inflexible standards as to how pilots fly the aircraft. Not much room for deviation from SOP's to 'make something work.'

All this is probably very good from a safety point of view, but it does come with associated costs. My two dirhams worth

Canoehead, you are very kind to us. Unfortunately we have to add this:

3) Very inadequate training of pilots who are too often over their heads with their new equippment.

It is not their fault, mind you, all of them might one day be good pilots. But if you transplant CRJ jockeys, with only single continental experience, into a heavy and slippery wide-body, give him minimal training and more than narrow sops, pair this up with many other inadequately trained and experienced fellows, airborne or on ground, then you will end up with such a situation.

What I have seen in this short time in the pit speaks for itself.

- capturing initial appr. altitude by forgetting to arm the GP allthough cleared for approach (then not realising it fast enough and ending up too high)
- thrust with low flaps and speedbrakes out (with the warning the AT was disconnected and left at thrust, speedbrakes retracted and ending up too high)
- open descents with speedbrakes below 3000ft and rates above 2500fpm due to GS capture from above (recovery extremely uncomfortable for pax, and almost level bust below)
- at initial appr alt at 20nm with high flaps, gear down and huge thrust (only to baloon through the GP capture and almost ending up too high)
- arithmetics like dist x 3 eq alt, or gs / 2 eq rod, are widely unknown and therefore not applied, stand-offs not recognised (religiously following the magenta a$$h@le, even when not track adjusted, or desperately wanting to adjust it during the approach, thus not flying)

Then we read on the weekly reports about inadequate vectors and excessive tailwinds ........

It is simply a sign of beeing not adequately trained, not experienced enough (or maybe just not suited for such a job). This might sound harsh, sorry, but there is a display of inadequacy on a daily base that takes away any surprise of a concentration of events in DXB and for that matter just as much in AUH and DOH/BAH. The demand for jockeys in the gulf simply outstripped the adequate supply. It is back to better times now, due to the crisis there are enough adequate candidates available again. but the fast growth around the gulf the last three years brought in too many low qualified fellow aviators too fast.

Heard a collegue the other day asking Lahore on HF for a non standard (opposite) level over the Himalayas, enroute to the 10min radio silence until getting Urumqui and for the ft to meter transition. Now how about that for situational awareness!!
You hear on a daily base collegues yell out the "discrete" squawk over Iraq, "hello Baghdad, this is BS001, FL340, squawk xxxx ..... " Very discrete indeed and shows little insight!!

As much as I criticise the non coordination of all the involved ATC centres, the silly set-ups of airport utilisation rules, the corsetts of the GCAAs bs, as much I criticise the inadequate selection and training of pilots by the gulf airlines. The environement is complicated and needs more attention and time to getting used to than provided.

[kit330]

Hey Pool: Well said!!!! I really like the magenta nut thingy!!! Very true bout no mental calculations, no situational aw at all.... just love it

[Wiley]

Pedant alert pool, but 'discrete' is a very different kettle of fish to 'discreet', with a totally different meaning, so I think you should holster your outrage on that particular point.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with all your other points, and what's most distressing is that the people you alluded to don't know they don't know. I took over an aircraft a day or two ago with two entries in the tech log: "TCAS" and "BANK ANGLE PROTECT". Embarrassing to say the least that someone's made it to the LHS of a 773 who wouldn't know better than to make such entries.

[Dropp the Pilot]

'embarassing to say the least'...

... would probably make a good starting point for a new thread.

Three times now I have taken over as an augmenting crew member and the aircraft has been in flight for eight hours with 'MEMO' and 'FAULT' proudly announcing the prime crew's ineptitude on the EFB.

At that paygrade we should not need to say 'RTFM' nor guide your grubby fingers to the required button-push.

Mr. Stealey is emphatically on to something with his meetings.