Hey Fly Through, point taken about giving you the aircraft too early and yes I have seen guys in the centre do this, not just to you guys but also to the other units around us.

I do have an issue with making concrete rules on when to hand off aircraft ie. 60 NM from 10NM final. I hand off aircraft based on when and where I think you will need to talk to the aircraft. If I have a sequence of aircraft and I have them all set up with speeds, I won't give you the first aircraft and not the second 2 aircraft as too many times I've had Dubai put the brakes on the first guy and have the two left on my freq. run up the back of the guy on yours. So bottom line I will hand off the aircraft when I think you should have them, that includes keeping them longer if I need that. If I get that wrong sometimes then ok, I apologise.

If you do get aircraft given to you really early, then do what I did to Nimmer (that is if Nimmer is who shoo the gap says he is) one day when I got a really unclean handoff, and that is give the aircraft back.

ASNA

Agree completely, wasn't meant to be set in concrete and of course every situation is different and we all do what is required at the time. Was just looking for a little consideration:ok:

ShooTheGap

How personal do you want to get on an open forum like this? Do you want us all evaluating your CV over the internet? Whilst it's always entertaining to watch a cat fight, this thread was actually doing some good. Speaking of which, think most of us agree with your last statement but if something goes wrong we'll be for the high jump. Maybe if we stuck rigidly to the rules imposed on us and to hell with the service, then maybe complaints would rise and we might see some change around here. Well we can always live in hope :}

Fly Through,
Don't want to get personal but no one will attack my integrity without repercussions. My CV is open for scrutiny for anyone who wishes. It meets the requirements and so too is my wife's. If they don't want competent controllers here and they want me to leave they only have to give me 3 months notice. Its only a Job.! I tried to stick to the rules, but unable to restrict because I know that one day it will be me on that plane and I sure don't want to sit in that hold because the arrival controller has reached 5 planes and that's the rule.!

AirNoServicesAustralia,
Where I come from, if you as an area controller who receives my departures must do anything other than identify and climb the aircraft then I did not do my job. On the arrival flow You may count on my help anytime I can provide it. Thats my job!

To all the pilots,
Anytime you hear unprofessional comments on the frequency, please report them. Our management knows about it and chooses to ignore it. I care about the issue because I am a Dubai ATCO and that is my unit's image which is tainted.
And just for some fun, The go around alarm button is 3 times the size of the crash alarm and when it sounds off it wakes up all the roosters... So please try to minimize your go arounds until I can convince someone to send it to a museum somewhere...or sell it on Ebay!

respectfully submitted,

I didn't know you had a G/A button, need to get by for a tower visit.

Regarding G/As (other then due to no visual), these invariably do not conform to what is practiced in the SIM. i.e. if following a high energy approach the flaps may have to be retracted earlier then standard to prevent exceedence.
If from an intermidate altitude then little time to MAA. Although briefed it's rarely performed and one is in a landing mindset and quickly needs to reboot the brain. Have you ever noticed the gear dangling for an extended period and wondered why? Oops 5H1T, gear up... :\

I know ATC have thier requirements and sometimes request reason for GA at an untimely position, just as the flightdeck is a flurry of hands and spinning eyeballs.:ooh:

May I respectfully request, in the interest of safety, that the request for info is delayed until the fligthpath is stable and that the MAA is not ammended. Reducing the MAA and giving an early turn only increases the workload. Let the crew fly the profile to MAA and get settled down. There is enough evidence to support this and it has been raised with the SATCO in the past.

And why do GAs? Because unstable approaches (for whatever reason) are the biggest contributor to Approach and Landing Accidents and management would rather have the occaisonal GA then an aircraft overrun.:ok:

Dubai ATIS
 

Hi guys. I just discovered this thread and spent the last hour reading thru it. Nice to see the forum used for such constructive purposes, tho i don't suppose it will result in any real changes or improvements to the system :{

"New digital ATIS is being installed as we speak ...."

Hey FlyThrough, whats happening to the old one? Any chance of sticking it on a lorry and sending it up the hill to Al Ain. The guys there would all give their left testicles for an ATIS.

STG

Aren't we a big tough boy then ooooh:hmm:

Sheikh_Yaboody

Of course you can't have it, it's Dubai's and you know this is one country only in writing!!!! Anyway if we sent it to you, OMAA would only steal it off you like the last one 'cos they really need it :hmm:

FT

Fly through,

"Aren't we a big tough boy then ooooh "

What is the purpose of this comment? STG merely states what the reality of the situation is.

Finally the truth comes out about why a person with no experience is hired. Like STG says.. must be nice to be from the UK.

I wonder if the DCA knows exactly how much real experience this person has? Having 3 years experience and having started training 3 years ago are 2 different things ladds.

And to comment on an earlier post about a single runway operations.. well single runway just takes the complexity out of it. You can only get so many airborn. The real challenge working a busy single runway op is sitting in the approach and area positions. It's those controllers who have to flow the traffic. A control tower is always protected...

ShooTheGap

My friend, you walk a very dangerous walk. It matters not if you think the rule(s) are stupid or not, you do NOT get to choose which ones to apply. Trust me, you would be well advised to consider your young family and apply the rules as they are written.

This is NOT a personal attack, it is just a friendly word of advise.


Invcictus

I still say TOSS the part after "Dubai" from the ATIS: "...INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES...". We all know where Dubai is. It would save so much time to chop the obvious out...PLEASE.

Q: When are the STARS being re-designed?

Keep the thread alive. Some good can come out of all of this.

C.O.

Al Ain ATIS
 

FT

Wot if we offered a brand new, you beaut radar system in exchange:D . I am sure we wont get to use it for a year or 2 ...... and an ATIS would be much more useful.

Speaking of ATIS, I always thought that the TI stood for "....TERMINAL INFORMATION..." ... is this not the case in Dubai. I'm sure I heard someone mention talk of RVSM info on it :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Two totally unrelated questions to the DXB controllers from of your frequent controllees:

Firstly, EK, (and, I imagine, every other user of DXB), has an engine out procedure for R/W 12 that reads: “continue straight ahead, take up the hold at OSTIN, climb to 3000’ ” (or words to that effect). Some of us controllees have on occasion questioned the commonsense of this procedure, for a number of reasons, and have been told that it is the ICAO procedure for DXB and ATC won’t change it.

From the point of view of us controllees, winding a heavy 777-300 up to 3000’ on one engine on a 42 degree day (which, thanks to the inversion that’s frequently there in summer, could be even more than 42 degrees as you ‘climb’) in a tight holding pattern seems to be a really good way to end up observing an oil temp overheat on the remaining engine.

I know this is probably of little interest to you controllers – at least not until you receive a rather high-pitched scream advising you of the fact – but I would have thought that from a controller’s point of view, the absolute worst place for an aircraft that’s just suffered an engine failure would be in a holding pattern 15 miles on the extended centreline of the busy departures runway. Surely you’d prefer him out of the way, maybe out to sea (where he can jettison the fuel he will almost surely have to jettison) and be nicely set up to commence an approach – maybe even in a hurry if his malfunction develops into something time-critical?

When I’ve asked that the procedure be changed, I’m told that ‘on the day’, you obviously wouldn’t carry out the full procedure, that ATC would almost certainly vector the aircraft off somewhere long before you got to 3000’, maybe even before you entered the hold. Which leads me to my question: if that’s the case, why not have a procedure in place that details what a would actually happen in such a circumstance? It would reduce the workload for the controllees suffering the engine failure enormously if they could plan, pre-takeoff, exactly where they will go in the event of an engine failure. What would be of particular advantage would be a designated fuel jettison holding point somewhere off the coast, preferably not too far from land. Ideally, any engine failure procedure (for all runways), would end with “track to XXX (the designated jettison hold) and take up the hold”.

It seems to me something like this would make life immeasurably easier for both us controllees and you controllers, reducing the verbiage after an engine failure to almost nothing. (As has been mentioned by others on this thread, calls from ATC requesting information or intentions after a go around or failure can be more than a little distracting for the crew.)

******

My second question is in regard to the Cat II conditions DXB suffered on the morning of the 19th. From just before 6:00am local, the viz was rapidly reducing (at one stage, the ATIS changed four times before the previous info got through one reading, which I know, considering how *** long the DXB ATIS takes for one read through, might not sound too unusual).

12L, as the only current Cat II runway, was obviously made the active, but the low cloud was so localised that the south eastern side of the airfield and the approaches for R/W 30R were in the clear – you could have done a visual onto 30R and been at taxi speed before going under the low cloud (where, believe it or not, the viz was still relatively good), while aircraft were missing out on 12L.

I know this wasn’t immediately obvious to someone in the Tower, which was swathed in the low cloud, but when it was pointed out to the Approach Controller, he said, (and sounding very frustrated, I thought), that they were bound by the rules to use 12L in the current conditions.

My question is this: are the rules so set in concrete that the controller on the spot isn’t allowed to use his best judgement to make the best use of the facilities available to him and the conditions prevailing at both ends of the field? Aircraft were diverting (or at least one did that I heard) while the other, non-Cat II runway was wide open, at least for a short time, certainly time enough to get the gaggle of aircraft in that were in the approach sequence at the time. (30 was also into wind.)

It’s not as though this was a one-off situation. It’s quite often when fog/low cloud affects Dubai that you find one end of the field at zero viz while the other runway is in the clear. Years ago, I missed out on a Cat II to R/W 12 and then did an immediate turn back and landed on 30 off a visual approach. It would seem, from what the controller said on Thursday morning, that thanks to the rules now in place, that option would no longer be available and I would have to divert – unnecessarily – because in Cat II conditions, the rules say that 12L is the only runway that may be used.

The engine out procedure is something that the company requires to have in print to prove that an airplane may safely continue a take-off with one engine out.

There is precisely no reason on earth why you need to follow it if you don't wish to. In an emergency you have perfect freedom to do whatever you want (FOM 20.2).

Personally I can think of no instance under which I would follow the EOP off of 12. In the normal prevailing conditions in Dubai I would turn right to a 290 track as soon as I was above 1500 feet. If perchance it was IMC I would wait until I was out of 2400 feet before turning.

But to enter a hold on one engine and stagger up to 3000 just because the BLT tag line told you too, well - that's the kind of programmatical thinking that should disqualify people from command.

First off EuroATC & ShooTheGap

Not gonna waste my time discussing this further, we obviously will never agree so I'm happy to agree not too and to make better use of this forum.

Sheikh Y

Sorry mate, we've just got a brand new primary and a 'mode S capable' secondary system. You need the radar anyway, if only to scare yourself crapless at how close the morons actually get and how much they don't follow your instructions anyway :ok:

As for our ATIS, new one is installed but we're not allowed to use it yet???????? As for the crap on it, agree entirely, way too long but then it's not the most user friendly pieces of equipment.

410

Hmmm procedures, nothing to do with us, we get all our procedures forced on us by the GCAA ivory tower by people who don't have a clue what we do here. Afraid it ain't gonna change anytime soon either. As for an emergency, you tell us what you want to do and we'll move heaven & earth so you can, so suggest you brief what you want to do from the beginning. As for pestering you at the wrong moment, yeh that'll be the lack of experience at anywhere but here showing. I will always do my utmost to let you alone until you've got the aircraft all settled down.

In Cat II consitions the procedures are set in stone. Once IRVR's below 1500m are being reported we have no option but to go into LVPs and using 12L. Again absolutely no flexibilty is permitted by controllers. Extremely f:mad: ing frustrating from our point of view, especially with the 15nm and 30nm gaps required on finals (see Nimmers post above).

Now a question for you, what's with the 2mins required by your SOPs behind previously departing aircraft? There's no way you can get away with that kind of thing in Europe, surely? If you must then advise us early ie. when your following the problem aircraft down Kilo and not when you're actually given the take off clearance.

Captain Over

The whole airspace is being looked at as we speak, an Australian company has been brought in to re-evaluate our airspace in a joint Emirates/DCA scheme. When will we hear anything? Inshallah :E

Rgds FT

Ps. To all our 'controllee's', if there is something that needs changing or infringes on safety here at Dubai please, please, please report it to your bosses. From the 'hour' long ATIS to excessive delays file reports to the company, whatever we say falls on deaf ears so maybe an irate customer would help :ok:

Hmmmm, I won’t comment on your second paragraph on an open forum DtP, but I’d love to debate the point with you over a coldie sometime (and so, I suspect, would Hassan or Grainger, FOM 20.2 notwithstanding).
Your reply illustrates my point all too clearly, (and I have made this very point in submissions to the powers that be), that I doubt if there are ten captains out of the 400+ captains in the airline who would follow the full EOP for 12 – certainly not any who’ve given the matter any thought, anyway – and I very much doubt ATC would let you if you wanted to.
So we’re left with the strange – some would say silly – situation where there are possibly 400 different ‘private EOPs’ for 12 tucked away in 400 different minds, and God only knows what some of those may be. Which is why I’d so dearly like to see something official down on paper that reflects what we would – or should – do if one of us were ever to find himself carrying out the EOP for 12 for real one day. The moment you move out of the groove ATC expect you to be following, the frequency is going to be going into overload – just when you’d prefer to be dealing with an absolute minimum of radio calls.
Like you, DtP, (and, I suspect like many pilots who use DXB), I’ve got my own private procedure for 12, which is very similar to yours – “as soon as the aircraft is fully cleaned up, request a turn left onto a track of 300 and continue climbing to 3000’ ”.
This leaves me with the Sharjah right in front of me for a straight in onto 30 if the problem turns into a really serious time-critical one, and heading out to sea (where I’m going to be sent eventually anyway to jettison fuel). It also puts me in a nice position to set myself up for an approach back onto 12 with minimum delay after I’ve dealt with the non-normal, as well as being out of everyone’s way (with the possible exception of SHJ traffic as I groan on past SHJ, but I’m sure the powers that be would prefer that to overflying the palace and the high rises on Sheikh Z Road on one engine).
Your comment regarding ‘…programmatical thinking that should disqualify people from command’ is unworthy, although we all know that there are people out there who will follow the book blindly because it is ‘the book’, even when it’s blatantly obvious that a slightly different course of action would be more appropriate, even safer. This is why I’d so dearly love to see ‘the book’ reflect what we should do and why I’d like to see an officially designated jettison area promulgated rather than have to sort that point with ATC out on the day. (Imagine, a jettison area WPT with a designated holding pattern in the FMC database – even a full FMC EOP – and all you have to do is punch it in, hit LNAV, and you can get on with the non-normal. No talking to ATC required beyond “engine failure, following the EOP.”)
The powers that be in EK agree that an aircraft would be highly unlikely to follow the 12 EOP completely, but say that DXB ATC won’t agree to change the procedure because it’s the ICAO officially recognised procedure for the runway. I raised the point here asking if a DXB ATCO could explain why they won’t. I suspect it may have a lot to do with not infringing the Sharjah circuit, as any immediate left turn would do, but surely an EOP that demands DXB ATC simply inform SHJ by landline to hold their traffic for no more than five to ten minutes is streets ahead of one that demands multiple radio calls with the aircraft having the problem?
There’s going to be enough talking as it is if someone ever does lose and engine on takeoff off 12. Why not do a little bit of planning ahead of time so that both the pilots and the controllers know as much as possible what the other party will be doing on points that can be agreed upon ahead of time rather than doing it all ‘on the fly’ on the day?

Fly Through - thanks for the feedback. Good luck.

Dtp,

How far away are the mountains of hatta and Oman? How high are they? Mmmmmm, engine failure, hot, how many miles will it take you to climb to 2400'.....Just food for thought. :hmm:

Bit sad that when this thread had degenerated into a character assassination exercise, it was humming along with multi posts every day, but the moment it gets back on subject with someone asking a couple of very pertinent questions about DXB ATC procedures, it dies.

I wouldn't mind knowing too why the senior ATC people in DXB insist on the ridiculous engine out procedure they have for runway 12.

Anyone care to explain?

Engine out procedure?
 

As far as I'm aware, ATC (Senior or otherwise) do not specify any engine out procedures (ridiculous or otherwise).;)

Have asked around but nobody on my watch seems to know anything about single engine procedures. If you do have a set procedure like a nominated fuel dumping area and a turn on passing 1500', won't it be effected by which engine you lose?

FT

As far as I am aware no ATC unit anywhere has responsibility for the design, implementation and maintenance of EOPs from a runway.
It remains the responsibility of the pilot in command.
Companies, and in particular, their performance departments, provide EOPS to their crews for runways. Most often they are derived from Jeppesen designs, based on obstacle surveys. Companies are however free to design their own, eg, the several iterations of EOPS at 07L in Chek Lap Kok, that EK went through.
Companies may or may not provide these EOPS to local ATC units. As far as I am aware, there is no obligation, and anyway think of the problem for the ATC unit when a pilot declares he is flying the EOP. Which company? What type? And then sort through the filing system! :cool:

I think that the E/O procedures are elaborated by the performance departements of airlines...They must be utilising performance models from manufacturers... I think, second guessing a procedure is a big gamble, if we think something is wrong, it should be forwarded to the appropriate people into the airline...:rolleyes:

What's the storey ?
 

I heard that there is aonther vacancy at Dubai from Today/Yesterday .....................???????

someone was fired ... being too "disruptive"....

I guess speaking your mind and being honest is not appreciated anymore.

Care to elaborate? (either here or by pm)
I take it you mean 'disruptive' at work? Bagging procedures etc?

Gentlemen,

Please forgive me but as a foreign B777 operator to DXB, I'm pretty sure that our engine failure procedure is to climb straight ahead and within 12 miles yell to ATC that you need assistance..... We have never discussed this procedure with DXB ATC, nor do i believe are we legally obliged to! Our purpose in designing engine out procedures is to obtain the maximum takeoff weight possible.

I may stand to be corrected when i check the Jeppesens tomorrow, however i would find it strange to find an engine failure procedure published by the authorities........


Mutt.

I think you'll find that ATC or the local authority would buy in if your home grown procedure infringed (for instance) restricted or prohibited airspace, Mutt. There are royal palaces quite near DXB, and Sharjah, which can be very busy itself, is only 10 miles away. I believe ATC would become very interested if your procedure had you either overflying a palace or dragging yourself through the Sharjah circuit.

Is there an ATC person out there who'd care to comment? I don't like the 'enter the hold and climb to 3000 feet' procedure for 12 either. Can't see it ever happening, so why is it the published procedure when you're almost certain to do something else? Is it ATC who insist it remains the way it is for EK, or are EK management telling porky pies to whoever it was who asked them to have it changed?

Dropp the Pilot wrote:


I think you do not realise were you would be after reaching 1500 ft.

If climb limited at 2.4 % it would take you around 10 Nm and another 8 Nm to reach the clean speed. That is 18 Nm from your runway and only 7 Nm from the aera covered by the MSA.

The only area that is really cheked for obstacles is the one checked and published by the performance department. Once you go outside that area you have to know dammed good what you are doing.

Proceeding to a holding pattern at 3000 ft is flying towards an area that is checked for obstacles and that gives you the time to get prepared for the approach in all safety.

Going on a walk at 1500 ft and 220 kts in an area of high MSA during split cockpit operations is sign of bad airmanship.

Dropp the Pilot wrote:

Getting away from obstacles and into an area of which you are certain is exactely what you achieve by going into a hold.

Thats what holds are made for, to get done what is needed in a safe area, before you go any further.

Better just to tell ATC you have a problem and that you ARE TURNING towards the coast and to kindly clear everyone else out of the way. A Mayday prefixed to your call would be of great help. ATC are not flying the aeroplane - you are...

White Knight

It is really very simple. Pans Ops covers the all engine profile and the company is legally responsible for the (n-1) profile till 1500 ft.

Basically speaking, there are differences between different airlines, some ops departments cover you till the minimum requirement of 1500 ft and some use a wider area, wind profiles then others and will even cover you until the enroute structure and then you are on you own.

If you deviate from the area and subsequent routing that has been checked by the company then you can do so under an emergency, but you have to have a dammed good reason to do so.

As far as ATC s concerned, they are responsible for separation with other aircraft (depending on the class of airspace, I presume you are in a CTR most of he time) and the pilot in command is responsible for obstacle clearance.

Basically what the performance department will do is to give you a routing straight ahead with an acceleration segment for cleaning up the aircraft. Only if payload is that much affected by obstacles will they give you a routing with a turn.

In my previous airline the chief pilot had obliged the perfo dep (for certain complicated aeroports) to put the (n-1) routing on the SID whatever the cost in payload.

If you decide to clean up the aircraft then you are trading your climb gradient for acceleration towards a speed with less drag.

If the decision was made to return to the field of departure then that is not necessarily the thing you want to do. You may then elect to climb instead to a minimum of (MSA -700) as this altitude will cover you with the minimum obstacle clearance.

The only other option you have for an early turn is to use the protected area for circling approaches and the circling MDA.

If you are sure you can meet the required climb gradient of the SID you may elect to stay on the SID because that is where ATC will expect you to be and they organise their flow management around that principle.

1% climb gradient is about 60ft/Nm so 2,4 % is about 150 ft / Nm and you will need 10Nm till 1500ft and a bit more than 20 Nm for 3000 ft since you will not be able to maintain the 2.4 % due to engine performance and the fact that you accelerate in TAS with IAS constant.

It is of course your right to call a mayday and throw you aircraft in the hands of ATC and have them remove all other traffic. But, ATC are human beings just saying you are responsible to get the others out of he way is not the same as achieving that.

On a busy airport a simple go around under normal conditions already starts some kind of domino effect upon the other traffic with all consequences indeed.

Depending on the nature of the failure you will need considerable time to get ready for the approach probably with some dumping in an area that has been designed for that.

So I can very well imagine that ATC has some preferences as to confine the aircraft to a designated holding area to reduce the knock on effect on other traffic and take it from here.

As a pilot I also prefer to get in a hold thereby reducing the crew load and he effect of the split cockpit.

So if ATC requests you to go to the hold and you can comply with that request in a safe manner then that’s the best thing to do.

In order to get to the MHA and achieve that objective quickly you may elect to delay the acceleration or not accelerate at all.

Definitely will you not accelerate until all turns are completed since that achieves nothing good if you are in a (n-1) configuration.

Early turns in VMC at an airport you know are acceptable but what did you really achieve with that except anything else than a complete surprise to ATC who may well argue that under those circumstances can not reasonably be expected to continue to cater for separation.

Finally, since most operations are carried out from home base I think it’s a good idea that management talks to ATC and work out a plan beforehand.

Edited for clarity:

With climb to (MSA -700) I mean climb straight ahead till (MSA -700) before you want to make any turn if you have elected to deviate from he standard profile.

What about the emergency turns at certain airports like MCT, SHZ, THR.? Given the language problem from the latter two airports can you just imagine, after losing a donk, on take off, "calmly "!!!!!,telling atc, ( that is the requirement), that you will be turning this way or that to intercept some radial and stagger up to some altitude. Almost certainly you are going to get, "say again", and then possibly dead silence, as the beautiful day gets shattered, for both of you.Rome F, a case in point, where our E/turn can take you right across, another active runway. Bet that would open up a few eyeballs. Maybe that is why a lot of aircraft have brown seats. What colour in atc? It would appear, that every airline has it's own proceedures, based on the aircraft they operate, and the performance differences. Do the controllers know this?
Also can someone give a definition of "high speed", which we are often asked to maintain. Above approx FL 300 we are using Mach, not IAS. I have heard controllers asking for over 300kts descending thru FL 380. Not possible. Below about,FL 300, generally, but not always, we can descend at round about 300 kts IAS +,and increase as we get lower. Depending on type, turbulence speed ( my A/C ) is .78/290 kts, and 250 kts below 10000' AGL, but definately no faster than 250 kts below 5000' AGL, otherwise it's into the office. I am pretty sure most types of big jet have similar restrictions. Comments ?

Tic The Area controller (in AUH) is the guy giving this instruction, as he is deciding the 'gate sequence'. He is fully aware (usually) that you are on a Mach no., but wants you to transition into a high IAS. That will vary, of course, between type, operator etc. What he is really saying is he doesn't want you to waft on down doing 270kts or so. So 310kts IAS or higher would be considered 'high speed'. If you can't give higher speed (due turb or whatever), then just let him know. This guy may also ask for slow types to give 'high speed' , but he knows that high speed might be 240kts instead of 220kts. That may be enough in a given situation to make something work. The geometry of say, the DESDI gate sequence, means that a combination of speed, vectoring and direct tracking are used to obtain spacing. So having some idea of what speed you will be doing is extremely useful (and with the limited space available there- essential). This guy owns down to 10,000', then DXB App takes you and may change the speed to fit you into the 'runway sequence' with traffic from other gates. By the time App gets you, you will be sequenced with same gate traffic, and speed is nowhere near as important closer in as a different technique to sequence will then be used. App is fully aware of the speed capabilities and limtations, but it never hurts to keep ATC informed.

ferris
Tks mate, you answered my question, but surely it would make your life easier, and mine too, if it could be published. I am quite sure that Airbus and Boeing have very similar speeds, especially regarding turbulence, which you may or may not have. Having flown in Africa, and having a Vulture injested, I am not keen at all in maintaining 250 kts above 10000' agl, because of windscreen limiitations. It wouldn't be a pretty sight to have a bird that big, hit the winscreen, at"high speed". I know you don't get birds that big in this part of the world generally but even a falcon on the windscreen at 310 kts is like having a brick thrown at you. As you say, if you not happy, then say something, before it all goes pear-shaped. Works both ways. Different airlines have different SOP's , which have to be adhered to, otherwise, it's the walk up the gang-plank.
You Guys do a great job, and thanks for that,even though you have language problems, with the nationalities that fly in this region,so do we, and the restrictions placed on you that us pilots don't even know about.Read the whole forum and all of you seem just a trifle p----d off. You have the "big picture"on your screens, we only have a little one. Be sure, most of us will try our best to do what you want us to do, even if we don't like it. Speed control and standard set up, for the big guys anyway, if adhered to,would help you a lot I think. BIG message, if you can't, say so.

I agree with Ferris, but I also would like to say, that the term "high speed" must be one of the most wishy washy terms used here. One pilots interpretation of high speed is different to anothers. Personall I like to ask what speed on descent a pilot can maintain, and set it at that. Otherwise you tell a guy high speed and it turns out he has decided that 290 kts. is high enough for today, and conversely, another guy squeezes 340kts out of his machine when asked for high speed. Its a bit like asking a pilot to give you a good rate of climb. An Air France 742 thinks he is giving you a good rate of climb if he gives you 500 ft a minute, while an MD11 will give you 3,000ft a minute. Personally I try and nail down what everyone is doing so everyone is on the same page, and then if any of the pilots can't hold up their end of the agreement, they speak up so the plan can be tweaked.

Just an aside, if you are on departure, and you experience turbulence (and you are a Gulf Air A330, not to name names at all), and you pull back to 260kts, with a company aircraft clearly on your TCAS 11 NM behind also climbing, would you please say something to ATC about reducing your speed dramatically. It certainly changes the colour of the ATC chairs when the following company traffic doesnn't experience said turbulence, and continues on at 320kts, and all of a sudden you have 100kts ground speed closing. Even without anyone on TCAS, if you pull back by 50 or 60 kts indicated, please tell us. We are very interested in these things, believe me!