Query to RPT pilots
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Query to RPT pilots
When instructed by ATC to cross a point at a certain time for sequencing, what is the process that is followed to achieve this? e.g. Is it just a matter of telling the FMS that you want to hit the point at a certain time and the autopilot handles the rest?
Subsequent question; where does the FMS obtain the grib wind data from for each flight?
Subsequent question; where does the FMS obtain the grib wind data from for each flight?
Nunc est bibendum
On some FMS you can telling an RTA (required time of arrival) for a waypoint and it will achieve that.
However, rubbishy in equals rubbish out. If the winds aren't accurate you can get some silly solutions with massive speed up and subsequent slow downs as the conditions change. Every RTA I've seen used for a waypoints not on descent has been a complete and utter cluster.
For my money I prefer to fly a 250 knot descent as that is invariably the speed ATC want after the waypoint and then adjust the cruise speed accordingly to meet the time. If that doesn't work then I'll simply insert the slower descent speed and see how close that gets me to the time. Most often I simply eyeball the profile to match.
One of the weird clearances I've experienced recently into PER is 'cross BEVLY at time 40 or earlier then normal speed'. I can't work out why the speed after BEVLY is important if I can get there at anytime prior to 40. Eg if ATC doesn't care if I get there at 35 or 39 then surely my speed after BEVLY is irrelevant? Im open to thoughts from that one. AWOL57?
The winds in the FMS depend a bit on its capability. For QF 330 ops we uplink the wind forecasts and then the FMS extrapolates between current wind and forecast wind over a disgrace before going to completely forecast wind. The 767 was a bit more generic and sometimes you needed to use a bit of rat cunning as to what the wind was likely to do in order to generate accurate estimates.
However, rubbishy in equals rubbish out. If the winds aren't accurate you can get some silly solutions with massive speed up and subsequent slow downs as the conditions change. Every RTA I've seen used for a waypoints not on descent has been a complete and utter cluster.
For my money I prefer to fly a 250 knot descent as that is invariably the speed ATC want after the waypoint and then adjust the cruise speed accordingly to meet the time. If that doesn't work then I'll simply insert the slower descent speed and see how close that gets me to the time. Most often I simply eyeball the profile to match.
One of the weird clearances I've experienced recently into PER is 'cross BEVLY at time 40 or earlier then normal speed'. I can't work out why the speed after BEVLY is important if I can get there at anytime prior to 40. Eg if ATC doesn't care if I get there at 35 or 39 then surely my speed after BEVLY is irrelevant? Im open to thoughts from that one. AWOL57?
The winds in the FMS depend a bit on its capability. For QF 330 ops we uplink the wind forecasts and then the FMS extrapolates between current wind and forecast wind over a disgrace before going to completely forecast wind. The 767 was a bit more generic and sometimes you needed to use a bit of rat cunning as to what the wind was likely to do in order to generate accurate estimates.
My guess for normal speed would be someone behind you from somewhere. Bit of an odd one but I guess they are saying do what you need to to make that time then profile speed. But that's a bit out of my league as a procedural approach guy 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On some FMS you can telling an RTA (required time of arrival) for a waypoint and it will achieve that.
However, rubbishy in equals rubbish out. If the winds aren't accurate you can get some silly solutions with massive speed up and subsequent slow downs as the conditions change. Every RTA I've seen used for a waypoints not on descent has been a complete and utter cluster.
For my money I prefer to fly a 250 knot descent as that is invariably the speed ATC want after the waypoint and then adjust the cruise speed accordingly to meet the time. If that doesn't work then I'll simply insert the slower descent speed and see how close that gets me to the time. Most often I simply eyeball the profile to match.
One of the weird clearances I've experienced recently into PER is 'cross BEVLY at time 40 or earlier then normal speed'. I can't work out why the speed after BEVLY is important if I can get there at anytime prior to 40. Eg if ATC doesn't care if I get there at 35 or 39 then surely my speed after BEVLY is irrelevant? Im open to thoughts from that one. AWOL57?
The winds in the FMS depend a bit on its capability. For QF 330 ops we uplink the wind forecasts and then the FMS extrapolates between current wind and forecast wind over a disgrace before going to completely forecast wind. The 767 was a bit more generic and sometimes you needed to use a bit of rat cunning as to what the wind was likely to do in order to generate accurate estimates.
However, rubbishy in equals rubbish out. If the winds aren't accurate you can get some silly solutions with massive speed up and subsequent slow downs as the conditions change. Every RTA I've seen used for a waypoints not on descent has been a complete and utter cluster.
For my money I prefer to fly a 250 knot descent as that is invariably the speed ATC want after the waypoint and then adjust the cruise speed accordingly to meet the time. If that doesn't work then I'll simply insert the slower descent speed and see how close that gets me to the time. Most often I simply eyeball the profile to match.
One of the weird clearances I've experienced recently into PER is 'cross BEVLY at time 40 or earlier then normal speed'. I can't work out why the speed after BEVLY is important if I can get there at anytime prior to 40. Eg if ATC doesn't care if I get there at 35 or 39 then surely my speed after BEVLY is irrelevant? Im open to thoughts from that one. AWOL57?
The winds in the FMS depend a bit on its capability. For QF 330 ops we uplink the wind forecasts and then the FMS extrapolates between current wind and forecast wind over a disgrace before going to completely forecast wind. The 767 was a bit more generic and sometimes you needed to use a bit of rat cunning as to what the wind was likely to do in order to generate accurate estimates.
After going through all these creative routes, more so with holding crossing times which we would get pretty close to, atc often didn't trust us so would instruct us to turn inbound before the fms was to turn us. 😀
I'm with KEG, RTA works well as long as it is used correctly and understood. It won't work if you stay at cruise altitude and min speed won't achieve the time, how can it? Adjusting your descent speed before entering the RTA will make a difference.
When I'm given a time to achieve I reduce the cost index to achieve a descent speed of 250. I enter an RTA. It should be obvious whether you will be able to achieve the RTA at your cruise altitude. As a rough rule in the aircraft I fly with 150nm to run to the fix for every min I need to loose I will need to descend 2000ft. I.e.. If I'm at 37000 feet and need to loose 8 mins I will descend to 21000 feet. The descent need to be a normal (flight idle) descent, none of this mucking around at 500 vs. the faster you get to the lower level the sooner your TAS / GS reduces. Then RTA will do the job very nicely thank you. (Within 5 seconds is the norm)
You other choice is to remain at cruise level and hold, burning more fuel.
The difference in fuel burn between 37000 and 20000 is around 300kgs/hr. Not much but over several flights it adds up. It also seems to help ATC as they regularly voice their appreciation for our efforts.
When I'm given a time to achieve I reduce the cost index to achieve a descent speed of 250. I enter an RTA. It should be obvious whether you will be able to achieve the RTA at your cruise altitude. As a rough rule in the aircraft I fly with 150nm to run to the fix for every min I need to loose I will need to descend 2000ft. I.e.. If I'm at 37000 feet and need to loose 8 mins I will descend to 21000 feet. The descent need to be a normal (flight idle) descent, none of this mucking around at 500 vs. the faster you get to the lower level the sooner your TAS / GS reduces. Then RTA will do the job very nicely thank you. (Within 5 seconds is the norm)
You other choice is to remain at cruise level and hold, burning more fuel.
The difference in fuel burn between 37000 and 20000 is around 300kgs/hr. Not much but over several flights it adds up. It also seems to help ATC as they regularly voice their appreciation for our efforts.
What? No wizz wheel? 
Isn't the only reason pilots worry about fuel is when the don't have enough?
The difference in fuel burn between 37000 and 20000 is around 300kgs/hr. Not much but over several flights it adds up.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On some FMS you can telling an RTA (required time of arrival) for a waypoint and it will achieve that.
However, rubbishy in equals rubbish out. If the winds aren't accurate you can get some silly solutions with massive speed up and subsequent slow downs as the conditions change. Every RTA I've seen used for a waypoints not on descent has been a complete and utter cluster.
For my money I prefer to fly a 250 knot descent as that is invariably the speed ATC want after the waypoint and then adjust the cruise speed accordingly to meet the time. If that doesn't work then I'll simply insert the slower descent speed and see how close that gets me to the time. Most often I simply eyeball the profile to match.
One of the weird clearances I've experienced recently into PER is 'cross BEVLY at time 40 or earlier then normal speed'. I can't work out why the speed after BEVLY is important if I can get there at anytime prior to 40. Eg if ATC doesn't care if I get there at 35 or 39 then surely my speed after BEVLY is irrelevant? Im open to thoughts from that one. AWOL57?
The winds in the FMS depend a bit on its capability. For QF 330 ops we uplink the wind forecasts and then the FMS extrapolates between current wind and forecast wind over a disgrace before going to completely forecast wind. The 767 was a bit more generic and sometimes you needed to use a bit of rat cunning as to what the wind was likely to do in order to generate accurate estimates.
However, rubbishy in equals rubbish out. If the winds aren't accurate you can get some silly solutions with massive speed up and subsequent slow downs as the conditions change. Every RTA I've seen used for a waypoints not on descent has been a complete and utter cluster.
For my money I prefer to fly a 250 knot descent as that is invariably the speed ATC want after the waypoint and then adjust the cruise speed accordingly to meet the time. If that doesn't work then I'll simply insert the slower descent speed and see how close that gets me to the time. Most often I simply eyeball the profile to match.
One of the weird clearances I've experienced recently into PER is 'cross BEVLY at time 40 or earlier then normal speed'. I can't work out why the speed after BEVLY is important if I can get there at anytime prior to 40. Eg if ATC doesn't care if I get there at 35 or 39 then surely my speed after BEVLY is irrelevant? Im open to thoughts from that one. AWOL57?
The winds in the FMS depend a bit on its capability. For QF 330 ops we uplink the wind forecasts and then the FMS extrapolates between current wind and forecast wind over a disgrace before going to completely forecast wind. The 767 was a bit more generic and sometimes you needed to use a bit of rat cunning as to what the wind was likely to do in order to generate accurate estimates.
I've noticed a disparity between aircraft types regarding achieving a fix time and couldn't figure out why it was occurring. From responses I'm still unable to figure it out and can only put it down to winds.
As it appears as though the best way to achieve a time is through adjusting the speed until the box says that the ETA is congruent with what's being asked for, a certain airframe consistently misses the mark. If there are any F100 pilots lurking I'd be interested to hear how you do it?
As for the BEVLY query; the phraseology is born from a number of factors and the intent is the following.
"There is a gap in front of you in the sequence in which I don't believe you can catch the aircraft in front if you maintain a normal descent speed. If you get there early then you free up space behind you but I've done the figures and if I give you a high speed descent from the feeder fix point, you're most likely to catch whoever is in front of you."
By not locking you into the time, it's a bonus if you're early.
Keg, has largely answered the OP's question.
The RTA can be used, but if it starts chasing ridiculous speeds then I tend to note the speeds it was going to use and program the FMC with those speeds and see how we go.
As a rule of thumb, if the time to be lost is <3mins then I generally try to do it via reducing my descent speed only. When the time to be lost is between 3-5mins then I will also reduce my cruise speed and well as my descent speed.
RENURPP highlights an interesting conundrum, which is, is it better to descend to be able to fly at a reduced IAS>TAS>G/S, but with a higher fuel burn, or should you continue at altitude maybe changing your cost index to zero, and accepting the delay in the holding pattern, but "probably" burning less fuel overall?
As I see it, if you want to fly most efficiently (in this case burn the least amount of fuel), given that the time at the fix is not ours to modify anymore, then we are effectively flying for maximum endurance.
Given the relationship between speed, drag, altitude and jet engine efficiency, I would be curious to know what altitude, speed and thrust setting would be best for your typical passenger jet.
Any thoughts?
The RTA can be used, but if it starts chasing ridiculous speeds then I tend to note the speeds it was going to use and program the FMC with those speeds and see how we go.
As a rule of thumb, if the time to be lost is <3mins then I generally try to do it via reducing my descent speed only. When the time to be lost is between 3-5mins then I will also reduce my cruise speed and well as my descent speed.
RENURPP highlights an interesting conundrum, which is, is it better to descend to be able to fly at a reduced IAS>TAS>G/S, but with a higher fuel burn, or should you continue at altitude maybe changing your cost index to zero, and accepting the delay in the holding pattern, but "probably" burning less fuel overall?
As I see it, if you want to fly most efficiently (in this case burn the least amount of fuel), given that the time at the fix is not ours to modify anymore, then we are effectively flying for maximum endurance.
Given the relationship between speed, drag, altitude and jet engine efficiency, I would be curious to know what altitude, speed and thrust setting would be best for your typical passenger jet.
Any thoughts?
RENURPP highlights an interesting conundrum, which is, is it better to descend to be able to fly at a reduced IAS>TAS>G/S, but with a higher fuel burn, or should you continue at altitude maybe changing your cost index to zero, and accepting the delay in the holding pattern, but "probably" burning less fuel overall?
If you have to lose time, the best way is go low and slow.
If you stay high and hold, you will burn more fuel than if you go low. Staying high keeps the TAS high and therefore parasite drag high and a high power setting to maintain speed resulting in high fuel flow.
Go low, much lower TAS equals lower drag resulting in a lower thrust setting and fuel flow.
On my type, best endurance is found in the very low 20s ie minimum drag.
If you have to lose time, the best way is go low and slow.
In my machine, RTA is a WOFTAM. The descent speed will remain the FMS speed for the Cost Index. If you don't have a lot of time in the cruise to fly at a low or high speed to adjust the time, it won't work. Adjusting the Cost Index to achieve the Feeder Fix time is king. It will also reduce the times when someone is cruising at Vmin then suddenly accelerates to warp speed as they start descending. Us: "Err, Centre, isn't that 737 ahead supposed to be behind us?" ATC: "XXX, will you be able to make your time?" Them: "Yessir, we'll be descending at 550KIAS!!", which obviously doesn't work. I exaggerate, but this has happened to me on a few occasions.
On my jallopy, FMS winds are loaded by the crew from the computerised flight plan (or NAIPS SPFIB).
The biggest pain is that the ETAs on my box aren't shown in decimal minutes (until on the last segment to the Feeder Fix). It would make life so much easier it they were.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a mathematical solution:
Required GS to achieve new waypoint arrival time = (time to loose/current time to run) multiplied by current GS.
At new speed an occassional check with Distance to Run/Time to Go, adjust speed accordingly. Accurate time piece needed.
RTA works well enough for me though.
Required GS to achieve new waypoint arrival time = (time to loose/current time to run) multiplied by current GS.
At new speed an occassional check with Distance to Run/Time to Go, adjust speed accordingly. Accurate time piece needed.
RTA works well enough for me though.
When instructed by ATC to cross a point at a certain time for sequencing, what is the process that is followed to achieve this? e.g. Is it just a matter of telling the FMS that you want to hit the point at a certain time and the autopilot handles the rest?
1. Adjust the FMS descent speed to meet the crossing time.
2. Insert a time marker for the crossing time.
3. Manually adjust speed to keep the time marker circle over the crossing point. (Airbus; "Selected Speed". Boeing; "Speed Intervene"?)
4. Make small and frequent adjustments
5. Cross within plus/minus 5 seconds every time
So to answer the question, setting the time in the FMS will not get the desired result. The descent speed needs to be adjusted manually to meet the requirement. In cruise an RTA will work but cruise crossing time requirements are rare in Australia.
. In cruise an RTA will work but cruise crossing time requirements are rare in Australia
I rarely get a time into Sydney, they seem to control via speed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....with at least 150nm to run to the fix. Enough to lose around 9 minutes.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't have much problem with using the RTA function in the NG. Works pretty well I find, usually within 5 secs, provided you don't expect it to work miracles, descent or cruise.
Wouldn't want too many 9 minute losses in 150 nm, typical jet would be GS 200 +/- knots on descent...be fun from the north in winter with a 100 kt jet stream
150nm / Tas 470kts = 19 mins average speeds not accounting for descent.
To save 9 mins would require a G/S of 320kts.
You could probably reduce speed at cruise alt and save a 1 min maybe 2 and reduce descent speed to save a couple more BUT a I would descend immediately to 20,000 at flight idle normal speed to get down ASAP and at min speed have a TAS of around 320kts or slightly slower. That with a slower descent and you have saved your 9 mins. Unless your heading west you could assume a reduction in g/s due wind which als helps. It doesn't always work but 95% of the time it will with savings in fuel. I.e. More left in tanks for other reasons (weather etc)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RENURPP
I totally agree with your maths, but 470 to 320kts is not instantaneous, and with a 100kt tailwind 570 to 320 less so) hence my numbers. With the given proviso that once at speed, recalculate the speed required to make the waypoint.
But in reality, the FMC RTA function works fine for me (Level forecast winds entered) . And considering the speed reduction requests are normally made when it all starts to get busy, the FMC option gives me more time for other things.
But I am first to admit that there are many ways to pluck a duck and respect each to their own.
Cheers
I totally agree with your maths, but 470 to 320kts is not instantaneous, and with a 100kt tailwind 570 to 320 less so) hence my numbers. With the given proviso that once at speed, recalculate the speed required to make the waypoint.
But in reality, the FMC RTA function works fine for me (Level forecast winds entered) . And considering the speed reduction requests are normally made when it all starts to get busy, the FMC option gives me more time for other things.
But I am first to admit that there are many ways to pluck a duck and respect each to their own.
Cheers