Monarch 250 descent

[Denti]

And that is what ATC is there for (among other things of course).

[BOAC]

Babe - to summarise? It will complicate things, yes. However, now you and all other readers of this thread are aware of the descent speeds many operators are now flying, it is to be hoped that all will plan accordingly, and the problem will largely disappear.

Out of interest, ballpark figures yesterday for a 737 NG from FL410 showed 1.4 minutes less at cruise consumption and an increase in overall time of just over 1 minute for descent at .74/250 as opposed to .78/280 (standard 250kts at FL100). Fuel saved is estimated at around 30kg (certainly no 'advantage' on the arrival fuel computation = nearest 100kg). Not sure it is really worth it, trading fuel v other costs? A lot more can be saved in other ways.

[Boingboingdriver]

in my airline we compute by 10s of kilos...ie landing fuel 2220 ks versus 2.2T
If minimum block is 5320kgs, block on loadsheet will be 5320,fueller advised..and if i have to do the valves i will and the accuracy is possible.
Cause if you uplift 5.4 to round up and the fueller overfuels 40 kgs that s 120 kgs too much....1 kgx1.5 eurosx120kgs///make the maths im too tired...thenx flights/day /year...equals mucho dinero.....oh yes and havent diverted yet due to low fuel....
My salt of it...NIGHT NIGHT

[Cough]

Hmm, descent profiles and reduced speed. Thing is, for ATC to achieve separation, then I guess they will want us all in a line with similar G/S. So if A/C ahead is 10nm ahead at 250kt he will be roughly just over 3000 feet lower than mine (assuming a similar descent profile). Add to that his slower descent (so again lower) and you may be talking about another 2000 feet lower. So to equal our G/S to each other I would have to slow to around 220 knots (ish-guessing!). Now what about the aircraft behind me, does he do 190knots?

Reality is no - Other forms of separation then come into play. But the descent speed does complicate the issue... I believe that this should be discussed at a higher level than just the "boss of an airline picks a speed". And the reason for that statement is whilst the guy at the front may save 40kg it costs a total of (again guess) 2000kg between all the other aircraft behind him who get crap descents and long vectors. We should consider the overall enviroment, not just the bosses pocket of the leading aircraft.

BOAC - That jet to which you refer, thinking about fuel...Did you ever take anything less than FULL?

[BOAC]

Hi Cough! Quite agree with your point, but you are asking for joint decisions on this when we cannot get joint decisions on just about anthing! Look at the London TMA 270kts? The short answer is that those guys 'behind' need to think a bit more about this. I have now become attuned to listening for the c/sign and asking for planned speed if it looks relevant, and it really doesn't add much to my time/fuel. A combination of TCAS, radar, and listening and you can norrmally get the picture. It may be that we are about to enter a new 'era' of fuel planning/cost indices? Maybe you and I should be trying to get the Madrid 'Iberia One' arrival where you whizz past all the 'slower' non-Spanish a/c ahead? However, anything less than warp factor 9 and the schedules I'm operating at the moment fall apart. 'Clackers' would love it

Re Fuel in tanks - yes, from deployed sites, often only full wings (drops empty) and if site so wet that you had to 'vertical' off the pad, a bit less sometimes. 20 mins airborne on a good day? Not a lot left to back up the odd half mile to the pad when you screw up the decel

[ItsAjob]

After being stuck behind many of these 250 kt Chuck Yaeger's, it soon becomes apparent that the training departments and sop only culture has removed the basic airmanship from these guys.
Guys you are not the only ones in the sky, I'm alright jack just doesn't hang it.
AIRMANSHIP!!!!!

[Boingboingdriver]

example flew to luton today...descent 250 knots but had a 90 kts headwind...asked the atc guy if 250 was ok or if he d rather i speed up due to strong headwind..told me 250 was all good.......so kept it...
Concerning the previous post...keeping 250 descent due to fuel saving and company sops isnt against any airmanship...but if being asked to increase or even reduce for separation and accepting THATS airmanship..

[Bealzebub]

After being stuck behind many of these 250 kt Chuck Yaeger's, it soon becomes apparent that the training departments and sop only culture has removed the basic airmanship from these guys.
Guys you are not the only ones in the sky, I'm alright jack just doesn't hang it.
AIRMANSHIP!!!!!

Yes Itsajob, I think you may be seriously misunderstanding the rationale here. The descent profile is an instruction from the company (in some cases from the ATC authority) to minimize fuel burns by adopting whenever possible an "Economy descent". If for whatever reason ATC require a different speed it will be complied with.

It has nothing whatsover to do with personal choice (I'm all right Jack.) nor has "SOP culture" removed basic airmanship. In the last 26 years of piloting 707's 757, & 767's I like to think that in learning from errors and experience I have aquired a modicum of "basic airmanship", and a timely application of it. However thank you for the benefit of your personal wisdom.

The application of economy descent profiles is due to the current record fuel prices. This is the reason so many airlines are finding life difficult or worse, going out of business. "Airmanship" is a benign pastime when you are sitting at home unemployed ? SOP's are the standard operating procedures, an employing company wants you to apply to their operations. Clearly there are times when the the situation is non standard, and suitable modifications are required.

Sorry you get stuck behind these "Chuck Yeagers'" (whatever that may mean to you?) but just as you sometimes get stuck behind traffic in all walks of life, it may require some patience and better planning on your part ? I suspect econ' descents are going to become more prevalant and very soon. The Arizona desert is becoming a bigger parking lot for those airframes, whose owners didn't adapt to survive early enough.

[CheekyVisual]

To use a quote I once heard. "It's their train set and if you want to play with it you follow their rules !" i.e. SOPs ! I would never criticise anyone for following SOPs and company procedures. If we need to do 210 knots all day to pay the bills so be it. However, having been forced to hold now twice following a Monarch (now I know why) it would have been nice if those flying at 250kts above FL100 would at least notify ATC so we can all follow suit especially going into Spain where atc assume everyone will do VNE to 4 miles !

Must be a nightmare for ATC with everyone doing different speeds these days !

[ItsAjob]

Exactly, if you hear the guy behind getting stepped descents, reducing etc then for gods sake speed up a little. Maybe configure a little later. Atc may not give a huff about us holding or getting high so don't leave it to them to tell you what to do.

[Boingboingdriver]

ITSAJOB...what planet are you from??read and read again the post from baelzebub..he clearly explained you everything...
If everyone is starting to accelerate or reduce speed because of suspected traffic behind or in front...where are we going???
If you suspect an aircraft going to same destination, airmanship would be to tell ATC that your descent is scheduled to be 250 kts at crossoverspeed altitude.That will tell the guy behind a clue and ATC a heads up about possible seperation later on during descent.....
Concerning later configuration i follow the speeds ATC asks during intermediate approaches unless requested to follow standard jepps speeds..ie 180-200 base and 160 to 4 miles...In VMC i configure from 160 kts at 4miles...gear and remaining flaps at 3 miles(1000 ARTE) so that at 500 AGL i have thrust in .on speed and checklist completed.In IMC..180 to 2000 ARTE,configure and established on speed at 1000AGL....if required to maintain 180 kts i configure at 1500AGL and established at 500 AGL(no headwind /no tail wind)......


CHEEKYVISUAL..i seriously doubt you entered holding because of the preceding aircraft was doing 250......dude if you see you are closing on an aircraft...you can inquire atc too...if you should reduce..I know spain is not UK or Netherlands ATC but come on..they still know about seperation..
I remember a pilot complaining to ATC coming into poland that i didnt reduce the speed as requested by atc for seperation.He was checking his TCAS and didnt see any increase in seperation...that was funny using tcas for that matter...I asked ATC to write a letter about my sped compliance,,,oh yes pilot complaining was from the same company;-)
ATC wrote a nice mail saying that adequate seperation was maintained at all times......SO please trust ATC a bit more..they have radar,seperation trends....lots of tools..that we dont have...only tcas..which is good ONLY if you get TOO close to argue with ATC;-)

Now im done....it seems only Bealzebub,BOAC and Ad astraeus make sense in this forum..

[ItsAjob]

Well Boingboing, thank you very much for your detailed secrets of how you fly approaches!

[Not Long Now]

Back to the original idea of this thread, surely you are a controller, so control. If you need a different speed, then do it. Everyone doing whatever they like is all very well if there's nobody else around, but if there is then do something about it don't just whinge at the guys following their company sops.
Personally I'd like to ban anyone who can't do 400kts+ ground speed or can't climb at more than 1500fpm, but it aint ging to happen so I work around it.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Gents

Strict adherance to SOP to save 50kg of fuel disregarding any other users of the sky seems unreasonable to me regardless of how many sectors you fly per day/week/year.

Found myself behind an A319 at AGP the other day who was back at 180knts at 20 odd miles "Because it was SOP to be at that speed when on the Loc"

I remember getting moaned at before RVSM for hogging a mid thirties level in a light jet at M.66 you cant have it both ways.

Fly as slow as you like just make it known to ATC that you are happy to move over and delay your approach to let faster traffic by............now we all know thats not going to happen but you could help the air picture by advising air traffic your speed on transition at TOD faster guys can then do the same.

Not all aircraft you chaps share the sky with are bothered about saving 50kg, never mind 50kg on somebodys elses a/c. Those who say it only saves 2 or "x" mins comparing 295 to 250 should put the OM down and smell the coffee, add in additional vectoring and the greater ground covered at the higher speed which then needs to be made good at a slower speed when we get the late "slow down" call with vectors and it can be 10-12 mins .....happened 2 weeks ago.

A perfectly fair and admittedly unrealistic analogy might be to imagine a fleet of kingairs getting in the way of your desired speeds and making you regularly slow down to 210 from your 250 and you might begin to understand peoples frustrations.

Not as passionate about it as BabeMagnet but understand that you are inflicting your will on others for whom flight time is still paramount over £70 quids worth of fuel (my fuel not yours) who still have yet to be hogtied by restrictive SOP's that IMHO replace airmanship safety with SOP safety who's reason d'etre are there to account for the lowest common denominator in terms of decision making and to reduce insurance premiums [[rant mode:off]]

[ZeBedie]

Found myself behind an A319 at AGP the other day who was back at 180knts at 20 odd miles "Because it was SOP to be at that speed when on the Loc"

GSpot, you plonker, read the plates. Easyjet obviously do!

[PPRuNe Radar]

In the UK there is a minimum published rate of climb/descent in the AIP. Maybe we need something similar for descent speeds above FL100 for jet aircraft as well ?

If there was a published minimum IAS (say 280Kts), then pilots who want to go slower for whatever reason would have to let us know and then they'd be accomodated, but in a planned manner and not as a fire fighting exercise for ATC. Faster traffic could also be given a more optimum profile (an overtaking manouvre ) rather than everyone else having to slow down to fit in with the slower guy at the head of the traffic sequence.

Even at cruise speeds we are now finding that some aircraft are flying at slower speeds than filed, due to the economic dictats. There's no problem with flying at the slower speeds in the cruise, but if you don't change the flight plan and let us know, then we can base some tight in trail radar separation on the basis of your declared speed. Or even worse, we can base procedural separation on your speeds where there is no radar !! On radar at least, the big clue is when someone (in an orange Airbus usually) has filed 460Kts true and is being caught by someone who is flying at his filed 420Kts true. Mmmm, how does that happen ?

The final comment I have is that we are now seeing some pilots (small in number but growing at a worrying rate) who state that they cannot speed up from 250Kts in the descent due to company SOPs for fuel economy (this is above FL100). In busy airspace we don't have time to argue the toss and if we need you to speed up for overall flight efficiency and safety (i.e. separation), then it's an instruction and not a request.

If there's a flight safety reason why you can't comply (turbulence penetration or airframe restrictions for example), then let us know and it's a valid circumstance for us to have to change our plan. We are here to help in such circumstances. And the valid reasons for your refusal will be on the tape.

If it's simply for the beancounters, then our fallback position is that ATC instructions are mandatory (within Controlled Airspace anyhow) and are being given to ensure flight safety and traffic management efficiency. That's not a glib excuse to get you to comply, but you're probably at the head of the pack and a lot of work and vectoring/slowing down is going to be needed to sort everyone else out. And as others have said, the fuel penalties on everyone else are not fair on them, as well as being inefficient to the whole system of moving traffic smoothly.

If there's no safety reason that you can't comply and you still refuse, then our brief is that the CAA regulator is the one who'll take it up with the company, either through a Mandatory Occurrence Report, or as a Breach of the Air Navigation Order.

Between us all, we can make the system work, but you need to give ATC a fighting chance by declaring slow speeds, and you need to think about the effects on the other aircraft in the sky, whatever your position in the sequence.

[Bealzebub]

Don't forget that NATS is 41.9% held by The Airline Group LTD, a consortium of 7 airlines including the 2 frequently mentioned on this thread. I rather suspect this is going to lend some serious weight to their SOP and economy fuel requirements certainly in UK airspace.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Zebedie

Firstly - Calm Down

Secondly......

Plate 10-1P1 Jepps

2.1 Speed Adjustments !UNDER RADAR CONTROL!

Max 250knts below FL100
Reduce to 210 at the beginning of final turn to intercept the ILS LOC Course, when acft is located within 20NM of THR

**** 180 KT when crossing 12NM from locator ******

160 KT when crossing GM lctr.

The only reason I got to hear the exchange on the R/T was the fact that controller was asking him to speed up due to trafic behind. We often get asked for 220 with a late closing heading that takes us through the LOC cutting the corner at MAR down to 5500.

Terminal thread drift but he (The A319) had probably been LOC established west of MAR.

Thirdly - With all your zillions of years of flying "707/757/767" you might have learnt a few manners - no need to be rude. I am always very suspicious when people have to announce their types and hours/ years flying to prove their point...

[Bealzebub]

Thirdly - With all your zillions of years of flying "707/757/767" you might have learnt a few manners - no need to be rude. I am always very suspicious when people have to announce their types and hours/ years flying to prove their point...

To be fair to Zebedie, he didn't write this, I did. Quoting the wrong person when defending a posting on "mis-reading an approach plate" probably does little to advance your case either ? The reason I mentioned the types and years (not hours) was not to impress any body. It was a response to a poster who was suggesting that I and my colleagues were "clowns" and "Chuck Yaeger" types who in his opinion lacked "airmanship". A brief search showed that this individual was only a few months ago posting on which schools in Florida he should attend. The comment thereby sought to suggest that airmanship might be a quality learned by experience, rather than yet another throw away line from a keyboard warrior. Hopefully that allays your suspicion.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Indeed - sincere apologies