250kts on departure
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Backtrack
A question for our US airspace experts (if I may):
FAR91.117 Aircraft Speed states in para(a) 'Unless authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m. p. h.).'
Para (d) states 'If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.'
As others have already stated many of the 'heavies' at high weights will have a min clean above 250kt. Can therefore para (d) be applied - are min safe & min clean synonymous in this context - or should I be climbing with Flap 1 to 10,000ft?
FAR91.117 Aircraft Speed states in para(a) 'Unless authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m. p. h.).'
Para (d) states 'If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.'
As others have already stated many of the 'heavies' at high weights will have a min clean above 250kt. Can therefore para (d) be applied - are min safe & min clean synonymous in this context - or should I be climbing with Flap 1 to 10,000ft?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When going north from lgw, all I want to know is how high you want me to get over the stacks at BIG, 220kts to 8 or 10k with 6000 a min + can save 10 mins if I can go straight over LHR towards TNT, instead of going round to the dartford crossing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggs
How long is a piece of string??
How high depends on what is holding at BIG at the time.
You NEED to be FL130 by the time you cross the EGLL centreline.... theres a nice gap at that level in the Lambourne stack if the next sector can't give you higher.
Depending how you climb will determine when you get turned... If you are just on a jaunt to EGPH or similar, you will climb well and therefore if not holding high at BIG, you should get a fairly early turn.
If you are off to the States and are heavy, on a hot day, with BIG holding up to FL150, we will get higher from the next sector and climb you to that..... the problem then is turning you tight enough or getting you high enough to miss traffic coming to Lambourne from the east.
If there is nothing at OCK and you are climbing well, you may even be given vectors to the NNW initially to keep you away from BIG traffic.
Most controllers will keep your speed restriction on for the LAM departure from lgw, this helps us and you.
The reason this thread started was that myself and colleagues at TC are unhappy that using speed as a tool is going to be taken away from us. It does not affect the LAM departure as it is a handover from one TC controller to another; it is AC that want us to trial the 'keep everything slow'
How long is a piece of string??
How high depends on what is holding at BIG at the time.
You NEED to be FL130 by the time you cross the EGLL centreline.... theres a nice gap at that level in the Lambourne stack if the next sector can't give you higher.
Depending how you climb will determine when you get turned... If you are just on a jaunt to EGPH or similar, you will climb well and therefore if not holding high at BIG, you should get a fairly early turn.
If you are off to the States and are heavy, on a hot day, with BIG holding up to FL150, we will get higher from the next sector and climb you to that..... the problem then is turning you tight enough or getting you high enough to miss traffic coming to Lambourne from the east.
If there is nothing at OCK and you are climbing well, you may even be given vectors to the NNW initially to keep you away from BIG traffic.
Most controllers will keep your speed restriction on for the LAM departure from lgw, this helps us and you.
The reason this thread started was that myself and colleagues at TC are unhappy that using speed as a tool is going to be taken away from us. It does not affect the LAM departure as it is a handover from one TC controller to another; it is AC that want us to trial the 'keep everything slow'
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEXIL, I just have to ask, how long has it been since you've plugged in on a TC sector and seen + heard the sector working?
I'm a South TC ATCO and visit your den every couple of months. I think there's a great deal to be learned from it. Maybe management should encourage it more...
If a/c aren't climbed and transferred ASAP overloads will become the norm. There are enough a/c on the BIG sector freq as it is without doubling the number of planes at altitudes. (And yes in this example the sector is already split!)
Returning more to the subject of our colleagues post this will do so little to ease bunching. So long as heavys can increase to min clean speed I don't see it doing too much harm either.
I'm a South TC ATCO and visit your den every couple of months. I think there's a great deal to be learned from it. Maybe management should encourage it more...
If a/c aren't climbed and transferred ASAP overloads will become the norm. There are enough a/c on the BIG sector freq as it is without doubling the number of planes at altitudes. (And yes in this example the sector is already split!)
Returning more to the subject of our colleagues post this will do so little to ease bunching. So long as heavys can increase to min clean speed I don't see it doing too much harm either.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions, questions...
Cartman: Two months ago. I agree lots more liason visits required both ways. Better still, when TC are re-united with AC, dual Validations (now there's an idea....)
535 : Correct. The sim is not reality. That's why there is to be a trial.
. No, AC would like more orderly presentation in order to increase capacity. The speed trial is a TC Ops initiative. 250kts only applies at or below FL100, so not an AREA issue at all.
Open skies, closed minds? Try it (with out bias) and see. Go on, I dare you .
You (or I!) can't "know" if it doesn't or does work by any other method.
rgds BEX
Cartman: Two months ago. I agree lots more liason visits required both ways. Better still, when TC are re-united with AC, dual Validations (now there's an idea....)
535 : Correct. The sim is not reality. That's why there is to be a trial.
it is AC that want us to trial the 'keep everything slow'
Open skies, closed minds? Try it (with out bias) and see. Go on, I dare you .
You (or I!) can't "know" if it doesn't or does work by any other method.
rgds BEX
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between The Black Swan & The Swettenham Arms
Age: 69
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cardinal
Thanks for the reply. Any more views out there on this?
The reason for asking on this bulletin is that 'the trial' to be conducted seems to me to be much on the lines of FAR91.117: 250kt below 100 rigidly enforced with no controller discretion to cancel. There is a bit of an irony here in that if a heavy is not allowed to accelerate to min clean, he may be flying at a speed a lot less than 250: a 763 Flap 1 placard speed is 250kt, so if I'm wizzing around with flap out, don't expect me to be doing more than 240.
Don't know the position with other types, but presume the bigger Boeings & Airbuses are similarly affected.
Thanks for the reply. Any more views out there on this?
The reason for asking on this bulletin is that 'the trial' to be conducted seems to me to be much on the lines of FAR91.117: 250kt below 100 rigidly enforced with no controller discretion to cancel. There is a bit of an irony here in that if a heavy is not allowed to accelerate to min clean, he may be flying at a speed a lot less than 250: a 763 Flap 1 placard speed is 250kt, so if I'm wizzing around with flap out, don't expect me to be doing more than 240.
Don't know the position with other types, but presume the bigger Boeings & Airbuses are similarly affected.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merely a pilots input here, so I don't have the vast airspace depth of knowledge of the TC/AC controllers regarding daily issues created by this.
Personally I can't really see how 'bunching' will improve purely by limiting LTMA departures to 250kt. I fully accept that 'bunching' is a major issue - and always has been. I'm just not really sure that this is the answer to it. Slot tolerance across all departures is far more critical, as is mix of traffic from ALL uk airfields to an exit fix. A take-off just one or two minutes creates, or cures the problem on many occasions. This of course can never be calculated, predicted, with mix of traffic from various points all under different variables.
Can someone confirm also that this applies ONLY to LL/KK/GW/SS departures. I presume BB depatures for example into COWLY/WELIN are uneffected by this trial??
Rgds
30W
Personally I can't really see how 'bunching' will improve purely by limiting LTMA departures to 250kt. I fully accept that 'bunching' is a major issue - and always has been. I'm just not really sure that this is the answer to it. Slot tolerance across all departures is far more critical, as is mix of traffic from ALL uk airfields to an exit fix. A take-off just one or two minutes creates, or cures the problem on many occasions. This of course can never be calculated, predicted, with mix of traffic from various points all under different variables.
Can someone confirm also that this applies ONLY to LL/KK/GW/SS departures. I presume BB depatures for example into COWLY/WELIN are uneffected by this trial??
Rgds
30W
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The official paperwork is still to come out, but I believe it is from TC TMA airfields only, and i agree with you - the only way to stop bunching effectively is to have departures from airfields co-ordinated - which would impinge far too much on carrier operations
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: right here
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious, but what would be the min clean speed for a heavy A340?
(I'm postulating about the one posters idea of bumping 250 to 280 below 10K.. and its effect on other planes... not sure how the 340 would fare with that, while trying to maintain a reasonable ROC)
(I'm postulating about the one posters idea of bumping 250 to 280 below 10K.. and its effect on other planes... not sure how the 340 would fare with that, while trying to maintain a reasonable ROC)
Last edited by anybodyatall; 21st Jan 2006 at 18:53.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Heavy' 340 min clean speeds (Green Dot)
Hi All,
I know 'information is power' but here are typical speed ranges for the -300 and -500. I have no info on the -600.
A340-300 at MTOW is 280kts whilst at 40 tonnes less it's 256kts. For A340-500 it's 269kts and 253kts respectively.
REF QRH 4.01. (Please allow for rough interpolation
)
Hope this helps,
Happy Flying
I know 'information is power' but here are typical speed ranges for the -300 and -500. I have no info on the -600.
A340-300 at MTOW is 280kts whilst at 40 tonnes less it's 256kts. For A340-500 it's 269kts and 253kts respectively.
REF QRH 4.01. (Please allow for rough interpolation
)Hope this helps,
Happy Flying
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Flight Crew Instructions at Ryanair yet for your info.
I am interested to know whether the EGCC constant IAS departures/arrivals helped ATC at all and is this idea goin to be expanded on at all?
On another note could this speed control be a good pre-emptive strike by your management in an effort to slow us down for the arrival of PRNAV RNP 1 operations? I suppose PRNAV SIDs and STARs will help reduce your workload whilst improving our efficiency too (ideal world stuff, I know). But to stay on PRNAV routes may well require this kind of speed control, I would imagine?
Is there a culture in ATC (from reading between the lines) of controllers who prefer to "control with the autopilot engaged" and those who "control manually" i.e. remove the protection of some of the system to help us out kind of thing? Surely it must be easier for you to leave us on the SID provided there is no conflict at the point you hand us of to Area?
I am interested to know whether the EGCC constant IAS departures/arrivals helped ATC at all and is this idea goin to be expanded on at all?
On another note could this speed control be a good pre-emptive strike by your management in an effort to slow us down for the arrival of PRNAV RNP 1 operations? I suppose PRNAV SIDs and STARs will help reduce your workload whilst improving our efficiency too (ideal world stuff, I know). But to stay on PRNAV routes may well require this kind of speed control, I would imagine?
Is there a culture in ATC (from reading between the lines) of controllers who prefer to "control with the autopilot engaged" and those who "control manually" i.e. remove the protection of some of the system to help us out kind of thing? Surely it must be easier for you to leave us on the SID provided there is no conflict at the point you hand us of to Area?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ukatco_535,
"which would impinge far too much on carrier operations"
In my experience the effect on runway capacity rates by doing as we suggest would have airfield operators, BAA etc up in arms far before the carriers even realised what was going on
I think in this modern game of politics they have far more weight at consultation than operators ever do 
Jambo,
I don't think you'll find the PRNAV SID's looking very different from current ones. There is VERY limited space within the LTMA and capacity, like my note above is heavily monitored. The UK, through DAP, have developed their own PRNAV SID design criteria. If the ICAO one had been followed, then there would have resulted in many problems within the LTMA. For instance, speed on first turns has been 'capped' on UK design, specifically to cope with the LL/KK SID problems already discussed by controllers.
Also the UK set it's own higher Procedure Design Gradient (PDG). Much effort and careful analysis went into setting the UK figures - with pilot input I add. This new TC rule however would NOT be because of this new PDG.
30W
"which would impinge far too much on carrier operations"
In my experience the effect on runway capacity rates by doing as we suggest would have airfield operators, BAA etc up in arms far before the carriers even realised what was going on
I think in this modern game of politics they have far more weight at consultation than operators ever do Jambo,
I don't think you'll find the PRNAV SID's looking very different from current ones. There is VERY limited space within the LTMA and capacity, like my note above is heavily monitored. The UK, through DAP, have developed their own PRNAV SID design criteria. If the ICAO one had been followed, then there would have resulted in many problems within the LTMA. For instance, speed on first turns has been 'capped' on UK design, specifically to cope with the LL/KK SID problems already discussed by controllers.
Also the UK set it's own higher Procedure Design Gradient (PDG). Much effort and careful analysis went into setting the UK figures - with pilot input I add. This new TC rule however would NOT be because of this new PDG.
30W
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Friday 20th midmorning Brookmans park departure of 27R:
"maintain 6000, no speed restrictions"
Is there a trial or not. Mind you, we had to fly the whole sid and stayed at 6000 for a very long time.
"maintain 6000, no speed restrictions"
Is there a trial or not. Mind you, we had to fly the whole sid and stayed at 6000 for a very long time.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, you flew a SID. I have have a vague memory of completing the clacton out of STN a few years ago, but the altitudes and speeds where lifted, so I guess I can't really say I did it!! In fact the last SID I can really remember flying was my instrument IR.
Dublin has 12 pages of FMS STARS. Thats more that ATL or DFW I bet, and DUB is just a pissy little airport compared to some big US fields.
There really is a big descrepance between the disney jepps and ATC needs. Can we not rename SIDs and STARS as 'radio failure procedures' and just make all clearances 'rwy hdg to 3000 feet and expect radar vectors to ####' (first point on a/way).
Jeppessen are supplying us a disney book for a lot of money. Half of it (SIDS and STARS) is not used!!
How have things ever become like this? (ooops hijacking the topic). Maybe i could rephrase the question; how did we get to the point that we are implementing a "trial" for something that already exists in the rules!!!!!????
Dublin has 12 pages of FMS STARS. Thats more that ATL or DFW I bet, and DUB is just a pissy little airport compared to some big US fields.
There really is a big descrepance between the disney jepps and ATC needs. Can we not rename SIDs and STARS as 'radio failure procedures' and just make all clearances 'rwy hdg to 3000 feet and expect radar vectors to ####' (first point on a/way).
Jeppessen are supplying us a disney book for a lot of money. Half of it (SIDS and STARS) is not used!!
How have things ever become like this? (ooops hijacking the topic). Maybe i could rephrase the question; how did we get to the point that we are implementing a "trial" for something that already exists in the rules!!!!!????
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bomber makes a good point; we almost never fly either SIDS or STARS at LHR or LGW. What we really have on arrival is a number of holding fixes to which we are vectored, and on departure we follow an initial procedure to maybe 3000' and are then vectored to a downroute fix. Speeds in either case are often directed by ATC. So why do we bother pubishing a few forests' worth of SIDS and STARS we're not going to use?
Better to publish a single departure plate showing initial climb procedures and listing frequencies for the various sector departures, and a single arrival plate for each hold listing the speed restriction distances from the hold (or, radically, emphasising the 250 below 10 restriction!).
I have no idea whether the forthcoming trial will make any difference to ATC, but it seems unlikely to make a difference to us!
Better to publish a single departure plate showing initial climb procedures and listing frequencies for the various sector departures, and a single arrival plate for each hold listing the speed restriction distances from the hold (or, radically, emphasising the 250 below 10 restriction!).
I have no idea whether the forthcoming trial will make any difference to ATC, but it seems unlikely to make a difference to us!