Slowing down on final approach.....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BOAC
The speed tolerance in the LTMA is still the same - "AS acurately as possible"
The AIP still gives the speeds expected on the final appraoch as 220. 180 reducing to 160kts.
There is a working group looking at speeds on Final. I am sure that the group would welcome some active help from the pilot community in additon to the usual operations staff...
The AIP still gives the speeds expected on the final appraoch as 220. 180 reducing to 160kts.
There is a working group looking at speeds on Final. I am sure that the group would welcome some active help from the pilot community in additon to the usual operations staff...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that the group would welcome some active help from the pilot community in addition to the usual operations staff...
There you are, folks. There is a working group. Why not let THEM know?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has broadened into a training/airmanship discussion. I heard a comment from an HOT recently. As we know there are many ways of doing the same thing e.g. an approach. All acceptable to the manufacturer, all safe and all within most general SOP's. However, the philosophy was "do not give the guys a choice. This is the way it WILL be and none other." Ouch! This philosophy covered all scenarios. Might be good, except it is impossible to write down everything to cover them all, never mind crews remembering them all; and don't forget the amendments every few months.
Trouble is that one day something will happen which will some require some thought and judgement. Imagine the captain who has flown for no-one else but this airline. What has been rammed into his data base is that there is only 1 correct way to do anything. (had that discussion with many flag carrier friends who had entered the cosy nest with 250hrs and rolled out the other end 30years later).
Now a situation happens where some airmanship judgement has to be made. I've seen it in the sim. The brain goes into 'dull mode'as the conflict between SOP adherence and the realisation that it won't work causes massive indecision. A very dangerous state as the a/c is still travelling fast. Nothing is being done as the mental trauma of disobeying an SOP is playing havoc with an airmanship decision.
This may sound far fetched, but I've seen it in the sim, and no doubt it has happened many times around the world.
Airmanship is an SOP.
Trouble is that one day something will happen which will some require some thought and judgement. Imagine the captain who has flown for no-one else but this airline. What has been rammed into his data base is that there is only 1 correct way to do anything. (had that discussion with many flag carrier friends who had entered the cosy nest with 250hrs and rolled out the other end 30years later).
Now a situation happens where some airmanship judgement has to be made. I've seen it in the sim. The brain goes into 'dull mode'as the conflict between SOP adherence and the realisation that it won't work causes massive indecision. A very dangerous state as the a/c is still travelling fast. Nothing is being done as the mental trauma of disobeying an SOP is playing havoc with an airmanship decision.
This may sound far fetched, but I've seen it in the sim, and no doubt it has happened many times around the world.
Airmanship is an SOP.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, a refreshing idea.
Thanks, RAT5, much appreciated.
I, too, have become quite concerned with the lack of...for want of a better term, airmanship, with some of the 'do it by the book' guys (and gals) insisting that theirs is the... ONLY way.
Bar none.
Well, I'm here to say...it ain't.
Not by a long shot.
And, I'm not alone.
Plenty of guys my age have been there and done that and......never crashed, or even come close.
Gee, what an absolute surprise...
I, too, have become quite concerned with the lack of...for want of a better term, airmanship, with some of the 'do it by the book' guys (and gals) insisting that theirs is the... ONLY way.
Bar none.
Well, I'm here to say...it ain't.
Not by a long shot.
And, I'm not alone.
Plenty of guys my age have been there and done that and......never crashed, or even come close.
Gee, what an absolute surprise...
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat 5,
Couldnt agree more.
Exactly.An SOP is what it is.Standard operating procedure.Nothing more.Going outside a SOP is not showing disrespect as some charlie said.In fact sticking to a SOP when the situation calls for something else can be lethal.121 pasengers died almost 2 years ago because the cabin crew on a B737 didnt execute the flight deck door emergency access procedure when their plane continued climbing with O2 masks deployed.They were told to sit like lemmings and wait for instructions from the flight deck and thats what they did.
Thank God for airlines like Fedex and Southwest and pilots like Rat5 and 411.There are still some of us about.
Couldnt agree more.
Nothing is being done as the mental trauma of disobeying an SOP is playing havoc with an airmanship decision.
Thank God for airlines like Fedex and Southwest and pilots like Rat5 and 411.There are still some of us about.
Yes of course going outside SOPS to satisfy the whims of the UK airports beancounters....very heroic.
p.s Thank God for airlines like Fedex and Southwest . Of course stable by 1000 ft may have stopped that little visit to a petrol station!!
p.s Thank God for airlines like Fedex and Southwest . Of course stable by 1000 ft may have stopped that little visit to a petrol station!!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right way up,
I am sorry if my post made you ill.These icons sure are fun arent they?
I didnt know we were talking about beancounters.I thought the discussion was about ATC compliance versus SOP adherence.If you really cant comply,then say so,and I for one wouldnt argue with that.
RE Southwest's visit to the gas station..Yes in 35 years they've screwed the pooch twice.Nobodys perfect I guess.
I am sorry if my post made you ill.These icons sure are fun arent they?
I didnt know we were talking about beancounters.I thought the discussion was about ATC compliance versus SOP adherence.If you really cant comply,then say so,and I for one wouldnt argue with that.
RE Southwest's visit to the gas station..Yes in 35 years they've screwed the pooch twice.Nobodys perfect I guess.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim
I was the charlie who said respect your companies SOPs.
Pray tell what is wrong with respecting your companies SOPs ?
Cleary if you have a fire warning going off and then go-around due to your approach being unstable you have missed the point, to name one of many many examples. I would not suggest for one moment that that is disrespecting an SOP and I'm somewhat surprised you chose to put that kind of spin on it.
I would also hazard a guess that there have been a great many more accidents and incidents due to pilots disobeying SOPs/checklists/handling limits than there have been due to them obeying them. Many of todays SOPs exist as a direct consequence of some previous tragedy.
I do agree with RAT 5s point though and it is a very important point and has to be a genuine concern with aviation expanding at its current rate and large numbers of inexperienced pilots filling seats. If companies are enforcing rules so zealously that crews are conditioned to the point that they cannot see beyond them then there is a real problem. Equally we do not need a return to the other extreme were we all do just as we individualy see fit with the arbiter of right and wrong sitting beyond challenge in the left hand seat. There has to be a balance, what that balance is will I guess cause much debate.
I was the charlie who said respect your companies SOPs.
Pray tell what is wrong with respecting your companies SOPs ?
Cleary if you have a fire warning going off and then go-around due to your approach being unstable you have missed the point, to name one of many many examples. I would not suggest for one moment that that is disrespecting an SOP and I'm somewhat surprised you chose to put that kind of spin on it.
I would also hazard a guess that there have been a great many more accidents and incidents due to pilots disobeying SOPs/checklists/handling limits than there have been due to them obeying them. Many of todays SOPs exist as a direct consequence of some previous tragedy.
I do agree with RAT 5s point though and it is a very important point and has to be a genuine concern with aviation expanding at its current rate and large numbers of inexperienced pilots filling seats. If companies are enforcing rules so zealously that crews are conditioned to the point that they cannot see beyond them then there is a real problem. Equally we do not need a return to the other extreme were we all do just as we individualy see fit with the arbiter of right and wrong sitting beyond challenge in the left hand seat. There has to be a balance, what that balance is will I guess cause much debate.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United States of Europe
Age: 40
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic.
I fly the a319 for the orange lcc.
SOP is to fly 160 select. flaps2 till 5d and then reduce and configure, even if ATC requests 160 till4d.
but 160 till 4d is well achievable provided you get dirty to landing config.
as suggested before in this thread you can start winding the speed down (manage the speed) just before 4d and the a/c will still be doing 158 or so at 4d.
unfortunately this goes against SOP, but i'd rather apply common sense than screw ATC up.
somebody mentioned flap loads when configuring early. 160 at landing config (flaps 3 at most places ref. SOP) shouldn't be any problem (VFE 185).
understandably in an environment where CDA's and fuel efficiency is getting more and more important, people are hesitant to fly dirty and have thrust spooled up against flaps. but at the end of the day we should fly the speeds ATC requires us to fly at expense of our slickness/fuel efficiency.
I fly the a319 for the orange lcc.
SOP is to fly 160 select. flaps2 till 5d and then reduce and configure, even if ATC requests 160 till4d.
but 160 till 4d is well achievable provided you get dirty to landing config.
as suggested before in this thread you can start winding the speed down (manage the speed) just before 4d and the a/c will still be doing 158 or so at 4d.
unfortunately this goes against SOP, but i'd rather apply common sense than screw ATC up.
somebody mentioned flap loads when configuring early. 160 at landing config (flaps 3 at most places ref. SOP) shouldn't be any problem (VFE 185).
understandably in an environment where CDA's and fuel efficiency is getting more and more important, people are hesitant to fly dirty and have thrust spooled up against flaps. but at the end of the day we should fly the speeds ATC requires us to fly at expense of our slickness/fuel efficiency.
This thread relates to the (commercial) need for higher approach speeds to some (late) point during an approach and the difficulties that some operators have in meeting this due to simultaneous operational constraints. ATC, as usual, are doing their very best to assist the flight crews, who in turn are doing their best to comply, but the operation gets a bit fraught at the edge – the point of slow down.
Operations towards the edge of any safety boundary are breeding grounds for incidents and accidents, particularly where everyone is falling over each other to solve the problem. In these situations, the safety margins are reduced for the higher workload periods, there is less tolerance of the abnormal weather conditions, and greater opportunity to deviate from the normal standards, e.g. flap selection or use the autos to a greater extent (which may give nasty surprises at the edge of the wt, cg, wind boundary).
A high speed approach and landing remains a major safety issue. The Stabilized Approach (SA) concept is used as an alleviating procedure. This is generally based on the FSF stabilized approach criteria, which at conception did consider flexible implementation. The main assumption was that the deceleration would be complete before 1000 ft when IFR, or 500 ft if VFR. This was biased towards N American operations which depend on ‘VFR’ practices at major airports, whereas Europe is predominantly IFR. Subsequently, there have been subtle erosions with the loss of the OM and the now common use of distance to touchdown to define the limit.
If ATC considerations need to creep up on the stabilized approach criteria then the associated operational procedures might have to be reviewed. However, care is required. The SA criteria have been ‘relaxed’ in FAA AC120-71 (example SOP) so that a range of speeds can be used after ‘stabilization’; this defeats the original safety point. Alternatively, FDM criteria could be more accommodating, or if able, the ATC requirements could be backed off a bit.
However, the safety case must be paramount. The safety statistics still indicate that high speed landings are a significant risk (even on long runways), and that they originate from poorly executed high speed approaches (with a much higher risk in wet / windy conditions).
All parties in this problem should collectively look at the edge of this operation and perhaps instead of asking ‘how can we do this’, consider ‘should we be doing this’. It’s great to see the discussion and co-operation, but don’t let the enthusiasm overtake safety.
Operations towards the edge of any safety boundary are breeding grounds for incidents and accidents, particularly where everyone is falling over each other to solve the problem. In these situations, the safety margins are reduced for the higher workload periods, there is less tolerance of the abnormal weather conditions, and greater opportunity to deviate from the normal standards, e.g. flap selection or use the autos to a greater extent (which may give nasty surprises at the edge of the wt, cg, wind boundary).
A high speed approach and landing remains a major safety issue. The Stabilized Approach (SA) concept is used as an alleviating procedure. This is generally based on the FSF stabilized approach criteria, which at conception did consider flexible implementation. The main assumption was that the deceleration would be complete before 1000 ft when IFR, or 500 ft if VFR. This was biased towards N American operations which depend on ‘VFR’ practices at major airports, whereas Europe is predominantly IFR. Subsequently, there have been subtle erosions with the loss of the OM and the now common use of distance to touchdown to define the limit.
If ATC considerations need to creep up on the stabilized approach criteria then the associated operational procedures might have to be reviewed. However, care is required. The SA criteria have been ‘relaxed’ in FAA AC120-71 (example SOP) so that a range of speeds can be used after ‘stabilization’; this defeats the original safety point. Alternatively, FDM criteria could be more accommodating, or if able, the ATC requirements could be backed off a bit.
However, the safety case must be paramount. The safety statistics still indicate that high speed landings are a significant risk (even on long runways), and that they originate from poorly executed high speed approaches (with a much higher risk in wet / windy conditions).
All parties in this problem should collectively look at the edge of this operation and perhaps instead of asking ‘how can we do this’, consider ‘should we be doing this’. It’s great to see the discussion and co-operation, but don’t let the enthusiasm overtake safety.
Rananim,
Unfortunately in the UK we have the annoying habit of building infrastructure about thirty years after we needed it. There is pressure on both pilots and ATC from the beancounters to maximise the runway usage, and for the most we are operating on the edge. If we weren't this topic would not be being discussed.
Unfortunately in the UK we have the annoying habit of building infrastructure about thirty years after we needed it. There is pressure on both pilots and ATC from the beancounters to maximise the runway usage, and for the most we are operating on the edge. If we weren't this topic would not be being discussed.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Swiss
Age: 52
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no SOP more importand as common sense/airmanship.
The 1000' and 500' gates are proven gates to be stable by in order to maintain safety.
If I fly on final and see I tend to become too close to the preceeding I will slow down a bit, within 10 knots no problem, if I need more I ask ATC.
Before I slow down from 160 kts. I'll check what is behind me and how close, if it apears the A/C behind is a bit close...again Advice ATC.
This is indeed an interesting discussion here but it seems that too many are hiding behind SOP's but as an old instructor once told me:
SOP's are be followed blindly by fools or to guide the proffesional, you chose which is applicable for you.
gruB, Der Johny
The 1000' and 500' gates are proven gates to be stable by in order to maintain safety.
If I fly on final and see I tend to become too close to the preceeding I will slow down a bit, within 10 knots no problem, if I need more I ask ATC.
Before I slow down from 160 kts. I'll check what is behind me and how close, if it apears the A/C behind is a bit close...again Advice ATC.
This is indeed an interesting discussion here but it seems that too many are hiding behind SOP's but as an old instructor once told me:
SOP's are be followed blindly by fools or to guide the proffesional, you chose which is applicable for you.
gruB, Der Johny
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I fly on final and see I tend to become too close to the preceeding I will slow down a bit, within 10 knots no problem, if I need more I ask ATC.
Please do read the whole of this thread as well and you will see that
1) You may well look 'close' to the one ahead in your mind
2) those 10kts are not really 'yours' to play with - there is NO +/- 10 kts in this.
The thread is really about how we try to fit with ATC's speed requirements and how we CHANGE things properly if necessary. Making unrequested and unexpected speed changes is not the answer.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS is no radar
You should know Johni that ATC expects you to comply with the speeds, if everyone flies +/- 10 kts the flow would break down. TCAS does not give you an accurate position.
TCAS may not give you an accurate position, but when both aircraft are on the glideslope you can judge the distance with regard to altitude difference. If I think I may be too close I ask what the separation is and aircraft type, and if necessary request a speed reduction.
Communication is the answer here, unfortunately with busy RT/tight approach sequencing it is not always possible. Thats why it would be nice to get an sensible compromise between airlines and ATC managers.
Communication is the answer here, unfortunately with busy RT/tight approach sequencing it is not always possible. Thats why it would be nice to get an sensible compromise between airlines and ATC managers.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, it seems that we have some pilots who want to 'play' controller, and slow just a bit if they think the preceeding airplane is 'too close'.
Meanwhile, the REAL controller, watching all this on his PPI is further upset that the airplane in trail is fast gaining on the one that is slowing.
Hmmm, no wonder the ATC folks get ticked off.
Me thinks that all these 'controller' pilots had better stick to actually flying the aeroplane they are assigned to, rather that mucking up the whole affair with some of their ill-thought out 'procedures'.
Meanwhile, the REAL controller, watching all this on his PPI is further upset that the airplane in trail is fast gaining on the one that is slowing.
Hmmm, no wonder the ATC folks get ticked off.
Me thinks that all these 'controller' pilots had better stick to actually flying the aeroplane they are assigned to, rather that mucking up the whole affair with some of their ill-thought out 'procedures'.
411a,
In an ideal world you are correct, and I cannot recollect ever asking to reduce speed in the UK because I thought we were getting too close. However Barcelona in recent times.....
Anyway surely keeping an eye on separation forms part of your airmanship argument!
In an ideal world you are correct, and I cannot recollect ever asking to reduce speed in the UK because I thought we were getting too close. However Barcelona in recent times.....
Anyway surely keeping an eye on separation forms part of your airmanship argument!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone gets a chance watch the film 'Pushing Tin', give it a try. If you can fast forward to the ATC bits and cut out the rest of the dross, it's OK. It's a new expression for me, but the yanks use it for ATC productivity, especially on appraoch controller. It demonstrates their use of speed for spacing. It was 12 yesra ago, flying in & out of O'Hare, Logan & JFK, that I first came across this technique. Flying a heavy, ATC had their work cutout spacing the mix of heavies & mediums, plus commuters. Often I was vectored at 90 degress onto finals at 250kts, while someone else on long straight in was at minimum. IT was too far to vector us behind him. It was then 230kts till quite close in, perhaps 10nm and then the first thing out was the gear. It had to be done or they spun you out.
What was different was changing speed on finals, as in slow/fast/slow or t'other way round.
However, it sometimes didn't quite work. On trail, long long finals, No.6. A real mix of a/c ahead. 210kts. The controller was talking incessantly. I could hear the a/c ahead slowing down. (You have to do it some time, eventually.) I couldn't get a word in to request a slow down. I then got a TA on the a/c ahead, and I knew he was slowing down. I was next expecting an RA climb. Ouch. Just as I was going to say 'the hell with it' and drop some flaps, The controller took me out at 90 degrees, 1 minute, 180 degrees, then rejoin finals at 160kts. He'd slid a medium in ahead of us as he couldn't make the correct spacing of it behind our heavy. It would seem our high speed was to create a spacing behind for this original overtaking manoeuvre. It worked, but until the end we sure as hell hadn't got a clue what was going on.
I still wonder if it was more luck than judgement, but the final solution worked. It wouldn't be possible in Europe and it wouldn't have worked had we disregarded ATC instructions.
One thing it demonstrated, considering ealier posts about SOP's, is that ATC don't have the same ones as us. You had to understand the a/c's capabilities and use them. All quite safe, but perhaps not always SOP. It was more 'get the job done'.
ATC friends at a major airfield used to be mighty hacked off at some major carriers. I was flying B737-200. We could rack it around and be very flexible for ATC into e.g. LGW. Certain other continental majors flew the a/c like it was a B747. Others were in bewteen. Same a/c different techniques. Even more confusing for them was the same major who flew B727 like Starfighters.
Who would want the job. Hence perhaps the rule that everyone flies the same speed no matter the type or carrier. Boring but effective.
What was different was changing speed on finals, as in slow/fast/slow or t'other way round.
However, it sometimes didn't quite work. On trail, long long finals, No.6. A real mix of a/c ahead. 210kts. The controller was talking incessantly. I could hear the a/c ahead slowing down. (You have to do it some time, eventually.) I couldn't get a word in to request a slow down. I then got a TA on the a/c ahead, and I knew he was slowing down. I was next expecting an RA climb. Ouch. Just as I was going to say 'the hell with it' and drop some flaps, The controller took me out at 90 degrees, 1 minute, 180 degrees, then rejoin finals at 160kts. He'd slid a medium in ahead of us as he couldn't make the correct spacing of it behind our heavy. It would seem our high speed was to create a spacing behind for this original overtaking manoeuvre. It worked, but until the end we sure as hell hadn't got a clue what was going on.
I still wonder if it was more luck than judgement, but the final solution worked. It wouldn't be possible in Europe and it wouldn't have worked had we disregarded ATC instructions.
One thing it demonstrated, considering ealier posts about SOP's, is that ATC don't have the same ones as us. You had to understand the a/c's capabilities and use them. All quite safe, but perhaps not always SOP. It was more 'get the job done'.
ATC friends at a major airfield used to be mighty hacked off at some major carriers. I was flying B737-200. We could rack it around and be very flexible for ATC into e.g. LGW. Certain other continental majors flew the a/c like it was a B747. Others were in bewteen. Same a/c different techniques. Even more confusing for them was the same major who flew B727 like Starfighters.
Who would want the job. Hence perhaps the rule that everyone flies the same speed no matter the type or carrier. Boring but effective.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U.K, I think.....
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good comments here about reporting the problem through the company, it's definately the way forward.
That does however rather rely on the company being interested in what you have to say. I can speak from experience that, depending on the nature of the 'problem' not all of them are...
Not wanting to talk too much out of turn about following SOP's but some points some people seem to have lost sight of.
a) I may be incorrect (not unusual) but I was led to believe on my command upgrade that, in the UK at least, the contents of the OPs manual is deemed LAW, and non adherence is thefore breaking the law. In all such cases its OK until it goes wrong, at which point the company will wash their hands of you and leave you to dogs
HOWEVER
b) I found this very apt quote, I'm sure there are others, which sums up our game very nicely I think.
I have in the past (and will continue in the future) deviated from SOP's where I felt the safety of the aircraft would be compromised, and annotated the voyage report, or filed an ASR, whichever was appropriate. Never, ever, had to further justify the deviation, although I'm not sure that 'ATC told me to' is an acceptable excuse if it conflicts with SOP.
Final thought, for those that have to be stable by 1000' in IMC but only 500' if visual, can the spy in the cab tell the difference...... didn't think so
That does however rather rely on the company being interested in what you have to say. I can speak from experience that, depending on the nature of the 'problem' not all of them are...
Not wanting to talk too much out of turn about following SOP's but some points some people seem to have lost sight of.
a) I may be incorrect (not unusual) but I was led to believe on my command upgrade that, in the UK at least, the contents of the OPs manual is deemed LAW, and non adherence is thefore breaking the law. In all such cases its OK until it goes wrong, at which point the company will wash their hands of you and leave you to dogs
HOWEVER
b) I found this very apt quote, I'm sure there are others, which sums up our game very nicely I think.
Young men know the rules, but old men know the exceptions.
Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894) American author and poet.
Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894) American author and poet.
Final thought, for those that have to be stable by 1000' in IMC but only 500' if visual, can the spy in the cab tell the difference...... didn't think so