Slowing down on final approach.....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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..."
And therein lies the problem; nobody is interested because the only immediate solution is to reduce the existing declared capacity whilst capacity increases are put in place. A senior TC manager once said that if NATS did that it would be admitting it has been wrong and there was no way he could.
The airlines have no interest either (as long as nobody gets hurt) - reducing declared capacity would reduce their revenue streams; they want more not less.
Were the declared capacity to be reduced it would further embarrass HMG; it would expose their tardiness in addressing capacity issues and would put UK plc at a further disadvantage. Hitherto it is The System that has made it possible for this to occur and as long as it keeps making it work, nothing will change.
"Best use of existing infrastructure..." is not in The System's interest. Time to stop.
.4
And therein lies the problem; nobody is interested because the only immediate solution is to reduce the existing declared capacity whilst capacity increases are put in place. A senior TC manager once said that if NATS did that it would be admitting it has been wrong and there was no way he could.
The airlines have no interest either (as long as nobody gets hurt) - reducing declared capacity would reduce their revenue streams; they want more not less.
Were the declared capacity to be reduced it would further embarrass HMG; it would expose their tardiness in addressing capacity issues and would put UK plc at a further disadvantage. Hitherto it is The System that has made it possible for this to occur and as long as it keeps making it work, nothing will change.
"Best use of existing infrastructure..." is not in The System's interest. Time to stop.
.4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sunny south now....
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re....a pilot judging how close to the one ahead....
unfortunatly although it seems strange but pilots arnt really the best to decide if they are too close to the one ahead.....i say this because unless they can see the whole picture and every aircraft (not just themselves!) how can they.
does the pilot know which exit the aircraft ahead is going to take after landing? do they know if the aircraft ahead is going to be slow to vacate?
the best scenario, still, is for aircraft to stick to the speeds they are given. if they cant be adhered to tell the controller when your downwind.
if these speeds are unacceptable......then you need to tell your companies to negociate different ones.
cheers
does the pilot know which exit the aircraft ahead is going to take after landing? do they know if the aircraft ahead is going to be slow to vacate?
the best scenario, still, is for aircraft to stick to the speeds they are given. if they cant be adhered to tell the controller when your downwind.
if these speeds are unacceptable......then you need to tell your companies to negociate different ones.
cheers
126.825,
With respect I disagree. If I believe wake turbulence spacing is being compromised, my responsibilities as a commander is to do something about it. As I said before I have never had to do this in the UK, however at certain European airfields this can occur quite regularly. And just to clarify I do not just arbitarily reduce speed, I will communicate first!
unfortunatly although it seems strange but pilots arnt really the best to decide if they are too close to the one ahead
Last edited by Right Way Up; 19th Jun 2007 at 07:14.
I would dissagree with that as well, and to be honest I dont really care if im not in the best possition. If I dont like the way things are shaping up then it is my responsability to do something about it. As pilots we have overall responsability for the saftey of our aircraft and that means if we dont like what we are told to do then we will not do it. 99.9% of the time we will tell you but sometimes that is not allways possable.
ATC is not an infallable system and you have to understand that I will not place my aircraft in what I belive to be a comprimised position out of blind obediance.
The problem here is not pilots slowing down, but a lack of slack in the system. Overcrowded airports and congested airspace, its a system near collapse. And all we can do is argue about whos responsability it is to patch it up.
Lastly, saftey is paramount, 160 to 4d is not.
ATC is not an infallable system and you have to understand that I will not place my aircraft in what I belive to be a comprimised position out of blind obediance.
The problem here is not pilots slowing down, but a lack of slack in the system. Overcrowded airports and congested airspace, its a system near collapse. And all we can do is argue about whos responsability it is to patch it up.
Lastly, saftey is paramount, 160 to 4d is not.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonty - yes you have the overall responsibility of your one aeroplane .
I , however, have the overall responsibility of all the aeroplanes under my control.
If you can't do the speeds you have been instructed to fly - then say so, as you would if you can't comply with level restrictions. And say so early enough so it can be worked around.
I am not psychic - but I am flexible.
But if you slow down to increase the gap ahead of you for your comfort, without saying, thus reducing the gap behind you to my discomfort, causing loss of separation, - then expect to be the one sent around
The UK AIP states speeds to be expected are 180-160 12 -8 miles, then inside 8 mile 160 kts until 4 dme.
louby
I , however, have the overall responsibility of all the aeroplanes under my control.
If you can't do the speeds you have been instructed to fly - then say so, as you would if you can't comply with level restrictions. And say so early enough so it can be worked around.
I am not psychic - but I am flexible.
But if you slow down to increase the gap ahead of you for your comfort, without saying, thus reducing the gap behind you to my discomfort, causing loss of separation, - then expect to be the one sent around
The UK AIP states speeds to be expected are 180-160 12 -8 miles, then inside 8 mile 160 kts until 4 dme.
louby
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For discussion: and this goes beyond slowing down on finals.
In a 2 man cockpit, and especially in the modern world, there is a potential major CRM issue. The comments of SOP v Airmanship conflict, should the need arise, could lead to the following.
Aged old captain; mega '000 on type; generally a sound operator. New cadet F/O; < 1000hrs total; knows the SOP bible backwards, but has yet to read up on the airmanship guide book.
F/O's encouraged to speak up and challenge captain if deviating from SOP's.
Situation arises which requires some rapid, flexible and deviant action. F/O does not understand, only that the SOP boundries have been reached. Major breakdown in CRM. Does he blindly follow or challenge? What if the F/O is PF and the Capt is giving handling orders; what if he then takes over?
What this is addressing is the large experience gap in many cockpits. There is no easy solution given the industry expansion. Hence the desire of DFO's to have rigid SOP's. This closes the experience gap because 10.000hrs & 1000 hrs will do the same thing. Sounds easy. Perhaps given that the old ladder of piston, turbo-prop, small jet, big jet has burnt down, this is the only way. For 99% of the time it works. Lets just hope that when that 1% lateral thinking is required it is there.
For the pilot ATC relationship; what will happen when new TCAS systems are introduced (it has been a discussion topic)which will allow pilots to be airborne ATC and adjust their flight paths accordingly. ATC will become more of a monitoring role. Long time away, but it has been raised.
The days of 1 pilot and a dog are getting closer.
In a 2 man cockpit, and especially in the modern world, there is a potential major CRM issue. The comments of SOP v Airmanship conflict, should the need arise, could lead to the following.
Aged old captain; mega '000 on type; generally a sound operator. New cadet F/O; < 1000hrs total; knows the SOP bible backwards, but has yet to read up on the airmanship guide book.
F/O's encouraged to speak up and challenge captain if deviating from SOP's.
Situation arises which requires some rapid, flexible and deviant action. F/O does not understand, only that the SOP boundries have been reached. Major breakdown in CRM. Does he blindly follow or challenge? What if the F/O is PF and the Capt is giving handling orders; what if he then takes over?
What this is addressing is the large experience gap in many cockpits. There is no easy solution given the industry expansion. Hence the desire of DFO's to have rigid SOP's. This closes the experience gap because 10.000hrs & 1000 hrs will do the same thing. Sounds easy. Perhaps given that the old ladder of piston, turbo-prop, small jet, big jet has burnt down, this is the only way. For 99% of the time it works. Lets just hope that when that 1% lateral thinking is required it is there.
For the pilot ATC relationship; what will happen when new TCAS systems are introduced (it has been a discussion topic)which will allow pilots to be airborne ATC and adjust their flight paths accordingly. ATC will become more of a monitoring role. Long time away, but it has been raised.
The days of 1 pilot and a dog are getting closer.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Lastly, saftey is paramount, 160 to 4d is not."
It is if the following traffic is 2.5nm behind you (otherwise you are solving your problem by causing me and the next aircraft another).
I absolutely support the aircrew position in this, you must have the final say where you feel safety is an issue. If SOPs are not consistent with current spacing, spacing must change.
.4
It is if the following traffic is 2.5nm behind you (otherwise you are solving your problem by causing me and the next aircraft another).
I absolutely support the aircrew position in this, you must have the final say where you feel safety is an issue. If SOPs are not consistent with current spacing, spacing must change.
.4
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's in charge?
Some excellent posts here - so I thought I would add my h'appeth..
When we are established on final approach track, ATC are in pretty much in charge - this is a basic system management principle. They know the 'big picture' and are uniquely placed to put all the jigsaw together. On final approach to a large international airport is the time when we are most constrained in our actions - it's just common sense.
In the course of a normal flight there are times when ATC are more in charge than the pilot and there are times when the opposite is true. It's all a question of degree.
This is going to sound sacreligeous(sp?) to some - (we might as well give them a remote control attached to the bleedin' aeroplane!..e.t.c...) We of course have to keep the aircraft safe and if we receive instructions likely to jeopardise that we have to say so.
I've flown with some guys who seem to delight in 'second guessing' what's going on - adding 10 knots here and taking it off there - they all believe that they are 'helping' and making the whole thing run more smoothly - delusional thinking in almost every instance.
I sense that some resent the loss of control and therefore accountablity for their actions - understandable I suppose.
I MAY have been spoilt - never really going to anywhere really bad or busy or both - but in AMS we always work to 180 to the glide and 160 to 4nm. If everyone does it, it mostly works out.
Just a thought - and as always on this forum, any comments gratefully appreciated.
When we are established on final approach track, ATC are in pretty much in charge - this is a basic system management principle. They know the 'big picture' and are uniquely placed to put all the jigsaw together. On final approach to a large international airport is the time when we are most constrained in our actions - it's just common sense.
In the course of a normal flight there are times when ATC are more in charge than the pilot and there are times when the opposite is true. It's all a question of degree.
This is going to sound sacreligeous(sp?) to some - (we might as well give them a remote control attached to the bleedin' aeroplane!..e.t.c...) We of course have to keep the aircraft safe and if we receive instructions likely to jeopardise that we have to say so.
I've flown with some guys who seem to delight in 'second guessing' what's going on - adding 10 knots here and taking it off there - they all believe that they are 'helping' and making the whole thing run more smoothly - delusional thinking in almost every instance.
I sense that some resent the loss of control and therefore accountablity for their actions - understandable I suppose.
I MAY have been spoilt - never really going to anywhere really bad or busy or both - but in AMS we always work to 180 to the glide and 160 to 4nm. If everyone does it, it mostly works out.
Just a thought - and as always on this forum, any comments gratefully appreciated.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not safe....?
Lastly, saftey is paramount, 160 to 4d is not.
Personally speaking, 4DME is where I usually desire to select landing flaps, not way out in the hinderlands and make more noise.
And no, before you ask, I don't have to answer to the fleet manager...I is it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gulf
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For many of us, altering the SOP to accommodate ATC or provide a smoother approach, is not an option. If we continue below 1000' not yet quite stable, we risk losing a stripe. On A330, 160 to 4, is usually do-able. Fully dirty by 5 and command the speed reduction at 4.5 to allow for autothrust lag. Actual speed starts reducing at 4. If no headwind manually increase Vref by 10 knots. My management not looking at this yet. Ask your chief pilots to talk to the bean counters re increased wear n tear vs runway utilization. Understand this may not work for everyone. Good luck with the very scary gross use of speedbrake.
It seems obvious by now that the coordination involved to get 170 to 5, is just not going to happen in my lifetime.
It seems obvious by now that the coordination involved to get 170 to 5, is just not going to happen in my lifetime.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorcery
Whilst this is possible, it is where we are going to get philosophical problems 
It seems to go against everything from saving fuel, reducing airfield area noise, to taking Flaps at a higher speed than required, and on some types v close to the limit... i.e. tail wagging dog...
I, OTOH, comply as closely as I can with 160 to4d, whilst balancing clean as SOPs permit, idle as much as possible, and just scraping inside the 1000' gate.
I do not believe the ATCOs here are complaining about the "160 to 4" actually being "160ish to 5ish" and ~150KIAS @ 4D - NB 5KIAS over 1NM alters spacing by ~0.03NM After all, when we slow from 160K the ATCO has no idea whether our FInal Speed, for the last 3NM or so, will be 1220K or 150K 
I believe the issues are the minority who fly 20K+ off speed, and/or at totally different ranges to that specified...
NoD
Fully dirty by 5 and command the speed reduction at 4.5 to allow for autothrust lag. Actual speed starts reducing at 4.
It seems to go against everything from saving fuel, reducing airfield area noise, to taking Flaps at a higher speed than required, and on some types v close to the limit... i.e. tail wagging dog...I, OTOH, comply as closely as I can with 160 to4d, whilst balancing clean as SOPs permit, idle as much as possible, and just scraping inside the 1000' gate.
I do not believe the ATCOs here are complaining about the "160 to 4" actually being "160ish to 5ish" and ~150KIAS @ 4D - NB 5KIAS over 1NM alters spacing by ~0.03NM
After all, when we slow from 160K the ATCO has no idea whether our FInal Speed, for the last 3NM or so, will be 1220K or 150K I believe the issues are the minority who fly 20K+ off speed, and/or at totally different ranges to that specified...
NoD
It appears this thread is running out of steam, and rightly so. The problems espoused here cannot be solved here.
Whilst there are a few that profess to lack the ability to fit their aircraft into the pattern, the vast majority of non compliance seems to come from those who feel constrained by inappropriate SOP’s.
The answer surely is to force a change in SOP’s such that those competent to do so, will be able to comply with ATC requirements. Some will say that this is the tail wagging the dog. Maybe so, but the bottom line is that tight speed controls are set to optimise utilisation of saturated runway space. Any deviation there from will decrease capacity which ultimately will affect everyone’s ability to conduct business. The long term answer is provision of more runway space, but that will be resolved elsewhere.
Pilots could lobby for SOP changes with their Flight Ops Departments, but historically such is unproductive.
A more effective approach would be for ATC to become proactive. A suggestion to ATC.
Issue by NOTAM an advice that speed control is in force and will be rigidly applied. The standard, (not binding on ATC),speeds will be xxx to yyy DME then a minimum of zzz to aa DME. Any operator or pilot unable to comply must carry 30 minutes holding fuel in addition to any other requirements, to facilitate sequence.
Issue on ATIS a further advice that speed control is in effect. “If you are unable to comply advise on INITIAL contact.”
ATC then needs to issue an immediate rejection of the approach of anyone who does not comply, unannounced. Send them to a sin bin until you can fit them in.
Any one binned, should have the extra fuel to cope, if they have not, they must declare an emergency and fess up in the resulting paper work.
The net effect would be that :
Those who are compliant improved flow
The CAA should start agitating because of the increase in fuel “emergencies” , and/or
The bean counters would come down on the Flt Ops Dept’s to complain about the excessive fuel loads carried and the extra holding incurred.
The Flt Op’s Dept’s would then need to review their SOP’s to enable enough flexibility to achieve the speed control and still meet their nominated stabilized approach criteria.
The training departments would also need to ensure that their pilots had the skills required to utilize their aircraft as designed.
The reality is that in most cases cited on this discussion thread, the only changes required are first to be able dirty up a little earlier (while holding the nominated speed) and secondly to change the stabilized speed criteria to “ at 1000’ fully configured with Vref (+additives) selected, and speed reducing” , of course with the usual stabilized flight path on slope on centerline etc
Given that the target is to achieve 160 at about 1200’ the Flt Op’s people need have no fear of the cowboy approaches that the stabilized approach criteria were designed to prevent (eg 240kts at 1000’at 6miles).
Beat your gums here as much as you like. It will not solve the problem. Pressure the people who can make a difference.
But above all, for all our sakes, if you can’t or won’t comply, SAY SOMETHING.
Maui
Whilst there are a few that profess to lack the ability to fit their aircraft into the pattern, the vast majority of non compliance seems to come from those who feel constrained by inappropriate SOP’s.
The answer surely is to force a change in SOP’s such that those competent to do so, will be able to comply with ATC requirements. Some will say that this is the tail wagging the dog. Maybe so, but the bottom line is that tight speed controls are set to optimise utilisation of saturated runway space. Any deviation there from will decrease capacity which ultimately will affect everyone’s ability to conduct business. The long term answer is provision of more runway space, but that will be resolved elsewhere.
Pilots could lobby for SOP changes with their Flight Ops Departments, but historically such is unproductive.
A more effective approach would be for ATC to become proactive. A suggestion to ATC.
Issue by NOTAM an advice that speed control is in force and will be rigidly applied. The standard, (not binding on ATC),speeds will be xxx to yyy DME then a minimum of zzz to aa DME. Any operator or pilot unable to comply must carry 30 minutes holding fuel in addition to any other requirements, to facilitate sequence.
Issue on ATIS a further advice that speed control is in effect. “If you are unable to comply advise on INITIAL contact.”
ATC then needs to issue an immediate rejection of the approach of anyone who does not comply, unannounced. Send them to a sin bin until you can fit them in.
Any one binned, should have the extra fuel to cope, if they have not, they must declare an emergency and fess up in the resulting paper work.
The net effect would be that :
Those who are compliant improved flow
The CAA should start agitating because of the increase in fuel “emergencies” , and/or
The bean counters would come down on the Flt Ops Dept’s to complain about the excessive fuel loads carried and the extra holding incurred.
The Flt Op’s Dept’s would then need to review their SOP’s to enable enough flexibility to achieve the speed control and still meet their nominated stabilized approach criteria.
The training departments would also need to ensure that their pilots had the skills required to utilize their aircraft as designed.
The reality is that in most cases cited on this discussion thread, the only changes required are first to be able dirty up a little earlier (while holding the nominated speed) and secondly to change the stabilized speed criteria to “ at 1000’ fully configured with Vref (+additives) selected, and speed reducing” , of course with the usual stabilized flight path on slope on centerline etc
Given that the target is to achieve 160 at about 1200’ the Flt Op’s people need have no fear of the cowboy approaches that the stabilized approach criteria were designed to prevent (eg 240kts at 1000’at 6miles).
Beat your gums here as much as you like. It will not solve the problem. Pressure the people who can make a difference.
But above all, for all our sakes, if you can’t or won’t comply, SAY SOMETHING.
Maui
Last edited by maui; 22nd Jun 2007 at 04:25.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maui adds much detail to my "communicate" post a few pages back. 
So that the "system" has a better handle on this, how about a central data collection point for finding the scatter in Vref data? Just what is the statistical variation in desired speeds on close final? I'm sure this scatter varies from airfield to airfield, dependant also on time of day etc.
Until we know how/where these numbers lie, we won't really know what we're dealing with.
So that the "system" has a better handle on this, how about a central data collection point for finding the scatter in Vref data? Just what is the statistical variation in desired speeds on close final? I'm sure this scatter varies from airfield to airfield, dependant also on time of day etc.
Until we know how/where these numbers lie, we won't really know what we're dealing with.
Speed control at Gatwick
I've experimented with 160/170 to 5 for 2 or 3 days with varying degrees of success.
Some thoughts....
2 BA 737's I give 170 to ask if they can do 180 for a bit as they're "very heavy today". While I completely understand their rational it just illustrates that the more accommodating we are the further the requests will vary.
An Easyjet A319, instructed to do 160 to 4, is at 144kts IAS at 4 (1250' AGL) and still at 144kts at 1dme in more or less CAVOK. Why?
I'm not picking on Easyjet, others are just as guilty but this is a good example of the way speed control is being ignored or if not ignored then being pushed too far down the list of priorities.
Some thoughts....
2 BA 737's I give 170 to ask if they can do 180 for a bit as they're "very heavy today". While I completely understand their rational it just illustrates that the more accommodating we are the further the requests will vary.
An Easyjet A319, instructed to do 160 to 4, is at 144kts IAS at 4 (1250' AGL) and still at 144kts at 1dme in more or less CAVOK. Why?
I'm not picking on Easyjet, others are just as guilty but this is a good example of the way speed control is being ignored or if not ignored then being pushed too far down the list of priorities.
Last edited by Del Prado; 1st Jul 2007 at 20:31.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know if the Mode S IAS readout comes from? If it's that selected in the a/p speed window (or similar), that's not necessarily the speed the aircraft is actually flying, so the Easy A319 in the example above had just selected 144 kts at 4 dme in preparation to be stable at final approach speed passing 1000' AGL. Just a thought.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sunrise Senior Living
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the whole thread, so please forgive me if I repeat something that has been said before.
ATC must realise by now that most airlines are aiming to be stable at 1000' above Tdze in order to eliminate unstable approaches which are proved to be a major contributor to landing accidents. As has been discussed before, different ac require different techniques to cope with this. A major low cost airline has developed it's sop for 160 to 4 as - at 5 miles lower the gear and manage the speed (ie reduce to Vapp) and further configure into the landing config. This results in being stable by 1000'.
Of course, for the Airbus, 'Groundspeed minimum' comes into play thereafter which may account for the 144kts at 1 mile quoted above.
Fam flights for ATCers would help hugely here as would visits to ATC by pilots so that we may better understand each others point of view. The last thing we want as pilots, is the summons to 'Starfleet Command' for tea and no biscuits with the management for busting the 'stable' criteria - and boy are they watching! It is currently downloaded fortnightly from each ac but I understand it is about to go 'live' - whatever that means. Klaxons going off in HQ every time somebody busts the stable criteria?
Cheers,
mcdhu
ATC must realise by now that most airlines are aiming to be stable at 1000' above Tdze in order to eliminate unstable approaches which are proved to be a major contributor to landing accidents. As has been discussed before, different ac require different techniques to cope with this. A major low cost airline has developed it's sop for 160 to 4 as - at 5 miles lower the gear and manage the speed (ie reduce to Vapp) and further configure into the landing config. This results in being stable by 1000'.
Of course, for the Airbus, 'Groundspeed minimum' comes into play thereafter which may account for the 144kts at 1 mile quoted above.
Fam flights for ATCers would help hugely here as would visits to ATC by pilots so that we may better understand each others point of view. The last thing we want as pilots, is the summons to 'Starfleet Command' for tea and no biscuits with the management for busting the 'stable' criteria - and boy are they watching! It is currently downloaded fortnightly from each ac but I understand it is about to go 'live' - whatever that means. Klaxons going off in HQ every time somebody busts the stable criteria?
Cheers,
mcdhu
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Easyjet A319, instructed to do 160 to 4, is at 144kts IAS at 4 (1250' AGL) and still at 144kts at 1dme in more or less VMC. Why?
I'm not picking on Easyjet, others are just as guilty but this is a good example of the way speed control is being ignored or if not ignored then being pushed too far down the list of priorities.
I'm not picking on Easyjet, others are just as guilty but this is a good example of the way speed control is being ignored or if not ignored then being pushed too far down the list of priorities.
Maybe if more Captains told ATC "unable 160 to 4; will be at 145 at 5" the ATC planners will rethink their restrictions that put expediency before safety.
FWIW, I can often go 160 to 4 in my 747, especially when heavy and approach speed is 150+. However, when light weight (~130 Kt approach speed) and IMC, it isn't going to happen!