Slowing down on final approach.....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
time for ATC to change its procedures to accomadate all the posts saying it is hard to do the 160 to 4 dme.
the designers aren't going to change the planes.
UNABLE , bet you will have to get used to it.
I do think the ATC'ers got very used to the amazing flexibility of the DC9, 727 and the earlier jets...do the words , "CROWBAR" or "SLAM DUNK" approaches mean anything to you?
readjust the ATC world, not the plane world.
the designers aren't going to change the planes.
UNABLE , bet you will have to get used to it.
I do think the ATC'ers got very used to the amazing flexibility of the DC9, 727 and the earlier jets...do the words , "CROWBAR" or "SLAM DUNK" approaches mean anything to you?
readjust the ATC world, not the plane world.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100%
I understand the logic of what you are saying. I used to tuck B757s up 2.5nm behind the preceding and then give them 160kts to 5d, knowing that they are very slow inside 4d. This enabled us both to be legal. But the difference is, I was in control of it and knew what was going on. If some of your chaps fly 10kts fast for a couple of miles and the guy ahead of you slows early because he cannot comply with 160kts to 4d, we will lose separation at some stage on the approach. (A speed differential of 20kts is 1/3rd nm per minute, over 3nm is about 1/3rd nm of catchup; if we started at minimum, then we are bust.)
I don't wish to be critical; I do understand the desire to help and also your need to stay within SOPs. However, I feel this whole idea of people doing their own thing just isn't satisfactory. It isn't simply a case of a possible go-around either; wake vortex is not optional we must provide it by law or reposition you, where ever you are on the approach. Your actions putting us outside our SOPs is no less wrong than our instructions putting you outside yours.
.4
I understand the logic of what you are saying. I used to tuck B757s up 2.5nm behind the preceding and then give them 160kts to 5d, knowing that they are very slow inside 4d. This enabled us both to be legal. But the difference is, I was in control of it and knew what was going on. If some of your chaps fly 10kts fast for a couple of miles and the guy ahead of you slows early because he cannot comply with 160kts to 4d, we will lose separation at some stage on the approach. (A speed differential of 20kts is 1/3rd nm per minute, over 3nm is about 1/3rd nm of catchup; if we started at minimum, then we are bust.)
I don't wish to be critical; I do understand the desire to help and also your need to stay within SOPs. However, I feel this whole idea of people doing their own thing just isn't satisfactory. It isn't simply a case of a possible go-around either; wake vortex is not optional we must provide it by law or reposition you, where ever you are on the approach. Your actions putting us outside our SOPs is no less wrong than our instructions putting you outside yours.
.4
Del P:
No, because it's against SOPs, and it won't work. 35 knots loss in less than a mile? And get the thrust up? But the primary reason is that it's against company and Airbus procedures, for a number of reasons. easy 319.
.4
Fully understood. What has come from this is the utter importance of the "unable to comply, 160 to 5.5" call that we should respond to the instruction, each and every time.
Even if you have gear down and full flap you can't do 160 to 4 and be stable at 1000' ? And what aircraft type is that?
.4
Fully understood. What has come from this is the utter importance of the "unable to comply, 160 to 5.5" call that we should respond to the instruction, each and every time.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Highbury, London
Age: 66
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a very calm afternoon recently, first an Aer Lingus pilot and then a BA pilot complained rather bitterly that they were suffering wake turbulence on the Heathrow approach. The separation distances to the preceding aircraft (777 and 747-400, iirc) were reported by ATC as 5nm and 6nm respectively, which makes 2.5 to 3nm look a bit fanciful in those conditions.
Somewhere down the line, someone is going to have to face the fact that capacity has maxed. It's not a question of readjustment of ATC world or plane world, it's a question of readjustment of airport management world, a reduction in the number of slots, the acceptance that not only can you not fit any more in but that there should already be fewer, for the sake of safe operation.
Now that the good burghers of Hammersmith and Fulham are trying to get the noise restricted period extended to 7 a.m., what would happen should they succeed? My money's on the same number of slots and everyone else work round it. You know it will take a real and very public scare before current "capacity" is reduced.
If I were a journo (which thank God I'm not), these threads would have written my next piece for me....
Somewhere down the line, someone is going to have to face the fact that capacity has maxed. It's not a question of readjustment of ATC world or plane world, it's a question of readjustment of airport management world, a reduction in the number of slots, the acceptance that not only can you not fit any more in but that there should already be fewer, for the sake of safe operation.
Now that the good burghers of Hammersmith and Fulham are trying to get the noise restricted period extended to 7 a.m., what would happen should they succeed? My money's on the same number of slots and everyone else work round it. You know it will take a real and very public scare before current "capacity" is reduced.
If I were a journo (which thank God I'm not), these threads would have written my next piece for me....
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HundredPercentPlease,
How modern would you like? I can achieve the same in the 777 and A320 and stay within SOPs.
What this comes back to for me is when I'm in my 737 "Classic" (btw, the true Classic was the -200!!), I don't want to have to drop the gear as early as I'm having to at LGW.
In your classic, that is the case. In a modern aircraft, flying for a company that requires stabilised at 1000', then 160 to 4 is too fast. Simple as.
What this comes back to for me is when I'm in my 737 "Classic" (btw, the true Classic was the -200!!), I don't want to have to drop the gear as early as I'm having to at LGW.
RTO and 100%
My company also has the 1000' stabilised rule, and it is enforced as rigorously as any other company.
But 160 to 4 is not an imposible task.. It may require a bit of agression but it is perfectly do-able, unless you have a tailwind.
As previously stated you must dirty up early, get your gear and max flap for the speed configured BEFORE you get to 4. You can still do your constant angle , but it won't be at idle. Between 4 and 4.5 wind your speed back to min manoeuvre and the speed will come back pretty quick. If necessary get agressive, pull the power back and take your next lot of flap as soon as you are able. On some aircraft you are still able to use speed brake at that stage.
Ahh, I hear you say, we are using auto throttle,
yes, and your point is?
Autothrottles have clutches to allow a temporary override, use them, it won't hurt the aeroplane.
Do this and you can comply with ATC's instruction whilst achieving your 1000' stabilised parameter. What you will not achieve , is the tree huggers desire for a clean and silent world, and some desk bound pussy's idea of the ideal approach.
The bottom line is that ATC's alternative is to increase spacing and decrease the number of slots availables. How is that going to affect you company's bottom line and ultimately your job (and mine).
Think about it!
Maui
My company also has the 1000' stabilised rule, and it is enforced as rigorously as any other company.
But 160 to 4 is not an imposible task.. It may require a bit of agression but it is perfectly do-able, unless you have a tailwind.
As previously stated you must dirty up early, get your gear and max flap for the speed configured BEFORE you get to 4. You can still do your constant angle , but it won't be at idle. Between 4 and 4.5 wind your speed back to min manoeuvre and the speed will come back pretty quick. If necessary get agressive, pull the power back and take your next lot of flap as soon as you are able. On some aircraft you are still able to use speed brake at that stage.
Ahh, I hear you say, we are using auto throttle,
yes, and your point is?
Autothrottles have clutches to allow a temporary override, use them, it won't hurt the aeroplane.
Do this and you can comply with ATC's instruction whilst achieving your 1000' stabilised parameter. What you will not achieve , is the tree huggers desire for a clean and silent world, and some desk bound pussy's idea of the ideal approach.
The bottom line is that ATC's alternative is to increase spacing and decrease the number of slots availables. How is that going to affect you company's bottom line and ultimately your job (and mine).
Think about it!
Maui
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guy's 100% is spot on, in a 737 700 you cannot do 160 to 4 and gaurentee stability at 1000' end of. Once again that is with Gear down Flap 15 which is putting something like +15kts on that flaps mvr speed. If you can do it on your type with your SOPs I'm very happy for you but we can't do it with ours not reliably. Sure on occasion with a heavy weight or high wind you might do it but on our average day it won't happen. Typicaly most guys begin their slowdown at between 4.5 & 5 d for 2 reasons. Large speed decrease needed to VAT today for me Vat wind corrected 128Kts and Flap 30 limit of 165 Kts so if you try dropping it at 160 its bad practise for flap wear and you run the risk of overstressing it if you hit a lift. So if I hold 160 to 4 I have to lose in excess of 22kts ( max plus 10 on Vat allowed ) take land flap and spool the engines up all in 200' or 2/3s of a mile whichever you prefer whilst following the glide, it just ain't going to happen in a 700. Company pay my wages their train set so I follow their rules.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: southeast england
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to throw an extra spanner in the works, at Gatwick the speed requirement is that a/c be AT 160kts from 7 to 4 DME. 170 to 5 can be used instead to help out with the noise issue on request. The reason for this is for the TWR controllers planning. With mixed mode operations if you're much faster than that and a heavy departure is on the runway in the gap, then you'll end up with a go-around ( not terribly noise friendly! ). Part of the speed problem seems to me to be that when establishing on a shortish final, the instruction to reduce to 160 is given when you report established, and if the range is 7 or 8 miles you ain't going to make the 160 by 7 requirement, resulting in at best a late landing clearance.
As a tower controller, if I ask you for your speed I'm looking for the actual figure, not the speed you're reducing to. My ATM will show me your groundspeed so I already have a good idea that you're faster than I'd like, BUT I'm not going to b@ll@ck you! I just need to know what other adjustments I might have to make to ensure that the gap's not lost or wasted.
As a tower controller, if I ask you for your speed I'm looking for the actual figure, not the speed you're reducing to. My ATM will show me your groundspeed so I already have a good idea that you're faster than I'd like, BUT I'm not going to b@ll@ck you! I just need to know what other adjustments I might have to make to ensure that the gap's not lost or wasted.
Ashling
A quick and easy one for you.
On your type what flap stages are "selectable" (note I did not say do you select) after flaps 15 and what is the maximum extension speed therefore.
And BTW flaps mvr speed is a minimum speed not a maximum.
Maui
A quick and easy one for you.
On your type what flap stages are "selectable" (note I did not say do you select) after flaps 15 and what is the maximum extension speed therefore.
And BTW flaps mvr speed is a minimum speed not a maximum.
Maui
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<some desk bound pussy's idea of the ideal approach>
wow, if I had written that I would have been kicked out...but ITS NICE TO SEE A REAL PILOT on the forum for a change!
DEAR ATC: it is time you change with the times...the day of the skilled pilot is leaving us (not quite gone yet) and the day of the button pusher is arriving...and the buttons don't allow you to do what you ask in a way that meets the book.
PLEASE MR ATC, tell me why you can't make it 160 to 6 dme?
wow, if I had written that I would have been kicked out...but ITS NICE TO SEE A REAL PILOT on the forum for a change!
DEAR ATC: it is time you change with the times...the day of the skilled pilot is leaving us (not quite gone yet) and the day of the button pusher is arriving...and the buttons don't allow you to do what you ask in a way that meets the book.
PLEASE MR ATC, tell me why you can't make it 160 to 6 dme?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northport, NW England
Age: 44
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current company SOP is "Should" be stabilised by 1000ft - "Must" be stabilised by 500ft agl.
In the 757 in "normal" weights i.e. 83Ts 160kts to 4D is acheivable with Flap 20, taking the gear at 5D gurantees a decent decelleration (exculding tailwind conditions) when winding the speed back just before 4miles.
If the aircraft is light weight it makes things more interesting as one surprised controller found out whilst ferrying 757 to luton. In that case our Vref was 108kts and we did tell him we needed to slow down - he kindly obliged our request.
I guess communication is the key.
I would like to point out to the ATC guys that this is all fine on a ILS approach but things are quite different on a VOR approach.
On the 757 the work load is tripled thanks to Mr. Boeing deciding to dispence with VOR a/p mode so lateral, vertical and speed is all manually commanded.
Recently at MAN - Vectors with speeds are being instructed by ATC onto 23L VOR approaches -nothing new. And as usual for Manch - a sterling job with a nice big gap behind and infront of us all to allow for the Non-prescision approach.
But for guys at other airfields bear in mind that whilst speed control up to 4D on anything other than a precision approach and you may well get some polite refusals from your aircraft.
In the 757 in "normal" weights i.e. 83Ts 160kts to 4D is acheivable with Flap 20, taking the gear at 5D gurantees a decent decelleration (exculding tailwind conditions) when winding the speed back just before 4miles.
If the aircraft is light weight it makes things more interesting as one surprised controller found out whilst ferrying 757 to luton. In that case our Vref was 108kts and we did tell him we needed to slow down - he kindly obliged our request.
I guess communication is the key.
I would like to point out to the ATC guys that this is all fine on a ILS approach but things are quite different on a VOR approach.
On the 757 the work load is tripled thanks to Mr. Boeing deciding to dispence with VOR a/p mode so lateral, vertical and speed is all manually commanded.
Recently at MAN - Vectors with speeds are being instructed by ATC onto 23L VOR approaches -nothing new. And as usual for Manch - a sterling job with a nice big gap behind and infront of us all to allow for the Non-prescision approach.
But for guys at other airfields bear in mind that whilst speed control up to 4D on anything other than a precision approach and you may well get some polite refusals from your aircraft.
PLEASE MR ATC, tell me why you can't make it 160 to 6 dme?
The bottom line is that ATC's alternative is to increase spacing and decrease the number of slots availables. How is that going to affect your company's bottom line and ultimately your job (and mine).
I'm more than happy for every aircraft to fly with speed at pilot's discretion but I will have to double my spacing. How would that affect your home base and your airline?
Bomarc, the problem we have is that we're basing our spacing on pilots maintaining 160 to 4 (because that's what they read back!) Someone slows early and it's us that's suspended.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how will it affect my airline? improved safety
in america, wehave a huge problem and face countless delays...the only solution is to reregulate the industry, have government people who know what they are doing schedule all the flights in a realistic manner based on IFR slotting.
more people want to fly? bigger planes.
or round the clock scheduling.
it is a huge problem...but based on this thread, can't you change your procedures to one that everyone could follow? X speed to 1500 feet on the glide slope...that would be about 5 or 6 dme instead of 4 dme.
at least everyone could follow that rule...
in america, wehave a huge problem and face countless delays...the only solution is to reregulate the industry, have government people who know what they are doing schedule all the flights in a realistic manner based on IFR slotting.
more people want to fly? bigger planes.
or round the clock scheduling.
it is a huge problem...but based on this thread, can't you change your procedures to one that everyone could follow? X speed to 1500 feet on the glide slope...that would be about 5 or 6 dme instead of 4 dme.
at least everyone could follow that rule...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to add something...
way back in the 20th century, I flew a plane called the DC9...it was also called "the last pilot's airliner".
anyhoo, we routinely did " 250knots to the marker". following the gs to the marker clean. hit the marker, slats extend, speed brakes extend, gear down, retract speed brakes and feed the flaps in on speed ...spool up by 500 feet of course. slats speed by manufacturer was 280 knots...by company 250 knots...gear even higher
now IMC it was tougher if you had to keep spooled up to keep the wings hot.
now, in the world of modern planes, speeds to compensate for rudder hardovers, or planes made of plastic...and enhancements to fuel efficiency...well, time for ATC to change, not the pilots.
way back in the 20th century, I flew a plane called the DC9...it was also called "the last pilot's airliner".
anyhoo, we routinely did " 250knots to the marker". following the gs to the marker clean. hit the marker, slats extend, speed brakes extend, gear down, retract speed brakes and feed the flaps in on speed ...spool up by 500 feet of course. slats speed by manufacturer was 280 knots...by company 250 knots...gear even higher
now IMC it was tougher if you had to keep spooled up to keep the wings hot.
now, in the world of modern planes, speeds to compensate for rudder hardovers, or planes made of plastic...and enhancements to fuel efficiency...well, time for ATC to change, not the pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: france
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats nothing.
I remember being told that in the good old days when cowboys ruled there was an unofficial record with a trident at heathrow over the OM (5 miles out) at 330 kts and at 3000 ft height.With the number 2 engine in max reverse and 1 and 3 at idle (6000 ft/min rate of decent) gear and full flap led to being stable at 50 feet for a smooth landing on the right bit of runway.
I remember being told that in the good old days when cowboys ruled there was an unofficial record with a trident at heathrow over the OM (5 miles out) at 330 kts and at 3000 ft height.With the number 2 engine in max reverse and 1 and 3 at idle (6000 ft/min rate of decent) gear and full flap led to being stable at 50 feet for a smooth landing on the right bit of runway.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Albino
Does mode S show you the speed we are commanding the aircraft to fly or does it show you the actual IAS? As previously mentioned
Originally Posted by bomarc
have government people who know what they are doing
Regards,
Robert
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3rd_ear
Spot on! ultimately no one appears to be regulating the big picture. LHR is owned by BAA, who only want max shoppers through terminals, ACL (owned by airlines) dish out AD slots, only objective is to cram as many A/C trough airport for given hour, then throw in the CAA who appear only when a serious transgression has been committed, then add NATS to the picture.
So their you have it, over capacity has become a problem for pilots and atc'ers to deal with on a daily basis. So who do we turn too, err, oh yes, the airlines (see ACL above), the CAA/NATS (has a incident taken place?)
, the BAA (what do you want to buy!).
Spot on! ultimately no one appears to be regulating the big picture. LHR is owned by BAA, who only want max shoppers through terminals, ACL (owned by airlines) dish out AD slots, only objective is to cram as many A/C trough airport for given hour, then throw in the CAA who appear only when a serious transgression has been committed, then add NATS to the picture.
So their you have it, over capacity has become a problem for pilots and atc'ers to deal with on a daily basis. So who do we turn too, err, oh yes, the airlines (see ACL above)
, the CAA/NATS (has a incident taken place?), the BAA (what do you want to buy!).
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maui
Flap 25 max 170kts, min weight dependant and calculated by the FMC and displayed on the tape but around 140 tops.
Flap 30 max 165 min Vat + corrections Normal land flap
Flap 40 max 156 min Vat + corrections
Not allowed by SOP to drag flap 25 in at 160 Kts as the compamy deem its too much wear. Lots of guys do use it to help the initial decel below 160 if the speed is slow to bleed when they wind it down.
Point is I cannot lose 20 + kts spool up etc deploy land flap all in 200' whilst descending based on selecting a slower speed in the window at precisely 4 Dme. Sure if I select it at 4.5 maybe slightly earlier then I can manage it but then strictly speaking I am not maintaining 160 to 4 even though I will probably still be within 10 kts of the requested speed. Therefore for us 160 to 5 would be attainable and I suspect would help a-lot of others out as well. As you say though its up to others to sort that kind of thing out.
I am well aware of the differences between Max speed and Min speeds and Boeing + Company advice on the matter ta.
Flap 25 max 170kts, min weight dependant and calculated by the FMC and displayed on the tape but around 140 tops.
Flap 30 max 165 min Vat + corrections Normal land flap
Flap 40 max 156 min Vat + corrections
Not allowed by SOP to drag flap 25 in at 160 Kts as the compamy deem its too much wear. Lots of guys do use it to help the initial decel below 160 if the speed is slow to bleed when they wind it down.
Point is I cannot lose 20 + kts spool up etc deploy land flap all in 200' whilst descending based on selecting a slower speed in the window at precisely 4 Dme. Sure if I select it at 4.5 maybe slightly earlier then I can manage it but then strictly speaking I am not maintaining 160 to 4 even though I will probably still be within 10 kts of the requested speed. Therefore for us 160 to 5 would be attainable and I suspect would help a-lot of others out as well. As you say though its up to others to sort that kind of thing out.
I am well aware of the differences between Max speed and Min speeds and Boeing + Company advice on the matter ta.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Del P is correct. We can change to 160kts to 5/6 but that then means that any subsequent speed differentials between the types has a long time to work and inevitably separation will be lost and go-arounds increased. This means that we would have to increase the spacing. Ideally, if we had an advanced support tool to work out your weights and speeds we could be directed to give a particular gap, for a particular pair, on a particular day - but that is some way off.
(Incidentally- I understand that a proviso from the CAA when approving the height of the new tower at Heathrow was that there must not be any increase in the number of missed approaches.)
.4
(Incidentally- I understand that a proviso from the CAA when approving the height of the new tower at Heathrow was that there must not be any increase in the number of missed approaches.)
.4