Slowing down on final approach.....
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management in ALL airlines are s***-scared, to a greater or lesser extent, of an incident/accident on their watch, so insist on these rigid constraints. You can argue they are too rigid, but we could argue that all day. As someone said earlier, it's their train-set, they pay my mortgage, so I'll do what they want me to do.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I please extend the discussion to include modern autopilots. It seems that many rules were made in yester-year and now they are being questioned.
The same happened with ETOPS. Remember the "it can not be done' brigade.
Before that remember the 2 to 3 crew cockpit argument.
There is the old cherry of you must be fully configured at G/S captue for an autoland. Why? Most airlines allow you to fly an autopilot CAT 1 IMC approach to be fully configured and stable by 1000'. What the H@#l is different for an autoland. Flying a CAT 1 autopilot approach IMC is no problem being 160kTS to 4nm. So what is the difference with an autoland? Just because some CP has followed Genesis and said you must be configured at G/S capture, does not make it gospel. This then leads to the conflict of ATC asking for 160kts to 4nm irrespective of the weather and most crews saying it is not possible whan LVP's are in force. Why? Those of us who do it know full well it is perfectly safe.
OK, there are certain a/c that have different speeds on finals, but mostly they are within the +/- 10kts allowed by ATC procedures. Perhaps the question should be asked to C.P's and not ATC. Flying a visual approach on A/P or manual, I'm sure most pilots delay configuration until OM. What is the big deal if IMC. It is the same A/P. Many years ago I used to fly B757/767 into a major EU airfield. It was not uncommon to accept a base turn to intercept finals at 1200' in 3000m vis. It expedited traffic flow and was perfectly controllable by the autopilot & safe. Because of the CAT2/3 requirement this would not be aceptable, & not offered, but in CAT 1 or visual, no problem.
Perhaps we should be using the a/c systems the way they have been designed and not stuck in old practices.
This is debating question and open to different opinions. Please keep answers professional and technical.
The same happened with ETOPS. Remember the "it can not be done' brigade.
Before that remember the 2 to 3 crew cockpit argument.
There is the old cherry of you must be fully configured at G/S captue for an autoland. Why? Most airlines allow you to fly an autopilot CAT 1 IMC approach to be fully configured and stable by 1000'. What the H@#l is different for an autoland. Flying a CAT 1 autopilot approach IMC is no problem being 160kTS to 4nm. So what is the difference with an autoland? Just because some CP has followed Genesis and said you must be configured at G/S capture, does not make it gospel. This then leads to the conflict of ATC asking for 160kts to 4nm irrespective of the weather and most crews saying it is not possible whan LVP's are in force. Why? Those of us who do it know full well it is perfectly safe.
OK, there are certain a/c that have different speeds on finals, but mostly they are within the +/- 10kts allowed by ATC procedures. Perhaps the question should be asked to C.P's and not ATC. Flying a visual approach on A/P or manual, I'm sure most pilots delay configuration until OM. What is the big deal if IMC. It is the same A/P. Many years ago I used to fly B757/767 into a major EU airfield. It was not uncommon to accept a base turn to intercept finals at 1200' in 3000m vis. It expedited traffic flow and was perfectly controllable by the autopilot & safe. Because of the CAT2/3 requirement this would not be aceptable, & not offered, but in CAT 1 or visual, no problem.
Perhaps we should be using the a/c systems the way they have been designed and not stuck in old practices.
This is debating question and open to different opinions. Please keep answers professional and technical.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cpt Peacock
An outstanding post - nail firmly on the head.
Anotherthing
I agree; the issues being discussed are not for the DfT, however, the solution to the problem behind them (lack of spare runway capacity) should have been announced by the DfT over a decade ago. In 1994, in response to a letter regarding the shortage of spare runway capacity and its safety implications, the then Conservative Department for Transport wrote...
"I am unable to accept [the] assertion that Britain is years behind Europe in addressing airport capacity problems; rather we are having to address these problems earlier because of the success of our aviation industry"
In 1998 the then Labour Transport Secretary wrote...
"Ministers are aware that runway capacity in the South East is in short supply and that given the continued growth... runway capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick is expected to be used up over the next few years."
Here we are, nearly a decade after they have acknowledged the problem and instead of concrete action to address it (Pardon the pun) we've had study after study. In avoiding positive action the politicians have played with lives and livelihoods. I feel we in ATC have aided them in being willing to pack traffic in as tight as we can without giving the crews scope for good aviation practice. I think that was an error.
In the absense of the political will to address the cause of this problem, I believe 'The System' should take steps to protect itself.
.4
An outstanding post - nail firmly on the head.
Anotherthing
I agree; the issues being discussed are not for the DfT, however, the solution to the problem behind them (lack of spare runway capacity) should have been announced by the DfT over a decade ago. In 1994, in response to a letter regarding the shortage of spare runway capacity and its safety implications, the then Conservative Department for Transport wrote...
"I am unable to accept [the] assertion that Britain is years behind Europe in addressing airport capacity problems; rather we are having to address these problems earlier because of the success of our aviation industry"
In 1998 the then Labour Transport Secretary wrote...
"Ministers are aware that runway capacity in the South East is in short supply and that given the continued growth... runway capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick is expected to be used up over the next few years."
Here we are, nearly a decade after they have acknowledged the problem and instead of concrete action to address it (Pardon the pun) we've had study after study. In avoiding positive action the politicians have played with lives and livelihoods. I feel we in ATC have aided them in being willing to pack traffic in as tight as we can without giving the crews scope for good aviation practice. I think that was an error.
In the absense of the political will to address the cause of this problem, I believe 'The System' should take steps to protect itself.
.4
Last edited by 120.4; 14th Jun 2007 at 22:38.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5 has hit the nail firmly on the head.
This nonsense that you must be fully configured at 1500 AAL, is just that, nonsense.
VFR or IFR, CATI/II and even CATIII are absolutely doable, with the last configuration change (landing flaps) at 1000 AAL, and at least should be fully possible with all types today.
Good gosh, if the Lockheed TriStar could accomplish this over thirty years ago (and, still can) what, I must ask, is the matter with new(er) more modern equipment, and the pilots who fly these today?
It would seem that the big problem is....yes, the so-called restrictive standard operating procedures used by many operators.
Could it be that...pilots are not as competant, therefore, fleet managers are making the choice of adopting their standard procedures to the lowest common denominator, and if so, what the heck is going on in the training department?
Is the training budget too low?
Or, is enough training not being given...properly?
Now, I realise that I fly a very old type, that is very accomodating with higher speeds on final, and some types simply can't, especially at lower landing weights, but surely the final landing flaps can be selected at 1000 AAL and still be safe.
Modern engines spool up quite rapidly, compared to earlier types...so what is the problem with the fleet managers that insist with the 1500 AAL fully configured requirement?
TriStar, still clearly the best, with approach speed flexibility...puts others to shame...even after all these years.
This nonsense that you must be fully configured at 1500 AAL, is just that, nonsense.
VFR or IFR, CATI/II and even CATIII are absolutely doable, with the last configuration change (landing flaps) at 1000 AAL, and at least should be fully possible with all types today.
Good gosh, if the Lockheed TriStar could accomplish this over thirty years ago (and, still can) what, I must ask, is the matter with new(er) more modern equipment, and the pilots who fly these today?
It would seem that the big problem is....yes, the so-called restrictive standard operating procedures used by many operators.
Could it be that...pilots are not as competant, therefore, fleet managers are making the choice of adopting their standard procedures to the lowest common denominator, and if so, what the heck is going on in the training department?
Is the training budget too low?
Or, is enough training not being given...properly?
Now, I realise that I fly a very old type, that is very accomodating with higher speeds on final, and some types simply can't, especially at lower landing weights, but surely the final landing flaps can be selected at 1000 AAL and still be safe.
Modern engines spool up quite rapidly, compared to earlier types...so what is the problem with the fleet managers that insist with the 1500 AAL fully configured requirement?
TriStar, still clearly the best, with approach speed flexibility...puts others to shame...even after all these years.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that...pilots are not as competant, therefore, fleet managers are making the choice of adopting their standard procedures to the lowest common denominator, and if so, what the heck is going on in the training department? by 411A
, for instance on the Airbus. Even at that- the industry is requesting lower actual flight time to be replaced by more simulator experience.
Last edited by Dream Land; 15th Jun 2007 at 14:17.
I have been reading this thread for a while and have found it quite interesting, it follows the discussion being had in CHIRP at the moment.
Flying the B757 I have to say that 160 to 4 is totally possible 80% of the time. In IMC or bad weather conditions, then you would get 160 to 5 or 6 from me. Or if cat 3 then I want to be gear down flap 30 by 1000aal at the latest.
The above may seem conservative, and I dont really want to get into a willy waving competition about doing 160 to 2D then dropping everything and the thrust coming up as we cross the threshold.
There is one basic fact ATC must understand, I am a coward, I have the largest yellow streak down my back you have ever seen. I like to fly well within my comfort zone, and I especially like stabilized approaches. Flying them means I don't get a phone call from the flight safety office asking why I went around, It stops me having to lie to the pax about ATC, it saves fuel, and stops me getting grey hairs.
It comes down to a judgement call by the pilots on the day, and taking into account allot of factors, that call can be made quite late. We may say 160 to 4 fine, but at 6 we may not like the way things are shaping up and start to dirty up early.
We at the front are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, that is our overriding concern. And with that in mind if ATC ask us to do something that we are not comfortable with we will not do it, we will always try to tell you, but sometimes in periods of very high work loads that is not always possible.
Flying the B757 I have to say that 160 to 4 is totally possible 80% of the time. In IMC or bad weather conditions, then you would get 160 to 5 or 6 from me. Or if cat 3 then I want to be gear down flap 30 by 1000aal at the latest.
The above may seem conservative, and I dont really want to get into a willy waving competition about doing 160 to 2D then dropping everything and the thrust coming up as we cross the threshold.
There is one basic fact ATC must understand, I am a coward, I have the largest yellow streak down my back you have ever seen. I like to fly well within my comfort zone, and I especially like stabilized approaches. Flying them means I don't get a phone call from the flight safety office asking why I went around, It stops me having to lie to the pax about ATC, it saves fuel, and stops me getting grey hairs.
It comes down to a judgement call by the pilots on the day, and taking into account allot of factors, that call can be made quite late. We may say 160 to 4 fine, but at 6 we may not like the way things are shaping up and start to dirty up early.
We at the front are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, that is our overriding concern. And with that in mind if ATC ask us to do something that we are not comfortable with we will not do it, we will always try to tell you, but sometimes in periods of very high work loads that is not always possible.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that...pilots are not as competant, therefore, fleet managers are making the choice of adopting their standard procedures to the lowest common denominator, and if so, what the heck is going on in the training department?
Most pilots are paranoid because of data monitoring and will therefore never even come close to the aircraft's limits. In one way that's good, but the problem is that most pilots have very limited knowledge of what the airplane can and can not do. The result is that most fly very very very conservatively, scared to be not stable at 500,' even flying fully configured (from FAF) non-precision approaches in CAVOK weather, screwing up the whole approach sequence behind them.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm NOT pleading for making unstable approaches, but a bit more common would be nice... Unfortunately most companies don't want pilots anymore. They want obedient slaves, working 900 hours/year that fly a go around if they get a wind gust at 500'.
but descent planning is something that is NOT taught in EZY
people flying straight and level 20nm out (poor/no descent planning) at 3000' with flaps 1.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Jonty
To some extent we only have ourselves to blame for the current SOPs. When I joined my outfit after 19 years in the mil flying fast and often very low I came accross Captains who bemoaned FLIDRAS as it meant they could have less fun seeing just how late they could leave it to spool up. Apparently they even used to put money on it ! A real hoot with pax onboard I'm sure. I was obviously very impressed with their maturity and professionalism ..... not.
The company have rightly stood on such behaviour very heavily and put SOPs in place monitored by FLIDRAS to prevent it. Frankly I don't blame them. If we had been professional enough to achieve stability by 500' and go-around if we blew it they would not have had to have been so proscriptive. Truth is a statisticaly significant number were not professional enough and needed the spy in the sky to whip them into shape. So I'm afraid in this case accident prevention did indeed come from SOPs.
Back to the point in hand, my mob have relaxed the stable at 500 to stable at 400 for circling approachs so it would make sense to me if we could have a similar relaxation of the aim to be stable at 1000' if VMC and asked to fly 160 to 4. I don't write the rules though.
Respecting your companies SOPs is not sad its professional. You don't have to like or agree with them just respect them. There is plenty of room to exercise airmanship/judgement within them.
To some extent we only have ourselves to blame for the current SOPs. When I joined my outfit after 19 years in the mil flying fast and often very low I came accross Captains who bemoaned FLIDRAS as it meant they could have less fun seeing just how late they could leave it to spool up. Apparently they even used to put money on it ! A real hoot with pax onboard I'm sure. I was obviously very impressed with their maturity and professionalism ..... not.
The company have rightly stood on such behaviour very heavily and put SOPs in place monitored by FLIDRAS to prevent it. Frankly I don't blame them. If we had been professional enough to achieve stability by 500' and go-around if we blew it they would not have had to have been so proscriptive. Truth is a statisticaly significant number were not professional enough and needed the spy in the sky to whip them into shape. So I'm afraid in this case accident prevention did indeed come from SOPs.
Back to the point in hand, my mob have relaxed the stable at 500 to stable at 400 for circling approachs so it would make sense to me if we could have a similar relaxation of the aim to be stable at 1000' if VMC and asked to fly 160 to 4. I don't write the rules though.
Respecting your companies SOPs is not sad its professional. You don't have to like or agree with them just respect them. There is plenty of room to exercise airmanship/judgement within them.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonty,
Fair point, but bear in mind by slowing significantly early at somewhere like LHR (especially in a 757 with its known vortex characteristics) and not saying you'll be doing so (or saying at all) in enough time to allow ATC to compensate, you are most definitely also compromising the safety of the smaller/lighter aircraft behind you.
Maybe we've just been lucky so far.
We at the front are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and its passengers, that is our overriding concern. And with that in mind if ATC ask us to do something that we are not comfortable with we will not do it, we will always try to tell you, but sometimes in periods of very high work loads that is not always possible.
Maybe we've just been lucky so far.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
retread,
I appreciate the r/t is busy but when ATC gives an instruction at any point in the sequence whilst on 120.4 (or 119.72 or 134.97), it requires a mandatory readback. If someone else steps on the readback ATC will come back to you for it. At that point, something could be said.
The important thing is to mention it early enough that ATC can act on it, by the time you're on final approach and being told 160 to 4, that's probably too late.
I appreciate the r/t is busy but when ATC gives an instruction at any point in the sequence whilst on 120.4 (or 119.72 or 134.97), it requires a mandatory readback. If someone else steps on the readback ATC will come back to you for it. At that point, something could be said.
The important thing is to mention it early enough that ATC can act on it, by the time you're on final approach and being told 160 to 4, that's probably too late.
Only half a speed-brake
A small point towards the LVP fully stabilised approach criteria: Airbus themselves do not require it anymore. ILS is an ILS so down to 2000 ft AFE only slats, then configure on schedule. Stabilised by 1000 feet passing you must be (Yoda).
Weather individual airlines choose to adopt this manufacurer's recommandation is another story.
On the other hand, NPAs are strictly stabilised irrespective of conditions.
Weather individual airlines choose to adopt this manufacurer's recommandation is another story.
On the other hand, NPAs are strictly stabilised irrespective of conditions.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO It would be simplist for the worst affected airfields to publish standard speeds +/- Xkts.
An 'unable standard speeds' call on handover to Radar/Approach where it is difficult to achieve.
I monitor TCAS for a sensible separation and consider a Go Around is a safety risk and best prevented.
An 'unable standard speeds' call on handover to Radar/Approach where it is difficult to achieve.
I monitor TCAS for a sensible separation and consider a Go Around is a safety risk and best prevented.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the training budget too low?
Or, is enough training not being given...properly?
Or, is enough training not being given...properly?
How high can you set the bar higher when pilots arrive on the line with less than 500 hours total time
Speaking of my own LCC, the unfortunate fact is that the management attitude to safety is simply a numbers game. None of the people that matter are pilots and they have no understanding of flying. The management pilots are merely vassals and have neither the balls nor the power to change anything.
So whats the outcome? A deeply engrained culture of cover-your-ass. The SOP's have one purpose only: so that when the "big one" happens, the management can point to the correct paperwork and say "it wasn't our fault."
Because of this obsession with avoiding blame, the obvious happens: if you don't follow SOP's to the letter, regardless of the circumstances, it's off with your head.
You see, an SOP can be written down, it's quantifiable, which is what accountants like. Airmanship, on the other hand, is a fluffy concept that requires you have knowledge of aviation in order to understand it. Accountants do not have such knowledge, so airmanship is ditched in favour of SOP's. Without the counter-weight of competent management pilots, the situation has now developed where airmanship is officially discouraged as captains have lost the power of command and are now merely allowed follow the official line as per the SOP's, FCI's and memo's.
So where does it lead us? A big casualty is the training department. Remembering that SOPs are God, the current practice is that the best time to be a Training Captain is as soon as you upgrade to the LHS. Why? As this is when your SOP's are best (apparently). Note how experience or competence is not remotely a requirement.
As experience is not required for command, this has produced a situation where there are now captains with only 1,000hrs jet and multi-crew time. Why? You need 3,000hrs for command, however the spineless authority and the clueless airline don't dictate the make-up of the 3,000, so there are now captains with 2,000hrs single piston time and only 1000 hrs jet time. Frightening.
And remember how they want new captains to train? So yes, the implication is as frightening as it sounds: training captains with 1000hrs jet time teaching FO's with 200hrs. So this is why the aircraft can never, and should never in the case of a crew such as this, be flown anywhere near the limits.
The worst thing is that as the company continues to expand, and is unable to attract experienced pilots, soon the vast majority of the pilots will have come through this appalling training system. Stand by for a very large airline flying around with most crews lacking (or afraid to excercise) airmanship and lacking experience. Beware.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My gums are beginning to ache! All this gets us NOWHERE! Some can do, some cannot, ATC want, companies 'discourage'.
Now we discuss Airbus SOPs/Easyjet training policies etc
How many of the above 'complainers' have at least submitted a report to CHIRP or better still raised the issue with their company on safety grounds? Until you do, this will echo on and on and the topic will doubtless 're-surface' in a few months time in a new thread and we will be no further down the line, except more airlines may have 'stable at 1500' in their books.
PPRune is a great 'talking shop' and a great place to share knowledge and experiences and learn, but with very few exceptions NOTHING is ever actually done by those who need to do as a result of stuff here.
Get reporting!
Now we discuss Airbus SOPs/Easyjet training policies etc
How many of the above 'complainers' have at least submitted a report to CHIRP or better still raised the issue with their company on safety grounds? Until you do, this will echo on and on and the topic will doubtless 're-surface' in a few months time in a new thread and we will be no further down the line, except more airlines may have 'stable at 1500' in their books.
PPRune is a great 'talking shop' and a great place to share knowledge and experiences and learn, but with very few exceptions NOTHING is ever actually done by those who need to do as a result of stuff here.
Get reporting!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easyjet training policies
better still raised the issue with their company on safety grounds?
Get reporting
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flash 2002 if your doing 150 at 4d you have not flown 160 to 4 you have slowed early just as I do as I have described above.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flash I do appreciate the +-10 kt thing but look up Roffa's post on page 5 with the AIP on the subject. Speeds to be flown as accurately as poss. I would submit that if you deliberately slow to be at 150 by 4 you are not flying the speed given as accurately as possable.
Any ATCO's care to comment more on the +- 10 kt thing please
Any ATCO's care to comment more on the +- 10 kt thing please
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any ATCO's care to comment more on the +- 10 kt thing please
)Let's get away from 'RyanAir don't give a ***', 'Easy do this' and 'xxx does that'.
For those unfortunates slogging away there, you will have to declare 'unable' when it is requested. Perhaps ATC should get it published on the plates so that the advice can be given early eg "expect 160 to 4 on finals"?
Everyone else who CANNOT do it, get it sorted with your company, CAA and CHIRP - whatever it takes.
ATC look again at 170 to 5 - which was 'promised' in a previous thread but died.