Slowing down on final approach.....
The first time I really came across serious speed control was when I was based at JFK for 3 years flying DC-10s for an American operator.
Now I freely admit that I am way out of date with current operations in the US of A but, in those days, there were only three speeds:
250 knots below 10,000 ft.
210 knots intermediate approach.
180 knots to the marker.
After the marker, speeds were yours (although small adjustments might be requested by ATC).
Now then, everyone in the whole of America did exactly that and I do not ever recall it being a problem at O'Hare, DFW, Atlanta or anywhere else. It seemed that whatever aircraft you were flying managed somehow to fit into the national plot.
So what has changed?
For one, we still do not have an agreed European-wide speed limit framework and most probably never will.
For two, we have the introduction of the dreaded FDM system whereby any attempt to deviate from SOPs will result in a visit (without tea and biscuits) with the chief pilot regardless of how reasonable your "excuse" might be.
Does anyone else remember the saga of the BA 737s making go arounds on 08at Innsbruck because the EGPWS was giving a "pull up" on short finals because of "map shift"?
These guys were making go arounds on short finals in VMC conditions with a good runway in front of them because not reacting to the EGPWS was going to mean a visit to the head shed.
As long as such deterrents are in force (and I am not saying that FDM is a bad thing) ATC are going to get little cooperation. In fact, someone on the thread has already stated that the BA Airbus fleet is paying little attention to you.
It seems to me that 4D is too late for a speed limit. Perhaps if you could manage with 5 or 6D then more of us would be able to keep you and our FDM officer happy?
Now I freely admit that I am way out of date with current operations in the US of A but, in those days, there were only three speeds:
250 knots below 10,000 ft.
210 knots intermediate approach.
180 knots to the marker.
After the marker, speeds were yours (although small adjustments might be requested by ATC).
Now then, everyone in the whole of America did exactly that and I do not ever recall it being a problem at O'Hare, DFW, Atlanta or anywhere else. It seemed that whatever aircraft you were flying managed somehow to fit into the national plot.
So what has changed?
For one, we still do not have an agreed European-wide speed limit framework and most probably never will.
For two, we have the introduction of the dreaded FDM system whereby any attempt to deviate from SOPs will result in a visit (without tea and biscuits) with the chief pilot regardless of how reasonable your "excuse" might be.
Does anyone else remember the saga of the BA 737s making go arounds on 08at Innsbruck because the EGPWS was giving a "pull up" on short finals because of "map shift"?
These guys were making go arounds on short finals in VMC conditions with a good runway in front of them because not reacting to the EGPWS was going to mean a visit to the head shed.
As long as such deterrents are in force (and I am not saying that FDM is a bad thing) ATC are going to get little cooperation. In fact, someone on the thread has already stated that the BA Airbus fleet is paying little attention to you.
It seems to me that 4D is too late for a speed limit. Perhaps if you could manage with 5 or 6D then more of us would be able to keep you and our FDM officer happy?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Airbus:
The source of the pressure? The EAT machine giving 30 minutes delay; the green haze around each of the holding stacks; introduction of TEAM (telling you there's no end in sight), questions from the aircrew "What's causing the delay"; strong wind slowing the rate etc. When its like this, if you care, you feel you cannot give more than the minimum and that creates the pressure. The fact is, the spacing matters to airport's customers and we know it.
Imagine, if there are 30 aircraft waiting to approach and you miss half a mile on the first gap then every aircraft behind is pushed back by half a mile - (that's 29 aircarft = 14.5 extra miles of total flying); miss half a mile on the second gap then the remainig 28 aircraft have to do that (that's another 14nm of flying to add to the total - 28.5nm so far...). Keep going for all 30 aircraft and the total additional flying done by all 30 aircraft in the queue is in the hundreds of miles - just for missing each gap by half a mile. Heathrow lands about 42 each hour, for about 17 hours each day. Explains why BA alone spend about $2m each month in fuel just going around the holds.
It is very easy to say there is no pressure but in reality it is inevitable. Miss the gap and every body sees it - the performance of the Final Director is visible at a glance. The only way to remove that pressure is to reduce the runway loading so that spacing is not critical.
.4
The source of the pressure? The EAT machine giving 30 minutes delay; the green haze around each of the holding stacks; introduction of TEAM (telling you there's no end in sight), questions from the aircrew "What's causing the delay"; strong wind slowing the rate etc. When its like this, if you care, you feel you cannot give more than the minimum and that creates the pressure. The fact is, the spacing matters to airport's customers and we know it.
Imagine, if there are 30 aircraft waiting to approach and you miss half a mile on the first gap then every aircraft behind is pushed back by half a mile - (that's 29 aircarft = 14.5 extra miles of total flying); miss half a mile on the second gap then the remainig 28 aircraft have to do that (that's another 14nm of flying to add to the total - 28.5nm so far...). Keep going for all 30 aircraft and the total additional flying done by all 30 aircraft in the queue is in the hundreds of miles - just for missing each gap by half a mile. Heathrow lands about 42 each hour, for about 17 hours each day. Explains why BA alone spend about $2m each month in fuel just going around the holds.
It is very easy to say there is no pressure but in reality it is inevitable. Miss the gap and every body sees it - the performance of the Final Director is visible at a glance. The only way to remove that pressure is to reduce the runway loading so that spacing is not critical.
.4
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: north
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pages and pages of waffle. The phrase is "not less than 160 to 4" the key is in the first two words. the "standard speeds " that people seem to advocate as missing europe wide are 210 initial (within x miles or iaf etc etc) 185 from 12 miles (intermediate) ,then the above phrase or similar. Look at Alicante and Manchester text and then come back and read this thread and yawn.
NB the speeds above are from a fuzzy ,memory but read the above two paltes and they are at different ends of europe and so close as to be as good a s standard. The wording is locality and langauge specific but the end result is the same.
What ever happened to enjoying flying instead of trying to out Knowledge each other all the effing time.
NB the speeds above are from a fuzzy ,memory but read the above two paltes and they are at different ends of europe and so close as to be as good a s standard. The wording is locality and langauge specific but the end result is the same.
What ever happened to enjoying flying instead of trying to out Knowledge each other all the effing time.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resisted temptation but - what the hey !
A320, 321 or 330, light or full will do 160 to 4, provided you are ready for it.
It all comes down to how you set yourself up prior to the 4d point.
Most major airfields ask for it these days and whether we are given no speed or standard speed, you can still achieve the basic requirement for what is, after all a critical part of the sequencing - once you are inside 15 miles, the leeway for speed errors drops quickly - I have seen it on TCAS, in the Radar room and on the ATC simulator when I was priviledged to have a play - funny how I cleared all the locals to the centre fix
A320, 321 or 330, light or full will do 160 to 4, provided you are ready for it.
It all comes down to how you set yourself up prior to the 4d point.
Most major airfields ask for it these days and whether we are given no speed or standard speed, you can still achieve the basic requirement for what is, after all a critical part of the sequencing - once you are inside 15 miles, the leeway for speed errors drops quickly - I have seen it on TCAS, in the Radar room and on the ATC simulator when I was priviledged to have a play - funny how I cleared all the locals to the centre fix
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kernow, home of the pasty
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering what tollerances ATC are working too?
I was always told +/- 10kts, as per the old IR test.
I drive a heavy bus, and the frankly rediculous speeds that ATC (in the US) ask you to fly is almost always a huge burden at the end of what can sometimes be a VERY long day! The only way (without a very long RTF interchange which always resuts in the arrogance found across the pond)that I find to manage the situation to a successful outcome is to cheat and use that +/- 10kts to your advantage
Have to say that trying my best to please US ATC has been extremely trying and very few understand the challenge of long haul/ heavy a/c flying.
As far as 160 to 4 in the UK goes, personnally never found it a problem, even in the dhc 8 (Could even manage 240 to 5 with a decent headwind
)
Thanks to the boys in the tower, sterling effort
PB
I was always told +/- 10kts, as per the old IR test.
I drive a heavy bus, and the frankly rediculous speeds that ATC (in the US) ask you to fly is almost always a huge burden at the end of what can sometimes be a VERY long day! The only way (without a very long RTF interchange which always resuts in the arrogance found across the pond)that I find to manage the situation to a successful outcome is to cheat and use that +/- 10kts to your advantage
Have to say that trying my best to please US ATC has been extremely trying and very few understand the challenge of long haul/ heavy a/c flying.
As far as 160 to 4 in the UK goes, personnally never found it a problem, even in the dhc 8 (Could even manage 240 to 5 with a decent headwind
)Thanks to the boys in the tower, sterling effort
PB
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pasty boy,
Regarding tolerance, as an example, from the UK AIP entry for LHR...
Regarding tolerance, as an example, from the UK AIP entry for LHR...
Speed Control: Pilots should typically expect the following speed restrictions to be enforced: 220 kt from the holding facility during the
initial approach phase; 180 kt on base leg/closing heading to final approach; between 180 kt and 160 kt when established on final
approach and thereafter 160 kt to 4 DME. These speeds are applied for ATC separation purposes and are mandatory. In the event of a
new (non-speed related) ATC instruction being issued (eg an instruction to descend on ILS) pilots shall continue to maintain the previously
allocated speed. All speed restrictions are to be flown as accurately as possible. Aircraft unable to conform to these speeds must inform
ATC and state what speeds can be used. In the interests of accurate spacing, pilots are requested to comply with speed adjustments as
promptly as is feasible within their own operational constraints. Pilots should advise ATC if circumstances necessitate a change of speed
for aircraft performance reasons.
initial approach phase; 180 kt on base leg/closing heading to final approach; between 180 kt and 160 kt when established on final
approach and thereafter 160 kt to 4 DME. These speeds are applied for ATC separation purposes and are mandatory. In the event of a
new (non-speed related) ATC instruction being issued (eg an instruction to descend on ILS) pilots shall continue to maintain the previously
allocated speed. All speed restrictions are to be flown as accurately as possible. Aircraft unable to conform to these speeds must inform
ATC and state what speeds can be used. In the interests of accurate spacing, pilots are requested to comply with speed adjustments as
promptly as is feasible within their own operational constraints. Pilots should advise ATC if circumstances necessitate a change of speed
for aircraft performance reasons.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pasty Boy
Heathrow is already at minimum spacing, +/-0kts. I believe the UKAIP used to say no tolerance, that ATC will expect you to fly the seeds as accurately as possible, not sure if it still does.
.4
Heathrow is already at minimum spacing, +/-0kts. I believe the UKAIP used to say no tolerance, that ATC will expect you to fly the seeds as accurately as possible, not sure if it still does.
.4
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The level of ATC varies widely across the globe, and just as controllers at busy airports need to put up with pilots from everywhere flying anything, so do we need to make adjustments to cater to the place we happen to be operating in at that point in time. As an example, i went into HKG once (747-400) and was told to maintain 320 kts on the descent until further advised. The controller passed us on to the next guy, who proceeded to turn us onto a base leg heading and issue a descent clearance from 6000' to the glideslope intercept altitude without saying a word about speed. I asked - with a hint of sarcasm, admittedly - if he still wanted 320 kts, to which he sheepishly replied "speed at your discretion". Surprising, coming from HKG, but it's an example of some of the things we need to put up with too.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK... let's change the emphasis from "you must tell ATC" and "what's the point, we never can aim for 160 to 4".
Airbus A319/320/321 into LHR we are invariably told "160 to 4". In practice I fly 160, Flap 2, Gear up to the minimum SOP height of 1600'. I then tell it to fly Final Approach speed (which it will take no notice of because 160K F2 and 3deg slope is essentially idle), and Gear Down - which after a few seconds does start the speed coming back. Remaining Flap not used as speedbrake, but taken as required, and prior to 1000' to keep the spy in the cab happy
At 4D the speed is probably ~150K reducing slowly, maybe a little more. From watching my P2 colleagues, I leave it a little later than most, with either the 1600' being "anticipated" or the Flaps used as speedbrake, hence earlier / more rapid speed reduction and earlier spool up.
So LHR ATCOs, are the BA Airbuses causing you regular problems? Or just the odd one? As I said above, I can almost 100% guarantee no BA Airbus aims to fly 160 to 4... If you really want us to admit that on every approach, we can, but you seem to cope pretty well with us not doing so for the last X years! 757 was the same - slowed from 160K at 5NM.
Airbus A319/320/321 into LHR we are invariably told "160 to 4". In practice I fly 160, Flap 2, Gear up to the minimum SOP height of 1600'. I then tell it to fly Final Approach speed (which it will take no notice of because 160K F2 and 3deg slope is essentially idle), and Gear Down - which after a few seconds does start the speed coming back. Remaining Flap not used as speedbrake, but taken as required, and prior to 1000' to keep the spy in the cab happy
At 4D the speed is probably ~150K reducing slowly, maybe a little more. From watching my P2 colleagues, I leave it a little later than most, with either the 1600' being "anticipated" or the Flaps used as speedbrake, hence earlier / more rapid speed reduction and earlier spool up.
So LHR ATCOs, are the BA Airbuses causing you regular problems? Or just the odd one? As I said above, I can almost 100% guarantee no BA Airbus aims to fly 160 to 4... If you really want us to admit that on every approach, we can, but you seem to cope pretty well with us not doing so for the last X years! 757 was the same - slowed from 160K at 5NM.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... same on the 747-400. 160 to 4 is a real struggle. So the reality is at about 5 miles you start to slow it all up, and at 4 on average day slowly decreasing through 150.
We are blessed with quick wheels on the Jumbo so that helps, but the real problem is the "spy in the sky". If we are not stable and spooled up by 1000' you can expect phone calls.
In future I will clog the airwaves with my intention to slow at 5 miles. Lets hope I don't block a landing clearance.
We are blessed with quick wheels on the Jumbo so that helps, but the real problem is the "spy in the sky". If we are not stable and spooled up by 1000' you can expect phone calls.
In future I will clog the airwaves with my intention to slow at 5 miles. Lets hope I don't block a landing clearance.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Highbury, London
Age: 66
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time lurker here, not connected with aviation in any way except that many of you guys fly over my head every few minutes (if the wind is at all Westerly).
I find this thread, and the previous one started I think by "120.4", intensely interesting because I'm down here looking at you up there (and for the last few months listening to everyone on 119.72, 120.4 etc) and we London folk rather rely on you all not to bang your ally tubes together over our manor. And an excellent job you all on the ground and in the air do, to that end, thank you very much.
You may find it informative to see what BAA think is happening on the London approaches; for LHR see:
http://lhr.webtrak-lochard.com/template/index.html
Is this an accurate picture of how it really is?
I find this thread, and the previous one started I think by "120.4", intensely interesting because I'm down here looking at you up there (and for the last few months listening to everyone on 119.72, 120.4 etc) and we London folk rather rely on you all not to bang your ally tubes together over our manor. And an excellent job you all on the ground and in the air do, to that end, thank you very much.
You may find it informative to see what BAA think is happening on the London approaches; for LHR see:
http://lhr.webtrak-lochard.com/template/index.html
Is this an accurate picture of how it really is?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337,
You need to tell the director, not the tower controller.
If you're going to slow early it will potentially compromise the vortex separation of the traffic behind.
There's little the tower controller can do about that at such a late stage whereas the director can build in some suitable extra space behind you if they know your intentions early enough i.e. on base leg at the latest ideally.
You need to tell the director, not the tower controller.
If you're going to slow early it will potentially compromise the vortex separation of the traffic behind.
There's little the tower controller can do about that at such a late stage whereas the director can build in some suitable extra space behind you if they know your intentions early enough i.e. on base leg at the latest ideally.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Done to death a few times!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15896
and
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69159
Somewhere also we had a world-wide pilot 'vote' on the most popular speeds in the approach sequence (cannot find the thread) and I think we arrived at 220 clean (suits most). 180 intermediate and 170 to 5
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15896
and
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69159
Somewhere also we had a world-wide pilot 'vote' on the most popular speeds in the approach sequence (cannot find the thread) and I think we arrived at 220 clean (suits most). 180 intermediate and 170 to 5
NoD, I'd say the majority of BA airbus at Heathrow don't give us a problem so what you described seems to work out fine.
It's funny that no BA airbus crews can achieve what Javelin states can be done by any 320/321 or 330, I assume that's down to different company SOPs and stable approach criteria. But that's where it gets even more complicated for the ATCO, who seems to be expected to take into account not only every aircraft type and variant but also the way each company operates it!
It's funny that no BA airbus crews can achieve what Javelin states can be done by any 320/321 or 330, I assume that's down to different company SOPs and stable approach criteria. But that's where it gets even more complicated for the ATCO, who seems to be expected to take into account not only every aircraft type and variant but also the way each company operates it!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DP
Exactly... and the level of retribution afterwards 
It also depends on one's attitude / approach to airmanship / noise / fuel saving etc. Javelin may be hinting at maintaining 160 to 4 in a "high drag" configuration, or using extra drag (speedbrakes, early flap etc.) to then smartly get back from 160 @ 4 and stable by 1000'. But to me, seems little point in you guys gettings us to do CDAs ~4000' to be a little quieter / save a little fuel, to then waste it all and more, and generate far more noise @ 1500'
It's funny that no BA airbus crews can achieve what Javelin states can be done by any 320/321 or 330, I assume that's down to different company SOPs and stable approach criteria.
It also depends on one's attitude / approach to airmanship / noise / fuel saving etc. Javelin may be hinting at maintaining 160 to 4 in a "high drag" configuration, or using extra drag (speedbrakes, early flap etc.) to then smartly get back from 160 @ 4 and stable by 1000'. But to me, seems little point in you guys gettings us to do CDAs ~4000' to be a little quieter / save a little fuel, to then waste it all and more, and generate far more noise @ 1500'
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem we have, NoD, is that it appears that this sort of 'restriction' is likely to be with us for ever, I feel. We should try to work around it. I posted this elsewhere (for the 737 Classic)
This does not markedly affect a CDA/low drag approach. (Ah! I recall the 'fighter' low-drag approach - run&break, throttles closed from break to 50' for touchdown (on the numbers, of course), at Vref-5
)
It works on the Classic. If I recall BA's SOPs anyway, you need gear down at 2000 radio if not 'visual', so there goes your CDA? The other side of the coin is that 'stable at 1000' MUST become a target and not an essential if we are to work in this environment, and company's must accept this. You talk of "the level of retribution afterwards" - what is the 'official' response when you point out the 'impossibility'? I have mentioned before the BRU 'imposition' some years ago of 160 to the OM on one runway, which was totally impossible in BA (who ignored this) until I said I was unable to land there, when it got changed. In any case you get a reasonable stab at it using the above, and as said many times, if your SOPs will NOT permit 160 to 4, say so on director, asking perhaps for 160 to 5, and I know they will cope.
The other way to 'cheat'
is to increase Vref to the limit if necessary to reduce the required speed reduction - who will know - strong winds/gusts - (unless you slide gracefully off the end)
Try:
F10-160 gear up (Now edited to - 160/170 for unmodded a/c)
5D, gear down
4.5D, F15
4.2D flap/speed to taste.
Virtually no extra noise/fuel burn
ATC happy
Safety monitoring programme happy
F10-160 gear up (Now edited to - 160/170 for unmodded a/c)
5D, gear down
4.5D, F15
4.2D flap/speed to taste.
Virtually no extra noise/fuel burn
ATC happy
Safety monitoring programme happy
)It works on the Classic. If I recall BA's SOPs anyway, you need gear down at 2000 radio if not 'visual', so there goes your CDA
? The other side of the coin is that 'stable at 1000' MUST become a target and not an essential if we are to work in this environment, and company's must accept this. You talk of "the level of retribution afterwards" - what is the 'official' response when you point out the 'impossibility'? I have mentioned before the BRU 'imposition' some years ago of 160 to the OM on one runway, which was totally impossible in BA (who ignored this) until I said I was unable to land there, when it got changed. In any case you get a reasonable stab at it using the above, and as said many times, if your SOPs will NOT permit 160 to 4, say so on director, asking perhaps for 160 to 5, and I know they will cope. The other way to 'cheat'
is to increase Vref to the limit if necessary to reduce the required speed reduction - who will know - strong winds/gusts - (unless you slide gracefully off the end)
Isn't it all about priorities?
Three factors, noise, economy of operation and economy of spacing. Which is the most important?
If it is noise, then fine keep it clean as long as possible but tell ATC , so they can plan accordingly. If it is economy of operation, a decelerating approach clean as long as possible is the go, impracticle in busy airspace However if spacing (runway capacity) is the criteria tell your beancounters to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and comply with the directions of ATC.
I venture to suggest that, if you are prepared to dirty up, 160 at 4 is no problem for anyone, unless you have a tailwind.
Ashling suggested that an NG would have a problem. If you have your gear down and flap 15 or 25 at 4, are you telling me you cant get the rest of it configured and slowed in the next 400'. If it makes a bit more noise, tuff tits, you can't please everyone.
Someone said their bus wouldn't obey a commanded speed. Dirty it up earlier and it will!
Someone else said a 75 is a slippery beast. What about putting your gear down before you get to 4. If you hit 4 with min flap and no gear, of course you will have problems slowing , configuring and stabilising before 1000'. I do it regularly in a 777IGW. Do you reckon the 75 is any more slippery.
So tell me what is the most important criteria when operating into a busy airport?
Get real guys. Who has the most authority and ultimately who has the most influence on the economy of you operation, the beancounters, the tree huggers or ATC. Dirtying up early is expensive and noisey, but is it any less noisey or expensive than an unnecessary MApp for you or the guy behind who is forced to MA becuase of you lack of flexibility.
Maui
Three factors, noise, economy of operation and economy of spacing. Which is the most important?
If it is noise, then fine keep it clean as long as possible but tell ATC , so they can plan accordingly. If it is economy of operation, a decelerating approach clean as long as possible is the go, impracticle in busy airspace However if spacing (runway capacity) is the criteria tell your beancounters to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and comply with the directions of ATC.
I venture to suggest that, if you are prepared to dirty up, 160 at 4 is no problem for anyone, unless you have a tailwind.
Ashling suggested that an NG would have a problem. If you have your gear down and flap 15 or 25 at 4, are you telling me you cant get the rest of it configured and slowed in the next 400'. If it makes a bit more noise, tuff tits, you can't please everyone.
Someone said their bus wouldn't obey a commanded speed. Dirty it up earlier and it will!
Someone else said a 75 is a slippery beast. What about putting your gear down before you get to 4. If you hit 4 with min flap and no gear, of course you will have problems slowing , configuring and stabilising before 1000'. I do it regularly in a 777IGW. Do you reckon the 75 is any more slippery.
So tell me what is the most important criteria when operating into a busy airport?
Get real guys. Who has the most authority and ultimately who has the most influence on the economy of you operation, the beancounters, the tree huggers or ATC. Dirtying up early is expensive and noisey, but is it any less noisey or expensive than an unnecessary MApp for you or the guy behind who is forced to MA becuase of you lack of flexibility.
Maui
Last edited by maui; 12th Jun 2007 at 14:09.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that many of the so-called problems with speed, and the resultant configurations needed to achieve same, are driven by standard specific airline procedures which insist that the aeroplane be on speed/fully configured by no less than 1000 AAL.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, this is complete nonsense...500 AAL would certainly work for the vast majority of aircraft, and has served me well for over thirty years...and yes, those have been in heavy jets.
I wonder...is this 1000 AAL requirement driven mainly by some operators with new(er) low(er) time First Officers/Captains?
OTOH, if you're stuck with it (1000 AAL), you have my sympathy.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, this is complete nonsense...500 AAL would certainly work for the vast majority of aircraft, and has served me well for over thirty years...and yes, those have been in heavy jets.
I wonder...is this 1000 AAL requirement driven mainly by some operators with new(er) low(er) time First Officers/Captains?
OTOH, if you're stuck with it (1000 AAL), you have my sympathy.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my outfit its aim to be stable at 1000' MUST be stable by 500' so in effect a company enforced margin for error.
They record 1000' busts as well as 500' busts. The later will be followed by a summons to explain yourself.
They record 1000' busts as well as 500' busts. The later will be followed by a summons to explain yourself.