Slowing down on final approach.....
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't dirty up any sooner than normal - standard Airbus stuff.
Config 1 on intercept heading, 2 1/2 dot low on glide, gear at 2000', 3 & full in sequence.
Most 4 mile points are at 1200agl, so if you hit managed speed at about 4.3, the speed doesn't drop until 4 miles but is stable again before 1000'agl which is our OFDM alert height in IMC, 500 agl stable call in VMC.
Then through groundspeed mini, a bit of turbulence, some fat passengers so VAPP is close to VLS and the whole day suddemly gets interesting !
I think things like this should be decided only after consultation with the airspace users, the trainers within those organisations who can say that for aeroplane 'X', the comfortable, repeatable speed with a low houred crew is 'Y'. Then NATS or ICAO or whoever take the information and come up with a standard which we can all achieve time after time.
Don't forget, if you say to an ATC guy, we can consistently do 180 to 4, then after a while, they will adapt their sequences and fit more aeroplanes in. If the concensus is that 180 to 10, 150 to 4 is more achievable then we all win.
Kind of CRM on a global scale
Config 1 on intercept heading, 2 1/2 dot low on glide, gear at 2000', 3 & full in sequence.
Most 4 mile points are at 1200agl, so if you hit managed speed at about 4.3, the speed doesn't drop until 4 miles but is stable again before 1000'agl which is our OFDM alert height in IMC, 500 agl stable call in VMC.
Then through groundspeed mini, a bit of turbulence, some fat passengers so VAPP is close to VLS and the whole day suddemly gets interesting !
I think things like this should be decided only after consultation with the airspace users, the trainers within those organisations who can say that for aeroplane 'X', the comfortable, repeatable speed with a low houred crew is 'Y'. Then NATS or ICAO or whoever take the information and come up with a standard which we can all achieve time after time.
Don't forget, if you say to an ATC guy, we can consistently do 180 to 4, then after a while, they will adapt their sequences and fit more aeroplanes in. If the concensus is that 180 to 10, 150 to 4 is more achievable then we all win.
Kind of CRM on a global scale
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everybody,
Iīm one of the already mentioned "170 to the marker " controllers from Germany.
So far Iīve read through most of the thread and found it very interesting to read about all the common practices around the world.
But I didnīt really understand all the fuss about it.
If you get a speed, stick to it. If the assigned speed is not conform with your procedures tell us.
If you recieve a descent restriction which is far beyond the aerodynamical capabilities of you plane you also tell atc, donīt you?
So when it comes to speed control the same procedure should be applied.
My point of view regarding speed control is as follows:
E.g., I assign minimum clean to a flight on downwind, turn them onto dogleg and expect the pilots to tell me when they need to reduce according to their speed shedule. Every controller knows that a plane canīt keep 210 or so to short final unless itīs happy hour and they like to go for a second try.
Controllers simply canīt know all the speeds.
Iīm working the approach for Cologne/Bonn home of two german LCC. Having two flights of one Company on final, same type. The first one has his bus parked at 12 NM, the otherone passes the FAF at 230kts.
So my message is (though I found the discussion extremey interesting) tell us when you need to reduce.
Cheers
Markus
Iīm one of the already mentioned "170 to the marker " controllers from Germany.
So far Iīve read through most of the thread and found it very interesting to read about all the common practices around the world.
But I didnīt really understand all the fuss about it.
If you get a speed, stick to it. If the assigned speed is not conform with your procedures tell us.
If you recieve a descent restriction which is far beyond the aerodynamical capabilities of you plane you also tell atc, donīt you?
So when it comes to speed control the same procedure should be applied.
My point of view regarding speed control is as follows:
E.g., I assign minimum clean to a flight on downwind, turn them onto dogleg and expect the pilots to tell me when they need to reduce according to their speed shedule. Every controller knows that a plane canīt keep 210 or so to short final unless itīs happy hour and they like to go for a second try.
Controllers simply canīt know all the speeds.
Iīm working the approach for Cologne/Bonn home of two german LCC. Having two flights of one Company on final, same type. The first one has his bus parked at 12 NM, the otherone passes the FAF at 230kts.
So my message is (though I found the discussion extremey interesting) tell us when you need to reduce.
Cheers
Markus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sunny south now....
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and some more....
411... i think your slightly missing the point im afraid. i Know i am there to provide a service to you guys and girls. but the bigger picture is not just you in your plane in the sky. by increasing the vectors at a busy airport such as the one i work would lead to more holding, which means more fuel and greater delays etc. the other point....these speeds were negiotiated with the airlines! we discussed what speeds you were happy to comply with. i didnt think i was asking for too much for a pilot to advise me they were going to reduce! and as for working a little harder....... if you sit in the hold and we pull you off one at a time for say 6nm spacing....it makes our life is easier!
human factor......an apology firstly that you dont get your 170 to 5nm. i always write it on my strip and on passing you over tell the fin guy (118.950). its not rocket science when it comes to it to plan for 170 to 5nm. all we do is add an extra 1/4 to 1/2 mile on for catch up.a suggesstion maybe to ask the fin guy on first contact or suggest is ask your ops guys to contact NATS and put a request in for your operator 737's to have that speed. is there any chance you can send me a personal message on here so we can discuss it further? regards.
i cant stress enough that this isnt about atc versus pilots,just trying to do my job...but in the past 7 days have witnessed pilots reducing their speed without saying a word and the freq wasn't that busy. on one occasion it was very lucky i had mode S!
take it easy..........
human factor......an apology firstly that you dont get your 170 to 5nm. i always write it on my strip and on passing you over tell the fin guy (118.950). its not rocket science when it comes to it to plan for 170 to 5nm. all we do is add an extra 1/4 to 1/2 mile on for catch up.a suggesstion maybe to ask the fin guy on first contact or suggest is ask your ops guys to contact NATS and put a request in for your operator 737's to have that speed. is there any chance you can send me a personal message on here so we can discuss it further? regards.
i cant stress enough that this isnt about atc versus pilots,just trying to do my job...but in the past 7 days have witnessed pilots reducing their speed without saying a word and the freq wasn't that busy. on one occasion it was very lucky i had mode S!
take it easy..........
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given a clear approach, I would be happy in a 320/321 to do 300kts to 15 miles and slow down on schedule, do the approach and land.
If I am being controlled by very professional people, I am happy to conform to the speeds - I would however, like to know what speeds you want in time for me to adjust profile to suit.
Would it be a problem for the ATC folk to assign speeds further out and refine them as appropriate ?
If I am being controlled by very professional people, I am happy to conform to the speeds - I would however, like to know what speeds you want in time for me to adjust profile to suit.
Would it be a problem for the ATC folk to assign speeds further out and refine them as appropriate ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin
The 180kts to 160kts reduction is used to fine tune the spacing to cater for errors in vectoring etc; this avoids lost space on the approach. Trouble is of course that the position for that reduction to take place varies depending on the vectoring and how long the final is.
One of the advantages of using a long final (say 15nm) is that the spacing should be established by about 10nm from t/down meaning that you should receive the 160kts to 4d instruction quite early. The worst possible scenario is the short final, where the director is fighting not to lose time on the approach and so keeps the speed on as long as he dare - leading to hot approaches.
(Personally, my view is that traffic should be permitted to reduce from 180kts by 7nm at the latest, 8nm if it is a heavy, regardless of whether the spacing is correct.)
.4
The 180kts to 160kts reduction is used to fine tune the spacing to cater for errors in vectoring etc; this avoids lost space on the approach. Trouble is of course that the position for that reduction to take place varies depending on the vectoring and how long the final is.
One of the advantages of using a long final (say 15nm) is that the spacing should be established by about 10nm from t/down meaning that you should receive the 160kts to 4d instruction quite early. The worst possible scenario is the short final, where the director is fighting not to lose time on the approach and so keeps the speed on as long as he dare - leading to hot approaches.
(Personally, my view is that traffic should be permitted to reduce from 180kts by 7nm at the latest, 8nm if it is a heavy, regardless of whether the spacing is correct.)
.4
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just want to emphasise that the problem is not that 160 to 4 is too fast. I guarantee I can achieve a stable approach every time - not surprising when I've had the gear down for the past four miles!!
The problem is "160 to 4" from eight or ten miles is totally inappropriate for a 737 "Classic" if we're expected to carry out a CDA and minimise noise and fuel burn. For those who don't know, into the London airports, we're supposed to fly a continuous descent approach from 6000 feet to minimise noise and fuel burn. I'm frequently given "160 to 4" from ten miles, which means dropping the gear at 3000 feet or more, which means winding the engines up for more than half of the CDA!!
126.825,
PM inbound.
The problem is "160 to 4" from eight or ten miles is totally inappropriate for a 737 "Classic" if we're expected to carry out a CDA and minimise noise and fuel burn. For those who don't know, into the London airports, we're supposed to fly a continuous descent approach from 6000 feet to minimise noise and fuel burn. I'm frequently given "160 to 4" from ten miles, which means dropping the gear at 3000 feet or more, which means winding the engines up for more than half of the CDA!!
126.825,
PM inbound.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gulf
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorcery
411A is not, I think, missing the point, merely addressing it from a chief pilot viewpoint, as opposed to that from an ATCO . The days are gone when all our pilots sat in the right seat for 10+ years and achieved command with substantial flight experience. Our chief pilots are now imposing SOPs to guard against runway excursions. A successful landing should be achievable as long as the aircraft is stable at any height above the threshold.
I think you will find that having to be "stabilized" by 1000ft has more to do with the fact that statistically, aircraft which are not, have a much higher risk of a landing incident/accident and nothing to do with the crews experience.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah right so in your opinion being stable at 100ft AAL should be possible. But due to all these stupid inexperienced F/O's, who lack the ability or have no idea how to fly, we now have to aim to be stable at a 1000ft AAL and have to be stable at 500ft AAL.
I guess you are that captain who ignores the f/o when he calls for a go-around.
"But but but, I was stable during the flare........................"
I guess you are that captain who ignores the f/o when he calls for a go-around.
"But but but, I was stable during the flare........................"
Human Factor.
Thankyou for confirming what I said. "It's a matter of priorities"
You confirm you can fly 160 to 4 and be stabilised at the required alt.
You cannot properly conduct a CDA, conform to requested speeds and be stabilised. I agree.
Decide which you will comply with and don't try to be all things to all men, you can't. Try to do it all and you will screw it up.
The bug in the system is the tree huggers.
You can't please everyone. But sure as hell you'll p1ss the huggers off if you have to open up the loud pedal and make a missed approach.
I say again. Tuff tits.
Ignore the huggers, either they will get used to it, or they will force a reduction in capacity at the affected airport. Either way it's a dilemma you cannot resolve. It will be resolved politically.
Maintain 160 AS DIRECTED or get out of my way.
Maui
Thankyou for confirming what I said. "It's a matter of priorities"
You confirm you can fly 160 to 4 and be stabilised at the required alt.
You cannot properly conduct a CDA, conform to requested speeds and be stabilised. I agree.
Decide which you will comply with and don't try to be all things to all men, you can't. Try to do it all and you will screw it up.
The bug in the system is the tree huggers.
You can't please everyone. But sure as hell you'll p1ss the huggers off if you have to open up the loud pedal and make a missed approach.
I say again. Tuff tits.
Ignore the huggers, either they will get used to it, or they will force a reduction in capacity at the affected airport. Either way it's a dilemma you cannot resolve. It will be resolved politically.
Maintain 160 AS DIRECTED or get out of my way.
Maui
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maui,
When you put it that way......
I might start requesting 160 to 4 from top of descent.
The bug in the system is the tree huggers.
I might start requesting 160 to 4 from top of descent.
HF:
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.
Our SOPs (easy) clearly state that if you are instructed to do 160 to 4, then you should reduce speed at 5mn latest. In most cases you need to be reducing at about 5.5 to comply with our SOPs.
Maybe our SOPs ought to include a comment in that section that makes it mandatory to reply "unable, it will be 160 to x". I know it should be mandatory anyway, but nobody does it, on the understanding that we can't quite do it anyway, ATC should know, it makes very little difference, we're not going to be seen as wimps, or I'm not going to impose pressures or conditions on the PF (delete as applicable).
I just want to emphasise that the problem is not that 160 to 4 is too fast. I guarantee I can achieve a stable approach every time
Our SOPs (easy) clearly state that if you are instructed to do 160 to 4, then you should reduce speed at 5mn latest. In most cases you need to be reducing at about 5.5 to comply with our SOPs.
Maybe our SOPs ought to include a comment in that section that makes it mandatory to reply "unable, it will be 160 to x". I know it should be mandatory anyway, but nobody does it, on the understanding that we can't quite do it anyway, ATC should know, it makes very little difference, we're not going to be seen as wimps, or I'm not going to impose pressures or conditions on the PF (delete as applicable).
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
126.825 - 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 someone winding back the speed in the window does not mean that they will not be 160kts at 4d, it does however mean that the thrust levers stay shut and the speed bleeds off naturally without early use of the gear. The autothrottle gets a bit keen to add thrust on my type and the speed control with initial stages of flap can be pretty poor, with a commanded speed of 160 you could be indicating anything up to and extra 10-12kts.
Another point made earlier is that for guys not to 'second guess' what you want then positive speed control needs to be issued on every approach. Before I get jumped on I would say it is on 95% of approaches but factor in bad weather, missed calls, busy frequency (even a slightly overloaded controller!) and occasionally you never get the reduction (typically from 220 to 180) but as you are hitting the glide at 7d you get 160 to 4, an immediate 60kt reduction in 3 miles! Even maui in his big shiny triple will struggle from there - especially as he won't have already reduced and will be strictly complying with you last instruction!
Finally this morning (126.825) we got '220kts if not already' when downwind, again this sort of implies that you expect us to reduce around the usual gates if the frequency is busy.
Another point made earlier is that for guys not to 'second guess' what you want then positive speed control needs to be issued on every approach. Before I get jumped on I would say it is on 95% of approaches but factor in bad weather, missed calls, busy frequency (even a slightly overloaded controller!) and occasionally you never get the reduction (typically from 220 to 180) but as you are hitting the glide at 7d you get 160 to 4, an immediate 60kt reduction in 3 miles! Even maui in his big shiny triple will struggle from there - especially as he won't have already reduced and will be strictly complying with you last instruction!
Finally this morning (126.825) we got '220kts if not already' when downwind, again this sort of implies that you expect us to reduce around the usual gates if the frequency is busy.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100%
Useful post. I am disappointed to hear that your SOPs "clearly state" that you should, in effect, break an ATC instruction. (Did I understand you correctly?) If 160 to 4 doesn't work then, for pitty's sake, lets get together and agree what does work and apply it. The current position is akin to anarchy. In theory, 160 to 5 might mean reduced use of 2.5nm spacing (because speed differentials on short final would last for longer giving greater risk of catchup) but if that is the price to be paid so be it.
I don't think starting to slow .5 or 1nm early is really the problem. It is those who are at 145kts at 5nm with traffic behind doing 160 to 4 - especially if vortex is involved - that put the ATCOs in an illegal position very quickly. This issue must be addressed.
.4
Useful post. I am disappointed to hear that your SOPs "clearly state" that you should, in effect, break an ATC instruction. (Did I understand you correctly?) If 160 to 4 doesn't work then, for pitty's sake, lets get together and agree what does work and apply it. The current position is akin to anarchy. In theory, 160 to 5 might mean reduced use of 2.5nm spacing (because speed differentials on short final would last for longer giving greater risk of catchup) but if that is the price to be paid so be it.
I don't think starting to slow .5 or 1nm early is really the problem. It is those who are at 145kts at 5nm with traffic behind doing 160 to 4 - especially if vortex is involved - that put the ATCOs in an illegal position very quickly. This issue must be addressed.
.4
.4, your powers of understanding are good. 
From where we sit, it seems that those issuing the 160 to 4 do not understand that in a modern (slippery) aircraft with a low V App, being flown to modern SOPs (you must be stable at 1000') you simply cannot comply with this instruction.
Some guys try and help by flying 10 knots fast for a couple of miles, to "equalise" the effect of the early slow down. Just so you know...
From where we sit, it seems that those issuing the 160 to 4 do not understand that in a modern (slippery) aircraft with a low V App, being flown to modern SOPs (you must be stable at 1000') you simply cannot comply with this instruction.
Some guys try and help by flying 10 knots fast for a couple of miles, to "equalise" the effect of the early slow down. Just so you know...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorcery/411a,
'chief pilot point of view'
dinasours! crm is used to give the junior/inexperienced guys the tools to tell chaps like you to ram it when you start spouting your old/bold crap!
stabilised at 100ft, have you learned nothing from a life time in aviation! lost for words!
b4 you spout how brilliant you are an how speed scares us please remember many of us posting here spent our 'early years' breaking into the circuit at 500kts+! ur almost boastful and self-congratulatory stories of fast and reckless approaches in heavys is an interesting insight as to why the incident rates were so hi.
i'm quite happy to dirty up and fly the speeds that atc want, if that makes me an inexperienced frightend pup then fair enough
'chief pilot point of view'
dinasours! crm is used to give the junior/inexperienced guys the tools to tell chaps like you to ram it when you start spouting your old/bold crap!
stabilised at 100ft, have you learned nothing from a life time in aviation! lost for words!
b4 you spout how brilliant you are an how speed scares us please remember many of us posting here spent our 'early years' breaking into the circuit at 500kts+! ur almost boastful and self-congratulatory stories of fast and reckless approaches in heavys is an interesting insight as to why the incident rates were so hi.
i'm quite happy to dirty up and fly the speeds that atc want, if that makes me an inexperienced frightend pup then fair enough
100%pls said
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?
In a modern aircraft, flying for a company that requires stabilised at 1000', then 160 to 4 is too fast. Simple as.
Our SOPs (easy) clearly state that if you are instructed to do 160 to 4, then you should reduce speed at 5mn latest. In most cases you need to be reducing at about 5.5 to comply with our SOPs.
Our SOPs (easy) clearly state that if you are instructed to do 160 to 4, then you should reduce speed at 5mn latest. In most cases you need to be reducing at about 5.5 to comply with our SOPs.
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?