Approach sequencing at LGW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry to spoil the inevitable competition, y'all, but BOTH!
On chox 0700Z ex Lyon and 1346Z ex Barcelona.
More competition, then, please!
Spoke to another of our team yesterday and he had a great run ex Willo a day or so ago, with what appeared to be an 'extra' turn there and a tight pattern after.
Afterthought
If this goes on, we'll have to have a word with Rod and see if he'll split some of the savings with the ATC coffee swindle!!
[This message has been edited by BOAC (edited 01 June 2001).]
On chox 0700Z ex Lyon and 1346Z ex Barcelona.
More competition, then, please!
Spoke to another of our team yesterday and he had a great run ex Willo a day or so ago, with what appeared to be an 'extra' turn there and a tight pattern after.
Afterthought
If this goes on, we'll have to have a word with Rod and see if he'll split some of the savings with the ATC coffee swindle!!
[This message has been edited by BOAC (edited 01 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is one of the more interesting topics posted of late. I tend to agree with BOAC that the time you spend in the hold is not the critical factor. I believe there are two fairly distinct cases.
First is planning from the end of holding to touchdown at a single r/w destination where I simply cannot afford to go below diversion fuel before the threshold. Any extended unexpected draggy vectoring in this case concentrates the mind.
The second is where the destination is a multiple r/w destination. Here I at least have the option to burn down to final reserve by the threshold (I am assuming the case of fair weather).
In both cases it would be helpful if upon arrival at the hold we could be offered "Extended pattern approaches in use" or "Normal approach's in use" as well as the EAT. With that kind of info available I can formulate my plan with more confidence.
I think the flexibility shown at the London destinations is great but a little extra info on entering the hold could make a good system better from the drivers point of view.
First is planning from the end of holding to touchdown at a single r/w destination where I simply cannot afford to go below diversion fuel before the threshold. Any extended unexpected draggy vectoring in this case concentrates the mind.
The second is where the destination is a multiple r/w destination. Here I at least have the option to burn down to final reserve by the threshold (I am assuming the case of fair weather).
In both cases it would be helpful if upon arrival at the hold we could be offered "Extended pattern approaches in use" or "Normal approach's in use" as well as the EAT. With that kind of info available I can formulate my plan with more confidence.
I think the flexibility shown at the London destinations is great but a little extra info on entering the hold could make a good system better from the drivers point of view.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry to hijack your thread BOAC, but as there are Gatwick Approach controllers reading and responding to it, I’ve just got to say my piece here.
First of all, a huge thumbs up to all the ATCOs in the UK. My experience is limited to Europe and I know it’s much easier working in your native language but the professionalism here is generally fantastic. I reckon we are all spoiled rotten by the controllers in UK airspace and it probably clouds our judgement when forming opinions of others countries’ ATC services.
And now for the rant. There’s one chap on Gatwick Approach who continually gives conditional instructions that require remembering in about 2 minutes time. The trouble is he often then speaks to you twice (or more) in the interval with further instructions! Which manual did he get this from?
As an example… Whilst flying S/L @ FL70 downwind…
“ABC123, Descend to altitude 4000 feet, QNH 1013: On passing 5000 feet reduce speed 180 knots”.
He’ll then call you back on two occasions with heading changes. Why on earth not just give you the speed reduction with the second of these heading changes which will more or less coincide with when he wants the speed reduction anyway? Expecting us to remember unnecessary stuff like this is just plain stupid at this stage in the approach. Another favourite of his is…
”ABC123, Turn left heading 300 degrees and report localiser established 26L. From 8 to 4 miles fly at 160 knots”.
Now I’m not suggesting I have any difficulty with remembering this as it’s the standard deal anyway at my home airport. But what about the folks from Russia or Korea or even Europe who come to LGW rarely and have less fluency in English? It is pointless to give the condition at this stage, the controller knows he’s going to speak to you again before you get to 8 miles as his intercept heading has you established on the localiser at 9.5 and he’s asked you to call him back then!!!!!
This chap’s obviously deluding himself somewhere that he’s saving R/T workload by giving several instructions at once, which would be fine (in theory) if he didn’t keep spoiling it by speaking to you again (and again) between issuing the conditional clearance and your having to action it. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if there were no further communication until after the condition applied but basically it’s seems like he’s just got into this habit (which probably works well in en-route sectors with less heading/speed changes etc.) and he can’t seem to let it go when its use is inappropriate.
I’ve never said anything to him on the R/T as I feel it would be too unprofessional, but I did once phone up the watch controller at LATCC immediately after shutdown to complain. He knew exactly who I was talking about and agreed to have a word with him. Things got better for about a year, but he’s going back to his old habits now. IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS.
If any of you know this chap, please have a friendly word in his shell like…. Thanks.
Rant over. Blood pressure normal.
..................................
Feeling gulity now so edited to contribute to the original thread...
FL70 for 25 and then 10 at clean starting to slow up around 12-14 miles works for me too. I can see why it's easier to plan and make sudden changes when you have the aircraft separated nicely in azimuth on your screen. In my experience you keep us at FL70 longer on 08R than 26L, is this my imagination?
[This message has been edited by beaver eager (edited 03 June 2001).]
First of all, a huge thumbs up to all the ATCOs in the UK. My experience is limited to Europe and I know it’s much easier working in your native language but the professionalism here is generally fantastic. I reckon we are all spoiled rotten by the controllers in UK airspace and it probably clouds our judgement when forming opinions of others countries’ ATC services.
And now for the rant. There’s one chap on Gatwick Approach who continually gives conditional instructions that require remembering in about 2 minutes time. The trouble is he often then speaks to you twice (or more) in the interval with further instructions! Which manual did he get this from?
As an example… Whilst flying S/L @ FL70 downwind…
“ABC123, Descend to altitude 4000 feet, QNH 1013: On passing 5000 feet reduce speed 180 knots”.
He’ll then call you back on two occasions with heading changes. Why on earth not just give you the speed reduction with the second of these heading changes which will more or less coincide with when he wants the speed reduction anyway? Expecting us to remember unnecessary stuff like this is just plain stupid at this stage in the approach. Another favourite of his is…
”ABC123, Turn left heading 300 degrees and report localiser established 26L. From 8 to 4 miles fly at 160 knots”.
Now I’m not suggesting I have any difficulty with remembering this as it’s the standard deal anyway at my home airport. But what about the folks from Russia or Korea or even Europe who come to LGW rarely and have less fluency in English? It is pointless to give the condition at this stage, the controller knows he’s going to speak to you again before you get to 8 miles as his intercept heading has you established on the localiser at 9.5 and he’s asked you to call him back then!!!!!
This chap’s obviously deluding himself somewhere that he’s saving R/T workload by giving several instructions at once, which would be fine (in theory) if he didn’t keep spoiling it by speaking to you again (and again) between issuing the conditional clearance and your having to action it. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if there were no further communication until after the condition applied but basically it’s seems like he’s just got into this habit (which probably works well in en-route sectors with less heading/speed changes etc.) and he can’t seem to let it go when its use is inappropriate.
I’ve never said anything to him on the R/T as I feel it would be too unprofessional, but I did once phone up the watch controller at LATCC immediately after shutdown to complain. He knew exactly who I was talking about and agreed to have a word with him. Things got better for about a year, but he’s going back to his old habits now. IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS.
If any of you know this chap, please have a friendly word in his shell like…. Thanks.
Rant over. Blood pressure normal.
..................................
Feeling gulity now so edited to contribute to the original thread...
FL70 for 25 and then 10 at clean starting to slow up around 12-14 miles works for me too. I can see why it's easier to plan and make sudden changes when you have the aircraft separated nicely in azimuth on your screen. In my experience you keep us at FL70 longer on 08R than 26L, is this my imagination?
[This message has been edited by beaver eager (edited 03 June 2001).]
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with 'beaver eager' re the many-faceted instructions in a single transmission from the (admittedly very busy) ATCOs around London. English is my first language, and I'm sometimes rather pleased with myself that I manage to get the readback right and take into my head all the instructions that sometimes come in one quickly-delivered bite. Many of my First Officers have English as a second (or third, or more) language, and they struggle to gestate all that varied information in one gulp.
Also have to agree that this is one of the best threads that's come to light in a while. (It reminds me of the 'old' Pprune, way back when.) If I may add my tuppence worth for the troops on the ground: in an ideal world, I'd rather stay in the hold, (in an ideal world, I'd rather not hold!!!), but if you're going to send us on the scenic tour, please allow me to remain at clean speed as long as possible. In a 777-300, that can be as high as ~226k. It really starts to gobble up the fuel once I'm asked for 160k, as I'm forced to lower the gear to get that slow. In a -300, I normally plan on burning 1.3 tonnes of fuel between leaving the hold and touchdown at Heathrow (and 1.1T for a -200). If I'm asked for 160k a little early, (or get the grand tour of Kent or the Thames Estuary), the burn can quite quickly exceed that. Ideally, I'd like to be reducing to 160k at around ~5 to 6nm, and ~8 to 9nm in Cat II or worse conditions.
And to those who blithely say "carry more gas if you're going to LHR", it's not always possible. On previous types, I've departed for LHR on many occasions TOW-limited thanks to a healthy payload. And unless I have a very good reason other than "I want to carry a coupla extra tons for mum and the kids", for some obscure reason, the commercial people at my airline take exception to offloading revenue cargo or passengers to accommodate me.
Also have to agree that this is one of the best threads that's come to light in a while. (It reminds me of the 'old' Pprune, way back when.) If I may add my tuppence worth for the troops on the ground: in an ideal world, I'd rather stay in the hold, (in an ideal world, I'd rather not hold!!!), but if you're going to send us on the scenic tour, please allow me to remain at clean speed as long as possible. In a 777-300, that can be as high as ~226k. It really starts to gobble up the fuel once I'm asked for 160k, as I'm forced to lower the gear to get that slow. In a -300, I normally plan on burning 1.3 tonnes of fuel between leaving the hold and touchdown at Heathrow (and 1.1T for a -200). If I'm asked for 160k a little early, (or get the grand tour of Kent or the Thames Estuary), the burn can quite quickly exceed that. Ideally, I'd like to be reducing to 160k at around ~5 to 6nm, and ~8 to 9nm in Cat II or worse conditions.
And to those who blithely say "carry more gas if you're going to LHR", it's not always possible. On previous types, I've departed for LHR on many occasions TOW-limited thanks to a healthy payload. And unless I have a very good reason other than "I want to carry a coupla extra tons for mum and the kids", for some obscure reason, the commercial people at my airline take exception to offloading revenue cargo or passengers to accommodate me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
beaver eager,
point taken, i'll try and have a word. it should get better soon.
410,
It's great to get info like that.
The circuit patterns and speeds we use are procedures which have worked well time and again. They have evolved with years of experience but that evolution process must continue as we encounter newer and varied fleets (particularly the generic types with vastly differing series}.
This seems to be the best forum to provide atc with informal feedback about the service pilots receive, so now's your chance.
point taken, i'll try and have a word. it should get better soon.
410,
It's great to get info like that.
The circuit patterns and speeds we use are procedures which have worked well time and again. They have evolved with years of experience but that evolution process must continue as we encounter newer and varied fleets (particularly the generic types with vastly differing series}.
This seems to be the best forum to provide atc with informal feedback about the service pilots receive, so now's your chance.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slightly off topic, but many thanks to the ATCO's at LATCC and LGW who helped me in the other day (BAW39FG) on a Pan with a medical emergency down the back; direct TIMBA from several miles out, then a 6-mile final do-your-own-speed. Perfect.
I phoned both watch managers to pass on our thanks, but just in case it didn't get through, excellent service folks. Just what the Doctor ordered (ouch!).
£6
I phoned both watch managers to pass on our thanks, but just in case it didn't get through, excellent service folks. Just what the Doctor ordered (ouch!).
£6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Since when do pilots pay for fuel ??? I am a controller in Geneva formerly from Toronto ACC in Canada. We can only do so much with the equipment and airspace given to us... plus we have to deal with airplanes that are managed by a poor flow control system.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beaver,
Like Vertigo I know exactly who you are talking about, the chap concerned does the odd day duty with us.
Shouldn't be a problem to have a quiet word, but then I think he also retires sometime in the not too distant future.
410,
Good stuff. If you're assigned 220kts off the stack but clean is a bit higher than that, please say something as doing 230kts on intermediate approach will most definitely not be a problem.
At the other big airport a bit north of Gatwick where I also play, we get a lot of MD80's, usually SAS, who seem to have a min clean speed of just above 220kts. Rather than specify a speed I'll just say to them "fly at minimum clean" knowing it will be in the 220-230ish kts range. Except in extreme wind conditions this is not a problem.
As for speed reductions after that, then it gets a bit trickier to allow different speeds for different aircraft. At that point we're trying to maintain a consistent gap between traffic, which can often be at the absolute minimum separation allowed, and so it is pretty important that everyone is doing exactly the same speed.
We try to aim for 220ish off the stack, 180kts in the base leg area and 160kts on final at the point the required separation is established.
If you are slowed to 180kts whilst still a fair way from turning base, it will likely either be because the upper winds are very strong and we need to get your groundspeed to a minimum in order to have a fighting chance of doing some accurate vectoring onto final. Or it's because we've taken too many off the stacks and we need to slow everyone down so that we don't run out of our airspace. I'm sure if any EGLL operators are reading this they'll recognise being slowed down early whilst downwind for 09L but still getting a 20 mile final. Sorry about that
But we're nothing if not flexible, well most of us anyway, so if you do want to do something different, again please just ask.
WF.
Like Vertigo I know exactly who you are talking about, the chap concerned does the odd day duty with us.
Shouldn't be a problem to have a quiet word, but then I think he also retires sometime in the not too distant future.
410,
Good stuff. If you're assigned 220kts off the stack but clean is a bit higher than that, please say something as doing 230kts on intermediate approach will most definitely not be a problem.
At the other big airport a bit north of Gatwick where I also play, we get a lot of MD80's, usually SAS, who seem to have a min clean speed of just above 220kts. Rather than specify a speed I'll just say to them "fly at minimum clean" knowing it will be in the 220-230ish kts range. Except in extreme wind conditions this is not a problem.
As for speed reductions after that, then it gets a bit trickier to allow different speeds for different aircraft. At that point we're trying to maintain a consistent gap between traffic, which can often be at the absolute minimum separation allowed, and so it is pretty important that everyone is doing exactly the same speed.
We try to aim for 220ish off the stack, 180kts in the base leg area and 160kts on final at the point the required separation is established.
If you are slowed to 180kts whilst still a fair way from turning base, it will likely either be because the upper winds are very strong and we need to get your groundspeed to a minimum in order to have a fighting chance of doing some accurate vectoring onto final. Or it's because we've taken too many off the stacks and we need to slow everyone down so that we don't run out of our airspace. I'm sure if any EGLL operators are reading this they'll recognise being slowed down early whilst downwind for 09L but still getting a 20 mile final. Sorry about that
But we're nothing if not flexible, well most of us anyway, so if you do want to do something different, again please just ask.
WF.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry BOAC,
But it looks as if I hit the spot.
vertigo and Warped Factor,
Thank you both, I know the problems associated with those who are a bit past their sell by date, but everyone likes them because they've been at it a long time and anyway, they are at least trying to do their best.
Back to the thread...
I've been given a speed of 190 knots a lot recently where it was always 180 on my previous type. Is this because it's an AVRO RJ (BA146) and you've learned due to the proliferation of them at LGW that it's our minimum clean speed? If so, thanks again.
(Edited to include apology to BOAC: My ISP caches pages, so I didn't see your post above until after I'd made this one originally!)
[This message has been edited by beaver eager (edited 04 June 2001).]
But it looks as if I hit the spot.
vertigo and Warped Factor,
Thank you both, I know the problems associated with those who are a bit past their sell by date, but everyone likes them because they've been at it a long time and anyway, they are at least trying to do their best.
Back to the thread...
I've been given a speed of 190 knots a lot recently where it was always 180 on my previous type. Is this because it's an AVRO RJ (BA146) and you've learned due to the proliferation of them at LGW that it's our minimum clean speed? If so, thanks again.
(Edited to include apology to BOAC: My ISP caches pages, so I didn't see your post above until after I'd made this one originally!)
[This message has been edited by beaver eager (edited 04 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
beaver,
I would guess that you might have been mixed in with some 737's which of late have preferred 190kts.
Now I know RJ's like 190 as well, I can accomodate.....
BOAC,
Apologies, just trying to answer questions/provide an insight etc.
Re track mileages, my view is when it's quiet you'll get the minimum possible.
When it is busy and there's pressure to release levels in the stacks, expect to go on a slightly more scenic route.
WF.
I would guess that you might have been mixed in with some 737's which of late have preferred 190kts.
Now I know RJ's like 190 as well, I can accomodate.....
BOAC,
Apologies, just trying to answer questions/provide an insight etc.
Re track mileages, my view is when it's quiet you'll get the minimum possible.
When it is busy and there's pressure to release levels in the stacks, expect to go on a slightly more scenic route.
WF.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I might be fooling myself, but is it possible all this Pprune to-ing and fro-ing between us 'drivers, aluminium' and you gentlemen on the ground actually achieves something positive?
Just back from Heathrow, where we received the dream ride on approach.
(Abridged), it went something like this: (on 250k descent inbound to LAM)
LHR App: "XYZ, reduce to 220k."
Us: "Can we make that 230?" (min clean speed was 229k)
LHR App: "Oh, you're a -300, are you? OK, maintain 230k, leave LAM heading 280."
We maintain 230k all the way through the scenic S-bend, basically at idle power most of the way. (With flap out, that wouldn't have been the case.)
LHR App: "XYZ, turn right (inbound for the runway), reduce to 180k." (Pretty well the time we needed to start dirtying up.)
LHR App: "Maintain 180k to 8 miles, 160k to 4. Call tower 118.7."
Very nicely done, gents. (And my boss would thank you too, I'm sure, if he knew, for the 400 to 500 kg of fuel still in the tanks on arrival that might otherwise not have been there.)
Just back from Heathrow, where we received the dream ride on approach.
(Abridged), it went something like this: (on 250k descent inbound to LAM)
LHR App: "XYZ, reduce to 220k."
Us: "Can we make that 230?" (min clean speed was 229k)
LHR App: "Oh, you're a -300, are you? OK, maintain 230k, leave LAM heading 280."
We maintain 230k all the way through the scenic S-bend, basically at idle power most of the way. (With flap out, that wouldn't have been the case.)
LHR App: "XYZ, turn right (inbound for the runway), reduce to 180k." (Pretty well the time we needed to start dirtying up.)
LHR App: "Maintain 180k to 8 miles, 160k to 4. Call tower 118.7."
Very nicely done, gents. (And my boss would thank you too, I'm sure, if he knew, for the 400 to 500 kg of fuel still in the tanks on arrival that might otherwise not have been there.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
beaver eager,
I will usually give 190 kts to an RJ100 because I believe it's min clean speed, but isn't it 180 or 200 depending on weight ?
410,
nice to see another satisfied customer. This 'level of service' can only be provided (a) if the approach is quiet and (b) if we are given the knowledge in the first place. This either comes from the (very rare) familiarisation flights we take, or information exchanges such as this forum.
Btw, why do all midland 737's like 170kts to four, but only some BA 737's ?
I will usually give 190 kts to an RJ100 because I believe it's min clean speed, but isn't it 180 or 200 depending on weight ?
410,
nice to see another satisfied customer. This 'level of service' can only be provided (a) if the approach is quiet and (b) if we are given the knowledge in the first place. This either comes from the (very rare) familiarisation flights we take, or information exchanges such as this forum.
Btw, why do all midland 737's like 170kts to four, but only some BA 737's ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vertigo
It is possible that Midland have different stabilised approach criteria.
To quote BA's:
On all approaches, at 1000' arte, the aircraft SHOULD be stabilised on the correct profile, speedbrakes down, in the planned landing configuration with approach power set. If these conditions are not achieved, then consideration must be given to a go - around.
On all approaches, at 500' arte, the aircraft configuration MUST be:-
Fully stable in the landing configuration
Speedbrakes stowed
Normal approach power set
Speed no more than specified in Fying Crew Orders (currently target speed + 20 kts.
If these criteria are not achieved then an immediate go - around MUST be flown. There is no discretion.
The 1000' gate is fleet specific and the 500' gate is company wide.
In an E4 engined 757 with a low Vref of less than 120kts and the engine anti - icing on the gates are tight with 160 to 4!
It is worth bearing in mind that not meeting the 500' gate triggers an 'event' on the SESMA tape which automatically brings up the approach for subsequent analysis by the SESMA team. If it is really bad a call from the BALPA SESMA rep is likely to ascertain the facts. The company cannot identify the pilots from the SESMA record, only the BALPA representative, and it is used as a safety tool rather than a pilot persecution tool! But the fact that you know the flight profile is monitored is a powerful incentive to adhere to SOPs!
It is possible that Midland have different stabilised approach criteria.
To quote BA's:
On all approaches, at 1000' arte, the aircraft SHOULD be stabilised on the correct profile, speedbrakes down, in the planned landing configuration with approach power set. If these conditions are not achieved, then consideration must be given to a go - around.
On all approaches, at 500' arte, the aircraft configuration MUST be:-
Fully stable in the landing configuration
Speedbrakes stowed
Normal approach power set
Speed no more than specified in Fying Crew Orders (currently target speed + 20 kts.
If these criteria are not achieved then an immediate go - around MUST be flown. There is no discretion.
The 1000' gate is fleet specific and the 500' gate is company wide.
In an E4 engined 757 with a low Vref of less than 120kts and the engine anti - icing on the gates are tight with 160 to 4!
It is worth bearing in mind that not meeting the 500' gate triggers an 'event' on the SESMA tape which automatically brings up the approach for subsequent analysis by the SESMA team. If it is really bad a call from the BALPA SESMA rep is likely to ascertain the facts. The company cannot identify the pilots from the SESMA record, only the BALPA representative, and it is used as a safety tool rather than a pilot persecution tool! But the fact that you know the flight profile is monitored is a powerful incentive to adhere to SOPs!