Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015

Old 10th Aug 2015, 18:02
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 74
Posts: 1,479
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I have no idea of the physics of this. So, a genuine question; is an extra 0.2 degrees likely to make an appreciable difference ?
kcockayne is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 18:12
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,801
Received 198 Likes on 91 Posts
Originally Posted by Doug E Style
Expect requests for the microwave approach to cease and be replaced with requests for the trial RNAV instead.
What makes you think that will happen?

There has been a 3 RNAV approach available at Heathrow for some time now and it doesn't actually seem to be used that much.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 18:14
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Drayton
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I seem to remember Prestwick RW31 had a 3.5 degree GP...
elandel is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 18:30
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have no idea of the physics of this. So, a genuine question; is an extra 0.2 degrees likely to make an appreciable difference ?
If the speed control was up to the pilot the 0.2 deg. wouldn't be an issue. At LHR the ATC puts you under strict speed control to achieve separation, e.g. 160 kts to DME 4. The idea that you can't go down and slow down is very true here.

Relating to my type, a solution would be to configure (extend gear and flaps) early. Now, due to excess drag, I would have to fly with partial thrust on which would negate the noise benefits.

The problem, as I see it, is not the glide slope angle. It's the glide slope angle with tight speed requirements and the current flying technique of keeping the aircraft in a low drag configuration as long as possible.
172_driver is online now  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 19:01
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Indeed, Nige, one wonders how hundreds of 320 and 737 approaches everyday cope at Malaga with 160 to 3.8d on a 3.2 degree slope.

Go arounds and carnage are rife.
I can feel the sarcasm dripping

My point is not safety - as above 3.2deg (and more) are perfectly safe. All I am saying is with LHR TBS, the real emphasis on 160 to 4 (and not earlier as most used to do), F3 approaches, and a "strict" 1000R (for some companies) stabilised approach, I do not seeing this achieving a noise aim... We'll either use more flap, take the gear early, slow up early or bust the SAC. None are safety issues I agree
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 19:23
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mauritius 14 is 3.8 then 3.5 deg and is perfectly stable (wide body EK and that's just my waistline).

This issue of political correctness in the world today concerning everything including pleasing people who decide to buy houses around airports is crazy. I can appreciate there is a noise issue but you the resident bought there so live with your decision, or move. To anyone who bought a property pre 1930 when it was called Harmondsworth I apologise and will try my hardest to be idle thrust over your house.

J
jack schidt is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 19:32
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Duh...
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought they were about to withdraw the ILS for improvements and the only approach avail will be the RNAV?

Or did I mis read that?
Ellis Hill is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 19:57
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would guess there is a slight fuel saving per approach.....hence the reason BA are so interested.

That will be the REAL driver behind this project....
WindSheer is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 20:27
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,801
Received 198 Likes on 91 Posts
Originally Posted by jack schidt
To anyone who bought a property pre 1930 when it was called Harmondsworth I apologise and will try my hardest to be idle thrust over your house.
If you habitually overfly Harmondsworth on either arrival or departure, then your thrust setting is the least of your problems.

Originally Posted by Ellis Hill
I thought they were about to withdraw the ILS for improvements and the only approach avail will be the RNAV?

Or did I mis read that?
There is no suggestion that 3.2 RNAV approaches will be mandatory for any arriving flights. The conventional ILS, MLS and 3 PAPIS will continue to be available.

Pilots will, as usual, request their desired type of approach (ILS, Microwave or the trial 3.2 "RNAV Yankee") on first contact with Heathrow Director.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 20:49
  #30 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,872
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft
I can feel the sarcasm dripping

My point is not safety - as above 3.2deg (and more) are perfectly safe. All I am saying is with LHR TBS, the real emphasis on 160 to 4 (and not earlier as most used to do), F3 approaches, and a "strict" 1000R (for some companies) stabilised approach, I do not seeing this achieving a noise aim... We'll either use more flap, take the gear early, slow up early or bust the SAC. None are safety issues I agree
I agree, but as soon as you lot stop accepting 160 to 4 or start making more noise how long do you think the "trial" will go on for?
Chesty Morgan is online now  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 20:54
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree, but as soon as you lot stop accepting 160 to 4 or start making more noise how long do you think the "trial" will go on for?
We are agreed

The "Go Around" option will be the result v the SAC. Not sure how much noise & fuel that will save
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 20:55
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
3.0deg, 160 to 4, Airbus Flap 3, and stabilised by 1000R is all fairly marginal.

Throw in 3.2deg, and I wonder which of the others will give??
If you think you can't be stabilised according to your SOP with 160 to 4, just advise the ATC. Is it really that difficult to say "unable"?
FlyingStone is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 21:27
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"I would guess there is a slight fuel saving per approach"

I seriously doubt that.

"There is no suggestion that 3.2 RNAV approaches will be mandatory for any arriving flights. The conventional ILS, MLS and 3 PAPIS will continue to be available.

Pilots will, as usual, request their desired type of approach (ILS, Microwave or the trial 3.2 "RNAV Yankee") on first contact with Heathrow Director."


It's a trial. How could you do a trial if you have no data to compare with. I have some faith airport bureaucrats can actually measure noise, and publish the data. Yes, people who buy a cheap property but don't like aircraft noise can seem a bit annoying, but if a 3.2 approach would help, why not give it a try.
deptrai is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 21:32
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trial in winter -> Cold OAT -> NPA's are flatter than normal -> What is this going to prove?????
Cough is online now  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 21:37
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 48 Likes on 21 Posts
An earlier poster mentioned coping with an extra 50 fpm as a result of this, is that correct? If it is, and considering a final approach from say 6 miles out where the aircraft is currently at say 2000ft when it starts to 'descend on the glide' it takes say 2.5 minutes to fly the approach meaning that at 6 miles the aircraft is a mere 150 ft higher than today and close in the difference would be even less , From other posts it would seem that this small change still requires a bit more drag and therefore a bit more power and therefore noise it would seem the whole thing is a complete waste of time
pax britanica is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 21:45
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that the word 'planes' is used 4 times in the first 2 short paragraphs of the 'factsheet' says it all.
ZOOKER is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2015, 22:41
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: self isolating
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
4.8 into Innsbruck
EpsilonVaz is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2015, 03:08
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely the real problem will be the preceding aircraft's wake using the 3.2deg profile whilst you are using minimum separation on the 3 deg?
Right Engine is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2015, 08:19
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 650
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
"Pilots will, as usual, request their desired type of approach (ILS, Microwave or the trial 3.2 "RNAV Yankee") on first contact with Heathrow Director."

Please no! Don't start requesting ILS approaches, the first call is already too cumbersome.


With this talk of more drag earlier might one of the objectives of this trial be to reduce noise further out at the expense of more noise complaints closer in?
Del Prado is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2015, 09:55
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 48 Likes on 21 Posts
Del Prado

how could you suggest such a thing? Never happen in England would it , reducing noise for posh/middle class people in Kew and Richmond and increasing it for working class and large Asian population close to LHR in Hounslow

pb
pax britanica is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.