LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Go arounds and carnage are rife.
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
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
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
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.
Gender Faculty Specialist
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
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
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?
The "Go Around" option will be the result v the SAC. Not sure how much noise & fuel that will save
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
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??
Throw in 3.2deg, and I wonder which of the others will give??
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.
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.
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
"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?
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
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
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