LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys: I admit to not having read the whole discussion. Mea culpa.
I was operating out of a very noise sensitive EU airport for many years. Many major airports had a published low drag CDA profile. Having arrived from a UK operator, and been well taught, my standard profile was CDA low drag. My new local colleagues were not of the same thinking. There was no such philosophy in their region and no published CDA criteria. I battled to introduce it in the airline. Difficult. However, ATC didn't help with their early descents instructions. The ILS platform was 2000'agl. and my F/O's were dragging it in. At night ATC used 3000' for G/S intercept for noise reasons. I asked then why that wasn't also for daytime use. "Because it wasn't in the regs". I now sit and watch a/c drag it in at 2000' all day long. Daft for fuel, daft for noise, daft for environment. The locals are always complaining about noise. Why not raise the ILS platform to 4000'agl? The a/c are arriving from every which direction. If ATC want to cut you in short for spacing reasons, then they can ask for a CDA to whatever finals they need. Why is CDA not a universal airport thing? I've flown for airlines where CDA was SOP. I've flown into German airfields where low noise low drag CDA is published. Why is it not universal practice? This 3.2 slope instead of 3.0 slope is a piss in the pot for noise reasons. Start the slope at a higher height and keep idle thrust till 3.0nm. No level drag in. 3.0 or 3.2 from 6 or 8nm out is a gnat's cock of difference. 3.2 from 2500' agl or 3.0 from 3000' agl. Without the science I can almost guarantee that the latter is less noisy; from 3500' even less so. Is this experiment just another political sop to the uninitiated?
I was operating out of a very noise sensitive EU airport for many years. Many major airports had a published low drag CDA profile. Having arrived from a UK operator, and been well taught, my standard profile was CDA low drag. My new local colleagues were not of the same thinking. There was no such philosophy in their region and no published CDA criteria. I battled to introduce it in the airline. Difficult. However, ATC didn't help with their early descents instructions. The ILS platform was 2000'agl. and my F/O's were dragging it in. At night ATC used 3000' for G/S intercept for noise reasons. I asked then why that wasn't also for daytime use. "Because it wasn't in the regs". I now sit and watch a/c drag it in at 2000' all day long. Daft for fuel, daft for noise, daft for environment. The locals are always complaining about noise. Why not raise the ILS platform to 4000'agl? The a/c are arriving from every which direction. If ATC want to cut you in short for spacing reasons, then they can ask for a CDA to whatever finals they need. Why is CDA not a universal airport thing? I've flown for airlines where CDA was SOP. I've flown into German airfields where low noise low drag CDA is published. Why is it not universal practice? This 3.2 slope instead of 3.0 slope is a piss in the pot for noise reasons. Start the slope at a higher height and keep idle thrust till 3.0nm. No level drag in. 3.0 or 3.2 from 6 or 8nm out is a gnat's cock of difference. 3.2 from 2500' agl or 3.0 from 3000' agl. Without the science I can almost guarantee that the latter is less noisy; from 3500' even less so. Is this experiment just another political sop to the uninitiated?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5, exactly the same experience here. I came from a UK operator who pushed the CDA concept very firmly indeed. When I left, I then took the same practices out to a European operation. The looks on the faces of the captains there when I selected V/S and told them I was trying to achieve a CDA was quite the picture. It's a cultural thing, they just don't get it. The amount of them who used to fly the platform to glideslope interception in Luton in blatant disregard (or ignorance) of the requests for CDA's there was quite something.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:Heathrow typically reports 85-90% CDA compliance.
I think it's a bit weird, but your country and your rules.
I live near Heathrow and bought my house in 1986. I got copies of the official approach and departure tracks (I still have the dye-line print) to make sure I was away from the flight paths. An ATC told me they were very unlikely to change. In 1986 there were very few flights after 8.30 pm at night. Since that time the departure tracks have changed and the number of flights has increased by 50%. Most of the extra flights are in the early morning and late into the night.
When I bought my house aircraft noise (and pollution related to the airport) was not an issue for me.
Please can we drop the argument that says 'you bought there so it is your fault'? When I bought it was reasonable to assume I would not be bothered by airport noise. I am. The air was clean. Now it is not.
When I bought my house aircraft noise (and pollution related to the airport) was not an issue for me.
Please can we drop the argument that says 'you bought there so it is your fault'? When I bought it was reasonable to assume I would not be bothered by airport noise. I am. The air was clean. Now it is not.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys and Girls please also note that 160kts to 4nm etc is an ATC request, if you accept then you have to fly it.
If you cannot for any reason tell them, and tell them what speed profile, i.e. 160 to 5nm you can accept.
Remember you are in charge of the machine not them. I know that we follow what they say usually without question, and it works well. But at the end of the day the buck stops with you.
If you cannot for any reason tell them, and tell them what speed profile, i.e. 160 to 5nm you can accept.
Remember you are in charge of the machine not them. I know that we follow what they say usually without question, and it works well. But at the end of the day the buck stops with you.
I don't think anyone has used the word "fault". But you did buy your house, as you say, near to the largest and busiest airport in Europe, then and now. I'm sure many other things have changed in the last 30 years. The open space you recall kids playing on now has houses on it. What was an easy drive now had traffic signals all along and takes three times the duration. Your house, from its prominent location, is now worth 10 times what you paid for it. Such is life.
"Guys and Girls please also note that 160kts to 4nm etc is an ATC request, if you accept then you have to fly it."
Actually it's an instruction not a request.
"If you cannot for any reason tell them, and tell them what speed profile, i.e. 160 to 5nm you can accept."
Absolutely. And please remember all requests to deviate from the norm should be made in good time (eg. Downwind) and not when there's some one else 2.5 miles behind you.
"Remember you are in charge of the machine not them. I know that we follow what they say usually without question, and it works well. But at the end of the day the buck stops with you."
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments there would have to be a valid reason. Repeated requests for non standard speeds would be noticed by the airport operator and I imagine your employer would be asked to justify any consistent non compliance.
We can't have the tail (one aircraft) wagging the dog (the entire airport operation) can we?
Actually it's an instruction not a request.
"If you cannot for any reason tell them, and tell them what speed profile, i.e. 160 to 5nm you can accept."
Absolutely. And please remember all requests to deviate from the norm should be made in good time (eg. Downwind) and not when there's some one else 2.5 miles behind you.
"Remember you are in charge of the machine not them. I know that we follow what they say usually without question, and it works well. But at the end of the day the buck stops with you."
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments there would have to be a valid reason. Repeated requests for non standard speeds would be noticed by the airport operator and I imagine your employer would be asked to justify any consistent non compliance.
We can't have the tail (one aircraft) wagging the dog (the entire airport operation) can we?
LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015
If people didn't routinely do 160/4 then I would imagine the whole heathrow operation would fall to pieces. It's easily doable. However in less than ideal conditions you will sometimes be doing it with gear and flap and dragging it in. The increased angle and 160/4 is a less than ideal condition, so unless there's a strong headwind I'll be dragging it in and it'll completely negate the trial.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The third runway will itself greatly increase the risk of hazard to London reducing safety. Adding a steeper approach to further increase risk is small bear in comparison. However, it is obvious that commercial/political goals have more attraction than safety.
Heathrow released some more advance information on the forthcoming trial a couple of days ago.
Among the salient points:
- Average usage of the current 3° RNAV approach is around 5 arrivals per day (Feb/Mar 2015), almost all BA and mostly A320 family aircraft
- "Broad engagement" re the trial, with positive results, has taken place with: AF, AA, DL, SR, UA
- Specific impacts of the trial to be measured are on: separation, CDAs, runway occupancy times, go-arounds, speed control, joining point, noise (the latter to be measured under the 27L approach)
- "No differences recorded" for pilots who have flown the 3.2° approach in the sim, though pilots who have not done so are "expecting significant changes to the approach speed and the ability [to] carry out a continuous descent and LP/LD approach"
- No expected change for ATC except for familiarisation with the process
- From the ground "visually the aircraft may appear slightly higher and quieter" [sic]
http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/...oach_trial.pdf
Among the salient points:
- Average usage of the current 3° RNAV approach is around 5 arrivals per day (Feb/Mar 2015), almost all BA and mostly A320 family aircraft
- "Broad engagement" re the trial, with positive results, has taken place with: AF, AA, DL, SR, UA
- Specific impacts of the trial to be measured are on: separation, CDAs, runway occupancy times, go-arounds, speed control, joining point, noise (the latter to be measured under the 27L approach)
- "No differences recorded" for pilots who have flown the 3.2° approach in the sim, though pilots who have not done so are "expecting significant changes to the approach speed and the ability [to] carry out a continuous descent and LP/LD approach"
- No expected change for ATC except for familiarisation with the process
- From the ground "visually the aircraft may appear slightly higher and quieter" [sic]
http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/...oach_trial.pdf
LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015
Ok not a pro here but does that 0.2’ really have a measurable impact ? Seem very minor to my untrained eyes...
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this just a test case for developing even steeper approaches that could pave the way for us seeing a small number of movements during the night? In such cases, flow rates would be small and 160 to 4 would be less of a significance.
I can't speak for others but for us at Emirates, our illustrious leader has for many years commented on the need to develop steeper approach technology to enable night time operations at Heathrow. We have seen the A318 handle the 5.5 slope at London City so it begs the question if we will ever see a A380 fly a RNAV approach, with a profile of more than 3.5 degrees.
I can't speak for others but for us at Emirates, our illustrious leader has for many years commented on the need to develop steeper approach technology to enable night time operations at Heathrow. We have seen the A318 handle the 5.5 slope at London City so it begs the question if we will ever see a A380 fly a RNAV approach, with a profile of more than 3.5 degrees.
I'm not aware of any connection between that and a relaxation of the Night Quota (which would need Government approval).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No differences recorded" for pilots who have flown the 3.2° approach in the sim
It's only once on the approach, EAI? winds? that how feasible 160 to 4 comes, if you want the minimum noise technique. 160 to 4 is easy - just drop the gear when slowed from 180, with F2 and up comes the power.
As those familiar with the A320 series know, the quietest / most fuel saving approach is actually about 1/2 dot low at 180K F1. When ATC ask for 160 to 4, reduce V/S take F2, decelerate and inc the F2 "balloon" you can remain at idle all the way to ~1100R. That is feasible on a VMC ILS/MLS.
On an RNAV it is not feasible really - you need to fly the correct vertical profile, so the 180K to 160K decal is a challenge at 3deg if you want to be quiet during the 160K portion.
But as others have pointed out, the trial has likely already been written up as a success, and winter RNAV 3.2deg is likely lower than ILS 3deg anyway
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this paper is a relatively thorough theoretical discussion of various aspects of a 3.2 ILS slope in Frankfurt:
https://www.ff.tu-berlin.de/fileadmi...g_Schubert.pdf
The theoretically predicted noise benefits due to a 3.2° glide slope angle were confirmed in the full flight simulator study. However, the benefits were slightly smaller than expected. Only direct noise measurements from real flight operation will provide the final proof.
the subsequent 2 year trial in Frankfurt showed a clear reduction in the maximum sound level ranging between 0.5 and 1.5 dB (A) depending on the monitoring station and the aircraft type.
0.5 to 1.5 dB reduction isn't a whole lot, but it's more than what newer aircraft/engines have contributed for arrivals over the last decade, as a lot of the noise is from the airframe. Evidence also suggests the noise footprint area is reduced by about 5-10% for every 0.25 degree increase in glide slope (...and I can hear some people asking "so where will this end?", but due to aircraft certification limitations I think that's not a realistic debate now).
https://www.ff.tu-berlin.de/fileadmi...g_Schubert.pdf
The theoretically predicted noise benefits due to a 3.2° glide slope angle were confirmed in the full flight simulator study. However, the benefits were slightly smaller than expected. Only direct noise measurements from real flight operation will provide the final proof.
the subsequent 2 year trial in Frankfurt showed a clear reduction in the maximum sound level ranging between 0.5 and 1.5 dB (A) depending on the monitoring station and the aircraft type.
0.5 to 1.5 dB reduction isn't a whole lot, but it's more than what newer aircraft/engines have contributed for arrivals over the last decade, as a lot of the noise is from the airframe. Evidence also suggests the noise footprint area is reduced by about 5-10% for every 0.25 degree increase in glide slope (...and I can hear some people asking "so where will this end?", but due to aircraft certification limitations I think that's not a realistic debate now).
Last edited by deptrai; 14th Aug 2015 at 10:37.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: ESGG N57º38'58 E012º16'03
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who wrote this ?
The document issued by Heathrow [http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/...ach_trial.pdf] is a very poorly-scribed piece of work indeed, peppered with errors in both grammar and syntax, and does not to my mind represent the (hopefully) more clear thinking behind the project. It's a shame that Heathrow could not apparently run to the expense of having a literate person proof-read the document prior to publishing it. End of rant - back to mowing the grass.